PDA

View Full Version : Proof that Tanking is a false strategy



numba1CHANGsta
04-15-2014, 07:02 PM
Total losses for the 5 worst teams per season:

2010: 306
2011: 305
2012: (not included due to lockout)
2013: 293
2014: 305 (assuming MIL/PHI/ORL/BOS/UTAH all lose their final game of the season)

There's no such thing as teams throwing away games as their total losses are basically close to being the same every season. The NBA season is just well balanced so that there will always be bad teams and not because they are throwing away games because in the end they end up with close to the same amount of total losses.

Edit: I edited the title, hopefully it's more clear of what I'm trying to get at, but many of you understood it anyways.

koreancabbage
04-15-2014, 07:12 PM
Total losses for the 5 worst teams per season:

2010: 306
2011: 305
2012: (not included due to lockout)
2013: 293
2014: 305 (assuming MIL/PHI/ORL/BOS/UTAH all lose their final game of the season)

There's no such thing as teams throwing away games as their total losses are basically close to being the same every season. The NBA season is just well balanced so that there will always be bad teams and not because they are throwing away games because in the end they end up with close to the same amount of total losses.

I don't get this as proof why tanking is a false strategy. Are the teams in those 5 the same teams?

Sly Guy
04-15-2014, 07:13 PM
how does this prove anything? Please explain.

JasonJohnHorn
04-15-2014, 07:19 PM
how does this prove anything? Please explain.


This.


So these teams are tanking every year? In 86 the 5 worst teams only had 280 losses. So teams are tanking worse than then.

But maybe there are 8 teams tanking, so the bottom 8 have more losses? Or maybe the there are so many teams tanking, but becasue of that they all get more wins than they intend because other teams are trying harder to lose than they are.

sunsfan88
04-15-2014, 07:23 PM
This doesn't prove anything.

Hellcrooner
04-15-2014, 07:38 PM
In any case it proves that there ARE teams tanking every year.

Knowledge
04-15-2014, 07:40 PM
OP is basically saying that the amount of losing this year is not abnormal like people try to hype it.

BTW remember when the 76ers traded Evan Turner for a second round pick and people said we handed Indy a good player for nothing? That it was proof we were tanking? Anyone care to explain what makes Evan Turner a good player now?

*Superman*
04-15-2014, 07:45 PM
Lol wut?

NBA_Starter
04-15-2014, 07:50 PM
The Pistons beg to differ.

ManRam
04-15-2014, 07:59 PM
The problem is we use the word "tank" and pin it to EVERY bad team now, when that was never the case up until maybe a year or go. What the OP is right about is how there isn't a higher percentage of crappier teams now than before.


I will agree that on a whole the word "tank" is used either foolishly, or at least just WAY too liberally, far far far more often than not. It's used as a negative term when there shouldn't be any negativity attached to the team in question far too frequently as well.

There's no epidemic. We're not seeing something that we haven't seen consistently over the last 20 years. There aren't more awful teams than before because of this "tanking phenomenon". People just need to chill with things...

ManRam
04-15-2014, 08:04 PM
I'll post this again...


The notion that this is some new problem that now all of a sudden exists is, well, silly.

Note: "sub-40%" is really "40.5% and lower"...or "40% and lower", with rounding up to 41% or down to 40%.

2014: 9 teams sub-40%, 4 sub-30%, 1 sub-20%
2013: 10 teams sub-40%, 3 sub-30%, 0 sub-20%
2012: 10 teams sub-40%, 1 sub-30%, 1 sub-20%
2011: 8 teams sub-40%, 6 sub-30%, 0 sub-20%
2010: 10 teams sub-40%, 2 sub-30%, 2 sub-20%
2009: 9 teams sub-40%, 6 sub-30%, 0 sub-20%
2008: 9 teams sub-40%, 6 sub-30%, 1 sub-20%
2007: 10 teams sub-40%, 2 sub-30%, 0 sub-20%
2006: 7 teams sub-40%, 2 sub-30%, 0 sub-20%
2005: 8 teams sub-40%, 3 sub-30%, 1 sub-20%
2004: 8 teams sub-40%, 2 sub-30%, 0 sub-20%
2003: 7 teams sub-40%, 3 sub-30%, 0 sub-20%
2002: 8 teams sub-40%, 3 sub-30%, 0 sub-20%
2001: 9 teams sub-40%, 4 sub-30%, 1 sub-20%
2000: 8 teams sub-40%, 4 sub-30%, 1 sub-20%
1999: 8 teams sub-40%, 4 sub-30%, 2 sub-20%
1998: 8 teams sub-40%, 6 sub-30%, 2 sub-20%
1997: 10 teams sub-40%, 6 sub-30%, 2 sub-20%
1996: 9 teams sub-40%, 3 sub-30%, 1 sub-20%
1995: 8 teams sub-40%, 4 sub-30%, 0 sub-20%

