Down with tanking, play to win!

[Eddie Jurak]

While I don't really favor "The Wheel", I do think that one problem with the current system is that it rewards ineptitude. How many lottery picks did the Clippers have in the two decades before they got good? A lot, and it didn't seem to matter for competitive balance - they always sucked.

 

[moly99]

While I don't really favor "The Wheel", I do think that one problem with the current system is that it rewards ineptitude. How many lottery picks did the Clippers have in the two decades before they got good? A lot, and it didn't seem to matter for competitive balance - they always sucked.

 
Which is not really an argument in favor of it being changed, though is it?
 
Not every team can be good. We don't want the biggest markets to automatically have the best teams, so we need a salary cap and a way for less attractive markets and teams to get good players. Which is why we have a draft instead of using the European football system. Instead the deciding factor should be how well run teams are. And in fact teams like the Clippers and Bobcats went through long periods of being awful despite having so many picks. So the lottery has not stopped the poorly run franchises from feeling the effects of their turpitude.
 
On the other hand you have to give fans of bad teams at least a hope of improvement. Even the Clippers can stumble into a Blake Griffin, and that gives fans of other bad teams a reason to care about their teams. Even if you are cheering for your team to tank you are still cheering. What will really hurt the NBA is if fans have no reason to care at all.

 

[Jer]

A nice article by Zach Lowe over on Grantland that argues against tanking through the lens of the Toronto Raptors.
 
Some highlights...

 
Getting worse isn't pain-free. It alienates a fan base that can only take so much, especially when there is nothing close to a guarantee that said losing would net Canadian proto-legend Andrew Wiggins. It can build bad habits among unmotivated players. It can cause friction between the coaching staff and management, which is why Casey wisely stays out of the entire discussion.
...
Ujiri understands the downsides of tanking, a strategy he explicitly avoided in guiding Denver through the post–Carmelo Anthony world. "You play ball to win," Ujiri told Grantland. "It's difficult to teach winning by losing. There is value in winning. If it comes to a point where you feel like the team is not what you felt it was, then I think you can react. But I think the team will dictate where we go."
...
Several teams, including the Rockets most recently, have shown that careful asset accumulation can serve as an alternate road map to a franchise-level star.
...

Winning a title in the NBA generally requires a top-10 or top-15 overall player...The best way to acquire such a player is to draft him, and the best way to do that is to pick at or near the top of the right draft. That's why teams still tank today. Tanking doesn't always work, but for a certain species of team and ownership group, it can be the quickest and easiest way to transform a franchise. That's why Toronto thought about it, and why it might do so again if this run turns out to be fool's gold.

 

[redsahx]

A nice article by Zach Lowe over on Grantland that argues against tanking through the lens of the Toronto Raptors.
 
Some highlights...

 
That brings up alot of the feelings I have had on the subject as well. From the Celtics perspective, you are trying to establish something with a new young coach in Brad Stevens, and you have players like Bradley, Sullinger and Green who are in big spots in their careers where you'd like to see them take big steps forward. This would be harder to do if the team loses almost every night, and too much losing can create friction that I think could end up being harmful for Stevens as far as him building credibility in an NBA locker room. Add in Rondo who, if he returns, is looking to re-establish himself after injury, and I think there are benefits to this team playing meaningful games down the stretch.  

 

[oumbi]

 
That is an excellent idea and would really resolve the issue of tanking.  But it could incentive teams in weird ways. The worst team would automatically get the 4th pick.  The 4th worst team would get in the lottery and if they don't win would get 7th.  There are situations where the worst team and its guaranteed 4th pick would be preferable.

This is an interesting approach and looks to be better than what is in place. 
 
But here is another idea. What about providing more incentives to win? Why not have the bottom (worst) 4 teams have a round-robin "playoff" to see who gets the most/least favorable draft position? (A sort of World Chumpionship, the bizzaro version of the NCAA's final four.) That is, the 4 teams with the worst records participate in a playoff. The first place team (the one that defies its sucky nature and actually wins the tournament by defeating the other teams) gets the best draft pick (#1), second place team gets the second pick, and so on.
 
For the rest of the lottery draft, teams are assigned their draft location strictly on win-loss records.
 
While not perfect, it removes some of the incentives to tank AND provides both revenue and entertainment for the league's dross.

 

[JakeRae]

This is an interesting approach and looks to be better than what is in place. 
 
