76ers fighting NBAs lottery changes

[SparzWizard]

I think next year the Cleveland Cavaliers are going to win the #1 pick, again.

Lol.

[pokeKingCurtis]

I think next year the Cleveland Cavaliers are going to win the #1 pick, again.

Lol.

Does this mean LeBron sits out the year from cramps?

He should really hydrate after all the crying to the refs. Or maybe he's cramping for the tanking.

----

At PG, the first overall pick from Australia, Kyrieee Irving
At SG, the first overall pick from Canada, Andrewwww Wiggins
At PF, the first overall pick out of Canada, Anthony Bennett.
At C , the first overall pick from Duke University, Jahlil Okafor
At SF, the first overall pick out of Akron Ohio, LeBron James.

[Future Celtics Owner]

i just want Karl Towns next year. No big deal.

[Ogaju]

A wise man once said, it is folly to be wise where ignorance runs in perfect bliss.

Enjoy your bliss.

Enjoy your delusion.

touchy touchy, try reading Donaghy's book.

[BballTim]

Thus this notion that the lottery must be fixed to stop teams from tanking is just silly because the truly bad teams almost never are rewarded with the 1st pick any way.

  But teams still want the best chance at the top pick, right? Under the current system, if there was the next Bird in the draft, would you want the highest odds that go with the worst record, or would you say it didn't matter where you finished because of past lottery results?

[Moranis]

Thus this notion that the lottery must be fixed to stop teams from tanking is just silly because the truly bad teams almost never are rewarded with the 1st pick any way.

  But teams still want the best chance at the top pick, right? Under the current system, if there was the next Bird in the draft, would you want the highest odds that go with the worst record, or would you say it didn't matter where you finished because of past lottery results?

If the point is only to get the first pick, then it really doesn't matter.  If the point is to get as high a pick as possible then it does matter because even if you fail all 3 times in the lottery, the worst you are going to pick is 4th if you have the worst record.  I mean if Boston was 1 win worse they get Exum as opposed to Smart.  Time will obviously tell who is better, but I think the general thought as of now is Exum will have the better career.

[BballTim]

The 76ers, sources said, are hoping to get the NBA to delay plans for at least a year because it acts as a de facto punishment while just playing by the rules that have been in place.

That's a pretty good point in favor of the 76ers, IMO.

  The other 29 teams are playing by the rules that have been in place as well. I don't think that claiming the league should delay attempts to prevent tanking because a team isn't trying to put a competitive team on the court and they want a high draft pick will fly. That's kind of like arguing for a delay in increasing the penalty for stealing because you'd planned to rob the liquor store to cover your electric bill.

Tanking for better odds of a high pick is allowed in the NBA.  Robbing the liquor store is not allowed...

  If tanking's allowed then an owner could tell the press his team deliberately lost games down the stretch to improve their draft position without fear of punishment from the league. I doubt that's the case.

You would agree, I assume, that 'tanking' has occurred in the NBA?  Everyone knows it, the league accepts it (as long as you don't come out in public and say that you're 'tanking') and it is surely the best, if not the only, way to rebuild quickly, or maybe at all. 

On the other hand, if you walk into a liquor store, point a gun at the cashier and demand money, the police and district attorney are not going to look the other way.  If you are apprehended, and they will attempt to identify and locate you, you will be charged with a crime.

  While this is a fairly pointless discussion, all you're basically saying is that if you're caught red-handed doing one thing you're in trouble, but if they don't have proof you did something else you get away with it. Obviously the fact that it's hard to prove something doesn't mean it's "allowed" to happen. That's like saying you're allowed to cheat on your taxes or commit perjury, since both of those things happen on a regular basis without punishment.

What I am 'basically saying' is that your original comparison of tanking in the NBA to robbing a liquour store is terribly flawed. 

The NBA front office knows that franchises are tanking but does not attempt to sanction such teams.  When the appropriate government agencies are aware of tax cheating or commission of perjury, criminal prosecutions often follow.  The NBA cannot 'prove' tanking, but in some (most) instances, the IRS, etc. is able to 'prove' a violation or criminal misconduct.  For that reason alone, your analogy left much to be desired...

  That would be because I never tried to compare tanking to robbing a liquor store. I said a team that's tanking complaining about impending rule changes to prevent tanking is like someone who's about to break a law complaining because the penalty for breaking that law is increasing. I'm not sure you understand this (many people here don't seem to) but an analogy  works if certain similarities between two things exist, not just if all things between the two are the similar.

  Also, someone working for the government can "know" that someone's committing perjury or breaking another law without being able to "prove" it. Just like with tanking. I'd also say it's unlikely that the IRS doesn't prove most instances of tax cheating, but like the rest of this discussion that's not that important.

Robbing a liquour store is already illegal - there are statutes which prohibit this kind of activity.  Maybe there is an NBA by-law prohibiting 'tanking' but I am not aware of it.  Perhaps you might be so kind as to provide specific information about that, if it exists.

  You seem to realize that you can get punished if you publicly admit to tanking, and the commissioner has  threatened to punish teams if he has evidence that they're tanking. This would lead me to believe that it's against the rules. I'm sure they have something in place about not fielding a competitive team or losing on purpose. But isn't this a little late in the conversation to decide you don't know one way or the other whether tanking's against the rules or not?

 

There may be some elements of an analogy which pertain to both compared things, and some which may not, but if the most fundamental aspect (as determined by the context of the specific discussion, in this case, illegal acts and punishments for them) for each compared thing is totally different, then it is an analogy which is fatally flawed.  Maybe this had never occurred to you before?

  The context of the discussion isn't illegal acts and punishments for them. It's about complaining about impending changes to the punishments because you're about to be committing the act in question. You seem to have misunderstood this from the start.

[Donoghus]

A wise man once said, it is folly to be wise where ignorance runs in perfect bliss.

Enjoy your bliss.

Enjoy your delusion.

touchy touchy, try reading Donaghy's book.

Haha... That's your rebuttal? Seriously? 

Didn't realize a referee would have insight into the lottery process also. 

[D.o.s.]

all those that claim the lottery is not fixed, can you explain how Cleveland won the lottery 2 years out of four that the King was gone?

Well, when a team misses the postseason in the NBA, they enter what's known as the Draft Lottery. This is a process, publicly broadcast and audited every year, when each team that missed the playoffs is given separately weighted odds in the lottery, which is held to determine which team will end up with the number one pick. Teams are given different odds of winning it based on their record, so the worst team has the highest number of opportunities to "win" the lottery and get the number one pick.

Since LeBron left, the Cavs have been in the draft lottery. Their first number one pick, that turned into Kyrie Irving, was actually the Clippers pick, acquired in the Baron Davis trade. Since Cleveland hasn't traded their first round picks since LeBron left, they've been in the draft lottery ever since, and have been fortunate enough to come out on top in two years since.

I'm glad you asked this question -- it takes real courage to admit that you don't understand how something works, especially on the internet, where knowledge is just one Google search away.

Oh, Lord, I almost fell off my chair reading this - thank you for your wonderfully arch comment...

Glad you enjoyed it. 

[Sixth Man]

The 76ers, sources said, are hoping to get the NBA to delay plans for at least a year because it acts as a de facto punishment while just playing by the rules that have been in place.

That's a pretty good point in favor of the 76ers, IMO.

  The other 29 teams are playing by the rules that have been in place as well. I don't think that claiming the league should delay attempts to prevent tanking because a team isn't trying to put a competitive team on the court and they want a high draft pick will fly. That's kind of like arguing for a delay in increasing the penalty for stealing because you'd planned to rob the liquor store to cover your electric bill.

Tanking for better odds of a high pick is allowed in the NBA.  Robbing the liquor store is not allowed...

  If tanking's allowed then an owner could tell the press his team deliberately lost games down the stretch to improve their draft position without fear of punishment from the league. I doubt that's the case.

You would agree, I assume, that 'tanking' has occurred in the NBA?  Everyone knows it, the league accepts it (as long as you don't come out in public and say that you're 'tanking') and it is surely the best, if not the only, way to rebuild quickly, or maybe at all. 

On the other hand, if you walk into a liquor store, point a gun at the cashier and demand money, the police and district attorney are not going to look the other way.  If you are apprehended, and they will attempt to identify and locate you, you will be charged with a crime.

  While this is a fairly pointless discussion, all you're basically saying is that if you're caught red-handed doing one thing you're in trouble, but if they don't have proof you did something else you get away with it. Obviously the fact that it's hard to prove something doesn't mean it's "allowed" to happen. That's like saying you're allowed to cheat on your taxes or commit perjury, since both of those things happen on a regular basis without punishment.

What I am 'basically saying' is that your original comparison of tanking in the NBA to robbing a liquour store is terribly flawed. 

The NBA front office knows that franchises are tanking but does not attempt to sanction such teams.  When the appropriate government agencies are aware of tax cheating or commission of perjury, criminal prosecutions often follow.  The NBA cannot 'prove' tanking, but in some (most) instances, the IRS, etc. is able to 'prove' a violation or criminal misconduct.  For that reason alone, your analogy left much to be desired...

  That would be because I never tried to compare tanking to robbing a liquor store. I said a team that's tanking complaining about impending rule changes to prevent tanking is like someone who's about to break a law complaining because the penalty for breaking that law is increasing. I'm not sure you understand this (many people here don't seem to) but an analogy  works if certain similarities between two things exist, not just if all things between the two are the similar.

  Also, someone working for the government can "know" that someone's committing perjury or breaking another law without being able to "prove" it. Just like with tanking. I'd also say it's unlikely that the IRS doesn't prove most instances of tax cheating, but like the rest of this discussion that's not that important.

Robbing a liquour store is already illegal - there are statutes which prohibit this kind of activity.  Maybe there is an NBA by-law prohibiting 'tanking' but I am not aware of it.  Perhaps you might be so kind as to provide specific information about that, if it exists.

  You seem to realize that you can get punished if you publicly admit to tanking, and the commissioner has  threatened to punish teams if he has evidence that they're tanking. This would lead me to believe that it's against the rules. I'm sure they have something in place about not fielding a competitive team or losing on purpose. But isn't this a little late in the conversation to decide you don't know one way or the other whether tanking's against the rules or not?

 

There may be some elements of an analogy which pertain to both compared things, and some which may not, but if the most fundamental aspect (as determined by the context of the specific discussion, in this case, illegal acts and punishments for them) for each compared thing is totally different, then it is an analogy which is fatally flawed.  Maybe this had never occurred to you before?

  The context of the discussion isn't illegal acts and punishments for them. It's about complaining about impending changes to the punishments because you're about to be committing the act in question. You seem to have misunderstood this from the start.

As for the blue bolded part of your response, I could ask the very same thing of you...!

Your second paragraph is laughable, at best.  Illegal acts and punishments, or complaints about changes to punishments for said illegal acts - it's the same discussion topic, just with an ever so slightly more general, or specific, focus.  If you cannot wrap your brain around that, then I guess I've been wasting my time in this discussion with you...

[Sixth Man]

Thus this notion that the lottery must be fixed to stop teams from tanking is just silly because the truly bad teams almost never are rewarded with the 1st pick any way.

  But teams still want the best chance at the top pick, right? Under the current system, if there was the next Bird in the draft, would you want the highest odds that go with the worst record, or would you say it didn't matter where you finished because of past lottery results?

Well, Larry Bird was actually drafted with the SIXTH pick in the 1978 draft...   I am beginning to believe that you may have a genetic predisposition which prevents you from selecting anything other than the WORST possible analogies...

[slamtheking]

Thus this notion that the lottery must be fixed to stop teams from tanking is just silly because the truly bad teams almost never are rewarded with the 1st pick any way.

  But teams still want the best chance at the top pick, right? Under the current system, if there was the next Bird in the draft, would you want the highest odds that go with the worst record, or would you say it didn't matter where you finished because of past lottery results?

Well, Larry Bird was actually drafted with the SIXTH pick in the 1978 draft...   I am beginning to believe that you may have a genetic predisposition which prevents you from selecting anything other than the WORST possible analogies...

to be fair, I think he's only referring to a player that's a franchise-level player and just used Bird as talent-quality example. 

Bird was a junior eligible that year that could be selected but the team drafting him had to get him signed right after that following season or lose the rights to him IIRC.  big gamble by Red to pick him.  if the drafting team could have kept his rights in perpetuity, Bird would have gone as the probably #1 pick over Mychal Thompson that year.   Also, if Bird couldn't have been selected until the following draft, he most likely goes #1 over Magic.

in any case, I think the point is that some teams will continue to try to have the worst record possible to improve their odds of getting as high a pick as possible and thereby improving their odds of getting a player that's a difference-maker.  Case in point, Philly this past year and next year.  Utah is another example from last year.  paid off for them too thanks to the coin flip where they got Exum and we ended up with Smart instead.

[BballTim]

Thus this notion that the lottery must be fixed to stop teams from tanking is just silly because the truly bad teams almost never are rewarded with the 1st pick any way.

  But teams still want the best chance at the top pick, right? Under the current system, if there was the next Bird in the draft, would you want the highest odds that go with the worst record, or would you say it didn't matter where you finished because of past lottery results?

Well, Larry Bird was actually drafted with the SIXTH pick in the 1978 draft...   I am beginning to believe that you may have a genetic predisposition which prevents you from selecting anything other than the WORST possible analogies...

  I'm not sure whether you don't have any idea *why* Bird was drafted 6th, or if you feel that Larry being the 6th pick in the draft means that a Bird-level of player in next year's draft would go 6th and not higher. Or both might be true. I guess from your  confused point of view that wasn't a good analogy, sorry if it went over your head.

[Sixth Man]

Thus this notion that the lottery must be fixed to stop teams from tanking is just silly because the truly bad teams almost never are rewarded with the 1st pick any way.

  But teams still want the best chance at the top pick, right? Under the current system, if there was the next Bird in the draft, would you want the highest odds that go with the worst record, or would you say it didn't matter where you finished because of past lottery results?

Well, Larry Bird was actually drafted with the SIXTH pick in the 1978 draft...   I am beginning to believe that you may have a genetic predisposition which prevents you from selecting anything other than the WORST possible analogies...

to be fair, I think he's only referring to a player that's a franchise-level player and just used Bird as talent-quality example.

Yes, I'm sure that's the case, but I thought it was quite ironic, if not telling, that he chose to utilize the example of a player who wasn't drafted at the beginning of a draft, given that the general discussion is about tanking to try to get a premier pick.

[Sixth Man]

Thus this notion that the lottery must be fixed to stop teams from tanking is just silly because the truly bad teams almost never are rewarded with the 1st pick any way.

  But teams still want the best chance at the top pick, right? Under the current system, if there was the next Bird in the draft, would you want the highest odds that go with the worst record, or would you say it didn't matter where you finished because of past lottery results?

Well, Larry Bird was actually drafted with the SIXTH pick in the 1978 draft...   I am beginning to believe that you may have a genetic predisposition which prevents you from selecting anything other than the WORST possible analogies...

  I'm not sure whether you don't have any idea *why* Bird was drafted 6th, or if you feel that Larry being the 6th pick in the draft means that a Bird-level of player in next year's draft would go 6th and not higher. Or both might be true. I guess from your  confused point of view that wasn't a good analogy, sorry if it went over your head.

Of course I remember - we had to wait a year before having a window of opportunity to sign him following the NCAA Championship Game.  That, however, is irrelevant everywhere in this universe except inside your mind, a private universe (Idaho?!) in which laws governing association and causality work in strange but charming ways and the laws of simple logic and argumentation are on permanent holiday...