The Worst, Oft-Repeated Misconceptions About Tankers

[mmmmm]

I wish that the system weren't set up in a way that creates such incentive to lose when a team enters rebuilding.  I would love to see the draft system change. 

But the system IS setup in a way that doesn't provide incentive to lose.

It's called the weighted lottery system.   It was setup in 1994 and it works.

It has not really favored teams that lose a lot of games.

Since it was introduced, only a couple of teams that have ended a season with one of the 5 worst records has gone on to win a title - ever.  A few teams that have finished within the 10 worst have gone on to eventually win a title - but most have taken over a decade to do so.   

• 94-95  None of the 5 worst teams has won a title.  The 6th worst team, Detroit won it in 2004.  The 8th worst (Miami) and 10th worst (Boston) also won - both also over a decade later.
• 95-96  Again, none of the 5 worst teams has since won a title.  Again, the 6th worst team, Dallas, won in 2009.  The 9th worst team was Boston.
• 96-97  Finally, 2 winners.  The 2nd worst team (Boston) won 11 years later.  The 3rd worst team (Spurs) won just 2 years later.  The 3 other teams in the bottom 5 still have not won a title.  The 6th worst team was Dallas again.
• 97-98  None of the 5 worst teams has since won a title.  The 6th worst team was, again, Dallas.  The 10th worst team was Boston, again.
• 98-99  Again, none of the 5 worst teams has since won a title.  The 7th & 8th worst teams were Dallas and Boston again.
• 99-00  None of the 10 worst teams that year have since won a title.
• 00-01  None of the 5 worst teams that year have since won a title.  The 9th worst team, Detroit, won just 3 years later in 2004.  The 10th worst team was Boston, again.
• 01-02  Again, none of the 5 worst teams have since won a title.  The 10th worst team, Miami, won 4 years later, in 2006.
• 02-03  Nine of the 10 worst teams that season have still not won a title.  Miami, the 4th worst, picked Wade at #5 and won, as mentioned, in 2006.  Of course, all the rest of their main rotation (Shaq, Mourning, Payton, etc.) was acquired via trade or FA.
• 03-04  Nine of the 10 worst teams that season have still not won a title.  The 10th worst was Boston.
• 04-05  Nine of the 10 worst teams that season have still not won a title.  The 9th worst (Lakers) won in 2009 & 2010.
• 05-06  Nine of the 10 worst teams that season have still not won a title.  The 7th worst was Boston.
• 06-07  Again, 9 of the 10 worst teams that season have still not won a title.  The 2nd worse record was Boston, who finally won the next season (2008)!
• 07-08  Again, 9 of the 10 worst teams that season have still not won a title.  The WORST team - the blatantly tanking Heat did win again, in 2012 & 2013.  But the pick they got (Beasely at #2) had nothing to do with it.  He was a bust.
• 08-09  None of the 10 worst teams have since won a title.
• 09-10  None of the 10 worst teams have since won a title.  The 10th worst, the Pacers, do look like a contender for 2014.
• 10-11  None of the 10 worst teams have since won a title.
• 11-12  None of the 10 worst teams have since won a title.  Recent former champion Detroit found themselves back in the bottom 10 as the 9th worst team.
• 12-13  None of the 10 worse teams have since won a title.  Detroit only recent former champ, in at 8th worst.
  

When you look at this, only three teams (two franchises) have managed to have bottom-5 records and turn around and win the title within 5 years.  And both times the circumstances were nuanced.

The 1997 Spurs were really just an injured team that was otherwise a consistent 50+ game winner the prior few seasons and got Robinson back healthy the next season.   So they were adding Duncan to an already powerful roster.

The 2006 Heat did get a great season out of Wade (drafted in 2003), but he was surrounded by a powerful cast of stars (Shaq, etc.) acquired via trade and free agency.

The 2012 & 2013 Heat won because they again acquired a powerful cast (Lebron, etc.) to put around Wade.