But here is another idea. What about providing more incentives to win? Why not have the bottom (worst) 4 teams have a round-robin "playoff" to see who gets the most/least favorable draft position? (A sort of World Chumpionship, the bizzaro version of the NCAA's final four.) That is, the 4 teams with the worst records participate in a playoff. The first place team (the one that defies its sucky nature and actually wins the tournament by defeating the other teams) gets the best draft pick (#1), second place team gets the second pick, and so on.
 
For the rest of the lottery draft, teams are assigned their draft location strictly on win-loss records.
 
While not perfect, it removes some of the incentives to tank AND provides both revenue and entertainment for the league's dross.

This actually incents better teams to tank. If a middle of the road team can throw its season and finish with a bottom 4 record, they should easily defeat true bottom 4 teams in a playoff. At the same time, this virtually guarantees that the true worst team never picks first.

 

[moly99]

I agree.
 
All of these schemes introduce new problems that are at least as bad as the lottery itself. It's like Churchill's quote on democracy.

 

[Devizier]

This team has no offensive firepower. Grit and effort is only going to win games against the bottom 30% of the league and their best three players are league average. Unfortunately, the top-heaviness of the league and the lack of Knicks draft picks leaves the Celtics very few options for blowing it up. Part of me wants to see this team disassembled just because players like Jeff Green would be better off playing for a team that needs them.

 

[Stitch01]

Celts right now with the 11th worst record at 13-18 with a brutal stretch coming up. 
 
The betting markets have them as the 9th worst team in the league and at 43% to make the playoffs in the lolEast.  They likely will be underdogs in every game until they play Toronto and LA at home 8 games from now.  They'll likely leave January something like 19-30
 
I still think they end up picking somewhere between 5th and 10th if they dont get lucky in the lottery.  Combined with the Brooklyn pick becoming more vauable and its not a bad start to the rebuild.  A key Atlanta injury or two would be pretty helpful.
 
Interested to see if the Celtics make any moves or anyone gets "injured" before that 1/26 tilt with the Nets.  That starts a five game stretch against Brooklyn/NY/Philly and might tie in timeline wise with a Rondo return.  If the team is going to tank, Id expect that stretch is when it starts (not advocating for a tank here, just seems to me to be a logical place to try and find some losses if you were going to tank)

 

[ifmanis5]

Boston now 1 game behind Detroit for the last playoff spot in the East. And one step into the lottery.

 

[nighthob]

Given this week's schedule they'll solidify that lottery spot.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Three games out of 2nd worst in the East (Milwaukee's impressive 6 game lead for the #1 pick is looking insurmountable)
Game up on Brooklyn and Philly
Two on the Cavs
Two and a half on the Knicks (and SAC out west)
Three on Orlando (and Utah out west)

 

[Stitch01]

Betting markets now have the Celtics as the 8th worst team in the league and down to 26% to make the playoffs.  Notably it has the C's as worse than both the Knicks and the Nets.
 
Should be in 4th place in the division by months end and en route to a top ten pick, will ease the pain from the upcoming beatings out west some.  Decent chance Danny will unload more assets before the next stretch of winnable games.  That Brooklyn/NY/Philly stretch will likely decide whether the C's will be solidly in the lottery or have a chance at becoming early playoff fodder for a good team.

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

Cleveland has improved and appears not to be interested in openly tanking (not the worst decision considering their drafting record). The Knicks are a mess but figure to do everything possible to make the playoffs. Should be an interesting race between the rest of those teams and Boston. The Celtics close the season with a bunch of winnable games including two against Philly in April, but I expect the roster to get worse between now and then, even accounting for Rondo's return.
 
One thing working in Boston's favor (from the pro-tank p.o.v.) is that a playoff appearance is less important than it would be to most of the other bad teams whose entire organizations are on the hot seat. Boston is quite stable and the success of the Big Three era has bought Ainge plenty of time with the fans and media to rebuild from the ground up. There's no pressure to look at the standings and say "holy shit this league is terrible, this is my chance to put 'Playoff Appearance' on my resume when I'm inevitably fired for being an awful GM."

 

[Brickowski]

One thing working in Boston's favor (from the pro-tank p.o.v.) is that a playoff appearance is less important than it would be to most of the other bad teams whose entire organizations are on the hot seat. Boston is quite stable and the success of the Big Three era has bought Ainge plenty of time with the fans and media to rebuild from the ground up. There's no pressure to look at the standings and say "holy shit this league is terrible, this is my chance to put 'Playoff Appearance' on my resume when I'm inevitably fired for being an awful GM."

