The Value of Tanking

[So Clutch]

As many posts as there have been poking holes in the "high draft pick to win" theory there has been absolutely no viable alternative presented to building a contender.

So we are content to accept that this tank and draft thing is a long shot;
but since we don't think we can do any better via other methods we are cool with it.

Honestly;
That's all I wanted.

If we are going to go down this road, I would hope our expectations are very very low.

I think everyone understands that whether you want to tank through draft or acquiring disgruntled stars that **** happens. Lottery odds screw you, bad chemistry with acquired stars, unexpected regression, etc. There's no surefire way of building a contender, which is why there have been a very limited number of teams that have banners in their buildings. There's risk of failure in any strategy, and I think fans have suffered through mediocrity long enough to want to take a risk. At least with risk, there is hope.

[Ponchos]

So we are content to accept that this tank and draft thing is a long shot;
but since we don't think we can do any better via other methods we are cool with it.

Honestly;
That's all I wanted.

If we are going to go down this road, I would hope our expectations are very very low.

Oh yeah absolutely. I have pretty low expectations for the 5 years or so that will be needed to do a proper rebuild. However, I am more worried that we will never do a proper rebuild due to MLSE, so I fully expect to be a 35-40 win team within 2 years.

[Schad]

So we are content to accept that this tank and draft thing is a long shot;
but since we don't think we can do any better via other methods we are cool with it.

Heh, it isn't a long shot at all...that was the entire point of the thread. On average, you'll get about 6 win shares per year from your pick if you end up with the worst, second-worst or third-worst record. Assuming that they aren't finished products out of the gate and that production is back-loaded, you're probably talking about something like 8/year from seasons three through five...that's a top 25 player.

[Dr Positivity]

So we are content to accept that this tank and draft thing is a long shot;
but since we don't think we can do any better via other methods we are cool with it.

Heh, it isn't a long shot at all...that was the entire point of the thread. On average, you'll get about 6 win shares per year from your pick if you end up with the worst, second-worst or third-worst record. Assuming that they aren't finished products out of the gate and that production is back-loaded, you're probably talking about something like 8/year from seasons three through five...that's a top 25 player.

Just because the average is 8 WS, doesn't mean you're likely to get that player. The really high numbers from a few superstars skew the average.

And having a top 25 player doesn't mean that much. If you don't have one, you're going to suck until you get one

[Morris_Shatford]

I just think of the numerous years we've been adding "players we know can play" to help Chris Bosh (who we know can not only play, but play at a star level) and predicted playoff berths and 2nd round appearances, only to miss those expectations completely (we've missed the playoffs how many years? WITH Chris Bosh, etc).

You speak of the horrible odds of tanking for a good pick, but forget that the odds of your suggested plan may not be very good. I would argue the odds are worse, with an even lower potential ceiling of success.

That is a good point;
But I have acknowledge that my route is just as much of a gamble as the draft.

I don't want to derail Schads thread with a Bosh discussion,
However we as a franchise with Bosh (and even now without) missed the boat on a few basketball fundamentals.

Good teams normally have a lunch bucket big body under the glass absorbing contact center on the roster;
We haven't even attempted to do that since we traded Rose for a broke down Antonio Davis.

Good teams normally have a functional defender in their starting line-up at the wing position as the majority of scoring in the NBA comes from the 2/3, or at least one off the bench.
Who was our best lockdown wing defender at the 2/3 in the last five years?

Bryan Colangelo has opted to be Jackson Pollock,
He wants to create something so different and outside the box,

We drafted a 230 lbs SF who played a quick euroleague style of ball to be our brusing beast under the basket.

We draft the rawest 19 year old SG available who is gifted offensively, make him start and thus make him the fifth option on offense?

We dedicate 20m to three point guards or 15m for two and give then "awesome" names like Forderon and Cack and discuss how if they were one person they would be an elite top five point guard rather then actually trying to secure said elite PG.

Before we go down that long long dark road towards years of bad basketball under the hope that we may emerge as the 2009/2010 Portland Trailblazers, can we do me one solid?

Can we see if any of these guys are worth keeping?
Add a center? Other NBA teams have them, maybe it would be neat if we did?
Bring in a guy who is actually a leader by example, a good locker room presence and example of defense?
Maybe find a wing who actually draws a few fouls?

We have an incomplete roster, and in my opinion it makes evaluating talent tricky because we really have no idea who these guys could do in the context of a proper NBA roster with centers and defense.

Perhaps I am naive, who knows?

[Dr Positivity]

Great post cosmo. See my sig.

