People were interested in these podcasts

Re:

User avatar
RealGM Articles
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,025
And1: 48
Joined: Mar 20, 2013

 

Post#1 » by RealGM Articles » Tue Mar 25, 2025 7:34 pm

It’s March, which means Tanking is the NBA’s subject du jour. “Can the NBA fix tanking?” has been, is, and will be the subject of many a podcast segment and column – including this one!


What I find curious about the league’s tanking issue is that this seems to be purely an NBA problem. The NFL, MLB and NHL all have essentially the same system that rewards the very worst teams with the very best picks. Yet none of those leagues are dealing with anything that comes close to the NBA’s annual existential crisis.


Maybe that’s simply because top picks matter more in the NBA than they do in those other sports. 


As ESPN’s Tim Bontemps and Kevin Pelton pointed out this week, 40 of the last 45 NBA champions were led by a player taken with one of the first seven picks in the draft.


In a league that moves as star players do, being bad is the surest way to get really good. 


Notice, though, that I didn’t say “really bad.” No, you can just be kinda bad – like last year’s 36-46 Atlanta Hawks – and still be rewarded in the lottery with the No. 1 pick. Despite having the 10th worst record, the Hawks still had a 3% chance of landing the No. 1 pick. It happened, and now teams like the Toronto Raptors are hoping for similar luck.


The Raptors, 24-47, have put themselves in the middle of this tanking conversation by resting their best players down the stretch of close games in an obvious attempt to pad their loss record.


A March 14 tank-off between the Raptors and Utah Jazz stands out. In a close game, the Jazz yanked star Lauri Markkanen out of the second half while the Raptors played a bunch of rookies and journeymen. As ESPN put it, “Instead of a matchup between All-Star forwards Markkanen and Scottie Barnes, fans watched a fourth quarter filled with rookies and reserves from both teams.”


When we talk about tanking, this is what people are talking about. Nobody cares that the Washington Wizards and Charlotte Hornets are bad. Those organizations are at a clear step in the NBA life cycle. They were expected to be bad and duly are. The NFL has bad teams, too. Every league does.


The problem that the league has is when a team like the Raptors deprives its fans of seeing its best players in the most exciting moments of the season. Or when the Philadelphia 76ers shut down Tyrese Maxey because the pick they owe the Oklahoma City Thunder is top-six protected.


It’s not fair to fans who tune into these games or even buy tickets to be given a worse product. And it’s embarrassing for the NBA, no matter what these teams tell themselves.


Jazz coach Will Hardy told reporters recently, “For our team, it's been a point of pride that I don't care who's on the court, I want our fans to know that our team is going to play with a ton of passion and joy."


What?!


Imagine buying tickets to see Sabrina Carpenter, only for her to get pulled at the last minute, then being told that the backup dancers tried really hard.


When we talk about the NBA’s tanking issue, what we’re really talking about is their inability to keep their global and local stars on the court. For a league that has openly marketed itself as a Star League, this is a problem. 


(It also doesn’t help that we’re in the portion of the calendar when good teams are taking their foot off the gas. Tune into any nationally televised TNT or ESPN game around this time and you’re almost guaranteed to miss a star player or two.)


The NBA can’t eliminate the pool of bad teams playing bad basketball, but they can reduce it.


So, finally, here’s my fix.


Get rid of the lottery.


Teams with the worst records get the best picks. That’s it. That’s the order.


You’d still have the Wizards, Jazz and Hornets – teams at the natural rebuilding point of their life cycle. You’d also still have your Pelicans – teams whose seasons were unfortunately derailed by injuries. Those teams exist in every sport.


But ask: If there was no lottery, what would teams like the Raptors, Spurs and Trail Blazers be doing now?


Right now, they are still incentivized to lose so that they can increase their odds at getting a top pick despite the fact that they are 10 to 20 wins better than the Wizards. In the current lottery format, there is a meaningful difference between having the league’s eighth-worst record and 11th-worst record. So these teams are spending March and April racing to the bottom.


(Flattening the odds is not the solution either. That just incentivizes teams outside the lottery to jump in. Imagine if the feel-good Detroit Pistons had to decide between an equal chance at landing Cooper Flagg vs making the playoffs.)


But what if there wasn’t a lottery? Nobody would care about picking eighth vs 11th. Do you know how I know? Because no other league cares. It’s impossible in March to know how the draft board is going to break in June. 