That's 20 years. You tell me if this "epidemic of 'tanking'" is real or not...

KnicksorBust
04-15-2014, 08:05 PM
I don't get this as proof why tanking is a false strategy. Are the teams in those 5 the same teams?


how does this prove anything? Please explain.

If teams were tanking more now than the amount of games lost by the 5 worst teams would be increasing to say 320 losses but since it is staying constant around 300 then it isn't getting worse.

Hawkeye15
04-15-2014, 08:06 PM
tanking really doesn't work in most cases. The teams that finish in the bottom 5 in a year, tend to not win many games over the next 5 years, unless its a total outlier (meaning, a team that was destroyed by injuries, and was actually good previous to that one year).

ManRam
04-15-2014, 08:08 PM
The title to this thread is misleading. I don't think the OP is arguing that "tanking" is an ineffective means of rebuilding (which the title suggests) rather, we aren't seeing more crappy teams because of tanking (which is what the actual post seems to be suggesting). Either way, confusing thread topic.

Hawkeye15
04-15-2014, 08:14 PM
The title to this thread is misleading. I don't think the OP is arguing that "tanking" is an ineffective means of rebuilding (which the title suggests) rather, we aren't seeing more crappy teams because of tanking (which is what the actual post seems to be suggesting). Either way, confusing thread topic.

no, we are not. But in the modern media, everything gets blown out of proportion. To the extreme.

Bad teams always know its better to be bad than mediocre, if you are trying to build up for the future. Unfortunately, there is a reason a team is usually bad, and that is it's front office doesn't know what it is doing.....

Duncan = Donkey
04-15-2014, 08:19 PM
Tanking is stupid, you blow the pick and your ****ed.

KnicksorBust
04-15-2014, 08:20 PM
I don't get this as proof why tanking is a false strategy. Are the teams in those 5 the same teams?


The title to this thread is misleading. I don't think the OP is arguing that "tanking" is an ineffective means of rebuilding (which the title suggests) rather, we aren't seeing more crappy teams because of tanking (which is what the actual post seems to be suggesting). Either way, confusing thread topic.

Yeah people are clearly misinterpreting the thread. It's not a "false strategy" because it doesn't work. It's false that teams are tanking more... in his opinion.

mike_noodles
04-15-2014, 08:23 PM
Funny stat for you;

Total up the wins for the whole league in each season since the last expansion and they will all be equal. Same with losses. (Don't include shortened seasons)... mind blown. It proves that I can do addition.

JEDean89
04-15-2014, 08:28 PM
OP just missed accurately naming this thread by about a mile. should say evidence that tanking is not any worse this season.

that said, there are more than 5 teams tanking so it evens itself out, plus teams need to win at least a few games otherwise their ticket sales would completely crash. also, players and coaches don't tank, gm's do. on any given night, a team may fly in at 4 am and play a team like Denv or Utah at altitude. any team of scrubs could win 10 games in this league.

lol, please
04-15-2014, 08:41 PM
Total losses for the 5 worst teams per season:

2010: 306
2011: 305
2012: (not included due to lockout)
2013: 293
2014: 305 (assuming MIL/PHI/ORL/BOS/UTAH all lose their final game of the season)

There's no such thing as teams throwing away games as their total losses are basically close to being the same every season. The NBA season is just well balanced so that there will always be bad teams and not because they are throwing away games because in the end they end up with close to the same amount of total losses.

