NBA looking to change Draft Lottery; 76ers say no

[42uptop]

It all comes down to the League should have announced the changes June 1st, instead of the middle of July. Teams' long term plans haves already been made. Ultimately, the changes will hurt the 76ers in year 2 of this rebuild, but only slightly. The 76ers would benefit in year 3, if Embiid comes back healthy and makes any kind of impact.

I don't think that matters. The Sixers know they aren't supposed to tank. They were circumventing the spirit of the rules if not the letter of the law. Now they want another year so they can keep circumventing it? I'm sorry, no. It's like if a college professor starts sleeping with a student at a college where there is no explicit rule about it and then the college puts in a rule about it, he doesn't get to keep sleeping with her just because it used to technically be legal. He knew damn well he *shouldn't* be doing that regardless what the actual rule said.

What a horrible, horrible post. How about we compare tanking to hate crimes next? Maybe money laundering? Murder?

News Flash: There is nothing morally or legally wrong with tanking. Period. Your argument is invalid

[brownbobcat]

What a horrible, horrible post. How about we compare tanking to hate crimes next? Maybe money laundering? Murder?

News Flash: There is nothing morally or legally wrong with tanking. Period. Your argument is invalid

In the context of competitive sports, tanking goes against one of the most fundamental principles - trying to win.
I don't fault them for doing it, Philly is hardly the only one doing it or the most egregious offender. However, it is bad for the sport and I think applying this solution (however imperfect) immediately is better than delaying it out of fairness.

[Snotbubbles]

This proposed change does nothing to stop tanking. It just masks the problem to where it doesn't have to be blatant. If you want to fix tanking it's going to have to be done in the next bargaining session. I don't think Silver has the balls to lockout the players to fix it so we are stuck with these feeble attempts to mask it.

It does quite a bit actually. With the current flawed system. The difference between the 8th lottery seed and the 3rd lottery seed is huge. A team expecting to finish around 22nd would be smart to trade all their players over 24yrs old for pennies on the dollar to move from 22nd to 26th-28th

With the new proposal the difference between 8th and 3rd lottery seed isnt large enough to justify trading all your players for pennies on the dollar.

It doesn't though. It simply gives the top 4 teams an equal shot at 11%. So the bad teams will make sure that they are in the top 4 to get the 11%. This won't require teams to be historically bad, just bad enough. What it does do is provides incentives for those teams that are in the 8-14 range to throw some games late in the season to increase their odds at the #1 pick. You don't have to trade away guys, just ease them back from injury or sit a guy in the 4th quarter of a close game.

A team like the Knicks who aren't legitimate contenders but could make the playoffs would benefit from an increased shot at the #1 pick if the player were considered great. When the next Lebron James type player comes out we could see upwards of 15 teams trying NOT to make the playoffs. The current system, having a .5% chance at a pick isn't enough incentive when other teams have 25% chance. But having a 5% chance when the other teams have an 11% chance just might make sense.

[Snotbubbles]

What a horrible, horrible post. How about we compare tanking to hate crimes next? Maybe money laundering? Murder?

News Flash: There is nothing morally or legally wrong with tanking. Period. Your argument is invalid

In the context of competitive sports, tanking goes against one of the most fundamental principles - trying to win.
I don't fault them for doing it, Philly is hardly the only one doing it or the most egregious offender. However, it is bad for the sport and I think applying this solution (however imperfect) immediately is better than delaying it out of fairness.

What's the difference between re-building and tanking?

[brownbobcat]

What's the difference between re-building and tanking?

Mostly semantics, although tanking usually involves actively being as bad as possible for 2+ years. Regardless of what you call it, I don't think any team should be excessively rewarded for sucking. Philly will still get a decent pick, it's just less likely to be top-3 with the new rules.

[brownbobcat]

It doesn't though. It simply gives the top 4 teams an equal shot at 11%. So the bad teams will make sure that they are in the top 4 to get the 11%. This won't require teams to be historically bad, just bad enough. What it does do is provides incentives for those teams that are in the 8-14 range to throw some games late in the season to increase their odds at the #1 pick. You don't have to trade away guys, just ease them back from injury or sit a guy in the 4th quarter of a close game.

