CelticsStrong
Around the League => Around the NBA => Topic started by: footey on September 07, 2017, 04:12:48 PM
-
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20621318/reform-nba-draft-lottery-voted-17-18-season
-
I have always been in favor of a lottery flip where the best team in the lotto gets the 1st pick. So team 14 gets the #1 pick and the worst team gets 14. Then the teams that just miss the playoffs get the top picks. That gives teams something to play for and punishes "Tanking" teams. The extra talent should push the end of the lotto teams up into the playoffs after a year or two. No more getting stuck in the middle. It rewards the teams that are trying to put together playoff teams.
-
I'm not in favor of a flip, because you could still have a team tank the last few days to get the top pick.
I think a more equitable lottery is to weight the lottery odds more evenly. So that the 14th team has a much better chance to get the top pick, and the worst team a lesser chance.
-
A flip has too many flaws of it's own IMO. Can you imagine a #8 seed deciding to give up the last week of the season and gets the #1 pick? I like the premise of reversing some of the incentive, just think it would lead to a different set of problems.
Continuing to even out odds is the simplest solution and sounds like what they'll go with.
My personal twist: rollover lottery balls. Keep the odds, but even out the luck over time. Being in the #5 slot and not hitting top 3 just gives you more chances next year. Getting #1 overall reduces your odds of getting it again. All 30 teams get balls every year. The biggest problem IMO is that
-
Found this part interesting-
"No team can pick in the top three of the draft in consecutive years."
Does that mean that (if implemented), if Cleveland keeps the pick, they can pick no higher than 4??
Sounds good to me ;)
The whole top five teams having similar odds could screw us with the Lakers pick if they were fifth worst and somehow won, but could benefit us on the other end if PHI/SAC is fifth worst and shoots up to 1/2/3
At least that's what I got out of the article concerning our future picks.
-
It means the nets pick suddenly Isn't a sure thing to be a top pick
"No team can pick in the top three of the draft in consecutive years."
This Kind of affects us
-
I really think something like this would take years to fight & implement. Can't imagine it'll impact the 2018 draft.
There are a lot of moving parts here. To have it solved by the '18 draft seems far fetched.
-
What about the lottery teams have a NCAA like single game elimation tournament where the team that wins the tournament gets the top pick. Something like that would be exciting.
-
I really think something like this would take years to fight & implement. Can't imagine it'll impact the 2018 draft.
There are a lot of moving parts here. To have it solved by the '18 draft seems far fetched.
The article mentioned that reform would have no effect on the 2018 draft. I think you're right on about when it could be implemented. Most likely any reform would come in gradually over years and not start taking place until 2020 or later. To many small market teams see the draft as the only way to land a superstar and will fight change. Should be interesting to see how this goes.
-
I really think something like this would take years to fight & implement. Can't imagine it'll impact the 2018 draft.
There are a lot of moving parts here. To have it solved by the '18 draft seems far fetched.
The article mentioned that reform would have no effect on the 2018 draft. I think you're right on about when it could be implemented. Most likely any reform would come in gradually over years and not start taking place until 2020 or later. To many small market teams see the draft as the only way to land a superstar and will fight change. Should be interesting to see how this goes.
Yeah, it looks like it got edited about 10 minutes ago and now has this line.
If passed, no changes to the NBA lottery would be instituted until the 2019 draft, league sources said.
-
What about the lottery teams have a NCAA like single game elimation tournament where the team that wins the tournament gets the top pick. Something like that would be exciting.
Given that about half of a team's roster tends to turn over from year to year, what incentive do the players have to compete in such a tournament? They're just risking injury to benefit a future squad they might very well not be a part of.
-
>If passed, no changes to the NBA lottery would be instituted until the 2019 draft, league sources said.
-
It means the nets pick suddenly Isn't a sure thing to be a top pick
"No team can pick in the top three of the draft in consecutive years."
This Kind of affects us
Well wouldn't that mean that the Laker pick would go from 2-5 down to 4-5? Meaning the only way it conveys is if we pick 4th or 5th? And then should Sac get a top 3 this year, that rules the C's out of a top 3 in 2018-19?
Given the goals of this change I wonder if there would be provisions for traded picks -- that maybe the top 3 in consecutive drafts only applies to which team is actually receiving the pick at time of the draft lottery.
-
What about the lottery teams have a NCAA like single game elimation tournament where the team that wins the tournament gets the top pick. Something like that would be exciting.
Given that about half of a team's roster tends to turn over from year to year, what incentive do the players have to compete in such a tournament? They're just risking injury to benefit a future squad they might very well not be a part of.
Yeah, I have to imagine the pushback from the player's union would be pretty strong. Also, the matter of compensation for these games.
-
It means the nets pick suddenly Isn't a sure thing to be a top pick
"No team can pick in the top three of the draft in consecutive years."
This Kind of affects us
Well wouldn't that mean that the Laker pick would go from 2-5 down to 4-5? Meaning the only way it conveys is if we pick 4th or 5th? And then should Sac get a top 3 this year, that rules the C's out of a top 3 in 2018-19?
Given the goals of this change I wonder if there would be provisions for traded picks -- that maybe the top 3 in consecutive drafts only applies to which team is actually receiving the pick at time of the draft lottery.
Just get rid of the pick protections all together. Reform it and say all current protections are honored. Eventually, they'd all phase out but obviously it would take years.
-
I really like the idea of saying that a team cannot have the first pick in consecutive years but this should apply only to teams picking their own pick. If a pick is traded, the pick should convey wherever the ping pong balls fall.
Same for a team like the Celtics who traded for picks in multiple years. In that case it should not matter if they get 1 or 2 or whatever in consecutive years from traded picks. The intent is to discourage tanking. Once a team has traded their pick, there is already no incentive to tank.
-
I kind of want a one and done lottery tournament where the winner of the tournament gets the first pick. Then it goes to lottery after that. The games could be played on off days during the playoffs. The one downside I see is if a team has traded a future first they have no motivation to try to win. That's why it would go to a weighted lottery like now. So the pick still has value to the team that traded for the pick. They could still get a very high pick, just not first overall.
