PDA

View Full Version : Why the lottery??



CELTICS4LYFE
12-14-2013, 11:29 AM
Should the NBA get rid of the lottery??
Never made much sense to me on why they are the only sport to have the lottery? Worst team should get first pick simple a that.

Or maybe reduce it to just the worst 5 teams get in the lottery?

king4day
12-14-2013, 11:41 AM
It's to prevent tanking. Otherwise every team would lose every game just to get a guaranteed shot at Wiggins or Parker.
NBA has players who can change a franchise fire a decade. The other sports have more parity with regards to its stars

MonroeFAN
12-14-2013, 11:44 AM
^pretty flawless explanation.

PhillyFaninLA
12-14-2013, 11:49 AM
It's to prevent tanking. Otherwise every team would lose every game just to get a guaranteed shot at Wiggins or Parker.
NBA has players who can change a franchise fire a decade. The other sports have more parity with regards to its stars

Don't think I could top this.

ManRam
12-14-2013, 12:13 PM
Yeah. What king said.

In basketball a top draft pick is worth almost infinitely more than a top pick is worth in other sports. "Tanking" has far more significant and impacting ramifications, and a top pick can single-handily change the entire landscape of a league. Curbing blatant tanking...not most of the stuff that's called "tanking" nowadays and at this point in a season...is a strong objective to have. And the lottery seeks to do just that. It's not perfect, but it's necessary.

CELTICS4LYFE
12-14-2013, 12:17 PM
So you think it actually prevents tanking??

Maybe flat out tanking yes but I don't think it fully does.

I also think it's part of the reason a lot of teams get stuck in mediocrity in the nba. Teams get leapfrogged by better teams.

And sometimes the top pick is a gamble in it's self.

ManRam
12-14-2013, 12:34 PM
So you think it actually prevents tanking??

Maybe flat out tanking yes but I don't think it fully does.

I also think it's part of the reason a lot of teams get stuck in mediocrity in the nba. Teams get leapfrogged by better teams.

And sometimes the top pick is a gamble in it's self.

Depends what you call tanking...

Deliberately telling coaches and players to intentionally lose games? Yeah, I think it helps significantly. And that's the form of "tanking" that's bad for the league.

Doing what Orlando, Boston, Philly, Utah etc. are doing, which I prefer to call "proper rebuilding" or "bottoming out"...then absolutely not. It's not going to stop teams from doing that. But I don't use the word "tanking" to derogatorily describe them. People love describing every lose those bad teams have at this point in the season "tanking", but it's not. It's just a case of bad teams looking to rebuild losing games. And those teams are all doing the right things by "tanking the season" or whatever dumb thing we all wanna call it.


And you're gonna have teams stuck in mediocrity limbo regardless. Sure, there are cases when bad teams get bad breaks...but there are also cases were just-slightly-worse teams get good ones and are able to vault out of mediocrity as well. It's VERY rare for a good team to be benefited mightily by the lottery. The magnitude of suckiness doesn't differ much from the worst team to let's say the 4th or 5th worst team. Teams that really need it are going to be getting these top picks almost always.

Sandman
12-14-2013, 12:43 PM
So you think it actually prevents tanking??

Maybe flat out tanking yes but I don't think it fully does.

I also think it's part of the reason a lot of teams get stuck in mediocrity in the nba. Teams get leapfrogged by better teams.

And sometimes the top pick is a gamble in it's self.

If you had it open completely then there would never be incentive to tank. It would change the entire competitive market because all 1st round picks are worth the same. I don't think you'd see as many teams willing to trade their 1st round picks to get rid of contracts nor as many teams willing to absorb a 20m albatross because there's no fruit for tanking. But like you said the leapfrogging would make this unfair and would probably screw a team for every team it helped greatly.

Maybe the lottery needs a little flattening out. Equal chance to all non-playoff teams or equal chance to bottom 10. The lottery prevents competitive tanking, but teams still like the 20+% shot at #1. Doesnt the worst team have like a 70% shot at a top 3 pick and a 100% shot at a top 4?

The 16 team playoff scene in the NHL works because the 8th seed has a legitimate chance of winning every year. In the NBA the lottery/playoffs creates a purgatory where nobody really wants to be in the back of the lottery or the bottom of the playoffs.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the NBA is polarizing and players are pooling at the top while GMs purge at the bottom. The worst spot to be is in the middle. The bottom half of the lottery generally has no shot at the 1-2 players a year that can change a franchise and the 5-8 seeds in the playoffs have no shot at competing (generous saying there are 8 title contenders). That's half the league.

I think equal chance to all non-playoff teams is the best way to go. Maybe random 1-5 and then follow the standings. This means you either make the playoffs or you have an equal shot at #1-5. When you don't get rewarded for degree of suckage, and everybody has the same goals and rewards, there is now more competition all over. I think it would slow down player movement & therefore sloppy contracts as well.

