# To lose or not to lose...



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I know this is a pretty big discussion topic here, and has been for some time, but I haven't seen a poll on it. So here is the question:

Is it better for the team to win every game possible, or to play hard but lose?

We all know there are a lot of arguments for either side, and there are different ways of giving the two options, but IF YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE ONE OF THESE TWO, which would it be?

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Does the "win every game possible" come under the "play hard" group?


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Doesn't seem to be much of an issue, really. I think the Blazers are playing to win, but they're losing anyway. Given that the other team usually has more to play for than the Blazers at this point in the season, I expect that trend will continue.

To answer the question more directly, though, I don't think any team should play to lose. The draft is too much of a crap shoot and I think playing to lose is demoralizing and unprofessional.

I will admit, however, that the losses don't sting as much as they did earlier in the season. :biggrin:


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

E_B pretty much sums up my feelings. I'd prefer to see the Blazers win but as they appear pretty much out of the playoff hunt, I'd just as soon see them get the best possible draft position.

Whether they use that draft position to draft someone or use for trade purposes I don't really care but I see it as a potential bargaining chip to further improve the team. 

While we have seen improvement this year, all agree there is notable room for more improvement and depth. As mentioned, I view a better draft pick as a better bargaining piece for improving the team. Who you want not available? Trade the pick and get someone else.

Gramps...


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Play to win.


----------



## ColoradoBlazerFan (Feb 16, 2006)

:clap: :clap: 
You just saved me alot of typing

Cheers



e_blazer1 said:


> Doesn't seem to be much of an issue, really. I think the Blazers are playing to win, but they're losing anyway. Given that the other team usually has more to play for than the Blazers at this point in the season, I expect that trend will continue.
> 
> To answer the question more directly, though, I don't think any team should play to lose. The draft is too much of a crap shoot and I think playing to lose is demoralizing and unprofessional.
> 
> I will admit, however, that the losses don't sting as much as they did earlier in the season. :biggrin:


----------



## loyalty4life (Sep 17, 2002)

Play hard but lose. Playoffs are out of the picture this year, so let's be in a good position with the lottery.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> Does the "win every game possible" come under the "play hard" group?


I didn't mean to say that the team would win without playing hard... I just didn't want to equate losing with tanking.

Ed O.


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

I didn't have any hope that the team would make the playoffs, pretty much from the start of the season. Because of that, I've hoped from the start for the second option, play hard, but loose. Adding one more big time young player to the mix we have now will pay off big over the next few years.

Go Blazers (but just loose, baby!)


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I didn't mean to say that the team would win without playing hard... I just didn't want to equate losing with tanking.
> 
> Ed O.


then I guess I want them to lose, but playing hard. whatever one that fits under. 

this is the last year I will put up with not being in the playoffs. As if it really matters what I will put up with.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I may be wrong (I didnt look it up) but it seems like the team with the worst record hasnt gotten the #1 pick recently. So more losses doesnt always result in a higher draft pick. We need some luck on lottery night. :biggrin:


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

B_&_B said:


> I may be wrong (I didnt look it up) but it seems like the team with the worst record hasnt gotten the #1 pick recently. So more losses doesnt always result in a higher draft pick. We need some luck on lottery night. :biggrin:


You need some luck no matter what your position. But if you are too far down the line, you have virtually no shot at a top 3 pick.

Numbers are numbers, but if you are the superstitious type, and go by recent lottos you will see we need to be in the top 5 to get the #1. Right now we aren't. And the records are painfully close for the teams in the 4th though 10th positions. If you want any real chance at a top 2 pick, we will have to keep losing most of our games the rest of the way.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

My goal is for my team to continue the current rebuild and be a championship level force in the league. It is my opinion that we don't have all the right players to get us there. I'm wishing for Lottery luck on May 22. 

IMO we still need MUCH better talent than we currently have. A high draft pick would help us toward my goal. Whether it be from trades or picks different players are needed to get us to the next levels.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Play hard and still lose?

How about coast to a win every game? That would get me excited.

I'd hate to think they were playing their best and still losing.

If that's the case then it would take a lot more than a great draft pick to win games next year.

It would mean we're at least as bad as our record indicates, which is abysmal, and that another fire sale was in order.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

The sad thing is that I think the guys are obviously trying, but just aren't talented enough (and the bench isn't deep enough) to get it done. We ARE as bad as our record indicates with the current roster.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> I'd hate to think they were playing their best and still losing.
> 
> If that's the case then it would take a lot more than a great draft pick to win games next year.
> 
> It would mean we're at least as bad as our record indicates, which is abysmal, and that another fire sale was in order.


