What's new

Read it and weep: on the failure of Tanking

zman1527

Well-Known Member
From The Atlantic Magazine:

"How NBA Teams Fool Themselves Into Betting Too Much on the Draft

They tear their rosters apart to land a top pick, who they assume will lead them to salvation. The psychology of a strategy that seldom works.

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth” is the third and most famous Beatitude in the Sermon on the Mount. Although the prophecy has a dubious track record throughout world history, its counsel has been inspirational lately in the arena of America’s secular religion: professional sports.

In the National Basketball Association, in particular, an astonishing number of teams this year—the Boston Celtics, the Philadelphia 76ers, the Utah Jazz, and more—stand accused of deliberately making their clubs as meek as possible. This strategy is called tanking, and its logic—to the extent that there is any—comes from the mysterious allure of the NBA draft.

In most professional sports leagues, including the NBA, the worst teams are first in line to snag the most-promising amateur players in the next draft. When the ripening crop of amateurs looks especially tantalizing (this year’s is projected to be historically good), multiple teams will suddenly compete to be so uncompetitive that, through sheer awfulness, they will be blessed to inherit the top pick. One anonymous general manager told ESPN the Magazine earlier this season, “Our team isn’t good enough to win,” so the best thing is “to lose a lot.”

In a way, there is a dark genius behind the tanking epidemic. In what other industry could you persuade your customers to root for the worst possible product? But tanking puzzles academics like David Berri, the author of the 2006 book The Wages of Wins and a widely read commentator on sports economics. “Tanking simply does not work,” he told me. Nearly 30 years of data tell a crystal-clear story: a truly awful team has never once metamorphosed into a championship squad through the draft. The last team to draft No. 1 and then win a championship (at any point thereafter) was the San Antonio Spurs, which lucked into the pick (Tim Duncan) back in 1997 when the team’s star center, David Robinson, missed all but six games the previous season because of injuries. The teams with the top three picks in any given draft are almost twice as likely to never make the playoffs within four years—the term of an NBA rookie contract, before the player reaches free agency—as they are to make it past the second round.

Why are teams and their fans drawn to a strategy that reliably leads to even deeper failure? The gospel of tanking is born from three big assumptions: that mediocrity is a trap; that scouting is a science; and that bad organizations are one savior away from being great. All three assumptions are common, not only to sports, but also to business and to life. And all three assumptions are typically wrong."

... https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/hoop-dreams/358627/
 
From The Atlantic Magazine:

"How NBA Teams Fool Themselves Into Betting Too Much on the Draft

They tear their rosters apart to land a top pick, who they assume will lead them to salvation. The psychology of a strategy that seldom works.

He is right that it seldom works. When you consider that only 5 or 6 players have led their team to titles in the last 23 years, any strategy seldom works. Here is what's wrong with what he says: Jordan was drafted #3, Hakeem #1, Billups #3, LeBron #1, Duncan #1, Shaq#1, and Kobe #13 (but dropped because his agent wanted him in LA). So, yes, it seldom works. BUT, it's the ONLY way to win a title (the exception being Boston, who had three Hall of Famers and an All-Star PG).

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth” is the third and most famous Beatitude in the Sermon on the Mount. Although the prophecy has a dubious track record throughout world history, its counsel has been inspirational lately in the arena of America’s secular religion: professional sports.

In the National Basketball Association, in particular, an astonishing number of teams this year—the Boston Celtics, the Philadelphia 76ers, the Utah Jazz, and more—stand accused of deliberately making their clubs as meek as possible. This strategy is called tanking, and its logic—to the extent that there is any—comes from the mysterious allure of the NBA draft.

In most professional sports leagues, including the NBA, the worst teams are first in line to snag the most-promising amateur players in the next draft. When the ripening crop of amateurs looks especially tantalizing (this year’s is projected to be historically good), multiple teams will suddenly compete to be so uncompetitive that, through sheer awfulness, they will be blessed to inherit the top pick. One anonymous general manager told ESPN the Magazine earlier this season, “Our team isn’t good enough to win,” so the best thing is “to lose a lot.”

