Zombie OT (Kind of): Tanking doesn't work

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
B-Roy

B-Roy

If it takes months
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
31,711
Likes
24,939
Points
113
I thought this was an interesting (and somewhat relevant) topic. It's a study done on teams since 1985 that have employed "tanking" as a strategy vs trying to build a contender through mediocrity.

http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/29/losing-is-not-a-winning-strategy-in-the-nba/

But it appears that teams that win 25 or fewer games have a hard time joining this elite. Of the teams that won 25 or fewer games since 1984-85,
2.3 percent won 54 or more games the next year
3.9 percent won 54 or more games two years later
5.7 percent won 54 or more games three years later
10.1 percent won 54 or more games four years later
10.6 percent won 54 or more games five years later

So are teams better off avoiding the “mediocrity treadmill”? Let’s define a mediocre team as one that wins between 34 and 49 wins. Of the teams in this group,
9.1 percent won 54 or more games the next year
13.9 percent won 54 or more games two years later
14.8 percent won 54 or more games three years later
16.5 percent won 54 or more games four years later
19.8 percent won 54 or more game five years later
Click to expand...

Very good read, there's also some quotes from our beloved KP.
 
That tells me that mediocre teams also do not become elite teams (top 20%) very often, they just win more games than the bottom feeders. So apparently, the best way to be an elite team is to be an elite team. Great. Let's do that.
 
Preposterous. Tanking is the only way. !!!!!!!!!

Indiana is one of the top 3 teams in the league and they sure did tank
 
JFizzleRaider said:
Preposterous. Tanking is the only way. !!!!!!!!!

Indiana is one of the top 3 teams in the league and they sure did tank
Click to expand...
So did the Zombie Sonics. So did the Spurs, back in the day. It seemed to work out for them.
 
BBert said:
So did the Zombie Sonics. So did the Spurs, back in the day. It seemed to work out for them.
Click to expand...

The spurs got lucky because David Robinson got hurt. If he hadn't gotten hurt they never would have been close to getting Timmy d.

How bout them bobcats and kings? Clippers? Twolves? I can go on and on and on
 
Tanking only works if your GM isn't a complete moron.

Would we feel the same way about tanking if we had taken Durant instead of Oden?
 
How long did it take the bulls to get out of tanking Hell. A decade after Jordan left?
 
Tanking and related trades netted us Oden, LaMarcus, Roy, and Batum. In the alternate universe where Roy and Oden are healthy, that's a championship core. It's tempting to try it again, but as currently constructed the Blazers aren't in tank mode and can't out tank about a quarter of the league who are serious tankers. So, we are going a different direction. That's the way it is, and I'm OK with that.

Let the games begin!
 
BBert said:
That tells me that mediocre teams also do not become elite teams (top 20%) very often, they just win more games than the bottom feeders. So apparently, the best way to be an elite team is to be an elite team. Great. Let's do that.
Click to expand...

Like Steve Martin's how to be a millionaire.

First....get a million dollars
 
JFizzleRaider said:
Preposterous. Tanking is the only way. !!!!!!!!!

Indiana is one of the top 3 teams in the league and they sure did tank
Click to expand...

Miami is THE top team in the league and they DID tank. So did the Bulls, Clippers, Spurs, OKC The other top teams in the league
 
Batum, arguably, is not related to tanking. We bought the #27 and traded it, along with #33, for Batum.

Sure, we received the #33 as our draft pick for sucking (though I'd hardly say we were in tank mode at that point). If we can buy the #27 for cash, there's a good chance we could have purchased #33, or made a different move to obtain the necessary asset to send with #27 for Batum.

But now we're just talking semantics.
 
magnifier661 said:
So picking oden was moronic?
Click to expand...

No, my point was that people would feel differently about tanking in Portland if we had picked Durant. We just had really bad luck with Oden.

Tanking doesn't work for Charlotte because they just make horrible decisions.
 
JFizzleRaider said:
How long did it take the bulls to get out of tanking Hell. A decade after Jordan left?
Click to expand...

They had a couple decent teams, but they weren't a contender up until the moment they they got the number one pick in the 2008 draft after having a 1.7% chance to do so. As someone else mentioned, becoming a contender is almost flukish, regardless of what tact a GM takes.
 
such sweet thunder said:
They had a couple decent teams, but they weren't a contender up until the moment they they got the number one pick in the 2008 draft after having a 1.7% chance to do so. As someone else mentioned, becoming a contender is almost flukish, regardless of what tact a GM takes.
Click to expand...

And the Bulls are a perfect example of tanking being ineffective with stupid management. They made some absolutely horrific trades.

Elton Brand for Tyson Chandler.

If they would have just taken Chandler instead of Curry, and kept Brand, they would have had a damn fine frontcourt.
 
Mediocre Man said:
Miami is THE top team in the league and they DID tank. So did the Bulls, Clippers, Spurs, OKC The other top teams in the league
Click to expand...

Miami did not tank to get where they are today. How has Michael Beasley worked for them?

The clippers tanked for over a decade before becoming anything and failed miserably multiple times. The bulls took a decade after Jordan and had many Crappy moves before landing rose.

The spurs had no choice but to tank once drob broke his foot in December of that year. They had no plans to tank as they rehabbed drobs back, then dude comes back and breaks his foot.

