How The NBA Can Limit Tanking

[maverick1948]

You want to stop tanking? Set the draft up where EVERYONE has a shot at the #1 pick. Put a ball in for each loss a team has. ie 2012 Spurs and Bulls get 16 balls each, while Charlotte gets 59 and Wash 46 NOLA and Cleveland 45. Then draw for the #1 pick. If it is SA or Chi so be it. Percentage of winning the #1 pick become a lot smaller than under the present system. Also, teams like SA and Chi are not penalized for winning. They can draw in the to "lottery" area just like everyone else. The incentive to tank becomes far less attractive. Washington would have a 4.65% chance to win the #1 pick while SA and Chi would have a 1.62%. This would place winning as more important than tanking.

Of course, paranoid pop will not like. Why? He didn't think of it.

[DPG21920]

My biggest issue is that you'd have bad teams that would have an even harder time getting better.

This is the most common/biggest argument I get when I discuss my idea. While logical and intuitive, I just don't agree. When you look at the system today, the vast majority of NBA les over the years have been won by the same teams:

Staring in 1984 the list of franchises that have won a NBA le:

Boston, Lakers, Pistons, Bulls, Rockets, Spurs, Heat & Mavs. That is 8 out of 30 teams in the past 29 years with a le, with the majority going to Boston, LA, CHI & SA (21 out of 29 les).

Not only that, but unless there is a transcendent talent (which is very rare), there is almost no correlation with getting lottery picks and truly competing for playoff runs/ les when you are a really bad team. The same franchises appear to be in the lottery over and over and it's because you can't teach them to fish. They are given fish, so they eat for a day, but they still starve over the long haul because of a mul ude of other factors (namely terrible management). In this system, while in theory it would make it harder for the bad teams to get better, it really doesn't change a whole lot from the reality of what happens today (except in those rare Lebron to CLE moments). In this new system, I think it's a lot more likely that the well managed teams that are right there on the cusp of making the playoffs, have enough of a shot to take the next jump while remaining finanically responsible. So without changing the reality of the lower level teams much except in rare cases, you provide a system that not only discourages tanking in most situations, but it accomplishes a better chance at parity in the league.

[DPG21920]

And DMC is correct in pointing out that this would likely lead to some much needed contraction anyways.

[Chinook]

I've always thought that the idea of contraction is ludicrous. There are too many great players from around the world to say that the United States can't support 30 teams. There are a lot of reasons why the talent gap is so huge between haves and have nots, and some of it has a lot to do with the lack of a hard cap and very limited restrictions of player movement. More than that, the system is catered so that teams with top-five players to get a disproportionate amount of favor, both in marketing and in game situations. This completely subverts the idea of building a good team without bending over backward to get a superstar.

One player shouldn't be that important. Contrary to what people think, there's no reason why a solid team with great coaching (Memphis, but with great coaching) can't beat a team like Miami in a seven-game series. I don't care how good a player is, a good system combined with fairer defensive rules can go a long way toward restoring parity. That would in turn make winning the lottery less important for small-market teams to do in order to build a contender.

[cd021]

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.

I disagree with the first part about the highest winning non playoff teams getting a high lottery pick.

Worst 8 teams should have the opportunity to improve their fortune by possibly obtaining 2 of the top 14 picks. Washington could acquire say the #1 and the # 13 pick. If the draft well thats a possible super star and legit starter for the next decade +. Having teams like Dallas & Minnesota be rewarded by beating out the other bubble teams for the final 4 playoff seeds with picks 9-12.

Washington and Toronto would be hurting with only a late lottery pick, they'd continue to be terrible unless they find a gem like the ones I gave as an example.


The best team in the conference that wins the All star game would recieve a 14th pick along with their 29th or 30th pick. That way the they also have quality young talent and can remain a contending team after their core ages.

Any team could use Anthony Davis really.

[cd021]

I've always thought that the idea of contraction is ludicrous. There are too many great players from around the world to say that the United States can't support 30 teams. There are a lot of reasons why the talent gap is so huge between haves and have nots, and some of it has a lot to do with the lack of a hard cap and very limited restrictions of player movement. More than that, the system is catered so that teams with top-five players to get a disproportionate amount of favor, both in marketing and in game situations. This completely subverts the idea of building a good team without bending over backward to get a superstar.

One player shouldn't be that important. Contrary to what people think, there's no reason why a solid team with great coaching (Memphis, but with great coaching) can't beat a team like Miami in a seven-game series. I don't care how good a player is, a good system combined with fairer defensive rules can go a long way toward restoring parity. That would in turn make winning the lottery less important for small-market teams to do in order to build a contender.

