woj: The NBA's pursuing a vote on NBA Draft Lottery reform before the start of season

[Baller1234a]

**** Hinkie and the Sixers. They could have just tanked silently but they had to make a big deal out of it. Now the NBA is going to implement some (Please Use More Appropriate Word) lottery reform because they got all upset in 2014. Even if this vote fails the fact that this is even being considered shows how badly the NBA is going to handle this

don't take this so literally, but no, **** you. Sorry, I guess, that Hinkie played by the rules in place and when Embiid suffered his second setback he didn't run out and sign Timothe Mozgov and Luol Deng like an ass, just to have to cut off his nose to spite his face and attach an asset to one of them to move them later (Hey Lakers!).

Hinkie wasn't a made scientist, or a genius. He just applied common sense to the rules in place. Sorry, again I guess, that he pulled back the curtain on the joke of a league the NBA is and what you need to do if you ever *really* want to compete.

That said, keep the lottery rules in place. Let the league see how good the Sixers are in a couple years, because of the plan set in motion years before. And see if anyone has the balls to take all of the crap that this team and SH got and apply it to their own situations. If not, sit down, shut up and take your medicine and enjoy never not finding yourself at the top unless you get lucky somewhere along the way.

I mean you guys have to be lucky too
Lucky to have embieed play a full season
Lucky to have Simmons and Fultz be stars

[MalonesElbows]

I don't think it needs a major overhaul, but some of the percentage points of the top 4 need to be distributed to the other 10 teams.
Finishing 9th in your conference is the worst place to be in the NBA and can lead to a certain treadmill. 1.8% and 2.0% chance to move into the top 3 if your picking 14 or 13. Needs to be bumped up to around 7%.

[ATLTimekeeper]

I've decided that flat odds are better for the lottery. The 8th playoff spot is meaningless anyway, so I'm not upset if teams tank out of 8th for 9th to get the flat odds. Distribute the elite talent randomly among the bad teams.

or better yet, just extend lottery odds into the 7 and 8 seeds of the playoffs, making the odds flatter and giving teams no reason to tank out of the playoffs entirely.

[GreatWhiteStiff]

Sorry, but didn't silver say the nba had no problems with tanking? And now they want to change the draft lottery?

Riiiiiight...

[tundraknight]

**** you NBA and *** you Long John Silver

Yeah this has really to sting for Bulls fans.

They get fleeced for Jimmy Butler.

Then when they try and think of the glass half full instead of half empty by tanking and "trusting the process" like the 76ers did, the NBA Draft could nerf the effects of tanking.

[tidho]

I've decided that flat odds are better for the lottery. The 8th playoff spot is meaningless anyway, so I'm not upset if teams tank out of 8th for 9th to get the flat odds. Distribute the elite talent randomly among the bad teams.

or better yet, just extend lottery odds into the 7 and 8 seeds of the playoffs, making the odds flatter and giving teams no reason to tank out of the playoffs entirely.

Why do you think it would only be the 8th spot. Realistically in the west you could have teams trying to tank from the 5th spot to the 9th. This is a much worse look than a couple teams winning 18 games in a year.

[Clemenza]

If Philly would've just did their dirt on the low we wouldn't be dealing with this sh*t. But they had to turn it into an artform, cult, and a movement so this is what we get in return.

[Edrees]

Maybe danny ainge knew about this when he traded the brooklyn pick..lol. That pick can end up being like a 8th pick now

[afarmenian]

What about including 7 and 8 seeds in the lottery and same odds for everyone?

[gonzo]

fwiw

What about including 7 and 8 seeds in the lottery and same odds for everyone?

teams are from the bottom and by draft pick:

#1 only teams 1-7 equal odds... worth it to be the worst?

#2 only teams 8-14 equal odds... worth it to tank out of playoffs?

#3 only 8 1st round losers equal odds... worth it to play your a$$ off to make playoffs

#4 only 1-14 remaining equal odds... slightly worth it to miss playoffs

#5 1-14 plus 8 1st round losers plus 4 second round losers equal odds... no reason to miss playoffs

#6 teams start drafting by record

Worst team can draft no worse than #6

The OP is about draft tanking, not league imbalance which is way more complicated. Sure some good teams win sometimes. IMO it would give 'treadmill' teams a boost without tearing it down. Or at least a chance which is why it's called a lottery. Would better work in a top 16 based playoff.

