Everyone who plays 82-0 eventually becomes obsessed with the same goal:

Build the perfect team.

Find Wilt Chamberlain.

Stack rebounds.

Load up on assists.

Get enough steals and blocks.

Finally finish:

82-0.

But once you’ve figured out how to win, there is another challenge that might actually be harder.

Can you go 0-82?

Instead of assembling the greatest basketball team imaginable, can you deliberately create the worst lineup in the history of the game?

Five players.

Eighty-two games.

Zero wins.

It sounds easy.

It isn’t.

In fact, based on community attempts so far, going 0-82 may be significantly more difficult than going 82-0.

Is 0-82 Actually Possible?

Technically, nothing in the game’s public explanation says that an 0-82 season is impossible.

82-0 calculates a team’s Strength Rating using five statistics:

• Points
• Rebounds
• Assists
• Steals
• Blocks

The combined production is then processed through a nonlinear win-projection curve.

Therefore, the obvious strategy is straightforward:

Build a team producing almost nothing.

But something strange happens.

Even unbelievably terrible teams keep winning a few games.

SB Nation’s James Dator spent hundreds of attempts deliberately trying to go 0-82 and reported that his worst result was 3-79. He found that players averaging more than roughly 1.5 points could already make the lineup too competitive for the challenge.

Other community players have reported:

5-77

4-78

3-79

and even:

2-80.

A Bluesky player also reported reaching 2-80 despite having multiple players with zeros across their stat lines.

Even more recently, an August 2026 82-0 community discussion centered on lineups with a total score around 2.1, with players still trying to discover just how low the game can go.

So the best current answer is:

0-82 may be theoretically possible, but there is no clear verified example I could find from the original game.

And that’s what makes the challenge interesting.

How Do You Try to Go 0-82?

The normal 82-0 strategy has to be completely reversed.

If you’re trying to win every game, you hunt:

Wilt.

Kareem.

Jokić.

Giannis.

Luka.

If you’re trying to lose every game:

Run from them.

Rule No. 1: Hunt the 2020s

Normally, the 2020s are one of the game’s strongest eras.

For tanking, they’re also potentially the best.

Why?

Expanded NBA rosters and short-term call-ups create players who appeared in only a handful of games.

Some accumulated virtually no statistics.

SB Nation found that the 2010s and especially the 2020s were useful for an 0-82 attempt because the larger player pools contain players with 0.0 values in several categories.

So while you might normally celebrate getting:

1960s Warriors

you should celebrate getting:

2020s anything with a deep bench.

Rule No. 2: Zero Is Your Wilt Chamberlain

For 82-0:

41.5 PPG is beautiful.

For 0-82:

0.0 PPG is beautiful.

You want players with:

0.0 PTS

0.0 AST

0.0 STL

0.0 BLK

and ideally:

0.0 REB.

One community player described finding a player with zeroes across the entire stat line as exactly what an 0-82 hunter wants.

Rule No. 3: Avoid Accidental Rebounders

This is important.

You might find someone averaging only:

0.5 points

and assume you’ve struck gold.

Then notice he’s averaging:

2.5 rebounds.

That’s bad for tanking.

Remember, the game doesn’t evaluate only points.

Rebounds, assists, steals and blocks also increase team strength.

For the perfect disaster, you want someone who contributes nothing anywhere.

Rule No. 4: Use Your Skips Backwards

Trying to go 82-0?

You might use a team or era skip to search for Wilt.

Trying to go 0-82?

Do the opposite.

If you get a franchise/era combination loaded with stars:

Get out.

Seeing 1960s Warriors is now terrible.

Seeing 1970s Lakers is terrible.

Seeing 1980s Celtics is terrible.

You want obscure combinations with deep benches and short-term players.

The Top 10 Worst Players to Target in 82-0

There is an important qualification before this ranking.

82-0 does not publish an official “10 worst players” leaderboard.

The unofficial 82-0 Guide currently tracks more than 10,000 player/team/era combinations and places thousands in its F tier, but its publicly indexed page emphasizes the highest-value players rather than providing a stable official bottom 10.

So this ranking is based on documented community 0-82 attempts and known zero/near-zero stat lines.

In other words:

These are the players you want if you’re intentionally trying to destroy your season.

1. Greg Whittington — Denver Nuggets, 2020s

We may have found the anti-Wilt.

Greg Whittington appeared in four games for Denver during the 2020-21 season.

His averages:

0.0 PPG0.0 RPG0.0 APG0.0 SPG0.0 BPG

Yes.

Everything:

ZERO.

His Basketball Reference page confirms he recorded zero in all five statistics that 82-0 says it uses.

