The "tanking is fool's gold" theory

[rondoallaturca]

RyNye brings up another great point that throws yet ANOTHER variable into the mix when it comes to tanking.

Last year's NBA draft was also pegged as pretty weak. Instead, in addition to Davis, Beal, Waiters, Lillard, and Barnes all had solid years. Drummond showed MASSIVE upside that had some people raving he's the next Dwight. MKG had a decent year while showing flashes of his potential. Harkless, Nicholson, Fournier, Sullinger, and Ezeli all carved out solid roles for their teams.

Then there was the Blake Griffin draft. A lot of people were down on that draft outside of Griffin, but that produced guys like Harden and Curry, and a plethora of very solid players right now. Ironically, Thabeet was one of the most hyped players of the draft, and ended up being one of the biggest busts.

The college season hasn't even begun yet so many people are quick to call these players franchise changers already. Shabazz Muhammad was the #1 recruit out of high school last year and everyone though he'd easily be the #1 overall NBA pick this year, but we all know what happened with that.

Don't get ahead of yourself. The lottery is a huge gamble.

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

I want to murder this myth that "tanking is terrible".  Tanking is amazing.   There is gold at the top of the draft.  Some drafts are better than others.  The 2014 draft is supposed to be the best in a decade. 

Let's look at our draft history.  Who are the players we've selected with top 6 picks...

1970 - Dave Cowens #4

1978 - Larry Bird #6

1980 - Kevin McHale #3

1986 - Len Bias #2

1997 - Chauncey Billups #3
1997 - Ron Mercer #6

2007 - Jeff Green #5

... That's it.  That's it since 1970.  Those are the only players we've taken with a top 6 pick.  So let's talk about this. 

Cowens, Bird, McHale = Gold.

Bias was unfortunate...

1997 - It was a top-heavy draft.  We "tanked" if you can call it "tanking".  What was the alternative?  Trade for Shaq?  Trade for Jordan?  What exactly was the alternative to tanking?  That wasn't our generation.  It's a superstar's league.  Jordan, Shaq and Duncan dominated a generation... would you have rather we NOT attempted to get 1 of those 3 guys?  If you do that year over in retrospect knowing what you know know... you'd still tank 100 out of 100 times.   And despite being an incredibly top heavy draft (Keith Van Horn was taken #2), we ended up drafting a future 5 time all-star and FINALS MVP.   Ainge wouldn't have dumped Billups that quickly. We were poorly managed, but it's hard to argue that 1997 was a "disaster" when you really put it into context.


2007 - We had the 2nd best odds of winning the draft and ended up with the worst-case-scenario #5 pick.  Again, a very top-heavy draft that was considered to only have TWO impact players (Oden and Durant).  Despite the "worst-case-scenario", we were able to use that #5 pick (nobody in that range was projected to be a star) to trade for Ray Allen (who proceeded to make the all-star team 3 times) ... which also directly impacted our ability to land Kevin Garnett... which then turned us into a legitimate title contender within a month.  That team won a championship.  It's not possible for you to argue that "tanking in 2007 didn't work".  Had we not tanked, we wouldn't have enjoyed the Kg/Pierce/Ray era.  In fact, had we not tanked, the team would have undoubtedly continued winning 25-45 games a year, Pierce would have demanded a trade... and we would have tanked in 2008 instead when Durant/Oden weren't possibilities.  THINK ABOUT IT.


The 2014 draft isn't just WIggins.  I hear there are anywhere between 5-8 impact players in this draft.  At least one super-duper-star on LeBron/Durant level... several potential future all-stars.   The guy people expect will be the Carmelo Anthony in the draft (Jabari Parker) is currently projected to go #5 by DraftExpress... behind Wiggins, Randle, Gordon and Smart...  If we finished with the worst record in the league, the worst we'd do is end up with the #4 pick.  Even if we end up picking 8-10 (which I can't see happening if we trade Rondo), we've already provent with the Jeff Green for Ray Allen trade that we will HAVE OPTIONS.

It's absolutely the best move.  If you don't agree, you're short-sighted and in denial.  Danny Ainge is a brilliant GM.  He's cold-blooded, ruthless and Smart.  A year from now KG and Pierce could both be out of the league (or back in Boston in some capacity).  And had we "reloaded", we would have probably won 45 games, lost again in the first couple rounds... and then been forced to "tank" in 2015 with far less assets and a far weaker draft. 

There is gold in the 2014 draft just waiting for someone to come and scoop it up.  Let's scoop it up.

well said again! TP!

[BballTim]

Now that some of the dust is settling, a lot of debate seems to be about whether we should be tanking next year or not.

A popular view is that tanking is not worth it, because of randomness and the lottery. As Celtics fans we've felt this pain with the Duncan and KD/Oden drafts.

I'm going to try to shed some light on the details here and give you an argument for why tanking next year might be pretty appealing.

First, the common argument against tanking runs like this: the worst team has only a 25% chance at getting the #1 pick, and by the time you get to the sixth-worst team you have only a 6% chance. Given that being the worst team is actually quite difficult, why waste a year for only a 5-10% chance at the best pick?

