Jazz schedule is out!\Should We Tank?

[stitches]

So then what is the limiting factors here? It seems that you have narrowed the equation to franchises only having a choice to either contend (1) or mediorcity (2). To reach this conclusion you have employed limitations.

No, it's about priorities. Some franchises would prefer to be stable and good than to risk being bad in order to jump into the next tier. This is not only about tanking, this is about taking risks in trades, free agency, etc. Of course any team would love to be the best in the league. Some just would risk their 50 wins team to do it(by making a high risk high reward moves), while others wouldn't. Some would rather try to jump from 40 to 45 than to drop to 20 and have terrible attendance and press in their local market.

What is limiting the teams to not contend? I think it is fair to say that every franchise has the same goal of winning.

So if every franchise has a goal of winning, but find themselves to be content with mediocrity it is due to some limitations.

The limitation that pretty much encompasses everything is the limitation of acquiring talent. Is there any other extraneous factor? I don't see it.

It's because we think of it only as a sports team. It's not. It's a business and management has goals that are in addition to what's happening on the floor. Maybe the team cannot afford the risk of blowing up their 50 wins team and losing money at the gates. Maybe the very presence of the team on the market depends on the team being good enough to fill the arena.

I think the main subset of this limitation is money obviously, but there are other subsets, such as FA appeal or draw, and third is the draft.

So for you to reach the absolute of contend or mediocrity, it is 100% based on the limiting factor of acquiring talent. Agreed?

So setting up the premise of contend vs mediocrity you are indirectly belying a limiting factor, which obviously is the acquisition of talent, so in essence you are revealing that you don't think the Jazz have the ability to acquire talent.

After 20 pages, I think it is fair for me to say that at the root of this failure to acquire talent lies the tanking strategy.

Now I don't know how bright Locke is, he seems pretty with it. I think he can quickly deduce your position as well, he most likely concluded you were talking about going deep into the luxury tax. I know you better.

Yes, ability to acquire talent is one of the limiting factors. Available capspace, willingness to go into tax, willingness to make high risk moves, etc. It's not just tanking.

Just an example of another high risk strategy - lets say Parker is available in the summer and you have to decide if he's worth the risk. Your medical staff tells you - there's 50% chance he never has a healthy year, but your evaluation of the market tells you that in order to make MKE not match the offer sheet you need to offer him the 3+1max with all the bells and whistles. So do you do it? Do you risk having a 25-30M dead weight for the next 4 years? Some teams will never take that chance. Others will. Some will risk seriously hindering their cap flexibility and ability to add other more safe talent in favor of the high upside(lets say your evaluation says he has super high upside). Others cannot afford that downside, so in essence this becomes another limiting factor for their upward trajectory.

[KqWIN]

I'm not sure that math was done correctly Even with the made up probabilities.

So let me get this straight, you brag about your math degree and critique someone else's math in a somewhat snobby and condescending manner, but yet you don't have the balls to reveal your own numbers?

Give the guy some credit for at least putting an effort into it while you smoke your pipe Professor Math.

1. Nobody is bragging.

2. Making up probabilities is not a good way to start an argument.

3. Even if the probabilities were perfect, it's calculated wrong. Uber is not calculating the percentage correctly. I could something was funky. After a quick look at his chart it looks like he's calculating an expected value.

[Dry Fly]

Yes, ability to acquire talent is one of the limiting factors. Available capspace, willingness to go into tax, willingness to make high risk moves, etc. It's not just tanking.

Just an example of another high risk strategy - lets say Parker is available in the summer and you have to decide if he's worth the risk. Your medical staff tells you - there's 50% chance he never has a healthy year, but your evaluation of the market tells you that in order to make MKE not match the offer sheet you need to offer him the 3+1max with all the bells and whistles. So do you do it? Do you risk having a 25-30M dead weight for the next 4 years? Some teams will never take that chance. Others will. Some will risk seriously hindering their cap flexibility and ability to add other more safe talent in favor of the high upside(lets say your evaluation says he has super high upside).

