The ultimate anti-tank solution?

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Three things I see to point out...

1. So, seems you're mixing the current lottery into your thinking here... BOS would have ZERO opportunity to get Zion because MEM owns it at slots #1-#8 regardless. If they tanked their playoff series in order to keep the pick at #9 or worse and allow them to make a pick, it would seem a bit irrational to most of us, I think.

2. The [b]primo hypothetical to test the question above is just to say, you've got PHI vs GSW in the championship. PHI is in that same situation we just described for BOS, except that they made a trade years ago with CHI for a pick that is only #1 protected, effectively giving CHI the pick only if PHI wins the championship... and if PHI loses to GSW, they still "win" because they get CHI's pick which b/c of the proxy and PHI's runner-up finish, then sits at #2.

Would PHI consider tanking in the NBA Finals for the chance to pick #2?

Hard to see that. You're in the finals right now. Bird in the hand.
[/b]

3. Having said that, I still am stuck on what a tectonic issue it is to reduce the degree to which 2-3 players' presence on a roster is so ultimately consequential (see above discussion of how NBA differs in that respect from NFL, MLB and NHL).

Introducing the idea of a 2-minute penalty box for the offending player for all fouls prior to the bonus situation inherently compels coaches to have to be prepared to go a couple of players deeper on their bench, both because of the penalty itself, and because of the lack of long pauses in action due to foul shots, creating situations where players get more exhausted more quickly. The more we can create organic situations where games are decided on players #1-#6 instead of players #1-#3, that has the ripple effect of leveraging and ratcheting down to some degree of the actual impact of the highest draft picks...

In other words, the change ultimately would give more reason for teams to pattern themselves after the 2004 Detroit Pistons roster in their quest for a championship.

Don't get caught up in the specific pick protections for MEM this year. I wasn't trying to be that specific with this year's scenarios. The potential is there with your proposed system for a team to be benefited by losing a series in the playoffs. IMO, there's no scenario where that is OK.

Right... so that's why I thought to write #2.

One could say PHI would "benefit" from tanking in that situation, and that would be accurate. But it's not enough to say they'd benefit, of course. Rather, would they be benefited by the #2 draft slot to such a degree that they would say, "nah, we don't want to win the championship this year."... ? Is it reasonable for any team to lose a playoff series for the purposes of gaining in the draft?

All other teams would, by definition, be vying for something less than #2.

Consider this, what if there's a team that clearly has no shot to win an NBA title playing a team with a shot that also happens to be their proxy (through trades and whatnot). For the sake of our conversation, and to mitigate potential confusion, let's just say Orlando is playing Milwaukee this year and through trades, MIL is the proxy team for Orlando. Now let's imagine a scenario where Orlando steals a Game 1 in the 1st round and finds themselves with a commanding 3-1 lead. Surely you could see how that could be a no win situation for the league. IF Mil comes back and wins as the better team, who's to say that ORL didn't "tank" the last 3 games to ensure a better draft slot? And from Orlando's perspective, is winning one series and then getting booted worth the trade off of losing out on a Top 8 or Top 4 or Top 2 pick? It's a valid question, imo.

I hear you.

I'm made to remember the times when ATL was a decided dog in the playoffs, and vs. BOS in particular, and thinking of that within the parameters of the scenario you present.

And, but, no, I can't imagine finding ourselves with a 3-1 lead, and deciding, "You know, who are we kidding? We're not good enough." To the contrary, you want to be that team that "shocks the world." That's just inbred. That's the nature of competition. And if you can beat the #1 seed, who's really going to say, again, "Yeah, we may have been good enough to beat the #1 seed, but who are we kidding? We were never going to win the whole thing anyway."

In fact, same conclusion, different approach, if you find yourself up 3-1 over MIL, what would inspire confidence that *they* are actually going to win out?

[REHawksFan]

Three things I see to point out...

1. So, seems you're mixing the current lottery into your thinking here... BOS would have ZERO opportunity to get Zion because MEM owns it at slots #1-#8 regardless. If they tanked their playoff series in order to keep the pick at #9 or worse and allow them to make a pick, it would seem a bit irrational to most of us, I think.

2. The [b]primo hypothetical to test the question above is just to say, you've got PHI vs GSW in the championship. PHI is in that same situation we just described for BOS, except that they made a trade years ago with CHI for a pick that is only #1 protected, effectively giving CHI the pick only if PHI wins the championship... and if PHI loses to GSW, they still "win" because they get CHI's pick which b/c of the proxy and PHI's runner-up finish, then sits at #2.

Would PHI consider tanking in the NBA Finals for the chance to pick #2?

Hard to see that. You're in the finals right now. Bird in the hand.
[/b]

3. Having said that, I still am stuck on what a tectonic issue it is to reduce the degree to which 2-3 players' presence on a roster is so ultimately consequential (see above discussion of how NBA differs in that respect from NFL, MLB and NHL).

Introducing the idea of a 2-minute penalty box for the offending player for all fouls prior to the bonus situation inherently compels coaches to have to be prepared to go a couple of players deeper on their bench, both because of the penalty itself, and because of the lack of long pauses in action due to foul shots, creating situations where players get more exhausted more quickly. The more we can create organic situations where games are decided on players #1-#6 instead of players #1-#3, that has the ripple effect of leveraging and ratcheting down to some degree of the actual impact of the highest draft picks...

In other words, the change ultimately would give more reason for teams to pattern themselves after the 2004 Detroit Pistons roster in their quest for a championship.

Don't get caught up in the specific pick protections for MEM this year. I wasn't trying to be that specific with this year's scenarios. The potential is there with your proposed system for a team to be benefited by losing a series in the playoffs. IMO, there's no scenario where that is OK.

Right... so that's why I thought to write #2.

One could say PHI would "benefit" from tanking in that situation, and that would be accurate. But it's not enough to say they'd benefit, of course. Rather, would they be benefited by the #2 draft slot to such a degree that they would say, "nah, we don't want to win the championship this year."... ? Is it reasonable for any team to lose a playoff series for the purposes of gaining in the draft?

All other teams would, by definition, be vying for something less than #2.

