What is the success rate for tanking?

[littleteapot]

I don't think anybody in this thread other than you has said that.

However, playing horribly isn't the same as tanking.   Tanking can result in horrible play, but so can lots of things.

Tanking is when you suck and people can point to specific decisions you made to intentionally be bad:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggie_Theus#Kansas_City.2FSacramento_Kings

[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.

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.

They lost 14 of their last 15 games.

They clearly p---ed the bed at the end of the year tanking. That team had win streaks of 7 games and 5 games earlier that year.

They are such an obvious case of tanking it's absurd.

That description you just wrote fits the 76ers, the 76ers were tanking.

Losing games doesn't mean the same thing as tanking.  That Bulls team was bereft of talent.  They were second to last in the league in offensive efficiency, and based upon the SRS analytical, they were the worst team in the league based upon strength of schedule and point differential.  If anything, they overachieved only finishing 3rd from last.  Even with Jordan the next season they only won 38 games.  They didn't tank, they sucked.

How is this different from the Sixers again? The only major in season trades they made improved the team.

Is this a serious question?  You want me to explain how Hinkie has tanked?

Please explain to me how what you just wrote does not apply to the 76ers.

[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.

They lost 14 of their last 15 games.

They clearly p---ed the bed at the end of the year tanking. That team had win streaks of 7 games and 5 games earlier that year.

They are such an obvious case of tanking it's absurd.

That description you just wrote fits the 76ers, the 76ers were tanking.

Losing games doesn't mean the same thing as tanking.  That Bulls team was bereft of talent.  They were second to last in the league in offensive efficiency, and based upon the SRS analytical, they were the worst team in the league based upon strength of schedule and point differential.  If anything, they overachieved only finishing 3rd from last.  Even with Jordan the next season they only won 38 games.  They didn't tank, they sucked.

How is this different from the Sixers again? The only major in season trades they made improved the team.

Is this a serious question?  You want me to explain how Hinkie has tanked?

Please explain to me how what you just wrote does not apply to the 76ers.

Differences between the Bulls and the Sixers:

1.  The Bulls didn't trade young all-stars for injured draft picks;

2.  The Bulls didn't trade starters for draft picks;

3.  The Bulls didn't spend lottery picks on injured and overseas talent;

4.  The Bulls didn't intentionally fill their roster with second rounders and undrafted free agents.

Respectfully, I'm not going to respond to you further, as I have to wonder if you're being intentionally naive, or whether there's just a conversational deficit we'll never be able to bridge.

[Moranis]

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.

They lost 14 of their last 15 games.

They clearly p---ed the bed at the end of the year tanking. That team had win streaks of 7 games and 5 games earlier that year.

They are such an obvious case of tanking it's absurd.

That description you just wrote fits the 76ers, the 76ers were tanking.

Losing games doesn't mean the same thing as tanking.  That Bulls team was bereft of talent.  They were second to last in the league in offensive efficiency, and based upon the SRS analytical, they were the worst team in the league based upon strength of schedule and point differential.  If anything, they overachieved only finishing 3rd from last.  Even with Jordan the next season they only won 38 games.  They didn't tank, they sucked.

How is this different from the Sixers again? The only major in season trades they made improved the team.

It isn't, which is further supported from the fact that the Bulls were a 45 win team in 80-81 and a 34 win team in 81-82 before firing Jerry Sloan and trading away veterans like Artis Gilmore, Larry Kenon, etc..  But yeah the Bulls didn't tank at all, they just went from 45 wins to 27 in the three seasons leading up to the Dream/Bowie/MJ draft, by firing their coach and trading away or releasing veterans, but it wasn't because they tanked, it was because they were just bad.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Last time we did it, we won a championship the following year, then with our "winning culture" following that we never got a second one

[slamtheking]

I think one thing that can be said about the list I made above -- very few teams do it through the draft alone.  Building a contender requires savvy moves in the draft, trade, and free agency.  It also requires luck.

I'd say the trick with tanking (or sucking, if you like), is to find the right balance between going for high draft picks and not totally detonating your infrastructure, reputation with agents and free agents, and "fan capital" to the point that  you hamstring your ability to make the right moves apart from the draft and develop the talent you draft.

and I think that's where a number of anti-tanking (or more specifically anti-Philly-style tanking) people such as myself object to the strategy.  Time will tell if the all out destruction of the Philly roster pays off but that would require 2 significant factors to go in their favor:
1. most of their high draft picks pan out into great players or look good enough to fool other GMs into thinking they'll be great players and become trade chips.  ( this is where a player putting up numbers on a bad team is questioned as to their worth --> are they as good as their numbers or are the numbers good because the rest of the team stinks?)
2. the players that do develop into good-to-great players are willing to tolerate constant losing and the team's openly destructive approach to the roster and not bolt to a better team after they play out their rookie deal and QO season. 
Personally, I don't think all of them will stay in Philly.  Noel's already played out 2 years of his rookie deal and that franchise will stink for at least 2-3 more.  Embiid could be out all next year so that team is what - Noel and Okafor trying to co-exist as twin-towers and a bunch of D-leaguers next season? 

If Noel doesn't bolt that franchise, I will be completely stunned.  and if that happens, unless Philly can do a trade with Noel, they'll be out that prime asset in free agency and set further back as a franchise.