But the incentive is lessened for true tanking, because the relative gain from being 8th worst vs 3rd worst is much smaller. And it's not only the odds of getting #1 that are affected, but the overall expected value of your pick. Think of it this way: if every single team had the same odds, would you bother tanking? No, obviously not. Well, this is just taking a small step in that direction.

It's not a perfect fix, it doesn't specifically reward teams that try to improve, but it's better than nothing. I find it much more likely that bubble teams would want to make the playoffs as opposed to missing it for a 5% chance. The concern isn't about those teams, it's about teams that want to be absolutely terrible.

[nodeal]

This proposed change does nothing to stop tanking. It just masks the problem to where it doesn't have to be blatant. If you want to fix tanking it's going to have to be done in the next bargaining session. I don't think Silver has the balls to lockout the players to fix it so we are stuck with these feeble attempts to mask it.

It does quite a bit actually. With the current flawed system. The difference between the 8th lottery seed and the 3rd lottery seed is huge. A team expecting to finish around 22nd would be smart to trade all their players over 24yrs old for pennies on the dollar to move from 22nd to 26th-28th

With the new proposal the difference between 8th and 3rd lottery seed isnt large enough to justify trading all your players for pennies on the dollar.

It doesn't though. It simply gives the top 4 teams an equal shot at 11%. So the bad teams will make sure that they are in the top 4 to get the 11%. This won't require teams to be historically bad, just bad enough. What it does do is provides incentives for those teams that are in the 8-14 range to throw some games late in the season to increase their odds at the #1 pick. You don't have to trade away guys, just ease them back from injury or sit a guy in the 4th quarter of a close game.

A team like the Knicks who aren't legitimate contenders but could make the playoffs would benefit from an increased shot at the #1 pick if the player were considered great. When the next Lebron James type player comes out we could see upwards of 15 teams trying NOT to make the playoffs. The current system, having a .5% chance at a pick isn't enough incentive when other teams have 25% chance. But having a 5% chance when the other teams have an 11% chance just might make sense.

Here is something that is probably really close to the new proposal.

Rank - Lottery Balls - #1 %
1 110 11%
2 110 11%
3 110 11%
4 110 11%
5 100 10%
6 90 9%
7 80 8%
8 70 7%
9 60 6%
10 50 5%
11 40 4%
12 30 3%
13 20 2%
14 20 2%

If youre in a fight for the playoffs are you really going to tank to go from 2% to 4%? You wouldnt. If youre sitting 8th with a 7% shot are you going to trade players away at 50 cents on the dollar to go to 4th 11%? You wouldnt. The incentive to tank is significantly lessened.

I would also laugh my ass off if i ever witness a team tank out of the playoffs for a 2-4% chance at the #1 pick.

[Snotbubbles]

What's the difference between re-building and tanking?

Mostly semantics, although tanking usually involves actively being as bad as possible for 2+ years. Regardless of what you call it, I don't think any team should be excessively rewarded for sucking. Philly will still get a decent pick, it's just less likely to be top-3 with the new rules.

What's the purpose of the draft?

[Snotbubbles]

It doesn't though. It simply gives the top 4 teams an equal shot at 11%. So the bad teams will make sure that they are in the top 4 to get the 11%. This won't require teams to be historically bad, just bad enough. What it does do is provides incentives for those teams that are in the 8-14 range to throw some games late in the season to increase their odds at the #1 pick. You don't have to trade away guys, just ease them back from injury or sit a guy in the 4th quarter of a close game.

But the incentive is lessened for true tanking, because the relative gain from being 8th worst vs 3rd worst is much smaller. And it's not only the odds of getting #1 that are affected, but the overall expected value of your pick. Think of it this way: if every single team had the same odds, would you bother tanking? No, obviously not. Well, this is just taking a small step in that direction.

