Fool-Proofing the NBA Draft?

[GJense4181]

Everytime I post this suggestion it gets buried and lost in the page, but I feel it warrants its own thread.

I propose that, in order to remove ANY suspicion of tanking or lottery conspiracies, team executives rank teams from worst to best after the season is completed with votes available for pubilc record. During the vote, the best team would receive one point and the worst team 30. The most total points yields the first pick in the draft, all the way down to the fewest draft points, which receives the 30th pick.

Teams that were injury-plagued are usually better than their records indicate. Remember when David Robinson went down for a season and the Spurs acquired Tim Duncan? Under my system, this would be taken into consideration and history would be re-written (giving the rest of the league a chance). The Los Angeles Clippers were missing Shaun Livingston for 82 games, Elton Brand for 74 games, Chris Kaman for 26, and Tim Thomas for 19. Next year they shouldn't be as bad as fourth-worst in the West.
Teams wouldn't tank in this scenario. Well, lottery teams wouldn't concede defeats by resting their star players or other starters as the season comes to a close. If you're truly a bad team, you'll lose at full-strength to superior teams. When Boston and Minnesota decided to shut down their franchise players down the stretch, the rest of the league would notice. Only if a player needed some sort of surgery would an exception be made and their record/losses due to injury taken at face value.
Obviously, the championship team would receive the last pick in the draft, and the other team in the Finals would likely receive the last pick in their conference. If Cleveland got swept by San Antonio in the finals, then obviously the East needs some help, from top to bottom.

Hopefully, the owners, general managers, and head coaches of the 30 franchises would take this into consideration. If that's unfair, it could be coaches/general managers/owners, players, and analysts/media voting, instead, so as to avoid franchise-wide sabotage.

[andyhop]

It would be much easier to just use previous years finishes as a part of the equation than to bring in something that would lead to teams claiming that every other team in the league was jealous of them because they are rich or successful, etc. and denying them their rightful high draft pick because of it.

Make draft position based on 75% this years numbers and 25% last years or something along those lines stops injuries being a factor .

It also helps teams that make a step up from terrible, gaining a high draft pick, to below average or average make the jump to contender by not leaving them stuck in the no mans land of not good enough for the playoffs but too good for a meaningful draft pick.

[GJense4181]

^The success of previous years can be taken into account by the voters, then. And if a voter believes that balancing the conferences (if they find it important) is better implemented by granting a sub-.500 Eastern playoff team a higher draft pick than a .500+ Western conference lottery team, it will be balanced out by the voters with the opposite philosphy (that being, those that would grant priority to lottery teams, period).
I think that, collectively, the knowledge of 90 people could factor everything in properly. I merely consider this an official, post-season power ranking that would increase parity in the league the way the draft is supposed to.

Last year's lottery, for example, should have been:
1) Memphis (this year's third worst team)
2) Minnesota (this year's fourth worst team)
3) Seattle (this year's second worst team)
4) New York (this year's fifth worst team)
5) Milwaukee (this year's seventh worst team)
6) Boston (they had pieces and young talent, but rested Paul Pierce down the stretch)
7) Charlotte (this year's eighth worst team)
8) Sacramento (this year's twelfth worst team)
9) Portland (this year's median team, despite not having Greg Oden)
10) Miami (got swept in the first round, this year's worst team, however unpredictable)
11) Indiana (barely missed this year's playoffs in East)
12) LA Clippers (barely missed playoffs last year, nobody anticipated these injuries).
13) New Jersey (barely missed this year's playoffs in East)
14) Philadelphia (nobody anticipated they'd close off this season like they did)

Something like this.
Basically, records are not indicative of how good a team is. Playoff success matters. The teams you beat and lost to in the playoffs matters. The conference or division that you are in matters. Injuries matter.

[gswhoops]

^The success of previous years can be taken into account by the voters, then. And if a voter believes that balancing the conferences (if they find it important) is better implemented by granting a sub-.500 Eastern playoff team a higher draft pick than a .500+ Western conference lottery team, it will be balanced out by the voters with the opposite philosphy (that being, those that would grant priority to lottery teams, period).
I think that, collectively, the knowledge of 90 people could factor everything in properly. I merely consider this an official, post-season power ranking that would increase parity in the league the way the draft is supposed to.

