NBA Fixing the NBA

[spursistan]

By being so brazen and in-your-face with his tanking, that prick Danny Ainge is going to ruin it all for all small market teams by prompting the league to choke off their only real avenue to get elite talent. He could have traded his precious veterans and tanked organically and no one will blame him for it, but his self-importance and obsession to bleed dry his counterpart GMs in trades has led him down this disgraceful path of going about it, which has brought unnecessary extra scrutiny of the issue.. Genuinely can't wait for this overrated geezer to retire or get run out of front office.

 

[Sugus]

By being so brazen and in-your-face with his tanking, that prick Danny Ainge is going ruin it all for all small market teams by prompting the league to choke off their only real avenue to get elite talent. He could have traded his precious veterans and tanked organically and no one will blame him for it, but his self-importance and obsession to bleed dry his counterpart GMs in trades has led him down this disgraceful path of going about it, which has brought unnecessary extra scrutiny of the issue.. Genuinely can't wait for this overrated geezer to retire or get run out of front office.

Yep, he's the classic "you just had to fuck it up for everyone" poster boy. Could've gracefully shipped out Lauri after giving him the fat contract he deserved, and nobody would've even noticed the coach was sitting players in the 4th. Hell, the Kings spent a full year under Mike Brown complaining that he was actively sitting their "best player" and nobody cared

But stars just can't be sat like that, and the league made that pretty explicit with their whole Player Participation Policy shtick. You just couldn't take the hint, Danny boy.......

 

[spursistan]

Yep, he's the classic "you just had to fuck it up for everyone" poster boy. Could've gracefully shipped out Lauri after giving him the fat contract he deserved, and nobody would've even noticed the coach was sitting players in the 4th. Hell, the Kings spent a full year under Mike Brown complaining that he was actively sitting their "best player" and nobody cared

But stars just can't be sat like that, and the league made that pretty explicit with their whole Player Participation Policy shtick. You just couldn't take the hint, Danny boy.......

Exactly, that's why I'm just glad the Spurs are already done drafting their future core before some of these outlandish ideas bandied about that draft, which mostly gonna constrict the bad, small market teams' ability to acquire elite young talent, go into effect. Adam Silver sounded pissed and definitely gonna do something drastic because Ainge jumped the shark and brought bad press.

 

[scott]

Yep, he's the classic "you just had to fuck it up for everyone" poster boy. Could've gracefully shipped out Lauri after giving him the fat contract he deserved, and nobody would've even noticed the coach was sitting players in the 4th. Hell, the Kings spent a full year under Mike Brown complaining that he was actively sitting their "best player" and nobody cared

But stars just can't be sat like that, and the league made that pretty explicit with their whole Player Participation Policy shtick. You just couldn't take the hint, Danny boy.......

But think about what we're talking about here. The league is upset because the Jazz didn't make their product shitty enough?

You bring up the Player Participation Policy... but the Jazz aren't actually in violation of it (the Pacers were found to be, however). The Jazz have complied with the Policy, and now the league has realized they didn't write the Policy robust enough, because the Jazz have done what eventually happens in all heavily regulated activity (sports, industry, etc)... he's found the way to take it right up to the edge. That's why the league had to fine them under the vague "Conduct Detrimental to the League".

No matter what the league does, a team will ALWAYS find a way to take it right to the edge. This happens in every sport, and is typically the basis for rule changes - teams figuring out how to legally exploit the rules until someone complains. F1 is the most egregious of all sports at this.

 

[scott]

Does "the way it works now" include what the Jazz are doing? If so - then it absolutely can't stay that way. There have always (and will always) be questions about the "integrity of the game", but having teams actively throw games in plain daylight is a blemish on the league - and a terrible product for them to put out, as far as their intere$$$ts go.

The gambling genie is out of the bottle, they're probably not reversing that shit anytime soon. So the next best thing is to address the only thing (sans the Clippers saga) which threatens the league's reputation/integrity, and that's tanking. Whether they put a Wheel, or do some scoring system, or make rookies FAs or whatever, the system as it stands is being shamelessly exploited and the owners aren't going with it.