Just my .02

Cal827
12-14-2013, 01:00 PM
LOL, I have a weird feeling that the team that wins the draft lottery this year, will be one of the teams at the very back of the lotto (past 10), or Cleveland again :facepalm:

bholly
12-14-2013, 01:04 PM
So you think it actually prevents tanking??

Maybe flat out tanking yes but I don't think it fully does.

I also think it's part of the reason a lot of teams get stuck in mediocrity in the nba. Teams get leapfrogged by better teams.

And sometimes the top pick is a gamble in it's self.

The only way to prevent tanking completely is to make it so that every team has an equal chance at the pick, so there's no benefit of getting a bad pick. But that goes against the whole principle of the worst teams getting higher picks in order to encourage parity.
You have to either have a system where teams get some reward for bad records and therefore tank, or a system where bad teams don't get the top picks and some teams just suck forever (more so than now). The lottery mitigates tanking quite a bit, so it's a good middle ground, imo. It could be better, but right now it's much better than just not having a lottery.

Also, stopping teams stuck in the middle from getting leapfrogged would mean keeping the bottom teams at the bottom, and that's not what anyone wants - you want a system where any team can get to the top.

RLundi
12-14-2013, 01:07 PM
So you think it actually prevents tanking??

Maybe flat out tanking yes but I don't think it fully does.

I also think it's part of the reason a lot of teams get stuck in mediocrity in the nba. Teams get leapfrogged by better teams.

And sometimes the top pick is a gamble in it's self.

A lot of teams also get stuck in mediocrity because of poor management and bad drafting. The Cavs are a prime recent example. They've had several chances at high picks and most haven't worked out, save for Irving. Thompson, Waiters and Bennett aren't results of being leapfrogged by better teams, but a result of choosing pieces that haven't worked out. It's rare that teams move ahead by much anyway. For every time a franchise moves into the top 3 in which they didn't have a bottom 3 record, there are 10 instances where the numbers work itself out. So you can't really blame it on the lottery as much as you can on the fact that some franchises are run poorly, while teams like OKC, Golden State and Washington have done decent jobs with prospects.

conway429
12-14-2013, 01:17 PM
Lottery creates additional revenue and excitement for the league, it's not going anywhere.

(NHL also has a lottery)

GunFactor187
12-14-2013, 01:20 PM
It's to prevent tanking. Otherwise every team would lose every game just to get a guaranteed shot at Wiggins or Parker.
NBA has players who can change a franchise fire a decade. The other sports have more parity with regards to its stars

Pretty much this...

bleedprple&gold
12-14-2013, 01:45 PM
Every lottery team should have an equal chance at the top pick. That would help stop some of the tanking and also you wouldn't see as many teams stuck in mediocrity for so long. You may see some teams at the back end of the lottery tanking to stay out of the playoffs but it wouldn't be at bad as it is now.

bleedprple&gold
12-14-2013, 01:47 PM
LOL, I have a weird feeling that the team that wins the draft lottery this year, will be one of the teams at the very back of the lotto (past 10), or Cleveland again :facepalm:

I have a feeling the Knicks are going to win it.

ManRam
12-14-2013, 01:53 PM
Every lottery team should have an equal chance at the top pick. That would help stop some of the tanking and also you wouldn't see as many teams stuck in mediocrity for so long. You may see some teams at the back end of the lottery tanking to stay out of the playoffs but it wouldn't be at bad as it is now.

I don't think giving the 13th worst team equal odds at landing the top pick as the the worst team is a good thing at all. Maybe give the bottom 5 teams equal odds or something, but not every lottery team. That would be terrible.

Or something like every team within 3-5 wins of each other equal odds. Maybe bracket odds by splitting teams up. Like, every team with 0-10 wins get equal odds, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25 and so on. It still favors the teams that need the help the most, but disincentivizes out and out tanking, in the true definition of it, even a little more.

bleedprple&gold
12-14-2013, 02:12 PM
Every lottery team should have an equal chance at the top pick. That would help stop some of the tanking and also you wouldn't see as many teams stuck in mediocrity for so long. You may see some teams at the back end of the lottery tanking to stay out of the playoffs but it wouldn't be at bad as it is now.

I don't think giving the 13th worst team equal odds at landing the top pick as the the worst team is a good thing at all. Maybe give the bottom 5 teams equal odds or something, but not every lottery team. That would be terrible.

Or something like every team within 3-5 wins of each other equal odds. Maybe bracket odds by splitting teams up. Like, every team with 0-10 wins get equal odds, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25 and so on. It still favors the teams that need the help the most, but disincentivizes out and out tanking, in the true definition of it, even a little more.

Well it wouldnt be as fair but it would help stop tanking. Do you want to help out the worst teams the most or stop tanking? You can't really have both. And with tanking sometimes the worst teams record wise arent even really the worst teams they just tanked to get that record. This way if they are going miss the playoffs anyway they no incentive to try to purposely lose more games.

bholly
12-14-2013, 02:31 PM
I don't think giving the 13th worst team equal odds at landing the top pick as the the worst team is a good thing at all. Maybe give the bottom 5 teams equal odds or something, but not every lottery team. That would be terrible.

