The argument for Tanking: Why it works, and you just don't remember

[RedBulls23]

Tanking made more sense under the old odds. Seeing the lottery order play out the last 2 years makes it less appealing to really bottom out your roster.

The comps in the op are apples and oranges to the current situation.

You didn’t say anything untruthful. If Dallas wins a title some day with high lotto Luka, that would classify as a successful draft, and drafting the stud is the way most teams have success. Especially if you are not a California franchise. I can guess with confidence that what won’t work for Chicago to win a title or multiple titles will be getting back onto the lower playoffs seed ride. This city will have to draft the talent with a lottery pick most likely. Being a playoffs opponent is good for ticket sales, but not much else in terms of making history. But for a lot of people that’s ok. And for teams, that is all they will do at best for their existing days. Like I said earlier, nothing works if you didn’t luck into the studs. That includes any team building tactic you would like to name, not just tanking. Some folks hate tanking, so they like to single it out. Because its not very fun to watch.

Dallas didn't get Luka by simply tanking. They also got him by being bold and making a trade on draft night.

All I'm saying is that teams in the past would bottom out their roster in hope to land the 1st pick. The odds were just better before the change.

Looking at the last 2 drafts, the teams that have won the lottery or moved up into the top 4, all weren't actually tanking.

For example, Bulls weren't tanking last year and moved up to 4. The Wolves and Hornets also weren't really tanking. Maybe you can classify the Warriors as tanking, but they also had season ending injuries to their star players.

I think there's a difference between tanking and just being a bad team. Doing what they Sixers did is what I consider tanking, and I don't know if that would work anymore as it use to before the changes in odds.

[fleet]

I guess that’s a difference of opinion for me. I dont think it matters if you are bad on purpose just bad, as some people claim it matters. It’s incidental. Even if it mattered, pulling a veteran trade at the deadline for young players, future picks. or 2021 picks shouldn’t hurt much.

The main point about Luka is that you aren’t getting him if you dont draft him, not unless you are an LA or NY team. Or SF Apparently. Even SF already had the draft studs b4 Slim Reaper

[Chicago-Bull-E]

One thing I like is what the Thunder are doing. They've traded away their big time players (Westbrook, Paul) and are truly doing the strategy of collecting draft capital and understanding your team is going to stink. They've gone to the playoffs the last 5 years, and said "this isn't working", partially due to financial reasons and partially because their core wasn't good enough.

I think most bad teams in the league right now are envious of their situation, including the Bulls. Or maybe that's just my perception.

[pipfan]

I just worry about how we add a star. I could honestly see a time with our core, plus a top 5 player, being good enough to win a title in a year or two, with the proper development of our your guys

But, I just don't see how we add the top 5 player. I have argued many times that this is a great year to tank, due to COVID and 2 potentially great lotteries coming up. I could easily see
White
Cade C
Williams
Lauri
?

Developing into something special, with some solid pieces on the bench and assets from trading Lavine, Carter and Porter. I think we will be ok this year, a bit below average, and end up with the #10 pick. Of course, that could turn into a franchise player, but I personally would take my chances with a bottom 2 record, and tons of development time for Lauri, White and Williams (maybe Carter, but I have lost faith in him)

[RedBulls23]

Having multiple draft picks in a draft makes sense. More chances of finding a quality player in the draft.

As for the Thunder tanking, I think they are just going to be bad. Paul George forcing his way out got them here. Not because because they thought "making the playoffs isn't working."

[RedBulls23]

I guess that’s a difference of opinion for me. I dont think it matters if you are bad on purpose just bad, as some people claim it matters. It’s incidental. Even if it mattered, pulling a veteran trade at the deadline for young players, future picks. or 2021 picks shouldn’t hurt much.

The main point about Luka is that you aren’t getting him if you dont draft him, not unless you are an LA or NY team. Or SF Apparently. Even SF already had the draft studs b4 Slim Reaper

Being bad is fine. Dumping a good player to go from the 3rd or 4th worst record to the worst record to me doesn't really make sense anymore.

That's something tanking teams use to do. Pretty sure that's what the Knicks did with Kristaps.

