ATL - New Lottery Rules Move to Owner Vote - pg59

[Ron Swanson]

I have no idea why they'd want to go that direction. Just tweak the lottery odds so that the percentages directly correlate to how many games you lose. Meaning, if a team loses 70 games, then they should have more than a 25% chance of getting the top-pick. The whole preset odds/percentages in draft slots simply encourages strategic tanking and jockeying in the standings towards the end of the year. Penalizing the truly bad teams that need top-tier talent the most is dumb.

But then you are directly rewarding losing which is what they are trying to do away with.

If a team is willing to go 0-82 to secure a 50% chance of getting the number 1 pick, then good luck trying to do it.

[trwi7]

Hard cap, no max salaries, random draft.

Random draft for lottery teams, not everyone right? Because it would be pretty **** up if you win a championship and then get the #1 pick.

[HurricaneKid]

Hard cap, no max salaries, random draft.

The problem is that the rank and file NBA players lose out enormously as superstar salaries devour their own earnings.

Hard cap does all kinds of nasty things like force teams to lose stars/fan favorites due to having other contracts that are immovable/etc.

Random draft is vomit inducing. There is a reason why every sport uses the draft to bring up its worst teams. If crappy teams have no access to talent they might as well be relegated.

[HurricaneKid]

I have no idea why they'd want to go that direction. Just tweak the lottery odds so that the percentages directly correlate to how many games you lose. Meaning, if a team loses 70 games, then they should have more than a 25% chance of getting the top-pick. The whole preset odds/percentages in draft slots simply encourages strategic tanking and jockeying in the standings towards the end of the year. Penalizing the truly bad teams that need top-tier talent the most is dumb.

But then you are directly rewarding losing which is what they are trying to do away with.

If a team is willing to go 0-82 to secure a 50% chance of getting the number 1 pick, then good luck trying to do it.

No one is suggesting that a team would go 0-82. But they might very well go 1-22 in their last 23 once they are out of contention. The NBA wants to avoid rewarding teams for losing. Period. To have a structure where they do the exact opposite of that is completely antithetical to what they are attempting to do.

[M-C-G]

Two things that I might have read on here or might have smushed together as an idea is;
1. Point system: Based on rolling performance you are allocated multi year points that allow you to "bid" on draft picks...so one team could save their points for like 10 years and then just outbid everyone the next time Lebron comes around, or they could use those points to keep adding role players to a team. The worse you play over that three run stretch the more points you are allocated. It does not prevent tanking, but very few teams are going to tank for such an extended period of time and even if you did, you could in theory still be outbid by a team that was hoarding their points

2. Hard cap that has mandatory salary slots. So each team has a max slot, a semi max slot, a quasi max slot, a mini max slot, 4 role player slots, then value slots to be used on your vet min and rookie scale. But the slot sizes would be the same for each team, so you could be a developing role player that is bordering all star and a team comes along and offers you their semi max slot to get you to jump teams. In theory you could also use this slot system to replace the draft and have teams negotiate with rookies. So maybe you keep your max slot open for the next Lebron.

[DingleJerry]

Fixing tanking is impossible to fix. Every sport gives the top picks to the worst teams, its just way it is.

The one simple tweak i'd make that could at least help a bit would be to make the whole lottery have to be 'lotteried' instead of just top 3 picks. First, it would actually make the whole lottery more exciting as a team might move up and down a few spots.

Second, it could reduce the spot by spot tanking that goes on in the middle area of the lottery teams. Like, you might not intentionally lose to get the 6th spot but if there's such a good chance you won't get that spot anyway. Now, I know your chances would still be increased by each spot you move up. Just that I think introducing so many variables to it could reduce the feeling you're assuring yourself of that spot so maybe it'll happen less.

Third, I think it could be good for helping mid level teams stuck in that tank or chase the 8th conundrum that we all know so well and make them keep trying to win instead of blowing it up. So that middling team with the 12th slot manages to jump up to the 6th spot, maybe that gets them that last piece to step it up a level.

[Max Green]

**** Kevin Durant. Biggest coward in NBA history.

[FlagsFlyForever]

For the life of me, I can't understand the Durant bashing/hatred.

Really? I mean I don't blame him for making the move but the backlash is pretty understandable. 2016 playoffs ended with two of the most exciting playoff series in history with OKC/GS, Cavs/GS. Then in one move he made both of those matchups and the entire season a foregone conclusion.

