NBA Lottery

[NYK_89]

Teams tank by making moves like GS and Charlotte have

Yep. And it's clear to see GSW's move here...they want to keep their pick (top 7 protected) and actually rebuild.

umn, Minnesota timberwolves were the worst team last year, and were severely hosed

?? didnt they have the second worst record and got the second pick

[BSM]

Yep. And it's clear to see GSW's move here...they want to keep their pick (top 7 protected) and actually rebuild.

umn, Minnesota timberwolves were the worst team last year, and were severely hosed

?? didnt they have the second worst record and got the second pick

no they had the worst record. Cleveland however had bigger chance of winning it because we had 2 picks.

[Mattya]

No Wolves had the worst record, got second pick. As a Wolves fan I think the lottery sucks, but that's because the Wolves always have gotten screwed. Have dropped positions every year, except one where they stayed put. Could anyone imagine how good Rubio, Irving would have been together.

[JackFinn]

Tanking is a myth. Players won't intentionally play poorly(resulting in a worse contract) in order to land a better player on their team who will take a lot of shots from them(resulting in an even worserer contract.)

[He Filled it Up]

Because if the terrible teams never get high picks, they will always be terrible. The NBA need all their teams to be relevant. And with your model, tanking will be an issue by fringe playoff teams. So if f. example the Nuggets and Rockets are facing the decision of getting stomped in the first round by OKC or having a 14-1 shot at Anthony Davis, they will tank the last games.

The lottery is working just fine. There's no incentive for the good teams to tank, and the tanking bottom feeders aren't sure to get a top pick

Bottom teams still have a chance to get a top pick, and at worse they'll be top five. How about this: the first overall pick is a lotto for all non-playoff teams with even odds, second pick is a lotto for the bottom ten teams with even odds, and the third pick is a lotto with even odds for the bottom five teams.

Your correct, any system is going to have some opportunity for tanking. But would the Rockets or Nuggets would benefit more from making the playoffs or missing them and having a 93% chance of drafting the guy that would probably be there anyway?

I love some of Bill Simmons proposed solutions to tanking, particularly the in-season tournaments. There needs to be a system that rewards teams that try to win every game possible even without a lot of talent. I was pissed that Stuckey had a game winner last night, and that just isn't right.

[He Filled it Up]

Tanking is a myth. Players won't intentionally play poorly(resulting in a worse contract) in order to land a better player on their team who will take a lot of shots from them(resulting in an even worserer contract.)

Tanking isn't a player's decision, it comes from the FO through the coach. A team elected to "play the young guys" or "get younger in our rotation" is as much about getting losses as it is about development. Probably more so.

[Kassinasjon]

Because if the terrible teams never get high picks, they will always be terrible. The NBA need all their teams to be relevant. And with your model, tanking will be an issue by fringe playoff teams. So if f. example the Nuggets and Rockets are facing the decision of getting stomped in the first round by OKC or having a 14-1 shot at Anthony Davis, they will tank the last games.

The lottery is working just fine. There's no incentive for the good teams to tank, and the tanking bottom feeders aren't sure to get a top pick

Bottom teams still have a chance to get a top pick, and at worse they'll be top five. How about this: the first overall pick is a lotto for all non-playoff teams with even odds, second pick is a lotto for the bottom ten teams with even odds, and the third pick is a lotto with even odds for the bottom five teams.

Your correct, any system is going to have some opportunity for tanking. But would the Rockets or Nuggets would benefit more from making the playoffs or missing them and having a 93% chance of drafting the guy that would probably be there anyway?

I love some of Bill Simmons proposed solutions to tanking, particularly the in-season tournaments. There needs to be a system that rewards teams that try to win every game possible even without a lot of talent. I was pissed that Stuckey had a game winner last night, and that just isn't right.

I just don't think it's fair that the Nuggets and Rockets will have the same odds as the Bobcats for the number 1 pick. It's just bad for the NBA.

My problem with Simmons' tournament is that the NBA season is too long for that. If you are the eight seed after 82 games, it's heartbreaking to miss the playoffs because of some random tournament at the end of the season. That tournament would be a great idea if there were fewer games.

[dice]

few are gonna like this idea, but i think every team in the league should be in the lottery. there should be SOME chance that the best college players actually end up on good teams

and it shouldn't only be the top 3 picks that are randomly determined. it should go all the way up to the last pick of the first round at least

all that said, i think the lottery is better than it's ever been and sufficiently discourages tanking

[Maefteda]

Heres an idea:

In addition to picking the draftees, the teams also get to pick the next years' draft picks. The worst team is the first to choose which teams' draft pick they want as long as it isn't their own.

In this case, Charlotte would be able to choose which draft pick they want for next year. This adds a new game of trying to guess which team will be the worst next year. You will get an advantage from being the worst team, but something like the difference between 8th and 9th isn't such a big deal.

[mup]

I've always liked the idea of setting the draft based on records over a three year period. I don't think a team should be able to have 10 great years, bottom out once, and then get the first pick in the draft while teams that have been bad for a long time can't seem to catch a break.

