Pat Riley stole me idea to fix lottery tanking!

baldur · Post #81 » by **baldur** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:04 am

heatwillbeback wrote:The issue with that is the teams closer to the playoffs will win.

There is a point to the worse teams having a the best chance for the highest pick- they need it!

Tanking sucks, but I would rather have it than the worse teams having less of an opportunity to improve.

Your logic doesn't sound reasonable. If they lose on purpose that means they are not as bad as their ranking suggest, so why wouldn't they be able compete in a tournament?

DaddyCool19 · Post #82 » by **DaddyCool19** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:39 am

You could make teams play for better odds. Split it up to 5/5/4 teams and let them play each other once in their groups to improve their rankings.

Let's say in the first group the team with the 5th best odds in the lottery has the most win they would get the odds of the first team in the lottery and so on.

Hardaway2step · Post #83 » by **Hardaway2step** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:46 am

He stole me Lucky Charms!

righterwriter · Post #84 » by **righterwriter** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:46 am

millslapper wrote:
righterwriter wrote:
millslapper wrote:It sounds nice and competetive, but imagine the following.

in this years west a team is two games away from the playoff (the 8th seed) but if they lose both they are a lock for lottery.
what do they choose?
a possible 1st round sweep vs GSW or the chance for the Nr1 Pick?

more than obvious and because of that goodbye to this idea.

My idea was to have only the bottom-8 teams in the league do the playoff. Picks 9-14 would be set according to record. That would prevent most teams from choosing to miss the playoffs in order to get into the tournament. And if some team tried to get around the system by resting all of their best players for the last 20 games of the year and then suddenly having them all healthy for this five day tournament the commissioner could make a judgment call and not allow them in the tourney.

ok, i did not read correctly. it is better, but for example in this year the Wolves probably would have won the Nr1 Pick, which is not exactly that what the league wants.

and what to do with traded picks? should the celtics play for the nets? this is unfair.
but the nets have no incentive to play, obviously. with a tournament style collecting future picks becomes irrelevant, or?

I went into that a bit in another post. My idea was to have top-8 protection on all picks from this point on. Not only would it make the new system work, but it would prevent front offices from doing something stupid, like trading a potential top-8 pick.

As far as the Wolves getting the #1 pick, it might have actually been a pretty great thing. It means teams that are on the cusp suddenly get a top-pick it makes their team go from an afterthought to a team to be reckoned with. If the Wolves added Fultz to Lavine, Wiggins, KAT that's a pretty interesting core. The same could be said of the Bucks from the year before or maybe the Hornets or Pelicans next year.

GWVan · Post #85 » by **GWVan** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:47 am

Tie the regular season record to revenue share, the more you win the more you get and leave the lottery. Makes resting your stars for the playoffs a more complicated decision.

PRESTIGE · Post #86 » by **PRESTIGE** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:08 am

As others have mentioned, way too many issues to make it work. Players don't care about draft order, they have egos and their own agendas at play. Making them fight for the chance to draft some kid that may replace one of them is completely unworkable.

I would honestly just make all teams in the lottery have equal odds at all the picks.

Post #87 » by **BBallFreak** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:09 am

I've got to say, I love Coach Riley, but I hate this idea. Think about this from a players perspective.

"Yay, I get to compete so that someone can take my job from me."
- player about to lose his job

"I'm a free agent with one foot out the door. Why bother?"
- big name player on his way out

This just doesn't make sense, at all. The players have to have a reason to play. Playing to lose your role on a team, or for a team you've already checked out on makes no sense.

Post #88 » by **King of Canada** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:12 am

Riley the Rat. Might as well just give it to the highest bidder.

Da ThRONe · Post #89 » by **Da ThRONe** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:13 am

People who take exception to tanking and think the way to fix it is to make the lottery odds different or change it to something like this doesn't understand the root of the problem.

millslapper · Post #90 » by **millslapper** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:20 pm

righterwriter wrote:
I went into that a bit in another post. My idea was to have top-8 protection on all picks from this point on. Not only would it make the new system work, but it would prevent front offices from doing something stupid, like trading a potential top-8 pick.

As far as the Wolves getting the #1 pick, it might have actually been a pretty great thing. It means teams that are on the cusp suddenly get a top-pick it makes their team go from an afterthought to a team to be reckoned with. If the Wolves added Fultz to Lavine, Wiggins, KAT that's a pretty interesting core. The same could be said of the Bucks from the year before or maybe the Hornets or Pelicans next year.

i think its up to the stupid GMs to get abused by intelligent GMs, so this kind of self-protection takes away a lot drama

But you still have the problem, that the really bad teams can not get better. in order to get a #1 you need to win a lottery-tourney which is not possible right now if you are the Nets for example.

so it actually helps underperforming teams to rescue their season, which is not good from a competitive standpoint.

MrSparkle · Post #91 » by **MrSparkle** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:01 pm

I think it's a good idea.

Reduce the number of playoff teams by 2, make a wildcard match-up and 1st rd bye for the top 2.

