2024-2025 Tank Race

[FrenchJazzFa]

Tanking is not easy specially when you have 8 or 10 teams doing the same things. Last game we did our best sitting all the starters but others players play also for their place in NBA.

 

[David Hume]

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.

Lo! I contribute to this site regularly yet I see no evidence of commitment to empiricism and opposition to metaphysics. My voice is loud, some might argue fanatical, yet opposing views concerning the mythical powers of Churros continue to proliferate.

Melo, thy slayer of Jazz, also provides heterodox views.

 

[David Hume]

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.

Still theoretically possible for the pick to convey to OKC. Maybe a board meltdown would occur.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

TOR wins by 3
WAS loses by 14

 

[fishonjazz]

The Jazz chose to tank

This right here is the key. Nothing else in these tank vs non tank discussions really matters.

The jazz chose to tank. So if you are a Jazz fan then you should want their plan to succeed. Therefore we should all be rooting for losses as that is the goal of the franchise currently.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

This right here is the key. Nothing else in these tank vs non tank discussions really matters.

The jazz chose to tank. So if you are a Jazz fan then you should want their plan to succeed. Therefore we should all be rooting for losses as that is the goal of the franchise currently.

Basketball is about winning games. That's it. That's the whole idea. Beating the other team by scoring more points.

Win enough games and you might also win a championship. That's great, but... it's just a side effect. A word someone invented. It fades away.

I have no problem admitting I'm not a galaxy brain tanker playing 4D chess. I'm a simple man who likes the excitement of two teams battling in the moment.

The "treadmill"? Meaning you're a perennial playoff team, routinely winning 50 games in a season but perhaps never quite getting over that hump?

Bring it on. The treadmill is a hundred times better than this cynical, soul-destroying crap.

 

[idiot]

Do we really understand the lotto odds? (And if I'm mathematically wrong, somebody please correct me))

The odds difference between the worst record and the 4th worst record for getting the #1 pick (or you might just say Cooper Flagg) matters mathematically only once every 67 years.
The odds difference between the worst record and the 5th worst for getting the #1 pick matters once every 29 years.

This just might be one of those years, of course, but it is highly unlikely.
That's why the cost of getting as bad a record as possible (sending out good players for bad returns, for example) needs to be factored in in relation to these odds.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Do we really understand the lotto odds? (And if I'm mathematically wrong, somebody please correct me))

The odds difference between the worst record and the 4th worst record for getting the #1 pick (or you might just say Cooper Flagg) matters mathematically only once every 67 years.
The odds difference between the worst record and the 5th worst for getting the #1 pick matters once every 29 years.

It just might be one of those years, of course, but it is highly unlikely.
That's why the cost of getting as bad a record as possible (sending out good players for bad returns, for example) needs to be factored in in relation to these odds.

Your last point is a good one. However: for me, the relatively flattened, current odds make it all the more imperative to assure your non-lottery placing (worst record guaranteed no worse than 5th pick).

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Basketball is about winning games. That's it. That's the whole idea. Beating the other team by scoring more points.

Win enough games and you might also win a championship. That's great, but... it's just a side effect. A word someone invented. It fades away.

I have no problem admitting I'm not a galaxy brain tanker playing 4D chess. I'm a simple man who likes the excitement of two teams battling in the moment.

The "treadmill"? Meaning you're a perennial playoff team, routinely winning 50 games in a season but perhaps never quite getting over that hump?

Bring it on. The treadmill is a hundred times better than this cynical, soul-destroying crap.

Being a perennial 50 win "treadmill" team you still need a top 20 player, which requires tanking. But I agree with your overall sentiment that 10 years of 50 wins is just as good as a championship with a 3 year peak with 7 bad to mediocre years

 

[NUMBERICA]

Being a perennial 50 win "treadmill" team you still need a top 20 player, which requires tanking. But I agree with your overall sentiment that 10 years of 50 wins is just as good as a championship with a 3 year peak with 7 bad to mediocre years

The treadmill simply means extremely low odds and opportunities for improvement. Since odds of hitting on, let’s say, a tier-3 player (high-level starter, maybe one-time all-star) falls off a cliff after the ~10th pick, you could miss the playoffs every year and still not get better. This can also apply to a 50-win team who throws around draft picks in bad trades and make little effort to develop prospects.

