Idea to make end of RS games more interesting

sp6r=underrated · Post #1 » by **sp6r=underrated** » Sun Apr 13, 2025 4:05 pm

When two teams are playing that are mathmatically eliminated from the playoffs, a win counts as a loss for lottery purposes, a loss counts as a win for lottery purposes.

If you did:
1. Teams wouldn't shut down players for as many games at the end of the season.
2. It would keep fans more engaged with rooting for their team.
3. it would really discourage teams from putting together totally helpless rosters.
4. It would create interesting games for bad teams.
5. You'd never see farces like the famous Mark Madsen game.

shrink · Post #2 » by **shrink** » Sun Apr 13, 2025 4:15 pm

This has the same problem that most anti-tanking ideas have .. it doesn’t discriminate between tankers and truly bad teams.

Truly bad teams need the higher picks to help parity, and keep fanbases interested in currently bad teams. Intentionally bad (tankers) and temporarily bad (star is out for this season, but back next year) teams don’t need to steal top picks.

vxmike · Post #3 » by **vxmike** » Sun Apr 13, 2025 4:17 pm

shrink wrote:This has the same problem that most anti-tanking ideas have .. it doesn’t discriminate between tankers and truly bad teams.

Truly bad teams need the higher picks to help parity, and keep fanbases interested in currently bad teams. Intentionally bad (tankers) and temporarily bad (star is out for this season, but back next year) teams don’t need to steal top picks.

Most truly bad teams are bad because they traded away their vets for picks and/or didn’t use their cap space to sign players that would help win. They are the teams that decided to tank early on.

zero rings · Post #4 » by **zero rings** » Sun Apr 13, 2025 4:23 pm

I don’t mind when bad teams tank.

sp6r=underrated · Post #5 » by **sp6r=underrated** » Sun Apr 13, 2025 4:32 pm

shrink wrote:This has the same problem that most anti-tanking ideas have .. it doesn’t discriminate between tankers and truly bad teams.

Truly bad teams need the higher picks to help parity, and keep fanbases interested in currently bad teams. Intentionally bad (tankers) and temporarily bad (star is out for this season, but back next year) teams don’t need to steal top picks.

I don't care much about helping trul bad teams. If your roster is so devoid of talent it sucks there should be consequences.

sp6r=underrated · Post #6 » by **sp6r=underrated** » Sun Apr 13, 2025 4:33 pm

zero rings wrote:I don’t mind when bad teams tank.

Spoiler:

Let's just have the bottom 1/3 openly forfeit games then

BigGargamel · Post #7 » by **BigGargamel** » Sun Apr 13, 2025 4:34 pm

Players aren't going to go out there and try to play as hard as they can so their team has a better chance to draft their replacement.

I think NBA silly season is hilarious. Random dudes going off for huge numbers. Who really cares? Everyone wants to cut 20 games off the schedule anyway. This happens in every sport when playoff spots are locked up.

shrink · Post #8 » by **shrink** » Sun Apr 13, 2025 5:56 pm

sp6r=underrated wrote:
shrink wrote:This has the same problem that most anti-tanking ideas have .. it doesn’t discriminate between tankers and truly bad teams.

Truly bad teams need the higher picks to help parity, and keep fanbases interested in currently bad teams. Intentionally bad (tankers) and temporarily bad (star is out for this season, but back next year) teams don’t need to steal top picks.

I don't care much about helping trul bad teams. If your roster is so devoid of talent it sucks there should be consequences.

This is simplistic, and easy for a fan of a big-market team who can acquire free agents to say.

The NBA prospers if you have active fanbases in 30 major cities. Getting the best prospects to the teams that need them most is the driving engine for that.

Bad games at the end of the season between two tanking teams that nobody is watching anyway is not nearly as big a priority.

Myth · Post #9 » by **Myth** » Sun Apr 13, 2025 5:57 pm

sp6r=underrated wrote:
shrink wrote:This has the same problem that most anti-tanking ideas have .. it doesn’t discriminate between tankers and truly bad teams.

Truly bad teams need the higher picks to help parity, and keep fanbases interested in currently bad teams. Intentionally bad (tankers) and temporarily bad (star is out for this season, but back next year) teams don’t need to steal top picks.

I don't care much about helping trul bad teams. If your roster is so devoid of talent it sucks there should be consequences.

But you are ok helping artificially bad teams?

