Is Tanking Over-rated?

[Greenbean]

The percentages are low in the NBA draft that you will get a real difference maker.

It's about roster building.

I hope Ainge can get us a younger, more deep team with multiple 1st rounders this year and some cap space to get NBA bodies.

I just hope he doesn't repeat Joe Dumars massive mistakes....

(Ben Gordon and Charlie V everyone!!!)

Good point.

Dumars was so good for a couple of years and hasnt had the same touch since the Wallace's got old.

[thirstyboots18]

Say you land a superstar in the draft (for example, a Chris Paul type).  If you can't surround him with a championship calibre  team in three or four years, he will bolt for greener pastures anyway.  If you already have a championship quality team, no way can you convince them to tank.  Tanking is not worth the (lack of) effort, IMO.

[Moranis]

The percentages are low in the NBA draft that you will get a real difference maker.

It's about roster building.

I hope Ainge can get us a younger, more deep team with multiple 1st rounders this year and some cap space to get NBA bodies.

I just hope he doesn't repeat Joe Dumars massive mistakes....

(Ben Gordon and Charlie V everyone!!!)

Good point.

Dumars was so good for a couple of years and hasnt had the same touch since the Wallace's got old.

Dumars is the most overrated executive of all time (at least I think so).  He has been terrible on the whole.  His drafting has been atrocious (only hit was Okur in the 2nd round of the 2001 draft and Prince in first round of the 2002 draft).  He was ok in his trades and free agent moves at least early on, though I think he got lucky getting Ben Wallace in the sign and trade for Hill.  Billups was an excellent signing as it turned out.  Hamilton was a key member of the title team, though I'm not sure Stackhouse wouldn't have also fit that bill (the man he traded for Rip), but all in all not a bad trade.  The trade for Sheed and James worked out in the short term, but the two draft picks they gave up were Josh Smith and Tony Allen (with Kevin Martin also available), who might have worked out better in the long term and lets be real the only reason they had to make that trade was because they took Darko instead of Carmelo the previous summer.  If they just take Carmelo, they don't trade for Rasheed and they keep the draft picks (and they don't lose Okur for a lack of money - they used that money to re-sign Sheed).  Of course Dumars probably messes up those draft picks since he has been a horrible drafter, but if not, can you imagine how much better the Pistons would have been long term with Wallace, Okur, Anthony, Rip, Billups with Prince, Josh Smith, and Tony Allen or Kevin Martin as the main rotation.  That seems like a team that wins multiple titles rather than just a one off.

[Greenbean]

The percentages are low in the NBA draft that you will get a real difference maker.

It's about roster building.

I hope Ainge can get us a younger, more deep team with multiple 1st rounders this year and some cap space to get NBA bodies.

I just hope he doesn't repeat Joe Dumars massive mistakes....

(Ben Gordon and Charlie V everyone!!!)

Good point.

Dumars was so good for a couple of years and hasnt had the same touch since the Wallace's got old.

Dumars is the most overrated executive of all time (at least I think so).  He has been terrible on the whole.  His drafting has been atrocious (only hit was Okur in the 2nd round of the 2001 draft and Prince in first round of the 2002 draft).  He was ok in his trades and free agent moves at least early on, though I think he got lucky getting Ben Wallace in the sign and trade for Hill.  Billups was an excellent signing as it turned out.  Hamilton was a key member of the title team, though I'm not sure Stackhouse wouldn't have also fit that bill (the man he traded for Rip), but all in all not a bad trade.  The trade for Sheed and James worked out in the short term, but the two draft picks they gave up were Josh Smith and Tony Allen (with Kevin Martin also available), who might have worked out better in the long term and lets be real the only reason they had to make that trade was because they took Darko instead of Carmelo the previous summer.  If they just take Carmelo, they don't trade for Rasheed and they keep the draft picks (and they don't lose Okur for a lack of money - they used that money to re-sign Sheed).  Of course Dumars probably messes up those draft picks since he has been a horrible drafter, but if not, can you imagine how much better the Pistons would have been long term with Wallace, Okur, Anthony, Rip, Billups with Prince, Josh Smith, and Tony Allen or Kevin Martin as the main rotation.  That seems like a team that wins multiple titles rather than just a one off.

The last four yeas he has been really bad..

Beyond that I think you are reaching when discounting the roster he built that competed for a long time without one transcendent player.

The mistakes he made was trying to extend the window of the team after the Wallaces declined with bad contracts. That team was built on great defense starting with those two bigs.

