Creating a New Draft Lottery System

[LatterDayCelticsfan]

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. 

[PhoSita]

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.

[fairweatherfan]

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.

[LatterDayCelticsfan]

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.

[CFAN38]

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.

[LooseCannon]

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.

[furball]

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.   

[PhoSita]

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.

[LooseCannon]

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.

[fairweatherfan]

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.

[JJones1090]

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.

[PhoSita]

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.

[BballTim]

  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.