Ainosterhaspie · Post #10 » by **Ainosterhaspie** » Sun Apr 13, 2025 6:12 pm

shrink wrote:This has the same problem that most anti-tanking ideas have .. it doesn’t discriminate between tankers and truly bad teams.

Truly bad teams need the higher picks to help parity, and keep fanbases interested in currently bad teams. Intentionally bad (tankers) and temporarily bad (star is out for this season, but back next year) teams don’t need to steal top picks.

Truly bad teams need to get better and they shouldn't be rewarded with high licks until they do. If you can't demonstrate a basic level of competence as an organization, you shouldn't be gifted top talent which will probably be wasted in a dysfunctional organization.

shrink · Post #11 » by **shrink** » Sun Apr 13, 2025 6:44 pm

Ainosterhaspie wrote:
shrink wrote:This has the same problem that most anti-tanking ideas have .. it doesn’t discriminate between tankers and truly bad teams.

Truly bad teams need the higher picks to help parity, and keep fanbases interested in currently bad teams. Intentionally bad (tankers) and temporarily bad (star is out for this season, but back next year) teams don’t need to steal top picks.

Truly bad teams need to get better and they shouldn't be rewarded with high licks until they do. If you can't demonstrate a basic level of competence as an organization, you shouldn't be gifted top talent which will probably be wasted in a dysfunctional organization.

How the hell do you just “get better” with worse initial players than your opponents, good free agents unwilling to join your bad team, and without help from getting upside lottery rookies that are forced to stay with your team?

Voodoo dolls against better opposing rosters?

Oh I see. They just “should”

zero rings · Post #12 » by **zero rings** » Sun Apr 13, 2025 6:57 pm

Ainosterhaspie wrote:
shrink wrote:This has the same problem that most anti-tanking ideas have .. it doesn’t discriminate between tankers and truly bad teams.

Truly bad teams need the higher picks to help parity, and keep fanbases interested in currently bad teams. Intentionally bad (tankers) and temporarily bad (star is out for this season, but back next year) teams don’t need to steal top picks.

Truly bad teams need to get better and they shouldn't be rewarded with high licks until they do. If you can't demonstrate a basic level of competence as an organization, you shouldn't be gifted top talent which will probably be wasted in a dysfunctional organization.

The only way to get better in the NBA is to acquire star talent, and the only way to do that for most teams is to get a top pick in the draft.

Until that changes (it won’t), tanking will remain the best strategy for bad teams to get better.

Embrace the tank.

wegotthabeet · Post #13 » by **wegotthabeet** » Sun Apr 13, 2025 7:00 pm

zero rings wrote:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:
shrink wrote:This has the same problem that most anti-tanking ideas have .. it doesn’t discriminate between tankers and truly bad teams.

Truly bad teams need the higher picks to help parity, and keep fanbases interested in currently bad teams. Intentionally bad (tankers) and temporarily bad (star is out for this season, but back next year) teams don’t need to steal top picks.

Truly bad teams need to get better and they shouldn't be rewarded with high licks until they do. If you can't demonstrate a basic level of competence as an organization, you shouldn't be gifted top talent which will probably be wasted in a dysfunctional organization.

The only way to get better in the NBA is to acquire star talent, and the only way to do that for most teams is to get a top pick in the draft.

Until that changes (it won’t), tanking will remain the best strategy for bad teams to get better.

Embrace the tank.

Why not just get rid of the draft altogether and just let these bad teams sign top prospects directly?

SomeBunghole · Post #14 » by **SomeBunghole** » Sun Apr 13, 2025 7:02 pm

shrink wrote:This has the same problem that most anti-tanking ideas have .. it doesn’t discriminate between tankers and truly bad teams.

Truly bad teams need the higher picks to help parity, and keep fanbases interested in currently bad teams. Intentionally bad (tankers) and temporarily bad (star is out for this season, but back next year) teams don’t need to steal top picks.

The problem is that this isn't the 90s. There are no truly bad teams in the league anymore.

Bad teams are bad teams by design. They are generally bad because they have traded(or are sitting) any player that even remotely helps win games. Bad teams today are bad because they meant to be bad.

shrink · Post #15 » by **shrink** » Sun Apr 13, 2025 7:03 pm

wegotthabeet wrote:
zero rings wrote:The only way to get better in the NBA is to acquire star talent, and the only way to do that for most teams is to get a top pick in the draft.

Until that changes (it won’t), tanking will remain the best strategy for bad teams to get better.

Embrace the tank.