People always mention franchises like the Kings or Knicks as examples of why tanking doesn’t work, when these are actually examples of teams that have a long history of faceplanting when trying to skip steps (one of the most important steps is, at minimum, being patient with development and/or embracing the opportunity to draft high and build through that path).

There is no strategy that will certainly lead to the mountain top, but being diligent and patient in building from the ground up is the most sound for achieving such excellence and maintaining it. There is room for debate as to the particulars of how that takes shape (holding onto win-now talent which necessitates throwing games, organically depleting your roster of win-now talent and playing to win, everything in between), but I think it’s contextual, and I think there is a pretty robust argument for starting your earnest efforts at winning games once you’ve acquired a (demonstrably) blue-chip prospect.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

Do we really understand the lotto odds? (And if I'm mathematically wrong, somebody please correct me))

The odds difference between the worst record and the 4th worst record for getting the #1 pick (or you might just say Cooper Flagg) matters mathematically only once every 67 years.
The odds difference between the worst record and the 5th worst for getting the #1 pick matters once every 29 years.

It just might be one of those years, of course, but it is highly unlikely.
That's why the cost of getting as bad a record as possible (sending out good players for bad returns, for example) needs to be factored in in relation to these odds.

I see what you did there, but it's still easier for me to think of it as a 1.5% higher probability vs mattering once every 67 years.

For this particular draft I think there are 2 or 3 players worth tanking for, so the difference in odds between the top 3 and 5th best odds at a top 3 pick is 8.5%. Then, as Numberica said, you have to factor in the difference in the worst case scenario as well. I'm not sure there is a huge difference at the moment between the 4th best prospect and 8th best prospect, but you obviously want the first pick of that group and there could be more separation between those prospects as the draft gets closer.

On the other hand there is opportunity cost of holding on to players you don't plan on keeping long term. I broke out some of those considerations in another post.

FWIW, I think that in general I agree with your overall stance that we shouldn't just firesale our vets to lose a couple of more games.

 

[homeytennis]

I see what you did there, but it's still easier for me to think of it as a 1.5% higher probability vs mattering once every 67 years.

For this particular draft I think there are 2 or 3 players worth tanking for, so the difference in odds between the top 3 and 5th best odds at a top 3 pick is 8.5%. Then, as Numberica said, you have to factor in the difference in the worst case scenario as well. I'm not sure there is a huge difference at the moment between the 4th best prospect and 8th best prospect, but you obviously want the first pick of that group and there could be more separation between those prospects as the draft gets closer.

On the other hand there is opportunity cost of holding on to players you don't plan on keeping long term. I broke out some of those considerations in another post.

FWIW, I think that in general I agree with your overall stance that we shouldn't just firesale our vets to lose a couple of more games.

The Jazz business model changed radically when the Miller family sold to Ryan. The Millers needed to make the playoffs and have a couple of playoff series to show a profit. This doesn't appear to be in Ryan's thoughts at the moment. I realize the greater good trying to be achieved but man tanking is miserable.

 

[idiot]

Your last point is a good one. However: for me, the relatively flattened, current odds make it all the more imperative to assure your non-lottery placing (worst record guaranteed no worse than 5th pick).

Yes, I understand that the 5th pick is where the lotto odds make a real difference. I'm not sure that I think in most years (I don't yet have an opinion for this year) the difference between the 5th and the 6th or 7th picks is really all that significant.

But it's an arguable point.

 

[Tanktastic]

The jazz chose to tank. So if you are a Jazz fan then you should want their plan to succeed. Therefore we should all be rooting for losses as that is the goal of the franchise currently.

I think anyone can also choose how they support their team.

If Ryan had chosen to go all-in with Rudy & Donovan, and to strengthen the team by trading any and all assets... would you have been cheering all of those decisions?

