[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Is tanking good or bad?
Author Thread
mlby1215
Posts: 20314
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/16/2017
Member: #6486

4/21/2017  10:07 PM
This post is going to discuss the validity of this strategy, tanking.

I think it is an interesting topic to look a bit deeper at. But before we go, we first examine how a team can get good players.

In general, there are only 3 ways:

A. Every year, each team has two picks. 1 and 2.
Cost: you have to lose a lot to get better picks.

B. Trade. A team can trade players/picks for another players.
Cost: The team has to have something other teams want a.k.a your players have to be valuable.

C. FA. Every off-season, Teams can sign UFA, RFA or someone overseas.
Cost: Caps. A team has to have salary caps to sign players.


Basically, one part of sport management is a game of resource management. We try to use our resources to get the best players we can, and there is where tanking comes in. When a team is not good enough to have a chance to win all, it is logical we try to find a way to "reload" and give us another shot in future. Sometimes, it looks like it is the only way we can get a young cornerstone player like KP.

Until now, everything is clear and well understood. However, everything has a cost, losing on purpose (tanking) has its cost as well, and I think very few talked about it. I do not mean something like the wrath of basketball gods because it is not scientific. I do not mean it hurts the players' morale either. Although it is valid, it is not about resource management which is the only thing I would focus on right now.

When tanking give us better Part A (picks), it damages our resources. When a team loses, it somehow makes everyone in it to be a loser. Is Phil a loser? Yes, he is. Is Rambis a loser? Sure, because he loses. Is KP a loser? well, I want to protect him but we have to say he is not a winner in NBA because, well again, he still does not win.

Losing is something no one wants, but when a team lose, it is something everyone have to own. Losing, indeed, tend to devalue almost every player we have, while wining would do the opposite. Look at Shump, is he loser? Well, as Knicks he was a loser but as Cav he is not. He is a "valuable rotation player" now, but the truth is that he is somewhat the same player, in fact.

What does it mean? It means a losing team has nothing to trade because its players to be looked as "cancers" or "losers". Tanking gives us better pick and it devalues everything we already have. It is probably why "tanking genius" like Hinkie could not succeed. He looked like he would ALMOST succeed if he was given a few more pick and few more seasons. He got a good pick, a very talented young guy. Not surprisingly the dude is not good enough to make a difference. I mean, no rookie can win if your GM is a tank god. Years after years tanking, everyone he has drafted is devaluing and he draft a new one to come in, helping Part A but hurting Part B.

Then, how about Part C? Free agents. Players tend to go to the place they can earn more. The superstars would go back to their teams because contracts have max value and because the home team would offer the most. Teams can only grab a superstar because they are already very good themselves, like GSW. Wining, indeed, attracts best players.

But it doesn't mean losing would push people away. You still can sign very good role players but you have to pay a little bit more to attracts them. Guys like Robin Lopez chose Knicks because we overpaid him at the time.

So, what does it mean? It means that losing would cost us more in Part C. Sure a tanking team can't attracts tier 1 talents. Equally, it has to pay tier 1 money to attracts tier 2 talents. A bad team has to overpay, it just has to.

In short, in resource management, tanking is very risky to do. You raise the value of one part, then devalue another part, and indirectly make yourself to have some overvalued players other teams do not want. (If they wanted them they could sign them right away, at lower price. )

People probably would argue, 1 + 1 is not equal to 2. One superstar is more valuable than all role players combined, as we can always trade for the latter. If you have LBJ, you have LBJ and everything else would be fall into its place. After drafting its best players, a tanking team can always trade its future picks and cap rooms for other pieces. Usually, a good tanking team has a lot of picks and a lot of rooms.

But, look at it this way, picks cannot dunk and cap rooms cannot pass. They are valuable but they cannot play simply because, you know, they are not humans. When a team trade its player for your pick, it doesn't have anything to show for it in THIS season. The team lose a player and that is it. It means that contending teams would not want to do that, as they need every bit help to get over the top. When they trade a player, they want a player in return, from you or three-ways. Then it leaves us to other rebuild teams as trade partners. Well, both teams are actually on the same boat. They have too many picks, but too few role players to be built on. Everything 76ers has, PHX has it too. It is pretty hard to make a trade with someone who have everything you have and want everything you want.

In short, only a team is about to reload a.k.a explode may be interested in to be a trade partner, but it is few and far between.

