Michael Carter-Williams: Don't Talk to Me About Tanking

[celticsclay]

I agree that the only reason the Sixers are getting so much widespread ire is because they're blatantly going about what everyone else has been doing forever. That's absolutely true.

Well that and they are a poor reflection of the NBA right now. As I have mentioned in other posts, Philly has basically taken away an NBA game from every team's schedule. There is now an exhibition game where most teams will only play their stars for a half because the game is decided.  It is not enjoyable for the fans to go watch a game where one team is down 45-10 in the second quarter. It is not enjoyable to watch a team lose by 40 points on back to back to back nights.

If my players start pointing at the scoreboard during the game because when they don't play defense because their spirit has been broken, I realize I have made a mistake. Maybe sign a few guys like Rashard Lewis, Kenyon Martin or Al Harrington just to teach my guys about life in the NBA and to try and bring a level of some respectability to the team. Maybe those moves mean they win 12 games instead of 8, but there is definitely a price to be paid for a team losing by 30-40 every night and it has gone on far too long.

[Endless Paradise]

I agree that the only reason the Sixers are getting so much widespread ire is because they're blatantly going about what everyone else has been doing forever. That's absolutely true.

Well that and they are a poor reflection of the NBA right now. As I have mentioned in other posts, Philly has basically taken away an NBA game from every team's schedule. There is now an exhibition game where most teams will only play their stars for a half because the game is decided.  It is not enjoyable for the fans to go watch a game where one team is down 45-10 in the second quarter. It is not enjoyable to watch a team lose by 40 points on back to back to back nights.

They've been blown out twice out of their eight games so far; every other game was competitive right through the last quarter, where the Sixers' inexperience showed and they couldn't close out.  Yes, I know they've got several double-digit losses outside of the two aforementioned blowouts. If you analyze those games, you'll see that they were in those games up until about midway through the fourth quarter.  Kinda sounds very similar to last year's Celtics, doesn't it?

Other teams that have been dominated pretty much from start to finish in a game as often as the Sixers this season: the Lakers (three times), the Knicks (three times), the Nuggets (three times), the Mavericks, and the Jazz.

Somehow only the Sixers receive criticism for delivering an "unwatchable" product, yet it's totally fine that the Lakers are running out the team they've got this season?  Fans don't mind watching Carlos Boozer brick midrange shot after midrange shot while shouting "AYEEEEEE!" or the Knicks make halfhearted attempts at running the triangle for about half a quarter before they just give up and revert to ineffective iso basketball?  It's more honorable to watch veterans struggle in a blowout than young guys?  Is veteran effort more aesthetically pleasing?  I just don't get it.

Bad teams are bad teams and they are not fun to watch, especially if they're getting wrecked.  It seems beyond silly to suggest that the Sixers getting blown out is somehow more egregious than when it's happened to the Lakers this season. Hell, the Sixers aren't even on national TV, unlike the Lakers.  They're both train wrecks, but only one team is getting disproportionate attention for "intentionally losing."

[celticsclay]

I agree that the only reason the Sixers are getting so much widespread ire is because they're blatantly going about what everyone else has been doing forever. That's absolutely true.

Well that and they are a poor reflection of the NBA right now. As I have mentioned in other posts, Philly has basically taken away an NBA game from every team's schedule. There is now an exhibition game where most teams will only play their stars for a half because the game is decided.  It is not enjoyable for the fans to go watch a game where one team is down 45-10 in the second quarter. It is not enjoyable to watch a team lose by 40 points on back to back to back nights.

They've been blown out twice out of their eight games so far; every other game was competitive right through the last quarter, where the Sixers' inexperience showed and they couldn't close out.  Yes, I know they've got several double-digit losses outside of the two aforementioned blowouts. If you analyze those games, you'll see that they were in those games up until about midway through the fourth quarter.  Kinda sounds very similar to last year's Celtics, doesn't it?

Other teams that have been dominated pretty much from start to finish in a game as often as the Sixers this season: the Lakers (three times), the Knicks (three times), the Nuggets (three times), the Mavericks, and the Jazz.

