Reply With Quote
They shouldn't give the worst record team much better probability to land top picks.
This idea, actually seems pretty logical and easy to do.
The Idea-Shorten the Lottery from 14 teams to 8 teams
For example..
Lottery Picks
1. Washington
2. New Orleans
3. Cleveland
4. Charlotte
5. Detroit
6. Sacramento
7. Toronto
8. Phoenix
No Picks
9. Dallas
10. Orlando
11. Philadelphia
11. Lakers
12. Boston
13.Utah
14. Minnesota
The 8 teams in the new lottery would be put into a drawing (like the current system) with the worst team having the best chance of getting the #1
1. 27 %
2. 20%
3. 14%
4. 11%
5. 10%
6. 7%
7. 6%
8. 5%
So Washington would have a 1/4 chance of landing the top pick.
The other 6 picks could be distributed in several ways
Option A
The same eight teams would be placed in another lottery, this time in reverse order. for example Washington would have 5% chance of nabbing a pick in the 9-14 range while Phoenix would have a 27% chance of getting Pick 9-14. The six teams that are drawn first get them, while the other 2 teams would be out of luck.
Pro's- The bad teams have an opportunity to nab premium talent , Helping the bad teams help turn around their fortune with the possibility of taking 2 of the top 14 available young players in world. Teams also could be free to package one of their two picks along with current roster players to improve their roster for the following season.
Example the Nets had the 6th pick last season, they traded it for Gerald Wallace prior to actually receiving it. It this system had been in place they may have had two lottery picks and could have packed them in a several team trade for Dwight Howard.
Cons-The other 6 teams that would have originally been in the lottery, would be out of a top 14 pick. While most of these player, are much less likely to turn out to be all stars, they could at the very least turn into starting caliber players.
Example
1996
-Kobe Bryant- 13th Pick-Charlotte Hornets
-Peja Stojakovic-14th Pick-Sacramento Kings
1997
-Tracy Mcgrady-9th Pick-Toronto Raptors
2004
Luol Deng-7th Pick-Phoenix Suns
Andre Iguodala-9th Pick- Philadelphia 76ers
Option 2
Allow the other 22 teams a chance to grab these 6 picks. For example the conference ,who wins the All star game, could be rewarded with the rights to the 9th-14 picks.
Example-The West wins the All star game and the remaining teams, that are not currently in the bottom 8, are placed in a lottery. 12 teams would be in the mix if this was the system this season. The top seed in the west could be guaranteed the 14th pick, and the 5-8 seeds take a pick. The last remaining pick would be drawn for.
Example
8th seed-9th Pick
7th seed-10th Pick
6th seed-11th Pick
5th seed-12th Pick
Remaining team-13th Pick
1st seed-14th Pick
Pros-This would add another element to the All star game, which is usually pretty compe ive, especially in the 4th quarter for an exhibition game. The best team would be rewarded with another pick in the top half of the draft the bottom half of the playoff bracket would be rewarded for making the postseason.
Cons-The middle of the road teams Utah, Minnesota, & the Lakerswould have have a tough time improving their roster without a top half pick.
Why it Could Work-the teams on the outside of the playoffs (like the suns last season) would be encouraged to be active in trying to acquire pieces to improve their roster in hopes of an playoff push. If they fail to make the playoffs, they aren't given a consolation prize of the lottery.
The really bad teams, who unintentionally tank, would get immediate help with up to 2 prospects.
Tanking late in the season to improve their odds in the lottery would be minimized because of the loss of 6 lottery slots. The teams that were battling for a playoffs that fall out of playoff contention late, can't just play rookies, and hope to jump a few spots in the back half of the lottery.
They shouldn't give the worst record team much better probability to land top picks.
I think the simplest and most effective manner to fix the lottery would be to dilute the advantage of having a bad record. Rather the ranging the lottery likelihood from 25% (worst record) to 0.7% (14th worst), instead range it from 13% to 4%. The bad teams will still generally get top picks most often, but it will be too risky to intentionally suck.
This pretty much does the opposite. If you don't get a pick unless you are in the bottom, you have incentive to tank...
To me, the better solution entirely is entirely reverse the logic where the teams that have the best records that didn't make the playoffs get the odds in their favor.
1) It doesn't guarantee anything, but gives a tangible reason not to tank (there is no incentive since winning gets you the better odds).
2) As we have seen, if you really want to increase parity, you have to have more good teams. Unless it is a true franchise player (Duncan, Lebron, Shaq, Kobe, Dwight Howard, Nash, Pau Gasol - which is rare), really bad teams like the Bobcats don't become compe ive since it's a gamble and they are usually bad for a reason that goes beyond just talent. However, teams on the cusp of a playoff (like a Golden State, Houston, Dallas, Minny) could really benefit from landing an Anthony Davis type player.
That would help ensure that more teams on the cusp have a legit shot at getting cheap talent enough to make that next level jump and compete for the playoffs.
That's my idea.
What's your problem with tanking in the first place?
Demote the last team to the D-League & promote the D-League winner.
Or just suppress the draft.
Ok... I don't think the NBA is ready for that.
But the whole concept of rewarding failure with the #1 pick is strange.
So maybe flat odds would be the best solution.
That's a pretty good idea, you would reward those teams that actually tried to make the playoffs but were unable to, so with the top pick they could turn from average to elite team in just 1 season, making the league more compe ive
DPG has the best answer. It requires the team to play hard all season. It would amplify those teams who are forever ty teams. It might even lead to league contraction. It won't happen under Stern, but it might happen. Even then though, there should not be a great difference in odds, but just enough to make a team want to be in that position.
That and fewer games would ratchet up the interest in the regular season.
