[Grantland] Details to new lottery reform proposal

[OkcMagic]

How about just be fair and have a lottery for the entire draft... If okc or spurs get the top pick, so what?

At least with this idea, nobody would tank because what would be the benefit of if? Just put 30 balls in a tank and decide the order like that

[rugbyrugger23]

Got to do the wheel!

ZERO Tanking

Excitement of good team/quality organization getting great pick

Help in trades (Knowing value vs. the guess of what it will be), promote player trades

The problem with this, players might stay another year or early to go to better team. I'd probably wait another year for quality organization or great city.

So be it. Not like the draft, in any form is a sure thing for any draft pick. Let the players being drafted have little more control over their future employer.

Fun to watch a player gamble too...like so many before who stock drops from another year under the microscope.

But also, with the wheel, you would see more drafting for need vs. BPA. Don't know about you, but as a fan, seeing players flame out cause of circumstance sucks too. Wolves drafting PF when have best in game or 76ers drafting 2 defensive centers. Not saying that wont happen still, just not as much. When your a mediocre to good team, better to take similar rated player who fills a need...and as a fan see that player have more of a chance to succeed.

[noobcake]

To combat tanking, the new proposal makes the lottery even more luck based.

Top 6 draw with balls, greater chance of getting leaping the worst team

Even more luck based system is not going to do **** against tanking.

[Double Helix]

I guess I just don't agree with the people that think tanking is a bigger problem in the league than disparity. The reason teams tank is because it is virtually impossible to build a legit contender without getting lucky in the draft. Taking away that option is only going to increase the haves and have nots.

Disparity is going to be a part of sport so long as you allow players at some point to choose where they play and live. The NFL is the perfect model but that also has to do with the fact that coaching in American football has a larger impact on team success than any other sport. A great NFL coaching staff can overcome more talent short-comings than just about any other pro sport.

Baseball and soccer have far less parity opportunities. Fans just try to enjoy the best winning years that do come their way. They enjoy the players they have and the upsets but most of all they enjoy watching the sport they love being played at the highest level in the city they're from. I put the sanctity of the game above all else. I want what's best for the sport of basketball.

I'm more concerned with the sport as a whole being played at a high level consistently with nobody seeing an advantage in throwing games than I am true parity. Fans in less desirable markets, including mine, just have to start enjoying the sport as a sport and taking pride in more modest accomplishments. This whole championship or tank mentality has to go. There's only one winner and 29 losers every season. It wasn't a waste of time just because you fell short. The further you make it the better is how we should be celebrating our teams. I wouldn't be embarrassed of the Stockton-era success if I was a Jazz fan just as I admit I had a blast watching the Bills make it to 4 superbowl a row even though they lost them. The journey is an extended period of fun and excitement that lasts a whole season right until you lose that final game. We've lost some of that ability to enjoy good but not great sport years lately. We're all so envious of those with more we can't even appreciate anything short of what's considered the best.

I hate the video game mentality of hitting reset over an over as soon as the going gets tough.

[BullyKing]

I guess I just don't agree with the people that think tanking is a bigger problem in the league than disparity. The reason teams tank is because it is virtually impossible to build a legit contender without getting lucky in the draft. Taking away that option is only going to increase the haves and have nots.

I'm more concerned with the sport as a whole being played at a high level consistently with nobody seeing an advantage in throwing games than I am true parity. Fans in less desirable markets, including mine, just have to start enjoying the sport as a sport and taking pride in more modest accomplishments. This whole championship or tank mentality has to go. .

So we should just all accept that our teams are the Washington Generals? I mean, obviously you are entitled to your opinion, but I could not disagree more.

[Roger Murdock]

Its fine the way it is but should be more weighted towards top teams.

[Double Helix]

I guess I just don't agree with the people that think tanking is a bigger problem in the league than disparity. The reason teams tank is because it is virtually impossible to build a legit contender without getting lucky in the draft. Taking away that option is only going to increase the haves and have nots.

I'm more concerned with the sport as a whole being played at a high level consistently with nobody seeing an advantage in throwing games than I am true parity. Fans in less desirable markets, including mine, just have to start enjoying the sport as a sport and taking pride in more modest accomplishments. This whole championship or tank mentality has to go. .

So we should just all accept that our teams are the Washington Generals? I mean, obviously you are entitled to your opinion, but I could not disagree more.

No, but we should be wise enough to realize that basketball is the most star-driven of all sports and that unless a rule is created where good players aren't ever allowed to leave less desirable markets they probably always will. And very few players still on their rookie scale deals have lead their teams to titles anyway.

The championship or bust mentality is a young man's idealistic vision of how every team they support should operate. The older you get and the more failed rebuilds you sit through and draft busts you watch pass through your town and stars leaving the first chance they get the more you come to appreciate other levels of success below the championship level. The Clippers gave their fans more excitement and enjoyment than all but a handful of teams. Should they be embarrassed they didn't win it all? Should they rebuild because they don't quite have what it takes to win the whole thing? What about OKC?

