8 games left. I think we finish 5th worst with 29.2% chance of a top 3 pick.

[hpantazo]

^doubt it think I recall Stevens actually saying I want to get joel out there more so we can see what we have in him he's a legit center, Stevens isn't dumb hell he probably wants a better draft pick too lol

I seriously doubt an NBA head coach would want a higher lottery chance at the expense of winning basketball games. That isn't how competitors think.

Stevens signed a long term deal, so he definitely wants to build a legit contender. He's not stupid, I'm sure he would gladly sacrifice 2-3 wins at most in the last 7 games for a better long term future.

[nickagneta]

^doubt it think I recall Stevens actually saying I want to get joel out there more so we can see what we have in him he's a legit center, Stevens isn't dumb hell he probably wants a better draft pick too lol

I seriously doubt an NBA head coach would want a higher lottery chance at the expense of winning basketball games. That isn't how competitors think.

Stevens signed a long term deal, so he definitely wants to build a legit contender. He's not stupid, I'm sure he would gladly sacrifice 2-3 wins at most in the last 7 games for a better long term future.

First, there's no guarantee a couple of extra losses means a better long term future.

Second, losing on purpose to get a better draft position is fan speak. Coaches just do not think that way. They can't afford to.

[D.o.s.]

^doubt it think I recall Stevens actually saying I want to get joel out there more so we can see what we have in him he's a legit center, Stevens isn't dumb hell he probably wants a better draft pick too lol

I seriously doubt an NBA head coach would want a higher lottery chance at the expense of winning basketball games. That isn't how competitors think.

Stevens signed a long term deal, so he definitely wants to build a legit contender. He's not stupid, I'm sure he would gladly sacrifice 2-3 wins at most in the last 7 games for a better long term future.

First, there's no guarantee a couple of extra losses means a better long term future.

Second, losing on purpose to get a better draft position is fan speak. Coaches just do not think that way. They can't afford to.

We have at least one documented case of your assertion being incorrect:

"It's so difficult," Carr said, "because it goes completely against your basketball DNA.

"Danny (Ainge) is absolutely doing the right thing for the Celtics franchise. But he's going to have a real tough road while they rebuild."

As GM, Carr made sure he didn't sign any expensive or overly talented free agents. Because he was his own coach, there was no backlash from the bench regarding his personnel decisions.

"I was bringing in guys like Nate Driggers and Brett Szabo," Carr said. "It was a joke. But the idea was not to make a move that would help us too much."

The hardest part, said Carr, was straddling the fine line between encouraging his team to play the game the right way but make sure they didn't win too much.

"I remember one game in particular, when David Wesley was hitting jump shots and 3-pointers all over the floor," Carr said. "I had to get him out of the game.

"He came over to me and said, 'Coach, what are you doing? I just hit four shots in a row.' I said, 'I know, David, but I'm experimenting.'

"I'll tell you, it was brutal. Those players were smart. They knew what we were doing.

"I told them, 'I won't be here a year from now. This is for your future. In the final analysis, you'll benefit from this.' But after a while, they didn't want to hear it."

http://espn.go.com/boston/nba/story/_/id/9434966/for-boston-celtics-tanking-likely-necessary-never-easy

[SHAQATTACK]

^doubt it think I recall Stevens actually saying I want to get joel out there more so we can see what we have in him he's a legit center, Stevens isn't dumb hell he probably wants a better draft pick too lol

I seriously doubt an NBA head coach would want a higher lottery chance at the expense of winning basketball games. That isn't how competitors think.

Stevens signed a long term deal, so he definitely wants to build a legit contender. He's not stupid, I'm sure he would gladly sacrifice 2-3 wins at most in the last 7 games for a better long term future.

First, there's no guarantee a couple of extra losses means a better long term future.

Second, losing on purpose to get a better draft position is fan speak. Coaches just do not think that way. They can't afford to.

Neither of those statements are true in the NBA....that's dreaming

[nickagneta]

^doubt it think I recall Stevens actually saying I want to get joel out there more so we can see what we have in him he's a legit center, Stevens isn't dumb hell he probably wants a better draft pick too lol

I seriously doubt an NBA head coach would want a higher lottery chance at the expense of winning basketball games. That isn't how competitors think.

Stevens signed a long term deal, so he definitely wants to build a legit contender. He's not stupid, I'm sure he would gladly sacrifice 2-3 wins at most in the last 7 games for a better long term future.

