[Grantland] Details to new lottery reform proposal

[Winsome Gerbil]

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

And that's the other pole.

The NBA is eternally caught between two wildly different goals/viewpoints.

1) reward the worst team. That's how every other league does it. But the entire reason there is a lottery is because the NBA discovered you do that and teams WILL (and if they are smart, SHOULD) tank like mad to draft the next Hakeem or Shaq.

2) stop the tanking! make everybody have an equal chance! Except then the worst teams get left out in the cold with no way to get better.

And so every few years partisans from one side of the debate or the other, typically whoever's approach is not currently in vogue, start screaming, and they jigger the numbers this way and that way, and one year make them better for the worst teams, and then when too much tanking is going on they go back the other way and make them worse for the worst teams, but better for anti-tanking. But it never ends. If they do this the Lakers will get the #1 at some point as a #14 seed, everybody will scream, and boom, they'll wiggle the numbers back the other way so bad teams get the top picks again. There is no end to it.

[Elden Payton]

I like the lotto but I like the following idea-

The bottom 5 teams enter into a lotto, where each has a 20 percent chance at #1.

25 percent chance for the four teams at #2.

33.3 percent chance for the three teams at #3.

50 percent chance for the two teams at #4.

100 percent chance for the team at #5.

6-30 situated at their picks by record.

Obviously this won't stop tanking, but it may stop teams from trying to be historically bad, when they have just as much chance at #1 if they finish with the fifth worst record.

[Ken D]

I think the best solution is to have multiple different lottery systems and a different numbers of teams in the lottery and nobody knows which system it will be each year or how many teams will be in each year. So the method and amount of teams is selected randomly each year.

For example let's say they had the following three different lottery systems.

1. The current system
2. Equal odds for all lottery teams
3. Amount of wins after being officially eliminated from the playoffs

On top of that there would be anywhere from 10-20 teams in the lottery each year. Also chosen randomly.

This would essentially remove any incentive to lose or jockey for position, while still preventing the best teams from getting any top picks. Teams wouldn't even know if it was better to be losing or winning late season games.

[Effigy]

I think the best solution is to have multiple different lottery systems and a different numbers of teams in the lottery and nobody knows which system it will be each year or how many teams will be in each year. So the method and amount of teams is selected randomly each year.

For example let's say they had the following three different lottery systems.

1. The current system
2. Equal odds for all lottery teams
3. Amount of wins after being officially eliminated from the playoffs

On top of that there would be anywhere from 10-20 teams in the lottery each year. Also chosen randomly.

This would essentially remove any incentive to lose or jockey for position, while still preventing the best teams from getting any top picks. Teams wouldn't even know if it was better to be losing or winning late season games.

Probably too confusing for the average fan, but a really interesting idea.

[Blame Rasho]

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

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

There aren't a lack of gulliable people out there....

[spaceballer]

Would be a lot more entertaining if every lottery team could send a representative to participate in a hot dog eating contest for the rights to #1.

Of course this brings other issues into play, as the Sixers would immediately sign Joey Chestnut as a consultant and claim he's just showing their young players how to win.

When they talk about weighted odds, they don't mean the actual weight of the team's lotto representative.

[Loud_city]

Isn't giving every team a shot at the number one pick the same system they used in the ewing draft?

[Blame Rasho]

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.

You know despite the fact that they have shown the actual lotto balls being picked and despite your refusal to acknowledge what a lottery is( a game of chance) why do you even follow the nba or even post here? It is illogical for someone to care about on something you believe to be rigged.

[andremcosta]

I like it. Ignoring the lunatics that think it's rigged, it's a good thing to make tanking less attractive.

Bad teams will still try to compete and develop youngsters.

In the current system, a bad team like Utah had some reasons for not matching Hayward, because they have no way to build a contender, and they are good enough to never get top picks. Theres no incentive to keep a bunch of good players and be a mediocre non-playoff team.

With the new system, mediocre teams are able to have good pieces and still have a chance at drafting great players. Few teams are able to build through draft, because when you get Anthony Davis you are so bad that he will only turn you into a mediocre team.

I like the idea that a 35-47 non-playoff team have a higher chance of getting a superstar and turn into a contender.

While the worst team can end with a worst pick, I think it solves the fact that worst teams usually force their way into the bottom, instead of really sucking. The worst 5th team is usually way better than the worst. Because of that, you can still try to improve and not give away everyone except D-League players, just to have a top pick.

[atlantabbq99]

Lottery should be based on worst record. but top five should be based on worst record and best fan attendance.

So if you are the 5th worst team, but you have better fan attendance than the other 4 teams, then you will get the first overall pick.

[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.

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.

