Well it looks like we are looked in with 2nd or 3rd best odds in the NBA Draft

[AzStevenCal]

The decision to sit a player would be made by the teams medical staff and trainer. Sure the player has some input but the team ultimately makes the decision if a player can play. It's a process to do what is best for the player and team.

If a team really wants to tank there are other ways as well such as player rotations, minutes played and coaching.

All I'm say if a team wants to be bad, they will find a way.

Yes but that's not really tanking. It would be tanking if the player wasn't injured or if it's an overreaction to a mild ouchie but in that situation the player would know. Teams have a right to rebuild. They have a right to protect their aging stars. Trading away a star for draft picks and youth will likely set a team up for a good draft position but that has to be allowed too. I think they should only try to put a stop to the kind of things that Philly did. And I think that's fairly easy to identify as it's occurring.

 

[taz02]

Not true. If you are willing to ignore the purpose of the draft in the first place, there are many ways to eliminate tanking. Big market teams would love your suggestion, it would further their opportunities to get and stay basketball rich. It's a given that certain markets will always have a built in advantage when it comes to signing and keeping players. Equalizing the draft throughout all the teams takes away one of the few benefits available for teams at the other end of the financial spectrum.

Sorry, My post wasn't very clear. I think they should have left the lottery alone, I don't think tanking is that big of a deal, in fact it generates interest around the leagues worst teams.

My point was If the league is going to reward bad teams with high draft picks, (which they should) some teams will act to get those picks.

 

[JCSunsfan]

I think what they have done to the lottery is a pretty effective method to at least minimize tanking. Sure there will be some pretty obvious tanking late in the season as teams try to get into the bottom 3, but you won't be seeing teams outright tank for full or even half seasons as they once did.

I think I agree. The odds are so low that it just does not make much sense unless there are 4 or 5 really good players coming out like last year. After a few years of players with the worst records picking 4-6 I think they will give up.

But the new odds also give teams in the 4-14 slots hope.

Its probably about as good as they can do.

 

[Mainstreet]

Yes but that's not really tanking. It would be tanking if the player wasn't injured or if it's an overreaction to a mild ouchie and in that situation the player would know. Teams have a right to rebuild. They have a right to protect their aging stars. Trading away a star for draft picks and youth will likely set a team up for a good draft position but that has to be allowed too. I think they should only try to put a stop to the kind of things that Philly did. And I think that's fairly easy to identify as it's occurring.

I don't want to get locked into the medical stuff because it's only one part of the equation.

However, it's really hard to disprove something done for medical reasons. How many players do not have something hurting them.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Sorry, My post wasn't very clear. I think they should have left the lottery alone, I don't think tanking is that big of a deal, in fact it generates interest around the leagues worst teams.

My point was If the league is going to reward bad teams with high draft picks, (which they should) some teams will act to get those picks.

I agree they really didn't need to take any action but I'd be fine if they just went back to the pre-lottery days. There would be tanking but it could be limited by distributing a portion of league revenues for the teams by order of finish (best team gets a higher payout, worst team gets a lower one).

 

[Mainstreet]

I agree they really didn't need to take any action but I'd be fine if they just went back to the pre-lottery days. There would be tanking but it could be limited by distributing a portion of league revenues for the teams by order of finish (best team gets a higher payout, worst team gets a lower one).

How about this. We take all non-playoff teams and include them in the lottery for all the picks 1-14.

Every team would have a chance for the best picks. It wouldn't be like after four teams are drawn the rest of the teams are placed by season rankings. Non-playoff teams would have decreased odds of winning going from the worst team to the 14th team.

Of course the odds would have to worked out but percentages would have to make it not worthwhile to tank for the best picks.

 

[AzStevenCal]

How about this. We take all non-playoff teams and include them in the lottery for all the picks 1-14.

Every team would have a chance for the best picks. It wouldn't be like after four teams are drawn the rest of the teams are placed by season rankings. Non-playoff teams would have decreased odds of winning going from the worst team to the 14th team.

Of course the odds would have to worked out but percentages would have to make it not worthwhile to tank for the best picks.

Are you saying that all lottery spots will be determined by the draw? If so, that was the way they did it when the lottery first began. It only lasted for a few years that way because the worst teams weren't winning the lottery and subsequently weren't being helped into financial success.

 

[Mainstreet]

Are you saying that all lottery spots will be determined by the draw? If so, that was the way they did it when the lottery first began. It only lasted for a few years that way because the worst teams weren't winning the lottery and subsequently weren't being helped into financial success.

The lottery would only be for slots 1-14 with diminishing odds from the last place team.

Earlier I had discussed something for all 30 teams with diminishing odds but I think the above is better.

 

[AzStevenCal]

The lottery would only be for slots 1-14 with diminishing odds from the last place team.

Earlier I had discussed something for all 30 teams with diminishing odds but I think the above is better.

Yeah, that's what I thought you meant. And as I said, they tried it that way when the lottery was first installed and it was felt that it caused more problems than it solved. It was quickly replaced by the 3 spot draw.

 

[Mainstreet]

Yeah, that's what I thought you meant. And as I said, they tried it that way when the lottery was first installed and it was felt that it caused more problems than it solved. It was quickly replaced by the 3 spot draw.

The odds can be varied but "it" can always happen. It would largely do away with tanking. I would not be adverse to going back to it.

Was there odds placed on every selection 1-14?

 

[AzStevenCal]

The odds can be varied but "it" can always happen. It would largely do away with tanking. I would not be adverse to going back to it.

Was there odds placed on every selection 1-14?

I'm kind of fuzzy on it, so, I'll go with not sure. I know though when they did put the odds there they had to keep changing it for the same reason the initial format failed.

 

[Yuma]

I think if you allow the 14 teams that don't make the playoffs, then make the percentages not that different for each team, but make them progresive. 11% for the worst, 10% for second worst, etc.
11% - worst record, 10% - second worst record, 10% - third worst record, 8% - fourth worst record, 8%, 8%, 7%, 7%, 6%, 6%, 5%, 5%, 5%, 4%

 

[Mainstreet]

I'm kind of fuzzy on it, so, I'll go with not sure. I know though when they did put the odds there they had to keep changing it for the same reason the initial format failed.

For sure there would be some unhappy teams but I don't want to go back to the pre-lottery days.

We will have to keep working on it.