[Grantland] Details to new lottery reform proposal

[Greatness]

That actually doesn't eliminate tanking at all, as teams will try desperately to get into the top 4 or even top 6.

Who said the goal is to eliminate tanking? The only way to eliminate tanking is to do a straight up unweighted lottery for the top-16 picks. But that has major implications before parity/competitive balance. The idea is to strike the proper balance between encouraging competition during the season and aiding the worse-off in getting better in the offseason.

This proposal is pretty strong, because it reduces the value of a bad record in the draft. As of right now, if you have the worst record, you get a 25% shot at the top pick--that's pretty strong! Under the new proposal, that drops to an 11% shot, co-equal with 3 other teams. All of a sudden not as valuable to have the worst record, so less incentive to seek the worst record.

Further, the downside to tanking (aside from the lost season) in the lottery is limited, because the league only pulls 3 draft slots from the lottery. So even with the worst record, you're still guaranteed at least the #4 pick. Under the new proposal, you'd only be guaranteed the #7 pick. That's actually a pretty decent drop off. See, e.g., here and here. By average career production, the 4th pick is likely to be an all-star (60% likely to have all-star like production, median players are guys like Mashburn, Odom), whereas the 7th pick, less than a third develop into stars and the average production is nothing special (Lorenzen Wright, Roy Tarpley).

Losing a season might be worth it for a 60% shot at a star but not for a 30% shot at a star.

I think this is precisely what the league should be doing. It's only missing 1 key piece. The league should change the rookie scale such that the players who are picked in the lottery slots (in this scenario, 1-6) earn significantly more than their counterparts. One of the benefits of tanking is that you get cheap labor...if the player works out, you have an amazing deal, and if he doesn't, he's on a cheap rookie scale deal. No monetary downside! If you start making those picks a little expensive, teams might think twice about tanking, because there is real risk if you blow it. Might make the 7th & 8th picks more valuable than the 5th & 6th, actually--another reason why teams might not be as eager to tank.

Very good points

[MCoster]

As long as its not the wheel proposal where they rotate every year, that's fine. The wheel would be an embarassment to NBA parity.

[fart]

We just need a 14 team knockout tournament to determine draft order. That would be awesome.

[defhalotones]

Welp, I'm satisfied with our lottery selections the past couple of years. I'm ok with changing it now

[mopper8]

That actually doesn't eliminate tanking at all, as teams will try desperately to get into the top 4 or even top 6.

Who said the goal is to eliminate tanking? The only way to eliminate tanking is to do a straight up unweighted lottery for the top-16 picks. But that has major implications before parity/competitive balance. The idea is to strike the proper balance between encouraging competition during the season and aiding the worse-off in getting better in the offseason.

This proposal is pretty strong, because it reduces the value of a bad record in the draft. As of right now, if you have the worst record, you get a 25% shot at the top pick--that's pretty strong! Under the new proposal, that drops to an 11% shot, co-equal with 3 other teams. All of a sudden not as valuable to have the worst record, so less incentive to seek the worst record.

Further, the downside to tanking (aside from the lost season) in the lottery is limited, because the league only pulls 3 draft slots from the lottery. So even with the worst record, you're still guaranteed at least the #4 pick. Under the new proposal, you'd only be guaranteed the #7 pick. That's actually a pretty decent drop off. See, e.g., here and here. By average career production, the 4th pick is likely to be an all-star (60% likely to have all-star like production, median players are guys like Mashburn, Odom), whereas the 7th pick, less than a third develop into stars and the average production is nothing special (Lorenzen Wright, Roy Tarpley).

Losing a season might be worth it for a 60% shot at a star but not for a 30% shot at a star.

I think this is precisely what the league should be doing. It's only missing 1 key piece. The league should change the rookie scale such that the players who are picked in the lottery slots (in this scenario, 1-6) earn significantly more than their counterparts. One of the benefits of tanking is that you get cheap labor...if the player works out, you have an amazing deal, and if he doesn't, he's on a cheap rookie scale deal. No monetary downside! If you start making those picks a little expensive, teams might think twice about tanking, because there is real risk if you blow it. Might make the 7th & 8th picks more valuable than the 5th & 6th, actually--another reason why teams might not be as eager to tank.

