What is the success rate for tanking?

[Moranis]

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.

In my post I listed a number of teams that tanked.

[Roy H.]

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.

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

Third page, third post in the thread.  Same difference.

[D.o.s.]

 

Nebulous at best and you know it. For example, the Spurs could fall under either half of that spectrum the season prior to drafting Duncan -- they're shutting down players that could have played, how is that not a dedicated effort to losing games?/San Antonio was forced into being bad, they weren't planning on tanking! -- depending on your argument.

And, again, this isn't so much about your post as it is about the general tenor of these sort of threads. Which I thought I said.

[snively]

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.

So just being bad like the Celtics and Bulls and Rockets doesn't count as tanking? 

And just because the Spurs stopped tanking after getting Duncan, that somehow invalidates the tanking argument?  Incidentally, the main reason the Spurs had a championship core already in place next to a young Duncan was because they had been bad enough in the late 80s to grab David Robinson and Sean Elliot in the top 3 of the draft.

[Moranis]

BTW, earlier this year, I created this thread http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=77549.msg1863302#msg1863302, which stands for the proposition that free agency is not the way to build a real title contender as the only player acquired via free agency that was a top 2 player on a title team in the last 10ish seasons was James (and maybe Billups, though I believe Hamilton and both Wallace's were better than Billups that year until Billups got hot in the playoffs).  Going back further, you get Shaq on the 3 Lakers teams, but that is basically it for the entire history of the NBA (granted free agency is a newer development).  In addition, every single championship team from the mid-80's through the Shaq Lakers were anchored by at least 2 players drafted to the team except the two Rockets team who traded for Thorpe who was the teams 2nd best player in 94 and then traded Thorpe for Drexler for the second title.  And the early 80's Lakers of course featured the drafted Magic and the traded for Kareem (the Sixers acquired both Moses and Dr. J via trade though basically drafted the entire rest of the team).

So I counter the notion that tanking doesn't work with the notion that free agency doesn't work and instead of making others do the work to counter that proposition, I actually did it myself.  Unless you sign Lebron James or Shaquille O'Neal in their prime as a free agents, you aren't going to build a champion in free agency.  Period.  End of Discussion.

[PhoSita]

Let's take a look at really good teams in recent years, and ask how they were constructed:



Golden State -- Curry 7th, Klay 11th, Barnes 7th, Bogut trade, Draymond 2nd round, Iggy FA

Atlanta -- Horford 3rd, Millsap FA, Teague 19th, Korver FA, Carroll FA

Houston -- Harden trade, Dwight FA; previously Yao 1st, McGrady trade

LAC -- Paul trade (included high draft assets Gordon and Aminu), Griffin 1st, Jordan 35th

Memphis -- Gasol trade / 2nd round, Z-Bo trade, Conley 4th

San Antonio -- Duncan 1st, Kawhi trade-to-draft, Parker 28th, Ginobili late 2nd

Cleveland -- LeBron 1st / later FA, Kyrie 1st, Love trade (included 1st), previously Varejao 30th, Mo Williams trade, Big Z 20th, Boozer 35th


OKC - Durant 2nd, Westbrook 4th, Harden 4th, Ibaka 24th

Indiana - George 10th, Hibbert 17th, West FA, Hill trade, Stephenson 40th

Miami - Wade 4th, LeBron FA, Bosh FA, previously Shaq FA, Haslem Undrafted FA

Portland - Aldridge 2nd, Lillard 6th, previously Roy 6th

Denver - Melo, Nene (draft-trade), Billups (trade), JR Smith (trade)

New York - Melo trade, Chandler FA, Stoudemire FA

Chicago - Rose 1st, Noah 9th, Boozer FA

LAL - Kobe 13, Bynum 10, Pau trade, Odom trade, earlier Shaq FA

Dallas - Dirk 9th, Terry trade, Marion FA, Chandler trade, Kidd trade

Boston - Pierce 10th, KG trade, Allen trade (involved 5th pick), Rondo 21st

Orlando - Dwight 1st, Rashard FA, Hedo FA, Nelson draft-trade

Phoenix - Nash FA, Stoudemire 9th, Marion 9th

Utah - Deron 3rd, Boozer FA


I've bolded the teams that look like they didn't rely on high draft picks. 

Even among those exceptions, picks in the later part of the lottery were used.  Some of the "trades" involved top 10 picks, e.g. Danilo Gallinari for Melo.  We just saw this year how hard it can be to trade up even into that range.

[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.

[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.

[littleteapot]

So anti-tanking people are claiming that every team that played horrible, displayed signs of roster/in game sabotage, got a great draft pick and then used it to add talent that they used to contend for a championship was in fact not tanking and just lucked into a fortunate situation.

I'm going to claim that Darko was the key to the Pistons 2004 championship run and that without tanking to get him, they would have had no chance.

[Roy H.]

So anti-tanking people are claiming that every team that played horrible, displayed signs of roster/in game sabotage, got a great draft pick and then used it to add talent that they used to contend for a championship was in fact not tanking and just lucked into a fortunate situation.

I'm going to claim that Darko was the key to the Pistons 2004 championship run and that without tanking to get him, they would have had no chance.

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.

[PhoSita]

They didn't tank, they sucked.

So where's the line between sucking and tanking?

It's OK to aim for the middle or higher and fail miserably and collect your prize for failure, but it's so reprehensible to choose to be one of the worst teams for strategic purposes?

[PhoSita]

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.

[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.

[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?

[Celtics4ever]

Teams who do tanking well, do it time limited to get a star and assets to trade and move on or build around.   Tanking every year kills the benefits and creates a losing culture.