So, we can get a better idea why a tanking god like Hinkie failed. He failed because he had no idea what his end game was. He did the part A wonderfully. He even did Part B pretty good by disbanding his original teams. But then, everything stopped. What else could he do? Tank again to get another player? Sure, and he devalued everyone he had at the same time. He did Part C poorly because no FA wanted to come and the only one wanted to come hoped to be overpaid a lot. He could have traded away some picks for good role players, some good vet, but then again good teams were not interested as they wanted to win now. Bad teams were not interested because they had picks too. (Unless, well, you are nets)

He was like that:
Step 1: Tank!
Step 2: Tank harder! baby!
Step 3: ????
Step 4: profit!

IMO, he didn't work like a GM. He worked like he was a banker. He traded now for the future. He helped other teams to improve, get better, or get out of cap hell or something. But as a wining strategy, tanking is not proven it works.

When Phil said "we do not tank", I respect it and I can't believe he didn't think about everything I wrote here. In basketball, he is much smarter than I ever could. He must know it.

AUTOADVERT
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
4/21/2017  11:53 PM
I agree that Tanking in and of itself is not a plan. It can be part of a plan to start over and build a new team. The Knicks NEVER truly did that after the Ewing Era. You can only last so long living off the dregs of a once great team unless you are really well managed. The Spurs are the only team that has been managed so well that they have survived past a Great Player's Era and stayed relevant.

Teams have made the mistake of ending up in the Mediocre Zone rather than starting over and rebuilding. These teams like the Knicks don't want to be irrelevant for several years so they do the patch jobs and sign the Next Savior trying to stay relevant and keep the arena full. It's a fool's errand if your goal is to win a Title but makes sense if all you want is to make money giving fans false hope.

This is a chance for the Knicks to get out of the Mediocrity Loop!!!

wargames
Posts: 22833
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/27/2015
Member: #6053

4/21/2017  11:56 PM
I am all for the knicks bottoming out for at least 1 more season while the Youth gets heavy minutes for them to improve.
The algorithm gives and the algorithm takes away
mlby1215
Posts: 20314
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/16/2017
Member: #6486

4/22/2017  1:11 AM
It is why I wrote it. Actually a bad team doesn't even have to actively rebuild. You just have to manage well your resources a.k.a don't trade your picks and only sign reasonable contracts.

Look at it this way, if last 17 years Knicks did everything the same way but it DIDN'T trade away pick, it would have enough good players to be a very good team many years ago. Picks are some kind of safety valves. If everything goes wrong that season (like we do), then the pick would turn to be a saving grace (like we have). Tanking for picks is good, but trying to be competitive and thus raise the value of players, is not a bad thing either. When we try to be competitive, we can have better players to trade for more resources.

Being in mediocre zone is not a bad thing, I mean it is even necessary before we can be good. Not many teams can jump from bad to great in one season. We just have to stay in this dead zone for a while, keep the picks, keep the caps and try to be reasonable. I mean, how worse can it be? Having to pick 15 or 16 every year is not a bad thing, as there still are many good players. If we are 8 seed every year, at least it means we have some good vet we can trade away in order to go different direction if it doesn't work.

The key is don't do any quick fix. If we are bad, then let it be. We can say Phil has done a lot of bad things, but it COULD have been much worse if he wanted to save his legacy. He just accepted that the team is bad, and then just let it go. That is why I respect him. He is being laughed at everyday but he doesn't do any quick fix, he doesn't trade away any picks to get some good vets. Sometimes the greatest thing one can do is nothing.


nixluva I agree that Tanking in and of itself is not a plan. It can be part of a plan to start over and build a new team. The Knicks NEVER truly did that after the Ewing Era. You can only last so long living off the dregs of a once great team unless you are really well managed. The Spurs are the only team that has been managed so well that they have survived past a Great Player's Era and stayed relevant.

Teams have made the mistake of ending up in the Mediocre Zone rather than starting over and rebuilding. These teams like the Knicks don't want to be irrelevant for several years so they do the patch jobs and sign the Next Savior trying to stay relevant and keep the arena full. It's a fool's errand if your goal is to win a Title but makes sense if all you want is to make money giving fans false hope.

This is a chance for the Knicks to get out of the Mediocrity Loop!!!

mlby1215
Posts: 20314
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/16/2017
Member: #6486

4/22/2017  1:24 AM
Yes, everyone love to have one more young promising player. Who wouldn't? The problem is that when will it end? Teams ALWAYS look like they still need something. Even 96 bulls looked like it could use some better centers.

