Around the NBA - Offseason 2022 Continued

[robillionaire]

I actually wanted to raise that question because I think that's the part that's debatable.

What's more problematic in theory, a potential playoff team throwing the towel (and games) before the end of the season to have an equal shot at a high pick as the worst team in the league? Or a talent-depleted team to start with becoming even worse and being unwatchable? I can see both sides. Last season's Knicks team was very fun to watch up until the end of the season because they tried to compete despite missing the playoffs, and being the worst team in the league did produce the golden years of the Frank era.

I get your point and I'm not necessarily against flattening the odds completely. In fact, I'm all for experimenting with it, though I would personally try to maintain some level of graduality, but maybe with only a few percentage points from first to last.

This is the point where we need to run the numbers to figure out exactly what the odds would be and then ask ourselves if it’s even feasible a team would try a plan that has a 95% chance of failing give or take vs. just trying to make the playoffs. And if a coach or players on a team that’s around .500 would even go along with this. Or ownership that wants extra playoff revenue. At that point you’d have to say if a team was crazy enough to try it and it worked, more power to them. Again it’s not a perfect solution like relegation is but we can’t do that as you’ve explained, this wouldn’t change all that much about the league structure. It might not eliminate 100% of games that are lost on purpose because in theory someone could try it but I feel like it would reduce it by 99.9% and I’m good with that.

Yes, absolutely.

I think further flattening the odds (or completely) is the least problematic solution. That was essentially my point at the beginning of the conversation. It's not perfect, but it's fine.

I would still give the worst teams better odds even if the differences were insignificant, if only for what it means symbolically, before flattening them completely. But perfectly flat odds would be an interesting experiment for sure. It would also put more of an emphasis on talent evaluation in the draft.

I would consider not perfectly flat odds but they draw for all 14 (or 16) teams. If you’re the worst team in the nba you have odds of dropping to 14. Buck stops here.

[stuporman]

I think relegation is a great idea....but if your team is so bad it gets relegated, you have to move the whole franchise to New Jersey....that'll show 'em.

Sorry, already taken.

NJ is a one-team state.

Nah...send all the tankers to NJ

[Clyde_Style]

I think relegation is a great idea....but if your team is so bad it gets relegated, you have to move the whole franchise to New Jersey....that'll show 'em.

Sorry, already taken.

NJ is a one-team state.

Nah...send all the tankers to NJ

Maybe it is better to put all of the rubbish in a single dump

I’ll allow it

[Chanel Bomber]

This is the point where we need to run the numbers to figure out exactly what the odds would be and then ask ourselves if it’s even feasible a team would try a plan that has a 95% chance of failing give or take vs. just trying to make the playoffs. And if a coach or players on a team that’s around .500 would even go along with this. Or ownership that wants extra playoff revenue. At that point you’d have to say if a team was crazy enough to try it and it worked, more power to them. Again it’s not a perfect solution like relegation is but we can’t do that as you’ve explained, this wouldn’t change all that much about the league structure. It might not eliminate 100% of games that are lost on purpose because in theory someone could try it but I feel like it would reduce it by 99.9% and I’m good with that.

Yes, absolutely.

I think further flattening the odds (or completely) is the least problematic solution. That was essentially my point at the beginning of the conversation. It's not perfect, but it's fine.

I would still give the worst teams better odds even if the differences were insignificant, if only for what it means symbolically, before flattening them completely. But perfectly flat odds would be an interesting experiment for sure. It would also put more of an emphasis on talent evaluation in the draft.

I would consider not perfectly flat odds but they draw for all 14 (or 16) teams. If you’re the worst team in the nba you have odds of dropping to 14. Buck stops here.

That is fair.

If I may, I just thought of how fan support is another element to consider.

If you support the worst team in the NBA and the team is predictably horrible to watch, yet your team ends up picking 14th, do you even have a reason to watch the games the following year? Why even go to the arena?

The NBA could simply lose the fans of the worst teams if they flatten the odds too aggressively.

[stuporman]

Sorry, already taken.

NJ is a one-team state.

Nah...send all the tankers to NJ

Maybe it is better to put all of the rubbish in a single dump

I’ll allow it

That's why they call it the Garbage State...um, wait, the Garden State? No, I was right the first time...

[stuporman]

I know people talking about flattening the odds but I wonder about fattening the odds. I'm not exactly sure what that means though I'm sure there are a few on this forum that have some insight into it.