Or something like every team within 3-5 wins of each other equal odds. Maybe bracket odds by splitting teams up. Like, every team with 0-10 wins get equal odds, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25 and so on. It still favors the teams that need the help the most, but disincentivizes out and out tanking, in the true definition of it, even a little more.

I feel like strict thresholds like that will only lead to even more blatant tanking for the teams near the margins, even if it's only for shorter periods. A pure ranking like now works because the targets move all the time - you never know what other teams' records are going to be right until the last day of the season, so you don't know where you need to be, and so to some extent teams resign themselves to that randomness and just play basketball. We saw a similar thing when GSW tanked so hard a few years ago to get a bottom-7 finish because that's where their pick was protected - they wouldn't have tanked nearly as hard if they didn't have that strict threshold that they needed to get to.

My favourite solution is to base the lottery on the second worst of your last three records (or, for a simpler but maybe less effective version, on the average of your last three). Three benefits: 1) the lottery is more likely to reward the perpetually bad teams, rather than the teams that have only just gotten bad or who have tanked for the season, which fits with the whole point of the worst teams getting the best picks to encourage parity. 2) it discourages tanking, because for it to have an effect you have to tank for 2-3 seasons and that's a much tougher proposition (in terms of the effects on fan support and revenue and whatever, and on GMs keeping their jobs). 3) it makes it more likely to get teams with multiple high picks who grow together, like OKC have had, which I think can be a pretty good thing.
I feel like there must be problems with this that I'm missing - because it's sort of obvious and yet I've never seen anybody write about it - but to me it makes sense.

Sandman
12-14-2013, 02:37 PM
I don't think giving the 13th worst team equal odds at landing the top pick as the the worst team is a good thing at all. Maybe give the bottom 5 teams equal odds or something, but not every lottery team. That would be terrible.
There's still an incentive to be a bottom 5 team because of the impact. Look at it this way, if players consider middle of the pack like a "purgatory", isnt that a disadvantageous position to be stuck in the middle? Should the top pick go to the "worst team" or the team in the "worst position"? I think a big problem with competition is not just the incentive to tank, but the lack of reward for getting incrementally better.

Maybe even odds isn't the answer because theres a big difference between 1 and 13, but I also think that even odds over time would close the gap between 1 and 13 and eventually further. I think eliminating the stagnant purgatory could stop a few players from having the mid-career crisis that leads to Howard/Anthony hostage situations. More teams would be encouraged to build like the Magic or Nuggets with a lot of good pieces instead of wait and pray for a star.

Maybe instead of even odds, you flatten it out and go 10%, 9.5%, 9%, etc. or something like that and have the first 3, 5, whatever picks go into the lotto. You don't want leapfrogging on even ground, that would be too unfair and its against the spirit of the lottery. At the same time, the way the lottery is now, there is a reason there are posts about tanking. There is too much of a reward for being in the bottom 4.

As long as you have domination at the top, stagnation in the middle and a prize for being at the bottom, it will be a continuous cycle.

bholly
12-14-2013, 02:44 PM
Well it wouldnt be as fair but it would help stop tanking. Do you want to help out the worst teams the most or stop tanking? You can't really have both. And with tanking sometimes the worst teams record wise arent even really the worst teams they just tanked to get that record. This way if they are going miss the playoffs anyway they no incentive to try to purposely lose more games.

Definitely the former. I don't think tanking is nearly as big of a problem as people make out, people just get upset about it because they can moralize about it. We're essentially talking about bad (or mediocre) teams losing a bit more. That's about it. It's not like players aren't playing hard or anything, it's just that some teams suck more than they would. That's not a huge deal to me - there will always be teams that suck. There's not less talent in the league because of it, or anything like that. On aggregate, the only effect it could really have is that there are more teams that suck, but that also means a higher concentration of talent at the top of the league, which is great for the national tv games and the playoffs where so much of the money is made. Of course it means more regular season games between mis-matched teams, but I'm not so sure that that's happening on a big enough level to be a problem.
To be honest I haven't even seen any real evidence yet that it's having those distributional effects. It's not like top teams are just ripping through the regular season and putting up record win totals, or like bad teams are putting up 10 win seasons every year - I'm not sure the talent and win distribution through the league has changed much at all. Of course people who like to yell about these things without thinking about them will point out how many bad teams there are in the East, but there are very few (maybe 3 or 4) who went into this season thinking about anything other than trying to win. Blatant tanking is a little distasteful, sure, but I don't think tanking is having nearly the serious effect on the game that people seem to think.

But not having the draft to encourage parity could be a really bad thing. There are teams that just don't have the market size, attractiveness to FAs, money, etc to really build much. I think without the draft system you'd get much less mobility in the standings, and far more teams who just suck forever without the fans ever really getting any hope - and that could be fatal for a franchise and undermine the league pretty badly. Some level of parity and mobility is essential, especially for a third-most-popular sport.

