PDA

View Full Version : An interesting NBA anti-tanking idea



tommy
12-26-2013, 03:28 PM
Zach Lowe on Grantland has a piece up on an idea being floated in NBA circles, apparently, to do away with the lottery and replace it with "the wheel." The idea is to eliminate the incentive that teams currently have to tank and maximize their chances of lottery success, because there would be no lottery. The entire piece is here (http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/86940/the-nbas-possible-solution-for-tanking-good-bye-to-the-lottery-hello-to-the-wheel), but the basic concept is that, in each of the next 30 years, each team would select exactly once in each of the 30 draft slots, and that slot is determined now. Lowe flushes it out, but for example, a team, say the Pistons, might draft 8th this year, then 19th next year, then 3rd the following year, then 13th the year after that, then 27th, then 10th, then 1st, then 22nd, etc. It's balanced out so each team gets its relatively high picks and relatively low picks at approximately equal intervals, etc. The idea is to eliminate the linkage between being bad and getting a high draft pick. As with any system, there would be some downsides, but depending on how much of a problem one thinks tanking is, something like the wheel might start to make some sense.

PSurprise
12-26-2013, 03:46 PM
Zach Lowe on Grantland has a piece up on an idea being floated in NBA circles, apparently, to do away with the lottery and replace it with "the wheel." The idea is to eliminate the incentive that teams currently have to tank and maximize their chances of lottery success, because there would be no lottery. The entire piece is here (http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/86940/the-nbas-possible-solution-for-tanking-good-bye-to-the-lottery-hello-to-the-wheel), but the basic concept is that, in each of the next 30 years, each team would select exactly once in each of the 30 draft slots, and that slot is determined now. Lowe flushes it out, but for example, a team, say the Pistons, might draft 8th this year, then 19th next year, then 3rd the following year, then 13th the year after that, then 27th, then 10th, then 1st, then 22nd, etc. It's balanced out so each team gets its relatively high picks and relatively low picks at approximately equal intervals, etc. The idea is to eliminate the linkage between being bad and getting a high draft pick. As with any system, there would be some downsides, but depending on how much of a problem one thinks tanking is, something like the wheel might start to make some sense.

Yeah, I saw this. Pretty interesting, although some of the commenters do point out that college players could stay in school (or not) depending on who's up in the draft. If your a #1 pick and don't want to play for Utah, you might wait till next year if say, Miami had the first pick. But I do think something needs to be done, and this would be a very intriguing way of doing away within the tanking issue. And not that they care, but it would be interesting if it had any major impacts on the college game and who stays and who goes each year.

Duvall
12-26-2013, 04:01 PM
If it prevents one top draft pick from being sentenced to years of hard labor in Cleveland, this plan will be worth it.

UrinalCake
12-26-2013, 04:07 PM
The current system - in which the worst teams get the best players so that they won't stink anymore - doesn't seem to be working, as the really bad teams seem to stay that way while the good teams continue to be good. The only exception I can think of is Oklahoma City, which actually used the draft to improve (though they did it without any #1 picks. So in that sense the wheel makes sense, but I mean why not just have an evenly weighted lottery every year rather than locking each team in ahead of time? I guess if a team knows they have an upcoming stretch of a few years without a high pick, they might choose to go out and sign a big free agent at the end of his career to fill in the gap. But is that what we really want?

Maybe a small improvement on the current system would be to use a team's average wins over the past three seasons to determine how many lottery balls they get. Then you're rewarding the truly awful teams, and to tank for that long you'd have to seriously risk losing money in the interim as well as completely alienating your fan base.

COYS
12-26-2013, 10:14 PM
The wheel is an interesting idea. However, I'd like to see an NCAA-style single elimination tournament between the lottery teams to determine the number 1 pick. Winner gets the number one pick. Runner up gets number two. Add in consolation games to determine the other spots. The single elimination format would allow for enough "upsets." It would also make tanking to get into the draft tourney a risky proposition, as the team with the best record would still have a relatively small chance of winning.

