Celtics @ Suns 3-26-16

[AzStevenCal]

I put Budinger in that group because he is not a huge contributor. However, he is not a good choice if the Suns plan to keep him.

Maybe the Suns can bring up a D-League player for a look... cough... cough.

I say, sign 2 D Leaguers and call a doctor in the morning (for your cough).

 

[AzStevenCal]

Yeah, I was wondering if the Celtics would pull off some meta-tanking. If their spot in the standings was more solidified I suspect they may have. Ainge is a crafty fellow. But IMO the prospect of home court in the first round is more valuable to them than a 3% boost in their lotto odds.

It is and I'm sure Ainge knows it - some of their fans, maybe not.

 

[JCSunsfan]

You know that tanking has gone a little too far when Celtics fans are clamoring for them to throw the game so they can undo the damage done by the recent Brooklyn win.

Most Celtics fans wanted them to lose this game. It would be worse if there was no lottery. Maybe they should not weight the lottery at all.

 

[Phrazbit]

Most Celtics fans wanted them to lose this game. It would be worse if there was no lottery. Maybe they should not weight the lottery at all.

This is I think they should do. Every non-playoff team gets the same odds at the top few picks. Boom, tanking is dead.

 

[AzStevenCal]

This is I think they should do. Every non-playoff team gets the same odds at the top few picks. Boom, tanking is dead.

It puts an end to tanking but it also puts a dent in the league's goal of parity (or, sort of parity). A bad team is far more likely to stay bad without some kind of draft help. Also, I'm not sure that tanking is entirely bad for the league. It's out of hand but I don't know that it needs to go away completely.

 

[sunsfan88]

Down one, 10 seconds left on the shot clock, and Knight takes a long three, resulting in an air ball. I cannot stand Knight!

I'm fine with him to keep us losing for the rest of the year. will hate watching him on any other Suns team moving forward.

great loss tonight. get two games up on Brooklyn in the loss column!

Unfortunately we'll still probably see him next season as well doing the same rubbish he does now.

I don't care about the rising cap, Knight is worth closer to half of what he signed rather than what he actually signed for.

A complete garbage player. No wonder Pistons & Bucks fans were so thrilled to get rid of him.

 

[Phrazbit]

It puts an end to tanking but it also puts a dent in the league's goal of parity (or, sort of parity). A bad team is far more likely to stay bad without some kind of draft help. Also, I'm not sure that tanking is entirely bad for the league. It's out of hand but I don't know that it needs to go away completely.

I disagree. Bad teams are usually bad because they're poorly managed, or because they had some bout of terrible luck, likely the "bad luck" had to do with their market and their best player forcing their way out.

While the league has had its current lotto structure there has not been much parity. IMO a draft windfall going to a team that was already somewhat competitive is more likely to create parity than some team who has gutted their roster to create a 15 win team. And parity would certainly further ensue when there is no longer an incentive to create deliberately awful teams.

 

[JCSunsfan]

This is I think they should do. Every non-playoff team gets the same odds at the top few picks. Boom, tanking is dead.

Would teams that are 8th seeds tank to get out of the playoffs and into the lottery? It's probably not worth a 1/14 chance I guess.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I disagree. Bad teams are usually bad because they're poorly managed, or because they had some bout of terrible luck, likely the "bad luck" had to do with their market and their best player forcing their way out.

While the league has had its current lotto structure there has not been much parity. IMO a draft windfall going to a team that was already somewhat competitive is more likely to create parity than some team who has gutted their roster to create a 15 win team. And parity would certainly further ensue when there is no longer an incentive to create deliberately awful teams.

The league keeps trying things to give each team a chance to be relevant. It's impossible to fully overcome some of the advantages certain franchises have but that doesn't mean they should just give up. I think you're looking at this from the standpoint of a fan, they're looking at what's best for the league overall. Having half a dozen Washington Generals is not good for the league, or so they believe.

