Saying "well that team wanted to win so they deserve it" well no shit, every team wants to win! Even bottom-feeding Philadelphia wants to win. Why are they tanking in the first place? Because they hate winning? Nope.
Because they hate their fans? Perhaps, but not quite.
Because they think that accumulating assets and high draft picks will eventually lead to winning? Bingo!
You will never fully eliminate tanking (which I'm taking a liberty here and taking to mean "exploiting loopholes in the system") because to some, that IS good management. Let's say you're a GM and your predecessor was some smooth talking guy, let's call him Ryan Colangelo, for argument's sake, you get a heap of bad contracts and players who don't play well/ are past their prime as your first GM assignment and your owner says, make us start winning in 3-5 years. Not everyone is a super whiz kid like Masai who is able to make trades that make both teams better now and in the future. So you settle for the strategy of asset accumulation. Selling your prime assets for future assets, and while this causes a considerable ammount of losing NOW, lo and behold in 3-5 years you're Oklahoma City!
What's the best way to cure tanking? Who knows? But is it bad management? Are these tanking GMs against winning? No.
Last edited by e_wheazhy_; Mon Mar 3rd, 2014 at 04:38 PM.
A key that opens many locks is a master key, but a lock that gets open by many keys is just a shitty lock
Also, the system can be gamed. Sit out your players with "injuries" early and the play them later in the year. It might also have the perverse effect of encouraging a team to try to lose more, faster just to get the clock started earlier.
The best idea I have seen is the "wheel". Every 30 years you get the #1 pick. Every 5 years you'd get a top 6 pick and a top 12 pick every four years. There would be absolutely no way to game the system and absolutely no incentive to ever try and tank.
At first I thought "the wheel" was stupid but I actually love the idea now.
I also have no problem with tanking. Good, necessary tanking is good management. That is what the league has now, and I am more than OK with leaving the draft as it is now. The point of this thread, once again, is how best to prevent tanking if the league decides to do so.
You are incorrect about the draft lottery. Its point is NOT to even out the competitive balance of the league. The lottery is there to do what the whole point of this thread was about. That is, to make tanking a bit less of a sure fire reward. The draft itself, with teams picking in reverse order of success is what attempts to even out competitive balance.
My original point was, if the league truly wanted to stop tanking, while still trying to maintain competitive balance to some extent, teams that failed to make the playoffs should have an equal opportunity for the 1st few picks at least. The winners in this system would be teams that actually tried, but failed, to make the playoffs. The wheel would just make the rich richer. Large market desirable location teams already have a huge advantage as it is. Rich winners having the same chances at cheap elite talent as the Bucks just seems wrong to me.
On mike and mike I heard one of the mikes say the picks should start from the team closest to making the playoffs but didn't make it in and have the draft order work down from there. Thoughts?
Last edited by JimiCliff; Mon Mar 3rd, 2014 at 10:00 PM.
Here's another Grantland article about tanking, not sure if was linked anywhere on the site so I added it here. Written by Simmons and I was entertained. It's more of a rant about how tanking is a problem in the NBA and I tend to agree with most of what he says:
I would be fine with getting rid of the draft altogether (the Senate, too). Hard cap with a cap minimum and minimum player salary.
Another solution would be to give all 32 teams one lottery ball. That would help the odds of the Raptors getting a better pick this year, for instance.
Still another approach would be to arrange the draft order in a 32 year cycle in which each team gets the top pick once. Not my idea but it could work if a team picked in a four year rotation, something from the top 8, followed by bottom 8, then from 9-16, and then a 17-24 pick. It just has to be organized so that teams don't have consecutive picks at the top or bottom.
After that embarrassing loss that the Lakers suffered last night, as well as what Philly is up to, I gotta say that this whole tanking thing is making the league look particularly pathetic. I'm glad the Raps aren't involved in what is looking to be just an outright embarrassing season for the league. No wonder they are pushing Durant vs. Lebron so much in the MVP race. Exciting as that is, are they marketing it so much so as to take away attention from the disgusting ball that's being played by the bottom feeder teams? The league has got to do something to address this issue.
In any event, it's probably not as bad as I thought this season, and thanks for pointing that out!
Honestly, the only way I see to solve tanking is to average records from the past three years for lottery teams.
If someone can point out some issues with that, I'm all ears.
Every other system either just shifts the tanking issue to a different place in the standings, or doesn't help achieve parity.
All of a sudden the intentional "rebuild" doesn't seem so enticing to owners because you lose out on long term revenue. It's easy to sell a fanbase on one year of bad basketball, but three? Say goodbye to season ticket holders.
Another article on the tanking problem, or, more accurately, a counter argument to the tanking problem. It suggests that the "problem" isn't really a problem at all, and that tanking this season is no more prevalent than in most seasons, which is what some have suggested in this thread. Maybe it isn't as bad as I, and others, have thought, and the article agrees with some of the thoughts posted in this thread:
Not a bad article at all. I generally avoid Bleacher Report too, but I have also been wondering this year if they've been trying to somewhat up the quality. They haven't been great, but there have been fewer dreadfully bad articles. Maybe they're improving their writing staff? I swear before they just had random articles by fans writing from their college dorm rooms.
Just checked on this Howard Beck. Covered bball for the New York Times, and his hiring was highly praised including very positive comments from guys like Zach Lowe to John Hollinger. Just discovered Turner Broadcasting previously purchased the site and are moving away from the kindergarten slideshow crap.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)