NEW IDEA (as far as I know) for eliminating late season tanking... the PROXY-TEAM draft process

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Preface: This gets its inspiration from the fact that when Team A acquires a pick from Team B, but has already traded its own pick to Team C, then it removes from Team A the conventional/normal self-interest in losing games--since Team A's actual draft slot, then, doesn't actually depend on how many games Team A wins or loses, but on how many games Team B wins or loses.

So here's the process.

1. Just prior to the beginning of the season, every team's GM submits their ranking of all teams but their own, #1 through #29.

2. Those individual rankings are aggregated into a master ranking of all teams based on the average placement.

3. The league then holds what amounts to what I'll call a "proxy-team" draft.

It begins with the GM of the team considered the worst going into the season (#30 in the master ranking) selecting another team that they believe is most likely to finish the season with the worst record, besides their own team. (So, optimally, they're right, and they end up with the #1 pick in the draft, but then again, they also could be terribly wrong, and end up with the #30 pick.)

4. The process continues with the #29 team's GM picking, and so on, through #2 who will necessarily end up with whatever proxy team remains on the board (ostensibly, the #1 team in the master ranking, but maybe not).

The whole thing is done publicly, which in turn creates a whole new angle for reasons to root against and for other teams--ie, that are playing against your favorite team's draft-proxy team.

And again, to the primary point, it removes any motive for any given team to purposely lose, from Game #1 through #82.

Just tossin it out there for general discussion.

[spacemonkey]

What do you do about mid-season trades?

[Curmudgeon]

Just pass a rule that any team losing more than 60 games has to spend the next year in the G-league. That's how they do it in Europe.

[RightToCensor]

This sounds like Danny Ainge's dream

[Cormag001]

Not gonna lie, I kinda like it.

[Froob]

Just pass a rule that any team losing more than 60 games has to spend the next year in the G-league. That's how they do it in Europe.

The last thing the NBA wants is the Maine Red Claws or Fort Wayne Mad Ants in the NBA.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

What do you do about mid-season trades?

Nothing. There's always risk in business, no matter the business.

[76ciology]

Lie detector. If the machine says you tank then your pick gets forfeited. I don't know why you make it complicated with all these steps.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Just pass a rule that any team losing more than 60 games has to spend the next year in the G-league. That's how they do it in Europe.

I'm a fan of progression-regression myself, but specifically in college football... but I've learned that "how they do it in Europe" is actually the reason many give for disregarding it.

But the fact that professional sports teams such as in the NBA are, all 30 of them, big money business ventures united under one umbrella and together operating effectively as a monopoly without any specific oversight (one of the very few industries in the US that enjoys that) inherently shoves that suggestion off the table.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Not gonna lie, I kinda like it.

Argued with myself during the commute home yesterday, and it's passed at least one person's smell test, but that of course doesn't mean I've thought of all of the possible contingencies or ramifications. There are almost always trade-offs of some kind. But for now anyhow I'm thinking there isn't any trade-off so dire that it sabotages the idea. The worst thing I've thought of so far is that it seems to discourage draft pick trades since there's an added layer of uncertainty as to where the draft pick will actually fall that your team is acquiring. But otoh, that's something that's always by its nature somewhat uncertain anyhow. And because it is publicly known that, say for instance, ATL's proxy for 2017-18 is going to be BRK, the team considering trading for ATL's pick (which under this condition is slotted according to BRK's record) is going to be able to assess the pick's value to them just as much as if they were trading for it otherwise.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

From a poster on another board...



==========================

Good question.

OP presented it cleanly--assuming everyone just has their own picks--just to get the fundamental concept across.

But here's the foremost and guiding principle that addresses the "how does this deal with traded picks" question:

No team owns what would have been its traditional own pick based on season record. Every team must have a proxy team for the 1st round pick slot they normally would have owned. (There is one and only one exception to this, but it will be discussed later.)