Someday, a team just has to win in order not to devalue its players. If we are going to be a very bad team again (thus we have another good pick), it means KP, Willy and the new PG are not good enough to be winners, at least it is how they are being looked at, fair or not.

In short, IMO we should just try to be a normal NBA team. Keep picks, Keep caps, and only trade for someone because of who he is , not because of who he has to be in future.

wargames I am all for the knicks bottoming out for at least 1 more season while the Youth gets heavy minutes for them to improve.
ESOMKnicks
Posts: 21334
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 6/14/2015
Member: #6064

4/22/2017  1:34 AM
nixluva wrote:The Spurs are the only team that has been managed so well that they have survived past a Great Player's Era and stayed relevant.

The Spurs invented tanking when they threw in an entire season from the get go after Robinson broke his foot to secure a first draft pick and get Duncan.

Isn't tanking also tampering and, thus, some sort of a criminal offense, akin to points shaving?

Vmart
Posts: 31800
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 5/23/2002
Member: #247
USA
4/22/2017  8:57 AM
ESOMKnicks wrote:
nixluva wrote:The Spurs are the only team that has been managed so well that they have survived past a Great Player's Era and stayed relevant.

The Spurs invented tanking when they threw in an entire season from the get go after Robinson broke his foot to secure a first draft pick and get Duncan.

Isn't tanking also tampering and, thus, some sort of a criminal offense, akin to points shaving?

I always felt that too. But the league does nothing so it's a strategy as far as I'm concerned. You want to stop tanking throw all the teams into the lottery with equal
Odds. Even if you throw the non playoff teams give them equal
Odds go back to the envelope draw.

nykshaknbake
Posts: 22247
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/15/2003
Member: #492
4/22/2017  9:37 AM
mlby1215 wrote:This post is going to discuss the validity of this strategy, tanking.

I think it is an interesting topic to look a bit deeper at. But before we go, we first examine how a team can get good players.

In general, there are only 3 ways:

A. Every year, each team has two picks. 1 and 2.
Cost: you have to lose a lot to get better picks.

B. Trade. A team can trade players/picks for another players.
Cost: The team has to have something other teams want a.k.a your players have to be valuable.

C. FA. Every off-season, Teams can sign UFA, RFA or someone overseas.
Cost: Caps. A team has to have salary caps to sign players.


Basically, one part of sport management is a game of resource management. We try to use our resources to get the best players we can, and there is where tanking comes in. When a team is not good enough to have a chance to win all, it is logical we try to find a way to "reload" and give us another shot in future. Sometimes, it looks like it is the only way we can get a young cornerstone player like KP.

Until now, everything is clear and well understood. However, everything has a cost, losing on purpose (tanking) has its cost as well, and I think very few talked about it. I do not mean something like the wrath of basketball gods because it is not scientific. I do not mean it hurts the players' morale either. Although it is valid, it is not about resource management which is the only thing I would focus on right now.

When tanking give us better Part A (picks), it damages our resources. When a team loses, it somehow makes everyone in it to be a loser. Is Phil a loser? Yes, he is. Is Rambis a loser? Sure, because he loses. Is KP a loser? well, I want to protect him but we have to say he is not a winner in NBA because, well again, he still does not win.

Losing is something no one wants, but when a team lose, it is something everyone have to own. Losing, indeed, tend to devalue almost every player we have, while wining would do the opposite. Look at Shump, is he loser? Well, as Knicks he was a loser but as Cav he is not. He is a "valuable rotation player" now, but the truth is that he is somewhat the same player, in fact.

What does it mean? It means a losing team has nothing to trade because its players to be looked as "cancers" or "losers". Tanking gives us better pick and it devalues everything we already have. It is probably why "tanking genius" like Hinkie could not succeed. He looked like he would ALMOST succeed if he was given a few more pick and few more seasons. He got a good pick, a very talented young guy. Not surprisingly the dude is not good enough to make a difference. I mean, no rookie can win if your GM is a tank god. Years after years tanking, everyone he has drafted is devaluing and he draft a new one to come in, helping Part A but hurting Part B.

Then, how about Part C? Free agents. Players tend to go to the place they can earn more. The superstars would go back to their teams because contracts have max value and because the home team would offer the most. Teams can only grab a superstar because they are already very good themselves, like GSW. Wining, indeed, attracts best players.

