2024-2025 Tank Race

[FrenchJazzFa]

Other teams seem to have no problem finding building blocks in the top 10.


Are you kidding me? They sat Lauri with a fake injury, "rested" Kessler (LOL), Collins has apparently dropped off the face of the earth and there's all kinds of G-League level players out there instead.

As has been said time and time again, the players are going to compete hard, they're fighting for their professional futures and have no incentive to tank. On the contrary.

WTF do people want.

That's a good point. An ex NBA player playing now in European League say, In NBA , people fight for their contract, in Europe they fight for their team. Not totally wrong. You can expect from young guys who wanna play in NBA ( and get the Money involved) n to play hard and trying to show up. Tanking is a FO and coach responsibility. At mid season, Hardy should have learn it. End games with players who have good contract already and no incentive to play well as they are interest of tanking to get better soon.
Tonight is not a good example as most of the starters were not available.

Charlotte ,NO end most of the games with the starters, and keep losing.

 

[Schrödinger's Gerbil]

Sound familiar to anyone?

Fisher, B. (2012). Fandom, identity, and online communities: A review of sports fan studies. Sport in Society, 15(5), 720-734.

This paper discusses the role of fandom in digital spaces, where extreme loyalty and commitment to a team can sometimes result in the marginalization of opposing viewpoints and lead to highly vocal and passionate fan factions dominating online discussions.

Brinkmann, S. (2014). Fanaticism in Sports Fandom: The Role of Social Media in the Development of Team Identity. Journal of Sports and Social Issues, 38(3), 203-221.

Brinkmann’s study looks at how social media platforms amplify the voices of the most fanatical fans. Extreme behaviors often dominate online discussions, leading to an environment where these extreme voices are more visible than the more moderate fans.

Kassing, J. W., & Sanderson, J. (2010). Fan or foe? Examining the role of social media in the development of online sports fan communities. Journal of Sports Communication, 4(3), 367-388.

This research examines the role of social media in building and maintaining fan communities. It highlights how the highly emotional and zealous behavior of fans often leads to the formation of polarized, extreme subgroups that can dominate discussions and influence the broader community.

Harris, R., & Waddington, I. (2005). Social media and fan fanaticism: Understanding the online dynamics of modern fandom. Communication & Sport, 4(2), 183-202.

This article looks at how social media platforms have changed the way fans interact with each other, and how more fanatical voices often rise to prominence in these digital spaces.

Trepte, S., & Reinecke, L. (2010). Sports fandom as a form of entertainment in online communities. Journal of Media Psychology, 22(2), 95-103.

Trepte and Reinecke analyze the motivations behind sports fandom. The study explains how the most zealous fans dominate the conversation.

Gantz, W., & Wenner, L. A. (1991). Fanatic behavior in sports: A research agenda. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 15(3), 213-227.

This foundational article addresses fanaticism within the context of sports fandom. It outlines how deeply engaged fans often control online fan communities through their passionate contributions. These individuals tend to set the tone for discussions and can overshadow more neutral or balanced viewpoints.

 

[Strutter]

Well after seeing the data what do you think?

I think it shows top 5 picks are usually important for a finals team. Sometimes that means you're picking a bona fide superstar for your team. Sometimes that means you're getting that bona fide superstar in free agency. And sometimes that means you're getting a solid contributor to pair with a star.

I'm pro tanking overall, and I hope we get to bottom out this year and get a top 5 pick. But it was also a small reminder that sometimes that superstar is a bit of a diamond in the rough (Giannis, Curry, Kobe, Butler, and of course Jokic)

 

[Rubashov]

Sound familiar to anyone?

Fisher, B. (2012). Fandom, identity, and online communities: A review of sports fan studies. Sport in Society, 15(5), 720-734.

This paper discusses the role of fandom in digital spaces, where extreme loyalty and commitment to a team can sometimes result in the marginalization of opposing viewpoints and lead to highly vocal and passionate fan factions dominating online discussions.

Brinkmann, S. (2014). Fanaticism in Sports Fandom: The Role of Social Media in the Development of Team Identity. Journal of Sports and Social Issues, 38(3), 203-221.