In a way, there is a dark genius behind the tanking epidemic. In what other industry could you persuade your customers to root for the worst possible product? But tanking puzzles academics like David Berri, the author of the 2006 book The Wages of Wins and a widely read commentator on sports economics. “Tanking simply does not work,” he told me. Nearly 30 years of data tell a crystal-clear story: a truly awful team has never once metamorphosed into a championship squad through the draft. The last team to draft No. 1 and then win a championship (at any point thereafter) was the San Antonio Spurs, which lucked into the pick (Tim Duncan) back in 1997 when the team’s star center, David Robinson, missed all but six games the previous season because of injuries. The teams with the top three picks in any given draft are almost twice as likely to never make the playoffs within four years—the term of an NBA rookie contract, before the player reaches free agency—as they are to make it past the second round.

This ignores one huge fact: The NBA is a one man game. Again, it is close to impossible to win a title in the NBA. Especially before there was the hard, hard tax that we have now. The fact that Boston, Philly and LA are tanking is a great sign. Those teams don't want to pay the tax. It's too expensive to sign Love for five years at max money when you can get that production from Embiid at a third the cost for four years.

Again, show me a team that won a title without a top 3 pick. Please do. Losing is the ONLY way to win a title in the NBA (unless you are LA and can get Shaq to come to your town).

Why are teams and their fans drawn to a strategy that reliably leads to even deeper failure? The gospel of tanking is born from three big assumptions: that mediocrity is a trap; that scouting is a science; and that bad organizations are one savior away from being great. All three assumptions are common, not only to sports, but also to business and to life. And all three assumptions are typically wrong."

... https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/hoop-dreams/358627/

He is right about the business portion. Money wise, for one season, tanking is dumb. It would be smarter to be the eighth seed every year. That is where the big money is. BUT, if you want a title, you have to suck. There is no other way in the NBA. With no hard cap, and long contracts, it is almost impossible to improve in the NBA. Once you have your one to two guys, you are stuck with wherever they will take you for 5-10 years. You really can't move up or down. Unless you get a Shaq, LeBron, or Jordan.
 
You could make the case for this article applying to Philadelphia. But it really does not hold true for Milwaukee, Utah, Boston and the Lakers or even Sacramento. None of those teams tore their rosters apart.

Milwaukee and the Lakers were expected to compete for a playoff spot. Injuries and other issues have decimated those teams. Utah and Boston offloaded veterans to begin rebuilding. In Boston's case it was aging players. In Utah's it was a case of clearing the way for younger guys to get minutes. I think you could make the same argument for Orlando; like Utah, they've gone with youth (except Jameer) and their main core is made up of young, 1st-round picks.

Sacramento has definitely tried to upgrade their roster by making moves. I'd say Cousins, Gay and Thomas is a pretty good trio. And they cleared playing time for McLemore, their #7 pick.

Really, outside of Philly, I don't see blatant tanking. Every year non-playoff teams trade veterans and get picks or young players in order to rebuild - or clear cap space. It's no different this year. Boston and Sacramento are still playing hard. Utah and the Lakers are overmatched, but usually put up good fights at home.
 
From The Atlantic Magazine:

"How NBA Teams Fool Themselves Into Betting Too Much on the Draft

The teams with the top three picks in any given draft are almost twice as likely to never make the playoffs within four years—the term of an NBA rookie contract, before the player reaches free agency—as they are to make it past the second round.

Flawed argument.
1. You need to go deeper than just the top 3.
2. To get a top-3 or even top-5 pick means you are MORE than just one player away from the playoffs.
3. So the conclusion is to let the "superstars" develop on someone else's roster for their rookie contracts and THEN sign those players?
4. It sometimes takes several years to build around a top-5 pick, largely because these players are now "one and done."
5. So the alternative is? Only a few select teams can ever get the big-name FA's. Only a select few franchises have won championships over the past decade plus. The rest must draft shrewdly and sign good, but not great FA's to compete.
 
