"The best sport in the world," agreed Rainsford.

"For the hunter," amended Whitney. "Not for the jaguar."

"Don't talk rot, Whitney," said Rainsford.

"You're a big game hunter, not a philosopher. Who cares how a jaguar feels?"

"Perhaps the jaguar does," observed Whitney.

I imagine Tim and Co all clad in smoking jackets having a similar conversation this upcoming off-season as they contemplate the future of both a franchise and a fan base. This off-season will tip the proverbial hat as to TC's true plan for the team moving forward. So what jaguars do we keep? Who will be sent out to the hunting grounds and who will be our proverbial hunter?....Hunter meaning coach....Okay, I've exhausted this metaphor.

I have put in some work for this article. As I see it our fan base remains split. On one hand you have a portion of fans who are embracing losing as many games as possible in order to maximize our draft position in a clearly lost year. On the other you have a slice of fans happy to see the re-invigoration of Nugz basketball. Let's examine this the only way I know how...with MATH! Seems only fitting on 'pi' day to dig into some numerical minutiae. (WARNING: This data is perilously long. Please skip to end for a synthesis of said data)

I have combed the top ten draft picks of every year since the NBA/ABA merger (1976). Below I have every 'star' player listed that was drafted 1-10 in these drafts. The common perception being you need two 'star' players to ship in the NBA. I define these stars as players who are pillars of a franchise. They are one of the top two players on their team and hypothetically would be integral in any championship run for whoever drafted them. The reason I chose position 1-10 is because that is where the Nuggets will presumably draft this year and it is a nice, neat line of demarcation for the data. (Note: Some may disagree with some of my selections as well as some that I left out. I struggled with adding the likes of Horford and Joakim. I also included some like Tom Chambers and Steve Francis that many would disagree with. I maintain this list is comprised of bona fide stars. Players capable of turning a franchise. Feel free to disagree. I will list year, star players, and draft position in parentheses. An asterisk after a player's name indicates at least one championship. A double asterisk indicates that that player was the best player on his team at the time of winning at least one ship.

1976-Adrian Dantley (6), Robert Parish (8)*

1977-Marques Johnson (3), Jack Sikma (8)*

1978-Larry Bird (6)**

1979-Magic Johnson (1)**

1980-Kevin Mchale (3)*

1981-Mark Aguirre (1)*, Isaiah Thomas (2)**, Tom Chambers (8)

1982-James Worthy (1)*, Dominique Wilkins (3)

1983-Ralph Sampson (1)

1984- Hakeem Olajuwon (1)**, Michael Jordan (3)**, Charles Barkley (5)

1985-Patrick Ewing (1), Chris Mullin (7)

1986-Brad Daugherty (1)

1987-David Robinson (1)**, Scottie Pippen (5)*

1988-Mitch Richmond (5)*

1989-Glen Rice (3)*

1990-Gary Payton (2)*

1991-Larry Johnson (1), Dikembe Mutumbo (4)

1992-Shaquille O'Neal (1)**, Alonzo Mourning (2)*

1993-Chris Webber (1), Anfernee Hardaway (3), Jamal Mashburn (4)

1994-Glenn Robinson (1)*, Jason Kidd (2)*, Grant Hill (3)

1995-Kevin Garnett (5)*

1996-Allen Iverson (1), Stephon Marbury (4), Ray Allen (5)*, Antoine Walker (6)*

1997-Tim Duncan (1)**, Chauncey Billups (3)**, Tracy Mcgrady (9)

1998-Mike Bibby (2), Antwan Jamison (4), Vince Carter (5), Dirk Nowitzki (9)**, Paul Pierce (10)**

1999-Elton Brand (1), Steve Francis (2), Baron Davis (3)

2000-...Worst. Draft. Ever.

2001-Pau Gasol (3)*

2002-Yao Ming (1), Amar'e Stoudemire (9)

2003-Lebron James (1)**, Carmelo Anthony (3), Chris Bosh (4)*, Dwayne Wade (5)**

2004-Dwight Howard (1), Andre Iguodala (9)

2005-Deron Williams (3), Chris Paul (4)

2006-Lamarcus Aldridge (2), Brandon Roy (6), Rudy Gay (8)

2007-Kevin Durant (2)

2008-Derrick Rose (1), Russell Westbrook (4), Kevin Love (5)

2009-Blake Griffin (1), James Harden (3), Stephen Curry (7)

2010-John Wall (1), Demarcus Cousins (5)

2011-Kyrie Irving (1)

2012-Anthony Davis (1), Damian Lillard (6)

2013-...ugh. Sorry I can't consider anyone here a star.

