What is the success rate for tanking?

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

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

Here's where "Let's define tanking" becomes part of the discussion.  If you want to say that getting a top 10 pick, or picking in the lottery, isn't "tanking," then that's going to support your argument pretty well.


Warriors - Curry 7th, Klay 11th, Barnes 7th
Spurs - Duncan 1st
Heat - Wade 4th
Mavs - Dirk 9th
Celts - Pierce 10th, traded 5th for Allen


The Lakers and Pistons are your outliers.  The Lakers are the Lakers, which helped them get Shaq AND Kobe.  In their second Kobe run, they also had Bynum who was 10th.

The Pistons, the true outliers who always get talked about, are the exception that proves the rule.  You want to set out to build another Pistons team and win a championship that way, at least acknowledge it's got even fewer examples of success than the other ones.


I've said in the past, it's not all about getting the #1 pick, or a top 5 pick.  History tells us picks taken in the top 10 or so are the lifeblood of really good teams.

Anyway, this is small sample size theatre.  A more convincing take would be to do an exhaustive inventory of every team that's ever won close to 60 games or more and see how they were all built.  I don't have time for that, but my guess is they relied heavily on top 10 picks.

At some point outliers have to considered part of the equation. 2 in 15 makes it more common than a outlier.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing about the top 10 picks thing, but the question is whether or not the Sixers' route is proven and effective. I argue that it isn't.

And by the way, we do have one top ten pick on our roster, and next we might have more.

Limiting it to championship teams and top 3 picks only seems silly to me. Expanding it to finals teams is really where you see the benefit and top 5 picks where historically the talent really drops off makes more sense from a sample size.

Kevin Durant, LeBron James, Kyrie Irving, Russell Westbrook, James Harden, Tim Duncan, Dwayne Wade, etc.

Plus Rose got hurt, which could have been another.

Plus the Cs run began with tanking and trading the high pick.

The Warriors blatantly lost games and got Harrison Barnes.

The Nets made it with KMart.

It has worked. It has failed. Just like every other rebuilding method. For some teams it makes sense, and for other teams it doesn't. To narrow the sample size so much that uit's restricted to Finals winners in a league with like 9 Champions in 35 years seems a bit ridiculous.

[acieEarl]

Tanking or just not being very good works with luck/and or solid drafting and having the luck that that years draft picks are actually good. Oklahoma's picks of 2, 4, and 4 netted them 4 all stars. Let's say they picked just outside of the top 5 for each of those years. What would be Oklahoma's sucess rate be?

[LarBrd33]

Most likely path to acquiring a superstar is through the draft.  Most likely path towards a championship includes having a superstar.  Whether or not you think the success rate is low doesn't matter.  Bulls don't get Jordan without drafting them.  Lakers don't get magic without drafting him.  Boston doesn't get bird without drafting him.   Spurs don't get Duncan without drafting him.  There... I just accounted for 19 championships with four drafted players.   Three decades of dynasties created through drafting superstars.

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

This notion that tanking doesn't work is just silly,

Prove it, then.  Show me all of the successful franchises that have become contenders due to tanking, especially of the type most commonly advocated for on CelticsBlog (intentionally losing as many games as possible over multiple years to build a young core).

Then compare that to the teams that, rather than intentionally trying to lose, signed free agents and made trades in an attempt to make themselves better in the short term.

My hypothesis is that teams that are in the latter group are more successful than teams in the former bracket.

The Bulls(Jordan), Rockets(Olajuwon), Celtics(2008), Spurs-ish(Duncan), Thunder, Cavaliers(x2), Warriors(Barnes), etc.

Really the question falls into more of a situation based, "Does this make sense for my team?"

There's no blanket answer to the question of "Does it work?"

[LooseCannon]

Here's a simple thing someone can do.  Come up with a list of every team that has had at least two top five picks in a three-year span.  Determine how many of those teams made the playoffs and how many won a title with both players on the roster.

[Roy H.]

Most likely path to acquiring a superstar is through the draft.  Most likely path towards a championship includes having a superstar.  Whether or not you think the success rate is low doesn't matter.  Bulls don't get Jordan without drafting them.  Lakers don't get magic without drafting him.  Boston doesn't get bird without drafting him.   Spurs don't get Duncan without drafting him.  There... I just accounted for 19 championships with four drafted players.

The Lakers didn't draft Magic with their own pick, though.  They got that through trade, and thus tanking had nothing to do with it.  The Celtics didn't tank for Bird, and the Bulls didn't tank for Hakeem or MJ.  The Spurs took advantage of Robinson's injury for one season, but before and since have built through winning.

[LooseCannon]

Most likely path to acquiring a superstar is through the draft.  Most likely path towards a championship includes having a superstar.  Whether or not you think the success rate is low doesn't matter.  Bulls don't get Jordan without drafting them.  Lakers don't get magic without drafting him.  Boston doesn't get bird without drafting him.   Spurs don't get Duncan without drafting him.  There... I just accounted for 19 championships with four drafted players.   Three decades of dynasties created through drafting superstars.

Magic Johnson was drafted using a pick acquired via trade, so there's no rule that says you have to use one of your own picks.  What's wrong with trying to remain competitive while trying to acquire potentially unprotected picks from other teams?  Adding a high-quality rookie to an existing talent base gets you close to contending than adding the same rookie to a D-League roster.

