Official BKN-DAL-MIN pick watch Thread 2015-16 season

[CodeMonkey]

Whether it's Nets wins or lottery balls - I just can't imagine us being in position to draft anyone but another Marcus Smart.

I mean, as much as the latter prospect sucks (getting a lot of lottery balls and not winning the lottery), your fear/pessimism is a perfect example of the current system working to disincentivize tanking.

As much as everyone complains about it, I think the general framework is perfect. The only thing they should consider playing with is the relative probabilities for each team. That's for the mathematicians to decide.

I disagree. The current system totally incentivizes tanking - only the bottom of the bottom has a decent shot at the top picks, and everyone in the middle is heavily incentivized to lose extra games to move up from 7th to 6th. The system is totally flawed in that teams like the Spurs can win every time, we can lose every time, and the Lakers can keep a pick they've traded year after year - and there's no chance for it to even out over time. There need to be low threshholds in the differences between picks, and every pick needs to be randomized unless the team was near the playoffs. I'm shocked and dismayed the proposed reforms didn't pass - it solved almost all those things.

Actually, I think we're totally in agreement. When I said that they should play with the relative probabilities for each team, evening the thresholds out was exactly what I had in mind

All I meant before was that I think the general idea of a draft lottery is perfect for the situation, even if the current version of the draft lottery needs some fixing up.

As you've described, having significant differences in probabilities is making the worst teams try extra hard to be bad. It's why we're agonizing over every stupid Nets win.

[ParticleMan]

I think the best solution is to make a rule that limits tanking to only 1 year. I actually think tanking overall is good for the L, it keeps interest in bottom teams. There is nothing wrong with a strategic tank at the end of the season or even a 1-yr tank in the case of a major injury or whatnot. The problem I have is turning tanking into a multi-year strategy.

So just make a rule that if you get a top pick one year, you cannot get a top pick the next year. Make it like a Rule of Seven: If you get #1 one year, the highest you can get is #6 the following year. If you get a #2 one year, you can max get a #5 the next year. And so on.

I can't imagine GMs will be lining up to tank all season just to get a #5 or #6 pick. Their fan base would be livid. So if you get a top pick, you better make it count, and you better start trying to genuinely improve your team around that top pick. As a bonus, it prevents pure bizarre lotto luck like CLE got.

[12buckets]

I think we should start to get legitimately worried about phoenix. Bledsoe out, the coach might get fired and at the very least has been tuned out, Chandler and Morris will probably be dumped. This is especially true if Brooklyn doesn't get it's annual injury to Lopez, and i never plan on injuries to happen.

I'm hoping that the Morris deal is so bad in the locker room that they can't help but have an addition by subtraction effect on them. everyone cross your fingers!

[Chris4Vikes]

I think the best solution is to make a rule that limits tanking to only 1 year. I actually think tanking overall is good for the L, it keeps interest in bottom teams. There is nothing wrong with a strategic tank at the end of the season or even a 1-yr tank in the case of a major injury or whatnot. The problem I have is turning tanking into a multi-year strategy.

So just make a rule that if you get a top pick one year, you cannot get a top pick the next year. Make it like a Rule of Seven: If you get #1 one year, the highest you can get is #6 the following year. If you get a #2 one year, you can max get a #5 the next year. And so on.

I can't imagine GMs will be lining up to tank all season just to get a #5 or #6 pick. Their fan base would be livid. So if you get a top pick, you better make it count, and you better start trying to genuinely improve your team around that top pick. As a bonus, it prevents pure bizarre lotto luck like CLE got.

I like this!

[radcot]

I think the best solution is to make a rule that limits tanking to only 1 year. I actually think tanking overall is good for the L, it keeps interest in bottom teams. There is nothing wrong with a strategic tank at the end of the season or even a 1-yr tank in the case of a major injury or whatnot. The problem I have is turning tanking into a multi-year strategy.

So just make a rule that if you get a top pick one year, you cannot get a top pick the next year. Make it like a Rule of Seven: If you get #1 one year, the highest you can get is #6 the following year. If you get a #2 one year, you can max get a #5 the next year. And so on.

I can't imagine GMs will be lining up to tank all season just to get a #5 or #6 pick. Their fan base would be livid. So if you get a top pick, you better make it count, and you better start trying to genuinely improve your team around that top pick. As a bonus, it prevents pure bizarre lotto luck like CLE got.

Send this idea to the league office!! Beats the hell out of the cumbersome/crackpot lotto wheel proposal.

[Fidel Sarcasmo]

The problem becomes almost a legal issue though when discussing the nuances of tanking and its relation to just simply being a bad team. This whole thing would have been fixed with the Draft Wheel because tanking would've been eliminated. You'd never hear of that word again in the NBA. I thought the draft wheel was genius.

Oh What could have been...

[chakdaddy]

I think the best solution is to make a rule that limits tanking to only 1 year. I actually think tanking overall is good for the L, it keeps interest in bottom teams. There is nothing wrong with a strategic tank at the end of the season or even a 1-yr tank in the case of a major injury or whatnot. The problem I have is turning tanking into a multi-year strategy.

So just make a rule that if you get a top pick one year, you cannot get a top pick the next year. Make it like a Rule of Seven: If you get #1 one year, the highest you can get is #6 the following year. If you get a #2 one year, you can max get a #5 the next year. And so on.

I can't imagine GMs will be lining up to tank all season just to get a #5 or #6 pick. Their fan base would be livid. So if you get a top pick, you better make it count, and you better start trying to genuinely improve your team around that top pick. As a bonus, it prevents pure bizarre lotto luck like CLE got.

Send this idea to the league office!! Beats the hell out of the cumbersome/crackpot lotto wheel proposal.