[D.o.s.]

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.

They lost 14 of their last 15 games.

They clearly p---ed the bed at the end of the year tanking. That team had win streaks of 7 games and 5 games earlier that year.

They are such an obvious case of tanking it's absurd.

That description you just wrote fits the 76ers, the 76ers were tanking.

Losing games doesn't mean the same thing as tanking.  That Bulls team was bereft of talent.  They were second to last in the league in offensive efficiency, and based upon the SRS analytical, they were the worst team in the league based upon strength of schedule and point differential.  If anything, they overachieved only finishing 3rd from last.  Even with Jordan the next season they only won 38 games.  They didn't tank, they sucked.

How is this different from the Sixers again? The only major in season trades they made improved the team.

Is this a serious question?  You want me to explain how Hinkie has tanked?

Please explain to me how what you just wrote does not apply to the 76ers.

Differences between the Bulls and the Sixers:

1.  The Bulls didn't trade young all-stars for injured draft picks;

2.  The Bulls didn't trade starters for draft picks;

3.  The Bulls didn't spend lottery picks on injured and overseas talent;

4.  The Bulls didn't intentionally fill their roster with second rounders and undrafted free agents.

Respectfully, I'm not going to respond to you further, as I have to wonder if you're being intentionally naive, or whether there's just a conversational deficit we'll never be able to bridge.

The Golden State Warriors (2015 NBA Finals Champions, in case you forgot) did some of those things over the last half-decade. Were they tanking, or did they just suck?

The answer, for those of you playing at home, is both, because the idea that this is a binary thing is dumb.

[PhoSita]

Sucking via a youth movement and actively sabotaging your current roster for future gain is just a matter of degree, not a difference in kind.

[D.o.s.]

Sucking via a youth movement and actively sabotaging your current roster for future gain is just a matter of degree, not a difference in kind.

Well said.

[tazzmaniac]

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.

There is a big difference between tanking and sucking.  There is also different kinds of tanking.  Most tanking occurs because a star player gets injured for the rest of the season or at the end of the season when a team is no longer in the playoff hunt.  How many teams have actually started a season off tanking? How many of those did it for multiple seasons? 

Teams that are perennially bad are so because of bad ownership and management.  Of the two teams you mentioned, I think the Sixers have a sound, flexible plan and they are sticking to it.  Brett Brown had a great quote on their plan saying "We don't want to get pregnant with average players".  The TWolves have arguably better talent but I'm not sure that they have a plan.  I'd like to see them dump their older players and rebuild with their youth. 

[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.

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.

They lost 14 of their last 15 games.

They clearly p---ed the bed at the end of the year tanking. That team had win streaks of 7 games and 5 games earlier that year.

They are such an obvious case of tanking it's absurd.

That description you just wrote fits the 76ers, the 76ers were tanking.

Losing games doesn't mean the same thing as tanking.  That Bulls team was bereft of talent.  They were second to last in the league in offensive efficiency, and based upon the SRS analytical, they were the worst team in the league based upon strength of schedule and point differential.  If anything, they overachieved only finishing 3rd from last.  Even with Jordan the next season they only won 38 games.  They didn't tank, they sucked.

How is this different from the Sixers again? The only major in season trades they made improved the team.

Is this a serious question?  You want me to explain how Hinkie has tanked?

Please explain to me how what you just wrote does not apply to the 76ers.

Differences between the Bulls and the Sixers:

1.  The Bulls didn't trade young all-stars for injured draft picks;

2.  The Bulls didn't trade starters for draft picks;

3.  The Bulls didn't spend lottery picks on injured and overseas talent;

4.  The Bulls didn't intentionally fill their roster with second rounders and undrafted free agents.

Respectfully, I'm not going to respond to you further, as I have to wonder if you're being intentionally naive, or whether there's just a conversational deficit we'll never be able to bridge.

Ahhhhh so the Bulls incompetence making them terrible team is a better plan than a team blowing it up, getting picks back, clearing cap space and having a decent stable of foregin prospects?

That plan won't work. But! Just generally being incompetent and falling head over heels down the stairs wherein you land upon a Michael Jordan, that my friends is a valid team building method!

Do you realize how absurd your argument is? You're saying being terrible because you're incompetent is ok, but being terrible because you're franchise is at a dead end and restocking the cupboard isn't.

How can you possibly come to that conclusion? A conclusion which comes from a slanted view that the Bulls lost 14 of 15 games in a season where there just happened to be a lot of talent at the top of the draft.

Total coincidence there.

[D.o.s.]

Do you realize how absurd your argument is? You're saying being terrible because you're incompetent is ok, but being terrible because you're franchise is at a dead end and restocking the cupboard isn't.

See I think this perspective is actually valid. You can disagree with tanking on an intellectual/emotional level and that's your right as a fan -- the problems arise (on both sides) when you attempt to prove that one way is quantifiably better than the other.

[Roy H.]

Way too much snark in this thread, and very little analysis other than the classic "hot take", ad hominem attacks and/or entrenched viewpoints.  I miss the halcyon days of this blog, when you could actually have an intelligent conversation, rather than this dumpster fire of a thread.

Locked.