You're 100% right in that the Spurs showed how it should work, which is why I think beyond any actual changes, Silver would be stupid not to send some internal memo on "hey, we understand middling teams have a strategic investment in drafting high, but there's an Acceptable way to go about it, and These Examples [123] Ain't It". Keep it in house, make some public gesture, move on.

To answer your first question... yes. I personally don't see what the Jazz are doing now as any different than what the Spurs did when they completely gutted their roster in a complete tear down. The Jazz are probably going to win more games this season than the Spurs did in the years they tanked for Wemby and Castle. Not a single person here thought the Spurs were threatening the integrity of the game. You saying teams are actively throwing games in plain daylight... the Spurs actively threw away two entire seasons in plain daylight (and multiple teams did the same, for even longer periods).

If they don't like the way the Jazz are doing it, then modify the player participation policy to address that. Right now, the Jazz aren't actually violating it.

But at the end of the day, basketball is a sport where elite talent has a disproportionate impact on team success. It is the most individual team sport I can think of (meaning that a single individual can impact team success). And for small markets especially, we know the only way to get elite talent is through the draft. As Spurs fans, we should be more aware of this than anyone.

At the end of the day, I think this is all really about degenerate gamblers having their stupid little games messed up, which I frankly could not give a shit about. But I've yet to hear a compelling argument why the Spurs way of tanking is better than the 2025-26 Jazz way of tanking. Both had the objective of losing games, and they are both achieving that objective. The only difference is one team gave up before the season started whereas the other is giving up after the 3rd quarter. I don't see one as more noble than the other.

 

[scott]

I'll go as far to predict this - what ever "fixes" that are put in place, will most likely be to the detriment of the small market team if the "fixes" take away a teams ability to bottom out and control their own destiny - and as a fan of a small market team, I am 100% against any system that does this.

I'm not against thinking of fixes - I just haven't heard one yet that doesn't harm the smallest market teams. I don't like flattened odds for two reasons 1) it actually incentivizes less competition, not more and would result in most teams being mediocre and having a handful of good teams and 2) it would remove control from teams to "bottom out" and instead put their ability to improve via drafting elite talent completely subject to chance. I personally do not like these things, but that's just my opinion.

I haven't read this lengthy article by Sam Quinn yet, but it is on my agenda so I'm sharing it and maybe we can all read at the same time and it can inspire some more thought and discussion:

How can the NBA stop tanking? Breaking down the internet's craziest solutions -- and why most would never work

Tanking is the talk of the season, even Adam Silver, but no one has an answer

www.cbssports.com

 

[Sugus]

But think about what we're talking about here. The league is upset because the Jazz didn't make their product shitty enough?

You bring up the Player Participation Policy... but the Jazz aren't actually in violation of it (the Pacers were found to be, however). The Jazz have complied with the Policy, and now the league has realized they didn't write the Policy robust enough, because the Jazz have done what eventually happens in all heavily regulated activity (sports, industry, etc)... he's found the way to take it right up to the edge. That's why the league had to fine them under the vague "Conduct Detrimental to the League".

No - the league is upset because a team is taking measures to tank that go beyond plausible deniability in their effort to lose games. On a fundamentally competitive league (one without relegations, at that!), that's just a sin.

I only brought up PPP as an example of the league having recently taken very direct measures to ensure that star players actually play in their games; even if the Jazz sitting Lauri in the 4th doesn't explicitly break the words of the rule, it certainly breaks their spirit. Adam Silver is a lawyer, you ain't beating him at his own game and I think the Jazz are soon to find that out.

No matter what the league does, a team will ALWAYS find a way to take it right to the edge. This happens in every sport, and is typically the basis for rule changes - teams figuring out how to legally exploit the rules until someone complains. F1 is the most egregious of all sports at this.

Nobody's against that, though, which is why the Spurs received zero punishment for their smart-tank. But you simply cannot break the competitive nature of the game, moreso with Gambling Money on the table. It's funny - I remember we discussed "what exactly is tanking" at length in Spurstalk when the Spurs traded DJ (which was obviously tanking, yet many users argued wasn't - IMO, in an attempt to not give credit to PATFO for a very well-executed strat). And with this debacle, we're actually getting a very straight answer as to what you CAN do to tank, and what you can't.

