RealGM

Whatever people think about the strategy of tanking within the current system that exists, I think there's room for discussion about the system itself.

*This isn't a thread for a specific discussion about the Raptors and the lottery, so please save that for one of the many other threads on the topic.

I think there are two key questions:

1) Do you think the NBA should change or adjust its current system for determining draft picks?
- I've added a poll to the thread for that basic question

2) If so, which proposal would you support or suggest?

------------------------------------------------------------------

Now for the tl;dr part. Feel free to ignore if you're not interested in my thoughts on the topic.

I think that whatever you feel about the strategy, the current system is bad for basketball. At any given time, there are probably up to two thirds of the fan bases in the league that want their teams to blow it up and actively try to lose games. This is completely antithetical to the whole purpose of competitive sports.

Not only that, but because teams are prone to "give up" on the season with 20-30 games left, it makes many of the games in that part of the season funhouse mirror facsimiles of real games, and leads to competitive imbalances for the teams that are trying to win based upon the teams that they might face on any given night.

All of this, as much as some of us at times might advocate for a tanking strategy, is bad for fans, especially those that pay increasingly exorbitant amounts to see the games in person. Let's be honest, no one really wants to see bad players playing badly.

So, what are the possible solutions?

Honestly, I'm not sure what would be best (which is why I wanted to start this thread and open up the discussion).

One of the most talked about proposals, which has been around for about 15 years, is the "Wheel". It does away with a lottery altogether and just gives teams draft position based upon a pre-determined chart (below). This eliminates the incentive for deliberate losing, and allows teams to prepare longer term strategies, but could also mean good teams get better, or a bad team is sunk into years of decline if they miss one high pick (but really, is that any different than current "bottom out" strategies?).



There are lots of ideas out there. I remember one crazy one that Bill Simmons mused about many years ago where the moment a team is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, wins start being counted, and the lottery is awarded based upon wins or win percentage from that point on. In other words, if a team wins 10 more games after being eliminated, they would get a higher draft pick than a team who wins only twice after being eliminated. A few issues with this, obviously, but it would definitely incentivize teams not to give up on a season.

Anyway, all that is tldr. Just wanted to open the discussion.

aminiaturebuddha wrote:Whatever people think about the strategy of tanking within the current system that exists, I think there's room for discussion about the system itself.

*This isn't a thread for a specific discussion about the Raptors and the lottery, so please save that for one of the many other threads on the topic.

I think there are two key questions:

1) Do you think the NBA should change or adjust its current system for determining draft picks?
- I've added a poll to the thread for that basic question

2) If so, which proposal would you support or suggest?

------------------------------------------------------------------

Now for the tl;dr part. Feel free to ignore if you're not interested in my thoughts on the topic.

I think that whatever you feel about the strategy, the current system is bad for basketball. At any given time, there are probably up to two thirds of the fan bases in the league that want their teams to blow it up and actively try to lose games. This is completely antithetical to the whole purpose of competitive sports.

Not only that, but because teams are prone to "give up" on the season with 20-30 games left, it makes many of the games in that part of the season funhouse mirror facsimiles of real games, and leads to competitive imbalances for the teams that are trying to win based upon the teams that they might face on any given night.

All of this, as much as some of us at times might advocate for a tanking strategy, is bad for fans, especially those that pay increasingly exorbitant amounts to see the games in person. Let's be honest, no one really wants to see bad players playing badly.

So, what are the possible solutions?

Honestly, I'm not sure what would be best (which is why I wanted to start this thread and open up the discussion).

One of the most talked about proposals, which has been around for about 15 years, is the "Wheel". It does away with a lottery altogether and just gives teams draft position based upon a pre-determined chart (below). This eliminates the incentive for deliberate losing, and allows teams to prepare longer term strategies, but could also mean good teams get better, or a bad team is sunk into years of decline if they miss one high pick (but really, is that any different than current "bottom out" strategies?).



There are lots of ideas out there. I remember one crazy one that Bill Simmons mused about many years ago where the moment a team is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, wins start being counted, and the lottery is awarded based upon wins or win percentage from that point on. In other words, if a team wins 10 more games after being eliminated, they would get a higher draft pick than a team who wins only twice after being eliminated. A few issues with this, obviously, but it would definitely incentivize teams not to give up on a season.

Anyway, all that is tldr. Just wanted to open the discussion.

This is exactly as I've mentioned before on twitter.

Do you remember when he wrote/said that?

In addition My idea, For the 4 teams Eliminated in the play-in, is that you place them in the middle of the lottery odds ( slots 6-9, equal odds).
Then after the lottery, of the 4 teams, have their own lottery to deterime their order.