Risk is good. I overlooked that. I still think risk is under the umbrella of the limiting factor of acquiring talent though. Being overly conservative, or not taking a chance on a basket case, a criminal, a gimp... or whatever.. it comes down to your ability to absorb that risk. Stability is relative. There also is the opportunity cost you lose by taking risk. What it comes down to is the luxury tax. If you don't go deep into the luxury tax, you just can't take the risk of filling your cap with basket cases, gimps and criminals.

Teams that take chances do so because they can absorb the loss. Teams that overpay for talent do so because they can afford the tax. Being conservative like the Jazz and other small market teams isn't a choice. It's all due to the ability to absorb the loss which ultimately comes down to money.

What you are implying is that the Jazz are so overly conservative that they have a higher threshold of stability but they choose otherwise? They choose to not compete even though they have the ability to absorb that risk? I've wondered that myself over the years actually. I mean maybe the Jazz could go deeper into the tax, take more risk and still be in the black. After all the franchise value has got to be a billion plus change. The Millers hit the gold mine and are money grubbers milking us fans for not only our loyalty but our wallets?

If your argument is that the Jazz should go deep in the luxury tax and not even consider the Hinkie tank... hell yeah.

[uber_snotling]

3. Even if the probabilities were perfect, it's calculated wrong. Uber is not calculating the percentage correctly. I could something was funky. After a quick look at his chart it looks like he's calculating an expected value.

That is correct. The individual draft lotto balls have an expected value in terms of all-NBA players, which is based on the individual chances of getting the slot in the value times the probability of that draft pick being all-NBA. I apologize for not using the jargon correctly.

Is the expected value of the draft pick the wrong concept to use when comparing the average value of a lotto draft pick in terms of all-NBA players you'd need to replace the talent level of the current all-NBA player and talk about the expected required duration of a tank to produce the turnaround to contention status?

[SoCalJazzFan]

Let's do some math.

Let's assume the Jazz manage to get two lottery picks when trading Rudy. They also tank hard and finish in the bottom 5 and end up with the 1st most lotto balls, and 5th most lotto balls one year and the 2nd most lotto balls and 8th most lotto balls the next year.

I ran a model where the probability that a #1 pick would end up an all-NBA player was 40%, 2 and 3rd pick are 30%, 4 and 5 picks are 20%, and 6-10 are 10%. Running those numbers along with the probability of ending up with any given pick, the likelihood that the team would draft one all-NBA player with the 4 picks was only 86%.

With the most lottery balls, a team still only has a 28% chance of getting an all-NBA caliber player, based on probabilities of draft picks*probability that any pick is an all-NBA talent. Ending up 5th is a 20% chance, and 8th is an 11% chance. So if you already have one all-NBA player and want to trade for a lottery pick at another, you should be getting something like 4+ high lottery picks to ensure you are getting value back.

So mathematically hoping for multiple years of tanking to get multiple all-NBA players or elite talent is going to be a very slow and unlikely process. We'll see how Philly does, but I'm guessing that the Sonics fluke drafts that netted three elite players is never going to be repeated.

Wow! OKC nailed the 30% chance of an All NBA player in Durant (#2 pick), then again the very next year with Westbrook (20% chance, as #4), and then against all odds hit the 30% chance with Harden (#3 pick) the very next year. I know it is simple math, but what are the overall chances of this? Actually, I've read that the #2 pick has a lower chance of All NBA than the #3, so your percentages are favorable to the drafting team.

Edit- Saw answer above.

[zero24gravity]

OMG, we really need the season to start. This thread (while very thoughtful in many responses) is maddening.

[SoCalJazzFan]

There's twice as many all-stars as all-NBA players, so I halved the numbers. Not all all-stars are "superstars". Hayward was an all-star, but he wasn't a superstar because he was somewhere between 4 and 7th best at his position.