Cal827
12-14-2013, 03:12 PM
I have a feeling the Knicks are going to win it.

I'm sure Denver will be Real Happy with that lol

NoahH
12-14-2013, 03:39 PM
It's to prevent tanking. Otherwise every team would lose every game just to get a guaranteed shot at Wiggins or Parker.
NBA has players who can change a franchise fire a decade. The other sports have more parity with regards to its stars

Pretty much sums it up.

Lakers + Giants
12-14-2013, 06:27 PM
LOL, I have a weird feeling that the team that wins the draft lottery this year, will be one of the teams at the very back of the lotto (past 10), or Cleveland again :facepalm:

I hope you're right. Lakers would currently have the 10th pick (going by standings/odds) :hope:

John Walls Era
12-14-2013, 06:53 PM
LOL after all star break teams records are gonna be so bad. We would have the lowest recorded wins record broken multiple times a season.

xabial
12-14-2013, 06:54 PM
I have a feeling the Knicks are going to win it.

You mean the Magic. The Magic own our unprotected first round pick thanks to the Carmelo Anthony Trade, the trade that keeps on giving.

If they do win it it would be the first time the Knicks have won the #1 overall pick since they Drafted Ewing in '85.

Sucks because the 2014 Draft class is considered one of the deepest drafts in memory..

We sure are unlucky.

(The first round draft picks that turned out to be LaMarcus Aldridge(2006 #2), Joakim Noah(2007 #9), and Gordan Hayward(2010 #9) were the Knicks original first round picks. They traded away/swapped those first round picks for Eddy Curry/Stephon Marbury thinking they were going to be low picks. Boy where they wrong.)


Here's the best part. They traded their unprotected 2014 and 2016 1st round picks for Carmelo Anthony and Andrea Bargnani respectively.

bholly
12-14-2013, 07:04 PM
^If New York win it, Denver get the pick. Orlando get the lesser of Denver and NYK's picks.

2-ONE-5
12-14-2013, 07:53 PM
I have a feeling the Knicks are going to win it.

they camt

torocan
12-14-2013, 08:21 PM
I'm personally in favor of a lottery system that's weighted over the last 3 seasons in determining picks.

Something like...

(Current season + (last season x 0.75) + (2nd last season x 0.50)) / 3

So let's say you took the worst 5 teams from last year...

5 - Hornets - 27-55
4 - Suns - 25-57
3 - Cavs - 24-58
2 - Bobcats - 21-61
1 - Magic - 20-62

If you used a weighted last 3 seasons you'd get...

Hornets - 27, 21, 46 = (27 + 15.25 + 23)/3 = 21.75
Suns - 25, 33, 40 = (25 + 24.75 + 20)/3 = 23.25
Cavs - 24, 21, 19 = (24 + 15.25 + 9.5)/3 = 16.25
Bobcats - 21, 7, 34 = (21 + 2.75 + 17)/3 = 13.58
Magic - 20, 37, 52 = (20 + 27.75 + 26)/3 = 24.58

So, the new order would be...

5 - Magic (Formerly 1)
4 - Suns (Formerly 4th)
3 - Hornets (Formerly 5th)
2 - Cavs (Formerly 3rd)
1 - Bobcats (Formerly 2nd)

Basically this would weigh the advantage more to perpetually bad teams versus smart teams just gutting the roster for a one year "Riggin for Wiggins, Sorry for Jabari" situation. You can then allocate the lottery balls all you want.

The main idea is we should be propping up perpetually disadvantaged teams versus those doing a concerted 1 off tank.

ManRam
12-14-2013, 08:59 PM
Well it wouldnt be as fair but it would help stop tanking. Do you want to help out the worst teams the most or stop tanking? You can't really have both. And with tanking sometimes the worst teams record wise arent even really the worst teams they just tanked to get that record. This way if they are going miss the playoffs anyway they no incentive to try to purposely lose more games.

Depends what you call tanking :shrug:

I think rebuilding, and being comfortable with sucking for a few seasons absolutely is 150% fine. I think telling players and coaches to intentionally lose games is not...but I think that happens very, very infrequently.

So yeah, I think what's happening these days is fine-enough to NOT warrant something that drastic.

The teams at the bottom, regardless of whether they're truly tanking (eg losing games on purpose) are still the worst teams regardless. No mediocre team is going to sabotage things hard enough to get a bottom 3 or so record.


Giving all the lottery team equal odds at winning the top pick would certainly further harm the league's already fragile parity.

Hawkeye15
12-14-2013, 09:53 PM
the lottery currently is in place to **** the Wolves.....


in all seriousness, my idea for years has been:

Bottom 3 teams, have a mini-lottery, all same weights. Teams 4-10, then have a mini-lottery, all same weights. 11-14 then have a lottery, all same weights. It won't stop tanking all together, but it's a better system. And it will also prevent a Rose type b.s. scenario.

lukass
12-14-2013, 10:19 PM
something need to change otherwise Cleveland will just keep winning it

Pierzynski4Prez
12-14-2013, 10:20 PM
Depends what you call tanking...