Brinkmann’s study looks at how social media platforms amplify the voices of the most fanatical fans. Extreme behaviors often dominate online discussions, leading to an environment where these extreme voices are more visible than the more moderate fans.

Kassing, J. W., & Sanderson, J. (2010). Fan or foe? Examining the role of social media in the development of online sports fan communities. Journal of Sports Communication, 4(3), 367-388.

This research examines the role of social media in building and maintaining fan communities. It highlights how the highly emotional and zealous behavior of fans often leads to the formation of polarized, extreme subgroups that can dominate discussions and influence the broader community.

Harris, R., & Waddington, I. (2005). Social media and fan fanaticism: Understanding the online dynamics of modern fandom. Communication & Sport, 4(2), 183-202.

This article looks at how social media platforms have changed the way fans interact with each other, and how more fanatical voices often rise to prominence in these digital spaces.

Trepte, S., & Reinecke, L. (2010). Sports fandom as a form of entertainment in online communities. Journal of Media Psychology, 22(2), 95-103.

Trepte and Reinecke analyze the motivations behind sports fandom. The study explains how the most zealous fans dominate the conversation.

Gantz, W., & Wenner, L. A. (1991). Fanatic behavior in sports: A research agenda. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 15(3), 213-227.

This foundational article addresses fanaticism within the context of sports fandom. It outlines how deeply engaged fans often control online fan communities through their passionate contributions. These individuals tend to set the tone for discussions and can overshadow more neutral or balanced viewpoints.

Academic articles on Jazzfanz? Is this a highpoint or a low point? I'm so confused.

 

[Shad]

I'm going to be really sad when we beat the hornets twice in the next coming days

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I'm going to be really sad when we beat the hornets twice in the next coming days

If we sit players like we did vs Brooklyn I think it's a loss.

 

[underdog]

I'm curious: Can anyone guess the odds that a #1 draft pick will lead the team that drafted it to 1) an NBA championship or 2) an NBA final?

Answer: 1) Since 2000, 8.3%. 2) Since 2000, 20.8%. The only #1 picks to win an NBA championship with the team that drafted it since 2000 are LeBron James and Kyrie Irving. The only #1 picks to go to a finals with the team that drafted it since 2000 are James, Irving, Kenyon Martin, and DeAndre Ayton. (Percentage calculated by the number of #1 picks winning a championship or going to the finals with the team that drafted it divided by the number of #1 picks over the time period.)

The odds that draft picks 1-5 will lead the team that drafted it to an NBA championship or NBA final since 2000 are 5% and 10.8%. Besides Lebron, Kyrie, Martin, and Ayton, they include Durant (#2); Harden, Brown, Tatum, and Luka (#3); Westbrook and Tristan Thompson (#4, although Thompson was a role player at that point); and Wade (#5).

(Quick caveat: I did the calculations quickly, so I may be off a bit here or there, but it should not affect the general order of magnitude.)

Conclusion: By historical standards, the odds that Cooper Flagg or any other person drafted by the Jazz as part of their structural teardown tank will lead the Jazz to an NBA championship are remote. The odds that they lead the Jazz to the NBA finals are no better than 1 in 5.

Now, we come to the cost-benefit question. Are 5-6 years (likely duration) of sucking worth it for such paltry odds? For those who tout Wembenyama as a successful structural tank, keep in mind that 1) there's no guarantee the Spurs will win anything, and 2) the Spurs' average winning percentage for the last five years was 37%. Five years is not an unsubstantial amount of time for a fanbase to suffer through lousy basketball. Are Jazz fans prepared for the possibility of another 3-4 years, and possibly more, of sucking for the remote odds that hitting on a lottery pick will lead to a championship or even finals appearance?

Of course, this analysis omits any discussion of opportunity cost, i.e., what are the odds of success of alternative strategies? If we knew them, tanking might actually be the best strategy. Unfortunately, we can't answer this other than to say that no other team has won an NBA championship as the result of a structural tanking strategy. Every other team that's won an NBA championship has followed a different strategy to get there. Thus, the question: Why the irrational, exuberant confidence that the structural tanking strategy is the best (or even only) strategy to put the Jazz on the championship path?

