Amateur: The draft lottery is a failed system

[DAF86]

The equal odds lottery isn't perfect either because then nobody would want the 8th seed. Teams on the fringe would tank to fall out of the playoffs. I do like this better than the current system, though.

Honestly it is kind of fun to see a team that barely misses the playoffs get the #1 pick. Then they actually have a chance to get better and become a real contender, instead of needing to "bottom out." You should always want to be the best team you can and should not be punished for it. For example, what if Philly or Toronto or Portland got the #1 pick? Wouldn't those teams be awesome to see with a #1 player added to them?

No sane owner/coach/team would tank the chance of getting to the playoffs (and all the extra money that comes with it) to have 1/14 chance of getting the number one pick.

[Latarian Milton]

the lottery is fine and it just needs an additional protocol which rules that the team finishing with the worst record will be deprived of the draft pick, so that even the bottom teams will have an incentive to work hard and try their best to avoid being the last place. in most european soccer leagues where there're relegation rules, you often see bottom teams having dogfights approaching the end of the season because the bottom 3-4 teams will get relegated to a lower league, i think the NBA should adopt some similar rules imho

[sendman]

Why lottery? 14 teams that don't make playoffs should be ranked from the best to the last. The bast team choses first and the worst choses last. That would make them work till the end.
Borderline playoff teams would become contenders sooner and cellar dwellers would have to be creative to become compe ive.

[rayjayjohnson]

trading Kyrie Irving to the Cavs

[whitemamba]

why would they go up 25 and then lose? why just not give a and do what ever and lose easily.. why play so hard?

[TDMVPDPOY]

if this is the noh team culture to tank for pics even with last years no.1 pick, i dont feel bad for them if monobrow does leave that team....

no lottery teams deserves to have b2b top5 picks, they should fix that

[Mal]

Lottery is rigged also. It should be public, and Stern taking balls out of some container. In public, in front TV camera. Cavs got LeBron, Bulls got Rose, Pelicans were bought from NBA, and they got 1st pick same year ? Yeah, that makes sense and is logical.

[spurraider21]

why would they go up 25 and then lose? why just not give a and do what ever and lose easily.. why play so hard?

if you aren't tanking, its not that hard to get a big lead on the lakers. 100 points in 39 minutes only to score 2 in the final 9. get a grip. in that 4th quarter, they had multiple "out of bounds" turnovers, a couple of shot clock violations, and 2 blown dunks (not counting the dwight block)

[baseline bum]

Why lottery? 14 teams that don't make playoffs should be ranked from the best to the last. The bast team choses first and the worst choses last. That would make them work till the end.
Borderline playoff teams would become contenders sooner and cellar dwellers would have to be creative to become compe ive.

That's what we want. Borderline playoff teams with enormous motivation to tank the season. They get the best of both worlds; a compe ive season that draws fans to the games all year and then they lay down and die the last week of the season so they can draft #1.

[LnGrrrR]

There isn't a viable "solution" for tanking, tbh..

This system is fine..it ensures that tanking for the worst record in the NBA does not guarantee the highest pick..if a team wants to harm their potential attendance and long-term fan loyalty, that's their decision..

Eh, I'd rather they do it like the NFL... now your team tanks for a year, and gets the 12th pick... whooptee doo! Now your team STILL sucks, and they're probably tanking again next year in hopes of getting a high pick.

[Captivus]

What they should do at the very least is that if you received a top 3 pick in the last 3 years, you cannot get another top 10 pick during that period. That would force teams like the Pelicans to actually not tank and build around unibrow, etc

I like this. Looks fair to me. At some point if a teams gets high picks and still cant win, thats their fault. I would change the 10 years to 7 (maybe), I think 7 years is enough to rebuild when you have 3 Top 3 picks.

Max picks in 7 years.
- 2 1st Picks
- 3 Top 3
- 5 Top 5

Now that I look at my suggestion, your 10 years fit even better. At the end you have a Max of 10 top 5 picks in 10 years, distribuited in some way (something like what i wrote).