At a certain point I think you have to appreciate different things about the sport and the good seasons that do come your way. A 50 win season is fun. A 55 win season is better. The semi-finals is exciting. The conference Finals is a dream. Different levels of success should be celebrated.

[BullyKing]

I'm more concerned with the sport as a whole being played at a high level consistently with nobody seeing an advantage in throwing games than I am true parity. Fans in less desirable markets, including mine, just have to start enjoying the sport as a sport and taking pride in more modest accomplishments. This whole championship or tank mentality has to go. .

So we should just all accept that our teams are the Washington Generals? I mean, obviously you are entitled to your opinion, but I could not disagree more.

No, but we should be wise enough to realize that basketball is the most star-driven of all sports and that unless a rule is created where good players aren't ever allowed to leave less desirable markets they probably always will. And very few players still on their rookie scale deals have lead their teams to titles anyway.

The championship or bust mentality is a young man's idealistic vision of how every team they support should operate. The older you get and the more failed rebuilds you sit through and draft busts you watch pass through your town and stars leaving the first chance they get the more you come to appreciate other levels of success below the championship level. The Clippers gave their fans more excitement and enjoyment than all but a handful of teams. Should they be embarrassed they didn't win it all? Should they rebuild because they don't quite have what it takes to win the whole thing? What about OKC?

At a certain point I think you have to appreciate different things about the sport and the good seasons that do come your way. A 50 win season is fun. A 55 win season is better. The semi-finals is exciting. The conference Finals is a dream. Different levels of success should be celebrated.

C'mon man, its not championship or bust but it is realistic contention or bust. No one is saying to break up the Thunder. But if my choice is between a rebuild or perennial first round fodder, its a pretty easy choice. The Heat are the anomaly. Most teams got how they were by having a great draft pick after a terrible season. The Spurs adding Duncan, OKC with Durant/Westbrook, Cavs (entire roster) but now we say no more and everyone should just accept their position and go nuts because you lost in the first round 4-2 instead of getting swept?

[Blame Rasho]

People don't understand the concept of the lottery....

[Snotbubbles]

What quality players did they give away for nothing?

srsly. Evan Turner? megalolz

Wasn't he averaging 17ppg? And Spencer Hawes you forgot to mention, just put the word megalolz around Spencers name to dodge that he was ever traded for picks and Earl Clark who was then waived LOL. Just mention that he 'sucked' though, then it's like it never happened. Surprised Henry Sims wasn't waived on the spot too.

I wouldn't have used the word quality but to even defend the Sixers there even if you're a fan has no credibility. Celtics and Lakers tanked too, Pau Gasol for example, I've never seen a 'season ending vertigo' in my life

Evan Turner was one of the most inefficient players. If you want to talk empty numbers, Turner would be at the top of any persons list. Plus, Turner wasn't in Philly's long-term plans.

Hawes and Sims were almost identical in terms of contributions for Philly, plus the Sixers got two second round picks. To say Sims should have just been waived indicates that you didn't watch what he did for Philly when he got here.

As far as your vertigo comment. Jeff Hackett (a hockey player) had his career ended due to vertigo. It's a serious injury.

[il_knicks7]

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

NBA is getting a little uneasy that the constant rigging and that teams ranked 8-14 wining #1 on a regular basis is drawing too much attention. They want a system where they can rig the draft without anybody being able to complain.

[il_knicks7]

People don't understand the concept of the lottery....

Should a rigged lottery still be called a "lottery"?

[snoopdogg88]

I guess I just don't agree with the people that think tanking is a bigger problem in the league than disparity. The reason teams tank is because it is virtually impossible to build a legit contender without getting lucky in the draft. Taking away that option is only going to increase the haves and have nots.

You would think more people would grasp this, but nah

It's easier to scream "tankingz is evils!!11" and ignore the real issues

[Snotbubbles]

Every time I see a proposal to change the lottery, I laugh.

If your goal is to eliminate tanking, this proposal certainly doesn't do it. The Sixers had a 19% chance at the #1 pick this year. Do you think they wouldn't have tanked if you dropped that to an 11% chance? They identified that the only way they would be able to win a championship is to obtain an elite player at a controlled cost so they can then possibly add another player or two at a max salary.

This current proposal is simply more prohibitive for the worst teams to obtain the best pick but it doesn't solve the tanking problem. At this point, they might as well go back to the way it was and give every team that doesn't make the playoffs a 1 in 14 chance at the #1 pick. The whole point of a draft is to give the worst teams a leg up to rebuild their teams. Eliminating a draft would be a better anti-tanking solution than changing a lottery.

The problem is that teams that tank don't do it because of the way the NBA draft lottery is set up. They tank because of the way the entire NBA system is set up with respect to how you can build a team. If you want to eliminate tanking you need to change the system. Start with guaranteed contracts. They need to go and they need to be replaced with an NFL type contract structure. Signing bonuses that can be spread out over a 3 or 4 year time period and if you release a player you get a dead money cap hit. Also get rid of the max contract and luxury tax system and go to a hard cap. You need to make it easier for teams to obtain new talent and get out of past mistakes.