This would basically create an entirely new postseason for the nba that could run concurrently with the normal postseason. It would bring in fans to watch their teams play meaningful games during a part of the year they're usually just twiddling their thumbs til October. There are definitely some flaws to work out. With 14 teams, the tourney structure would have to be figured out (byes for the top teams, perhaps?). Also, would it be bad for the league if a team happened to win back to back draft tourney titles? Would the worst teams be at too much of a disadvantage? Maybe the worst teams could actually be the ones who get byes and have home court advantage to even things up a bit. At any rate, it's an idea I'd like to see the league explore as I think a Draft Tournament would be exciting for fans, give bad teams a chance to play meaningful games, and allow teams to earn the number one pick rather than have it fall to them.

dukelifer
12-26-2013, 10:47 PM
The wheel is an interesting idea. However, I'd like to see an NCAA-style single elimination tournament between the lottery teams to determine the number 1 pick. Winner gets the number one pick. Runner up gets number two. Add in consolation games to determine the other spots. The single elimination format would allow for enough "upsets." It would also make tanking to get into the draft tourney a risky proposition, as the team with the best record would still have a relatively small chance of winning.

This would basically create an entirely new postseason for the nba that could run concurrently with the normal postseason. It would bring in fans to watch their teams play meaningful games during a part of the year they're usually just twiddling their thumbs til October. There are definitely some flaws to work out. With 14 teams, the tourney structure would have to be figured out (byes for the top teams, perhaps?). Also, would it be bad for the league if a team happened to win back to back draft tourney titles? Would the worst teams be at too much of a disadvantage? Maybe the worst teams could actually be the ones who get byes and have home court advantage to even things up a bit. At any rate, it's an idea I'd like to see the league explore as I think a Draft Tournament would be exciting for fans, give bad teams a chance to play meaningful games, and allow teams to earn the number one pick rather than have it fall to them.

It would draw in fans. But would near playoff teams tank at the end of the season to get into the draft lottery rather than play the number 1 seed in the playoffs? Would really bad teams rest their starters to be ready for the tourney. Somehow - the system would be gamed. In the present system, the worst team does not always get the number 1 pick. And like last year- sometimes the picks are not that great anyway. This seems to be a good year to tank because there may be several supposedly good players in the draft.

bob blue devil
12-26-2013, 10:56 PM
Yeah, I saw this. Pretty interesting, although some of the commenters do point out that college players could stay in school (or not) depending on who's up in the draft...

Why not just do a balanced lottery with all teams. That would eliminate the incentive to tank and prevent kids from gaming the system in the way you mention. It might also increase the interest in the lottery, as everyone would be in it. The wheel seems weird to me.

JasonEvans
12-26-2013, 11:02 PM
Zach Lowe on Grantland has a piece up on an idea being floated in NBA circles, apparently, to do away with the lottery and replace it with "the wheel." The idea is to eliminate the incentive that teams currently have to tank and maximize their chances of lottery success, because there would be no lottery. The entire piece is here (http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/86940/the-nbas-possible-solution-for-tanking-good-bye-to-the-lottery-hello-to-the-wheel), but the basic concept is that, in each of the next 30 years, each team would select exactly once in each of the 30 draft slots, and that slot is determined now. Lowe flushes it out, but for example, a team, say the Pistons, might draft 8th this year, then 19th next year, then 3rd the following year, then 13th the year after that, then 27th, then 10th, then 1st, then 22nd, etc. It's balanced out so each team gets its relatively high picks and relatively low picks at approximately equal intervals, etc. The idea is to eliminate the linkage between being bad and getting a high draft pick. As with any system, there would be some downsides, but depending on how much of a problem one thinks tanking is, something like the wheel might start to make some sense.

I've read a good bit about this the past few days since it was first floated. I think it is a terrible idea for a couple reasons.

1) The NBA already has an anti-tanking system with the lottery. Even the worst team has a decent chance to end up with the 4th overall pick. In even the most loaded of years, there is a heck of a big difference in being #1 and being #4. Plus, it tends to be so difficult to figure out exactly who to draft (Anthony Bennett #1, Michael Carter-Williams #11) that tanking is hardly any guarantee of making your team better anyway. Oh, and it isn't as easy to tank as one might think. Just ask Phoenix about that.