Everyone knows its a false, flawed, and ridiculous strategy, that's what makes what Lakers fans do and say day in and out that much more hilarious. :laugh2:

I can't wait until my prediction that they continue to lose season in and season out for the better remainder of the decade come true.

Jeffy25
04-15-2014, 08:52 PM
OP is basically saying that the amount of losing this year is not abnormal like people try to hype it.

BTW remember when the 76ers traded Evan Turner for a second round pick and people said we handed Indy a good player for nothing? That it was proof we were tanking? Anyone care to explain what makes Evan Turner a good player now?

Considering Turner has never even posted a league average PER, I wouldn't worry about him being a 'good' player.

Corey
04-15-2014, 08:53 PM
The draft is a crapshoot. If you're going to be a crappy team, might as well be as crappy as possible.

Might work, might not, but I'd rather be at the head of the lottery than 10th in the conference.

Pablonovi
04-15-2014, 08:59 PM
Perhaps, between the OP and some mods, this thread could like do a "re-boot" / start it over; with a much, much clearer title??

After all, most people who have posted seem to think the title does NOT accurately reflect the OP's own point.
Otherwise, we're going to be "condemned" to two simultaneously DISTINCT debates going on here:
1) About which version of "Tanking" the OP really intended (what a waste);
2) About whether Tanking (ever) makes sense.

As we've already seen, left the way it is; THIS THREAD IS NOT GONNA WORK!

JasonJohnHorn
04-15-2014, 09:13 PM
The problem is we use the word "tank" and pin it to EVERY bad team now, when that was never the case up until maybe a year or go. What the OP is right about is how there isn't a higher percentage of crappier teams now than before.


I will agree that on a whole the word "tank" is used either foolishly, or at least just WAY too liberally, far far far more often than not. It's used as a negative term when there shouldn't be any negativity attached to the team in question far too frequently as well.

There's no epidemic. We're not seeing something that we haven't seen consistently over the last 20 years. There aren't more awful teams than before because of this "tanking phenomenon". People just need to chill with things...

You rasie a great point.
Not every bad team is tanking. The Bucks lost Sanders to injury, and knew it was best to let Jennings go instead of overpay him, so they are taking a step back to take a step forward. That's not tanking to me.

The Magic, likewise, are not tanking. They got a rookie they want to develop, and some young guys. They had a franchise player force a trade, now they are trying to get their feet and develop their talent.


I thought the Suns front office was tanking when they gave Marcin Gortat away, but Jeff H. had something else to say about that! lol


The 76ers ARE tanking. FOR SURE. They had everybody on the block to start the season and clearly had NO interest in winning and wanted a bad record to get a high pick. I don't think the Lakers started out like that, but they quickly got on board. That is the only reason i can see for benching Kaman to play D-Leaguers.

slashsnake
04-15-2014, 09:19 PM
Everyone knows its a false, flawed, and ridiculous strategy, that's what makes what Lakers fans do and say day in and out that much more hilarious. :laugh2:

I can't wait until my prediction that they continue to lose season in and season out for the better remainder of the decade come true.

Well it has worked, tanking is so tough to define. I remember Popovich sitting guys like Elliott with tendinitis, and Chuck Person the entire year with back spasms when reports said those two could have been playing if they were making a playoff push. Did it work? well if they had the #2 pick the Spurs dynasty might have had to have Keith Van Horn as its cornerstone instead of Tim Duncan.

Was that tanking? Well the Admirals injury did them in, but rather than fight for a 25-30 win season, they settled to get guys fully healthy and get the best pick they could. All depends on your definition I guess.

Seattle could have been a low playoff seed type team but decided to ship Ray Allen and any chance of the post-season in Durants rookie year for a better pick. THey then shipped Rashard Lewis for basically a trade exception that became Kurt Thomas. Instead of a mid round pick, they got Russell Westbrook at #4 overall.

The rockets in the early 80's were a great example. Started off bad, but not awful, then decided instead of working their guys out in practice, they benched a lot of starters to scout them in games the rest of the year. Ended up with their choice of Olajuwon or Jordan (or Bowie I guess), and picked up the Dream. That was an admitted case that surely worked out, and why we have the draft lottery now.

