Simmons On Tanking

by Jeff Clark on Apr 11, 2007 5:22 PM EDT in Boston Celtics News & Links

Bill Simmons takes on the tanking problem in the NBA full force.Â First with an article for The Mag, and next with a follow up blog entry.Â His conclusions:

1. The lottery system was originally created to prevent teams from tanking for better draft picks ... which is exactly what's happening right now (as described in the magazine column). So they completely failed in that regard.
2. The lottery system also hoped to turn the fortunes of struggling franchises. Well, as we just proved, it completely failed in that regard, too. If anything, top-four picks have a significantly better chance of struggling for a few seasons, then getting traded before finally landing on a contending team. It's much, much, MUCH less likely that they will turn around their first franchise themselves.
3. We've had one major lottery success story so far -- the Spurs winning three titles with Duncan -- which was actually a complete fluke because the Spurs averaged 59 wins from '94 to '96, then dropped to 20 wins because their best two players (David Robinson and Sean Elliott) played a combined 45 games in '97. In the past 20 years, only two No. 1 picks won titles for their original teams: Robinson ('87) and Duncan ('97).
4. For everyone rooting for tanking franchises right now and dreaming of multiple titles with Oden or Durant ... just remember, you never know.

Hard to argue with any of his points.Â I will, however, point out that this is one of those special years when you could get a Yao Ming or LeBron James type franchise-changing player.Â In fact, there is one of each in this draft.Â In addition, the teams with the tow worst records already have a star player in the fold (Gasol and Pierce), setting up a similar situation to when Duncan joined Robinson.Â The top 2 picks will have an impact on the teams that draft them.

I agree the that the concept of tanking is a little obsurd, and I've maintained all along that the players and coaches are trying to win games.Â However, I can't say that I blame the GMs of each of the teams for "being cautious" with their rosters and injury concerns given the current system.

Mini-prediction, the league will look at making some changes once again.

By the way, on a side topic, is there any reason why we have to wait a month after the season ends to get the Lottery results?Â Hockey season just ended and they already know who is picking first.Â The wait will drive me mad over the next 40 or so days.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I’d say the League should tweak the system, but I can’t imagine how unless they started penalizing teams for false injuries or blatantly bad play. But that’s difficult to call.

The worst team hasn’t recieved the top pick in awhile. So you have to give them some credit.

by LuckyNumber07 on Apr 11, 2007 8:01 PM EDT reply actions

Akeem won two championships with his original team, the Rockets, as a Number 1 pick.

by TripleOT on Apr 11, 2007 9:12 PM EDT reply actions

I haven’t gotten through the blog entry yet, but it seems worth pointing out that, while 12 years may sound like a long time, it’s still an incredibly small sample from which to draw any statistical conclusions. So, for instance, it means basically nothing that the number 5 seed has ended up with the top pick more than the 1 or 2 seeds. The odds are what they are. If you flipped a coin 12 times, it might come up heads 8 times. But the odds for heads on the 13th flip are still 50-50.

by PJ Martinez on Apr 11, 2007 9:46 PM EDT reply actions

i agree with simmons that there’s a problem, but he’s totally overthinking the solution. minimally you could just have an even lottery (equal chances) to set lottery positions for the non-playoff teams. no one will tank for a 1 in 14 chance of getting the #1 pick. i think you could even skew that lottery to give the worst teams a better shot at higher picks without encouraging tanking—for example by giving the worst team 14 balls, the second worst 13 balls, the third worst 12… the difference between one slot isnt enough to tank, but the bottom non-playoff teams have a much better shot at getting high picks than the top ones.

by mobanners on Apr 11, 2007 10:42 PM EDT reply actions

edited version (sorry): i agree with simmons that there’s a problem, but he’s totally overthinking the solution. minimally you could just have an even lottery (equal chances) to set draft positions for the non-playoff teams. no one will tank out of the playoffs for a 1 in 14 chance of getting the #1 pick. but i think you could even skew that lottery to give the worst teams a better shot at higher picks without encouraging tanking—for example by giving the worst team 14 balls, the second worst 13 balls, the third worst 12… the difference between one slot isnt enough to tank, but the bottom non-playoff teams have a much better shot at getting high picks than the top ones.

by mobanners on Apr 11, 2007 10:51 PM EDT reply actions

Are you still maintaining that coaches and players are trying to win games? I can’t agree. The Celtics lately are playing well enough to build leads, and then folding like a card table. And the Grizzlies and the Bucks are tanking almost as hard.

by ThickNThinFan on Apr 11, 2007 11:22 PM EDT reply actions

it has definitely been tankarama for the celts. doc has been really great at it, quite original. they do need to fix the system. look at all the empty seats at these games. they play way too many games in all sports. the more they play, the more people get injured, but consequently, the more the players get paid. whatever theo or paul feel about not playing, they can count their chips for solace.

by nazzbo on Apr 12, 2007 7:36 AM EDT reply actions

“I agree the that the concept of tanking is a little obsurd, and I’ve maintained all along that the players and coaches are trying to win games”.

Camels put there head in the sand not humans.

I don’t think Rondo played the last seven minutes of the game.

by Little D on Apr 12, 2007 7:43 AM EDT reply actions

I’d also like to see the stat where “the top 4 picks” almost always find success on another team. What’s the definition of success? Championships? How frequently do those top 4 picks move on, and in what time frame?

Top 4 picks typically stick with the team that drafted them through their first renewal contract…its not like the team takes them, gives up, and then they find success…Simmons is cool, but he’s far removed from actual basketball relevance at this point…send in the clowns…

by BillfromBoston on Apr 12, 2007 10:58 PM EDT reply actions