Do you really think owners would give up millions of dollars in playoff revenue for a 7% chance of winning the #1 pick? It's a little far-fetched to believe that teams in playoff positions will start tanking to get in the lottery.

[loserX]

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

You can never "eliminate" tanking unless you get rid of the weighted draws (or the draft altogether).

The draft is intended to provide talent to the worst teams. How is the league supposed to determine whether a team was intentionally the worst or not? You can't legislate intent.

In any case, the kind of tanking this is supposed to reduce is teams saying "hey, we should try to go 0-82." The difference between the top four spots is negligible. Even dropping down a couple of spots, the effect is minimal, and in the proposed system if you are lower down the draft order you actually stand a BETTER chance of getting into the top-6 than you do under the current system.

So while it doesn't "eliminate" tanking, it does at least reduce the incentive to be as bad as you possibly can. That's a step.

[EscapoTHB]

I just wish they'd make it so you can't win the lottery twice within a 4 year span.

[il_knicks7]

You know despite the fact that they have shown the actual lotto balls being picked and despite your refusal to acknowledge what a lottery is( a game of chance) why do you even follow the nba or even post here? It is illogical for someone to care about on something you believe to be rigged.

Why would it bother me? It hasn't worked against my team so far. Like I said in another thread, you would have to be a very trusting (naive) person to believe that low odds team win the lottery as frequently as the do just by chance.

Now seriously, should the fact that the NBA decided to give Wiggins to Cleveland or Rose to Chicago make a fan not follow the NBA? I love the game, but I also understand the the NBA is a for-profit entertainment business and it's on as pure as some would like to believe. There's some degree of central planning going on.

[Mr Sixer]

Start it up next year.

No c'mon man, you don't want that.

I have faith in the Cavs, you guys are going to manage to miss the playoffs, and then get the number one overall pick again.

[JB1089]

The best solution is to eliminate the draft and institute a hard cap.

[nyk4L7_21]

Would be a lot more entertaining if every lottery team could send a representative to participate in a hot dog eating contest for the rights to #1.

Of course this brings other issues into play, as the Sixers would immediately sign Joey Chestnut as a consultant and claim he's just showing their young players how to win.

This way if the Mavs miss the playoffs now, they can count on Felton for an entire roster of #1 picks

[Blame Rasho]

You know despite the fact that they have shown the actual lotto balls being picked and despite your refusal to acknowledge what a lottery is( a game of chance) why do you even follow the nba or even post here? It is illogical for someone to care about on something you believe to be rigged.

Why would it bother me? It hasn't worked against my team so far. Like I said in another thread, you would have to be a very trusting (naive) person to believe that low odds team win the lottery as frequently as the do just by chance.

Now seriously, should the fact that the NBA decided to give Wiggins to Cleveland or Rose to Chicago make a fan not follow the NBA? I love the game, but I also understand the the NBA is a for-profit entertainment business and it's on as pure as some would like to believe. There's some degree of central planning going on.

You know you make me laugh with your absurd posts.

[Mr Sixer]

I think the problem is indirectly how many teams there are in the league. If there were less teams and the salary cap ceiling was lowered a little, there would be more single superstar teams, as well as more star players to go around for a fewer amount of teams and make free agency fairer. This would make the league overall fairer which would detract from tanking, because it would no longer be impossible for smaller market teams to acquire stars in any way other than the draft.

[QRich3]

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

And that's the other pole.

The NBA is eternally caught between two wildly different goals/viewpoints.

1) reward the worst team. That's how every other league does it. But the entire reason there is a lottery is because the NBA discovered you do that and teams WILL (and if they are smart, SHOULD) tank like mad to draft the next Hakeem or Shaq.

2) stop the tanking! make everybody have an equal chance! Except then the worst teams get left out in the cold with no way to get better.

And so every few years partisans from one side of the debate or the other, typically whoever's approach is not currently in vogue, start screaming, and they jigger the numbers this way and that way, and one year make them better for the worst teams, and then when too much tanking is going on they go back the other way and make them worse for the worst teams, but better for anti-tanking. But it never ends. If they do this the Lakers will get the #1 at some point as a #14 seed, everybody will scream, and boom, they'll wiggle the numbers back the other way so bad teams get the top picks again. There is no end to it.

I like your post and I know you're not going one way or the other, I just want to say I don't understand the people who agree with the bolded. If you're the worst team in the league with a lower chance to get a top pick, you still have lots of ways to get better. Worst case scenario, you're basically in the same situation as an expansion team, and nobody feels sorry for those. Mostly, the people scared of that scenario are the teams with an incompetent front office and ownership, who are scared their flaws will be in the open if they don't have the luck of the lottery to save them (or the claim of bad luck to justify them).