Why Does Tanking Occur in the NBA but Seemingly Not in Other Leagues?

[LakeShow]

Monday, April 09, 2007

Why Does Tanking Occur in the NBA but Seemingly Not in Other Leagues?


In response to my post last Thursday on NBA teams purposefully losing games to increase their odds of drafting Greg Oden or Kevin Durant (a post that generated some wonderful reader comments and posts on other websites), George Mason University law professor and Volokh Conspiracy contributor Todd Zywicki asked me the following question:

Why do you think it is that the "tanking" concern seems to arise uniquely with respect to the NBA? There seems to be no concern about tanking in the NFL for instance and it is not uncommon to see a team spring an upset the last week of the season and knock them down a few spots in the draft.

One possibility is that the top players in the NBA draft are more "impact" players. But that might explain no tanking in baseball, but not the NFL.

Another possibility might be that the number of close substitutes is deeper in the NFL, but that doesn't seem clear either.

It is just odd--the NBA seems to be the one sport where this concern arises repeatedly over time. Indeed, that's why the NBA adopted the lottery--yet there are still allegations of tanking.

Any thoughts?
I e-mailed him back the following five possible explanations, which I have edited to incorporate his insight:

1) Impact Player & Lack of Close Substitutes explanation: It seems that there are certain drafts where there is at least one player who many believe projects as a future NBA superstar. With the caveat of complete subjectivity, I recall the last 10 drafts as follows in terms of players who, at the time, projected as superstars, followed by a significant drop-off in expectations:


2006: weak draft, no superstar projections
2005: weak draft, no superstar projections
2004: Dwight Howard and Emeka Okafor, and then a big drop off
2003: Lebron James, Darko Milic, Carmelo Anthony, drop off (I don't remember Dwayne Wade, who went #5, projecting as a future superstar).
2002: Yao Ming, drop off
2001: Kwame Brown, Tyson Chandler, Pau Gasol, Eddy Curry, drop off [maybe no superstar projections here?]

2000: weak draft, no superstar projections
1999: Elton Brand, Steve Francis, Baron Davis, Lamar Odom, drop off
1998: weak draft, no superstar projections
1997: Tim Duncan, drop off

But Professor Zywicki raises a great point: the NFL draft is just like the NBA Draft in that it often has a few guys at the top who are coveted, followed by everyone else, and yet allegations of tanking are much less common in the NFL. But his other point about close substitutes in the NFL draft also appears explanatory: there is likely more depth in a typical NFL draft than in a typical NBA Draft, meaning acceptable substitutes to top players in any NFL draft can usually be found throughout the first round, and sometimes even in the second and third rounds. Also, it strikes me that NFL teams often trade down in the first round, while that doesn't seem to occur nearly as often in the NBA, and that would appear to lend credence to a lack close substitutes in a typical NBA draft.


2) The NBA Is a League for Superstars explanation: One might argue that unlike the NFL and its focus on teams (e.g., the New England Patriots), the NBA is more individualistic and individual players get more attention. I suspect this is in part because we see NBA players' faces and expressions on the court, while NFL players are largely obscured in their helmets, and because there are only 10 players on an NBA court, while there are 22 on an NFL field. And maybe this also relates to the close substitutes idea and how there are fewer close substitutes in an individualistic NBA, while close substitutes are more possible in a team-based, organic NFL. But this explanation has some flaws, too (look at all the individual attention Peyton Manning gets etc.).


3) One Player Can Change an NBA Team explanation: The Spurs go from 22 wins in the 95-96 season to 56 wins in the 96-97 season after drafting Tim Duncan [along with getting a healthy David Robinson back].; the Magic go from 21 wins in the 91-92 season to 41 wins in the 92-93 season after drafting Shaquille O'Neal. This type of rapid, draft-based improvement would seem harder to do in the other sports. Along those lines, if either the Bobcats or Celtics draft Greg Oden, I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar upswing in wins next season. In contrast, it just doesn't seem that one great player will change an NFL team. Sure, Reggie Bush made the Saints better, but there were a lot of other new players who arguably had more of an impact (e.g., Drew Brees, Marques Colston, a healthy Deuce McCallister)


4) The Comparative Gambling Interests explanation: I would hate to think that this is relevant, but if an NFL team throws a game, there would probably be far more outrage than if an NBA team were to do the same. The bookies, gamblers, and Vegas types have too much on the line on every NFL game.


