What is the success rate for tanking?

[Roy H.]

I am so tired of reading about "tanking", as if it's a guaranteed path to a championship.

There's no much talk about treadmills and mediocrity, etc., as if all a team needs to do to win a title is lose a lot of games, develop a young stable of talent, and then watch the Larry O'Brien trophies role in.

Here's the thing:  tanking / "rebuilding" usually doesn't work.  There's this criticism that the team didn't tank well enough, and that's what is holding us back.  Is it?

Aren't the Bucks sort of the best case scenario for where the Celtics could be right now if we'd had a little more luck?  They've got Giannis and Jabari to build around, two players that Celtics fans have coveted.  They've got a bunch of other young, talented players, many of them lottery picks.  They've found a diamond in the rough in Khris Middleton.  And yet, does anybody expect them to win a championship?

So, I guess what I'm asking those who lament the Celtics making the playoffs, and who want to see a more committed rate of losses, is:  what is the success rate of tanking?  What are the odds that even the most lucky of tanking franchises -- say, the Twolves and Sixers -- make the NBA Finals within the next decade?

[PhoSita]

What's the success rate of rebuilding without tanking?

*********

Pointing out that tanking often isn't a guaranteed, linear solution -- certainly not as much as it is often made out to be -- isn't a condemnation of the strategy.

The best of a selection of unpalatable options is still the best one.

Lots of teams slog through multiple abysmal, loss-filled seasons, get their young superstar prospects, and proceed to squander the opportunity.  They still had an opportunity, which is more than the Celts can say right now.

If you don't want to "strategically lose" for high draft picks, I think the next best thing is to "compile assets," try to build something respectable while fiercely guarding your flexibility, and hope desperately for a star player to become available for trade.  In that case, you'll probably end up getting a guy on the back end of his prime, and you'll have a handful of years to contend -- like the Celts did in 08. 

Obviously, I wouldn't trade 08 for anything.  The 2010 and 2012 seasons were enjoyable, too, though frustrating and even heartbreaking at times.  Still, I wish the Celts could build something that lasts a bit longer.  I feel like we didn't have enough time with that '08 championship core.  Definitely not enough time with KG playing at full strength.


Anyway, yeah, rebuilding is a crapshoot.  But if you've got to gamble -- and I don't like gambling, personally -- you should try and maximize your odds of success.

[Roy H.]

What's the success rate of rebuilding without tanking?

Thanks for adding to the discussion.

Many, many teams have won championships without a dedicated effort to lose as many games as possible.  The Celtics didn't tank for Larry Bird.  The Lakers didn't tank for Magic Johnson.  The Lakers didn't tank for Shaq or Kobe.  The Bulls didn't tank for Jordan, although the Rockets probably did tank for Hakeem.

[cb8883]

What's the success rate of rebuilding without tanking?

Agreed. While obviously the success rate isn't 100% by any stretch it's a lot better than the alternative. Tanking does two things.

Gets you top prospects to develop and use for your core
Gets you top prospects to trade for players to use for your core.

I feel its the absolute only way for a place like Boston. They don't have the geographic advantage to build off of free agency such as the Lakers. Maybe I would repeat myself less if there were less free agent target posts. Celtics fans have a very unrealistic view of this rebuild.

[littleteapot]

The odds of doing anything to win a championship are low. It's a little tough to say how successful tanking is because so much of the league has players on their roster they got in some way because of tanking.

On the micro level I don't honestly know how anyone could argue that it doesn't work - it clearly gives teams better rosters than they would otherwise have.

[D.o.s.]

Sort of a lazy question because you're not defining tanking -- The Warriors tanked a couple of  times -- once on the way to a pick and once when they traded away their second best player for a rim protector that wasn't going to play a minute of basketball in the short term -- and I don't know if you know this but they just won a championship.

The Rockets won two championships via tanking, and as we all know they're the reason that we have a draft lottery.

The Celtics tanked for the Ray Allen pick, which swung the needle on the KG deal. The Heat didn't tank but they certainly went from a championship squad in 2006 to clearing the books completely in 2011, which is sort of the same idea: gambling on being bad to see if you can wind up being really good later. If the Heat swing and miss on LeBron or Bosh (call it Divine intervention) they're looking at an empty roster in dire need of being filled with even decent NBA players: tonally pretty similar to what the 76ers are dealing with right now.

