Why tanking does not work - article

[storisaurus]

http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/29/losing-is-not-a-winning-strategy-in-the-nba/

Great article on why tanking does NOT work.

 

[VF21]

Thanks for the find. I've moved this to its own thread since the other "t" discussion was primarily about the Kings and this is about the whole philosophy in general.

 

[storisaurus]

Thanks. I just didn't want to clog the board, but the powers to be have spoken!

 

[storisaurus]

I like this excerpt...

"In fact, in the lottery era (since 1985) only the San Antonio Spurs (with David Robinson and Tim Duncan) have drafted a player number one and won a title with that player. Every other number one pick failed to bring a title to the team that “won” the lottery."

Tanking, IMO, is a loser mentality. It is making an excuse for the inevitable (In the mind of a tanker) instead of having integrity and giving it your all, allowing yourself to have an excuse as to why you failed. The only failure, IMO, is not trying.

 

[VF21]

I tend to agree. Look at Cleveland. They've yet to win anything except a nice hour-long excuse from Lebron James on why he was going to dump them and head south.

 

[Glenn]

I like this excerpt...

"In fact, in the lottery era (since 1985) only the San Antonio Spurs (with David Robinson and Tim Duncan) have drafted a player number one and won a title with that player. Every other number one pick failed to bring a title to the team that “won” the lottery."

Tanking, IMO, is a loser mentality. It is making an excuse for the inevitable (In the mind of a tanker) instead of having integrity and giving it your all, allowing yourself to have an excuse as to why you failed. The only failure, IMO, is not trying.

It's a loser mentality if you tell your players to lose. If they are told to play to the utmost of their skills yet have a poorly skilled team deliberately it shouldn't be a problem. Getting a great player is so very important. If in the past the tank hasn't worked does not mean that maximizing your opportunities is not a good idea.

 

[HndsmCelt]

There are really too many facts and way too much logic to the article. We want Wiggins now, weather he is a bust or goes on to win a championship with his next team is not important, and we (fans) would rather loose this season and next season, than have watch the office build a wining team the smart way.

OK sarcasm aside, I personally think this "loaded draft" presents a great opportunity for SMART GM's who will fleece the slow witted by clearing space and moving contracts for picks or space. Just as the gold rush made millions for slick store owners not miners, this draft may help the teams that do NOT pick high more than the early pickers.

 

[Bosnian Diehard]

That article got ripped apart in the comment section.

 

[storisaurus]

It's a loser mentality if you tell your players to lose. If they are told to play to the utmost of their skills yet have a poorly skilled team deliberately it shouldn't be a problem. Getting a great player is so very important. If in the past the tank hasn't worked does not mean that maximizing your opportunities is not a good idea.

The article had the numbers that proved bad teams, regardless if they were tanking or not, do not have a better chance at success due to the lottery. In fact, it proved the opposite.

 

[storisaurus]

That article got ripped apart in the comment section.

How can you argue with numbers? The numbers are not opinions. They are plain truth.

 

[Bosnian Diehard]

How can you argue with numbers? The numbers are not opinions. They are plain truth.

This lottery is our only chance to add a star next to Demarcus. I understand why people want to win now, but it'd be best for the franchise to get a top 5ish pick and have DCuz plus a draftee. We'd be way better off in the long run.

 

[storisaurus]

This lottery is our only chance to add a star next to Demarcus. I understand why people want to win now, but it'd be best for the franchise to get a top 5ish pick and have DCuz plus a draftee. We'd be way better off in the long run.

You apparently did not look at the facts stated in the article. Nor do you understands odds.

 

[Bosnian Diehard]

You apparently did not look at the facts stated in the article. Nor do you understands odds.

Oh I did. And you didn't read the great counterarguments provided in the comment section.

