WHOA: Lottery reform proposal has been voted DOWN. 17-13.

[guava_wrench]

Great news that the change was not passed. Horrible proposal, mostly just because of Philly. It would have been a disaster for small market teams.

So long as teams are playing who they have, I don't have a problem with teams trading talent now for assets later. If a baseball team did what Philly did (Marlins, anyone?), no one would think twice. It is a valid move. The difference it that the first pick in the NBA has a lot more value than in MLB. But so what? Teams still need to be able to make the best moves.

None of what I said yet addresses the draft positioning. The problem with the proposal is that the best rookie talent should, ideally, be distributed either based on what teams are the worst, completely randomly, or through a balanced schedule (you get a #1 once every 30 years). The problem with the latter 2 is that the best free agents tend to towards the largest markets due to endorsements. With veteran talent clustering in big markets, the smaller markets need the draft to get top talents. Their best hope is drafting a star who will stay out of a sense of loyalty, like KG or Duncan.

All the hate on Philly is a little silly anyway as Cleveland has won 3 of the last 4 lotteries. In fact, Cleveland won last year without being a bottom feeder so where is the problem? Kudos to Philly fully committing to young guys.

[guava_wrench]

You're right. The only ways to "fix" tanking are (a) a completely random lottery with equal odds for all, or (b) a completely deterministic order (like the "draft wheel"). Any system in which draft position is somehow linked to records will change incentives to win, somehow and for some teams. You are just picking your poison.

What I've never understood about all this is that for the most part, the "tanking" problem the league wants to fix occurs at the GM level - i.e., gutting the team's talent like the Sixers have done. It's not a game-throwing problem where players or coaches are making themselves worse than their talent would merit.

But then, are we to believe that GM-based tanking reduces the overall quality of league play? Why would it? Talent is zero-sum across the league, and if bad teams make themselves worse by dumping talent then good teams must be getting better by acquiring it. The current lottery system might mean more exciting playoff races, and more exciting and talent-laden playoff squads.

Did the Florida Marlins 'tank' when they got rid of all their veteran star players after winning it all?

The biggest problem is fans. Philly is the worst case of making their team worse at present, but they did it through reasonable moves that invested in their future regardless of draft position. Why penalize their draft position just because they decided to fully commit to rebuilding by trading Holiday when his value was high? It was the right move.

Even if the draft was random 1-30, there will still be bad teams. There will still be teams who, like the Marlins, decide to dismantle their roster to rebuild with younger players that will stay in town for 4 years on rookie deals at affordable prices. When the guys reach their primes, they will hit free agency and be available to the highest bidder.

[D.o.s.]

Getting rid of draft pick protections would go further to solve the 'tanking' phenomenon than changing the lottery, TBH.

[Boris Badenov]

You're right. The only ways to "fix" tanking are (a) a completely random lottery with equal odds for all, or (b) a completely deterministic order (like the "draft wheel"). Any system in which draft position is somehow linked to records will change incentives to win, somehow and for some teams. You are just picking your poison.

What I've never understood about all this is that for the most part, the "tanking" problem the league wants to fix occurs at the GM level - i.e., gutting the team's talent like the Sixers have done. It's not a game-throwing problem where players or coaches are making themselves worse than their talent would merit.

But then, are we to believe that GM-based tanking reduces the overall quality of league play? Why would it? Talent is zero-sum across the league, and if bad teams make themselves worse by dumping talent then good teams must be getting better by acquiring it. The current lottery system might mean more exciting playoff races, and more exciting and talent-laden playoff squads.

Did the Florida Marlins Boston Red Sox 'tank' when they got rid of all their veteran star players after winning it all?

Fixed.

[guava_wrench]

The biggest problem I have with the 'tank' talk is that we are talking about the worst teams in the league. By definition, the league will always have worst teams. Was Philly going to be competitive if they kept Holiday? I don't see it. Perhaps if we kept Pierce and KG, we manage a first round elimination. Stupid move, but for those who are fixated on the supposed tankers, we are among the worst offenders with the Pierce and KG trade.

