An Interesting Article on "Tanking"

[KB21]

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/03/26/you-don%E2%80%99t-need-to-be-bad-to-be-good-in-the-nba-2/I've seen on the board several people talking about whether the Hawks should "rebuild", stick with the status quo, make a couple of minor moves, or make a major move going forward. I think this article sheds some light on what the Hawks should do in the long run.The data from this article is pretty hard to argue against. Teams that tank tend to not become excellent teams down the road. Most teams who are excellent teams, which is defined as 55+ wins in this article, were either close to being excellent (50+ wins) or pretty good teams (40-49 wins). The Hawks over the past 4 years, this year included, are averaging about 48 wins per season, or a 0.587 winning percentage over that span of time. This puts them at the upper limits of the "pretty good team" category and just a smidge below the "close to excellent" category. Now, let's go back in time. The Hawks from 1993-1998 won about 60% of their games. On average, they were a 49-50 win team during that time span of 5 years. They were a pretty good to close to excellent team that had a couple of excellent years in that span of time. The ownership and front office decided to dismantle that team. The general feeling was that age was taking its toll on the team, and that the upside of the team was limited at that point. Well, the dismantling of that team didn't bring a team with higher upside. What it did was build a team that won 19 fewer games.The data says that had the Hawks simply made a couple of minor moves or one big move on the team from the 1993-1998 span of time, they had about a 30% chance of becoming an excellent team. The mass changes that they made created a bad team though, and bad teams have between an 8-14% chance of becoming excellent teams based on the data.Now, the bad teams the Hawks had lead them to blowing up again. When they blew up after the 2003-2004 season, they became a very bad team. They also happened to be the unlucky worst team in the league that did not land the #1 overall pick, which would have lead to them getting Dwight Howard. Had the Hawks been able to get him, they would have likely been the 3rd team in this study to go from very bad to excellent. As it is, that is the luck of the lottery. Four years after tanking, this team was a 37 win team. They had a great chance of becoming a pretty good to excellent team a lot sooner had they made the correct draft pick in 2005. The Chris Paul nonpick continues to haunt Hawks fans, because had they drafted him, they likely would have had a +15-20 win difference over the next two seasons. As it is, the Hawks were still a bad team going into the 2008 draft and season. Unlike the previous instance though, they didn't decide to blow up that bad team. They looked at their roster, saw signs of improvement and progress, and decided to stick with it. Only this time, they made the correct draft choice in the draft. Al Horford was the difference in 37 wins and 47 wins. Now, what I take out of all of this. First, the Hawks actually made the right decision in not blowing things up after the 2007 season again. They instead did the unpopular thing and kept things relatively intact. They have done that over the course of the past four years as well, which has also been a relatively unpopular move. Second, what they need to do going forward is avoid rebuilding. This is still a relatively young basketball team with two players who are just entering their peak years of play in Al Horford and Josh Smith. A case can certainly be made that either a couple of minor moves (moving Marvin Williams or Jeff Teague) could be the difference in this team going from pretty good to excellent, or even making a major move such as trading Al or Josh for a strong piece to the puzzle.

[KB21]

http://www.thenbageek.com/articles/news-flash-tanking-isn-t-actually-a-problemThis is another good article that supports the article above, but it also absolutely torpedos a previous opinion that I had when it talks about the "Oklahoma City Thunder Model". What's interesting about that is that OKC is one of the more analytics oriented organizations out there that use the data available to them to optimize their money. I would have thought a stats oriented website like this one would find ways of promoting that "Model", but they make a great point. The bottom line is that you have to get quality players, whether it is via the draft, free agency, or trades.

[coachx]

The data says that had the Hawks simply made a couple of minor moves or one big move on the team from the 1993-1998 span of time, they had about a 30% chance of becoming an excellent team. The mass changes that they made created a bad team though, and bad teams have between an 8-14% chance of becoming excellent teams based on the data.

