Freakonomics: Losing is not a Winning Strategy

Unbeata-BULL7 · Post #1 » by **Unbeata-BULL7** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 4:52 am

I came across an article that offers an interesting take on the tanking debate. More specifically, it argues that tanking is "not a winning strategy in the NBA." I think it's a useful read for everyone on the board, and may shed some new insight into the board's debate.

http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/29/losi ... n-the-nba/

One section particularly stood out to me:

Now some might argue that this next draft is different. This next draft is supposed to have such players as Andrew Wiggins, Jabari Parker, and Julius Randle.

But let’s imagine these players are like LeBron. It is important to remember that LeBron never won a title with the teams that acquired his services on draft night. In fact, in the lottery era (since 1985) only the San Antonio Spurs (with David Robinson and Tim Duncan) have drafted a player number one and won a title with that player. Every other number one pick failed to bring a title to the team that “won” the lottery.

Personally, I felt even more compelled to post this because the enthusiasm some posters have for the Bulls losing games disgusts me.

Mods: I apologize if this article has been posted elsewhere.

Bisonbull8 · Post #2 » by **Bisonbull8** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 4:55 am

Inb4 mods lock this thread because they lock every thread

BUT, only 1 team can win a year, but tanking and getting that superstar (if the pick pans out) at least gives you a chance at contending for a title eventually. Ya Lebron never won in Cleveland, but he was a title contender every year. It wasnt like the Hawks who every one knew would get a 4-6 seed and be out by the 2nd round at best.

Post #3 » by **Rerisen** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 4:58 am

I posted a similar study, and odds a couple times in past threads discussing it. Tanking is most likely to just make you suck for a long time. But w/e, if people chanting "Jabari" after every loss helps them get through this tough year, more power to them.

Luckily I don't think there is any fear of the Bulls actually totally blowing it up, and if they did, most likely people would just have to chant a new name each successive year that we continued to be bad as a result of it.

logical_art · Post #4 » by **logical_art** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 4:58 am

Kind of lame "research", no offense.

Of course teams that are going to be in a position to tank are MOST LIKELY poorly run franchises and therefore not going to be in a position to win a ring even with a superstar. The Bulls are on the other hand a well run franchise with a superstar on the shelf because of injury which gives them a chance for a bad season. They're anomalous as a tanking team. They are in fact most like the Spurs in the Duncan draft, and that worked out pretty well for SA.

jc23 · Post #5 » by **jc23** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 4:59 am

I think our situation is more unique then most teams that tank every year.

logical_art · Post #6 » by **logical_art** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 5:00 am

Rerisen wrote: Tanking is most likely to just make you suck for a long time.

How do you figure? Again, tanking teams are poorly run teams, unlike the Bulls, and most don't have a top 5 player in their back pocket like the Bulls do.

Post #7 » by **Rerisen** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 5:01 am

That's the historical odds. It's get Tim Duncan or... a whole lot of hurt. And most everyone else whose done it, has got the hurt. If Rose is really still a top 5 player, then you can instantly contend again next year, which would make dismantling the team pretty silly.

Polynice4Pippen · Post #8 » by **Polynice4Pippen** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 5:02 am

logical_art wrote:Kind of lame "research", no offense.

Of course teams that are going to be in a position to tank are MOST LIKELY poorly run franchises and therefore not going to be in a position to win a ring even with a superstar. The Bulls are on the other hand a well run franchise with a superstar on the shelf because of injury which gives them a chance for a bad season. They're anomalous as a tanking team. They are in fact most like the Spurs in the Duncan draft, and that worked out pretty well for SA.

Or Miami in '08 when Wade was hurt and they got the #2 overall pick.

weneeda2guard · Post #9 » by **weneeda2guard** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 5:03 am

If lebron was drafted to a team with a healthy Derrick rose a coach like thibs a front line with Noah and taj and defensive guys like butler next to him, he would have won a ring by year 3 in the league

League Circles · Post #10 » by **League Circles** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 5:06 am

Lebron was never a serious title contender in Cleveland IMO.

Red8911 · Post #11 » by **Red8911** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 5:08 am

Polynice4Pippen wrote:
logical_art wrote:Kind of lame "research", no offense.

Of course teams that are going to be in a position to tank are MOST LIKELY poorly run franchises and therefore not going to be in a position to win a ring even with a superstar. The Bulls are on the other hand a well run franchise with a superstar on the shelf because of injury which gives them a chance for a bad season. They're anomalous as a tanking team. They are in fact most like the Spurs in the Duncan draft, and that worked out pretty well for SA.

Or Miami in '08 when Wade was hurt and they got the #2 overall pick.

Again who did they draft?????????PPl keep using this example. why dont u say it? Michael Beasley lol,just stop

Post #12 » by **Payt10** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 5:08 am

Do people not realize that we still have Derrick Rose? As long as he can come back and be somewhat close to his former MVP self this team will not suck for a long time. Not to mention the kid Mirotic will be another talented young player coming over next year as well. He's essentially a top 10 draft talent. I don't get this notion that tanking is somehow a bad strategy for this team. Name me a better alternative?