Again, I've used all 30 teams to illustrate and just get the concept across, but in fact, because there are some number of teams who begin the season already having given up their pick in trade to another team, those teams have no reason to participate in the proxy team draft.

The draft order, then, would be established as described, but those who already have dissolved any self-interest in where they finish the season--have no need for a proxy and are skipped in the draft order.

Most years, then, we would expect to see a proxy team draft that excludes a handful of teams for that reason.

Using your example then...

1. Boston already owns Brooklyn's pick, and thus, Brooklyn has no need to participate. They would be skipped in the proxy team draft, and then in the June player draft Boston would select in Brooklyn's slot according to Brooklyn's finish just as they always would have.

Boston, though, if they own their own pick (and they do in 2018), still needs a proxy team, and would participate in the proxy team draft.

2. Golden State, indeed, would reap the benefit of San Antonio's situation.

(Rejoinder: Whether the best team or the second best team enjoys that benefit from the David Robinson effect, either way, some very good team is going to benefit to the sighs of frustration from the rest of us.)



Someone may ask, "Can a team like Brooklyn make a trade to get their own pick back?"

Answer: No. That's the essence of what's being outlawed here--teams should not have self-interest in where they finish the season.



The seeming next natural question is "But what about conditional picks, where a team owns their own pick 1-14 ("protected"), but another team owns it for 15-30?"

Answer: Again, the guiding principle asserts that, going into the proxy draft (ie, held just before the season starts), the whole purpose is to dissolve any team's right to draft in the slot where they finish. So, the only teams totally excluded from the draft are those who have zero ownership of their own pick.

Example, ATL gets HOU's pick next off-season unless they finish with one of the three worst records in the league. Nonetheless, HOU is included in the proxy team draft, and thus, must select a proxy just in case that were to happen in spite of how unlikely many think it would be.



Seeming next natural question after that... "Mathematically, is it possible that the last team in the proxy draft could be left with no choice but to keep their own pick after all?

Answer is yes. This is that exception that I reference above.

For example, let's reduce this down to a theoretical 6-team league of teams A, B, C, D, E and F. For simplicity’s sake, assume that the GMs have voted them in that order, A predicted the worst (and thus get to draft first in the team proxy draft), F predicted the best.

All but C own their own draft slot, and thus, must participate in the team proxy draft to dissolve their self-interest. F owns C’s draft slot in addition to their own. This means that only 5 teams will participate in the team proxy draft.

Conventionally speaking (again, for simplicity’s sake), the draft goes as follows:

1. A selects B

2. B selects A

3. C is skipped (since they’ve already divested themselves of interest in their slot)

4. D selects E

5. E selects D

6. F ends up with no remaining team that can act as a proxy, and thus, they keep their own pick slot after all.

I'm not happy about that (just on the basis of consistency), but I'm also not terribly bothered by it, either, given the likelihood that the team thought to be the best team going into a season is going to end up in a situation where they are trying to lose games (tank) in order to better their draft slot position.

[rugbyrugger23]

1) Tanking would still exist. It could be an ugly basketball game when teams in back half of season are in running for top pick play each other. Imagine a tank game between Bulls and Kings? (Bulls own Kings proxy and Kings own Bulls proxy). That would be some bad basketball. And it wouldn't have to be direct proxy (1-1) teams playing one another. It would promote bottom of the barrel crime-on-crime tanking bad basketball when any team in bottom 10 (for example) play each other.

2) If GM's suck at picking their proxy, or a big trade happens, or a bad injury: a bad team, say Bulls, draft 9 instead of top 3 because their proxy makes a huge trade and goes for it, or a team that was ranked 22 has a bad injury and now pushes Bulls proxy even higher in draft, or what ever the case...if bad teams can't get a high pick, could set back their organization for a decade.

3) Collusion: I could see this happening or appearance of this happening. Do a lopsided trade to raise the level of a enemy's proxy to better themselves, or collusion tanking...

