What's new
By:

The Utah Jazz and Tanking

I don't trust the lottery system now anyway - Stern won't abandon it because the lottery gives him total control. I am a conspiracy theorist and the lottery happening behind closed doors is (along with many other things in the NBA) far too suspect for me to trust.

But in spite of my firmly entrenched despondency I really do like this idea. It rewards effort. If you just miss the playoffs you still get rewarded with your pick of players. I mean, why should the crappiest team be rewarded for their lack of effort? Then you have what we've had for years - the clippers, kings, bobcats getting top pick after top pick and it's squandered on a perpetually crappy franchise. I see no problems with this idea. Seriously - "well, some team could just tank the first half the season and then turn it for the second half." -- are you kidding me? That is so incredibly preposterous I don't how to respond in any thoughtful manner. Just to repeat ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

But again, this idea would put control in the hands of the teams and their effort to win games. This would help the product the NBA puts out and I argue would help the game be more exciting and thus lucrative. But Stern thinks he knows best and must retain total control - so he'll keep the closed door lottery. Despondent me believes the conspiracy.
 
I really wish there was an easy answer here. Ideally, every night both teams and coaching staffs would do everything they can to win the game. That's what NBA basketball should be about. Anything less than that and I feel like the fans who fund this whole endeavor are being manipulated. In that perfect world, the worst team would deserve the top pick and so on.

Part of me wishes that incentive to lose could be eliminated completely by making the draft more randomly distributed. But then creeps in issues with competitive balance, geography, and how wealthy the various owners are.

Tanking is an insidious part of the current NBA. It can negatively affect all the teams including those who are involved. Think about it for a minute. Suppose two teams are fighting for a playoff spot and have similar records. Both of them have "tanking team" on their schedule twice. One team played them earlier in the year before the team had started to tank to improve their lottery chances and lost them both. The other team is scheduled to play that team twice after the team has begun to lose intentionally and wins the games easily. With as close as the rankings can be, those games could determine whether or not a team makes it into the playoffs or how the team is seeded. Obviously this is an extreme example, but I think that it could definitely have an effect.

Like I said, I don't know what the answer is, but I would love to see it eliminated in some way.
 
so why should a playoff worthy team that tanks the first half of the season be rewarded with the top pick every year?
 
mrob said:
I really wish there was an easy answer here. Ideally, every night both teams and coaching staffs would do everything they can to win the game. That's what NBA basketball should be about. Anything less than that and I feel like the fans who fund this whole endeavor are being manipulated. In that perfect world, the worst team would deserve the top pick and so on.

Part of me wishes that incentive to lose could be eliminated completely by making the draft more randomly distributed. But then creeps in issues with competitive balance, geography, and how wealthy the various owners are.

Tanking is an insidious part of the current NBA. It can negatively affect all the teams including those who are involved. Think about it for a minute. Suppose two teams are fighting for a playoff spot and have similar records. Both of them have "tanking team" on their schedule twice. One team played them earlier in the year before the team had started to tank to improve their lottery chances and lost them both. The other team is scheduled to play that team twice after the team has begun to lose intentionally and wins the games easily. With as close as the rankings can be, those games could determine whether or not a team makes it into the playoffs or how the team is seeded. Obviously this is an extreme example, but I think that it could definitely have an effect.

Like I said, I don't know what the answer is, but I would love to see it eliminated in some way.
Click to expand...

A true lottery where every team gets 5 balls and they just pick one at a time out until all 32 teams have picked. Completely random. Might be kind of cool. Or really uncool.
 
kennykyle said:
A true lottery where every team gets 5 balls and they just pick one at a time out until all 32 teams have picked. Completely random. Might be kind of cool. Or really uncool.
Click to expand...

The two worst scenarios would like come to fruition very quickly. 1) The actual worst (non-tanking) team with a dearth of talent can't improve in the draft. 2) A perennial powerhouse with no need for another great players gets the best picks.