Last year's lottery, for example, should have been:
1) Memphis (this year's third worst team)
2) Minnesota (this year's fourth worst team)
3) Seattle (this year's second worst team)
4) New York (this year's fifth worst team)
5) Milwaukee (this year's seventh worst team)
6) Boston (they had pieces and young talent, but rested Paul Pierce down the stretch)
7) Charlotte (this year's eighth worst team)
Sacramento (this year's twelfth worst team)
9) Portland (this year's median team, despite not having Greg Oden)
10) Miami (got swept in the first round, this year's worst team, however unpredictable)
11) Indiana (barely missed this year's playoffs in East)
12) LA Clippers (barely missed playoffs last year, nobody anticipated these injuries).
13) New Jersey (barely missed this year's playoffs in East)
14) Philadelphia (nobody anticipated they'd close off this season like they did)

Something like this.
Basically, records are not indicative of how good a team is. Playoff success matters. The teams you beat and lost to in the playoffs matters. The conference or division that you are in matters. Injuries matter.

That's completely unfair for a team like the Warriors or Blazers, who miss out on the playoffs and on a lotto pick.

Either change the playoff system to take the top 16 teams regardless of conference or keep it how it is. Those are the only two legitimate solutions to this supposed "problem."

[GJense4181]

Now, imagine the parity if
1) Greg Oden went to Memphis instead of Mike Conley who rode the bench for half the season:
Lowry or Navarro or Stoudamire/Miller/Gay/Milicic/Oden
2) Kevin Durant went to Minnesota (pre-Garnett trade) instead of Corey Brewer, who disappointed:
Foye/Davis/Durant/Garnett/Blount
3) Seattle (pre-Ray Allen trade), got PF Al Horford:
Ridnour or Watson/Ray Allen/Rashard Lewis*/Al Horford/Chris Wilcox
4) New York got Yi Jianlian to complement Eddy Curry at PF:
Stephon Marbury/Jamal Crawford/Renaldo Balkman/Yi Jianlian/Eddy Curry
5) Milwaukee drafted Jeff Green:
Mo Williams/Michael Redd/Jeff Green/Charlie Villanueva/Andrew Bogut
6) Boston drafted Mike Conley:
Mike Conley/Wally Szczerbiak/Paul Pierce/Al Jefferson/Kendrick Perkins
7) Charlotte drafted Corey Brewer:
Raymond Felton/Corey Brewer/Gerald Wallace/Emeka Okafor/Prmioz Brezec
8) Sacramento drafted Brandan Wright:
Mike Bibby/Kevin Martin/Ron Artest/Brandan Wright/Brad Miller
9) Portland drafted Julian Wright:
Jarrett Jack/Brandon Roy/Julian Wright/LaMarcus Aldridge/Joel Pryzbilla
10) Miami drafted Acie Law:
Acie Law/Dwyane Wade/Dorrell Wright/Udonis Haslem/Shaquille O'Neal
11) Indiana drafted Spencer Hawes:
Jamaal Tinsley/Mike Dunleavy/Danny Granger/Jermaine O'Neal/Spencer Hawes
12) LA Clippers drafted Rodney Stuckey:
Shaun Livingston/Rodney Stuckey/Corey Maggette/Elton Brand/Chris Kaman
13) New Jersey drafted Joakim Noah:
Jason Kidd/Vince Carter/Richard Jefferson/Joakim Noah/Nenad Krstic
14) Philadelphia drafted Thaddeus Young:
Same team as today: Andre Miller/Willie Green/Andre Iguodala/Reggie Evans/Samuel Dalembert

These rosters may be inaccurate. Those teams may not have selected the players I hand-picked for them. Don't bash me for this post because I won't respond. The point is, AFTER the fact, after teams are exposed as first-round fodder, after young up-and-coming teams barely miss out on the playoffs, after an injury ruins a season or a series, you can more or less predict how teams are going to do the next season.
We could more or less predict the results of this year's standings.

[GJense4181]

-= original quote snipped =-


That's completely unfair for a team like the Warriors or Blazers, who miss out on the playoffs and on a lotto pick.

Either change the playoff system to take the top 16 teams regardless of conference or keep it how it is. Those are the only two legitimate solutions to this supposed "problem."

Why? The Warriors almost made the playoffs this year despite Brandan Wright doing nothing for them They upset the #1 seed in last year's playoffs and made the second round competitive, as well. In the second round they barely lost their first two games, but lost to the second best team in the conference (Utah).
The Blazers were up and coming even without Greg Oden! They won 32 games (this year 41, 9 game improvement), but had talent. Brandon Roy, ROY? Martell Webster started for quite some time. Ime Udoka plays a valuable role for the Spurs. Travis Outlaw busted out this season. LaMarcus Aldridge blossomed this season as he was supposed to. Zach Randolph was going to be traded (was, for Channing Frye), regardless, an addition by subtraction move.