Consider this, what if there's a team that clearly has no shot to win an NBA title playing a team with a shot that also happens to be their proxy (through trades and whatnot). For the sake of our conversation, and to mitigate potential confusion, let's just say Orlando is playing Milwaukee this year and through trades, MIL is the proxy team for Orlando. Now let's imagine a scenario where Orlando steals a Game 1 in the 1st round and finds themselves with a commanding 3-1 lead. Surely you could see how that could be a no win situation for the league. IF Mil comes back and wins as the better team, who's to say that ORL didn't "tank" the last 3 games to ensure a better draft slot? And from Orlando's perspective, is winning one series and then getting booted worth the trade off of losing out on a Top 8 or Top 4 or Top 2 pick? It's a valid question, imo.

I hear you.

I'm made to remember the times when ATL was a decided dog in the playoffs, and vs. BOS in particular, and thinking of that within the parameters of the scenario you present.

And, but, no, I can't imagine finding ourselves with a 3-1 lead, and deciding, "You know, who are we kidding? We're not good enough." To the contrary, you want to be that team that "shocks the world." That's just inbred. That's the nature of competition. And if you can beat the #1 seed, who's really going to say, again, "Yeah, we may have been good enough to beat the #1 seed, but who are we kidding? We were never going to win the whole thing anyway."

In fact, same conclusion, different approach, if you find yourself up 3-1 over MIL, what would inspire confidence that *they* are actually going to win out?

You are getting caught up in the extreme. We don't have to be talking about the difference between winning a title (getting the Number 1 pick) and losing a 1st round playoff series. There's a ton of subtlety in the between. It could just be losing a playoff series so as to preserve a Top 8 or Top 4 pick as opposed to not having that pick. No one in their right mind would suggest any team would lose the NBA Finals just to gain the No. 1 pick. But that's not even the main point.

Your scenario creates a system where one can easily imagine a scenario whereby one team has conflicting motives. Win a series today or potentially have a better draft pick? It may be hard for you to imagine a team going through that exercise, but I assure you if the prize is Curry, Cousins, Westbrook, Love, or Lillard (all drafted 5-8), a lot of mediocre teams would at least give pause to the idea. And that's the issue. Even IF it doesn't come to fruition, the mere possibility of it becoming a talking point for the media and fans is reason enough for me to say 'no thanks'.

I also think back to the 2008 Hawks Game 7 vs the celtics. We all wanted to win that game more than anything in the basketball world. A below-.500 team pushing the No. 1 seed to the brink? Classic Cinderella and it involved OUR team vs the hated team from boston. It was an amazing series of home wins and excitement. BUT let's add in this scenario where, by chance, the Hawks draft pick was tied to the Celtics. The same Celtics team that would go on to win the NBA title. The Hawks would have had the No. 1 pick in 2008 under this hypothetical. A guy by the name of Derick Rose was taken 1st. Russell Westbrook 4th. Kevin Love 5th. Would that have mattered to a young Hawks team looking to improve their talent and make a run? I dunno. But there would ABSOLUTELY be conflict within the fanbase any MAYBE the team about what to do.

Now, we all know in that scenario that the Hawks were incapable of winning a Game 7 on the road. But the point remains. IMO, the illustration is a good one and shows the potential for conflict under your proxy system. That's my point. Don't create a system that even gives the appearance of shenanigans even if the possibility of abuse is remote. It just isn't worth the intended objective.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

...We don't have to be talking about the difference between winning a title (getting the Number 1 pick) and losing a 1st round playoff series. There's a ton of subtlety in the between. It could just be losing a playoff series so as to preserve a Top 8 or Top 4 pick as opposed to not having that pick.... Win a series today or potentially have a better draft pick? It may be hard for you to imagine a team going through that exercise, but I assure you if the prize is Curry, Cousins, Westbrook, Love, or Lillard (all drafted 5-8), a lot of mediocre teams would at least give pause to the idea. And that's the issue. Even IF it doesn't come to fruition, the mere possibility of it becoming a talking point for the media and fans is reason enough for me to say 'no thanks'.

Your scenario creates a system where one can easily imagine a scenario whereby one team has conflicting motives.

As I've acknowledged, yes, there is the potential for a team to have "conflicting" motives... or more precisely, some benefit that could result from losing a series.

As you've acknowledged seemingly in agreeing, "No one in their right mind would suggest any team would lose the NBA Finals just to gain the No. 1 pick.".... the mere presence of conflicting motives and some benefit that could potentially be derived from losing a series does not, on its own, mean that that benefit is enough to matter. We have to go the next step and make a judgment of whether there are scenarios where the benefit could conceivably be so substantial that they would cause a person of sound judgment to choose to lose playoff games.

I appreciate that you're trying to see the big picture here. May I try to expand your big picture, though?

Here's what is missing from the reasoning you're offering above... I did this chart a few months ago...



Stare at it for just a few seconds and you'll soon figure out what it shows.

Now, you talk above about the prize being this ASG participant or that one... you know where I'm going with this before I even finish the sentence, right?.... there are a lot of "prizes" that never become ASG participants.

See all those blank spaces?

Those are the decidedly more typical "prizes," no matter even if you're drafting #1, let alone if you're drafting somewhere below that.

In the original example, that "benefit" to losing would not be enough to PHI just to get the #2... and it goes without saying, when we look at the bigger big picture, that no one is forfeiting a series and the potential to exceed expectations and maybe even shock the world in exchange for a few higher draft slots, given the bigger picture of what draft slots actually matter and the long tally of draftees who didn't turn out to be even ASG level material.

[REHawksFan]

...We don't have to be talking about the difference between winning a title (getting the Number 1 pick) and losing a 1st round playoff series. There's a ton of subtlety in the between. It could just be losing a playoff series so as to preserve a Top 8 or Top 4 pick as opposed to not having that pick.... Win a series today or potentially have a better draft pick? It may be hard for you to imagine a team going through that exercise, but I assure you if the prize is Curry, Cousins, Westbrook, Love, or Lillard (all drafted 5-8), a lot of mediocre teams would at least give pause to the idea. And that's the issue. Even IF it doesn't come to fruition, the mere possibility of it becoming a talking point for the media and fans is reason enough for me to say 'no thanks'.

Your scenario creates a system where one can easily imagine a scenario whereby one team has conflicting motives.