I agree for the most part.

-With a hard cap, you'd really be at the mercy of several factors in retaining a le contending team for example

If the cap was set at 70million

The hornets (soon to be the Pelicans) were in the finals with a core 3 of Davis, Rivers & Gordon

In the off season N.O had 56 million committed to 13 players (solid book keeping, thats 4.3 million per player, the average is over 5 million)

But the only player not under contract happened to be Austin Rivers who was coming off a strong season (I.e 18.5ppg, 4 rpg, 4.2 ast) and the Pelicans offered

the remaining cap space to him (14 million a season 7.5% raises over 5 years)

The Kings, for example, had only 48 million in salary and offer in 18 million (over 4 seasons, while paying him more than the Pelicans offered him over 5) by eliminating the bird rights you'd be almost guaranteeing him walking and a contending team taking a hit in the talent department.

[DPG21920]

Washington and Toronto have had continued lottery picks and are still terrible.

[Clipper Nation]

fck tankin and ur lottery

every team should have equal chance of gettin a lottery pick...just put all teams and random draw

The Lakers and Knicks would take turns getting the #1 pick each year in that system, let's be real now

[cd021]

I've always thought that the idea of contraction is ludicrous. There are too many great players from around the world to say that the United States can't support 30 teams. There are a lot of reasons why the talent gap is so huge between haves and have nots, and some of it has a lot to do with the lack of a hard cap and very limited restrictions of player movement. More than that, the system is catered so that teams with top-five players to get a disproportionate amount of favor, both in marketing and in game situations. This completely subverts the idea of building a good team without bending over backward to get a superstar.

One player shouldn't be that important. Contrary to what people think, there's no reason why a solid team with great coaching (Memphis, but with great coaching) can't beat a team like Miami in a seven-game series. I don't care how good a player is, a good system combined with fairer defensive rules can go a long way toward restoring parity. That would in turn make winning the lottery less important for small-market teams to do in order to build a contender.

Contraction isn't happening, too much money too be had, and the leagues image would take a serious hit, if it it shut down a team, Like a company shutting down 8 stores. There are too many, I'll give you that.

People love watching teams score, it really true across the board, the NFL has changed rules to encourage offense and make playing great defense harder. MLB lowered the mount several times to stop pitchers from dominating the game and giving the hitter a better chance of getting on base or hitting a home-run. The NBA added hand checking to stop defenders from hacking at the ball, which cut down on turnovers and lead to more points being scored, ironically scoring in the NBA is down when compared to the 80's, Like the NCAA basketball has a 35 second shot clock but ranked teams are scoring 12-15 points less than in the early 90's with a 45 second shot clock.

Memphis one of those rare teams that play fantastic defense and score at a great clip. The would be favored against Miami, even without a superstar.

I understand the point about the game being too superstar centric but in a game where only 12 players can play a night and only 5 players on the court a one time for a team its much easier for 1 player to dominate than say baseball or football. Duncan and Robinson both dominated if you draft a elite player you get a leg up.

The 2004 Pistons are really the only team that didn't have a super star but that is clearly the exception to the rule.

Denver is struggling, in part because they don't have a top 25 player or (a top 5 position player) who can take over a game.

Atlanta on the other hand has Horford & Smith who (both are PF's) are in the top 12 forwards in the league.

Utah has Jefferson who is a top 10 PF and Milsap who is top 15 PFs

Great coaching helps degate the talent on an opposing team, (Spurs B Team @ Miami)

[cd021]

The Lakers and Knicks would take turns getting the #1 pick each year in that system, let's be real now

Yeah, that.

[cd021]

Washington and Toronto have had continued lottery picks and are still terrible.

Kerr said that another GM had told him, "If you get half of the pick right, you're doing a great job"

Wall has been inconsistent and injury prone, but he also hasn't been surrounded with talent.

Beal has played fairly well, being asked to play PG on a 3-19 team.

Vesseley is a work in progress but is pretty going to be pretty good.

Remember the T-Wolves

had 5 top 6 picks since Garnett got traded

Johnny Flynn
Ricky Rubio
Kevin Love
Wesley Johnson
Derrick Williams

2 of them are studs 2 dubds and 1 (Williams) who is TBD


Toronto I can't defend... they suck ass

[cd021]

You want to stop tanking? Set the draft up where EVERYONE has a shot at the #1 pick. Put a ball in for each loss a team has. ie 2012 Spurs and Bulls get 16 balls each, while Charlotte gets 59 and Wash 46 NOLA and Cleveland 45. Then draw for the #1 pick. If it is SA or Chi so be it. Percentage of winning the #1 pick become a lot smaller than under the present system. Also, teams like SA and Chi are not penalized for winning. They can draw in the to "lottery" area just like everyone else. The incentive to tank becomes far less attractive. Washington would have a 4.65% chance to win the #1 pick while SA and Chi would have a 1.62%. This would place winning as more important than tanking.