Why not just get rid of the draft altogether and let these bad teams just sign top prospects directly?

Several reasons.

First, do these prospects get to choose where they sign? They will choose better teams to win earlier.

Second, without a lottery, it would magnify tanking to get a top prospect like Wemby.

For the record, the NBA once had a system like this, but discarded it because of its poor impact on the game.

shrink · Post #16 » by **shrink** » Sun Apr 13, 2025 7:04 pm

SomeBunghole wrote:
shrink wrote:This has the same problem that most anti-tanking ideas have .. it doesn’t discriminate between tankers and truly bad teams.

Truly bad teams need the higher picks to help parity, and keep fanbases interested in currently bad teams. Intentionally bad (tankers) and temporarily bad (star is out for this season, but back next year) teams don’t need to steal top picks.

The problem is that this isn't the 90s. There are no truly bad teams in the league anymore.

Bad teams are bad teams by design. They are generally bad because they have traded(or are sitting) any player that even remotely helps win games. Bad teams today are bad because they meant to be bad.

True. If you need superstar talent to win, and your team isn’t getting it in free agency, the only hope is the lottery, right?

shrink · Post #17 » by **shrink** » Sun Apr 13, 2025 7:10 pm

The way to discourage tanking is by finding a way to distinguish intentional losing (tankers) and temporarily bad teams (missing a superstar for one year) from teams that are ACTUALLY bad, and need help to be competitive.

My suggestion is a weighted average of team’s records, 50% for the current season, 30% for the previous year, and 20% for the year before that. Unless you’re Hinkie, if your team is bad for three years, it probably truly needs help. This system also cuts down on tanking by making it half as effective. Plus, to be sure tanking works, you’d need to tank three years, and revenues and fans would desert the team. It also reduces the chances that good teams with one bad injury from nabbing a top prospect, with their two previous seasons keeping them afloat.

zero rings · Post #18 » by **zero rings** » Sun Apr 13, 2025 7:13 pm

wegotthabeet wrote:
zero rings wrote:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:Truly bad teams need to get better and they shouldn't be rewarded with high licks until they do. If you can't demonstrate a basic level of competence as an organization, you shouldn't be gifted top talent which will probably be wasted in a dysfunctional organization.

The only way to get better in the NBA is to acquire star talent, and the only way to do that for most teams is to get a top pick in the draft.

Until that changes (it won’t), tanking will remain the best strategy for bad teams to get better.

Embrace the tank.

Why not just get rid of the draft altogether and just let these bad teams sign top prospects directly?

Because they’ll all sign with the Lakers/Knicks and competitive balance will be ruined.

I don’t know why you guys are so upset the Jazz won 16 games instead of the 22 they would have won if they went balls to the wall. It doesn’t matter.

The NFL literally hands the top pick to the team with the worst record, and nobody cares. Only in the NBA is this considered a major problem.

Nate505 · Post #19 » by **Nate505** » Sun Apr 13, 2025 7:25 pm

wegotthabeet wrote:
zero rings wrote:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:Truly bad teams need to get better and they shouldn't be rewarded with high licks until they do. If you can't demonstrate a basic level of competence as an organization, you shouldn't be gifted top talent which will probably be wasted in a dysfunctional organization.

The only way to get better in the NBA is to acquire star talent, and the only way to do that for most teams is to get a top pick in the draft.

Until that changes (it won’t), tanking will remain the best strategy for bad teams to get better.

Embrace the tank.

Why not just get rid of the draft altogether and just let these bad teams sign top prospects directly?

Only if there's a legit hard carp that can't be passed for any reason whatsoever. Even then it would probably have some negative consequences.

wegotthabeet · Post #20 » by **wegotthabeet** » Sun Apr 13, 2025 7:30 pm

zero rings wrote:
wegotthabeet wrote:
zero rings wrote:
The only way to get better in the NBA is to acquire star talent, and the only way to do that for most teams is to get a top pick in the draft.

Until that changes (it won’t), tanking will remain the best strategy for bad teams to get better.

Embrace the tank.

Why not just get rid of the draft altogether and just let these bad teams sign top prospects directly?

Because they’ll all sign with the Lakers/Knicks and competitive balance will be ruined.

Really? With what cap space or exemptions.

The Knicks are a 2nd apron team they could offer the league minimum. The Lakers could offer the tax payer MLE. You think someone like Flagg is giving up max deal to sign with those two teams? I don’t see it.