As I've acknowledged, yes, there is the potential for a team to have "conflicting" motives... or more precisely, some benefit that could result from losing a series.

As you've acknowledged seemingly in agreeing, "No one in their right mind would suggest any team would lose the NBA Finals just to gain the No. 1 pick.".... the mere presence of conflicting motives and some benefit that could potentially be derived from losing a series does not, on its own, mean that that benefit is enough to matter. We have to go the next step and make a judgment of whether there are scenarios where the benefit could conceivably be so substantial that they would cause a person of sound judgment to choose to lose playoff games.

I appreciate that you're trying to see the big picture here. May I try to expand your big picture, though?

Here's what is missing from the reasoning you're offering above... I did this chart a few months ago...



Stare at it for just a few seconds and you'll soon figure out what it shows.

Now, you talk above about the prize being this ASG participant or that one... you know where I'm going with this before I even finish the sentence, right?.... there are a lot of "prizes" that never become ASG participants.

See all those blank spaces?

Those are the decidedly more typical "prizes," no matter even if you're drafting #1, let alone if you're drafting somewhere below that.

In the original example, that "benefit" to losing would not be enough to PHI just to get the #2... and it goes without saying, when we look at the bigger big picture, that no one is forfeiting a series and the potential to exceed expectations and maybe even shock the world in exchange for a few higher draft slots, given the bigger picture of what draft slots actually matter and the long tally of draftees who didn't turn out to be even ASG level material.

The conclusion you are drawing does not coincide with logic though. For if it did, tanking wouldn't be a thing and this whole exercise would be pointless. Obviously, many teams feel the need to tank in order to gain better opportunities to draft those blank spaces you show so well. Further, if gaining a draft pick wasn't a significant benefit, why did Dallas trade their entire roster and tank for a draft pick rather than flirt with the playoffs in which they would - at the very least - guarantee themselves the gate for 2 home games?

I don't think the risk of drawing empty on a high draft pick is the deterrent you make it out to be. If a front office would punt on a season on February 1 when the team is within a few games of the playoffs (I think they were within 4 or 5 of the playoffs at that time), what does that say about their desire to get a high pick?

Honestly, what I see with that chart of yours that yes, the chance of getting an ASG player is less than not getting an ASG player, BUT the chances of getting an ASG player is drafting 15+ is virtually non-existent while the chances of getting an ASG player 9-14 are significantly greater and the chances of getting one 5-8 are greater still. So while it may be more likely than not that you FAIL at your draft, front offices clearly would rather have the high pick compared to the low pick.

And history tells us there's plenty that would rather have a high pick than a couple of playoff games or even a playoff series win.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

The conclusion you are drawing does not coincide with logic though. For if it did, tanking wouldn't be a thing and this whole exercise would be pointless. Obviously, many teams feel the need to tank in order to gain better opportunities to draft those blank spaces you show so well.

I feel like this is beginning to be a bit of rhetorical whack-a-mole, to be honest.

You just effectively acknowledged that the question is more specific than merely whether there is some consolation prize, but whether that consolation prize is more appealing to a person of sound judgment than the grand prize.

So, now, you're defaulting to an argument that sounds like "Since we know there exist some tanking philosophy teams among the non-playoff teams, that means teams in the playoffs, also, are prone to tanking." Is that right?

Huh?

That's irrational.

You don't go an entire season working toward the playoffs... get there... and then decide,

"Oh, never mind... let's forfeit, and see if we can gain a few slots in the draft order instead."

I just reject that. No offense. But that would never happen.

Just because there ARE teams that DO NOT go an entire season working for the playoffs does not mean that we should expect ANY team is susceptible at ANY moment to decide to throw their collective hands up, and start losing on purpose. You're seeming to try to attempt to conflate all teams as being the same as one another in order to reach the conclusion you're attempting to reach.

They are not.

What happens is that teams make those choices AFTER a given season and BEFORE the next.

You know this. I'm not telling you anything you don't. But I have to say it anyhow...

TANKING philosophy teams see the chart presented and HAVING ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT THEY'RE TANKING, by virtue of that fact, are resolved to act accordingly. The vast number of blank cells in the chart are not meaningful because of the decision already determined... and thus, THEIR approach is NATURALLY going to be singularly to focus on which slots appear to have the LEAST number of blanks.

All of the teams who aren't tanking (playoff teams and several of the non-playoff teams), though, DO see the blanks. And markedly unlike the tanking teams, they characteristically are not only looking to add to their roster through the draft, but through free agency as well, cognizant of the false-panacea that building through the draft can be and so often has been.

Two different approaches. And on the occasion of a switch in approach, that happens at the opportune right time.

If you can't ascend to that, it's likely that we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one... for what it matters.

[REHawksFan]

The conclusion you are drawing does not coincide with logic though. For if it did, tanking wouldn't be a thing and this whole exercise would be pointless. Obviously, many teams feel the need to tank in order to gain better opportunities to draft those blank spaces you show so well.

I feel like this is beginning to be a bit of rhetorical whack-a-mole, to be honest.

You just effectively acknowledged that the question is more specific than merely whether there is some consolation prize, but whether that consolation prize is more appealing to a person of sound judgment than the grand prize.

So, now, you're defaulting to an argument that sounds like "Since we know there exist some tanking philosophy teams among the non-playoff teams, that means teams in the playoffs, also, are prone to tanking." Is that right?

Huh?

That's irrational.

You don't go an entire season working toward the playoffs... get there... and then decide,

"Oh, never mind... let's forfeit, and see if we can gain a few slots in the draft order instead."

I just reject that. No offense. But that would never happen.

Just because there ARE teams that DO NOT go an entire season working for the playoffs does not mean that we should expect ANY team is susceptible at ANY moment to decide to throw their collective hands up, and start losing on purpose. You're seeming to try to attempt to conflate all teams as being the same as one another in order to reach the conclusion you're attempting to reach.

They are not.

What happens is that teams make those choices AFTER a given season and BEFORE the next.

You know this. I'm not telling you anything you don't. But I have to say it anyhow...

TANKING philosophy teams see the chart presented and HAVING ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT THEY'RE TANKING, by virtue of that fact, are resolved to act accordingly. The vast number of blank cells in the chart are not meaningful because of the decision already determined... and thus, THEIR approach is NATURALLY going to be singularly to focus on which slots appear to have the LEAST number of blanks.

