“Analytics” Does Not Compel Extreme Tanking Theory
By 
Mike Tanier has been having some fun on Twitter with Sam Hinkie apologists taking a victory lap for having won one whole playoff round, suggesting that the Philadelphia team that went from last to Super Bowl by actually trying to win might be a better model:
Analytics is a series of tools used to examine problems and find data-driven solutions.
It is not a magic formula that exchanges years of losing on purpose for future wins.
This is the core issue that, judging from my timeline, folks are having trouble grappling with. https://t.co/xO3kFT5U4b— Mike Tanier (@MikeTanier) May 25, 2018
One great thing about Hinkie-Sashi Moneyball is that it lacks falsifiability: the success can always be 2 years away, and years of failure are shrugged off as "no other choice." Meanwhile, other teams rebuild in a fraction of the time. https://t.co/oVbdl7H8g0
— Mike Tanier (@MikeTanier) May 25, 2018
Huge fan of the "well, we stunk 4 years but won the equivalent of a Wild Card game as a result, so that's an unqualified success" school of thought. https://t.co/ZXiUa30qJy
— Mike Tanier (@MikeTanier) May 25, 2018
Meanwhile, the Philly team that uses analytics properly went last place to the Super Bowl in 2 years, thanks in large part to a trade with the NFL's reigning Tantric Moneyball Vegans. Any further questions?
— Mike Tanier (@MikeTanier) May 25, 2018
As Sean McIndoe observes, the fact that the Stanley Cup final will be between an expansion team and an aging contender whose window was widely assumed to have closed is another problem for the “completely gut the team if you’re not a clear contender” crowd. I’ll do a more systematic post later this week, but while yes the Cubs and Astros won after tanking, the Eagles and Patriots didn’t, the Rockets and Warriors didn’t, the Knights and Capitals didn’t, etc. etc. And it’s also worth noting that the two teams that tore themselves down to the studs to try to get McDavid or Eichel are both still terrible, and the team that inadvertently backed into McDavid also sucked this year. The idea that multi-year periods of deliberate losing is the only way to build a good team is not actually supported by the evidence, and people who focus on the upsides of tanking tend to ignore the downsides, especially in terms of player development. Obviously, trading assets for futures is often a prudent part of a rebuild, but the idea that you have to be bad for years and years to win is just not true.
This is another good point by Tanier:
I'm also fascinated by this concept that there's no difference between 8-8 and 1-15, or that 1-15 is "better." It's not if you watch the games, play them, coach them, sell sodas at them, etc. Only if the team exists as just some Internet thought experiment to you.
— Mike Tanier (@MikeTanier) May 26, 2018
Sure, getting better draft picks is better all things being equal. But there’s an underlying assumption behind extreme tanking ideology that there’s no value to any season that doesn’t end in a championship. It would be better, for example, for the Canucks to have slightly improved their draft position and maybe get a late first rounder this year or something and have traded the Sedins rather than keep them for the possibility of the last thrilling moment they in fact delivered. This is a philosophical question — there’s no “right” answer — but I personally find this an alien view. On the one hand seeing great players is a major reason to be a fan, and on the other hand the odds that the marginal return you get for conducting a fire sale will be the difference between you being a championship team and not are remote. Unless you get very lucky, if you’re only in it for championships watching spectator sports seems like a pretty counterproductive hobby.
With respect to the finals, I’ll pick Capitals in 6, but certainly wouldn’t be shocked if the clock never strikes midnight. And they’re a great story in part because they took advantage of teams that still overvalue size and undervalue speed and skill. That’s using analytics right.