RealGM

The league’s proposal gives at least the four worst teams the same chance at winning the no. 1 pick: approximately an identical 11 percent shot for each club. The odds decline slowly from there, with the team in the next spot holding a 10 percent chance. The lottery team with the best record will have a 2 percent chance of leaping to the no. 1 pick, up from the the minuscule 0.5 percent chance it has under the current system.

The proposal also calls for the drawing of the first six picks via the Ping-Pong ball lottery, sources say. The current lottery system actually involves the drawing of only the top three selections. The rest of the lottery goes in order of record, from worst to best, after the top-three drawing is over.

The league could implement lottery reform as early as next season, though there are many hurdles to overcome before then. And it’s important to note that the league has kicked around several different proposals with varying weights; the 11 percent figure for the first teams is not universal among those proposals, sources say.

Full article: http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nba-l ... is-coming/

After rigging it for Lebron and the Cavs now they want fairness lol

That actually doesn't eliminate tanking at all, as teams will try desperately to get into the top 4 or even top 6.

I don't understand this. Give the #1 pick to the team with the worst record. Cleveland had no business getting Wiggins.

I'm fine with this type of revision. You can't include every team in the lottery. No other league gives the best teams a chance to have the best picks. You risk bad teams staying bad forever.

Would be a lot more entertaining if every lottery team could send a representative to participate in a hot dog eating contest for the rights to #1.

Of course this brings other issues into play, as the Sixers would immediately sign Joey Chestnut as a consultant and claim he's just showing their young players how to win.

Start it up next year.

Lottery is a joke. All it does is it gives a few teams a long shot at the top 3 picks. Just do them in order. Teams will tank anyway.

I love it. Anything that stops rewarding the tankers is OK with me

there is no perfect system. this debate will never end.

Greatness wrote:That actually doesn't eliminate tanking at all, as teams will try desperately to get into the top 4 or even top 6.

But if you're already like bottom 3 or with the 5th worst record and with no hopes of moving up in the odds then you have no incentive to throw away games. This is actually a really good proposal.

Also love the idea of expanding the drawing from 3 to 6.

Adjust the weighting to decrease or eliminate the odds of getting selected if your ball was drawn in previous years.

So a team that received the #1 pick and finished last will receive lower odds the following years.

The Wheel is still the best and most fair solution.

Cleveland won't be getting pity #1 picks anymore, no reason to overhaul the lotto, just go back to rewarding new owners and placing players in their home cities.

reanimator wrote:After rigging it for Lebron and the Cavs now they want fairness lol

dude, this gives longshots like the cavs a BETTER chance

and why the hell would they be proposing any changes at all if it was rigged?

can the rigging nonsense stop now?

Great apropos comment on the author Zack Lowe from the comments section:

"Tausif Billah
Until Grantland proves otherwise I will remain convinced that the one called "Zach Lowe" is not a human being, but some sentient conglomerate of super-computers capable of predicting and analyzing everything NBA related in milliseconds down to the finest detail."

Greatness wrote:That actually doesn't eliminate tanking at all, as teams will try desperately to get into the top 4 or even top 6.

Who said the goal is to eliminate tanking? The only way to eliminate tanking is to do a straight up unweighted lottery for the top-16 picks. But that has major implications before parity/competitive balance. The idea is to strike the proper balance between encouraging competition during the season and aiding the worse-off in getting better in the offseason.

This proposal is pretty strong, because it reduces the value of a bad record in the draft. As of right now, if you have the worst record, you get a 25% shot at the top pick--that's pretty strong! Under the new proposal, that drops to an 11% shot, co-equal with 3 other teams. All of a sudden not as valuable to have the worst record, so less incentive to seek the worst record.

Further, the downside to tanking (aside from the lost season) in the lottery is limited, because the league only pulls 3 draft slots from the lottery. So even with the worst record, you're still guaranteed at least the #4 pick. Under the new proposal, you'd only be guaranteed the #7 pick. That's actually a pretty decent drop off. See, e.g., here and here. By average career production, the 4th pick is likely to be an all-star (60% likely to have all-star like production, median players are guys like Mashburn, Odom), whereas the 7th pick, less than a third develop into stars and the average production is nothing special (Lorenzen Wright, Roy Tarpley).

Losing a season might be worth it for a 60% shot at a star but not for a 30% shot at a star.

I think this is precisely what the league should be doing. It's only missing 1 key piece. The league should change the rookie scale such that the players who are picked in the lottery slots (in this scenario, 1-6) earn significantly more than their counterparts. One of the benefits of tanking is that you get cheap labor...if the player works out, you have an amazing deal, and if he doesn't, he's on a cheap rookie scale deal. No monetary downside! If you start making those picks a little expensive, teams might think twice about tanking, because there is real risk if you blow it. Might make the 7th & 8th picks more valuable than the 5th & 6th, actually--another reason why teams might not be as eager to tank.

So essentially, the team with the worst record in the NBA could end up with the 7th pick in this system?

Saints14 wrote:I don't understand this. Give the #1 pick to the team with the worst record. Cleveland had no business getting Wiggins.

And the sixers did? You can't reward a team for giving away quality players for nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums mobile app

dice wrote:

reanimator wrote:After rigging it for Lebron and the Cavs now they want fairness lol

dude, this gives longshots like the cavs a BETTER chance

and why the hell would they be proposing any changes at all if it was rigged?

can the rigging nonsense stop now?

Cavs won't be in the lottery so it doesn't