All of the teams who aren't tanking (playoff teams and several of the non-playoff teams), though, DO see the blanks. And markedly unlike the tanking teams, they characteristically are not only looking to add to their roster through the draft, but through free agency as well, cognizant of the false-panacea that building through the draft can be and so often has been.

Two different approaches. And on the occasion of a switch in approach, that happens at the opportune right time.

If you can't ascend to that, it's likely that we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one... for what it matters.

I agree that tanking teams tank. Their objective and decision making all points to gaining a high draft pick. Therefore, we can predict their moves or at least the types of moves they make. Agreed there.

I also agree - if you are proposing such - that championship teams operate with a singular goal of winning a championship. They care not where their draft pick occurs or even if it occurs. Winning a title is all that matters and we can also form certain expectations as to their behaviors.

However, where I suspect we disagree (based on this conversation alone) is that I believe a third grouping of teams exist that are far more unpredictable in their motives and actions. These are the middle teams, the hamster wheel teams if you will.

These teams reside in playoff mediocrity with no realistic hope or expectation of a title. They arent tanking but also arent a serious contender. They exist somewhere in between. They exist as 1st round fodder for the real contenders and as lottery hopefuls for the non tankers.

For these teams, I dont think you or anyone else can say they would or wouldn't value a single playoff series win over the opportunity to draft a Russell Westbrook, James Harden, or Steph Curry. If presented with that option, it's not outlandish to see them choosing the pick over the series.

And you are fooling yourself if you exclude the possibility of it. And as I've already stated, the mere fact that your proposal allows for the possibility is a non starter for me. Even if it NEVER happened, the possibility of it happening and the perception of it in the media and general public would be too much to overcome.

It's a nice thought exercise, but it really isnt a practical solution.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

The conclusion you are drawing does not coincide with logic though. For if it did, tanking wouldn't be a thing and this whole exercise would be pointless. Obviously, many teams feel the need to tank in order to gain better opportunities to draft those blank spaces you show so well.

I feel like this is beginning to be a bit of rhetorical whack-a-mole, to be honest.

You just effectively acknowledged that the question is more specific than merely whether there is some consolation prize, but whether that consolation prize is more appealing to a person of sound judgment than the grand prize.

So, now, you're defaulting to an argument that sounds like "Since we know there exist some tanking philosophy teams among the non-playoff teams, that means teams in the playoffs, also, are prone to tanking." Is that right?

Huh?

That's irrational.

You don't go an entire season working toward the playoffs... get there... and then decide,

"Oh, never mind... let's forfeit, and see if we can gain a few slots in the draft order instead."

I just reject that. No offense. But that would never happen.

Just because there ARE teams that DO NOT go an entire season working for the playoffs does not mean that we should expect ANY team is susceptible at ANY moment to decide to throw their collective hands up, and start losing on purpose. You're seeming to try to attempt to conflate all teams as being the same as one another in order to reach the conclusion you're attempting to reach.

They are not.

What happens is that teams make those choices AFTER a given season and BEFORE the next.

You know this. I'm not telling you anything you don't. But I have to say it anyhow...

TANKING philosophy teams see the chart presented and HAVING ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT THEY'RE TANKING, by virtue of that fact, are resolved to act accordingly. The vast number of blank cells in the chart are not meaningful because of the decision already determined... and thus, THEIR approach is NATURALLY going to be singularly to focus on which slots appear to have the LEAST number of blanks.

All of the teams who aren't tanking (playoff teams and several of the non-playoff teams), though, DO see the blanks. And markedly unlike the tanking teams, they characteristically are not only looking to add to their roster through the draft, but through free agency as well, cognizant of the false-panacea that building through the draft can be and so often has been.

Two different approaches. And on the occasion of a switch in approach, that happens at the opportune right time.

If you can't ascend to that, it's likely that we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one... for what it matters.

I agree that tanking teams tank. Their objective and decision making all points to gaining a high draft pick. Therefore, we can predict their moves or at least the types of moves they make. Agreed there.

I also agree - if you are proposing such - that championship teams operate with a singular goal of winning a championship. They care not where their draft pick occurs or even if it occurs. Winning a title is all that matters and we can also form certain expectations as to their behaviors.

However, where I suspect we disagree (based on this conversation alone) is that I believe a third grouping of teams exist that are far more unpredictable in their motives and actions. These are the middle teams, the hamster wheel teams if you will.

These teams reside in playoff mediocrity with no realistic hope or expectation of a title. They arent tanking but also arent a serious contender. They exist somewhere in between. They exist as 1st round fodder for the real contenders and as lottery hopefuls for the non tankers.

For these teams, I dont think you or anyone else can say they would or wouldn't value a single playoff series win over the opportunity to draft a Russell Westbrook, James Harden, or Steph Curry. If presented with that option, it's not outlandish to see them choosing the pick over the series.

And you are fooling yourself if you exclude the possibility of it. And as I've already stated, the mere fact that your proposal allows for the possibility is a non starter for me. Even if it NEVER happened, the possibility of it happening and the perception of it in the media and general public would be too much to overcome.

It's a nice thought exercise, but it really isnt a practical solution.

So, this third grouping of teams that you are now proposing... since you describe them as so unpredictable even in the late season after having spent 6 months scrumming for a playoff spot...

When is the last time you saw a team being accused of losing in the final week, in order to raise their opportunity for a higher draft pick, avoiding the playoffs?

It should happen with some regularity, given that we have those kinds of teams without fail every season.

In fact, they would raise their opportunity to gain a top 4 (!) draft pick by almost 5 percentage points in the current odds assigned by the NBA draft gods to #12, #13 and #14 teams.... more precisely, that's a 5% shot at draft slots that are the ones that only miss-out on yielding ASG talent about 75% of the time, as opposed to #5-#8 which misses out 90% of the time and #9-#16 which misses out about 94% of the time.

But that doesn't happen, at least, to my knowledge. You're welcome to set me straight.

Failing that, no, it actually is a binary thing after all...

If you're playing to win, you're playing to win.... and if you're playing to lose and advance your draft position, you're playing to lose. There are no ties. There are no moral victories. No in-between. At least, not at that point in the year are you going to decide to lose. You've come too far.