Tanking can hurt too. You can drop talent for a pick that turns out to be the next Kwame Brown. But for a team that isn't a FA destination, there's obviously a lot better chance to get a star with a top 3 pick than the 15th overall. If it didn't work, there wouldn't be a draft lottery to try and reduce the impact tanking can have.

Tony_Starks
04-15-2014, 09:47 PM
Bad thread title, but tanking is ineffective because its based on a bunch of assumptions:

-management will be competent enough to rebuild the team wisely

-there will be once in every blue moon mega talent turn your franchise type player(s) in the draft

-your tank will be rewarded and you get one of them

-he actually pans out and doesn't become a bust

-your franchise hasn't turned into a total laughing stock and you can still get decent FA's for support

Basically all the stars have to be aligned....

KnicksorBust
04-15-2014, 09:57 PM
Well it has worked, tanking is so tough to define. I remember Popovich sitting guys like Elliott with tendinitis, and Chuck Person the entire year with back spasms when reports said those two could have been playing if they were making a playoff push. Did it work? well if they had the #2 pick the Spurs dynasty might have had to have Keith Van Horn as its cornerstone instead of Tim Duncan.

Was that tanking? Well the Admirals injury did them in, but rather than fight for a 25-30 win season, they settled to get guys fully healthy and get the best pick they could. All depends on your definition I guess.

Seattle could have been a low playoff seed type team but decided to ship Ray Allen and any chance of the post-season in Durants rookie year for a better pick. THey then shipped Rashard Lewis for basically a trade exception that became Kurt Thomas. Instead of a mid round pick, they got Russell Westbrook at #4 overall.

The rockets in the early 80's were a great example. Started off bad, but not awful, then decided instead of working their guys out in practice, they benched a lot of starters to scout them in games the rest of the year. Ended up with their choice of Olajuwon or Jordan (or Bowie I guess), and picked up the Dream. That was an admitted case that surely worked out, and why we have the draft lottery now.

Tanking can hurt too. You can drop talent for a pick that turns out to be the next Kwame Brown. But for a team that isn't a FA destination, there's obviously a lot better chance to get a star with a top 3 pick than the 15th overall. If it didn't work, there wouldn't be a draft lottery to try and reduce the impact tanking can have.

That's so much more rare...

king4day
04-15-2014, 10:16 PM
Perhaps, between the OP and some mods, this thread could like do a "re-boot" / start it over; with a much, much clearer title??

After all, most people who have posted seem to think the title does NOT accurately reflect the OP's own point.
Otherwise, we're going to be "condemned" to two simultaneously DISTINCT debates going on here:
1) About which version of "Tanking" the OP really intended (what a waste);
2) About whether Tanking (ever) makes sense.

As we've already seen, left the way it is; THIS THREAD IS NOT GONNA WORK!

If someone wants to create a new thread I'll close this one. Or someone give me a better thread title name and I'll update it.

slashsnake
04-15-2014, 10:23 PM
That's so much more rare...

What if the Spurs didn't get Duncan? If they had the #2 or 3 pick? They'd have tanked for Van Horn, Billups, Antonio Daniels, Tony Battie, Ron Mercer, Tim Thomas, Adonal Foyle (next 7 picks).

What if Houston got the 2nd by losing that coin toss, and tried Sam Bowie or Sam Perkins as their other twin tower (next two bigs)

What if Westbrook went #2 and OKC had OJ Mayo or Beasley? Or Joe Alexander that year?

Those aren't far off from reality and each of those is a sure fire history changer.



It is, which is why tanking can be VERY effective. But it is a risk. Look at Cleveland with 4 top 4 picks in the draft. One of them is worth it.

Or the Bobcats drafting. Okeafor, Ray Felton, Adam Morrison with their first three franchise 1st rounders all in the top 5 (and Kidd-Gilchrist and Cody Zeller are that franchises other 2 top 5 picks)

KnicksorBust
04-15-2014, 10:26 PM
What if the Spurs didn't get Duncan? If they had the #2 or 3 pick? They'd have tanked for Van Horn, Billups, Antonio Daniels, Tony Battie, Ron Mercer, Tim Thomas, Adonal Foyle (next 7 picks).