To compare to the NFL, it just doesn't sit right with me that the Colts were great for 10 years, have one bad year and get Andrew Luck while the Jaguars, Browns, Raiders, etc. have been bad for several years, are not tanking, and can't catch a break. I'm a Cavs fan, but I'll also say that it's also not necessarily right that the Cavs made the 2d round of the playoffs (at least) 5 years in a row, had one bad season, and got Kyrie Irving. (I know it was the Clippers' pick, but you get my point). If you're the Kings, Wolves, etc., WTF?

This three-year system (with no lottery) also prevents tanking because there is no reason for it. If you weren't horrible the first two years, there really is no reason to tank the third. You're not going to catch the teams that have been bad for three years. So, the only way to manipulate the system is to tank for 3 years in a row. Good luck to anyone who goes to those extremes.

[NetSymptom]

I love how people are acting like teams should just "Go out and win more games."

Look at the Nets in 2010. We lost our first 18 GAMES!!! You telling me we decided to tank that early in the season, right from the get go? Nets were in danger of breaking the record for worst record ever in a season. We actually had to go on a "run" at the end to avoid the futility award. Hell, look at the Nets right now. I wanted them to tank after missing out on Howard, but we went and traded for Wallace and are STILL Losing games. No way you can call that tanking.

How were we rewarded in 2010? With the 3rd OVR pick...

I'm "okay" with the lottery system, but "tanking" vs "sucking" is no black and white issue. Teams that as bad as teh Nets were/are, as bad as the Bobcats are this year, can't simply go out and win more games. Personally, I feel the worst team should have better odds than 25% to win the lottery.

[DanTown8587]

I say keep the lottery system, but tweak it.

Take teams 11-14 out of the lottery for the #1 overall pick. Then have a lottery for the following

Draft #1 Worse 6 teams - equal chance (currently Charlotte, Washington, New Orleans, New Jersey, Toronto, Sacramento)
Draft #2 Teams 7-10 - equal chance (Detroit, Cleveland, Golden State, Milwaukee)
Draft #5 Teams 11-14 - equal chance (Portland, Minnesota, Phoenix, Denver)

Then worst to 14 fill out.

I feel this way is fair for everyone. You say the worse six teams are most in need of top flight talent, you give teams 7-10 a reason to be good (better chance at winning a #2 pick) and then the #5 spot is incentive for teams to try and make the playoffs and if they don't, they have a chance at getting a really good player.

And since it's equal chance, you can televise the drawing and no one would have the "it's rigged card", regardless of how stupid the belief a 20 billion dollar company would stake it's reputation just to help one client.

[DuckIII]

I love how people are acting like teams should just "Go out and win more games."

[ ]

I'm "okay" with the lottery system, but "tanking" vs "sucking" is no black and white issue.

Completely agree. We talk about teams "tanking" every damn year. But how many times can you think of where it can actually be objectively concluded that a bad team was tanking?

I'm not saying that the posters here can't cite an example or two, but its rare.

The more obvious and common problem is good teams sitting healthy players to lose a game in the last week of the season to impact playoff seeding.

[DuckIII]

I say keep the lottery system, but tweak it.

Take teams 11-14 out of the lottery for the #1 overall pick. Then have a lottery for the following

Draft #1 Worse 6 teams - equal chance
Draft #2 Teams 7-10 - equal chance
Draft #5 Teams 11-14 - equal chance

Then worst to 14 fill out.

I feel this way is fair for everyone. You say the worse six teams are most in need of top flight talent, you give teams 7-10 a reason to be good (better chance at winning a #2 pick) and then the #5 spot is incentive for teams to try and make the playoffs and if they don't, they have a chance at getting a really good player.

Not bad, Dan. Another way to tweak even that idea would be based on win disparity. For example, in a "worst 6 teams" breakdown, the 6th worst team could been significantly better than the worst team. So perhaps instead of locking it in at 6 or 5 or whatever, base it on a percentage of wins relative to the worst record. That way you get a more accurate grouping of which teams truly belong in the respective categories.

P.S. I've given that idea the exact amount of time in thought that it took me to write this post. So if the idea sucks on further review, please forgive me.

[NetSymptom]

I say keep the lottery system, but tweak it.

Take teams 11-14 out of the lottery for the #1 overall pick. Then have a lottery for the following

Draft #1 Worse 6 teams - equal chance (currently Charlotte, Washington, New Orleans, New Jersey, Toronto, Sacramento)
Draft #2 Teams 7-10 - equal chance (Detroit, Cleveland, Golden State, Milwaukee)
Draft #5 Teams 11-14 - equal chance (Portland, Minnesota, Phoenix, Denver)

Then worst to 14 fill out.

I feel this way is fair for everyone. You say the worse six teams are most in need of top flight talent, you give teams 7-10 a reason to be good (better chance at winning a #2 pick) and then the #5 spot is incentive for teams to try and make the playoffs and if they don't, they have a chance at getting a really good player.