[Moranis]

The percentages are low in the NBA draft that you will get a real difference maker.

It's about roster building.

I hope Ainge can get us a younger, more deep team with multiple 1st rounders this year and some cap space to get NBA bodies.

I just hope he doesn't repeat Joe Dumars massive mistakes....

(Ben Gordon and Charlie V everyone!!!)

Good point.

Dumars was so good for a couple of years and hasnt had the same touch since the Wallace's got old.

Dumars is the most overrated executive of all time (at least I think so).  He has been terrible on the whole.  His drafting has been atrocious (only hit was Okur in the 2nd round of the 2001 draft and Prince in first round of the 2002 draft).  He was ok in his trades and free agent moves at least early on, though I think he got lucky getting Ben Wallace in the sign and trade for Hill.  Billups was an excellent signing as it turned out.  Hamilton was a key member of the title team, though I'm not sure Stackhouse wouldn't have also fit that bill (the man he traded for Rip), but all in all not a bad trade.  The trade for Sheed and James worked out in the short term, but the two draft picks they gave up were Josh Smith and Tony Allen (with Kevin Martin also available), who might have worked out better in the long term and lets be real the only reason they had to make that trade was because they took Darko instead of Carmelo the previous summer.  If they just take Carmelo, they don't trade for Rasheed and they keep the draft picks (and they don't lose Okur for a lack of money - they used that money to re-sign Sheed).  Of course Dumars probably messes up those draft picks since he has been a horrible drafter, but if not, can you imagine how much better the Pistons would have been long term with Wallace, Okur, Anthony, Rip, Billups with Prince, Josh Smith, and Tony Allen or Kevin Martin as the main rotation.  That seems like a team that wins multiple titles rather than just a one off.

The last four yeas he has been really bad..

Beyond that I think you are reaching when discounting the roster he built that competed for a long time without one transcendent player.

The mistakes he made was trying to extend the window of the team after the Wallaces declined with bad contracts. That team was built on great defense starting with those two bigs.

The team didn't get any better because of the terrible moves Detroit made.  They didn't add free agents.  They didn't add usable players through the draft.  Actually, the one good thing Dumars did was let the old guys go and trade them for shorter contracts.  He didn't give Ben the extra year or the massive contract and let him walk.  He traded Billups for one less year on Iverson (and got a ton of cap space, which of course he blew on gordon and charlie v).  He let Rasheed expire and didn't sign him long term.  He did keep Prince, but on a reasonable contract.  The one mistake he really made with that core was extending Hamilton to that massive contract in 2008, but otherwise he did what he should have done with the core itself.  He just failed to bring in the appropriate players to play with the core because he was a horrid drafter and signing of free agents. 

And again, he would have had the transcendant player if he drafted Carmelo instead of Darko and would have then had 2 firsts in the next draft to add even more (and that 2004 draft was very deep as evident by the players that were actually signed in the pick positions).

[ManUp]

Contenders don't happen overnight, nothing we didn't already know. Look at the Thunder, they improved as their young players do. When your a really bad lottery team no player is going to make you a winner overnight. Davis could be that Tim Duncan level prospect they're claiming he is, but if he goes to the Bobcat they'll still need 3 or 4 years before they start to make any real noise. If your expecting the draft to get us back to contender land asap your overestimating how much impact a rookie can have.

[LooseCannon]

If your expecting the draft to get us back to contender land asap your overestimating how much impact a rookie can have.

I think a rookie can have a lot of impact, but I think some people under-estimate how devoid of talent you need to make a team to become a really bad lottery team.

[pearljammer10]

The percentages are low in the NBA draft that you will get a real difference maker.

It's about roster building.

I hope Ainge can get us a younger, more deep team with multiple 1st rounders this year and some cap space to get NBA bodies.

I just hope he doesn't repeat Joe Dumars massive mistakes....

(Ben Gordon and Charlie V everyone!!!)

This worries me as well... Just because we have the cap space doesnt mean we absolutely 100% need to spend it! If we can land a big fish at the right price its well worth it. But if we cant, why not wait til 2013 or use a trade exception with our cap space mid season next year.

[snively]

A good or at least mediocre team sacrificing short-term success (without sacrificing long-term assets) in a single year can have very beneficial effects.  I love what Portland did this year.  They have LaMarcus Aldridge locked up but they weren't satisfied with his aging supporting cast.  So they dumped their 2nd and 4th best players (both veterans with depreciating value) for young prospects, a very nice pick, and headed into the lottery themselves.