What if Houston got the 2nd by losing that coin toss, and tried Sam Bowie or Sam Perkins as their other twin tower (next two bigs)

What if Westbrook went #2 and OKC had OJ Mayo or Beasley? Or Joe Alexander that year?

Those aren't far off from reality and each of those is a sure fire history changer.



It is, which is why tanking can be VERY effective. But it is a risk. Look at Cleveland with 4 top 4 picks in the draft. One of them is worth it.

Or the Bobcats drafting. Okeafor, Ray Felton, Adam Morrison with their first three franchise 1st rounders all in the top 5 (and Kidd-Gilchrist and Cody Zeller are that franchises other 2 top 5 picks)

My point is when teams trade "talent" to tank. It's very rare that they regret the trade. They might not nail the pick but that's a different discussion.

asandhu23
04-15-2014, 11:39 PM
Of course, it is. Look at my Warriors as a very good example.

slashsnake
04-16-2014, 12:10 AM
My point is when teams trade "talent" to tank. It's very rare that they regret the trade. They might not nail the pick but that's a different discussion.

true, well said.

numba1CHANGsta
04-16-2014, 12:44 AM
If there was no lottery and the draft went by worst records like the NFL, then yes tanking would exist, but not in the NBA, the lottery is too unpredictable.

numba1CHANGsta
04-16-2014, 12:48 AM
Of course, it is. Look at my Warriors as a very good example.

How so exactly? Steph was a 7th pick and Klay was an 11th pick. You could be a team who is fighting for a playoff spot but come up short, finish with a 10-14th pick and you still draft a future all-star. How has every first overall pick pan out?

slashsnake
04-16-2014, 01:05 AM
How so exactly? Steph was a 7th pick and Klay was an 11th pick. You could be a team who is fighting for a playoff spot but come up short, finish with a 10-14th pick and you still draft a future all-star. How has every first overall pick pan out?

Could have clearly done better a couple years ago. Traded Ellis for an injured Bogut who offered them zero wins that year. Shut down Curry, benched David Lee for a shady "injury". They were 3 games under .500 and went on to win 5 of their last 27 games.

Their pick that year was protected top 7. Instead of sending an 8th or higher pick to Utah, it was protected at #7 or better. They tanked for a top 7 pick, got the 7th overall, and got Harrison Barnes (and now a healthy Bogut). Utah instead got Gorgui Dieng the next year with that pick (21st overall).

asandhu23
04-16-2014, 01:06 AM
How so exactly? Steph was a 7th pick and Klay was an 11th pick. You could be a team who is fighting for a playoff spot but come up short, finish with a 10-14th pick and you still draft a future all-star. How has every first overall pick pan out?

Those are picks we got lucky with. Look at Warriors draft history in the 90s and early 2000s.

asandhu23
04-16-2014, 01:08 AM
Could have clearly done better a couple years ago. Traded Ellis for an injured Bogut who offered them zero wins that year. Shut down Curry, benched David Lee for a shady "injury". They were 3 games under .500 and went on to win 5 of their last 27 games.

Their pick that year was protected top 7. Instead of sending an 8th or higher pick to Utah, it was protected at #7 or better. They tanked for a top 7 pick, got the 7th overall, and got Harrison Barnes (and now a healthy Bogut). Utah instead got Gorgui Dieng the next year with that pick (21st overall).

Pretty sure that was a real injury.

slashsnake
04-16-2014, 02:03 AM
Pretty sure that was a real injury.


I am sure he had a sore groin. Like he said he could play through it, but why, and they shut him down. He was coming off his two best games of the season (nearly a triple double vs. Portland and outplayed dirk the next game) when they shut him down for an injury they said had been getting worse over time.... Sure. It had nothing to do with him blowing up against Minnesota and Sacramento and pushing them to wins they didn't want.

His replacement was a 36 year old D leaguer who instantly got 20 minutes a game. Then of course they shut down Richard Jefferson for a sore knee too, and scratched Nate Robinson for Charles Jenkins.

Had they been in the playoff hunt, I doubt anyone would have ever known he had any soreness.