Post #13 » by **Rerisen** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 5:10 am

Bulls aren't getting Lebron anyway, nor Wiggins or Parker outside a prayer. The talent in the draft is not the only thing that make it unique, but that half the league is trying to get these guys.

There are 8 or 9 other teams that are real real bad. It's a crapshoot where you finish in that group, even if you did try to be terrible. Blowing up the team for a 2 in 10 chance doesn't sound like my idea of a good plan.

Red8911 · Post #14 » by **Red8911** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 5:10 am

I understand your point but PM a mod, don't raise it in public.

KC

Steve Brule · Post #15 » by **Steve Brule** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 5:11 am

Losing for the sake of tanking is not a good idea. Losing because you're a lousy team is just losing with caveat of acquiring high level talent because you're a lousy team.

Bear in mind, the Bulls do not and will never (as long as Thibs is at the helm) strategize to get a top pick via losing. It just might happen because our MVP went down in a year that we had a crap roster to begin with.

People are thinking too much into this. We just suck. And that just might be advantageous this year. Hell, it might not. We might end up an eight seed with a crappy pick and suck again. Or be good again because Rose comes back strong. Who knows. But our roster sucks this year.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RprMPis226k&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/youtube]

Tenchi Ryu · Post #16 » by **Tenchi Ryu** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 5:12 am

Red8911 wrote:As a bulls mod,all these ppl that want the bulls to lose arent they trollers? why don't you guys ban them? You keep on locking threads from everything,but that u let go

Becasue its not trolling at all. The tankers want the team to have the maximum level of talent possible, and we feel that's only possible through the draft at this point. This front office has failed to get it done through trades and signings.

GoBlue72391 · Post #17 » by **GoBlue72391** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 5:12 am

Unbeata-BULL7 wrote:I came across an article that offers an interesting take on the tanking debate. More specifically, it argues that tanking is "not a winning strategy in the NBA." I think it's a useful read for everyone on the board, and may shed some new insight into the board's debate.

http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/29/losi ... n-the-nba/

One section particularly stood out to me:

Now some might argue that this next draft is different. This next draft is supposed to have such players as Andrew Wiggins, Jabari Parker, and Julius Randle.

But let’s imagine these players are like LeBron. It is important to remember that LeBron never won a title with the teams that acquired his services on draft night. In fact, in the lottery era (since 1985) only the San Antonio Spurs (with David Robinson and Tim Duncan) have drafted a player number one and won a title with that player. Every other number one pick failed to bring a title to the team that “won” the lottery.

Personally, I felt even more compelled to post this because the enthusiasm some posters have for the Bulls losing games disgusts me.

Mods: I apologize if this article has been posted elsewhere.

You're not going to change anyone's mind. People are all aboard the tank train and they'll be riding it 'till it's off the rails.

Post #18 » by **Rerisen** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 5:12 am

Payt10 wrote:Do people not realize that we still have Derrick Rose? As long as he can come back and be somewhat close to his former MVP self this team will not suck for a long time. Not to mention the kid Mirotic will be another talented young player coming over next year as well. He's essentially a top 10 draft talent. I don't get this notion that tanking is somehow a bad strategy for this team. Name me a better alternative?

Depends on the definition of tanking. Most don't mind putting Deng on the table, if the org thinks he's done here, or guys like Boozer, MDJ, or Kirk.

But a lot of us just don't want to jettison every single talent on the team, for no guarantee whatsoever, and actually likely still poor odds, of top 3.

Polynice4Pippen · Post #19 » by **Polynice4Pippen** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 5:13 am

Red8911 wrote:
Polynice4Pippen wrote:
logical_art wrote:Kind of lame "research", no offense.

Of course teams that are going to be in a position to tank are MOST LIKELY poorly run franchises and therefore not going to be in a position to win a ring even with a superstar. The Bulls are on the other hand a well run franchise with a superstar on the shelf because of injury which gives them a chance for a bad season. They're anomalous as a tanking team. They are in fact most like the Spurs in the Duncan draft, and that worked out pretty well for SA.

Or Miami in '08 when Wade was hurt and they got the #2 overall pick.

Again who did they draft?????????PPl keep using this example. why dont u say it? Michael Beasley lol,just stop

It's irrelevant who they drafted. What matters is that they got a great pick, they had an opportunity. Just give our front office the opportunity at a top 7 pick in this draft and I'll take that, that's all you can ask. Would you seriously turn down a top 7 pick because other teams have screwed them up in the past? Oh, Miami blew the #2 overall pick in 2008, therefore that proves it isn't worth ever obtaining the #2 pick in the draft. That's just ridiculous.

Hokie · Post #20 » by **Hokie** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 5:14 am

Rerisen wrote:Bulls aren't getting Lebron anyway, nor Wiggins or Parker outside a prayer. The talent in the draft is not the only thing that make it unique, but that half the league is trying to get these guys.

There are 8 or 9 other teams that are real real bad. It's a crapshoot where you finish in that group, even if you did try to be terrible. Blowing up the team for a 2 in 10 chance doesn't sound like my idea of a good plan.

Who said anything about blowing up the team? Trading Deng and Hinrich for expiring scrubs/pics would likely be enough to at least get us into the top 10.

Sure beats the hell out of sitting on our hands and getting thrashed in the playoffs.