Yes, and I think Stevens has received the memo. Last night's game was lost in the first quarter, when the Clips went on a 20-2 run. Most coaches would have called a timeout after the first 3-4 baskets to try to break the Clips' momentum. But not Stevens. He just sat there, analyzing.

 

[allstonite]

Cleveland has improved and appears not to be interested in openly tanking (not the worst decision considering their drafting record). The Knicks are a mess but figure to do everything possible to make the playoffs. Should be an interesting race between the rest of those teams and Boston. The Celtics close the season with a bunch of winnable games including two against Philly in April, but I expect the roster to get worse between now and then, even accounting for Rondo's return.
 
One thing working in Boston's favor (from the pro-tank p.o.v.) is that a playoff appearance is less important than it would be to most of the other bad teams whose entire organizations are on the hot seat. Boston is quite stable and the success of the Big Three era has bought Ainge plenty of time with the fans and media to rebuild from the ground up. There's no pressure to look at the standings and say "holy shit this league is terrible, this is my chance to put 'Playoff Appearance' on my resume when I'm inevitably fired for being an awful GM."

 
Just looking at those teams "ahead" of us, Zach Lowe said on the BS Report that Gilbert promised the Cavs make the playoffs and they just traded for Deng so they look to be trying to win. Also, the Knicks are probably better than the Celtics and they have no reason to try to tank because they don't have a pick. The Nets are close in record but also have no reason to try to lose.
 
On the other hand Philly loses their pick if it's outside the lottery but I think they could try all they want and still be around where they are. Pelicans lose their pick unless they're in the top 5 so they may have to make a choice one way or the other sometime soon

 

[wutang112878]

Yes, and I think Stevens has received the memo. Last night's game was lost in the first quarter, when the Clips went on a 20-2 run. Most coaches would have called a timeout after the first 3-4 baskets to try to break the Clips' momentum. But not Stevens. He just sat there, analyzing.

 
Its tough to judge his intent, but I remember reading something where he was talking about calling timeouts and he mentioned that at times he was simply willing to let the team play through it.  I also remember some games early on where it was pretty clear that he was letting them play through it too, so I dont think this is a change in strategy for him.

 

[allstonite]

 
Its tough to judge his intent, but I remember reading something where he was talking about calling timeouts and he mentioned that at times he was simply willing to let the team play through it.  I also remember some games early on where it was pretty clear that he was letting them play through it too, so I dont think this is a change in strategy for him.

 
Didn't Doc used to do this? It was frustrating at times and pretty tough to tell how well it works, but it is a strategy for some coaches

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Celtics now sitting at 13-23, which is the 8th worst record in the league "behind":
 
New York
Cleveland
Philadelphia
Sacramento
Utah
Orlando
Milwaukee
 
Only 2.5 games away from the 2nd worst record. At this point, a top 5-7 pick seems very likely and now a top 3 pick is a distinct possibility.

 
Cleveland and New York figure to be better (as mentioned above) but Utah is also on a strong trajectory, having gone 11-11 since starting the season 1-14.  I think Milwaukee "runs away" with the ping pong ball title but after that only Orlando, Sacramento, and Philly seem like favorites or even money to finish worse than the Celtics.

 

[wutang112878]

 
Didn't Doc used to do this? It was frustrating at times and pretty tough to tell how well it works, but it is a strategy for some coaches

 
Absolutely, but he mainly did it when he had the Big3 and its a little different doing it with a good veteran team.  Regardless its a strategy that some coaches.  Phil Jackson was famous for it and it was part of what made him the 'Zen master' when in actuality he was really just sitting on his butt which made sense because he generally didnt have X and O solutions for his teams problems.

 

[Devizier]

With the Gay trade, Sacramento at least is trying to improve their on-court product. The Celtics are doing the opposite, or at best making lateral moves. I think Jeff Green is as good as gone if Ainge finds a decent deal for him. He doesn't really have a future with a contending Celtics team anyways (he'll be a free agent before then).

 

[Brickowski]

Absolutely, but he mainly did it when he had the Big3 and its a little different doing it with a good veteran team.  Regardless its a strategy that some coaches.  Phil Jackson was famous for it and it was part of what made him the 'Zen master' when in actuality he was really just sitting on his butt which made sense because he generally didnt have X and O solutions for his teams problems.

