Draft reform voted down

[HartfordWhalers]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/WojYahooNBA/status/524938287324991488[/tweet]

[HartfordWhalers]

SIXERS WIN THE CUP. THE SIXERS WIN THE CUP. THE SIXERS DID IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[HartfordWhalers]

Also, I cannot decide if this was really good for that LAL/Phx owned pick, or really bad, but they seemed to be the other teams most effected.

[MoneyTalks41890]

I know it's early, but what do the Sixers do with a top 3 pick? and where do they go in the offseason?

[Texas Chuck]

I know it's early, but what do the Sixers do with a top 3 pick? and where do they go in the offseason?

Draft the best injured center available?

[HornetJail]

I know it's early, but what do the Sixers do with a top 3 pick? and where do they go in the offseason?

Wait to find out which top 5 prospect is injured, then bring Embiid along as a 2nd year rookie, and repeat

Of course chuck beat me to it...

[Smitty731]

I do think that after Philly has committed to what they are doing, it is a little unfair to change the rules. I think any changes to the way the Draft works should be something that takes place 2-3 seasons down the road. Give every team a fair playing field to get their house in order.

[HartfordWhalers]

I do think that after Philly has committed to what they are doing, it is a little unfair to change the rules. I think any changes to the way the Draft works should be something that takes place 2-3 seasons down the road. Give every team a fair playing field to get their house in order.

I've felt the jump between the odds at the top was too steep.

The odds started with 16.67% for the top team (too low), then switch to 25% (too high)

If they switched the odds from:
250 combinations, 25.0% chance of receiving the #1 pick
199 combinations, 19.9% chance
156 combinations, 15.6% chance
119 combinations, 11.9% chance
88 combinations, 8.8% chance
63 combinations, 6.3% chance
43 combinations, 4.3% chance
28 combinations, 2.8% chance
17 combinations, 1.7% chance
11 combinations, 1.1% chance
8 combinations, 0.8% chance
7 combinations, 0.7% chance
6 combinations, 0.6% chance
5 combinations, 0.5% chance


To:
200 combinations, 20% chance of receiving the #1 pick (down 5%)
175 combinations, 17.5% chance (down 2.4%)
150 combinations, 15% chance (down .6%)
125 combinations, 12.5% chance (up .6%)
100 combinations, 10% chance (up 1.2%)
80 combinations, 8.0% chance (up 1.7%)
60 combinations, 6.0% chance (up 1.7%)
40 combinations, 4.0% chance (up 1.2%)
20 combinations, 2.0% chance (up .3%)
15 combinations, 1.5% chance (up .4%)
10 combinations, 1.0% chance (up .2%)
8 combinations, 0.8% chance (up .1%)
6 combinations, 0.6% chance
5 combinations, 0.5% chance

I think changing is better for the NBA, fairer, and could be done midstream (right now)

[djthesonicsfan]

They did also mention they will still consider other reform. Personally, I'm in favor of the wheel system where statistically, over time, every team gets equal draft picks.

[sonictecture]

I do think that after Philly has committed to what they are doing, it is a little unfair to change the rules. I think any changes to the way the Draft works should be something that takes place 2-3 seasons down the road. Give every team a fair playing field to get their house in order.

I believe it is Philadelphia's commitment that forced the competition committee to consider lottery reform.

There have been a lot of irregularities since the lottery came about, but it took the commitment of Hinkie & Sixer ownership for the competition committee to consider reform.

[bondom34]

Honestly, I know it gets a ton of hate, but I'd just rather they scrap the whole lottery and do a straight draft worst to first.

I think it would actually make tanking long term less of an issue, and teams would be less inclined to tank for years on end, maybe they'd do it a year or 2 to rebuild, but then go for it. As of now, there's no guarantee a team gets a top pick and could end up just trying to win the lotto for years on end.

[LApwnd]

Honestly, I know it gets a ton of hate, but I'd just rather they scrap the whole lottery and do a straight draft worst to first.

I think it would actually make tanking long term less of an issue, and teams would be less inclined to tank for years on end, maybe they'd do it a year or 2 to rebuild, but then go for it. As of now, there's no guarantee a team gets a top pick and could end up just trying to win the lotto for years on end.

doesn't guaranteeing worst to 1st pick make it that much easier to tank? I know the NFL has some sort of rule even if you have b2b worse season you don't get b2b #1 picks, or something along those lines.

[bondom34]

Honestly, I know it gets a ton of hate, but I'd just rather they scrap the whole lottery and do a straight draft worst to first.

I think it would actually make tanking long term less of an issue, and teams would be less inclined to tank for years on end, maybe they'd do it a year or 2 to rebuild, but then go for it. As of now, there's no guarantee a team gets a top pick and could end up just trying to win the lotto for years on end.

doesn't guaranteeing worst to 1st pick make it that much easier to tank? I know the NFL has some sort of rule even if you have b2b worse season you don't get b2b #1 picks, or something along those lines.

It makes it easier for a year, but what I'm saying is say a team gets the number 1 pick for one year, getting the star they've wanted, wouldn't it make it a little less likely they keep sucking? Say Philly would tank, then get the 4th pick, getting a solid but not outstanding player. They tank again, getting the 5th pick, same thing. They tank again, getting 3rd, a little better, and on and on. Instead, they tank once, get the best player on the board, then the incentive to keep doing it for more years could be lessened. I get the risks with the idea, but just think it would end up being better overall.

[sonictecture]

Honestly, I know it gets a ton of hate, but I'd just rather they scrap the whole lottery and do a straight draft worst to first.

I think it would actually make tanking long term less of an issue, and teams would be less inclined to tank for years on end, maybe they'd do it a year or 2 to rebuild, but then go for it. As of now, there's no guarantee a team gets a top pick and could end up just trying to win the lotto for years on end.

The only reason the lottery was instituted was because teams realized they could tank a given season where a projected franchise player was scheduled to be available in the draft, cough, Houston, cough. The idea of the lottery was to take away the guarantee that if you tanked hard to skew the system in your favor that you wouldn't necessarily receive you reward.

The lottery works in that teams that tank with purpose aren't guaranteed the first pick, this has been proven, but now that analytics are being used by front offices, the numbers still say that tanking is the best way to have a chance at superstar talent. This will be the case as long as the worst team is guaranteed a top 4 pick. You might remember that this wasn't always the case, early years of bad lottery luck for teams forced the change by the competition committee. If the guarantee at a top 4 pick was removed again then owners would be less likely to green light a pure tanking strategy.

[bondom34]

Honestly, I know it gets a ton of hate, but I'd just rather they scrap the whole lottery and do a straight draft worst to first.

I think it would actually make tanking long term less of an issue, and teams would be less inclined to tank for years on end, maybe they'd do it a year or 2 to rebuild, but then go for it. As of now, there's no guarantee a team gets a top pick and could end up just trying to win the lotto for years on end.

The only reason the lottery was instituted was because teams realized they could tank a given season where a projected franchise player was scheduled to be available in the draft, cough, Houston, cough. The idea of the lottery was to take away the guarantee that if you tanked hard to skew the system in your favor that you wouldn't necessarily receive you reward.

The lottery works in that teams that tank with purpose aren't guaranteed the first pick, this has been proven, but now that analytics are being used by front offices, the numbers still say that tanking is the best way to have a chance at superstar talent. This will be the case as long as the worst team is guaranteed a top 4 pick. You might remember that this wasn't always the case, early years of bad lottery luck for teams forced the change by the competition committee. If the guarantee at a top 4 pick was removed again then owners would be less likely to green light a pure tanking strategy.

True, there are definitely some (potentially big) downsides to a straight draft. I just feel like the league is trying to find ways to fix the lottery every year at this point, and really don't know if there's a better way. If they want to give bad teams top picks, just do it or don't do it, instead of the current system where I almost feel like they're half-arsing it.

[N.O.R.E.]

I'm glad this got voted down.

Everyone points to the Sixers, without thinking about what the ramifications of the proposed changes.
Teams that have a star player go down would be able to dip into the lottery and would have a much improved chance at taking talent from a truly bad and rebuilding team. These teams are the ones that need the picks the most.

[HartfordWhalers]

Honestly, I know it gets a ton of hate, but I'd just rather they scrap the whole lottery and do a straight draft worst to first.

I think it would actually make tanking long term less of an issue, and teams would be less inclined to tank for years on end, maybe they'd do it a year or 2 to rebuild, but then go for it. As of now, there's no guarantee a team gets a top pick and could end up just trying to win the lotto for years on end.

The only reason the lottery was instituted was because teams realized they could tank a given season where a projected franchise player was scheduled to be available in the draft, cough, Houston, cough. The idea of the lottery was to take away the guarantee that if you tanked hard to skew the system in your favor that you wouldn't necessarily receive you reward.

The lottery works in that teams that tank with purpose aren't guaranteed the first pick, this has been proven, but now that analytics are being used by front offices, the numbers still say that tanking is the best way to have a chance at superstar talent. This will be the case as long as the worst team is guaranteed a top 4 pick. You might remember that this wasn't always the case, early years of bad lottery luck for teams forced the change by the competition committee. If the guarantee at a top 4 pick was removed again then owners would be less likely to green light a pure tanking strategy.

But there is just about no draft where the franchise talent is projected to still be there at 4. Most years it is none or one player total, and even in the 2014 draft bonanza it was at most 3.

So, tanking has really always been about a 25% at a Lebron at #1, versus a guarantee of a Cody Zeller at #4, to take 2 extremes.

[ckchen]

I know it's early, but what do the Sixers do with a top 3 pick? and where do they go in the offseason?

Wait to find out which top 5 prospect is injured, then bring Embiid along as a 2nd year rookie, and repeat

Of course chuck beat me to it...

Even though it's all joking - it's this kind of attitude that's ridiculous. People are acting like Sixers willfully drafted an injured Embiid specifically to be bad again this year. Yet everyone seems to forget that it was a completely forgone conclusion that prior to Embiid's injury, he was almost certainly the #1 pick and going to the Cavs and that the Sixers were all-in on Wiggins.

Would that have made a difference? If the Sixers had drafted Wiggins would they still be ridiculed as trying to tank? I think it's ludicrous that people make these kind of statements without realizing that the Sixers are just playing the cards that are dealt to them. They took the best player left on the board when their pick came up, period.

[sonictecture]

Honestly, I know it gets a ton of hate, but I'd just rather they scrap the whole lottery and do a straight draft worst to first.

I think it would actually make tanking long term less of an issue, and teams would be less inclined to tank for years on end, maybe they'd do it a year or 2 to rebuild, but then go for it. As of now, there's no guarantee a team gets a top pick and could end up just trying to win the lotto for years on end.

The only reason the lottery was instituted was because teams realized they could tank a given season where a projected franchise player was scheduled to be available in the draft, cough, Houston, cough. The idea of the lottery was to take away the guarantee that if you tanked hard to skew the system in your favor that you wouldn't necessarily receive you reward.

The lottery works in that teams that tank with purpose aren't guaranteed the first pick, this has been proven, but now that analytics are being used by front offices, the numbers still say that tanking is the best way to have a chance at superstar talent. This will be the case as long as the worst team is guaranteed a top 4 pick. You might remember that this wasn't always the case, early years of bad lottery luck for teams forced the change by the competition committee. If the guarantee at a top 4 pick was removed again then owners would be less likely to green light a pure tanking strategy.

But there is just about no draft where the franchise talent is projected to still be there at 4. Most years it is none or one player total, and even in the 2014 draft bonanza it was at most 3.

So, tanking has really always been about a 25% at a Lebron at #1, versus a guarantee of a Cody Zeller at #4, to take 2 extremes.

Look again through the draft history and you will see that franchise level talent is still there at 4 or beyond 4 in most drafts. Franchise players aren't always drafted top 4, but that is a reflection of bad decision making and the difficulty of knowing which player is going to really work once they become millionaires.

[HartfordWhalers]

The only reason the lottery was instituted was because teams realized they could tank a given season where a projected franchise player was scheduled to be available in the draft, cough, Houston, cough. The idea of the lottery was to take away the guarantee that if you tanked hard to skew the system in your favor that you wouldn't necessarily receive you reward.

The lottery works in that teams that tank with purpose aren't guaranteed the first pick, this has been proven, but now that analytics are being used by front offices, the numbers still say that tanking is the best way to have a chance at superstar talent. This will be the case as long as the worst team is guaranteed a top 4 pick. You might remember that this wasn't always the case, early years of bad lottery luck for teams forced the change by the competition committee. If the guarantee at a top 4 pick was removed again then owners would be less likely to green light a pure tanking strategy.

But there is just about no draft where the franchise talent is projected to still be there at 4. Most years it is none or one player total, and even in the 2014 draft bonanza it was at most 3.

So, tanking has really always been about a 25% at a Lebron at #1, versus a guarantee of a Cody Zeller at #4, to take 2 extremes.

Look again through the draft history and you will see that franchise level talent is still there at 4 or beyond 4 in most drafts. Franchise players aren't always drafted top 4, but that is a reflection of bad decision making and the difficulty of knowing which player is going to really work once they become millionaires.

Thats a silly argument.

Sure, 1 of the next 26 players is in general a franchise player. However, having a very small chance at one -- just like everyone else isn't much help.

There is a chance you get a franchise player in the second round. It is all about the odds of actually getting one.