And since it's equal chance, you can televise the drawing and no one would have the "it's rigged card", regardless of how stupid the belief a 20 billion dollar company would stake it's reputation just to help one client.

I don't get it, are you saying only teams in the 7-10 range can win the #2 pick?

[DanTown8587]

I say keep the lottery system, but tweak it.

Take teams 11-14 out of the lottery for the #1 overall pick. Then have a lottery for the following

Draft #1 Worse 6 teams - equal chance (currently Charlotte, Washington, New Orleans, New Jersey, Toronto, Sacramento)
Draft #2 Teams 7-10 - equal chance (Detroit, Cleveland, Golden State, Milwaukee)
Draft #5 Teams 11-14 - equal chance (Portland, Minnesota, Phoenix, Denver)

Then worst to 14 fill out.

I feel this way is fair for everyone. You say the worse six teams are most in need of top flight talent, you give teams 7-10 a reason to be good (better chance at winning a #2 pick) and then the #5 spot is incentive for teams to try and make the playoffs and if they don't, they have a chance at getting a really good player.

And since it's equal chance, you can televise the drawing and no one would have the "it's rigged card", regardless of how stupid the belief a 20 billion dollar company would stake it's reputation just to help one client.

I don't get it, are you saying only teams in the 7-10 range can win the #2 pick?

Yes, three separate lotteries.

[NetSymptom]

I say keep the lottery system, but tweak it.

Take teams 11-14 out of the lottery for the #1 overall pick. Then have a lottery for the following

Draft #1 Worse 6 teams - equal chance (currently Charlotte, Washington, New Orleans, New Jersey, Toronto, Sacramento)
Draft #2 Teams 7-10 - equal chance (Detroit, Cleveland, Golden State, Milwaukee)
Draft #5 Teams 11-14 - equal chance (Portland, Minnesota, Phoenix, Denver)

Then worst to 14 fill out.

I feel this way is fair for everyone. You say the worse six teams are most in need of top flight talent, you give teams 7-10 a reason to be good (better chance at winning a #2 pick) and then the #5 spot is incentive for teams to try and make the playoffs and if they don't, they have a chance at getting a really good player.

And since it's equal chance, you can televise the drawing and no one would have the "it's rigged card", regardless of how stupid the belief a 20 billion dollar company would stake it's reputation just to help one client.

I don't get it, are you saying only teams in the 7-10 range can win the #2 pick?

Yes, three separate lotteries.

No offense, but that's awful.

[KL78192020]

I agree it should be shown live on tv. Why dont they show the actually lottery live on tv? it would get ride of all the doubt..

One might say: they do it to build up the suspense of counting down to see who gets the first pick, however the can easy do that and afterwards show the top 3 teams lottery balls being randomly selected.

If you know how the lottery works, you'd realize that showing the lottery on TV would just confuse people, which is probably why they don't show it.

It's not like there is a team name on the ping pong balls, there is a pre-determined reference sheet with 1,000 number combinations, the lowest team having the highest number of 250 assigned to them down to the lowest amount of 5 to the highest team.

There are 14 ping pong balls numbered 1 to 14 and one is drawn only every ten seconds . For the first pick, after four balls are drawn, then they check the reference sheet to see who has that combination. An example lets say 9, 2, 14, 11 are drawn, then whomever has 2,9,11,14 assigned to them would win first place. Then all the balls are put back in the machine and the second place is drawn the same way, then repeat for the third. That's it for the draws. When the first three teams have been determined, the remaining picks are given out based on regular season record with the worst teams getting the highest picks. This assures each team that it can drop no more than three spots from its projected draft position. (In the event that a team is chosen a second time in a second or third round, or the 1,001st combination shows up, they are disregarded and that round of the draws is redone.)

Here is the number of chances/distribution/reference sheet for each team in order (it adds to 1,000):
1.250 combinations, 25.0% chance of receiving the #1 pick
2.199 combinations, 19.9% chance
3.156 combinations, 15.6% chance
4.119 combinations, 11.9% chance
5.88 combinations, 8.8% chance
6.63 combinations, 6.3% chance
7.43 combinations, 4.3% chance
8.28 combinations, 2.8% chance
9.17 combinations, 1.7% chance
10.11 combinations, 1.1% chance
11.8 combinations, 0.8% chance
12.7 combinations, 0.7% chance
13.6 combinations, 0.6% chance
14.5 combinations, 0.5% chance

Also, there representatives from the acounting firm handling the draw and a rep from each team present during the draw.

Great post, and this is why the system is fine. It's a fair lottery where the bottom teams all have a shot at the 1st pick.

[DanTown8587]

No offense, but that's awful.

Can I ask why? The absolute worse team in the league gets a slightly worse shot at a #1 pick, no shot at #2 and a guaranteed top 3 pick.

[JimboSlice]

Being a consistently terrible team has more to do with making bad moves and bad picks than it does with missing out on the number one pick. The system's by no means perfect, but it's good enough. If you don't want your team to suck, get some better FO staff instead of just praying you get the number one pick AND they're not a bust.