The Value of Tanking

[Schad]

It's impossible to argue against the value of tanking.

Clearly;
Its brought so many chips to the Wolves and Clippers who could even consider debating the value of being a putrid team with a high draft choice season after season.

Except that, as has been pointed out, their big problem has been that they've never been quite bad enough to get the very top picks...instead, both teams spent a lot of time splashing around in the no man's land of 23-30 win seasons, while other teams successfully out-tanked them and then rebuilt.

[dillio]

Great analysis and nice read, thanks for the effort. While the conclusion is already relatively intuitive, it's nice to see some data backing the tanking effort. I'm actually not really a pro-tanker, but at least threads like this will help me sleep at night after another close Raps loss.

[Morris_Shatford]

It's impossible to argue against the value of tanking.

Clearly;
Its brought so many chips to the Wolves and Clippers who could even consider debating the value of being a putrid team with a high draft choice season after season.

I do think it's impossible (or at least very difficult) to make a compelling argument w.r.t. this specific Raptors squad, though. Colangelo has absolutely laid waste to this team over the past few years. I really can't see how we could have pursued any other path.

Those who oppose the rebuild... what sort of transactions would you have liked to see in the summer?

Its actually pretty easy;
During what period of time have the Raptors scouts shown any degree of competence when it comes to draft picks that are not no brainer fall into your lap sort of picks (Davis for example) over the last decade?

We keep preaching the gospel according to Harrison Barnes, and that is just super...unless we end up with pick five and we have to make a call between Donatas Motiejunas, Jared Sullinger, or Trey Thompkins?

I shutter to think we we will walk away with.

There has been discussion about how last season somehow worked out for the Nets,
They were among the worst teams in NBA history, but still ended up with Derrick Favors who is putting up 8/7 but is a good "prospect" yet they didn't get the guy averaging 19/10/5 right out of the gate, and have the 29th worst attendance in the NBA.

Perhaps I am speaking as a angry season seat holder who bought his PSL's during the Vince Carter era, but after seeing a "rebuild" under Babcock and under Jim Kelly I want no part of it.

Aside from us landing pick one or two in 2011, I will go as far as to say that I am pretty confident that the value of our pick as a "number on a board" will be higher then the player we will ultimately take with it.

We have the tools to become a better club, be it the 14.5m TPE, the 15m in expiring contracts, DeRozan, Davis, Weems (kinda) and control of our own picks as well as Miami's.

The non-player assets (and expirings) are perhaps the most overwhelming asset pool we have ever had as a franchise.

We feel however that having cap space and the "potential" to add stars in 2011 and 2012 via the draft will put us in a position to be successful.

That may be the case,
I don't see this model working often, however there is a case for it.

The issue is simply that MLSE is not going to tolerate attendance in the bottom 1/3 of the NBA, they are not going to tolerate the sort of season seat holder drop off they experienced in the lower bowl during the Babcock era, so its only a matter of time before the rebuild concept gets turfed entirely.

Perhaps its selfish of me as a season seat holder to have this stance;
I would sooner we add some watchable talent now with our assets, then make me watch putrid basketball for two seasons and end up with Charlie, Joey, and Andrea V2.0 as our cornerstones as we found the last time.

[Abba Zabba]

Nice work Schad!

In general I agree with CentreCourt about tanking: unless the stars align it can end up hurting your organization more than helping it.

That being said Schad's analysis has convinced me that we may as well tank hard this year. That drop off in win shares is scary and I don't want to be stuck losing for too long.

I'm not a believer in multi-year tanking, I think of losing like rust eating away at the structure of your organization, slowly draining it of quality personnel on the court and off. Maybe the burnished hulls of the Celtics and Bulls juggernauts can stand up to that, but I wouldn't want to put our young organization to the test.

As others have mentioned the importance Schad has demonstrated of being not only bad but one of the 3 worst teams makes BC's choice with TPE paramount. Hopefully it does end up being used for an injured player or to move up in the draft. It even makes me reconsider Dampier, whom I now want no part of.

If we're going to lose lets be the best at it!
...and never look back.