-
The lottery is fine as is. I'd much rather have a few bad teams tanking than a mediocre team tanking to miss the 8th spot in the playoffs.
-
Bad teams need to be rewarded. The idea of the wheel or reverse lottery (14th team gets best odds) is ludicrous. Teams from NY, LAL, CHI may be able to prosper through free agency signings, but how would teams from Utah, Minny, OKC, etc ever survive. They would constantly be horrible.
I don't have a real problem with how it works now. Better teams in the lottery still have a 'chance,' but not like the worst teams. I think it could be adjusted where there are groups of teams, like: 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12, 13-15, 16-18 - each having equal odds withing their groups - where the worst teams have the best chance and the better teams have the worst chance.
Unlike now, I wouldn't limit the better teams' chances to only a top 3 and I think you could adjust the odds back to pre-Webber/Penny days. I also like the idea where teams 15-18 don't get rewarded with trying to make the playoffs even though they have little incentive to do so.
I also agree with limiting consecutive top 1-2 picks (if they are your own).
I really just hope it isn't some major, wacky change. Bad teams can't get better without the option/hope for a top pick.
-
What about the lottery teams have a NCAA like single game elimation tournament where the team that wins the tournament gets the top pick. Something like that would be exciting.
Given that about half of a team's roster tends to turn over from year to year, what incentive do the players have to compete in such a tournament? They're just risking injury to benefit a future squad they might very well not be a part of.
Yeah, I have to imagine the pushback from the player's union would be pretty strong. Also, the matter of compensation for these games.
Very true. Maybe you can have it so there is a financial incentive to make it to each round for the players.
-
>If passed, no changes to the NBA lottery would be instituted until the 2019 draft, league sources said.
Even 2019 is doubtful. If they make a change (which I doubt), I can't see them making it until all current traded picks have been conveyed (which would be like 2021 or 2022)
-
>If passed, no changes to the NBA lottery would be instituted until the 2019 draft, league sources said.
Even 2019 is doubtful. If they make a change (which I doubt), I can't see them making it until all current traded picks have been conveyed (which would be like 2021 or 2022)
What do they really care about conveyed picks? Those picks don't encourage tanking (if anything, they do just the opposite), and by reforming it, gives other potential tankers reason to not tank.
I think there needs to be a better system. What that is, I don't know.
I think it'll be terrible for fringe playoff teams to consistently get the top players while the bad teams - and let's face it, there are plenty - get mediocre picks. Good teams don't tank. Bad teams tank to jostle into lottery position against other bad (and perhaps worse) teams. And then you can see teams in the cusp of the playoffs tanking out of them. Why risk potentially getting a great player early in the draft for 2 extra home games?
-
How about $.
Teams that do not make the NBA finals get a signing exemption based on their records. Biggest excemption goes to the better record and then it decreases accordingly. Makes every team want to fight for the best possible record no matter the match ups or draft lottery odds. Have $ to improve your team is usually better then a draft pick.
-
What about the lottery teams have a NCAA like single game elimation tournament where the team that wins the tournament gets the top pick. Something like that would be exciting.
Given that about half of a team's roster tends to turn over from year to year, what incentive do the players have to compete in such a tournament? They're just risking injury to benefit a future squad they might very well not be a part of.
Also, imagine a vet starter playing in a tourney like that where the top "prize" for winning is that the team gets to draft his replacement. Way too many perverse incentives, just like most proposals.
-
Yeah, we'll see, but a few concerns.
1. Teams have already traded actual players for future picks based on the current system, so i would think any change would have to not affect already traded picks.
2. Currently, some teams take advantage of the system. Teams will try to take advantage of any system; what are the unintended consequences of any new system? For the "wheel," i could see tampering; maybe a top freshman when everyone knows sacramento is up on the wheel for the 1st puck "decides" to wait 1 more year until the lakers are known to be 1st. Basically, more rookies choosing their team, maybe some promises made a year or two ahead of time...
W
-
Found this part interesting-
"No team can pick in the top three of the draft in consecutive years."
Does that mean that (if implemented), if Cleveland keeps the pick, they can pick no higher than 4??
Sounds good to me ;)
The whole top five teams having similar odds could screw us with the Lakers pick if they were fifth worst and somehow won, but could benefit us on the other end if PHI/SAC is fifth worst and shoots up to 1/2/3
At least that's what I got out of the article concerning our future picks.
this is a draft proposal I've been posting here for a few years. league must be monitoring this blog and stealing my ideas ;)
Another idea born out of the competition committee that could gather support, league sources said: No team can pick in the top three of the draft in consecutive years. For example, if Minnesota wins the No. 1 pick and drafts Karl-Anthony Towns -- as was the case in 2015 -- it can pick no higher than No. 4 in the next lottery. For now, that idea is outside of the league office's proposal but is expected to be considered in the upcoming committee meeting, sources said.
this shouldn't affect our pick next year. they're looking at making changes for the 2019 draft
The NBA is aggressively pursuing draft lottery reform that could be voted into legislation and instituted by the 2019 draft, league sources told ESPN.
-
The only reform I think I'd be ok with, is stopping a team from getting the 1st pick in consecutive drafts or maybe the two following drafts. If their balls come up first, just move them to 2. Tanking isn't a real problem.
-
i want to see reform that makes consecutive tanking less likely method of rebuilding. If you are in the top three , you can not be in the top three consecutive years or something simular to keep repeats of the Philadelphia childish experiment. .....or Cavs getting the first pick like three years in a row or close.
I dread end of season as teams jockey to loose on purpose . I loose interest
-
The only reform I think I'd be ok with, is stopping a team from getting the 1st pick in consecutive drafts or maybe the two following drafts. If their balls come up first, just move them to 2. Tanking isn't a real problem.
This has to be the most effective way. A team gets rewarded with a top pick, then the next few years they are incentivised to get better by not receiving the top pick.
I'd actually extend this slightly. If a team gets a top pick then they can't get the top pick for the next 2 years. If in the 2nd year they get a top-3 pick the following year they cannot get a top-3 pick.