First, there's no guarantee a couple of extra losses means a better long term future.

Second, losing on purpose to get a better draft position is fan speak. Coaches just do not think that way. They can't afford to.

We have at least one documented case of your assertion being incorrect:

"It's so difficult," Carr said, "because it goes completely against your basketball DNA.

"Danny (Ainge) is absolutely doing the right thing for the Celtics franchise. But he's going to have a real tough road while they rebuild."

As GM, Carr made sure he didn't sign any expensive or overly talented free agents. Because he was his own coach, there was no backlash from the bench regarding his personnel decisions.

"I was bringing in guys like Nate Driggers and Brett Szabo," Carr said. "It was a joke. But the idea was not to make a move that would help us too much."

The hardest part, said Carr, was straddling the fine line between encouraging his team to play the game the right way but make sure they didn't win too much.

"I remember one game in particular, when David Wesley was hitting jump shots and 3-pointers all over the floor," Carr said. "I had to get him out of the game.

"He came over to me and said, 'Coach, what are you doing? I just hit four shots in a row.' I said, 'I know, David, but I'm experimenting.'

"I'll tell you, it was brutal. Those players were smart. They knew what we were doing.

"I told them, 'I won't be here a year from now. This is for your future. In the final analysis, you'll benefit from this.' But after a while, they didn't want to hear it."

http://espn.go.com/boston/nba/story/_/id/9434966/for-boston-celtics-tanking-likely-necessary-never-easy

Your example I am incorrect is a GM that hired himself as coach that admittedly would be around only for a short tanking filled year? Come on DOS. You are better than that. 

[D.o.s.]

I'll admit, it's not my best work. 


Here's a better one, sort of -- it's a wordpress blog, but the info is right.

One of the more suspicious actions was Coach Bill Fitch somewhat resurrecting 38-year old Elvin Hayes’ career for one last season – for no real reason.   Hayes played all 53 minutes in Houston’s 81st game of the season and the first 35 minutes in the last game, ending his career with exactly 50,000 minutes-played, the first player to do so.  This insignificant milestone was the reason Fitch claimed he played Hayes all those minutes.  Besides the fact this record meant nothing, the goodwill towards Hayes made less sense considering Fitch didn’t like him much.  Evidence of that is best described by this advice to his rookie center Ralph Sampson, “You stay away from that no-good [so-and-so]” Fitch said at the beginning of training camp in 1983.

http://reclinergm.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/coin-flip-to-lottery-did-the-rockets-tank-to-get-olajuwon/

[Boris Badenov]

Thinking about this narrowly, we have seven games left. In all likelihood the worst three teams are out of reach. Utah and LAL are our "competitors"...so let's say we are looking at finishing 4th, 5th or 6th. In some sense we control our own destiny - if we lose out, we will at worse split the 4-5 slot ping-pong balls with UTA.

Now, suppose Stevens goes all out and tries to win every game, and we end up with the 6th slot. This gives us a 6% chance at #1, a 22% chance at a top 3 pick and a 22% chance at a top 5 pick (because the 4th and 5th are never possibilities).

Alternatively, Stevens can do a few things to give us the best shot at the #4 pick. In reality this probably only means "tanking" for 2-3 games, because we have some tough games we'd probably lose anyway.

If we do that and end up 4th, we now have a 12% chance at #1, a 38% chance at top 3, and a whopping 83% at top 5.

We would be doubling our chances at the #1 pick, improving our odds at top 3 from 1 in 5 to 4 out of 10, and improving our odds at top 5 from around 1 in 5 (22%) to a better than 4 out of 5 (83%) chance.

To swing the odds this way, Stevens might have to do things like sit Rondo for a few games, reduce the minutes of anyone who's hot (say from 30 to 15) here and there, and maybe play some of our deep bench guys in the name of "giving them a look for next year."

To me these tradeoffs - particularly if they mean swinging us from a 22% chance at top 5 to an 83% chance of top 5 - are no-brainers. We're almost at the goal line and we're talking about doing a few things differently in maybe 3-4 games that would otherwise be winnable.

Curious to hear from those on the other side - why do you think it's worth it, in a season full of losing, to go all out over a few games when it reduces our chances of a top 5 pick from a great chance (83%) to basically a Hail Mary (22%)? What's the upside of doing that?

And please don't say "the lottery's a crapshoot" or provide counter-argument examples involving teams who in some past year won the lottery from a low slot. The odds are what they are, and the fact that things are random doesn't mean you should prefer 1 in 5 odds to 4 in 5 odds, or not care about the difference.

