Do Teams ‘Tank’ For Draft Position?

I came across a few interesting articles today that deal with the issue of draft lotteries, and the impact they have on team performance. I became interested in this topic while observing the Maple Leafs this past season. There was much discussion in hockey mad Toronto regarding whether or not the Leafs should have ‘tanked’ and lost games on purpose in order to increase their odds of obtaining the first pick in the draft, likely to be Steve Stamkos of the Sarnia Sting.

Initially I thought it was just a typical reaction of delusional Leaf fans looking for a quick fix for their depleted roster. However, some of the research I came across today has swayed me to believe that teams’ performance does in fact change when eliminated from the possibility of post-season play.

Justin Trogdon and Beck Taylor’s article in the Journal of Labor Economics studied team performance in the NBA following adjustments to the draft lottery structure. What they found was that as the rewards for poor performance increased, so did poor performance. This ‘race to the bottom’ forces one to examine what type of system increases parity, and improves player distribution, while maintaining the integrity of the game.

Major League Baseball grants draft position strictly on win/loss record, as does the NFL. The NHL holds a lottery only for the first pick, and the NBA for picks 1-11.

David Berri at the Wages of Wins Journal, as well as in his interview with MSNBC, contrasts the North American model of draft lotteries with that of European sport where poor teams are relegated to lower level leagues, while strong performers are promoted to higher level leagues. The European model appears to maintain team interest, and season long motivation, but does little to ensure competitive balance.

The biggest question I was left with following these articles was: if teams are losing in order to increase the likelihood of a favourable draft position, who is pulling the strings? Is it the players who have much to gain from statistical performance bonuses and salary negotiations? Is it the coaches who are hired and fired consistently based on team performance? Or upper management who can manipulate the roster in order to lose games?

None of these systems appear to fulfill the balancing act of maintaining competitive balance, while avoiding ‘tanking’ but the NBA system, where the worst win/loss team rarely gets the first pick appears to be the best system at the present time.