The "tanking is fool's gold" theory

[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.

[rutzan]

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 of Wiggins        Chance at 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.

love the math but still too many variables...is rondo coming back...when...is rondo being traded...what about all the other teams in the nba thinking the same...will they cooperate with our math...what about injuries...is sullinger back 100% healthy...when...what about the potential draft picks...what if they stay in college...what if they get hurt...still way too many variables...that is why i call it the great "what if"...that is why it is a gamble...danny will be a hero or a goat...he is in both lines....nothing in between...do you call it an "educated risk"...i guess that is up to each individual...if you like betting on black or red....then...this is right up your alley...

[paidthecost2betheboss]

I checked the lottery on Wikipedia and anyone who thinks that's a plan is nutz.

I think Danny is gathering Gold pieces because ANOTHER Owner/GM is gonna give the goods to get to pingpong heaven. THOSE goods are how we win.

[DoverCeltic]

Well thought out post. I agree with your assessment in the break down of a "Franchise" player. To add to this risk though is the possibility of a player not declaring or red flags arriving midway through the year. Hopefully this does not happen

[Interceptor]

You only need to draft the franchise player if your GM is a dummy. Missing on the top gun isn't a problem if you can turn your misses into a trade for a big dog. I seem to recall something about a #5 pick and Ray Allen in 2007.

[rutzan]

Well thought out post. I agree with your assessment in the break down of a "Franchise" player. To add to this risk though is the possibility of a player not declaring or red flags arriving midway through the year. Hopefully this does not happen

exactly...there are way too many variables...we're just talking about 2014...what about 2015...2016...2017...2018...the variables just start stacking up...

[LooseCannon]

It's wrong to treat tanking as a sure thing and it's wrong to dismiss tanking because it's not a sure thing.

ESPN talking heads are horrible because they try to cast things in binary absolute yes or no when the answer is much more probabilistic.

[Boris Badenov]

Well thought out post. I agree with your assessment in the break down of a "Franchise" player. To add to this risk though is the possibility of a player not declaring or red flags arriving midway through the year. Hopefully this does not happen

Yeah, that's why I'm not making any firm predictions about who will turn out to be good. Look at Oden.

But of course that is true in every year, with one or five potential franchise guys.

The point, I think, is really simple: tanking might be fools' gold in a year with one potential franchise guy, but it's a much better bet with many such guys. Maybe more so than people appreciate.

[clover]

Tanking isn't a very effective strategy in the hands of bad managements (who are there with the bad teams most often anyway).

But for good managements not only do you not need the one best player in the draft or a 'franchise' pick, but as with the C's #5 that led to Ray Allen who led to KG, just a top pick can make the difference before the pick's even been made.

[DoverCeltic]

Well thought out post. I agree with your assessment in the break down of a "Franchise" player. To add to this risk though is the possibility of a player not declaring or red flags arriving midway through the year. Hopefully this does not happen

Yeah, that's why I'm not making any firm predictions about who will turn out to be good. Look at Oden.

But of course that is true in every year, with one or five potential franchise guys.

The point, I think, is really simple: tanking might be fools' gold in a year with one potential franchise guy, but it's a much better bet with many such guys. Maybe more so than people appreciate.

This draft is one draft where tanking actually may be the correct approach. Normally I wouldnt advocate it (see Oden/Durant), but in a draft that one day could be looked back upon like the 2003 draft, what is the worst that could happen? Top 5 sounds quite good right now.

[rondoallaturca]

Great post, but unfortunately we have to remember that we aren't the only team tanking for the 2014 draft. Rounding up that 49% possibility to a 50% for convenience, the worst 4 teams have at least a 50-50 shot of nailing one of these franchise players. Right now, Boston is not a bottom 4 team. We would definitely have to trade Rondo for that to happen, and that's giving away one of the most valuable trade assets in the league right now for a CHANCE at one of these franchise players.

Now, even if we're lucky enough to get a franchise player, what does that spell? With Ainge, it's likely he brings in another franchise changing talent like Riley did with Shaq & Wade. Thanks to that move, Wade won in this third year. On the flip side, Lebron is one of the best players of our generation and he couldn't win until 9 seasons and switching teams.

Look at Cleveland now. Washington. Charlotte. Minnesota. Tanking hasn't gotten them far at all. Why isn't tanking option #1 for Dallas right now, who are arguably in a similar position that Boston was in? And of all people, Mark Cuban is the guy who is most likely to go with the "home run" plan. So why isn't he tanking?

There are way too many variables when it comes to tanking, and that's why I'm not a fan of it, especially since we're not even in a position where we have to tank.

[LarBrd33]

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.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Tanking isn't a very effective strategy in the hands of bad managements (who are there with the bad teams most often anyway).

But for good managements not only do you not need the one best player in the draft or a 'franchise' pick, but as with the C's #5 that led to Ray Allen who led to KG, just a top pick can make the difference before the pick's even been made.

This is exactly it.  Bobcats still are terrible because they draft Cody Zeller 4th overall and Adam Morrison 3rd overall.  The Thunder and The Spurs are the two dominant teams in the West for years now because of one year of tanking leading up to a strong draft.  Cleveland was a powerhouse for tanking leading up to Lebron.  If we have Rondo, Sullinger, Wiggins and Green a year from now, nobody is going to be complaining.  That is doubly true if one of the Clippers or Nets are in the lottery on one of those draft years. 

I agree with some detractors: our worst case scenario is pretty bad.  However, our best case scenario is a dynasty going into 2017 with a potential Nets lottery pick to add to it.  We could actually have Len Bias live this time

[RyNye]

The problem is your numbers are implicitly assuming that there ARE that many franchise players in this coming draft.

How reliable are rankings over a year before the actual draft? How reliable in general are people's predictions about how good players will be? The list of players who were consensus lottery picks and future franchise players that ended up as busts is endless.

Also, the truth is the majority of people on this site haven't ever even seen any of these players! They are just relying on the word of ESPN panelists saying that they are good without any evidence for this to be the case whatsoever.

The truth is, history has shown that the NBA is VERY bad at figuring out draft potential. Very few drafts are like 2003. In most drafts, one of the top 5 guys ends up being pretty good, and then a couple guys who slipped end up being pretty good. It is the exception, not the rule, for players who are projected to be franchise players to turn into franchise players.

The problem isn't so much that tanking isn't a viable strategy at all. The problem is that there are people on this website, and elsewhere, that are so %%#&*%& smug and condescending about this whole thing. A lot of people act like tanking is a 100% foolproof plan to build a contender (ironically, using examples like San Antonio, who aren't contenders because of tanking, but because of smart management of assets around their franchise player), when in reality it is a high risk/high reward scenario.

They act like those of us who are opposed to it are only acting on "emotion" and not "logic" ... even though any casual glance at the history of the NBA draft will show you how uncertain of a phenomenon it is from every angle, how MORE OFTEN THAN NOT teams that tank do NOT become contenders as a result.

[rbk526]

tell that 2 the spurs i think the tanking worked very good don't you