I keep trying to think of ideas here, but each one has it's own way of being manipulated...
 
mrob said:
The two worst scenarios would like come to fruition very quickly. 1) The actual worst (non-tanking) team with a dearth of talent can't improve in the draft. 2) A perennial powerhouse with no need for another great players gets the best picks.

I keep trying to think of ideas here, but each one has it's own way of being manipulated...
Click to expand...

It cant be manipulated without the NBA rigging it, but some teams might have really bad luck and some really good luck. Who knows.
 
kennykyle said:
It cant be manipulated without the NBA rigging it, but some teams might have really bad luck and some really good luck. Who knows.
Click to expand...

I guess if I had my choice, my preferred system would be to have all the non-playoff teams with an equal shot of any of the 1-14 picks. It still benefits the teams that can't win enough games to get into the playoffs by giving them one of the top 14 picks every year, but gives very little incentive to lose games. The only question is with the borderline teams. Would it be worth losing a few games to slip out of the playoffs just for a 1 in 14 shot at #1. My guess is that's probably not enough incentive to actually make you not want to be in the playoffs. The teams that have no chance to get into the playoffs would have no incentive to lose additional games because their odds won't change.

Feel free to shoot holes in it. :)
 
A 1/14 chance is better than the odds now unless you are in the top 5 or so (just a guess), so teams around the 12,13,14 would have a bigger incentive to not make the playoffs than they would normally. Or maybe I'm wrong.
 
I don't trust the NBA so I'm against any closed lottery - like we have now. And being a fan of the perpetually pretty good Jazz, I'm all for the top pick going to the team with the best record - that just missed the playoffs (the team that currently is slotted to get the 14th pick). Reward them for their effort - and with that top pick they get into the playoffs next year.

Otherwise, if the top players go to the worst teams they merely put in their time until they finally get acclimated to the speed of the NBA, improve their games enough to actually do their team some good, and then they promptly leave via free agency for some perpetual powerhouse. The bottom feeders are merely farm teams in this scenario. But if the top prospects go to a pretty good team that just missed the playoffs there's more motivation for them to play better, for the team to play better - and maybe when the player becomes a FA there's more good memories/incentive to remain with the good team that drafted them. I'm sick of seeing **** organizations load up on talent that they do nothing with 'cause they suck and then see that talent bail to form super teams in powerhouse locales.

bitch, bitch, bitch - I'm a grumpy old man. I like it!
 
kennykyle said:
A 1/14 chance is better than the odds now unless you are in the top 5 or so (just a guess), so teams around the 12,13,14 would have a bigger incentive to not make the playoffs than they would normally. Or maybe I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

You may be right, but I think that most teams want to win. Most players want to win. And, it's a fair bet that all of them want to be in the playoffs. I'm not sure the risk/reward ratio would justify dropping or not.
 
I like the idea in theory of all 14 teams that miss the playoffs getting an equal shot at the draft. Of course, this (or any future) draft imo would need to be conducted open door, under intense media scrutiny, with an independent source doing the lotto that doesn't care either way which team gets which pick.

But, I'm not sure this helps the tanking idea. I think it would actual perpetuate it more. Teams like the Jazz (and much of it's fan base) would be screaming for the team to drop a few more games to get out of playoff contention as to not be a doormat in the first round to the #1 or #2 seed, and on top of that, "earn" a shot at the top pick.

I think to fix tanking (aka. the quality of play between two teams playing on any given night), and fans, owners, coaches, GMs, from openly trying/hoping/wanting to lose to get a chance at maybe, possibly getting better with a high draft pick, you need to seriously look at doing it the way the MIT guys want to do it.

Once a team is eliminated from playoff contention, they are rewarded with the top pick if they finish with the most wins. Actually, I would make a slight tweak to that model.....how about, instead of most number of wins, you go with winning percentage with a minimum of 10 games played out of contention for a chance at the top 5 picks. Stay with me here.