The 2003 draft is of course, very notable because like this up-coming 2014 draft, it was hyped up to be 'loaded' with "can't miss" young superstars.  And it was, indeed loaded:  Lebron, Carmelo, Bosh, Wade, etc.

But only two of the guys taken in that draft has won the title on the team that drafted him.   One of those two was Wade.  One of them was Darko, who sat on the bench while Detroit won (Detroit had acquired that pick in trade).  And two of the others (Lebron & Bosh) only won it after combining with Wade on that same Miami team.

Expanding beyond just teams that have sunk into the bottom 5, of the teams that have sunk to having one of the 10 worst records, only Detroit, Boston and Dallas have managed to climb back to the top.  And in each case it took a LOONG time after first sinking down there to get back to the surface.

It is definitely true that most title teams have top draft talent on them.  But most of that talent has ended up on those teams via trade or free agency.  Not because those title teams drafted them.

Rebuilding through the draft is a crap shoot.  It is a game better played with other people's money -- i.e., to have other team's draft picks when THEY suck.

[PhoSita]

I wish that the system weren't set up in a way that creates such incentive to lose when a team enters rebuilding.  I would love to see the draft system change. 

But the system IS setup in a way that doesn't provide incentive to lose.

It's called the weighted lottery system.   It was setup in 1994 and it works.

It has not really favored teams that lose a lot of games.

Okay, it doesn't provide incentive to be the very, very worst.  The previous system (just arranging picks by record) gave more incentive to be the very worst.


You can't tell me that this system doesn't provide incentive to, say, aim to be a bottom-10 team rather than make it into the playoffs as a 7th or 8th seed.

I don't think very many teams, in this system, try to be absolutely abysmal.  Even the Sixers this season have avoided that, despite the indications heading into it.  But plenty of teams, I'd say, look to cut salary and cast off middle of the road players as soon as they feel their group has hit a plateau as a less than very competitive squad.

You can't tell me that rebuilding teams in the NBA don't take draft position into consideration when putting together their rosters.  Otherwise, it'd be much more common for rebuilding squads to do what teams do in baseball -- sign older veterans to short term deals to try to make a playoff run while the younger guys develop (e.g. the Red Sox this past year).

[mmmmm]

I wish that the system weren't set up in a way that creates such incentive to lose when a team enters rebuilding.  I would love to see the draft system change. 

But the system IS setup in a way that doesn't provide incentive to lose.

It's called the weighted lottery system.   It was setup in 1994 and it works.

It has not really favored teams that lose a lot of games.

Okay, it doesn't provide incentive to be the very, very worst.  The previous system (just arranging picks by record) gave more incentive to be the very worst.


You can't tell me that this system doesn't provide incentive to, say, aim to be a bottom-10 team rather than make it into the playoffs as a 7th or 8th seed.

I don't think very many teams, in this system, try to be absolutely abysmal.  Even the Sixers this season have avoided that, despite the indications heading into it.  But plenty of teams, I'd say, look to cut salary and cast off middle of the road players as soon as they feel their group has hit a plateau as a less than very competitive squad.

You can't tell me that rebuilding teams in the NBA don't take draft position into consideration when putting together their rosters.  Otherwise, it'd be much more common for rebuilding squads to do what teams do in baseball -- sign older veterans to short term deals to try to make a playoff run while the younger guys develop (e.g. the Red Sox this past year).

The MLB and the NBA are simply not comparable.  The NBA does not have a full, true developmental minor league system in which to stash players during development.   It does not have 15 extra roster spots to protect inactive players with.   The MLB has only the most vaporous of salary thresholds while the NBA has both a soft and a hard cap, with stiff penalties.

The only 'incentive' towards using the draft for NBA teams is to save money.  Because of the cap constraints, there is a benefit to having more of your roster on rookie contracts because rookie contracts are often underpaid relative to production.

But that is not an incentive that correlates with winning.

