What's new
By:

2024-2025 Tank Race

was there a team penalized for tanking? I know cuban was fined for saying "were trying to lose games" , "losing was the only way" but was recorded in a podcast. They wanted a 10th pick
 
Tanktastic said:
Most tanking teams end up tanking, because it's the only option to get better.

In the pursuit of success or just simply because bad management, they've ended up with bad contracts, at best average players and their only way out is through their only assets: their own draft picks.

The Jazz chose to tank, because the new owner thought that he wants a dynasty team that's competing for the championship right at the top every year. He's of course not the only one who wants to make his mark immediately - someone like Mat Ishbia of the Suns just went a different route. (And is definitely one of the teams whose future might look like their only option is to tank in a few years time.)
Click to expand...
You’re absolutely right when you say tanking is often the only way for teams to get better. When that happens, they've got no choice but to tank. No other paths to improve. And that’s one of the reasons I find general discussions about tanking to be quite fruitless and uninteresting (like I think it was KqWIN who talked about this somewhere here). In other words, discussions about tanking without specific context/situations, without asking why teams tanked when they did, can get pretty muddy and meaningless.
 
Strutter said:
Let's take a look.

In this list, I'm only looking at players that were actually important to their teams. Not counting ring-hunting vets on the bench or whatever. You can argue some of these picks if you want, but the only player that would change the final percentage is Bogut on the Warriors. I counted him in 2015, but not in 2016.

2000: Lakers had Shaq (1st). Pacers had no top 5 picks.
2001: Lakers had Shaq (1st). 76ers had Iverson (1st) and Mutumbo (4th)
2002: Lakers had Shaq (1st). Nets had Kidd (2nd), Keith Van Horn (2nd), and Kenyon Martin (1st)
2003: Spurs had Duncan (1st) and Robinson (1st). Nets had Kidd (2nd) and Kenyon Martin (1st)
2004: Pistons had Rasheed (4th) and Billups (3rd). Lakers had Shaq (1st)
2005: Spurs had Duncan (1st). Pistons had Rasheed (4th) and Billups (3rd).
2006: Heat had Shaq (1st) and Wade (5th). Mavericks had no top 5 picks.
2007: Spurs had Duncan (1st). Cavs had LeBron (1st).
2008: Celtics had KG (5th) and Allen (5th). Lakers had Odom (4th) and Pau Gasol (3rd).
2009: Lakers had Odom (4th) and Pau Gasol (3rd). Magic had Dwight (1st).
2010: Lakers had Odom (4th) and Pau Gasol (3rd). Celtics had KG (5th) and Allen (5th).
2011: Mavs had Chandler (2nd) and Kidd (2nd). Heat had Wade (5th), LeBron (1st), and Bosh (4th).
2012: Heat had Wade (5th), LeBron (1st), and Bosh (4th). Thunder had Durant (2nd), Harden (3rd), and Westbrook (4th).
2013: Heat had Wade (5th), LeBron (1st), and Bosh (4th). Spurs had Duncan (1st).
2014: Spurs had Duncan (1st). Heat had Wade (5th), LeBron (1st), and Bosh (4th).
2015: Warriors had Bogut (1st)--kind of a stretch on this one. Cavs had LeBron (1st), Irving, (1st) and Love (5th).
2016: Cavs had LeBron (1st), Irving, (1st) and Love (5th). Warriors had no top 5 picks--gonna stop counting Bogut for this one.
2017: Warriors had Durant (2nd). Cavs had LeBron (1st), Irving, (1st) and Love (5th).
2018: Warriors had Durant (2nd). Cavs had LeBron (1st) and Love (5th).
2019: Raptors had no top 5 picks. Warriors had Durant (2nd) and Cousins (5th).
2020: Lakers had LeBron (1st), and Davis (1st). Heat had no top 5 picks.
2021: Bucks had no top 5 picks. Suns had Chris Paul (4th) and Ayton (1st).
2022: Warriors had Wiggins (1st). Celtics had Brown (3rd), Horford (3rd), and Tatum (3rd).
2023: Nuggets had Gordon (4th). Heat had no top 5 picks.
2024: Celtics had Brown (3rd), Tatum (3rd), and Porzingis (4th). Mavs had Doncic (3rd) and Irving (1st).

So over 25 years, that's 7 teams out of 50 that had at least one top 5 pick, or 14%. Honestly, a lot of those teams had 1st overall picks.

Keep in mind that one thing this list can't account for is how teams might have leveraged top 5 picks to get other talent.
Click to expand...

Thank you for taking the time to do this. I think we're all in agreement that, on average, you're more likely to find allstars or superstars (however defined) at the top of the draft. Thus, drafing higher rather than lower is important, and it's one reason why high draft picks are valued so much. A salient point to me in this is that, in many of the above cases, the top 5 pick on the NBA finals team was drafted by someone else. Thus, were we to draft Flagg, by the time he leads a team to the championship, the historical odds are as good or better he'll do it for another team.