The Bosh failure wasn't cause we didn't rebuild (we got #7, #8, #16, #1 picks after we got Bosh). It's cause BC tried to be Jackson Pollack as you said

[Schad]

Just because the average is 8 WS, doesn't mean you're likely to get that player. The really high numbers from a few superstars skew the average.

Take a look at the spreadsheet...it's actually the opposite. 10 of the 15 first overall picks put up 30 WS over five years; 7 of them put up 40+ WS. Kwame and Kandi almost single-handedly sink the average.

And having a top 25 player doesn't mean that much. If you don't have one, you're going to suck until you get one

But again, that's the average. You might get more, you might get less. But getting a top 25 player on average, which by definition would be the best player on many teams, means that improving significantly by having a top three pick is not a 'longshot'.

[Dr Positivity]

It's for this reason I'm VERY VERY happy we didn't take Michael Beasley from Miami. Building around SF Beasley/PF Bargnani combo is exactly what you don't want, as Minnesota is finding out with Beasley and Love. I don't give a crap if Beasley averages 20ppg this year. He's a defensive liability and not a guy winning cultures keep.

[Morris_Shatford]

So we are content to accept that this tank and draft thing is a long shot;
but since we don't think we can do any better via other methods we are cool with it.

Heh, it isn't a long shot at all...that was the entire point of the thread. On average, you'll get about 6 win shares per year from your pick if you end up with the worst, second-worst or third-worst record. Assuming that they aren't finished products out of the gate and that production is back-loaded, you're probably talking about something like 8/year from seasons three through five...that's a top 25 player.

Just because the average is 8 WS, doesn't mean you're likely to get that player. The really high numbers from a few superstars skew the average.

And having a top 25 player doesn't mean that much. If you don't have one, you're going to suck until you get one

What he said;

For every LeBron there is a Kwame
For every Durant there is a Darko
For every Deron Williams there is a Adam Morrison

Being crappy puts you in a better position to get a better player, in the same way that drafting 8th in 2004 afforded us an opportunity to draft Andre Iguodala.

As I watched Ed Davis, and our logo appeared on the screen for a brief moment I was back in 2004 jumping around my living room when the Hawks took Childress and the Suns took Deng.

If anyone can blow a sure thing, its Jim Kelly.

You can lead the Toronto Raptors to talent, but you can't force them to draft it.

[Schad]

For every LeBron there is a Kwame

No. Not at all. There were 15 first overall picks that I looked at...only three failed to reach 20 WS in that period. The ratio of successes to failures is heavily weighted toward the successes. That's the idea: you might get a bust, but the probabilities favour getting a very good player.

[Dr Positivity]

Take a look at the spreadsheet...it's actually the opposite. 10 of the 15 first overall picks put up 30 WS over five years; 7 of them put up 40+ WS. Kwame and Kandi almost single-handedly sink the average.

Well I think we can all agree that getting the 1st overall pick is AWESOME. Gets much more shady from 2 on though. In particular the 2nd overall pick this decade was a bunch of shardy crap and Durant. 3rd and 4th picks actually did significantly better than 2nds. Still the level of perenniel all-stars for the 3 groups is quite low

[Schad]

Take a look at the spreadsheet...it's actually the opposite. 10 of the 15 first overall picks put up 30 WS over five years; 7 of them put up 40+ WS. Kwame and Kandi almost single-handedly sink the average.

Well I think we can all agree that getting the 1st overall pick is AWESOME. Gets much more shady from 2 on though

Not that much...heh, I made a really pretty spreadsheet all about it, and then I made a thread about that. 11 of the 15 second overall picks hit 20 WS; 10 of the 15 third overall picks reached that mark.

[Morris_Shatford]

Great post cosmo. See my sig.

The Bosh failure wasn't cause we didn't rebuild (we got #7, #8, #16, #1 picks after we got Bosh). It's cause BC tried to be Jackson Pollack as you said

Thank You.
Your sig is bang on.

We can put ourselves in an situation where we have the opportunity to do the right thing,
However we have a franchise have always had a fundamental allergy to simple basketball concepts over the last decade, like centers and point guards for example.

I am on board with tanking, I am even on board with tanking with BC assuming he goes back to basis, however with this scouting staff who has opted for Hoffa over Iggy, Joey over Granger, Andrea over whomever, and DeRozan over Jennings can't be trusted to make the right call.

We fell assbackward into Ed Davis, and had he not been on the board Avery Bradley (a guy who slid to 19) was our guy, and the other guy we wanted we may have very well wasted a pick in the 20's on had we been able to buy one, yet because of our inability to add a pick we secured him with pick 50?