=====Potential Scenario======
Team A starts the season 21-45 (66 games) before they're eliminated from contention in the playoffs, that team has 16 more games left where they're now in a "draft playoff race". They want to still win all their games, whether they can or not is a different story. Say they manage to go 8-8. (.500). Team B starts the season 33-45 (78 games) before they become eliminated, they only have 4 games left. Now, that team can't get a top 5 pick, BUT they can still get the 6th pick. They'll want/try to go 4-0 obviously, therefore not giving any team that might still have a chance at a spot or a playoff position the "night off" so to speak, ie. screwing over another team that is hoping for a spot themselves. This will keep the NBA competitive at all times. Say Team B has a tough schedule to end the year and go 0-3...but then, have to play...

...Team C, say they're like our Jazz this year, in and out of the playoffs—on the edge—last game of the season (record at 40-41). They happen to play Team B that was eliminated 3 games ago, but needs this win to end up with a .250 win pct. Team C will also be trying to win because there is zero incentive for them to lose, if they lose, they end the season with a .000 record in the "draft playoff race" therefore insuring them 12,13, or 14th pick depending how many other .000 teams there are at the end of the year.

Team C loses to Team B in this case, and Team B gets to .250 win pct in the 5-14 draft pick race.

In this case, Team A, Team B, and Team C ALL tried to win as many games as they could, not just at the end of the year, but all year long. For Team A, there is no incentive to try and tank at the start because it wouldn't matter how many more games they would get to play in the "draft playoff race" because the number of wins wouldn't factor in, only win pct.

The ONLY way with this above model that I would ever see a team "try" to tank is if they were on the edge of being eliminated from the playoffs with 10 games left. And even then, that's them trying (maybe) for 1 or 2 games to suck, so they could get a shot at a top 5 pick.

If there were more than 5 teams that had 10 or more games played after being eliminated from the playoff race, then it would just continue on down the draft order (ie. pick 6, pick 7, pick 8 etc) depending on after elimination winning pct.

Tie-breakers would be made by division record. Whoever ends with the better division record gets the higher pick.

*ps. I'm trademarking the above idea. If the NBA wants to use it, they'll have to pay me a .5% royalty fee out of the net profit the league makes annually.*
 
mrob said:
I guess if I had my choice, my preferred system would be to have all the non-playoff teams with an equal shot of any of the 1-14 picks. It still benefits the teams that can't win enough games to get into the playoffs by giving them one of the top 14 picks every year, but gives very little incentive to lose games. The only question is with the borderline teams. Would it be worth losing a few games to slip out of the playoffs just for a 1 in 14 shot at #1. My guess is that's probably not enough incentive to actually make you not want to be in the playoffs. The teams that have no chance to get into the playoffs would have no incentive to lose additional games because their odds won't change.

Feel free to shoot holes in it. :)
Click to expand...

The obvious problem here is that the truly bad teams could be stuck at the bottom for 5-10 years, or possibly even longer. I'm guessing if Utah was at the bottom, you would probably think this was a really, really bad idea. Seriously, this idea could ruin francises to the point that you're not talking about moving the team, you're talking about contraction.

As to your other point about the unfairness created by which part of the year you play a tanking team, that's still going to exist to a point, even if you could find a way to eliminate tanking. Once a team is eliminated from the playoffs, smart GMs know it's in the best interest of the team to develop the younger players that will be the future of the francise. That remains true for some teams, even if they aren't tanking for picks.
 
Last edited:
Gameface said:
"If we can't win a championship the best strategy is to lose games on purpose."
Click to expand...
Gameface said:
I was trying to throw something out there that would be as distasteful to me as a team tanking to get a slim chance at a franchise changing player.
Click to expand...

I'll admit, I like throwing the T-word around, just because of how much it annoys some people. In truth, however, I actually agree with you to a point. Losing on purpose is dishonest to the fans spending money on tickets, and unfair to the players who deserve a chance to prove themselves. However, I think your idea of what tanking actually is, is not what actually's going on most of the time.

