Do Tanking Advocates Believe Young Players Should Be Benched For Being Too Good?

[LooseCannon]

Let's not turn this into another thread about whether tanking is a good idea.  Let this thread be about how to do it right if you are committed to a tanking strategy.

Let's say that Colton Iverson starts out the season playing solid defense and giving 8 rebounds per game in 25 minutes per game, while Kelly Olynyk looks good and is scoring enough to be a Rookie of the Year candidate, with some fans feeling that he will end up being a better power forward than Jared Sullinger.  The team is on a pace for 35-40 wins due in part to their contributions.  The likelihood of that is irrelevant to the question I am asking, which is this:

Tanking advocates suggest sitting veterans and playing young players on the premise that the team will suck while inexperienced players get on-the-job training.  But what if they don't?  If the young players exceed the expectations of even the most green-goggled homer optimist, do you play the veterans more to keep the youth movement from leading the team to the edge of the playoffs, do you just go with it and let the kids play and win if they can, do you let them play but try to find a way to sabotage them, or do you kick the tires on trades and see if you can add a star if one surprisingly becomes available near the trade deadline?

If you want the team to tank, does Olynyk turning out to be more NBA-ready than expected or players such as Sullinger and Bradley making huge improvements in their game a bad thing that needs to be neutralized or a good thing that needs to be encouraged?

[PhoSita]

I think the coach's job is to take what he has on his roster and figure out his rotations and gameplans based on what will make the team as competitive as possible.

It's the GM's job to give the coach a roster that fits the team's long term goals, whatever they may be.

So I think that Brad Stevens should play the guys he thinks are most deserving of playing time, and who will help the team play the best basketball.

It's Danny's job to not give him too many veterans or whatever if he doesn't want the team to win "too many" games.

But really, to answer your question more specifically, if this really young team, while playing the young guys who work for and earn spots in the rotation, wins a lot of games and even makes the playoffs, I won't be unhappy.  Because that would mean we already have a much better talent base than I thought (e.g. Olynyk and Sullinger are ahead of schedule / even better than expected).

I'd be pretty surprised if that happened, though.


I'm definitely NOT in favor of force-feeding young players minutes even when they aren't ready or there are more deserving, more polished players behind them.  That sends a terrible message to the young players about how hard work is rewarded on this team.

[Who]

No

[Atzar]

Not at all.  If, for example, Avery Bradley turned into a legit scorer to go along with his disruptive defense, you play him and let everybody see it.  Maybe he wins you a few extra games and slip a spot or two in the draft, but Bradley's added value as an asset would offset that difference and then some.

It's all about accumulating value right now.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Not at all, I just think they should take all the time they need to come back from injuries

[clover]

No. Developing good young players, whether to keep or to trade, is always a priority.  If your young guys are becoming stars, that's high value right there.

[Kiorrik]

Really depends on how you look at it. Perhaps you end up with two good players on rookie contracts that you can package for a higher draft pick. In that case, it beats relying on lottery balls.

Just my opinion though, feel free to correct me if that theory is incredibly flawed.

.edit: disregard this post. Others have said it way more eloquently. TP's dispensed

[LarBrd33]

Wonky premise. 

Tanking usually means you're benching experienced vets who are familiar with the league for young guys.  On one hand, it means you're going to lose a lot as they make inevitable mistakes.  On the other hand, it's defensible because you are "developing" them for the future.  You're not worrying about short-term success... you're focused on the big picture. 

It never means benching one young guy over another young guy, because one young guy is sort of out performing the other young guy.  That's not the way this works.  Premise is flawed. 

In your hypothetical, the mere fact that you're playing Sully and/or Olynyk major minutes over experienced players like Humphries, Bass and Wallace = what we mean by "tanking".  Those children are going to go through some bumps along the road and you're going to rack up losses in the process.  In that situation, it could be argued that the team would be in a much better position to win games if they played veterans major minutes. 