But it doesn't mean losing would push people away. You still can sign very good role players but you have to pay a little bit more to attracts them. Guys like Robin Lopez chose Knicks because we overpaid him at the time.

So, what does it mean? It means that losing would cost us more in Part C. Sure a tanking team can't attracts tier 1 talents. Equally, it has to pay tier 1 money to attracts tier 2 talents. A bad team has to overpay, it just has to.

In short, in resource management, tanking is very risky to do. You raise the value of one part, then devalue another part, and indirectly make yourself to have some overvalued players other teams do not want. (If they wanted them they could sign them right away, at lower price. )

People probably would argue, 1 + 1 is not equal to 2. One superstar is more valuable than all role players combined, as we can always trade for the latter. If you have LBJ, you have LBJ and everything else would be fall into its place. After drafting its best players, a tanking team can always trade its future picks and cap rooms for other pieces. Usually, a good tanking team has a lot of picks and a lot of rooms.

But, look at it this way, picks cannot dunk and cap rooms cannot pass. They are valuable but they cannot play simply because, you know, they are not humans. When a team trade its player for your pick, it doesn't have anything to show for it in THIS season. The team lose a player and that is it. It means that contending teams would not want to do that, as they need every bit help to get over the top. When they trade a player, they want a player in return, from you or three-ways. Then it leaves us to other rebuild teams as trade partners. Well, both teams are actually on the same boat. They have too many picks, but too few role players to be built on. Everything 76ers has, PHX has it too. It is pretty hard to make a trade with someone who have everything you have and want everything you want.

In short, only a team is about to reload a.k.a explode may be interested in to be a trade partner, but it is few and far between.

So, we can get a better idea why a tanking god like Hinkie failed. He failed because he had no idea what his end game was. He did the part A wonderfully. He even did Part B pretty good by disbanding his original teams. But then, everything stopped. What else could he do? Tank again to get another player? Sure, and he devalued everyone he had at the same time. He did Part C poorly because no FA wanted to come and the only one wanted to come hoped to be overpaid a lot. He could have traded away some picks for good role players, some good vet, but then again good teams were not interested as they wanted to win now. Bad teams were not interested because they had picks too. (Unless, well, you are nets)

He was like that:
Step 1: Tank!
Step 2: Tank harder! baby!
Step 3: ????
Step 4: profit!

IMO, he didn't work like a GM. He worked like he was a banker. He traded now for the future. He helped other teams to improve, get better, or get out of cap hell or something. But as a wining strategy, tanking is not proven it works.

When Phil said "we do not tank", I respect it and I can't believe he didn't think about everything I wrote here. In basketball, he is much smarter than I ever could. He must know it.

Good post. In my view, you want to be either tanking or winning. Tanking when you have a low level of talent or your players are too undeveloped is probably unavoidable and has clear benefits. If you have contending level talent, you obviously don't tank. You may even trade draft picks to pick up good veteran talent. The worst thing is barely missing the playoffs or being a prennial 8 seed. If your talent level is of that nature and no game changing 2 way FA is signing with your team, you sell off your veteran talent and you get into the tank zone. Traditionally here at the Knicks, when we are in that intermediate zone, we act like we are contenders. When we are in the tank zone, we act like we are contenders too. For the last 15 years every major move under multiple front offices has reflected that philosophy.

ESOMKnicks
Posts: 21334
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 6/14/2015
Member: #6064

4/22/2017  9:48 AM
Vmart wrote:
ESOMKnicks wrote:
nixluva wrote:The Spurs are the only team that has been managed so well that they have survived past a Great Player's Era and stayed relevant.

The Spurs invented tanking when they threw in an entire season from the get go after Robinson broke his foot to secure a first draft pick and get Duncan.

Isn't tanking also tampering and, thus, some sort of a criminal offense, akin to points shaving?

I always felt that too. But the league does nothing so it's a strategy as far as I'm concerned. You want to stop tanking throw all the teams into the lottery with equal
Odds. Even if you throw the non playoff teams give them equal
Odds go back to the envelope draw.

Even easier. The lottery can be set up in a way that a team with the worst record would also have, let's say, a 20% chance of losing a draft pick entirely. That way tanking will not be a surefire strategy, and some teams will fight not to finish last. Or have, say, the worst four teams at risk of not getting a pick at all.

newyorker4ever
Posts: 26515
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/19/2014
Member: #5816

4/22/2017  10:41 AM
Vmart wrote:
ESOMKnicks wrote:
nixluva wrote:The Spurs are the only team that has been managed so well that they have survived past a Great Player's Era and stayed relevant.