This is a list of the top 5 Picks of the last 10 years:




MMMMmmmm.....
Now that I look at this chart it gets even harder to come up with a rule. 10 picks look like a lot, no teams has had more than 4 top 5 picks. I didn’t make a Top 10 pick chart...maybe I will. At the end, the top 5 picks are usually the best players.

I don’t want to get into the detail of every player picked, but some teams made mistakes...duh!

So, what teams in your opinion shouldn’t be allowed to have, let’s say, Top 3 picks this year?
Maybe Cleveland shouldn’t be allowed to have a Top 3 pick, they goy Lebron, Kyrie, Tristan and Dion.

Ok, I have to work a little...I will continue to post crazy talk later...

[sendman]

That's what we want. Borderline playoff teams with enormous motivation to tank the season. They get the best of both worlds; a compe ive season that draws fans to the games all year and then they lay down and die the last week of the season so they can draft #1.

That is exactly what you want. Teams with full houses till the end. And tanking the last week of the season is a very small price to pay. And yet everyone can tank so there is not much to gain with doing it, right!? And a top of that it's still better to be as high as it gets when it comes to picking spots. I believe it is still better to be nr. 7 then nr. 14 in the draft or am I wrong? Everybody will push it till the end margins would be much smaller in my opinion.
But I might be wrong.

[J.T.]

The quarterback position is pretty much at that level at this point...

The QB position gets the most notoriety because the NFL has moved toward a more pass happy game thanks to rule changes and what not. Winning the Super Bowl still requires lots of teamwork, limiting mistakes and a maybe a lucky break here or there. An elite QB doesn't often take a crap team to the Super Bowl by himself.

[baseline bum]

That is exactly what you want. Teams with full houses till the end. And tanking the last week of the season is a very small price to pay. And yet everyone can tank so there is not much to gain with doing it, right!? And a top of that it's still better to be as high as it gets when it comes to picking spots. I believe it is still better to be nr. 7 then nr. 14 in the draft or am I wrong? Everybody will push it till the end margins would be much smaller in my opinion.
But I might be wrong.

I think it's a huge price to pay for the league and its product. You could basically tank without the financial repurcussions that come with people not wanting to pay to see a team not trying. It would greatly increase tanking by teams that could be decent, since they'd try as hard as they could to stay at that 9 seed all season so that they could get that #1 pick and jump straight to contender status. That system ensures teams will be built by carefully considering which games to tank as the season plays out to maintain that coveted 9 slot.

Your system makes the middle of the league play down to lottery level just so the absolute doormats like Charlotte or Sacramento would play better. The Rockets, Jazz, Warriors, Bulls, Celtics, Raptors would probably all be tanking for those #9 seeds right now in your system. I think a straight uniform lottery both accomplishes the goal of making tanking a horrible idea most of the time while also not rewarding completely inept teams, since the odds are just as good that the #9 seed gets the pick for the franchise guy at #1. In a straight lottery you might have a team tank every once in a while when there is a really deep draft with lots of allstar talent (like last season's), but most of the time I don't see teams throwing guaranteed playoff revenue out the door just to move up maybe 7 slots in the draft on average.

[sendman]

I think it's a huge price to pay for the league and its product. You could basically tank without the financial repurcussions that come with people not wanting to pay to see a team not trying. It would greatly increase tanking by teams that could be decent, since they'd try as hard as they could to stay at that 9 seed all season so that they could get that #1 pick and jump straight to contender status. That system ensures teams will be built by carefully considering which games to tank as the season plays out to maintain that coveted 9 slot.

