Jazz schedule is out!\Should We Tank?

[Dry Fly]

I hate to be that guy but what these Tankers want is not the 6ers they want the Spurs tank. Who wouldn't?

I might actually be on board with the Spurs tank if we were hovering around .500 and Rudy goes down for the season. I think most of the guys here in this thread are on board with that.

Yea. That Spurs tank looks real good. So the question is, why are they not doing that again now? Surely Kawhi would be more effective with another future HOFer. There literally is no team in the league more educated on the one year tank than the Spurs. I guess they are just stupid like me.

I think SA is one year older, maybe past their prime but even so, before Kawhi went down they were right there. If this season unravels for them... who knows?

[stitches]

I don't think that. I am still waiting to see any evidence that it's counter-productive. You just assert it without providing any evidence that such thing even exists.

Yeah... this is basically "prove my god doesn't exist" again. I did this with IM and it went... well you can read.

The onus is on you. Specifically, the onus is on you to provide one piece of evidence that I could possibly counter. I mean you have already agreed that management is a bigger factor in regards to contention, so we both already agree a priori that picking first is subject to management in regards to contention.

Basically, without this turning into a law dissertation, you really need to provide me with something to argue against that is not subject to management. "Picking first is best" is not good enough. "Picking first is best with proper management" might be if you provided one example that I could work with.

Just one man. One time that this has worked and maybe the weight of the onus would fall my way.

No, no, no... you are the one positing the existence of this mysterious and invisible quality "losing culture", not me. The onus is on you to prove what you assert exists. I cannot prove a negative. I gave you clear examples where this losing culture makes zero sense and falls flat on its face. I can give you more where a team jumps significantly in wins total without anything culturally changing, unless you think you can switch a culture from losing to winning overnight... in which case your argument makes no sense because then your main worry should evaporate since you can switch it into winning culture... well... overnight.

I don't get how you can spin that management thing in something against my position, too... You will have the same management either way. It's either good or bad or somewhere in between. Your management is a given. What changes and what you need to evaluate is the strategy. Do you trust good management with tanking or good management with this no-bottom out attempt to jump from mediocrity to the top? This is the question. Do you trust mediocre management with tanking or with jumping from mediocrity to the top? Do you trust bad management with tanking or from mediocrity to the top? You are trying to make it - tank with bad management vs mediocrity-to-the-top with good management. Sorry but that's not the question you are faced with here. In order to succeed you will need good management in either strategy you take... you seem to be taking it as a given that you have good management when you try to do your mediorcity-to-top jump, but you don't extend the same courtesy and assumption to the other strategy. Assume the same level of competence of the management that will execute the strategy. Now evaluate the strategies. What is more likely to give you success with the management you have?

I guess we will never agree on this one... At this point we are going in circles and recycling things we've said 10 times over. I guess we have to agree to disagree and wait to see what happens with Philly and other teams that manage to tank before the rules change.

[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.

You have to include other auxiliary moves a tanking team can afford to make. For example, besides his own picks, HInkie traded for pick swaps, multiple unprotected picks etc. This is why they were able to jump from 5 to 3(SAC pick swap) in the draft and then have 2 additional assets in the LAL and SAC picks the following years that they can trade to jump from 3 to 1... and they still have additional picks left in the barrel for the future.

I don't know why you put the chance at 40% though. For example, 77% of no. 1 picks from 1980 to now have become an all-star. I think the chances are much higher than you give it.

And when you say the chance is "only 86%"(again, I think it's much higher and even if it is, 86% for an all-nba type of player is a pretty damn high chance and again that's without taking into account other moves you can make to increase your chances to trade up or get additional lottery balls) what you fail to account for is that in the alternative the chance is probably close to zero(maybe 10-20? I don't know, i wouldn't be surprised if it's lower).

[Inigo Montoya]

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.

While I appreciate the math (and you always back your arguments with stats and math and figures--kudos to you!) what was suggested for the Jazz was a one year tank, at least originally, before this debate spiraled to other philosophical questions. Also, nothing is a given, but 86% to get an all-NBA player in the 4 picks sounds like really good odds, especially if one believes in the FO\scouting of the team, which could then maybe produce more than one really good player from those picks. What are our odds to move from where we are to legit contention in the next 4 years (length of Gobert's contract)?

[uber_snotling]

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.

While I appreciate the math (and you always back your arguments with stats and math and figures--kudos to you!) what was suggested for the Jazz was a one year tank, at least originally, before this debate spiraled to other philosophical questions. Also, nothing is a given, but 86% to get an all-NBA player in the 4 picks sounds like really good odds, especially if one believes in the FO\scouting of the team, which could then maybe produce more than one really good player from those picks. What are our odds to move from where we are to legit contention in the next 4 years (length of Gobert's contract)?