Why do you think we aren't as bad as our record? Do you think the players are slacking more than their natural level of slackiness? I don't think that myself, although it could be. Do you think we've had an unnatural number of injuries? I don't. Do you think we've been having a string of bad luck? I don't see that either. 

I think we are that bad. We'll be better next year even if we do nothing, so a fire sale isn't necessary from my point of view.

barfo


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> It would mean we're at least as bad as our record indicates, which is abysmal,


That's reality, dude.



> and that another fire sale was in order.


I disagree. Just because we're still bad doesn't mean that we're not better... and on the right track.

Ed O.


----------



## talman (Dec 31, 2002)

Currently tied for 7th worst % in the league. Same number of wins as the 5th place team. I'd say getting to 3rd to 5th place in the lottery isn't a huge stretch and would land us a better shot at the top two guys.

But I feel so icky having confessed that.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> It would mean we're at least as bad as our record indicates, which is abysmal, and that another fire sale was in order.


These are separate thoughts.

Why you think they are linked, I have no clue.

Once Blazer management got their **** together, it was the LACK of a firesale mentality that helped to produced such an outstanding draft.

They didn't give Khryapa away. They sent him to Chicago to move up from #4 to #2.

They didn't give Telfair away. They sent him off to Boston for a #7 pick.

Firesales are what got the team into the depths. More firesales is exactly what this team doesn't need. Not sure why you want more, making the team worse. You aren't a REAL fan.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> How about coast to a win every game?


That, like "win a championship this year," is clearly not within this team's capability.



> I'd hate to think they were playing their best and still losing.
> 
> If that's the case then it would take a lot more than a great draft pick to win games next year.


No, it wouldn't, if the losses were competitive. Ideally, if they lost every game by 1, they're a hair from winning lots of games. It would be great if they lost, playing hard, but were very close to winning. Then experience plus addition of talent can push them over the top.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

So, I went with the "play hard but lose" option. That said, I _really_ don't want them to lose every game the rest of the way.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Masbee said:


> These are separate thoughts.
> 
> Why you think they are linked, I have no clue.
> 
> ...


There is disagreement on whether the Khryapa deal got us anything we wouldn't have already gotten.

Blake was a complete giveaway.

Not that I'm unhappy with how our roster ended up. I'm very happy, and I'm NOT suggesting a fire sale. I do think we're far better than our record and I think our main problem lies with Nate.

Hopefully he will get on board with the rebuild before we waste more talent and time.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> That, like "win a championship this year," is clearly not within this team's capability.


Winning a championship is possible for any team which makes the playoffs.

This team, properly coached, could still make the playoffs.

Winning the lottery from where we're picking is much less likely.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> Winning a championship is possible for any team which makes the playoffs.
> 
> This team, properly coached, could still make the playoffs.
> 
> Winning the lottery from where we're picking is much less likely.


I don't know about anyone else that that seems like absurd logic to me. I'm not going to bother looking it up but if Maris or anyone else feels inclined, I'd be at least some curious to know how many 8th seed teams have won it all in NBA history. I'm skeptical that it's even happened once but even if it's happened two or three times, I'm guessing that the Blazers still have better hopes of winning the lottery, _especially_ since this year picking second is likely to be nearly as great as picking first.

Beyond that, though, I'd much rather have a better chance at a top 5 pick than come up just short in a play-off run. And yeah, while it's still technically possible they could get in.... At this point, while I still want them to play hard and grow as a team over the rest of this season, for me it's now pretty much all about next season and the seasons to come.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> I don't know about anyone else that that seems like absurd logic to me.


beyond absurd... I feel like I'm wasting my valuble down time even agreeing.

of course it's :krazy: 

STOMP


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

STOMP said:


> beyond absurd... I feel like I'm wasting my valuble down time even agreeing.
> 
> of course it's :krazy:
> 
> STOMP


Heh. Well, I'd still be interested in seeing the numbers if anyone has both time and inclination to put that together.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> Winning a championship is possible for any team which makes the playoffs.
> 
> ...
> 
> Winning the lottery from where we're picking is much less likely.


Since no 8 seed or 7 seed has ever won the NBA championship, and teams have quite commonly jumped from anywhere in the top-five in the lottery to the top pick, and since the team is quite close to the top-five in the lottery, I'd say your logic regarding the odds is wrong.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Heh. Well, I'd still be interested in seeing the numbers if anyone has both time and inclination to put that together.