If you decide to lose, you make that decision after the season, not during, and especially not when you've just began the post-season.

Increasing your draft slot to a place where you're only 4% more likely to capitalize (as mentioned above, 90% rather than 94% futility) is not compelling.

It's clear you will disagree. And that's okay.

[REHawksFan]

I feel like this is beginning to be a bit of rhetorical whack-a-mole, to be honest.

You just effectively acknowledged that the question is more specific than merely whether there is some consolation prize, but whether that consolation prize is more appealing to a person of sound judgment than the grand prize.

So, now, you're defaulting to an argument that sounds like "Since we know there exist some tanking philosophy teams among the non-playoff teams, that means teams in the playoffs, also, are prone to tanking." Is that right?

Huh?

That's irrational.

You don't go an entire season working toward the playoffs... get there... and then decide,

"Oh, never mind... let's forfeit, and see if we can gain a few slots in the draft order instead."

I just reject that. No offense. But that would never happen.

Just because there ARE teams that DO NOT go an entire season working for the playoffs does not mean that we should expect ANY team is susceptible at ANY moment to decide to throw their collective hands up, and start losing on purpose. You're seeming to try to attempt to conflate all teams as being the same as one another in order to reach the conclusion you're attempting to reach.

They are not.

What happens is that teams make those choices AFTER a given season and BEFORE the next.

You know this. I'm not telling you anything you don't. But I have to say it anyhow...

TANKING philosophy teams see the chart presented and HAVING ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT THEY'RE TANKING, by virtue of that fact, are resolved to act accordingly. The vast number of blank cells in the chart are not meaningful because of the decision already determined... and thus, THEIR approach is NATURALLY going to be singularly to focus on which slots appear to have the LEAST number of blanks.

All of the teams who aren't tanking (playoff teams and several of the non-playoff teams), though, DO see the blanks. And markedly unlike the tanking teams, they characteristically are not only looking to add to their roster through the draft, but through free agency as well, cognizant of the false-panacea that building through the draft can be and so often has been.

Two different approaches. And on the occasion of a switch in approach, that happens at the opportune right time.

If you can't ascend to that, it's likely that we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one... for what it matters.

I agree that tanking teams tank. Their objective and decision making all points to gaining a high draft pick. Therefore, we can predict their moves or at least the types of moves they make. Agreed there.

I also agree - if you are proposing such - that championship teams operate with a singular goal of winning a championship. They care not where their draft pick occurs or even if it occurs. Winning a title is all that matters and we can also form certain expectations as to their behaviors.

However, where I suspect we disagree (based on this conversation alone) is that I believe a third grouping of teams exist that are far more unpredictable in their motives and actions. These are the middle teams, the hamster wheel teams if you will.

These teams reside in playoff mediocrity with no realistic hope or expectation of a title. They arent tanking but also arent a serious contender. They exist somewhere in between. They exist as 1st round fodder for the real contenders and as lottery hopefuls for the non tankers.

For these teams, I dont think you or anyone else can say they would or wouldn't value a single playoff series win over the opportunity to draft a Russell Westbrook, James Harden, or Steph Curry. If presented with that option, it's not outlandish to see them choosing the pick over the series.

And you are fooling yourself if you exclude the possibility of it. And as I've already stated, the mere fact that your proposal allows for the possibility is a non starter for me. Even if it NEVER happened, the possibility of it happening and the perception of it in the media and general public would be too much to overcome.

It's a nice thought exercise, but it really isnt a practical solution.

So, this third grouping of teams that you are now proposing... since you describe them as so unpredictable even in the late season after having spent 6 months scrumming for a playoff spot...

When is the last time you saw a team being accused of losing in the final week, in order to raise their opportunity for a higher draft pick, avoiding the playoffs?

It should happen with some regularity, given that we have those kinds of teams without fail every season.

In fact, they would raise their opportunity to gain a top 4 (!) draft pick by almost 5 percentage points in the current odds assigned by the NBA draft gods to #12, #13 and #14 teams.... more precisely, that's a 5% shot at draft slots that are the ones that only miss-out on yielding ASG talent about 75% of the time, as opposed to #5-#8 which misses out 90% of the time and #9-#16 which misses out about 94% of the time.

But that doesn't happen, at least, to my knowledge. You're welcome to set me straight.

Failing that, no, it actually is a binary thing after all...

If you're playing to win, you're playing to win.... and if you're playing to lose and advance your draft position, you're playing to lose. There are no ties. There are no moral victories. No in-between. At least, not at that point in the year are you going to decide to lose. You've come too far.

If you decide to lose, you make that decision after the season, not during, and especially not when you've just began the post-season.

Increasing your draft slot to a place where you're only 4% more likely to capitalize (as mentioned above, 90% rather than 94% futility) is not compelling.

It's clear you will disagree. And that's okay.

You're joking, right? You have to be. Every year several teams change course mid year as their circumstances change.

The Dallas Mavericks were all in on the playoffs this year all the way through January. That's 50+ games. And then it became more advantageous for them to lose than win so they traded 80% of their starting lineup and went full tank mode for the sole purpose of getting a high draft pick.

The Lakers were certainly doing everything they could to make the playoffs with Lebron until all the dysfunction happened with the AD trade rumors. That was well into the 2nd half of the season before they started sitting Lebron to gain draft advantage.

The Washington wizards were trying to win before the Wall injury severity news hit and then they proceeded to trade away nearly all their assets in an effort to lose.

The NOP went hard for the playoffs until the AD news hit and they promptly sat him trying to trade him away. Even after the deadline they sat him every chance they got in an effort to lose. Their motives changed late in the season.

In each case, the teams started the season trying to make the playoffs and at some point it became more advantageous to lose than win so they shifted their priorities.

And this is what we are talking about isn't it? At what point does a team shift mindset from winning to losing? The Hawks went to the playoffs 9 or 10 straight seasons with ZERO hope of winning an NBA title. They then shifted mindsets in the offseason. Other teams shift that mindset midseason when it becomes more advantageous for them to do so.