Okc did tank and they did a good job. But they aren't as good as Indiana who hasn't tanked.

What did tanking get Boston? They missed out on oden who they wanted and traded everything away except pierce for great pieces.
 
Mediocre Man said:
Miami is THE top team in the league and they DID tank. So did the Bulls, Clippers, Spurs, OKC The other top teams in the league
Click to expand...

Spurs didn't tank the typical way, per se - they lost Robinson for the season.

The Clips tanked for how many years before they finally got lucky and made the right draft selection (which there was no luck, as there was no other option)?

I don't really consider that Miami tanked. Wade wasn't doing enough to lead them. He was battling injuries (and was even playing through some despite the team wanting him to sit).

OKC and Bulls...... they had no option but to tank. For the most part, they had nothing on their rosters but scraps and aging vets, and yet STILL SUCKED. I guess it depends on your view of tanking. At least with Seattle, I don't really consider that they tanked. They lost players, players were getting older, they made moves that backfired, and they still sucked. Both ended up with superstar players to take them to the next level, and I assume that's what Portland is hoping they got in Lillard (without diving all the way to the abyss).

I guess my big question for those that advocate tanking, what is tanking? Is it an intentional action?
 
Natebishop3 said:
No, my point was that people would feel differently about tanking in Portland if we had picked Durant. We just had really bad luck with Oden.

Tanking doesn't work for Charlotte because they just make horrible decisions.
Click to expand...

What is a "horrible decision"? Picking a superstar from a top 5 (sans 1) pick involves just as much luck as winning the lottery itself.
 
My takeaway is that tanking just increases your opportunities for future success, you still need a competent decision maker and/or some geographic advantages.
 
JFizzleRaider said:
Houston should be a top team this year. Did they tank?
Click to expand...

They won 34 games and had 3 draft picks the year before they traded for Harden.

Also, Houston is a large market team that has an incredible tax break for athletes.

I guess the next time Portland attracts the best center in the league to it's team via free agency, Houston and Portland will be on par.
 
Nikolokolus said:
My takeaway is that tanking just increases your opportunities for future success, you still need a competent decision maker and/or some geographic advantages.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to something else or did you get that out of this freakanomics article? I admit there are a lot of stats being misused there, but I didn't see anything to support the idea that "thanking increases your opportunities for future success".
 
Mediocre Man said:
They won 34 games and had 3 draft picks the year before they traded for Harden.

Also, Houston is a large market team that has an incredible tax break for athletes.

I guess the next time Portland attracts the best center in the league to it's team via free agency, Houston and Portland will be on par.
Click to expand...

Sorry, players want to play for winners. Portland starts winning, then free agency will be much more appealing. The tax savings are a benefit, but a lot of veterans want success.
 
magnifier661 said:
Sorry, players want to play for winners. Portland starts winning, then free agency will be much more appealing. The tax savings are a benefit, but a lot of veterans want success.
Click to expand...

Players do, sure.... but superstars will not choose Portland. We can't blow up a roster, create a bunch of cap space and then sign a Dwight Howard or a LeBron James. That model will never work for us. If we are going to get a superstar, we either have to draft them or we have to trade for them.

If we want superstars, we have to draft them and that will only happen if we're in the lottery.
 
Natebishop3 said:
Players do, sure.... but superstars will not choose Portland. We can't blow up a roster, create a bunch of cap space and then sign a Dwight Howard or a LeBron James. That model will never work for us. If we are going to get a superstar, we either have to draft them or we have to trade for them.

If we want superstars, we have to draft them and that will only happen if we're in the lottery.
Click to expand...

Scottie Pippen was a superstar and requested to come to Portland.
 
magnifier661 said:
Sorry, players want to play for winners. Portland starts winning, then free agency will be much more appealing. The tax savings are a benefit, but a lot of veterans want success.
Click to expand...

I think you're right, but getting to that level is where tanking is needed for small market teams.

Portland is a middle of the road team, small market, shitty in season weather, tax the shit out of you, not a lot to do for a young black male kind of town. It's simply not a place that attracts a lot of high end Free Agents. PA used to counter that by opening his checkbook, but those days are over according to him. What Portland does seem to have going for it is that once a player is in Portland they fall in love with it....at least most of the time. Neil Olshey seems to get that also because it has been said it is one of the questions he asks draft picks.

Big time FA don't go to small market teams, for the most part. David West is the last one I can remember, although I could be wrong (normally I am in these things) He was coming off a knee injury and had surgery that summer, I think? went from a clusterfuck organization to the Pacers. There were also no big time free Agents that year either, so teams overspent.
 
Nikolokolus said:
My takeaway is that tanking just increases your opportunities for future success, you still need a competent decision maker and/or some geographic advantages.
Click to expand...

That's my first point on all this. You need a competent decision maker. I would say that today's CBA does make it easier to acquire a star via tanking than free agency (unless you're one of a handful of markets). But a competent decision-maker can also take you from a mid-level team to contender. I think the common denominator is having a competent person in charge.
 
magnifier661 said:
Scottie Pippen was a superstar and requested to come to Portland.
Click to expand...

Back when the Blazers had 100+ million salary. Pippen requested a trade to the Lakers, actually, but Buss refused to pay his salary, and Portland said they would, so he said he wanted to come here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top