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.

[KqWIN]

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

[stitches]

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

[stitches]

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%

[Dry Fly]

I guess we will never agree on this one... At this point we are going in circles and recycling things we've said 10 times over. I guess we have to agree to disagree and wait to see what happens with Philly and other teams that manage to tank before the rules change.

I agree, it's pointless. It is unfair of me to set the conditions of your position to be contingent on evidence of your claims when we both know this is just hypothetical. The Hinkie multi year tank is one of a kind, and the success of it is "wait and see". There is no team that has gone all in like this, and I feel kind of like a douche for actually bringing up onus in this setting... I shouldn't have gone there.

As far as onus goes in a more general sense, it is something that should be respected because you can't just go around saying "TANK TANK TANK" and be so confident... even arrogant about it when it's unproven and hypothetical. The onus doesn't switch from "TANK TANK TANK" to any counter argument because of how strongly you feel about your position. It's all hypothetical and the onus will always remain with the unsupported claim, not any future counter position.

In hypothetical land... anything goes and it usually ends up in "agree to disagree" or more commonly "F*** you". So at least we arent at "F*** You" haha...

I do think uber probably has the most valuable route in actually calculating the odds of a multi year tank and coming up with some sort of odds. That would go a lot further in justifying "TANK TANK TANK" than 20 pages of hypothetical arguments and counters.

[Dry Fly]

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.

[stitches]

Just asked Locke about Jazz priorities(building a championship contender or OK with being a perennial Memphis like playoff team that never had a chance at a title). He answered every single question in sequence... skipped mine.

[uber_snotling]

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.

Here you go:
The math is here---
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ucR-IgRtPe37_UQIeSAFi7Lu8Hbho2Wv-v1DcVuF1A0/edit?usp=sharing

Page 1 is all-NBA selections from 1997 through 2017. Of those players, 17 are #1 picks, 7 are #2 picks, 10 are #3 picks, 7 are #4 picks, and 7 are #5 picks. After that it drops off badly and picks 6-10 have an average of 3 all-NBA players over the 20 year period.

Using those to estimate probabilities, I revised the probabilities of all-NBA players being selected at each spot. A #1 pick is now 65%, based on someone's calculations earlier in the thread. Picks 2-5 are now 30%, based on their ratio to that #1 spot for the last 20 years. 6-10 are 15%, based on their lower ratio.

All probabilities for each lotto ball spot are shown on the "probabilities" spreadsheet. Lotto ball odds are taken from http://www.tankathon.com/pick_odds.

The revised estimate shows that the team with the most lotto balls has a 38.75% chance of getting an all-NBA player. They have a 25% chance of getting the #1 pick, and that player has a 65% chance of being an all-NBA player, meaning they have a 16% chance of getting that pick/player combo. Sum the odds for picks 1-4 and their total odds are now 38.75% of getting an all-NBA player.

Odds are also calculated for lotto balls 2, 5, and 8. Odds are 33%, 26%, and 17.5% for an all-NBA player at those spots using the same method.

So that 86% estimate I had earlier now becomes 116%. In other words, you still need about 3.5 high lotto picks to get an all-NBA player, on average.

If you already have an all-NBA player, how many high (top 5) lottery picks do you need to replace him? At least 3, based on this analysis.

I welcome debate on my methods, as they are admittedly crude.

[Dry Fly]

Just asked Locke about Jazz priorities(building a championship contender or OK with being a perennial Memphis like playoff team that never had a chance at a title). He answered every single question in sequence... skipped mine.

I think Locke instantly identified the false premise of the question... it's an either this or either that... where one side is the obvious answer and the other is a layered house of cards of assumption. To answer "build a champion" is just much of a softball. To answer "be Memphis" involves a multitude of conclusions of which at the core belies "tanking is an absolute".

The smart person would skip that question... obviously I am not that smart... hence 20 pages of this.

[stitches]

Just asked Locke about Jazz priorities(building a championship contender or OK with being a perennial Memphis like playoff team that never had a chance at a title). He answered every single question in sequence... skipped mine.

I think Locke instantly identified the false premise of the question... it's an either this or either that... where one side is the obvious answer and the other is a layered house of cards of assumption. To answer "build a champion" is just much of a softball. To answer "be Memphis" involves a multitude of conclusions of which at the core belies "tanking is an absolute".

The smart person would skip that question... obviously I am not that smart... hence 20 pages of this.

I didn't ask about tanking or strategies at all. I asked about priorities. I asked if championship is a priority or if we are OK being just good. There are clearly managements that are OK with being just good and providing winning product to the fanbase(winning in the regular season). You can see that when teams lock into cores that are clearly not good enough to be contenders - the Detroits, the Charlottes, the Memphis' of the world.

