The saviour fallacy

[Brannigans Law]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...dreams/358627/

“Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth” is the third and most famous Beatitude in the Sermon on the Mount. Although the prophecy has a dubious track record throughout world history, its counsel has been inspirational lately in the arena of America’s secular religion: professional sports.

In the National Basketball Association, in particular, an astonishing number of teams this year—the Boston Celtics, the Philadelphia 76ers, the Utah Jazz, and more—stand accused of deliberately making their clubs as meek as possible. This strategy is called tanking, and its logic—to the extent that there is any—comes from the mysterious allure of the NBA draft.

In most professional sports leagues, including the NBA, the worst teams are first in line to snag the most-promising amateur players in the next draft. When the ripening crop of amateurs looks especially tantalizing (this year’s is projected to be historically good), multiple teams will suddenly compete to be so uncompetitive that, through sheer awfulness, they will be blessed to inherit the top pick. One anonymous general manager told ESPN the Magazine earlier this season, “Our team isn’t good enough to win,” so the best thing is “to lose a lot.

An article that focuses on the NBA, but I think it can apply to the NHL to some extent (how much I leave up to the CP braintrust).

[nik-]

Tanking is much more effective in the NBA as one player really can turn you around.

[calumniate]

I noticed they didn't mention Jamie Lundmark in the article.. they must have missed something

[foshizzle11]

is tanking really that much worse than in the NHL? Can't be worse than the Oilers and Islanders.

[spetch]

Originally Posted by foshizzle11

is tanking really that much worse than in the NHL? Can't be worse than the Oilers and Islanders.

there is a difference between tanking and just being plain bad. The Oilers are not tanking, they just are no good.

[neo45]

The NBA is a joke of a league where literally half the teams are just filler and cannon fodder for the all-star teams. Some small market teams have no choice but to tank

The Raptors even wanted to tank this year but are going to make playoffs because the league is so bad

[neo45]

Originally Posted by spetch

there is a difference between tanking and just being plain bad. The Oilers are not tanking, they just are no good.

I would say they definitely tanked for Hall and RNH, maybe even Yakupov. Before that and since then it has been incompetence but they definitely tanked along the way at least 2 of their seasons

[Komskies]

Originally Posted by foshizzle11

is tanking really that much worse than in the NHL? Can't be worse than the Oilers and Islanders.

It's bad. Way worse than the NHL. The 76ers just snapped a 26 game losing streak (one of the worst streaks in professional sports history) and Milwaukee is still worse than them.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by nik-

Tanking is much more effective in the NBA as one player really can turn you around.

Yep. Smaller benches and less rotation as your top players see far more time in the NBA so a couple of top players can make much more of a difference.

Tanking for the draft was born in the NBA. It's where it all started and still goes on today. It's not as easy to do in NHL which is a more gate dependant league but we have seen the Avalanche recently take advantage of a calculated tank job as well we saw the Cleveland Browns trade their former 1st round pick and starting running back for draft picks after a poor 0-2 start to the season basically waiving the white flag and telling their fans they are looking to the draft early but in general it's not nearly as blatant as it is in the NBA where organizations from top to bottom just go through the motions without even trying to win. It's why the NBA is plays to more empty seats than the NHL as when the teams are bad they are really, really, bad.

[PeteMoss]

I think a lot of the tanking these days can be credited to San Antonio in the NBA. They were a good team for a long while with David Robinson who they got in 1989 and they were a contender up until 1996 when he got hurt for a season.

They sucked fiercely that one year and ended up with the first pick (won a lottery, they were the 2nd worst team I believe) and got Tim Duncan. They immediately rebounded and won some championships.

If you look at their record by season, you can see how much of an anomaly that season was and it basically has given them a 25 year run as a contender - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._Spurs_seasons

[Daradon]

Yeah, one player can make so much more of a difference in the NBA compared to the NHL. Shoot, the best teams really just have their starting lineup and then sub players out for fouls or injury or for little breaks. From talking to others I've always been under the impression that tanking in the NBA has been commonplace for sometime now.

That's not to say it isn't starting to happen in the NHL now though. And obviously it's something you want to discourage as much as possible.

[Badgers Nose]

I agree with the article.

1. Religion is stupid.

2. Tanking is stupid.

[PeteMoss]

It can work in the NBA. Cleveland sucked and got Lebron and was good. Even the Raptors back in the day with Vince Carter.

It is a lot harder in the NHL.

The other thing is for the most part you have be poorly managed to be at the bottom of the standings. Most teams change their management and the new group will 'tank' as a plan. The Oilers have kept the same garbage management that drove them into a hole.