[god shammgod]

make it perfectly flat. teams would operate differently. teams like utah, detroit, san antonio, okc, houston in the last few years traded away good players for the sole purpose of becoming really bad to have better odds. they wouldn't do that with flat odds. there would be no point. trades would be different too because picks would have a different value.

[stuporman]

make it perfectly flat. teams would operate differently. teams like utah, detroit, san antonio, okc, houston in the last few years traded away good players for the sole purpose of becoming really bad to have better odds. they wouldn't do that with flat odds. there would be no point. trades would be different too because picks would have a different value.

But would the different be better?

I just wonder how it would effect team building and with the Knicks continuous history of lottery ball-kicks I just feel like certain teams would get screwed more often than others so the cries of 'rigged system' from fans might increase.

I suspect there would need to be a limited slip mechanism to keep teams from having the worst record then wind up with the 14th pick or something. The Knicks had the worst record in the Zion draft but wound up slipping to 3 because of the bouncing balls and look how much they lost out on.

It may take half a decade or more for the ramifications of a completely flat odds system to reveal themselves both positive and negative but it could be the solution.

[El Poochio]

make it perfectly flat. teams would operate differently. teams like utah, detroit, san antonio, okc, houston in the last few years traded away good players for the sole purpose of becoming really bad to have better odds. they wouldn't do that with flat odds. there would be no point. trades would be different too because picks would have a different value.

Sham getting desperate knowing time is ticking on him to see a Knicks chip

[Clyde_Style]

make it perfectly flat. teams would operate differently. teams like utah, detroit, san antonio, okc, houston in the last few years traded away good players for the sole purpose of becoming really bad to have better odds. they wouldn't do that with flat odds. there would be no point. trades would be different too because picks would have a different value.

Sham getting desperate knowing time is ticking on him to see a Knicks chip

Giving up the cigarettes might buy him some more time though

[robillionaire]

Yes, absolutely.

I think further flattening the odds (or completely) is the least problematic solution. That was essentially my point at the beginning of the conversation. It's not perfect, but it's fine.

I would still give the worst teams better odds even if the differences were insignificant, if only for what it means symbolically, before flattening them completely. But perfectly flat odds would be an interesting experiment for sure. It would also put more of an emphasis on talent evaluation in the draft.

I would consider not perfectly flat odds but they draw for all 14 (or 16) teams. If you’re the worst team in the nba you have odds of dropping to 14. Buck stops here.

That is fair.

If I may, I just thought of how fan support is another element to consider.

If you support the worst team in the NBA and the team is predictably horrible to watch, yet your team ends up picking 14th, do you even have a reason to watch the games the following year? Why even go to the arena?

The NBA could simply lose the fans of the worst teams if they flatten the odds too aggressively.

I would answer that question with another question and ask what reason do fans of the various dozen or so tanking teams have to go to the arena now when they have to be sad if their team wins the game? At least the other way you can go root for the home team and still be happy if they win the game. Imagine taking your kid to a game and being like yeah son we have to hope our team loses so we can have a 14% chance of getting Zion.

I have personally not gone to plenty of late season Knicks games (anything after New Years basically) because I knew we had to “root for the tank” and didn’t buy tickets because of it. We have to hope they lose out for a chance at whoever. Now I’m sure they had no trouble selling them to someone else because it’s the Knicks. We would get hyped over a pick like Quentin Grimes. We would love that 14th pick no matter what. But how do other teams who are knowingly losing on purpose sell tickets now? A lot of it is probably to see the visiting team maybe?

you still get a pick just draft Kawhi or Giannis or Booker or Jokic or Poole or Herro. Or better luck next year. Clear cap space and make a trade. Get good since you know the get out of suck free card for being inept has a smaller chance of coming.

[robillionaire]

make it perfectly flat. teams would operate differently. teams like utah, detroit, san antonio, okc, houston in the last few years traded away good players for the sole purpose of becoming really bad to have better odds. they wouldn't do that with flat odds. there would be no point. trades would be different too because picks would have a different value.

But would the different be better?

I just wonder how it would effect team building and with the Knicks continuous history of lottery ball-kicks I just feel like certain teams would get screwed more often than others so the cries of 'rigged system' from fans might increase.

I suspect there would need to be a limited slip mechanism to keep teams from having the worst record then wind up with the 14th pick or something. The Knicks had the worst record in the Zion draft but wound up slipping to 3 because of the bouncing balls and look how much they lost out on.