That makes sense, but here is what seems different this year: there are by many accounts not one, but several potential franchise guys next year. Some people think that 2014 might be better than the Lebron/Carmelo/Bosh/Wade draft.

If that is true, then tanking looks *much* better as a gamble.

For the sake of argument I'm going to assume that Wiggins is the big prize but that there are three other guys (out of Parker, Randle, Smart, Harrison and Gordon etc.) in the draft who can be a #1 talent on a championship contender, along the lines of Carmelo or Wade. And, that these guys will go 2-4 in the draft. I'll call these "franchise guys."

This may be conservative or optimistic depending on your opinion but that's not the point. The point is to show how the payoff from tanking changes when you have four franchise guys at the top instead of only one.

Using the lottery odds I'm going to show you how the Celtics would fare, in terms of chances of getting one franchise guy (i.e. a top 4 pick), based on their record. I'll also show the chances of getting Wiggins because even in a strong draft he is perceived as a KD/Lebron talent above the rest.

Celtics' record       Chance: Wiggins    Chance: franchise guy

Worst                           25%                    100%
2nd worst                       20%                     88%
3rd worst                       20%                     70%
4th worst                       12%                     49%
5th worst                        9%                     30%
6th worst                        6%                     21%

The key is that last column. With four franchise guys, even the fourth-worst record in the league has a 49% chance of getting a franchise guy. The second-worst has an 88% chance. The worst is *guaranteed* to get one of those guys.

This is much, much better than the pipe dream you'd face with one franchise guy.

With fewer franchise guys the numbers are lower, obviously, but with more the numbers are just that much better: with 6 franchise guys the team with the 5th-worst record has a 91% chance of getting one of those guys. I'm not enough of a talent expert to assess that view, but the numbers are what they are.

If Danny thinks there are four or more potential franchise-changing players, this might be something that explains why he is dead set on blowing things up right now.

You can get sidetracked quibbling about who will and won't be a franchise guy, of course, and even then nothing's a sure thing (witness Oden). But that's true in any draft.

But the big idea is very simple and absolutely true: if you're going to tank, you are (literally) exponentially better off doing it in a year with many franchise guys than in a year with one or two.
 
Food for thought.

  This draft is probably more likely to have 1 franchise player than to have the 4 you're expecting. In fact the 2003 draft didn't have 4 franchise players, it had 1, arguably 2. Bosh certainly doesn't fit into that category and Melo's been in the league for 10 years and he's won a total of 3 playoff series. Bosh and Melo combined to win a total of 2 playoff series in their combined 14 seasons on the teams that drafted them.

  Put it another way, Rondo's led a team to many more playoff wins than those two combined for with their original teams. I'm starting to see why so many people are so excited about dumping Rondo for a shot at getting one of these "franchise" players.

[Q_FBE]

Let the race to the bottom begin!!

[celticsclay]

Now that some of the dust is settling, a lot of debate seems to be about whether we should be tanking next year or not.

A popular view is that tanking is not worth it, because of randomness and the lottery. As Celtics fans we've felt this pain with the Duncan and KD/Oden drafts.

I'm going to try to shed some light on the details here and give you an argument for why tanking next year might be pretty appealing.

First, the common argument against tanking runs like this: the worst team has only a 25% chance at getting the #1 pick, and by the time you get to the sixth-worst team you have only a 6% chance. Given that being the worst team is actually quite difficult, why waste a year for only a 5-10% chance at the best pick?

That makes sense, but here is what seems different this year: there are by many accounts not one, but several potential franchise guys next year. Some people think that 2014 might be better than the Lebron/Carmelo/Bosh/Wade draft.

If that is true, then tanking looks *much* better as a gamble.

For the sake of argument I'm going to assume that Wiggins is the big prize but that there are three other guys (out of Parker, Randle, Smart, Harrison and Gordon etc.) in the draft who can be a #1 talent on a championship contender, along the lines of Carmelo or Wade. And, that these guys will go 2-4 in the draft. I'll call these "franchise guys."

This may be conservative or optimistic depending on your opinion but that's not the point. The point is to show how the payoff from tanking changes when you have four franchise guys at the top instead of only one.

Using the lottery odds I'm going to show you how the Celtics would fare, in terms of chances of getting one franchise guy (i.e. a top 4 pick), based on their record. I'll also show the chances of getting Wiggins because even in a strong draft he is perceived as a KD/Lebron talent above the rest.

Celtics' record       Chance: Wiggins    Chance: franchise guy

Worst                           25%                    100%
2nd worst                       20%                     88%
3rd worst                       20%                     70%
4th worst                       12%                     49%
5th worst                        9%                     30%
6th worst                        6%                     21%

The key is that last column. With four franchise guys, even the fourth-worst record in the league has a 49% chance of getting a franchise guy. The second-worst has an 88% chance. The worst is *guaranteed* to get one of those guys.

This is much, much better than the pipe dream you'd face with one franchise guy.

With fewer franchise guys the numbers are lower, obviously, but with more the numbers are just that much better: with 6 franchise guys the team with the 5th-worst record has a 91% chance of getting one of those guys. I'm not enough of a talent expert to assess that view, but the numbers are what they are.