 

[Sugus]

To answer your first question... yes. I personally don't see what the Jazz are doing now as any different than what the Spurs did when they completely gutted their roster in a complete tear down.

Well, the league is plainly telling you what the difference is - you're allowed to field out a team full of scrubs, with 0 chances of winning..... As long as they actually "try" and give effort. Absolutely nobody would be after the Jazz if they were sitting Doug McDermott in the 4th, like the Kings with Keon Ellis or dozens of other examples. The Spurs played it perfect - ship out the winning players, trot out Forbes-Beli-Patty, and let the chips fall "naturally".

If they don't like the way the Jazz are doing it, then modify the player participation policy to address that. Right now, the Jazz aren't actually violating it.

But at the end of the day, basketball is a sport where elite talent has a disproportionate impact on team success. It is the most individual team sport I can think of (meaning that a single individual can impact team success). And for small markets especially, we know the only way to get elite talent is through the draft. As Spurs fans, we should be more aware of this than anyone.

At the end of the day, I think this is all really about degenerate gamblers having their stupid little games messed up, which I frankly could not give a shit about. But I've yet to hear a compelling argument why the Spurs way of tanking is better than the 2025-26 Jazz way of tanking. Both had the objective of losing games, and they are both achieving that objective. The only difference is one team gave up before the season started whereas the other is giving up after the 3rd quarter. I don't see one as more noble than the other.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe tanking is necessary and has a place in the league - for big and small markets alike. The wheels fall out sometime for everyone. But the same way decorum is a social construct, the illusion of competitiveness (cough, Stern and his "Lakers Vs Lakers" comment) is a construct, and the NBA is showing its teeth and marking the sand over it.

Fully agree about the gamblers - I said it before these articles came out, but it's obvious the gambling was a major factor. You know the saying, once money's on the line..... Shit gets serious.

 

[Sugus]

I'll go as far to predict this - what ever "fixes" that are put in place, will most likely be to the detriment of the small market team if the "fixes" take away a teams ability to bottom out and control their own destiny - and as a fan of a small market team, I am 100% against any system that does this.

I'm not against thinking of fixes - I just haven't heard one yet that doesn't harm the smallest market teams. I don't like flattened odds for two reasons 1) it actually incentivizes less competition, not more and would result in most teams being mediocre and having a handful of good teams and 2) it would remove control from teams to "bottom out" and instead put their ability to improve via drafting elite talent completely subject to chance. I personally do not like these things, but that's just my opinion.

I haven't read this lengthy article by Sam Quinn yet, but it is on my agenda so I'm sharing it and maybe we can all read at the same time and it can inspire some more thought and discussion:

How can the NBA stop tanking? Breaking down the internet's craziest solutions -- and why most would never work

Tanking is the talk of the season, even Adam Silver, but no one has an answer

www.cbssports.com

Sorry to multi-quote you, lol, but I do like the discussion, it's a very interesting topic which ties into Game Theory mathematics and such.

The flattened odds have very visibly exacerbated the problem (wasn't the stat that a non-top 4 team has jumped into the lottery every single year since the flattening?), and I do think reversing them back (and even making them even more "lopsided" in favor of record) would be a big positive at this point. That way, at least the middling teams - who already haven't tanked "the right way" - aren't quite so tempted to go for a tank post-ASB. I agree with you that the fixes don't have to be big -- and I believe Silver being internally explicit and clear about some "Jordan Rules" on tanking would also go a long way.

At the end of the day, small market teams without a superstar will forever be forced to field non-competitive teams to some degree -- you can't simply punish them for that. So that gives you a blueprint... That San Antonio has repeatedly executed to great effect. I don't believe the NBA rigged the Wemby lottery...... But after last year's Mavs win, I'm not so sure anymore - and having the Commish have an active hand in this (e.g. Stern blocking the CP3 trade for "basketball reasons", just with punishing overtly tanking teams) may be all that's needed.

You know, punish one team and make an example, scare all of 'em straight.... Or something. Would love to see the Jazz have their pick sent back into the non-lottery, for example.

 

[scott]

No - the league is upset because a team is taking measures to tank that go beyond plausible deniability in their effort to lose games. On a fundamentally competitive league (one without relegations, at that!), that's just a sin.