[nickagneta]

Thinking about this narrowly, we have seven games left. In all likelihood the worst three teams are out of reach. Utah and LAL are our "competitors"...so let's say we are looking at finishing 4th, 5th or 6th. In some sense we control our own destiny - if we lose out, we will at worse split the 4-5 slot ping-pong balls with UTA.

Now, suppose Stevens goes all out and tries to win every game, and we end up with the 6th slot. This gives us a 6% chance at #1, a 22% chance at a top 3 pick and a 22% chance at a top 5 pick (because the 4th and 5th are never possibilities).

Alternatively, Stevens can do a few things to give us the best shot at the #4 pick. In reality this probably only means "tanking" for 2-3 games, because we have some tough games we'd probably lose anyway.

If we do that and end up 4th, we now have a 12% chance at #1, a 38% chance at top 3, and a whopping 83% at top 5.

We would be doubling our chances at the #1 pick, improving our odds at top 3 from 1 in 5 to 4 out of 10, and improving our odds at top 5 from around 1 in 5 (22%) to a better than 4 out of 5 (83%) chance.

To swing the odds this way, Stevens might have to do things like sit Rondo for a few games, reduce the minutes of anyone who's hot (say from 30 to 15) here and there, and maybe play some of our deep bench guys in the name of "giving them a look for next year."

To me these tradeoffs - particularly if they mean swinging us from a 22% chance at top 5 to an 83% chance of top 5 - are no-brainers. We're almost at the goal line and we're talking about doing a few things differently in maybe 3-4 games that would otherwise be winnable.

Curious to hear from those on the other side - why do you think it's worth it, in a season full of losing, to go all out over a few games when it reduces our chances of a top 5 pick from a great chance (83%) to basically a Hail Mary (22%)? What's the upside of doing that?

And please don't say "the lottery's a crapshoot" or provide counter-argument examples involving teams who in some past year won the lottery from a low slot. The odds are what they are, and the fact that things are random doesn't mean you should prefer 1 in 5 odds to 4 in 5 odds, or not care about the difference.

Because purposely losing is against the principles and covenants that this franchise was built upon. This franchise was built on playing the best basketball on the court that can be played and by outsmarting and out-scouting and out-coaching the competition. Every time we have purposely tried to lose the basketball gods rewarded us with a worse draft slot. Its a principle thing and I don't think that is a wrong stance to have.

You play to win. Its really that simple. Don't want to win. Forfeit and don't show up.

[Boris Badenov]

Thinking about this narrowly, we have seven games left. In all likelihood the worst three teams are out of reach. Utah and LAL are our "competitors"...so let's say we are looking at finishing 4th, 5th or 6th. In some sense we control our own destiny - if we lose out, we will at worse split the 4-5 slot ping-pong balls with UTA.

Now, suppose Stevens goes all out and tries to win every game, and we end up with the 6th slot. This gives us a 6% chance at #1, a 22% chance at a top 3 pick and a 22% chance at a top 5 pick (because the 4th and 5th are never possibilities).

Alternatively, Stevens can do a few things to give us the best shot at the #4 pick. In reality this probably only means "tanking" for 2-3 games, because we have some tough games we'd probably lose anyway.

If we do that and end up 4th, we now have a 12% chance at #1, a 38% chance at top 3, and a whopping 83% at top 5.

We would be doubling our chances at the #1 pick, improving our odds at top 3 from 1 in 5 to 4 out of 10, and improving our odds at top 5 from around 1 in 5 (22%) to a better than 4 out of 5 (83%) chance.

To swing the odds this way, Stevens might have to do things like sit Rondo for a few games, reduce the minutes of anyone who's hot (say from 30 to 15) here and there, and maybe play some of our deep bench guys in the name of "giving them a look for next year."

To me these tradeoffs - particularly if they mean swinging us from a 22% chance at top 5 to an 83% chance of top 5 - are no-brainers. We're almost at the goal line and we're talking about doing a few things differently in maybe 3-4 games that would otherwise be winnable.

Curious to hear from those on the other side - why do you think it's worth it, in a season full of losing, to go all out over a few games when it reduces our chances of a top 5 pick from a great chance (83%) to basically a Hail Mary (22%)? What's the upside of doing that?