The Raptors would probably decide that two months of late-game reps for Barnes are more important than moving up one spot in the draft.


The obvious critique of the no-lottery solution is something like: Well, if you do that, you’re just incentivizing these teams to be bad all season as opposed to just a couple of months.


To that I say: Bet.


Are the Raptors really going to bench their 23-year-old All-Star for the whole season? Were the San Antonio Spurs going to just not play Victor Wembanyama?


Not many owners are willing to risk all of that gate revenue and local fan support. Go against the owner, and every coach or general manager in that situation would be fired. 


The Wizards are bad because they’re bad. There’s nothing artificial about it. Everybody got what they expected to get. The problem is when good teams turn bad with an eye toward a ping-pong ball. That’s when fans get something other than what they paid for – monetarily or emotionally. That’s what embarrasses – and should embarrass – the league.


Get rid of the lottery. Let the real bad teams be bad, and let the other teams find something else to play for.

ciueli
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,784
And1: 2,762
Joined: Apr 11, 2007

Re: 

Post#2 » by ciueli » Tue Mar 25, 2025 11:08 pm

Your solution won't solve anything because the Raptors would still be tanking exactly the same as they are now just to stay at 7. The thing they are afraid of is making the play-in and actually getting into the playoffs (the talent is there if they bring Ingram back who is likely being held out longer than he needs to), if that happened they are drafting 15th instead of 7th in your proposed system, that's a big difference. Making the playoffs in the 8th seed is pointless, it means obliteration by the Cavs, better to solidify that 7th pick instead of risking a whopping 8 position drop.

Even if the Raptors wound up just the 10 seed and lose the first play-in game there's a good chance it would drop them behind teams like the Spurs and Blazers in the draft, it could be the difference between pick 7 or pick 10, just ask the New York Knicks how they felt about drafting 8 instead of 7 in the 2009 NBA draft, one spot can make a world of difference in terms of who a team gets and the future of that franchise.
Luv those Knicks
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 59,573
And1: 5,852
Joined: Jul 21, 2001
Location: East of West and West of East.
Contact:

Re: Re: 

Post#3 » by Luv those Knicks » Wed Mar 26, 2025 1:46 am

Teams trying to lose and fans wanting their teams to lose, it feels wrong, and I've been there. I've rooted for losses and hated my team for winning and falling in the draft order.

It is comical in the NBA how many teams tank. The Mavericks a couple years ago tanked their way out of a playoff spot. I've never seen that before, and that was Cuban, not the new crazy management.

It's bad in the NFL too. Fans were screaming in the final weeks of last season whenever a team lost their hold on the #1 pick. I remember Raiders fans and then Patriot fans flocking to twitter, yelling at their teams for not losing. Sports shouldn't be set up this way.

The solution isn't easy. I get that. The lottery helps, unlike the NFL where it's a guaranteed pick. Still, I wish they'd find a solution to this.
Bill Clinton slept with an intern. A consenting adult and he got impeached and nearly disbarred as a result. Donald Trump went to parties showcasing underaged women brought in as basically prostitutes, and he says it's nothing.

Double standard?
Luv those Knicks
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 59,573
And1: 5,852
Joined: Jul 21, 2001
Location: East of West and West of East.
Contact:

Re: Re: 

Post#4 » by Luv those Knicks » Wed Mar 26, 2025 2:14 am

ciueli wrote:Your solution won't solve anything because the Raptors would still be tanking exactly the same as they are now just to stay at 7. The thing they are afraid of is making the play-in and actually getting into the playoffs (the talent is there if they bring Ingram back who is likely being held out longer than he needs to), if that happened they are drafting 15th instead of 7th in your proposed system, that's a big difference. Making the playoffs in the 8th seed is pointless, it means obliteration by the Cavs, better to solidify that 7th pick instead of risking a whopping 8 position drop.

Even if the Raptors wound up just the 10 seed and lose the first play-in game there's a good chance it would drop them behind teams like the Spurs and Blazers in the draft, it could be the difference between pick 7 or pick 10, just ask the New York Knicks how they felt about drafting 8 instead of 7 in the 2009 NBA draft, one spot can make a world of difference in terms of who a team gets and the future of that franchise.


2009 stings, especially because NY clearly wanted Steph.