[Winglish]

I LOVE THIS!!!

I cannot say it often enough- the quality of play in the NBA will increase for all of us when there is no incentive to lose.

Sent from my SM-G930T using RealGM mobile app

[spicy6]

Anyway, this is a terrible idea that will only keep bad teams bad for longer, make life harder for small market teams, and ruin what's left of competitive balance right now. But don't worry - Silver will continue to assure us that there's nothing wrong with a product where one team has the next 5+ championships on lock with no competition.

Your team not being able to compete is the fault of no one else but your own team.

lol what did he say was wrong? Theres no competion in the league because we know whos going to win again. The warriors have the next two titles on lock and more if draymond and klay re up. Theres a reason the playoffs were garbage this prior season.

[Mulhollanddrive]

At this stage there seems to be a top tier in this draft of 5 - Porter, Bagley, Ayton, Bamba, Doncic.

So if that plays out GMs are going to tank for a top 5 pick.

But if teams are able to drop down 4 spots (as per the proposal) that means being the worst record becomes even more coverted as it is the only 100% chance of accomplishing that.

[Vee-Rex]

I've seen this idea suggested before and thought I'd throw it out there:

How about draft order being determined by the most wins a team has after they have been officially eliminated from the playoffs? That way, teams are given a reason to continue trying to win after they can't make the playoffs.

The absolute worst teams are more likely to be eliminated from the playoffs FIRST and thus have more chances to get wins. At the end of the day, there would be a lot of bad teams trying to win that lottery pick and might make some of those games at the end of the year very exciting.

[mademan]

At this stage there seems to be a top tier in this draft of 5 - Porter, Bagley, Ayton, Bamba, Doncic.

So if that plays out GMs are going to tank for a top 5 pick.

But if teams are able to drop down 4 spots (as per the proposal) that means being the worst record becomes even more coverted as it is the only 100% chance of accomplishing that.

I cant imagine the new rules (whatever they are) being implemented for the following season. It's unfair to teams who went through this FA with the rules in place in mind. Any implementation would have to be at least 1 year out

[Sixerscan]

Maybe danny ainge knew about this when he traded the brooklyn pick..lol. That pick can end up being like a 8th pick now

Stuff like that is why I doubt any change would go into place this year. They might vote to pass some sort of reform but I would imagine there's at least a one year delay.

[Sixerscan]

If people want to flatten the odds because they think it's more "fair" or whatever fine, but I doubt it impacts the on court product much if at all. Teams that are eliminated from the playoffs are still going to rest guys a lot and try to give other players opportunities to get experience. Changing the odds doesn't change the fact that those games are meaningless. The Nets didn't even have their pick and they sat guys at times, played young players etc.

If the league wants to solve that they should figure out a way to make the games worth something rather than punishing bad teams for being bad. Because bad teams aren't going anywhere even if all 30 teams are well run.

[Texas Chuck]

If the league wants to solve that they should figure out a way to make the games worth something rather than punishing bad teams for being bad. Because bad teams aren't going anywhere even if all 30 teams are well run.

There is no fix. This is and always has been and always will be a superstar league. Sure you get the odd exception, the Pistons a couple times, the Spurs with old Timmy and young Kawhi, but unless you have a top 3 player you aren't winning titles.

And the best teams almost universally win in the playoffs. In football, you can be the Eli Manning Giants and rise up and have 3 great games and beat historic Patriot teams because of the one game format. In hockey or baseball a goalie can stand on his head for a series or two, a starting pitcher can win you 2 or even 3 games in a series leaving you only having to scratch one win out.

Best of 7 series in a star driven league means there are only ever a couple of true contenders in any season and most organizations aren't unaware of this. So its really hard to fault teams who know they are at best a one and done team to choose to take a different approach in an attempt to get their hands on one of those elusive players who actually matter.

And the reality is tanking doesn't work. Look at all the teams that have picked in the top of the lottery for 7,8,9, 10 years in a row and still suck. Because you need a superstar to compete for titles and you need good ownership to be competitive on a regular basis. And while tanking could land you a franchise player, its never landing you a new owner.