EDIT: Slooooowwww

[Ilikesports17]

Tanking is something that reminds me of the movie A Few Good Men

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a [dang] what you think you are entitled to.
Kaffee: Did you order the Code Red?
Col. Jessep: I did the job I...
Kaffee: *Did you order the Code Red?*
Col. Jessep: *You're ****n right I did!*

We all stand here and curse the tankers but then turn around and wonder where our Jahlil Okafor is and we realize that without pick #5 is 07 there is no Ray Allen, no Kevin Garnett and probably no banner 17

I hate tanking and im so happy the C's didnt suck this year, but its the easiest path to acquiring stars and the NBA is a star driven league.

[LarBrd33]

Most likely path to acquiring a superstar is through the draft.  Most likely path towards a championship includes having a superstar.  Whether or not you think the success rate is low doesn't matter.  Bulls don't get Jordan without drafting them.  Lakers don't get magic without drafting him.  Boston doesn't get bird without drafting him.   Spurs don't get Duncan without drafting him.  There... I just accounted for 19 championships with four drafted players.

The Lakers didn't draft Magic with their own pick, though.  They got that through trade, and thus tanking had nothing to do with it.  The Celtics didn't tank for Bird, and the Bulls didn't tank for Hakeem or MJ.  The Spurs took advantage of Robinson's injury for one season, but before and since have built through winning.

still, you acquired superstars through the draft.   Lakers didn't draft Kobe, but they traded for him on draft night.  Perhaps you dont' have to tank, but you need assets to make those trades and Boston doesn't have those assets.... as proven last week when we attempted to give up 6 draft picks to move up 7 spots and select Winslow.   Or when we tried to trade all our picks and Sullinger for #4... or when we tried to trade Marcus Smart and our entire team to get OKafor... Nobody wants what we're peddling.

[Ilikesports17]

Most likely path to acquiring a superstar is through the draft.  Most likely path towards a championship includes having a superstar.  Whether or not you think the success rate is low doesn't matter.  Bulls don't get Jordan without drafting them.  Lakers don't get magic without drafting him.  Boston doesn't get bird without drafting him.   Spurs don't get Duncan without drafting him.  There... I just accounted for 19 championships with four drafted players.

The Lakers didn't draft Magic with their own pick, though.  They got that through trade, and thus tanking had nothing to do with it.  The Celtics didn't tank for Bird, and the Bulls didn't tank for Hakeem or MJ.  The Spurs took advantage of Robinson's injury for one season, but before and since have built through winning.

still, you acquired superstars through the draft.   Lakers didn't draft Kobe, but they traded for him on draft night.  Perhaps you dont' have to tank, but you need assets to make those trades and Boston doesn't have those assets.... as proven last week when we attempted to give up 6 draft picks to move up 7 spots and select Winslow.   Or when we tried to trade all our picks and Sullinger for #4... or when we tried to trade Marcus Smart and our entire team to get OKafor... Nobody wants what we're peddling.

nor does anyone know exactly what we were peddling

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

Most likely path to acquiring a superstar is through the draft.  Most likely path towards a championship includes having a superstar.  Whether or not you think the success rate is low doesn't matter.  Bulls don't get Jordan without drafting them.  Lakers don't get magic without drafting him.  Boston doesn't get bird without drafting him.   Spurs don't get Duncan without drafting him.  There... I just accounted for 19 championships with four drafted players.

the Bulls didn't tank for Hakeem or MJ. 

This is the 2nd time you've made this point, and it's still wrong.

[Roy H.]

Lakers didn't draft Kobe, but they traded for him on draft night.  Perhaps you dont' have to tank, but you need assets to make those trades and Boston doesn't have those assets

Kobe was picked with the 13th selection.  The guy everybody salivates over, Giannis, was picked 15th.  We've certainly got the assets to get into that range, even if we don't get lucky with any of the Brooklyn / Dallas / Memphis picks.

[Donoghus]

I have to think Jordan will regret turning down that potential haul a couple of years from now.

[Roy H.]

Most likely path to acquiring a superstar is through the draft.  Most likely path towards a championship includes having a superstar.  Whether or not you think the success rate is low doesn't matter.  Bulls don't get Jordan without drafting them.  Lakers don't get magic without drafting him.  Boston doesn't get bird without drafting him.   Spurs don't get Duncan without drafting him.  There... I just accounted for 19 championships with four drafted players.

the Bulls didn't tank for Hakeem or MJ. 

This is the 2nd time you've made this point, and it's still wrong.

There's a difference between tanking and just sucking.  The Bulls didn't trade away players before the season or mid-season in an attempt to get worse.  They didn't sit their star players.  Heck, they didn't have any star players, with zero time all-stars Orlando Wooldridge and Quintin Dailey being their best players. 

[D.o.s.]

Hard to bring this up without looking like I'm trying to single anyone out, but Roy's posts are a prime example of the way that people who are opposed to tanking A) refuse to define it until they've seen an argument that they can't adjust to and B) that the burden of proof doesn't ever need to fall on them.

It shouldn't take you until page 3 (and three pages of dissenting commentary) to say this:

Show me all of the successful franchises that have become contenders due to tanking, especially of the type most commonly advocated for on CelticsBlog (intentionally losing as many games as possible over multiple years to build a young core).

Then compare that to the teams that, rather than intentionally trying to lose, signed free agents and made trades in an attempt to make themselves better in the short term.

My hypothesis is that teams that are in the latter group are more successful than teams in the former bracket.

Especially when it's already been debunked earlier in the thread.


This doesn't really reflect on Roy as much as it's a pet peeve of mine. Sorry if it's rude.