What actually is tanking, and which NBA teams actually do it?
02-12-2018, 04:24 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-12-2018, 04:26 PM by bigjeep8.)
#1
What actually is tanking, and which NBA teams actually do it?
 x 0  x 0 
Our current discussion of the "tanking epidemic" fails to really define what tanking actually is. Once you dig deep into this definition, it's hard to find a reason to be outraged at all.

Tanking is a scourge, apparently. Tanking is endemic to NBA culture, we are told. The very nature of the NBA and the US collegiate system necessitates a draft by which the most unsuccessful teams get the best players, and this, it is said, encourages tanking. Tanking is an evil to be rallied against, hence the recent [/url]Zach Lowe story about the new proposed NBA draft system that dispenses with positional relevance and distributes draft picks in a far more arbitrarily democratic way. Every now and then, a remedy to this universally-accepted problem comes around.


But how deep does this problem really go? Is it deep at all? Who out there is actually tanking? Quite what is it that we are fighting against? What is tanking, who does it, why, and when?


"Tanking," as we are to understand it, is a team's intent to do less than everything it can to win. It is a concerted effort over several months (and perhaps several seasons) by a team to deliberately not be as good as it could be. It is considered cheap, disingenuous and dishonest, the byproduct of a flawed system where a team can be rewarded for being bad and where deliberately losing is thereby a strategic decision.

It's true that any game can be deliberately lost. While tanking is a mechanism usually employed with regards to the draft, the most egregious example of deliberate losing in recent history perversely had nothing to do with it. An April 2006 game between the [url=http://www.sbnation.com/nba/teams/minnesota-timberwolves]Minnesota Timberwolves
and the Memphis Grizzlies featured an overtime win for the Grizzlies that they simply did not want. They were unable to play worse than the Timberwolves, who unashamedly let Mark Madsen shoot seven three pointers in a bid to have one of the 10 worst records in the league, thereby keeping a conditional pick they owed to the Clippers. You couldn't try harder to lose, and any veneer of competitiveness was dispensed with. It was noxious. It was toxic. It was everything professional sport should not be.


The aforementioned Grizzlies victory notwithstanding, though, players (almost) always play to win. This is partly due to the pride of being a professional athlete, partly due to the instinctive nature of human competitiveness and partly because no player wants to tank their statistics. After all, this is a league in which players deliberately and persistently shoot half-court heaves a split second after the game clock expires so as to not ruin their field goal percentage.


Similarly, coaches are evaluated based on their win totals. Even coaches who are hired by bad teams knowing that they will remain bad for a short time regardless of the coach's abilities and impact can often be fired if the team loses a lot. All coaches therefore coach to win. If your coach plays the mediocre but reliably-predictable veteran over the mistake-prone young upstart, even on the way to a 25-win season, it's because he really believes it gives him the best chance to win and that winning gives him the best chance of job security. He's right about at least one of these things.
Any deliberate designs on losing, then, come from the front office. But how often does this actually happen?

A look around the NBA at the present moment does not reveal much in the way of tanking right now. Not even in the Eastern Conference, where most of the losing resides. Two of the teams at the bottom of the East --New York and Brooklyn -- infamously are not supposed to be there. The team at the very bottom, the Milwaukee Bucks, are notoriously shackled by a playoffs-every-season edict that they aren't good at actually achieving. Further back of Brooklyn with a 12-23 record is Cleveland, a team intending to start pushing for the playoffs, yet held back by a series of underwhelming signings and a worryingly poor start for their No. 1 pick. One could argue that they [i]should[/i] be tanking, yet this week's trade for veteran all-star forward Luol Deng trade clearly indicates they are not. Charlotte is attempting to make the playoffs -- after all, they have a draft pick going elsewhere -- and were only one game below .500 as of a fortnight ago. Detroit is trying to make the best of a mishmash of talent with genuine potential, but little cohesion. Boston is in a similar situation with much lesser talent, except their coach is too good for this to be a problem.

Even if these executives are indeed free to take the long view, are they "tanking?" Were Orlando and Utah tanking when they traded for so many young players and future first-round draft picks? Surely that is only true if all the priority is given to the present. Yet if these teams really were tanking as emphatically as they could, they could do it much better than this. The Jazz, for example, are 11-12 with Trey Burke starting and rapidly becoming too good to be bad. They are mediocre, with a lot of internal growth yet to come. They acquired one of the best players in a weak draft, in doing so taking themselves out of the running for drafting right at the top of an extremely strong one. If this keeps up, Trey Burke might cost them Andrew Wiggins.



That leaves only Orlando and Philadelphia, both teams committed to a youth movement and not long removed from trading quality stars, as the potential "tankers."