Yes, it's one thing to do it with a veteran team, quite another with a young team. The Celtics were obviously flustered and demoralized when the score suddenly went from 10-10 to 30-12 in just a few minutes.

I note in passing what when the Celtics went on their run in the second quarter, Rivers called a time out and almost got a technical for arguing a call. Will Stevens ever get a technical? He'd better be willing to do that, because sometimes it's the only way to get through to the officials.

 

[wutang112878]

Will Stevens ever get a technical? He'd better be willing to do that, because sometimes it's the only way to get through to the officials.

 
This is a great question, but I really wonder if Stevens approach might work.  Virtually every coach berates the officials to some degree.  I wonder if they will gain respect for Stevens because of the respect they give him, so that when he actually does get on their case a bit they take his criticism more seriously.  It looks like Stevens is the only coach who will be testing this theory.

 

[nighthob]

Absolutely, but he mainly did it when he had the Big3 and its a little different doing it with a good veteran team.  Regardless its a strategy that some coaches.  Phil Jackson was famous for it and it was part of what made him the 'Zen master' when in actuality he was really just sitting on his butt which made sense because he generally didnt have X and O solutions for his teams problems.

In fairness Jackson was one of the best defensive assistants in the NBA prior to taking over the Bulls, where he took responsibility for handling the defense while leaving the offensive decisions to a future hall-of-fame coach and creator of the triple post offense. Xs & Os weren't really the problem for him so much as the cutting edge defenses that figured out how to smash the triangle.

 

[TroyOLeary]

 
This is a great question, but I really wonder if Stevens approach might work.  Virtually every coach berates the officials to some degree.  I wonder if they will gain respect for Stevens because of the respect they give him, so that when he actually does get on their case a bit they take his criticism more seriously.  It looks like Stevens is the only coach who will be testing this theory.

 
I forget who they were playing, but it was towards the end of a game that they had no real chance of winning and the refs missed a blatantly obvious 8 second call (the shot clock was at like 14 when they crossed half court).  He yelled at the refs quite a bit and they seemed to give him a decent amount of rope.  I think there was a makeup call on the next possession.

 

[Brickowski]

Well I think their record may be among the worst, but it looks to me as though Stevens is experimenting with quite a few different lineups, putting players in unfamiliar roles to see if they can handle it (e.g. Wallace at Shooting guard, Jordan Crawford at the point) and familiarizing himself with the other players in the league. It's an extended audition to see which players the Celtics want to keep, which ones to let go and which ones to target.

My problem with the losing is the demoralizing effect. You can see Sullinger, in particular, deteriorating day by day. He's lost his confidence. The same holds true for Faverani, who showed some early flashes and since then has becme a non-factor: a garbage time goon. Maybe that's all he is, but earlier in the year I thought he showed more than that.

 

[Stitch01]

Faverini was losing PT before the losing started, and Im not sure the causation between Sullinger and losing is going in the right direction there and Im not convinced at all that losing is hindering Sullinger's development.
 
Why is this losing streak sapping Sullinger's confidence when losing six in a row earlier in the year didnt seem to do it?
 
I dont think there's much, if any, long-term downside to a franchise having one year where they lose a shit ton of games.

 

[Devizier]

Yep, this is a terrible team. I'm still feeling pretty confident about my vote in the <20 wins column, even with all these games left.

 

[Jer]

I doubt their record will be stellar, but they'd need to go 6-40 to hit your 19 win projection. That's a significantly worse winning percentage than the Bucks have been laying down this season.

 

[The X Man Cometh]

Well I think their record may be among the worst, but it looks to me as though Stevens is experimenting with quite a few different lineups, putting players in unfamiliar roles to see if they can handle it (e.g. Wallace at Shooting guard, Jordan Crawford at the point) and familiarizing himself with the other players in the league. It's an extended audition to see which players the Celtics want to keep, which ones to let go and which ones to target.

My problem with the losing is the demoralizing effect. You can see Sullinger, in particular, deteriorating day by day. He's lost his confidence. The same holds true for Faverani, who showed some early flashes and since then has becme a non-factor: a garbage time goon. Maybe that's all he is, but earlier in the year I thought he showed more than that.

 
Sullinger is playing with a hand injury. That his shooting touch has largely disappeared shouldn't be surprising.
 
