NBA Lottery

[Bertrob]

this tanking on purpose has to be addressed

I would make lotto random for all 30 teams

Are you serious? You would possibly give a contending team a high pick?

[KembaWalker]

this tanking on purpose has to be addressed

I would make lotto random for all 30 teams

that will surely quell the conspiracy theorists. Anthony Davis to the Heat would be awesome

[Ronito]

Warriors tanking. Jazz fans, what are your thoughts?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=a ... kle_032812

[He Filled it Up]

It definitely directly f*cks the Jazz and the Blazers, but it is also bad for the Bobcats, and even the Wizards and Pistons. The Nets have **** Deron Williams! The Warriors should have been a playoff team this season or at least close to it. That was definitely their mentality. The saddest part is that GSW's fan base will accept the franchises ineptitude and still attend at a high level. Many other lotto teams don't have that luxury (and I don't mean that as a slight to GSW fans, I'm a Lions fan so I understand sticking with a perennial loser, the highs can be fulfilled by the lows).

You have to be trying to lose by 15 to the Hornets without Gordon, Ariza, Okafor, Kaman, and Ayon.

[He Filled it Up]

this tanking on purpose has to be addressed

I would make lotto random for all 30 teams

Can't do all 30 teams. I don't think the league could survive the length of a rookie contract if the Bulls, Heat, or Thunder won the lotto.

Even odds for the number ten pick for all non playoff teams. If a team is on the cusp and they decide they want to forego a playoffs (and monetary incentive) for a 7% at the 1st pick (or a 93% of getting the same guy anyway) then so be it.

Bottom ten get even odds at the number two pick. Bottom five get even odds for the number three pick. Then straight onward.

[ComboGuardCity]

It needs to be tiered imo.

1-5: Most Chance
6-10: Middle Chance
11-14: Low Chance
15-17: Lowest Chance (Yes I think 8th seeds should have a shot too)

[TB]

3) The remaining 8 teams in both conferences play in one combined 8 team playoff where the winner gets the #1 pick and the other picks are in the given in terms of when you were eliminated. So the 2 teams eliminated in round 2 would get picks 3+4 and teams eliminated in round 3 would get picks 5-8 wit h the tiebraker going to regular season win%.

I can see it now, David Lee tanking in the championship game to ensure the warriors get MKG or Drummond instead of his direct replacement, Anthony Davis.

[rockymac52]

The problem is the current system doesn't really discourage tanking. Yes, the worst team in the NBA only has a 25% chance at landing the #1 pick or whatever, but at the end of the day, they would theoretically still want to lose so that they can have the best odds possible.

There is still a huge incentive for bad teams to lose games, and it's to get the most ping pong balls. Teams are still rewarded for doing more poorly. They are just given less of a guarantee at landing the #1 pick or just a better pick. However, fans of the bottom 8 or so teams in the NBA still have been rooting for their team to lose (for the most part) for a majority of the season, in hopes of landing the most ping pong balls and the #1 pick. So while the lottery might be a good system in theory, in reality, it's far from it.

I'd also like to add that I really don't think any NBA teams are actually "tanking". The only things teams can do to "tank" are trading away the few good players they have so that their team is actually worse (but then they're losing their good players, so even if they succeed in tanking and get the #1 pick, and that guy turns out to be good, they still lost talented players) or benching their good players down the stretch or against other bad teams so they can rest, even when they don't really need it and could have easily played. And how often do those things REALLY happen?

NBA players are playing for their teams, but also for themselves. No NBA player is going to want to tank, and surely no one would purposefully play worse in hopes of acquiring a higher draft pick. What, are they going to miss jump shots on purpose? Yeah right. These guys are playing for contracts and jobs. They are trying to play the best they can, in order to get more money (at the end of the day). Sure, some guys will lose the motivation to play at 100% when their teams are terrible and nowhere close to making the playoffs, but at the end of the day, they're still trying to play their best basketball and put the ball in the hoop whenever they step foot on the court. It's in their best interest, and it's their natural instinct.