Instead they finished with just 1 more win that year, which got them a tiebreaker edge for the 7th worst team, and in the end the 7th best pick. One more win and Utah would have gotten their pick. I am sure they said all the right things.. "it could have gotten worse had he played on it", or "this would have been the decision even if we were fighting for a playoff spot".

But the fact that he was playing his best ball of the year leading right up to them shutting him down when they realized they had to be truly awful to keep that pick, worse than they were with him...

If I was the GM, I would have shut him down for a sore groin and embellished how bad it was. It was by far the smartest thing to do.

Not saying he was perfectly healthy. That strike season was a beast on the players with fewer nights off. Just thinking if he was a 2nd round rookie averaging 7 points and 4 boards a night at that point, his minutes would have gone up rather than him being shut down.

Sly Guy
04-16-2014, 10:43 AM
If teams were tanking more now than the amount of games lost by the 5 worst teams would be increasing to say 320 losses but since it is staying constant around 300 then it isn't getting worse.

but the numbers don't prove anything beyond a doubt. What's with the arbitrary line of the 5 worst teams in the league?

You could argue that this year has way more than 5 trying to tank, and if that's a true statement, then the wins of the worst 5 only isn't a reflection on the tanking season it's been.

Or, you could argue, that the 5 worst teams in the league have more wins this season than they should have by virtue of the fact they were playing against more teams with the same agenda to tank the season.

If you want to make the argument this isn't a bad season for tanking, that's fine, but at least bring forth some numbers without such obvious flaws in it's logic.

D-Leethal
04-16-2014, 10:51 AM
but the numbers don't prove anything beyond a doubt. What's with the arbitrary line of the 5 worst teams in the league?

You could argue that this year has way more than 5 trying to tank, and if that's a true statement, then the wins of the worst 5 only isn't a reflection on the tanking season it's been.

Or, you could argue, that the 5 worst teams in the league have more wins this season than they should have by virtue of the fact they were playing against more teams with the same agenda to tank the season.

If you want to make the argument this isn't a bad season for tanking, that's fine, but at least bring forth some numbers without such obvious flaws in it's logic.

Agreed - this is bogus "proof". I would say that "tanking" is more apparent this year because teams are cutting salary, cutting talent, trading quality players in hopes of "getting real bad so they can get real good". I don't recall teams basically giving away their best players in hopes of losing more games quite like this current era but I honestly don't have a full recollection of the bottom feeding teams of the past.

I would say the reasoning for the W-L totals to be similar could be that the tanking era has coincided with the "team up" era. Way back when almost every team had a star, now you see 2-3 stars on everyone of the 8-10 squads meaning the middle of the pack teams are pretty terrible, meaning its easier for teams that are clearly tanking (tanking by the FO, not the players), to actually go out and win some games against middle-tier teams because those middle-tier teams don't really have a star either. Its not that hard for Orlando to play a good game and beat the 2014 41 win Bobcats led by guys like Kemba Walker and Al Jefferson. It would be awfully hard for them to beat the 1994 41 win Hornets led by LJ and Zo, even if they played one of their best games all season. When theres this much parity, there are a lot of winnable games, even for tanking teams. Middle of the pack teams were tougher to beat back then IMO, so those teams back then, when middle of the pack teams still had very good players, might have been losing but that doesn't mean they were tanking, they were just facing a more competitive landscape across the board.

I'm not sold on this theory, but I think it makes sense. I don't recall the crappy teams of yesteryear all that well to be too confident in it.

Pablonovi
04-16-2014, 12:44 PM
If someone wants to create a new thread I'll close this one. Or someone give me a better thread title name and I'll update it.

Hey king4day,
Thanx for attentively popping in here and offering your services.

Perhaps a new title:
If Tanking Is DELIBERATELY Losing Games, Who's Done That & How'd It Turn Out?

The advantage of some version of this title is that it (might largely) reduce discussion (here in this thread; it would be a worthy discussion in another perhaps) of how we are defining "Tanking".

Instead, we'd get to focus on poster's claims that such-and-such a Team DID throw games on purpose AND
Was It Worth It (i.e., did their subsequent higher draft picks and/or trades of them "Pay-Off")?