You want examples of teams doing it the last week? Well I can't give that to you because generally speaking there's no advantage currently for a team to do that late in the season (although there are countless examples of teams tanking once eliminated from the playoffs to show the preference for higher draft capital). The 5% you cite is nominal in this case. Certainly not enough to change course very late in the season.

But your system injects a guaranteed top 8 pick and potentially top 4 or top 2 pick into the equation. That's the problem. Your system potentially changes the game to create that motivation for a team to deem it more advantageous to lose than win. Some teams will still prefer winning. Others would undoubtedly choose a high draft pick.

PS> I've said it before but it bears repeating...if you want to truly rid the league of tanking, go with the system that eliminates ALL potential for losing being more advantageous than winning. All due respect, your system isn't that system.

[Hazer]

[REHawksFan]

We're so far down the rabbit hole neither of us would know our way out. And the real kicker is I have a better chance of becoming Czar of the NBA than this system has at being implemented. But it's a fun discussion for a message board to me.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

So, this third grouping of teams that you are now proposing... since you describe them as so unpredictable even in the late season after having spent 6 months scrumming for a playoff spot...

When is the last time you saw a team being accused of losing in the final week, in order to raise their opportunity for a higher draft pick, avoiding the playoffs?

It should happen with some regularity, given that we have those kinds of teams without fail every season.

In fact, they would raise their opportunity to gain a top 4 (!) draft pick by almost 5 percentage points in the current odds assigned by the NBA draft gods to #12, #13 and #14 teams.... more precisely, that's a 5% shot at draft slots that are the ones that only miss-out on yielding ASG talent about 75% of the time, as opposed to #5-#8 which misses out 90% of the time and #9-#16 which misses out about 94% of the time.

But that doesn't happen, at least, to my knowledge. You're welcome to set me straight.

Failing that, no, it actually is a binary thing after all...

If you're playing to win, you're playing to win.... and if you're playing to lose and advance your draft position, you're playing to lose. There are no ties. There are no moral victories. No in-between. At least, not at that point in the year are you going to decide to lose. You've come too far.

If you decide to lose, you make that decision after the season, not during, and especially not when you've just began the post-season.

Increasing your draft slot to a place where you're only 4% more likely to capitalize (as mentioned above, 90% rather than 94% futility) is not compelling.

It's clear you will disagree. And that's okay.

You're joking, right? You have to be. Every year several teams change course mid year as their circumstances change.

Um. Who said anything about "mid year?"

Not me.

Pray tell, what would move you to suggest mid year be relevant to the conversation?

Seems we need to review....

Your assertion is that teams who have no actual serious shot at the championship... ostensibly, the 8th seed at least, and probably the 7th as well in most years, and maybe the 6th... are vulnerable to perceiving draft slot to be more important than attempting playoff success... and therefore, because they're inherently proven to be so unpredictable, it is foolhardy and outlandish to presume that they would not purposely lose a playoff series, given the circumstance that they could benefit in the draft from rolling over for their #1 or #2 or #3 seed opponent.

(Correct me if that's wrong. That's how I took your comment.)

My response is, we ought then to be able to see, with some regularity, teams on the cusp of the playoff/lottery ledge losing games they seemingly should have won, and media and fans... natural-born critics that they are... calling out the blatant last-week change-of-attitude on the part of teams' management.

So, in light of that, let's review these teams you cited then...

"The Dallas Mavericks were all in on the playoffs this year all the way through January...."

Nope.

Irrelevant to the point of the discussion. Again... the premise is, if it's as you say that teams are so "unpredictable" right after the playoffs start that they would deliberately lose, then it ought to be the case that even right now we find that teams are so unpredictable right before the playoffs start that they would deliberately lose.

Next?

"The Lakers were... well into the 2nd half of the season before they started sitting Lebron to gain draft advantage."

LeBron sat the last 6 games... two weeks. That would have been fairly relevant, except the Lakers' playoff/lottery fate was already sealed.

Nope. No last week (or two) decision there.

"The Washington wizards were trying to win before the Wall injury severity news hit and then they proceeded to trade away nearly all their assets in an effort to lose.

Nope. No last week decision there either.

"The NOP went hard for the playoffs until the AD news hit and they promptly sat him trying to trade him away. Even after the deadline they sat him every chance they got in an effort to lose. Their motives changed late in the season."

Nope. No last week decision there either.

In each case, the teams started the season trying to make the playoffs and at some point it became more advantageous to lose than win so they shifted their priorities.

More precisely, in each case, these teams started the season trying to make the playoffs, and at some point.... a point before or around the trade deadline... they stopped trying to make the playoffs.

What we needed to see to support the assertion made was not the Mavs, Lakers, Wizards or Pels... none of those went into the last week or two of the season in a position to choose for themselves whether they preferred to make the playoffs or have a 5% shot at a top 4 pick.

Thankfully, you at least are intellectually honest enough that you didn't go so far as to make things up as-if... for instance, you didn't attempt to make the case that the Hornets weren't really trying to make the playoffs.

On the other hand, I really don't know why you thought any intelligent person would read your reply, and it wouldn't occur to them, "Why is he talking about mid-year?" That's a head scratcher.

You want examples of teams doing it the last week?

Yes!

Well I can't give that to you because generally speaking there's no advantage currently for a team to do that late in the season

"No advantage?" Okay. How refreshing. Now we're getting somewhere.

You are asserting that teams will perceive advantage even after the playoffs begin to try to lose and gain a better draft slot in the scenario discussed... for these middling teams, that translates as being able to ascend from a 94% fail rate in finding a difference maker in the draft to just a 90% fail rate in finding a difference maker in the draft... a 4% difference is a big deal in your universe...

I can only imagine you as a baseball manager, weighing carefully whether you're better to have the pitcher batting .100 to bat or your pitcher batting .060... like that's particularly meaningful.

To your point and mine, if there is "no advantage" to a team to go from nearly certain early round exit to having a 5% shot at a top 4 draft slot... who's kidding whom?... with that statement, you agree--as badly as you appear to wish you could avoid it--that the threshold for teams to value more highly draft slot is long-ago decided before that stage of a given season. Once you're in the playoffs, you see if destiny might smile on you.

So, yes, you're going to try to defeat the #1 seed even if you're the 8th seed and the #1 seed through this trade and that trade has ended up carrying with them your draft slot fate.