 

[Arkitect]

The numbers may be right but the whole premise to the analysis is wrong. The fact is, winning an NBA championship is a low probability event. The only way to increase the probabilities is to acquire 2 - 3 very good players. The best chance to acquire those players is to be terrible. Nearly every team that has been competing for a championship the last 30 years has been led by a player picked in the top 5. And almost always at least one other player picked in the top 10. Therefore to compete for a championship you must aquire players that were picked in the top 10 by any means possible. For the Knicks and Lakers that means buying them. For us, San Antonio, and OKC that means tanking.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

There is a fundamental flaw in the article: it essentially eliminates the talent evaluation ability of a front office as a factor. All teams, including good and bad drafting teams, are essentially evened out in a normalized scheme.

The true fact of the matter is that tanking is half of the equation. The other half is that you have to draft the right guy. Considering that, even in the lottery, there will be more players who disappoint than those who become All-Stars, of course if you look at the number of teams who get better versus the number of teams who don't then its going to look like statistically you're not likely to get better by tanking. But the reality is that the good front offices will find an All-Star more often than not. OKC found top 10 players in the lottery three straight years. On the flip side, Cleveland has utterly blown 3 out of 4 of their top 5 picks in recent years.

So this article doesn't really present a convincing case against tanking. You still need stars to win the NBA, and the best place to get stars if you're a struggling team is in the draft. Yes, most teams don't walk out of the lottery with All-Stars, but the good front offices will sniff out the cream of the crop more often and get better.

 

[Dime Dropper]

People yet again are failing to understand something very basic. Tanking is the only way for aging, mediocre teams to have hope for the future, unless you're in a desirable market. Many teams may not have won through tanking, but plenty have challenged for rings, and that's the goal. What's the alternative for those who have ignored the success of teams like SA, Okc, GS, Cleveland w/ LeBron, etc.? The list goes on. For many teams, it's literally the only way to get success. Boston did it and got rings - accumulate young talent and trade it for established stars. They still tanked to get there. There's numerous examples. I haven't read the article because I already know what it will say. Guaranteed it will demonstrate the same basic lack of understanding of the cycle of the NBA. Some teams tank badly, others do it well. LAC did it disastrously for years and all of a sudden struck gold and got a star in Blake - look how that's turned out. Suddenly the Clippers are a desirable destination for elite talent. They won't win it but they're one of the better teams in the NBA.

It's just ignorance to suggest tanking doesn't work. "Okc haven't won diddly squat" - blah, blah, blah. Not every team can win it. I'd much prefer to be Okc than the the Kings of the mid/late 00's who struggled against blowing it up in the pursuit of making the POs.

 

[Dime Dropper]

Storisaurus, what do you suggest we do? I'd like a tangible idea. No one is suggesting the Kings willingly throw games. Fact is we're just not very good and will inevitably lose a lot of games. The actual definition of tanking can be argued but we all have a general idea of what it is. It seems it is you who has a clear lack of understanding of odds. For a team like the Kings, there is no other way for us to aquire true star talent. I'm all ears, lets hear your ideas. "Play Jimmer for 48 minutes and let him coach" is not a valid response.

 

[VF21]

That article got ripped apart in the comment section.

I purposefully do not read comment sections. (Learned that from SacBee). Personally, I have more respect for and would much rather read comments here from fans of the game whose opinions I know aren't just random idiots spouting blatherskite (my word for the day ).

 

[VF21]

...I haven't read the article because I already know what it will say...

People who comment about an article they confess they haven't read drive me nuts. It's like people who jump into a thread after some 100 posts and start off with "I haven't read this thread but..."

Come on. Is it that difficult to read the article first? You may be right and you may be wrong but it just seems to me not reading something you're going to comment on anyway is a kind of snobbery. Just sayin...

 

[Dime Dropper]

People who comment about an article they confess they haven't read drive me nuts. It's like people who jump into a thread after some 100 posts and start off with "I haven't read this thread but..."

Come on. Is it that difficult to read the article first? You may be right and you may be wrong but it just seems to me not reading something you're going to comment on anyway is a kind of snobbery. Just sayin...

I've now read it and I need not have. Sorry but this isn't some topic that's new and unchartered territory. I knew what it was going to say - in fact, the article was even weaker than I had anticipated. Call it snobbery, call it what you will, but a spade is a spade: the argument is both old and quite frankly, stupid. There's enough evidence out there for it not to be taken seriously.