I'll agree with the article in the OP on one point, which I'll highly qualify:

All the hopes and dreams that come from a high lottery pick do distract the fan base from the real competitive concerns: the fundamental inequities of the league. Hard cap. Equitable revenue sharing. These are the things we should be writing 1200 page threads about. Instead, we talk about how #Hungry 18-year olds are... endlessly.
 
Article is crap. We, unlike most teams who redesign their roster to lose/develop, actually have a really legit supporting cast. We are short that #1 option, and very few other pieces. Teams like.the Cavs were short everything when they got Lebron, and then again when they snagged Irving.
 
Article is crap. We, unlike most teams who redesign their roster to lose/develop, actually have a really legit supporting cast. We are short that #1 option, and very few other pieces. Teams like.the Cavs were short everything when they got Lebron, and then again when they snagged Irving.

The Spurs and Tim Duncan say hey.
 
He is right that it seldom works. When you consider that only 5 or 6 players have led their team to titles in the last 23 years, any strategy seldom works. Here is what's wrong with what he says: Jordan was drafted #3, Hakeem #1, Billups #3, LeBron #1, Duncan #1, Shaq#1, and Kobe #13 (but dropped because his agent wanted him in LA). So, yes, it seldom works. BUT, it's the ONLY way to win a title (the exception being Boston, who had three Hall of Famers and an All-Star PG).
So how exactly this "ONLY way to win a title" worked out for Celtics, Cleveland, Charlotte and Orlando? I mean, for those teams that actually drafted the majority of the stars that you mentioned?
 
We don't have to look at the championship teams: there were to few of them to see the trends and much of that stuff happened a while ago and may not be relevant in the current NBA. Lets look at this year contenders (Miami, Indiana, San Antonio, Oklahoma, Clippers, and Houston.


Only two teams out of six could be classified as the teams that are contenders now because they blew up a roster, sucked and got a star or two with a high pick (Oklahoma and Clippers). One (Miami) is partially in this group, owning much more of their current power to the Decision than to the lottery balls. SA was a good team that lucked out due to the injury to their star player, but they still contend due to their culture and ability to keep their stars. And Indiana and Houston assembled their team through spending time in the dreaded "not bad enough" land.


In short, these days you can build a contender in many different ways. Becoming awful on purpose could well be the riskiest and least productive path statistically.
 
Since the Jazz are not tanking I guess this is a good thing for us? If you watch what teams do that tank versus what the Jazz have done it is quite different.
 
So how exactly this "ONLY way to win a title" worked out for Celtics, Cleveland, Charlotte and Orlando? I mean, for those teams that actually drafted the majority of the stars that you mentioned?

Uhh....the point I've been trying to get across for the last five months:

IT'S NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE FOR A SMALL MARKET TEAM TO WIN A TITLE.

I think the only exception is SA and Miami. Miami was able to bring in Pat Riley and already had Wade. SA tanked for Duncan and ended up with arguable the best big man ever. So, yeah, the chances that Utah ever wins a title are a little better than someone winning 1 billion dollars from Buffet.

BUT, the only way Utah has any sort of shot at that tiny little chance is to win the lottery in the year that one of the greatest players of all time is available in the draft. Sooooo, if you are Utah, what do you do? You probably do what Utah has done. Have a goal to make the playoffs every year for 20+ years, then once ever 30 years or so, try to blow it up and shoot for the Sun.

But, without that "guy" you are hopeless. And while Miami is a small market team, I don't think Utah has quite the same pull for a young African American basketball player that Miami has.

So, what I am basically saying, is that the only shot Utah has at winning a title might very well be Jabari Parker. And praying that he turns out to be one of the best SF's of all time.

Yeah, we really have no shot at winning a title.
 
