NBA to vote on new draft lottery system

[JCSunsfan]

What sense does this make? Now it makes it even easier for a bad team to tank, because they only have to get to the bottom three, not the absolute bottom.

Exactly. Fixing this thing seems to always have unintended consequences. We have come up with some pretty good ideas here. I think the best is simply that you cannot pick in the top three in consecutive drafts (or more if that works better). Tanking for the #1 pick rarely works anyway. Teams tank because they see three or so players that really make a difference. The big problem is when teams tank for multiple years, like Philly has for nearly forever.

It would be interesting to give the #8 and 9 seeds extra ping pong balls. Just give them a bonus for going for the playoffs.

 

[pokerface]

Sometimes teams have no choice but to tank so we as fans need to stop the blame game. Bad smaller market teams need a way to improve without having to go over the salary cap. The current system is fine as it is. It's not perfect but it will never be perfect no matter what.


If they want things to be fair and equal they need to install a hard salary cap. Why this is never discussed I have no idea.

 

[Chaplin]

If they want things to be fair and equal they need to install a hard salary cap. Why this is never discussed I have no idea.

2 words: Players Union

 

[Cheesebeef]

What sense does this make? Now it makes it even easier for a bad team to tank, because they only have to get to the bottom three, not the absolute bottom.

exactly what I was thinking. This makes zero sense.

 

[Dback Jon]

Sometimes teams have no choice but to tank so we as fans need to stop the blame game. Bad smaller market teams need a way to improve without having to go over the salary cap. The current system is fine as it is. It's not perfect but it will never be perfect no matter what.


If they want things to be fair and equal they need to install a hard salary cap. Why this is never discussed I have no idea.

Yup - that is the only thing that will work.

 

[Phrazbit]

What sense does this make? Now it makes it even easier for a bad team to tank, because they only have to get to the bottom three, not the absolute bottom.

No, because the maximum odds are 14% under the proposal, as opposed to 25% if you're the worst team right now. Under the current rules even the 3rd worst record has a 15.6% chance at #1, so for the top 3 to each only have 14% means that the odds of getting the top pick will be significantly improved for teams in the 5th-14th range.

I don't know that this will end tanking but it certainly reduces the chances of getting rewarded for it. If this goes through then we're going to see a lot of seasons where the 2 worst teams end up drafting 5th and 6th.

 

[Carolinacacti]

No team will trade for future picks like now.

 

[elindholm]

No, because the maximum odds are 14% under the proposal, as opposed to 25% if you're the worst team right now. Under the current rules even the 3rd worst record has a 15.6% chance at #1, so for the top 3 to each only have 14% means that the odds of getting the top pick will be significantly improved for teams in the 5th-14th range.

That should be a good point, but most people have such a poor understanding of probability that the pressure to "maximize your chances" is going to override the fact that, even if you maximize them, they still aren't very good.

 

[JCSunsfan]

That should be a good point, but most people have such a poor understanding of probability that the pressure to "maximize your chances" is going to override the fact that, even if you maximize them, they still aren't very good.

With fans this is true. Hopefully NBA execs, coaches and accountants are a little more astute.

 

[pokerface]

That should be a good point, but most people have such a poor understanding of probability that the pressure to "maximize your chances" is going to override the fact that, even if you maximize them, they still aren't very good.

Well if a team has no shot at the playoffs then playing the lottery seems like a viable alternative no matter how desperate the move.

If tanking is the epitome of evil then make the lottery completely random and install a hard salary cap. Then all is right in the world and we can all sleep good at night!

BTW.... Isn't this obsession with punishing tanking teams also hurting the teams that truly stink? If a team is just bad now they will get punished as a tanking team.

 

[Mainstreet]

Exactly. Fixing this thing seems to always have unintended consequences. We have come up with some pretty good ideas here. I think the best is simply that you cannot pick in the top three in consecutive drafts (or more if that works better). Tanking for the #1 pick rarely works anyway. Teams tank because they see three or so players that really make a difference. The big problem is when teams tank for multiple years, like Philly has for nearly forever.

It would be interesting to give the #8 and 9 seeds extra ping pong balls. Just give them a bonus for going for the playoffs.

I like something like this, where teams that perpetually tank should not be able to draft in the top three or even top five picks for consecutive years.

Also teams that have never drafted for the #1 pick or who have not received it for the longest period of time should get weighted consideration for the #1 pick.

 

[Hoop Head]

Sometimes teams like Cleveland that lose a superstar end up as cellar dwellers for years to come. I'm not sure it's right to punish them for that. However teams like Philly who openly sell off players in an effort to continue drafting at the top of the draft because they are after an impact player is a problem.

 

[elindholm]

Sometimes teams like Cleveland that lose a superstar end up as cellar dwellers for years to come. I'm not sure it's right to punish them for that. However teams like Philly who openly sell off players in an effort to continue drafting at the top of the draft because they are after an impact player is a problem.

