Author Topic: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"  (Read 39481 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #45 on: November 13, 2013, 03:43:17 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
People should read "The Myth of the Tanking Spurs".

  People who weren't following the nba at the time might actually buy that story.

  If the myth is the Spurs tanked the season from beginning to end then I'd agree it's not really true. If the myth is the Spurs went into full tank mode after DRob had a setback then the myth is correct. It's much like the C's in 06-07. They went into the season trying to compete. After losing PP (and TA) for a significant period of time and losing enough games to kill their season they didn't really put in much of an effort to finish the season strong. It was the same for the Spurs after DRob went out, they went into tank mode.

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #46 on: November 13, 2013, 03:52:57 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42583
  • Tommy Points: 2756
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
People should read "The Myth of the Tanking Spurs".

Not an attack at you LC, but I really disliked that article. Felt like the author was explaining things to children, and never really gets at the actual point of the whole tanking vs no tanking debate.

The real gist of it is, "The easiest path to acquiring top-end talent is to be poor enough and/or lucky enough to acquire a high draft pick, and lucky/savvy enough to do the right thing with it."

That's the whole discussion. Are the Celtics 'tanking'? Are the Sixers? The Bobcats?

Who cares? Every single one of those teams has assembled squads that are bad enough that they shouldn't win that many games, and should (in theory) be bad enough to get the Celtics/Sixers/Bobcats a top 5 or so pick, and a shot at the 1st overall.

Is it still 'tanking' if they're cautious with Rondo's injury? Is it still 'tanking' if they took what the league sees as a godfather deal from the Nets for 2 of their top-3 players?

Is so asinine. Its all tanking. The Spurs tanked. They learned Robinson was out for the duration, they did nothing to significantly improve their roster, and fired their coach.

A bad team that stays bad or actively gets worse with the understanding that its better for them in the long-run to do so is tanking as much as a team that sits its starters with bullcrap injuries in February.

The real point is that merely gaining the good lottery odds isn't enough to guarantee success, anymore than being born 7ft tall and athletic guarantees you'll be a NBA player. It just makes gaining that success easier. 

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #47 on: November 13, 2013, 03:55:02 PM »

Offline Snakehead

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6846
  • Tommy Points: 448
Although I am absolutely for building assets over just tanking, the one thing I will say to sort of defend tanking, is the Bobcats are terrible at drafting.  So is say Cleveland.  If you have competent management you can do better than both those teams did.  Look at the Thunder.  Yes they got lucky to get certain picks but even still there was good decision making.

I certainly trust Ainge to do way better than some of these awful GMs.
"I really don't want people to understand me." - Jordan Crawford

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #48 on: November 13, 2013, 04:14:02 PM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11833
  • Tommy Points: 950
People should read "The Myth of the Tanking Spurs".

Not an attack at you LC, but I really disliked that article. Felt like the author was explaining things to children, and never really gets at the actual point of the whole tanking vs no tanking debate.

The point is that people who point to the Spurs as an example to follow are fools who don't understand that you can't go into a season planning what happened to the Spurs. If it sounds like the author is talking down to his audience as if they are children, that's because the site tends to take the stance that only fools believe in tanking.  If the article seems incomplete, it's because it is part of an on-going, long-term discussion of tanking, some of which you can see in the site's 2013-2014 team previews.

Here is another article about tanking, which notes:

Quote
What data do we have that stripping down a team a losing a lot of games is not the best way to win a title? Consider the following numbers:

  • 54. Since 1985, only two teams (the Miami Heat in 2006 and the Houston Rockets in 1995) have managed to win a title without winning at least 66 percent of their games (which works out to 54 wins in an 82-game season). So it seems likely that a team needs to win at least 54 games to be considered a contender.
  • 10%. Teams that win 25 games or less have only about a 10% chance to join the list of contenders five years after their terrible season. Which means that 90% of teams that win 25 games or less won’t make it to 54 wins after five years.
  • 20%. Teams that win 34-49 games — so called “mediocre teams” that find themselves in the dreaded middle — have about a 20% chance of hitting 54 wins after five years. This means that a middle-of-the-pack team is twice as likely to become a contender than a team that bottoms out.
   