Your system makes the middle of the league play down to lottery level just so the absolute doormats like Charlotte or Sacramento would play better. The Rockets, Jazz, Warriors, Bulls, Celtics, Raptors would probably all be tanking for those #9 seeds right now in your system. I think a straight uniform lottery both accomplishes the goal of making tanking a horrible idea most of the time while also not rewarding completely inept teams, since the odds are just as good that the #9 seed gets the pick for the franchise guy at #1. In a straight lottery you might have a team tank every once in a while when there is a really deep draft with lots of allstar talent (like last season's), but most of the time I don't see teams throwing guaranteed playoff revenue out the door just to move up maybe 7 slots in the draft on average.

OK, let's agree to disagree.
P.S.
I still think that it would be better for everybody to play for something till the end, rather then watching half of the league starting to tank after 30 games into the season.

[baseline bum]

OK, let's agree to disagree.
P.S.
I still think that it would be better for everybody to play for something till the end, rather then watching half of the league starting to tank after 30 games into the season.

I think I'd rather see really bad teams tank than good teams tank.

[Raven]

i'd add that you can't have a top 3 pick if you got the number 1 the year before..

[DPG21920]

I think I'd rather see really bad teams tank than good teams tank.

You are forgetting one incredibly huge factor: Making the playoffs. There are very big financial rewards for making the playoffs and unless there is a sure fire number one pick like a Lebron/Duncan/Shaq/Magic teams won't do what you are saying and tank the last week to stay at the 9 seed. If they have worked hard enough to be in the 9th seed spot/playoff hunt, they will push for the playoffs because that is huge financially and I can't imagine an owner would be too happy to lose all that revenue by tanking at the last second. If they happen to tank/don't make the playoffs? At least they will be rewarded with a higher pick and a greater chance at making the playoffs next year vs being perennially terrible.

[ElNono]

I like this. Looks fair to me. At some point if a teams gets high picks and still cant win, thats their fault. I would change the 10 years to 7 (maybe), I think 7 years is enough to rebuild when you have 3 Top 3 picks.

Max picks in 7 years.
- 2 1st Picks
- 3 Top 3
- 5 Top 5

Now that I look at my suggestion, your 10 years fit even better. At the end you have a Max of 10 top 5 picks in 10 years, distribuited in some way (something like what i wrote).

This is a list of the top 5 Picks of the last 10 years:




MMMMmmmm.....
Now that I look at this chart it gets even harder to come up with a rule. 10 picks look like a lot, no teams has had more than 4 top 5 picks. I didn’t make a Top 10 pick chart...maybe I will. At the end, the top 5 picks are usually the best players.

I don’t want to get into the detail of every player picked, but some teams made mistakes...duh!

So, what teams in your opinion shouldn’t be allowed to have, let’s say, Top 3 picks this year?
Maybe Cleveland shouldn’t be allowed to have a Top 3 pick, they goy Lebron, Kyrie, Tristan and Dion.

Ok, I have to work a little...I will continue to post crazy talk later...

My idea was that if you pick in the top 3 one year, then you cannot pick in the top 10 again for the next 3 lotteries. If your team manages to suck balls and you end up with a top 10 pick (say 5th), then you get automatically dropped down to 11, and teams originally 6th to 11th would be bumped up to 5th to 10th. I would add an exception to this (the Oden exception), and that is if you waive your top 3 pick at any time during the 3 year window, then the limitation ends. In case of a trade, a team received the top 3 pick would also receive the limitation. That needs to be done otherwise teams in the top 10 can pick and trade immediately to remove the restriction.

For example, taking the last lottery picks, Hornets, Bobcats and Wizards wouldn't be able to pick in the top 10 for the next 3 seasons.

[Captivus]

My idea was that if you pick in the top 3 one year, then you cannot pick in the top 10 again for the next 3 lotteries. If your team manages to suck balls and you end up with a top 10 pick (say 5th), then you get automatically dropped down to 11, and teams originally 6th to 11th would be bumped up to 5th to 10th. I would add an exception to this (the Oden exception), and that is if you waive your top 3 pick at any time during the 3 year window, then the limitation ends. In case of a trade, a team received the top 3 pick would also receive the limitation. That needs to be done otherwise teams in the top 10 can pick and trade immediately to remove the restriction.