As for Faverani, he's "raw", which isn't good for a guy who has been playing as long as he has. The biggest reservation about him when he was eligible for the NBA draft was always his attitude, and I can sort of see that on the court. He's got a lazy demeanor and makes dumb decisions. Generally Euro guys come over with an advanced understanding of "how to play" compared to all the AAU-bred Americans, but he's talented and a dumb player it seems.
 
He had a couple of big games rebounding, but we all know he can clean up the boards. He's 7 feet tall and strong and a plus rebounder. Its the mental aspects of defense that are keeping him off the court, and when he is in you can see why he doesn't play more often in that area of the game.

 

[Plympton91]

I am at a loss to understand why anyone would watch one of these games on TV, much less shell out money and time to go. I live out of market and canceled NBA League Pass! Because I refuse to spend hard earned money on a team that not only isn't winning but also isn't designed to win and by some accounts isn't trying to win. The NBA needs a new model, because their salary cap combined with the salary structure makes these Boom-bust cycles that just completely suck the life out of the game for a lot of fans.

 

[Sprowl]

I am at a loss to understand why anyone would watch one of these games on TV, much less shell out money and time to go. I live out of market and canceled NBA League Pass! Because I refuse to spend hard earned money on a team that not only isn't winning but also isn't designed to win and by some accounts isn't trying to win. The NBA needs a new model, because their salary cap combined with the salary structure makes these Boom-bust cycles that just completely suck the life out of the game for a lot of fans.

 
I watch some of these games on TV because I love the game, NBA guys are the best athletes alive, and I love the Celtics for good or for ill, even through 17 years in the desert.
 
I haven't spent money to see a game in person since the Grizzlies deserted Vancouver.
 
I think you should spend your hard earned money (recreational division) on paying a carbon tax. It's much more engaging than rooting for the 2014 Celtics...
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
... to lose.

 

[cardiacs]

I am at a loss to understand why anyone would watch one of these games on TV, much less shell out money and time to go. I live out of market and canceled NBA League Pass! Because I refuse to spend hard earned money on a team that not only isn't winning but also isn't designed to win and by some accounts isn't trying to win. The NBA needs a new model, because their salary cap combined with the salary structure makes these Boom-bust cycles that just completely suck the life out of the game for a lot of fans.

 
I can't disagree with anything here. I think you really have to love the Celtics (or basketball in general) to follow this season. 
Personally, I am enjoying following the Celtics this year, keeping a frame of mind that one would have watching a preseason Red Sox game. Winning/losing doesn't matter, it's more about evaluating talent and trying to imagine what you would do if you were GM/coach/etc. 
 
edit: clarity

 

[wutang112878]

I am at a loss to understand why anyone would watch one of these games on TV, much less shell out money and time to go. I live out of market and canceled NBA League Pass! Because I refuse to spend hard earned money on a team that not only isn't winning but also isn't designed to win and by some accounts isn't trying to win. The NBA needs a new model, because their salary cap combined with the salary structure makes these Boom-bust cycles that just completely suck the life out of the game for a lot of fans.

 
Dont get me wrong its brutal to watch, but if you love the franchise its watchable.  I loved the 08 win, and I know I appreciated it much, much more because I followed this team closely during the ML Carr years, the Pitino years and eventually the Danny years. 
 
The key is not watching for wins and losses you need to look at other facets of the game.  For example, I love to watch Stevens development as a coach, and I am amazed at how well he has adjusted to the NBA game and how he has immediately gained the respect of the players and kept a team of misfits together and playing hard.  Thats an amazing feat for most coaches, and especially a coach who was in college last year.  Jordan Crawford is an amazing story, this is a guy who seemed like a me first, black hole chucker throughout his entire career and suddenly he is playing under control and disciplined basketball?  Watching Sully develop is just great stuff, I love watching guys go from confused rookie, to 'hey I can compete at this level', to 'I am a difference maker' to whatever their ceiling is.  Then there is the scouting and trading aspect of the rest of the team, trying to figure out what we have with these other pieces.  Is Olynyk ceiling just a 6th man or can he be a starter on a contending team?  Can Favs turn into a decent backup C?  Can Jeff Green look good enough that Danny can trade him for something of value?  Will Bass continue to look effective and might a contender give us anything of value for him?
 
This is what keeps me watching, but I am a Celtics diehard and basketball junkie.  That said, it probably takes a basketball or franchise junkie to watch and find this stuff interesting

 

[gmogmo]

5th worst record. Game and a half out of 3rd. Take your time Rajon.