The Spurs invented tanking when they threw in an entire season from the get go after Robinson broke his foot to secure a first draft pick and get Duncan.

Isn't tanking also tampering and, thus, some sort of a criminal offense, akin to points shaving?

I always felt that too. But the league does nothing so it's a strategy as far as I'm concerned. You want to stop tanking throw all the teams into the lottery with equal
Odds. Even if you throw the non playoff teams give them equal
Odds go back to the envelope draw.

The only people that get f'd when your team is tanking is the fans that pay to go to the games.

y2zipper
Posts: 20946
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/30/2010
Member: #3287

4/22/2017  11:16 AM
Tanking is bad for GMs because as Hinkie and Mitch just demonstrated, GM's that do it always get fired because there are other interests besides long term success with most teams and fans are impatient. I think where Hinkie failed was that he didn't bring in vets to develop his young talent but Embiid and Simmons isn't a bad haul at all.

Tanking will never go away because owners like it. It creates a reliable access point to top young talent in the draft provided people can identify and develop the talent.

But being in charge of a team is all about resource management as someone mentioned.

Vmart
Posts: 31800
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 5/23/2002
Member: #247
USA
4/22/2017  11:32 AM
ESOMKnicks wrote:
Vmart wrote:
ESOMKnicks wrote:
nixluva wrote:The Spurs are the only team that has been managed so well that they have survived past a Great Player's Era and stayed relevant.

The Spurs invented tanking when they threw in an entire season from the get go after Robinson broke his foot to secure a first draft pick and get Duncan.

Isn't tanking also tampering and, thus, some sort of a criminal offense, akin to points shaving?

I always felt that too. But the league does nothing so it's a strategy as far as I'm concerned. You want to stop tanking throw all the teams into the lottery with equal
Odds. Even if you throw the non playoff teams give them equal
Odds go back to the envelope draw.

Even easier. The lottery can be set up in a way that a team with the worst record would also have, let's say, a 20% chance of losing a draft pick entirely. That way tanking will not be a surefire strategy, and some teams will fight not to finish last. Or have, say, the worst four teams at risk of not getting a pick at all.

Some times teams are genuinely bad. I'm for all teams have the same odds. Or same odds for the teams out of the playoffs.

sidsanders
Posts: 22541
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/17/2009
Member: #2426

4/22/2017  11:40 AM
Vmart wrote:
ESOMKnicks wrote:
Vmart wrote:
ESOMKnicks wrote:
nixluva wrote:The Spurs are the only team that has been managed so well that they have survived past a Great Player's Era and stayed relevant.

The Spurs invented tanking when they threw in an entire season from the get go after Robinson broke his foot to secure a first draft pick and get Duncan.

Isn't tanking also tampering and, thus, some sort of a criminal offense, akin to points shaving?

I always felt that too. But the league does nothing so it's a strategy as far as I'm concerned. You want to stop tanking throw all the teams into the lottery with equal
Odds. Even if you throw the non playoff teams give them equal
Odds go back to the envelope draw.

Even easier. The lottery can be set up in a way that a team with the worst record would also have, let's say, a 20% chance of losing a draft pick entirely. That way tanking will not be a surefire strategy, and some teams will fight not to finish last. Or have, say, the worst four teams at risk of not getting a pick at all.

Some times teams are genuinely bad. I'm for all teams have the same odds. Or same odds for the teams out of the playoffs.

thats how the original lottery was, and it seems it was hated so they changed it to a weighted system. that broke with orlando in 93. more tweaks after that.

what they could do is if you land in the top 5, you cant do so again the next season (perhaps #1 you cant win again for 2+ years). some teams are legit bad and its a bit unfair to make it even harder for them to get anywhere.

GO TEAM VENTURE!!!!!
Vmart
Posts: 31800
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 5/23/2002
Member: #247
USA
4/22/2017  11:47 AM
sidsanders wrote:
Vmart wrote:
ESOMKnicks wrote:
Vmart wrote:
ESOMKnicks wrote:
nixluva wrote:The Spurs are the only team that has been managed so well that they have survived past a Great Player's Era and stayed relevant.

The Spurs invented tanking when they threw in an entire season from the get go after Robinson broke his foot to secure a first draft pick and get Duncan.

Isn't tanking also tampering and, thus, some sort of a criminal offense, akin to points shaving?

