Philosophically speaking -- is tanking good for the NBA?

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I think that would obviously get rid of tanking but I think it would favor the better FA markets and they already have such a big competitive advantage that I'd hate it.

Nothing extreme will ever happen though... it will always be tweaks to the existing draft system as tanking is not as big of an issue as it seems.

Yeah, nothing going to change, you prob right.

But I think the fear of it making the league imbalanced isnt as bad as most think. I think I would create more balance tbh.

Also it would really separate teams who get lucky in the draft vs people who can actually evaluate talent/fit.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

If you moved to a ten team lotto and there was a $25M+ incentive for teams to at least make the play in then teams won't tank out of the playoffs.

You could flatten out the lotto odds on those 10 teams and make every pick one that subject to the percentages. If you drafted top 3 last year your odds decrease by 50%.

What happens when the Clippers are the 8th seed with Kawhi and PG sitting due to injury and decide to tank out the playoffs and get the 1st pick?

 

[slc]

This going to be wild to hear, but players are people with their own desires and they don't have to placate you. If you had the power to get paid and have your choice of location to live, you'd probably do it.

Don't think players care what I think. Just an opinion.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Yeah, nothing going to change, you prob right.

But I think the fear of it making the league imbalanced isnt as bad as most think. I think I would create more balance tbh.

Also it would really separate teams who get lucky in the draft vs people who can actually evaluate talent/fit.

Yeah I have no idea... I think it would fix some issues and would create others that might be worse than tanking. I would reward good management and scouting in some instances. There are things I like about the idea for sure.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

What happens when the Clippers are the 8th seed with Kawhi and PG sitting due to injury and decide to tank out the playoffs and get the 1st pick?

Then they lose a bunch of games at the end of a year and a more healthy team makes the playoffs. It would be almost impossible for them to lose enough the fall all the way below the play in... and if they land like 8% odds of #1 as the reward and thought it was good then okay I guess.

Is that worse than 5-6 teams really watching how much they win for 82 games and not signing good players or offloading good players at a big discount because they don't want to be too good? Building losing habits/culture if they do that for 3-4 years in a row?

 

[Jazzmix]

All the players are already overpaid. Thought that was the idea. You are being paid very generously to live and play some where
you may not prefer. When you retire after a very short career you can take your giant bank account and go live wherever on the planet
you want for the rest of your life. But that does not even appeal to some players.

That's a valid point but for a completely different discussion.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

That's a valid point but for a completely different discussion.

It's not really a valid point at all.

 

[The Jazz Wonderbra]

Did any of you guys recall that they adjusted the lottery odds just a few years ago? That has lead to more 5 - 12 teams getting top picks than ever before. The point was to remove the incentive to tank.

I think that only improves the value of unprotected picks because the odds that they end up top 3 just went up meaningfully. Hence Ainge's latest tankathon strategy is better than before. If minny or cavs once get an injury and just miss the playoffs, it could end up a top 3 pick. That's nuts.

It also creates a reasonable argument to not be the worst of the worst. However, I don't think the incentive was good enough. Tanking is still alive and well. If the league waits 2 more years and then changes the odds it just makes Ainge's moves that much better (other than getting even richer on Bogie).

 

[Eddie Zero]

Did any of you guys recall that they adjusted the lottery odds just a few years ago? That has lead to more 5 - 12 teams getting top picks than ever before. The point was to remove the incentive to tank.

I think that only improves the value of unprotected picks because the odds that they end up top 3 just went up meaningfully. Hence Ainge's latest tankathon strategy is better than before. If minny or cavs once get an injury and just miss the playoffs, it could end up a top 3 pick. That's nuts.

It also creates a reasonable argument to not be the worst of the worst. However, I don't think the incentive was good enough. Tanking is still alive and well. If the league waits 2 more years and then changes the odds it just makes Ainge's moves that much better (other than getting even richer on Bogie).

I think the point is proven with the % changes provoking unprotecteds to be moved in trades when for example Memphis can retain a pick by jumping into the protected range that they would not have been able to use had it stayed put making any protections hard to argue. In seasons before the change for example I doubt Ainge could have gotten so many unprotected picks from anyone when having a fire sale.

 

[Nate505]

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 ****.

Yes, because it's consistent. They don't play a lottery for the top 4 picks before then.

 

[Nate505]

If you have no draft every team is highly incentivized to be good.

I think you can do some cap stuff so you assure one team doesn't get all the good rookies constantly. Yes, big markets will have an advantage but big markets have an advantage under every system you can create.

I used to be against this idea but not anymore. No draft and a hard cap is the best way to go.

 

[Thee Idiotic Minivan K]

If we end up with Vic and as a result win multiple titles, no one here will think tanking is bad for business. Lol

Basically what I mean is, yes it’s good for the nba. It’s the only way a team like the jazz will win a title or any small market team, it’s damn good for the league. We get’em, develop them, then send them to the insert big market, unless they win a title in said small market, then they stay (Milwaukee bucks) (San Antonio Spurs). Giannis, and Duncan. The only reason the jazz made finals in the 90’s was extreme luck getting basically two top 25 players of all time in the mid first in two straight drafts, good luck that ever happening again. It’s the only way a small market team can compete for the most part, yes there’s outliers, like what I mentioned with the jazz draft in the 90s above, but this is the surest way IMO.

 

[YoungJefe]

How can you expect fans to buy tickets or watch the games if teams are purposely trying to lose?

 

[KqWIN]

If European sports had drafts there would be tanking.