Somehow only the Sixers receive criticism for delivering an "unwatchable" product, yet it's totally fine that the Lakers are running out the team they've got this season?  Fans don't mind watching Carlos Boozer brick midrange shot after midrange shot while shouting "AYEEEEEE!" or the Knicks make halfhearted attempts at running the triangle for about half a quarter before they just give up and revert to ineffective iso basketball?  It's more honorable to watch veterans struggle in a blowout than young guys?  Is veteran effort more aesthetically pleasing?  I just don't get it.

Bad teams are bad teams and they are not fun to watch, especially if they're getting wrecked.  It seems beyond silly to suggest that the Sixers getting blown out is somehow more egregious than when it's happened to the Lakers this season. Hell, the Sixers aren't even on national TV, unlike the Lakers.  They're both train wrecks, but only one team is getting disproportionate attention for "intentionally losing."

You are really trying to put lipstick on a pig with the 76ers and I am not sure why. Last year the 76ers had the worst two game loss differential in two games in NBA history. They also tied the record for most consecutive losses in a row. They lost last night by 53!

They are losing their games by an average of 17.6 points! That is 3 times the amount the Knicks are playing (who have also won 2 games by the way). Denver and the Lakers are bad, but again their point differential isn't in the same stratosphere as the 76ers. They also play in a much tougher western conference. By pretty much any metric you use they are historically bad right now. Do you really not get that?

[Endless Paradise]

Because something tells me that "well, your team is terrible, but at least your point differential isn't as bad as the Sixers'!" isn't exactly going to comfort Kobe Bryant.

Historically terrible versus classically terrible - they're both still terrible.  I'm really expected to believe that the Sixers would find solace in the fact that they're winless if they were losing their games by an average of 10 points instead or something?

[D.o.s.]

Agreed. They're awful, but a lot of the OHMAHGERD THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE IN THE HISTORY OF THE NBA bandwagoning is borne of mouthpiece reporters who are feeding out negative vibes from other owners (who don't like the fact that the Sixers are losing them money in gate receipts) and general managers (who don't have owners that allow them to get away with a Philly styled plan).

[celticsclay]

Because something tells me that "well, your team is terrible, but at least your point differential isn't as bad as the Sixers'!" isn't exactly going to comfort Kobe Bryant.

Historically terrible versus classically terrible - they're both still terrible.  I'm really expected to believe that the Sixers would find solace in the fact that they're winless if they were losing their games by an average of 10 points instead or something?

Well point differential is actually pretty important and obviously tied to their ability to win games. They have had two games where they had a chance to win. Their margins in the other game mean they really had no chance to win. Also, the scary part is that Philly has already lost out on 3 of the easiest games they will have all season. They lost to Indiana at home when they were missing close to their entire starting 5, they lost to the bucks on the road and a bad orlando team at home missing oladipo. Its scary that their most winnable game this month will be at home against the celtics. If they don't beat the celtics they very well could make it into december without a win.

Also, I am still not sure how are you still arguing there is no difference between historically terrible and simply terrible. This whole thread started because of an article where one of their key players talked about how much it bothered him to have all the media around when they were on the verge of setting the record for consecutive losses. That stuff, that upset a key player, happened because it was historical terrible instead of regular terrible. If that difference doesn't emphasis why it is important to you , I don't know what will.

[D.o.s.]

That article, it should be pointed out, was brutally PR'd to the point of no return -- like everything that site publishes.

[Endless Paradise]

That same article also had MCW discussing how he discounts the media narratives and is only further motivated to succeed by the losing he's currently experiencing, so...

By the way, of course point differential is going to be skewed when you're dealing with an eight-game sample size and two extreme losses.  Why you're choosing to focus on that rather than what I pointed out about their first six games, I don't know, but there's that, I guess.

[D.o.s.]

[celticsclay]

That same article also had MCW discussing how he discounts the media narratives and is only further motivated to succeed by the losing he's currently experiencing, so...

