CelticsStrong
Around the League => Around the NBA => Topic started by: PhoSita on July 08, 2013, 12:18:03 PM
-
Heading into a rebuilding period, there's been a lot of debate on these forums about the strategy that the Celtics should use to construct a contender. Much of that debate boils down to the question -- To tank or not to tank?
The NBA's draft lottery and the perverse system of incentives that it creates for teams outside of the top tier of playoff contenders is at the heart of that debate. As a fan, do you want to see your team do whatever it takes to get a top pick, or does that go against the spirit of competition? Is it wrong as a fan to root for your team to lose, if it means a "win" in the long run in the form of a top lottery pick?
I'm of the opinion that you can't blame fans or teams for doing what the system tells them to do; the bottom line is that neither teams nor fans should be put in this position in the first place. The system is broken.
In response to that, I decided it would be interesting to come up with a new draft lottery system.
Goals of New Lottery System:
1. Lessen incentive to tank without punishing teams for being bad
2. Remove disincentive to make playoffs; anybody who doesn't host a playoff series has a chance to move up in the draft via the lottery. This presumes hosting a playoff series is sufficient incentive to miss out on the lottery -- top 4 seeds tend to be contenders / psuedo-contenders.
3. Make draft positioning much more random so that it is substantially harder to "aim" for a specific part of the draft by tweaking your regular season record. This militates against tanking to avoid giving up a protected pick (e.g. Warriors two seasons ago).
4. Give teams currently in "NBA purgatory" a real chance to get a nice pick in the draft each year. This makes it more attractive to build on what you have instead of constantly selling off assets as soon as your talent base plateaus, because even a mediocre to average team can get a top pick.
My hope is that a system like this would reward teams for making the best of their current situation -- including the talent already on the roster and the picks they happen to get in the draft. It doesn't reward teams for trying to be bad to get a guaranteed top pick.
Whether you're a bad team or a pretty okay team, you could get a pick in the top 8 or you could end up in the late teens. The draft becomes a bonus to your rebuilding effort, not the end-all be-all focus of what you try to do in any given season, because you can't depend on picking in a certain range.
In the system I've devised, the last 8 slots (23-30) are set in stone. These are occupied by the top 4 seeds in each conference, arranged according to regular season record (i.e. best overall record gets #30).
To determine the order of slots 1-22, the system involves three sets of random rolls.
The four teams with the worst records in the league automatically get to pick in the top 8.
The first set of rolls determines the other four teams that will be in the top 8, with odds ranging from approximately 10% for the team with the 5th worst record to approximately 2.5% for the team with the 22nd worst record.
The second set of rolls determines the order of the top 8. The four worst regular season teams each get approximately 15% chance, while the other four teams selected to the top 8 get approximately 10% chance.
The third set of rolls determines the order of slots 9 through 22. The odds for selection for the remaining teams ranges from approximately 10% for the team with the worst regular season record remaining to approximately 4.5% for the team with the best regular season record remaining.
For reference, the regular season standings for 2012-2013:
http://espn.go.com/nba/standings/_/group/1
Note that because of playoff seeding, the teams in slots 23-30 are Brooklyn, Indiana, New York, LA Clippers, Denver, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, and Miami.
The bottom 4 teams (automatically in the top eight) are Orlando, Charlotte, Cleveland, and Phoenix.
In the first three replies to this post I will put up example draft lottery results to give a sense of how variable this can be.
-
First set of results:
1. Boston
2. Orlando
3. Cleveland
4. Charlotte
5. Phoenix
6. Milwaukee
7. LA Lakers
8. Sacramento
9. Toronto
10. Chicago
11. Portland
12. Minnesota
13. Golden State
14. Washington
15. New Orleans
16. Houston
17. Atlanta
18. Dallas
19. Memphis
20. Detroit
21. Philadelphia
22. Utah
23. Brooklyn
24. Indiana
25. New York
26. LA Clippers
27. Denver
28. San Antonio
29. Oklahoma City
30. Miami
Note:
Try not to overreact to this first set of results. Wait to see at least three iterations before drawing conclusions about how extreme / unfair these results seem.
That said, I was surprised and amused by these results. Boston getting the #1 overall was a fun result, but also one that totally vindicates the system -- a middling playoff team gets the #1 overall pick. Perfect.
Notice also that Utah, by sheer bad luck, gets the #22 pick. They aren't rewarded for just barely missing the playoffs.
Similarly, New Orleans ends up at #15 despite having the 5th worst record.