I always felt that too. But the league does nothing so it's a strategy as far as I'm concerned. You want to stop tanking throw all the teams into the lottery with equal
Odds. Even if you throw the non playoff teams give them equal
Odds go back to the envelope draw.

Even easier. The lottery can be set up in a way that a team with the worst record would also have, let's say, a 20% chance of losing a draft pick entirely. That way tanking will not be a surefire strategy, and some teams will fight not to finish last. Or have, say, the worst four teams at risk of not getting a pick at all.

Some times teams are genuinely bad. I'm for all teams have the same odds. Or same odds for the teams out of the playoffs.

thats how the original lottery was, and it seems it was hated so they changed it to a weighted system. that broke with orlando in 93. more tweaks after that.

what they could do is if you land in the top 5, you cant do so again the next season (perhaps #1 you cant win again for 2+ years). some teams are legit bad and its a bit unfair to make it even harder for them to get anywhere.

Sounds good. No back to back lottery. Sixes have been abusing the lottery system and so did Cleveland. You know Sixers are they tend to sit out their picks. To suck another year add more top 4 talent. I wonder if this years pick plays.

Vmart
Posts: 31800
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 5/23/2002
Member: #247
USA
4/22/2017  11:50 AM
Another method they can use is give the ping pong balls just the way they are. But no more top three team business. You pick where the ping pings say you pick.
mlby1215
Posts: 20314
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/16/2017
Member: #6486

4/22/2017  2:02 PM
We can look at it that way. Drafting good young players is always good (Part A), but it always devalue the players you already have. (Part B) It means you only do it when your team is totally ****. (Part B has nothing to be devalued)

But, when a GM have plenty young players like 76ers did, he should not tank, as losing are too negative to a team. If he wants a good player, he should try to trade for one, or sign one.

In short, if tanking works, it can only works for 1 or 2 seasons at most.

In Knicks case, we already have KP, Willy, a new PG, and few good vets, we should not tank as it would kill off the trade value of all players we already have, and it would make us very hard to sign good FA in reasonable contracts.

Winning heal everything, losing would do the opposite.

nykshaknbake wrote:

Good post. In my view, you want to be either tanking or winning. Tanking when you have a low level of talent or your players are too undeveloped is probably unavoidable and has clear benefits. If you have contending level talent, you obviously don't tank. You may even trade draft picks to pick up good veteran talent. The worst thing is barely missing the playoffs or being a prennial 8 seed. If your talent level is of that nature and no game changing 2 way FA is signing with your team, you sell off your veteran talent and you get into the tank zone. Traditionally here at the Knicks, when we are in that intermediate zone, we act like we are contenders. When we are in the tank zone, we act like we are contenders too. For the last 15 years every major move under multiple front offices has reflected that philosophy.

mlby1215
Posts: 20314
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/16/2017
Member: #6486

4/22/2017  2:13 PM
Currently I cannot even sure the lottery system is broken.

Boston has done pretty well, but it does not tank. it is just that its GM is a master trader.

We always look at Spur and TD, CAV and LBJ, or even OKC and its top five NBA players. It is true, it is all true, but only Spur won a champ because it was not a lottery team. CAV didn't win after it drafted LBJ, it won later because it signed him as a FA. OKC did not win either.

Looking back, tanking is actually very exciting at the end of the season. But it is not really that useful. It can be useful to give you first great player when you have nothing. But tanking and tanking again until we have starting 5.....well, IMO it is a bad idea.

Vmart
Posts: 31800
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 5/23/2002
Member: #247
USA
4/22/2017  3:10 PM
mlby1215 wrote:Currently I cannot even sure the lottery system is broken.

Boston has done pretty well, but it does not tank. it is just that its GM is a master trader.

We always look at Spur and TD, CAV and LBJ, or even OKC and its top five NBA players. It is true, it is all true, but only Spur won a champ because it was not a lottery team. CAV didn't win after it drafted LBJ, it won later because it signed him as a FA. OKC did not win either.

Looking back, tanking is actually very exciting at the end of the season. But it is not really that useful. It can be useful to give you first great player when you have nothing. But tanking and tanking again until we have starting 5.....well, IMO it is a bad idea.

I think what you over look is that the draft creates a perpetual winner. Spurs are an example of it. Robinson, Elliot, Duncan is what started the continuous winning. As for OKC they made it to the finals and were always in the thick of it to win. Boston is a good example but is this a team that will sustain winning over a course of 4-5 years. If you want sustainable winning then the draft is you best bet. Have to get the core and once that is accomplished it needs time to develop and then winning takes place.

