Should Celtics lose their last two games?

[nickagneta]

Any team or player that doesn't play to win every game, should not be playing at all. Throwing a game, to me, is like lying, and not only demonstrates a major lack of character and integrity, but sets a bad example and precident for the momentum going into the playoffs. I would have no respect for this team if they did what is suggested here.

Not even for Greg Oden?

Hate to be trite, but wrong is wrong, and "unethical" is not a conditional term ... just my opinion, of course.

What about playing checkers against a 3 year old? 

Is it really unethical to better your position for the long haul by resting in the short haul?

You should probably ask all the fans who are paying big bucks for tickets to see their team win that night ... somehow I think they might take exception to the team throwing the game and not playing their stars.

I hear what you're saying, although I think a lot of the paying fans in '06-'07 were actively rooting for us to lose.  Also, I disagree with any argument (and I don't think you're saying this) that the team should play every game to win at all costs.  Sometimes, you need to take the long view (i.e., resting players with minor to moderate injuries to preserve their long-term health, even at the expense of losing games; limiting the minutes of vets early in the season to get younger guys playing time and experience for when it counts, etc.)

Of course there are times when resting certain players is a necessity, but the remaining players, whoever they are, should still be going on the floor to win that game, whether the stars are playing or not. In fact, if I was one of those bench players, I'd be even more motivated to win as a way to prove to the players being rested that the team can win and play at a high level despite their absence. What I'm saying is that I feel it's wrong for any team to go into a game with the mind-set "OK, we're gonna lose this game because of such-and-such as it benefits us a certain way" ... fans are PAYING to see that team play at it's highest level and win if it possibly can, not to just go out on the floor and half-heartedly coast through a game. Personally, if I thought that was happeneing, or if I thought my team was "throwing" a game, I'd want my money back.

Dude, mad props for your opinion here but I hope you realize this organization purposely threw games during the 2006-07 season and the 1996-97 season. Absolutely without a doubt it happened. Remember when Doc sat Pierce and Big Al until the team finally clinched the second worse record in the league then both came back the next game? What about ML Carr taking over the coaching of the team for the specific reason to throw games to get as much a chance as possible to get Duncan? Did the Celtics care about their paying customers then?

[RAcker]

Karma Police, please stop this thread
You never lose on purpose

[Redz]

Any team or player that doesn't play to win every game, should not be playing at all. Throwing a game, to me, is like lying, and not only demonstrates a major lack of character and integrity, but sets a bad example and precident for the momentum going into the playoffs. I would have no respect for this team if they did what is suggested here.

Not even for Greg Oden?

Hate to be trite, but wrong is wrong, and "unethical" is not a conditional term ... just my opinion, of course.

What about playing checkers against a 3 year old? 

Is it really unethical to better your position for the long haul by resting in the short haul?

You should probably ask all the fans who are paying big bucks for tickets to see their team win that night ... somehow I think they might take exception to the team throwing the game and not playing their stars. I think the checkers thing is a very unrealistic comparison, as nobody's losing any money in the process. This game is about the fans ... period. We as fans are the ones who pay the big money for these players to do their best night after night, and if a team goes on the floor to not give their all, or to throw a game, then they're just plain screwing everyone who buys a ticket.

I'm not saying I like it, but I understand it, and it's pretty common in professional sports. All good teams rest their stars down the stretch to some degree (whether the Celtics are a good team is another argument). I think it's more of a screwing of the fans when you get smoked repeatedly on your home court by teams with inferior talent based on a lack of effort when you're still in the hunt.  The last couple of games of the season are a crap shoot for who you're going to see.

I was obviously kidding about the checkers comparison.  Hence the wink.

[Bahku]

Any team or player that doesn't play to win every game, should not be playing at all. Throwing a game, to me, is like lying, and not only demonstrates a major lack of character and integrity, but sets a bad example and precident for the momentum going into the playoffs. I would have no respect for this team if they did what is suggested here.

Not even for Greg Oden?

Hate to be trite, but wrong is wrong, and "unethical" is not a conditional term ... just my opinion, of course.

What about playing checkers against a 3 year old?  

Is it really unethical to better your position for the long haul by resting in the short haul?

You should probably ask all the fans who are paying big bucks for tickets to see their team win that night ... somehow I think they might take exception to the team throwing the game and not playing their stars. I think the checkers thing is a very unrealistic comparison, as nobody's losing any money in the process. This game is about the fans ... period. We as fans are the ones who pay the big money for these players to do their best night after night, and if a team goes on the floor to not give their all, or to throw a game, then they're just plain screwing everyone who buys a ticket.

I'm not saying I like it, but I understand it, and it's pretty common in professional sports. All good teams rest their stars down the stretch to some degree (whether the Celtics are a good team is another argument). I think it's more of a screwing of the fans when you get smoked repeatedly on your home court by teams with inferior talent based on a lack of effort when you're still in the hunt.  The last couple of games of the season are a crap shoot for who you're going to see.

I was obviously kidding about the checkers comparison.  Hence the wink.

Oh, I knew you were (at least half) kidding about the checkers thing, but I got a kick out of it ... when my kids were small and I would leave them with my folks once-in-a-while, when I'd pick them up I'd ask them if they had a good time, and they'd always say, "Yeah, but Nana likes to play games too much" ... which would kind of stun me, because kids usually LOVE to play games.

Well, I eventually discovered that she was never letting them win, and if you don't let kids win sometimes, they just don't want to play anymore. Why would they? Things are real simple when you're a kid, and if you play a game that you never win, there's really no point in playing.

So I finally told my Mom one day that she should let the kids win once-in-a-while, and she said: "Why?" So I told her that they won't want to play anymore if she doesn't let them win, but she still had a problem with it. It's really very funny if you knew my Mom, cuz she's just one of the nicest, sweetest people you'll ever meet, and she spends most of her time, (for most of her life), doing thing for others.

But she is also one of the most incredibly competitive people I've ever known, especially when it comes to games and cards, to the point that she won't even let her grandchildren win unless it's fair-and-square, LOL! She of course denies that she's that competitive, but the rest of the family knows that if you play a game or cards or cribbage or chess with my Mom, you'd better prepare for a major battle, cuz she's ruthless!

She's also the biggest Celtics fan in the world, (and I mean that wholeheartedly), so you can imagine what she's like when they lose. I don't think the C's have EVER lost a game (in her way of thinking) that wasn't because of the refs or the coaching or the weather or whatever she can come up with for an excuse ... she'd be great to take over Tommy's spot when he retires, if she wasn't already too old ... she's the ultimate homer, trust me!

[FatjohnReturns]

No you dont lose games on purpose. The only time you might purposely lose is if you are trying to develop young players during the regular season.  I bet Bill Walker could have played alot more during the regular season.

No matter what the bracket situation you want the players on the floor to play their best. Now if you are playing those younger players it will probably cost you a few wins but they will be more prepared down the road. Coaching any other way except best effort is just gonna lose respect of your team.

[FatjohnReturns]

Also just a quick question for the TS? I read in one of your other posts you were a inter-city coach for 12-15 years. Did you ever lose games on purpose? Seems like a ridiculous idea I didnt really understand what your saying here?

[Bahku]

No you dont lose games on purpose. The only time you might purposely lose is if you are trying to develop young players during the regular season.  I bet Bill Walker could have played alot more during the regular season.

No matter what the bracket situation you want the players on the floor to play their best. Now if you are playing those younger players it will probably cost you a few wins but they will be more prepared down the road. Coaching any other way except best effort is just gonna lose respect of your team.

Absolutely. (TP)

[incoherent]

Kobe Bryant is going to rest the final two games of the season, smart or no?

[Bahku]

Kobe Bryant is going to rest the final two games of the season, smart or no?

I personally approve highly of any action that takes Kobe off the court.

(This could make Shannon Brown a great PAPOUG pick)

[nickagneta]

Also just a quick question for the TS? I read in one of your other posts you were a inter-city coach for 12-15 years. Did you ever lose games on purpose? Seems like a ridiculous idea I didnt really understand what your saying here?

Of course not. We are talking coaching kids the age of 12-13 in a 15 game season without the intricacies of profit and loss, long term financial success versus short term sacrifices, proper public relations moves, satisfaction of a paying public, etc. NBA basketball is a business, first and foremost, let us not forget that.

Perhaps the correct way of looking at this is did I ever lose money on a sale to gain a customer? The answer to that is yes. And that happens all the time in business. I've purposely priced myself lower on a particular item than my competition to get the business of a customer to show him the high quality and service he would receive in hopes of landing his other, very profitable business. I have replaced perfectly good product at a loss because a customer was dissatisfied.

What for profit business hasn't taken short term losses that were meant to make the business stronger in the long term?

[rav123]

No. Only because we need any momentum we can get. Throughout the season, we had the whole "we-can-flip-the-switch" thing. But I think the intention was to switch it on with 10 or so games left and be on fire going into the playoffs (kinda like what the Spurs are doing now).

However, this attempt has failed miserably. As such, we need to win to gain some momentum. I wouldn't mind picking 19th and playing Milwaukee. But the momentum we gain here could be the difference between 1st-round exit and Banner 18.

P.S. It's unlikely now that Milwaukee get the 5th seed. They are only one game behind the Heat (in sixth place). The catch is that Miami have two easy games to follow, while Milwaukee have two difficult ones. We can only get 3rd seed if we win both our games and Atlanta loses one (unlikely). If we wanted to tank properly, we should have lost our last game to the Bucks. Then the Bucks would have a chance of getting the 5th seed. Since we won though, that's not going to happen. So the only benefit we can get from tanking is a higher draft pick. To be honest though, it's unlikely that we'll miss out on a good player in the space between 19 and 22 (i.e. there is no big talent drop-off from pick 21 to pick 22).

[nickagneta]

To be honest though, it's unlikely that we'll miss out on a good player in the space between 19 and 22 (i.e. there is no big talent drop-off from pick 21 to pick 22).

2009 NBA Draft

Pick 21 Darren Collison
Pick 22 Victor Claver

2006 NBA Draft

Pick 21 Rajon Rondo
Pick 22 Marcus Williams

2003 NBA Draft

Pick 21 Boris Diaw
Pick 22 Goran Planicic

That's the difference between one pick in that range. The difference in talent from pick 19 and 20 to 22 to 23 can be just as precipitous in some drafts also. Though in your defense it does on occasion work the other way around as well. But, in most drafts there is a definitive drop off in talent in one or two places and in this draft it has been predicted to be taking place right around where the Celtics will be choosing.

[slamtheking]

As of this morning, the C's have the 21st pick.  If they play well and pass Atlanta in the standings, they'll get the 22nd pick.  I doubt they'll other teams in the West with 28 losses will go in the tank where the C's would tie their records and end up with a lower pick.

If the C's go in the tank the last 2 games and the teams in the West with 31/32 losses win out, the C's could climb to the 18th pick.

In consideration of the current standings and the remaining schedules, I figure the C's aren't dropping or climbing in the draft position.  They're pretty much locked into #21.

[EJPLAYA]

Any team or player that doesn't play to win every game, should not be playing at all. Throwing a game, to me, is like lying, and not only demonstrates a major lack of character and integrity, but sets a bad example and precident for the momentum going into the playoffs. I would have no respect for this team if they did what is suggested here.

Not even for Greg Oden?

Hate to be trite, but wrong is wrong, and "unethical" is not a conditional term ... just my opinion, of course.

What about playing checkers against a 3 year old? 

Is it really unethical to better your position for the long haul by resting in the short haul?

You should probably ask all the fans who are paying big bucks for tickets to see their team win that night ... somehow I think they might take exception to the team throwing the game and not playing their stars.

I hear what you're saying, although I think a lot of the paying fans in '06-'07 were actively rooting for us to lose.  Also, I disagree with any argument (and I don't think you're saying this) that the team should play every game to win at all costs.  Sometimes, you need to take the long view (i.e., resting players with minor to moderate injuries to preserve their long-term health, even at the expense of losing games; limiting the minutes of vets early in the season to get younger guys playing time and experience for when it counts, etc.)

Of course there are times when resting certain players is a necessity, but the remaining players, whoever they are, should still be going on the floor to win that game, whether the stars are playing or not. In fact, if I was one of those bench players, I'd be even more motivated to win as a way to prove to the players being rested that the team can win and play at a high level despite their absence. What I'm saying is that I feel it's wrong for any team to go into a game with the mind-set "OK, we're gonna lose this game because of such-and-such as it benefits us a certain way" ... fans are PAYING to see that team play at it's highest level and win if it possibly can, not to just go out on the floor and half-heartedly coast through a game. Personally, if I thought that was happeneing, or if I thought my team was "throwing" a game, I'd want my money back.

You see you're not addressing my reply from before though Bahku and now saying exactly what we were saying.

No one is saying we should go out and try and lose the games. We are saying we should rest the starters and play with our bench. They should then give it 100% out there to try and win. If they do then great. That means they will be playing well and the PT will be beneficial. If they don't then so be it. It will still be good to get some of the guys more PT.

I honestly don't care whether PP wants to rest or not. He can say what he wants, but two games off isn't going to kill him. It will only help.

[BballTim]

Any team or player that doesn't play to win every game, should not be playing at all. Throwing a game, to me, is like lying, and not only demonstrates a major lack of character and integrity, but sets a bad example and precident for the momentum going into the playoffs. I would have no respect for this team if they did what is suggested here.

  While the Celts aren't in this situation, I don't agree that not playing to win every game amounts to throwing games. You need to have a long term strategy, and that frequently means giving minutes to younger players to develop them as opposed to playing veterans who are currently better.