The thing is, NY wasn't that bad a team in 2009. OK, they were bad. 32-50, but they were pretty consistent the whole year. 17-24 in the first half, 15-26 in the 2nd half. They had too many decent players to do a proper tank. Some good youth in David Lee, Wilson Chandler, Nate Robinson. A few vets. If they'd traded/sold all their vets going into the year, they'd have lost more games and gotten Steph, NY management didn't think that way back then. Even the 23-win Isiah teams tried to win. They were just poorly constructed.

Similar to Raptor management recently, trying to put together a solid roster instead of going full rebuild.

Fans shouldn't have to root for management to put together bad teams. It's a blemish on the sport. I don't know what the solution should be, as I do think the teams with the least talent should pick earlier, but tanking is bad for the sport. It's bad for the players on teams that tank. It's a mess.
Bill Clinton slept with an intern. A consenting adult and he got impeached and nearly disbarred as a result. Donald Trump went to parties showcasing underaged women brought in as basically prostitutes, and he says it's nothing.

Double standard?
ciueli
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,784
And1: 2,762
Joined: Apr 11, 2007

Re: Re: 

Post#5 » by ciueli » Wed Mar 26, 2025 1:51 pm

Luv those Knicks wrote:
ciueli wrote:Your solution won't solve anything because the Raptors would still be tanking exactly the same as they are now just to stay at 7. The thing they are afraid of is making the play-in and actually getting into the playoffs (the talent is there if they bring Ingram back who is likely being held out longer than he needs to), if that happened they are drafting 15th instead of 7th in your proposed system, that's a big difference. Making the playoffs in the 8th seed is pointless, it means obliteration by the Cavs, better to solidify that 7th pick instead of risking a whopping 8 position drop.

Even if the Raptors wound up just the 10 seed and lose the first play-in game there's a good chance it would drop them behind teams like the Spurs and Blazers in the draft, it could be the difference between pick 7 or pick 10, just ask the New York Knicks how they felt about drafting 8 instead of 7 in the 2009 NBA draft, one spot can make a world of difference in terms of who a team gets and the future of that franchise.


2009 stings, especially because NY clearly wanted Steph.

The thing is, NY wasn't that bad a team in 2009. OK, they were bad. 32-50, but they were pretty consistent the whole year. 17-24 in the first half, 15-26 in the 2nd half. They had too many decent players to do a proper tank. Some good youth in David Lee, Wilson Chandler, Nate Robinson. A few vets. If they'd traded/sold all their vets going into the year, they'd have lost more games and gotten Steph, NY management didn't think that way back then. Even the 23-win Isiah teams tried to win. They were just poorly constructed.

Similar to Raptor management recently, trying to put together a solid roster instead of going full rebuild.

Fans shouldn't have to root for management to put together bad teams. It's a blemish on the sport. I don't know what the solution should be, as I do think the teams with the least talent should pick earlier, but tanking is bad for the sport. It's bad for the players on teams that tank. It's a mess.



The only way to prevent tanking is eliminate the draft. Replace it with a set of additions to the CBA that govern how new players can enter the NBA as restricted free agents. Let teams with cap space pay more, up to a predefined rookie max contract that is what the number 1 overall pick currently makes. Force players to sign with the team that bids the most for their services. In the case of a tie, use a wheel system so that teams can't double dip easily in getting the top talent of the draft (most recent team to use their rookie max goes to the back of the line with respect to tie breakers). Limit teams to paying only one player this way per year (no equivalent to multiple first round picks). Teams with no cap space but under the tax have less to spend while teams in the tax have even less to spend than that. Any team can offer a rookie minimum, basically equivalent to a second round pick.