 

[Padrino]

this article ignores ignores the material conditions of a new CBA that's specifically designed to increase a losing team's chances of retaining top-tier talent. the draft lottery yields superstar-level talent, and superstar-level talent wins championships. THOSE are the odds that matter most. failing to develop or retain such talent, or failing to build around that talent, is not the fault of the player, it's the fault of the organization. but if you start with demarcus cousins, ben mclemore, and, say, jabari parker, i like your odds considerably more than if you start with cousins, mclemore, and, say, john salmons. you're gonna have a hard time winning an argument that claims otherwise...

by drafting well when you're in a position to draft well, at the very least, you've got truly flexible assets, and are able to, say, move your young talent for veteran talent, as the boston celtics did in order to acquire their big three, a championship team until they were recently broken up. point is, "tanking" is a useless gesture when captured in a vacuum. bad teams are often run by bad gm's who fail to capitalize on the talent they've acquired. the kings of recent vintage certainly qualify for that distinction. let's hope the new regime is more capable...

 

[Glenn]

The teams that have the worst leadership whether it be owners, GMs, or whatever, are rewarded with a high draft pick. It should not be any wonder why these same incompetents don't use their high pick well. Picture a competent FO with a high pick.




Ooops, Padrino already said that.

 

[Kingsfan23]

To me a lot depends on the particular draft class at hand. Last season tank didn't cross my mind because the draft class was not up to grade. I wouldn't know because I don't study prospects but people speak of this class talent/depth as one of the best in recent memory

Also there is a difference between trying to lose, and not necessarily doing everything you can to win. Play the kids and not the vets who wont be here in a couple of years

 

[Cold]

Cweb/Peja/Vlade/Bib/Christie ... what a worthless bunch. Didn't even win a title.

OKC is worthless. No title.

The right way is to keep drafting late lottery and win 30 games.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I was pretty disappointed in this article - I expect more from the Freakonomics guys. In fact, it inspired me to do a little research on my own.

I decided to go back 30 years and tally up the top 3 players on each championship team - 90 players overall. (In a few cases I had to make some arbitrary decisions on who was the #3 guy on the team but it actually didn't make any difference for the most important numbers I present here.) How were these top three pieces of championship teams (T3PCT) acquired? The breakdown is perhaps a bit surprising:

Free Agency: 9 (10%)
Trade: 27 (30%)
Draft: 54 (60%)

Note that the list of draftees does include 5 championships for Kobe, who was technically a draft day trade. Even without Kobe, 54% of all T3PCTs were acquired in the draft.

But that might include a large number of players like Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, who were late draft picks made by already-successful teams, so why not look at the importance of top-5 draft picks?

T3PCT drafted #1-#5: 54 (60%)
T3PCT drafted #-1-#5 by the team they won a championship for: 33 (37%)

These are impressive numbers. Almost two-thirds of T3PCTs are top-5 picks, and more than one-third were picked by the team that won. Looked at another way, over the last 30 years, the average championship team has had 1.1 players that it drafted top-5. In fact, in the last 30 years, only 8 teams have won a championship without having their own top-5 draft pick as one of their top three players, and 5 of those 8 were led by Kobe, who was drafted anomalously low because he refused to sign in a small market. That leaves three non-caveat teams that have managed to assemble a championship roster without using their own top-five pick. Those teams are:

Nowitzki-Kidd-Chandler Mavs (Kidd acquired for Mavs recent #5 Harris)
Garnett-Pierce-Allen Celtics (Allen acquired for Celtics #5 in draft)
Billups-Big Ben-Hamilton Pistons (Wallace acquired for 6-year vet and Pistons #3 overall Grant Hill)

So each of those three teams had a top-five pick that directly turned into one of their T3PCTs. Let's recap. Of the last 30 championship teams:
22 have drafted at least one of their T3PCTs with their own top-5 pick
3 have acquired at least one of their T3PCTs by trading the fruits of their own top-5 pick
5 lucked into Kobe Bryant, who is a bit of an anomalous situation