Tanking/Rebuilding has also became a management survival strategy these days. If you can say you're rebuilding and the future will be bright, some people will overlook the current terrible team you've put together in the present (see the shift of opinion towards the positive with some when it came to Feaster when they started making rebuilding moves).

[hummdeedoo]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

... as well we saw the Cleveland Browns trade their former 1st round pick and starting running back for draft picks after a poor 0-2 start to the season basically waiving the white flag

Trading Richardson was not a sign that they were tanking... guy is just not a great football player. This was a good trade for the Browns. Fact is they played better without him... for a while. Doubt the Browns would have had a better record had they kept Richardson.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by hummdeedoo

Trading Richardson was not a sign that they were tanking... guy is just not a great football player. This was a good trade for the Browns. Fact is they played better without him... for a while. Doubt the Browns would have had a better record had they kept Richardson.

They won 5 games with him the season before and 4 games without him so lets not exaggerate here that they were a better team without him. They were a bad team without a quality starting QB. The deal turned out to be fantastic for them as a 1st round pick in the NFL usually turns into a starter and you can see in the NFL thread here the day the trade was made I said the Browns won the deal because I felt Richardson was overrated but making that trade just two games into the season isn't trying to win that season end of story.

Total tank job. The Browns realized that Weeden was a bust after two bad starts and decided they were going to get into the Teddy Bridgewater sweepstakes and the easiest way to do that was trade their starting running back for a 1st round pick that enables them to use another 1st round pick (they wasted a 1st round pick on Weeden the year earlier) on another QB with their pick and another position of need with the other 1st round pick. The fact that they released both Weeden and Campbell pretty well tells you they are taking a QB with the 4th pick whether that be Bridgewater, Manziel, or Bortles. It's very clear what they did last year.

[hummdeedoo]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

They won 5 games with him the season before and 4 games without him so lets not exaggerate here that they were a better team without him. They were a bad team without a quality starting QB. The deal turned out to be fantastic for them as a 1st round pick in the NFL usually turns into a starter and you can see in the NFL thread here the day the trade was made I said the Browns won the deal because I felt Richardson was overrated but making that trade just two games into the season isn't trying to win that season end of story.

Total tank job. The Browns realized that Weeden was a bust after two bad starts and decided they were going to get into the Teddy Bridgewater sweepstakes and the easiest way to do that was trade their starting running back for a 1st round pick that enables them to use another 1st round pick (they wasted a 1st round pick on Weeden the year earlier) on another QB with their pick and another position of need with the other 1st round pick. The fact that they released both Weeden and Campbell pretty well tells you they are taking a QB with the 4th pick whether that be Bridgewater, Manziel, or Bortles. It's very clear what they did last year.

Sounds like you are describing the Browns as a bad football team which they were. They were going to have a bad record with or without Richardson. Which proves they did not intend to tank by trading mediocre running back - As you stated he did not make a difference to the team.

A tank job would be if Richardson was good enough to improve the Browns record by a few games (you stated he did not make a difference) and they had to play a lesser player in his place.

no tank job just a good football trade that any team regardless of record would have made.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by hummdeedoo

Sounds like you are describing the Browns as a bad football team which they were. They were going to have a bad record with or without Richardson. Which proves they did not intend to tank by trading mediocre running back - As you stated he did not make a difference to the team.

A tank job would be if Richardson was good enough to improve the Browns record by a few games (you stated he did not make a difference) and they had to play a lesser player in his place.

no tank job just a good football trade that any team regardless of record would have made.

Totally disagree.

Tank job = intent.

Saying you have to wait a year to assess whether it worked or not kind of ignores the definition of the tank.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I think a lot of the tanking these days can be credited to San Antonio in the NBA. They were a good team for a long while with David Robinson who they got in 1989 and they were a contender up until 1996 when he got hurt for a season.

They sucked fiercely that one year and ended up with the first pick (won a lottery, they were the 2nd worst team I believe) and got Tim Duncan. They immediately rebounded and won some championships.

If you look at their record by season, you can see how much of an anomaly that season was and it basically has given them a 25 year run as a contender - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._Spurs_seasons

Nope. The Spurs lost their best player to injury as well as some other key players. There really wasn't much the Spurs could have done. The entire offense was built around one or two guys and you lose them to injury as well as your key free agent addition and there's really no way to win.

[troutman]

NBA is very different - 5-6 players get most of the minutes, and 1-2 elite players can really carry a whole team.