2) The NBA is already the least balanced league in pro sports. There are haves and have-nots in the NBA in a way that simply does not exist in the other sports. Look at the Eastern Conference standings for a look at how imbalanced the league has become. Balance and unpredictability ( such as the "any given Sunday" nature of the NFL) are what makes sports great. That simply does not exist in the NBA today. The league must, must, must do as much as it can to allow bad teams to get better. Can you imagine how unfair it would be if Indiana, OKCity, or Miami were slated to get one of the top few picks in next year's draft? It would be an outrage.

I don't really get the desire to fix the system. Is tanking really that much of a problem? There are teams that everyone thought were tanking this year who are doing fine and there are teams who were supposed to be "all-in" as contenders who are terrible. No league fixes draft picks in advance. Why should the NBA do it?

-Jason "oh, and what happens if the NBA expands or contracts some time in the next 30 years? How do they deal with picks in that circumstance? Stupid idea... it will never happen" Evans

NYBri
12-26-2013, 11:04 PM
This is why I don't like the NBA. Teams don't play to win. They play to gets stars.

vick
12-26-2013, 11:18 PM
2) The NBA is already the least balanced league in pro sports. There are haves and have-nots in the NBA in a way that simply does not exist in the other sports. Look at the Eastern Conference standings for a look at how imbalanced the league has become. Balance and unpredictability ( such as the "any given Sunday" nature of the NFL) are what makes sports great. That simply does not exist in the NBA today. The league must, must, must do as much as it can to allow bad teams to get better. Can you imagine how unfair it would be if Indiana, OKCity, or Miami were slated to get one of the top few picks in next year's draft? It would be an outrage.

I don't know if I agree with this. The league already does a lot to help the "have not" teams with a salary cap and revenue sharing. The primary reason teams with a single superstar (such as LeBron James) are almost always going to be top contenders (the "imbalance") is that maximum contract rules prevent them from being paid close to market value. Likewise, the reason draft picks are so valuable is that you can underpay rookies (again, relative to market value of their production) and there isn't anything they can do about it. A league with a salary floor and salary cap and a nearly completely free market otherwise would be extremely fair, but it wouldn't protect owners from their own stupidity, and frankly I'm not convinced we should protect them.

camion
12-26-2013, 11:22 PM
How about a white elephant draft exchange. That would make for an interesting and possibly violent draft day.

ICP
12-26-2013, 11:29 PM
I've read a good bit about this the past few days since it was first floated. I think it is a terrible idea for a couple reasons.

1) The NBA already has an anti-tanking system with the lottery. Even the worst team has a decent chance to end up with the 4th overall pick. In even the most loaded of years, there is a heck of a big difference in being #1 and being #4. Plus, it tends to be so difficult to figure out exactly who to draft (Anthony Bennett #1, Michael Carter-Williams #11) that tanking is hardly any guarantee of making your team better anyway. Oh, and it isn't as easy to tank as one might think. Just ask Phoenix about that.

2) The NBA is already the least balanced league in pro sports. There are haves and have-nots in the NBA in a way that simply does not exist in the other sports. Look at the Eastern Conference standings for a look at how imbalanced the league has become. Balance and unpredictability ( such as the "any given Sunday" nature of the NFL) are what makes sports great. That simply does not exist in the NBA today. The league must, must, must do as much as it can to allow bad teams to get better. Can you imagine how unfair it would be if Indiana, OKCity, or Miami were slated to get one of the top few picks in next year's draft? It would be an outrage.

I don't really get the desire to fix the system. Is tanking really that much of a problem? There are teams that everyone thought were tanking this year who are doing fine and there are teams who were supposed to be "all-in" as contenders who are terrible. No league fixes draft picks in advance. Why should the NBA do it?