And please don't say "the lottery's a crapshoot" or provide counter-argument examples involving teams who in some past year won the lottery from a low slot. The odds are what they are, and the fact that things are random doesn't mean you should prefer 1 in 5 odds to 4 in 5 odds, or not care about the difference.

Because purposely losing is against the principles and covenants that this franchise was built upon. This franchise was built on playing the best basketball on the court that can be played and by outsmarting and out-scouting and out-coaching the competition. Every time we have purposely tried to lose the basketball gods rewarded us with a worse draft slot. Its a principle thing and I don't think that is a wrong stance to have.

You play to win. Its really that simple. Don't want to win. Forfeit and don't show up.

Really Nick? You think there's divine intervention that punishes teams who sit their good players at the very end of the season?

I guess we're done talking about it then.

[Rondo9]

Thinking about this narrowly, we have seven games left. In all likelihood the worst three teams are out of reach. Utah and LAL are our "competitors"...so let's say we are looking at finishing 4th, 5th or 6th. In some sense we control our own destiny - if we lose out, we will at worse split the 4-5 slot ping-pong balls with UTA.

Now, suppose Stevens goes all out and tries to win every game, and we end up with the 6th slot. This gives us a 6% chance at #1, a 22% chance at a top 3 pick and a 22% chance at a top 5 pick (because the 4th and 5th are never possibilities).

Alternatively, Stevens can do a few things to give us the best shot at the #4 pick. In reality this probably only means "tanking" for 2-3 games, because we have some tough games we'd probably lose anyway.

If we do that and end up 4th, we now have a 12% chance at #1, a 38% chance at top 3, and a whopping 83% at top 5.

We would be doubling our chances at the #1 pick, improving our odds at top 3 from 1 in 5 to 4 out of 10, and improving our odds at top 5 from around 1 in 5 (22%) to a better than 4 out of 5 (83%) chance.

To swing the odds this way, Stevens might have to do things like sit Rondo for a few games, reduce the minutes of anyone who's hot (say from 30 to 15) here and there, and maybe play some of our deep bench guys in the name of "giving them a look for next year."

To me these tradeoffs - particularly if they mean swinging us from a 22% chance at top 5 to an 83% chance of top 5 - are no-brainers. We're almost at the goal line and we're talking about doing a few things differently in maybe 3-4 games that would otherwise be winnable.

Curious to hear from those on the other side - why do you think it's worth it, in a season full of losing, to go all out over a few games when it reduces our chances of a top 5 pick from a great chance (83%) to basically a Hail Mary (22%)? What's the upside of doing that?

And please don't say "the lottery's a crapshoot" or provide counter-argument examples involving teams who in some past year won the lottery from a low slot. The odds are what they are, and the fact that things are random doesn't mean you should prefer 1 in 5 odds to 4 in 5 odds, or not care about the difference.

Because purposely losing is against the principles and covenants that this franchise was built upon. This franchise was built on playing the best basketball on the court that can be played and by outsmarting and out-scouting and out-coaching the competition. Every time we have purposely tried to lose the basketball gods rewarded us with a worse draft slot. Its a principle thing and I don't think that is a wrong stance to have.

You play to win. Its really that simple. Don't want to win. Forfeit and don't show up.

I agree there play to win and let the draft handle itself.

[D.o.s.]

Because purposely losing is against the principles and covenants that this franchise was built upon. This franchise was built on playing the best basketball on the court that can be played and by outsmarting and out-scouting and out-coaching the competition. Every time we have purposely tried to lose the basketball gods rewarded us with a worse draft slot. Its a principle thing and I don't think that is a wrong stance to have.

You play to win. Its really that simple. Don't want to win. Forfeit and don't show up.

Really Nick? You think there's divine intervention that punishes teams who sit their good players at the very end of the season?

I guess we're done talking about it then.

Actually, I generally agree with NickN here. Watching a tanking team sucks. I understand why they do it, and obviously I've disagreed with people on both extremes, but I've had no pangs of regret skipping these last couple games, and as a fan, that makes me sad.

[nickagneta]

Thinking about this narrowly, we have seven games left. In all likelihood the worst three teams are out of reach. Utah and LAL are our "competitors"...so let's say we are looking at finishing 4th, 5th or 6th. In some sense we control our own destiny - if we lose out, we will at worse split the 4-5 slot ping-pong balls with UTA.

Now, suppose Stevens goes all out and tries to win every game, and we end up with the 6th slot. This gives us a 6% chance at #1, a 22% chance at a top 3 pick and a 22% chance at a top 5 pick (because the 4th and 5th are never possibilities).