[il_knicks7]

You would think more people would grasp this, but nah

It's easier to scream "tankingz is evils!!11" and ignore the real issues

Tanking doesn't help when the lottery process itself is rigged. In 7 out of the last 24 lotteries a team ranked 8 or lower won. Derrick Rose was gifted to the Bulls. Kyrie and Wiggins to the Cavs. The lottery is just one big joke.

[Jadoogar]

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.

It's because teams in the 7th and 8th spots might start losing games at teh end of the season. A chance to get the number 1 pick might be more valuable that getting smashed by the number 1 seed.

Another addition I saw in the comments to the article was to give the 7th and 8th seeds a very small chance in the lottery (similar to what the 9th seed gets now). This will help to stop late season tanking out of the playoffs. And teams won't try to tank out of the 6th spot because 6 over 3 seed upsets are pretty common.

[snoopdogg88]

Do people seriously not get that these changes would only make a very small change in so called "tanking?'

Is the casual NBA fan so willing to bury their heads in the sand and ignore the real parity issues of the NBA?

It's why the NBA will never be on the level of the NFL. At least 3/4th of NBA have ZERO chance at competing for a championship on a given season. It's a massive inequity problem and changing the odds of 25% to 11% or whatever it is, is barely going to make a crack in regards to changing things for the better.

[snoopdogg88]

Every time I see a proposal to change the lottery, I laugh.

If your goal is to eliminate tanking, this proposal certainly doesn't do it. The Sixers had a 19% chance at the #1 pick this year. Do you think they wouldn't have tanked if you dropped that to an 11% chance? They identified that the only way they would be able to win a championship is to obtain an elite player at a controlled cost so they can then possibly add another player or two at a max salary.

This current proposal is simply more prohibitive for the worst teams to obtain the best pick but it doesn't solve the tanking problem. At this point, they might as well go back to the way it was and give every team that doesn't make the playoffs a 1 in 14 chance at the #1 pick. The whole point of a draft is to give the worst teams a leg up to rebuild their teams. Eliminating a draft would be a better anti-tanking solution than changing a lottery.

The problem is that teams that tank don't do it because of the way the NBA draft lottery is set up. They tank because of the way the entire NBA system is set up with respect to how you can build a team. If you want to eliminate tanking you need to change the system. Start with guaranteed contracts. They need to go and they need to be replaced with an NFL type contract structure. Signing bonuses that can be spread out over a 3 or 4 year time period and if you release a player you get a dead money cap hit. Also get rid of the max contract and luxury tax system and go to a hard cap. You need to make it easier for teams to obtain new talent and get out of past mistakes.

Nailed it

[BullyKing]

I guess I just don't agree with the people that think tanking is a bigger problem in the league than disparity. The reason teams tank is because it is virtually impossible to build a legit contender without getting lucky in the draft. Taking away that option is only going to increase the haves and have nots.

You would think more people would grasp this, but nah

It's easier to scream "tankingz is evils!!11" and ignore the real issues

"Tanking" is the boogeyman of the NBA. All the people screaming about the Sixers "tanking" for not using their cap space last year cannot really identify a single player they could/should realistically have signed. Its the same people now laughing at Jodie Meeks/Channing Frye-type contracts on the one hand while screaming at the Sixers for not signing those kinds of deals on the other.

[mopper8]

Spoiler:

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.

Great post and I'm with you that increasing the compensation structure of the top 6 picks would further reduce the incentive. Sterling, for years, just built via the lottery because it was cheap. As soon as the players wanted bigger deals they were gone and back into the lotto he would go looking for cheap labor.

The other exciting thing if the top 6 were paid dramtically more than now is that you would likely see more trades occurring on draft night. There would be more opportunities to trade for a pick if the team picking 4th felt that they could get a guy they liked about as much at 8 was there who was paid significantly less. GMs that believed in certain prospects more than others would be willing to chance the contract so you'd see more movement on draft night.

Compensation-related reforms can only happen when the CBA is negotiated and it's unlikely that the owners would push for compensation reform because it exposes them to more risk. The players won't push for it either because they tend to concede on draft-related matters in order to better protect themselves as vets. Most of the larger concessions the NBAPA put forth during the last CBA were draft related. So, sadly I have my doubts that rookie scale contract reform and increases will happen in any kind of dramatic way. It would add excitement for the fans but neither the owners or the players in the league and voting would benefit from the idea of it.

Agreed 100%, which is a shame. I think the point about trading is absolutely true. Another point in its favor would be that it might actually change drafting behavior. If you're at 5 and can't find an attractive trade down, right now there is little downside to drafting a guy who is really raw but with loads of potential. IF you have to shell out real money for him, all of a sudden there is downside to drafting a guy who is still 2 years away. So the incentive might be to prioritize NBA-ready players more there. In turn, a 1-and-done kid who is the 7-12 range would actually have strong incentive in this model to stay another year. The extra compensation he'd earn if he could move into the top 6 could very well justify delaying compensation for 1 more year and incurring the injury risk. That would ultimately benefit the league.

But I agree, it's something that has to come through the CBA and the interests aren't aligned properly--nobody is going to want to fight for this change. Which sucks.