That kind of tanking can work out very well: they already have a nice building block in place (maybe two if you rank Batum highly) and they'll have some cap space and a pair of lottery picks to rebuild something around him.

It's kinda what I wish the C's did with Rondo: try and get a late lottery pick for Pierce and then dump Ray/KG for Camby-type packages.  I'm not terribly disappointed that we didn't: Pierce's value was clouded by his age and contract and KG was nigh impossible to move with his salary.  That left a solitary Ray dump, which would have only netted a very late first rounder, and left the remaining veteran squad still too good to tank.

We very well could be heading in to the tank next year.  If Ainge lowballs KG and Ray and they take deals elsewhere, there's really nowhere to go but the lottery.  Just not enough talent out there to replace KG's impact, and I don't think Ainge will go the Milwaukee/Detroit route of handing out long-term contracts to veteran role-players in an attempt for short-term relevance.   

[Mr October]

I think selectively Tanking is fine. If you tank for 2 years or more with no sign of legit talent growth, you risk creating a culture of losing.

[snively]

The percentages are low in the NBA draft that you will get a real difference maker.

It's about roster building.

I hope Ainge can get us a younger, more deep team with multiple 1st rounders this year and some cap space to get NBA bodies.

I just hope he doesn't repeat Joe Dumars massive mistakes....

(Ben Gordon and Charlie V everyone!!!)

This worries me as well... Just because we have the cap space doesnt mean we absolutely 100% need to spend it! If we can land a big fish at the right price its well worth it. But if we cant, why not wait til 2013 or use a trade exception with our cap space mid season next year.

Yeah, if KG & Ray were to depart, I'd look to sign trade-able mercenaries like JR Smith, Kwame, Carl Landry, and, hey, Jeff Green to rich one year deals.  Guys who can put up stats and retain some value on a transitioning team.  Use them as trade chips, contract filler in bigger trades or just let them play out the string.

[bdm860]

#1 overall picks since 1980 who have been on a world championship team: Mark Aguirre (twice), James Worthy (thrice), Hakeen Olajuwon (twice), David Robinson (twice), Shaquille O'Neal (four times), Glenn Robinson (once), Tim Duncan (four times).  Worthy and Duncan are the only players on that list to get a ring in their first seven seasons.  If we exclude the last seven drafts, then 28% of first overall picks since 1980 have won an NBA title.

I think you're looking at this the wrong way, because it's not #1 pick or nothing.  When many people believed teams like the C's were tanking in '07, it wasn't for the #1 pick, but for #1 or #2 pick.  When teams tank, sure they hope for the #1 pick, but they also think other top picks are a great consolation prize as well.

And while an NBA championship is the ultimate goal you're going for, if you broaden the guidelines and consider teams that made the NBA Finals the picture is a little different.  (I would actually prefer considering teams that made the conference finals, as I figure the vast majority of the time, teams that make the conference finals are considered contenders, and really what you want is for your player to make you a contender, but that would take more work to get those numbers...)

Like you did going back to 1980, but looking at the top 3 picks and teams that made the finals (instead of #1 pick and championship) there were 81 players taken in the 27 years from 1980-2006, and there have been 82 Finals appearances by those players, and 42 championships.

So your math was seven #1 picks in 25 years have won championships 7/25 = 28%

But those seven players accounted for 18 championships (though 3 were duplicates due to multiple #1's on the Spurs teams).  So 15/31 = 48% of the championships since 1980 have been won by a #1 pick.  Looks a little better.

Now for my additional parameters (#1-3 picks, NBA Finals):

The draft classes starting from 1980 on (excluding the last 7 years like you did) have had a player selected #1-3 make the NBA Finals from every draft class except the 1986, 1998, 1999, and 2002 classes, so 21/25 gives teams an 84% chance of taking a guy who will make the NBA Finals.

Scaling it back to just #1 picks, 15 of the 25 since 1980 have made the NBA Finals, that's a 60% chance of getting to the Finals.  I'll tank for that.