One of my ideas was to have a minimum win total that needs to be hit by every team in the league each season and every team under it gets penalized with something like not being eligible for a top 5 pick. I would likely have that win total set around 20 to start but it can be tweaked as they see how teams adjust to this. Effects of this new rule would be no team tries to risk truly bottoming out anymore to the current level you see now and that teams on pace for mid 20 in wins are also now incentivized to compete hard to 1. avoid the penalty themselves and 2. beat those bad teams around a 20 win pace because it can knock them out of a top 5 pick. The goal shouldn't be to eliminate bad teams as those will always need to exist, it's eliminating bad teams trying to intentionally lose even more games than they already would.

I think it was this article from Zach Lowe

https://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-nbas-possible-solution-for-tanking-good-bye-to-the-lottery-hello-to-the-wheel/

just do a lottery for all 30 teams at this point with equal odds.

if the best team keeps getting high picks, so be it.

The wheel is horrible IMO. It accomplishes nothing, and creates an issue where elite prospects stay in school an extra year to avoid certain teams, AND we have the possibility of the champs getting the #1 pick.

TimeForChange wrote:just do a lottery for all 30 teams at this point with equal odds.

if the best team keeps getting high picks, so be it.

Or just put in a caveat no team can move up more than 13 slots. That means non-playoff teams are all eligible for the #1 pick. NBA champs could in theory win and get the 17th pick. I would say do that and just keep picking until you have selected 4 teams who are eligible for the top 4.

Pretty much eliminates any incentive to tank, and still gives the bottom teams (usually) a top 10 pick.

A bunch of the suggestions (like the wheel or a flat lottery for all 30 teams) would definitely lead to some wonky years with very overpowered teams if a team that was already top 3 or 4 ended up with the top pick. That alone might be enough for people to dislike the idea.

However, they probably wouldn't be sustained problems, as a rigid salary cap would mean teams would most likely need to trade or lose players that could make more elsewhere.

One interesting twist with the wheel system would be trading future draft picks. Teams would know exactly which pick they were trading or getting back.

One proposal I definitely disagree with is just letting rookies sign with any team as FAs. Great way to drive even more talent away from small markets.

I’d at least like to see the lottery flattened and expanded even more. Maybe all 30 teams with flat odds would be too much, but maybe add all the play-in spots and flatten the odds? That would expand the lottery to 18. You don’t want too much incentive to tank out of the playoffs, but at least then teams would be sacrificing a guaranteed series of playoff exposure/revenue.

HangTime wrote:
In addition My idea, For the 4 teams Eliminated in the play-in, is that you place them in the middle of the lottery odds ( slots 6-9, equal odds).
Then after the lottery, of the 4 teams, have their own lottery to deterime their order.

That's an interesting one. It would definitely incentivize teams to try for the play-in. However, it might also encourage them to stealth tank the play-in game itself if it looks like their options are something like the 7th pick vs losing in the 1st round to a top seed powerhouse.

I like the creative thinking though.

It's awful and rewards tanking. It should be changed to punish the worst teams and reward the ones who work to better themselves. I've said it forever. If your org is incompetent enough to try your hardest and still win 20 games, you should suffer for it.

Quattro wrote:It's awful and rewards tanking. It should be changed to punish the worst teams and reward the ones who work to better themselves. I've said it forever. If your org is incompetent enough to try your hardest and still win 20 games, you should suffer for it.

But that's dumb. There are many reasons why a team has a losing record, such as players getting hurt and missing large chunks of the season. Or some teams missing with their draft picks. Punishing teams for things that are beyond their control wouldn't be fair, and would make it harder for these teams to improve themselves. They would always be operating at a place of weakness.

I'd also argue the play in punishes teams enough. Most teams that are bad enough don't want to make the play in just so they can miss out on a pick and be bounced in the first round.

Coco Costanza wrote:

Quattro wrote:It's awful and rewards tanking. It should be changed to punish the worst teams and reward the ones who work to better themselves. I've said it forever. If your org is incompetent enough to try your hardest and still win 20 games, you should suffer for it.

But that's dumb. There are many reasons why a team has a losing record, such as players getting hurt and missing large chunks of the season. Or some teams missing with their draft picks. Punishing teams for things that are beyond their control wouldn't be fair, and would make it harder for these teams to improve themselves. They would always be operating at a place of weakness.

I'd also argue the play in punishes teams enough. Most teams that are bad enough don't want to make the play in just so they can miss out on a pick and be bounced in the first round.

It's not dumb at all. What's dumb is watching this farce of a regular season every year where teams are mailing it in and pretending their players are injured by Christmas. You don't have to look far to find a team that started off a total mess and built itself up into a champion without the benefit of high lottery picks.

You suck? Hire better people. Spend more money. Get better players. Or keep sucking.

Coco Costanza wrote:

Quattro wrote:It's awful and rewards tanking. It should be changed to punish the worst teams and reward the ones who work to better themselves. I've said it forever. If your org is incompetent enough to try your hardest and still win 20 games, you should suffer for it.

But that's dumb. There are many reasons why a team has a losing record, such as players getting hurt and missing large chunks of the season. Or some teams missing with their draft picks. Punishing teams for things that are beyond their control wouldn't be fair, and would make it harder for these teams to improve themselves. They would always be operating at a place of weakness.