-
(https://i.gyazo.com/a3136a28369bf82a3e9870c02d0f921a.png)
https://twitter.com/ChrisMannixYS/status/905890830749241344?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fnba%2F
-
>If passed, no changes to the NBA lottery would be instituted until the 2019 draft, league sources said.
Even 2019 is doubtful. If they make a change (which I doubt), I can't see them making it until all current traded picks have been conveyed (which would be like 2021 or 2022)
What do they really care about conveyed picks? Those picks don't encourage tanking (if anything, they do just the opposite), and by reforming it, gives other potential tankers reason to not tank.
I think there needs to be a better system. What that is, I don't know.
I think it'll be terrible for fringe playoff teams to consistently get the top players while the bad teams - and let's face it, there are plenty - get mediocre picks. Good teams don't tank. Bad teams tank to jostle into lottery position against other bad (and perhaps worse) teams. And then you can see teams in the cusp of the playoffs tanking out of them. Why risk potentially getting a great player early in the draft for 2 extra home games?
Because teams have already traded away/traded for picks under the current rules. Changing the rules around the lottery would change the value if those picks. If you're the 76ers and a lottery change greatly decreases the chance of the LAL pick being #1, you would be upset. For the Celtics, it would be the opposite, with the team being upset if the odds were increased for the #1 pick. For Memphis, I can't imagine they would have traded what could be an unprotected pick fir Jeff Green if they knew that the league could change lottery odds to potentially 1. Make it less likely to convey until protections are gone AND 2. Make it more likely that the unprotected pick conveys in the top 3 or 5.
There's just too many teams that have either traded away or traded picks under the current rules. Team owners aren't going to be vote to put themselves in a worse situation because of fair deals they already made just to try and punish some tanking teams
-
i want to see reform that makes consecutive tanking less likely method of rebuilding. If you are in the top three , you can not be in the top three consecutive years or something simular to keep repeats of the Philadelphia childish experiment. .....or Cavs getting the first pick like three years in a row or close.
I dread end of season as teams jockey to loose on purpose . I loose interest
The Cavs were 19-63 preceding Irving. That was the first season post-James. The Wolves were the worst team in the league that year, the Cavs were 2nd worst, but their pick ended up 4th (Thompson). They landed Irving with the unprotected Clippers pick. The Clippers were 32-50 and the 8th worst team in the league. The following season the Cavs were 21-45 tied with New Orleans as the 3rd worst. They picked 4th. The next season they were 24-58 and the 3rd worst team. They ended up winning the lottery and wasted the pick on Bennett. The following season and last before James came back, the Cavs improved to 33-49 and were the 9th worst team. They won the lottery to get Wiggins.
So the Cavs ended up with the 1st pick in 3 of 4 drafts, but landed that pick with the 8th worst, 3rd worst, and 9th worst record. They had 2 other top 5 picks, both #4, which they landed by finishing 2nd worst and tied for 3rd worst.
The Cavs are the perfect example of why the lottery system works just fine.
-
I personally wish we'd get rid of the lottery so there's no chance of a decent team ending up getting a pick that an actual bad team might deserve.
the NBA has put such a premium on "superstars" that some teams only chance of acquiring a superstar is to draft one.
the lottery is a farce to begin with, the NBA should just come out and say "we want these particular teams to suck forever and these other teams to be at the top forever". instead of making us think the lottery actually means anything.
-
I find this whole thing silly. The lottery doesn't work. For as long as the odds are tied to record there will be incentive for teams to tank. Since there is no benefit to having a better record once your team is outside the top 8, the only incentive bad teams (non playoff teams) have is to be worse. That will be true no matter how small the margin of increase gets.
Even creating even odds for all 14 lottery teams would likely just create tanking among teams around the 7-10 range. If a team is #9 in the standings and has no shot at a title but knows they have as good of a shot at a franchise superstar as everyone else, aren't they going to do what they can to ensure they stay out of the playoffs?
Instituting the lottery didn't discourage tanking because even though margins changed the incentives didn't. As far as I can tell, his will remain true with the proposed changes.
-
I have always been in favor of a lottery flip where the best team in the lotto gets the 1st pick. So team 14 gets the #1 pick and the worst team gets 14. Then the teams that just miss the playoffs get the top picks. That gives teams something to play for and punishes "Tanking" teams. The extra talent should push the end of the lotto teams up into the playoffs after a year or two. No more getting stuck in the middle. It rewards the teams that are trying to put together playoff teams.
It doesn't punish tanking teams. It just shifts who and when they tank. In your proposal, teams lined up for the #8 playoff spot trying to tank. So we would have had the Trail Blazers, Nuggets, Pacers, Bulls and Heat all trying to throw certain games at times to not get that #8 spot. Because those teams knew they didn't have a prayer of winning it all.
To me, having teams purposely losing to *just* avoid making the playoffs in order to get a better draft pick is far more damaging than the worst ones losing to get better lottery odds.
-----------------
We've danced this dance before. There is NO system that doesn't cause one of the following:
(A) Hopelessness
(B) Tanking
For instance, In the "wheel" scenario you're truly screwed if you hit a weak lottery (2013). There's simply not a franchise player. You don't get a chance at that #1 for the next 30 years and you won't get another moderately high pick for 3-5 years. Having a franchise with little to no hope of improvement is not good for the NBA. See: Nets. If every team had the same chances, you'd see much the same thing - some bad team would have a run of bad luck and get 4-5 years in a row with picks in the 20s. It's a mathematical certainty and fans of that franchise aren't going to want to see that team.
So without a truly random system (like the wheel), then there's always going to be tanking. People might be tanking for #1. In the new proposed NBA system, teams from 5-8 will have great incentive to tank to get to #5 where the lottery odds go up significantly. A reverse-odds lottery just has teams tank out of the #8 playoff spot.
The only change I might make to the current system is that a team can only earn a top 3 pick 2 out of every 5 years (this precludes trades for picks). If you have already hit that mark and you get into the top 3 again, you automatically get bumped to #5. It won't preclude tanking but it will stop a 76er type scenario where they're tanking to get 3-4 top 3 picks in consecutive years.