[fleet]

I guess that’s a difference of opinion for me. I dont think it matters if you are bad on purpose just bad, as some people claim it matters. It’s incidental. Even if it mattered, pulling a veteran trade at the deadline for young players, future picks. or 2021 picks shouldn’t hurt much.

The main point about Luka is that you aren’t getting him if you dont draft him, not unless you are an LA or NY team. Or SF Apparently. Even SF already had the draft studs b4 Slim Reaper

Being bad is fine. Dumping a good player to go from the 3rd or 4th worst record to the worst record to me doesn't really make sense anymore.

That's something tanking teams use to do. Pretty sure that's what the Knicks did with Kristaps.

I agree on that hypothetical. At that point I would do a deal based on return for the assets received in the trade independently of considering the effect of the deal on the Bulls 2021 pick. But I don’t care about this specific team getting worse as a result either. IMO, if a FO is not sold on a team/player they should always sell for parts.unless they are already a possible contender.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

Having multiple draft picks in a draft makes sense. More chances of finding a quality player in the draft.

As for the Thunder tanking, I think they are just going to be bad. Paul George forcing his way out got them here. Not because because they thought "making the playoffs isn't working."

George wasn't on the team that was a 5 seed last year.

They could have easily thought, "hey we have a core of Paul, an up and coming star in SGA, and really nice surrounding pieces in Adams/Dort/Danilo/etc, let's trade picks and get better". No one would have knocked them for that strategy, but I don't think it was getting them a championship.

[TheJordanRule]

Tanking made more sense under the old odds. Seeing the lottery order play out the last 2 years makes it less appealing to really bottom out your roster.

The comps in the op are apples and oranges to the current situation.

You didn’t say anything untruthful. If Dallas wins a title some day with high lotto Luka, that would classify as a successful draft, and drafting the stud is the way most teams have success. Especially if you are not a California franchise. I can guess with confidence that what won’t work for Chicago to win a title or multiple titles will be getting back onto the lower playoffs seed ride. This city will have to draft the talent with a lottery pick most likely. Being a playoffs opponent is good for ticket sales, but not much else in terms of making history. But for a lot of people that’s ok. And for teams, that is all they will do at best for their existing days. Like I said earlier, nothing works if you didn’t luck into the studs. That includes any team building tactic you would like to name, not just tanking. Some folks hate tanking, so they like to single it out. Because its not very fun to watch.

Dallas didn't get Luka by simply tanking. They also got him by being bold and making a trade on draft night.

All I'm saying is that teams in the past would bottom out their roster in hope to land the 1st pick. The odds were just better before the change.

Looking at the last 2 drafts, the teams that have won the lottery or moved up into the top 4, all weren't actually tanking.

For example, Bulls weren't tanking last year and moved up to 4. The Wolves and Hornets also weren't really tanking. Maybe you can classify the Warriors as tanking, but they also had season ending injuries to their star players.

I think there's a difference between tanking and just being a bad team. Doing what they Sixers did is what I consider tanking, and I don't know if that would work anymore as it use to before the changes in odds.

That's such a huge point, RedBulls23! Dallas has Luka because they ponied up and traded the #5 pick in that draft AND the #10 pick in the next year's draft. We need to do that, too. John Paxson infamously settled for Kirk Hinrich instead of Dwayne Wade because Paxson didn't want to include Donyell Marshall in the deal (https://www.blogabull.com/2016/7/1/12086552/chicago-bulls-dwyane-wade-free-agency-miami-heat). No risk it, no biscuit! And because the draft is such a crapshoot, our fan base typically supports the inaction of our GMs. There's no question that the draft really is a crapshoot, but the odds of grabbing a stud increase exponentially the higher up the draft you go. For instance, the odds of the #1 pick resulting in an all-star is at over 63 percent (https://medium.com/@burakcankoc/what-are-the-odds-to-become-an-all-star-for-each-draft-pick-2d113d6b82e5). There are some high draft picks who are huge risks to bet on due to physical or mental challenges, but there are also these high ceiling, high floor players who often pop up at the tops of drafts-- most recently guys like Simmons, Tatum, Ayton, and Ja. The board is almost always low on trading up in the draft for these high ceiling, high floor players because, to them, all draft picks are equal and have exactly the same chance to become all-stars as previous picks taken at that draft slot.

