Which just goes to show the uneven nature of development, because you could reasonably point to China just over a decade ago as a team with the potential to become a fixture of women's tournaments, and instead they stagnated and drifted backwards to end up ranked in the 40s.
But they also bemoaned that the players were no longer at university, so no longer funded to play semi-professionally. The theory was a new squad of younger players would come through. But the team of 2013 stuck around for so long that 6 players from that squad were still their best players in 2024
When @andrewnixon.bsky.social did an interview with Chinese cricket in 2014 they had just missed out on the global qualifier to Thailand, having lost the final game but gone undefeated in the group stage. One of those sliding doors moments given where Thailand went.
web.archive.org/web/20140401...
Interesting to read this piece on Chinese women's cricket and reflect on where they were and where they are. It reads like Chinese cricket is on the up, but at best they are undergoing a renewal without any results to show for it.
www.theguardian.com/sport/2026/m...
If for some reason any of you you read all of that (and apologies to my cricket followers), I have other things the NBA should consider, on the play-offs, all-star game, contracts and on-court.
drive.google.com/file/d/1eJh7...
In conclusion, you can solve tanking, or at least, create a set of incentives that don't encourage direct losing of games but do encourage sensible rebuilds.
To do so the starting point needs come back to what the draft is trying to achieve.
A question the NBA needs to ask
bsky.app/profile/howa...
Rank Team Salary Playoffs Stars Draft Total Place 24/25 Wins Lottery % 1 UTAH 3.9 0.0 4.1 8.0 16.0 30 17 12.9% 2 CHICAGO 8.0 1.0 0.0 11.2 20.2 18 39 10.4% 3 MIAMI 11.3 4.0 2.2 4.5 22.1 20 37 9.3% 4 BROOKLYN 11.2 0.0 0.0 11.1 22.3 25 26 9.2% 5 MEMPHIS 7.9 4.0 5.3 5.5 22.8 11 48 8.9% 6 NEW ORLEANS 12.4 0.0 4.4 7.3 24.1 27 21 8.1% 7 PHILADELPHIA 8.7 0.0 15.0 2.4 26.1 26 24 7.0% 8 DALLAS 13.6 2.0 8.2 4.7 28.4 18 39 5.6% 9 LA CLIPPERS 9.9 7.0 7.9 4.3 29.1 6 50 5.2% 10 TORONTO 11.1 0.0 3.6 15.1 29.8 24 30 4.8% 11 CHARLOTTE 7.8 0.0 2.0 21.1 31.0 28 19 4.0% 12 SACRAMENTO 9.0 1.0 8.4 13.3 31.7 16 40 3.6% 13 PORTLAND 10.6 0.0 2.2 19.5 32.2 21 36 3.3% 14 ATLANTA 9.9 2.0 4.3 16.2 32.4 16 40 3.2% 15 ORLANDO 3.6 5.0 0.0 24.7 33.3 15 41 2.7% 16 SAN ANTONIO 6.5 0.0 2.3 25.7 34.5 23 34 1.9% 17 MILWAUKEE 16.1 5.0 16.0 1.6 38.8 11 48 0.0% 18 LA LAKERS 17.6 5.0 10.1 7.9 40.6 6 50 0.0% 19 WASHINGTON 20.7 0.0 1.5 20.1 42.3 29 18 0.0% 20 DETROIT 0.4 6.0 4.5 31.7 42.5 14 44 0.0% 21 DENVER 15.2 14.0 14.5 1.1 44.9 6 50 0.0% 22 PHOENIX 25.6 0.0 19.3 1.5 46.5 21 36 0.0% 23 BOSTON 16.5 13.0 17.1 2.0 48.5 3 61 0.0% 24 GOLDEN STATE 17.2 12.0 14.1 5.6 48.9 11 48 0.0% 25 CLEVELAND 11.0 12.0 15.5 11.8 50.3 2 64 0.0% 26 HOUSTON 9.6 7.0 5.4 29.2 51.3 4 52 0.0% 27 NEW YORK 14.1 20.0 13.3 4.7 52.0 5 51 0.0% 28 INDIANA 8.9 28.0 8.2 14.2 59.3 6 50 0.0% 29 OKLAHOMA CITY 7.4 28.0 12.0 17.9 65.3 1 68 0.0% 30 MINNESOTA 28.0 19.0 12.3 7.3 66.6 10 49 0.0%
The lottery would then be assigned to any team with below average points in proportion to the number of points they have.