[hwangjini_1]

phosita,

you have made a great number of excellent posts and authored good threads in the past. this one may be among your very best. it is a well thought out position that is consistent AND has generated some very good and carefully articulated replies - both pro and con. (mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm's is one case in point.)

all of this is simply to say "thanks!" you are correct that the joy of cb for many of us is to read thought provoking, well researched debates, and discussions on the love of our lives...the celtics.

and just to add one small nuance to this discussion, this year has been liberating for me in terms of the celtics. i hope they win each and every game. but when when their butts are handed to them and they undergo - to steal a phrase from cornbread maxwell - a good old fashioned country ass thumping, i am not disappointed since i know they are rebuilding and developing.

but best of all, with stevens, ainge, sully, and a few others i KNOW this team will be back in 2-3 years. and i enjoy seeing to slowly, slowly take place.

what is fun for me this year is win or lose, as as long as i see effort and development i am a rather happy camper since i believe better things are coming.

thanks phosita and all the other posters in this thread for an interesting and civil debate.

[D.o.s.]

no tanking iz dum.

[henr1k]

Hi, my name is henr1k and I am a tanker. There, I said it. I feel better.

I would be more than happy if NBA changed the current lottery rules and installed a system that doesn't reward losing. But the system does that and the sad reality is that teams who try their best to put the best possible team on the floor without having a realistic chance to contend are doing a disservice to themselves and their fan base in the long term.

People who post stuff like 'fans who are rooting for losses are not real fans' are obviously missing the big picture and live in some romantic fantasy world where good guys get the girl at the end.

Sure, trying to win every game sounds right and noble but go to the Bucks forum and ask them how is it feel to be stuck in the no man's land for a decade, watching your team win between 34-42 games every year and getting knocked out in the first round.

The most important thing people don't mention when they try to discuss tanking and how good or bad that strategy is - who is the one making decisions? For every Riley, Ainge, Buford or Presti there are two or three Kahn, Dumars, Grunfeld or Billy Kings. Look at all the teams that have been stuck in the lottery forever or teams that haven't been contenders in the last decade despite having multiple high lottery draft picks, what do they have in common? If your answer is incompetent management you get a cookie.

All of us here should be very happy to be rooting for a team that has a bright front office and a great ownership group. There are no magic fixes and no right or wrong paths in rebuilding but getting a high lottery pick is the easiest way to get a building block, either by good drafting or via trade using that pick as an asset.

Tanking isn't telling your players to go out and lose. It's seeing the big picture, not signing/trading for 'win-now' players when your ceiling is 2nd round exit, playing and developing young guys over vets that have no trade value/future with your team, trading vets for picks/cap flexibility if possible (Lee trade)..

If you do that and your team grows over night, like Phoenix has this season, then you are happy when they are winning cause you have extra draft picks, cap flexibility and a young team with a plenty of room to grow within themselves.

Peace

[PhoSita]

The only 'incentive' towards using the draft for NBA teams is to save money.  Because of the cap constraints, there is a benefit to having more of your roster on rookie contracts because rookie contracts are often underpaid relative to production.

But that is not an incentive that correlates with winning.

So you're telling me that the current draft system doesn't provide teams with the incentive to avoid being a middle of the road team?

I don't know what to say.  Agree to disagree I guess.


I do agree, by the way, that the MLB and NBA are largely not comparable.  Still, I think that if -- to take an extreme example -- the draft were not related to a team's record at all, you'd see more teams willing to spend money to try to field a competitive-but-not-great squad, because doing so wouldn't affect the team's ability to add young talent at the end of the season.


I don't know how anybody could argue that the NBA as a league has a strong or entertaining middle class right now.  There's a top crust of teams and then a lot of mess.  Yes, this is a star driven league, but I don't think that the talent distribution needs to be so uneven, if lower level teams had more incentive to spend.

Saving money is a consideration for many teams but I don't think it plays as large a role as you suggest.  In fact, I think smaller market teams would tend to prefer to spend a bit to make the playoffs if they can because that gives them more fan attention and revenue.  But we have a system that actually punishes teams that win a few extra games to make the playoffs instead of missing them (especially in years when the conferences are so uneven).