[PhoSita]

What's the success rate of rebuilding without tanking?

Thanks for adding to the discussion.

Many, many teams have won championships without a dedicated effort to lose as many games as possible.

Sorry for the glib response.  The question you asked is often posed in a manner that's a lot less nuanced than what you've done here.

I get the feeling that where you're coming from is more of a human angle -- OK, sure, tanking makes sense from a numbers standpoint.  It's maximizing your odds of getting the right building blocks. 

But what about the cost, for fans, for players, for coaches, for management, of having to sit and wait through a cynical, unpleasant process that might not even actually work?


My response to that is you have to play the game to win.  It bothers me a lot more as a fan to feel like my team is aimless, that there isn't a clear plan in place, that they're just waiting and hoping for luck or for another team to make a blunder. 

Young, star prospects often don't work out.  Even the ones that do, often end up winning for another team.  It's painful to see any team, let alone your team, squander that kind of opportunity.  But that's better than the emptiness of watching the team flounder in irrelevant obscurity, with a constantly shuffled mix of role players.

[D.o.s.]

What's the success rate of rebuilding without tanking?

Thanks for adding to the discussion.

Many, many teams have won championships without a dedicated effort to lose as many games as possible.

Sorry for the glib response.  The question you asked is often posed in a manner that's a lot less nuanced than what you've done here.

I get the feeling that where you're coming from is more of a human angle -- OK, sure, tanking makes sense from a numbers standpoint.  It's maximizing your odds of getting the right building blocks. 

But what about the cost, for fans, for players, for coaches, for management, of having to sit and wait through a cynical, unpleasant process that might not even actually work?


My response to that is you have to play the game to win.  It bothers me a lot more as a fan to feel like my team is aimless, that there isn't a clear plan in place, that they're just waiting and hoping for luck or for another team to make a blunder. 

Young, star prospects often don't work out.  Even the ones that do, often end up winning for another team.  It's painful to see any team, let alone your team, squander that kind of opportunity.  But that's better than the emptiness of watching the team flounder in irrelevant obscurity, with a constantly shuffled mix of role players.

Exactly. Houston has done the avoid tanking, win 50 games a year thing since their superstars succumbed to injury in the early 00's, but the amount of roster turnover is staggering, particularly if you enjoy watching individual players in addition to the 'team'.

[PhoSita]

Let me try and put it in a simple way.  Hard for me because I struggle to be concise.


Give a hundred people each a block of marble and a chisel.  I don't sculpt, so I don't know if that's all you need.  Anyway, give 'em the tools they require to make a sculpture.


Stand back and watch as 80 of those people proceed to absolutely ruin their marble.  Another 10 produce something that's kinda pleasant to look at, but not great.  The last 10 produce really nice statues. 

Only one or two of them are good enough that you remember them a decade later.


None of them could have produced any sort of statue without the marble and the chisel.  You've got to have the right materials first.

[Roy H.]

OK, sure, tanking makes sense from a numbers standpoint.  It's maximizing your odds of getting the right building blocks.

But what about the cost, for fans, for players, for coaches, for management, of having to sit and wait through a cynical, unpleasant process that might not even actually work?

I think it goes beyond "might not even actually work".  My premise is that it's more like, "is overwhelmingly likely to fail".

What's worse than a treadmill of mediocrity?  A treadmill of failure.  Some teams get lucky, and their tanking efforts turn into a transcendent superstar.  For every Rockets team, though, there are seemingly a dozen Sacramento squads, that stink year after year.  Even for the Rockets, who tanked wildly successfully, they won 2 championships in 17 years, in large part due to the retirement of Michael Jordan.

With all the gnashing of teeth about our failure to tank costing us Justise Winslow, does anybody think that he would be the difference in leading our team to a title?

Two of the biggest success stories of the last 20 years have been the Heat and the Lakers.  They've won titles by 1) making their franchises as attractive as possible, in part by winning lots of games, and 2) making smart trades and free agent signings.  This blueprint has at least as much success in the salary cap era as tanking, doesn't it?

[Roy H.]

Let me try and put it in a simple way.  Hard for me because I struggle to be concise.


Give a hundred people each a block of marble and a chisel.  I don't sculpt, so I don't know if that's all you need.  Anyway, give 'em the tools they require to make a sculpture.


