Every time the Knicks step onto the court these days, it’s clear — their strategy isn’t based on trying to win games this season. Their strategy is completely about the future. They won’t use the word, but everyone knows what they are doing. It’s called tanking.

The issue of tanking has become one of the most compelling subjects in sports. While it may have originated decades ago, it feels as if it’s more prevalent now than ever. It’s a polarizing philosophy that engulfs organizations, media coverage and fan bases.

That prompted The Post to explore this fascinating subject. In this ongoing series, we’ll examine how and why tanking became so prominent, reveal how fans view the strategy and propose our solutions to fix it.

Some thoughts on ways to encourage a greater effort from MLB teams to win as many games as possible:

Let no team select in the top five of the MLB draft for more than two straight years. If a team has one of the five worst records a third straight season, add 10 spots (i.e., a club that would pick third now picks 13th). For every consecutive year after three that a team has among the five worst records, the team forfeits its first-round pick altogether. The same would happen for any team that has among the 10 worst records for five straight years.

Conversely, let’s reward the teams that are trying, especially those deemed bottom 12 in revenue by MLB. How? By giving a bottom-12 revenue team that makes the playoffs this choice: Keep its pick plus be part of a lottery with the clubs selecting sixth-through-10th, or keep its pick plus get three additional picks between the first and second rounds. For example, the AL wild-card A’s would have a chance to pick as high as sixth this June plus keep their current 28th selection, or pick 28th plus have three choices in the 30s. The reality of the draft is that there is not as much greatness at the top as perceived and it is generally better to have multiple tries in the top 60 to improve the chances of finding talent.

Lastly with the draft, as a way to motivate teams to keep trying and not sell off in July, the best four records that don’t make the playoffs would each get additional picks after the first round — two if they are among the 12 lowest revenue teams (i.e., the 2018 Rays) or one if among the top 20 revenue earners (i.e., the 2018 Mariners).

Just as there is a luxury-tax threshold ceiling, make a luxury-tax basement floor — but do it in three-year windows. The idea, remember, is to disincentivize serial tanking. A team might decide in any one year that it is not worth it to spend on players or decide in July it is the right year to sell. But no team should be able to do that year after year with no regard for retaining its best players or adding outside help.

For luxury-tax purposes last year, the average salary of the 10 lowest payrolls was roughly $110 million. So make the first three-year window three times that or $330 million. Fall $1 million to $10 million under that total after three years, the penalty is $2 million and forfeiting of a third-round draft pick. For $10 million to $20 million under, the penalty is $6 million and forfeiting of a second-round pick. For $20 million and up, the penalty is $10 million and forfeiting of a first-round draft pick.

Tie greater portions of revenue sharing and central funds distributed by MLB (think national TV, radio, licensing, merchandise, etc.) to success/failure. Small-revenue organizations such as Cleveland, Oakland and Tampa Bay that always try to win as much as possible within their means, never overtly tank and often succeed should be rewarded in even stronger ways.

There should be benefits for success, not failure. The current draft helps those who have messed up. Every team gets an equal distribution of items such as national TV money (before revenue sharing) even if the team is operated ineptly.

But what if a team had to win at least 225 games (an average of 75 per season) in a three-year period or else be docked a percentage of the funds for every five games under that total? Over the past three years, 10 teams would fit the sub-225 category. Hitting a failing organization in its wallet and in its ability to accumulate talent should motivate greater efforts to avoid serial losing as a policy.