Deliberately telling coaches and players to intentionally lose games? Yeah, I think it helps significantly. And that's the form of "tanking" that's bad for the league.

Doing what Orlando, Boston, Philly, Utah etc. are doing, which I prefer to call "proper rebuilding" or "bottoming out"...then absolutely not. It's not going to stop teams from doing that. But I don't use the word "tanking" to derogatorily describe them. People love describing every lose those bad teams have at this point in the season "tanking", but it's not. It's just a case of bad teams looking to rebuild losing games. And those teams are all doing the right things by "tanking the season" or whatever dumb thing we all wanna call it.


And you're gonna have teams stuck in mediocrity limbo regardless. Sure, there are cases when bad teams get bad breaks...but there are also cases were just-slightly-worse teams get good ones and are able to vault out of mediocrity as well. It's VERY rare for a good team to be benefited mightily by the lottery. The magnitude of suckiness doesn't differ much from the worst team to let's say the 4th or 5th worst team. Teams that really need it are going to be getting these top picks almost always.

I wish we could sticky this post in all nba forums.

bholly
12-14-2013, 10:21 PM
the lottery currently is in place to **** the Wolves.....


in all seriousness, my idea for years has been:

Bottom 3 teams, have a mini-lottery, all same weights. Teams 4-10, then have a mini-lottery, all same weights. 11-14 then have a lottery, all same weights. It won't stop tanking all together, but it's a better system. And it will also prevent a Rose type b.s. scenario.

That would make tanking worse, because then the teams fight to get into each tier. Having strict cutoffs with bigger jumps is a bad thing. There's a reason for the gradual changes in odds they have now, and it isn't because they think every team should have a chance.

ManRam
12-14-2013, 10:25 PM
I genuinely think that true "tanking", i.e. intentionally losing individual and specific games, is a much smaller problem than everyone thinks it is :shrug:

ManRam
12-14-2013, 10:26 PM
I wish we could sticky this post in all nba forums.

Only if I can correct the typos! :sigh:

-Kobe24-TJ19-
12-14-2013, 10:27 PM
LOL, I have a weird feeling that the team that wins the draft lottery this year, will be one of the teams at the very back of the lotto (past 10), or Cleveland again :facepalm:

Lakers ;)

Pierzynski4Prez
12-14-2013, 10:33 PM
I genuinely think that true "tanking", i.e. intentionally losing individual and specific games, is a much smaller problem than everyone thinks it is :shrug:

I don't think it's even a problem at all. If that ever happened, it would be leaked out, people would be fired, etc. Too many coaches/players that have jobs on the line to do it. No player is going to throw games to potentially get a rookie who may or may not help the team out more 2+ years down the line.

Pierzynski4Prez
12-14-2013, 10:33 PM
Only if I can correct the typos! :sigh:

Please do then use the power of an Ex-mod to get it done!

Chrisclover
12-14-2013, 10:35 PM
LOL,then a young athletic and versatile would come to Cleveland and then LBJ would be back soon and then finally LBJ gives Cleveland a championship banner ,hahah a:dance:

LOL, I have a weird feeling that the team that wins the draft lottery this year, will be one of the teams at the very back of the lotto (past 10), or Cleveland again :facepalm:

bholly
12-14-2013, 10:38 PM
I genuinely think that true "tanking", i.e. intentionally losing individual and specific games, is a much smaller problem than everyone thinks it is :shrug:

I think that's absolutely true. I think there are very very very few cases (none come to mind) of a coach or players or whatever not trying their best to win any given game. I don't think that's what anyone's really talking about, though. I do think there's a decent amount of things like teams shutting guys down early, or guys resting or taking longer recovery times than they would without the rewards for worse records - I don't consider it that much of a problem, but other people do. I also don't have much (if any) of a problem with GM tanking, ie blowing it up and planning to rebuild by being bad and drafting high, but again, other people do (or pretend to when it's convenient and they want to moralize about something.)

ManRam
12-14-2013, 10:53 PM
I think that's absolutely true. I think there are very very very few cases (none come to mind) of a coach or players or whatever not trying their best to win any given game. I don't think that's what anyone's really talking about, though. I do think there's a decent amount of things like teams shutting guys down early, or guys resting or taking longer recovery times than they would without the rewards for worse records - I don't consider it that much of a problem, but other people do. I also don't have much (if any) of a problem with GM tanking, ie blowing it up and planning to rebuild by being bad and drafting high, but again, other people do (or pretend to when it's convenient and they want to moralize about something.)

I don't know...I hear "tanking" all the time to explain losses by bad teams.

You see it with Bulls fans describing the rest of the season without Rose. They won't be "tanking"...like Thibs would EVER let his players intentionally lose games :laugh: They might suck because they're without their best offensive player and no longer have an elite bench. But if they miss the playoffs it's not because of a concerted effort to "tank".

You see it with Lakers fans who are smart enough to realize they aren't contenders. But the Lakers won't be "tanking" games, they'll just miss the playoffs because they're devoid of the talent required.

