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?
 
Back
Top