Also, not a European sports expert by any means, but most here would hate to be setup like European sports. Smaller market teams are way more "farm teams" than ones here. It's an even bigger big market bias. There's like what 20 premier League teams and basically only 4 teams ever win. The others are just fighting for the privilege of playing in the league and that's how they measure success and every now and then a David rises up and wins it all then returns to being another team.

The draft is a one side of it that absolutely encourages tanking, the other side of it is that there are no incentives to win in the NBA unless it’s the championship. There are multiple things to compete for in European soccer. Every game matters and is important to the fanbases, large or small clubs.

It’s a completely different system, and IMO it’s a million times better because you get competitive, meaningful games for every single team at every stage of the season. The idea that every other team is just fighting to stay in the league could not be further from the truth.

Americans loves college football, but it is even more of a top heavy system than European football. The games matter. There’s pride in winning and seeing the other teams lose, and the championship isn’t the only thing you’re playing for. What they don’t love is the NBA, particularly when it comes to watching the game of basketball. Viewership is down, and the biggest stories are mostly drama related and not even basketball related. The way the league is covered these days you would thing it’s an ongoing soap opera and not a competition.

People are resistant to change, but if we never accepted the changes we were afraid of we’d still be on windows 98. What has changed is the entertainment value and attitude towards the regular season. The NBA needs some innovation to keep the league interesting and make more games have consequence. I really wish the NBA would do something to make basketball the center of its product once again….but because people/players are so stuck in their ways it will be difficult. The regular season is nearly irrelevant these days. The top teams don’t care, and pushing for the best record actively works against their goal. The worst teams lose on purpose. The teams in the middle are irrelevant because they have no chance at winning the title. It’s not a problem that will work itself out on its own.

 

[KqWIN]

How can you expect fans to buy tickets or watch the games if teams are purposely trying to lose?

That's obviously a problem. It's also a problem that if the Bucks play the Warriors in January, that game hardly matters. If it were up to the teams, they would sit their players but they can't because it's on national TV. If you're not invested in team building and the big picture, the NBA is just a bad league to watch. The day to day competition is not what the NBA revolves around unfortunately.

 

[seattlejazzfan]

it doesn't matter if it's good or bad. tanking is just a fancy term for not being very good. every league and every sport has bad teams - it's just part of sports. whether it's considered "tanking" or not is mostly irrelevant. with tanking the only difference is those bad teams are bad as part of a strategy to get better. i don't have a problem with it at all. if the lottery system weren't so effective however, i'd feel differently.

 

[hgb]

it doesn't matter. tanking is just a fancy term for not being very good. every league and every sport has bad teams. with tanking the only difference is those bad teams are bad as part of a strategy to get better. i don't have a problem with it at all. if the lottery system weren't so effective however, i'd feel differently.

Most sports with league play will have relegations and promotions, which changes the dynamics a lot. This makes for way more interesting games IMHO, but there is no doubt the draft, the salary cap and all that have led to US pro leagues being a lot more unpredictable in terms of who can compete for titles (not that salary cap, draft, etc could be done in e.g. international footb^H^H^H^H^Hsoccer, where it's totally unrealistic to have common rules like this in place worldwide).

It's also led to a mentality where regular season success is of limited interest, and combined with _way_ too many regular season games, it's not a recipe for success in my mind.

 

[seattlejazzfan]

Most sports with league play will have relegations and promotions, which changes the dynamics a lot. This makes for way more interesting games IMHO, but there is no doubt the draft, the salary cap and all that have led to US pro leagues being a lot more unpredictable in terms of who can compete for titles (not that salary cap, draft, etc could be done in e.g. international footb^H^H^H^H^Hsoccer, where it's totally unrealistic to have common rules like this in place worldwide).

It's also led to a mentality where regular season success is of limited interest, and combined with _way_ too many regular season games, it's not a recipe for success in my mind.

the sports that matter - mlb, nfl, nba and nhl don't have that.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

it doesn't matter if it's good or bad. tanking is just a fancy term for not being very good. every league and every sport has bad teams - it's just part of sports. whether it's considered "tanking" or not is mostly irrelevant. with tanking the only difference is those bad teams are bad as part of a strategy to get better. i don't have a problem with it at all. if the lottery system weren't so effective however, i'd feel differently.

No it's not.

Tanking is different. It creates a different fan mentality. We are on here debating moves on how to get actively worse. It's disgusting. I get it's necessary, but it's not at all satisfying on any level.

If you're just a not very good team, you are at least actively making moves to get better. You shouldn't have to try to get worse to get better. Getting better should be based on your ability to improve and make smart decisions, not sabotaging your own team for lottery odds.

 

[KqWIN]

No it's not.

Tanking is different. It creates a different fan mentality. We are on here debating moves on how to get actively worse. It's disgusting. I get it's necessary, but it's not at all satisfying on any level.

If you're just a not very good team, you are at least actively making moves to get better. You shouldn't have to try to get worse to get better. Getting better should be based on your ability to improve and make smart decisions, not sabotaging your own team for lottery odds.

People treat the idea of tanking as a means of access to premium young talent as a good thing for small markets. But when you step back, that's a completely insane way to do things. It's not normal to lose on purpose for a "chance" at something good. It also doesn't make sense that trying to win every game, whether you are at the top of the league or the bottom of the league, hurts you.

I have a radical stance on this. But take away the draft, maximum salaries, and add a hard cap. That would be a more sane way of doing things. You're absolutely right that you shouldn't have to be worse to get better.