What else could explain how folks reacted to the idea of trading up for Ja just a year ago? Look at this thread: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1827868

Look, I'm happy with what we did in this past draft, with Patrick Williams. I have stopped following the draft as closely as I used to because Draft Night ends up being frustrating so often when I do. I'm not saying we need to trade up for just anybody. But if there's a high ceiling, high floor player like Ja or Tatum, our best move might be trading away our current first round draft pick plus a poorly protected first round draft pick from next season. Sure, potential superstars are going to cost you less when you are proactive in the draft... but they ARE going to cost you.

[Southpaw]

I think it's clear that tanking to get a chip is not feasible but it's still the best way to get your star player. Not everyone can luck out on a Giannis mid draft or a Jokic in the second round. And signing superstars via FA are impossible unless you already have a star on your team or a couple of star players collude to sign/get traded to your team. Most of the top team's core in the NBA are built through the draft.

Building a winning culture is not that hard if you already have a good core in place. The Suns are a good recent example. Even the lob city LAC turned their culture around once they got Griffin. The Spurs and Raptors winning culture is having a hard time keeping them afloat as well.

I'm pro smart tanking and from all reports, the next 2 drafts are gonna be very good - great, depending on if the double draft happens in 2022. I just feel like it's the perfect time to be a high lotto team with our team in transition and our current core are nearing their extension.

[Leslie Forman]

Tanking is not about getting #1. In fact it is about covering for yourself because you probably won't get #1. It is about ensuring you get a high pick, period.

It's about making sure you have a higher chance at getting Luka Doncic instead of Wendell Carter. Or Dwyane Wade instead of Kirk Hinrich.

Of course it doesn't matter if you make a horrible pick. If you wanna go ahead and draft a Marvin Bagley, or Tyrus Thomas, or Tyson Chandler, whatever, well it probably doesn't matter if you are a "tanker" or not, you were most likely going to be a horrible NBA GM anyways. The point is, assuming you trust your scouting ability, to give yourself as many options as you can in the draft. That's all it is.

If Detroit had done a better job of tanking, maybe they end up with their main target, Williams, instead of Killian Hayes. People can point out that they had a worse record than the Bulls - well it wasn't worse enough. If they had been just a few wins worse, they could have ended up in Golden State or Minnesota's spot. Even worst case, end up with #5 - maybe that's high enough for them to find a trade up, instead of dangling a #7. If Dallas ends up with #7 instead of #5, there is no trade for Doncic - instead they are stuck with Carter too, instead of either Doncic or Young.

I mean, who really gives a crap that the Bulls won 27 games that season, instead of 22 or something? Do you really think back and cherish those extra wins? Are you getting on Youtube once in a while to watch highlights of those wins against the mighty 2018 Knicks, Mavericks, Hawks, or Grizzlies? Really?

[Chicago-Bull-E]

I mean, who really gives a crap that the Bulls won 27 games that season, instead of 22 or something? Do you really think back and cherish those extra wins? Are you getting on Youtube once in a while to watch highlights of those wins against the mighty 2018 Knicks, Mavericks, Hawks, or Grizzlies? Really?

[RedBulls23]

Literally, no current contender is there because of tanking, unless you call Philly a contender.

Lakers - FA destination
Clippers - Ditto
Boston - Suckered Billy King
Miami - Didn't tank
Denver - Didn't tank
Toronto - Didn't tank
Brooklyn - FA destination
Milwaukee - Didn't tank except for one year, for which it got Jabari Parker

Have I left any contender out? Meanwhile, several teams have tanked for years, so far with nothing to show for it.

No thanks. The evidence is clear.

This post pretty much proves that tanking and bottoming out your roster isn't it anymore.

In the era of superstars jumping around, and new lottery odds, trying to be the worst team possible isn't going to turn you into a contender.