Yikes.

Mop the decks on the scouting team;
Get me a center
Tank all you want.

[Morris_Shatford]

For every LeBron there is a Kwame

No. Not at all. There were 15 first overall picks that I looked at...only three failed to reach 20 WS in that period. The ratio of successes to failures is heavily weighted toward the successes. That's the idea: you might get a bust, but the probabilities favour getting a very good player.

Need some help with the WS thing,
Its associated to the player, or the team that drafted the player?

[Schad]

Need some help with the WS thing,
Its associated to the player, or the team that drafted the player?

Here's a primer on win shares: http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

The interesting thing is that they are dependent on the team's record. What that means is that they often actually get deflated for top picks, given that they are almost always going to bad teams (which therefore have fewer wins to share)...the reason top picks end up with so many of them is that they tend to have a significant impact on the team's win/loss totals.

[Dr Positivity]

Take a look at the spreadsheet...it's actually the opposite. 10 of the 15 first overall picks put up 30 WS over five years; 7 of them put up 40+ WS. Kwame and Kandi almost single-handedly sink the average.

Well I think we can all agree that getting the 1st overall pick is AWESOME. Gets much more shady from 2 on though

Not that much...heh, I made a really pretty spreadsheet all about it, and then I made a thread about that. 11 of the 15 second overall picks hit 20 WS; 10 of the 15 third overall picks reached that mark.

Except 20 WS over 5 years is not very good. Marvin Williams, Tyson Chandler, and Mike Dunleavy, Jr. all passed that mark, just from the few I checked. Those guys are average players and basically busts for getting picked that high.

Look at this and tell me you have a high chance of getting a great player with a top pick: http://www.mynbadraft.com/nba-draft-pic ... all/20509/

I don't disagree with you the draft is the way to go right now, but let's not act like it's anything but a misery inducing crapshoot

[So Clutch]

Cosmo:

I recall you were saying how you were going to cancel your season tickets next year. if we do luck into Barnes or Irving, though, please tell me you are going to keep them.

[Morris_Shatford]

Need some help with the WS thing,
Its associated to the player, or the team that drafted the player?

Here's a primer on win shares: http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

The interesting thing is that they are dependent on the team's record. What that means is that they often actually get deflated for top picks, given that they are almost always going to bad teams (which therefore have fewer wins to share)...the reason top picks end up with so many of them is that they tend to have a significant impact on the team's win/loss totals.

That's interesting;
Thanks. Its bookmarked so I won't have to bug anyone later.

When it comes to core stats, that just isn't my thing. It may flaw my ability to debate basketball on a deeper level, however from a laymans point of view I just don't see it.

lets start in 1998 (as the last two drafts are a little early to tell one way or another)
How many of these guys (assuming Harrison Barnes or whoever goes first overall in 2011 has an equivalent career) make us substantially better

1998: Michael Olowokandi
1999: Elton Brand
2000: Kenyon Martin
2001: Kwame Brown
2002: Yao Ming
2003: LeBron James
2004: Dwight Howard
2005: Andrew Bogut
2006: Andrea Bargnani
2007: Greg Oden

I have no doubt that we would win more games with nearly any of the above guys, because lets face it if we are a team bad enough to get the first overall pick chances are adding any degree of talent to that roster should result in more wins no?

The stats may say that those above guys are players who made substantial impacts on their teams, but how many of them would you stake your franchises future on?

[Morris_Shatford]

Cosmo:

I recall you were saying how you were going to cancel your season tickets next year. if we do luck into Barnes or Irving, though, please tell me you are going to keep them.

I huff and I puff,
but I enjoy the game too much and I always find a way to justify renewal.

I want to cancel; I am angry that as a paying customer I am being charged the same price to watch this seasons team as I was to watch last seasons team.

However, we will see.
I just want to see a commitment to some basic fundamentals from this team, get me a center who has started a game at center in the NBA, get me a SF who can guard SF's. Little things...

If we get Barnes, sure it takes the sting away but I have been a Raptors fan long enough to know that even if we have the worst record we will end up with pick 4 and end up drafting Donatas Motiejunas

[Rhettmatic]

The stats may say that those above guys are players who made substantial impacts on their teams, but how many of them would you stake your franchises future on?

This is a brief aside, but cosmo, aren't you the one arguing that we should stake our future on one guy? Most of us who advocate tanking believe we need to do this for at least two years. So asking if any one player is worth a franchise's future is sort of misleading IMO.