What's new
By:
Filters

Philosophically speaking -- is tanking good for the NBA?

I

idiot

Well-Known Member
TLDR: For those who don't like to read long things, just answer the title question if you want.

I think as a general proposition, the NBA would probably prefer
  • More parity
  • Less tanking -- fewer teams writing off whole seasons/part seasons/multiple seasons in the attempt to "bottom out" so they can be good later

The first (parity) is challenging given that, unlike in most other sports, one or two players can completely drive a team's fortunes for years. The lack of NFL-style mechanisms (less of a "hard" cap; the inability to just waive contracts to save money, etc.) also makes it difficult. And I don't think the owners are (or should be) wresting power back from the players to try to turn the NBA into the NFL-type league.

But the second (tanking) could presumably be changed. Tanking only happens because, arguably, it is the easy way out of the harder process of team-building. Just blow it all up, hope for a little luck in the lottery and sooner or later you'll be back in the championship mix (at least that's the narrative, though I really don't think the evidence is as strong for this as many assume). It's assumed to be the way to avoid NBA "purgatory" (I think the existence of this is even less strong than the evidence that tanking actually works, but just following the narrative here).

The easy fix to tanking is to tinker with the lottery odds, of course. Or more likely, radically change those odds. Ideally, you'd want odds that don't reward tanking enough for any team to find value in purposeful tanking, but at the same time you'd want those odds to foster parity by returning more draft value to the lower-finishing clubs so that teams aren't forever consigned to the bottom (and so that prestige teams can't just use wealth/location advantages to maintain supremacy in perpetuity).

But can you actually find such a "sweet spot"? For example, I've been messing around with the idea of a league-wide lottery for all picks (going into effect with league expansion to 32 games). The worst-record team's would give them a 5% chance at the #1 pick and the best-record would have a 1.25% chance (a 4-1 ratio). All other teams would be distributed evenly between those two teams based on their record (a gap of about 0.121% for each step of the ranking). If you think of it in terms of ping-pong balls, the worst team would get 124 and the best would get 31 (with a difference of three ping-pong balls for each step ranking in the standings). The whole first round would then use the ping-pong balls to determine draft position. Based on running approximately 40 simulations, that would return about 6.5 of the top ten picks to the bottom half of the teams and about 3.5 of the top-ten picks to the top half of the teams (with a low of 4 and high of 9 top-10 picks returning to the bottom half of teams over those 40 simulations). This would mean that even a league-worst finish would have only about 46% odds of getting a top-10 pick. It would eliminate the purposeful (Philly, OKC, Rockets, etc.) multiple-years of top 3 picks kind of possibility.

So (trying to ignore the actual Wemby chase that's right in front of our eyes right now) would something like this be desirable to discourage tanking and foster parity over the long haul in the NBA? Or where might a better sweet spot lie if we're thinking of re-doing lottery odds? Or do you think there's no sweet spot to be found and instead that having a legit option for tanking is the only way to prevent too much concentration of power in the NBA within the prestige franchises?

PS -- to give credit where it's due: SLCDunk's James Hansen has a recent article on how tanking is good for the NBA's "ecosystem"; it got me thinking about this a little more.

Here's a random simulation (results are the green/blue) where all the odds are shown for each pick (I used https://zengm.com/universal-draft-lottery-simulator/ ) -- sorry the image quality isn't great:

a.png
 
idiot said:
TLDR: For those who don't like to read long things, just answer the title question if you want.

I think as a general proposition, the NBA would probably prefer
  • More parity
  • Less tanking -- fewer teams writing off whole seasons/part seasons/multiple seasons in the attempt to "bottom out" so they can be good later

The first (parity) is challenging given that, unlike in most other sports, one or two players can completely drive a team's fortunes for years. The lack of NFL-style mechanisms (less of a "hard" cap; the inability to just waive contracts to save money, etc.) also makes it difficult. And I don't think the owners are (or should be) wresting power back from the players to try to turn the NBA into the NFL-type league.

But the second (tanking) could presumably be changed. Tanking only happens because, arguably, it is the easy way out of the harder process of team-building. Just blow it all up, hope for a little luck in the lottery and sooner or later you'll be back in the championship mix (at least that's the narrative, though I really don't think the evidence is as strong for this as many assume). It's assumed to be the way to avoid NBA "purgatory" (I think the existence of this is even less strong than the evidence that tanking actually works, but just following the narrative here).

The easy fix to tanking is to tinker with the lottery odds, of course. Or more likely, radically change those odds. Ideally, you'd want odds that don't reward tanking enough for any team to find value in purposeful tanking, but at the same time you'd want those odds to foster parity by returning more draft value to the lower-finishing clubs so that teams aren't forever consigned to the bottom (and so that prestige teams can't just use wealth/location advantages to maintain supremacy in perpetuity).