Given the amount of player movement in free agency, it's fairly easy to construct a mediocre team that has no prospects for maturing into a contender, even starting from scratch. The reason why so many teams stay bad for so long is that they are trying to be "patient" and wait for, as you say, an impact player in the draft. A more level lottery could have the effect of encouraging teams to build up to mediocrity more aggressively, because they'd still be fairly likely to get a chance to draft the star that could put them over the top. In other words, the penalty for being mediocre would be mitigated, making it a more viable intermediate-term strategy.

 

[Phrazbit]

Given the amount of player movement in free agency, it's fairly easy to construct a mediocre team that has no prospects for maturing into a contender, even starting from scratch. The reason why so many teams stay bad for so long is that they are trying to be "patient" and wait for, as you say, an impact player in the draft. A more level lottery could have the effect of encouraging teams to build up to mediocrity more aggressively, because they'd still be fairly likely to get a chance to draft the star that could put them over the top. In other words, the penalty for being mediocre would be mitigated, making it a more viable intermediate-term strategy.

Exactly. Fringe playoff teams get imploded annually so their franchises can bottom out, in the process they sell off their quality players to contenders on the cheap, which only furthers the lack of parity.

Another big factor in this new proposal is a 4th lotto spot. Right now if you're the 14th worst team in the league you've got about a 1.5% chance of jumping into the top 3. I would guess that under the new system those teams are going to have like a 10% chance or better of getting somewhere in the top 4.

 

[mojorizen7]

Although his analogies go off the deep end a bit, i fully agree with Cowherd here.

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

IMO the NBA needs to just eliminate the lottery altogether but i digress.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Again. The real solution here is that you cannot be rewarded for being bad PERPETUALLY. Have rules about not picking in the top 3 or 5 in consecutive years. Give teams that have not picked in the top 3 or so for the longest time an advantage. There is no need to change the odds.

The funny thing about this is that it actually might make competition more intense in years where there is a bad draft, as teams compete to NOT be in the top three and waste a better opportunity that might come later.

This year is different. It looks like this draft is as many as five high probably star players deep.

 

[Phrazbit]

Again. The real solution here is that you cannot be rewarded for being bad PERPETUALLY. Have rules about not picking in the top 3 or 5 in consecutive years. Give teams that have not picked in the top 3 or so for the longest time an advantage. There is no need to change the odds.

The funny thing about this is that it actually might make competition more intense in years where there is a bad draft, as teams compete to NOT be in the top three and waste a better opportunity that might come later.

This year is different. It looks like this draft is as many as five high probably star players deep.

I honestly don't see that as a solution. What will instead happen is teams will supertank in those years where eligible, especially with the knowledge that a couple of the other bad teams won't be getting the same odds.

To me, the new proposal is a better fix. Streamlined odds for the truly terrible teams and opportunity for the mediocre teams who just barely missed the playoffs to jump up and perhaps make a leap the next year. I like that waaaay more.

As for that Cowherd rant, the NBA draft cannot be compared to other leagues. The NBA is the most star driven sport there is, one player can turn a team into a contender, the odds of finding superstars outside the top few picks drop off to blue moon status. In MLB, the NFL and hockey stars are stumbled across all over the draft slots, the NBA just does not work that way, which is why teams become deliberately awful.

 

[pokerface]

Teams that tank aren't guaranteed certain picks...just a range of picks. Look at us...the suns had the second worst record and received the fourth pick. We were 'punished' for our tanking ways...the system worked perfectly. No need to go crazy with the rules. No need to go on a tank witch hunt. The system works!


Peace out

 

[pokerface]

A lot of you that want to end tanking just want to kill any interest in the draft and interest in following bottom dwelling teams. So a team tanks...so what. It's not like a good team chooses to tank. Usually it's a bad team that tanks and just wants to be a little worse. Any team can tank so it's not like it's cheating either. I mean wtf are you guys thinking?? If these new stupid rules go through the league just got more boring and more damaging to smaller market teams. The big city/rich teams will buy players and smaller teams will stay bad.. seemingly forever. Plus non tanking bad teams get punished for no reason at all.

I don't want to hear ANY evils about tanking unless the league installs a hard salary cap. If tanking is cheating then so is teams going of the salary cap buying players. You don't fix one without fixing the other!!

 

[Mainstreet]

Teams that tank aren't guaranteed certain picks...just a range of picks. Look at us...the suns had the second worst record and received the fourth pick. We were 'punished' for our tanking ways...the system worked perfectly. No need to go crazy with the rules. No need to go on a tank witch hunt. The system works!


Peace out

The Suns have never drafted #1 overall in the NBA draft and yet they deserved to be punished?

 

[pokerface]

The Suns have never drafted #1 overall in the NBA draft and yet they deserved to be punished?

They tanked didn't they? According to some of you tanking is a problem. Or maybe it's chronic tanking that is the problem....but is it a big problem?

I just don't get this at all. The lottery already creates a randomness element...plus picking players are already a crap shoot. Teams don't want to be bad year after year... that's why they want high picks to get out of the cellar. Also, teams generally don't tank for a full season although it's been done. If a team tanks towards the end of a season I don't see that as a big deal.