I am pretty sure that Denver's 1994 victory over the Sonics was the only time a #8 seed has advanced past the first round. They then lost in round 2 to the Jazz in seven games.

Stating that coaching is the thing holding THIS team back from an NBA championship is kinda crazy.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

PorterIn2004 said:


> I'm not going to bother looking it up but if Maris or anyone else feels inclined, I'd be at least some curious to know how many 8th seed teams have won it all in NBA history.


0.

Same answer for 7 seeds. I believe one 6 seed has done it, the Houston Rockets who were defending champions and had suffered injuries during the season and therefore had a lower record and seed than their talent warranted.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I am pretty sure that Denver's 1994 victory over the Sonics was the only time a #8 seed has advanced past the first round. They then lost in round 2 to the Jazz in seven games.
> 
> Stating that coaching is the thing holding THIS team back from an NBA championship is kinda crazy.
> 
> Ed O.


NY beat Miami in 99, and went to the NBA finals as an 8th seed. 

and since this thread title was obviously in reference to something in particular, I present the following.



> To be, or not to be: that is the question:
> Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
> The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
> Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
> ...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> NY beat Miami in 99, and went to the NBA finals as an 8th seed.


Good catch. I guess my brain has written the lockout-shortened season off in some regard... it's not often that the 8 seed is only 6 games behind the 1 seed heading into the playoffs 

Ed O.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> I don't know about anyone else that that seems like absurd logic to me. I'm not going to bother looking it up but if Maris or anyone else feels inclined, I'd be at least some curious to know how many 8th seed teams have won it all in NBA history. I'm skeptical that it's even happened once but even if it's happened two or three times, I'm guessing that the Blazers still have better hopes of winning the lottery, _especially_ since this year picking second is likely to be nearly as great as picking first.
> 
> Beyond that, though, I'd much rather have a better chance at a top 5 pick than come up just short in a play-off run. And yeah, while it's still technically possible they could get in.... At this point, while I still want them to play hard and grow as a team over the rest of this season, for me it's now pretty much all about next season and the seasons to come.



From Wikipedia:

Only two 8th seeded teams have managed to win a series versus the number 1 seeded Team: The Denver Nuggets eliminated the Seattle SuperSonics 3-2 in 1994; and the New York Knicks eliminated the Miami Heat 3-2 in 1999 (which was a lockout shortened season).

In addition, the Knicks became the only 8th seeded team to reach the NBA Finals. 

The Houston Rockets are the only low seeded team to win the NBA Finals. In 1995, the Rockets swept the Orlando Magic in four games. The defending champs were the sixth seed in a strong Western Conference that season. The Rockets beat the Utah Jazz (60-22 WL record) three games to two; the Phoenix Suns (59-23 WL record) in seven games and the NBA 1995 MVP David Robinson led San Antonio Spurs (62-20 WL record) in six games. That season the Rockets were 5-0 in games when they faced playoff elimination.

Now, who knows how many 8th seeds got the #1 pick in the lottery, (as if that's anywhere near as good a prize as a Title)?


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Right then. Thanks Minstrel, Ed. (edit -- and Hap and Maris, too. Sometimes it's tricky to keep up with the posts, especially when one's wife comes for a chat during a post creation)

Maris, I think most of us appreciate your point about success breeding success and Pritchard's whole "winning culture" perspective. I know I do. And I recall looong discussions on this board, I _think_ from before you were around, when people like Ed and Minstrel were virtually pleading with management (as much as one can from a board like this) to _not_ just tear everything down and go the firesale route.

That said, I suspect it'll only be a few more weeks before virtually all of us will get to have a much more similar perspective than we seem to currently. I, for one, am very much looking forward to that time, as this kind of friction gets exhausting, at least for me.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> Now, who knows how many 8th seeds got the #1 pick in the lottery, (as if that's anywhere near as good a prize as a Title)?


Portland is currently tied for the 7th-worst record. We would have an approximately 3.6% chance of winning the lottery outright and about a 12.5% chance of getting into the top 3.

(See http://www.nba.com/history/lottery_probabilities.html and 2005, when two teams were tied for 7th.)

Edit: we're tied for 6th now after Atlanta's win, which would increase our chances to about 5.4% and 18.8%, if my math is correct.

Ed O.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Since no 8 seed or 7 seed has ever won the NBA championship, and teams have quite commonly jumped from anywhere in the top-five in the lottery to the top pick, and since the team is quite close to the top-five in the lottery, I'd say your logic regarding the odds is wrong.