I don't like the weighted lottery but a pure luck lottery is even worse IMO. We see far more tanking today than we ever did before any form of lottery was put in place. I think they should go back to a reverse finish draft and they should use money to incentivize teams to be competitive. I wouldn't mind them putting in a rule to control the number of times a team can draft first (or top 3). But bad franchises need more help than good franchises and in the long run, good franchises will suffer if that help isn't provided.

 

[elindholm]

Would teams that are 8th seeds tank to get out of the playoffs and into the lottery?

Yes.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

I disagree. Bad teams are usually bad because they're poorly managed, or because they had some bout of terrible luck, likely the "bad luck" had to do with their market and their best player forcing their way out.

While the league has had its current lotto structure there has not been much parity. IMO a draft windfall going to a team that was already somewhat competitive is more likely to create parity than some team who has gutted their roster to create a 15 win team. And parity would certainly further ensue when there is no longer an incentive to create deliberately awful teams.

And since 1990 the winners of the lottery have been completely random. The worst team is more likely to end up with the 4th pick than the 1st. That continues for pretty much every other position in the lottery as teams are more likely to end up with a worse pick than their pre-lottery position. The reason why we have this current lottery system is to prevent tanking because playing terrible and being one of the 3 worst teams going into the lottery is nowhere near a guarantee that you will even get a top 3 pick. I truly believe that a lot of fans don't completely understand this. This also goes to show how poorly managed a team like the 76ers are by trying to actively tank and build through the draft. There is a reason it hasn't been paying any dividends for them.

 

[Errntknght]

And since 1990 the winners of the lottery have been completely random. The worst team is more likely to end up with the 4th pick than the 1st. That continues for pretty much every other position in the lottery as teams are more likely to end up with a worse pick than their pre-lottery position. The reason why we have this current lottery system is to prevent tanking because playing terrible and being one of the 3 worst teams going into the lottery is nowhere near a guarantee that you will even get a top 3 pick. I truly believe that a lot of fans don't completely understand this. This also goes to show how poorly managed a team like the 76ers are by trying to actively tank and build through the draft. There is a reason it hasn't been paying any dividends for them.

While its true that the worst team is more likely to pick 4th than first, its also true that it is twice as likely to pick 1-3 as 4th and it is also guaranteed to pick no worse than 4th.
As for all teams being more likely to pick worse than their pre-draft that is not true for slots 5-14. Slot 4 has 52.4% chance of slipping but it has a 37.8% chance of moving into 1-3 and 9.9% chance of staying put, plus a guarantee of not worse than 7th.

I'm rather intrigued by Phrazebits notion that a uniform lottery for the top three picks does more for parity than the current lottery - parity in the sense of more teams with a legit chance for the big prize. Teams tanking so as to move from 8th to out of playoffs will be a tiny effect because 8th is usually up in the air until the last few days of the season so we're talking about a 1 or 2 tanked games now and then. (What a bonanza that would have been for us when we were the perennial 13-14th pick. Statisically speaking of course, as we are cursed when it comes to the lottery.)

 

[AzStevenCal]

While its true that the worst team is more likely to pick 4th than first, its also true that it is twice as likely to pick 1-3 as 4th and it is also guaranteed to pick no worse than 4th.
As for all teams being more likely to pick worse than their pre-draft that is not true for slots 5-14. Slot 4 has 52.4% chance of slipping but it has a 37.8% chance of moving into 1-3 and 9.9% chance of staying put, plus a guarantee of not worse than 7th.

I'm rather intrigued by Phrazebits notion that a uniform lottery for the top three picks does more for parity than the current lottery - parity in the sense of more teams with a legit chance for the big prize. Teams tanking so as to move from 8th to out of playoffs will be a tiny effect because 8th is usually up in the air until the last few days of the season so we're talking about a 1 or 2 tanked games now and then. (What a bonanza that would have been for us when we were the perennial 13-14th pick. Statisically speaking of course, as we are cursed when it comes to the lottery.)