-
(https://i.gyazo.com/a3136a28369bf82a3e9870c02d0f921a.png)
https://twitter.com/ChrisMannixYS/status/905890830749241344?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fnba%2F
Knew small market teams would fight this, said so earlier. There's too many small markets that would vote against this to make it work. Sadly, the worst tankers over the last 5-10 years or so have been large market teams.
And forget the tourney system. The NBA Players Association would never allow that.
-
Another idea might be to separate the idea of draft position (an annual 'reward' to help bad teams get better), and quality of product (how is the team doing longer term?). If a team has one bad season, it makes sense for them to be at the top of the lottery, score a good player, and get better. Could that system be tweaked? Sure, and a lot of the proposed ideas make some sense.
However, a bigger issue is having teams in the league like Sacramento or Philly that have been bad for years. It's one thing to have a bad roster, a bad coach, or bad luck through injuries for a season. It's another thing to have ownership that isn't investing in its team, making consistently poor decisions, and not putting a team on the floor that fans want to see. That costs the league money. . I'd love to see sports leagues force structural changes to teams that consistently underperform. For example, if your team finishes in last place or with a bottom 5 record for X years in a row, doesn't make the playoffs at least once in X years, etc. the owner is forced to give up their majority stake in the team by the league, or is otherwise sanctioned in a way that would intent them to invest in better players and better front office staff. Not sure if owners would vote that in, but they might, as it would benefit most of them to have a better overall product across the league.
-
I won't be surprised to see the lottery reform fail. While I believe everyone in the league dislikes tanking, the alternatives are fully of uncertainty (even if they would be successful) and uncertainty is not likely to drive reform.
In honesty, I like the wheel idea the best but you definitely have to change your mindset about how teams are built in order to accept it as a fair solution. Nothing is perfect, though.
-
I have always been in favor of a lottery flip where the best team in the lotto gets the 1st pick. So team 14 gets the #1 pick and the worst team gets 14. Then the teams that just miss the playoffs get the top picks. That gives teams something to play for and punishes "Tanking" teams. The extra talent should push the end of the lotto teams up into the playoffs after a year or two. No more getting stuck in the middle. It rewards the teams that are trying to put together playoff teams.
It doesn't punish tanking teams. It just shifts who and when they tank. In your proposal, teams lined up for the #8 playoff spot trying to tank. So we would have had the Trail Blazers, Nuggets, Pacers, Bulls and Heat all trying to throw certain games at times to not get that #8 spot. Because those teams knew they didn't have a prayer of winning it all.
To me, having teams purposely losing to *just* avoid making the playoffs in order to get a better draft pick is far more damaging than the worst ones losing to get better lottery odds.
-----------------
We've danced this dance before. There is NO system that doesn't cause one of the following:
(A) Hopelessness
(B) Tanking
For instance, In the "wheel" scenario you're truly screwed if you hit a weak lottery (2013). There's simply not a franchise player. You don't get a chance at that #1 for the next 30 years and you won't get another moderately high pick for 3-5 years. Having a franchise with little to no hope of improvement is not good for the NBA. See: Nets. If every team had the same chances, you'd see much the same thing - some bad team would have a run of bad luck and get 4-5 years in a row with picks in the 20s. It's a mathematical certainty and fans of that franchise aren't going to want to see that team.
So without a truly random system (like the wheel), then there's always going to be tanking. People might be tanking for #1. In the new proposed NBA system, teams from 5-8 will have great incentive to tank to get to #5 where the lottery odds go up significantly. A reverse-odds lottery just has teams tank out of the #8 playoff spot.
The only change I might make to the current system is that a team can only earn a top 3 pick 2 out of every 5 years (this precludes trades for picks). If you have already hit that mark and you get into the top 3 again, you automatically get bumped to #5. It won't preclude tanking but it will stop a 76er type scenario where they're tanking to get 3-4 top 3 picks in consecutive years.
Yeah, you would get stuck with the Greek Freak as your pick, LOL.
Sorry, couldn't resist. I know he wasn't projected top pick. Just so ironic you use that example.
-
i want to see reform that makes consecutive tanking less likely method of rebuilding. If you are in the top three , you can not be in the top three consecutive years or something simular to keep repeats of the Philadelphia childish experiment. .....or Cavs getting the first pick like three years in a row or close.
I dread end of season as teams jockey to loose on purpose . I loose interest
The Cavs were 19-63 preceding Irving. That was the first season post-James. The Wolves were the worst team in the league that year, the Cavs were 2nd worst, but their pick ended up 4th (Thompson). They landed Irving with the unprotected Clippers pick. The Clippers were 32-50 and the 8th worst team in the league. The following season the Cavs were 21-45 tied with New Orleans as the 3rd worst. They picked 4th. The next season they were 24-58 and the 3rd worst team. They ended up winning the lottery and wasted the pick on Bennett. The following season and last before James came back, the Cavs improved to 33-49 and were the 9th worst team. They won the lottery to get Wiggins.
So the Cavs ended up with the 1st pick in 3 of 4 drafts, but landed that pick with the 8th worst, 3rd worst, and 9th worst record. They had 2 other top 5 picks, both #4, which they landed by finishing 2nd worst and tied for 3rd worst.
The Cavs are the perfect example of why the lottery system works just fine.
Yes, but the Sixers are the reason why it should be fixed.
-
i want to see reform that makes consecutive tanking less likely method of rebuilding. If you are in the top three , you can not be in the top three consecutive years or something simular to keep repeats of the Philadelphia childish experiment. .....or Cavs getting the first pick like three years in a row or close.
I dread end of season as teams jockey to loose on purpose . I loose interest
The Cavs were 19-63 preceding Irving. That was the first season post-James. The Wolves were the worst team in the league that year, the Cavs were 2nd worst, but their pick ended up 4th (Thompson). They landed Irving with the unprotected Clippers pick. The Clippers were 32-50 and the 8th worst team in the league. The following season the Cavs were 21-45 tied with New Orleans as the 3rd worst. They picked 4th. The next season they were 24-58 and the 3rd worst team. They ended up winning the lottery and wasted the pick on Bennett. The following season and last before James came back, the Cavs improved to 33-49 and were the 9th worst team. They won the lottery to get Wiggins.