You're assuming this team is going to fold to end the season.

I feel they have more pride, and talent, than that.

I think they will climb in the standings from where they are now.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> Now, who knows how many 8th seeds got the #1 pick in the lottery, (as if that's anywhere near as good a prize as a Title)?


It isn't anywhere near as good a prize, I'll grant you. Winning a championship is what it's all ultimately about. And, the odds of _this_ team doing that _this_ year seem virtually non-existent, even if they were to somehow make the play-offs, which seems pretty unlikely to me.

Then, even presuming you're right that the main problem is Nate, it's not as if Allen and company are about to pull him, especially if he manages to somehow still get them into the play-offs.

The Blazers will almost certainly significantly improve the team this summer, through the draft, a trade, and/or a free agent signing. The higher the draft pick, the more Pritchard has to work with. And as I've said, I fully expect the Blazers to be out of at least this higher lottery range by next season and likely in the play-offs, and with a _much_ better team than they have currently -- perhaps nearly as much better as this current team is compared to the team the year before.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> You're assuming this team is going to fold to end the season.
> 
> I feel they have more pride, and talent, than that.
> 
> I think they will climb in the standings from where they are now.


The Blazers are 3 games out of being in sole possession of 3rd-worst record. There are 3.5 teams (Charlotte, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Seattle (which is currently tied with the Blazers)) separating us from possessing third place.

The Blazers are 5.5 games out of being in sole possession of the 8th seed. There are 5.5 teams separating us from possessing the 8th seed.

If Portland comes up just short of the 4th seed, they still have an excellent chance of moving up, and perhaps snagging one of the coveted top 2 picks. On the other hand, if Portland comes up just short of the 8th seed, they get the extremely long odds (just about 1%) of snagging one of the top 2 picks.

I can understand people having an emotional revulsion to accepting losing (even in short bursts) but I don't see a strong argument that the team is more likely to make the playoffs than to get a top 5 pick.

Ed O.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Ed O said:


> ...but I don't see a strong argument that the team is more likely to make the playoffs than to get a top 5 pick.
> 
> Ed O.


Nor do I.

I suspect they'll get neither.

I will say I haven't watched much college ball so I'm as much in the dark as I was last year about what's there.

I've seen Oden and Durant several times and Oden impressed me. Durant, not so much. If I was his coach and friend I'd tell him to stay in school another year.

If I was Pritchard I'd be trading my picks this year for future possible lottery picks with Kevin Love in mind.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> Nor do I.
> 
> I suspect they'll get neither.


Okay. Even so, better to be picking 6th or 7th than 11th or 12th, yes?



> I will say I haven't watched much college ball so I'm as much in the dark as I was last year about what's there.


I haven't been following as closely as some but listening to the media, most analysts are predicting this to be a deeper draft than many recently, even without Oden and Durant.



> If I was Pritchard I'd be trading my picks this year for future possible lottery picks with Kevin Love in mind.


That's not a bad idea at all... at least the part about future possible picks. I'd still use the 1st pick this year, even if only in trade for some additional help for this coming season, and with both the lack of roster spots, all the second round picks the Blazers have, and the depth of this draft, something significant might be possible.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> You're assuming this team is going to fold to end the season.


No, I expect them to try their best. I'd consider it quite tacky and discouraging if they didn't.

What I expect is that a team who's already near the bottom five will struggle with their remaining schedule, especially in April, when they face Utah twice, Houston twice, Dallas and San Antonio. They have three realistically winnable games in April, and none of those are against teams below them in the standings (Clippers, Warriors, Sonics). In fact, the rest of the season, they play only one team with a worse record than they have...Memphis.

I don't believe Portland is better than their record. I think they have talent that will grow as the seasons progress, but I think this season their record is an accurate representation of the caliber of team they are. To only be favoured in two games the rest of the way (Memphis, Seattle at home) doesn't suggest that the most likely outcome is for them to rise in the standings.

They could. I just wouldn't peg it as the most likely outcome.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

i voted for play hard but lose. i, of course, don't want the team to tank, but i'd be happy with a lose.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Actually, much as I'm excited by this coming draft, you might really be on to something with trading this pick for one the next year, Maris. Next year the team will be better just from experience and it'd give the team one more year to see more specifically where the holes are -- can some combination the current guards sufficiently handle the point? Might either Outlaw or Webster rise to be more serious players? Will Adridge be okay at center over a whole season or would he really be better suited at PF?