I only brought up PPP as an example of the league having recently taken very direct measures to ensure that star players actually play in their games; even if the Jazz sitting Lauri in the 4th doesn't explicitly break the words of the rule, it certainly breaks their spirit. Adam Silver is a lawyer, you ain't beating him at his own game and I think the Jazz are soon to find that out.


Nobody's against that, though, which is why the Spurs received zero punishment for their smart-tank. But you simply cannot break the competitive nature of the game, moreso with Gambling Money on the table. It's funny - I remember we discussed "what exactly is tanking" at length in Spurstalk when the Spurs traded DJ (which was obviously tanking, yet many users argued wasn't - IMO, in an attempt to not give credit to PATFO for a very well-executed strat). And with this debacle, we're actually getting a very straight answer as to what you CAN do to tank, and what you can't.

Plausible deniability? Look at the 2022-23 Spurs roster and tell me whether their plausible deniability comes from? There is no serious basketball person on the planet who would look at that and think the Spurs were doing anything other than tanking. There is no real plausible deniability here... only people who want to pretend there is.

You say "you ain't beating Silver at his own game" - but he's literally being beaten at it right now, which is why this is a topic. If he's some genius Super Lawyer, he would have seen this coming, because it's pretty predictable (and what the Jazz are doing isn't even new! Pop used to come out with "creative" 4th quarter rotations and lineups when we were tanking as well).

This "but they are violating the spirit!" stuff is stupid to me. If you want the rule to be that you can't sit guys in the 4th quarter... just make that the rule. We shouldn't have the actual rules and then the "spirit of the rules" which teams are supposed to inherently understand.

But when I said "I like the way things work now" - that also includes teams getting fined. The league does have a purposely vague "conduct detrimental to the league" tool at it's disposal (which is what the Jazz got fined for). Silver has used that. We'll see if that changes the Jazz behavior. If it does... problem solved, why do we need to do anything else?

And while I understand that gambling is part of the equation, any arguments that have to do with the sanctity of gambling are not compelling to me. The way the league has gotten in bed with gambling is a complete joke, and does more to harm the integrity of the game than any tank job ever has.

Well, the league is plainly telling you what the difference is - you're allowed to field out a team full of scrubs, with 0 chances of winning..... As long as they actually "try" and give effort. Absolutely nobody would be after the Jazz if they were sitting Doug McDermott in the 4th, like the Kings with Keon Ellis or dozens of other examples. The Spurs played it perfect - ship out the winning players, trot out Forbes-Beli-Patty, and let the chips fall "naturally".


Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe tanking is necessary and has a place in the league - for big and small markets alike. The wheels fall out sometime for everyone. But the same way decorum is a social construct, the illusion of competitiveness (cough, Stern and his "Lakers Vs Lakers" comment) is a construct, and the NBA is showing its teeth and marking the sand over it.

Fully agree about the gamblers - I said it before these articles came out, but it's obvious the gambling was a major factor. You know the saying, once money's on the line..... Shit gets serious.

Yes, I understand what the league is telling me... and I'm responding that to me it all rings hollow because it's complete bullshit. As a fan, I'd rather come watch Lauri, Keyonte George and JJJ play for 3 quarters than have to endure 1, let alone 82, games of a Keita Bates-Diop/Malaki BranhamZach Collins/Devonte Graham/Tre Jones starting lineup (which yes, actually did happen... ironically in a 142-134 OT win to snap a 6 game losing streak... here's the box score if you want to relive the magic... https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/202304020SAC.html - at least it was a cool Julian breakout game).

But let's face it, they are both shams. That we value one sham over the other is fucking stupid, and I'd climb up on a step stool and tell Adam Silver that to his face if he were in the same room as me

If we are valuing one sham over the other because we've crawled into bed because of gambling, then so be it... but that doesn't make it any less of a sham.

 

[spurraider21]

a harsh anti-tanking policy would punish teams that wisely want to turn the page on an aging star and sending him to a would-becontender where he'd be of more value. it would mean the spurs trading derrick white or dejounte murray would be disfavored, and the spurs would have committed years to building a winner around that backcourt.

i dont think you can or should stop teams from resetting and rebuilding. i think what the league wants to avoid are the in-season or in the exteme scenarios, the in-game anti-competitive nature of tanking, where teams sit healthy players and basically throw games. you can throw a season, and the fans are well aware of what the team is doing. but when you throw games and bench healthy players, its a problem, and fans are potentially deceived.