Put together, in 2025 that would have placed UTA, CHI, MIA, BRK & MEM as the 5 highest lottery teams.
Based on this season it is arguably a more accurate representation of need.
Playoff performance is harder to measure the benefit of, but free agents gravitate to better teams, and it is more closely aligned to record.
We can hopefully assume teams would not tank a playoff or play-in game, but there are ways to focus this metric on later rounds if so
2021 2022 2023 2024 Value Wins DETROIT 1 5 5 5 38539369 31.66 HOUSTON 2 3 4 12 36439848 29.21 SAN ANTONIO 12 9 1 4 33426845 25.69 ORLANDO 5 1 6 18 32585385 24.71 CHARLOTTE 11 13 2 6 29514656 21.13 WASHINGTON 15 10 8 2 28605247 20.07 PORTLAND 23 7 3 7 28102235 19.48 OKLAHOMA CITY 6 2 12 29 26760247 17.92 ATLANTA 20 16 15 1 25268865 16.18 TORONTO 4 20 13 8 24375580 15.13 INDIANA 13 6 7 19 23549728 14.17 SACRAMENTO 9 4 24 13 22820037 13.32 CLEVELAND 3 14 26 20 21527977 11.81 CHICAGO 8 18 11 11 20991412 11.19 BROOKLYN 27 17 22 3 20949609 11.14 UTAH 30 22 9 10 18244251 7.98 LA LAKERS 22 8 17 17 18193861 7.92 NEW ORLEANS 10 15 14 23 17696085 7.34 MINNESOTA 7 19 16 27 17619827 7.25 GOLDEN STATE 14 28 19 14 16226949 5.63 MEMPHIS 17 29 25 9 16102894 5.48 NEW YORK 19 11 23 25 15422935 4.69 DALLAS 21 26 10 24 15392731 4.65 MIAMI 18 27 18 15 15290173 4.54 LA CLIPPERS 25 12 20 26 15073882 4.28 PHILADELPHIA 28 23 28 16 13457443 2.4 BOSTON 16 25 29 30 13095774 1.98 MILWAUKEE 24 24 30 21 12807455 1.64 PHOENIX 29 30 21 22 12712402 1.53 DENVER 26 21 27 28 12366079 1.12
Quality of recent draft picks can be measured in financial benefits of the pick, and there is much research on this.
In broad terms the benefits are not that different to the rookie salary scale ($3.4m per win) multiplied by 4 for years under contract.
Note the top three in 2025: DET, SAN, HOU
Wins 1/5th Cap All NBA Wins PHOENIX 0 66.3 0 19.3 BOSTON 13 24.2 50 17.1 MILWAUKEE 5 20.7 50 16 CLEVELAND 12 8.6 65.2 15.5 PHILADELPHIA 0 51.4 0 15 DENVER 14 15.6 50 14.5 GOLDEN STATE 12 48.4 0 14.1 NEW YORK 20 29.6 23.2 13.3 MINNESOTA 19 20.4 31.8 12.3 OKLAHOMA CITY 28 1.9 57.3 12 LA LAKERS 5 14.9 28.9 10.1 SACRAMENTO 1 28.8 0 8.4 INDIANA 28 28.2 0 8.2 DALLAS 2 28 0 8.2 LA CLIPPERS 7 21.3 8.3 7.9 HOUSTON 7 14.7 5.8 5.4 MEMPHIS 4 14.5 5.5 5.3 DETROIT 6 0 22.3 4.5 NEW ORLEANS 0 15.2 0 4.4 ATLANTA 2 14.9 0 4.3 UTAH 0 14.1 0 4.1 TORONTO 0 12.3 0 3.6 SAN ANTONIO 0 8 0 2.3 MIAMI 4 7.6 0 2.2 PORTLAND 0 7.5 0 2.2 CHARLOTTE 0 7 0 2 WASHINGTON 0 5.2 0 1.5 BROOKLYN 0 0 0 0 CHICAGO 1 0 0 0 ORLANDO 5 0 0 0
Star Players would be measured in two ways:
- By All-NBA votes (divided by 50) to pick up the best players in the league
- By contract value over 1/5th of the cap (each $3.4m) to pick up high spending on stars
The 65 game rule should be replaced with a proportionate penalty
SALARY Salary Over Cap Wins MINNESOTA 236725861 96137861 28.04 PHOENIX 228464502 87876502 25.63 WASHINGTON 211677970 71089970 20.73 LA LAKERS 200785985 60197985 17.56 GOLDEN STATE 199518342 58930342 17.19 BOSTON 197048229 56460229 16.47 MILWAUKEE 195746447 55158447 16.09 DENVER 192786656 52198656 15.22 NEW YORK 188877651 48289651 14.08 DALLAS 187147472 46559472 13.58 NEW ORLEANS 182966321 42378321 12.36 MIAMI 179350729 38762729 11.30 BROOKLYN 178836132 38248132 11.15 TORONTO 178496026 37908026 11.06 CLEVELAND 178212347 37624347 10.97 PORTLAND 176848446 36260446 10.57 LA CLIPPERS 174670238 34082238 9.94 ATLANTA 174418704 33830704 9.87 HOUSTON 173496349 32908349 9.60 SACRAMENTO 171370782 30782782 8.98 INDIANA 171232577 30644577 8.94 PHILADELPHIA 170340647 29752647 8.68 CHICAGO 168006873 27418873 8.00 MEMPHIS 167814933 27226933 7.94 CHARLOTTE 167423486 26835486 7.83 OKLAHOMA CITY 166001694 25413694 7.41 SAN ANTONIO 162809380 22221380 6.48 UTAH 154114022 13526022 3.94 ORLANDO 152959238 12371238 3.61 DETROIT 141808220 1220220 0.36