It wasn't a foregone conclusion though. It was one of the most anticipated Finals of all time and the highest rated since Jordan's Bulls. The series would've been tied 2-2 if Kyrie didn't choke away Game 3 and Durant didn't hit those two huge shots when GS was trailing by 4 to give Golden State a 1 point lead. Cleveland absolutely could've won that series.

[DingleJerry]

I've honestly always felt MJ was a bit of a coward for coming back to a 55 win team that had made the 2nd round of the playoffs, and also brought a multiple time all-star and defensive player of the year with him. After the team had already added the best Euro prospect ever at the time and a 20 ppg scorer from the Clips. He should have said, "this aint fair. Ya'll need to get rid of a couple of these guys and give the rest of the league a chance or else I'm gonna sign elsewhere to even things up". I'm so happy other people agree now.

[Ron Swanson]

But then you are directly rewarding losing which is what they are trying to do away with.

If a team is willing to go 0-82 to secure a 50% chance of getting the number 1 pick, then good luck trying to do it.

No one is suggesting that a team would go 0-82. But they might very well go 1-22 in their last 23 once they are out of contention. The NBA wants to avoid rewarding teams for losing. Period. To have a structure where they do the exact opposite of that is completely antithetical to what they are attempting to do.

You can't just assume that every bad team is intentionally tanking. That's the problem and is why this is just another overreaction by the NBA due to the Sixers being the only team to basically admit to it. The point is to give the truly worst teams slightly greater odds while still not guaranteeing them a top-pick.

Because as it stands, how does it make sense that the 2011-12 Bobcats go 7-59, and still only have a 25% total chance, and only 5% greater chance of getting the #1 pick then the next worst team which went 20-46? That Bobcats team wasn't tanking, they were just terrible. I don't understand how that's an acceptable solution.

There's no perfect fix to tanking, but capped percentage odds based on the standings is such an archaic way to do the lottery. It assumes that basically all teams in the top-4 suck equally, which is often far from the actual case.

[HurricaneKid]

I've honestly always felt MJ was a bit of a coward for coming back to a 55 win team that had made the 2nd round of the playoffs, and also brought a multiple time all-star and defensive player of the year with him. After the team had already added the best Euro prospect ever at the time and a 20 ppg scorer from the Clips. He should have said, "this aint fair. Ya'll need to get rid of a couple of these guys and give the rest of the league a chance or else I'm gonna sign elsewhere to even things up". I'm so happy other people agree now.

I didn't realize the Bulls had won 140 games the two years he was gone PLUS 31 playoff games with the two time reigning MVP and 3 All NBA players.

I guess my memory is getting bad.

[Ron Swanson]

People who use the Jordan supporting cast argument against him remind me of the people that say Tom Brady is overrated because the Pats went 11-5 that one season without him.

[DrWood]

Because as it stands, how does it make sense that the 2011-12 Bobcats go 7-59, and still only have a 25% total chance, and only 5% greater chance of getting the #1 pick then the next worst team which went 20-46? That Bobcats team wasn't tanking, they were just terrible. I don't understand how that's an acceptable solution.

There's no perfect fix to tanking, but capped percentage odds based on the standings is such an archaic way to do the lottery. It assumes that basically all teams in the top-4 suck equally, which is often far from the actual case.

So just give a team a "ball" for each game they lose, then subtract the number of losses of the best team to each team's count.
So worst team might have 50 balls and the best team has zero balls, and everyone else is in between.

[Max Green]

I've honestly always felt MJ was a bit of a coward for coming back to a 55 win team that had made the 2nd round of the playoffs, and also brought a multiple time all-star and defensive player of the year with him. After the team had already added the best Euro prospect ever at the time and a 20 ppg scorer from the Clips. He should have said, "this aint fair. Ya'll need to get rid of a couple of these guys and give the rest of the league a chance or else I'm gonna sign elsewhere to even things up". I'm so happy other people agree now.

[midranger]

Am I to dislike anyone who ever made an important life decision based, in part, on self interest or some other perceived benefit?

Should people dislike me because I choose not to work my job with one hand tied behind my back? Am I a pussy? Should I be actively making my career goals tougher to achieve rather than easier so I'm no longer a pussy?

[DingleJerry]

I've honestly always felt MJ was a bit of a coward for coming back to a 55 win team that had made the 2nd round of the playoffs, and also brought a multiple time all-star and defensive player of the year with him. After the team had already added the best Euro prospect ever at the time and a 20 ppg scorer from the Clips. He should have said, "this aint fair. Ya'll need to get rid of a couple of these guys and give the rest of the league a chance or else I'm gonna sign elsewhere to even things up". I'm so happy other people agree now.

