An interesting NBA anti-tanking idea

[Matches]

The current system incentivizes losing. The drafts of all the major sports do, but it's particularly a problem in the NBA where the likelihood of acquiring an all-star caliber player after the first 10-15 picks is somewhere between slim and none. When it happens it's an event, because it's really rare.

I love the wheel - love the idea that the draft would treat the various teams equally over time, and that they'd rise and fall depending on the skill with which they are run, rather than because they got lucky with ping-pong balls. Love the idea that teams would never again have an incentive to "bottom out".

The only legit complaint I've seen about it is the idea raised upthread that players will stay in school to manipulate where they're drafted. I'm not sure that's really a problem - I don't think it would happen often - but assuming it is a problem, it's easily fixed. Everyone who meets the age minimum is eligible for the draft - every year. No more "testing the waters", no more arbitrary deadlines for entry. Anyone 19 or over can be picked - right to first round picks are retained by the drafting team for 2 years. If the player wants to go back to school, he can. Players no longer have to gamble on where they're going to be picked - they'd all know in advance exactly what their NBA prospects were before leaving school.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Bad idea for several reasons. Players can stay in school to avoid being drafted by a certain team or to wait for the one they want. Also, superstar may come along when an already strong team has the number 1 slot.

Management and Money determine pro team success most of the time. The NFL seems to have the most parity because it has the best revenue sharing. Well managed NFL teams (New England) consistently do better than poorly managed teams (Washington). NBA has a complicated salary cap system to try to achieve parity but it can not overcome chronically stupid ownership.

Maybe the NBA system should just be tweaked. Let the teams that lost in the first round of the playoffs into the lottery and let every team in the lottery have the same chance of success. Teams would have no incentive not to make the playoffs and I don't think a team in the playoffs would tank just to get into a lottery than they could lose.

In my opinion parity is very very good for pro sports. Rivalries are great as well. The NFL is the best because it has the most financial parity and the small divisions and short season makes for several rivalries.

SoCal

[brevity]

The wheel is a terrific idea, not for its anti-tanking intent, but because it forces the NBA to operate in a more cyclical nature. True parity means that some teams can't stay bad forever, but the corollary to that is that other teams can't stay good forever either. Consistent success in pro leagues is unnatural. People forget that.

We favor the NFL for a number of reasons, but one factor is its sense of parity. Fans of many losing teams can be reasonably optimistic that their can improve next year. Conversely, fans of winning teams know to enjoy the ride because it won't last. (Except the Patriots, whose coach signed a contract with Satan. That'll balance out much later, Hoodie-in-Hell.)

[sagegrouse]

Some axioms (I forget what they really are, but I like to drop the word into conversations):

(a) The NBA is more dependent on individual stars than other pro leagues (duh, there are only five guys on the court and 8-10 receiving significant playing time vs. 16 or 17 key players in MLB, about the same for the NHL, and maybe 40-50 for the NFL).

(b) From time to time a player or players come along that could lift a team to be a championship contender. E.g.: Bill Russell, Wilt, Oscar, Alcindor, Walton, Magic, Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing, and so on, up to Lebron.

The NBA teams will go through wild machinations to get these players. Heck, the Philadelphia Warriors got the NBA to adopt regional picks, which they used to grab Wilt, a Philly high schooler.

The lottery is designed to give the lesser teams a fair chance at the best talent (which can vary tremendously by year). So, the conclusion is that the current instantiation of the lottery is a failure? Why? Is there evidence that teams are tanking for a very precarious shot at the #1 seed?

I am not sure I buy it. If there is evidence, then I would be inclined to tinker with the lottery parameters.

sage

[Wander]

Bad idea for several reasons. Players can stay in school to avoid being drafted by a certain team or to wait for the one they want.

I honestly can't imagine this would be a big issue. I mean, for this to matter, you have to have a player who is pretty much guaranteed to be selected #1 in the next NBA draft AND the one after that. That doesn't even apply to Jabari Parker. It'd be incredibly unwise to make a draft declaration decision based on what NBA team has the top pick; of course, players sometimes make unwise decisions, but I still don't see this as a relevant factor.