It's not a perfect fix, it doesn't specifically reward teams that try to improve, but it's better than nothing. I find it much more likely that bubble teams would want to make the playoffs as opposed to missing it for a 5% chance. The concern isn't about those teams, it's about teams that want to be absolutely terrible.

So you agree with me. It doesn't stop tanking, it only masks it.

[nodeal]

What's the difference between re-building and tanking?

Mostly semantics, although tanking usually involves actively being as bad as possible for 2+ years. Regardless of what you call it, I don't think any team should be excessively rewarded for sucking. Philly will still get a decent pick, it's just less likely to be top-3 with the new rules.

What's the purpose of the draft?

Tanking is generally things that are deemed unethical. Having players sit out with minor injuries or just sit out longer than they need to. Getting the coach in on the tank. ect.

Rebuilding is basically what Hinkie is doing. I approve what hinkie is doing, I would do the same. I still think the lottery odds should be changed. Maybe not in 2015, but give warning it will be changed in 2016.

Bad teams will still get high picks, it also means as these bad teams get better, they still have a chance to continue to get high picks. This new format will actually lead to more small market teams making it to a competitive level.

[Snotbubbles]

Mostly semantics, although tanking usually involves actively being as bad as possible for 2+ years. Regardless of what you call it, I don't think any team should be excessively rewarded for sucking. Philly will still get a decent pick, it's just less likely to be top-3 with the new rules.

What's the purpose of the draft?

Tanking is generally things that are deemed unethical. Having players sit out with minor injuries or just sit out longer than they need to. Getting the coach in on the tank. ect.

Rebuilding is basically what Hinkie is doing. I approve what hinkie is doing, I would do the same. I still think the lottery odds should be changed. Maybe not in 2015, but give warning it will be changed in 2016.

Bad teams will still get high picks, it also means as these bad teams get better, they still have a chance to continue to get high picks. This new format will actually lead to more small market teams making it to a competitive level.

More than a hard cap and no max salaries? If you want to eliminate tanking and increase parity then don't make teams so reliant on the draft.

[BullyKing]

It does quite a bit actually. With the current flawed system. The difference between the 8th lottery seed and the 3rd lottery seed is huge. A team expecting to finish around 22nd would be smart to trade all their players over 24yrs old for pennies on the dollar to move from 22nd to 26th-28th

With the new proposal the difference between 8th and 3rd lottery seed isnt large enough to justify trading all your players for pennies on the dollar.

It doesn't though. It simply gives the top 4 teams an equal shot at 11%. So the bad teams will make sure that they are in the top 4 to get the 11%. This won't require teams to be historically bad, just bad enough. What it does do is provides incentives for those teams that are in the 8-14 range to throw some games late in the season to increase their odds at the #1 pick. You don't have to trade away guys, just ease them back from injury or sit a guy in the 4th quarter of a close game.

A team like the Knicks who aren't legitimate contenders but could make the playoffs would benefit from an increased shot at the #1 pick if the player were considered great. When the next Lebron James type player comes out we could see upwards of 15 teams trying NOT to make the playoffs. The current system, having a .5% chance at a pick isn't enough incentive when other teams have 25% chance. But having a 5% chance when the other teams have an 11% chance just might make sense.

Here is something that is probably really close to the new proposal.

Rank - Lottery Balls - #1 %
1 110 11%
2 110 11%
3 110 11%
4 110 11%
5 100 10%
6 90 9%
7 80 8%
8 70 7%
9 60 6%
10 50 5%
11 40 4%
12 30 3%
13 20 2%
14 20 2%

If youre in a fight for the playoffs are you really going to tank to go from 2% to 4%? You wouldnt. If youre sitting 8th with a 7% shot are you going to trade players away at 50 cents on the dollar to go to 4th 11%? You wouldnt. The incentive to tank is significantly lessened.

I would also laugh my ass off if i ever witness a team tank out of the playoffs for a 2-4% chance at the #1 pick.