Yet the Pierce and KG trade was the right basketball move, no matter what our position in the 2014 draft would end up being.

A lot of blaming the victim going on. I am fine if people say that Milwaukee doesn't deserve high draft picks because it isn't an important market so it should have no more odds of getting #1 than a good team in a more important market. But Milwaukee hasn't been trying to lose. They are just bad.

When OKC didn't keep Harden due to not wanting to pay luxury tax, should they also have been penalized? They did a move that hurt their team that season in a hope that it would help the team long term by trading Harden before he became a FA and freeing money to keep Westbrook, KD, and Ibaka.

[guava_wrench]

You're right. The only ways to "fix" tanking are (a) a completely random lottery with equal odds for all, or (b) a completely deterministic order (like the "draft wheel"). Any system in which draft position is somehow linked to records will change incentives to win, somehow and for some teams. You are just picking your poison.

What I've never understood about all this is that for the most part, the "tanking" problem the league wants to fix occurs at the GM level - i.e., gutting the team's talent like the Sixers have done. It's not a game-throwing problem where players or coaches are making themselves worse than their talent would merit.

But then, are we to believe that GM-based tanking reduces the overall quality of league play? Why would it? Talent is zero-sum across the league, and if bad teams make themselves worse by dumping talent then good teams must be getting better by acquiring it. The current lottery system might mean more exciting playoff races, and more exciting and talent-laden playoff squads.

Did the Florida Marlins Boston Red Sox 'tank' when they got rid of all their veteran star players after winning it all?

Fixed.

The Marlins had a fire sale. It was way worse.

[Fafnir]

Marlins are their own special case of awful.

The lied repeatedly about their finances and fleeced the city/county in their new stadium deal. Outright siphoned millions of dollars every year directly to the owner and then claimed they weren't making money.

This is all on top of having a fire sale of every player that's ever any good once he's not cost controlled. Additionally they also completely faked out the county/city by signing a bunch of FAs and taking on payroll to get that stadium done and promptly selling all of that talent off after roughly half a season.

[Endless Paradise]

I've heard that before, but I don't buy it.  Deliberately trying to miss the playoffs for what would be a 2-5% chance at the top pick is a very different animal than trying to drop from, say,  the 4th worst to the 2nd worst record. Any team that appeared to be trying to tank its way out of the playoffs would receive a tremendous amount of scrutiny from the media, the league, its fans, and its own players would probably be very publicly discontented.

We've seen players call out their teams for not trying to compete when they're already well out of the playoff picture; that's going to be seriously amplified if they appear to be trying to deprive those players of a playoff appearance.  Fans would care a lot more about missing the playoffs than losing 60 games instead of 50.  And owners would be deliberately forgoing playoff revenue to chase a small chance at anything beyond the back of the lottery.  It just doesn't seem likely the way the current system favors bad teams getting worse.

The 2012 Warriors don't really fit either model; they weren't playoff contenders, never cracked .500 after the first week, but tried to drop down a couple notches so they could keep their top-7 protected pick.  That's not really relevant to a flattened odds model since it was pick protections that drove the decision, and they were going to be in the lotto either way.

If teams are already jockeying for the worst record to get the first pick when there's only, at best, a 25% chance of that working out - and it hasn't actually happened since 2004 - you really don't think teams would feel any incentive to go from literally 0% chance at a top pick to a 2-5% chance?  Cleveland and Chicago have both won the lottery with lesser odds in the past six years.

As for fans being upset about missing out on the playoffs: I don't feel that's even remotely true for every case.  I don't think Philly fans are particularly upset that they missed the playoffs this past season after seven 7-9th seed finishes and only two semifinals appearances since 2001.  I don't think Hawks fans honestly would've cared either way if they missed the playoffs this past season; they've been fans of the quintessential "also-ran" team since 2008.  Suns fans are largely not only NOT upset with missing the playoffs, but they're super excited at the direction of the team and the fact that they were in the playoff picture for so long.  Charlotte fans, however?  Of course they'd have been annoyed if the Bobcats chose to skip the playoffs for the lottery.