Alternatively, Stevens can do a few things to give us the best shot at the #4 pick. In reality this probably only means "tanking" for 2-3 games, because we have some tough games we'd probably lose anyway.

If we do that and end up 4th, we now have a 12% chance at #1, a 38% chance at top 3, and a whopping 83% at top 5.

We would be doubling our chances at the #1 pick, improving our odds at top 3 from 1 in 5 to 4 out of 10, and improving our odds at top 5 from around 1 in 5 (22%) to a better than 4 out of 5 (83%) chance.

To swing the odds this way, Stevens might have to do things like sit Rondo for a few games, reduce the minutes of anyone who's hot (say from 30 to 15) here and there, and maybe play some of our deep bench guys in the name of "giving them a look for next year."

To me these tradeoffs - particularly if they mean swinging us from a 22% chance at top 5 to an 83% chance of top 5 - are no-brainers. We're almost at the goal line and we're talking about doing a few things differently in maybe 3-4 games that would otherwise be winnable.

Curious to hear from those on the other side - why do you think it's worth it, in a season full of losing, to go all out over a few games when it reduces our chances of a top 5 pick from a great chance (83%) to basically a Hail Mary (22%)? What's the upside of doing that?

And please don't say "the lottery's a crapshoot" or provide counter-argument examples involving teams who in some past year won the lottery from a low slot. The odds are what they are, and the fact that things are random doesn't mean you should prefer 1 in 5 odds to 4 in 5 odds, or not care about the difference.

Because purposely losing is against the principles and covenants that this franchise was built upon. This franchise was built on playing the best basketball on the court that can be played and by outsmarting and out-scouting and out-coaching the competition. Every time we have purposely tried to lose the basketball gods rewarded us with a worse draft slot. Its a principle thing and I don't think that is a wrong stance to have.

You play to win. Its really that simple. Don't want to win. Forfeit and don't show up.

Really Nick? You think there's divine intervention that punishes teams who sit their good players at the very end of the season?

I guess we're done talking about it then.

No of course not. I was just colorfully pointing out its never worked out for us in the past. The main point is that its a principle thing.

Also for me, I just can't make myself cheer or root for my team to lose, no matter what. I abhor the pro tanking cheers for losing that have littered this blog for the past 6-7 months. Just disgusting, IMHO.

[PhoSita]

Guys, there are only a few games left.  We've already secured the "bottom of the barrel" record.  There's no longer any danger of slipping into the playoffs, or not ending up with a top 10 pick.

The difference between finishing in the 4 spot or finishing in the 6 or 7 spot is not enough to justify the gnashing of teeth over losing on purpose / trying to win.

As others have mentioned, the players have largely checked out at this point.  The effort is there, sometimes, but the players aren't "playing to win" unless the shots happen to fall and it comes easily.  Rondo is not playing the second night of back to backs and our bench features a few D-League caliber talents and Joel freakin' Anthony.


I'm with Dos here -- it sucks that we've reached a point where there's really not anything to miss if you choose not to watch a game.  The team is in a position to theoretically change a LOT over the summer -- perhaps for the better.  On the other hand, we've got to recognize the possibility that the team is not much better next season.  Almost certainly there will be more raw talent, but there might be fewer players with veteran experience.  We might not get the savior in this draft (in fact, odds are we won't), but we'll probably get somebody useful. 

Let's hope we're not having the same argument about trying / not trying a year from now.  The point is -- we'd all be doing ourselves a favor if we just decided to let it be and see what happens.  Probably the worst thing about being the fan of a team with nothing to hope for but the lottery is that we can't even put ourselves in the position of the team and pretend like the future is in our control, because the team itself is depending entirely on luck of the draw.

That's what this whole argument is about, really.  The "lose on purpose" / "try to win" dichotomy, and all the fury it stirs up, at the end of the day, is really just our frustration with having sit back and wait to see what happens.  We can pretend otherwise, but the team really doesn't have a lot of control one way or the other over what cards will be in its hand a few months, a year, or a few years down the road.  With some luck, though, we'll have a better idea of what's in store after the lottery and the first part of free agency this summer.

[Casperian]

The difference between finishing in the 4 spot or finishing in the 6 or 7 spot is not enough to justify the gnashing of teeth over losing on purpose / trying to win.