I hear it every time my own team, Orlando, loses. I don't think for a second that Jacque is trying to lose games...it's career suicide if he is. We just don't have the talent to get it done. Kobe, Pau, D'Antoni and all the castoffs on that roster have WAY too much to prove.


"Tanking" is the most liberally used word in all of sports. No one, and I mean NO ONE, is intentionally losing games at this point in the season.

Kevj77
12-14-2013, 11:38 PM
It was mainly due to the Rockets and the belief they tanked to get the #1 pick Hakeem Olajuwan in 84. I also believe the 82 draft played a role. The Lakers fresh off a championship the 2nd in three years got the #1 pick from a previous trade and landed James Worthy, but that is just my opinion.

Pierzynski4Prez
12-14-2013, 11:57 PM
It was mainly due to the Rockets and the belief they tanked to get the #1 pick Hakeem Olajuwan in 84. I also believe the 82 draft played a role. The Lakers fresh off a championship the 2nd in three years got the #1 pick from a previous trade and landed James Worthy, but that is just my opinion.

That was Magic they got actually. At least I think. But it was a trade from a year or 2 earlier. That team wasn't tanking to give the lakers the top pick.

Kevj77
12-15-2013, 12:42 AM
That was Magic they got actually. At least I think. But it was a trade from a year or 2 earlier. That team wasn't tanking to give the lakers the top pick.The Magic Johnson pick was a compensatory draft pick from Utah for signing Gail Goodrich in the 1976 season as a free agent. They had to give up several draft picks including a 1st in 1979, which is probably the reason compensatory draft picks for signing free agents was axed.

TheMightyHumph
12-15-2013, 01:43 AM
Should the NBA get rid of the lottery??
Never made much sense to me on why they are the only sport to have the lottery? Worst team should get first pick simple a that.

Or maybe reduce it to just the worst 5 teams get in the lottery?

Yes.The NBA should go back to Territorial Rights to college players.

bholly
12-15-2013, 03:19 AM
I don't know...I hear "tanking" all the time to explain losses by bad teams.

You see it with Bulls fans describing the rest of the season without Rose. They won't be "tanking"...like Thibs would EVER let his players intentionally lose games :laugh: They might suck because they're without their best offensive player and no longer have an elite bench. But if they miss the playoffs it's not because of a concerted effort to "tank".

You see it with Lakers fans who are smart enough to realize they aren't contenders. But the Lakers won't be "tanking" games, they'll just miss the playoffs because they're devoid of the talent required.

I hear it every time my own team, Orlando, loses. I don't think for a second that Jacque is trying to lose games...it's career suicide if he is. We just don't have the talent to get it done. Kobe, Pau, D'Antoni and all the castoffs on that roster have WAY too much to prove.


"Tanking" is the most liberally used word in all of sports. No one, and I mean NO ONE, is intentionally losing games at this point in the season.

I agree it's overused and poorly used.

It seems to have 3 meanings now:
1. The original meaning - trying to lose a game (or at least not trying to win). I think this is universally abhorred and I don't think it really happens.
2. Resting guys, shutting guys down early, letting guys take longer to come back from injuries, because you know the losses are actually good for you. This happens much much more (although not till later in the season), and it's the type that I think people have the most legit beef with - if teams are resting their stars then that sucks for the fans. At the same time, it's usually not provable or anything, so not much can be done - and often resting guys or letting them come back slow is totally justifiable, because injuries suck. This isn't nearly as bad as #1, but I think this is a legit usage of the word, even if it doesn't have quite the same connotation of being immoral in this case.
3. Putting together a bad team knowing they'll lose, because clearing cap, drafting high, and focussing on youth is the best way to rebuild. This is what people were going crazy about to start this season, and so it's what people are coming to call 'tanking', but I agree it would be better called something else, and isn't nearly the problem some people seem to think.

I think the problem is that because the same word is being used to describe all three things, people start to equate to morality of them. Everyone has a big problem with #1, but I think if there were a different word for it people wouldn't have nearly the same problem with #3, and in many cases it's widely encouraged.
#1 and #2 are definitely not a problem at this point in the season, and if people are saying otherwise (I haven't read the thread too carefully) then they're wrong.

I think #3 is why people went crazy to start the season, but I think they were wrong to do so - it really wasn't as bad or blatant as people made out. We're talking the Jrue trade, the Suns not having any 'stars', and that was about it, right? Maybe Orlando turning down Bynum to take the young guys last offseason, but that gets less play now because of how right they turned out. It seems like the 'tanking' thing is just a big deal because people like to moralize about things, and it's easy to get the immorality of this mixed up with #1 when you use the same word for them. Also, if this draft class sucks, it wouldn't have been an issue even if teams did it much more blatantly - people saw it because they were looking for it.