Sure, tanking doesn't guarantee anything. We all know that. But let’s not forget why teams choose to tank. They do it because they believe it’s the best option for them in their situation. I’m not a fan of tanking. It sucks. But I support it if the alternatives are worse. Danny told us he might have to pivot if his big game hunting fails. And that is then what happened. So now, with a roster that has a lot of young players and isn't nearly good enough for the playoffs, we’ve got to stick with this and do everything we can to boost our odds of landing a top prospect. Why? Because it simply makes the most sense in our situation.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

If we sit players like we did vs Brooklyn I think it's a loss.

Good news is it seems Hornets and Pelicans are about as healthy as they ever get. So I won't complain. I don't think we will get as nasty as we did last night until after the trade deadline. If they did get that nasty I would support it but I would bet we get a note from the league.

 

[Tanktastic]

But let’s not forget why teams choose to tank. They do it because they believe it’s the best option for them in their situation.

Most tanking teams end up tanking, because it's the only option to get better.

In the pursuit of success or just simply because bad management, they've ended up with bad contracts, at best average players and their only way out is through their only assets: their own draft picks.

The Jazz chose to tank, because the new owner thought that he wants a dynasty team that's competing for the championship right at the top every year. He's of course not the only one who wants to make his mark immediately - someone like Mat Ishbia of the Suns just went a different route. (And is definitely one of the teams whose future might look like their only option is to tank in a few years time.)

 

[Zombie]

I think poring over historical data and assessing how many championship teams had X number of high draft picks, and whether or not they drafted/traded for/signed them in free agency, is kind of pointless. There are just so many variables at play that determined how those teams came together: status of the CBA at that time, teams' free agency desirability, trade assets, lottery odds, sheer unadulterated good luck etc. I just don't know how valuable that data is in making a judgment about what the best course of action is for any particular team today.

What IS clear, is that you need to have top level talent to compete at that level, and top level talent is overwhelmingly easier to find at the top of the draft than in the middle or bottom.

That said, I don't begrudge anyone for having a distaste for tanking, nor do I think that it is the only viable path forward, but every other path is also fraught with uncertainty.

 

[idiot]

Sure, tanking doesn't guarantee anything. We all know that. But let’s not forget why teams choose to tank. They do it because they believe it’s the best option for them in their situation. I’m not a fan of tanking. It sucks. But I support it if the alternatives are worse. Danny told us he might have to pivot if his big game hunting fails. And that is then what happened. So now, with a roster that has a lot of young players and isn't nearly good enough for the playoffs, we’ve got to stick with this and do everything we can to boost our odds of landing a top prospect. Why? Because it simply makes the most sense in our situation.

I think one of the problems (especially this year) is the unacknowledged assumption that tanking is easy. Sure, everyone agrees it sucks to lose a lot. But we don't often factor in that we're not the only ones playing this game. We tend to assume there's a fairly easy, straightforward path to the bottom. Especially this year, when you have anywhere between 5-7 teams making serious tanking bids, not all teams (or even most) that are trying to do this are going to succeed.

Finishing worst guarantees no better than a 5th pick. 2nd worst guarantees no better than a 6th pick.

And now we have a situation where it's looking more like a 2-player draft than the 6-player draft that we were promised before the season started.

As @Handlogten's Heros lamented a couple of days ago, we're trying hard at losing (losing even more than most teams that have had gotten great players through the draft in the past), yet we're only 5th in odds because the competition is so stiff this year.

You'd think that this all would change the calculations about whether tanking is the best/only thing to do in our situation. But it doesn't seem to for most people.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I think one of the problems (especially this year) is the unacknowledged assumption that tanking is easy. Sure, everyone agrees it sucks to lose a lot. But we don't often factor in that we're not the only ones playing this game. We tend to assume there's a fairly easy, straightforward path to the bottom. Especially this year, when you have anywhere between 5-7 teams making serious tanking bids, not all teams (or even most) that are trying to do this are going to succeed.

Finishing worst guarantees no better than a 5th pick. 2nd worst guarantees no better than a 6th pick.

And now we have a situation where it's looking more like a 2-player draft than the 6-player draft that we were promised before the season started.