The thing is, the perma-tank option is to trade an all-NBA player (100%) for four bottom lotto picks (86%) to try to get a superstar. That's decreasing the net value of assets. So either my model is wrong and it is actually easier to get an all-NBA player from lotto picks, or the front office has just been bad at drafting lotto picks and getting trades for lotto picks. Look at the Favors, Kanter, Exum, Burke, Burks, and Hayward selections - 6 lotto picks and exactly one all-star season between them. Now none of them were top 2 picks, but Favors and Kanter were both top 3; and we know that the odds of getting the top pick in the lotto are low even for the worst record in the league.

My only point is that Rudy is an all-NBA player. That's really hard to get equivalent value for in a trade, much less the chance to get two Rudy equivalent all-NBA players from the draft to make the team a contender. I'm not saying it is impossible, just saying it is less probable than those of you arguing for a tank are making out to be, especially if the team isn't willing to stay at the cellar for less than 3 years.

I just ran through the no. 1 picks from 1980 until today(well until Anthony Bennett(including him, but excluding the players after him that are still on rookie contracts) - 22 out of the 34 were All-NBA teamers at least once. That's approximately 65%. I don't want to be going through the rest of the top picks. I know the no. 1 pick is special and probably for the 2-3-4 picks the chances are halved, but still...

edit: Here's the numbers for a no. 2 pick in the same period - 10/34 or 29%... damn there are SO MANY BUSTS at 2.

edit2: 14/34 in the same period, or 41%

The Jazz are pretty damn unlucky, then. Neither Favors or Kanter (both #3 picks) have been an All Star, let alone All NBAers.

[zero24gravity]

The Jazz are pretty damn unlucky, then. Neither Favors or Kanter (both #3 picks) have been an All Star, let alone All NBAers.

The Jazz didn't draft Favors, so you can't blame the Jazz for that pick. And Kanter did recently make his 2nd All NBA team. It was the All NBA no-defense team.

[Dry Fly]

OMG, we really need the season to start. This thread (while very thoughtful in many responses) is maddening.

Haha... I apologize for my ****. It is maddening. I feel like I'm trying to stick a thread through a needle eye that is spinning in circles.

[SoCalJazzFan]

The Jazz are pretty damn unlucky, then. Neither Favors or Kanter (both #3 picks) have been an All Star, let alone All NBAers.

The Jazz didn't draft Favors, so you can't blame the Jazz for that pick. And Kanter did recently make his 2nd All NBA team. It was the All NBA no-defense team.

Haha, but really, who else would the Jazz drafted? Cousins? Unlikely given the personality. The others in that range ended up dogs. Favors would have been a good/the best choice.

[KqWIN]

3. Even if the probabilities were perfect, it's calculated wrong. Uber is not calculating the percentage correctly. I could something was funky. After a quick look at his chart it looks like he's calculating an expected value.

That is correct. The individual draft lotto balls have an expected value in terms of all-NBA players, which is based on the individual chances of getting the slot in the value times the probability of that draft pick being all-NBA. I apologize for not using the jargon correctly.

Is the expected value of the draft pick the wrong concept to use when comparing the average value of a lotto draft pick in terms of all-NBA players you'd need to replace the talent level of the current all-NBA player and talk about the expected required duration of a tank to produce the turnaround to contention status?

The last sentence is a bit tough to read, but to answer the last part, it's geometric. All you need is the probability of success i.e. draft all NBA player and you can find the expected number of failures before success.

[stitches]

Let's do some math.

Let's assume the Jazz manage to get two lottery picks when trading Rudy. They also tank hard and finish in the bottom 5 and end up with the 1st most lotto balls, and 5th most lotto balls one year and the 2nd most lotto balls and 8th most lotto balls the next year.

I ran a model where the probability that a #1 pick would end up an all-NBA player was 40%, 2 and 3rd pick are 30%, 4 and 5 picks are 20%, and 6-10 are 10%. Running those numbers along with the probability of ending up with any given pick, the likelihood that the team would draft one all-NBA player with the 4 picks was only 86%.