If Danny thinks there are four or more potential franchise-changing players, this might be something that explains why he is dead set on blowing things up right now.

You can get sidetracked quibbling about who will and won't be a franchise guy, of course, and even then nothing's a sure thing (witness Oden). But that's true in any draft.

But the big idea is very simple and absolutely true: if you're going to tank, you are (literally) exponentially better off doing it in a year with many franchise guys than in a year with one or two.
 
Food for thought.

  This draft is probably more likely to have 1 franchise player than to have the 4 you're expecting. In fact the 2003 draft didn't have 4 franchise players, it had 1, arguably 2. Bosh certainly doesn't fit into that category and Melo's been in the league for 10 years and he's won a total of 3 playoff series. Bosh and Melo combined to win a total of 2 playoff series in their combined 14 seasons on the teams that drafted them.

  Put it another way, Rondo's led a team to many more playoff wins than those two combined for with their original teams. I'm starting to see why so many people are so excited about dumping Rondo for a shot at getting one of these "franchise" players.

I agree that Bosh definitely is not a franchise player. I don't know what I think about Carmelo. It is tough to say if it is his game, or the teams around him have been poorly managed (trading for Iverson in Denver was certainly not helpful). I would say it may be tough to discount wade as a franchise player cause he really did lead them to their first title with some help from Shaq. I hate him and hate to type that.

[Boris Badenov]

Now that some of the dust is settling, a lot of debate seems to be about whether we should be tanking next year or not.

A popular view is that tanking is not worth it, because of randomness and the lottery. As Celtics fans we've felt this pain with the Duncan and KD/Oden drafts.

I'm going to try to shed some light on the details here and give you an argument for why tanking next year might be pretty appealing.

First, the common argument against tanking runs like this: the worst team has only a 25% chance at getting the #1 pick, and by the time you get to the sixth-worst team you have only a 6% chance. Given that being the worst team is actually quite difficult, why waste a year for only a 5-10% chance at the best pick?

That makes sense, but here is what seems different this year: there are by many accounts not one, but several potential franchise guys next year. Some people think that 2014 might be better than the Lebron/Carmelo/Bosh/Wade draft.

If that is true, then tanking looks *much* better as a gamble.

For the sake of argument I'm going to assume that Wiggins is the big prize but that there are three other guys (out of Parker, Randle, Smart, Harrison and Gordon etc.) in the draft who can be a #1 talent on a championship contender, along the lines of Carmelo or Wade. And, that these guys will go 2-4 in the draft. I'll call these "franchise guys."

This may be conservative or optimistic depending on your opinion but that's not the point. The point is to show how the payoff from tanking changes when you have four franchise guys at the top instead of only one.

Using the lottery odds I'm going to show you how the Celtics would fare, in terms of chances of getting one franchise guy (i.e. a top 4 pick), based on their record. I'll also show the chances of getting Wiggins because even in a strong draft he is perceived as a KD/Lebron talent above the rest.

Celtics' record       Chance: Wiggins    Chance: franchise guy

Worst                           25%                    100%
2nd worst                       20%                     88%
3rd worst                       20%                     70%
4th worst                       12%                     49%
5th worst                        9%                     30%
6th worst                        6%                     21%

The key is that last column. With four franchise guys, even the fourth-worst record in the league has a 49% chance of getting a franchise guy. The second-worst has an 88% chance. The worst is *guaranteed* to get one of those guys.

This is much, much better than the pipe dream you'd face with one franchise guy.

With fewer franchise guys the numbers are lower, obviously, but with more the numbers are just that much better: with 6 franchise guys the team with the 5th-worst record has a 91% chance of getting one of those guys. I'm not enough of a talent expert to assess that view, but the numbers are what they are.

If Danny thinks there are four or more potential franchise-changing players, this might be something that explains why he is dead set on blowing things up right now.

You can get sidetracked quibbling about who will and won't be a franchise guy, of course, and even then nothing's a sure thing (witness Oden). But that's true in any draft.

But the big idea is very simple and absolutely true: if you're going to tank, you are (literally) exponentially better off doing it in a year with many franchise guys than in a year with one or two.
 
Food for thought.

  This draft is probably more likely to have 1 franchise player than to have the 4 you're expecting. In fact the 2003 draft didn't have 4 franchise players, it had 1, arguably 2. Bosh certainly doesn't fit into that category and Melo's been in the league for 10 years and he's won a total of 3 playoff series. Bosh and Melo combined to win a total of 2 playoff series in their combined 14 seasons on the teams that drafted them.

  Put it another way, Rondo's led a team to many more playoff wins than those two combined for with their original teams. I'm starting to see why so many people are so excited about dumping Rondo for a shot at getting one of these "franchise" players.

I would say 2003 had three: Carmelo, Wade and Lebron. Certainly not one. Carmelo may be debatable based on what you mean by "franchise player." Not the other two. They're certain Hall of Famers. Of course, Darko is a perfect illustration of how random it still can be even in a great year.

As for what 2014 holds, I think we could both agree that it's too early to say for sure, particularly for amateurs like us. All I'm saying is that if Danny see the talent as deep, then tanking looks like a smarter thing to do.