As @Handlogten's Heros lamented a couple of days ago, we're trying hard at losing (losing even more than most teams that have had gotten great players through the draft in the past), yet we're only 5th in odds because the competition is so stiff this year.

You'd think that this all would change the calculations about whether tanking is the best/only thing to do in our situation. But it doesn't seem to for most people.

Yeah they have to separate the HUGE benefit of getting lucky in the draft with your team's record as much as possible. Its a conflict of interest. Smoothing the odds just made it less profitable on the top end.

I think there are some ways you could do it within the current system that may dissuade tanking and I have a completely different idea that would be pretty fun but I think these billionaire owners want "control" as that is how they have lived their non-basketball lives. So even this fake "control" will be hard to get from them.

I just want to lean into being the plucky underdog that can make the play in or at least not see us sitting so many guys and pulling the reigns back on guys for the sake of lotto odds.

 

[Agent#00]

was there a team penalized for tanking? I know cuban was fined for saying "were trying to lose games" , "losing was the only way" but was recorded in a podcast. They wanted a 10th pick

 

[underdog]

Most tanking teams end up tanking, because it's the only option to get better.

In the pursuit of success or just simply because bad management, they've ended up with bad contracts, at best average players and their only way out is through their only assets: their own draft picks.

The Jazz chose to tank, because the new owner thought that he wants a dynasty team that's competing for the championship right at the top every year. He's of course not the only one who wants to make his mark immediately - someone like Mat Ishbia of the Suns just went a different route. (And is definitely one of the teams whose future might look like their only option is to tank in a few years time.)

You’re absolutely right when you say tanking is often the only way for teams to get better. When that happens, they've got no choice but to tank. No other paths to improve. And that’s one of the reasons I find general discussions about tanking to be quite fruitless and uninteresting (like I think it was KqWIN who talked about this somewhere here). In other words, discussions about tanking without specific context/situations, without asking why teams tanked when they did, can get pretty muddy and meaningless.

 

[Schrödinger's Gerbil]

Let's take a look.

In this list, I'm only looking at players that were actually important to their teams. Not counting ring-hunting vets on the bench or whatever. You can argue some of these picks if you want, but the only player that would change the final percentage is Bogut on the Warriors. I counted him in 2015, but not in 2016.

2000: Lakers had Shaq (1st). Pacers had no top 5 picks.
2001: Lakers had Shaq (1st). 76ers had Iverson (1st) and Mutumbo (4th)
2002: Lakers had Shaq (1st). Nets had Kidd (2nd), Keith Van Horn (2nd), and Kenyon Martin (1st)
2003: Spurs had Duncan (1st) and Robinson (1st). Nets had Kidd (2nd) and Kenyon Martin (1st)
2004: Pistons had Rasheed (4th) and Billups (3rd). Lakers had Shaq (1st)
2005: Spurs had Duncan (1st). Pistons had Rasheed (4th) and Billups (3rd).
2006: Heat had Shaq (1st) and Wade (5th). Mavericks had no top 5 picks.
2007: Spurs had Duncan (1st). Cavs had LeBron (1st).
2008: Celtics had KG (5th) and Allen (5th). Lakers had Odom (4th) and Pau Gasol (3rd).
2009: Lakers had Odom (4th) and Pau Gasol (3rd). Magic had Dwight (1st).
2010: Lakers had Odom (4th) and Pau Gasol (3rd). Celtics had KG (5th) and Allen (5th).
2011: Mavs had Chandler (2nd) and Kidd (2nd). Heat had Wade (5th), LeBron (1st), and Bosh (4th).
2012: Heat had Wade (5th), LeBron (1st), and Bosh (4th). Thunder had Durant (2nd), Harden (3rd), and Westbrook (4th).
2013: Heat had Wade (5th), LeBron (1st), and Bosh (4th). Spurs had Duncan (1st).
2014: Spurs had Duncan (1st). Heat had Wade (5th), LeBron (1st), and Bosh (4th).
2015: Warriors had Bogut (1st)--kind of a stretch on this one. Cavs had LeBron (1st), Irving, (1st) and Love (5th).
2016: Cavs had LeBron (1st), Irving, (1st) and Love (5th). Warriors had no top 5 picks--gonna stop counting Bogut for this one.
2017: Warriors had Durant (2nd). Cavs had LeBron (1st), Irving, (1st) and Love (5th).
2018: Warriors had Durant (2nd). Cavs had LeBron (1st) and Love (5th).
2019: Raptors had no top 5 picks. Warriors had Durant (2nd) and Cousins (5th).
2020: Lakers had LeBron (1st), and Davis (1st). Heat had no top 5 picks.
2021: Bucks had no top 5 picks. Suns had Chris Paul (4th) and Ayton (1st).
2022: Warriors had Wiggins (1st). Celtics had Brown (3rd), Horford (3rd), and Tatum (3rd).
2023: Nuggets had Gordon (4th). Heat had no top 5 picks.
2024: Celtics had Brown (3rd), Tatum (3rd), and Porzingis (4th). Mavs had Doncic (3rd) and Irving (1st).