Of course, paranoid pop will not like. Why? He didn't think of it.

That idea just isn't realistic or even practical, Washington would be outta luck. My idea gave the top seed on the all star winning conference the 14th pick that gives them 2 picks in the 1st round, thats a lot better than this idea. Toronto isn't intentionally tanking the legitimately suck.

[cd021]

Instead of tanking, the NBA should limit the GMs' bad choices when selecting players

Stern would do something like that

[DMC]

In theory that makes sense but your leaving the Washington's of the world completely on without a paddle

The Washingtons have gotten 1st overall picks and haven't done with them. These types of teams are just place holders for the stars until they become free agents. The league would be better served for highly touted prospects to get face time after the draft instead of being stowed away on ty teams for 4 years. A 1st overall pick should change a team's fortunes. Most of the time it doesn't do anything. The fact that a team needs a couple of these just to compete is a testament to the fact that the league has too much dead weight. Some franchises will never be compe ive.

[velik_m]

just have the top 4 teams in each conference play an 8 team playoffs for top pick, it has the added bonus of extra kind-of-playoff-but-not-really games, which would bring more money to those teams...

[cd021]

The Washingtons have gotten 1st overall picks and haven't done with them. These types of teams are just place holders for the stars until they become free agents. The league would be better served for highly touted prospects to get face time after the draft instead of being stowed away on ty teams for 4 years. A 1st overall pick should change a team's fortunes. Most of the time it doesn't do anything. The fact that a team needs a couple of these just to compete is a testament to the fact that the league has too much dead weight. Some franchises will never be compe ive.

I disagree most of the #1 picks stay with their team until they are traded. Franchises can be compe ive it takes luck, competent ownership and management. San Antonio, Dallas, & Houston have won 7 Championships in the last 17 seasons they are are considered to be small markets (despite Houston being like 8th in terms of largest city)

I can't deny that their are some dead weight and they should trim the fat but thats not going to happen

Minnesota
New Orleans
Golden State
Houston
Cleveland

all have drafted well or have stock piled assets to attract or trade for talent

95-Kevin Garnett- Played 13 seasons with the Minnesota Timberwolves before a 8 player trade sent him to the Celtics

96-Allen Iverson-played 12 seasons with Philadelphia before being traded to the Denver Nuggets

97-Tim Duncan (he obviously stayed 16 seasons and counting)

99-Elton Brand-played two seasons and was traded on draft night for Tyson Chandler

2000-Kwame Brown-played four seasons and was traded for Caron Buttler

2001-Kenyon Martin played 4 seasons then signed and traded with the Nuggets (he was the only one to leave after 4 seasons)

2002-Yao Ming- Played entire career with Rockets before retiring

2003-Lebron James played seven seasons and took his team to the playoffs 5 times before being traded to the Heat (Sign N' Trade)

2004-Dwight Howard-played 8 seasons with the Magic leading them to the post season 5 times.

2005-Andrew Bogut-Played 6 seasons before being traded to Golden State

2006-Andrea Bargnani 5th season with the Raptors

[cd021]

just have the top 4 teams in each conference play an 8 team playoffs for top pick, it has the added bonus of extra kind-of-playoff-but-not-really games, which would bring more money to those teams...

That seems a unnecessary just reward the top seed on the all star winning conference the 14th pick with out adding 7 games to a cramped calender, in your proposal would it take place before or after the playoffs the players would also ask for a piece of that money given that they have to play extra games and it appearing on national TV.

[velik_m]

That seems a unnecessary just reward the top seed on the all star winning conference the 14th pick with out adding 7 games to a cramped calender, in your proposal would it take place before or after the playoffs the players would also ask for a piece of that money given that they have to play extra games and it appearing on national TV.

I meant top 4 (9th-12th in conference) that don't make the playoffs, they could play during the later stages of playoffs, 5 or 3 game series. You have to include more teams, to motivate the weak teams, reaching plaoffs is impossible for washington, but reaching 12th place in conference not so much...

[cd021]

I meant top 4 (9th-12th in conference) that don't make the playoffs, they could play during the later stages of playoffs, 5 or 3 game series. You have to include more teams, to motivate the weak teams, reaching plaoffs is impossible for washington, but reaching 12th place in conference not so much...

Its just not practical, after bad teams end the season players aren't just going to stick around for three weeks and then play in a losers bracket instead of going on vacation.