Why would you do that?

Because you want to shock the world. You want to exceed expectations. In fact, you want to demonstrate to all watching that you have pride, and that your pride can't be bought-off. And just as persuasively, if YOUR team in its 8th seed-ed-ness can beat the #1 seed, then why are you even imagining that the #1 seed isn't going to face upset eventually anyhow?

And let's get real... who is really going to be amazed when the #1 seed proves to be better than the #8 seed anyhow? Or the #2 better than the #7? Or the #3 better than the #6? Them are some seriously-devoted cynics, fer sure.

The 5% you cite is nominal in this case. Certainly not enough to change course very late in the season.

Exactly.

[REHawksFan]

So, this third grouping of teams that you are now proposing... since you describe them as so unpredictable even in the late season after having spent 6 months scrumming for a playoff spot...

When is the last time you saw a team being accused of losing in the final week, in order to raise their opportunity for a higher draft pick, avoiding the playoffs?

It should happen with some regularity, given that we have those kinds of teams without fail every season.

In fact, they would raise their opportunity to gain a top 4 (!) draft pick by almost 5 percentage points in the current odds assigned by the NBA draft gods to #12, #13 and #14 teams.... more precisely, that's a 5% shot at draft slots that are the ones that only miss-out on yielding ASG talent about 75% of the time, as opposed to #5-#8 which misses out 90% of the time and #9-#16 which misses out about 94% of the time.

But that doesn't happen, at least, to my knowledge. You're welcome to set me straight.

Failing that, no, it actually is a binary thing after all...

If you're playing to win, you're playing to win.... and if you're playing to lose and advance your draft position, you're playing to lose. There are no ties. There are no moral victories. No in-between. At least, not at that point in the year are you going to decide to lose. You've come too far.

If you decide to lose, you make that decision after the season, not during, and especially not when you've just began the post-season.

Increasing your draft slot to a place where you're only 4% more likely to capitalize (as mentioned above, 90% rather than 94% futility) is not compelling.

It's clear you will disagree. And that's okay.

You're joking, right? You have to be. Every year several teams change course mid year as their circumstances change.

Um. Who said anything about "mid year?"

Not me.

Pray tell, what would move you to suggest mid year be relevant to the conversation?

Seems we need to review....

Your assertion is that teams who have no actual serious shot at the championship... ostensibly, the 8th seed at least, and probably the 7th as well in most years, and maybe the 6th... are vulnerable to perceiving draft slot to be more important than attempting playoff success... and therefore, because they're inherently proven to be so unpredictable, it is foolhardy and outlandish to presume that they would not purposely lose a playoff series, given the circumstance that they could benefit in the draft from rolling over for their #1 or #2 or #3 seed opponent.

(Correct me if that's wrong. That's how I took your comment.)

My response is, we ought then to be able to see, with some regularity, teams on the cusp of the playoff/lottery ledge losing games they seemingly should have won, and media and fans... natural-born critics that they are... calling out the blatant last-week change-of-attitude on the part of teams' management.

So, in light of that, let's review these teams you cited then...

"The Dallas Mavericks were all in on the playoffs this year all the way through January...."

Nope.

Irrelevant to the point of the discussion. Again... the premise is, if it's as you say that teams are so "unpredictable" right after the playoffs start that they would deliberately lose, then it ought to be the case that even right now we find that teams are so unpredictable right before the playoffs start that they would deliberately lose.

Next?

"The Lakers were... well into the 2nd half of the season before they started sitting Lebron to gain draft advantage."

LeBron sat the last 6 games... two weeks. That would have been fairly relevant, except the Lakers' playoff/lottery fate was already sealed.

Nope. No last week (or two) decision there.

"The Washington wizards were trying to win before the Wall injury severity news hit and then they proceeded to trade away nearly all their assets in an effort to lose.

Nope. No last week decision there either.

"The NOP went hard for the playoffs until the AD news hit and they promptly sat him trying to trade him away. Even after the deadline they sat him every chance they got in an effort to lose. Their motives changed late in the season."

Nope. No last week decision there either.

In each case, the teams started the season trying to make the playoffs and at some point it became more advantageous to lose than win so they shifted their priorities.

More precisely, in each case, these teams started the season trying to make the playoffs, and at some point.... a point before or around the trade deadline... they stopped trying to make the playoffs.

What we needed to see to support the assertion made was not the Mavs, Lakers, Wizards or Pels... none of those went into the last week or two of the season in a position to choose for themselves whether they preferred to make the playoffs or have a 5% shot at a top 4 pick.

Thankfully, you at least are intellectually honest enough that you didn't go so far as to make things up as-if... for instance, you didn't attempt to make the case that the Hornets weren't really trying to make the playoffs.

On the other hand, I really don't know why you thought any intelligent person would read your reply, and it wouldn't occur to them, "Why is he talking about mid-year?" That's a head scratcher.

You want examples of teams doing it the last week?

Yes!

Well I can't give that to you because generally speaking there's no advantage currently for a team to do that late in the season

"No advantage?" Okay. How refreshing. Now we're getting somewhere.

You are asserting that teams will perceive advantage even after the playoffs begin to try to lose and gain a better draft slot in the scenario discussed... for these middling teams, that translates as being able to ascend from a 94% fail rate in finding a difference maker in the draft to just a 90% fail rate in finding a difference maker in the draft... a 4% difference is a big deal in your universe...

I can only imagine you as a baseball manager, weighing carefully whether you're better to have the pitcher batting .100 to bat or your pitcher batting .060... like that's particularly meaningful.

To your point and mine, if there is "no advantage" to a team to go from nearly certain early round exit to having a 5% shot at a top 4 draft slot... who's kidding whom?... with that statement, you agree--as badly as you appear to wish you could avoid it--that the threshold for teams to value more highly draft slot is long-ago decided before that stage of a given season. Once you're in the playoffs, you see if destiny might smile on you.

So, yes, you're going to try to defeat the #1 seed even if you're the 8th seed and the #1 seed through this trade and that trade has ended up carrying with them your draft slot fate.

Why would you do that?

