Tanking Solution: The Nadezhda Cup

[Dogewow]

Watch the video below. 45% win% before elimination and 28% after elimination. Before you start with the deadline trade crap the other 3 pro sports teams have the following % after elimination.

NHL 16%
NBA 14%
NFL 6%
MLB almost no change.

The 9:52 mark hits the nail on the head on what's wrong with trying to lose.

No it doesn't.

This is the issue I have with these threads and these types of arguments, and why ultimately nothing is ever done on the league's part. Years like the ones that took place in 2015 are very rare. Even then, you could only make the argument that really only two teams were trying to tank, all other teams were just bad or inept. That's just not a big enough sample size to argue that tanking is a serious issue. If there were like 5ish or more teams that were actively tanking on a yearly basis, then I would agree with you that something needs to be changed, but that's not the case.

Tanking exists, but is it wide spread enough to warrant turning the system on its head only to potentially screw over teams that need a shot at better picks, and open the door for teams to abuse the system in another way? This new system that he suggests isn't bulletproof and is quite vulnerable to different types of abuse and unfortunate situations, despite what people want to believe.

I get why people don't like the idea of tanking, I've just never seen it as a serious enough of an issue, or pervasive enough for serious change to be necessary. I think what the league did this past year in randomizing the bottom three picks will do a lot for this issue, without screwing bad teams out of decent prospects.

These discussions typically turn into arguments about what people perceive as tanking and/or get worked up over issues that aren't as big as they seem, rather than have concrete arguments about the reality of the situation. That's why you see people say things like "who cares" or "tanking isn't an issue".

 

[Dogewow]

Tanking is a problem in NHL and NBA due to the greater likeliness of a draft pick (at the very high end of the draft) making the roster and significantly improving the roster immediately than other leagues (MLB, NFL). Continuous poor play for certain teams can erode fan support and negatively impact TV contracts, media attention, player development, and many others.

That's not tanking, that's incompetence. Tanking isn't something that takes place over the course of multiple years. The issues you're bringing up don't have as marked effects on teams that have one bad year, but see improvement the next.

It's not as simple as "If a team is bad, they should be awarded better players". This works in the short-term, but if you have a sustained run of a group of teams who continuously pick high-end talent and and minimal team record improvement (e.g. Edmonton, Carolina, Columbus), that defeats the purpose of the draft and lottery system. The league has great incentive in seeing high-talent players develop and becoming stars (marketing $$$), and one could argue that the more often top players flame out, it only creates a vicious cycle of the same teams picking near the top of the draft, therefore hurting parity.

The draft is only there as part of the solution. If I've learned anything from those teams you've listed, it's that competent management and good draft picks are key to escaping the basement.

Obviously it's important to be able to market your stars, but you know what else is important? Keeping teams from being ****** for years and years with no hope of escaping the basement. That right there is not good for the health of the league overall. The league needs to move in cycles. No team can be really bad for too long, otherwise the team (and the league) looses money and interest big time. I just don't see the need to change the system in that way and potentially mess with that pattern, just to appease fan perception. Because that's all this discussion is really about. This doesn't compromise the integrity of the league. It isn't like half the league is tanking and playing in meaningless games.

 

[Whiston532]

So you take the X worst teams and give the best of them the better chance at a top player ? I'm really not seeing how that helps.

Seriously. As an Oiler fan I get it. Having so many 1st overall picks gets on people's nerves. But it's literally random chance that happened to go in an unlikely way. The overall system is perfectly fine

 

[Canada4Gold]

Tanking solution: Stop complaining about something that barely exists if at all.

 

[LeafFever]

Tanking solution: Stop complaining about something that barely exists if at all.

Yes. It is not an issue. 20% chance to get the top pick is crap odds. There's nothing more that can be done.
The NBA's big problem is buddies teaming up to form super teams and being able to predict the NBA finals correctly every year before the season starts. It isn't tanking. There are so many #1 overall busts in the NBA.

 

[Quarter]

Tanking is a term that people have been misusing so often in recent memory that it has somehow modified its own definition. The word it has replaced in that time is "rebuilding".

A team that sells off their best assets at the trade deadline for picks and prospects isn't tanking; it's the first (well second, really, assuming the first is admitting there's a problem) step in rebuilding.

The only problem with tanking is that people are so damn trigger happy on describing something as a tank.

 

[FrankAbagnale]

That's not tanking, that's incompetence. Tanking isn't something that takes place over the course of multiple years. The issues you're bringing up don't have as marked effects on teams that have one bad year, but see improvement the next.

These are not mutually exclusive, and would even go so far as correlated. To reach the point of a team considering moves to increase their chances of getting the #1 pick means previous decisions made have gone poorly enough to create a scenario of receiving the #1 pick is plausible.

I also would disagree that tanking doesn't occur over multiple years. There are teams that entered last year (Maple Leafs for example) knowing they wouldn't be successful last year and this year, and made personnel decisions with the intent of increasing the likelihood of bottoming out in the standings. I don't necessarily having a problem with their decision-making process (again, high picks increases the likelihood of acquiring high-level talent), but this is an element of tanking.

They perceive the reward of being successful enough to reach the playoffs as highly unlikely (and very risky to even attempt moves (assets) to increase their chances to make the playoffs. Instead, they see the chance of them being a more likely playoff team in the future is to acquire valuable assets (high draft picks) by lowering their team's performance in the near future. Again, this is a decision many teams make during some point of the season (some as early as before the season starts, some at the trade deadline, and even a few special administrators begrudgingly after the deadline), and is commonplace in all major professional leagues. Knowing this, I am all for further lowering the percentage allowed to the worst team(s) in the league to point where teams will continue to compete at maximum levels throughout the end of the season.

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

Tanking is a problem in NHL and NBA due to the greater likeliness of a draft pick (at the very high end of the draft) making the roster and significantly improving the roster immediately than other leagues (MLB, NFL). Continuous poor play for certain teams can erode fan support and negatively impact TV contracts, media attention, player development, and many others. It's not as simple as "If a team is bad, they should be awarded better players". This works in the short-term, but if you have a sustained run of a group of teams who continuously pick high-end talent and and minimal team record improvement (e.g. Edmonton, Carolina, Columbus), that defeats the purpose of the draft and lottery system. The league has great incentive in seeing high-talent players develop and becoming stars (marketing $$$), and one could argue that the more often top players flame out, it only creates a vicious cycle of the same teams picking near the top of the draft, therefore hurting parity.

So basically you're saying in order for the worst teams to not continually suck, they should stop picking high in the draft? And somehow bad teams picking lower in the draft will help parity?
Hmmm, the term "mental gymnastics" pops in my head for some reason.

 

[Price is Wright]

Usually the people who want to prevent tanking cheer for teams that are too good to get high ranked players so they want to change the system so they can get a great prospect while still gunning for the Cup.