PDA

View Full Version : Tanking in the NBA, how do we stop it? draft picks becoming more important than games



KniCks4LiFe
02-27-2014, 03:55 AM
I figured it out. It's a little out there, but it makes sense once you think about it. How do we stop ownerships from tanking games. Especially in the East.

We all know that the top 14 teams that have the most losing records get into the lottery and it usually leads to the worst trade deadline movements ever. Well why doesn't the NBA flip it on them? Instead of the worst records getting the most ping pong balls, why not the best records of the worst.

So if you have for instance in 2012/'13 the worst teams in the Lottery were as followed.

1. Orlando
2. Charlotte
3. Cleveland
4. Phoenix
5. New Orleans
6. Sacramento
7. Detroit
8. Washington
9. Minnesota
10. Portland
11. Philadelphia
12. Toronto
13. Dallas
14. Utah

Instead of Orlando getting most ping pong balls, Utah at #14 should. B/c they are atleast making a competitive effort in the league to improve.

To me there's the problem, you're already promoting owners to quit their seasons w/ the NBA lottery. An owner would rather trade their star player for assets and think about repeating it the following year if possible. So eliminate that. Give the teams that are making an effort, give the ownerships that are making an effort to stay competitive in your league the ability to prove they belong, instead of stuck in the middle. Make this NBA competitive. Make the games count. Instead of some franchise banking on trying to fall to that #1 spot, make them fight for that #14, 13, 12. Maybe then the trade deadline wouldn't be so dead, maybe then teams actually stop waiting for the draft and fight for the draft and who knows the season instead.

Seeing how CLE ended up w/ the 1st overall pick in last year's draft, fighting for the worst record, I think w/ this method, instead of CLE it would have been TOR. Then Dallas w/ the #2 and DET would have had the #3. Make the end of the season mean something again. Stop giving away premium young athletes to places that don't have a culture set on being competitive.

What do you guys think?

abe_froman
02-27-2014, 04:13 AM
because there's no way to tell why the team with the worst record (or among the worst)are that way,are they tanking or just legitimately that much in need of help? you may be keeping a franchise from ever really improving enough to get out of the lotto

you cant stop tanking as long as theres a draft ,because the way the game is played.

KniCks4LiFe
02-27-2014, 04:15 AM
because there's no way to tell why the team with the worst record (or among the worst)are that way,are they tanking or just legitimately that much in need of help? you may be keeping a franchise from ever really improving enough to get out of the lotto

you cant stop tanking as long as theres a draft ,because the way the game is played.

The team w/ the worst record usually are either trading players off to lock a #1 pick or shutting them down. Even an expansion team has enough coin to field a top 13 competitive roster. Lets be real here w/ what owners are doing.

LakersKB24
02-27-2014, 05:18 AM
I've been thinking about this too. If there's a punishment for being in the luxury tax too often, why not so something similar for the draft.
I don't think it would be fair to give the best odds to teams that barely miss the playoffs. You can't just say that every team that finishes at #9 or #10 is an improving team. Would you give the Thunder the best odds in the lottery if KD was injured all year and OKC had the 9th best record? What I'm saying is that with your idea teams that are desperate for a star would be overlooked and would have zero chance to improve through the draft, because you would have to be a borderline playoff team which is impossible for some of them.

So here's what I would do. I would keep it the way it is, but no team should be able to pick in the top 5 more often than for example twice in three years. It doesn't happen that often anyway but at least it that way, the league would not only punish those who tank purposely but also give other teams the chance to draft a franchise player.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
02-27-2014, 05:33 AM
Players aren't tanking.

Heediot
02-27-2014, 06:09 AM
All teams in the lottery have an equal chance at winning it.

KniCks4LiFe
02-27-2014, 06:13 AM
I've been thinking about this too. If there's a punishment for being in the luxury tax too often, why not so something similar for the draft.

But that's what this is. Instead of doing everything to end the season, they can actually make efforts to better their product for their fans. Look at Philly, how great of story were they at the beginning of the season? I liked how they were fighting for a spot, but now, deadline came, lets give up, give up Hawes, give up Turner, LaVoy, just the season entirely. That's ridiculous. And lets talk about the moves that didn't happen b/c they valued the pick so much more than a playoff spot. I'm trying to think of way to make competitive balance here. In which the league plays out the season. In which that 14th lotto spot becomes more important than that #1, or atleast push that 1 lotto team which is #28 overall, push them to become a mediocre team that can land the next big star.


I don't think it would be fair to give the best odds to teams that barely miss the playoffs.

why not? even if a star gets hurt, it does not make you the Clipper of the 90's. Your ownership is not that cheap and your GM should actually earn their job. It also promotes the D-League helping team rosters improve. And late round picks have a chance to be paired w/ winners in the future.