So the Cavs ended up with the 1st pick in 3 of 4 drafts, but landed that pick with the 8th worst, 3rd worst, and 9th worst record. They had 2 other top 5 picks, both #4, which they landed by finishing 2nd worst and tied for 3rd worst.
The Cavs are the perfect example of why the lottery system works just fine.
Yes, but the Sixers are the reason why it should be fixed.
The Sixers were only the worst team 1 time (and that was the only year they got the 1st pick) and there have been a lot of other teams with far worse stretches then the Sixers had littered throughout league history. The only problem with the lottery system is people believing there is something wrong with it or it doesn't work and needs to be fixed.
-
Determine the tv revenue relative to the reg season record
-
I have always been in favor of a lottery flip where the best team in the lotto gets the 1st pick. So team 14 gets the #1 pick and the worst team gets 14. Then the teams that just miss the playoffs get the top picks. That gives teams something to play for and punishes "Tanking" teams. The extra talent should push the end of the lotto teams up into the playoffs after a year or two. No more getting stuck in the middle. It rewards the teams that are trying to put together playoff teams.
It doesn't punish tanking teams. It just shifts who and when they tank. In your proposal, teams lined up for the #8 playoff spot trying to tank. So we would have had the Trail Blazers, Nuggets, Pacers, Bulls and Heat all trying to throw certain games at times to not get that #8 spot. Because those teams knew they didn't have a prayer of winning it all.
To me, having teams purposely losing to *just* avoid making the playoffs in order to get a better draft pick is far more damaging than the worst ones losing to get better lottery odds.
-----------------
We've danced this dance before. There is NO system that doesn't cause one of the following:
(A) Hopelessness
(B) Tanking
For instance, In the "wheel" scenario you're truly screwed if you hit a weak lottery (2013). There's simply not a franchise player. You don't get a chance at that #1 for the next 30 years and you won't get another moderately high pick for 3-5 years. Having a franchise with little to no hope of improvement is not good for the NBA. See: Nets. If every team had the same chances, you'd see much the same thing - some bad team would have a run of bad luck and get 4-5 years in a row with picks in the 20s. It's a mathematical certainty and fans of that franchise aren't going to want to see that team.
So without a truly random system (like the wheel), then there's always going to be tanking. People might be tanking for #1. In the new proposed NBA system, teams from 5-8 will have great incentive to tank to get to #5 where the lottery odds go up significantly. A reverse-odds lottery just has teams tank out of the #8 playoff spot.
The only change I might make to the current system is that a team can only earn a top 3 pick 2 out of every 5 years (this precludes trades for picks). If you have already hit that mark and you get into the top 3 again, you automatically get bumped to #5. It won't preclude tanking but it will stop a 76er type scenario where they're tanking to get 3-4 top 3 picks in consecutive years.
Yeah, you would get stuck with the Greek Freak as your pick, LOL.
Sorry, couldn't resist. I know he wasn't projected top pick. Just so ironic you use that example.
It's not ironic at all. There's always someone who is going to be a surprise later down in the draft. But while there's always someone, the odds suck and can't be counted on. When you get a guy outside the lottery who makes an All Star team then that's like manna from heaven. You count your lucky stars and go on. But it's not a strategy to build a team around.
From that years' draft, as you said he wasn't a projected top pick and none of the guys in the top 10 are game changers. So using "the wheel" system this scenario would be encountered - a team would eventually be bad, be lucky enough to get a top pick that year and then comes away with nothing. That team is going to have an exceptionally hard time for the next decade or two unless they get lucky. That's not good for the NBA which is why there won't be a wheel.
Then there's the opposite scenario. A team like GSW gets the #1 because it's their turn at the wheel. While dynasties help sell tickets, a woefully imbalanced league is again not good for business.
-
Determine the tv revenue relative to the reg season record
So the good get richer and the bad get poorer. That sounds like a perfect feedback cycle to turn the NBA into permanently a two tiered league.
-
Determine the tv revenue relative to the reg season record
So the good get richer and the bad get poorer. That sounds like a perfect feedback cycle to turn the NBA into permanently a two tiered league.
The same could be said about the lottery changes suggested so far.
I agree with Moranis though. The current lottery system is fair and should remain as it is. So imho the only think that could make teams rethink about tanking is money.But you have a point. You could do it for the lottery teams.
-
Determine the tv revenue relative to the reg season record
So the good get richer and the bad get poorer. That sounds like a perfect feedback cycle to turn the NBA into permanently a two tiered league.
The same could be said about the lottery changes suggested so far.
I agree with Moranis though. The current lottery system is fair and should remain as it is. So imho the only think that could make teams rethink about tanking is money.But you have a point. You could do it for the lottery teams.
Teams wouldn't accept it with the minimum floor on the cap. After all, who wants to both lose games and lose money at the same time? Players wouldn't accept it without the minimum floor. Thus it's a nonstarter.
I also agree with Moranis - the lottery isn't perfect but it is quite good at balancing the various issues raised. As I mentioned, I'd only tweak it slightly. If a team winds up with 2 top 3 picks by the merits of their own record within a 5 year span then any other picks are bumped down to 5th. This prevents wholesale abuse while preserving the inherent balance of the current system. But it's a minor adjustment meant to prevent the 76ers type abuse.
-
Determine the tv revenue relative to the reg season record
So the good get richer and the bad get poorer. That sounds like a perfect feedback cycle to turn the NBA into permanently a two tiered league.
The same could be said about the lottery changes suggested so far.
I agree with Moranis though. The current lottery system is fair and should remain as it is. So imho the only think that could make teams rethink about tanking is money.But you have a point. You could do it for the lottery teams.
Teams wouldn't accept it with the minimum floor on the cap. After all, who wants to both lose games and lose money at the same time? Players wouldn't accept it without the minimum floor. Thus it's a nonstarter.