Plus the fact that we just dumped two elite players for draft picks basically means we're tanking by definition.  If we were looking to put ourselves in position to compete this year, it would mean keeping Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce and playing them heavy minutes.  There is no scenario where we're better off short-term with future draft picks instead of KG and Pierce.

[tarheelsxxiii]

All tanking advocates in this thread are going to contradict themselves horribly.

Again and again, I read the goal is to be "as horrible as possible" next season. If that is precisely the goal, which I am directly quoting, then your strategy would be to bench your best players. According to the tank-ists, you sacrifice the present for the future - what ultimate way to do so? Sacrifice the growth of your young talent for the golden ticket...

the opportunity to land a superstar in 2014 draft!

Edit: I am prepared to be bashed and spoon fed a million different caveats now; my position will not change though. Any caveats should've been mentioned at the outset when the tank-ists were in full blown "be as horrible as possible next year for the 2014 draft." That is the story the radical tank-ists tld - to change that now, as stated above, is contradictory.

[KG Living Legend]

 No. It means trade or don't play the vets that don't matter long term, Wallace, Humphries, Bass,

[ManUp]

I think the coach's job is to take what he has on his roster and figure out his rotations and gameplans based on what will make the team as competitive as possible.

It's the GM's job to give the coach a roster that fits the team's long term goals, whatever they may be.

So I think that Brad Stevens should play the guys he thinks are most deserving of playing time, and who will help the team play the best basketball.

It's Danny's job to not give him too many veterans or whatever if he doesn't want the team to win "too many" games.

But really, to answer your question more specifically, if this really young team, while playing the young guys who work for and earn spots in the rotation, wins a lot of games and even makes the playoffs, I won't be unhappy.  Because that would mean we already have a much better talent base than I thought (e.g. Olynyk and Sullinger are ahead of schedule / even better than expected).

I'd be pretty surprised if that happened, though.


I'm definitely NOT in favor of force-feeding young players minutes even when they aren't ready or there are more deserving, more polished players behind them.  That sends a terrible message to the young players about how hard work is rewarded on this team.

TP.

My thoughts exactly, I couldn't have said it better.

[bdm860]

The way teams handle this situation is by playing the "too good young player" out of position.  Try to develop a different part of his game.

If any of Olynyk, Sullinger, or Iverson were dominating at the PF/C position, and the team was really tanking, the you handle that is by playing them out of position.  Let's see if they can play the 3!  Olynyk used to be a guard, let's play him at the 2!  Let's try a big lineup and put all 3 out their with Fab.  Let's go small and put Avery at SF.

That's how you tank while still playing good young studs.

Like when Antoine Walker actually started all 5 positions in '96-'97 en route to a 15 win season.

[TripleOT]

If marginal prospects like Colton Iverson are getting 25 minutes per game, the losses will take care of themselves.  No need to try to lose.

The NBA is brutal to teams with many young players, even when those guys are top talents, like the early Durant teams. 

[clover]

All tanking advocates in this thread are going to contradict themselves horribly.

Again and again, I read the goal is to be "as horrible as possible" next season. If that is precisely the goal, which I am directly quoting, then your strategy would be to bench your best players. According to the tank-ists, you sacrifice the present for the future - what ultimate way to do so? Sacrifice the growth of your young talent for the golden ticket...

the opportunity to land a superstar in 2014 draft!

Edit: I am prepared to be bashed and spoon fed a million different caveats now; my position will not change though. Any caveats should've been mentioned at the outset when the tank-ists were in full blown "be as horrible as possible next year for the 2014 draft." That is the story the radical tank-ists tld - to change that now, as stated above, is contradictory.

Certainly some tanking advocates can manage nuance and haven't advocated--quick, trade Rondo and Green and Bradley for worse players so we can tank!--approaches along the way.

[Celtics4ever]

I think you develop your young talent and let them play it is not like they are going to dominate that includes Oly.   But they will play and get better.