The 1st rd generally sucks. Reward the mediocre teams by making them elite.

aclevelandfan · Post #92 » by **aclevelandfan** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:14 pm

I don't think you even need a tourney. Just use the bottom maybe 5 teams records vs each other to determine the picking and leave the others in order. Or you could draw a lottery of playoff teams (maybe like 3)and use the records those bottom teams had vs that competition that season to determine the placing. In this case the best record getting the top pick.

dacrusha · Post #93 » by **dacrusha** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:18 pm

GWVan wrote:Tie the regular season record to revenue share, the more you win the more you get and leave the lottery. Makes resting your stars for the playoffs a more complicated decision.

Yeah, this is what I'm thinking too. players don't give a damn about draft or lottery position... But if they can fatten their pocketbooks, they'll be all ears.

Playoff teams split an X percent bonus, 9 to 14 split a .5 x X percent bonus and lottery teams get no bonus. Or they get a minor bonus based on their ranking where bottom 3 teams get no bonus whatsoever.

Ownership, coaching and management also get a bonus tied to winning.

With this in place, no tanking.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Golabki · Post #94 » by **Golabki** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:46 pm

DowJones wrote:Well then you just have 7h and 8th seeds tanking to get out of the playoffs.

Yep - this idea keeps coming up and it's just a REALLY bad idea.

Playoff teams desperately tanking so they can be the #1 seed in a lotto tourney would be TERRIBLE for the integrity of the sport. MUCH MUCH worse than the current tanking issues.

Bill Bradley · Post #95 » by **Bill Bradley** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:49 pm

Scalabrine wrote:I'm reading the title as if you are a pirate.

I'm glad somebody said this.

Post #96 » by **Qwigglez** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:07 pm

Scalabrine wrote:I'm reading the title as if you are a pirate.

Really? I was going to ask if Riley stole me lucky charms.

Spoiler:

Post #97 » by **INKtastic** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:43 pm

Great, invent a system where teams will tank their way OUT of the playoffs to get that #1 pick, while the teams who are actually bad never get a top pick.

Imagine how awful the game would be if there was a game at the end of the season where the winner gets the 8 seed, the loser gets the 9th seed.

The answer is pretty simple. shortens the season by 2 to 4 games, expand the playoffs by 4 teams, have a shorter extra round between seeds 7-10. The lottery itself gets cut from 15 teams to 11. Up and coming teams get some experience in competitive playoff series that includes at least 1 home playoff game.

There was a time when the NBA had 16 playoff teams in a 23 team league. Michael Jordan's 63 point playoff game doesn't happen if there were only 12 teams in the playoffs (which is roughly equivalent to what we have today).

it doesn't eliminate tanking completely, but does reduce it and adds some meaning to the last few games of the season. It becomes more meaningful to have a 5 or 6 seed vs 7 or 8 seed, more of the remaining teams are fighting for a playoff spot, and it pretty much ensures that .500 teams all make the playoffs.

InWestWeTrust · Post #98 » by **InWestWeTrust** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:42 pm

Volcano wrote:
InWestWeTrust wrote:Easy fix to the "but the bad teams will stay bad" argument.

Same idea but instead have it be a 3 on 3 style tournament where each team picks 3 people front their front office to participate.

Then star-based teams would prosper here and it still doesn't motivate players to play for a lost season or even to try in the tourney. The latter can be fixed by giving monetary awards for advancing in each round, but it's still flawed.

A better idea is to use a weighted ranking system:

If you're a lottery team, the higher your seed is, the higher you go in the draft.
If you're a lottery team, your draft ranking is also boosted by having a lower ranked seed in the last 2-3 years.

A team that gets a high pick (1-4) would look like:
Year 1: 30th seed, Year 2: 30th seed, Year 3 (current year): 18th seed

Indicating that the team was struggling, but is beginning to put it together. You create an environment where a young star has a chance to make the playoffs in the next few years and the team deserves to be rewarded for sucking so long and trying to put together a winner.

A team drafting at a mid-high pick (5-10) would look like:
A: yr 1: 30th, yr 2: 30th, yr 3: 30th
B: yr 1: 20th, yr 2: 17th, yr 3: 18th

It discourages tanking on the year of the draft. In case A, a perennial bad team still gets a decent pick, but their pick is further away from the top the more they suck that year. At the same time, a treadmill team that can't get over the hump has the chance to add a decent pick. They don't need to resort to tanking.

A team that gets a low lottery pick:
yr 1: 1st seed, yr 2: 2nd seed, yr 3: 29th seed

Going from a top team to a bottom team may mean their star player was injured or walked or retired. In any case, they don't immediately deserve another high lotto pick in the next season when they were already gifted a chance.

I don't think you understood what I was saying. The "players" in the 3v3 would literally be people from the front office :lol:

oaktownwarriors87 · Post #99 » by **oaktownwarriors87** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:01 pm

oaktownwarriors87 wrote:This is assuming that players will want their team to have a better pick the next season.

Also, giving better teams better draft picks sounds like a terrible idea.

Also, has anyone pointed out the fact that a lower seed could tank to miss the playoffs? Why would the Jazz want to play the Warriors if the next LeBron James is in the draft?

King4Day · Post #100 » by **King4Day** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:05 pm

This is a terrible idea. Make the teams that are genuinely horrible suffer more? Teams that barely miss the playoffs will wind up with top picks and it leads to the truly bad teams having no way to land a stud (outside of getting lucky)