the lotto, the thing i hate most

[Fafnir]

I think I'm the only person who has this position, but I still think eliminating the ping-pong balls and going with a straight "one team, one chance" lottery is the best way to minimize tanking.  Every team that misses the playoffs has an equal chance, and all 14 picks are drawn randomly.

The only incentive to tank in this system is to miss the playoffs, and the playoffs are lucrative enough that most teams would not be willing to miss them for a shot at the top players.  Once you're out of the playoffs it doesn't matter where you finish, so there's no point in not trying to win.  And the draw becomes much more exciting, and can be done live. 

That makes sense, the only issue is the league has to be strong and resist the howls of outrage from owners when a team like the Bulls (were only 10th worst record) get the best overall pick.

I doubt the commissioners office is willing to deal with the heat from ownership of bad franchises over it, not when they've already tried that.

[Moranis]

I think I'm the only person who has this position, but I still think eliminating the ping-pong balls and going with a straight "one team, one chance" lottery is the best way to minimize tanking.  Every team that misses the playoffs has an equal chance, and all 14 picks are drawn randomly.

The only incentive to tank in this system is to miss the playoffs, and the playoffs are lucrative enough that most teams would not be willing to miss them for a shot at the top players.  Once you're out of the playoffs it doesn't matter where you finish, so there's no point in not trying to win.  And the draw becomes much more exciting, and can be done live. 

I think that is a terrible idea for any number of reasons.  Obviously, you would encourage near playoff teams to tank down the stretch to miss the playoffs.  Making the playoffs as the 8th seed and getting swept in the first round is no where near as lucrative as landing Anthony Davis to a middle of the road team.  Also, teams that have injuries would be given far too high of odds of landing the top pick (imagine if the David Robinson effect happened every year).  Also, the bad teams are bad because they don't have good enough players, if you make the chances of them getting a difference maker lower and lower they will never get better. 

I believe the best way to correct the system is to make only the very first pick in the draft selected via the lottery.  That way if you are the worst team you will draft no worse than 2nd.  No guarantee at the top pick, but at least you may not be relegated to 4th like what has happened recently to some very bad teams.

[fairweatherfan]

I think I'm the only person who has this position, but I still think eliminating the ping-pong balls and going with a straight "one team, one chance" lottery is the best way to minimize tanking.  Every team that misses the playoffs has an equal chance, and all 14 picks are drawn randomly.

The only incentive to tank in this system is to miss the playoffs, and the playoffs are lucrative enough that most teams would not be willing to miss them for a shot at the top players.  Once you're out of the playoffs it doesn't matter where you finish, so there's no point in not trying to win.  And the draw becomes much more exciting, and can be done live. 

I think that is a terrible idea for any number of reasons.  Obviously, you would encourage near playoff teams to tank down the stretch to miss the playoffs.  Making the playoffs as the 8th seed and getting swept in the first round is no where near as lucrative as landing Anthony Davis to a middle of the road team.

Is it as lucrative as a 1 in 14 shot of landing Davis, and embarrassing your entire organization to get that 1 in 14 shot?  The incentive really isn't that high, and if a team really did try to tank out of the playoffs, they'd receive massive media, fan and league scrutiny, and there'd surely be another team happy to replace them. 

I believe the best way to correct the system is to make only the very first pick in the draft selected via the lottery.  That way if you are the worst team you will draft no worse than 2nd.  No guarantee at the top pick, but at least you may not be relegated to 4th like what has happened recently to some very bad teams.

This would increase the incentive to tank, not decrease it - now losing more games gives you a stronger guarantee of a great pick.  How many teams would race to the bottom in the next Oden/Durant or LeBron/Melo/Bosh/Wade type of draft?  Or even in this draft - lots of teams would love to be guaranteed one of the Davis/Gilchrist/Robinson trio, which is impossible under the current system. 

I guess it comes down to whether you prioritize maximizing the chances for the worst teams to have the best chance to improve (which encourages chasing a poor record) or reducing incentives for teams to deliberately play worse (which encourages competitiveness all season).

