When did the Championship or Tank Strategy start exactly?

[sammichoffate]

It's all the rage these days, but when did this trend start becoming the norm for the NBA?

[IncarceratedBob]

When the Spurs tanked for TD and assembled the greatest dynasty in pro sports history

[JimmyMcAdocious]

When the lottery started?

[sammichoffate]

When the lottery started?

I don't recall too many teams tanking from 2000-2010, some were just plain bad before they got players like Lebron, Dwight, or Durant.

[imdaman99]

I don't know but I was wishing the Knicks worked like this in the Isiah Thomas years. He refused to tank Assembled shitty enough teams to never make the playoffs but not shitty enough to ever get higher than #6 Cost them Westbrook 1 year and Curry another year

Thankful for the tank this year, unless whoever they draft is a bust

[Heavincent]

It hardly ever works.

[FKAri]

I don't want my shitty team being an 8th seed in the playoffs for the next 10 years. Might as well tank. Saves me time too. This way I don't have to watch the shitty games.

[Knicksfever2010]

When the Spurs tanked for TD and assembled the greatest dynasty in pro sports history

I thought David Robinson got injured, not the Spurs 'tanking'

[jlip]

I thought David Robinson got injured, not the Spurs 'tanking'

The claim is that D Rob actually could have come back to play at some point during the season, but sat out increasing the Spurs chances at the #1 pic. Whether the story is true or not, I don't know.

[SwishSquared]

I think Simmons' theory on hanging onto a job could kinda make sense. GMs of title contenders don't get fired until their team worsens and they can't reload on the fly.

Think about it- if ownership allows you to bottom out, you can spend up to 3 years collecting picks, trying out a multitude of cast-offs hoping to find a gem, and developing raw, young talent. You spend next 2 seasons working towards playoffs. Then you get 2-3 more years taking next steps into winning multiple rounds. That's close to a decade of making big bucks as a GM and if the plan goes well, then you look like an absolute genius.

If it fails, you join another front office in an ancillary role, or if you're media savvy, you get a job at ESPN. You can get canned way before then, but you could keep selling the notion of building towards greatness.

Of course, GMs are always hoping to improve the team in the long run. They want to show progress to ownership to prove that they have team headed in right direction.

But tanking allows you to have the best shot at high picks, which are most attractive in trading for a star, or having multiple shots at drafting a star. The in-between zone of contender and bottom feeder means you could get fired if team stagnates imo. The other extremes have better job security imo.

[navy]

It's always been there, but it use to be to get really great players. Now teams do it because they realize that they aint winning shit.

[hawksdogsbraves]

Just hire a great coach and get off that treadmill, tanking is for betas

[Quickening]

when missing the playoffs or exiting early was seen as a better achievement than losing in the finals

[sportjames23]

When the Spurs tanked for TD and assembled the greatest dynasty in pro sports history

[Silence]

I'm sure it's something that's been going on for a very long time, but OKC's recent success has really elevated the idea of tanking as a strategy.

Drafted Kevin Durant and Jeff Green in 2007
Drafted Russell Westbrook and Serge Ibaka in 2008
Drafted James Harden in 2009
Became title contenders by 2011

In less than 5 years, they drafted 3 super stars and became championship contenders. After seeing such success, teams have put noticeably more effort into building through the draft.