From 1993 -1998 the team weakness was SF. They brought in Ken Norman and Laphonso Ellis to hopefully upgrade that position but it did not work.After the 1998 season it was evident this team was done. Mookie was finished 2 years after being traded and Steve Smith was then a role player.........no longer was he that allstar SG capable of carrying a team with those knees.We can look at statistics all you want but when you look at the reality of the 1998 Hawks it was time to blow it up. Edited April 9, 2012 by coachx

[Sothron]

I've never blamed Pete for blowing up the Mookie/Smitty/Deke team because that sweep in the second round by the Knicks was eye opening. The only thing that went wrong was we didn't get enough quality back and a team that should have done well (Big Dog, SAR, Terry, Ratliff) just never worked out.I do agree though that this idea some of our fans here have about just blowing things up and blindly trusting in the lottery is just not going to cut it.

[Diesel]

From 1993 -1998 the team weakness was SF. They brought in Ken Norman and Laphonso Ellis to hopefully upgrade that position but it did not work.After the 1998 season it was evident this team was done. Mookie was finished 2 years after being traded and Steve Smith was then a role player.........no longer was he that allstar SG capable of carrying a team with those knees.We can look at statistics all you want but when you look at the reality of the 1998 Hawks it was time to blow it up.

That's not really a fair assessment of Smith. He was a role player because he went to teams that forced him to be. That PTL team was Stacked.. That San Antonio team was Duncan then Everybody else. Smitty was still a force when he played he was just not the offensive focus. That doesn't mean that he would have declined here. That's like saying if you put Josh on a team with Wade and Lebron.. that he would automatically start to decline. NO.. His role changed.

[coachx]

Dave Berri is brilliant sometimes, a dimwit other times. I think he is close to brilliant on this issue. The data simply do not show that lottery is a good idea. He probably needs to do a better job about the autoregressive processes that is team winning % over time because he is overstating his case when not accounting for this. But that is just a pedantic point, the data show that tanking is not a good strategy. There has to be some other outside factor involved that would make tanking a good idea for a team that is not already horrible. Those are few and far between.

The only example I can think of is when a star player is injured for only 1 year. Example - David Robinson injury allowing the Spurs to get Tim Duncan. I'm not saying the Spurs "tanked" on purpose though......just that would be a prime example of when it could be beneficial.

[AHF]

I think the argument for tanking comes roughly from the idea that you need a lottery pick to acquire your best player. The following teams in italics didn't acquire their best player with the use of a lottery pick:

Year -- Champion -- Top Draft Player

2011 -- Dallas - Lottery drafted Dirk Nowitzki Finals MVP

2009 & 2010 -- LA Lakers - Non-lottery Kobe Finals MVP

2008 - Boston - Lottery drafted Paul Pierce Finals MVP; Lottery drafted Kevin Garnett acquired by C's trading lottery pick, player picked in lottery and other assets

2007 - San Antonio - Lottery drafted Tim Duncan best player

2006 - Miami Heat - Lottery drafted Dwayne Wade was Finals MVP (Shaq is acceptable answer here, acquired for 3 lottery drafted players)

2005 - San Antonio - Lottery drafted Tim Duncan best player

2004 - Pistons

2003 - San Antonio - Lottery drafted Tim Duncan best player

2000 - 2002 - LA - Free agent signed Shaq

1999 - San Antonio - Lottery drafted Tim Duncan best player (David Robinson also acceptable answer and #1 pick)

1996 - 1998 - Chicago Bulls - Lottery drafted Michael Jordan best player

1994 - 1995 - Houston Rockets - Lottery drafted Hakeem best player

1991 - 1993 - Chicago Bulls - Lottery drafted Michael Jordan best player

1989 - 1990 - Detroit Pistons - Lottery drafted Isiah Thomas best player

1987 - 1988 - LA - Lottery drafted Magic Johnson best player

1986 - Boston - Lottery drafted Larry Bird best player

1985 - LA - Lottery drafted Magic Johnson best player

1984 - Boston - Lottery drafted Larry Bird best player

1983 - Philly - Lottery drafted Moses Malone best player acquired by trading lottery pick

1982 - LA - Lottery drafted Magic Johnson best player

1981 - Boston - Lottery drafted Larry Bird best player

So for the last 30 years (I am double counting for Shaq/Wade):

8 Champions didn't use a draft pick to acquire their best player (2010, 2009, 2006, 2004, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1983) / 23 Champions did use a lottery pick to acquire their best player

7 Champions didn't draft their best player themselves (2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1983) / 24 Champions drafted their best player themselves

1 Champion wasn't led by a dominant player (2004) / 29 Champions led by dominant players

Moving from good to great, etc. tends to be a different discussion than the characteristics of NBA champions. Champions tend to be led by a dazzlingly elite player.