-Jason "oh, and what happens if the NBA expands or contracts some time in the next 30 years? How do they deal with picks in that circumstance? Stupid idea... it will never happen" Evans

I really disagree with the idea that balance or parity is what makes sports great. Quite the contrary, I think the best part about sports ( globally, not just in the US) are long-term big time rivalries between great teams (think Duke-UNC, Lakers-Celtics, Yankees-Red Sox, Real Madrid-Barcelona, Michigan-Ohio State, etc.) A system that makes sure the big teams stay strong and dominating is to me far more exciting than one that punishes success by forcing the best players to go to the worst teams. Think about Duke, how terrible would it be if in the name of parity we wouldn't be able to get very good players year in and year out, and thus maintain our long-term success. Or think of how awful college ball would be without the hisorically great programs dominating it. For me at least, a Final Four of Duke, UK, KU, MSU, and the like is infinitely preferable to the likes of Butler, VCU or Wichita State, no offense to those schools. Also, at the end of the day, how much worse off the league would have been without the legendary big-market teams such as the Bulls, the Lakers or the
Celtics in the years of MJ, Magic, and Larry Bird?

tommy
12-27-2013, 02:22 AM
I've read a good bit about this the past few days since it was first floated. I think it is a terrible idea for a couple reasons.

1) The NBA already has an anti-tanking system with the lottery. Even the worst team has a decent chance to end up with the 4th overall pick. In even the most loaded of years, there is a heck of a big difference in being #1 and being #4. Plus, it tends to be so difficult to figure out exactly who to draft (Anthony Bennett #1, Michael Carter-Williams #11) that tanking is hardly any guarantee of making your team better anyway. Oh, and it isn't as easy to tank as one might think. Just ask Phoenix about that.

Well, the anti-tanking system the NBA has in place must not be working very well, or we wouldn't have team officials practically admitting publicly that they're tanking, and media members and others with contacts with team officials telling us that behind closed doors the officials are actually admitting that that's what they're doing. It's happening.


2) The NBA is already the least balanced league in pro sports. There are haves and have-nots in the NBA in a way that simply does not exist in the other sports. Look at the Eastern Conference standings for a look at how imbalanced the league has become. Balance and unpredictability ( such as the "any given Sunday" nature of the NFL) are what makes sports great. That simply does not exist in the NBA today. The league must, must, must do as much as it can to allow bad teams to get better. Can you imagine how unfair it would be if Indiana, OKCity, or Miami were slated to get one of the top few picks in next year's draft? It would be an outrage.

The NBA is really so clearly the least balanced league? Yes, it's very imbalanced right now in that the Western Conference is much stronger than is the East. But that's cyclical. As compared to other sports, is it that much less balanced between haves and have-nots? Have you looked at the payroll disparity between the New York Yankees, the Los Angeles Dodgers, and the Florida Marlins? Have you seen the Houston Astros play baseball? I don't see the NBA dominated by big money "haves." New York and New Jersey are almost always terrible. Philly is usually bad. The Lakers, traditionally very strong, are not strong anymore, and are unlikely to be strong for a number of years. San Antonio, one of the smallest markets in the league, is perennially one of the best teams. Other powers reside in lower rent places like Indiana and Oklahoma City and Portland.

Bad teams can and do get better in the NBA, but they have to be smart about it. The Clippers, for instance, after decades of mind-bending stupidity, have finally decided to spend money smartly. They've improved a lot. Golden State has gotten a lot better. So has Portland. Dallas rose from the depths a few years ago and won a title. It can be, and is, done.


I don't really get the desire to fix the system. Is tanking really that much of a problem? There are teams that everyone thought were tanking this year who are doing fine and there are teams who were supposed to be "all-in" as contenders who are terrible. Doesn't that undercut your argument that the league is completely unbalanced and predictable? Phoenix was supposed to be awful. They're playing really well. The Nets were supposed to challenge the Heat and Pacers in the east. They stink on ice. Who knew?


-Jason "oh, and what happens if the NBA expands or contracts some time in the next 30 years? How do they deal with picks in that circumstance? Stupid idea... it will never happen" Evans
I heard Simmons and Lowe talking about it on the podcast, and Lowe said the guys pushing the Wheel idea actually have made provisions for the league either expanding or contracting, but the details of it were too technical and boring to put in the written piece on Grantland.