 

[scott]

Sorry to multi-quote you, lol, but I do like the discussion, it's a very interesting topic which ties into Game Theory mathematics and such.

The flattened odds have very visibly exacerbated the problem (wasn't the stat that a non-top 4 team has jumped into the lottery every single year since the flattening?), and I do think reversing them back (and even making them even more "lopsided" in favor of record) would be a big positive at this point. That way, at least the middling teams - who already haven't tanked "the right way" - aren't quite so tempted to go for a tank post-ASB. I agree with you that the fixes don't have to be big -- and I believe Silver being internally explicit and clear about some "Jordan Rules" on tanking would also go a long way.

At the end of the day, small market teams without a superstar will forever be forced to field non-competitive teams to some degree -- you can't simply punish them for that. So that gives you a blueprint... That San Antonio has repeatedly executed to great effect. I don't believe the NBA rigged the Wemby lottery...... But after last year's Mavs win, I'm not so sure anymore - and having the Commish have an active hand in this (e.g. Stern blocking the CP3 trade for "basketball reasons", just with punishing overtly tanking teams) may be all that's needed.

You know, punish one team and make an example, scare all of 'em straight.... Or something. Would love to see the Jazz have their pick sent back into the non-lottery, for example.

Yeah, I love the conversation too and please don't take anything I'm saying personal. It's a fun conversation and I'm just sharing my opinion and understand everyone is going to have different opinions.

The reason I say I like the way it is now (including fining teams if you need to) is mostly because I have yet to see a better solution that doesn't have negative unintended consequences.

 

[Sugus]

Yeah, I love the conversation too and please don't take anything I'm saying personal. It's a fun conversation and I'm just sharing my opinion and understand everyone is going to have different opinions.

The reason I say I like the way it is now (including fining teams if you need to) is mostly because I have yet to see a better solution that doesn't have negative unintended consequences.

It's all good, don't worry, truly one of the more interesting discussions about the NBA as a product.

You actually brought up a good point as to why the system doesn't work well, the fines; does anyone really believe fining an NBA team (every one of them owned by a single, or collective, Billionaire) a meager amount is bound to have a serious effect? What's the saying - laws are rules for the poor, but suggestions for the rich? The Fakers have just been bought for 10 Billion dollars... Just how much do you have to fine an owner of these pocket sizes for them to be deterred? It's asinine (and impracticable - you could never get a "fair sum" that both scares the Big Pockets teams, without absolutely nuking the smaller markets... Make it a % of their revenue, maybe? But that brings problems of its own).

I don't recall who said it, but the argument with the fines was put forth - the potential value that landing a Wemby-level prospect can have in terms of boosting a franchises' Jersey Sales, social media views, popularity and relevance...... Who wouldn't pay $750k for Wemby, tbh? Hell, the Knicks would pony up several hundred millions just for the chance to buy him from us outright. So if teams see a Wemby in the next draft... What's the dollar amount to make them too scared to go for it, tbh? It's just one of those "some things are worth more than money" situation, and teams are very aware of it now.

With all that said...... God, would I like to see a news drop of the Jazz being fined an astronomical amount

 

[Seventyniner]

But let's face it, they are both shams. That we value one sham over the other is fucking stupid, and I'd climb up on a step stool and tell Adam Silver that to his face if he were in the same room as me

If we are valuing one sham over the other because we've crawled into bed because of gambling, then so be it... but that doesn't make it any less of a sham.

In the eyes of the gambling companies, what separates the two types of tank is advance knowledge. This is why the league is now requiring teams to do so much more injury reporting.

When a team tears everything down, everyone knows they will be bad before the season even starts. When the Jazz build a lead and then tank only the 4th quarter, it throws off anyone who bet on the game, especially with regard to player props, score by quarter and so on.

I agree that both types of tanking are still tanking, and neither is more ethical than the other. Also that gambling has way too prominent a place in the league.