5) Nobody Cares explanation: Not many people follow bad NBA teams, and since each game is only one out of 81, people probably pay much less attention to each NBA game than they do to each of an NFL team's 16 games. Also, the NFL seems to promote their product better (i.e., most NFL games are on Sunday, which for many Americans has seemingly become a day built around NFL football, and there is always the sweet Monday night game to follow; in contrast, NBA games happen every night and there is no real build-up to any one game--this may make it easier for an NBA team to throw a game).

In summary, and as Professor Zywicki notes, we essentially have two categories of explanations: 1) the incentives are greater to tank in the NBA or 2) the costs of tanking are lower (e.g., either easier to get away with or less outrage if they tank). Even if both factors are small, they seem to push in the same direction.

But are our explanations correct? Are there are other explanations? And does tanking, in fact, occur more often in the NBA, or do we only see it more often because it is more noticeable?

http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-does-tanking-occur-in-nba-but.html

[monosylab1k]

the NFL is by far the biggest offender of tanking.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Well, the NBA has a limited number of roster spots, so the margin for error in choosing a draft pick is much smaller than in the NFL and MLB.

[Cry Havoc]

I like #3 as the best explanation.

Also, since each game means less, it doesn't piss fans off as much to lose a game. A fan might only get to 1 or 2 of just 16 NFL games all year (just EIGHT home games!) and they don't want to go home losers on that day. Meanwhile, the NBA fans have the opportunity to see their team on many different occassions, as there are almost triple the # of HOME games for the NBA as total games for the NFL each season.

Also, one thing he neglects to mention: The NBA draft is 2 rounds. The NFL is seven. Those extra 5 rounds are enough room for teams to find a few hidden gems... or at least believe they can.

I'd love to be one of the peopl who always wants his team to win... but if I were a fan of a basement team right now and I saw two monsters like Oden and Durant lurking in the upcoming draft, how could I not want to see them in a jersey with my team's colors?

I hate the system the way it is, but I'm not sure there is much better. I think perhaps the only way to remedy it might be to separate the playoff teams from the non-playoff teams. Non-playoff teams have a zero-grade scale, so everyone has a lottery chance at a #1 pick. However, the lottery only goes 2 or 3 deep and then every team is on the even.

Another way might be to have fans rate their team's performance at the end of a season. If you get a high rating -- you get either a slight increase in draft position odds, or a small salary cap bonus... something of the sort. Negative ratings hurt teams in the same fashion. This means fans would have a completely direct way to communicate to the management if they're unhappy.

I dunno. Just some ideas.

[mardigan]

the NFL is by far the biggest offender of tanking.
I dont agree with you at all. If that was true, why did the Lions try so hard to beat the Cowboys the last game of the season? They potentially lost the #1 pick in this years draft because of it. The NFLs first round doesnt immediately make a bad team better. Tanking wont always help in the NFL. And would you really argue that the Raiders or Lions or Bucs really could have won more games last year? they were god awfull, and were right where they should have been. The NBA gets that label because one player can turn your franchise around in that league, in football no way

[monosylab1k]

I dont agree with you at all. If that was true, why did the Lions try so hard to beat the Cowboys the last game of the season? They potentially lost the #1 pick in this years draft because of it. The NFLs first round doesnt immediately make a bad team better. Tanking wont always help in the NFL. And would you really argue that the Raiders or Lions or Bucs really could have won more games last year? they were god awfull, and were right where they should have been. The NBA gets that label because one player can turn your franchise around in that league, in football no way

I think the Raiders totally tanked this year. And last year there were about 5 teams tanking in the Reggie Bush sweepstakes (except the team that won the sweepstakes were so stupid they didn't even take him).

[Cry Havoc]

I think the Raiders totally tanked this year. And last year there were about 5 teams tanking in the Reggie Bush sweepstakes (except the team that won the sweepstakes were so stupid they didn't even take him).

I'm not so sure. There are so few "givens" in the NFL, one needs look no farther than the joke Eli Manning has become compared to his brother, after everyone was talking about him being potentially better than Peyton. What a laugh.

In the NBA though, there are fewer surprises, I think. People knew Lebron would dominate. Oden and Durant are almost guaranteed monsters. Only idiotic press like Dickie V and ESPN tout guards like JJ Redick and Trajan Langdon with predictions of NBA greatness. Teams typically have a better idea of who's going to be a beast in the NBA.