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #49 on: November 13, 2013, 04:16:24 PM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11833
  • Tommy Points: 950
Although I am absolutely for building assets over just tanking, the one thing I will say to sort of defend tanking, is the Bobcats are terrible at drafting.  So is say Cleveland.  If you have competent management you can do better than both those teams did.  Look at the Thunder.  Yes they got lucky to get certain picks but even still there was good decision making.

If Cleveland and Charlotte were non-terrible at drafting, they probably wouldn't be drafting so high so often.

When I look at the Thunder, I sometimes think the franchise was tanking primarily to facilitate moving the team out of Seattle and getting good draft picks was a secondary benefit.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #50 on: November 13, 2013, 04:20:11 PM »

Offline Snakehead

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6846
  • Tommy Points: 448
Although I am absolutely for building assets over just tanking, the one thing I will say to sort of defend tanking, is the Bobcats are terrible at drafting.  So is say Cleveland.  If you have competent management you can do better than both those teams did.  Look at the Thunder.  Yes they got lucky to get certain picks but even still there was good decision making.

If Cleveland and Charlotte were non-terrible at drafting, they probably wouldn't be drafting so high so often.

When I look at the Thunder, I sometimes think the franchise was tanking primarily to facilitate moving the team out of Seattle and getting good draft picks was a secondary benefit.

A bit higher maybe... if they draft Drummond or Barnes they don't. 

Rookies, even the great ones, don't come in and make that big of an impact.  Anthony Davis wasn't incredible last year or anything.  Barnes and Drummond were both good but for rookies.  The thing is their promise.

If they draft Valincunas he stays over seas for the whole next season anyways, perfect for a tanking strategy.  That one was an absolute no brainer for the Cavs and they passed.

If you were good at drafting you could do it right for a few years.  You do have to get lucky to get the picks and you do have to get lucky with some players, but a lot of the bad teams like the Bobcats and Cavs are bad at drafting so using them as a barometer for good GMs doesn't totally fly for me.

Again, I prefer how Ainge acquires assets but you can certainly do better than these jokers.
"I really don't want people to understand me." - Jordan Crawford

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #51 on: November 13, 2013, 04:25:24 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30859
  • Tommy Points: 1327
A bad team that stays bad or actively gets worse with the understanding that its better for them in the long-run to do so is tanking as much as a team that sits its starters with bullcrap injuries in February.
I disagree with you here.

Playing Olynyk/Fav instead of Humphries isn't tanking for example, but you are claiming it is here. Making it out to be equivalent to sitting players with fake injuries and sending your garbage post man out there to shoot 3s.

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #52 on: November 13, 2013, 04:31:30 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
People should read "The Myth of the Tanking Spurs".

  People who weren't following the nba at the time might actually buy that story.

  If the myth is the Spurs tanked the season from beginning to end then I'd agree it's not really true. If the myth is the Spurs went into full tank mode after DRob had a setback then the myth is correct. It's much like the C's in 06-07. They went into the season trying to compete. After losing PP (and TA) for a significant period of time and losing enough games to kill their season they didn't really put in much of an effort to finish the season strong. It was the same for the Spurs after DRob went out, they went into tank mode.

Agreed.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #53 on: November 13, 2013, 04:55:24 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42583
  • Tommy Points: 2756
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
A bad team that stays bad or actively gets worse with the understanding that its better for them in the long-run to do so is tanking as much as a team that sits its starters with bullcrap injuries in February.
I disagree with you here.

Playing Olynyk/Fav instead of Humphries isn't tanking for example, but you are claiming it is here. Making it out to be equivalent to sitting players with fake injuries and sending your garbage post man out there to shoot 3s.

I guess I really don't see them differently, with the assumption that Ainge/Brad Stevens thought playing Humpries would give the C's a better chance to win.


"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #54 on: November 14, 2013, 08:32:40 AM »

Offline cman88

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5153
  • Tommy Points: 359
Honestly I think the c's are in a unique position to tank vs. Other teams. Most teams are tankig to find that first building block all star player and build around him..

We already have an all starpg in rondo..and some solid pieces...say yout can get a top 3 pick and grab parker or Wiggins or randle

Add them to a team with rondo, green, sullinger and olynyk and  that's a really good young team.