By the way, of course point differential is going to be skewed when you're dealing with an eight-game sample size and two extreme losses.  Why you're choosing to focus on that rather than what I pointed out about their first six games, I don't know, but there's that, I guess.

It was difficult to respond to the rest of your post because it was kind of incoherent. Here is what you typed
"They've been blown out twice out of their eight games so far; every other game was competitive right through the last quarter, where the Sixers' inexperience showed and they couldn't close out.  Yes, I know they've got several double-digit losses outside of the two aforementioned blowouts. If you analyze those games, you'll see that they were in those games up until about midway through the fourth quarter.  Kinda sounds very similar to last year's Celtics, doesn't it?

The 76ers played some very weak teams and were in the games for 3 quarters. While this is more encouraging than their 30 point loss to the raptors, or the 53 point demolishing at the hands of the mavericks it is still pretty bad to be losing to some of the worst teams in the NBA, especially on your home floor. Their games at home against Indiana without their starting 5 and at home against Orlando with no Oladipo were probably the easiest scheduled games they will have all season. It is bad that they lost those both and increases their chances of setting a league record for fewest wins. I think comparing them to last year's celtics team is pretty insulting to the celtics. It reminds me of when David Kahn wanted to compare the passing of Darko Mililic to Chris Webber. Until the 76ers at least win a game, please don't try to make that comparison. 


Other teams that have been dominated pretty much from start to finish in a game as often as the Sixers this season: the Lakers (three times), the Knicks (three times), the Nuggets (three times), the Mavericks, and the Jazz."

I don't really get entirely what you are saying here. Are these all instances of a team being dominated from start to finish? Why are the Mavericks and Jazz mentioned? The clippers got completely thumped by Golden State, should they be on this weird random list? I realize blowouts happen and are a part of the game but all those teams you have mentioned have at least won a game and will almost certainly win more games before Philly wins their first. Comparing them to Philly is also just insulting. 

I guess you will still be defending them if they start to lose sponsors because nobody is watching their games or Silver fines them for conduct detrimental to the league. The 76ers are a problem and an embarrassment to the NBA. Why fans don't want to admit the issues with the team they have put together is beyond me.

[LooseCannon]

Philly sportswriter Bob Cooney:

MCW didn't get back on D. Brown yelled at him to get back then went to talk to him during stoppage. MCW appeared to point to scoreboard

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

Players may not tank but is it really hard to believe players don't play as well as they could because they know they can't win? Players play harder when there is something to win (like in the playoffs). It's hard to ask players to go out and give their all when they are that young, already paid millions, on a crappy team. Some will still give max effort because they are that way no matter what but you can't tell me a lot of players don't coast on natural ability b/c they know their team sucks. These are "kids" we are talking about.

A number of these guys on the Sixers are second rounders and undrafted players with largely nonguaranteed contracts for the minimum.  They literally cannot afford to not play with full effort.

I get that but I'm talking as a whole, it's rare to see a team full of DL players, lots of players coast on bad teams.

I would suspect that apathy would be more of an issue with accomplished vets more so than rookies looking to make a name for themselves and establish earning potential for the future.  If anything, I would think the issue with rookies on bad teams is that they'd try too hard to prove themselves.

Maybe. If we weren't talking about a bunch of guys who came from little to no money and now are rich, and young. That's partially why people play better as they get older, a lot of their mentalities change and they mature. They learn what it takes to actually win in the NBA.

Thing is that as a rookie, you're limited with the money you can make.  Sure, $1 million is a lot of money if you're coming from relatively modest upbringings, but that's a pittance as an NBA player.  I really can't think of many notable cases of a guy on a rookie deal just resting on his laurels once he was drafted.  I can recall far more instances of veteran players working super hard in a contract year, getting a great contract, and then checking out.

So you have never heard of young players who play better for their second contracts? People quit jobs they ENJOY when they hit the lotto of just 1m or less, what makes you think NBA players are different (different species or something)? They may not quit but they are rich, young, and a lot of times immature... I have no doubt that a lot of them don't work or play as hard as they can when they KNOW they can't win, as I said they don't always do it when they play for good teams. I just don't understand why you think being young/rookie means you are going to play and work hard. These kids are worried about spoiling friends and family, spending like ballers, and partying. Of course not all but I'd bet a large majority do.