I also agree with Moranis - the lottery isn't perfect but it is quite good at balancing the various issues raised. As I mentioned, I'd only tweak it slightly. If a team winds up with 2 top 3 picks by the merits of their own record within a 5 year span then any other picks are bumped down to 5th. This prevents wholesale abuse while preserving the inherent balance of the current system. But it's a minor adjustment meant to prevent the 76ers type abuse.
that is way too harsh. top 3 picks often end up pretty crappy and 5 years is a long time (I mean the Sixers ended up with 31 game Embiid and Okafor and thus wouldn't have gotten Simmons or "Tatum"). I mean how much different are the Bulls fortunes if they didn't land Rose because they drafted Ben Gordon 3 in 2004 and Lamarcus Aldridge 2 in 2006. Rose was 2008 so under that scenario the Bulls can't land Rose because of Gordon and Aldridge. That just doesn't smell right.
-
I have always been in favor of a lottery flip where the best team in the lotto gets the 1st pick. So team 14 gets the #1 pick and the worst team gets 14. Then the teams that just miss the playoffs get the top picks. That gives teams something to play for and punishes "Tanking" teams. The extra talent should push the end of the lotto teams up into the playoffs after a year or two. No more getting stuck in the middle. It rewards the teams that are trying to put together playoff teams.
It doesn't punish tanking teams. It just shifts who and when they tank. In your proposal, teams lined up for the #8 playoff spot trying to tank. So we would have had the Trail Blazers, Nuggets, Pacers, Bulls and Heat all trying to throw certain games at times to not get that #8 spot. Because those teams knew they didn't have a prayer of winning it all.
To me, having teams purposely losing to *just* avoid making the playoffs in order to get a better draft pick is far more damaging than the worst ones losing to get better lottery odds.
-----------------
We've danced this dance before. There is NO system that doesn't cause one of the following:
(A) Hopelessness
(B) Tanking
For instance, In the "wheel" scenario you're truly screwed if you hit a weak lottery (2013). There's simply not a franchise player. You don't get a chance at that #1 for the next 30 years and you won't get another moderately high pick for 3-5 years. Having a franchise with little to no hope of improvement is not good for the NBA. See: Nets. If every team had the same chances, you'd see much the same thing - some bad team would have a run of bad luck and get 4-5 years in a row with picks in the 20s. It's a mathematical certainty and fans of that franchise aren't going to want to see that team.
So without a truly random system (like the wheel), then there's always going to be tanking. People might be tanking for #1. In the new proposed NBA system, teams from 5-8 will have great incentive to tank to get to #5 where the lottery odds go up significantly. A reverse-odds lottery just has teams tank out of the #8 playoff spot.
The only change I might make to the current system is that a team can only earn a top 3 pick 2 out of every 5 years (this precludes trades for picks). If you have already hit that mark and you get into the top 3 again, you automatically get bumped to #5. It won't preclude tanking but it will stop a 76er type scenario where they're tanking to get 3-4 top 3 picks in consecutive years.
Yeah, you would get stuck with the Greek Freak as your pick, LOL.
Sorry, couldn't resist. I know he wasn't projected top pick. Just so ironic you use that example.
It's not ironic at all. There's always someone who is going to be a surprise later down in the draft. But while there's always someone, the odds suck and can't be counted on. When you get a guy outside the lottery who makes an All Star team then that's like manna from heaven. You count your lucky stars and go on. But it's not a strategy to build a team around.
From that years' draft, as you said he wasn't a projected top pick and none of the guys in the top 10 are game changers. So using "the wheel" system this scenario would be encountered - a team would eventually be bad, be lucky enough to get a top pick that year and then comes away with nothing. That team is going to have an exceptionally hard time for the next decade or two unless they get lucky. That's not good for the NBA which is why there won't be a wheel.
Then there's the opposite scenario. A team like GSW gets the #1 because it's their turn at the wheel. While dynasties help sell tickets, a woefully imbalanced league is again not good for business.
It is ironic, because you chose 2013 as a year of a weak draft, and it is the draft that one of the best players in the entire NBA is from.
-
I have always been in favor of a lottery flip where the best team in the lotto gets the 1st pick. So team 14 gets the #1 pick and the worst team gets 14. Then the teams that just miss the playoffs get the top picks. That gives teams something to play for and punishes "Tanking" teams. The extra talent should push the end of the lotto teams up into the playoffs after a year or two. No more getting stuck in the middle. It rewards the teams that are trying to put together playoff teams.
It doesn't punish tanking teams. It just shifts who and when they tank. In your proposal, teams lined up for the #8 playoff spot trying to tank. So we would have had the Trail Blazers, Nuggets, Pacers, Bulls and Heat all trying to throw certain games at times to not get that #8 spot. Because those teams knew they didn't have a prayer of winning it all.
To me, having teams purposely losing to *just* avoid making the playoffs in order to get a better draft pick is far more damaging than the worst ones losing to get better lottery odds.
-----------------
We've danced this dance before. There is NO system that doesn't cause one of the following:
(A) Hopelessness
(B) Tanking
For instance, In the "wheel" scenario you're truly screwed if you hit a weak lottery (2013). There's simply not a franchise player. You don't get a chance at that #1 for the next 30 years and you won't get another moderately high pick for 3-5 years. Having a franchise with little to no hope of improvement is not good for the NBA. See: Nets. If every team had the same chances, you'd see much the same thing - some bad team would have a run of bad luck and get 4-5 years in a row with picks in the 20s. It's a mathematical certainty and fans of that franchise aren't going to want to see that team.
So without a truly random system (like the wheel), then there's always going to be tanking. People might be tanking for #1. In the new proposed NBA system, teams from 5-8 will have great incentive to tank to get to #5 where the lottery odds go up significantly. A reverse-odds lottery just has teams tank out of the #8 playoff spot.
The only change I might make to the current system is that a team can only earn a top 3 pick 2 out of every 5 years (this precludes trades for picks). If you have already hit that mark and you get into the top 3 again, you automatically get bumped to #5. It won't preclude tanking but it will stop a 76er type scenario where they're tanking to get 3-4 top 3 picks in consecutive years.
Yeah, you would get stuck with the Greek Freak as your pick, LOL.
Sorry, couldn't resist. I know he wasn't projected top pick. Just so ironic you use that example.