So over 25 years, that's 7 teams out of 50 that had at least one top 5 pick, or 14%. Honestly, a lot of those teams had 1st overall picks.

Keep in mind that one thing this list can't account for is how teams might have leveraged top 5 picks to get other talent.

Thank you for taking the time to do this. I think we're all in agreement that, on average, you're more likely to find allstars or superstars (however defined) at the top of the draft. Thus, drafing higher rather than lower is important, and it's one reason why high draft picks are valued so much. A salient point to me in this is that, in many of the above cases, the top 5 pick on the NBA finals team was drafted by someone else. Thus, were we to draft Flagg, by the time he leads a team to the championship, the historical odds are as good or better he'll do it for another team.

That's one possible counterargument to the insistence by some that the Jazz should completely strip its cupboard of talent to maximize its odds of winning the lottery (in the process focusing more on the relatively low odds of winning vs. the relatively high odds of not winning). If we strip the cupboard bare and end up landing Flagg, and he's as good as advertised, by the time he's ready to take a team to the championship, it won't be with us, both because youth usually doesn't win and because he had a weak supporting cast. Perhaps we use our draft picks to create a strong supporting cast, that might work. Still, it's all very uncertain, and the odds mitigate against it.

One reform I'd like to see in the NBA is a revision to the luxury tax rules that make it easier for teams to retain their home-grown talent. Teams shouldn't be penalized financially for drafting well.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

One reform I'd like to see in the NBA is a revision to the luxury tax rules that make it easier for teams to retain their home-grown talent. Teams shouldn't be penalized financially for drafting well.

Rules that make drafted guys easier to retain encourage tanking.

 

[underdog]

I think one of the problems (especially this year) is the unacknowledged assumption that tanking is easy. Sure, everyone agrees it sucks to lose a lot. But we don't often factor in that we're not the only ones playing this game. We tend to assume there's a fairly easy, straightforward path to the bottom. Especially this year, when you have anywhere between 5-7 teams making serious tanking bids, not all teams (or even most) that are trying to do this are going to succeed.

Finishing worst guarantees no better than a 5th pick. 2nd worst guarantees no better than a 6th pick.

And now we have a situation where it's looking more like a 2-player draft than the 6-player draft that we were promised before the season started.

As @Handlogten's Heros lamented a couple of days ago, we're trying hard at losing (losing even more than most teams that have had gotten great players through the draft in the past), yet we're only 5th in odds because the competition is so stiff this year.

You'd think that this all would change the calculations about whether tanking is the best/only thing to do in our situation. But it doesn't seem to for most people.

The stiff competition from other tanking teams doesn't change anything for me because our other option, sitting the kids and mainly playing just the vets, could give us another #10 pick or similar, or we could even lose the pick to the Thunder. We just have to dig in and beat the other tanking teams.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

It's pretty simple, either the Jazz get lucky enough to move up in the lottery, or they'll be choosing between Tre Johnson, Jeremiah Fears and VJ Edgecombe. I'm managing my expectations and planning on the latter.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Raptors pick up a win, so that's nice.

 

[KqWIN]

TOR actually won a close game...incredible.

They've got the worst "good" players in the league.