Fat Solves the NBA Draft Lottery Problem

[fatlever]

Its that time of year again, time for me to promote my plan to solve the NBA lottery problem that is ruining the league. Everyone seems to have a plan or an idea, such as the NBA's draft wheel or Bill Simmons Entertaining as Hell Tournament, but mine is the best solution (biased opinion alert)

Fat solves the NBA Draft Lottery

Fat's Plan

1) If you land the #1 pick you are ineligible to receive the #1 pick again for 5 years immediately following your #1 pick. You are also ineligible to pick in the top 3 for 3 years immediately following your #1 pick.
a) For the 3 years immediately following the year you landed the #1 pick, your team will have no ping pong balls in the lottery machine. You will pick according to record once the top 3 teams are decided.
b) For the 4th and 5th years immediately following the year you landed the #1 pick, if your lotto combination comes up for the 1st pick, you are automatically slotted in the the #2 spot.
c) If two or more teams that have won the lottery in the past 5 years are in this situation the 2nd spot goes to the team further removed from winning the lottery and so on.

2) The # of lotto balls for each team would be decided based on each team's average record for 3 years immediately proceeding the lottery. This is to discourage a former playoff team from tanking hard one year while a star player is injured (such as the spurs when David Robinson was hurt) or to prevent a team that has been competitive for a long time from tanking for one year, getting lucky and bouncing right back into the playoffs.

3) Teams that picked in the top 3 the previous year would be ineligible to land in the top 3 the following year. They will pick based on record after the top 3 lottery teams are decided.

4) There should be some additional incentive to making the playoffs and high 2nd round picks are valuable. The first 16 2nd round picks are assigned based on reverse playoff seeding, following by the remaining lottery teams (worst to best)

31st and 32nd picks go to 8th seeds
33rd and 34th picks go to 7th seeds
...
47th to the worst lottery team
...
60th to the best lottery team

based on this plan, what would the draft slots and lottery odds look like this year? (coming soon...)

[Rusted]

Take away the first item, or water it down to only the next one or two years, and I think its a real good plan (#1 adds a little too much complexity -- keep it simple).

[fatlever]

Take away the first item, or water it down to only the next one or two years, and I think its a real good plan (#1 adds a little too much complexity -- keep it simple).

Maybe you could change it to 3 years for 1st pick and 1 year for top 3. Gotta do something though to prevent teams like the Cavs from getting 4 #1 picks in a 10 year period.

[Eoghan]

I only like item 4. I don't think there's a tanking problem.

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

The problem with the 3 year average record thing is short contracts & injury. A team like NO could lose AD in free agency, have someone else go out with injury, and turn into one of the worst teams in the NBA ... and still have little shot at getting the number 1 pick even if they can't win more than 15 games.

[Snidely FC]

Ahmin Elhasson's argues on ESPN Insider to abolish the draft in favor of a Rookie Exception, essentially turning the draft into Rookie Free Agency.
The Rookie Exception would be weighted, giving the rookies monetary incentive to go to the worst teams, but still allowing them some choice. Also, a team could use the whole exception on one player or on several. Towns, for ex, might prefer LA over MIN, but he would be leaving $1.4M on the table. Would he rather play in NY for $2.5 Mln less? DeAngelo Russell could choose between NY or PHI for a $300K difference. Big market teams might benefit at first but they would drop down the exception scale as they improved. And playing time will become an issue for successful teams. For instance, GS is so deep would DeAngelo Russell pick them at a huge salary discount knowing he could play 40 mins a game and get $2.7 mln more in PHI?
In CHA's case this year, Mario Hezonja, for ex, might choose MIA over CHA for only $120K less, but this would also allow CHA to compete with ORL, SAC, DET and DEN for, say, Justice Winslow. Elhassan argues that the Rookie Free Agency approach would reward savvy management over losing. Management would have to sell players on their team.