That’s about as perfect as an intentionally terrible 82-0 selection can get.

Why You Want Him

He literally contributes nothing to your Strength Rating in the five primary categories.

0-82 Value

10/10 disaster pick.

If Denver/2020s appears and Whittington is available:

Take him immediately.

2. Dmytro Skapintsev — Knicks, 2020s

This name has already become part of 82-0 tanking folklore.

A community player specifically identified Skapintsev on the 2020s Knicks as a player displaying:

zeroes across the board.

That is exactly what we’re looking for.

Why You Want Him

No points.

No meaningful secondary production.

No accidental category that makes the team better.

0-82 Value

10/10.

Greg Whittington and Dmytro Skapintsev are basically your Wilt and Kareem of losing.

3. Justin Jackson — Minnesota Timberwolves, 2020s

Another community 0-82 discussion specifically identified 2020s Minnesota Justin Jackson as having zeroes across the board in the game’s displayed statistics.

The reason is understandable.

Jackson appeared for Minnesota in 2023-24 but logged only an extremely small amount of playing time and recorded no counting statistics in those appearances.

Why You Want Him

Extremely limited statistical production.

Exactly what the reverse challenge demands.

0-82 Value

9.9/10.

If you’re trying to lose, this is a jackpot spin.

4. Isaiah Stevens

A Footballguys 82-0 player deliberately constructed a lineup with fewer than five combined points per game.

Isaiah Stevens played point guard.

He averaged:

0.0 points in that selected version.

The team’s entire backcourt produced zero points and zero assists.

Why You Want Him

The nightmare when trying to tank is accidentally getting a guard who generates four or five assists.

Stevens contributed essentially none.

Result

That lineup finished:

5-77.

It still won five games.

That’s how difficult 0-82 is.

0-82 Value

9.5/10.

5. Alondes Williams

Williams was Stevens’ backcourt partner on that same intentional disaster team.

Together, Stevens and Williams produced:

0.0 combined PPG

0.0 combined APG

and only 0.3 combined steals, according to the player who constructed the team.

That’s phenomenal tanking.

Why You Want Him

Almost nothing offensively.

Almost nothing defensively.

Exactly the profile we’re searching for.

0-82 Value

9.5/10.

6. Dmytro Skapintsev’s 3-79 Supporting Cast: Bimbo Coles

Now we reach one of the strongest pieces of evidence for a legitimate 0-82 strategy.

One documented lineup finished:

3-79

Its starting five was:

PG — Bimbo Coles

SG — Dmytro Skapintsev

SF — Jim Creighton

PF — Jason Collins

C — Viacheslav Kravtsov

The entire five-man roster combined for only:

4.8 PPG4.4 RPG1.2 APG0.3 SPG0.5 BPG.

Why Coles Makes the List

Even with essentially no help, this roster could muster only three victories.

Coles was the point guard of one of the worst publicly documented 82-0 builds I’ve found.

0-82 Value

9/10.

7. Jim Creighton

Creighton was the small forward on that same legendary 3-79 roster.

Again, the key isn’t merely that he was a limited NBA player.

It’s that the specific player version selected contributed to a lineup averaging fewer than:

five total team points per game.

Five players.

Not one player.

Why You Want Him

Almost no contribution to the team’s five statistical categories.

0-82 Value

9/10.

8. Jason Collins

Jason Collins had a long NBA career because he could provide things that traditional box scores don’t always capture.

That’s terrible news for 82-0 winning.

And wonderful news for 0-82.

He was the PF on the documented 3-79 roster.

Why You Want Him

The game says it focuses on raw historical production.

A player whose real-life contribution often involved screens, physical defense, positioning and matchup work doesn’t receive much help from a model focused on:

PTS + REB + AST + STL + BLK.

0-82 Value

8.8/10.

9. Viacheslav Kravtsov

Kravtsov occupied center on the 3-79 lineup.

Center is normally the most dangerous position when you’re trying to lose.

Even mediocre centers can accidentally collect:

Six rebounds.

A block.

A few points.

And suddenly your awful lineup starts winning games.

Kravtsov helped keep the entire roster to just:

4.4 rebounds per game combined.

Why You Want Him

You’re getting extremely low center production without accidentally landing a rebound machine.

0-82 Value

8.8/10.

10. Brian Scalabrine — Late-Career Version

Brian Scalabrine finally gets to be a first-round pick.

But only because we’re trying to lose.

SB Nation specifically mentioned using late-career Scalabrine, whose selected version averaged only around:

1.1 points per game.

And even that wasn’t bad enough to produce 0-82.

Why You Want Him

One point per game is fantastic for the reverse challenge.