Edouble
12-27-2013, 02:36 AM
The current system - in which the worst teams get the best players so that they won't stink anymore - doesn't seem to be working, as the really bad teams seem to stay that way while the good teams continue to be good.

I disagree. The Clippers, the Warriors, and the Trailblazers are good. The Bulls, the Lakers and the Celtics stink.

kAzE
12-27-2013, 05:16 AM
I like the direction this is going, but it's really hard to put into place, and there's a few pretty big disadvantages to it.

First of all, whoever came up with this idea should get some credit. The NBA could use a lot more people who can think outside the box. The current draft system is pretty stupid, and any system that incentivizes losing is bad. So there's that. The very least this wheel could do is to eliminate the incentive to lose.

However, the wheel wouldn't kick in until all the current trades involving draft picks are completed, which I think in the article, it says it would take like, 10 years! By then, who knows if this will still be a good idea or not? Also, it would effectively cap the league at 30 teams for as long as the system existed. I honestly think there's enough talent in the league to support a couple more teams. And there's a couple of cities that are more than deserving of a NBA franchise. (Seattle anyone?)

I always kind of liked Mike Greenberg's (from Mike & Mike) idea, where the #1 pick would go to the first team outside the playoffs, which would be best team that didn't make the playoffs in the better conference. Then the #2 pick would go to the next best team by record, etc. Of course, that would create a new problem, where borderline playoff teams would possibly try to lose games right at the end of the season to finish 9th in their conference, but it's still a slight improvement over what we have now. At least teams would be trying for the majority of the season.

If there were a perfect way to do it, somebody would have come up with it already, but the NBA has this problem because star players are just SO valuable to a franchise, and it's just impossible to win without one. They just need to come up with an incentive structure that promotes the highest level of competition, thereby also creating the highest level of entertainment value to consumers.

UrinalCake
12-27-2013, 09:30 AM
I disagree. The Clippers, the Warriors, and the Trailblazers are good. The Bulls, the Lakers and the Celtics stink.

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.

JasonEvans
12-27-2013, 10:41 AM
I really disagree with the idea that balance or parity is what makes sports great. Quite the contrary, I think the best part about sports ( globally, not just in the US) are long-term big time rivalries between great teams (think Duke-UNC, Lakers-Celtics, Yankees-Red Sox, Real Madrid-Barcelona, Michigan-Ohio State, etc.) A system that makes sure the big teams stay strong and dominating is to me far more exciting than one that punishes success by forcing the best players to go to the worst teams. Think about Duke, how terrible would it be if in the name of parity we wouldn't be able to get very good players year in and year out, and thus maintain our long-term success. Or think of how awful college ball would be without the hisorically great programs dominating it. For me at least, a Final Four of Duke, UK, KU, MSU, and the like is infinitely preferable to the likes of Butler, VCU or Wichita State, no offense to those schools. Also, at the end of the day, how much worse off the league would have been without the legendary big-market teams such as the Bulls, the Lakers or the
Celtics in the years of MJ, Magic, and Larry Bird?

You make an interesting point but I notice none of your great rivalries include pro football teams. The most successful sports league in the world, by leaps and bounds, is the NFL. There are few lasting rivalries in the NFL that move the needle. I guess maybe Redskins-Cowboys is the longest term rivalry in the league but that is hardly a special NFL game in a year where neither team are real contenders. In the NFL, parity rules the day. A bad team one season can figure things out, add a couple difference-making players via free agency and the draft, and be a great team the next year. That is what brings fans back to that sport and their teams again and again and again.

Your example of a Final Four featuring smaller schools from smaller conferences is a strawman. College sports are a completely different animal from pro sports because of the vastly different resources available to the teams and the followings of various teams. Plus, there is a degree of connection to a college team (at least in terms of alumni support) that can never exist on a pro level. I am a Hawks and Duke fan but I never miss a Duke game on TV. I can't recall watching a entire Hawks game on TV in years (except for the playoffs).