Teams are already punished for being bad with poor revenue attendance. If a team is willing to sacrifice a season or partial season for a 'chance' at a high pick then so what. Yeah fans that attend games get gyped on seeing their favorite star play but these games are televised and free in most instances.

 

[BC867]

No matter how much sense tanking enthusiasts make, I think some of us (I have been undecided) see the human side of it.

Watching your team try to lose during a season is depressing.

Watching your team try to lose season after season is more depressing.

Watching your team try to lose season after season with very little to show for it in the long run is even more depressing.

We are no more a legitimate post-season threat now than during all these previous years without a playoff team.

Obviously, tanking has not produced expected results for us.

Does anyone truly believe that tanking for still another season would change that?

In the world's best basketball league, we need more than a little bit of hope. Tanking is obviously not the answer. If it were, we wouldn't be talking about it.

We need an experienced owner. We need an experienced Front Office. We need a change in attitude.

And if the answer is that we are a small market team (despite our size which says otherwise), we're bigger than the Bay Area.

When is the last time the Knicks or the Nets were a challenger for a championship? It is not about market size. It is about management skill. We were a small market team when Jerry took over as owner. We're not now, but our front office are neophytes.

As long as that remains the case, Suns fans will find it depressing.

 

[pokerface]

No matter how much sense tanking enthusiasts make, I think some of us (I have been undecided) see the human side of it.

Watching your team try to lose during a season is depressing.

Watching your team try to lose season after season is more depressing.

Watching your team try to lose season after season with very little to show for it in the long run is even more depressing.

We are no more a legitimate post-season threat now than during all these previous years without a playoff team.

Obviously, tanking has not produced expected results for us.

Does anyone truly believe that tanking for still another season would change that?

In the world's best basketball league, we need more than a little bit of hope. Tanking is obviously not the answer. If it were, we wouldn't be talking about it.

We need an experienced owner. We need an experienced Front Office. We need a change in attitude.

And if the answer is that we are a small market team (despite our size which says otherwise), we're bigger than the Bay Area.

When is the last time the Knicks or the Nets were a challenger for a championship? It is not about market size. It is about management skill. We were a small market team when Jerry took over as owner. We're not now, but our front office are neophytes.

As long as that remains the case, Suns fans will find it depressing.

Tanking got us in a range of players that snagged us Josh Jackson. Do you want to give him back?

When is the last star or "near star" free agent we got? We need good/great players to attract great players OR we need a boat load of money and a willingness to go over the cap.

I didn't find last season depressing at all. It was exciting with the suns having a chance at adding another potential blue chip piece to the team.

I wouldn't rule out another tank job for this season at all. Especially since making the playoffs is a long shot. We still need a talented big and next draft has a few players that fit that need.

Watching your team try to win and still lose is more depressing than tanking. As least there was a purpose and something to gain.

 

[Mainstreet]

They tanked didn't they? According to some of you tanking is a problem. Or maybe it's chronic tanking that is the problem....but is it a big problem?

I just don't get this at all. The lottery already creates a randomness element...plus picking players are already a crap shoot. Teams don't want to be bad year after year... that's why they want high picks to get out of the cellar. Also, teams generally don't tank for a full season although it's been done. If a team tanks towards the end of a season I don't see that as a big deal.

Teams are already punished for being bad with poor revenue attendance. If a team is willing to sacrifice a season or partial season for a 'chance' at a high pick then so what. Yeah fans that attend games get gyped on seeing their favorite star play but these games are televised and free in most instances.

I was questioning the use of the word "punished" particularly in regard to the Suns who have never drafted #1.

The randomness of the lottery does not guarantee the most needy teams get the best picks.

I disagree some teams do not want to be bad year after year with the 76ers as an example.

However, the worst problem in the NBA is not the teams tanking but rather the super teams who feed off the top free agents from other teams. So perhaps, in a way, we agree.

 

[Mainstreet]

No matter how much sense tanking enthusiasts make, I think some of us (I have been undecided) see the human side of it.

Watching your team try to lose during a season is depressing.

Watching your team try to lose season after season is more depressing.

Watching your team try to lose season after season with very little to show for it in the long run is even more depressing.

We are no more a legitimate post-season threat now than during all these previous years without a playoff team.

Obviously, tanking has not produced expected results for us.

Does anyone truly believe that tanking for still another season would change that?

In the world's best basketball league, we need more than a little bit of hope. Tanking is obviously not the answer. If it were, we wouldn't be talking about it.

We need an experienced owner. We need an experienced Front Office. We need a change in attitude.

And if the answer is that we are a small market team (despite our size which says otherwise), we're bigger than the Bay Area.

When is the last time the Knicks or the Nets were a challenger for a championship? It is not about market size. It is about management skill. We were a small market team when Jerry took over as owner. We're not now, but our front office are neophytes.

As long as that remains the case, Suns fans will find it depressing.

Nice post BC867.