Stand back and watch as 80 of those people proceed to absolutely ruin their marble.  Another 10 produce something that's kinda pleasant to look at, but not great.  The last 10 produce really nice statues. 

Only one or two of them are good enough that you remember them a decade later.


None of them could have produced any sort of statue without the marble and the chisel.  You've got to have the right materials first.

Tanking is the equivalent of a sculptor using crappy materials to make 5 really bad statutes in a row, in the hope that some benefactor will come along and bestow him with really great tools.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Well let's look at the championship teams from the last 15 years

Warriors drafted Curry 7th, Thompson 11th, Green was draft in the second round, Lee and Iggy were signed as free agents, and Bogut was traded for by giving up a player selected in the second round (Ellis).

Spurs drafted Duncan (this the last team who won a championship by getting a star through 'tanking') 1st, Parker in the late first round, Ginobli in the second round, and Leonard 15th.

Heat lucked out when Wade fell to 4th, and signed both Lebron and Bosh.

Mavs lucked out by pick Dirk 8th and having a Euro player turn into a superstar. They filled their roster with free agents and trades.

The Lakers drafted Kobe 13th and Bynum 10th. They also traded for Gasol and Odom (Odom was obtained by trading Shaq, whom they signed as a free agent).

The Celtics grabbed Pierce at 10th and Rondo at 21st and traded for KG and Allen.

Detroit traded for Billups, Wallace, Wallace, and Hamilton. They drafted Prince 23rd.

Heat drafted Wade at 4th and traded for Shaq.

The Lakers drafted Kobe at 13th and signed Shaq in free agency.

Meanwhile, in the last 15 years, only one drafted in the top 3 has won a championship with the team who they were drafted by - Tim Duncan (unless you count Darko with the Pistons).

In fact, only 4 players from top 5 picks over the last 15 years have won a championship in that time - the big three with the Heat and Tim Duncan.

NBA champions almost always trade for stars and find gems in the draft.

But, by all means, "trust the process." It's a proven, time-tested method to becoming an NBA champion.

[acieEarl]

Get ready for 2015 -2016 season of tanking. Unless we score a couple solid free agents, next year looks bleak. That being said, if stand pat with our picks, our pick and Brooklyn pick could easily fall in the top 5. If Jordan doesn't sign with Dallas, I think that pick could be a lottery pick as well.

Not saying it's a successful strategy, but it's a better option then just being to a below average team.

[Roy H.]

Well let's look at the championship teams from the last 15 years

Warriors drafted Curry 7th, Thompson 11th, Green was draft in the second round, Lee and Iggy were signed as free agents, and Bogut was traded for by giving up a player selected in the second round (Ellis).

Spurs drafted Duncan (this the last team who won a championship by getting a star through 'tanking') 1st, Parker in the late first round, Ginobli in the second round, and Leonard 15th.

Heat lucked out when Wade fell to 4th, and signed both Lebron and Bosh.

Mavs lucked out by pick Dirk 8th and having a Euro player turn into a superstar. They filled their roster with free agents and trades.

The Lakers drafted Kobe 13th and Bynum 10th. They also traded for Gasol and Odom (Odom was obtained by trading Shaq, whom they signed as a free agent).

The Celtics grabbed Pierce at 10th and Rondo at 21st and traded for KG and Allen.

Detroit traded for Billups, Wallace, Wallace, and Hamilton. They drafted Prince 23rd.

Heat drafted Wade at 4th and traded for Shaq.

The Lakers drafted Kobe at 13th and signed Shaq in free agency.

Meanwhile, in the last 15 years, only one drafted in the top 3 has won a championship with the team who they were drafted by - Tim Duncan (unless you count Darko with the Pistons).

In fact, only 4 players from top 5 picks over the last 15 years have won a championship in that time - the big three with the Heat and Tim Duncan.

NBA champions almost always trade for stars and find gems in the draft.

But, by all means, "trust the process." It's a proven, time-tested method to becoming an NBA champion.

Exactly what I'm getting at, and thanks for putting that together.  TP.

[littleteapot]

The Celtics grabbed Pierce at 10th and Rondo at 21st and traded for KG and Allen.

What did the Celtics trade to get Ray Allen?