[He Filled it Up]

I'd also like to add that I really don't think any NBA teams are actually "tanking". The only things teams can do to "tank" are trading away the few good players they have so that their team is actually worse (but then they're losing their good players, so even if they succeed in tanking and get the #1 pick, and that guy turns out to be good, they still lost talented players) or benching their good players down the stretch or against other bad teams so they can rest, even when they don't really need it and could have easily played. And how often do those things REALLY happen?

Since just before the trade deadline the Warriors, Raptors, Nets, Trailblazers, and Wizards have traded away players that made them better right now and/or have shut down impact players for the year in a blatant effort to actively lose games. Tanking happens every season, and results in a watered down product. Even the most die hard fans have little reason to watch any of those teams for the rest of the season. Teams are still trying to win but are just bad are hurt in the process, which is detrimental to those fans as well.

[mup]

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.)

You're talking about shaving points. Everybody else is talking about tanking.

Tanking doesn't mean throwing games. It means putting yourself in a position to lose by giving minutes to lesser players, screwing with the rotations, putting odd or inefficient combinations on the floor, leaving guys in the game with foul trouble, not bringing guys back from injuries, and generally making "creative" decisions under the guise of trying to shake things up. Those are all subtle decisions made at the management and coaching levels that affect the team's ability to win despite the fact that the guys on the floor are trying.

Nobody has ever claimed that the 5 guys on the floor are not giving 100% and trying to win. They have pride. They want to beat the guys across from them. They are trying to win. They just can't win given the coach's decisions.

[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.

Nobody's commented on it, but I still think this is the best solution. If we implemented this system, this is the top 15 of the 2012 draft (using current 2011-12 standings)....

1) Wizards
2) Nets
3) Kings
4) Timberwolves
5) Raptors
6) Pistons
7) Warriors
8) Bobcats
9) Hornets
10) Bucks
11) Cavs
12) Clippers
13) Knicks
14) 76ers
15) Rockets

Seems right to me. Teams that have sucked for several years in a row (Wizards, Nets, Kings) are the ones who need help. Teams that only recently hit a bad skid after a long sustained run of success (Cavs, Hornets, Suns) don't need the immediate help. Besides, they'll get help in future years as their "good" years are taken off the books after three years.

In this system, there is no reason to tank. Since you're taking numbers over three years, losing a couple of games in Year 3 isn't going to do much for you. At best, you're only going to move up a spot or 2.

The Cavs, for instance, are currently the 7th worst team in 2011-12. Using a three-year system, they are locked into the 11th spot as long as they finish 2012 anywhere from 5th through 7th (worst). To leap frog Milwaukee for draft pick #10, they'd have to be at least the 4th worst team in 2012. Not getting there.

There's an even bigger gap between draft spot #4 (Wolves) and draft spot #5 (Raptors). The Raptors are currently the 5th worst team in 2012. The Raptors cannot catch the Wolves for worst performance over a three-year period even if the Raptors were the worst team in 2012. So, the Raptors would have no reason to tank. At this point, they'd be pretty much locked in to draft spot #5.

[He Filled it Up]

I agree with what your saying mud, but I think that if you combined three year performance than you'd have to weight the current year. Otherwise two year agos the Thunder would have been a young playoff team with fair decent odds of landing a good pick, and the Heat would marginally benefit from that one tank year for consecutive seasons.

[Ditchweed]

It's not the lottery that's broken ... it's the league itself.

Until the league comes up with things like hard caps, franchise tags, and player compensation from other teams who sign a weaker team's stars, the lower teams become nothing but a revolving door for star players that jump ship. That would allow more balance of all teams in the league. Once that is done, then change the lottery to have it equal for all teams in three 1-5, 6-10 and 11-14 groups.