[Moranis]

I think I'm the only person who has this position, but I still think eliminating the ping-pong balls and going with a straight "one team, one chance" lottery is the best way to minimize tanking.  Every team that misses the playoffs has an equal chance, and all 14 picks are drawn randomly.

The only incentive to tank in this system is to miss the playoffs, and the playoffs are lucrative enough that most teams would not be willing to miss them for a shot at the top players.  Once you're out of the playoffs it doesn't matter where you finish, so there's no point in not trying to win.  And the draw becomes much more exciting, and can be done live. 

I think that is a terrible idea for any number of reasons.  Obviously, you would encourage near playoff teams to tank down the stretch to miss the playoffs.  Making the playoffs as the 8th seed and getting swept in the first round is no where near as lucrative as landing Anthony Davis to a middle of the road team.

Is it as lucrative as a 1 in 14 shot of landing Davis, and embarrassing your entire organization to get that 1 in 14 shot?  The incentive really isn't that high, and if a team really did try to tank out of the playoffs, they'd receive massive media, fan and league scrutiny, and there'd surely be another team happy to replace them. 

You would have a 3 in 14 shot of Davis, Kidd-Gilchrest, or Robinson.  Long term, especially for teams without much cap space, that is a much more lucrative proposition.  Take Milwaukee and Phoenix, I think both those organizations long term would much rather take the shot at a top 3 pick rather than make the playoffs only to lose in the first or possibly the second round. 

I believe the best way to correct the system is to make only the very first pick in the draft selected via the lottery.  That way if you are the worst team you will draft no worse than 2nd.  No guarantee at the top pick, but at least you may not be relegated to 4th like what has happened recently to some very bad teams.

This would increase the incentive to tank, not decrease it - now losing more games gives you a stronger guarantee of a great pick.  How many teams would race to the bottom in the next Oden/Durant or LeBron/Melo/Bosh/Wade type of draft?  Or even in this draft - lots of teams would love to be guaranteed one of the Davis/Gilchrist/Robinson trio, which is impossible under the current system. 

I guess it comes down to whether you prioritize maximizing the chances for the worst teams to have the best chance to improve (which encourages chasing a poor record) or reducing incentives for teams to deliberately play worse (which encourages competitiveness all season).

No other sport does a lottery.  Even the ones with similar season lengths.  The best thing for the sport is to be cyclical in which teams are good and which teams are bad.  If the Charlotte Bobcats are always terrible it is bad for the league.  Even teams like the Yankees and Lakers, miss the playoffs every once in awhile and have down years.  That is what all sports need i.e. the rotation of the good and bad teams.  Sure some teams might always be at the top, but no team should always be at the bottom, but that happens most frequently in basketball where the bad teams don't always get the best players int he draft.  That is a problem. 

The lottery system was a short sighted reaction to a perceived problem in the system, which just wasn't there. 

[LooseCannon]

I think I'm the only person who has this position, but I still think eliminating the ping-pong balls and going with a straight "one team, one chance" lottery is the best way to minimize tanking.  Every team that misses the playoffs has an equal chance, and all 14 picks are drawn randomly.

That makes sense, the only issue is the league has to be strong and resist the howls of outrage from owners when a team like the Bulls (were only 10th worst record) get the best overall pick.

Given the outrage over Orlando getting back-to-back #1s when they won the 1993 lottery with a 1.5% chance of drawing the top pick, leading to them weighing the lottery more in favor of bad teams, there's no way the league is going to give the least-worst lottery teams a significantly better shot.

You might as well just do away with the lottery altogether and do draft order by record since it is usually really hard to get the worst record in the league unless you have a team that is so devoid of talent that it can get there unintentionally.

[wdleehi]

I think draft lotto is dumb.  It keeps the worse teams from getting the best chance to get help. 



And lets be honest, the worst run teams (whether they tank or not) are the most likely teams to make bad picks.  But they should at least get the opportunity to make that bad pick.



Does anyone think the bottom three of Charlotte, DC and New Orleans got there by tanking? 



And if NO pass Cleveland, is that an issue?  They got back their best player and Cleveland lost their best player.