It's not ironic at all. There's always someone who is going to be a surprise later down in the draft. But while there's always someone, the odds suck and can't be counted on. When you get a guy outside the lottery who makes an All Star team then that's like manna from heaven. You count your lucky stars and go on. But it's not a strategy to build a team around.
From that years' draft, as you said he wasn't a projected top pick and none of the guys in the top 10 are game changers. So using "the wheel" system this scenario would be encountered - a team would eventually be bad, be lucky enough to get a top pick that year and then comes away with nothing. That team is going to have an exceptionally hard time for the next decade or two unless they get lucky. That's not good for the NBA which is why there won't be a wheel.
Then there's the opposite scenario. A team like GSW gets the #1 because it's their turn at the wheel. While dynasties help sell tickets, a woefully imbalanced league is again not good for business.
It is ironic, because you chose 2013 as a year of a weak draft, and it is the draft that one of the best players in the entire NBA is from.
ever hear of the concept of an outlier in statistics? Greek freak is an example of one
-
There should be no lottery and let them tank it out. The fan base will decide whether is worth tanking. The current lottery is worthless.
-
I think there should be a point system that determines who has the best lottery odds and every team should be in the lottery.
For example:
the teams that have gone the longest without a first overall pick would get points (this should happen for each of the top five picks)
the teams that have most recently gotten top five picks should lose points
of course points should be given out for their wins/losses at the end of the year similar to what we do now
This could help incentivize behavior. If the commissioner doesn't want teams to rest their stars, they can figure out how to distribute points to discourage that behavior.
This should fix several problems not the least of which is getting better as a league at distributing talent fairly. It is more likely to discourage tanking since there are other ways to accumulate points that are more fan friendly. This should help teams get themselves out of the purgatory of late lottery/bad playoff teams. This should keep the most poorly managed teams getting the best prospects (think of the 76ers, and the Cavs without Lebron). Well managed teams can be rewarded while keeping the league competitive.
-
In reverse order of finish (1=worst):
1-5: 100 lottery combos (500 total)
6-10: 50 lottery combos (300 total)
11-15: 25 lottery combos (125 total)
16-20: 10 lottery combos (50 total)
21-25: 5 lottery combos (25 total)
26-30: 0 lottery combos
Boom. Problem solved.
-
In reverse order of finish (1=worst):
1-5: 100 lottery combos (500 total)
6-10: 50 lottery combos (300 total)
11-15: 25 lottery combos (125 total)
16-20: 10 lottery combos (50 total)
21-25: 5 lottery combos (25 total)
26-30: 0 lottery combos
Boom. Problem solved.
I'll assume your proposal still only has the lottery decide on the top 3 picks so the worst record team can only drop to 4th. Plenty of reason for teams to lose games under your system to get in a better tier. Bad teams would tank for 5th. Mediocre teams would certainly tank for 10th.
Even good teams are incentivized to tank. Last season the Cavs, Raps, Clips and Jazz finished tied with 51 wins for 5th best. None of those teams would have wanted to finish with the 5th best record under your system. If this were in place this season, why wouldn't the Cavs coast to a 6th or 7th place finish in the East? Just have to bring IT along slowly and give Lebron plenty of rest during the regular season. Home court in the playoffs doesn't mean as much as it used to do.
-
In reverse order of finish (1=worst):
1-5: 100 lottery combos (500 total)
6-10: 50 lottery combos (300 total)
11-15: 25 lottery combos (125 total)
16-20: 10 lottery combos (50 total)
21-25: 5 lottery combos (25 total)
26-30: 0 lottery combos
Boom. Problem solved.
I'll assume your proposal still only has the lottery decide on the top 3 picks so the worst record team can only drop to 4th. Plenty of reason for teams to lose games under your system to get in a better tier. Bad teams would tank for 5th. Mediocre teams would certainly tank for 10th.
Even good teams are incentivized to tank. Last season the Cavs, Raps, Clips and Jazz finished tied with 51 wins for 5th best. None of those teams would have wanted to finish with the 5th best record under your system. If this were in place this season, why wouldn't the Cavs coast to a 6th or 7th place finish in the East? Just have to bring IT along slowly and give Lebron plenty of rest during the regular season. Home court in the playoffs doesn't mean as much as it used to do.
Teams would sacrifice playoff seeding for a 1/200 lottery shot?
-
In reverse order of finish (1=worst):
1-5: 100 lottery combos (500 total)
6-10: 50 lottery combos (300 total)
11-15: 25 lottery combos (125 total)
16-20: 10 lottery combos (50 total)
21-25: 5 lottery combos (25 total)
26-30: 0 lottery combos
Boom. Problem solved.
I'll assume your proposal still only has the lottery decide on the top 3 picks so the worst record team can only drop to 4th. Plenty of reason for teams to lose games under your system to get in a better tier. Bad teams would tank for 5th. Mediocre teams would certainly tank for 10th.
Even good teams are incentivized to tank. Last season the Cavs, Raps, Clips and Jazz finished tied with 51 wins for 5th best. None of those teams would have wanted to finish with the 5th best record under your system. If this were in place this season, why wouldn't the Cavs coast to a 6th or 7th place finish in the East? Just have to bring IT along slowly and give Lebron plenty of rest during the regular season. Home court in the playoffs doesn't mean as much as it used to do.
Teams would sacrifice playoff seeding for a 1/200 lottery shot?
Roy is absolutely right that the 1/200 chance would never justify an ounce of tanking.
I don't think it makes sense to use these tiers, though. If a team is 6th worst, they've got lots of incentive to tank and finish in the bottom 5--if they succeed, they double their lottery odds. If you eliminate the tiers and go with a flatter system (very minor differences in lottery odds among the bad teams), isn't that better?
-
Nate Silver did a poll and he "picked" the best solution. It wouldn't happen in a million years, but it would eliminate tanking:
Every NBA team would "bet" on another team and get their spot in the draft. The worst team would get first choice, second worst would get second choice, etc. You would get the spot for where "your" team ended up. The only restriction is that you could not bet on yourself. For instance, this year, the Celtics would have had first choice as to who would be the worst team next year.