In the East, it is possible that there is not a huge gap between realistically fighting for one of the last playoff spots or missing the playoffs and finishing with say, the 7th worst overall record. Detroit was 8th last year and while they finished nine wins back of the last playoff spot, that includes their tanking efforts at the end (including being blown out by the Sixers to end the 26 game losing streak) to try and save their pick from going to Charlotte.

So yeah, I doubt anyone is tanking out of the playoffs for a 2% chance at the No. 1 pick but for an 8% chance where the worst team only has 11%, yes, absolutely possible.

[brownbobcat]

What's the purpose of the draft?

"Excessively rewarded" is the key phrase here.

So you agree with me. It doesn't stop tanking, it only masks it.

It lessens it, and it's better than leaving things as-is.

More than a hard cap and no max salaries? If you want to eliminate tanking and increase parity then don't make teams so reliant on the draft.

That's my preference, but you'd have to renegotiate the CBA - it would never logistically work.

[BullyKing]

What's the purpose of the draft?

"Excessively rewarded" is the key phrase here.

So you agree with me. It doesn't stop tanking, it only masks it.

It lessens it, and it's better than leaving things as-is.

More than a hard cap and no max salaries? If you want to eliminate tanking and increase parity then don't make teams so reliant on the draft.

That's my preference, but you'd have to renegotiate the CBA - it would never logistically work.

Yes but what does excessively rewarded mean? If we can all agree that generally speaking, the purpose of the draft is to give the best incoming players to the worst teams, then you seem to be suggesting that a team that is bad on purpose is not worthy of the "reward" that comes with being the worst team.

The problem is whether someone is being bad on purpose is subjective/debate-able. Should Boston have been knocked down to the 11th pick because they didn't play Rondo on back to back nights and almost universally sat him against the worst opponent of the back to back? Was Orlando "excessively rewarded" with the 4th pick despite cutting Big Baby so they could give more minutes to players that had a future with the team? The Jazz let Al Jefferson and Paul Millsap go for nothing - ban them from the lottery?

[nodeal]

In the East, it is possible that there is not a huge gap between realistically fighting for one of the last playoff spots or missing the playoffs and finishing with say, the 7th worst overall record. Detroit was 8th last year and while they finished nine wins back of the last playoff spot, that includes their tanking efforts at the end (including being blown out by the Sixers to end the 26 game losing streak) to try and save their pick from going to Charlotte.

So yeah, I doubt anyone is tanking out of the playoffs for a 2% chance at the No. 1 pick but for an 8% chance where the worst team only has 11%, yes, absolutely possible.

Detroit was not tanking out of the playoffs, they had no hope. So under the new format they tanked from around 5% to 7%. Thats not worth tanking for.

For a playoff team to tank to 8% theyd have to start their tank pretty early. I dont think this would happen very often if ever under the new proposal.

[DayofMourning]

There is more than one way to approach team building. One example would be the Miami Heat way of making trades and attacking free agency in order to add talent. Another way is the Sixers model of building through the draft by making trades through draft picks, and trying to attain the highest picks they can. Neither way is wrong. They are operating under the guidelines they've been given.

What some of you are saying is that the Sixers should try their best to be a treadmill team, and compete their darnedest with what they have, and hope they luck into a great player in the middle of each round in the draft, and hope they can then afford to overpay middling talent in free agency, or have the biggest FAs that are available buy into what they are selling. That's not a great plan for success. What they have done, is draft better than any team in the NBA since Hinkie has taken the reigns. This has given them a positive direction that fans can relate to, and have faith in. They are succeeding because they understand that they must sacrifice in order to change their luck. The majority of their fans get this, and are buying into that ideal.

If Sixers management wants things to stay as they are, its because they are damn close to finishing their rebuild, and the know that if they get a top 4 pick in this coming draft, they can shore up their remaining weaknesses. I can see why they'd like to keep things as they are. They're trying to build a legit contender.