[Morris_Shatford]

It's impossible to argue against the value of tanking.

Clearly;
Its brought so many chips to the Wolves and Clippers who could even consider debating the value of being a putrid team with a high draft choice season after season.

Except that, as has been pointed out, their big problem has been that they've never been quite bad enough to get the very top picks...instead, both teams spent a lot of time splashing around in the no man's land of 23-30 win seasons, while other teams successfully out-tanked them and then rebuilt.

And which teams who tanked over the last decade "properly" have won a Championship?
Orlando got sorta close, so did Cleveland but is Harrison Barnes on the same level as Dwight and LeBron?

The best player in 2004 went 4th, the best player in 2006 went 6th, the best player in 2007 went 2nd, and the best player in 2008 went 1st.

There is most certainly a scouting component to this,
And this argument that the Wolves weren't bad enough?

Really?
Pick 6 in 2006, pick 7 in 2007, pick 3 in 2008, pick 5 & 6 in 2009, and pick 4 in 2010?

So the argument is that we need to secure two straight top three picks to be successful?
How often does that happen?

As for successful build via serial tanking,

The Hawks had to be a lottery team five seasons in a row to end up with that roster, is that what I have to look forward to? Is that not simply a home court advantage treadmill playoff team in caphell for the next five seasons?

[Worm Guts]

It's impossible to argue against the value of tanking.

Clearly;
Its brought so many chips to the Wolves and Clippers who could even consider debating the value of being a putrid team with a high draft choice season after season.

Except that, as has been pointed out, their big problem has been that they've never been quite bad enough to get the very top picks...instead, both teams spent a lot of time splashing around in the no man's land of 23-30 win seasons, while other teams successfully out-tanked them and then rebuilt.

The Wolves have been bottom 3, 2 out of the last 3 years. In the early 90's the Wolves were bottom 2 like 4 straight years and didn't turn it around until they lucked in to KG being available at #5. The Wolves have been repeated screwed in the lottery.

[jrsmith]

Nice work Schad!

In general I agree with CentreCourt about tanking: unless the stars align it can end up hurting your organization more than helping it.

Please express yourself on how winning ~20 games this season would end up hurting the organization more then winning ~25, thanks.

When thinking back at the awful teams we have had, winning or losing afew more or afew less would have changed absolutely nothing (In terms of perception of the team, not lottery outcome).


The problem here is that the few people against it are arguing from the point of view that this team has a chance to do something (aka make the playoffs) or even come close to .500. That chance is non existent. What we are talking about is either picking somewhere around 4-10 or 1-3 (taking luck out of it and basing it on %s, arguing against probability is a waste of time).


I dont think the few that are bringing up an argument against tanking can honestly say down the road "Hey that wasnt so bad, that team went ahead and won 25 games, good thing we didnt tank and win afew less".

[jrsmith]

Also for the laughable argument of blaming the scouts and not the incompetent GM that keeps them employed thats another reason why you should tank.

The higher up in the draft the larger the general consensus of who should be drafted at what pick. The further down you go, the more of a guessing game it becomes. So if Colangelo and his staff are still hindered by incompetence and lack of confidence based on past disasters that would definitely make it easier on them.

[Schad]

The best player in 2004 went 4th, the best player in 2006 went 6th, the best player in 2007 went 2nd, and the best player in 2008 went 1st.

And the best player in 2002 went first, the best player in 2003 went 1st, the best player in 2005 went 1st, the best player in 2009 probably went 1st (though there's competition).

There is most certainly a scouting component to this,

I have never argued differently. Never, ever, ever argued that it's a sure thing. Never.

And this argument that the Wolves weren't bad enough?

Really?
Pick 6 in 2006, pick 7 in 2007, pick 3 in 2008, pick 5 & 6 in 2009, and pick 4 in 2010?

Notice where they ended up drafting in a couple of those. In 2007, they drafted seventh in what was considered a three-player draft; in 2008, they got the right guy; in 2010, they picked fourth in a three-player draft. They certainly could have gotten better players than they did, but they were consistently drafting in a range where they didn't have the franchise-changing guys available...they got unlucky a couple times in the lottery, but they also had teams blow by them in reverse in a few years.