TripleThreat
Posts: 23106
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 2/24/2012
Member: #3997

4/22/2017  4:14 PM
y2zipper wrote: I think where Hinkie failed was that he didn't bring in vets to develop his young talent but Embiid and Simmons isn't a bad haul at all.

I don't think Hinkie failed at all.

In interviews, he was extremely HONEST about what he was doing and why, almost too honest for the leagues tastes.

What Hinkie did and it drove the league administration crazy, is his decision making pointed out the systematic flaws in the current NBA marketplace and system. He knew, like most know, the draft is essentially rigged. There are not enough impact players to go around for every franchise to be competitive and guaranteed contracts are franchise killers for half a decade in the worst case scenario.

Hinkie pointed out three things that his biggest critics would have a hard time refuting objectively

1) When the alternatives are a very very very low chance or ZERO CHANCE, the right decision, sadly, is the very very very low chance. He never promised the 76ers would contend, he simply said he chose the path designed to get them off the treadmill and into the BEST OPPORTUNITY to contend. In that regard, he did his job. Every season, every team in the league except one is a FAILURE. In relative terms, I think he was very successful. Billy Beane has not won a World Series as a GM. However does that mean he wasn't trying to do what was right for his franchise, without regard for his critics? ( He was not always hailed as a genius)

2) You can do all the RIGHT THINGS ( i.e. where Houston was when he was an assistant GM there under Morey and pre Howard and Harden) and still be stuck. You can make good trades with regard to marketplace values, you can amass assets in place, you can make good decision with your cap and cap flexibility, and still, the system works against you if you try to offer a competitive team that ends up on that slow death treadmill. Boston right now is in a position where they did all the things you are supposed to do, but still might not get over the hump, there is no methodology for teams to move from the middle to push over the top.

3) NBA front office decision makers literally have no margin for error. No other sport operates this punitively and with such top end talent scarcity. There are no more untapped markets, there are no market inefficiencies, and the new CBA has essentially created a financial "franchise player" situation where a team is essentially gutted from any chance to win by locking in their "franchise player" for a disproportional amount of cap to keep selling tickets.

Hinkie was very honest. He said he'd take another road if there was another road, but there was NOT ANOTHER ROAD TO TAKE.

If not tanking, what is the alternative? Golden State did it the "right way" and look like the league jobbed them. Because Nike wanted a large return on their investment with LBJ, the last Finals was a joke. They should have just given LBJ a baseball bat. And the league desperately tried to gift LBJ a ring the previous series, if not for Igoudala have the Olympic rep and pedigree to actually hammer back at LBJ, Nike would have gifted Cleveland a 2nd ring for free. The league even changed the cap projection to try to force Durant out of GS, because God forbid a guy wants to play team ball and reward a non large market team for operating efficiently and drafting well and playing true fundamental basketball.

The NBA has clear systematic dysfunction in the entire process. On top of that, clearly the league administration has an agenda to see who can sell the most shoes or dunk over a car and push that "narrative" no matter what the cost, even if the refs are literally giving games away. God forbid Sacto could beat the Heat on their own, why not send Wade to the free throw line 60 times a game.

And this again, is why what the Knicks are doing is so idiotic at times. There are NO ALTERNATIVES HERE. The few teams that skirted around this issue did so because of marketplace ANOMALIES, not things that can be relied on consistently. LBJ to the Heat and back to the Cavs, Shaq to the Lakers, Howard and Harden to the Rockets, these are unique and complex situations that cannot be replicated by simply making good market decisions. A rebuild script in the NBA literally writes itself and the Knicks under Jackson keep violating it.

Tanking? What other choice is there? There isn't one, not to even begin to actual factor in how the NBA marketplace actually works.

Sam Hinkie cared less about saving his job over simply doing his job. That's brave. That's just standing up and going against the tide because just riding convention wasn't something he could sleep with at night. The media tore into him because the NBA administration set the media wolves after him. It wasn't that he bucked their reality, he simply highlighted there was no other reality than the one he was showing.

Tanking is a situation ripe for losing and conflict and suffering, OF COURSE IT IS. There is no virtue in it, but sometimes that's all there is, something with no virtue in it.

wargames
Posts: 22833
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/27/2015
Member: #6053

4/22/2017  4:23 PM
TripleThreat wrote:
y2zipper wrote: I think where Hinkie failed was that he didn't bring in vets to develop his young talent but Embiid and Simmons isn't a bad haul at all.