It also sounds like you think GMs should always make their decisions based on what's good for the team right now, as opposed to making decisions based on building the team for the future. I completely disagree with this idea, and I'll admit that it takes me into some grey areas. Unfortunately, tanking at the right time IS a legitimate tactic with the way the system is set up, and I don't see any reasonable way to eliminate it. Therefore, any team that choses to never use this strategy, is putting themselves at a disadvantage. To be perfectly honest, I really doubt there is a single team in this league that has never used it

Most of the time when people discuss tanking, they're talking about teams playing their young players at the end of the season when they've been eliminated from playoff contention, or are far enough back to see the writing on the wall. Obviously, this is also about positioning for a draft spot, but developing players for the future is a legitimate move, and I personally wouldn't want a GM that made decisions like not developing the youngsters when they were out of the playoffs.

Just to be clear about where I stand on tanking, I'm probably somewhere in the middle. I would never want my team to plan to lose for several years with the idea of stocking up draft picks. However, I certainly don't want my team to make all their decisions based on winning a few more games now, when those decisions likely mean losing a lot more in the future.

This brings me to some of my gray areas. I supported trading Al by the deadline, for several reasons, including protecting our draft position. To me, this isn't a move you make JUST because of picks, but more making a move that is inevitable, at a certain time that could be huge in building the team. When he wasn't traded, I was pissed, but I decided to hold my tongue and give it a chance. After all, as strongly as I value my own opinion, I'll be the first to give KOC the benefit of the doubt. Obviously, Utah went on a nice winning streak, and KOC's decision to stand pat looked to be a good one.

As for now, I'm still rooting for Jefferson to lead us to the playoffs, because I like him as a person, and I'd really like to see him finally shed his label of putting up big numbers on bad teams. Even though I don't really root for the Jazz to lose, that doesn't stop me from making an honest assessment of their situation. I'd really like to see Utah put themselves in a position where they have a legitimate chance to advance into the second round, but being an easy 1st round exit could be downright disasterous for the future.

My biggest concern is not only losing picks, but that our FO would be hesitant to trade any key players if we make the playoffs. Our worst scenario would be losing both picks, while getting bumped in 4-5 games. If that happens, we might very well find ourselves in exactly the same position next year. That would be a serious fail.

Most people think our best case scenario would be making the playoffs and keeping the GS pick, but I disagree. Our best case scenario IMO, would be for Jefferson to be an absolute beast for the rest of the season, while Utah keeps barely keeps both picks. Missing the playoffs by 1-2 games means we still have a team where the young guys have developed in a winning culture(for the most part), while maximizing our trade assets. Big Al + both picks is probably legitimate enough to grab a player like Rondo, or possibly another good/great point guard. With a legit PG, next year I think we're in the second round, and possibly WCF.
 
Last edited:
chawx said:
I like the idea in theory of all 14 teams that miss the playoffs getting an equal shot at the draft. Of course, this (or any future) draft imo would need to be conducted open door, under intense media scrutiny, with an independent source doing the lotto that doesn't care either way which team gets which pick.

But, I'm not sure this helps the tanking idea. I think it would actual perpetuate it more. Teams like the Jazz (and much of it's fan base) would be screaming for the team to drop a few more games to get out of playoff contention as to not be a doormat in the first round to the #1 or #2 seed, and on top of that, "earn" a shot at the top pick.

I think to fix tanking (aka. the quality of play between two teams playing on any given night), and fans, owners, coaches, GMs, from openly trying/hoping/wanting to lose to get a chance at maybe, possibly getting better with a high draft pick, you need to seriously look at doing it the way the MIT guys want to do it.

Once a team is eliminated from playoff contention, they are rewarded with the top pick if they finish with the most wins. Actually, I would make a slight tweak to that model.....how about, instead of most number of wins, you go with winning percentage with a minimum of 10 games played out of contention for a chance at the top 5 picks. Stay with me here.

