In the NBA, there's a difference between 'tanking' and 'positioning'

Question: Can we elevate the conversation?

You know, from tanking in the NBA to what it actually is?

Because the 2026 version of what is being targeted as ‘‘tanking’’ is giving what’s happening a bad name. It’s called ‘‘positioning.’’ What NBA teams are being accused of doing and being heavily fined for — so far, commissioner Adam Silver has hit the Jazz and the Pacers with $500K and $100K fines, respectively — is not at all the same as what tanking has been accused of being in the past.

This is some new at-the-quarter-century break different-‘‘ish.’’ In ‘‘tanking,’’ you lose with intent. In ‘‘positioning,’’ the game within the game being played in the NBA, you simply don’t win with a plan. The difference is similar to reading this column and saying it’s not an ‘‘opinion,’’ it’s a ‘‘perspective.’’

And at the core of it all — the crime of tanking, the art of positioning — coming in late June is an incoming rookie class predicted to be one the NBA has never seen before. Which has created this problem the NBA has never seen before. One the New York Times’ The Pulse asked (quasi-rightfully claimed!) if it’s ‘‘the best freshman class ever.’’ An answer just by sheer volume of the number of freshmen who are currently the best players in the NCAA is a resounding ‘‘Duh,’’ attached to the 99.9998% belief that most, if not all, who made The Athletic’s essential newsletter pose that extremely rhetorical question, ‘‘Are going to be in this year’s NBA Draft?’’

Mikel Brown Jr. (Louisville). Darryn Peterson (Kansas). AJ Dybantsa (BYU). Cameron Boozer (Duke). Caleb Wilson (UNC). Tounde Yessoufou (Baylor). Kingston Flemings (Houston). Keaton Wagler (Illinois). Darius Acuff (Arkansas). Brayden Burries (Arizona). Nate Ament (Tennessee). All are on something extra. All will be exactly what a specific team needs when it drafts him. The teams just have to be in the right position to get which player they want and would have still drafted had they had a higher-positioned pick.

All in all, there is a strong possibility that of the top 12 or 15 picks in this NBA Draft, 10 or 12 could be players who just finished their freshman seasons. All (with the exception of Burries) currently younger than 20 years old. Teams doing what has to be done to get first NBA dibs on one and signed to a rookie contract is called ‘‘vying for position,’’ not tanking.

See, tanking is gambling. What’s going on with teams losing right now to get one of these prodigies on their roster is leveraging.

Normally, this is about oversized-team-logo-card superiority. To get the top lottery pick or one of the top three lottery picks for the one or two generational players whose name former commissioner David Stern or current commish Silver would call first on draft night. But this time, every team that doesn’t make the play-in (this most definitely includes the Bulls, even as they unintentionally lose by default) wants to be in the best possible position to get one of the top eight, 10 or 12 players who could realistically be its version of franchise-changing. Whom that player is this year makes no difference. That’s the difference. They are all so close in skill level, skill sets, talent and promise that ‘‘generational’’ might reasonably apply to the first 10 picks.

So saying tanking is ‘‘rampant’’ and has been ‘‘worse this year than we’ve seen in recent memory,’’ as Silver did, or calling teams that seem to want to lose ‘‘tankers’’ or screaming, ‘‘Abolish the lottery,’’ in news headlines as if it were the new Jim Crow is not in any sense adequate. And trying to end or find a remedy for or fix it won’t work because the chances of having another draft class this dope and deep be available won’t happen again until the league announces it’s NBA100 team. Everyone’s diagnosis is wrong, so any solution to correct it is going to be wronger.

With all of the anti-tanking cries and campaigns to de-emphasize losing — all concerns that will have their day in court during NBA meetings in the offseason — there’s a quiet hope that overzealousness and overreach don’t cloud the changes that will be enforced. With hope the league brain trust will realize how unicorns existed this year in college basketball.

With that in mind, let’s hope the NBA keeps in mind that, when it comes to crime — even to those who happen to look at losing games to make their teams better as the sports version of a criminal activity, instead of savvy avoid-the-second-apron-by-any-means business maneuvering — the crooks are always going to be ahead of the rules and regulations. Regardless of what the NBA powers-that-be do or however ironclad they make new laws to stop them. Losing games is a part of the game; losing the game ain’t.

So can we just for this moment start the R.I.P.-ing of tanking and fully embrace the beauty of the long-game art of positioning? Stop referring to the art of it as a crime? If, for one season, it’s putting lipstick and eyelash extensions on a pig, then just let the pig have its ‘‘America’s Next Top Model’’ moment in this moment.

It’s chess, not dominoes. It’s the ‘‘lose a million to get 10 million’’ game plan. A single-season movement. It’s not intentionally losing; it’s the art of winning by not winning.