TP

Neither of those statements are true in the NBA....that's dreaming

That is incorrect. Theoretically, we could lose out on a better draft pick by losing too much, as losing more games does not only mean we acquire more "tickets", but also different tickets, as they are assigned by the league to the different positions in the lottery.

[chambers]

Thinking about this narrowly, we have seven games left. In all likelihood the worst three teams are out of reach. Utah and LAL are our "competitors"...so let's say we are looking at finishing 4th, 5th or 6th. In some sense we control our own destiny - if we lose out, we will at worse split the 4-5 slot ping-pong balls with UTA.

Now, suppose Stevens goes all out and tries to win every game, and we end up with the 6th slot. This gives us a 6% chance at #1, a 22% chance at a top 3 pick and a 22% chance at a top 5 pick (because the 4th and 5th are never possibilities).

Alternatively, Stevens can do a few things to give us the best shot at the #4 pick. In reality this probably only means "tanking" for 2-3 games, because we have some tough games we'd probably lose anyway.

If we do that and end up 4th, we now have a 12% chance at #1, a 38% chance at top 3, and a whopping 83% at top 5.

We would be doubling our chances at the #1 pick, improving our odds at top 3 from 1 in 5 to 4 out of 10, and improving our odds at top 5 from around 1 in 5 (22%) to a better than 4 out of 5 (83%) chance.

To swing the odds this way, Stevens might have to do things like sit Rondo for a few games, reduce the minutes of anyone who's hot (say from 30 to 15) here and there, and maybe play some of our deep bench guys in the name of "giving them a look for next year."

To me these tradeoffs - particularly if they mean swinging us from a 22% chance at top 5 to an 83% chance of top 5 - are no-brainers. We're almost at the goal line and we're talking about doing a few things differently in maybe 3-4 games that would otherwise be winnable.

Curious to hear from those on the other side - why do you think it's worth it, in a season full of losing, to go all out over a few games when it reduces our chances of a top 5 pick from a great chance (83%) to basically a Hail Mary (22%)? What's the upside of doing that?

And please don't say "the lottery's a crapshoot" or provide counter-argument examples involving teams who in some past year won the lottery from a low slot. The odds are what they are, and the fact that things are random doesn't mean you should prefer 1 in 5 odds to 4 in 5 odds, or not care about the difference.

Because purposely losing is against the principles and covenants that this franchise was built upon. This franchise was built on playing the best basketball on the court that can be played and by outsmarting and out-scouting and out-coaching the competition. Every time we have purposely tried to lose the basketball gods rewarded us with a worse draft slot. Its a principle thing and I don't think that is a wrong stance to have.

You play to win. Its really that simple. Don't want to win. Forfeit and don't show up.

Really Nick? You think there's divine intervention that punishes teams who sit their good players at the very end of the season?

I guess we're done talking about it then.

No of course not. I was just colorfully pointing out its never worked out for us in the past. The main point is that its a principle thing.

Also for me, I just can't make myself cheer or root for my team to lose, no matter what. I abhor the pro tanking cheers for losing that have littered this blog for the past 6-7 months. Just disgusting, IMHO.

I think you're underestimating how much better the average Nba gm has become due to statistics and available data. Even the internet has evened the playing field significantly with sites like draft express giving so much info about particular players. An example of this would be Giannis on Milwaukee where 5 years ago I don't think the bucks take him with their pick...and he'd be known considerably less to nba teams overall.
Danny's skill of picking roses out of the concrete has been washed considerably now that our front offices analytical systems are being replicated by teams like Houston,Phoenix and Toronto. The advantage is smaller so the pick position is even more crucial.

I also think the argument of whether or not tanking is acceptable from a GM standpoint or coaching standpoint vs going out there to win every game is pointless because they're subjective opinion in the end. The fact is that we all love the celtics and want what we perceive is the best possible outcome for our green machine. Some of us think that the next championship is more important and mathematically more likely to come by with the assistance of a top lottery pick. Some of us think developing young talent and teaching them to win is more important. We are both correct to an extent.
I will say that if you think there isn't a difference between picking between 4th and 8th then you're crazy, particularly with the newer era of GMs out there and the scouting info available. This isn't 1996 with guys like tony Parker and Ginobli all being snapped up by the Spurs- or rondos incredible on/off court influence at Kentucky not being interpreted the way Danny Ainge did so in 2006.
It's a different ball game. Maths doesn't lie.
Think of it like a poker game. Luck is involved but math and timing play an even more important part.