But the NBA since Stern has understood this. And its why it has always marketed individual players and not teams. You'd think a team like San Antonio should have been promoted heavily, but they never were. It was Larry and Magic until it was Mike until it was Shaq until it was Lebron and now Steph. The league doesn't care about parity or competitive balance because they understand the nature of basketball just makes that impossible to achieve. So they promote the stars, understand its a league only a few teams matter in, and teams spend a ton of energy improving the in arena product in ways none of the other major sports do because they are having to sell their fans something other than title opportunities.

[Sixerscan]

If the league wants to solve that they should figure out a way to make the games worth something rather than punishing bad teams for being bad. Because bad teams aren't going anywhere even if all 30 teams are well run.

There is no fix. This is and always has been and always will be a superstar league. Sure you get the odd exception, the Pistons a couple times, the Spurs with old Timmy and young Kawhi, but unless you have a top 3 player you aren't winning titles.

And the best teams almost universally win in the playoffs. In football, you can be the Eli Manning Giants and rise up and have 3 great games and beat historic Patriot teams because of the one game format. In hockey or baseball a goalie can stand on his head for a series or two, a starting pitcher can win you 2 or even 3 games in a series leaving you only having to scratch one win out.

Best of 7 series in a star driven league means there are only ever a couple of true contenders in any season and most organizations aren't unaware of this. So its really hard to fault teams who know they are at best a one and done team to choose to take a different approach in an attempt to get their hands on one of those elusive players who actually matter.

And the reality is tanking doesn't work. Look at all the teams that have picked in the top of the lottery for 7,8,9, 10 years in a row and still suck. Because you need a superstar to compete for titles and you need good ownership to be competitive on a regular basis. And while tanking could land you a franchise player, its never landing you a new owner.

But the NBA since Stern has understood this. And its why it has always marketed individual players and not teams. You'd think a team like San Antonio should have been promoted heavily, but they never were. It was Larry and Magic until it was Mike until it was Shaq until it was Lebron and now Steph. The league doesn't care about parity or competitive balance because they understand the nature of basketball just makes that impossible to achieve. So they promote the stars, understand its a league only a few teams matter in, and teams spend a ton of energy improving the in arena product in ways none of the other major sports do because they are having to sell their fans something other than title opportunities.

Well I think when we are talking about this "problem" (I don't think it's really a problem, doesn't hurt the NBA's bottom line in a meaningful way, and this is mostly just PR smoke) there's really 2 different issues. One is this moral quandary of whether tanking "works" or is "right" etc. The other is the logistical issue that at the end of the year you have teams resting guys that would probably play in January when the team wasn't eliminated. That gives the fans a worse product to watch, creates inequality with the schedule, etc.

I think the only real "solution" to the resting "problem" is expanding the playoffs. Like, to all 30 teams. Then everyone has something to play for more or less through 82 games. Obviously creates certain other issues though. Which goes back to the main point that this really isn't a very important concern from the league.

[MUpacersSIC]

There is no easy fix for the current draft system; however, the biggest complaint has been incentivizing the tank game many teams are playing. The way I would fix that is to make the draft positions almost, but not quite, preset. I would propose that the six divisions each get an opportunity to have a top five pick and a top 10 pick once every six years. Divisions would rotate the picks in "tiers": Tier 1 (picks 1-5), Tier 2 (picks 6-10), Tier 3 (picks 11-15), Tier 4 (picks 16-20), Tier 5 (picks 21-25), and Tier 6 (picks 26-30). Each division would do a lottery where every teams gets 1 ping pong ball (20% chance at the highest pick in their tier), and there is a drawing for the order of their tier that year. Pattern moving from picks/tiers: 1-5, 21-25, 16-20, 11-15, 6-10, 26-30, repeat.



Under this system you know what range your draft pick will be in each year, but you still need to do a draft lottery for each tier to determine what pick each team will receive. This allows the NBA/ESPN to keep their draft lottery and draft shows, while also allowing each team the chance for a top 10 pick every few years. This will also help narrow down the values of traded picks because you know that you will have a pick within a range of 5 spots. The second round of the draft could simply be in the order of worst record to best record. I don't foresee anyone tanking for a high second round pick so keeping that relatively similar to the current system wouldn't be an issue. Thoughts?