It may take half a decade or more for the ramifications of a completely flat odds system to reveal themselves both positive and negative but it could be the solution.

I don’t see how it can be worse. You have “lose games on purpose” as a viable strategy for the bottom 1/3rd of the league due to a gambling mechanism that rewards losing.

Why do they even do a lottery at all instead of going by record like the NFL? Supposedly to stop the very thing that’s happening. But it’s failing to accomplish its intended purpose

“ After the 1984 coin flip, which was won by the Houston Rockets, the NBA introduced the lottery system to counter the accusations that the Rockets and several other teams were deliberately losing their regular season games in order to secure the worst record and consequently the chance to obtain the first pick.”

Teams are deliberately losing games. Fans want their own team to deliberately lose games. Because it’s that bad

The 2019 changes to the odds need to go even further

[stuporman]

make it perfectly flat. teams would operate differently. teams like utah, detroit, san antonio, okc, houston in the last few years traded away good players for the sole purpose of becoming really bad to have better odds. they wouldn't do that with flat odds. there would be no point. trades would be different too because picks would have a different value.

But would the different be better?

I just wonder how it would effect team building and with the Knicks continuous history of lottery ball-kicks I just feel like certain teams would get screwed more often than others so the cries of 'rigged system' from fans might increase.

I suspect there would need to be a limited slip mechanism to keep teams from having the worst record then wind up with the 14th pick or something. The Knicks had the worst record in the Zion draft but wound up slipping to 3 because of the bouncing balls and look how much they lost out on.

It may take half a decade or more for the ramifications of a completely flat odds system to reveal themselves both positive and negative but it could be the solution.

I don’t see how it can be worse. You have “lose games on purpose” as a viable strategy for the bottom 1/3rd of the league due to a gambling mechanism that rewards losing.

Why do they even do a lottery at all instead of going by record like the NFL? Supposedly to stop the very thing that’s happening. But it’s failing to accomplish its intended purpose

“ After the 1984 coin flip, which was won by the Houston Rockets, the NBA introduced the lottery system to counter the accusations that the Rockets and several other teams were deliberately losing their regular season games in order to secure the worst record and consequently the chance to obtain the first pick.”

Teams are deliberately losing games. Fans want their own team to deliberately lose games. Because it’s that bad

The 2019 changes to the odds need to go even further

As I said all of the ramifications both positive and negative may take a number of years to reveal themselves. Just because you or me right now can't see how it would turn out doesn't mean it may not be worse in a particular way that makes that system untenable.

[bearadonisdna]

The snake system is a way of allowing the worse teams to get better .
The lottery as I recall , was a way to battle player empowerment ,
A device to keep star college players from holdouts or withholding from the draft if the top destination was not ‘favorable ‘

If you flatten the odds too much , the ability of the worse team to improve will decline .
You run the risk of unnaturally building super teams giving higher teams better picks .

Right now I’m perfectly fine with the playin situation .
Better have it at the right time of year or your going home ,
I like how it gives the top 2 seeds the toughest matchup possible because otherwise they are the most boring series .

Whatever the odds are now , I think it flat enough .
Are they trying to take tanking down to 0% ? Cmon be real .

[robillionaire]

But would the different be better?

I just wonder how it would effect team building and with the Knicks continuous history of lottery ball-kicks I just feel like certain teams would get screwed more often than others so the cries of 'rigged system' from fans might increase.

I suspect there would need to be a limited slip mechanism to keep teams from having the worst record then wind up with the 14th pick or something. The Knicks had the worst record in the Zion draft but wound up slipping to 3 because of the bouncing balls and look how much they lost out on.

It may take half a decade or more for the ramifications of a completely flat odds system to reveal themselves both positive and negative but it could be the solution.

I don’t see how it can be worse. You have “lose games on purpose” as a viable strategy for the bottom 1/3rd of the league due to a gambling mechanism that rewards losing.

Why do they even do a lottery at all instead of going by record like the NFL? Supposedly to stop the very thing that’s happening. But it’s failing to accomplish its intended purpose

“ After the 1984 coin flip, which was won by the Houston Rockets, the NBA introduced the lottery system to counter the accusations that the Rockets and several other teams were deliberately losing their regular season games in order to secure the worst record and consequently the chance to obtain the first pick.”