Different fanbases have different expectations.

And what you said about the Warriors just reinforces my point. Every year, there are teams that qualify for the playoffs that have absolutely no shot at a championship - it was the Hawks this past year, the Bucks the year before, and so on.  It's very possible that they might consider it unworthy of their time and effort to go for it as opposed to missing the playoffs for even a shot at a top pick.  The Warriors tanked down the stretch and the incentive was keeping their pick; the incentive for fringe playoff contenders is the difference between a potential top lottery pick and the 15th overall pick.  Increasing the odds of landing a top pick just gives even more reason to deliberately miss out on the playoffs.

[guava_wrench]

Marlins are their own special case of awful.

The lied repeatedly about their finances and fleeced the city/county in their new stadium deal. Outright siphoned millions of dollars every year directly to the owner and then claimed they weren't making money.

This is all on top of having a fire sale of every player that's ever any good once he's not cost controlled. Additionally they also completely faked out the county/city by signing a bunch of FAs and taking on payroll to get that stadium done and promptly selling all of that talent off after roughly half a season.

So sketchy. But, as a fan, the championship would have probably been worth it.

[D.o.s.]

Marlins are their own special case of awful.

The lied repeatedly about their finances and fleeced the city/county in their new stadium deal. Outright siphoned millions of dollars every year directly to the owner and then claimed they weren't making money.

This is all on top of having a fire sale of every player that's ever any good once he's not cost controlled. Additionally they also completely faked out the county/city by signing a bunch of FAs and taking on payroll to get that stadium done and promptly selling all of that talent off after roughly half a season.

We're listening

[Boris Badenov]

You're right. The only ways to "fix" tanking are (a) a completely random lottery with equal odds for all, or (b) a completely deterministic order (like the "draft wheel"). Any system in which draft position is somehow linked to records will change incentives to win, somehow and for some teams. You are just picking your poison.

What I've never understood about all this is that for the most part, the "tanking" problem the league wants to fix occurs at the GM level - i.e., gutting the team's talent like the Sixers have done. It's not a game-throwing problem where players or coaches are making themselves worse than their talent would merit.

But then, are we to believe that GM-based tanking reduces the overall quality of league play? Why would it? Talent is zero-sum across the league, and if bad teams make themselves worse by dumping talent then good teams must be getting better by acquiring it. The current lottery system might mean more exciting playoff races, and more exciting and talent-laden playoff squads.

Did the Florida Marlins Boston Red Sox 'tank' when they got rid of all their veteran star players after winning it all?

Fixed.

The Marlins had a fire sale. It was way worse.

No argument there. My point is that I think most NBA "tanking" - even what we're seeing with the 76ers - is more akin to what the Red Sox are doing right now. As long as everyone knows what's happening, fans included, teams should be allowed to be bad in order to get good later.

I'd view the Marlin strategy as more akin to what the Clippers did under Sterling: exploit the collective bargaining agreement (which locks many young players in at below-market salaries) for financial gain rather than any consideration for winning now or later.

Maybe you were saying the same thing. The internet is a hard place for nuance.

[Endless Paradise]

(Also, I only just noticed your post now, Boris, but yes, you articulated my point perfectly.)

[fairweatherfan]

If teams are already jockeying for the worst record to get the first pick when there's only, at best, a 25% chance of that working out - and it hasn't actually happened since 2004 - you really don't think teams would feel any incentive to go from literally 0% chance at a top pick to a 2-5% chance?  Cleveland and Chicago have both won the lottery with lesser odds in the past six years.

Past results have 0 predictive value for future results; I'm pretty sure most front offices know that and I'm positive that you do. 

As for fans being upset about missing out on the playoffs: I don't feel that's even remotely true for every case.  I don't think Philly fans are particularly upset that they missed the playoffs this past season after seven 7-9th seed finishes and only two semifinals appearances since 2001.  I don't think Hawks fans honestly would've cared either way if they missed the playoffs this past season; they've been fans of the quintessential "also-ran" team since 2008.  Suns fans are largely not only NOT upset with missing the playoffs, but they're super excited at the direction of the team and the fact that they were in the playoff picture for so long.  Charlotte fans, however?  Of course they'd have been annoyed if the Bobcats chose to skip the playoffs for the lottery.

Different fanbases have different expectations.

Sure, but again, "missing the playoffs" isn't nearly the same thing as "having the ability to make the playoffs but deliberately trying to miss them".  I don't think Suns fans would be elated if they had the 8 spot down the stretch but management dumped Dragic for peanuts or invented a bogus injury to make sure they didn't get in.

And this is sidestepping the other issues of how the media would cover it, how the players would react, and why the owners would be willing to deliberately give up millions in playoff revenue for a 2% chance (I looked up the proposal), but not for the current .5% chance.

And what you said about the Warriors just reinforces my point. Every year, there are teams that qualify for the playoffs that have absolutely no shot at a championship - it was the Hawks this past year, the Bucks the year before, and so on.  It's very possible that they might consider it unworthy of their time and effort to go for it as opposed to missing the playoffs for even a shot at a top pick.  The Warriors tanked down the stretch and the incentive was keeping their pick; the incentive for fringe playoff contenders is the difference between a potential top lottery pick and the 15th overall pick.  Increasing the odds of landing a top pick just gives even more reason to deliberately miss out on the playoffs.

Your point was "you'd have the middle class fighting their way out of the playoffs much like Golden State did in 2012."  The Warriors didn't fight their way out of the playoffs, they were never in the playoffs.  Their peak winning percentage in the 2nd half of the season was 46%; the worst playoff teams in the west finished at 55%.  Even if they'd stayed at that high water mark they'd've missed the playoffs by 6 games (in a 66 game season) and finished 11th in the West instead of 13th.  That's not a playoff team dropping out, that's a bottom-10 team sliding a few notches to keep a pick.  It's not reinforcing your point.

Getting rid of draft pick protections would go further to solve the 'tanking' phenomenon than changing the lottery, TBH.

That's a pretty interesting idea, actually.  Would also cut down on those sham non-trades if applied to 2nd rounders too.

[Moranis]

Glad the NBA finally did something right.  I've been saying this for months on the blog, the proposal was dumb and was geared to fix a problem that doesn't actually exist.  In one of the threads, I actually went through every draft of basically the current system and posted exactly where the worst team drafted.  The worst team rarely had the 1st pick and it hasn't happened in years.  Tanking is not a problem in the league and the odds (even under the current system) are not good.  One team tanks in 20 years and (not only doesn't land the 1st pick but also doesn't land the 2nd pick) and all of a sudden the system is a disaster and must be changed.  What nonsense.  Glad to see smarter heads prevailed (even if over half the league is dumb).

Edit:  Here is my post on the 1st pick http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=73069.msg1720913#msg1720913.  Only twice 2003 and 2004 did the worst team land the 1st pick and only once 1996 did the 2nd worst team land the 1st pick.  Six times the team with the 3rd worst record has landed the 1st pick in the draft (far and away the most selected).

[get_banners]

Like others, I think its important to point out the biggest problem w/ the current system is a team like the Cavs, not Philly (and Philly is ridiculous, but they are the most blatant tanking team I've seen in a while). Philly wasn't going to be very good, anyway. There should be something in place to handle that, but that's about owners and GMs....who also run the league. So, the tanking problem they talk about is their own doing. There are bad teams. They are bad for many reasons, but mostly b/c they're just bad. They need the best players to improve. The Cavs winning the lottery shifted the entire NBA landscape, not Philly getting the 3rd (vs. maybe the 5th had they not tanked so hard) pick. The Cavs didn't make the playoffs b/c they are run horribly, but by being much worse than they should have been, they then get to leapfrog 8 other teams who were actually worse than them and end up with LeBron and Love directly as a result? That's the problem.