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

1) Tanking would still exist. It could be an ugly basketball game when teams in back half of season are in running for top pick play each other. Imagine a tank game between Bulls and Kings? (Bulls own Kings proxy and Kings own Bulls proxy). That would be some bad basketball.

I think I've failed to communicate something here because what you're describing is consistent with the very opposite.

If the Bulls have the Kings slot, then they have EVERY desire to BEAT DOWN the Kings so that the Kings' slot gets worse. And vice-versa.

In fact, you might even end up with some high drama games among some of the very worst teams.

The #2 presented here is already addressed (above) at some length--but in short, that's a problem you live with regardless, so it's moot.

The #3 presented here again seemingly is a matter of some misunderstanding in concert with whatever misunderstanding prompted the #1.

[rugbyrugger23]

1) Tanking would still exist. It could be an ugly basketball game when teams in back half of season are in running for top pick play each other. Imagine a tank game between Bulls and Kings? (Bulls own Kings proxy and Kings own Bulls proxy). That would be some bad basketball.

I think I've failed to communicate something here because what you're describing is consistent with the very opposite.

If the Bulls have the Kings slot, then they have EVERY desire to BEAT DOWN the Kings so that the Kings' slot gets worse. And vice-versa.

In fact, you might even end up with some high drama games among some of the very worst teams.

You are correct. The direct 1-1 game wouldn't be bad basketball. Well it would because teams would suck but not due to tanking.

[rugbyrugger23]

1) Tanking would still exist. It could be an ugly basketball game when teams in back half of season are in running for top pick play each other. Imagine a tank game between Bulls and Kings? (Bulls own Kings proxy and Kings own Bulls proxy). That would be some bad basketball.

I think I've failed to communicate something here because what you're describing is consistent with the very opposite.

If the Bulls have the Kings slot, then they have EVERY desire to BEAT DOWN the Kings so that the Kings' slot gets worse. And vice-versa.

In fact, you might even end up with some high drama games among some of the very worst teams.

The #2 presented here is already addressed (above) at some length--but in short, that's a problem you live with regardless, so it's moot.

The #3 presented here again seemingly is a matter of some misunderstanding in concert with whatever misunderstanding prompted the #1.

#2 is not moot. It is #1 reason this idea wouldn't work. As it stands now, a bad team, via tank or own devices, has to get a top pick to change their fortune. And I also don't want any chance or scenario like above that misfortune of another franchise would reward GSW a top pick. Yes, GM's can accomplish that (see Nets-Celtics) but at least its their own fate and they have a reason for doing it (going for it/win-now).

Other ideas have been suggested to "curb" tanking...since it will never be done away with...that don't risk such a drastic outcome to a struggling franchise.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

2) If GM's suck at picking their proxy, or a big trade happens, or a bad injury: a bad team, say Bulls, draft 9 instead of top 3 because their proxy makes a huge trade and goes for it, or a team that was ranked 22 has a bad injury and now pushes Bulls proxy even higher in draft, or what ever the case...if bad teams can't get a high pick, could set back their organization for a decade.

The #2 presented here is already addressed (above) at some length--but in short, that's a problem you live with regardless, so it's moot.

#2 is not moot. It is #1 reason this idea wouldn't work. As it stands now, a bad team, via tank or own devices, has to get a top pick to change their fortune. And I also don't want any chance or scenario like above that misfortune of another franchise would reward GSW a top pick. Yes, GM's can accomplish that (see Nets-Celtics) but at least its their own fate and they have a reason for doing it (going for it/win-now).

Conflating the verb "work."

The purpose is to dissolve the situation where teams have self-interest in losing.

This accomplishes that.

Thus, it would inherently "work."

Your concern as I read it is that stuff happens, and that a team that thought they could depend on X happening, may end up with Y actually happening, and their interests be harmed by it.