-
Second set of results:
1. Dallas
2. Atlanta
3. Cleveland
4. Phoenix
5. Chicago
6. Charlotte
7. Orlando
8. Portland
9. New Orleans
10. Sacramento
11. LA Lakers
12. Minnesota
13. Golden State
14. Utah
15. Detroit
16. Boston
17. Houston
18. Memphis
19. Milwaukee
20. Washington
21. Philadelphia
22. Toronto
23. Brooklyn
24. Indiana
25. New York
26. LA Clippers
27. Denver
28. San Antonio
29. Oklahoma City
30. Miami
-
Reserved for results #3
-
I think I like the sentiment behind this. However, I see one issue. It still gives incentive to tank, it just makes teams have to go ALL OUT for the tank to secure a top draft pick (i.e. be a bottom four team).
Other than that it creates a lot of uncertainty. If I was a bottom tier team (particularly if I was bottom tier not by choice) then I would be pretty upset if someone who made it to the playoffs and performed relatively well drafted in front of me. I think in some ways it is necessary for crappy teams to draw first.
To me tanking is a strategy for management to speed up a rebuild. I think disallowing tanking and causing relative uncertainty for establishing draft order would do one of two things: 1) make teams REALLY tank...like try to lose every game for a bottom 4 team spot...which would alienate fan bases and erode the NBA, or 2) make it nearly impossible for some teams to ever do a timely rebuild.
I think draft order is just a lose-lose. Unless you win haha.
Edit: I'm reserving my overall judgment for when I see multople trials of how the picks play out. Those were just my initial thoughts. Also, TP.
-
It would be a tough sell, but I can see its merits. For all your hard work, TP.
I like the fact that the 22nd team can sneak into what was previously the lottery. That really does incentivize teams to play better. Although, two straight years of getting lucky for one fringe-playoff team and you've created a dynasty :P
-
I think I like the sentiment behind this. However, I see one issue. It still gives incentive to tank, it just makes teams have to go ALL OUT for the tank to secure a top draft pick (i.e. be a bottom four team).
Other than that it creates a lot of uncertainty. If I was a bottom tier team (particularly if I was bottom tier not by choice) then I would be pretty upset if someone who made it to the playoffs and performed relatively well drafted in front of me. I think in some ways it is necessary for crappy teams to draw first.
To me tanking is a strategy for management to speed up a rebuild. I think disallowing tanking and causing relative uncertainty for establishing draft order would do one of two things: 1) make teams REALLY tank...like try to lose every game for a bottom 4 team spot...which would alienate fan bases and erode the NBA, or 2) make it nearly impossible for some teams to ever do a timely rebuild.
I think draft order is just a lose-lose. Unless you win haha.
Edit: I'm reserving my overall judgment for when I see multople trials of how the picks play out. Those were just my initial thoughts. Also, TP.
I see what you're saying here, but I don't really think that it's worse than the current system. As it stands, if you can get one of the very worst records in the league, you're ensured of at least picking in the top 4 or 5 spots. In this system, you could have the worst record and pick 8th.
Many people on these forums have articulated the reasons that all-out tanking is bad for your franchise and for fans. You said it yourself -- you run the risk of alienating the fanbase.
I don't think many teams would be willing to go all-out to do that if there was a real chance they'd end up with the 6th, 7th, or 8th pick.
Especially since they could actually try to make the playoffs and entertain their fans and still have a decent chance at a top 8 pick.
Aside from that, I should note that I came up with numbers and ranges for this system kind of off-the-cuff. I want to convey that the basic principles behind the system I've made up are what I think are most important. A system like this could use different numbers. It could guarantee only that the 4 worst teams pick in the top 10, instead of the top 8, and then randomly select from there.
The important thing to me is that the very worst teams can be assured of getting some quality help in the draft, but they can't count on getting a star to save them just because they were at the bottom of the league.
-
I´ve tried something similar a few years ago.
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=33676.0
What do you think?
-
IMO all non playoff teams should have equal chance, just 1 ball per team, wherever that lands is it. No more behind closed doors fixed BS. Do it on national TV and get rid of tanking.
-
Also, wouldn't this incentivize teams to try to "barely" make the playoffs? In other words, tank for the middle? That way, they can try their hardest come playoff time but still have a shot at the lottery.
-
After Orlando won the 1993 lottery, the NBA tweaked the formula to make it harder for the best non-playoff teams to win. This idea is toast the moment some big-market team with one of the worst chances to win ends up with the #1 pick, leading everyone to cry that the system is rigged.
-
I think I like the sentiment behind this. However, I see one issue. It still gives incentive to tank, it just makes teams have to go ALL OUT for the tank to secure a top draft pick (i.e. be a bottom four team).
Other than that it creates a lot of uncertainty. If I was a bottom tier team (particularly if I was bottom tier not by choice) then I would be pretty upset if someone who made it to the playoffs and performed relatively well drafted in front of me. I think in some ways it is necessary for crappy teams to draw first.