Perhaps it is the case that the supposed tankers are actually just better managed, better at asset accumulation and management, better at strategizing, better at building a team that'll last. That sounds like a team trying to win, not lose. And one step backwards can mean three steps forwards.


Keep this in mind now that we've reached the point of the season where so-called "tanking" begins in earnest. By now, teams have evaluated what they have and where they are going. Some of them won't like it. Some will identify a core of players, identify the tradeable remainder and pawn off that which is pawnable. They might weaken their current product in exchange for future flexibility and assets. That is not mere terminology talking: That really is what happens. This is exactly what the Deng trade was for Chicago. And there will be more of this. Teams out of the hunt will look to the future.
Is that tanking? Is that deliberate losing? Sure, if deliberate losing and tanking are hereby defined as the weakening of the chances of winning the next game.
But no matter how important or attainable the short term goals are, the big picture is always present. It is not an endemic problem permeating the entire league. It is a strategy shift teams adopt if circumstances demand it. Often times, it is the best strategy there is.
And without a truly free market, it will stay so.
Game 7

 Boone: You know my mama wanted me to be a Manager.

 Judge: My dad wanted me to be a baseball player.

 Boone: Well you're better than any player I ever had. And you're the best God damn player I ever saw. Suit up.
Reply
02-12-2018, 04:26 PM,
#2
RE: What actually is tanking, and which NBA teams actually do it?
 x 0  x 0 
I hope this clears the tanking issue up!    Slow
Game 7

 Boone: You know my mama wanted me to be a Manager.

 Judge: My dad wanted me to be a baseball player.

 Boone: Well you're better than any player I ever had. And you're the best God damn player I ever saw. Suit up.
Reply
02-12-2018, 07:24 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-12-2018, 07:25 PM by ancientyankee.)
#3
RE: What actually is tanking, and which NBA teams actually do it?
 x 0  x 0 
I still say a post-season tournament for non-playoff teams is the best answer, with the teams picking in order of their finish (team that wins the final gets the top pick). To even things out a bit, the teams with the worst records would get home court advantage--a kind of reverse seeding.

I realize this is radical and there are still legitimate objections, but I have been hearing something similar proposed by commentators on ESPN and other places. It's time to stop rewarding losing and reward winning instead.
If you don't know where you're going, you might wind up somewhere else.

-Yogi Berra
Reply
02-12-2018, 07:48 PM,
#4
RE: What actually is tanking, and which NBA teams actually do it?
 x 0  x 0 
(02-12-2018, 07:24 PM)ancientyankee Wrote:  I still say a post-season tournament for non-playoff teams is the best answer, with the teams picking in order of their finish (team that wins the final gets the top pick). To even things out a bit, the teams with the worst records would get home court advantage--a kind of reverse seeding.

I realize this is radical and there are still legitimate objections, but I have been hearing something similar proposed by commentators on ESPN and other places. It's time to stop rewarding losing and reward winning instead.

Agree completely. 
Game 7

 Boone: You know my mama wanted me to be a Manager.

 Judge: My dad wanted me to be a baseball player.

 Boone: Well you're better than any player I ever had. And you're the best God damn player I ever saw. Suit up.
Reply
02-13-2018, 09:07 PM,
#5
RE: What actually is tanking, and which NBA teams actually do it?
 x 0  x 0 
The problem isn't tanking, the problem is that the NBA has embraced star driven rules and gameplay. As a result the only way to win titles is to acquire stars.

All teams in all sports tank, and have for decades. What has changed in that the NBA is by far the most star driven sport.
Reply
02-13-2018, 09:54 PM,
#6
RE: What actually is tanking, and which NBA teams actually do it?
 x 0  x 0 
So if the Knicks don't tank how are we going to get our talent up? As everyone has seen over the years superstars are not signing with the Knicks..the only way to acquire talent is through the draft like we got kp
   

  "P Y P" pick your poison Beckham,Barkley,Engram or Shepard



                                                        
Reply
02-13-2018, 10:23 PM,
#7
RE: What actually is tanking, and which NBA teams actually do it?
 x 0  x 0 
(02-13-2018, 09:07 PM)jcharding Wrote:  The problem isn't tanking, the problem is that the NBA has embraced star driven rules and gameplay.  As a result the only way to win titles is to acquire stars.

All teams in all sports tank, and have for decades.  What has changed in that the NBA is by far the most star driven sport.

Because there are only 5 players on the floor. One player can dominate. 
Game 7

 Boone: You know my mama wanted me to be a Manager.

 Judge: My dad wanted me to be a baseball player.

 Boone: Well you're better than any player I ever had. And you're the best God damn player I ever saw. Suit up.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)