But can you actually find such a "sweet spot"? For example, I've been messing around with the idea of a league-wide lottery for all picks (going into effect with league expansion to 32 games). The worst-record team's would give them a 5% chance at the #1 pick and the best-record would have a 1.25% chance (a 4-1 ratio). All other teams would be distributed evenly between those two teams based on their record (a gap of about 0.121% for each step of the ranking). If you think of it in terms of ping-pong balls, the worst team would get 124 and the best would get 31 (with a difference of three ping-pong balls for each step ranking in the standings). The whole first round would then use the ping-pong balls to determine draft position. Based on running approximately 40 simulations, that would return about 6.5 of the top ten picks to the bottom half of the teams and about 3.5 of the top-ten picks to the top half of the teams (with a low of 4 and high of 9 top-10 picks returning to the bottom half of teams over those 40 simulations). This would mean that even a league-worst finish would have only about 46% odds of getting a top-10 pick. It would eliminate the purposeful (Philly, OKC, Rockets, etc.) multiple-years of top 3 picks kind of possibility.

So (trying to ignore the actual Wemby chase that's right in front of our eyes right now) would something like this be desirable to discourage tanking and foster parity over the long haul in the NBA? Or where might a better sweet spot lie if we're thinking of re-doing lottery odds? Or do you think there's no sweet spot to be found and instead that having a legit option for tanking is the only way to prevent too much concentration of power in the NBA within the prestige franchises?

PS -- to give credit where it's due: SLCDunk's James Hansen has a recent article on how tanking is good for the NBA's "ecosystem"; it got me thinking about this a little more.

Here's a random simulation (results are the green/blue) where all the odds are shown for each pick (I used https://zengm.com/universal-draft-lottery-simulator/ ) -- sorry the image quality isn't great:

View attachment 13142
Click to expand...
This is good… but bruh

1665376013653.gif
 
I don’t know. I just know I’ve been waiting for us to win a title since the early 90s and, 30 years later, I’m still waiting. I’m not sure I GAF about the league. I used to be more of a purist back in the Sloan days and winning the right way, or something. Maybe some of that is still there, but I’d sign Satan to a 10 day if it got us over the hump.
 
Well the NBA is the perfect microcosm of American ideology so tanking is as inevitable as scamming the system. The problem starts when the hustle play supplants the original legitimate hustle play on court or in the office. It’s no wonder so many teams get caught in the turnstile and can’t break out of their rut regardless how many lottery picks they’ve managed to accumulate. I mean if you’re going to scam the system it’s best to remember where you came from and go legit ASAP like Golden State did rather than becoming some kind of inveterate sleezeball gambler like Houston and OKC.

At least in the European Sports model mediocrity is discouraged by bi-level leagues. Which is only possible because teams and players still have some modicum of pride and allegiance to team and community rather than just an all out money grab where the one with the most toys wins.
 
Last edited:
We are a small market. Big star will never sign here. This beeing saym the best way to get superstar ( and a chance to win) is through the draft. + beeing smart in FA market.
I'm pretty happy the job done until now. The team have some good players and this is a base to get better in 1, 2 or 3 years. Just need a bit of luck and managing this group in a smart way this year ( loosing on purpose).
 
Release the Kraken said:
Well the NBA is the perfect microcosm of American ideology so tanking is as inevitable as scamming the system. The problem starts when the hustle play supplants the original legitimate hustle play on court or in the office. It’s no wonder so many teams get caught in the turnstile and can’t break out of their rut regardless how many lottery picks they’ve managed to accumulate. I mean if you’re going to scam the system it’s best to remember where you came from and go legit ASAP like Golden State did rather than becoming some kind of inveterate sleezeball gambler like Houston and OKC.

At least in the European Sports model mediocrity is discouraged by bi-level leagues. Which is only possible because teams and players still have some modicum of pride and allegiance to team and community rather than just an all out money grab where the one with the most toys wins.
Click to expand...
I won't argue against your idea that tanking to "game the system" suits American ideology. But I do think the draft is an attempt to bring fairness into the system from the beginning. And, correct me if wrong, because I only know what little I see about the big Euro basketball powers, that fairness isn't even built into the European sports model. All the big teams are able to get all the big prospects, if I understand it correctly, because they have the highest salaries, best facilities, etc. Isn't that why we can predict, with far better accuracy than we'd predict the NBA over multiple years, that Real Madrid, Barcelona, CSKA Moscow and a few others are always going to be near the top of the standings?