P.S. I know I am far, far from an expert on this question (of throwing games & of what has been the historical up-shot of draft-day positioning). BUT BOY WOULD I WELCOME SUCH A FOCUSED DISCUSSION.

I wouldn't contribute much in the way of facts; but I might very well contribute some critiques of what others post; and I (and perhaps many others) might learn a great deal about this current very Hot Topic.

P.P.S. I gotta say that I realize this is not my thread; so I have basically no right to be "changing" it in any way. Mine are only suggestions to try to help the thread better achieve what (I think) it was trying to accomplish: a focused discussion rather than a doublely-mixed and more confusing one.

My point: I'd certainly wait to see if our OP, CHANGsta, agrees with any proposed change; or might have what he considers an ever better one.

BALLER R
04-16-2014, 01:07 PM
You can't tell from those stats because some of those teams aren't tanking they really do suck. you would probably have to look at the differential from the previous year for each team individually.

You have to look at players on that team as well as move and signing those teams have made.

Pablonovi
04-16-2014, 01:55 PM
And then there's this:

Seeing as it's the owner that owns the team (duh!); he (she?), you would think (at least I do), would be the only one(s) who would have the power to make the decision to tank.

If an owner takes such a decision, what would be His/her next step?
Goes to the GM and/or the Coach, no?

Supposing they have the power and the desire to un-convince him; but don't unconvince him:
Then wouldn't they want to hide their "nasty" tanking strategy from as many people as possible?

So would / could it stay just between those few people?
How could they both tank and efficiently hide that fact?

king4day
04-16-2014, 02:18 PM
Hey king4day,
Thanx for attentively popping in here and offering your services.

Perhaps a new title:
If Tanking Is DELIBERATELY Losing Games, Who's Done That & How'd It Turn Out?

The advantage of some version of this title is that it (might largely) reduce discussion (here in this thread; it would be a worthy discussion in another perhaps) of how we are defining "Tanking".

Instead, we'd get to focus on poster's claims that such-and-such a Team DID throw games on purpose AND
Was It Worth It (i.e., did their subsequent higher draft picks and/or trades of them "Pay-Off")?

P.S. I know I am far, far from an expert on this question (of throwing games & of what has been the historical up-shot of draft-day positioning). BUT BOY WOULD I WELCOME SUCH A FOCUSED DISCUSSION.

I wouldn't contribute much in the way of facts; but I might very well contribute some critiques of what others post; and I (and perhaps many others) might learn a great deal about this current very Hot Topic.

P.P.S. I gotta say that I realize this is not my thread; so I have basically no right to be "changing" it in any way. Mine are only suggestions to try to help the thread better achieve what (I think) it was trying to accomplish: a focused discussion rather than a doublely-mixed and more confusing one.

My point: I'd certainly wait to see if our OP, CHANGsta, agrees with any proposed change; or might have what he considers an ever better one.

No problem. It looks like he already changed the thread title earlier today.

ewing
04-16-2014, 03:50 PM
wtf is a "false strategy"

Spanklin
04-16-2014, 04:55 PM
This is all dumb. I wanted the Warriors to tank this season and I guarantee you we get a top draft pick and we contend for 4 years. The way it is now, we'll be lucky to make the playoffs...

Warriors tanking is easy with bruised up vets needing rest and playing Barnes out of place some more. Steph Curry would give up on the season and not play to potential. He'd also most likely get out of shape a bit and suffer some minor 2-3 week injuries because of this.

That's all we had to do to prove this analysis wrong.

Pablonovi
04-16-2014, 06:28 PM
This is all dumb. I wanted the Warriors to tank this season and I guarantee you we get a top draft pick and we contend for 4 years. The way it is now, we'll be lucky to make the playoffs...

Warriors tanking is easy with bruised up vets needing rest and playing Barnes out of place some more. Steph Curry would give up on the season and not play to potential. He'd also most likely get out of shape a bit and suffer some minor 2-3 week injuries because of this.

That's all we had to do to prove this analysis wrong.

Hey Spanklin,
I read your post 3 times and I think I still don't understand it. (It is NOT my intention to ride your butt and/or make fun; I just can't make heads or tails of it - maybe it's just me?)

Not a single sentence makes sense to me.
Would you mind trying again?