Be honest, you are young, rich for the first time, get all the women you want (no matter how good you are), and not many people tell you no. Are you worried about being the best and playing hard all the time on one of the worst teams in history/bad team or are you coasting more on your abilities and enjoying life?

You could be right that they don't coast on bad teams but I just don't believe it.

I think there are players, and non players, who coast from time to time. That's sort of a given, unless you're Kenneth Faried or something. But I do think that MCW made a solid point about how hard it takes to work to get to the NBA, and a lot of people who are good enough mentally and physically to get in wouldn't automatically default to 'eff it, I'm rich."

Exactly this, especially since they're only rich relative to the common person; they're basically a step above poor compared to their veteran counterparts, which I feel serves as more than enough motivation in most cases.

On another note, I think all of the "LOSING CULTURE" rhetoric is grossly overstated, too.  Talented players can overcome bad situations.  Kevin Love, Steph Curry, John Wall -- all examples of guys not in that KD/Anthony Davis-echelon of talent who endured multiple losing seasons in their first few years, but have gone on to become successful players in their own rights.  Hell, the only reason Kevin Love is not a Timberwolf this season is because David Khan and Glen Taylor are idiots and didn't offer him the five year contract extension he was seeking.

I doubt Brook Lopez really cares about the fact that his Nets team won 12 games out of 82 a couple of seasons ago.  It may have had a profound impact on a guy like CDR, but he's a role player and entirely replaceable.  Philly is trying to find those Lopez-type of players.

When you come from poverty, relatively rich is a lot to you. I don't mean that they wont continue to work. I am saying they won't work as hard and play as hard as they can. I don't mean they eat themselves into Shaq.

[Endless Paradise]

The two teams that blew out the Sixers were the Raptors and the Mavericks.  Those teams are both widely praised as being contenders.  You are being completely dishonest if you are saying those teams are "some of the worst in the NBA."  That's not up for debate; you're simply off-base and laughably wrong.

That said, they lost relatively competitive games to the Bulls, the Rockets, and the Heat -- three teams that are all projected as playoff squads, and in the case of the Bulls, are widely viewed as Eastern Conference Finalists.  They also lost games to the Magic, the Bucks, and the current-day Pacers.  Are those three among the worst in the league?  Sure, I guess.  The Magic have a bunch of losses, but they've played every single one of their opponents super close.  The Bucks grossly underperformed largely last season due to injuries.  The Pacers?  They're Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.  They'll lose to the Celtics one day and beat the Heat the next day.  What do I take from those losses?  Any team can lose to any other team.  Whoopty-doo.  The Celtics lost to a hobbled OKC squad after holding a 15-point lead, yet I don't see you bringing that up.

And am I supposed to look at their opponent's injuries and somehow view the Sixers' losses as even worse?  Their starting point guard and reigning Rookie of the Year was missing for all those games save for yesterday's.  However, I guess that's not relevant, but the fact that team X was missing player Y must be brought up because how DARE the Sixers (without MCW) lose to another bad team that happens to be missing player Y?

I don't really get entirely what you are saying here. Are these all instances of a team being dominated from start to finish? Why are the Mavericks and Jazz mentioned? The clippers got completely thumped by Golden State, should they be on this weird random list?

Yes, those are all teams getting dominated from start to finish.  No, there's no difference between the Clippers getting "completely thumped by Golden State" and the Sixers getting dominated by the Mavericks and the Raptors.  All three of the teams that won are good.

[Endless Paradise]

Oh, hey, there's the Sixers in another game up until the last possession, this time against the Rockets.  But, you know, those two blowouts are more indicative of what we should expect from them.  Mockery, game, disgrace, etc.

[slamdunk]

NBA should ban teams that win less than 25 games from getting a top 3 pick. If the 76ers want to go 0-82, they get to pick 4th.