The problem with the American system is the championship-or-bust mentality and the recognition that the system (the draft, which was meant to help toward fairness) seems to reward the total breakdown and purposeful losing. To me the answer (if we think there's an answer) isn't Europe's bi-level leagues. Instead, it's bringing the draft's (and maybe salary, FA, etc.) reward system more in line with the two values we want to promote-- real chance at parity and fairness -- while not sacrificing competitiveness.
 
idiot said:
I won't argue against your idea that tanking to "game the system" suits American ideology. But I do think the draft is an attempt to bring fairness into the system from the beginning. And, correct me if wrong, because I only know what little I see about the big Euro basketball powers, that fairness isn't even built into the European sports model. All the big teams are able to get all the big prospects, if I understand it correctly, because they have the highest salaries, best facilities, etc. Isn't that why we can predict, with far better accuracy than we'd predict the NBA over multiple years, that Real Madrid, Barcelona, CSKA Moscow and a few others are always going to be near the top of the standings?

The problem with the American system is the championship-or-bust mentality and the recognition that the system (the draft, which was meant to help toward fairness) seems to reward the total breakdown and purposeful losing. To me the answer (if we think there's an answer) isn't Europe's bi-level leagues. Instead, it's bringing the draft's (and maybe salary, FA, etc.) reward system more in line with the two values we want to promote-- real chance at parity and fairness -- while not sacrificing competitiveness.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the more established European soccer leagues with my argument regarding community values and allegiance as well as the bi-level system. I would assume that the more nascent basketball leagues would be more a reflection of the NBA and it’s modis operandi.

As early as 1962, Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan wrote a book entitled The Gutenberg Galaxy in which he referred to the incipient Electronic Age and coined the term, “the Global Village”. In that paradigm, American institutions are the influencers not vice versa. Which is why I suggested that without serious revision to our Star friendly self serving system, the European bi-level league system wouldn’t work here, at least not as some sort of tanking remedy.
 
Last edited:
Trading star players for draft capital and younger players is just rebuilding. Full on Tanking is when you don't have any star players to trade away for picks or young players, and you are going to be bad anyway, so you try to make sure you are the worst down the stretch, incase someone else is trying to also. There used to be a ton of teams tanking before the % change. Now it's mostly just young rebuilding teams, like the Jazz now, and others like Orlando or OKC, who have been seemingly bad forever. Those two orgs seem to profit off the optimism of youth with their fanbases as opposed to actual winning. I hope that is not the case here.
I think the tanking is only bad for the league because the odds now punish the teams who are bad without tanking. So there is some really bad basketball when those teams suit up for many seasons instead of a few
 
Unfortunately, I believe tanking has to be part of the NBA game plan, largely to keep the prestige franchises in check. Anything to level this out will just stack the deck in their favor even more. Right now franchises like LA and Miami and Boston already have the house advantage, anything more just tips the scales a little too much in their favor. If anything maybe it would be better to look at a 5-year stretch or something to determine draft order, so that long-term winning gets taken into account, along with playoff appearances and wins. To make it even more unlikely that a team like the Spurs, who had seen a lot of success and playoff success with the Admiral, doesn't win the lottery straight away and land the most promising player of that generation, instead of a team like the Clippers at the time, or what have you. So a great team, with prestige appeal, can have a single down season and land the next Wemby. It would be interesting to see an algorithm that takes last 5 years regular season record and last like 10 years championships into account.

But I really do not see a way we get to any kind of parity as long as teams like LA are simply the preferred destination. And the money is so extreme now that it is no longer a motivator. When basic role players make more in a season that Stockton did in half his career combined then saying they can make 15 million here instead of 11 million there is not much of a motivator. They would take the 55 million over 5 years if it meant they teamed up with other stars to get a couple of rings, then move on elsewhere for a bigger payday. But basic careers in the NBA now are worth nearly 100 million over the length of the career so dropping that to 90 or even 80 million is of little consequence. Not like back when the top salary was maybe 20 mill and others fought over 1-5 mill scraps. Then money was a different motivator. Not any more.

About the best thing I have seen was ideas around rules on how to divvy out the insane money they are looking at now. Like max 50% of the cap could go to the designated franchise player, and the #2 player could get no more than 15% of the cap, then 7.5% for the next one and then, idk, 5% max for everyone else, or something (I didn't do the math on that, but you get the gist). Then a duo would have to either have one guy taking a significant pay-cut, like LeBron and AD, with AD getting a substantially reduced salary for the privilege of playing with LeBron, or that second guy would try to find a team where he can be the star to get the big payday. Something like this would discourage super-star team-ups without messing with the draft at all.
 
Tanking is very bad for the NBA product, but I do believe it is also related to the championship or bust mentality. These two work hand in hand to make the regular season largely meaningless, and that is very bad for the NBA. Players/teams may care about the championship above all else, but a healthy league needs to have an engaging regular season. The laser focus on the playoffs and championships doesn't make the league more interesting, it's a boring slog until the finals which often ends up anticlimactic. You need a good regular season that has meaning and value to build narratives and anticipation over time.