You can't just say that every team that finishes at #9 or #10 is an improving team. Would you give the Thunder the best odds in the lottery if KD was injured all year and OKC had the 9th best record?

No they aren't. But that #9 or 10 are actually playing for something. Instead of the #1 - 5 who just doesn't care to improve.


What I'm saying is that with your idea teams that are desperate for a star would be overlookedand would have zero chance to improve through the draft , because you would have to be a borderline playoff team which is impossible for some of them.

Actually it'd be the opposite. There are no star trades b/c the draft now is more important. Take the Bucks team for instance. Ownership paid $53M for that roster, do you think they are playing to any competitive level? they called it in, sure they'll have 1 or 2 games. But here is the thing, this would force them to not tank. Making the #1 pick have a 1% value pushes teams to make an improvement in the front office and roster.


So here's what I would do. I would keep it the way it is, but no team should be able to pick in the top 5 more often than for example twice in three years.

But you still have 8 -10 teams tanking, resulting in more than 30-40 gms. of nothing.


It doesn't happen that often anyway but at least it that way, the league would not only punish those who tank purposely but also give other teams the chance to draft a franchise player.

there's something wrong about rewarding the worst record in the league to me. There just is. Especially w/ owners pocketing money, making fans pay and not putting any type of competitive product on the floor.

KniCks4LiFe
02-27-2014, 06:30 AM
All teams in the lottery have an equal chance at winning it.

wouldn't that just lead to 14 teams tanking?

-Kobe24-TJ19-
02-27-2014, 07:06 AM
wouldn't that just lead to 14 teams tanking?

lmao

Whats the point?

LakersKB24
02-27-2014, 07:10 AM
I see where you are coming from, but I think you have to distinguish between teams that are tanking and teams that are actually that bad.

How do teams like the Bucks even get a chance to improve if they have to be a top 10 team in their conference? That's just impossible for them, because if they can't improve through the draft, the only other ways are to trade or to sign free agents. Who would sign with the Bucks long term the way the situation is looking right now? And with your idea there wouldn't even be any perspective for them going forward unless they get really really lucky and draft an All Star talent at #14. The disparity between playoff/borderline playoff teams and the worst teams would increase even more.

I just think it's hard, maybe impossible to stop teams from tanking without punishing the teams that can't do any better and would have zero perspective without the lottery. Some teams are just not capable of anything better than the worst record in the NBA and those teams won't start playing better all of a sudden because they are not able to!

CELTICS4LYFE
02-27-2014, 07:26 AM
Maybe a bracket system.....like teams 1-3 have the same odds % wise, 4-9 the same and 10-14 the same?? Idk...

Raps18-19 Champ
02-27-2014, 10:40 AM
The wheel. Duh.

Bajecco
02-27-2014, 10:45 AM
Tanking will never go away. I say ditch the lottery as it has never successfully discouraged tanking.

JasonJohnHorn
02-27-2014, 10:47 AM
Have a playoff with all the lottery teams. Who ever wins gets the first pick.


That would make it hard to bad teams to improve, but at least you know they won't simply trade for somebody like Granger and then buy him out.

And give teams with the worst record home court advantage.

2-ONE-5
02-27-2014, 11:11 AM
yea so lets reward a team who barely missed the playoffs with the #1 pick and keep the bottom teams down. great solution

D-Leethal
02-27-2014, 11:19 AM
I agree with Silver with the notion that as long as teams aren't purposely throwing games to lose, than the strategy of getting real bad, with hopes of hitting the lotto and getting real good, is completely fine. Theres nothing wrong with tearing it down instead of trying to stay middle of the pack. Its a sound strategy that some teams employ, some teams choose to keep the team as competitive as they can during the rebuild, as long as the contracts line up to what they want as far as future flexibility goes.

You want to clear cap and get picks when your rebuilding - than you trade your big contracts, which are usually your best players, and that leads to a lot of losing. You can call it tanking, its strategy. As long as the coaches on the sidelines and the players in uniform are out there trying to win games - it doesn't matter if they are too freakin' terrible to actually win them.

D-Leethal
02-27-2014, 11:20 AM
I take more of an issue with the top of the food chain, not the bottom. All of the top stars looking to join each other is bad for the league.

C_Mund
02-27-2014, 11:28 AM
Much like you're not allowed to trade away consecutive first-round picks, I'd like to see a system in which you're not allowed to pick in, say, the top 3 or five in consecutive years. For example, one year let's say that Sac, Cle and Mil (random teams...) had the top three picks in 2009 (random year), in 2010 the highest ANY of those teams would pick would be 6th, but they'd have the highest odds once the top 5 picks have gone through. That way there wouldn't be teams tanking year after year, but if they're truly bad they can still net a high lottery pick.

