[Sports Law Blog]Why Does Tanking Occur in the NBA but Seemingly Not in Other League?

In basketball, you have only 12 players on a team, only 5 of them can be on the court at once. If you have an impact player at your disposal, it changes the complexion of your team. Now in football, even if you look at the top 2 players chosen last year, VY and Bush, they aren't on the field on the defensive side. Also, with another 10 players on the filed with them, the impact on the team is lessened.

 

Good analysis.

I think the most important reason is the incentive for tanking is greater in the NBA. And your #3 explanation is huge. One player can turn around a team. Hakeem, Robison, Shaq, Duncan, Lebron--slam dunk #1 picks. Doesn't matter how great an individual is in football, with 22+ players the turn around just isn't possible in the NFL--guys like Archie Manning and Barry Sanders and David Carr can be badder than hades but play for sucky teams their whole careers.

I also think yes substititions are more avaliable. The NFL draft also considers position and ability more--so the teams near each other in the draft often have different targets. The NBA is more heavily take the best player available.

I would add I think #1 overall NFL picks more often bust than #1 NBA. I think baseball is even worse. On the other hand late drafted players in those sports can be Hall of Famers. So a smaller pool of elite talent in basketball, and it is easier to predict who will be great and who in all likelihood never will (why the NBA is down to 2 rounds, and second rounders are maybe 1 and 4 to stick in the league).

 

with all due respect, i dont see how this is at all a worthy question up for explanation. simply put, the difference one single player makes on a basketball court is far greater than one single player in any other sport, thus, the difference between these different players in draft positioning is magnified.

 

I didn't read the article but my explanations:

1. the MLB draft is a crapshoot compared to other drafts w/long uncertain reward unlike instant gratification like basketball

2. NFL players don't have guaranteed contracts, face severe risk of injury, and even superstars are one roster bonus away from being out on the street.

3. NHL - I don't follow it closely enough to explain away this one.

 

I'll say this much, I'm pretty sure NHL teams do tank. (See: Sidney Crosby and like a BAJILLION teams losing to try to get him)

In fact, of all the major leagues, the one that probably most ressembles the NBA is the NHL, structure-wise.

...Which isin't that surprising. Fun fact, Stern's ex-underling, Bettman, runs the NHL.

 

Early round picks are very valuable in the NFL...I just don't think draft position is as important. If the guy you want isn't available, it's pretty likely that you have another hole on your team to fill with another player.

 

Teams tank in the nfl too, how bout Kris brown shanking like 10 fgs

 

Pretty simple, more so than any other sport, one single stud can turn a franchise completely around - if not in wins, than in dollars.

MLB - drafted players don't pay off for at least a couple years
NFL - individuals do not have near the impact as in other sports. Also, with first round rookie contracts so out of whack, taking a top 5 player isn't necessarily attractive.
NHL - also team driven

Also, as the only sport with no helmets/caps, individuals are more recognizable/marketable than in other sports.

Tanking leads to immediate, tangible rewards, far more often than in other leagues.

Evan

 

Baseball - trying hard at the end of the year doesnt put you in that much more danger of being hurt than not trying hard

football - most contracts arent guaranteed, so you are always playing for your job

basketball - going all out puts you in more danger of being hurt, and top-5 players are usually the only immediate impact players

 

I was about to post the same thing. The only explanation for Kris Brown still being a Texan is that he was instructed to kick 10 yards on 20 yard field goals. There is no way that a couple of those games weren't thrown.

 

that one 20-30 yard kick he missed at the end of one of the last games had to be the most epic shank in nfl history. it was comedy gold.

 

I feel that Amare Stoudamire is worth noting next to Yao Mings name for the 2002 draft.

 

I put a reaction to this at the end of Tuesday's column. Hopefully it will stay in. If not, I'll post it here. I don't disagree with Michael, I love his blog, I just think there is more (less, really) to the eye than what he broke down.

 

and caron butler. who barkley suggested the rockets should've taken. haha!

*but i will give caron credit, he had a great season*

 

"I recall the last 10 drafts as follows in terms of players who, at the time, projected as superstars"

 

I think a few teams thought amare would be really good but thought he was a character risk.

 

I think there have been a number of good points. I think the best is that the NBA is a superstar league. An NBA rotation is 8 or 9 guys. The NFL plays 3 or 4 times as many guys. The MLB, what, twice as many? Plus, there is very little specialization in basketball -- all players affect scoring, rebounding, defense, etc. -- and a good player can affect those things a lot. In the MLB and the NFL, players are specialists and they are limited to their role. A great batter still takes only one slot in the batting order. A great outfielder can only field balls in his area. (Pitchers are probably an exception in that though they are specialists, they are extremely important.) A great defensive lineman can't help when his quarterback is throwing interceptions. A great quarterback can't keep the opposing team from scoring. In the NBA, Tracy McGrady can score half the team's points, lead the team in assists, pull down 10 rebounds and guard Dirk Nowitzki all in the same game.

And, given the impact of that one player, maybe the gain from drafting him can outweigh the damage done to the existing team by tanking.

There's one issue that hasn't really been mentioned, except a grazing by zoork. When you draft someone good in the NBA, you have their underpriced contract for 4 years. Then, you pretty much have them for their 5th year too, because of restricted free agency. Then, with Bird Rights, it is very likely you'll retain a good player for the next 6 or 7 years. So, a good draft pick is an asset to the team for the next decade. Do other leagues have that sort of stability, coupled with the superstar effect?

 

Actually, I think the guaranteed contracts argument goes both ways. You can be stuck with a bust for at least 3 years.

Also, I am not sure how this is. Is the likelihood of a "bust" in basketball higher than in football? My impression (could be wrong) is that in football with the exception of QBs, you pretty much get what you see. Football players typically play more years in college for the scouts to work on. They are specialized in their games which is much simpler to evaluate. If that is true, then tanking for a "superstar" in basketball is actually more risky than in football.