Coldfish also said it best.

[cjbulls]

Tanking is not about getting #1. In fact it is about covering for yourself because you probably won't get #1. It is about ensuring you get a high pick, period.

It's about making sure you have a higher chance at getting Luka Doncic instead of Wendell Carter. Or Dwyane Wade instead of Kirk Hinrich.

Of course it doesn't matter if you make a horrible pick. If you wanna go ahead and draft a Marvin Bagley, or Tyrus Thomas, or Tyson Chandler, whatever, well it probably doesn't matter if you are a "tanker" or not, you were most likely going to be a horrible NBA GM anyways. The point is, assuming you trust your scouting ability, to give yourself as many options as you can in the draft. That's all it is.

If Detroit had done a better job of tanking, maybe they end up with their main target, Williams, instead of Killian Hayes. People can point out that they had a worse record than the Bulls - well it wasn't worse enough. If they had been just a few wins worse, they could have ended up in Golden State or Minnesota's spot. Even worst case, end up with #5 - maybe that's high enough for them to find a trade up, instead of dangling a #7. If Dallas ends up with #7 instead of #5, there is no trade for Doncic - instead they are stuck with Carter too, instead of either Doncic or Young.

I mean, who really gives a crap that the Bulls won 27 games that season, instead of 22 or something? Do you really think back and cherish those extra wins? Are you getting on Youtube once in a while to watch highlights of those wins against the mighty 2018 Knicks, Mavericks, Hawks, or Grizzlies? Really?

There are several issues with this mentality

First, you are encouraging the most extreme of tanks. The 76ers style. As you say, Detroit didn't tank hard enough with their 20 wins and 5th worst record. They needed to shoot for 14 wins to be the absolute worst. It messes with the integrity of the game and why you would want to be a fan. I know some people feel championship or bust is the way, but those people have a little bit of a complex and don't understand sports is entertainment far more than it is about championships.

Second, it assumes GMs know what they are doing when they draft, when virtually all evidence points to the draft itself being a lottery. According to you, if you picked Tyrus over Aldridge, that just means you are a bad GM. Even though evidence at the time had the two ranked fairly evenly. And also had Adam Morrison and Brandon Roy closely ranked.

Third, it talks about 27 vs 22 wins as if that is within a team's control. The only way to control it would be sitting winning players for considerable time. That will stunt the growth of your current roster. So while that may be viable in a year 1 post-Jordan scenario where you are starting from essentially scratch, it works against you every year going forward. And the only way to make an extreme tank work is to go out of your way to sit winning players, which would also mean sitting some of those young guys you just drafted.

[cjbulls]

For the tanking crew, let's say after 25 games it looks like the Bulls aren't contending. Let's say they are 7-18 or something. Would you be in favor of the team playing their best for 47 minutes, and then in the last minute purposely handing the ball to the other team and let them have free dunks to take the lead and win.

Is that something you would support? If not, why not?

[ZOMG]

Tanking is not about getting #1. In fact it is about covering for yourself because you probably won't get #1. It is about ensuring you get a high pick, period.

It's about making sure you have a higher chance at getting Luka Doncic instead of Wendell Carter. Or Dwyane Wade instead of Kirk Hinrich.

Of course it doesn't matter if you make a horrible pick. If you wanna go ahead and draft a Marvin Bagley, or Tyrus Thomas, or Tyson Chandler, whatever, well it probably doesn't matter if you are a "tanker" or not, you were most likely going to be a horrible NBA GM anyways. The point is, assuming you trust your scouting ability, to give yourself as many options as you can in the draft. That's all it is.

If Detroit had done a better job of tanking, maybe they end up with their main target, Williams, instead of Killian Hayes. People can point out that they had a worse record than the Bulls - well it wasn't worse enough. If they had been just a few wins worse, they could have ended up in Golden State or Minnesota's spot. Even worst case, end up with #5 - maybe that's high enough for them to find a trade up, instead of dangling a #7. If Dallas ends up with #7 instead of #5, there is no trade for Doncic - instead they are stuck with Carter too, instead of either Doncic or Young.