That's one possible counterargument to the insistence by some that the Jazz should completely strip its cupboard of talent to maximize its odds of winning the lottery (in the process focusing more on the relatively low odds of winning vs. the relatively high odds of not winning). If we strip the cupboard bare and end up landing Flagg, and he's as good as advertised, by the time he's ready to take a team to the championship, it won't be with us, both because youth usually doesn't win and because he had a weak supporting cast. Perhaps we use our draft picks to create a strong supporting cast, that might work. Still, it's all very uncertain, and the odds mitigate against it.

One reform I'd like to see in the NBA is a revision to the luxury tax rules that make it easier for teams to retain their home-grown talent. Teams shouldn't be penalized financially for drafting well.
 
idiot said:
I think one of the problems (especially this year) is the unacknowledged assumption that tanking is easy. Sure, everyone agrees it sucks to lose a lot. But we don't often factor in that we're not the only ones playing this game. We tend to assume there's a fairly easy, straightforward path to the bottom. Especially this year, when you have anywhere between 5-7 teams making serious tanking bids, not all teams (or even most) that are trying to do this are going to succeed.

Finishing worst guarantees no better than a 5th pick. 2nd worst guarantees no better than a 6th pick.

And now we have a situation where it's looking more like a 2-player draft than the 6-player draft that we were promised before the season started.

As @Handlogten's Heros lamented a couple of days ago, we're trying hard at losing (losing even more than most teams that have had gotten great players through the draft in the past), yet we're only 5th in odds because the competition is so stiff this year.

You'd think that this all would change the calculations about whether tanking is the best/only thing to do in our situation. But it doesn't seem to for most people.
Click to expand...
The stiff competition from other tanking teams doesn't change anything for me because our other option, sitting the kids and mainly playing just the vets, could give us another #10 pick or similar, or we could even lose the pick to the Thunder. We just have to dig in and beat the other tanking teams.
 
It's pretty simple, either the Jazz get lucky enough to move up in the lottery, or they'll be choosing between Tre Johnson, Jeremiah Fears and VJ Edgecombe. I'm managing my expectations and planning on the latter.
 
Tanking is not easy specially when you have 8 or 10 teams doing the same things. Last game we did our best sitting all the starters but others players play also for their place in NBA.
 
Schrödinger's Gerbil said:
Sound familiar to anyone?

Fisher, B. (2012). Fandom, identity, and online communities: A review of sports fan studies. Sport in Society, 15(5), 720-734.

This paper discusses the role of fandom in digital spaces, where extreme loyalty and commitment to a team can sometimes result in the marginalization of opposing viewpoints and lead to highly vocal and passionate fan factions dominating online discussions.

Brinkmann, S. (2014). Fanaticism in Sports Fandom: The Role of Social Media in the Development of Team Identity. Journal of Sports and Social Issues, 38(3), 203-221.

Brinkmann’s study looks at how social media platforms amplify the voices of the most fanatical fans. Extreme behaviors often dominate online discussions, leading to an environment where these extreme voices are more visible than the more moderate fans.

Kassing, J. W., & Sanderson, J. (2010). Fan or foe? Examining the role of social media in the development of online sports fan communities. Journal of Sports Communication, 4(3), 367-388.

This research examines the role of social media in building and maintaining fan communities. It highlights how the highly emotional and zealous behavior of fans often leads to the formation of polarized, extreme subgroups that can dominate discussions and influence the broader community.

Harris, R., & Waddington, I. (2005). Social media and fan fanaticism: Understanding the online dynamics of modern fandom. Communication & Sport, 4(2), 183-202.

This article looks at how social media platforms have changed the way fans interact with each other, and how more fanatical voices often rise to prominence in these digital spaces.

Trepte, S., & Reinecke, L. (2010). Sports fandom as a form of entertainment in online communities. Journal of Media Psychology, 22(2), 95-103.

Trepte and Reinecke analyze the motivations behind sports fandom. The study explains how the most zealous fans dominate the conversation.

Gantz, W., & Wenner, L. A. (1991). Fanatic behavior in sports: A research agenda. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 15(3), 213-227.

This foundational article addresses fanaticism within the context of sports fandom. It outlines how deeply engaged fans often control online fan communities through their passionate contributions. These individuals tend to set the tone for discussions and can overshadow more neutral or balanced viewpoints.
Click to expand...
Lo! I contribute to this site regularly yet I see no evidence of commitment to empiricism and opposition to metaphysics. My voice is loud, some might argue fanatical, yet opposing views concerning the mythical powers of Churros continue to proliferate.

Melo, thy slayer of Jazz, also provides heterodox views.
 
Ferguson_Mellochill said:
It's pretty simple, either the Jazz get lucky enough to move up in the lottery, or they'll be choosing between Tre Johnson, Jeremiah Fears and VJ Edgecombe. I'm managing my expectations and planning on the latter.
Click to expand...
Still theoretically possible for the pick to convey to OKC. Maybe a board meltdown would occur.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top