The lottery is designed to give the lesser teams a fair chance at the best talent (which can vary tremendously by year). So, the conclusion is that the current instantiation of the lottery is a failure? Why? Is there evidence that teams are tanking for a very precarious shot at the #1 seed?

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/98...-espn-magazine

[-jk]

How often do the best players stay with the teams that drafted them when their rookie contracts run out? How many of the best players were traded for or signed as free agents? How many make a significant difference in the rookie contract period?

I don't follow the nba much - and especially not player movements - but would think this would be a significant factor in this discussion.

(Edit: "Best" is, of course, squishy. Perhaps those players post-seasons depend upon. Not necessarily all-stars, but also dependable, significant role players.)

-jk

[gep]

... No more "testing the waters", no more arbitrary deadlines for entry. Anyone 19 or over can be picked - right to first round picks are retained by the drafting team for 2 years. If the player wants to go back to school, he can. ...

Isn't this essentially what happened with Larry Bird? Boston selected him in the draft, knowing that he would go back to school, but had him "locked up" when he did graduate.

... Players can stay in school to avoid being drafted by a certain team or to wait for the one they want.

Not if NBA teams can "lock up" a player (see above).

[Edouble]

Yeah, but those teams got better through trades, not from the draft. Maybe they leveraged their draft picks in the trades, I don't know all the details of how they composed their rosters, but the notion of a perennially bad team using the draft to improve is still a rare occurrence.

Blake Griffin, Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson, Damian Lillard, LaMarcus Aldridge... except for CP3 all of those teams got their superstars in the draft.

[tommy]

Bad idea for several reasons. Players can stay in school to avoid being drafted by a certain team or to wait for the one they want.

I honestly can't imagine this would be a big issue. I mean, for this to matter, you have to have a player who is pretty much guaranteed to be selected #1 in the next NBA draft AND the one after that. That doesn't even apply to Jabari Parker. It'd be incredibly unwise to make a draft declaration decision based on what NBA team has the top pick; of course, players sometimes make unwise decisions, but I still don't see this as a relevant factor.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/98...-espn-magazine

Great point, Wander. Another idea to address the concern that the top college player might stay in school an extra year if he doesn't like who's got the #1 pick -- and I agree with you, it'd happen very rarely in any event -- is to have the first 5 or 6 of the 30 picks each year on the wheel constitute a "pod" of sorts, and conduct a mini-lottery just among those say 6 teams for who is going to draft 1, who will be 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. So while every team would be in that pod once every five years, nobody is ever guaranteed the #1 pick or the #2 pick or any particular pick among those first 6. You might get unlucky and the year you're in the pod, do poorly in the mini-lottery and draft #6.

Or you could even make the pod consist of just the #1, 2, and 3 teams on the wheel each year.

[Matches]

Isn't this essentially what happened with Larry Bird? Boston selected him in the draft, knowing that he would go back to school, but had him "locked up" when he did graduate.

Yup. IIRC the Spurs took David Robinson knowing he would do a stint in the Navy before beginning his playing career as well.

[Matches]

The lottery is designed to give the lesser teams a fair chance at the best talent (which can vary tremendously by year). So, the conclusion is that the current instantiation of the lottery is a failure? Why? Is there evidence that teams are tanking for a very precarious shot at the #1 seed?

Yea I think some are. And I think it'll get more pronounced as we get later into the season and teams drop out of playoff contention.

Under the current system, tanking is rational. It's better to be horrible than it is to be mediocre. A terrible team has a realistic chance to build through the draft. A mediocre team is stuck in mediocrity. That's not true in any other major sport, but it's the lay of the land in the NBA.

[Henderson]

Why not just stop keeping game scores entirely and award wins based on spins of a dreidel?

All this complicated formulaic nuance makes my head hurt.