 

[jimv]

I am at a loss to understand why anyone would watch one of these games on TV, much less shell out money and time to go. I live out of market and canceled NBA League Pass! Because I refuse to spend hard earned money on a team that not only isn't winning but also isn't designed to win and by some accounts isn't trying to win. The NBA needs a new model, because their salary cap combined with the salary structure makes these Boom-bust cycles that just completely suck the life out of the game for a lot of fans.

 
That's a legitimate point of view, but I'm a huge basketball fan (and NCAA hoops is mostly unwatchable now so I am forced to the NBA) and Celtics fan so I pay attention for the following reasons -

• To see some of the younger players - Sullinger has played very well, what's his ceiling? Can Jeff Green become more consistent? Will Olynyk (the Nowitzki of the summer league) show some flashes as the season progresses? Can Bradley make himself into a decent spot up shooter?
• Is Stevens a good coach? Can he keep a bad team motivated and focused through a long, losing season?
• see the other teams/athletes in the league.

To your other point, Its not just the salary cap/structure that leads to boom bust cycles. Maybe more important is the impact an MVP level player creates and their relative scarcity. With one you're a contender, without one you're flotsam and the search for one could take years (decades if you're the Bucks)

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Crawford has increased his assist rate by a fairly good margin this year, but the rest of his #s are pretty much where they've always been, aren't they?


Yeah, the Crawford rebirth story seems hugely overblown to me. He's filled in admirably running the point, but he's still forcing plenty of shots, and I suspect his assist rate will be back to his career levels once Rondo is back.

 

[bowiac]

Tom Ziller looks at tanking, and comes up an interesting way to look at it. He looks at how teams in the bottom 3 do in future years vs. teams on the cusp on the playoffs, and finds the teams that bottom out really do perform better (.530 to 550 winning % in years 3-5) than teams that don't (.466 to .510 winning %).
 
When I get a chance, I want to look at the same thing with more years included.

 

[wutang112878]

Crawford has increased his assist rate by a fairly good margin this year, but the rest of his #s are pretty much where they've always been, aren't they?

 
Not exactly.  His eFG% is 47.4% which isnt a huge upgrade over last years 47.2% but is a big jump from his career average of 45.3% which is dragged down by his first 2 years which were awful.  He is also getting to the line more so his TS% is 52.8% compared to 51.2% last year and a 49.6% career average
 
 

Yeah, the Crawford rebirth story seems hugely overblown to me. He's filled in admirably running the point, but he's still forcing plenty of shots, and I suspect his assist rate will be back to his career levels once Rondo is back.

 
Well, per 36 he is actually taking the least shots of his career 13.6 vs 16.1 career.  His turnover% is actually up a bit but I would argue its slightly a function of playing the point, when if anything he is probably a natural 2, and his assist to turnover of 2.63 would actually put him in the top 25 in A/TO last year and currently has him ranked 15th this year.  For a guy that isnt a point, I would argue that he is playing the role of a point pretty well.

 

[wutang112878]

Tom Ziller looks at tanking, and comes up an interesting way to look at it. He looks at how teams in the bottom 3 do in future years vs. teams on the cusp on the playoffs, and finds the teams that bottom out really do perform better (.530 to 550 winning % in years 3-5) than teams that don't (.466 to .510 winning %).
 
When I get a chance, I want to look at the same thing with more years included.

 
I couldnt agree more with the article title "Tank or not, it's about the quality of your GM and luck" especially because the statistical study is slanted by the fact that incompetent GMs and franchises end up in the top of the draft over and over.  Now it would be cherry picking, but if you took out awful franchises or adjusted for draft flops, I think the numbers would be even better.

 

[bowiac]

 
I couldnt agree more with the article title "Tank or not, it's about the quality of your GM and luck" especially because the statistical study is slanted by the fact that incompetent GMs and franchises end up in the top of the draft over and over.  Now it would be cherry picking, but if you took out awful franchises or adjusted for draft flops, I think the numbers would be even better.

Ok, but why would we do that? That's not removing weird outliers - that's removing key data points. Tanking always works except when it doesn't?

 

[The X Man Cometh]

Ok, but why would we do that? That's not removing weird outliers - that's removing key data points. Tanking always works except when it doesn't?

 
His point is that "data points" are individually a function of dependent variables (GM, coaching, organization) and independent ones (general randomness and unpredictability).
 
You can't predict the outcome of the Celtics picking in the lottery to the past outcomes of the Cavaliers picking the lottery, for example, since the Celtics (along with most NBA teams) have competencies the Cavs don't.