For example, taking the last lottery picks, Hornets, Bobcats and Wizards wouldn't be able to pick in the top 10 for the next 3 seasons.

I think that your rule is a little to hard, 1 Top 3 pick and you cant pick Top 10 in 10 years seems like a lot.
The Cleveland case in my example is the one I like. They had 4 Top 5 picks in 5 years, that should be enough for a "no Top 10 pick" or something.

Another idea that could work is to order the teams according to the last 3 years results. So teams wont be able to tank, because they would need to do it 3 years. Then again, maybe in the last year the league could have 5 teams fighting for that 1st pick.

Another idea that I had was to make a small tournament between the teams that didn't make the POs. Maybe 2 small tournaments, 1 with the worst 8 teams (both conferences) for the 1st to 8th pick and another with the other 6, for the picks 9 to 14. Offcourse the best team gets the picks, no tanking in this tournament. And it also gives the bad teams something to do during POs. Its even a good marketing idea (Stern!). Imagine that 1st Pick finals game!

My conclusion:
The "Max Pick Rule in X Years" is a good one. So Cleveland, Charlotte and Minnesota cant have a Top 10 Pick this year, for example.
It seems fair, if a team has a lot of good picks and cant win, then I'm sorry.
Cant keep Lebron? Well...too bad, your FO sucks. I know...Miami is nicer than Cleveland...well...someone has to win the championship, otherwise we could just shut the league down and give the trophy to a different team every year without playing, nothing is more "balanced" than that.

[Latarian Milton]

lottery would be fine if you add a disqualification clause to it, which means teams who finish bottom 3 or something will lose their draft picks and the total number of lottery picks will be reduced to 11 accordingly. you simply can't reward teams for being lazy and ty tbh

[bluebellmaniac]

So the current system encourages teams to tank starting early in the season if the team sees that they just aren't going to be a le contender. This is due to the current system where a team with a worse record has a much better chance of being selected to have a great draft pick. Choosing an alternative lottery system whereby all the teams get an equal shot leads to teams on the bubble (6th, 7th and 8th seeds) to tank late in the season to grab a chance at a great draft pick. Each system will benefit different teams based on when it is most beneficial for them to tank. Some benefit from tanking early, others from tanking late. Perhaps you have a variety of systems available and you draw a ping pong ball at the beginning of the lottery to determine which system you will use. That way no team knows if they will benefit from tanking and for the most part should keep trying to be compe ive until the end of the season. Amongst the various systems for the lottery could be one where the bottom 3 records automatically get the 12th, 13th and 14th draft picks. Thus there is less incentive to tank....

A lotto to select which lotto system will be used.... LOVE IT!!!!

[ElNono]

My idea was that if you pick in the top 3 one year, then you cannot pick in the top 10 again for the next 3 lotteries.

I think that your rule is a little to hard, 1 Top 3 pick and you cant pick Top 10 in 10 years seems like a lot.

3 seasons, not 10... I don't want to sink teams for a decade if their picks sucks... but at least 3 seasons would give them an idea if there's a franchise talent there or not. And if the guy flat out sucks, they can waive him or trade him.

I mostly want to discourage teams that just picked 1, 2 or 3 from tanking that season in hopes of landing another top 3 pick.

[sendman]

I think I'd rather see really bad teams tank than good teams tank.

OK, let me put it this way. To get to #9 seed you would have to win 40+ games first. And those are games against motivated opposition. There is not much room for thanking my friend. You will have to be GOOD ENOUGH to get the prise, not BAD ENOUGH as it is now.

[DMC]

Blake? No. One ACL and he's done. He has to have his leaping ability to be anything at all. He's a decent bttb player but nothing special. Irving is a PG, if he's their franchise they are ed. So I ask you, so what? How does that get them to the promised land? It doesn't. These teams will never see a ring until some incredibly gifted player like Lebron gets there again and someone joins him instead of him joining them.

Goddamn I am a in' prophet.