Also, if only tanking matters and next summer's pick is the be-all and end-all, can everyone then also stop talking about youth development. Sensabaugh having mysterious two-week illnesses (where he still sits on the bench...) is the decision, not playing and/or developing him. All six picks are wasted. And how well is the plan then going?

 

[KqWIN]

Humans can't process probability well, it's why I have a job and also why my job is being taken over AI Having said that, I think a big argument for tanking is that there often isn't much incentive to not tank. There's really no point to having players that are non-essential to the future. I think for guys like Lauri and Walker, it's more clear that it's worth whatever tanking cost they are worth (though Lauri's contract is getting sketchy). It would depend on the trade package return for them. But for guys like John and Sexton, you have to ask that question as to what their future is beyond their current deals. As you're tanking, their winning value is strictly negative. I don't look back at many of the vets we traded and think we made a mistake and wish we still had them. The opposite is true, I wish we traded them earlier.

One of the reasons why I liked this roster going into the year is that I don't think we had much non-essential personal. Everyone was either a young player, a player that will be good for the distant future, or a bad salary that would cost something to get rid of. In other words, everyone had a purpose and/or reason for being on the team. Only issue with how it's played out IMO is that we have basically nerfed Sexton's trade value. If that was the plan, he should have already been gone. I don't really see a future for him here beyond his current deal (and he's easily replaceable), so I'd consider him a player with no purpose on this roster.

BTW, we should include ADP in this calculation, not just the #1 pick odds if we're going to be so specific about what we should consider. ADP is still very close, much and much tighter than people realize IMO, but we should be fair on both sides. Odds at #1 is not the only reason why a higher lotto position is more valuable.

 

[fishonjazz]

Being a perennial 50 win "treadmill" team you still need a top 20 player, which requires tanking. But I agree with your overall sentiment that 10 years of 50 wins is just as good as a championship with a 3 year peak with 7 bad to mediocre years

I agree as well.
I loved all the years of making the playoffs with the dwill teams and the gobert teams (and Malone/Stockton) and was never one of the people bitching about them. I have never been championship or bust type of fan. I like winning regular season games.
I would have loved for the jazz to have kept Mitchell and gobert (or one or the other) and kept building to win.

But the jazz decided to tank. So let's ****ing tank. Don't **** around.
If I have to watch a garbage team lose game after game then I want the best chance at the best possible reward so let's ****ing go. Hold more players out. If we are down by 1 point with the ball and 5 seconds left then let's draw up a play for a eubanks 3.

 

[fishonjazz]

I think anyone can also choose how they support their team.

If Ryan had chosen to go all-in with Rudy & Donovan, and to strengthen the team by trading any and all assets... would you have been cheering all of those decisions?

Of course you can always root for your team to fail to achieve their goal. No one would ever say you can't. Seems strange to me though.

100% I would have cheered on going all in with Rudy and Donovan. I loved winning way more games than we lost and I love playoff games even when they dont lead to a championship.

 

[KqWIN]

Adding onto the "value of tanking" discussion. This matrix displays the percentage of time one team finishes above the other as a result of the lottery. For example, the first lotto team will finish ahead of the fourth lotto team 62.28% of the time.

 

[idiot]

BTW, we should include ADP in this calculation, not just the #1 pick odds if we're going to be so specific about what we should consider. ADP is still very close, much and much tighter than people realize IMO, but we should be fair on both sides. Odds at #1 is not the only reason why a higher lotto position is more valuable.

Not familiar with ADP -- please inform me what this means.

 

[idiot]

I see what you did there, but it's still easier for me to think of it as a 1.5% higher probability vs mattering once every 67 years.

If we can't see how these are both true, then I don't think we're properly understanding the odds.

In fact, I think the number-of-years-to-have-an-effect number is probably more useful in actually understanding how the odds work because it puts into better perspective how likely the differential odds are to make a difference this year (1 in 67 chance, for example)

So whenever James Hansen or Jazz Twitter (thank goodness we don't have most of these problems here) tell us that we're ruining our chances of getting Cooper Flagg because we're decreasing our odds, just remind yourself that the number of years for these reduced odds to matter mathematically is several decades.