The worst thing you can do as a team is be mediocre... You either need to be one of the best teams in the league or one of the worst

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #55 on: November 14, 2013, 08:50:55 AM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30859
  • Tommy Points: 1327
A bad team that stays bad or actively gets worse with the understanding that its better for them in the long-run to do so is tanking as much as a team that sits its starters with bullcrap injuries in February.
I disagree with you here.

Playing Olynyk/Fav instead of Humphries isn't tanking for example, but you are claiming it is here. Making it out to be equivalent to sitting players with fake injuries and sending your garbage post man out there to shoot 3s.

I guess I really don't see them differently, with the assumption that Ainge/Brad Stevens thought playing Humpries would give the C's a better chance to win.
So not playing Andre Drummond 35 MPG last year was tanking? Any sort of player development plan or rotation that doesn't run your horses into the ground is tanking?

Longer term thinking than the current game doesn't equal tanking in every case.

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #56 on: November 14, 2013, 10:15:01 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
Honestly I think the c's are in a unique position to tank vs. Other teams. Most teams are tankig to find that first building block all star player and build around him..

We already have an all starpg in rondo..and some solid pieces...say yout can get a top 3 pick and grab parker or Wiggins or randle

Add them to a team with rondo, green, sullinger and olynyk and  that's a really good young team.

The worst thing you can do as a team is be mediocre... You either need to be one of the best teams in the league or one of the worst

This is quickly becoming the most irritatingly parroted claim of the season.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #57 on: November 14, 2013, 04:32:07 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Honestly I think the c's are in a unique position to tank vs. Other teams. Most teams are tankig to find that first building block all star player and build around him..

We already have an all starpg in rondo..and some solid pieces...say yout can get a top 3 pick and grab parker or Wiggins or randle

Add them to a team with rondo, green, sullinger and olynyk and  that's a really good young team.

The worst thing you can do as a team is be mediocre... You either need to be one of the best teams in the league or one of the worst

This is quickly becoming the most irritatingly parroted claim of the season.
I agree and it isn't true.  You don't want to be in perpetual mediocrity like say the Hawks the last 5 years, but if you are on the way up there is nothing wrong with spending a season or two as mediocre.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #58 on: November 14, 2013, 04:34:27 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30859
  • Tommy Points: 1327
Honestly I think the c's are in a unique position to tank vs. Other teams. Most teams are tankig to find that first building block all star player and build around him..

We already have an all starpg in rondo..and some solid pieces...say yout can get a top 3 pick and grab parker or Wiggins or randle

Add them to a team with rondo, green, sullinger and olynyk and  that's a really good young team.

The worst thing you can do as a team is be mediocre... You either need to be one of the best teams in the league or one of the worst

This is quickly becoming the most irritatingly parroted claim of the season.
I agree and it isn't true.  You don't want to be in perpetual mediocrity like say the Hawks the last 5 years, but if you are on the way up there is nothing wrong with spending a season or two as mediocre.
Being mediocre and locked into it is the problem.

Mediocre with elite prospects. (Cavs/Wizards goal this year I guess) is fine. Or mediocre with upcoming cap space and a plan, Houston/Dallas last year, is also fine. You just don't want to make your home there.

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #59 on: November 14, 2013, 06:12:59 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5308
  • Tommy Points: 862
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.

He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.

Uh?

The '97 Spurs only worked because they still had Robinson ... from tanking waaaaay back in 1987.

The '84 Rockets only worked .... because they got _consecutive_ #1 picks (Ralph Sampson '83, Hakeem ;84) ... and STILL DIDN'T WIN FOR A FREAKING DECADE.

Is your definition of 'tanking works' == WAIT TEN YEARS FOR RESULTS?????

The '03 Cavs are still waiting for their title.  It's 2013 now -- and it's late!

The Seattle SuperSonics got theirs back in '79.  Great team.  Oh ..wait ... OKC is still waiting.

Portland, of course, is due to win based on winning the Oden sweeps ... somewhere around 2018?

So, let's see. If we tank this year and pick, say Wiggins or Parker ... we can look forward to a title somewhere around ... 2024?

I have a better idea.   How about we trade our picks and filler for a couple of studs and become relevant immediately?
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.