There was an article in this month's Atlantic (which I've been mysteriously receiving since last month; perhaps because we both have loose ties to college) arguing against the strategy of tanking, which has become such a tremendous issue in the NBA this year that's it's attracted the attention of non-sports magazines.

Inserted in the "Business" section because of its managerial angle on professional sports and latent connection to actual business practices, the piece makes the general point that it's better to be mediocre than super bad because the former is closer to greatness than the latter. Writer Derek Thompson further notes that a team labeled just above average is significantly more likely to morph into a contender than a team at the bottom with a high draft pick. Such picks, he argues, represent fool's gold, a gamble, and rarely work out the way organizations hope they do. It's the classic story of overrating potential.

All good points. I agree that tanking is not always the solution, but its end result -- the NBA draft -- has been every year but two (three or four if you're getting technical) since 1979 (that's as far back as I'm willing to go at this time).

Every NBA finals champion since then has drafted their best player in the lottery (or in the top 10 before the system was invented in 1985) with the exception of the 1983 Philadelphia 76ers, who traded for Moses Malone and Julius Erving, the 2004 Detroit Pistons (acquired Chauncey Billups, Rasheed Wallace, Rip Hamilton, Ben Wallace) and arguably the recent Miami Heat teams, which added Lebron James and Chris Bosh though they did get number two man, Dwyayne Wade, with the 5th pick in the 2003 NBA draft.

Excluding aforementioned exceptions, below is the list of NBA finals winners, their teams, and their best player, whom they drafted in the top ten, since 1979:

Lakers, Magic Johnson (#1 overall pick, also traded for Kareem Abdul Jabar)

Celtics, Larry Bird (#2)

Pistons, Isiah Thomas (#2)

Bulls, Michael Jordan (#3)

Rockets, Hakeem Olajuwon (#1)

Spurs, Tim Duncan (#1)

Lakers, Kobe Bryant (#13, acquired Shaq in free agency)

Heat, Dwayne Wade (#5, acquired Shaq, Lebron James, Chris Bosh. Wade was best player for '06 title; Lebron was best for last two)

Celtics, Paul Pierce (#10, picked up Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett in trades)

Mavericks, Dirk Nowitzki (#9)

How could you recommend against tanking when lottery picks that've stayed with their original team have been essential to basically every NBA championship winner since 1979? If you don't have that franchise player via the draft, tanking may be the only way get one.

The best part about drafting a franchise player rather than acquiring one via trade or free agency is the drafted version comes at a bargain price for his first few seasons. While the superstar develops on a rebuilding team, his team will likely miss the playoffs. Thus, the organization has a few years to draft his supporting pieces. In an ideal tanking situation, the superstar won't learn to make his teammates better until year two or three, creating an Oklahoma City Thunder-like situation where three superstars (Kevin Durant, Russell Westrbook, and James Harden) are chosen before the team begins to contend.

Without question, the NBA draft is an inexact science that burns more teams than it rewards. Even so, it almost always has to be won at least once (usually more) by a franchise for it to overcome mediocrity and even become a contender, much less win a title.

Thompson's advice might be best suited for teams who've found their star, but have been locked in mediocrity for a frustratingly long period. Maybe the Nuggets shouldn't have given up Carmelo when they did (they've been superstar-less since) and the Knicks shouldn't be content to deal him and start over next season. Perhaps the Timberwolves should have made a better effort to keep Kevin Garnett back in the day. The Celtics held on to Pierce. Look how it worked for them.