So the argument is that we need to secure two straight top three picks to be successful?
How often does that happen?

If you're fantastically bad two years in a row, your odds of getting a top four pick both years would be 100%.

The Hawks had to be a lottery team five seasons in a row to end up with that roster, is that what I have to look forward to? Is that not simply a home court advantage treadmill playoff team in caphell for the next five seasons?

Unless Harry, I don't consider a team that wins 53 and goes to the second round or beyond to be a treadmill team. The issue is that there is no way in blue hell for us to build even a team of that caliber out of nothing but scrap-heap acquisitions and pixie dust. We're going to be very bad for a couple years, period. We might as well be really **** bad where we actually have a reasonable shot at getting talent that will make us less really **** bad down the road.

[Alfred]

Clearly;
Its brought so many chips to the Wolves and Clippers who could even consider debating the value of being a putrid team with a high draft choice season after season.

Except that, as has been pointed out, their big problem has been that they've never been quite bad enough to get the very top picks...instead, both teams spent a lot of time splashing around in the no man's land of 23-30 win seasons, while other teams successfully out-tanked them and then rebuilt.

And which teams who tanked over the last decade "properly" have won a Championship?
Orlando got sorta close, so did Cleveland but is Harrison Barnes on the same level as Dwight and LeBron?

The best player in 2004 went 4th, the best player in 2006 went 6th, the best player in 2007 went 2nd, and the best player in 2008 went 1st.

There is most certainly a scouting component to this,
And this argument that the Wolves weren't bad enough?

Really?
Pick 6 in 2006, pick 7 in 2007, pick 3 in 2008, pick 5 & 6 in 2009, and pick 4 in 2010?

So the argument is that we need to secure two straight top three picks to be successful?
How often does that happen?

As for successful build via serial tanking,

The Hawks had to be a lottery team five seasons in a row to end up with that roster, is that what I have to look forward to? Is that not simply a home court advantage treadmill playoff team in caphell for the next five seasons?

Instead of railing against tanking being "bad", why not put forward a plan that will give us the elite talent required to win a championship that doesn't involve acquiring high picks.

What do you think is our best course of action from this point forward?

[5DOM]

San Antonio Spurs say go for it.

[Schad]

San Antonio Spurs say go for it.

Unless they lose to the Thunder in the playoffs this year. Or the Blazers.

Re: Alfred, that's the bit I don't get either. I don't like the idea of watching the team lose 60 games in consecutive years...I just see it as the best chance we have at getting real talent, and no one has really presented an alternative. It's the draft or nothing given that we aren't going to suddenly sign our own big three, but even when people agree with that they argue that there's little use trying to maneuver for the best picks possible.

[J-Roc]

If tanking is so important a way to build a team in the NBA, then there's a dearth of talent. This needs to be resolved somehow. Maybe rule changes that allow scrubs to battle better vs the good players.

[timdunkit]

Schad, how do you expect to tank for 2 years straight? Here is my problem ... its very hard to draft a high impact player and not improve the first year. OKC did have two terrible season somehow with Durant. And if there is an improvement its possible to move get the #1 pick (POrtland) but not through a tanking job.

Its why I've been a supporter of the one-and-done tanking job unless there is a lockout that helps us out and lets us tank another year for a high draft pick. I'd rather not sit on the TPE/expirings and use them to try to get as much talent as we can without compromising our draft pick this year. Draft the impact guy this year and try to aim for the playoffs the next season of basketball with the motto that your only bringing in players that fit now and the future.

If we end up with a top 10 pick, so be it ... but to me if your sucking like 60 losses bad for two season bad ... then your roster is water down on talent ...

[Alfred]

San Antonio Spurs say go for it.

Unless they lose to the Thunder in the playoffs this year. Or the Blazers.

Re: Alfred, that's the bit I don't get either. I don't like the idea of watching the team lose 60 games in consecutive years...I just see it as the best chance we have at getting real talent, and no one has really presented an alternative. It's the draft or nothing given that we aren't going to suddenly sign our own big three, but even when people agree with that they argue that there's little use trying to maneuver for the best picks possible.