I'd also argue the play in punishes teams enough. Most teams that are bad enough don't want to make the play in just so they can miss out on a pick and be bounced in the first round.

If you are bad because players are hurt then in all honesty you don't "need" a top pick. If anything, that is bad for the parity in the league if teams can temporarily have a bad season and get rewarded for it.

Tofubeque wrote:One proposal I definitely disagree with is just letting rookies sign with any team as FAs. Great way to drive even more talent away from small markets.

I’d at least like to see the lottery flattened and expanded even more. Maybe all 30 teams with flat odds would be too much, but maybe add all the play-in spots and flatten the odds? That would expand the lottery to 18. You don’t want too much incentive to tank out of the playoffs, but at least then teams would be sacrificing a guaranteed series of playoff exposure/revenue.

Coco Costanza wrote:

Quattro wrote:It's awful and rewards tanking. It should be changed to punish the worst teams and reward the ones who work to better themselves. I've said it forever. If your org is incompetent enough to try your hardest and still win 20 games, you should suffer for it.

But that's dumb. There are many reasons why a team has a losing record, such as players getting hurt and missing large chunks of the season. Or some teams missing with their draft picks. Punishing teams for things that are beyond their control wouldn't be fair, and would make it harder for these teams to improve themselves. They would always be operating at a place of weakness.

I'd also argue the play in punishes teams enough. Most teams that are bad enough don't want to make the play in just so they can miss out on a pick and be bounced in the first round.

Both of you hate competition, prefer subsidizing billionaires and rewarding ineptitude, love restricting player movement?

Sounds like it.

Give the treadmill team better odds than the worst team in the league. If you can reward the 11/12 seed for trying to compete it'll fix this problem very quickly.

YogurtProducer wrote:The wheel is horrible IMO. It accomplishes nothing, and creates an issue where elite prospects stay in school an extra year to avoid certain teams, AND we have the possibility of the champs getting the #1 pick.

TimeForChange wrote:just do a lottery for all 30 teams at this point with equal odds.

if the best team keeps getting high picks, so be it.

Or just put in a caveat no team can move up more than 13 slots. That means non-playoff teams are all eligible for the #1 pick. NBA champs could in theory win and get the 17th pick. I would say do that and just keep picking until you have selected 4 teams who are eligible for the top 4.

Pretty much eliminates any incentive to tank, and still gives the bottom teams (usually) a top 10 pick.

Some great ideas on here, overall. I hope the league does some brainstorming like this with a mind to solving the tanking problem. Maybe they should ask RealGM?

Anyway, I like the bolded suggestion from YP. It seems the easiest and most straightforward. But keep the suggestions coming, everyone!

For the six (6) teams with the worst records, flatten the odds to win the #1, #2, #3, or #4 pick at 10% for each of them.

Then, split the remainder among the other eight (8) teams who miss the playoffs and are eligible for the draft lottery.

#1 to #6 worst records - 10% chance to win each of the #1, #2, #3, or #4 pick
#7 to #14 worst records - 5% chance to win each of the #1, #2, #3, or #4 pick

The difference between the odds for the 6th worst record and the odds for the 7th worst record could still encourage some tanking among teams in the 7-10 range, but since teams in the 10-14 range are eligible for the play-in tournament a few of the teams who might be inclined to tank for a top 6 pick could just as well try to win more games to end the season so they can be eligible for the play-in tournament, play a couple of extra games, and perhaps even extend their season long enough to include a playoff series or two.

I voted no but with a caveat. I'd rather change the system to reduce odds in 9-14 range. I don't think its fair Pistons picked 5th 3 years in a row either. I understand the intent but if the drafts arent deep than teams can struggle for years.

The NFL is straight up based on record and they aren't changing things and is the top revenue sport in North America.

Just make the the odds even flatter for like the first 8 teams. Maybe lottery select the first 5 slots?

Quattro wrote:

Coco Costanza wrote:

Quattro wrote:It's awful and rewards tanking. It should be changed to punish the worst teams and reward the ones who work to better themselves. I've said it forever. If your org is incompetent enough to try your hardest and still win 20 games, you should suffer for it.

But that's dumb. There are many reasons why a team has a losing record, such as players getting hurt and missing large chunks of the season. Or some teams missing with their draft picks. Punishing teams for things that are beyond their control wouldn't be fair, and would make it harder for these teams to improve themselves. They would always be operating at a place of weakness.

I'd also argue the play in punishes teams enough. Most teams that are bad enough don't want to make the play in just so they can miss out on a pick and be bounced in the first round.

It's not dumb at all. What's dumb is watching this farce of a regular season every year where teams are mailing it in and pretending their players are injured by Christmas. You don't have to look far to find a team that started off a total mess and built itself up into a champion without the benefit of high lottery picks.

You suck? Hire better people. Spend more money. Get better players. Or keep sucking.

Oh, just get better players. Why didn't I think of that. Brilliant idea!