I also think the reason this tanking thing persists now (even though the Sixers started hot and the Suns are still hot) is that people are mixing up 'tanking problem' with 'there's a lot of bad teams in the East'. They're wrong. Only the Sixers really tanked by any definition of the word, with the Celtics' blowup the second closest (despite being exactly the type of blowup that people have been suggesting for years, and something that wouldn't have been an issue before the 'tanking' moral panic that happened this offseason). In the West, Utah let a bunch of guys walk and went with youth, so with a really liberal use of definition 3 you could call that tanking. So that's 1, but at most 3 teams? Every single other team in the league are trying to get better and went into the season hoping to make the playoffs. They aren't tanking, by any definition. It just isn't a problem. It's probably a problem that the East sucks so hard, but the problem isn't tanking.

Final thought that didn't fit anywhere else: the Rudy Gay thing adds to it because people don't realize that Ujiri (and many many others) see it as legitimately making them better in the short run while also helping the long run cap stuff. If not for the rest of the tanking moral panic thing, it wouldn't be an issue, so it shouldn't add to it now.


Those are my assorted thoughts on the whole 'tanking' thing and why it's dumb.

Cal827
12-15-2013, 04:16 AM
Yes.The NBA should go back to Territorial Rights to college players.

Wiggins to Toronto then :dance::dance:

Sandman
12-15-2013, 10:54 AM
the lottery currently is in place to **** the Wolves.....


in all seriousness, my idea for years has been:

Bottom 3 teams, have a mini-lottery, all same weights. Teams 4-10, then have a mini-lottery, all same weights. 11-14 then have a lottery, all same weights. It won't stop tanking all together, but it's a better system. And it will also prevent a Rose type b.s. scenario.
Why would it be better? It turns the reward for bottom 3 from about 60% combined to 100%. I think that would make the situation worse because it is more of a guarantee than before.

I genuinely think that true "tanking", i.e. intentionally losing individual and specific games, is a much smaller problem than everyone thinks it is :shrug:
I don't think anybody loses specific games on purpose, nor any coaches or players coach to lose or point shave, I think tanking happens in the front office like somebody else said before. Resting guys, taking more time with injuries, absorbing contracts for ineffective players, and just in general not doing whatever you can to help the roster.

Its not that they are losing on purpose, its that they don't care if they lose. The reward is huge for bottom 3 and the reward is stagnation for 13 and 14 and 15.

Wiggins to Toronto then :dance::dance:
He's @ Kansas, he's going to play with Durant :p

Hawkeye15
12-15-2013, 02:10 PM
That would make tanking worse, because then the teams fight to get into each tier. Having strict cutoffs with bigger jumps is a bad thing. There's a reason for the gradual changes in odds they have now, and it isn't because they think every team should have a chance.

the tanking wouldn't occur until late in the season however. There is no way to prevent tanking to some degree, but if you take away the benefit of increasing your odds by dropping a few games as the 8th worst team, it changes things.

Hawkeye15
12-15-2013, 02:13 PM
Why would it be better? It turns the reward for bottom 3 from about 60% combined to 100%. I think that would make the situation worse because it is more of a guarantee than before.

in all other sports, the worst teams get the best picks. Basketball should be no different. Tanking is so overrated by fans/media in basketball.

There is no way, I mean NONE, that a Rose scenario should happen.

bholly
12-15-2013, 03:48 PM
the tanking wouldn't occur until late in the season however. There is no way to prevent tanking to some degree, but if you take away the benefit of increasing your odds by dropping a few games as the 8th worst team, it changes things.

Tanking only happens later in the season now.

And you aren't taking away the benefit of tanking for anyone - the guys at the bottom of each tier will tank harder to get into the next one, and the guys at the top will tank harder to stay where they are.
If you're the 4th worst team, right now passing the guy below you gets you an extra 9.1% chance at a top 3 pick. Under your system, it takes you from a guaranteed 4-6 to a guaranteed 1-3. That's a huge increase in the incentive to drop a spot. Likewise, the 3rd worst team has a huge increase in the incentive not to get passed, and the same thing goes the whole way up.
If you're the 8th placed team (to use your example), what's more enticing - moving up to 6th to get an extra 3.5% chance at the #1 pick, or moving up to 6th to get a guaranteed 4-6 rather than a guaranteed 7-9? The latter is a much bigger incentive to tank.

You're eliminating the incentive to move within a tier, but you're drastically drastically increasing the incentive to move between tiers. If there was a big gap between the tiers that wouldn't be a problem, but there rarely is - last year there was a 1 game difference between the 1-3 and 4-6 tiers, a 1 game difference between the 4-6 and 7-9 tiers, and 2 games between the 7-9 and 10-12 tiers. The year before the differences were 0,1,1. You don't think teams are going to try to drop an extra game or two to try and move up (on average) 3, and as many as 6 spots?

Strict thresholds increase the incentive to drop games. If anything you want to go the other direction and decrease the impact of rankings - move to a formula based on the number of losses, where each individual loss adds only a tiny amount to your chance, rather than a system where one loss can give you an extra 5% or 10% chance.