I get why people think that you need to do whatever you can to maximize your chances of getting that dominant player but agree that teams will tend to lose more games and face steeper challenges to improve long-term if they tank. But the point of the article about being a team bent on mediocrity should be qualified. No team has gone from mediocre to champion over the last 30 years without the benefit of a dominant player other than the Pistons. That means there is a big difference from being mediocre with Dwayne Wade or Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan, etc. and being mediocre with your best player being someone like Joe Johnson, Luis Scola, Vin Baker, etc. if your end game is a championship.

[AHF]

I don't get the fascination with only the champions count. Really, so long as you are in the top 4 you have a pretty good shot at winning it all. I feel the same way with all other sports. Its like a Highlander phenomenon, "there can only be ONE!" where I think eh...the difference in winning isn't really that great. I don't think I would say the C-Webb Kings or Sheed Trail Blazers were failures but rather some very very very good teams that could have easily won the whole thing had a few bounces gone their way.The Berri article seems to have my same sentiments because he is looking at total wins and not simply "well it only counts if you win it all". I understand people will still have the metric of "win it all" and I see where it is very important, I just think it is overemphasized and you lose out on a lot of other information.

I get that and think it is a valid perspective to a point. Sacto or Portland winning it all would have made it 2 out of 30 which probably goes to why we didn't actually see it happen. Other than Detroit, the last team without that dominating player was coached by Lenny Wilkens and featured Paul Silas and Jack Sikma (playing not on the coaching staff). I do think there is validity to recognizing the value in being a playoff team. As long as the ASG own this team, we are at our peak and might as well enjoy it and see the good in Josh blossoming, etc. rather than focus on the fact that Lebron, Dwight, etc. don't look our way when free agency calls.

[KB21]

Sad but true about the A$G. When it gets to game time I become a fan and believe that we can win any game no matter what (implying we could go 66-0), but when I take a step back and look at the team I recognize we are peaking. As currently constructed, we will only get slightly better. Even with a healthy Al it doesn't seem like we have a strong shot at a title.We need some changes. I'm not sure if it can be a small change or needs to be a major change. The one thing I am certain of is that the A$G have less of a clue than me but probably believe they have the answer. We are doomed because of how the A$G operates.On a sidenote, I think the A$G has officially dropped the "group" and just gone to "Atlanta Spirit". Its just not as snazzy to put A$, maybe we can come up with a word that starts with an S to complete their new name? Atlanta Spirit S**theads?

As far as this team peaking, if that is the case, then I think it is an artificial peak that is imposed by financial constraints and ultimately Joe Johnson's contract. Even if that contract were for $5 million less than what it is on a yearly basis, it would give the team much more room to breath under that luxury tax. While fans like to rail on the AS because they do not seem to be willing to pay the tax, I think you are going to see more teams try to stay under that threshold when the new penalties come about after the '13-'14 season. You would just about have to be a fool to pay the penalty at that point.Considering that Josh Smith is 26 years old and Al Horford in 25 years old, I do not believe by any means that either one of them have met their peak yet. IMO, the peak years for an athlete are when they hit the age of 27 and last till around 30 years of age. After that, you see a decline in overall athleticism. Last year, Al Horford was one of the 15 on the All NBA Team, and this year, Jason Walker has made an excellent case for Josh Smith to be one of those 15. With a healthy Horford, the Hawks could potentially have two potential All NBA players. The Hawks have won roughly 60% of their games this season without Al Horford. Considering that according to wins produced, Al Horford has contributed somewhere between 10-11 wins a season over the past two seasons. Obviously, this doesn't mean that by just adding Al, the Hawks will have 10-11 more wins than they have this year. The wins that Zaza have helped create this year would be diminished some because he wouldn't be getting as much time. What I think we have stumbled upon without Al this year though is the fact that Zaza is indeed a very, very good back up center.