Teams are deliberately losing games. Fans want their own team to deliberately lose games. Because it’s that bad

The 2019 changes to the odds need to go even further

As I said all of the ramifications both positive and negative may take a number of years to reveal themselves. Just because you or me right now can't see how it would turn out doesn't mean it may not be worse in a particular way that makes that system untenable.

You are right, yet I would say the current system is so bad now that it warrants researching a change and taking a risk, like the league has done so many times in the past. It’s never been a league that refuses to make changes. This wouldn’t even be a major one. It doesn’t even change the product on the floor, like adding a shot clock or a 3 point line or other things. It’s an evolving game. We have a problem and they should be looking at solutions. They know it’s a problem which is why they tweaked it 3 years ago and are still talking about it today.

[KnicksGadfly]

I think relegation is a great idea....but if your team is so bad it gets relegated, you have to move the whole franchise to New Jersey....that'll show 'em.

Sorry, already taken.

NJ is a one-team state.

Nah...send all the tankers to NJ

That’s messed up. But it would totally stop the tankers. I wouldn’t want to be with the Nets either

[robillionaire]

The snake system is a way of allowing the worse teams to get better .
The lottery as I recall , was a way to battle player empowerment ,
A device to keep star college players from holdouts or withholding from the draft if the top destination was not ‘favorable ‘

If you flatten the odds too much , the ability of the worse team to improve will decline .
You run the risk of unnaturally building super teams giving higher teams better picks .

Right now I’m perfectly fine with the playin situation .
Better have it at the right time of year it your going home ,
I like how it gives the top 2 seeds the toughest matchup possible because otherwise they are the most boring series .

Whatever the odds are now , I think it flat enough .
Are they trying to take tanking down to 0% ? Cmon be real .

Losing on purpose should be taken to 0 or as close to 0 as possible, I don’t know why that’s a controversial statement, losing on purpose should be discouraged as much as possible, in the immortal words of herm edwards you play to win the game

[El Poochio]

Regular season is just pointless, no reason for 80 games, get NBA to 50 teams and reduce games to 50

[stuporman]

I don’t see how it can be worse. You have “lose games on purpose” as a viable strategy for the bottom 1/3rd of the league due to a gambling mechanism that rewards losing.

Why do they even do a lottery at all instead of going by record like the NFL? Supposedly to stop the very thing that’s happening. But it’s failing to accomplish its intended purpose

“ After the 1984 coin flip, which was won by the Houston Rockets, the NBA introduced the lottery system to counter the accusations that the Rockets and several other teams were deliberately losing their regular season games in order to secure the worst record and consequently the chance to obtain the first pick.”

Teams are deliberately losing games. Fans want their own team to deliberately lose games. Because it’s that bad

The 2019 changes to the odds need to go even further

As I said all of the ramifications both positive and negative may take a number of years to reveal themselves. Just because you or me right now can't see how it would turn out doesn't mean it may not be worse in a particular way that makes that system untenable.

You are right, yet I would say the current system is so bad now that it warrants researching a change and taking a risk, like the league has done so many times in the past. It’s never been a league that refuses to make changes. This wouldn’t even be a major one. It doesn’t even change the product on the floor, like adding a shot clock or a 3 point line or other things. It’s an evolving game. We have a problem and they should be looking at solutions. They know it’s a problem which is why they tweaked it 3 years ago and are still talking about it today.

Well, I think the league would do it to actually change the product on the floor for the better, at least better competitive games throughout the whole season even from the teams that would be in the bottom half record wise....but your point is understood.

[El Poochio]

The snake system is a way of allowing the worse teams to get better .
The lottery as I recall , was a way to battle player empowerment ,
A device to keep star college players from holdouts or withholding from the draft if the top destination was not ‘favorable ‘

If you flatten the odds too much , the ability of the worse team to improve will decline .
You run the risk of unnaturally building super teams giving higher teams better picks .

Right now I’m perfectly fine with the playin situation .
Better have it at the right time of year it your going home ,
I like how it gives the top 2 seeds the toughest matchup possible because otherwise they are the most boring series .

Whatever the odds are now , I think it flat enough .
Are they trying to take tanking down to 0% ? Cmon be real .

Losing on purpose should be taken to 0 or as close to 0 as possible, I don’t know why that’s a controversial statement, losing on purpose should be discouraged as much as possible, in the immortal words of herm edwards you play to win the game

You have 1 Thunder to currently 29 teams trying to win, "tanking ruins the product" is an overreaction