With the most lottery balls, a team still only has a 28% chance of getting an all-NBA caliber player, based on probabilities of draft picks*probability that any pick is an all-NBA talent. Ending up 5th is a 20% chance, and 8th is an 11% chance. So if you already have one all-NBA player and want to trade for a lottery pick at another, you should be getting something like 4+ high lottery picks to ensure you are getting value back.

So mathematically hoping for multiple years of tanking to get multiple all-NBA players or elite talent is going to be a very slow and unlikely process. We'll see how Philly does, but I'm guessing that the Sonics fluke drafts that netted three elite players is never going to be repeated.

Wow! OKC nailed the 30% chance of an All NBA player in Durant (#2 pick), then again the very next year with Westbrook (20% chance, as #4), and then against all odds hit the 30% chance with Harden (#3 pick) the very next year. I know it is simple math, but what are the overall chances of this? Actually, I've read that the #2 pick has a lower chance of All NBA than the #3, so your percentages are favorable to the drafting team.

Edit- Saw answer above.

I would like to point out that those are AVERAGES. This doesn't take into account that by the nature of the draft horrible teams draft first. In a lot of situations(probably majority) those horrible teams are horrible not because of strategy, but because of horrible management. You can expect horrible management to continuously make horrible evaluations and moves(+they are more likely to screw up the development of the talent they draft).

Also there are drafts and then there are drafts. For example, in the Anthony Bennett year you had to be a wizard not to draft a bust at the very top. Some drafts are just stacked at the top, others not so much. It matters what draft you are drafting in. For example I would have never advocated for 1 year tank for last year's draft(the Simmons, Ingram... wasteland draft), simply because I don't see the high end talent in it. You pretty much had to be no. 1 to have a shot in hell of getting an all-NBA type.

[Inigo Montoya]

23 pages in this thread and to this point, no one has provided a realistic way for the jazz to become a legit contender without tanking.

[KqWIN]

23 pages in this thread and to this point, no one has provided a realistic way for the jazz to become a legit contender without tanking.

I'd say that keeping Gobert, developing someone already on roster into a star, and trading/drafting/signing a 3rd is just as realistic as trading Gobert and drafting 3 in a row. Especially with lottery reform.

If we're talking about realistic as is in it could really happen, it's infinitely more likely.

Abolishing the max and going from there also a realistic outcome.

[KqWIN]

And for as much grief as you're giving dry fly about probabilities and percentages, there will be a superstar drafted outside of the top 5 and there will be a superstar available for trade. Calling that method unrealistic isn't very fair considering that more teams contending got to where they are by hitting on those opportunities than using the top of the draft.

GSW
SAS
HOU
BOS

Those are 4 of the 5 most likely teams to win a championship this season, and while may be involved in some way or another, they didn't get to where they are by multiplying top draft picks. Their success isn't predicated on getting high in the draft.

[Inigo Montoya]

Doesn't seem more likely to me.

So we're hoping to get another star out of this current core (I suppose that'd be Mitchell?) and then hope to trade for a 3rd star with... what assets, exactly? And which star would that be? And we'd also like to hope that after we get that 3rd star that he'd be willing to stay. Or hope we find a star in the 25-60 range? Doesn't seem very likely to me. All this stuff was floated before, but no one came up with a concrete scenario. Let's see some details--realistic trades that could happen and make sense for both sides for stars or picks that make this team to a contender.

[Inigo Montoya]

And for as much grief as you're giving dry fly about probabilities and percentages, there will be a superstar drafted outside of the top 5 and there will be a superstar available for trade. Calling that method unrealistic isn't very fair considering that more teams contending got to where they are by hitting on those opportunities than using the top of the draft.