That's true in some years but probably not in others. I suspect in a draft that includes a Lebron James or a Lew Alcindor or a draft with 3 or 4 obvious all star level talents that at least a couple of borderline teams would likely take the plunge. For the most part though it would probably increase parity among the middle class. But the have nots would be seriously have-notted.

 

[Phrazbit]

That's true in some years but probably not in others. I suspect in a draft that includes a Lebron James or a Lew Alcindor or a draft with 3 or 4 obvious all star level talents that at least a couple of borderline teams would likely take the plunge. For the most part though it would probably increase parity among the middle class. But the have nots would be seriously have-notted.

I think this ignores the reality of the current system. More often than not, the "have nots" continue in their current situation. And, with tanking so prevalent, many of the "have nots" are in their situation by design.

Without the incentive to tank I think the bottom end of the standings would become much more fluid.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Yes.

Then it would be worse. One solution might be that if you have had the top pick (or top 3) in the last five years, you cannot have it again until five years have passed. That would limit the number of teams tanking, and tanking seems to involve just a few teams on a regular basis.

Give a team an ability to get a good player if they are rebuilding, but penalize them for being perennially bad.

Another thing that would help is to end protection on traded draft picks, or at least make protections based on draft lottery seeding, not on the lottery itself. That way a team has less incentive to lose in order to retain a traded pick.

 

[elindholm]

Then it would be worse. One solution might be that if you have had the top pick (or top 3) in the last five years, you cannot have it again until five years have passed. That would limit the number of teams tanking, and tanking seems to involve just a few teams on a regular basis.

I agree, although I'd opt for a slightly different formula -- no more than two top-three picks over a four-year span, or something.

Give a team an ability to get a good player if they are rebuilding, but penalize them for being perennially bad.

The problem is, as we're seeing with the Suns, that if your team is bad, you have to make a choice: (a) try to get mediocre pretty quickly, at the expense of future championship aspirations, or (b) hold out for someone destined to be a future MVP candidate, however long it takes.

The second strategy is risky, but it has its appeal. Philadelphia has gone all-in with it, but it's not working; Minnesota, with its vastly improbable series of lottery victories, appears now to be solidly on the right path. So are you going to tell a team like Phoenix that they aren't eligible for the Minnesota route? That seems unfair.

Another thing that would help is to end protection on traded draft picks

I don't like this idea. If teams can agree to the terms of a trade, let them do it. No point tying their hands; it's hard enough to make trades as it is.

or at least make protections based on draft lottery seeding, not on the lottery itself. That way a team has less incentive to lose in order to retain a traded pick.

I like the idea of protecting according to lottery seeding, but how would that disincentivize losing? If anything, it seems like it would intensify it, because the difference between the #3 and #4 lottery seed would be absolute rather than subject to the future whims or probability.

 

[Mainstreet]

Then it would be worse. One solution might be that if you have had the top pick (or top 3) in the last five years, you cannot have it again until five years have passed. That would limit the number of teams tanking, and tanking seems to involve just a few teams on a regular basis.

Give a team an ability to get a good player if they are rebuilding, but penalize them for being perennially bad.

Another thing that would help is to end protection on traded draft picks, or at least make protections based on draft lottery seeding, not on the lottery itself. That way a team has less incentive to lose in order to retain a traded pick.

IMO, this is better than than the current lottery system. I particularly like doing away with protection on traded draft picks.

I've often thought about including all the teams in the lottery but weight the draft in favor of the worst teams. There would not be that much incentive to tank because teams would not be sure where they pick.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Then it would be worse. One solution might be that if you have had the top pick (or top 3) in the last five years, you cannot have it again until five years have passed. That would limit the number of teams tanking, and tanking seems to involve just a few teams on a regular basis.

Give a team an ability to get a good player if they are rebuilding, but penalize them for being perennially bad.