Not only that, but any new rule or system, besides accomplishing what you want it to should be simple to implement. This requires very little work to "flip the switch" so to speak.
It's not even about that tbh. It's about keeping compe ion levels high, keeping games watchable, making end of season games worth something. It doesn't really matter who gets the pick, as long as everyone feels they have to fight for it.
I know this will not change (at least not in a close future) but as I said, I don't like the draft system.
Somehow, it is just a legacy of the NCAA. But now, with people coming from all over the world, turning pro at 16yo... it sounds a little bit anachronistic.
Here in Europe, people sign whoever they want to a contract. Teams always have something to fight for ( le, playoffs, demotion...).
The main issue is that most time powerhouses win. But this is just like in the NBA, sometime a small team will make it for having built the correct chemistry, for finding the next superstar...
Out of curiosity, why all of you sound so attached to the draft system?
I like the idea in premise DPG21920 but I think you'd have a lot of middle seeds fighting to stay out of the playoffs. Regardless of what's happened recently with Memphis and Philly, 8-seeds have almost no chance of doing anything in the playoffs. So why would a team choose that over getting a lottery pick? Right now, the lottery works so that there isn't much difference between bubble-in and bubble-out teams. They'll get picks 13-17 or something in that area. So there's little incentive to miss the playoffs on purpose now. That all changes if a win is the difference between having a 1-in-4 shot of getting Anthony Davis and having the privilege of getting destroyed by the 1-seed in the first round.
Chinook - There is already a pretty large financial incentive to make the playoffs. The difference in making the playoffs and not can mean a lot of revenue lost. I would imagine (that unless there is a can't miss prospect which is rare) that owners would not be too happy if a team tanked to miss the playoffs and cost them the money that goes along with it.
Well when it comes down to it, only one or two of the teams from each conference would succeed in just missing the playoffs each year. Rather than shooting the worst possible record, like with modern tanking, they'd have to tank very strategically (like Memphis did two years ago). I could see it being a win-win for teams: Succeed in tanking and accelerate growth by getting a really good player; or fail at tanking and get playoff revenue. There are teams that choose to tank instead of making the playoffs right now. Look at what Jordan did with the Bobcats. He had a playoff team and traded away all the key players to save money and tank. If immediate financial gain were all that mattered, teams would never tear down and rebuild. You system makes that easier, because teams wouldn't have to get all the way bad; they'd just have to get bad enough to grab the 9-seed.
Is that a bad thing? Not really. That would be great for a team like San Antonio, who look like it could be a lower-seed playoff team after the Big Three are gone. You'd see quick turnarounds for smart franchises. Also, it would add intrigue to the last few days of the season, since seeding may not be decided for a while with teams jockeying for 9th place. My biggest issue is that you'd have bad teams that would have an even harder time getting better.
I'd propose this alternative: The two 9-seeds get the top two picks (coin flip in all cases regardless of record or head-to-head), while the rest of the lottery teams are put in a system like the one we have now. You can tweak things like if the 10-seeds get high picks, too, or if the 9-seeds should get the second- and third-overall picks while leaving the first to the lottery winner, but you get the picture. I think that would allow for better compe ion in the middle while still giving bad teams a chance to recover.
Damn some of you are so determined so change the draft that you'd think San Antonio got ed over by the current system.
fck tankin and ur lottery
every team should have equal chance of gettin a lottery pick...just put all teams and random draw
I believe all non-playoff teams should have an equal chance to win the lottery. Just put them all in one hat and take a pick.
Option 2
Allow the other 22 teams a chance to grab these 6 picks. For example the conference ,who wins the All star game, could be rewarded with the rights to the 9th-14 picks.
Example-The West wins the All star game and the remaining teams, that are not currently in the bottom 8, are placed in a lottery. 12 teams would be in the mix if this was the system this season. The top seed in the west could be guaranteed the 14th pick, and the 5-8 seeds take a pick. The last remaining pick would be drawn for.
Example
8th seed-9th Pick
7th seed-10th Pick
6th seed-11th Pick
5th seed-12th Pick
Remaining team-13th Pick
1st seed-14th Pick
Pros-This would add another element to the All star game, which is usually pretty compe ive, especially in the 4th quarter for an exhibition game. The best team would be rewarded with another pick in the top half of the draft the bottom half of the playoff bracket would be rewarded for making the postseason.
Cons-The middle of the road teams Utah, Minnesota, & the Lakers
the was that?
nothing really, its just that when it hits April every columnist starts putting teams on blast for doing it.
In theory that makes sense but your leaving the Washington's of the world completely on without a paddle
I didn't claim that it was going to stop tanking, but just cut down on the teams who actually do it. By taking away 6 slots the mediocre teams would have more incentive to make the post season and get a 9-14 range pick. That really seems like it would be the most logical ,to me at least.
No, I'm not. The alternative I'm proposing to DPG21920's plan specifically addresses that. Washington would get a top-five pick every year if they remained the worst team. And it's highly unlikely that there'd be perennial 9-seeds in this scenario, which would allow for good movement.
Maybe if they can make a small tournament at the end of the season (during playoffs) in which the worst teams (8?) play against each other in order to win the first pick, 2nd, 3rd....
That way teams that dont classify to the PO still have something to do!
Only if you remember to freeze the Knicks' envelope first.
Involve the 20 worst teams in the lottery. 20 Balls for the worst team, 19 for the second worst, and so on. Also, don't just have a drawing for the top 3, have a drawing for each of the top 20 picks. That way, the teams at the bottom still have the "best" chance, but the difference is so small that tanking isn't worth the risk. This also means that the teams who barely made the playoffs have a shot at getting better and challenging the actual contenders the next season.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