To me tanking is a strategy for management to speed up a rebuild. I think disallowing tanking and causing relative uncertainty for establishing draft order would do one of two things: 1) make teams REALLY tank...like try to lose every game for a bottom 4 team spot...which would alienate fan bases and erode the NBA, or 2) make it nearly impossible for some teams to ever do a timely rebuild.
I think draft order is just a lose-lose. Unless you win haha.
Edit: I'm reserving my overall judgment for when I see multople trials of how the picks play out. Those were just my initial thoughts. Also, TP.
I see what you're saying here, but I don't really think that it's worse than the current system. As it stands, if you can get one of the very worst records in the league, you're ensured of at least picking in the top 4 or 5 spots. In this system, you could have the worst record and pick 8th.
Many people on these forums have articulated the reasons that all-out tanking is bad for your franchise and for fans. You said it yourself -- you run the risk of alienating the fanbase.
I don't think many teams would be willing to go all-out to do that if there was a real chance they'd end up with the 6th, 7th, or 8th pick.
Especially since they could actually try to make the playoffs and entertain their fans and still have a decent chance at a top 8 pick.
Aside from that, I should note that I came up with numbers and ranges for this system kind of off-the-cuff. I want to convey that the basic principles behind the system I've made up are what I think are most important. A system like this could use different numbers. It could guarantee only that the 4 worst teams pick in the top 10, instead of the top 8, and then randomly select from there.
The important thing to me is that the very worst teams can be assured of getting some quality help in the draft, but they can't count on getting a star to save them just because they were at the bottom of the league.
Good point. That's what I meant by it's a lose-lose. No matter what you do to the draft system it won't fix the problems people have with it. It'll just create new ones or be a moderate relief from the old ones. Like the poster below me said, if a fringe playoff team gets lucky twice they have a dynasty on their hands.
I do like your system though. I think it's well thought-out.
-
No more behind closed doors fixed BS. Do it on national TV and get rid of tanking.
That alone would be a big step forward in my opinion.
-
I´ve tried something similar a few years ago.
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=33676.0
What do you think?
I like the reasoning and goals behind your system a lot. I agree that we seem to be on the same page there.
I think your system is much more creative than mine, but also represents an even more radical change from how the system currently works.
I guess I'd have to see your system in action over the course of a season or two (to see how teams strategize and function in response to having these chips).
I like that your system prevents teams from purposefully being bad for a single season and getting a top pick (e.g. the Spurs). My concern would be that some general managers would hurt their franchises by hoarding points over several seasons and declining to make high picks in the hopes that they can blow it all on one star at the top of a "loaded" draft -- e.g. Wiggins.
I guess that just means that your system rewards better management and punishes worse management, which is a good thing. It might be too harsh, though. Even more so than the current draft system -- or even my proposed system -- it means that having a bad GM could screw your franchise over for years and years.
-
Also, wouldn't this incentivize teams to try to "barely" make the playoffs? In other words, tank for the middle? That way, they can try their hardest come playoff time but still have a shot at the lottery.
Read through the post again (I know it's long and maybe convoluted).
There's barely any difference in your chances if you make the playoffs or just manage to make the playoffs.
The only real major cutoffs are between the 4th worst record and the 5th worst record, and between the 4th seeded teams and the 5th seeded teams.
The first cutoff presents a problem, but is arguably not nearly as bad as what we have now; the second cutoff I am assuming wouldn't be so bad because getting to host a playoff series is a pretty strong incentive.
-
After Orlando won the 1993 lottery, the NBA tweaked the formula to make it harder for the best non-playoff teams to win. This idea is toast the moment some big-market team with one of the worst chances to win ends up with the #1 pick, leading everyone to cry that the system is rigged.
The system wouldn't appear rigged if there is a lot of variability.
And a system like this hopefully would give teams more incentive to actually try to make the playoffs and be entertaining, since it'd be harder to bank on getting a nice marketable star on the cheap if you just tank for a season or two.
So you'd hopefully have fewer fans that would be incensed by this because they could legitimately hope that the same kind of good fortune befalls their own team.
I'd rather see the occasional solid playoff team get a nice top pick (e.g. the Hawks get Wiggins) as opposed to having fans cheering for their team to be god-awful so they can pick the next big thing.
-
After Orlando won the 1993 lottery, the NBA tweaked the formula to make it harder for the best non-playoff teams to win. This idea is toast the moment some big-market team with one of the worst chances to win ends up with the #1 pick, leading everyone to cry that the system is rigged.
The system wouldn't appear rigged if there is a lot of variability.
Find me a method where the Lakers or Knicks can barely make the playoffs and end up with the #1 pick without people complaining around here that the system is rigged.
-
No more behind closed doors fixed BS. Do it on national TV and get rid of tanking.
That alone would be a big step forward in my opinion.
I never understand why people complain about this. They do it for the drama. There are reps of the teams in the room when they do the lottery. If they were fixing it the other teams would have to agree with it. So if the Lakers and Celtics are both in the lottery next season and the league wants to give L.A. Wiggins, the Celtics would have to agree to it.
-
My concern would be that some general managers would hurt their franchises by hoarding points over several seasons and declining to make high picks in the hopes that they can blow it all on one star at the top of a "loaded" draft -- e.g. Wiggins.
I guess that just means that your system rewards better management and punishes worse management, which is a good thing. It might be too harsh, though. Even more so than the current draft system -- or even my proposed system -- it means that having a bad GM could screw your franchise over for years and years.
Thank you for reading it.
I´ve heard that argument before, but I´m not sure it´s entirely correct. While there´s certainly the possibility to "game" the system, I find it hard to believe that any fanbase would accept it if their GM decides to wait several seasons before cashing in. One season, maybe, but I have to assume skipping two drafts (and thus, be bad for three seasons) would be just too much for any fanbase to bear.
-
After Orlando won the 1993 lottery, the NBA tweaked the formula to make it harder for the best non-playoff teams to win. This idea is toast the moment some big-market team with one of the worst chances to win ends up with the #1 pick, leading everyone to cry that the system is rigged.
The system wouldn't appear rigged if there is a lot of variability.
Find me a method where the Lakers or Knicks can barely make the playoffs and end up with the #1 pick without people complaining around here that the system is rigged.
good thread. in response to the point directly above... could we create brackets for ALL teams and members could only move up/down WITHIN their bracket?
brackets such as ...
worst regular season record
- teams 1-5, and the lottery only moves them within that bracket, and movement is weighted with worse record having higher odds at best pick.
- teams 6-10, only these teams move within this braket, and movement is weighted.
and so on. the actually bracket size could be changed (say 1-7 instead of 1 to 5), but the point is to allow ALL teams to join a form of lottery.
just a thought to try and help an interesting discussion.
-
No more behind closed doors fixed BS. Do it on national TV and get rid of tanking.
That alone would be a big step forward in my opinion.
I never understand why people complain about this. They do it for the drama. There are reps of the teams in the room when they do the lottery. If they were fixing it the other teams would have to agree with it. So if the Lakers and Celtics are both in the lottery next season and the league wants to give L.A. Wiggins, the Celtics would have to agree to it.
Regardless of how it's done...if it's done behind closed doors, no one in the public actually knows how it's being done. They just know how they are told it's being done. Not saying it isn't perfectly legit...but that's why people think it's a conspiracy all the time.
And why not make it a big event? More money. People would watch that. Make it an hour long program...I'm sure it's kind of exciting to watch. And if it's not, then make it exciting to watch.
Show us Laker tears. I'll watch it.
-
No more behind closed doors fixed BS. Do it on national TV and get rid of tanking.
That alone would be a big step forward in my opinion.
I never understand why people complain about this. They do it for the drama. There are reps of the teams in the room when they do the lottery. If they were fixing it the other teams would have to agree with it. So if the Lakers and Celtics are both in the lottery next season and the league wants to give L.A. Wiggins, the Celtics would have to agree to it.
Regardless of how it's done...if it's done behind closed doors, no one in the public actually knows how it's being done. They just know how they are told it's being done. Not saying it isn't perfectly legit...but that's why people think it's a conspiracy all the time.
And why not make it a big event? More money. People would watch that. Make it an hour long program...I'm sure it's kind of exciting to watch. And if it's not, then make it exciting to watch.
Show us Laker tears. I'll watch it.
But it's not exciting. They do it the way they do to make it exciting. To do it live they would pull the first number, everyone would check, the winning team would celebrate. The next number they pull could belong to the team that already won, then they have to pull another number and so on until they get the second pick and again for the third. If I am not mistaken, they only pick the first three picks, so after that there is nothing to see. Unlike now, where you sit nervously through all 11 (or 12 I forget) lottery picks waiting to see if someone moved up.
As far as conspiracy theorists, they are always going to be there. They did the Patrick Ewing lottery on live tv and everyone insists it was fixed. So how does live tv help?
-
After Orlando won the 1993 lottery, the NBA tweaked the formula to make it harder for the best non-playoff teams to win. This idea is toast the moment some big-market team with one of the worst chances to win ends up with the #1 pick, leading everyone to cry that the system is rigged.
The system wouldn't appear rigged if there is a lot of variability.
Find me a method where the Lakers or Knicks can barely make the playoffs and end up with the #1 pick without people complaining around here that the system is rigged.
Let them complain. All that matters is that it fixes the system of perverse incentives currently at play in the league.
People are still going to watch the league. People watch the league now even though many believe the lottery is 'rigged.'
If anything, major markets getting big stars would increase viewership, not hurt it. I don't see how this is a bad thing for the NBA.
As others have said, you can just be very transparent and up-front about the random drawings for position instead of the behind-closed-doors thing they have now.
-
No more behind closed doors fixed BS. Do it on national TV and get rid of tanking.
That alone would be a big step forward in my opinion.
I never understand why people complain about this. They do it for the drama. There are reps of the teams in the room when they do the lottery. If they were fixing it the other teams would have to agree with it. So if the Lakers and Celtics are both in the lottery next season and the league wants to give L.A. Wiggins, the Celtics would have to agree to it.
Regardless of how it's done...if it's done behind closed doors, no one in the public actually knows how it's being done. They just know how they are told it's being done. Not saying it isn't perfectly legit...but that's why people think it's a conspiracy all the time.
And why not make it a big event? More money. People would watch that. Make it an hour long program...I'm sure it's kind of exciting to watch. And if it's not, then make it exciting to watch.
Show us Laker tears. I'll watch it.
But it's not exciting. They do it the way they do to make it exciting. To do it live they would pull the first number, everyone would check, the winning team would celebrate. The next number they pull could belong to the team that already won, then they have to pull another number and so on until they get the second pick and again for the third. If I am not mistaken, they only pick the first three picks, so after that there is nothing to see. Unlike now, where you sit nervously through all 11 (or 12 I forget) lottery picks waiting to see if someone moved up.
As far as conspiracy theorists, they are always going to be there. They did the Patrick Ewing lottery on live tv and everyone insists it was fixed. So how does live tv help?
someone please check of my belief here, but i believe that it takes multiple picks to get the "winners." it is tied into a very complex set of formulas that need multiple picks to resolve it.
so rather than increased transparency and excitement, it seems as if it would be much less interesting.
-
After Orlando won the 1993 lottery, the NBA tweaked the formula to make it harder for the best non-playoff teams to win. This idea is toast the moment some big-market team with one of the worst chances to win ends up with the #1 pick, leading everyone to cry that the system is rigged.
The system wouldn't appear rigged if there is a lot of variability.
Find me a method where the Lakers or Knicks can barely make the playoffs and end up with the #1 pick without people complaining around here that the system is rigged.
good thread. in response to the point directly above... could we create brackets for ALL teams and members could only move up/down WITHIN their bracket?
brackets such as ...
worst regular season record
- teams 1-5, and the lottery only moves them within that bracket, and movement is weighted with worse record having higher odds at best pick.
- teams 6-10, only these teams move within this braket, and movement is weighted.
and so on. the actually bracket size could be changed (say 1-7 instead of 1 to 5), but the point is to allow ALL teams to join a form of lottery.
just a thought to try and help an interesting discussion.
I'd be happy with a system that functions in the way you describe.
I'd also be happy with a system that just gives everybody in the league, with the exception, perhaps, of the very best teams in each conference, a set chance at getting a pick. Then you just select spots 1-22 (or whatever) randomly.
I think you could go either way and have it be a bit simpler than the hybrid system I've thought up.
Anything is better than what we've got now.
-
No more behind closed doors fixed BS. Do it on national TV and get rid of tanking.
That alone would be a big step forward in my opinion.
I never understand why people complain about this. They do it for the drama. There are reps of the teams in the room when they do the lottery. If they were fixing it the other teams would have to agree with it. So if the Lakers and Celtics are both in the lottery next season and the league wants to give L.A. Wiggins, the Celtics would have to agree to it.
Regardless of how it's done...if it's done behind closed doors, no one in the public actually knows how it's being done. They just know how they are told it's being done. Not saying it isn't perfectly legit...but that's why people think it's a conspiracy all the time.
And why not make it a big event? More money. People would watch that. Make it an hour long program...I'm sure it's kind of exciting to watch. And if it's not, then make it exciting to watch.
Show us Laker tears. I'll watch it.
But it's not exciting. They do it the way they do to make it exciting. To do it live they would pull the first number, everyone would check, the winning team would celebrate. The next number they pull could belong to the team that already won, then they have to pull another number and so on until they get the second pick and again for the third. If I am not mistaken, they only pick the first three picks, so after that there is nothing to see. Unlike now, where you sit nervously through all 11 (or 12 I forget) lottery picks waiting to see if someone moved up.
As far as conspiracy theorists, they are always going to be there. They did the Patrick Ewing lottery on live tv and everyone insists it was fixed. So how does live tv help?
someone please check of my belief here, but i believe that it takes multiple picks to get the "winners." it is tied into a very complex set of formulas that need multiple picks to resolve it.
so rather than increased transparency and excitement, it seems as if it would be much less interesting.
Yeah, I mean, when I was coming up with my sample results it often took a lot of rolls to get all of the numbers for each of the teams. Unless you just came up with an algorithm and created a computer program to spit out the results, it would be a long and boring process watching them take lottery balls out of a tumbler.
-
My suggestion is to toss out performance in the league altogether and weight the draft odds entirely on what draft picks a team would have had minus trades over the past 5 years. That way the longer a team goes without a high draft pick, the more likely they are to land one in the next draft. How would this league wide lottery work? Basically the numbers of the draft picks which a team would have had minus trades over the preceding 5 years would be added up and divided by the sum of draft picks across the league to establish the percentage chance that team has in winning the next league wide lottery. To illustrate it with an example. If, for example the Bobcats picks over the last 5 years were 1, 3, 6, 2 and 3, then their chances of winning the next draft lottery would be 15 divide by the sum of all the teams picks over 5 years x 100
-
My suggestion is to toss out performance in the league altogether and weight the draft odds entirely on what draft picks a team would have had minus trades over the past 5 years. That way the longer a team goes without a high draft pick, the more likely they are to land one in the next draft. How would this league wide lottery work? Basically the numbers of the draft picks which a team would have had minus trades over the preceding 5 years would be added up and divided by the sum of draft picks across the league to establish the percentage chance that team has in winning the next league wide lottery. To illustrate it with an example. If, for example the Bobcats picks over the last 5 years were 1, 3, 6, 2 and 3, then their chances of winning the next draft lottery would be 15 divide by the sum of all the teams picks over 5 years x 100
I'd need a clearer illustration of what you mean, because I really don't follow.
-
After Orlando won the 1993 lottery, the NBA tweaked the formula to make it harder for the best non-playoff teams to win. This idea is toast the moment some big-market team with one of the worst chances to win ends up with the #1 pick, leading everyone to cry that the system is rigged.
The system wouldn't appear rigged if there is a lot of variability.
Find me a method where the Lakers or Knicks can barely make the playoffs and end up with the #1 pick without people complaining around here that the system is rigged.
good thread. in response to the point directly above... could we create brackets for ALL teams and members could only move up/down WITHIN their bracket?
brackets such as ...
worst regular season record
- teams 1-5, and the lottery only moves them within that bracket, and movement is weighted with worse record having higher odds at best pick.
- teams 6-10, only these teams move within this braket, and movement is weighted.
and so on. the actually bracket size could be changed (say 1-7 instead of 1 to 5), but the point is to allow ALL teams to join a form of lottery.
just a thought to try and help an interesting discussion.
Personally I think this would be changing the system just for the sake of changing it.
How would this proposed system not encourage tanking? Huge incentive to tank to get into the best bracket, plus incentive to tank for better odds at the best pick in your bracket, plus incentive to tank if you’re borderline between 2 brackets. Same problems, just formatted differently.
-
My suggestion is to toss out performance in the league altogether and weight the draft odds entirely on what draft picks a team would have had minus trades over the past 5 years. That way the longer a team goes without a high draft pick, the more likely they are to land one in the next draft. How would this league wide lottery work? Basically the numbers of the draft picks which a team would have had minus trades over the preceding 5 years would be added up and divided by the sum of draft picks across the league to establish the percentage chance that team has in winning the next league wide lottery. To illustrate it with an example. If, for example the Bobcats picks over the last 5 years were 1, 3, 6, 2 and 3, then their chances of winning the next draft lottery would be 15 divide by the sum of all the teams picks over 5 years x 100
I'd need a clearer illustration of what you mean, because I really don't follow.
Rather than the lottery odds being based on the performance of a team in 1 year, he wants it to be based on the performance of a team over the past 5 years is my understanding of what he's trying to say.
-
I'll try to explain it again with the Bobcats hypothetical. If the Bobcats 1st round picks over the past 5 years were 1st, 3rd, 6th, 2nd and 3rd, then the formula for working out their odds at the next draft would be the sum of those picks (1 3 6 2 3) divided by the sum of all picks across the 5 years (1 2 3 ...thru to 30x5) expressed as a percentage. For another team who's picks were say 10th, 20th, 20th, 15th, 25th, the formula would read something like (10 20 20 15 25) divide by (1 2 3...thru to 30 x 5) x 100. I basically borrowed the calculation idea from how the IAAF ranks teams in Cross Country championships.
-
My suggestion is to toss out performance in the league altogether and weight the draft odds entirely on what draft picks a team would have had minus trades over the past 5 years. That way the longer a team goes without a high draft pick, the more likely they are to land one in the next draft. How would this league wide lottery work? Basically the numbers of the draft picks which a team would have had minus trades over the preceding 5 years would be added up and divided by the sum of draft picks across the league to establish the percentage chance that team has in winning the next league wide lottery. To illustrate it with an example. If, for example the Bobcats picks over the last 5 years were 1, 3, 6, 2 and 3, then their chances of winning the next draft lottery would be 15 divide by the sum of all the teams picks over 5 years x 100
I'd need a clearer illustration of what you mean, because I really don't follow.
Rather than the lottery odds being based on the performance of a team in 1 year, he wants it to be based on the performance of a team over the past 5 years is my understanding of what he's trying to say.
Yeah, I got that, at least.
I guess that's okay, but I don't necessarily agree that that is best.
Either you're punishing people for being bad over the long term, which just causes them to be bad longer, or you go the other way and give a team a better chance of getting a higher pick if they haven't been picking high lately.
Either option seems problematic to me.
I understand that you don't want to give teams incentive to tank for a particular draft, and you also want to discourage teams being bad year after year. I think the system I proposed does that reasonably well, though, by making things too random to depend on getting a certain spot.
-
Discouraging tanking requires flattening the odds (decreasing the gap between the chances of worse and better teams within the lottery). Then there's less to gain by losing more games, so you'd expect tanking to decrease.
Problem is the league already tried this, first with the "one team, one envelope" setup, then with the flatter odds of the original Ping-Pong ball format. People didn't like it, so they switched to the current system.
At the very least I'd like them to draw for all 14 lottery spots, instead of just the top 3. That reduces the advantage of moving down a couple spots in the rankings late in the year. But ideally I'd like them to move closer to the unweighted "one team, one chance" system of the past. Closer you get to that, the less tanking pays off.
-
Initially it would probably be really harsh on teams that have been in 'tank' mode for several years leading up to its rolling out, but by being based on the picks the teams end up with, rather than league standings I reckon it would 'compensate' these teams eventually.
-
I would like a few simple changes,
1. The bottom 7 teams are in the lottery for the top 3 picks and all have the same odds. Outside of top three picks all teams are picked at random for spots 4-14 from non playoff teams. This eliminates the battle to lose at the end of the season.
2. Lottery penalties. If you get the #1 pick in 2013 the best you can get in 2014 is #5 then 2015 #3. If you get the #2 or #3 you are not eligible for the top 3 the following year. this will make teams sign vets and not perpetually stay in the bottom hoping for the next big thing.
3. Incorporate the D-League draft into the NBA draft. Add a third round to the draft. The third round would give the players rights to that player and guarantee them a D league roster spot.
-
Instead of changing the odds, what about decreasing the incentive by having players reach free agency a year earlier. If a young star will bolt a team that doesn't build a good supporting cast around him, then narrowing the window you have to rebuild will discourage teams from tanking by being so bad that it will take them years to assemble a playoff-caliber team.
-
Discouraging tanking requires flattening the odds (decreasing the gap between the chances of worse and better teams within the lottery). Then there's less to gain by losing more games, so you'd expect tanking to decrease.
Problem is the league already tried this, first with the "one team, one envelope" setup, then with the flatter odds of the original Ping-Pong ball format. People didn't like it, so they switched to the current system.
At the very least I'd like them to draw for all 14 lottery spots, instead of just the top 3. That reduces the advantage of moving down a couple spots in the rankings late in the year. But ideally I'd like them to move closer to the unweighted "one team, one chance" system of the past. Closer you get to that, the less tanking pays off.
The problem with the One for One system is then who wants to be the 8th seed? You can get swept by Miami in the first round or have an equal chance of getting the top pick. You'll have the7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th seeds all trying to lose more then the other.
In theory the lottery should work. And it does. How many times has the worst team gotten the first pick? Tanking doesn't work. The problem is you can't account for people. If you are saying the Celtics are tanking then how come they didn't learn from the last two times? People don't understand odds, that's why Casino owners are called billionaires.
The problem basketball will always have is that one guy means too much. You don't get it in other sports because one guy doesn't mean as much and you can get great players throughout the draft. In basketball it's just too rare that a top player is taken out side of the top 5.
-
Instead of changing the odds, what about decreasing the incentive by having players reach free agency a year earlier. If a young star will bolt a team that doesn't build a good supporting cast around him, then narrowing the window you have to rebuild will discourage teams from tanking by being so bad that it will take them years to assemble a playoff-caliber team.
I don't like this because it kind of forces teams to make desperate win-now moves as soon as they get a nice young star player instead of building in a careful, disciplined way.
I like the fact that when a team drafts a guy in the first round, they get to control him for the first 4-5 years of his career and then they get a very strong advantage in keeping them after that if they choose to match whatever offers the guy gets in restricted free agency.
But then, I'm not a big believer in giving players a ton of choice in where they want to go unless they are veterans. I like to see the league built by general managers, not players colluding and moving toward the flashy big-stage markets.
-
I like the fact that when a team drafts a guy in the first round, they get to control him for the first 4-5 years of his career and then they get a very strong advantage in keeping them after that if they choose to match whatever offers the guy gets in restricted free agency.
Well, as long as you understand that this creates a greater incentive to tank by increasing the value of a high draft pick and that any change that gives teams greater control over young players will only increase tanking.
-
Discouraging tanking requires flattening the odds (decreasing the gap between the chances of worse and better teams within the lottery). Then there's less to gain by losing more games, so you'd expect tanking to decrease.
Problem is the league already tried this, first with the "one team, one envelope" setup, then with the flatter odds of the original Ping-Pong ball format. People didn't like it, so they switched to the current system.
At the very least I'd like them to draw for all 14 lottery spots, instead of just the top 3. That reduces the advantage of moving down a couple spots in the rankings late in the year. But ideally I'd like them to move closer to the unweighted "one team, one chance" system of the past. Closer you get to that, the less tanking pays off.
The problem with the One for One system is then who wants to be the 8th seed? You can get swept by Miami in the first round or have an equal chance of getting the top pick. You'll have the7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th seeds all trying to lose more then the other.
You're right that the 8-9 positions is where all the tanking incentive comes in. The problem is that a team tanking to drop out of the playoffs would get far more league scrutiny, negative press, and fan backlash than a team trying to drop from the 24th to 27th best record would. That's a ton of flak to take on for a 7% chance at the top pick.
Frankly, I think if a franchise wants to miss the playoffs, let em, they don't deserve to be there. A hungrier team will always be there to take their place.
In theory the lottery should work. And it does. How many times has the worst team gotten the first pick? Tanking doesn't work. The problem is you can't account for people. If you are saying the Celtics are tanking then how come they didn't learn from the last two times? People don't understand odds, that's why Casino owners are called billionaires.
Casino owners are also people - it's true that most people are awful with probability. But it's also true that some people are very good with probability, and often can gain quite a bit from people who suck at it, because knowing the odds allows you to profit on average, even if you lose some along the way. For instance, past lottery outcomes have zero impact on the likelihood of future outcomes. There's nothing to learn from them unless a team never understood the odds in the first place, which seems really unlikely.
Tanking works overall because the way the system works, you can never drop more than 3 spots below your finish. The team with the worst record probably won't win the lottery, but they have a 100% chance of a top 4 pick. You're guaranteed a great pick even if you aren't guaranteed the best pick. That's why I'd like to draw for all the lottery positions - to remove that guarantee.
-
People don't understand odds, that's why Casino owners are called billionaires.
I think most people innately understand that no one means to offer them odds above 50% to double their money or better.
Casino owners aren't billionaires because people don't understand odds; they are billionaires because people can't control impulse. A five-deck shoe of blackjack at my local casino under the rules they play...your odds hover around 48.8% chance of winning. People play forever, because the stakes are too low to care about losing, and the chance of doubling your money is tantalizing. Some people win. Most people lose...and on a long enough timeline, everyone would lose. Because on a long enough timeline, statistical anomalies regress toward the norm. Which means the house should make 1.2% over their players. Of course human error and other games factored in...they probably make much more.
Point being this: teams are willing to tank because they can't control their impulse...they believe that the return on their risk (tanking for a season) could justify the loss of fans, whatever. But we've seen how it turns out. On a long enough timeline, teams lose this battle. And on occasion they win. This propels futher tanking, because people can't control their impulses. We aren't machines. We are enthralled by the thrill of the MAYBE.
This is an interesting human trait to exploit when marketing. At least I find it interesting anyway lol.
-
I like the fact that when a team drafts a guy in the first round, they get to control him for the first 4-5 years of his career and then they get a very strong advantage in keeping them after that if they choose to match whatever offers the guy gets in restricted free agency.
Well, as long as you understand that this creates a greater incentive to tank by increasing the value of a high draft pick and that any change that gives teams greater control over young players will only increase tanking.
I'm fine with that, because I think if you set up a system where a team can't really be sure of getting a high pick just because they are one of the 5 or 6 worst teams in the league, teams won't risk having a bad team that nobody wants to watch only to get a not-so-great pick.
-
I think that one of the most sensible ways to do this is to have a lottery that's based on a weighted average of your finish over the last 3 years, something like 40% this year and 30% for the previous two. That stops teams from tanking for one year because they have no hope of a top pick. It rewards the worst teams and discourages outright tanking, because it's hard to be bad enough in one year to improve your position greatly. It's also hard to justify being very bad for 3 straight years just to get 1 high draft pick. Teams with injury problems wouldn't gain much by throwing in the towel on a season because they'll still get a mediocre draft pick. You could tweak the system to add a bit of a lottery (weighted, and only the bottom 5 teams participate) but you're helping the teams that need it the most and taking away the incentive from other teams to be bad.