[Grantland] Details to new lottery reform proposal

[kodo]

This isn't going to change anything.

There are some misconceptions about tanking. The biggest is that players go out there an intentionally lose. Players never do this, players always play their best because of their competitiveness and more selfishly because their contracts depend on their performances.

Does anyone think Thad Young on the Sixers is saying in his head "hey now, instead of a 25% chance the Sixers only have a 11% chance of getting a high draft pick, I'm actually now going to win this game vs OKC just like that, because now I know the odds."

The only thing I see is that teams like the Cavs are going to leapfrog more than ever, which is going to only increase tanking from borderline playoff teams. That's a negative.

[IllMagic04]

This isn't going to change anything.

There are some misconceptions about tanking. The biggest is that players go out there an intentionally lose. Players never do this, players always play their best because of their competitiveness and more selfishly because their contracts depend on their performances.

Does anyone think Thad Young on the Sixers is saying in his head "hey now, instead of a 25% chance the Sixers only have a 11% chance of getting a high draft pick, I'm actually now going to win this game vs OKC just like that, because now I know the odds."

The only thing I see is that teams like the Cavs are going to leapfrog more than ever, which is going to only increase tanking from borderline playoff teams. That's a negative.

While I agree that for the most part players don't tank.. Coaches and GM's do tank and I understnd why people feel its a mockery of the game.

[snoopdogg88]

I was watching a Summer League game today and the announcers were snickering that "certain teams" don't play hard and intentionally "mess up" at the end of games to give themselves extra ping pong balls or whatever


i wanted to pull my hair out. other than watching Rondo towards the end of the year, every god damn team plays hard.

It's the front office and that puts the team in a position to fail, it's not the players. they players will play hard every night regardless

[cucad8]

i wanted to pull my hair out. other than watching Rondo towards the end of the year, every god damn team plays hard.

It's the front office and that puts the team in a position to fail, it's not the players. they players will play hard every night regardless

Yeah really, what incentive is there for a scrub player to NOT play hard? Get a better pick so your team drafts someone better than you and sends you on your way?

[NyKnicks1714]

So essentially, the team with the worst record in the NBA could end up with the 7th pick in this system?

The worst team would actually have about a 50% chance of falling outside the top 6. I don't like that at all.

My math was way off here; didn't account for the changing odds with each selection, but there's still a decent chance of this happening.

[cucad8]

Gonna steal a little from Simmons, in a way, but instead of a tournament for 7th and 8th seeds or whatever, why not a mini tournament at end of regular season for lottery positioning. Give all of the playoff teams 5 days of rest before the playoffs kick off. All the other teams fly to one spot. Maybe you pick a same spot every year, like Vegas, or, to boost revenue for teams/cities, go to a new city every year, of teams in the league.
14 team, single elimination tournament. Seed the "top" 8 seeds, starting worst to best. Top 2 worst teams ge a bye. So this past season, Philly and Milwaukee.


Lay out the tournament as such. Hopefully formatting doesn't screw thatall up, lord knows it will. Seed the top 8, worst, teams. Team 14 picks their slot. Live. All huddled up, everyone watching, Coach, GM, whatever huddle up and make their selection. PHX this year says ok, we'll play...Orlando, or whoever. Then team 13 picks their slot, 12, 11, 10, 9. Fill in the teams and go. 6 games the first day. Very next day, back at it. 4 more games. Next day, 2 more games. 4th day, 3rd and 4th place teams play. 5th day, "championship" game for the top pick. Maybe in that 3rd and 4th day, you have the last eliminated 4 teams with a quick tourney to get the 5th seed also.
So you get the top 5 seeds determined through I think 17 games in 5 days. Rest go by record. SO if you're the worst team, and just pathetically bad where you aren't going to win any of these games, you're at leas guaranteed the 6th pick. However, knowing at the beginning of the year that you can only get the 6th pick and no higher by intentionally sucking, maybe you have incentive to add a decent player or two.

I think implementing this, you'd also eliminate the eastern conference and western conference playoffs, and re-seed 1-16. That way a terrible team in the east isn't in the playoffs, and missing out on lottery possibilities, further keeping disparity in conferences. Which basically puts Phoenix in, and Atlanta out of this last year's playoffs.

Edit:Formatting of the brackets, it screwed it up. But basically, where you see the byes are the two worst teams, then 3,5,7 below 1, 4,6,8 below 2. Then, 9 through 14 pick their opponents,

[il_knicks7]

You know you make me laugh with your absurd posts.