I mean, who really gives a crap that the Bulls won 27 games that season, instead of 22 or something? Do you really think back and cherish those extra wins? Are you getting on Youtube once in a while to watch highlights of those wins against the mighty 2018 Knicks, Mavericks, Hawks, or Grizzlies? Really?

There are several issues with this mentality

First, you are encouraging the most extreme of tanks. The 76ers style. As you say, Detroit didn't tank hard enough with their 20 wins and 5th worst record. They needed to shoot for 14 wins to be the absolute worst. It messes with the integrity of the game and why you would want to be a fan. I know some people feel championship or bust is the way, but those people have a little bit of a complex and don't understand sports is entertainment far more than it is about championships.

Second, it assumes GMs know what they are doing when they draft, when virtually all evidence points to the draft itself being a lottery. According to you, if you picked Tyrus over Aldridge, that just means you are a bad GM. Even though evidence at the time had the two ranked fairly evenly. And also had Adam Morrison and Brandon Roy closely ranked.

Third, it talks about 27 vs 22 wins as if that is within a team's control. The only way to control it would be sitting winning players for considerable time. That will stunt the growth of your current roster. So while that may be viable in a year 1 post-Jordan scenario where you are starting from essentially scratch, it works against you every year going forward. And the only way to make an extreme tank work is to go out of your way to sit winning players, which would also mean sitting some of those young guys you just drafted.

As we know, costantly sitting your best players while they're healthy will also quickly draw the attention of the League Office.

[coldfish]

Tanking is not about getting #1. In fact it is about covering for yourself because you probably won't get #1. It is about ensuring you get a high pick, period.

It's about making sure you have a higher chance at getting Luka Doncic instead of Wendell Carter. Or Dwyane Wade instead of Kirk Hinrich.

Of course it doesn't matter if you make a horrible pick. If you wanna go ahead and draft a Marvin Bagley, or Tyrus Thomas, or Tyson Chandler, whatever, well it probably doesn't matter if you are a "tanker" or not, you were most likely going to be a horrible NBA GM anyways. The point is, assuming you trust your scouting ability, to give yourself as many options as you can in the draft. That's all it is.

If Detroit had done a better job of tanking, maybe they end up with their main target, Williams, instead of Killian Hayes. People can point out that they had a worse record than the Bulls - well it wasn't worse enough. If they had been just a few wins worse, they could have ended up in Golden State or Minnesota's spot. Even worst case, end up with #5 - maybe that's high enough for them to find a trade up, instead of dangling a #7. If Dallas ends up with #7 instead of #5, there is no trade for Doncic - instead they are stuck with Carter too, instead of either Doncic or Young.

I mean, who really gives a crap that the Bulls won 27 games that season, instead of 22 or something? Do you really think back and cherish those extra wins? Are you getting on Youtube once in a while to watch highlights of those wins against the mighty 2018 Knicks, Mavericks, Hawks, or Grizzlies? Really?

Not tanking isn't about winning 27 games instead of 22. Its about being able to trade Lavine for a boatload of assets at the deadline instead of him having no value on a terrible team. Its about teaching Coby to read defenses and Lauri to drive.

Think about your Detroit example. If they play worse and get their guy and then put him into a terrible situation and intentionally lose, they take their guy and throw him in the trash. They functionally would have destroyed the reason for losing on purpose in the first place.

There are times where putting the team in a bad situation is a good idea. Last year with GS's injuries is the example I will bring up. If the Bulls are struggling at the deadline and they can get assets for players that are of no use to them in the long term then dump them. Now though? I just don't see it. You do far more damage to your team in the long term than any benefit you see from jumping from 7 to 4 in the draft.

You bring up a good point about drafting but it doesn't support tanking. Best 3 players by VORP (its a sortable stat on bref):
2019 21 2 11
2018 3 5 36
2017 3 13 14
2016 1 27 6
2015 1 32 11
2014 41 3 25
2013 15 27 10
2012 1 6 35
2011 15 30 1
2010 10 1 5

So, if you had been drafting #5 the last 10 years, you would have been able to draft 2 of the 3 best players in every draft. Basically, drafting smart generally trumps drafting position. The only really quibble one could have is that frequently the #1 guy is heads and shoulders over the others but given the new lottery odds, a few wins or losses makes little difference in the odds.