Salary Cap draws on the Wages of Wins, by penalising a team one draft point for each $3.4m they are over the cap ($140m / 41 wins).
It doesn't consider salary below the cap, because incentivising going below the cap is bad. There is a disincentive to take on expiring contracts though.
Your mileage may vary on the specifics, but I'd argue a fair non-tanking draft should be based on four things:
- Salary over the cap
- Star players
- Quality of recent draft picks
- Playoff performance.
A solution that looks at assets will provide a fairer draft than one based on record, as well as "solving" tanking, if there is no incentive to lose games on the court.
The solution then, is identify team advantages that translate to better results, but which can't be easily gamed.
If the draft is forward looking, why look exclusively backwards at recent performance?
Ultimately teams have three assets: players under contract, cap space and draft picks. The worst team is likely the one with the poorest assets, and that is not necessarily the one with the worst record.
Secondly, what is the "worst" team?
Does the worst record belong to the worst team going forward?
What if their best player is injured but their underlying ability is very good?
What if they've had a lot of good draft picks who will be very good in the coming season?
The Dunc'd On podcast (@johnhollinger.bsky.social) has several good episodes on tanking, and correctly identifies the point of the draft, but the possible solutions becomes much wider once you lose the assumption that record = worst
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HCl...
Firstly, who should the draft help? Nominally the "worst" team, but the draft is forward looking, locking in a player for 4-8 years. The team that had the worst record this year, is not necessarily the most "in need".
Tanking is not the problem.
Tanking is the outcome of a poor solution to the actual problem.
The actual problem is: how to improve competitive balance in the league through the equitable distribution of draft picks.
When you look at that problem, a different set of questions arise
Billy Beane saying "you're not looking at the problem" in Moneyball
Done for long enough you can reach the perfect solution that doesn't solve the problem.
"Don't Chase the Design" is a way of short-cutting back to the question of "what problem are we trying to solve", because each design should be tested against the problem, not the previous solution.
We have a saying at work: "Don't Chase the Design"
It comes up relatively often because when problem solving, it is common to land on what looks like the right solution excepting one or two things.
So you tweak it and that brings up a different problem.
So you tweak that, then tweak that, and so on.
As the NBA tank-a-thon gathers pace, it is interesting to watch how the remedies become increasingly complex, and decreasingly disconnected from the problem.
www.nytimes.com/athletic/705...
What follows is a long thread, that will try and get at the problem, and suggest a solution.
Not sure if you saw it at the time and my blog had gone awol, but I put some numbers around England's historic participation and performance relative to Australia in 2021 that dovetails with your thoughts.
web.archive.org/web/20220702...