As it is now, if tanking is the only way a lower team can get a quality player and keep him for four years, tanking will happen since it is one of the few rebuilding tools they have.

[KembaWalker]

It's not the lottery that's broken ... it's the league itself.

Until the league comes up with things like hard caps, franchise tags, and player compensation from other teams who sign a weaker team's stars, the lower teams become nothing but a revolving door for star players that jump ship. That would allow more balance of all teams in the league. Once that is done, then change the lottery to have it equal for all teams in three 1-5, 6-10 and 11-14 groups.

As it is now, if tanking is the only way a lower team can get a quality player and keep him for four years, tanking will happen since it is one of the few rebuilding tools they have.

exactly. if you want to take away tanking then give bad small market teams another way to build a team. right now there isn't one

[mup]

I agree with what your saying mud, but I think that if you combined three year performance than you'd have to weight the current year. Otherwise two year agos the Thunder would have been a young playoff team with fair decent odds of landing a good pick, and the Heat would marginally benefit from that one tank year for consecutive seasons.

Even without weighting the third year, it works out well. Miami would pick 25th. OKC would pick 26th. This is even with giving 2009-10 equal weight as '11 and '12. Here is the back 15:

16) Pacers
17) Suns
18) Jazz
19) Grizzlies
20) Blazers
21) Nuggets
22) Celtics
23) Hawks
24) Mavericks
25) Heat
26) Thunder
27) Bulls
28) Spurs
29) Magic
30) Lakers

If you give the current year (third year) greater weight, then we get back into a system that encourages tanking. So, I don't like the idea of weighting the third year.

Also, I'm saying no lottery. It would just be a straight draft based on performance over the last 3 years. So, the Thunder would pick 26th. There would be no chance to move up.

[TB]

- 70 game season
- 8th seed becomes a wild card spot
- after 70 games, there is a play-in tourney with the 8,9,10,11.

8 is home against the 11.
9 is home against the 10.
winners play for the 8th seed at the home court of the team with best record.

This gives 5 days rest to the teams that made the top 7 spots. This also takes away tanking from pretty much everyone down to the 7/8/9 spot (or anyone who still has a shot at that 11 seed in the play in tourney. Basically keeping the playoff hope alive for more teams without adding playoff spots.

Then I would take the 14 non playoff teams PLUS the 2 teams that won the play-in game, combine their current seasons record with the previous 2 seasons, and rank them in that order. Keep the odds the way they currently are, and do a lotto where picks 1-5 are selected.

This will eliminate a ton of the tanking, while also adding a very cool mini playoff to get into the main playoffs.

So basically, if you want to tank, it will be because you have been crappy for 2 seasons already, and EVEN THEN tanking will only give you a max of a 25% shot, with 5 teams capable of jumping into the mix instead of 3. Due to this, I think a lot of teams even close to the 11th spot in their conference would be trying to get into the play-in tourney.

For instance, this season, only 4 teams would be completely out of the mix right now. And even a team like the Warriors (trying to get bottom 7 for their pick) would have 2 things working against the idea of tanking 1) a shot at the play-in tourney, and 2) the lotto would be based on 3 seasons, so even if they won the play-in game, they would probably be entering the lotto with pretty similar odds.

Any thoughts?

[He Filled it Up]

I like it TB. Two things: 1. I'm not sure you it's fair to give lotto chances to the two teams that make the playoffs. That hurts the other lower seeds in the playoffs. I think that there should be (and is) value in making the playoffs. In the current system you don't a lot see teams tanking in the 8 to 11 spots. That's not always true, but often is the case. So I'd say if you get into the post season then no lotto odds.

2. It's probably too much to actually happen. That's not knock on the system, but it's so different and actually calls for changes to the regular season that it just isn't likely.

Otherwise I really like it. 70 games is prefect. I think following a 2-game tourney that the next round should be a five game series. First round four-game sweeps suck. In later rounds seven game series make sense, and sweeps can be awesome, but not in the first round.