Laughter is good for you.

[Koponen]

Spoiler:

Gonna steal a little from Simmons, in a way, but instead of a tournament for 7th and 8th seeds or whatever, why not a mini tournament at end of regular season for lottery positioning. Give all of the playoff teams 5 days of rest before the playoffs kick off. All the other teams fly to one spot. Maybe you pick a same spot every year, like Vegas, or, to boost revenue for teams/cities, go to a new city every year, of teams in the league.
14 team, single elimination tournament. Seed the "top" 8 seeds, starting worst to best. Top 2 worst teams ge a bye. So this past season, Philly and Milwaukee.


Lay out the tournament as such. Hopefully formatting doesn't screw thatall up, lord knows it will. Seed the top 8, worst, teams. Team 14 picks their slot. Live. All huddled up, everyone watching, Coach, GM, whatever huddle up and make their selection. PHX this year says ok, we'll play...Orlando, or whoever. Then team 13 picks their slot, 12, 11, 10, 9. Fill in the teams and go. 6 games the first day. Very next day, back at it. 4 more games. Next day, 2 more games. 4th day, 3rd and 4th place teams play. 5th day, "championship" game for the top pick. Maybe in that 3rd and 4th day, you have the last eliminated 4 teams with a quick tourney to get the 5th seed also.
So you get the top 5 seeds determined through I think 17 games in 5 days. Rest go by record. SO if you're the worst team, and just pathetically bad where you aren't going to win any of these games, you're at leas guaranteed the 6th pick. However, knowing at the beginning of the year that you can only get the 6th pick and no higher by intentionally sucking, maybe you have incentive to add a decent player or two.

I think implementing this, you'd also eliminate the eastern conference and western conference playoffs, and re-seed 1-16. That way a terrible team in the east isn't in the playoffs, and missing out on lottery possibilities, further keeping disparity in conferences. Which basically puts Phoenix in, and Atlanta out of this last year's playoffs.

Edit:Formatting of the brackets, it screwed it up. But basically, where you see the byes are the two worst teams, then 3,5,7 below 1, 4,6,8 below 2. Then, 9 through 14 pick their opponents,

Wouldn't this just create a situation where teams on the borderline of earning a playoff berth might tank to get into this lottery tournament? Also, this doesn't account for naturally bad teams due to injuries, players leaving in FA, etc.

[sweet_jesus]

Wouldn't this just create a situation where teams on the borderline of earning a playoff berth might tank to get into this lottery tournament? Also, this doesn't account for naturally bad teams due to injuries, players leaving in FA, etc.

Yes, you would have a PHX team stomping everyone and getting rewarded with Wiggins

[Neutral 123]

I still like the complete lottery with ALL teams having equal chances. I dont care if your team sucks. Get better by trying to develop players and make good decisions, not rely on tanking and the draft. Equal chance for all.

This is the only way to get rid of tanking. Is it Would it suck if one of the top teams ended up with the #1 pick? Yes, but if the league cares about preventing tanking, this is the way to go until someone can propose a better idea.

So that would mean the team doesn't care about competitive balance. There is no perfect solution. Even out the odds, and you end up hurting genuinely bad teams. Have a draft where the worst team is guaranteed to get the worst pick, and you encourage teams who are bad to be even worse. The current lottery strikes a decent balance.

People whine about Cleveland, but it shows that the bad teams can get better, but there's also no guarantee that the absolute worst team will end up with the first pick.

[funkatron101]

Lottery results based on three-season average.

Stop all these convoluted rules in trying to fix "tanking." No team will purposely be the worst for three seasons. If they are, it is clear that they need the most help.

[cucad8]

Spoiler:

Gonna steal a little from Simmons, in a way, but instead of a tournament for 7th and 8th seeds or whatever, why not a mini tournament at end of regular season for lottery positioning. Give all of the playoff teams 5 days of rest before the playoffs kick off. All the other teams fly to one spot. Maybe you pick a same spot every year, like Vegas, or, to boost revenue for teams/cities, go to a new city every year, of teams in the league.
14 team, single elimination tournament. Seed the "top" 8 seeds, starting worst to best. Top 2 worst teams ge a bye. So this past season, Philly and Milwaukee.