You tell me. I think this system would work. Perhaps the voters would be *told* what considerations to make. Is it better for borderline playoff temas to get a slight boost? or for crappy playoff teams to add the key player that would help them advance further and not get killed in the first round again?

The top 16 teams thing will NEVER happen. You would have to abolish conferences altogether.

[Teen Girl Squad]

Never work. My reasons why.

1. If on public record, a team that doesn't vote for itself is hated by its fan base for giving up its chance at the pick. If it does, its tampering.

2. Teams could jockey for position. Ie the Miami heat might be listed as the 4th worst team in the league as many GMs would move them to 4-6 to sabotage other teams. GMs then cop out with "injuries, better than record, high upside" excuses to give themselves an edge.

3. Conspiracy theorists go nuts. Only a record based vote would seem neutral, but then you come back to the issue at hand to avoid tanking.

4. Human bias. Like the BCS coaches, executives dont watch all the games and many know less about them than the hardcore types at this site. Portland execs dont care about Charlott nearly as much as they do Seattle. Teams ignorant about other squad may unfairly rank them. Likewise division teams get overated as the games are always seemingly tougher and you see the more. So Clippers execs would rank Sactown as a much better team than say Philly execs would.

5. Screws over the "honest" rankings as the opportunistic ones described above will tilt it in the favor of less scrupulous execs jockeying for position.

Overall the problem is best to worst is subjective. And its easy to justify most selections. Portland as a top ten on potential. People not watching the Sixers would heavily underrate them. Toronto fans would kill the execs if the Raps weren't the worst team on the ballot every year be cause of injuries, soft, bustnani (what ever reason they wish).

[GJense4181]

Never work. My reasons why.

1. If on public record, a team that doesn't vote for itself is hated by its fan base for giving up its chance at the pick. If it does, its tampering.
Fine. Then teams don't vote for themselves, and only the other 29 teams. I should have considered this earlier.

2. Teams could jockey for position. Ie the Miami heat might be listed as the 4th worst team in the league as many GMs would move them to 4-6 to sabotage other teams. GMs then cop out with "injuries, better than record, high upside" excuses to give themselves an edge.
If a team suffered injuries or does have a high upside or did play better than their record, it's valid. If I'm a GM evalulating Atlanta last season, I consider that Joe Johnson is an all-star, Josh Smith is making strides, Josh Childress is a supersub, and that Marvin Williams is beginning to scratch his potential. Franchises make decisions based on whether THEY think their team can/will improve from within, if they're about to decline, or if they're a season or two away from either of those. Even if 4 teams in a division tried to "sabotage" the other, it would be balanced out by the 25 objective teams that remained.

3. Conspiracy theorists go nuts. Only a record based vote would seem neutral, but then you come back to the issue at hand to avoid tanking.

4. Human bias. Like the BCS coaches, executives dont watch all the games and many know less about them than the hardcore types at this site. Portland execs dont care about Charlott nearly as much as they do Seattle. Teams ignorant about other squad may unfairly rank them. Likewise division teams get overated as the games are always seemingly tougher and you see the more. So Clippers execs would rank Sactown as a much better team than say Philly execs would.
Sure they do. There's only 29 other teams in the league. You play all of them at least twice. You pay attention to them down the stretch as the playoff picture clears up. You watch them during the playoffs. and so on and so forth. There are pre-season games and summer leagues to consider, as well. Each team has a fair idea of what is going on with the others. I don't think this is a factor.

5. Screws over the "honest" rankings as the opportunistic ones described above will tilt it in the favor of less scrupulous execs jockeying for position.

Overall the problem is best to worst is subjective. And its easy to justify most selections. Portland as a top ten on potential. People not watching the Sixers would heavily underrate them. Toronto fans would kill the execs if the Raps weren't the worst team on the ballot every year be cause of injuries, soft, bustnani (what ever reason they wish).

[DelaneyRudd]

This idea is super lame. Why would a coach or player tank? The players are playing for contracts. The coaches don't want to be fired. The draft is 20/20 hind sight anyways. If any team deserves the 1st pick it is Philly. The upper management tanked but the players and coaches didn't.

[john2jer]

When the NHL went on their strike they used a method that included multiple years when deciding who got the top pick in the draft after the strike.

"The lottery formula was as follows - each team started with three balls in the lottery drum. For every playoff appearance in the last three years or No. 1 overall pick (a previous draft lottery win) over the last four years, a team lost one ball. But each team was guaranteed to have at least one ball in the lottery."