[BullyKing]

In the East, it is possible that there is not a huge gap between realistically fighting for one of the last playoff spots or missing the playoffs and finishing with say, the 7th worst overall record. Detroit was 8th last year and while they finished nine wins back of the last playoff spot, that includes their tanking efforts at the end (including being blown out by the Sixers to end the 26 game losing streak) to try and save their pick from going to Charlotte.

So yeah, I doubt anyone is tanking out of the playoffs for a 2% chance at the No. 1 pick but for an 8% chance where the worst team only has 11%, yes, absolutely possible.

Detroit was not tanking out of the playoffs, they had no hope. So under the new format they tanked from around 5% to 7%. Thats not worth tanking for.

For a playoff team to tank to 8% theyd have to start their tank pretty early. I dont think this would happen very often if ever under the new proposal.

I can't personally vouch for this website or its methodology but a close to %50 chance in late February.

http://www.sportsclubstats.com/NBA/East ... troit.html

[brownbobcat]

Yes but what does excessively rewarded mean? If we can all agree that generally speaking, the purpose of the draft is to give the best incoming players to the worst teams, then you seem to be suggesting that a team that is bad on purpose is not worthy of the "reward" that comes with being the worst team.

The problem is whether someone is being bad on purpose is subjective/debate-able. Should Boston have been knocked down to the 11th pick because they didn't play Rondo on back to back nights and almost universally sat him against the worst opponent of the back to back? Was Orlando "excessively rewarded" with the 4th pick despite cutting Big Baby so they could give more minutes to players that had a future with the team? The Jazz let Al Jefferson and Paul Millsap go for nothing - ban them from the lottery?

It is subjective, of course, but I think the current system is way too top-heavy. Being in that 19th to 25th position is no-man's land, and so teams will logically try to get worse. If you have an argument for why the current system is better than the proposed, I'd like to hear it.

[BullyKing]

Yes but what does excessively rewarded mean? If we can all agree that generally speaking, the purpose of the draft is to give the best incoming players to the worst teams, then you seem to be suggesting that a team that is bad on purpose is not worthy of the "reward" that comes with being the worst team.

The problem is whether someone is being bad on purpose is subjective/debate-able. Should Boston have been knocked down to the 11th pick because they didn't play Rondo on back to back nights and almost universally sat him against the worst opponent of the back to back? Was Orlando "excessively rewarded" with the 4th pick despite cutting Big Baby so they could give more minutes to players that had a future with the team? The Jazz let Al Jefferson and Paul Millsap go for nothing - ban them from the lottery?

It is subjective, of course, but I think the current system is way too top-heavy. Being in that 19th to 25th position is no-man's land, and so teams will logically try to get worse. If you have an argument for why the current system is better than the proposed, I'd like to hear it.

For me the argument is simple: the purpose of a draft is to give the best incoming players to the worst teams. By evening the odds, you're making it more likely that this purpose will not be accomplished and the worst teams will not get the best players.

And I just can't imagine any basis for the conclusion that the lottery as currently constructed is "way too top-heavy." The last time the worst team actually got the No. 1 pick was 2004. Since then, the top pick has gone to: 6th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 2nd, 5th, 8th, 3rd, 3rd, 9th. If you ask me, the fact that it is continuously failing to achieve the primary purpose of giving the best players to the worst teams indicates that it isn't weighted top heavy enough.

[nodeal]

I can't personally vouch for this website or its methodology but a close to %50 chance in late February.

http://www.sportsclubstats.com/NBA/East ... troit.html

Using those numbers, and assuming the new proposal with no condition on their pick. Also assuming the conference is horrible relative to the other. Below is basically what the teams are looking at.

The team is sitting at 50% to make the playoffs in late february.

Option A go for the playoffs
50% in the playoffs
20% 3%
20% 4%
10% 5%

Option B intentionally tank
0% playoffs
20% 4%
30% 5%
30% 6%
20% 7%

This is basically a rough estimate of the most extreme case of tanking away from the playoffs. Option A still looks better. Teams wont tank out of the playoffs, or even out of a chance at the playoffs for 3-4 extra % points.