Again - I can't fault teams that are OK with that. Those are businesses and winning seasons fill the arenas. Nothing wrong with that.

[Dry Fly]

The revised estimate shows that the team with the most lotto balls has a 38.75% chance of getting an all-NBA player. They have a 25% chance of getting the #1 pick, and that player has a 65% chance of being an all-NBA player, meaning they have a 16% chance of getting that pick/player combo. Sum the odds for picks 1-4 and their total odds are now 38.75% of getting an all-NBA player.

So the odds to get 3 all-NBA players (Durant, Harden, Westbrook) consecutively via 3 lottery picks the draft is 5.82%.

To achieve the law of averages you need 17.18 drafts.

[uber_snotling]

The revised estimate shows that the team with the most lotto balls has a 38.75% chance of getting an all-NBA player. They have a 25% chance of getting the #1 pick, and that player has a 65% chance of being an all-NBA player, meaning they have a 16% chance of getting that pick/player combo. Sum the odds for picks 1-4 and their total odds are now 38.75% of getting an all-NBA player.

So the odds to get 3 all-NBA players (Durant, Harden, Westbrook) consecutively via 3 lottery picks the draft is 5.82%.

To achieve the law of averages you need 17.18 drafts.

Basically. They got the 3 best players in consecutive drafts, according to win shares (although most people would put Curry over Harden). Unbelievable lucky. They missed out on Oden's busted knee, Beasley/Mayo/and Rose's busted knees, and then Griffin's punchable face/Thabeet bust.

A better way to calculate it might be the chance that all the all-NBA picks miss or hit. If you have 4 high-lotto picks (1,2,5, and 8) you have a 24.8% chance of getting no all-NBA players, a 42% chance of getting one all-NBA player, a 25.7% chance of getting 2 all-NBA players, and a 2% chance of getting 3 all-NBA players.

[Dry Fly]

I didn't ask about tanking or strategies at all. I asked about priorities. I asked if championship is a priority or if we are OK being just good. There are clearly managements that are OK with being just good and providing winning product to the fanbase(winning in the regular season). You can see that when teams lock into cores that are clearly not good enough to be contenders - the Detroits, the Charlottes, the Memphis' of the world.

Again - I can't fault teams that are OK with that. Those are businesses and winning seasons fill the arenas. Nothing wrong with that.

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.

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.

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.

[Daddy 801]

You guys took the tanking argument and cranked it up to 11. Well done.

[Dry Fly]

A better way to calculate it might be the chance that all the all-NBA picks miss or hit. If you have 4 high-lotto picks (1,2,5, and 8) you have a 24.8% chance of getting no all-NBA players, a 42% chance of getting one all-NBA player, a 25.7% chance of getting 2 all-NBA players, and a 2% chance of getting 3 all-NBA players.

I like to view it in years more than %. It makes it more real to me.

A 25% chance to get 2 all NBA players with 4 lotto picks on the surface might look like a reasonable gamble but in all reality when you apply the law of averages it is 2 all NBA players with 16 lotto picks.

[Crunch 99]

which do you prefer?

1. Resign Gordon Hayward
2. Hayward leaves, Gobert gets traded for highest pick possible

Aw, touching on my fruitless, backward looking discussion. No question: Re-sign Gordon Hayward. We were set to go in to the season with the top defense in the league, the best rim protector and likely DPOY, two top 20 projected players in Rudy and Hayward, a top 50 projected player in Rubio, the return of a young and healthy former top 35 player - Favors, and a strong chance that at least one or two of Hood, Exum, Burks and Mitchell will be very serious, productive contributors. Prior to Hayward leaving, this (presumably healthy) Jazz, top rated defensive team looked as good as any team in the NBA to contend this season, save the Warriors -- whose model of two MVPs and four All Star starters is for all practical purposes, unobtainable. (Imo, to beat the Warriors this season, you have to hope your team or another team gets a chance to knock them out of the playoffs while one of their MVPs is out with an injury).

The relevance of this discussion is that it relates to whether or not the Jazz management were seriously trying to build a contender or not. I think they were definitely trying to build a contender, were probably there this season outside the Warriors, but suffered a big, unplanned setback in Hayward leaving. Now that he is gone, I don't think Lindsey, along with our other three guys with GM experience, are going to go to the office every day and scheme about how they can keep us competing for the eighth seed and a first round playoff out while we have one of the most impactful talents in the NBA in Rudy Gobert. They will take calculated risks to try to get us back in to contention and continue to develop existing talent, most likely without tanking. It is an extremely challenging task; they may or may not succeed, but the same thing can be said about tanking for one or two years --- very challenging course of action that may or may not succeed in advancing the team.