=====Potential Scenario======
Team A starts the season 21-45 (66 games) before they're eliminated from contention in the playoffs, that team has 16 more games left where they're now in a "draft playoff race". They want to still win all their games, whether they can or not is a different story. Say they manage to go 8-8. (.500). Team B starts the season 33-45 (78 games) before they become eliminated, they only have 4 games left. Now, that team can't get a top 5 pick, BUT they can still get the 6th pick. They'll want/try to go 4-0 obviously, therefore not giving any team that might still have a chance at a spot or a playoff position the "night off" so to speak, ie. screwing over another team that is hoping for a spot themselves. This will keep the NBA competitive at all times. Say Team B has a tough schedule to end the year and go 0-3...but then, have to play...

...Team C, say they're like our Jazz this year, in and out of the playoffs—on the edge—last game of the season (record at 40-41). They happen to play Team B that was eliminated 3 games ago, but needs this win to end up with a .250 win pct. Team C will also be trying to win because there is zero incentive for them to lose, if they lose, they end the season with a .000 record in the "draft playoff race" therefore insuring them 12,13, or 14th pick depending how many other .000 teams there are at the end of the year.

Team C loses to Team B in this case, and Team B gets to .250 win pct in the 5-14 draft pick race.

In this case, Team A, Team B, and Team C ALL tried to win as many games as they could, not just at the end of the year, but all year long. For Team A, there is no incentive to try and tank at the start because it wouldn't matter how many more games they would get to play in the "draft playoff race" because the number of wins wouldn't factor in, only win pct.

The ONLY way with this above model that I would ever see a team "try" to tank is if they were on the edge of being eliminated from the playoffs with 10 games left. And even then, that's them trying (maybe) for 1 or 2 games to suck, so they could get a shot at a top 5 pick.

If there were more than 5 teams that had 10 or more games played after being eliminated from the playoff race, then it would just continue on down the draft order (ie. pick 6, pick 7, pick 8 etc) depending on after elimination winning pct.

Tie-breakers would be made by division record. Whoever ends with the better division record gets the higher pick.

*ps. I'm trademarking the above idea. If the NBA wants to use it, they'll have to pay me a .5% royalty fee out of the net profit the league makes annually.*
Click to expand...

I'm a fan of this. I hate tanking, it pretty much makes at least 10 teams in the NBA a complete bore to watch.
PS: I don't think that whole trademarking thing would work. They could theoretically tweak the tiniest thing in your idea and call it their own.
 
I think they are tired, and not a good enough team to win consistently. They are a solid team, but not a really good team. Streaks like this are to be expected.
 
chawx said:
right, but what if those guys do that, and feel like they're doing everything they can to win...but don't. Every night you work your tail off but come up short. You start thinking, as a player, that no matter what you do, you're not going to win.

that's what happened to Jefferson. So, what would he do...he becomes a black hole, because he thinks he needs to take it upon himself instead of trusting his team to help him win. Players need to see that they can trust their teammates to help make them better—and no matter how hard you talk, it's not going to sink in until you see results.

I like the mix this team has now, and I love that they're seeing how fun it is to win and that it's not all a business.

If every time a rat tries to get some cheese, he gets shocked, he's going to stop trying to get the cheese.
Click to expand...

Wasn't this the case with Durant initially?
 
So what I'm getting from a lot people in this thread is that once you are on a losing team then you are broke and you will always be a loser no matter what other factors are involved.

So every basketball player in the world Beware of the dreaded losing disease. There is no cure.
 
BluesRocker said:
So what I'm getting from a lot people in this thread is that once you are on a losing team then you are broke and you will always be a loser no matter what other factors are involved.

So every basketball player in the world Beware of the dreaded losing disease. There is no cure.
Click to expand...

What makes a constant losing team is management. The management fails to put together a competative team. Utah does not have this problem. In fact they are the exact opposite. Utah is almost always competitive. They just cannot get over that "hump" from competitiveness to championship caliber.

I am fully confident that the Jazz will be in the playoffs next year if not this year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top