Don't get me wrong, in deep, top-heavy drafts like this one the bottom third of the league is going into "asset management" mode and trading away serviceable players for as many picks as possible. However the owners said that they wanted a harsh luxury tax, and once it came in they all of a sudden can't afford to field an expensive team unless they're contending. It's something they've done to themselves. Basically it's made drafting a star the most important thing in the world, and until all of the previous CBA contracts expire we won't actually see if the whole luxury tax thing spreads talent into the smaller markets.

D-Leethal
02-27-2014, 11:49 AM
You guys act like tanking is a surefire path to success. Most teams that are in the lottery every year continue to suck every year, for every OKC there are 5 Minnesota's, Cleveland's, Sacremento's, New Orleans and Charlotte's. Even the teams that luck out and land a lottery stud usually end up staying in the gutter for another 5 years anyway. If a team wants to suck balls every year for a pipe dream let them do it.

There is usually one franchise changer in each draft, and sometimes 0, sometimes 2, rarely 3+. There are usually 5-6 teams thats are clearly tanking every year. Small market tanking is fools gold if you ask me. I understand its really the only way for a team like CHA, or NO, or SAC to land a superstar, but your more likely to land a future role player and stay a crap team for a decade than you are getting a Kevin Durant and nailing your subsequent picks to build a contender around him before he wants to up and leave when his first non-rookie contract is up.

Look at the top 5 picks of the past 5-10 years. How many of those guys are complete garbage or nothing more than a role/bench player? How many are true franchise changers?

Let them tank, the vast majority will continue to suck and will end up scrapping their crappy team and trying to rebuild the same way again until the cycle repeats itself for 10 years.

Shammyguy3
02-27-2014, 11:52 AM
I agree with Silver with the notion that as long as teams aren't purposely throwing games to lose, than the strategy of getting real bad, with hopes of hitting the lotto and getting real good, is completely fine. Theres nothing wrong with tearing it down instead of trying to stay middle of the pack. Its a sound strategy that some teams employ, some teams choose to keep the team as competitive as they can during the rebuild, as long as the contracts line up to what they want as far as future flexibility goes.

You want to clear cap and get picks when your rebuilding - than you trade your big contracts, which are usually your best players, and that leads to a lot of losing. You can call it tanking, its strategy. As long as the coaches on the sidelines and the players in uniform are out there trying to win games - it doesn't matter if they are too freakin' terrible to actually win them.

This.

koreancabbage
02-27-2014, 12:07 PM
1. there is nothing you can do if there is a draft. and you can't penalize teams for tanking because they are really damaging themselves and their fanbase, as per strategy of improving through the draft.

losing = less fans = less money. Don't you think teams want to win? Isn't owning an NBA franchise a mostly money-losing business anyways?

2. all teams make the playoffs - thus having EVERY team having a chance at the championship and everyone jockey's for position. best teams gets 1st round off or something.

3. I would invoke a tiered free agent salary system, where a 'franchise player' would make the most and is the only player on the team to make that much money -say $25M. Next player would be at $18M and the rest of the players under $15. and you have to have a top tiered player and a 2nd top player for each team. This will level and have more parity in this league. 5 year contracts max. This would force all teams to get a competitive franchise type player and you can't sign more than one of these players. you can trade for them only.

Maybe that would leverage out some parity as well.

Jamiecballer
02-27-2014, 12:13 PM
wheel! wheel! wheel!

in case it wasn't clear... i like the wheel idea.

blystr2002
02-27-2014, 12:15 PM
Their is no such thing as tanking. The players on the court are giving 100% and the owners aren't purposely paying bad players. As an owner, if your team is not good and you are paying an average player on a bad team wouldn't you trade him and try to get draft picks. That is smart business and it will at least give your team the chance at getting better in the future through a rookie or freed up money for players. A bad team is a bad team no matter what word you use for it. Also, most young teams start off bad as well, so can you really call them tanking or building.

ManRam
02-27-2014, 12:23 PM
I think we're overreacting to a minor "problem"...that problem really just being the result of front offices getting smarter.

Milwaukee, Philly, Boston, Orlando, New Orleans, Utah, Sacramento and LAL are the only teams that I think you can say aren't too concerned with winning. As we've seen from most of those teams, they're playing hard, they just suck. You're never going to have a league where there aren't teams that suck. I think it's a good thing that these teams aren't jeopardizing their future for the shot of a slightly better record.

I don't think any of these teams are purposefully trying to lose individual games. These coaches and players have nothing to gain from intentionally sabotaging games. Are front offices complacent with a lack of success this year with an eye on the future? Sure. There are definitely teams that, via the moves they've made, haven't put an emphasis on winning games this year.