[Mr October]

I thinkwith every pro and anti crowd that has existed here at CB(Doc lovers vs. Doc haters, optimists vs. realists, tankers vs anti-tankers) there are a few posters on one or both sides that push the direction of the conversation into a bad direction. And a lot of those posters tend to post in the game threads.

As BBall Tim said, I don't have a problem with people who feel the best thing long term for this franchise is to lose now so that we can win later but the horrid gloating over a loss or the depressive posts that ridicule a win by this team I find terribly distasteful.

If you are a fan of the team, at least support them when they take the court, even if you feel that if they happen to lose it wouldn't be the worst result. But cheering for losses and making fun of the players and coach for winning makes me a little sick to my stomach.

And again, its only a few people who seem to do this but they also love sharing these views in post after post throughout the blog.

I agree that it doesn't do any good to root against the team in the game threads. It doesn't accomplish anything aside from irritate those that are rooting for the team.

As a pro-tanker myself, i like that we are still rooting for our team to play well. I would hope we all want to see our young players improve over the course of the season.

[PhoSita]

I thinkwith every pro and anti crowd that has existed here at CB(Doc lovers vs. Doc haters, optimists vs. realists, tankers vs anti-tankers) there are a few posters on one or both sides that push the direction of the conversation into a bad direction. And a lot of those posters tend to post in the game threads.

As BBall Tim said, I don't have a problem with people who feel the best thing long term for this franchise is to lose now so that we can win later but the horrid gloating over a loss or the depressive posts that ridicule a win by this team I find terribly distasteful.

If you are a fan of the team, at least support them when they take the court, even if you feel that if they happen to lose it wouldn't be the worst result. But cheering for losses and making fun of the players and coach for winning makes me a little sick to my stomach.

And again, its only a few people who seem to do this but they also love sharing these views in post after post throughout the blog.

I agree that it doesn't do any good to root against the team in the game threads. It doesn't accomplish anything aside from irritate those that are rooting for the team.

As a pro-tanker myself, i like that we are still rooting for our team to play well. I would hope we all want to see our young players improve over the course of the season.

In a season like this, I find myself feeling more like a fan of individual players on the team than of the team as a whole.

When I watch, I'm excited to see Jared Sullinger have a big game, and I'm always hoping to see Kelly Olynyk get some good looks and have a stand out performance.  To a lesser extent, I hope to see nice defensive plays from Bradley or a dunk or two from Green.  I can even take some enjoyment from Crawford's funky off-balance jumpers in the paint.  I enjoyed seeing Vitor play at the beginning of the season, but he hardly plays now.

Generally, I'm excited to see the younger guys play a lot of minutes and do well, because I assume they probably have a long term future with the team.  I appreciate the work ethic and leadership of Bass, Wallace, and Humphries, and the scoring output of Crawford and Green, but it's hard to get too attached when I really believe most or all of them will be gone in a year or two.


I'm looking forward to Rondo's return, if only because his ability to recover and return to full strength after his injury will have a huge effect on the team's future (whether they keep him or not).

[Clench123]

I just don't like how fans who believe the team isn't good enough and don't want to see the team make the playoffs just because the rest of the East is bad getting lumped into those who just want the Celtics to lose all their games.

Seriously, what difference does it make?  Both groups, in reality, are still hoping for thesame outcome.  And best way to do that is to lose...whether you root for them to lose a little or a lot, you still want them to lose.  I think some people around here are just so good in using fancy words and sentences to make it seem like they don't actually want thesame thing

This is it...

Me: I want the Celtics to lose tonight and lose as many games as much as possible for the hope of shaping a shinning future

Forum: I would never root for them to lose but if they fight and come up short, so be it.  It'll be good for us.  Go C's!

 

[BballTim]

I wish that the system weren't set up in a way that creates such incentive to lose when a team enters rebuilding.  I would love to see the draft system change. 

But the system IS setup in a way that doesn't provide incentive to lose.

It's called the weighted lottery system.   It was setup in 1994 and it works.

It has not really favored teams that lose a lot of games.