We are now in the pit of the NBA. We suck.

The Raptors are awful, and largely devoid of talent. People who say "Well sometimes if you suck in the standings, you don't get good players in the draft so all of the losing was for NOTHIIIING!!!!"

Well you have to propose an alternative to that strategy that is worth pursuing. What is the plan other than tanking at this point that is going to turn this team around? I'd love to hear it.

[Schad]

If tanking is so important a way to build a team in the NBA, then there's a dearth of talent. This needs to be resolved somehow. Maybe rule changes that allow scrubs to battle better vs the good players.

There has always been a lack of superstars, but expansion has exacerbated it...there are 30 teams in the league with less than 15 players at any given time capable of carrying a team, where previously it was closer to a 1:1 superstar/team ratio (though not evenly distributed). Additionally, the cap structure and watering down of the league's talent means that high quality secondary stars are hard to come by, as well...both in sheer numbers and the frequency with which they hit the market and the number of suitors that can pursue them.

Only problem: to contract the league enough that there would be available star talent of the under 30 variety (and not of the "I want to go here and here only" sort, as we'll never be "here") would end up with Toronto losing the franchise. Which would kinda defeat the purpose.

[team edward]

Please cross reference the expected win shares with the 5-year employment prospects of the head coach during the losing season and forward to Jat WTFYGD Triano.

[Morris_Shatford]

Unless Harry, I don't consider a team that wins 53 and goes to the second round or beyond to be a treadmill team. The issue is that there is no way in blue hell for us to build even a team of that caliber out of nothing but scrap-heap acquisitions and pixie dust. We're going to be very bad for a couple years, period. We might as well be really **** bad where we actually have a reasonable shot at getting talent that will make us less really **** bad down the road.

The Hawks are simply a better version of the Bulls who built around Hinrich, Gordon, and Deng, reaching a point where all the players needed to be paid and they got to a point where the ability to make a move upward became limited and they found themselves back in the lottery (lucky for them they won it)

After the Bulls dominance after 1998,
How were the NBA champions since then built?

The Lakers & Spurs ended up with a simply epic talent via the draft, and in the case of the Spurs have had a scouting department that has been amazing at evaluating non-North American talent since I don't see Barnes or Irving on the level of Kobe or Duncan but that's just me.

Which leaves us with the Pistons, the Heat, and the Celtics.

The Heat replicate the model in which you want to follow; (as I see it)
Be bad till you stumble upon a great talent in a ridiculous draft year and then move the other assets you drafted to add a marque established talent to take you over the top.

The Celtics were on the cusp of losing Paul Pierce were showing clips of Oden and Durant to their season seat holders, they end up with the bums rush via the draft lottery and swung a pair of deals that left most analysts with their jaws on the ground rather then hoping Jefferson and (2007 1st round pick) would grow around Pierce they went for it with the assets they had collected after being bad.

The problem with the above is that Pierce showed nine seasons of loyalty to the Celts before finally screaming uncle, have we even had a player on our roster for nine seasons?

Then the Pistons who won their championship with five starters of whom only one was drafted by the organization.

In three of the five above cases I see us needing to fall assbackward into a simply epic talent, and in the case of the remaining two one of which requires us to have a player who is a perennial all star who is willing to wait around while we figure it out.

I don't see a lot of success for the tank and win model.

I won't argue that being really really bad doesn't net you some nice assets;
However I don't think the fanbase or the teams ownership has the stomach or the interest in being so bad that we were the worst team in the NBA two seasons in a row.

Again, perhaps I am being selfish.
However I would argue that going after the BPA with our expiring contracts and TPE would net us a similar result to being horrific for two seasons and hoping we end up with Barnes and lets say Austin Rivers and hoping that they are elite talent.

[Alfred]

Okay, that's all well and good, but what do you propose the Raptors do instead of tanking?

[darth_federer]

Do you guys really think BC is going to sit around and watch this team lose? Hes going to blow things up and bring in players using the TPE to make the team better. Colangelo is not going to sit by and watch successive 25 win seasons.