Lay out the tournament as such. Hopefully formatting doesn't screw thatall up, lord knows it will. Seed the top 8, worst, teams. Team 14 picks their slot. Live. All huddled up, everyone watching, Coach, GM, whatever huddle up and make their selection. PHX this year says ok, we'll play...Orlando, or whoever. Then team 13 picks their slot, 12, 11, 10, 9. Fill in the teams and go. 6 games the first day. Very next day, back at it. 4 more games. Next day, 2 more games. 4th day, 3rd and 4th place teams play. 5th day, "championship" game for the top pick. Maybe in that 3rd and 4th day, you have the last eliminated 4 teams with a quick tourney to get the 5th seed also.
So you get the top 5 seeds determined through I think 17 games in 5 days. Rest go by record. SO if you're the worst team, and just pathetically bad where you aren't going to win any of these games, you're at leas guaranteed the 6th pick. However, knowing at the beginning of the year that you can only get the 6th pick and no higher by intentionally sucking, maybe you have incentive to add a decent player or two.

I think implementing this, you'd also eliminate the eastern conference and western conference playoffs, and re-seed 1-16. That way a terrible team in the east isn't in the playoffs, and missing out on lottery possibilities, further keeping disparity in conferences. Which basically puts Phoenix in, and Atlanta out of this last year's playoffs.

Edit:Formatting of the brackets, it screwed it up. But basically, where you see the byes are the two worst teams, then 3,5,7 below 1, 4,6,8 below 2. Then, 9 through 14 pick their opponents,

Wouldn't this just create a situation where teams on the borderline of earning a playoff berth might tank to get into this lottery tournament? Also, this doesn't account for naturally bad teams due to injuries, players leaving in FA, etc.

What do you mean it doesn't account for naturally bad teams? Just that they get "punished"? Sure. But all systems do.
It might cause a team to tank into the lottery. If an owner wants to lose out on playoff revenue and take the risk of winning 4 games in 5 nights. Yes they'd be somewhat better than the other teams, but not so much where it's just a cakewalk for them. Also can implement a rule of something where your not allowed to play a guy who hasn't played for you in a week or two or something, so a team couldn't sit guys to tank into lotto from playoffs

[Snotbubbles]

Lottery results based on three-season average.

Stop all these convoluted rules in trying to fix "tanking." No team will purposely be the worst for three seasons. If they are, it is clear that they need the most help.

It's already been brought up, but if say the Miami Heat lost Lebron, Wade and Bosh this year and were absolutely dreadful. It would be three years until they would get a high draft pick. The current system quite frankly is the best of all the proposals. It give the worst team only a 1 in 4 chance of getting the top pick, but still allows them at worst the #4.

[funkatron101]

Lottery results based on three-season average.

Stop all these convoluted rules in trying to fix "tanking." No team will purposely be the worst for three seasons. If they are, it is clear that they need the most help.

It's already been brought up, but if say the Miami Heat lost Lebron, Wade and Bosh this year and were absolutely dreadful. It would be three years until they would get a high draft pick. The current system quite frankly is the best of all the proposals. It give the worst team only a 1 in 4 chance of getting the top pick, but still allows them at worst the #4.

The formation of "super teams" is already a rare thing. The dismantling of them should not be met with the reward of the #1 - #4 pick the following year.

I would venture to say that after year two of a terrible record, that would be enough to garner a good pick in a 3-season average system.

But in any event, had all three left, they would have had enough cap space to form a decent team, in theory.

[Wolves21]

I hate the lottery and drafting in every sport.How it should be is just like the really lottery.Every team gets one ball and its drawn like a lottery machine.This would get read of tanking in every sports sense having a **** record or team wont help at all.Every team each year would but their best foot forward.Ya some years a already great team like say the Spurs or Heat would get the #1 pick or and extremely high pick but so what.

[JasonStern]

there's no way to completely stop tanking, but the league should be looking at making it very difficult financially to continue to do so. the revenue of bottom three teams not coincidentally is almost always bottom three. that's why you have teams like last year's Bobcats and Cavaliers that try to tank and rebuild through the draft, but eventually (usually after about 3 seasons) have to try to make the playoffs in order to keep the local fans interested and thus keep the revenues up.

thus, the major reform I would like to see is simply limiting the high picks a team can achieve in consecutive drafts. this makes a rebuild through tanking significantly harder for a team to do as achieving multiple top (insert threshold number) picks requires the financial commitment of lost revenues for a minimum of three consecutive seasons. if the 76ers, having drafted Embiid at #3 in 2014, could not draft in the top (insert threshold number) this season, then they have more motivation to load up on at least one-year contracts to either make a minor run or for trade purposes rather than an outright tank this season. this would make casual fan interest higher during rebuilds. as an added benefit, the scenario where a team like the Cavaliers getting back-to-back #1 picks would be prevented.