We don't have to look at the championship teams: there were to few of them to see the trends and much of that stuff happened a while ago and may not be relevant in the current NBA. Lets look at this year contenders (Miami, Indiana, San Antonio, Oklahoma, Clippers, and Houston.


Only two teams out of six could be classified as the teams that are contenders now because they blew up a roster, sucked and got a star or two with a high pick (Oklahoma and Clippers). One (Miami) is partially in this group, owning much more of their current power to the Decision than to the lottery balls. SA was a good team that lucked out due to the injury to their star player, but they still contend due to their culture and ability to keep their stars. And Indiana and Houston assembled their team through spending time in the dreaded "not bad enough" land.


In short, these days you can build a contender in many different ways. Becoming awful on purpose could well be the riskiest and least productive path statistically.

Let's look at those teams. Teams who got where they are today with top 5 picks:

Miami, San Antonio, Oklahoma, LA Clippers.

Indiana built through the draft.

Houston took advantage of an incredibly stupid decision made by the Thunder. And they also lucked out that a superstar didn't want to play in LA.

So, I doubt Utah can do what Houston did. In fact, they might have tried, and were politely told, "no thanks."

Utah won't be able to do what Miami did, because I don't think we could get LeBron to come to Utah, even if we had a Wade level player.

That leaves San Antonio, Oklahoma, Clippers, and Indiana.

Out of this list, only San Antonio has won a title. They did it by drafting the best PF in the history of the NBA. Probably not happening for Utah.

That leaves LAC, Oklahoma and Indiana. They are all contenders. In fact, I've said a bunch of times that I think Indiana is the Jazz of the 90's...win a ton of games, but lose every time they face LeBron (Jordan) in the playoffs.

OKC tossed away their "true" contender status when they traded Harden away. And the Clippers haven't ever made it past so OKC and SA, sooooo....

Again, doesn't look good for Utah. Or any team for that matter. Basically, we have two teams that I'd put money on to win the title this year, SA and Miami. And out of those two teams, how many of us would put money on SA? Not many.

So, in reality, there is only one "contender" this year. As long as LeBron is playing, every other team is praying for an injury.

Like when Jordan was playing.

Like when Shaq was playing.

Like when Duncan was in his prime.

The NBA is a one man game. And you have to have that one man. Or pray for an injury.
 
The Clippers don't apply. They didn't reach Contender Status solely because they got Griffin. They also landed CP3 after CP3's deal with LAL fell through. And, they finally got Sterling to back the **** off.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE, OR WHAT THE MODELS SUGGEST. THE BEST WAY FOR THE JAZZ TO SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVE THEIR POSITION -- GIVEN WHERE THEY WERE, AND THE FREE-AGENT MARKET AT THE TIME-- WAS TO LOSE A BUNCH OF GAMES WHILE PICKING UP SOME ADDITIONAL ASSETS. They did the latter (GSW trade), but have they been good enough at the former?

It's stupid to speculate about if it might not work out. Of course it might fail. But if they land a top3 pick, then they PROBABLY played the best hand given the context for their decisions.
 
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];787982 said:
t's stupid to speculate about if it might not work out.

Why? It's called risk assessment. You have a plan. It may or may not work. You try and calculate the likelihood of success, which is what should determine whether it's worth it or not.

But if they land a top3 pick, then they PROBABLY played the best hand given the context for their decisions.

No **** Sherlock. If I win the Powerball moneys, it was PROBABLY a good idea to play. Seriously, can we raise the logical arguments just a smidge here?
 
Why? It's called risk assessment. You have a plan. It may or may not work. You try and calculate the likelihood of success, which is what should determine whether it's worth it or not.



No **** Sherlock. If I win the Powerball moneys, it was PROBABLY a good idea to play. Seriously, can we raise the logical arguments just a smidge here?

Are you looking for a disagreement? Cuz you're looking in the wrong place. Read my post in the context of the preceding posts.
 
Top