Anyway, I concede that part of your point is absolutely correct - we love great teams battling other great teams. But, I believe much of why we appreciate those contests is that we admire the difficulty in becoming a great team. Recall the resentment felt toward the Heat when they formed a great team out of free agency rather than actually building from within? We don't mind the greatness of Oklahoma City or Indiana, who got to the top by smart draft picks and wise front-office moves. But many people still dislike the Heat buying their greatness. We believe fiercely in fair play. Having a draft where the worst get the first pick is part of that belief. Taking that away would be a major mistake by the NBA, I think.

Look back at the hapless Cleveland Cavaliers. They got lucky one year in the draft and landed Lebron. In a matter of a couple seasons, he had made them a championship contender. The folks in Cleveland and elsewhere keep coming back, keep paying attention, in the hope that they can get lucky like that again. Maybe Jabari or Wiggins will do that for some club in 2014. Maybe Okafor will do it in 2015. Maybe some other name will crop up out of the draft. What matters to the poor teams is that they have a chance to get that sublime talent. If the draft was fixed and Cleveland or Milwaukee or Orlando or Utah knew they would not have a top 5 pick for another 5+ years, there would be little hope in those cities.

I just think this wheel thing is a bad idea and a departure from what we expect from sports. Yes, the paths that some teams are taking this year, filling their rosters with second-tier players and hoping to get lucky in the lottery, seems disgusting but having the draft set in stone decades in advance is not the solution. If anything, having a fixed draft eliminates the notion of hope from a franchise because there is no reward to boost the bad teams up a bit. I think the NBA will recognize this and we won't see a draft wheel ever seriously considered.

-Jason "I'm rooting hard for the Nets to lose this season, because the Hawks can switch picks with the Nets this year. Playoffs and lottery at the same time, baby!" Evans

JasonEvans
12-27-2013, 10:48 AM
Here is a thought... make the salary cap flexible based on how you perform each season. Each place in the standings is worth $500k. The teams in the middle have salary caps right at the NBA mandated line. Each team better gets $500k less per spot they are better and each team that is worse gets $500k more. In the end, there would be a $15 million salary cap difference in how the NBA champs and the worst team in the league start next season. That would allow the worse teams to be more active bidders in Free Agency and might force the top teams to get rid of a highly paid player to stay under the cap.

I think that system would do a lot more to produce year to year parity than any draft machinations.

-Jason "the idea needs some work -- you wouldn't want to force teams to lose players currently under contract and wouldn't want to encourage even more player movement, but it can be tweaked" Evans

Nosbleuatu
12-27-2013, 11:06 AM
The idea has always been that drafting is a great way to easily upgrade the talent on your team (if you're lucky or good), especially for small-market teams. But I think overall team management is probably more important when you consider how teams manage player development, coaching staffs, free agent acquisitions, etc. So how do you motivate poorly run clubs to be as competitive as possible? Instead of adjusting the salary cap based on team standings as Jason suggested, why not adjust revenue sharing based on overall record or standing? If coming in 2nd to last means you make an extra chunk of shared revenue, I have to think that will help to motivate the top brass to put forth a competitive team, even as the season winds down and playoff spots are secured.

phaedrus
12-27-2013, 11:12 AM
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.

Cleveland, Orlando, Indiana, San Antonio, Miami (the pre-"Decision" era), Portland, Dallas, and Golden State are all teams who have built their teams around lottery picks to varying degrees of success in the last 15 years or so.

Matches
12-27-2013, 07:03 PM
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
12-27-2013, 07:39 PM
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
12-27-2013, 08:04 PM
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
12-27-2013, 08:06 PM
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
12-27-2013, 08:32 PM
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/9893551/anonymous-nba-gm-why-team-tank-season-espn-magazine

-jk
12-27-2013, 08:45 PM
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
12-28-2013, 12:50 AM
... 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
12-28-2013, 01:22 AM
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
12-28-2013, 02:43 AM
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/9893551/anonymous-nba-gm-why-team-tank-season-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
12-28-2013, 08:21 AM
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
12-28-2013, 08:27 AM
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
12-28-2013, 07:43 PM
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.