I don't think Hinkie failed at all.

In interviews, he was extremely HONEST about what he was doing and why, almost too honest for the leagues tastes.

What Hinkie did and it drove the league administration crazy, is his decision making pointed out the systematic flaws in the current NBA marketplace and system. He knew, like most know, the draft is essentially rigged. There are not enough impact players to go around for every franchise to be competitive and guaranteed contracts are franchise killers for half a decade in the worst case scenario.

Hinkie pointed out three things that his biggest critics would have a hard time refuting objectively

1) When the alternatives are a very very very low chance or ZERO CHANCE, the right decision, sadly, is the very very very low chance. He never promised the 76ers would contend, he simply said he chose the path designed to get them off the treadmill and into the BEST OPPORTUNITY to contend. In that regard, he did his job. Every season, every team in the league except one is a FAILURE. In relative terms, I think he was very successful. Billy Beane has not won a World Series as a GM. However does that mean he wasn't trying to do what was right for his franchise, without regard for his critics? ( He was not always hailed as a genius)

2) You can do all the RIGHT THINGS ( i.e. where Houston was when he was an assistant GM there under Morey and pre Howard and Harden) and still be stuck. You can make good trades with regard to marketplace values, you can amass assets in place, you can make good decision with your cap and cap flexibility, and still, the system works against you if you try to offer a competitive team that ends up on that slow death treadmill. Boston right now is in a position where they did all the things you are supposed to do, but still might not get over the hump, there is no methodology for teams to move from the middle to push over the top.

3) NBA front office decision makers literally have no margin for error. No other sport operates this punitively and with such top end talent scarcity. There are no more untapped markets, there are no market inefficiencies, and the new CBA has essentially created a financial "franchise player" situation where a team is essentially gutted from any chance to win by locking in their "franchise player" for a disproportional amount of cap to keep selling tickets.

Hinkie was very honest. He said he'd take another road if there was another road, but there was NOT ANOTHER ROAD TO TAKE.

If not tanking, what is the alternative? Golden State did it the "right way" and look like the league jobbed them. Because Nike wanted a large return on their investment with LBJ, the last Finals was a joke. They should have just given LBJ a baseball bat. And the league desperately tried to gift LBJ a ring the previous series, if not for Igoudala have the Olympic rep and pedigree to actually hammer back at LBJ, Nike would have gifted Cleveland a 2nd ring for free. The league even changed the cap projection to try to force Durant out of GS, because God forbid a guy wants to play team ball and reward a non large market team for operating efficiently and drafting well and playing true fundamental basketball.

The NBA has clear systematic dysfunction in the entire process. On top of that, clearly the league administration has an agenda to see who can sell the most shoes or dunk over a car and push that "narrative" no matter what the cost, even if the refs are literally giving games away. God forbid Sacto could beat the Heat on their own, why not send Wade to the free throw line 60 times a game.

And this again, is why what the Knicks are doing is so idiotic at times. There are NO ALTERNATIVES HERE. The few teams that skirted around this issue did so because of marketplace ANOMALIES, not things that can be relied on consistently. LBJ to the Heat and back to the Cavs, Shaq to the Lakers, Howard and Harden to the Rockets, these are unique and complex situations that cannot be replicated by simply making good market decisions. A rebuild script in the NBA literally writes itself and the Knicks under Jackson keep violating it.

Tanking? What other choice is there? There isn't one, not to even begin to actual factor in how the NBA marketplace actually works.

Sam Hinkie cared less about saving his job over simply doing his job. That's brave. That's just standing up and going against the tide because just riding convention wasn't something he could sleep with at night. The media tore into him because the NBA administration set the media wolves after him. It wasn't that he bucked their reality, he simply highlighted there was no other reality than the one he was showing.

Tanking is a situation ripe for losing and conflict and suffering, OF COURSE IT IS. There is no virtue in it, but sometimes that's all there is, something with no virtue in it.

This was a great post. It felt like an article really. Also I agree, What other choice does the knicks have now than try and draft a another star player to put next to KP. We have a very narrow window to add talent that could be kept using bird rights as we begin the process of locking in players on guaranteed contracts.

The algorithm gives and the algorithm takes away
Is tanking good or bad?

©2001-2012 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy