Moderators: cupcakesnake, Domejandro, infinite11285, Harry Garris, ken6199, Dirk, bisme37, KingDavid, zimpy27, bwgood77
azcatz11 wrote:Tor_Raps wrote:Chuck Everett wrote:Gotta go to the Raps forum after this. Should be good comedy.
You can just talk to me if you wanna feel our misery lol
Hate to say this but Yall never should’ve traded OG. Biggest mistake by Massai imo
NyKnicks1714 wrote:shrink wrote:NyKnicks1714 wrote:
Everyone celebrated the change a few years ago.
The general public was overly concerned with tanking, moreso than parity and the need for top lottery picks to go to teams and fanbases that need hope.
In the NBA, top picks can make or break franchises, but a good system needs to differentiate between tankers, and teams that are truly bad and need help.
No sport has a system like that. You're basically talking about a committee of some kind deciding which teams are worthy of good lottery odds and which aren't.
BDM22 wrote:NyKnicks1714 wrote:A lot of outrage from Pistons fan but they had a 47.9% chance of getting the 5th pick. Not like this was some crazy outcome with respect to Detroit's result.
It's not a crazy outcome given the percentages. It's just kinda crazy that the odds are setup like that.
Contention: The current NBA lottery system is flawed because it doesn’t do its best to promote parity, and it encourages tanking.
Problem: No other major professional can be so impacted by a superstar draftee as the NBA. Only five players are on the court at one time, and they play both offense and defense. This makes it critical that these potential superstars go to the franchises where they are needed most. A system that makes it economically correct to tank to get these high-value players is flawed. This system must differentiate between truly bad teams from artificially bad ones, who are tanking or are already a good team which has a brief down year (usually through injury).
Solution: The lottery system order should be based on a weighted average of win/loss.
50% on the record for last season
30% on the record of the season before that
20% on the record of the season before that.
This system differentiates truly bad teams. Tanking is an economic cost to franchises in ticket sales, merchandise, etc. in this system, tanking has only half the impact on a team’s draft position. Also, it would take three full years of tanking to get the full effect, which would be very expensive.
The system differentiates temporarily bad teams, often when a star gets a one-season injury. The Warriors did not need the #2 pick in the 2020 draft, and the Spurs didn’t need Tim Duncan when David Robinson missed a year.
The system rewards truly bad teams, who’s franchises (and their fanbase), need a better shot at a potential superstar. The system promotes parity, and it promotes profitability, instead of leaving non-free agent destinations without hope.
To complete the process, I would recommend that you continue to still use lottery odds, but with less probability that distant teams get top picks. Also, since this system is intentionally slower to respond, I would propose that if a team gets a top 4 lottery pick, it is ineligible for another top 4 pick the next season (and slides to number 5). This gives more teams a chance at a superstar, and doesn’t reward a team who has been bad for two years, just got one, but he hasn’t taken the team out of the lottery in his rookie season (think Wembanyama).
Top lottery players are always going to be extremely valuable, and the NBA needs a system that insures that they go to truly bad teams for parity and hope. This simple improvement will increase those odds, and simultaneously decrease tanking.
Thats the result of tanking. So as he said stop tanking lolNYPiston wrote:Dominator83 wrote:Stop tanking
Oh please, don't give us this crap. The Pistons have gotten screwed more than every other team outside of that one time in the Cade draft going back decades so we have a reason to complain. All this suffering for 4 straight #5 picks. Garbage
Pointgod wrote:
Wow so Rockets have two lottery picks? Good for them.
xxSnEaKyPxx wrote:NBA: Stop kicking, punching, choking, and stomping on people.
Draymond: This is too much, I quit!
Chuck Everett wrote:One_and_Done wrote:This really came up good for the Spurs. 2 lotto picks and the Hawks have to give minutes to a rookie #1 pick in a year they owe their pick to them.
This is great for the Hawks because they needed frontcourt help. Now if they trade Dejounte, they will have Okongwu, Capela and Sarr, plus Jalen, Bogdan, Hunter, Bufkin and whatever they get for Murray. They should be back improved next year.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
Pointgod wrote:
Wow so Rockets have two lottery picks? Good for them.
shrink wrote:Contention: The current NBA lottery system is flawed because it doesn’t do its best to promote parity, and it encourages tanking.
Problem: No other major professional can be so impacted by a superstar draftee as the NBA. Only five players are on the court at one time, and they play both offense and defense. This makes it critical that these potential superstars go to the franchises where they are needed most. A system that makes it economically correct to tank to get these high-value players is flawed. This system must differentiate between truly bad teams from artificially bad ones, who are tanking or are already a good team which has a brief down year (usually through injury).
Solution: The lottery system order should be based on a weighted average of win/loss.
50% on the record for last season
30% on the record of the season before that
20% on the record of the season before that.
This system differentiates truly bad teams. Tanking is an economic cost to franchises in ticket sales, merchandise, etc. in this system, tanking has only half the impact on a team’s draft position. Also, it would take three full years of tanking to get the full effect, which would be very expensive.
The system differentiates temporarily bad teams, often when a star gets a one-season injury. The Warriors did not need the #2 pick in the 2020 draft, and the Spurs didn’t need Tim Duncan when David Robinson missed a year.
The system rewards truly bad teams, who’s franchises (and their fanbase), need a better shot at a potential superstar. The system promotes parity, and it promotes profitability, instead of leaving non-free agent destinations without hope.
To complete the process, I would recommend that you continue to still use lottery odds, but with less probability that distant teams get top picks. Also, since this system is intentionally slower to respond, I would propose that if a team gets a top 4 lottery pick, it is ineligible for another top 4 pick the next season (and slides to number 5). This gives more teams a chance at a superstar, and doesn’t reward a team who has been bad for two years, just got one, but he hasn’t taken the team out of the lottery in his rookie season (think Wembanyama).
Top lottery players are always going to be extremely valuable, and the NBA needs a system that insures that they go to truly bad teams for parity and hope. This simple improvement will increase those odds, and simultaneously decrease tanking.
Today’s results show the system is flawed. DET needed a lottery pick most, far more than ATL who was in the Play In Tournament.
The Moose wrote:BDM22 wrote:NyKnicks1714 wrote:A lot of outrage from Pistons fan but they had a 47.9% chance of getting the 5th pick. Not like this was some crazy outcome with respect to Detroit's result.
It's not a crazy outcome given the percentages. It's just kinda crazy that the odds are setup like that.
falling to 5th 3 years in a row actually is very unlikely given the odds, less than 10%
BigGargamel wrote:shrink wrote:Contention: The current NBA lottery system is flawed because it doesn’t do its best to promote parity, and it encourages tanking.
Problem: No other major professional can be so impacted by a superstar draftee as the NBA. Only five players are on the court at one time, and they play both offense and defense. This makes it critical that these potential superstars go to the franchises where they are needed most. A system that makes it economically correct to tank to get these high-value players is flawed. This system must differentiate between truly bad teams from artificially bad ones, who are tanking or are already a good team which has a brief down year (usually through injury).
Solution: The lottery system order should be based on a weighted average of win/loss.
50% on the record for last season
30% on the record of the season before that
20% on the record of the season before that.
This system differentiates truly bad teams. Tanking is an economic cost to franchises in ticket sales, merchandise, etc. in this system, tanking has only half the impact on a team’s draft position. Also, it would take three full years of tanking to get the full effect, which would be very expensive.
The system differentiates temporarily bad teams, often when a star gets a one-season injury. The Warriors did not need the #2 pick in the 2020 draft, and the Spurs didn’t need Tim Duncan when David Robinson missed a year.
The system rewards truly bad teams, who’s franchises (and their fanbase), need a better shot at a potential superstar. The system promotes parity, and it promotes profitability, instead of leaving non-free agent destinations without hope.
To complete the process, I would recommend that you continue to still use lottery odds, but with less probability that distant teams get top picks. Also, since this system is intentionally slower to respond, I would propose that if a team gets a top 4 lottery pick, it is ineligible for another top 4 pick the next season (and slides to number 5). This gives more teams a chance at a superstar, and doesn’t reward a team who has been bad for two years, just got one, but he hasn’t taken the team out of the lottery in his rookie season (think Wembanyama).
Top lottery players are always going to be extremely valuable, and the NBA needs a system that insures that they go to truly bad teams for parity and hope. This simple improvement will increase those odds, and simultaneously decrease tanking.
Today’s results show the system is flawed. DET needed a lottery pick most, far more than ATL who was in the Play In Tournament.
Wait. A team that played in the play-in just got the number one pick. Isn't that what everyone wanted? To curtail this imaginary thing known as "tanking"?
zshawn10 wrote:Pointgod wrote:
Wow so Rockets have two lottery picks? Good for them.
They got 12 so it conveys to the Thunder
Dominator83 wrote:BigGargamel wrote:shrink wrote:Today’s results show the system is flawed. DET needed a lottery pick most, far more than ATL who was in the Play In Tournament.
Wait. A team that played in the play-in just got the number one pick. Isn't that what everyone wanted? To curtail this imaginary thing known as "tanking"?
I love it. I would rather reward teams stuck in mediocrity, or as we mock them around here as treadmill teams. Give them a chance to make a real improvement instead of the usual "only way to go get out of the middle is blow it up" mantra.