Your suggestion solves the supposed problem of teams jumping a long way up the lottery, but gives everyone at every level more incentive to tank. A better way, if you really think the Bulls winning is a problem, is just to reduce their percentage in the current lottery, and not have to deal with the other problems your solution introduces.

bholly
12-15-2013, 04:00 PM
in all other sports, the worst teams get the best picks. Basketball should be no different. Tanking is so overrated by fans/media in basketball.

There is no way, I mean NONE, that a Rose scenario should happen.

Here are the chances under the current system for falling more than 2 draft spots in the lottery:

Worst - 35.7%
2nd worst - 12.3%
3rd worst - 4%
4th worst - 1.2%
5th worst - 0.4%
6th worst - 0.1%
7th-11th worst less than 0.05%.

You really think there's a big problem of bad teams not getting high enough picks? It just isn't an issue. The last time a team fell 3 spots was 5 years ago. It just isn't a common problem.

If you don't think it's acceptable for a team to fall more than 2 spots then that's fine, change the lottery to only select the top 2 picks. If you don't think it's acceptable for the 9th worst team to win the lottery then that's fine, take away their lottery chances.

But making it so that there are arbitrary boundaries, where some teams can't move up at all and have a 2/3 chance of moving down, some teams can't move down but have a 2/3 chance of moving up, and all teams have a greatly increased incentive to try and move between the tiers, is a hugely convoluted solution to those two problems that will create more issues than it solves.

Again, creating strict and arbitrary thresholds only increases the problem. You want to decrease the impact of thresholds (like tiers or rankings or certain numbers of losses), while maintaining higher odds for the worse teams - that's the problem that needs to be solved.

Shammyguy3
12-15-2013, 10:26 PM
the lottery currently is in place to **** the Wolves.....


in all seriousness, my idea for years has been:

Bottom 3 teams, have a mini-lottery, all same weights. Teams 4-10, then have a mini-lottery, all same weights. 11-14 then have a lottery, all same weights. It won't stop tanking all together, but it's a better system. And it will also prevent a Rose type b.s. scenario.

I agree with this completely. I would alter your idea a little bit though, For starters - the 16 best teams in the league make the playoffs, not the 8 best in each conference. Then:

Bottom 3 teams for #1 overall. (#1 has a 39% chance, #2 has a 33% chance, #3 has a 28% chance of getting top pick)

Teams 4-6 for #4 overall. (#4 has a 50% chance, #5 has a 33% chance, #6 has a 17% chance of getting 4th pick)

Teams 7-9 for #9 overall. (#7 has a 55% chance, #8 has a 30% chance, #9 has a 15% chance of getting 7th pick)

Teams 10-12 for #10 overall (#10 has a 60% chance, #11 has a 26% chance, #12 has a 14% chance of getting 4th pick)

Teams 13 and 14 are not involved in the lottery system. In this scenario, no team would drop more than 2 spots. I think this works better than the current system - the "worst" team in EACH tier has the best chance of getting the best pick in each slot. So even though the 4th worst team missed out on the chances of getting the first overall, they still have the greatest chances of getting the 4th best pick. And even though the 7th worst team missed out on the chances to get the 4th best pick, they have the greatest chances of getting the 7th best selection overall. And same for the 10th - missed out on the 7th, but the odds are in their favor that they'll keep the next best pick outside of the tier they missed out on being in.

PurpleJesus
12-16-2013, 12:01 AM
I havent read any of the thread, so I don't know if the affect of how one player in basketball can affect a team in such a good way. Basketball is the 1 sport out of the 4 major ones, that just by adding one star player, the team will improve immensely....we would see some really bad basketball, specifically in a year like this year, or 2003.

Sandman
12-16-2013, 01:34 AM
in all other sports, the worst teams get the best picks. Basketball should be no different. Tanking is so overrated by fans/media in basketball.

There is no way, I mean NONE, that a Rose scenario should happen.

In the other 3 major sports there isn't as great an impact. IMO in the NHL I think the scarcity of star players is just about the same, but 1/20 is still a ways off from 1/12. I think scarcity for star players it is about the same but there is a big gap in the impact 1 player can have. In baseball you have about 2 years min between the draft/debut say no more, and the NFL stands on its own when it comes to parity.

I'm not arguing for who deserves the #1, I'm arguing against what the system leads to. There is a prize for losing as it stands, and teams in the middle are in "purgatory". I wouldn't be the first one to suggest it is better to be a bad team than it is to be 11-13 in the lotto or 7-8 in the playoffs. Flattening the odds a would take off a little from both sides. what if it went 14%, 13%, 12%, etc..?

Shammyguy3
12-16-2013, 01:55 AM
If the chances of winning the lotto were as you propose (sequentially from 14-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4) then you would have to restrict only being able to drop down to one spot: in short, you only play for the #1 overall selection. I still wouldn't like it because a team like Memphis could esaily miss the playoffs this year, have a 5% chance of winning the lotto and get Wiggins/Parker/whomever. You need to try and have a cycle of good teams and bad teams, which iis part of why the lottery is in place