Okay, it doesn't provide incentive to be the very, very worst.  The previous system (just arranging picks by record) gave more incentive to be the very worst.


You can't tell me that this system doesn't provide incentive to, say, aim to be a bottom-10 team rather than make it into the playoffs as a 7th or 8th seed.

I don't think very many teams, in this system, try to be absolutely abysmal.  Even the Sixers this season have avoided that, despite the indications heading into it.  But plenty of teams, I'd say, look to cut salary and cast off middle of the road players as soon as they feel their group has hit a plateau as a less than very competitive squad.

You can't tell me that rebuilding teams in the NBA don't take draft position into consideration when putting together their rosters.  Otherwise, it'd be much more common for rebuilding squads to do what teams do in baseball -- sign older veterans to short term deals to try to make a playoff run while the younger guys develop (e.g. the Red Sox this past year).

  I checked the last 15-20 seasons for the number of teams with less than 30 wins and it's a pretty static number. 5-6 teams before the last round of expansion, 6-7 year in and year out since then. The number doesn't go up and down with the quality of the draft. The fact that there aren't more teams with bad records in years that there are supposed to be good drafts would imply tanking happens less than people think, at least that fewer of the teams you'd say tanking is their best strategy follow that.

  There was a one year blip in bad teams. That wasn't prior to a good draft but the LeBron FA year. Since then there has been an uptick in bad teams, but I'd say that the new CBA is more to blame than anything else, and more the reason there are so many bad teams now than the upcoming draft class.

[PhoSita]

  I checked the last 15-20 seasons for the number of teams with less than 30 wins and it's a pretty static number. 5-6 teams before the last round of expansion, 6-7 year in and year out since then. The number doesn't go up and down with the quality of the draft. The fact that there aren't more teams with bad records in years that there are supposed to be good drafts would imply tanking happens less than people think, at least that fewer of the teams you'd say tanking is their best strategy follow that.

I'm not sure I follow you as to the effect that the new CBA has had on things.

As for the relatively static number of teams at the very bottom, that's interesting, though I suspect that part of it is simply that only so many teams can lose a lot of games.  Somebody has to win games.

In any case, I think that there are ample examples of the type of behavior I'm talking about.  Oklahoma City.  Charlotte.  Philadelphia this season (I'm assuming they didn't expect MCW to be this good).  Utah. 

Also, I think the impulses I'm talking about with respect to the draft may come into play the strongest when a team isn't downright awful but is still a few pieces away from being truly competitive.  Typically, teams in that position will only add veteran salary if they already have a young core and they've been bad for an extended period of time (like Washington and Cleveland this year).

I think in a league with different draft incentives, you'd see more teams take the route that Houston took to get to where it is -- making value moves to try and stay competitive in the middle while looking to gradually accumulate assets.  If that, rather than the "Presti plan," were the standard model for rebuilding, I think the league would generally be more entertaining.

Of course, that would require a lot of teams to hire better GMs.

[LooseCannon]

You might as well just argue that the salary cap creates an incentive to tank by making it harder to improve by means other than the draft.

[PhoSita]

You might as well just argue that the salary cap creates an incentive to tank by making it harder to improve by means other than the draft.

I guess, though only if a team is up against the cap and is yet somehow bad enough to actually tank.

[D.o.s.]

I just don't like how fans who believe the team isn't good enough and don't want to see the team make the playoffs just because the rest of the East is bad getting lumped into those who just want the Celtics to lose all their games.

Seriously, what difference does it make? Both groups, in reality, are still hoping for the same outcome.  And best way to do that is to lose...whether you root for them to lose a little or a lot, you still want them to lose.  I think some people around here are just so good in using fancy words and sentences to make it seem like they don't actually want thesame thing

This is it...

Me: I want the Celtics to lose tonight and lose as many games as much as possible for the hope of shaping a shinning future

Forum: I would never root for them to lose but if they fight and come up short, so be it.  It'll be good for us.  Go C's!

 

See, that's you doing the "tanker" thing by dictating the universal terms of fandom that we all must abide by. I don't hold with that.