I dunno, I'm still leaning toward cashing in for major improvements this summer but I can see some logic to delaying it.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Actually, much as I'm excited by this coming draft, you might really be on to something with trading this pick for one the next year, Maris. Next year the team will be better just from experience and it'd give the team one more year to see more specifically where the holes are -- can some combination the current guards sufficiently handle the point? Might either Outlaw or Webster rise to be more serious players? Will Adridge be okay at center over a whole season or would he really be better suited at PF?
> 
> I dunno, I'm still leaning toward cashing in for major improvements this summer but I can see some logic to delaying it.


If there was some to be sure what pick we'd end up with next year, I'd trade a non-top-two pick this year for a top-two pick next year (to get a shot at OJ Mayo or Derrick Rose), but there's no way to engineer such a trade. You'd basically have to trade the pick to a team you predict will do badly and pray they actually do badly _and_ win the lottery.

With no such certainty, I'd probably prefer to let the chips fall where they will and take the pick this season, when we know the draft is deep and talented beyond the first two picks. It may not be so good next year.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Play hard, lose,,,and of course blame Zach, that goes without saying.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

mgb said:


> Play hard, lose,,,and of course blame Zach, that goes without saying.


you forgot Nate. and soon, Jack.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> With no such certainty, I'd probably prefer to let the chips fall where they will and take the pick this season, when we know the draft is deep and talented beyond the first two picks. It may not be so good next year.


I agree that trading for a pick next year would be a mistake... not just the reason you list (that this is going to be a STRONG draft) but also because I want our core to be relatively the same age. Adding a mid-to-high lottery pick this year will probably yield a player that's more ready to contribute in two years or so, when the team is ready for a push.

Further, we've delayed winning enough. I don't think that our team is deep enough or talented enough to defer adding another lottery prospect for a year without adverse consequences. We're not the Phoenix Suns (who traded away the rights for Luol Deng for a future pick)...

Ed O.


----------



## Tim Lehrbach (Sep 17, 2003)

The Blazers are not better than their record.

One measure besides winning percentage by which to measure the strength of NBA teams is Pythagorean, or Expected, winning percentage. This formula--the inputs of which are points for and against, adjusted for pace--predicts end of season win totals just as well as in-season actual record.

The Blazers' actual winning percentage is 0.394 for a record of 26-40.
The Blazers' expected winning percentage is 0.343 which would leave the team at 22 or 23 wins.

More on the input:
The Blazers rank 21st in offensive efficiency (points per possession) and 27th in defensive efficiency (points allowed per possession). The other teams that rank in the bottom ten in both offense and defense? Boston and Charlotte. Atlanta just barely squeaks into the top twenty in defense. Memphis is fair on offense while ranking dead last in defense. This is the company the Blazers keep in the standings as well as in offensive and defensive efficiency.

Believe it or not, this is progress! Last season the Blazers ranked 30th in offense and 29th in defense, making them far and away the worst team in the NBA--as their win total also attested.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

Tim Lehrbach said:


> The Blazers are not better than their record.


This is true not only for the reasons Tim listed, but also because the team does play hard (we can probably thank Nate for that), much more so than a lot of the other cellar dwellers. We've also been relatively injury free, in this season of major injuries. Our record should probably be worse than it is, we've over achieved if anything.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> From Wikipedia:
> 
> Only two 8th seeded teams have managed to win a series versus the number 1 seeded Team: The Denver Nuggets eliminated the Seattle SuperSonics 3-2 in 1994; and the New York Knicks eliminated the Miami Heat 3-2 in 1999 (which was a lockout shortened season).
> 
> ...


Commentary on the 8th seeds advancing and the Rockets:

#1: This all occured during the 90s when the NBA was in the midst of its brutal, bang-and-pound, grab and hold, slow-it-down defensive era. Weaker teams that implement this style, and are able to execute it, can keep games close, and pray at the end, where anything can happen, especially when the refs swallow their whistles.

#2: All three of these teams used such strategies and were good defensive squads.

#3: All three teams featured a Hall-of-Fame centers in their prime, though Ewing was injured for the playoffs. He had carried the load during the season, leaving the rest of the squad with relatively fresh legs.

#4: The first round is now 7 games, making is much less likely an inferior squad can prevail.

None of these conditions exist for Portland:
No 5 game series
No Hall-of-Fame Center
No good defense
No getting away with constant fouling of a better team with rules changes


----------