[Diesel]

I think the argument for tanking comes roughly from the idea that you need a lottery pick to acquire your best player. The following teams in italics didn't acquire their best player with the use of a lottery pick:

Year -- Champion -- Top Draft Player

2011 -- Dallas - Lottery drafted Dirk Nowitzki Finals MVP

2009 & 2010 -- LA Lakers - Non-lottery Kobe Finals MVP

2008 - Boston - Lottery drafted Paul Pierce Finals MVP; Lottery drafted Kevin Garnett acquired by C's trading lottery pick, player picked in lottery and other assets

2007 - San Antonio - Lottery drafted Tim Duncan best player

2006 - Miami Heat - Lottery drafted Dwayne Wade was Finals MVP (Shaq is acceptable answer here, acquired for 3 lottery drafted players)

2005 - San Antonio - Lottery drafted Tim Duncan best player

2004 - Pistons

2003 - San Antonio - Lottery drafted Tim Duncan best player

2000 - 2002 - LA - Free agent signed Shaq

1999 - San Antonio - Lottery drafted Tim Duncan best player (David Robinson also acceptable answer and #1 pick)

1996 - 1998 - Chicago Bulls - Lottery drafted Michael Jordan best player

1994 - 1995 - Houston Rockets - Lottery drafted Hakeem best player

1991 - 1993 - Chicago Bulls - Lottery drafted Michael Jordan best player

1989 - 1990 - Detroit Pistons - Lottery drafted Isiah Thomas best player

1987 - 1988 - LA - Lottery drafted Magic Johnson best player

1986 - Boston - Lottery drafted Larry Bird best player

1985 - LA - Lottery drafted Magic Johnson best player

1984 - Boston - Lottery drafted Larry Bird best player

1983 - Philly - Lottery drafted Moses Malone best player acquired by trading lottery pick

1982 - LA - Lottery drafted Magic Johnson best player

1981 - Boston - Lottery drafted Larry Bird best player

So for the last 30 years (I am double counting for Shaq/Wade):

8 Champions didn't use a draft pick to acquire their best player (2010, 2009, 2006, 2004, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1983) / 23 Champions did use a lottery pick to acquire their best player

7 Champions didn't draft their best player themselves (2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1983) / 24 Champions drafted their best player themselves

1 Champion wasn't led by a dominant player (2004) / 29 Champions led by dominant players

Moving from good to great, etc. tends to be a different discussion than the characteristics of NBA champions. Champions tend to be led by a dazzlingly elite player.

I get why people think that you need to do whatever you can to maximize your chances of getting that dominant player but agree that teams will tend to lose more games and face steeper challenges to improve long-term if they tank. But the point of the article about being a team bent on mediocrity should be qualified. No team has gone from mediocre to champion over the last 30 years without the benefit of a dominant player other than the Pistons. That means there is a big difference from being mediocre with Dwayne Wade or Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan, etc. and being mediocre with your best player being someone like Joe Johnson, Luis Scola, Vin Baker, etc. if your end game is a championship.

Not to discount anything. but Philly with Moses Malone is actually not accurate. Philly got Moses from Houston via trade.

Moreover, it's hard to say what best player can't take his team to the championship.

Before a few years ago, Dirk's name would be right beside Joe's on your list. Everybody new that Dirk was soft and even though he was a great scorer, he didn't have what it took to take a team anywhere... However, Dirk's GM built a team around him that could get it done.

You're not famous until you're famous is the adage that I think you're using here. Getting to the Finals is a matter of all the right things happening. Until that happens for a team, it's hard to say that their players are or are not championship quality.

For instance, if we win the finals this year, people will point to either Joe or Josh Smith as being a championship player.

The interesting part is that for the argument, they didn't become championship quality until they actually won the championship.

[NineOhTheRino]

Same topic from NBA today:http://c.espnradio.com/audio/920029/nbatoday_2012-03-28-125929.48.mp3

Edited April 10, 2012 by NineOhTheRino