Draft classes since '80 with a #1-3 pick winning a championship? 14/25 = 56%


Now I will admit some of the numbers are skewed a little with top 3 picks who were scrubs on the bench of a good team (thank you Adam Morrison and Darko Milic with 3 rings between the two) or just role players (Coleman, McDyess, etc.).  So here's the master list I put together (and as always there may be some errors as well):

Year   Player   Pick #   Rings   Finals
1980   McHale   3   3   5
1981   Mark Aguirre   1   2   3
1981   Isiah Thomas   2   2   3
1981   Buck Williams   3   0   2
1982   James Worthy   1   3   7
1983   Ralph Sampson   1   0   1
1983   Rodney McCray   3   1   2
1984   Hakeem Olajuwon   1   2   3
1984   Michael Jordan   3   6   6
1985   Patrick Ewing   1   0   2
1987   David Robinson   1   2   2
1988   Rick Smits   2   0   1
1988   Charles Smith   3   0   1
1989   Danny Ferry   2   1   1
1989   Sean Elliot   3   1   1
1990   Derrick Coleman   1   0   2
1990   Gary Payton   2   1   3
1991   Larry Johnson   1   0   1
1992   Shaquille O'Neal   1   4   6
1992   Alonzo Mourning   2   1   1
1993   Anfernee Hardaway   3   0   1
1994   Geln Robinson   1   1   1
1994   Jason Kidd   2   1   3
1995   McDyess   2   0   1
1995   Stackhouse   3   0   1
1996   Allen Iverson   1   0   1
1996   Marcus Camby   2   0   1
1997   Tim Duncan   1   4   4
1997   Keith Van Horn   2   0   1
1997   Chauncy Billups   3   1   2
2000   Kenyan Martin   1   0   2
2001   Tyson Chandler   2   1   1
2001   Pau Gasol   3   2   3
2003   LeBron James   1   0   2
2003   Darko Milic   2   1   2
2004   Dwight Howard   1   0   1
2006   Adam Morrison   3   2   2

[greg683x]

#1 overall picks since 1980 who have been on a world championship team: Mark Aguirre (twice), James Worthy (thrice), Hakeen Olajuwon (twice), David Robinson (twice), Shaquille O'Neal (four times), Glenn Robinson (once), Tim Duncan (four times).  Worthy and Duncan are the only players on that list to get a ring in their first seven seasons.  If we exclude the last seven drafts, then 28% of first overall picks since 1980 have won an NBA title.

When did Glenn Robinson ever win a championship???  If he did, theres no way he could have been an integral part of it

[LooseCannon]

#1 overall picks since 1980 who have been on a world championship team: Mark Aguirre (twice), James Worthy (thrice), Hakeen Olajuwon (twice), David Robinson (twice), Shaquille O'Neal (four times), Glenn Robinson (once), Tim Duncan (four times).  Worthy and Duncan are the only players on that list to get a ring in their first seven seasons.  If we exclude the last seven drafts, then 28% of first overall picks since 1980 have won an NBA title.

I think you're looking at this the wrong way, because it's not #1 pick or nothing.  When many people believed teams like the C's were tanking in '07, it wasn't for the #1 pick, but for #1 or #2 pick.  When teams tank, sure they hope for the #1 pick, but they also think other top picks are a great consolation prize as well.

I did have the assumption that the #2 or #3 picks shouldn't be more likely than the #1 to be a fundamental building block for a championship caliber team.  I'm just too lazy to do the work to expand it to players who were top three picks who ended up as one of the top three players on a contender (say, a team that either had 55 wins or made the conference finals).

The number I really wanted to highlight, though, was that it takes several years to get to contending status after you have a high draft pick, if you draft the right guy.  The statistic I would really like to have is how long it takes to go from playoff team to bottom-dweller and how long it takes teams to get back to contendership once they sink that low.  People who advocate tanking seem to think it's really easy to tank, as if just throwing a bunch of young players onto the court can get you to the bottom, when you really need to play bad young players. 

My main point is that the length of a massive rebuilding project comes from making your team so talentless that it takes you several years to acquire other talent once you get bad enough draft high.  The exceptions are a team like the Spurs where you lose a bunch of talent temporarily due to injury or the Bulls where you get a lucky ping pong ball without having to get anywhere close to being one of the worst 3-5 teams in the league.  So, it makes sense to tank when you team is already devoid of talent, but not when you actually have good players.

[Celtics18]

Tanking stinks.  I'm utterly opposed to it.  If your team has very little talent and experience you don't have to try to tank, you'll lose enough games to get in the lottery based on your lack of talent. 

Every NBA team should go out there and play the games to win every night.  The fact that so many fans actively root for their teams to lose on purpose indicates that maybe it's time for the league to restructure how the NBA draft works.  Personally, I'm all for eliminating it all together.