 

[bowiac]

 
His point is that "data points" are individually a function of dependent variables (GM, coaching, organization) and independent ones (general randomness and unpredictability).
 
You can't predict the outcome of the Celtics picking in the lottery to the past outcomes of the Cavaliers picking the lottery, for example, since the Celtics (along with most NBA teams) have competencies the Cavs don't.

Well, yes. This is true generally. There are well managed teams tanking, and bad ones, just as there as well managed teams just out of the playoffs and bad ones.

If you throw out the draft busts ("luck"), and the poorly managed teams ("quality of your GM"), then you're left with nothing. But it doesn't mean the study is "slanted" - the slants go both ways.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
Not exactly.  His eFG% is 47.4% which isnt a huge upgrade over last years 47.2% but is a big jump from his career average of 45.3% which is dragged down by his first 2 years which were awful.  He is also getting to the line more so his TS% is 52.8% compared to 51.2% last year and a 49.6% career average
 
 
 
Well, per 36 he is actually taking the least shots of his career 13.6 vs 16.1 career.  His turnover% is actually up a bit but I would argue its slightly a function of playing the point, when if anything he is probably a natural 2, and his assist to turnover of 2.63 would actually put him in the top 25 in A/TO last year and currently has him ranked 15th this year.  For a guy that isnt a point, I would argue that he is playing the role of a point pretty well.

 
I don't disagree with any of this, I just don't really buy the narrative that Stevens has turned Crawford into a completely new player, and so on. He's basically the same guy, he's just being asked to fill in as a point.

 

[allstonite]

Ok, but why would we do that? That's not removing weird outliers - that's removing key data points. Tanking always works except when it doesn't?

 
I think looking at this statistically isn't actually useful even though here it proves the point I agree with (pro-tanking at least for the Celtics this season). It's probably better looked at in a case by case basis to account for who is available in the draft, a particular team's cap situation, injuries, and front office. 
 
For example, if the Celtics started the tank going in to the most recent draft, I don't think nearly as many people would be excited. This is kind of a perfect storm for the Celtics to hopefully capitalize on. Extremely deep draft, Rondo coming off an injury, lots of tradeable contracts to free up space, Ainge is a very good GM. Things could well go wrong due to poor signings, injuries, or draft busts after this year but that could have happened no matter what strategy we used. I think the Celtics this year are closer to the 1997 Spurs tanking than the 2013 Cavs tanking. 

 

[Nick Kaufman]

His point is that "data points" are individually a function of dependent variables (GM, coaching, organization) and independent ones (general randomness and unpredictability).
 

 
I didn't read the article, but how on earth GM, coaching and organization are dependent variables? I can see coaching. But if you want to say that GM and organization are dependent variables, then you really have to set someone on top of them who is the independent variable. That while being accurate may not be necessary. The GM or the organization can serve as independent variables.

 

[Nick Kaufman]

Well, yes. This is true generally. There are well managed teams tanking, and bad ones, just as there as well managed teams just out of the playoffs and bad ones.
If you throw out the draft busts ("luck"), and the poorly managed teams ("quality of your GM"), then you're left with nothing. But it doesn't mean the study is "slanted" - the slants go both ways.

You can do the comparison, if you also throw out the middling teams which you also think have incompetent management. That would make it an apples to apples comparison, although it's not easy to establish an accurate metric of incompetence.

 

[Koufax]

 
When I get a chance, I want to look at the same thing with more years included.

Considering that it took the Bulls 7 years to win a championship after drafting Michael Jordan, yes a longer look would be warranted.

 

[The X Man Cometh]

Well, yes. This is true generally. There are well managed teams tanking, and bad ones, just as there as well managed teams just out of the playoffs and bad ones.
If you throw out the draft busts ("luck"), and the poorly managed teams ("quality of your GM"), then you're left with nothing. But it doesn't mean the study is "slanted" - the slants go both ways.

 
Well I'd argue that a study is pointless altogether since each data point is pretty much a unique situation.

 

[bowiac]

You can do the comparison, if you also throw out the middling teams which you also think have incompetent management. That would make it an apples to apples comparison, although it's not easy to establish an accurate metric of incompetence.

There's the chicken-egg issue you allude to here (what's bad management vs. a bad strategy vs. bad luck), plus there's the fact that we're tossing draft busts. If a team is trying to a do a Rockets-style rebuild, does it get to toss bad free agent signings?