As a bonus, here is a graph of all ratings over the past 25 years. There are five distinct eras of top team:
Australia to 2009
England in 2011 to 2012
South Africa from 2013 to 2016
India from 2017 to 2022
Australia from 2022
Rating Form Matches Australia 1298.8 -14.0 17.1 India 1220.7 -25.8 18.7 South Africa 1197.7 61.4 13.9 England 1128.0 6.3 21.9 New Zealand 1109.1 22.7 12.6 Pakistan 992.9 -21.4 9.6 Sri Lanka 951.8 6.4 9.9 West Indies 845.1 -12.3 15.6 Bangladesh 732.0 2.9 12.9 Afghanistan 616.5 -49.0 2.9 Ireland 536.6 -55.0 3.9 Zimbabwe 469.9 -16.5 10.6
End of year ratings following the Boxing Day Test. Australia end the year as the number one side, with South Africa the big mover up from 1080 at the beginning of the year
Rating Form Matches Australia 1298.5 3.9 14.1 India 1218.0 -26.3 18.7 South Africa 1197.0 62.0 13.9 England 1125.2 -14.1 18.9 New Zealand 1091.8 16.5 9.6 Pakistan 991.9 -20.2 9.6 Sri Lanka 945.3 7.1 9.9 West Indies 857.4 0.1 12.6 Bangladesh 722.1 3.5 12.9 Afghanistan 622.0 -48.6 2.9 Ireland 538.3 -54.4 3.9 Zimbabwe 474.0 -16.0 10.6
Updated Test Rankings.
South Africa surging after the big wins in India.
Australia was expected to beat England by 132 runs and did slightly better. Noting injuries England are still closer than the ratings would indicate.
Listening to Bertus is always a good use of your time. Glas to see this podcast back after a little hiatus.
The CEO of one of the three biggest boards and one of three people appointed to a panel to consider the future of Test cricket is not really just an opinion.
The reason I can point to 12 y/o articles about it is that it has been a common view for many for a long time that fewer teams should play.
Test cricket might be threatened, but to the extent it is, it is not T20 doing the threatening, but the actions of the members apparently most supportive of the form. Sportsmen are driven by status. They want to be paid what they feel they deserve, given the pay of comparable players. In a world where financially weak members can't match what the market offers for their best players, but the financially successful boards can shower riches on second rate cricketers, it is a grave injustice not to let cricketers from poor countries achieve better pay. But there is a second aspect to status seeking, and that is to perform on the highest stage, to draw plaudits from the public and fellow players, to be compared favourably with greats from past and present. Test cricket remains the avenue by which that status must be achieved. But access to it is being steadily eroded, and that, more than anything, hurts test cricket. Cricket is slowly globalising, the game spreading gradually, with as many players outside the test nations now as play in any individual non-subcontinental nation. Greats players of the future will increasingly emerge from outside test cricket's current boundaries, and they'll continue to be produced in the smaller test nations - even though, by and large, the biggest, strongest teams will remain what they are now: India, England, Australia and South Africa.
Yet, in the very near future, it will be T20 with the largest, most inclusive world championship, T20 that offers the highest pay, and the best opportunities for professional advancement. Unless it quickly changes, test cricket will offer no, or only a small world championship, will continue to be barred to the vast minority of playing nations, will continue to offer to its weaker full members short series seen as warmups at best, and inconveniences to be avoided at worst. If test cricket is to be the pinnacle of the sport it must be the pinnacle of achievement for all its players, not only those in England, Australia and India. And test cricket is not; it was, perhaps 20 years ago, but it is not now. There is a widely held belief that test cricket might, soon, be reduced only to "those teams that care for it", meaning those same three, if not those two. This is true, but back to front, test cricket is slowly being eroded back to those three teams, in the pursuit of profit that only playing your fellow rich nations can bring. When there are at least a dozen nations worth of cricketers who would saw off their right arm to play test cricket in the sort of tournament I outlined here, that is not the inevitable result of change, it is wilful destruction.
The Ashes will only matter, and therefore make money, while it remains the oldest and biggest of Test's many series. Take away that context and it is an anachronism. That's a weird choice for an Australian cricket administrator to make
Most relevantly, if the Big 3 dont want to support Test cricket outside a limited number of teams, then it will die. Not because it isn't viable, but because you cannot maintain primacy if Test cricket is a secondary priority for the majority of players.
web.archive.org/web/20160401...
That structure hasn't changed since I wrote about it 12 years ago. Most markets don't make money from their games regardless of format. If CA wants to play international cricket, and it is 80% if their remit, then they need to support those teams.
web.archive.org/web/20160401...