Very good points

A few months ago I was toying with starting a blog and my first post was going to be about reforming the lottery, so I gave it a lot of thought

[dice]

After rigging it for Lebron and the Cavs now they want fairness lol

dude, this gives longshots like the cavs a BETTER chance

and why the hell would they be proposing any changes at all if it was rigged?

can the rigging nonsense stop now?

Cavs won't be in the lottery so it doesn't

you totally missed the point

[reanimator]

dude, this gives longshots like the cavs a BETTER chance

and why the hell would they be proposing any changes at all if it was rigged?

can the rigging nonsense stop now?

Cavs won't be in the lottery so it doesn't

you totally missed the point

No I got your point, it was just irrelevant.

[dice]

Cavs won't be in the lottery so it doesn't

you totally missed the point

No I got your point, it was just irrelevant.

still missing the point, which has nothing to do with the cavs

[HeatFanSince87]

I feel the lottery is ok, but should only be for the teams with the worst 3 records. This crap with teams going from 9 to 1 is stupid. The fact a team with the worst record can fall to 4 is stupid.

If teams are having bad seasons and want to take, let them tank. Other then random years, the draft is a damn crap shoot. For every Lebron or Tim Duncan, there is a Kwame Brown or Anthony Bennett.

[The Infamous1]

There shouldn't be a draft in the first place

[ferk]

team dancers on a pole best routine wins .

[OvertimeNO]

Who said the goal is to eliminate tanking? The only way to eliminate tanking is to do a straight up unweighted lottery for the top-16 picks.

Do it strictly by regular season records, and disregard whether the team made the playoffs or not, and you've got a deal.

[There There]

A few months ago I was toying with starting a blog and my first post was going to be about reforming the lottery, so I gave it a lot of thought

I really like the idea of increasing the disparity in the rookie scale contracts for the slots which are included in the lottery ( in this case, the top six ).

I do however think ordering the entire top 14 selections via lottery has some merit. I know it runs the risk of disturbing competitive balance, ie.. bad teams staying bad for the indefinite future, but the idea that you potentially could be rewarded for trying to make the playoffs and just falling short is intriguing. There is absolutely no reason then not to try to put as good a team on the court as you possibly could. Perhaps I just haven't put enough thought into it regarding pros/cons. Would a team who is borderline for a final playoff spot decide that taking their chances in the lottery is better than two guaranteed home playoff dates and a first round exit? Possible I guess. There's certainly no perfect system.

[sweet_jesus]

That would make building through the draft even harder. Making the draft order more random doesn't help bad teams with bad luck. Imagine have the worse record every year and never getting anything more than a 6th pick. No FA wants to sign on your terrible team and your cast of mediocre role players you draft can't get you anything of value in a trade.

That idea needs to go back to the drawing board.

[StaticRoar]

Man, I was really digging what the Sixers were doing though.

[MoneyMitch]

Have teams play for the #1 pick

each team sends 1 guy

game to 21 you lose you're out

1-14
2-13
3-12
4-11
5-10
6-9
7-8

then

1-2
3-14
4-13
5-12
6-11
7-10
8-9

so on and so forth until there's one team left

as you get eliminated you get placed so if you lose twice first you pick 14th, if 2 teams lose at the same time worst team picks before the better team

[ceremony816]

After rigging it for Lebron and the Cavs now they want fairness lol

dude, this gives longshots like the cavs a BETTER chance

and why the hell would they be proposing any changes at all if it was rigged?

can the rigging nonsense stop now?

I'm pretty sure he was being facetious

[raleigh]

There shouldn't be a draft in the first place

Amen.

[Snotbubbles]

I don't understand this. Give the #1 pick to the team with the worst record. Cleveland had no business getting Wiggins.

And the sixers did? You can't reward a team for giving away quality players for nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums mobile app

What quality players did they give away for nothing?

[Rupert Murdoch]

Why not just give every team in the lottery a 1/14 chance of winning the #1 pick? That's really the only way to get rid of tanking for good. If every lottery team has an equal chance of winning it, nobody will tank. It's a very simple solution and the easiest one to implement. I don't know why the NBA has never thought about doing it.