Author Topic: Lottery Reform in Works: How will this impact our LA/SAC Pick?  (Read 3734 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Lottery Reform in Works: How will this impact our LA/SAC Pick?
« Reply #45 on: September 08, 2017, 03:52:31 PM »

Offline Granath

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2027
  • Tommy Points: 516
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.
Jaylen Brown will be an All Star in the next 5 years.

Re: Lottery Reform in Works: How will this impact our LA/SAC Pick?
« Reply #46 on: September 08, 2017, 04:09:37 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16998
  • Tommy Points: 807
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. 
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Re: Lottery Reform in Works: How will this impact our LA/SAC Pick?
« Reply #47 on: September 08, 2017, 06:19:04 PM »

Offline footey

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6676
  • Tommy Points: 781
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.


Re: Lottery Reform in Works: How will this impact our LA/SAC Pick?
« Reply #48 on: September 08, 2017, 06:36:44 PM »

Offline CelticsElite

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4343
  • Tommy Points: 278
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

Re: Lottery Reform in Works: How will this impact our LA/SAC Pick?
« Reply #49 on: September 08, 2017, 09:24:45 PM »

Offline Pucaccia

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 391
  • Tommy Points: 47
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.

Re: Lottery Reform in Works: How will this impact our LA/SAC Pick?
« Reply #50 on: September 09, 2017, 11:16:47 AM »

Offline scientific_thinker

  • Abdel Nader
  • Posts: 16
  • Tommy Points: 2
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.

Re: Lottery Reform in Works: How will this impact our LA/SAC Pick?
« Reply #51 on: September 09, 2017, 11:36:35 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33045
  • Tommy Points: -27977
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
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.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Lottery Reform in Works: How will this impact our LA/SAC Pick?
« Reply #52 on: September 09, 2017, 12:24:06 PM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3149
  • Tommy Points: 303
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. 

Re: Lottery Reform in Works: How will this impact our LA/SAC Pick?
« Reply #53 on: September 09, 2017, 12:53:55 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33045
  • Tommy Points: -27977
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
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?


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Lottery Reform in Works: How will this impact our LA/SAC Pick?
« Reply #54 on: September 09, 2017, 01:15:56 PM »

Offline sadleprechaun

  • Marcus Morris
  • Posts: 87
  • Tommy Points: 8
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?

Re: Lottery Reform in Works: How will this impact our LA/SAC Pick?
« Reply #55 on: September 09, 2017, 03:49:36 PM »

Offline mef730

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2625
  • Tommy Points: 447
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
Tickets for the 2017-18 season for sale at face value! Thread here: http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=93612.0

Re: Lottery Reform in Works: How will this impact our LA/SAC Pick?
« Reply #56 on: September 09, 2017, 04:58:21 PM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • John Havlicek
  • ****************************
  • Posts: 28164
  • Tommy Points: 5409
  • Yup ya do
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.

2017 PAPOUG CHAMPION

Re: Lottery Reform in Works: How will this impact our LA/SAC Pick?
« Reply #57 on: September 09, 2017, 05:44:06 PM »

Offline Sketch5

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2452
  • Tommy Points: 206
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.

Re: Lottery Reform in Works: How will this impact our LA/SAC Pick?
« Reply #58 on: September 09, 2017, 06:31:25 PM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3149
  • Tommy Points: 303
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.     

Re: Lottery Reform in Works: How will this impact our LA/SAC Pick?
« Reply #59 on: September 09, 2017, 07:30:01 PM »

Offline GreenWarrior

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2663
  • Tommy Points: 185


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.