What's new
By:

2024-2025 Tank Race

I'm curious: Can anyone guess the odds that a #1 draft pick will lead the team that drafted it to 1) an NBA championship or 2) an NBA final?

Answer: 1) Since 2000, 8.3%. 2) Since 2000, 20.8%. The only #1 picks to win an NBA championship with the team that drafted it since 2000 are LeBron James and Kyrie Irving. The only #1 picks to go to a finals with the team that drafted it since 2000 are James, Irving, Kenyon Martin, and DeAndre Ayton. (Percentage calculated by the number of #1 picks winning a championship or going to the finals with the team that drafted it divided by the number of #1 picks over the time period.)

The odds that draft picks 1-5 will lead the team that drafted it to an NBA championship or NBA final since 2000 are 5% and 10.8%. Besides Lebron, Kyrie, Martin, and Ayton, they include Durant (#2); Harden, Brown, Tatum, and Luka (#3); Westbrook and Tristan Thompson (#4, although Thompson was a role player at that point); and Wade (#5).

(Quick caveat: I did the calculations quickly, so I may be off a bit here or there, but it should not affect the general order of magnitude.)

Conclusion: By historical standards, the odds that Cooper Flagg or any other person drafted by the Jazz as part of their structural teardown tank will lead the Jazz to an NBA championship are remote. The odds that they lead the Jazz to the NBA finals are no better than 1 in 5.

Now, we come to the cost-benefit question. Are 5-6 years (likely duration) of sucking worth it for such paltry odds? For those who tout Wembenyama as a successful structural tank, keep in mind that 1) there's no guarantee the Spurs will win anything, and 2) the Spurs' average winning percentage for the last five years was 37%. Five years is not an unsubstantial amount of time for a fanbase to suffer through lousy basketball. Are Jazz fans prepared for the possibility of another 3-4 years, and possibly more, of sucking for the remote odds that hitting on a lottery pick will lead to a championship or even finals appearance?

Of course, this analysis omits any discussion of opportunity cost, i.e., what are the odds of success of alternative strategies? If we knew them, tanking might actually be the best strategy. Unfortunately, we can't answer this other than to say that no other team has won an NBA championship as the result of a structural tanking strategy. Every other team that's won an NBA championship has followed a different strategy to get there. Thus, the question: Why the irrational, exuberant confidence that the structural tanking strategy is the best (or even only) strategy to put the Jazz on the championship path?
 
Last edited:
Schrödinger's Gerbil said:
I'm curious: Can anyone guess the odds that a #1 draft pick will lead the team that drafted it to 1) an NBA championship or 2) an NBA final?

Answer: 1) Since 2000, 8.3%. 2) Since 2000, 20.8%. The only #1 picks to win an NBA championship with the team that drafted it since 2000 are LeBron James and Kyrie Irving. The only #1 picks to go to a finals with the team that drafted it since 2000 are James, Irving, Kenyon Martin, and DeAndre Ayton. (Percentage calculated by the number of #1 picks winning a championship or going to the finals with the team that drafted it divided by the number of #1 picks over the time period.)

The odds that draft picks 1-5 will lead the team that drafted it to an NBA championship or NBA final since 2000 are 5% and 10.8%. Besides Lebron, Kyrie, Martin, and Ayton, they include Durant (#2); Harden, Brown, Tatum, and Luka (#3); Westbrook and Tristan Thompson (#4, although Thompson was a role player at that point); and Wade (#5).

(Quick caveat: I did the calculations quickly, so I may be off a bit here or there, but it should not affect the general order of magnitude.)

Conclusion: By historical standards, the odds that Cooper Flagg or any other person drafted by the Jazz as part of their structural teardown tank will lead the Jazz to an NBA championship are remote. The odds that they lead the Jazz to the NBA finals are no better than 1 in 5.

Now, we come to the cost-benefit question. Are 5-6 years (likely duration) of sucking worth it for such paltry odds? For those who tout Wembenyama as a successful structural tank, keep in mind that 1) there's no guarantee the Spurs will win anything, and 2) the Spurs' average winning percentage for the last five years was 37%. Five years is not an unsubstantial amount of time for a fanbase to suffer through lousy basketball. Are Jazz fans prepared for the possibility of another 3-4 years, and possibly more, of sucking for the remote odds that hitting on a lottery pick will lead to a championship or even finals appearance?
Click to expand...
Ok but what’s the % of a team NOT having a top 5 pick and reaching the Finals?
 
The Midnight said:
Ok but what’s the % of a team NOT having a top 5 pick and reaching the Finals?
Click to expand...
That's an excellent question. If I can find the time, I'll look into it, or someone else can.

Just to be clear, my point is not that drafting in the top 5 is not important—all else equal, higher draft picks are better than lower draft picks—it's the uncritical assertion by many that a structural teardown/tank and serial high lottery drafting is the single best path for the Jazz to take to an NBA championship (which was the stated goal of the Jazz FO motivating their decision to tear down a competitive, perennial playoff team). If the goal is to field a competitive team that routinely competes in the playoffs, with chances of deep runs (i.e., 2nd or 3rd rounds) now and then, the discussion becomes a very different one. However, the benefits should not be considered in isolation of the costs (i.e., how many years of sucking are worth it?).

My contention is that the prevailing groupthink around the virtues of the tanking strategy is foreclosing consideration of other potential, effective strategies. All I'm asking for is an open, honest discussion about the virtues of tanking, particularly a structural teardown. I had hoped that the pro-tankers here would be open to such a discussion, but it appears that they are not. Rather than engage, they attacked. I'm a de facto troll, not someone with an alternative point of view. I've even conceded the possibility that a structural teardown tank is, indeed, the best strategy in certain cases, and may be for the Jazz. I'm just skeptical about it. But even this concession is insufficient to induce good faith engagement from the pro-tankers. It's tanking uber alles. Sigh.
 
Last edited:
Schrödinger's Gerbil said:
That's an excellent question. If I can find the time, I'll look into it, or someone else can.

Just to be clear, my point is not that drafting in the top 5 is not important—all else equal, higher draft picks are better than lower draft picks—it's the uncritical assertion by many that a structural teardown/tank and serial high lottery drafting is the single best path for the Jazz to take to an NBA championship (which was the stated goal of the Jazz FO motivating their decision to tear down a competitive, perennial playoff team). If the goal is to field a competitive team that routinely competes in the playoffs, with chances of deep runs (i.e., 2nd or 3rd rounds) now and then, the discussion becomes a very different one. However, the benefits should not be considered in isolation of the costs (i.e., how many years of sucking are worth it?).

My contention is that the prevailing groupthink around the virtues of the tanking strategy is foreclosing consideration of other potential, effective strategies. All I'm asking for is an open, honest discussion about the virtues of tanking, particularly a structural teardown. I had hoped that the pro-tankers here would be open to such a discussion, but it appears that they are not. Rather than engage, they attacked. I'm a de facto troll, not someone with an alternative point of view. I've even conceded the possibility that a structural teardown tank is, indeed, the best strategy in certain cases, and may be for the Jazz. I'm just skeptical about it. But even this concession is insufficient to induce good faith engagement from the pro-tankers. It's tanking uber alles. Sigh.
Click to expand...
I think your stats is forgetting 1 thing. We’re not just looking for 1 player. When you tank for 3-4 seasons hopefully we get at least 3-4 decent talent to build around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top