I also think the wheel and most proposed ideas are crackpot gimmicks. I like the idea of using a 3 year cumulative record to dilute the tanks. It would play into Philly's hands, but they are an outlier with their euro and injury stashes.

[peachbucket]

I think the best solution is to make a rule that limits tanking to only 1 year. I actually think tanking overall is good for the L, it keeps interest in bottom teams. There is nothing wrong with a strategic tank at the end of the season or even a 1-yr tank in the case of a major injury or whatnot. The problem I have is turning tanking into a multi-year strategy.

So just make a rule that if you get a top pick one year, you cannot get a top pick the next year. Make it like a Rule of Seven: If you get #1 one year, the highest you can get is #6 the following year. If you get a #2 one year, you can max get a #5 the next year. And so on.

I can't imagine GMs will be lining up to tank all season just to get a #5 or #6 pick. Their fan base would be livid. So if you get a top pick, you better make it count, and you better start trying to genuinely improve your team around that top pick. As a bonus, it prevents pure bizarre lotto luck like CLE got.

Send this idea to the league office!! Beats the hell out of the cumbersome/crackpot lotto wheel proposal.

I also think the wheel and most proposed ideas are crackpot gimmicks. I like the idea of using a 3 year cumulative record to dilute the tanks. It would play into Philly's hands, but they are an outlier with their euro and injury stashes.

Just go back to the way it used to be with a non weighted lottery for spots 1-14 for all the non-playoff teams. That will end tanking except for some rare cases of borderline teams trying to avoid the 8 seed late to get into the lotto.

[CodeMonkey]

I like the "Rule of Seven" idea.

Another idea could be to include playoff teams in the lottery. We take away some of the ping pong balls from the bottom positions and distribute them among the playoff teams. It just seems unreasonable to me that your odds go to 0% even if you're just an up and coming team that played hard to get into the playoffs (not that I have any specific teams in mind....)

[ParticleMan]

I think we need to keep a weighted lottery. it's not fair that a team that wins 45 games and just misses the playoffs gets the same shot at a #1 pick than a team that wins 20 games. that used to be the old system and people quickly realized that wasn't good.

we just have to de-incentivize winning 20 games every year just to collect top picks. the Rule of Seven or something similar does that pretty well i think.

[jmr07019]

they had the solution this offseason (changed the %'s for the teams, and how many spots were picked by lotto balls) but teams voted it down. even if they kept the %'s the same but drew for the top 7 slots instead of the top 3 it would make a big difference. if you tank a season and walk away with the 8th pick you could get fired on the spot.

[Banks2Pierce]

they had the solution this offseason (changed the %'s for the teams, and how many spots were picked by lotto balls) but teams voted it down. even if they kept the %'s the same but drew for the top 7 slots instead of the top 3 it would make a big difference. if you tank a season and walk away with the 8th pick you could get fired on the spot.

With more time to digest it, I think that system would have been worse as far as middle class teams having no real incentive for improvement. We would have been crazy last year to acquire IT if the lottery odds were significantly flatter. It would have increased the number of teams tanking.

Looks like Curry's going in for an MRI and will miss tonight's Dallas game. FFS

[The Corey's]

Maybe the top 7 worst teams have to pay a multi million dollar fine that goes into a pool for whatever the league decides.

Motivates the owners to not let their GM to throw a season or five away.

Gotta be a big enough number that matters.

[chakdaddy]

Just go back to the way it used to be with a non weighted lottery for spots 1-14 for all the non-playoff teams. That will end tanking except for some rare cases of borderline teams trying to avoid the 8 seed late to get into the lotto.

I don't think it would be rare at all - every time would avoid the 8 seed like the plague, unless they have a fetish for treadmills.

[Cornbread]

(Sigh of relief)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mwhis21]

The problem becomes almost a legal issue though when discussing the nuances of tanking and its relation to just simply being a bad team. This whole thing would have been fixed with the Draft Wheel because tanking would've been eliminated. You'd never hear of that word again in the NBA. I thought the draft wheel was genius.

Oh What could have been...

I disagree. It's a "robbing peter to pay paul" type of situation.

Then you'd have draft eligible players gaming the system to dictate where they want to go. I'm not so sure that would solve anything at all.

For instance: Philadelphia gets the number 1 pick this year, but next year the Lakers are up for the number 1 pick. Why does Ben Simmons enter the draft? Risk of injury? I don't buy that. These are guys are insured for a crazy amount of money that the risk almost certainly worth the reward.

On top of that it's all still a crapshoot.

Maybe I misunderstood the whole concept but it's potentially solving one problem but creating a whole new set of problems.

[Jingles]

Amazing year for Brooklyn to be bad. The East is really strong and recent doormats like Charlotte, Orlando and Detroit have taken big steps forward. Meanwhile the weak teams are all out west getting wins off each other while the Nets only get one crack at them on friendly turf.

And don't look now but Minnesota is only two games back of the 8 seed and a free 1st rounder for us (apologies to Brandan Wright).

[rickrolled]

Lakers next 2 games, at home.

Sixers, Suns respectively and Celtics play Nets twice meanwhile, perfect chance to close BKN to the 2nd worst record.

[BRUNiNHO91]

Lakers next 2 games, at home.

Sixers, Suns respectively and Celtics play Nets twice meanwhile, perfect chance to close BKN to the 2nd worst record.

Maybe this was a strategic loss to help LA catch up to Brooklyn? Could it be?

[Jingles]

Lakers next 2 games, at home.

Sixers, Suns respectively and Celtics play Nets twice meanwhile, perfect chance to close BKN to the 2nd worst record.

Side benefit of tonight's "effort" is that they should be nice and motivated against the Nets. Can't afford to get complacent again and drop one of these games.