 

[Sugus]

Plausible deniability? Look at the 2022-23 Spurs roster and tell me whether their plausible deniability comes from? There is no serious basketball person on the planet who would look at that and think the Spurs were doing anything other than tanking.

I mean, it really comes down to what we define as "tanking", which we discussed at length back in the day. I try to make a semantic distinction between a "good tank" (FO driven, like that Spurs team) vs a "bad tank" (basically throwing games like the Jazz). But it's obviously not a universal law or anything. At its core though, I do believe a distinction has to be made, because you simply cannot force a small-market team to field a winning team. What'chu gonna do, gift them some good FAs and tell them "go get 'em boys!"? so it's obviously a nuanced topic. I find a significant difference between the Good and Bad tanks, myself.

You say "you ain't beating Silver at his own game" - but he's literally being beaten at it right now, which is why this is a topic. If he's some genius Super Lawyer, he would have seen this coming, because it's pretty predictable (and what the Jazz are doing isn't even new! Pop used to come out with "creative" 4th quarter rotations and lineups when we were tanking as well).

Well, it's TBD at this point - we don't know whether Silver hands out an actual punishment or not. He specifically said during his A.S.W. conference that "he has very wide powers granted to him by the CBA and the Governors", so if he feels like the Jazz continue to "misbehave", he may continue to meddle with them. And besides - if he forces a rule change for next season, it's more of a "fool me once..." situation; Ainge "beat him" now, and he'll be damned before letting it happen again.

Yes, I understand what the league is telling me... and I'm responding that to me it all rings hollow because it's complete bullshit. As a fan, I'd rather come watch Lauri, Keyonte George and JJJ play for 3 quarters than have to endure 1, let alone 82, games of a Keita Bates-Diop/Malaki BranhamZach Collins/Devonte Graham/Tre Jones starting lineup (which yes, actually did happen... ironically in a 142-134 OT win to snap a 6 game losing streak... here's the box score if you want to relive the magic... https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/202304020SAC.html - at least it was a cool Julian breakout game).

But let's face it, they are both shams. That we value one sham over the other is fucking stupid, and I'd climb up on a step stool and tell Adam Silver that to his face if he were in the same room as me

If we are valuing one sham over the other because we've crawled into bed because of gambling, then so be it... but that doesn't make it any less of a sham.

Ehh, you say that and I believe you, but - how quickly would you grow frustrated at the team consistently sitting these players in the 4th? I can't imagine many more wasteful uses of my time than catching a game that my team is literally going to throw away. With the Branham's and Jones' of the league, there's that plausible deniability that you're "developing the youth" and "building to the future"......

.....And to its credit, I absolutely sat my way through dozens of masochistic Forbes-Mills-Beli games, so it's not bullshit I wouldn't have cared to turn on the games if I knew they would throw the game. Think it over -- NO competitive endings, NO comebacks in the 4th, no nothing - the coach will throw the game. Who in their right mind would tune into that, tbh?

 

[scott]

It's all good, don't worry, truly one of the more interesting discussions about the NBA as a product.

You actually brought up a good point as to why the system doesn't work well, the fines; does anyone really believe fining an NBA team (every one of them owned by a single, or collective, Billionaire) a meager amount is bound to have a serious effect? What's the saying - laws are rules for the poor, but suggestions for the rich? The Fakers have just been bought for 10 Billion dollars... Just how much do you have to fine an owner of these pocket sizes for them to be deterred? It's asinine (and impracticable - you could never get a "fair sum" that both scares the Big Pockets teams, without absolutely nuking the smaller markets... Make it a % of their revenue, maybe? But that brings problems of its own).

I don't recall who said it, but the argument with the fines was put forth - the potential value that landing a Wemby-level prospect can have in terms of boosting a franchises' Jersey Sales, social media views, popularity and relevance...... Who wouldn't pay $750k for Wemby, tbh? Hell, the Knicks would pony up several hundred millions just for the chance to buy him from us outright. So if teams see a Wemby in the next draft... What's the dollar amount to make them too scared to go for it, tbh? It's just one of those "some things are worth more than money" situation, and teams are very aware of it now.

With all that said...... God, would I like to see a news drop of the Jazz being fined an astronomical amount

That's a really good point, but I think there is clearly some breaking point. One one hand, these guys are billionaires... on the other hand we see the Spurs selling SRPs every year so obviously $500k means more to some teams than it does to others.