I believe this addresses most of the issues teams will have with replacing the draft. I don't expect a change like this to actually happen, but it should be clear that there is a solution that eliminates tanking, it is possible.
delaney8
Sophomore
Posts: 198
And1: 9
Joined: Feb 13, 2009

Re: Re: 

Post#6 » by delaney8 » Wed Mar 26, 2025 3:27 pm

In basketball 5 players play most of the game. In the NFL, MLB and NFL, many more players are needed so having that one superstar makes a much bigger difference. Also I would argue that teams in other leagues do tank for generational players or higher draft position (e.g., Baltimore in MLB tanked for several years, NHL when players like McDavid are available, NFL when an Andrew Luck level prospect is available).
Luv those Knicks
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 59,573
And1: 5,852
Joined: Jul 21, 2001
Location: East of West and West of East.
Contact:

Re: Re: 

Post#7 » by Luv those Knicks » Wed Mar 26, 2025 4:25 pm

delaney8 wrote:In basketball 5 players play most of the game. In the NFL, MLB and NFL, many more players are needed so having that one superstar makes a much bigger difference. Also I would argue that teams in other leagues do tank for generational players or higher draft position (e.g., Baltimore in MLB tanked for several years, NHL when players like McDavid are available, NFL when an Andrew Luck level prospect is available).


MLB, it almost doesn't matter with development teams. A team can win 40 games and have a bright future if they have a dynamite farm system (like the Orioles that you mention). Teams like the Mets or Dodgers can have less money to spend but can invest more into scouting and player development and build farm system's that way, though I like the MLB's attempts to help smaller market teams with more draft money. MLB is still unbalanced though, but not because of the draft, but because of spending discrepancies.

NFL, even with 22 players, one QB can be the difference maker. Granted, Tom Brady was drafted in the 6th round, and Pat Mahomes, 10th overall, so you don't need the #1 pick to get a franchise QB. That said, I read what Raider fans and Patriot fans posted on their twitter when both teams won their way out of the #1 pick.

2026, people are already talking about tanking for Arch Manning at #1 overall, so . . . it happens in the NFL for sure, even if there's not a guarantee that #1 overall QBs work out.

A simple lottery would fix the NFL though. A lottery doesn't seem enough for the NBA as we can see by the outcome so far, even expanding the lottery to 5 spins, it's not been enough to stop the tanking, not even close. They need some kind of very complicated system set up where losing is no longer rewarded. I'm not sure the NBA will ever pull that off, but I hope they can figure out something.
Bill Clinton slept with an intern. A consenting adult and he got impeached and nearly disbarred as a result. Donald Trump went to parties showcasing underaged women brought in as basically prostitutes, and he says it's nothing.

Double standard?
User avatar
hauntedcomputer
Analyst
Posts: 3,397
And1: 5,343
Joined: Apr 18, 2021
Contact:

Re: Re: 

Post#8 » by hauntedcomputer » Thu Mar 27, 2025 1:41 pm

I like a 30-team unweighted lottery better.

Nobody has incentive to lose.
+++
Schadenfreude is undefeated.
User avatar
MalonesElbows
Starter
Posts: 2,424
And1: 1,488
Joined: Sep 14, 2009
     

Re: Re: 

Post#9 » by MalonesElbows » Fri Mar 28, 2025 8:34 pm

Nope. Small market teams usually cannot afford revenue wise to outright tank for a top 3 pick, which would set them up for perpetual treadmill since no stars are signing in these cities. The Jazz are tanking this year, but it is a one year out of thirty exception.
balrog27
Junior
Posts: 343
And1: 209
Joined: Feb 07, 2015

Re: Re: 

Post#10 » by balrog27 » Sat Mar 29, 2025 6:01 pm

nba, there's only 5 players on the court. best players play what like 40/48 minutes? NHL player plays maybe 1/3 of the game.
AngryHelicopter
Ballboy
Posts: 1
And1: 0
Joined: Mar 28, 2025

Re: Re: 

Post#11 » by AngryHelicopter » Tue Apr 1, 2025 2:29 am

. The problem is that losing is incentivized and this fix does nothing to change that. With this solution, losing is even more incentivized. You really couldn't design a worse solution to this problem if you tried.
Joe12
Ballboy
Posts: 1
And1: 0
Joined: Mar 29, 2025
         

Re:Tanking 

Post#12 » by Joe12 » Mon Apr 7, 2025 9:32 pm

I have a simple solution.

First, All non-playoff teams get equal number of pin pong balls.

Second, teams finishing 7 through 10 get equal number of ping pong balls, but lesser amount than non-playoff teams.

Third, teams finishing 1 through 6 draft in inverse order of record.

Also, in order to enable worst teams (teams finishing bottom 3 or 4) a chance to improve, raise the cap and tax cap for them so as to allow them to compete for free agents.

I think that this makes tanking not so beneficial, and, fans could see better games towards the end of season.

Return to Articles Discussion