Right. And that's the current case and is still the case with the proxy-team condition. So, hence, my reason for saying it's moot.

As you say, "Yes, GMs can accompish that (misfortune), but at least it's their own fate and they have reason for doing it."

As I read it, you're saying "If misfortune happens, at least it's because they made a decision and had some control over it."

GMs inherently make decisions every day that may or may not lead to misfortune, and in hindsight, it is accurate to say they had some control but not full control. A GM can trade for what was thought would be a high 1st round pick from CLE, only to find that the best player in the NBA--who seemingly could never ever ever be thought to play again for that team due to its owner--might up and decide to go to CLE in free agency after all, completely sabotaging what that GM thought he was getting. Conversely and in more modern times, a GM can trade for what was thought would be a low 1st round pick from CLE, only to find that that same best player decided to leave CLE... and he gets the opposite of misfortune.

Risk.

It's just the nature of business. Any business.

And decision-maker executives... in this case NBA GMs... all have the charge to be better than the competition in assessing it as completely as possible, though it can never be achieved completely.

All that can be asked is that rules apply equally and fairly... the proverbial level playing field.

Risk is a constant (and thus moot) regardless.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Btw, this is the part I was referencing previously from the previously-cited poster on another board...

2. Golden State, indeed, would reap the benefit of San Antonio's situation.

(Rejoinder: Whether the best team or the second best team enjoys that benefit from the David Robinson effect, either way, some very good team is going to benefit to the sighs of frustration from the rest of us.)

[Edrees]

This is a very good idea other than the 'if your proxy trades for a great player mis season you are boned" deal. There has to be a solution for such a thing. Overall it would work since the worst teams are picking the worst proxy's so the worst teams are still improving but some teams could get really boned.

There would be a lot less tanking. You can't eliminate it entirely because teams will still tank in order to make their team look worse and thus go down in the projected rankings the following year to draft a better proxy the next year. Don't you think hinky would still lose every game except the games against this proxy because he wants to be seen as the worst team in the league so he can get first pick at proxy the following year?

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

This is a very good idea other than the 'if your proxy trades for a great player mis season you are boned" deal. There has to be a solution for such a thing. Overall it would work since the worst teams are picking the worst proxy's so the worst teams are still improving but some teams could get really boned.

First, glad you think so, and second, like I said, there are risks around every corner, and it's really just about ensuring that everyone has the same basic fairness in navigating the risk.

There would be a lot less tanking. You can't eliminate it entirely because teams will still tank in order to make their team look worse and thus go down in the projected rankings the following year to draft a better proxy the next year. Don't you think hinky would still lose every game except the games against this proxy because he wants to be seen as the worst team in the league so he can get first pick at proxy the following year?

I suppose technically that is true. I personally wouldn't think it would happen, but then, I'm also one of the many who never dreamed PHI would put up with "the process" for so many consecutive years.

But bottom line, we get rid of the fundamental ethical issues of having direct incentive (in the form of increasing draft order status) to lose as a season progresses. Teams can't do it to themselves. Someone else has to do it for them. And, as has been pointed out by yourself in your post above, that team you drafted as your proxy team at the start of the year cannot be depended on to not exceed expectations and even to become buyers at the trade deadline such that they seriously do some damage in the post-season.

Put another way, Hinkie would have risked hitting an appreciable speed bump or two along the way, had he been operating under this environment.

[Slax]

Just pass a rule that any team losing more than 60 games has to spend the next year in the G-league. That's how they do it in Europe.

If you want to take inspiration from European leagues to eliminate tanking, I would go with getting rid of the draft and making rookies into unrestricted free agents instead. Promotion and relegation works well in England where there is small geographic spread of teams and a highly functional second league, but it works terribly in Mexico because you often end up with media markets that arbitrarily have no teams in the top league mixed with a really bad second league. In terms of geographic distribution of population, the US is much more like Mexico than England, so I don't feel like promotion and relegation would work any better here.