Another thing that would help is to end protection on traded draft picks, or at least make protections based on draft lottery seeding, not on the lottery itself. That way a team has less incentive to lose in order to retain a traded pick.

I just looked at this. If you could only have a top 3 pick once every five years, these teams would not be eligible this year:

TWolves, Lakers, Sixers, Cavs, Bucks, Magic, Wizards, Pelicans, Hornets, Jazz.

In other words, the only teams eligible to receive a top three pick in this draft would be (as of current standings): Detroit, Phoenix, Toronto, Sacramento, Boston. And obviously, the team with the highest odds of getting the first pick would be the Suns. Of those teams, I can only see Phoenix and Sacramento deliberately tanking. It would depend on how the lottery is weighted.

Just goes to show how bad some teams are, repeatedly.

It could be interesting if the restriction is based on the team picking, not whose pick it originally belonged to. It might encourage teams that already picked in the top three to trade the pick to a team that has not, since the pick would be more valuable to them. Thus, it would make it easier for bad teams to get quality veteran talent.

 

[Phrazbit]

Would teams that are 8th seeds tank to get out of the playoffs and into the lottery? It's probably not worth a 1/14 chance I guess.

Yes.

I disagree. Maybe if there was a LeBron James type talent, a once in 20 years situation, in the draft you'd have a couple teams decide to play those odds, but otherwise, no, I don't see playoff teams crapping the bed to take a 7% chance in the lotto.

I just looked at this. If you could only have a top 3 pick once every five years, these teams would not be eligible this year:

TWolves, Lakers, Sixers, Cavs, Bucks, Magic, Wizards, Pelicans, Hornets, Jazz.

In other words, the only teams eligible to receive a top three pick in this draft would be (as of current standings): Detroit, Phoenix, Toronto, Sacramento, Boston. And obviously, the team with the highest odds of getting the first pick would be the Suns. Of those teams, I can only see Phoenix and Sacramento deliberately tanking. It would depend on how the lottery is weighted.

Just goes to show how bad some teams are, repeatedly.

It could be interesting if the restriction is based on the team picking, not whose pick it originally belonged to. It might encourage teams that already picked in the top three to trade the pick to a team that has not, since the pick would be more valuable to them. Thus, it would make it easier for bad teams to get quality veteran talent.

It is an interesting idea but IMO this would not eliminate tanking, but merely make a really obvious cycle of tanking. Every 5 years mediocre/bad teams would detonate their roster to cash in on it being their turn, and if your "turn" came up in a 2 player draft and you got 3rd... well... now you're really screwed.

I think bad teams stay bad for so long because they are incentivized to do so up until they land a stud (like what the Sixers are trying to do), and then they've been so bad for so long it is hard to dig themselves out even if they have a star player (like the Kings). Remove the incentive to suck and I think the standings will become a lot more fluid.

 

[elindholm]

I disagree. Maybe if there was a LeBron James type talent, a once in 20 years situation, in the draft you'd have a couple teams decide to play those odds, but otherwise, no, I don't see playoff teams crapping the bed to take a 7% chance in the lotto.

It's hard to know, of course, but not all drafts have only a single future star in them. Picks in the #3-#5 range don't have the allure of #1, but they're still plenty attractive. So, figure on five picks that people really want, now those chances go up to 36%. If it's that versus getting humiliated 4-0 by the reigning conference champions, it's hard for me to believe that teams wouldn't be tempted.

 

[Phrazbit]

It's hard to know, of course, but not all drafts have only a single future star in them. Picks in the #3-#5 range don't have the allure of #1, but they're still plenty attractive. So, figure on five picks that people really want, now those chances go up to 36%. If it's that versus getting humiliated 4-0 by the reigning conference champions, it's hard for me to believe that teams wouldn't be tempted.

If 5 picks were in there I'd agree, but I wouldn't have that many. Only 2 or 3.

 

[JCSunsfan]

It realize hard to legislate this thing, especially when 1 or 2 players in each draft have the potential to make a generational difference.