No team would tank, because they know that their draft pick is going to a rival. I suppose you could make the argument that a bad team would tank so they would get first choice the following year, but not only are you introducing a second degree of separation but you're also betting that the team you choose won't do the same.
Mike
-
Nate Silver did a poll and he "picked" the best solution. It wouldn't happen in a million years, but it would eliminate tanking:
Every NBA team would "bet" on another team and get their spot in the draft. The worst team would get first choice, second worst would get second choice, etc. You would get the spot for where "your" team ended up. The only restriction is that you could not bet on yourself. For instance, this year, the Celtics would have had first choice as to who would be the worst team next year.
No team would tank, because they know that their draft pick is going to a rival. I suppose you could make the argument that a bad team would tank so they would get first choice the following year, but not only are you introducing a second degree of separation but you're also betting that the team you choose won't do the same.
Mike
That would get super quirky with acquired or conditional picks.
-
I've liked the Idea of the bottom teams battling it out for the best percentage on the court.
Have them best of 3 series. They can be one opposite channels of the top playoff teams. This way the teams you root for can be seen. It will take some views from the main playoffs at first, but in all more revenue for the league in the TV deal and team ticket sales.
I would say winner takes all but then you would have the best of the worst winning it for 3 or more years until one of the winning playoff teams fall out of being competitive. So winner gets the most ping pong balls. But if you win the lotto, next year the best you can do is #3. And then the 3rd year #5 and then you stay 6-14 for 3 years. This should play out rookie contracts and teams getting weaker and stronger, and balance the team more. This way weaker teams will eventually move up and it keeps teams like Philly out of the top 3 after two years.
But there would still be a lotto. Even if you get bounced in the first round, you still have a chance.
Now you can even do it on neutral grounds. It would hurt team sales(but they don't get them now). Like the NCAA tourney and just do one offs. This way east vs west wouldn't matter jut do winning brackets. Hold the Playoffs for a week after the season(give guys rest and don't do two weeks between conference finals and finals) and have the bottom teams play during the week. This gives young guys some playoff experience too boot.
-
In reverse order of finish (1=worst):
1-5: 100 lottery combos (500 total)
6-10: 50 lottery combos (300 total)
11-15: 25 lottery combos (125 total)
16-20: 10 lottery combos (50 total)
21-25: 5 lottery combos (25 total)
26-30: 0 lottery combos
Boom. Problem solved.
I'll assume your proposal still only has the lottery decide on the top 3 picks so the worst record team can only drop to 4th. Plenty of reason for teams to lose games under your system to get in a better tier. Bad teams would tank for 5th. Mediocre teams would certainly tank for 10th.
Even good teams are incentivized to tank. Last season the Cavs, Raps, Clips and Jazz finished tied with 51 wins for 5th best. None of those teams would have wanted to finish with the 5th best record under your system. If this were in place this season, why wouldn't the Cavs coast to a 6th or 7th place finish in the East? Just have to bring IT along slowly and give Lebron plenty of rest during the regular season. Home court in the playoffs doesn't mean as much as it used to do.
Teams would sacrifice playoff seeding for a 1/200 lottery shot?
In some draft years where the top talent are franchise potential I think they would. That 1/200 chance is just for the top pick. They'd also have a shot at the #2 and #3 picks. It wouldn't even necessarily sacrifice playoff seeding since that is conference based where as the lottery is league based. The Cavs could end up 25 by finishing behind us and 4 teams in the west.
The 15th slot is also a really nice slot to lose a game or two for as opposed to ending up 16th.
-
(https://i.gyazo.com/a3136a28369bf82a3e9870c02d0f921a.png)
https://twitter.com/ChrisMannixYS/status/905890830749241344?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fnba%2F
Knew small market teams would fight this, said so earlier. There's too many small markets that would vote against this to make it work. Sadly, the worst tankers over the last 5-10 years or so have been large market teams.
And forget the tourney system. The NBA Players Association would never allow that.
they should fight it, otherwise the NBA should just get rid of the teams not named Lakers, Miami or San Antonio or whatever team Lebron is on.
-
Apparently it will get voted on Sept. 28th. Would start with 2019 draft.
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20710936/nba-board-governors-vote-draft-lottery-reform-sept-28?sf114342142=1
-
Apparently it will get voted on Sept. 28th. Would start with 2019 draft.
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20710936/nba-board-governors-vote-draft-lottery-reform-sept-28?sf114342142=1
I hope it fails. Absolutely terrible idea.
-
Apparently it will get voted on Sept. 28th. Would start with 2019 draft.
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20710936/nba-board-governors-vote-draft-lottery-reform-sept-28?sf114342142=1
So it looks like the main points are:
- equal odds for the three worst teams, with smaller increases in probability as teams fall in the standings
- drawing for the top 4 spots instead of the top 3.
I like smoothing the odds overall to discourage tanking, as long as the incentive to drop out of the playoffs is still very low. And I'd kind like them to draw for all 14 spots too, though I understand that'd be a huge pain with the current system with a need for constant redraws til a team that hasn't come up is chosen. Still, I'm onboard with the changes here. But I doubt the small market teams will be.
-
Apparently it will get voted on Sept. 28th. Would start with 2019 draft.
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20710936/nba-board-governors-vote-draft-lottery-reform-sept-28?sf114342142=1
So it looks like the main points are:
- equal odds for the three worse teams, with smaller increases in probability as teams fall in the standings
- drawing for the top 4 spots instead of the top 3.
I like smoothing the odds overall to discourage tanking, as long as the incentive to drop out of the playoffs is still very low. And I'd kind like them to draw for all 14 spots too, though I understand that'd be a huge pain with the current system with a need for constant redraws til a team that hasn't come up is chosen. Still, I'm onboard with the changes here. But I doubt the small market teams will be.
I'm not a big fan of the changes. That said, it's probably good for the Sacramento pick. Slightly higher chance that it ends up #1, which is not good, but much greater chance it winds up 2-4.
-
The changes won't affect tanking. As long as there is an incentive to be bad, teams who are clearly outside the playoff hunt will tank. If being a bottom 3 teams gives you better odds at the #1 then non playoff teams have incentive to be as bad as possible.