[Snotbubbles]

there's no way to completely stop tanking, but the league should be looking at making it very difficult financially to continue to do so. the revenue of bottom three teams not coincidentally is almost always bottom three. that's why you have teams like last year's Bobcats and Cavaliers that try to tank and rebuild through the draft, but eventually (usually after about 3 seasons) have to try to make the playoffs in order to keep the local fans interested and thus keep the revenues up.

thus, the major reform I would like to see is simply limiting the high picks a team can achieve in consecutive drafts. this makes a rebuild through tanking significantly harder for a team to do as achieving multiple top (insert threshold number) picks requires the financial commitment of lost revenues for a minimum of three consecutive seasons. if the 76ers, having drafted Embiid at #3 in 2014, could not draft in the top (insert threshold number) this season, then they have more motivation to load up on at least one-year contracts to either make a minor run or for trade purposes rather than an outright tank this season. this would make casual fan interest higher during rebuilds. as an added benefit, the scenario where a team like the Cavaliers getting back-to-back #1 picks would be prevented.

How does adding a bunch of 1 year contract journeymen improve a team or the product?

The Sixers ownership is dedicated to winning a CHAMPIONSHIP, not a playoff series. The problem isn't the draft, it's the entire NBA system.

[JasonStern]

there's no way to completely stop tanking, but the league should be looking at making it very difficult financially to continue to do so. the revenue of bottom three teams not coincidentally is almost always bottom three. that's why you have teams like last year's Bobcats and Cavaliers that try to tank and rebuild through the draft, but eventually (usually after about 3 seasons) have to try to make the playoffs in order to keep the local fans interested and thus keep the revenues up.

thus, the major reform I would like to see is simply limiting the high picks a team can achieve in consecutive drafts. this makes a rebuild through tanking significantly harder for a team to do as achieving multiple top (insert threshold number) picks requires the financial commitment of lost revenues for a minimum of three consecutive seasons. if the 76ers, having drafted Embiid at #3 in 2014, could not draft in the top (insert threshold number) this season, then they have more motivation to load up on at least one-year contracts to either make a minor run or for trade purposes rather than an outright tank this season. this would make casual fan interest higher during rebuilds. as an added benefit, the scenario where a team like the Cavaliers getting back-to-back #1 picks would be prevented.

How does adding a bunch of 1 year contract journeymen improve a team or the product?

The Sixers ownership is dedicated to winning a CHAMPIONSHIP, not a playoff series. The problem isn't the draft, it's the entire NBA system.

I don't think that you read my comment entirely. regardless:

the point wasn't adding one year journeymen to somehow fix tanking - the point was that none of these proposed plans fix tanking. the only thing that the NBA can do is make it cost prohibitive for teams to tank. the NBA is a business. and if the cost of being bad for consecutive seasons outweighs the revenues generated by obtaining an NBA superstar, then teams will be much less inclined to tank. as much as you like to think the NBA is a "game" or "real life" or whatever cliche, in the end - it's a financially driven business.

name one team that spent multiple years tanking only to win a championship. you can't. the closest you can come is the Thunder, who made one NBA finals appearance before the cost of retaining their players became prohibitive and they had to trade first team all-NBA shooting guard James Harden. and that was a team that hit on their picks. most teams don't. hell, the Thunder rebuild model was copied from the Blazers, who ended up failing even when they hit on picks (Roy).

now, let's look at your 76ers. the 76ers spent last season setting or tying the league record for most consecutive losses, attendance and in venue revenue is down, television ratings and ad revenue are down, nationally televised appearances are down, and the plan is to do it all over again next year with the hopes that the 76ers become the next Thunder and not the next Wolves, Kings, etc., with the most likely case being the Bobcats/Hornets.

knock on wood, but what if Embiid becomes the next Greg Oden or even Hasheem Thabeet? every non-Rocket homer hates on Morey for his failed plan this off-season, but he has two highly marketable players on his roster, his team had multiple nationally televised games, their team wins games - helping generate revenue through TV rights, and the Rockets made additional revenue by making the playoffs. while they might take a step back next season, the team is still profitable. meanwhile, Hinkie would have lost the 76ers owner tens of millions of dollars this season for the right to contractually spend millions on a bust, all while having to spend next season losing additional tens of millions of dollars.

and that point - the continued loss of revenue - is why limits on the picks obtained in consecutive years makes sense. would the 76ers be intentionally bad this season if they were ensured a zero percent chance of getting a top 5 pick? probably not, despite your unsubstantiated "76ers be serious about winnin' CHAMPIONSHIP" remark. every owner is serious about winning a championship until they spend their own money for years and have nothing to show for it.