The draft appears to be really incredibly important. Free agency, on the other hand, would appear to be a very unlikely place to acquire T3PCTs. There have been nine of these, but only 5 total players, and three teams:
Shaq on the Lakers (3)
LeBron (2)
Bosh (2)
Mourning (1)
Billups (1)

Wow. Over the last 30 years only seven championship teams have featured as many as ONE player acquired in free agency: Three Lakers teams, three Heat teams, and one Pistons team. Interestingly, all of the players in question were drafted in the top 4.

Other things to consider include the fact that only 8 teams have won a championship at all over the last 30 years (Bulls, Lakers, Heat, Celtics, Pistons, Rockets, Mavericks, Spurs). Of those, only one - the Spurs - really meets the criteria of a small-market team and they only got to the level of being a championship team by having two #1 overall picks on their roster to start. So there's a large-market bias that can't completely be attributed to free agency.

In the end, the general rule is that to win a championship in the NBA you need to
1) Have a top-five pick,
or
2) Be a large market,
or
3) Preferably both.

High draft picks matter A LOT. It's nearly impossible to win without them.

 

[HndsmCelt]

People yet again are failing to understand something very basic. Tanking is the only way for aging, mediocre teams to have hope for the future, unless you're in a desirable market. Many teams may not have won through tanking, but plenty have challenged for rings, and that's the goal. What's the alternative for those who have ignored the success of teams like SA, Okc, GS, Cleveland w/ LeBron, etc.? The list goes on. For many teams, it's literally the only way to get success. Boston did it and got rings - accumulate young talent and trade it for established stars. They still tanked to get there. There's numerous examples. I haven't read the article because I already know what it will say. Guaranteed it will demonstrate the same basic lack of understanding of the cycle of the NBA. Some teams tank badly, others do it well. LAC did it disastrously for years and all of a sudden struck gold and got a star in Blake - look how that's turned out. Suddenly the Clippers are a desirable destination for elite talent. They won't win it but they're one of the better teams in the NBA.

It's just ignorance to suggest tanking doesn't work. "Okc haven't won diddly squat" - blah, blah, blah. Not every team can win it. I'd much prefer to be Okc than the the Kings of the mid/late 00's who struggled against blowing it up in the pursuit of making the POs.

Your just wrong. Lakers, Spurs, Celtics have been perennial top teams and never tanked. This years Celts may be the exception but we have no idea how that will work out. Look at some of the last great picks and how well the picker did. Davis has yet to being the Pels squat, Lebron was a centerpiece that got Cleveland into the play off for which Miami is grateful. The clips have had more #1 pick in the past 2 decades than anyone deserved and only now got anywhere AFTER they spent money on CP3 in order to utilize Blake to his fullest, and Blake is proving to have topped out already. The best and only argument for drafting your way up may be OKC, but you still have to credit management for bringing in the right talent to complement their stars.

My point is and will be that SMART GMs will get vets that fit needs off of short sighted GMs hoping to land Wiggins or any other next best thing, or trying to clear cap space to go after top FA's. We HAVE a top talent marque big, landing a quality second option, and filling the other holes in the roster may be BEST done by trading for proven players not laying down for a spin at the wheel.

 

[Dime Dropper]

Your just wrong. Lakers, Spurs, Celtics have been perennial top teams and never tanked.

I'm not. Spurs got exactly where they are precisely by tanking and landing Duncan, so that blows your argument out of the water from the off. Secondly, in my post I clearly state that teams in big, desirable markets (such as Boston and LA) don't necessarily have to tank to be competitive. But not many teams are so lucky, and certainly not us. And even so, in recent history (20+ years), Boston have only been competitive by completely tanking after years of suckitude. They then used their picks/young players to trade for established stars. Nothing wrong with that model but are you seriously going to deny that they tanked to get to that position?