Not saying exactly like that, but something where maybe each non-playoff team gets 5 balls, and loses one for each time they've selected in the top 3 in the last 4 years, and loses one for each time they've made the play-offs in the last 4 years. The lowest you could have is 1, the most you could have is 5. Tanking would do absolutely nothing then, unless you tanked multiple seasons to not make the play-offs, which is dumb. This would then allow the truly bad teams that can't get in the play-offs, and have been unlucky enough to get a top 3 pick, to select the best players. The Bobcats and Knicks would get the best chances in this case, I believe.

Or another idea is having the same draft lottery, but instead of making it for the 1, 2, and 3rd pick, make it for the right to move up 3, 2, or 1 spots in the draft. This might still encourage tanking, but at the same time, a team like Orlando, after drafting Shaq, wouldn't be able to barely miss the play-offs, and then suddenly jump into the top spot again, the most they could move up would be 3 spots. This allows for the truly bad teams to get the best players in the draft, and allows for those teams barely on the border of the play-offs, to improve a little bit in the draft and get a better player.

[gswhoops]

You tell me. I think this system would work. Perhaps the voters would be *told* what considerations to make. Is it better for borderline playoff temas to get a slight boost? or for crappy playoff teams to add the key player that would help them advance further and not get killed in the first round again?

The top 16 teams thing will NEVER happen. You would have to abolish conferences altogether.

I think having something as subjective as a vote to decide who gets the top picks would make a mockery of the league. If a team misses the playoffs, they get a lottery pick. If a team makes the playoffs, they don't get a lottery pick. Simple as that. Creating a system where a select few team can miss out on the playoffs and the chance to get a top pick means that the bottom few seeds in the stronger conference get stuck in basketball purgatory - no shot at a ring or a top player.

[john2jer]

But the voting system is working so well for college football.

[GJense4181]

But the voting system is working so well for college football. :-)

It's the best system for college football to date, isn't it?
and college football has 100+ teams that have extremely variable schedules. Not all teams play each other, not even from the same conference, not even from the same DIVISION
In the NBA you have an EIGHTY TWO game regular season and anywhere from four to twenty eight playoff games to make a decision from. Large sample set, if you ask me.

[john2jer]

-= original quote snipped =-


It's the best system for college football to date, isn't it?
and college football has 100+ teams that have extremely variable schedules. Not all teams play each other, not even from the same conference, not even from the same DIVISION
In the NBA you have an EIGHTY TWO game regular season and anywhere from four to twenty eight playoff games to make a decision from. Large sample set, if you ask me.

I'd say 1-AA, Division 2, and Division 3 have better systems than major college football and the BCS.

[nitetrain8603]

System blows. If I'm the Bulls, I'd rate every team in the Western Conference worse than any team in my division so I could block superstars from entering the division.

[Paydro70]

When the NHL went on their strike they used a method that included multiple years when deciding who got the top pick in the draft after the strike.

"The lottery formula was as follows - each team started with three balls in the lottery drum. For every playoff appearance in the last three years or No. 1 overall pick (a previous draft lottery win) over the last four years, a team lost one ball. But each team was guaranteed to have at least one ball in the lottery."

Not saying exactly like that, but something where maybe each non-playoff team gets 5 balls, and loses one for each time they've selected in the top 3 in the last 4 years, and loses one for each time they've made the play-offs in the last 4 years. The lowest you could have is 1, the most you could have is 5. Tanking would do absolutely nothing then, unless you tanked multiple seasons to not make the play-offs, which is dumb. This would then allow the truly bad teams that can't get in the play-offs, and have been unlucky enough to get a top 3 pick, to select the best players. The Bobcats and Knicks would get the best chances in this case, I believe.

Or another idea is having the same draft lottery, but instead of making it for the 1, 2, and 3rd pick, make it for the right to move up 3, 2, or 1 spots in the draft. This might still encourage tanking, but at the same time, a team like Orlando, after drafting Shaq, wouldn't be able to barely miss the play-offs, and then suddenly jump into the top spot again, the most they could move up would be 3 spots. This allows for the truly bad teams to get the best players in the draft, and allows for those teams barely on the border of the play-offs, to improve a little bit in the draft and get a better player.

Your first idea would mean that a hypothetical team which was terrible and picked top-3 a few times would have no chance to do it again, thereby penalizing them for their badness. The Warriors would get 4 balls, as well.

In your second idea, if your chances of getting the move-up are weighted like the current system, it would often make no difference at all. I don't think this would play out much differently than an NFL-style reverse-record draft. In other words, tanking would be worse than it is now.

[GJense4181]

System blows. If I'm the Bulls, I'd rate every team in the Western Conference worse than any team in my division so I could block superstars from entering the division.

That's why the votes would be available for public record. and, let's say, the highest and lowest ranking of each team could be thrown out?