[Snotbubbles]

there's no way to completely stop tanking, but the league should be looking at making it very difficult financially to continue to do so. the revenue of bottom three teams not coincidentally is almost always bottom three. that's why you have teams like last year's Bobcats and Cavaliers that try to tank and rebuild through the draft, but eventually (usually after about 3 seasons) have to try to make the playoffs in order to keep the local fans interested and thus keep the revenues up.

thus, the major reform I would like to see is simply limiting the high picks a team can achieve in consecutive drafts. this makes a rebuild through tanking significantly harder for a team to do as achieving multiple top (insert threshold number) picks requires the financial commitment of lost revenues for a minimum of three consecutive seasons. if the 76ers, having drafted Embiid at #3 in 2014, could not draft in the top (insert threshold number) this season, then they have more motivation to load up on at least one-year contracts to either make a minor run or for trade purposes rather than an outright tank this season. this would make casual fan interest higher during rebuilds. as an added benefit, the scenario where a team like the Cavaliers getting back-to-back #1 picks would be prevented.

How does adding a bunch of 1 year contract journeymen improve a team or the product?

The Sixers ownership is dedicated to winning a CHAMPIONSHIP, not a playoff series. The problem isn't the draft, it's the entire NBA system.

I don't think that you read my comment entirely. regardless:

the point wasn't adding one year journeymen to somehow fix tanking - the point was that none of these proposed plans fix tanking. the only thing that the NBA can do is make it cost prohibitive for teams to tank. the NBA is a business. and if the cost of being bad for consecutive seasons outweighs the revenues generated by obtaining an NBA superstar, then teams will be much less inclined to tank. as much as you like to think the NBA is a "game" or "real life" or whatever cliche, in the end - it's a financially driven business.

name one team that spent multiple years tanking only to win a championship. you can't. the closest you can come is the Thunder, who made one NBA finals appearance before the cost of retaining their players became prohibitive and they had to trade first team all-NBA shooting guard James Harden. and that was a team that hit on their picks. most teams don't. hell, the Thunder rebuild model was copied from the Blazers, who ended up failing even when they hit on picks (Roy).

now, let's look at your 76ers. the 76ers spent last season setting or tying the league record for most consecutive losses, attendance and in venue revenue is down, television ratings and ad revenue are down, nationally televised appearances are down, and the plan is to do it all over again next year with the hopes that the 76ers become the next Thunder and not the next Wolves, Kings, etc., with the most likely case being the Bobcats/Hornets.

knock on wood, but what if Embiid becomes the next Greg Oden or even Hasheem Thabeet? every non-Rocket homer hates on Morey for his failed plan this off-season, but he has two highly marketable players on his roster, his team had multiple nationally televised games, their team wins games - helping generate revenue through TV rights, and the Rockets made additional revenue by making the playoffs. while they might take a step back next season, the team is still profitable. meanwhile, Hinkie would have lost the 76ers owner tens of millions of dollars this season for the right to contractually spend millions on a bust, all while having to spend next season losing additional tens of millions of dollars.

and that point - the continued loss of revenue - is why limits on the picks obtained in consecutive years makes sense. would the 76ers be intentionally bad this season if they were ensured a zero percent chance of getting a top 5 pick? probably not, despite your unsubstantiated "76ers be serious about winnin' CHAMPIONSHIP" remark. every owner is serious about winning a championship until they spend their own money for years and have nothing to show for it.

What GM would do this type of rebuild without ownership approval? Sam Hinkie sold a 5 year plan to Josh Harris and Harris knew that it would result in a short-term loss of revenue. Because of the loss in revenue, teams can't/won't perpetually tank. Tanking isn't a long-term strategy.

And your hypotheticals are ridiculous. The Sixers came away with arguably the two best players from the past two drafts and their re-build would have looked exactly the same to this point even if they had a 0% chance at a top 5 pick in 2015. What do you think they should have done, re-signed Evan Turner and Spencer Hawes? Those type of moves are steps back.

The whole purpose of the draft is to give the poorer teams an opportunity at the best talent. Back in the day, all the lottery teams had an equal chance at getting the #1 pick. The NBA went to the weighted system.