Why He Isn’t Higher

One point might actually be too productive.

That’s how ridiculous this challenge becomes.

SB Nation’s experiment suggested that once a selected player gets above roughly 1.5 PPG, the chances of accidentally accumulating several wins increase.

0-82 Value

8.5/10.

Honorable Mentions

Several other players deserve attention because they have appeared on intentionally terrible community builds.

Ryan Bowen

Part of the 5-77 team that averaged only 4.8 total points.

Pete Chilcutt

Another starter from that same lineup.

Michael Stewart

Its center.

Bryce Drew

PG of another documented 5-77 lineup.

DeAndre Liggins

SG on that same disaster.

Jeff Lamp

Filled SF.

Ashraf Amaya

Filled PF.

Les Jepsen

Filled center.

Any of those names should make an 0-82 hunter much happier than seeing Michael Jordan.

What Would the Perfect 0-82 Team Look Like?

If we could freely select from documented options rather than relying on spins, I’d want something along these lines:

PG — Isaiah Stevens

SG — Alondes Williams

SF — Dmytro Skapintsev

PF — Greg Whittington

C — the lowest-output eligible zero-stat center available

The dream isn’t five bad NBA players.

It’s:

Five players with literal zeroes.

Remember the formula.

You don’t merely need poor scorers.

You need:

No points.

No rebounds.

No assists.

No steals.

No blocks.

A player averaging 0.0 points but three rebounds is actually hurting your tank.

Why Is 0-82 So Difficult?

This is the fascinating part.

If a team combines for something like:

5 points

5 rebounds

1 assist

per game and still manages to finish 3-79 rather than 0-82, the lower end of the game’s win-projection curve appears to provide at least some possibility of winning.

The official game describes its win curve as nonlinear.

That nonlinear design explains why:

Going from 80 wins to 82 wins is incredibly difficult.

And apparently:

Going from three wins to zero may be equally difficult.

It’s almost as though the game resists perfection at both ends.

Is 0-82 Harder Than 82-0?

At this point:

I think it is.

Players have discovered repeatable strategies for 82-0.

Get Warriors Wilt.

Accumulate rebounds.

Find assists.

Fill the defensive categories.

The unofficial 82-0 Guide even shows Warriors 1960s Wilt appearing in an enormous share of its projected perfect lineups.

But there’s no equivalent anti-Wilt who guarantees failure.

Even Greg Whittington averaging 0.0 across everything only fills one of five positions.

You still need four more nearly nonexistent statistical profiles.

And you have to get lucky enough for the slot machine to offer them.

That’s extraordinarily difficult.

Top 10 Worst Players for an 0-82 Attempt

Our final ranking:

1. Greg Whittington — Nuggets, 2020s

2. Dmytro Skapintsev — Knicks, 2020s

3. Justin Jackson — Timberwolves, 2020s

4. Isaiah Stevens

5. Alondes Williams

6. Bimbo Coles

7. Jim Creighton

8. Jason Collins

9. Viacheslav Kravtsov

10. Brian Scalabrine — late-career version

Again, this isn’t an official 82-0 bottom-10 ranking. It is a ranking of documented low-output and community-tested tank candidates.

And that distinction matters because the game’s database and player values can change.

Conclusion: Forget 82-0 — 0-82 May Be the Ultimate Challenge

Going 82-0 is supposed to represent basketball perfection.

But eventually you learn the formula.

Wilt Chamberlain.

Massive rebounds.

Elite assists.

Enough steals and blocks.

Then you start winning.

That’s when the game’s strangest challenge begins.

Can you build something so catastrophically bad that it loses:

every single game?

The evidence suggests it’s incredibly difficult.

Players have reached:

5-77.

4-78.

3-79.

2-80.

And players are still searching for the perfect disaster.

The strategy is exactly the opposite of everything we’ve learned about 82-0.

Don’t hunt Wilt.

Hunt Greg Whittington.

Don’t celebrate 30 points.

Celebrate 0.0.

Don’t look for triple-doubles.

Look for a player who barely registered anything in an NBA box score.

And don’t waste your skips trying to find the greatest era.

Use them to hunt the deepest benches of the 2010s and 2020s, where tiny samples and short-term players give you the best chance to find statistical zeroes.

The normal player sees:

0.0 PPG, 0.0 RPG, 0.0 APG

and thinks:

“Why would I ever pick this guy?”

The 0-82 player sees it and thinks:

“That’s my franchise player.”

Going undefeated proves you understand how to build greatness.

Going winless might prove you understand 82-0 even better.

The new ultimate challenge isn’t:

82-0.

It’s finding out whether anyone can finally finish:

0-82.