most of the time tanking doesnt work, if it did then there would be no bad nba teams
but when you have a trash team with no developing young players, not tanking NEVER works
thats the difference, one side you have a small chance of landing a franchise player and on the other side you have no chance
using the article's bobcats as an example, they tanked for AD and they had a 25% chance of getting him. a 1 in 4 chance of getting what they wanted
unfortunately for them the pick went to the hornets who had a 13.7% chance and the bobcats had to settle with the second pick
but the tanking, while it didnt work out, was absolutely worth having the highest chance of getting that first pick
its the same reason offences work to get players in their most efficient spots, you always want to give yourself the highest chance of succeeding but even if you do that sometimes it wont work out.
IF the bobcats were a little luckier, they would have AD and the 3rd best team in the east right now after signing al jeff this off season
I really agree with you for a bunch of reasons that I don't want to get in to right now. For one, it doesn't make sense to declare "tanking doesn't work" based on the fact that losing teams most often continue to lose... There are a whole number of outside factors that keep bad teams down, including bad management.
It's also considering tanking in a vacuum for bad teams when tanking is actually one not-ideal option that's part of a range of not-ideal options for talentless teams.
I just want to say Henry Abbott is the classic "dumb writer who thinks he's smart".