GSW
SAS
HOU
BOS

Those are 4 of the 5 most likely teams to win a championship this season, and while may be involved in some way or another, they didn't get to where they are by multiplying top draft picks. Their success isn't predicated on getting high in the draft.

The assertions that superstars can be found outside the top 5, or that stars will be moved in trades were never contested. What was contested is the Jazz's likelihood to find that next star with their low picks or be able to trade for a star. The Jazz are in a significant disadvantage compared to the teams you listed when we're talking about trading for stars. Not all teams are created equal, I'm sure you'd agree. The stars Houston and Boston can swing in trades, the Jazz are very unlikely to.

[KqWIN]

Doesn't seem more likely to me.

So we're hoping to get another star out of this current core (I suppose that'd be Mitchell?) and then hope to trade for a 3rd star with... what assets, exactly? And which star would that be? And we'd also like to hope that after we get that 3rd star that he'd be willing to stay. Or hope we find a star in the 25-60 range? Doesn't seem very likely to me. All this stuff was floated before, but no one came up with a concrete scenario. Let's see some details--realistic trades that could happen and make sense for both sides for stars or picks that make this team to a contender.

That is the concrete scenario. It's not any less concrete than lose, lose, lose draft good player. Hope they are stars and want to be here. There are plenty of examples of teams nailing mid/late draft picks, FA moves, and trades. Take a look at the best teams in the league. It's completely unfair to say your example is more realistic, when there are more teams successful teams that have done the other.

[Inigo Montoya]

Doesn't seem more likely to me.

So we're hoping to get another star out of this current core (I suppose that'd be Mitchell?) and then hope to trade for a 3rd star with... what assets, exactly? And which star would that be? And we'd also like to hope that after we get that 3rd star that he'd be willing to stay. Or hope we find a star in the 25-60 range? Doesn't seem very likely to me. All this stuff was floated before, but no one came up with a concrete scenario. Let's see some details--realistic trades that could happen and make sense for both sides for stars or picks that make this team to a contender.

That is the concrete scenario. It's not any less concrete than lose, lose, lose draft good player. Hope they are stars and want to be here. There are plenty of examples of teams nailing mid/late draft picks, FA moves, and trades. Take a look at the best teams in the league. It's completely unfair to say your example is more realistic, when there are more teams successful teams that have done the other.

Let's see some details then. Yes, there are examples for all the things you listed. And the Jazz will have to nail all of them. How likely is that? No more than the tanking scenario, imho.

[KqWIN]

Doesn't seem more likely to me.

So we're hoping to get another star out of this current core (I suppose that'd be Mitchell?) and then hope to trade for a 3rd star with... what assets, exactly? And which star would that be? And we'd also like to hope that after we get that 3rd star that he'd be willing to stay. Or hope we find a star in the 25-60 range? Doesn't seem very likely to me. All this stuff was floated before, but no one came up with a concrete scenario. Let's see some details--realistic trades that could happen and make sense for both sides for stars or picks that make this team to a contender.

That is the concrete scenario. It's not any less concrete than lose, lose, lose draft good player. Hope they are stars and want to be here. There are plenty of examples of teams nailing mid/late draft picks, FA moves, and trades. Take a look at the best teams in the league. It's completely unfair to say your example is more realistic, when there are more teams successful teams that have done the other.

Let's see some details then.

I don't know what you're expecting. I literally just told you the plan, and it's not any less detailed than your plan. What do you want me to say?

Donovan Mitchell turns into a star, then they draft Mikal Bridges and he turns into a star?

I can't tell you what player on roster is going to become a star, but I will tell that one has to and that it isn't completely unrealistic, especially in this context. Winning a championship at all is unrealistic to begin with regardless of strategy.

In the same way, I can't tell you who the draft sleeper is going to be. I can't tell you which superstar will become disgruntled. I can tell you that there will be a draft sleeper and a star who wants to change teams.

Again, if you want real world example. Real world success. Just look at the best teams in the league. This is how championship teams are made. You have to nail these moves or else you won't win a championship.