[mardigan]

I think the Raiders totally tanked this year. And last year there were about 5 teams tanking in the Reggie Bush sweepstakes (except the team that won the sweepstakes were so stupid they didn't even take him).
I dont mean to call you out or anything, but do you watch football much?
The Raiders were one of the single worst teams I have ever watched last year. There d was pretty solid, but even then was one of the last in the league in sacks and when you have one of the worst offenses ever assembled, you arent going to win very many game. They averaged under 190 pass yards a game last year. Their starter was horrible, and got injured week 3 or 4 and was out the rest of the year. Their offensive line was the worst in football, and their running back missed half of the year. I could go on and on about their turnover differential, 7 passing tds, and more, but I wont. I will just say that the Raiders were not trying to tank.

[RonMexico]

After Dwayne Wade completely destroyed the NCAA Tourney and got Marquette to the Final 4 (with at least 2 triple doubles in the tournament), you didn't think he was going to be a superstar? Just because the talking heads didn't quit fellating LeBron and Darko doesn't mean the average basketball fan/scout thought D-Wade was gonna be a role player.

Secondly, the Spurs pulled quite the tank job to get Tim Duncan and few Spurs fans seem to admit this. However, if Amare went down this year, I would fully support the Suns tanking to get Oden/Durant, so I can't blame them.

[StylisticS]

It happens in the NFL. Both San Francisco and Houston did it the 2005 season. But nobody makes a big deal about it as much as the NBA does.

[NBA Junkie]

The Bucks are being blatantly obvious about it by shelving Charlie Villaneuva, Andrew Bogut and Michael Redd for the remainder of the season.

[JMarkJohns]

Yeah... I'm pretty certain the sentiment has likely been covered already, but it has to do with a lack of depth in drafts, lack of overall superstars (Maybe 10 every decade), smaller rosters and that one player has more impact on a basketball team than just about any other player in team sports. I mean, you've seen where one player can mean 20+ wins from one season to the next. In what other sports does one or two players mean a 20%-to-30% win increase? Sometimes in football, but not immediately.

[SRJ]

#3 is the biggest single reason, IMO.

[FromWayDowntown]

There's some evidence of #3 just in the comparative histories of the NBA and NFL drafts. Since the lottery came into existence in 1985, I can think of only one occasion (1993) where an NBA team that knew it had the #1 overall pick in the draft pulled the trigger on a trade to move that pick -- that was Orlando, which drafted Chris Webber and then dealt him for a player (Penny Hardaway) that was a much better fit for what Orlando needed at the time. Even in poor draft years (like 1998) the franchise with the #1 overall pick hasn't moved it, which suggests to me that the #1 overall pick in the NBA draft has an extraordinarily high perceived value within the league.

It's not a great difference, but in just the last few years, the #1 pick in the NFL draft has been moved after the identity of the team holding that pick was known -- the Eli Manning draft and the Michael Vick draft. That's a pretty significant difference, I think. And while I can't quantify it, on an annual basis, it does seem that there's much more pre-draft buzz about the possibility of moving the #1 overall pick in the NFL draft than there is about the possiblity of moving the #1 overall pick in the NBA draft. Again, I think that's evidence of a perceived value of the pick in the NBA realm.

On top of that, as noted above, I think, there is significant evidence in the NBA to suggest that a wise choice (or the good fortune to hold the #1 overall pick in the right year) will dramatically turn a team's fortunes in the short term. That, too, gives the #1 overall pick -- particularly in banner years like 2007 would appear to be -- a tremendous perceived value that encourages a team that is out of contention early to "tank" in an effort to improve its odds to obtain such a player. There's far less correlation between having the #1 overall pick and a dramatic improvement from a record-standpoint in the NFL.

Finally, I think the NFL draft tends to be much more position-driven at the top than the NBA draft is. An NBA team with a good player who plays the position of the likely #1 pick isn't going to shy away from that player just because it is already paying a big salary to someone who plays the same position. In the NFL, though -- and, perhaps because it's rarely clear that there is a singularly dominant guy at the top of the draft -- teams are far more likely to pass on certain players who might be perceived to be more talented in a desire to get a player who best fits the team's positional needs. That, in part I think, explains the willingness to trade at the top of the NFL draft as well. But I think it also demonstrates that NFL teams rarely think that there is a significant gulf among the 3 or 4 best players in the draft and that addressing team needs is more crucial than obtaining the best player available.

All of those things, I think, make #3 the most likely reason for the belief that more tanking occurs in the NBA than in the NFL.

[DarkReign]

#3. There isnt a comparable sport in the world where one player, only one player, can turn a basement team into a low-seed playoff team (potentially).

That, and the league promotes individuals. Wade/Bron/Kobe/Dirk get the calls. If Oden lives to half his hype, youll be adding his name to that list in 1 year. Same for Durant.