Example:
PICK TEAM '15 PROPOSED ROOK EXCEPT.
1 MIN $5,758,910
2 LAL $4,319,183
3 PHI $3,484,141
4 NYK $3,196,195
5 ORL $2,965,839
6 SAC $2,821,866
7 DEN $2,677,893
8 DET $2,533,920
9 CHA $2,389,948
10 MIA $2,245,975
28 LAC $806,247
29 ATL $777,453
30 GSW $748,658

[fatlever]

Ahmin Elhasson's argues on ESPN Insider to abolish the draft in favor of a Rookie Exception, essentially turning the draft into Rookie Free Agency.
The Rookie Exception would be weighted, giving the rookies monetary incentive to go to the worst teams, but still allowing them some choice. Also, a team could use the whole exception on one player or on several. Towns, for ex, might prefer LA over MIN, but he would be leaving $1.4M on the table. Would he rather play in NY for $2.5 Mln less? DeAngelo Russell could choose between NY or PHI for a $300K difference. Big market teams might benefit at first but they would drop down the exception scale as they improved. And playing time will become an issue for successful teams. For instance, GS is so deep would DeAngelo Russell pick them at a huge salary discount knowing he could play 40 mins a game and get $2.7 mln more in PHI?
In CHA's case this year, Mario Hezonja, for ex, might choose MIA over CHA for only $120K less, but this would also allow CHA to compete with ORL, SAC, DET and DEN for, say, Justice Winslow. Elhassan argues that the Rookie Free Agency approach would reward savvy management over losing. Management would have to sell players on their team.

Example:
PICK TEAM '15 PROPOSED ROOK EXCEPT.
1 MIN $5,758,910
2 LAL $4,319,183
3 PHI $3,484,141
4 NYK $3,196,195
5 ORL $2,965,839
6 SAC $2,821,866
7 DEN $2,677,893
8 DET $2,533,920
9 CHA $2,389,948
10 MIA $2,245,975
28 LAC $806,247
29 ATL $777,453
30 GSW $748,658

Not a fan of this type of system, really would hurt small market teams that aren't at the very top of the salary scale. Who is choosing Charlotte over Miami for the same salary? Teams like Charlotte would have to sit back and wait for the top salary teams to fill their spots, then the big market and star teams to fill their spots and then choose from the leftovers.

[fatlever]

The problem with the 3 year average record thing is short contracts & injury. A team like NO could lose AD in free agency, have someone else go out with injury, and turn into one of the worst teams in the NBA ... and still have little shot at getting the number 1 pick even if they can't win more than 15 games.

Well, the idea is to give the top pick to teams that have 1) not had the top pick in past 5 years 2) not picked in top 3 in previous year 3) and still been consistently bad for a running 3 year period.

If a team that was good, lost a star player, had injuries and was suddenly bad, they will still have a shot at a decent pick, just not the best shot in that first year of being bad. In your scenario, the Pelicans would not be eligible for the #1 pick since they had the top pick in the past 5 years. Why should a team like New Orleans have two chances at a franchise player in a 5 year period? Why should they be rewarded for not being able to convince Davis to stay? The longer they remain bad post Davis, the better their odds of landing the top pick become.

[fatlever]

3 year average finish would have put # lotto balls as:

1. Magic
2. Sixers *(can't finish in top 3 in 2015, placed in order after top 3 is drawn)
3. Kings
4. Wolves
5. Pistons
6. Lakers
7. Hornets
8. Jazz
9. Knicks
10. Suns
11. Nuggets
12. Pacers
13. Heat
14. Thunder

Cavs and Pelicans can't finish in top 3 due to having won 1st pick in last 3 years (Doesn't affect either team).
Wizards can't win 1st pick due to having won 1st pick in last 5 years (doesn't affect Wizards)
*Bucks and Sixers can't finish in top 3 due to finishing in top 3 previous year (doesn't affect Bucks)

Knicks take a bit of a beating in this scenario, but that is what happens in the 1st year of tanking after being good. By next year Knicks will be middle of the pack, assuming they are still bad and by year 3 they would be near the top of lotto balls. Magic are helped, since they have been consistently bad for a while w/out landing top pick or picking in top 3 last year. The rest is similar.