Teams losing on purpose to get high draft picks is bad, but it's part of a larger issue where regular season games hardly matter for any team. Good, bad, mediocre....the games don't have much consequence in a championship or bust league like the NBA. Compared to other sports like European Football, the format of the league is horrible.
 
The way I see, tanking is directly linked to the possible ways to assemble the pieces for a contending team (or something that somewhat resembles It) outside of tanking, which for some teams might be real, but for like half the league or more, not so much. Especially under the player freedom (really a bad thing even If going too far at times ?) and "ringzzzz culture" era (that sucks, no doubt whatsoever)

I mean, what exactly could hamper tanking more than the tweaked odds and the play in games (and current improved parity around the league) ?

Maybe bring the 6/7 years contracts back (so that teams hold more control over players future) ? Make eligible to signing them only players still on the same teams they were drafted (or traded within their rookie contracts) ?
 
I don't like tanking. I don't know that any one system or odds flattening can fix intentional losing. I think parity at the top of the league is pretty good... I'm not sure parity is great for the league when it comes to ratings and stuff.

I think we have to realize that tanking is a ownership decision... ownership cares about a few things... one of them is money. Tanking certainly hurts gate receipts... but I wonder if they could tie some financial incentives to wins. So the luxury tax money that comes in gets distributed to non-tax teams. What if part of that formula depends on wins... so you have a bottom feeder team that lives at the salary floor... well your distribution gets cut substantially. You have an awesome team and because of smart planning it isn't a luxury tax team... boom you get a big financial reward.

With every incentive and manipulation it adds a ripple effect... so not sure there is any bullet proof method to reduce intentional losing.
 
Tanking is a disgrace. I get why the Jazz are doing it, but I hate it, and it's a symptom of how poor the NBA is at not providing enough measures to prevent it. The fact the worst team in the NBA is guaranteed the 5th best pick is an absolute joke. Only in the NBA does it make sense that the 14th worst team can have a shot at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best picks, but picking between 5th and 13th? No way, that's absurd!
 
Nate505 said:
Tanking is a disgrace. I get why the Jazz are doing it, but I hate it, and it's a symptom of how poor the NBA is at not providing enough measures to prevent it. The fact the worst team in the NBA is guaranteed the 5th best pick is an absolute joke. Only in the NBA does it make sense that the 14th worst team can have a shot at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best picks, but picking between 5th and 13th? No way, that's absurd!
Click to expand...
I mean the NFL just gives the worst team the #1 pick... that any better? Its different because 1 player can make such a dramatic difference in basketball.

To truly even the field I'm not sure the draft lotto odds are the spot to do it. I wonder if giving compensatory picks to teams that lose stars via FA would help. Or if you retain your own players it doesn't count against the tax or some ****.
 
Tanking is terrible for the NBA which is a reason they flattened the lottery odds a few years ago.

With that said the big market teams probably don't need to tank. However for the 20 or so smaller/mid market teams it is one of the few ways to reasonably obtain a franchise player unless they get super lucky like Milwuakee did by finding a gem like Giannis with the 15th pick. The majority of the super star players are discovered middle/high school age and selected near the top of the lottery.

It's pretty clear you need a top 10 player to even have a legitimate shot at a ring. Looking at all NBA teams from last year Giannis and Jokic were the two not drafted in the lottery and that's only because they were international guys that fell thru the cracks.
 
rjfan said:
The way I see, tanking is directly linked to the possible ways to assemble the pieces for a contending team (or something that somewhat resembles It) outside of tanking, which for some teams might be real, but for like half the league or more, not so much. Especially under the player freedom (really a bad thing even If going too far at times ?) and "ringzzzz culture" era (that sucks, no doubt whatsoever)

I mean, what exactly could hamper tanking more than the tweaked odds and the play in games (and current improved parity around the league) ?

Maybe bring the 6/7 years contracts back (so that teams hold more control over players future) ? Make eligible to signing them only players still on the same teams they were drafted (or traded within their rookie contracts) ?
Click to expand...
Player control is a big one IMO. Another one involves the down low hush hush “Star System”.

When David Stern took over as commissioner of the NBA from Larry O’Brien the league was in financial distress. Stern’s strategy was to market the league through his Star players. Then the rather surreptitious decision was made to afford greater privilege to Star Players on the court as well. (He actually copped to it in a Sports Illustrated article in the 80s stating in effect - fans come to watch the Stars not see them foul out.)

And then the more recent Doneghy allegations and the subsequent film, but it still exists and only enhances the value of young Star prospects like Wembanyama. We as fans have just internalized and accepted it with the variance with which fouls are called depending on player status. It is a team sport after all, and why should one Star player in the NBA be so much more exaggerated to winning than a Star in college.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top