Because you want to shock the world. You want to exceed expectations. In fact, you want to demonstrate to all watching that you have pride, and that your pride can't be bought-off. And just as persuasively, if YOUR team in its 8th seed-ed-ness can beat the #1 seed, then why are you even imagining that the #1 seed isn't going to face upset eventually anyhow?

And let's get real... who is really going to be amazed when the #1 seed proves to be better than the #8 seed anyhow? Or the #2 better than the #7? Or the #3 better than the #6? Them are some seriously-devoted cynics, fer sure.

The 5% you cite is nominal in this case. Certainly not enough to change course very late in the season.

Exactly.

Here you go again demanding proof for something that you know doesn't exist under the current system but WOULD EXIST under the system you proposed. No, there's no current incentive to losing in the playoffs. As it should be. But you want to put a system in place whereby a team could have incentive to lose. You claim there's no actual proof of it already happening. Of course not. There's no current incentive for it to. You talk about rates of success and all of that but really, what GM in their right mind goes into any draft thinking they are 75% likely to fail? Come on.

I've tried to give you examples of teams changing directions which you summarily reject even though they are absolutely tangible to discussion at hand. Mid-year absolutely matters whether you want to admit it or not. The fact that a team can change directions mid-year suggests they are not SOLD on "winning teams win. Losing teams lose" concept as you specifically claim.

The real question is whether the team would be sufficiently incentivized to lose late in the season or even in the playoffs if they are GUARANTEED a top 8 pick by simply losing a 1st round series. I think it's possible. You disagree. Fine. No reason to take the discussion any further.

I'll just say if you want to truly end the tanking problem (maybe you do or maybe this is all just a fun thinking exercise), you need to come up with a system that severs the connection between wins/losses and player selection. Until you do that, there's always going to be potential for abuse of the system and tanking. You tried to come up with a creative proxy system. Kudos to you. But it doesn't work to alleviate the problem on multiple levels.

I've got some better ideas of a system that would actually sever the connection if you are interested. Or not. Either way, have a good one.

[Atlanta Hawk Fan]

Unsure if there was something specific, AHF, you were hoping to be gleaned from that, but it was indeed interesting.

I think someone had posted about the first pick in the draft representing 30% of the value and I thought that was a good segue into posting some draft slot value data. Not anything specific I was driving for - just throwing out some data for consideration and discussion.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Glad you posted it.

I believe the 30% was referencing the elite talent in a given draft, and given the context that elite talent at the top of the pyramid is so much more difficult to obtain than the subsequent talent layers below it.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

@RE I'm not persuaded that you don't already realize this, but giving you the benefit of a doubt... the comparison made is emblematic of the premise that if (a) in the present system you do not have teams at that latest point in the regular season deciding to lose in order to gain a 5% shot at the top 4 picks, then (b) in the proposed system, it serves to reason that no team is going to... just days beyond the end of the regular season... commit playoff suicide in order to grant themselves a 90% fail rate instead of a 94% fail rate in draft order placement.

Agreeing to disagree, and done. You're welcome to any last word you'd like, without any counterpoint from muah.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

...

[REHawksFan]

@RE I'm not persuaded that you don't already realize this, but giving you the benefit of a doubt... the comparison made is emblematic of the premise that if (a) in the present system you do not have teams at that latest point in the regular season deciding to lose in order to gain a 5% shot at the top 4 picks, then (b) in the proposed system, it serves to reason that no team is going to... just days beyond the end of the regular season... commit playoff suicide in order to grant themselves a 90% fail rate instead of a 94% fail rate in draft order placement.

Agreeing to disagree, and done. You're welcome to any last word you'd like, without any counterpoint from muah.

Fair enough....agree to disagree. This will be the last from me unless you decide to continue.

Regarding your numbers above....

In the chart you posted earlier in this thread (which I haven't verified but assume to be accurate), there are 18 ASG players selected in the Top 8 picks in the 13 years you show. That's 18 players out of 104 total picks, or 17.3%, "success" rate (if you define success as an ASG player). However, in that same chart, there are 5 ASG players selected 9-14. That's 5 players out of 78 picks or a "success rate" of 6.4%. So the difference between winning a 1st round series (and therefore having your proxy lose and receiving a pick 9-14) vs losing the 1st round series and guaranteeing yourself at least a Top 8 pick, is 10.9%.

But the percents go up from there: Top 4 "success" rate is 25%. Top 2 "success rate" is 30.7%. Top 1 "success rate" is 38.5%. So if the team lost its playoff series to its own proxy team, they would (based on this historical data set) increase their chances of gaining an ASG player AT LEAST 10.9% but maybe as much as 32.1%.

I honestly don't know where you are getting a 94% fail rate vs a 90% fail rate but it appears, based on your own numbers, that you are wrong in that regard.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

3. Having said that, I still am stuck on what a tectonic issue it is to reduce the degree to which 2-3 players' presence on a roster is so ultimately consequential (see above discussion of how NBA differs in that respect from NFL, MLB and NHL).

Introducing the idea of a 2-minute penalty box... or maybe not an actual box, but just being confined to the bench... for the offending player for all fouls prior to the bonus situation inherently compels coaches to have to be prepared to go a couple of players deeper on their bench, both because of the penalty itself, and because of the lack of long pauses in action due to foul shots, creating situations where players get more exhausted more quickly.

The more we can create organic situations where games are decided on players #1-#6 instead of players #1-#3, that has the ripple effect of leveraging and ratcheting down to some degree of the actual impact of the highest draft picks...

In other words, the change ultimately would give more reason for teams to pattern themselves after the 2004 Detroit Pistons roster in their quest for a championship.

On this front, I've had a couple of other light bulbs flicker on in this dim brain-o-mine...

1. I think a net result of this would be fewer fouls. Do you? Coaches would likely be more adamant about their players not drawing fouls. It would be a cleaner-played game almost certainly.

2. There is almost no doubt that the time of games would be sliced down by several minutes, since foul shot stoppages would not occur until the bonus--ie, only after the first 4 fouls for both teams in any quarter are foul shots awarded... so, as many as 32 foul shot stoppages (4 per quarter for 2 teams) are eliminated.

3. I'm arguing with myself whether 2 minutes is the right number. And if it is, should it be 3 minutes for shooting fouls? Probably. And flagrant fouls ought to be assessed both the penalty box and foul shots no matter when they occur.