I didn't realize the Bulls had won 140 games the two years he was gone PLUS 31 playoff games with the two time reigning MVP and 3 All NBA players.

I guess my memory is getting bad.

I don't know where I said that. Obviously I know it's not an apples to apples. But the point is that Bulls team was just as loaded vs the rest of the league as this GSW team is now and it didn't ruin the league and no one diminishes MJs last 3 titles because of it. Since he left they'd added Kukoc and Harper to replace him, then adds himself and Rodman back in. Yea, not apples to apples but it's more similar than people would ever admit. And of course I know the biggest difference is that the Bulls were already his team before, but I don't think he looked at 96 season and said we're too good, we shouldn't add Rodman too that wouldn't be fair. No, they did all they could to be as good as they possibly could. That team was just as stacked as GSW.

If MJ was a real competitor he'd have come to MKE and stuck to the owners/GM he hated so much in Chicago instead of goin back and walking to a gimme title, pussy. Heck he'd have probably given them a good run with Robinson and Baker....

[midranger]

Everyone is so hung up on "they won 70 games" aspect. What is the allowable threshold for games won the year previous so that whoever is jumping ship is no longer a pussy? What if KD went to the Spurs or Cavs? Still a pussy? What if he went to kind of a mediocre team but orchestrated it such that 3 top-5 to top-10 players would all sign with that team at the same time? Still a pussy?

Where is the pussy/not pussy cut off?

[Ron Swanson]

Everyone wants to talk about that 55-win Bulls team without MJ and then conveniently ignores that they were a 34-31 record team when he came back in '95, then led them to finish 13-4 down the stretch to end the year....

[paulpressey25]

The Cavs just traded Kyrie for a pick, they aren't going to vote for it to lose value less than a week later.

The proposed reforms would not go into place until the 2019 season, so the Cav's "Nets" pick would not be impacted.

That said, there is an anti-Cav's provision in one of the proposals that would prohibit a team from winning the lotto in back to back years.

[HurricaneKid]

I've honestly always felt MJ was a bit of a coward for coming back to a 55 win team that had made the 2nd round of the playoffs, and also brought a multiple time all-star and defensive player of the year with him. After the team had already added the best Euro prospect ever at the time and a 20 ppg scorer from the Clips. He should have said, "this aint fair. Ya'll need to get rid of a couple of these guys and give the rest of the league a chance or else I'm gonna sign elsewhere to even things up". I'm so happy other people agree now.

I didn't realize the Bulls had won 140 games the two years he was gone PLUS 31 playoff games with the two time reigning MVP and 3 All NBA players.

I guess my memory is getting bad.

I don't know where I said that. Obviously I know it's not an apples to apples. But the point is that Bulls team was just as loaded vs the rest of the league as this GSW team is now and it didn't ruin the league and no one diminishes MJs last 3 titles because of it. Since he left they'd added Kukoc and Harper to replace him, then adds himself and Rodman back in. Yea, not apples to apples but it's more similar than people would ever admit. And of course I know the biggest difference is that the Bulls were already his team before, but I don't think he looked at 96 season and said we're too good, we shouldn't add Rodman too that wouldn't be fair. No, they did all they could to be as good as they possibly could. That team was just as stacked as GSW.

This is categorically indefensible. A 55 win team that won 1 playoff series is light years from a team that AVERAGED 70 wins over a two year period and had about 10 things go wrong in the playoffs and in G7 to somehow end up losing the game and series (unanimous MVP getting hurt in the playoffs, top 5 RAPM player getting suspended for G5 at home, Curry missing his last 5 shots of G7, the LeBron chase down block, Kyrie hitting that 3, and on and on). They would have been anointed as the greatest team ever and instead, KD joined them.

Pop was thrilled to be rid of Rodman and no one wanted him and his antics. Comparing Rodman/Kukoc/Pip to Dray/Klay/Curry is just awful. Pip was the only All-Star and the only All NBA selection for the Bulls. Curry was the first ever unanimous MVP, Dray was 2nd team All NBA and Klay was 3rd team All NBA. All three were obviously All-Stars.

Its objectively a wildly irresponsible comparison. Then again, there aren't ANY comparisons that AREN'T wildly irresponsible; because no great player has ever done what KD did.