Post#73 » by doc.end » Sun Jul 7, 2013 11:03 pm
If you want the draft work that means the worst team getting the first pick or be more likely to get it, then you should not allow pick trading. Because that kills any purpose of the equilibrum you are trying to achieve. You can't prevent one from its stupidity/miscalculation/bad luck. I don't likethe idea of pick trading not being allowed on the other hand, it could make star trades more difficult as incoming team couldn't mortgage their future by trading multiple picks but would have to have accumulate assets first (including picking for the other team in draft of that year), so thoughtful building would be more encouraged than now and otherwise the russian way of get the stars here no matter the cost, now, I don't care about tomorrow would be a bit more dfifficult. On the other way I am not sure whether it is in league interest, I guess it is better economically for the league to have big markets/powerhouses/proven franchises succeed longterm avoiding blowouts so some kind of parity is desired as well. Of course for other teams fans it is not what we want.
I think average GB Joe has problems to distinguish between tanking and being bad (in addition to small market team/outsiders bashing). You always have to have some team which happen to be last. Now cases like Cavs are bit of problem. I guess if you can sell that to your fans and are willing to shut down your upcoming star for more ping pong balls, more power to you, you can't prevent that and although such a behaviour should not be encouraged, at least you deserved it and it may be just me but it is more bearable than the achieving parity mechanism being relied on fourteen bouncing balls more than on planning. The thing with Cavs is they are bad for a while now but not really, so often suggested counting of records from previous years doesn't help here.
I guess the problem is how many teams have shot and cases where result of one game can make a difference. The evolution from previous model to current weighted draft suggests that more power to the worst teams is desirable. I am a bit tired of new models suggessted on GB or elsewhere once in a while which represent change for the sake of change of miss the point of the draft. The problem of course is that it has to remind simple and create some suspense to sell that draft lottery event to masses (having it televized really). So good luck with comng up with something meaningful.
One thing I would like would be restrict extent of possible movements in draft order. You never know how big gaps between the worst team, second worst etc. will be any given year, but basically first team in order should not be in danger to fall considerably behind - and whoever thinks otherwise (and wants to punish those lowly "insert mocked franchise" for being bad apparently) is soft in the head. I guess drawing from 4 teams maximum at the moment could be handy - like teams 1-4 in contention for the very fist pick, 5th team + 3 losing teams of the first drawing for the second one and so on with the exception none team can fall more than three slots (like in current system) meaning the first team can pick forth in worst case scenario. The advantage would be that ending say 8th would mean only having a shot at 5th pick, not that much of an incentive so it may be better to win few more games. Now the odds:
1) keep it simple - let's say 4:3:2:1 ratio meaning the first team would have 40% shot at first pick (then 24% at second, 14.4% at third and 21.6% to be unlucky and ending with the 4th overall pick). The most "balls" would have the highest positioned team on pre-lottery draft order and so on. Formula would be like Number of pick = x, teams involved based on prelottery draft order would be x, x+1, x+2, x+3 in case of first pick and from 4th on four teams from x-3;x+3 interval but in case x-3 is involved, draw is forfeited and x-3 team gets the pick (example the very first teams was not drawed yet and gets 4th ick without drawing cause that team is not alloweed to drop further). From 12th pick on less than 4 team would be involved, only remaining lottery teams.
Problem with this is that doesn't discurage to lose to move up place or two in draft orer to have better odds.
2) Have some kind of record based formula like one chance at the pick for each loss in regular season (lockout season could be skewed then) - would be 62-61-58-57 this year - maybe counting previous season somehow as well or/and count pre trade deadline losses twice or more times (as genuine losses, not late March tanking ones) - this would mean kind of acknowledging tanking so I don't see that as a viable option.
Odds would be roughly the same for all teams involved, almost no incentive to be dead last but it may lead to race to get into worst 4 or so though.
I suggest one game difference in record could be eligible to coinflips although it could be hard to make hard rules for those blatant cases of one game losing spurts. And schedule could matter. Maybe not counting results of match(es) between two teams in question if it happened in x last weeks of the season if that result makes a difference.
Basically it all about not making an environment that gives incentive to lose a bit more in those rough edges where standings could make a difference. And make it a bit more predictible. That could come handy in pick trading when the receiveing team can guess where it could land and whether it gets conveyed without a chance mid lotterry team gets lucky and move into top3 out of blue.
I congratulate you for reading through this wall of text.