From a game theory perspective, you need to take into account the probabilities here. Would the Jazz pay $500k for a 100% chance to get a game-changing prospect? Of course. Would they pay that for a 14% chance? A 1% chance? At some point, the answer is probably no...

But I do think there is a simpler solution, just make it clear to the Jazz "hey, you can't do that. We are hitting you with a $500k fine. Next time it will be $2MM. And after that your pick will be dropped to #9 (and convey to LAC)". I don't like that there is this idea that the Jazz violated some unwritten rule and thus must be punished. Unwritten rules are stupid, IMO, just make them written.

I've spent my entire career in various highly regulated industries and a saying that I've always used (and I am going to take credit for coming up with on my own) - regulations are the playbook to profitability. Businessmen like to complain about regulations, but those regulations create barriers to entry and without them they'd be forced to participate in a much more competitive environment where profits would be reduced. I like rules, because learning the rules is how I can devise a strategy on how to win. What I don't like are being told there are rules that I didn't know about, or having the rules change on me halfway through the game.

 

[scott]

In the eyes of the gambling companies, what separates the two types of tank is advance knowledge. This is why the league is now requiring teams to do so much more injury reporting.

When a team tears everything down, everyone knows they will be bad before the season even starts. When the Jazz build a lead and then tank only the 4th quarter, it throws off anyone who bet on the game, especially with regard to player props, score by quarter and so on.

I agree that both types of tanking are still tanking, and neither is more ethical than the other. Also that gambling has way too prominent a place in the league.

Agree 100% - so I'll also admit that part of my opinion is based around a general feeling of "fuck the gamblers"... and I say this as someone who generally likes gambling (though not really on sports)

 

[spurs2112]

a harsh anti-tanking policy would punish teams that wisely want to turn the page on an aging star and sending him to a would-becontender where he'd be of more value. it would mean the spurs trading derrick white or dejounte murray would be disfavored, and the spurs would have committed years to building a winner around that backcourt.

i dont think you can or should stop teams from resetting and rebuilding. i think what the league wants to avoid are the in-season or in the exteme scenarios, the in-game anti-competitive nature of tanking, where teams sit healthy players and basically throw games. you can throw a season, and the fans are well aware of what the team is doing. but when you throw games and bench healthy players, its a problem, and fans are potentially deceived.

That's why I don't think tanking is a good idea. Teams shouldn't have to trade current players who are productive in hopes of landing a better spot in the draft. Imagine if there were a system in place were the Spurs got to keep White and Murray and still land Vic instead of having to endure years of mediocrity. Not only that, they got Vic and still were bad because we got rid of our PG and SG, 2 spots they were lacking after. Maybe they should do a single elimination between the remaining 14 teams or something and the spot you finish is the spot you are in the draft.

 

[spurraider21]

That's why I don't think tanking is a good idea. Teams shouldn't have to trade current players who are productive in hopes of landing a better spot in the draft. Imagine if there were a system in place were the Spurs got to keep White and Murray and still land Vic instead of having to endure years of mediocrity. Not only that, they got Vic and still were bad because we got rid of our PG and SG, 2 spots they were lacking after. Maybe they should do a single elimination between the remaining 14 teams or something and the spot you finish is the spot you are in the draft.

its all in favor of promoting league parity, if that is a goal that you share. you dont want a good team landing the next wembanyama. you dont want OKC getting dybantsa, or minnesota landing peterson.

its also good that derrick white got to spend his prime competing for titles instead of being part of a rebuild

 

[scott]

I mean, it really comes down to what we define as "tanking", which we discussed at length back in the day. I try to make a semantic distinction between a "good tank" (FO driven, like that Spurs team) vs a "bad tank" (basically throwing games like the Jazz). But it's obviously not a universal law or anything. At its core though, I do believe a distinction has to be made, because you simply cannot force a small-market team to field a winning team. What'chu gonna do, gift them some good FAs and tell them "go get 'em boys!"? so it's obviously a nuanced topic. I find a significant difference between the Good and Bad tanks, myself.