2014-Andrew Wiggins (1)

Before we continue feel free to debate my above list or submit additions. Just know that I took this list seriously and I stand by it. So here are some quick stats through 39 years of the draft:

• 24 of the #1 draft picks are stars. (61.5% of #1 picks become stars!)
• 45 of the #1-3 draft picks are stars (38.5% of #1-3 picks become stars)
• 61 of the #1-5 draft picks are stars (31.3% of #1-5 picks become stars)
• 77 of the #1-10 draft picks are stars (19.7% of the 1-10 picks become stars)
• Only 16 star players of these 77 were drafted #6-10
• 30 out of said 77 stars since 1976 have won at least one title
• Of that 30, only 13 have won as the clear best player on the team

So we can surmise from this data that the NBA draft more or less makes sense. The closer to the top of the draft, the better your chance of landing a star who can influence a franchise. What strikes me is the disproportionate ratio of number one picks who become stars. Bottom line: If you own a #1 pick, rejoice! Over 3 times out of 5 you WILL draft a star! As you can see it decreases at a reasonable clip when dropping down to top 3 and top 5. The big surprise comes at #6-10 with only 20.8% of star players being drafted past position 5.

This indicates that if you own a top five pick it is an EXTREMELY valuable pick as you have just under a 1 in 3 chance to land a franchise player. Keep in mind I don't mean a KD or MJ necessarily, simply a star that can be a cornerstone for your franchise. When you draft 6-10, your chances plummet to 1 in 5. Now there will be Mullins and Lillards occasionally in this range but your margin for error is much greater as a GM in this range.

• Another interesting note is that of my 77 stars listed above only 39% have won a title.
• Keep in mind as well that recent history shows us with very few exceptions (Pistons in 04, Mavs in 11) that you need TWO of said stars to win a ship. This further complicates math if you have to draft them both.

So whats conclusions can we draw as to the viability of tanking? I will posit the following.

• If you, a GM, believe you are one of the worst FIVE teams going into a season, it behooves you to NOT try and improve your team and hope for a top five pick (e.g. tank, think 76ers).
• If you are NOT a bottom five NBA team talent-wise and you find yourself mid-season around the bottom five, it behooves you to NOT try and improve your team for the same reason (e.g. tank, think Lakers and Knicks).

Finally, where do the Nuggets fit in this year? This is indeed a conundrum and where I suspect the rift in our fan base stems from. The data clearly show a top five pick as being worth a good deal and worth mortgaging a season for. The problem being no one thought the Nuggets were a bottom five team at season's start (including TC, Brian Shaw, and the players I imagine). I would argue that no one thought the Nuggets were a bottom TEN team. Most would have put them 11-13th worst in the league at season's start. So to sum it up there are two valid arguments when looking back on the firing of Shaw:

• When it became abundantly clear that the Nugz were not playoff bound and among the worst in the NBA, we should have kept Shaw, bit the bullet, finished out the season slumping, and hoped for a top five draft pick. We could then reassess our roster in the off-season and move forward.
  
• When it became clear that Shaw was not working out, we should cut our losses, promote Melvin, and hope for the best this season (draft positions 1-5 being out of feasible reach record-wise).

Notice I am not taking a stance here yet but a few tidbits to consider when weighing the pros and cons of tanking

• There actually is NO such thing as tanking so far as coaches and players are concerned. Philly may continue to hamstring it's coaches and players by fielding sub par rosters but players and coaches will NEVER step out on court actively throwing games. Tanking does not exist in this sense and it would be very hard for the Nuggets (a talented team despite what some think to lay down and die every night and achieve 76er like sucktitude)
• Tanking guarantees you NOTHING. It simply increases odds to improve, nothing more.
• The stars netted from terrible seasons ARE ABSOLUTELY needed to win ships. Herein lies the irony. You need to be bad for a year or nine to get said stars through aforementioned odds. Then you need to develop, draft, and grow smartly on your way to ships. No team sucks one year, gets a star, then wins the next. It takes time.
• Basketball is a business, a product sold to fans. If your ownership commits to tanking it is essentially throwing the finger to all but the most ardent, educated fans. No one wants to watch, televise, cover, root, for an organization that is throwing in the towel short term. This could prove disastrous if done over a long period of time (see Bobcats, well liked owner, great basketball region, terrible results and fandom as a result of poor management)
• The data is clear. Frankly you need at least one top 5 pick to START building your championship roster. This means at least one lucky sucky year for your franchise, probably more until you land that gem.

So make of all that what you will. Keep in mind ship teams are built with role players and vets and exciting youngsters that I have not factored into any of this. These are all pieces that are relatively easier to acquire via free agency, trades, and later draft picks. I am simply focusing on the franchise pillars in this data. The crux of the Nuggets problems lies in their wallowing in that 6-10 range. Think of this draft position as the 'long two' of the NBA draft. It is not efficient, but when it hits, boy it's pretty! So if you find yourself dug squarely into one side of the tanking argument take stock in everything above. I am very much anti-tank but I simply can't deny the math and the history that shows the Nuggets need to be early 2000's bad in order to have a realistic chance at shipping in the next ten years.

Conversely, the pro-tankers need to realize that while, yes, this one gamble may be our only salvation, are you truly considering the costs of being a losing franchise (assuming we don't get top 5 or lucky this year)? Organizations are made up of people and ideas just like any enterprise, successful or not, and we can't simply roll dice, crunch odds, and flip talent for unproven picks without considering the possibly downsides to our future.

For the four of you still reading, thank you and get a life. I began this article and research as an anti-tanking manifesto but now I truly see both sides to argument. If we Stiffs, much like Tim and Co, can meet each other somewhere in the middle, I see the probability of a prosperous future ahead of us...just no Eddy Currys, please!