[Leslie Forman]

Not tanking isn't about winning 27 games instead of 22. Its about being able to trade Lavine for a boatload of assets at the deadline instead of him having no value on a terrible team. Its about teaching Coby to read defenses and Lauri to drive.

Think about your Detroit example. If they play worse and get their guy and then put him into a terrible situation and intentionally lose, they take their guy and throw him in the trash. They functionally would have destroyed the reason for losing on purpose in the first place.

I'm not exactly sure what a "terrible situation" is supposed to be here. Are we all sitting here really thankful that guys like Otto Porter are here to really create an incredible culture of responsibility and accountability (which is what "winning culture" really is, not just getting a few more meaningless wins)? Is Blake Griffin being on the Pistons, occasionally winning them some meaningless games, really elevating the "situation" there?

Wouldn't jettisoning the team of its vets basically allow for even more "experience" and focused coaching staff attention for the kids? Are Zach LaVine's career learnings really helping Coby White out a ton here?

You bring up a good point about drafting but it doesn't support tanking. Best 3 players by VORP (its a sortable stat on bref):
2019 21 2 11
2018 3 5 36
2017 3 13 14
2016 1 27 6
2015 1 32 11
2014 41 3 25
2013 15 27 10
2012 1 6 35
2011 15 30 1
2010 10 1 5

So, if you had been drafting #5 the last 10 years, you would have been able to draft 2 of the 3 best players in every draft. Basically, drafting smart generally trumps drafting position. The only really quibble one could have is that frequently the #1 guy is heads and shoulders over the others but given the new lottery odds, a few wins or losses makes little difference in the odds.

1. I'm not sure why you're using a cumulative stat like VORP, but then including so many years that are very recent (do you really think teams would rather have Cameron Johnson than Zion Williamson?).
2. I've just never really cared for the "draft randomness" argument. Drafting smart AND drafting high is obviously what you want, and it is what you should always aim for. I don't really care where Nikola Jokic or whomever went, you are handicapping yourself for no reason if you're gonna work under the assumption that you'll just find a stud at pick 12 or whatever.

It's no different from playing poker. Yes it's very much dumb luck reliant. Yes you can win a pot even with a 2 and 7. But why would you want to start off with a worse hand? If there was anything you could do in poker to improve your starting hand, wouldn't you do it? Would you really take an Ace-10 over an Ace-King just cause "the odds aren't that different?"

I mean, even in your own examples following your cherry picked criteria, every single year except one, one of those top three VORPers is a top-3 pick. 13 were top-6 picks. The other 54 picks, 17. So your own case is basically saying that the top-6 alone is almost as good at getting you a top-3 VORP as the entire rest of the field. The numbers would probably be even closer if you went back further and didn't have so many recent years.

And if you think 2020 is a strong draft, as many do, then a high pick is even more important - the "randomness" you're trying to point out is much stronger in weak drafts (like 2013). In historically strong drafts, it's usually different.

Top 5 VORP leaders by draft year
2003 - 1, 5, 3, 4, 18
1996 - 13, 5, 1, 15, 2 (Kobe was obviously #13 - likely would've been #1 in 2000s draft culture)
1984 - 3, 16, 5, 1, 4

[League Circles]

One thing I like is what the Thunder are doing. They've traded away their big time players (Westbrook, Paul) and are truly doing the strategy of collecting draft capital and understanding your team is going to stink. They've gone to the playoffs the last 5 years, and said "this isn't working", partially due to financial reasons and partially because their core wasn't good enough.

I think most bad teams in the league right now are envious of their situation, including the Bulls. Or maybe that's just my perception.

Didn't OKC actually just cave in to public trade requests by PG and Russ?

[League Circles]

The aim should be to pick as close to 30th every year as possible.

Can anyone less lazy than me compile a list of the draft position of the top 10-20 players in the league?