Well, it's TBD at this point - we don't know whether Silver hands out an actual punishment or not. He specifically said during his A.S.W. conference that "he has very wide powers granted to him by the CBA and the Governors", so if he feels like the Jazz continue to "misbehave", he may continue to meddle with them. And besides - if he forces a rule change for next season, it's more of a "fool me once..." situation; Ainge "beat him" now, and he'll be damned before letting it happen again.


Ehh, you say that and I believe you, but - how quickly would you grow frustrated at the team consistently sitting these players in the 4th? I can't imagine many more wasteful uses of my time than catching a game that my team is literally going to throw away. With the Branham's and Jones' of the league, there's that plausible deniability that you're "developing the youth" and "building to the future"......

.....And to its credit, I absolutely sat my way through dozens of masochistic Forbes-Mills-Beli games, so it's not bullshit I wouldn't have cared to turn on the games if I knew they would throw the game. Think it over -- NO competitive endings, NO comebacks in the 4th, no nothing - the coach will throw the game. Who in their right mind would tune into that, tbh?

To the very last point about watching a bad team versus a good team throw the game in the 4th quarter... if I know ahead of time that my team is trying to lose to get a better pick... I personally don't see a difference and I'd rather watch my team win the first 3 quarters than to watch garbage for 4 of them. But that's just me. In the former case, I can at least go to bed and pretend the 4th quarter never happened

I'll say I also think what the Jazz are doing is smart. They have what is probably a play-in team right now (maybe even a borderline Top 6 team) and they're looking to add an elite talent. That will speed things along a lot faster than stripping down to the bones. From a strategic perspective, it makes a lot of sense. But if the league decides they don't like it, just make it against the rules and we can all move on.

 

[Seventyniner]

its all in favor of promoting league parity, if that is a goal that you share. you dont want a good team landing the next wembanyama. you dont want OKC getting dybantsa, or minnesota landing peterson.

By that token you don't want the Spurs getting Harper either.

 

[spurraider21]

By that token you don't want the Spurs getting Harper either.

im always glad when my team personally benefits. do i think its good for the league that a team that just landed wembanyama, and had the reigning rookie of the year also landed a prospect in harper who many agreed is in the caliber of player that may go #1 overall in a given year? honestly, no.

now, the spurs didnt have a huge shot of moving up in the draft. iirc it was something like 25%. and to get into the top 2 itself, was about 12%. but that wasnt the league promoting a system where this is likely to happen, it was pure luck

 

[spurs2112]

its all in favor of promoting league parity, if that is a goal that you share. you dont want a good team landing the next wembanyama. you dont want OKC getting dybantsa, or minnesota landing peterson.

But thats the thing. There wouldn't, or at least shouldn't be, any real bad teams. I've mentioned my idea on previous post about teams actually having to win to be eligible for top picks. Playoff teams in my scenario are excluded (mentioned that in one of these pages) so OKC and Minnesota won't be eligible to get a top pick. And yes I am all for parity because to me it makes for a better product.

 

[spurraider21]

But thats the thing. There wouldn't, or at least shouldn't be, any real bad teams. I've mentioned my idea on previous post about teams actually having to win to be eligible for top picks. Playoff teams in my scenario are excluded (mentioned that in one of these pages) so OKC and Minnesota won't be eligible to get a top pick. And yes I am all for parity because to me it makes for a better product.

the best way to achieve parity is to have the worst teams land the best prospects. the problem is when teams commit in-season tanks, it distorts the question of which team actually is the worst and needs the most help. Utah actually has a solid roster at this point, but they are throwing games such that their record will show they are one of the worst few teams in the league, when they arent.

meanwhile, brooklyn is actually just a sorry roster

 

[spurs2112]

the best way to achieve parity is to have the worst teams land the best prospects. the problem is when teams commit in-season tanks, it distorts the question of which team actually is the worst and needs the most help. Utah actually has a solid roster at this point, but they are throwing games such that their record will show they are one of the worst few teams in the league, when they arent.

meanwhile, brooklyn is actually just a sorry roster

And thats my point and why tanking shouldn't be rewarded in my opinion. Are these teams that are bad really that bad or they're bad on purpose. By having a system when the worst records are rewarded you're always going to have teams that are going to shoot for the worst record. You're not going to know have bad or good they really are.