This years Celts may be the exception but we have no idea how that will work out. Look at some of the last great picks and how well the picker did. Davis has yet to being the Pels squat, Lebron was a centerpiece that got Cleveland into the play off for which Miami is grateful. The clips have had more #1 pick in the past 2 decades than anyone deserved and only now got anywhere AFTER they spent money on CP3 in order to utilize Blake to his fullest, and Blake is proving to have topped out already. The best and only argument for drafting your way up may be OKC, but you still have to credit management for bringing in the right talent to complement their stars.

That argument makes no sense. Davis is still a kid and he's putting up beastly numbers. You're being both unreasonable and unrealistic using the Pelicans status as evidence that tanking doesn't work. They have a good young team and the only way is up for them. They might just have a modern day Duncan to build around and if their FO is competent, they will be competitive before long. I never said that every team that tanks become good. You have to have a FO that knows what they're doing, many teams don't. For teams like us, we need to use the draft. No big FA is signing with us unless we're competitive. As for the Clippers, again you've completely missed the point. There's absolutely no way in hell that CP would have signed with them if they hadn't tanked their way to Griffin. That's the whole point - land a legit star or two (and I have my doubts that Blake is that but it certainly was the perception) and you become much more attractive for good players to land on. The LeBron argument is again a poor one considering that they would have had no chance getting to multiple finals had they not tanked to get him. Blame the FO for not putting the right players around him. But I'm sure Cleveland fans would have preferred to be getting swept in the first round of the playoffs year in, year out, right? Didn't think so. If you're going to argue that titles = everything, then our Kings team from '02 didn't do squat, and pretty much no team in the NBA has over the last 20+ years apart from a handful of teams (over half of which got their rings through tanking).

My point is and will be that SMART GMs will get vets that fit needs off of short sighted GMs hoping to land Wiggins or any other next best thing, or trying to clear cap space to go after top FA's. We HAVE a top talent marque big, landing a quality second option, and filling the other holes in the roster may be BEST done by trading for proven players not laying down for a spin at the wheel.

How about you give an example of a smart GM that has done what you're proposing that's not in a big market? And what are we going to trade? I'm sorry but it's complete madness to think we could get anything from "short sighted GMs hoping to land Wiggins or any other next best thing", which would put us in a better position than landing them ourselves. You might be content with first round exits for a couple years until finding us back at square one, but I'm not.

 

[randymoss1881]

This lottery is our only chance to add a star next to Demarcus. I understand why people want to win now, but it'd be best for the franchise to get a top 5ish pick and have DCuz plus a draftee. We'd be way better off in the long run.

I don't get it either just be Pateint it's like people wanna be the hawks or worse the pistons. Imagine having Drummond and Monroe writhe a chance at parker/wiggins. But no there idiot gm trades for jennings and smith that team is going nowhere now and they had a bright future.

We have cousins and mclemore now add one of (parker, wiggins, randle, exum, or smart) and you got a deadly big 3. Or try to win now and sign or trade for a player and we become pretenders (6-8 playoff spot). We won't be getting a star in a trade (no assists) or in free agency
(Brooklyn, New York, Dallas, lakers, and Orlando) have a lot of cap room in the next 3 summers and players will go there over us like it or not. Our only chance for a #2 or 3 is in the draft

 

[HndsmCelt]

Capt. with all due respect you really need to Factor in RESIGNING FA's Yes landing a top talent is often easiest through the draft but getting that second contract is vital. But what the numbers bear out is success breeds success, failure tends to bring more of the same in the long run.

 

[HndsmCelt]

How about you give an example of a smart GM that has done what you're proposing that's not in a big market? And what are we going to trade? I'm sorry but it's complete madness to think we could get anything from "short sighted GMs hoping to land Wiggins or any other next best thing", which would put us in a better position than landing them ourselves. You might be content with first round exits for a couple years until finding us back at square one, but I'm not.

This is precisely what Billy King did THIS off season. I have some doubts about specifics in Brooklyn but no one can deney that the team went from middling 1st round loosers to possible contender while Boston dumped talent to rebuild and position for this draft.