But the notion that teams are throwing individual games I can't get behind. Watch these teams: these players are fighting for their careers in many cases. The young guys are playing their best. They're running their best players (Afflalo, Hayward, Davis, Rudy, Turner, Isaiah, MCW, Thad, Jameer, etc.) out there for big minutes. These are young coaches whose careers are tied in heavily with success...or just overachieving (like Philly and Boston did early on). These guys aren't throwing games. Just watch them. They just lack talent...and that's always existed.

And ultimately, I don't think this is a big deal. It's better in the long run for these smaller market teams. Philly, Orlando, Boston and Utah are all doing the RIGHT thing and putting themselves in a position to improve down the road. Why punish them for that? Even NO and LAL to an extent. Milwaukee just sucks...as does Sacto.

Shammyguy3
02-27-2014, 12:24 PM
I love the wheel system as well. Here's the link if nobody knows what it means: http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-nbas-possible-solution-for-tanking-good-bye-to-the-lottery-hello-to-the-wheel/

urban85disciple
02-27-2014, 12:50 PM
The wheel is a horrible idea. Its even worse than having a lottery playoff. You're basically telling a team when they are drafting where. Its just plain dumb.

Of the top six picks in 2010, only two are still with the teams that drafted them. So you whiff on a top-6 pick and now have to wait 5 years to get back that high?

True Sports Fan
02-27-2014, 12:52 PM
That wouldn't be fair to the teams that legitimately suck

KniCks4LiFe
02-27-2014, 01:01 PM
1. there is nothing you can do if there is a draft. and you can't penalize teams for tanking because they are really damaging themselves and their fanbase, as per strategy of improving through the draft.

The current strategy consists of GMs trading away players for nothing, or not paying players, it also consists of future maybe picks and keeping your own to tank a season for the best quality player. Essentially telling a town of possibly 500K fans and how 19K attend a game, telling your ticket holders this is who we are, come back in 2016 or 17' or stick w/ us till then. That is the most ridiculous incentive in sports.


losing = less fans = less money. Don't you think teams want to win? Isn't owning an NBA franchise a mostly money-losing business anyways?

Not all teams want to pay for winning. Not all teams really want to win, not all teams want to be that 8th seed giving the effort to possibly knocking off a #1 seed. Atleast this way you reward the ones that playing the season out and giving maximum effort. It's easy tanking to #1, it's not easy tanking to #14.


2. all teams make the playoffs - thus having EVERY team having a chance at the championship and everyone jockey's for position. best teams gets 1st round off or something.

IDK about that.


3. I would invoke a tiered free agent salary system, where a 'franchise player' would make the most and is the only player on the team to make that much money -say $25M. Next player would be at $18M and the rest of the players under $15. and you have to have a top tiered player and a 2nd top player for each team. This will level and have more parity in this league. 5 year contracts max. This would force all teams to get a competitive franchise type player and you can't sign more than one of these players. you can trade for them only.

that would also cause a lot of locker room issues.

KniCks4LiFe
02-27-2014, 01:05 PM
I take more of an issue with the top of the food chain, not the bottom. All of the top stars looking to join each other is bad for the league.

That's what it would stop too. Think about it. It's easy tanking to #1, strip your team start over right? especially in small city teams w/ owners pocketing coin. This method promotes competitive balance while your fighting for a playoff spot. See now a team that is the worst in the NBA can trade for players to not be #28 in the league. They can then gradually get better. It promotes a GM earning his job and teams actually playing out the season.

If the problem is the top of the food chain, then the chain needs to be tugged.

John Walls Era
02-27-2014, 01:17 PM
I don't have a good alternative but some of the ideas in this thread don't work. Most of your systems actually award the better crappy teams. Teams that actually suck will be punished forever with mid firsts.

I actually don't care about tanking. I just won't watch them. If a franchise has the shamelessness to lose games, then let them.

John Walls Era
02-27-2014, 01:20 PM
Have a playoff with all the lottery teams. Who ever wins gets the first pick.


That would make it hard to bad teams to improve, but at least you know they won't simply trade for somebody like Granger and then buy him out.

And give teams with the worst record home court advantage.

Yes... because the demand for crappy basketball between crappy teams for draft picks is in high demand right now. Who would watch that crap? Would players even try? A starter might not want to see a talented player projected to go first from taking their spot and will probably not give it their all. Why would players care about the draft?

ManRam
02-27-2014, 02:05 PM
I don't have a good alternative but some of the ideas in this thread don't work. Most of your systems actually award the better crappy teams. Teams that actually suck will be punished forever with mid firsts.

I actually don't care about tanking. I just won't watch them. If a franchise has the shamelessness to lose games, then let them.

I'm with you. Most of the solutions in general suck. The lottery as currently constructed isn't perfect, but it's still a better system than what most people want it replaced with. The worst teams should be the ones who have the chance to benefit the most from the draft...and in a league where parity is often hard to find, that has to remain in some significant sense. I think the whole tanking thing is overblown. Maybe over the course of a season a team loses a few more games than they otherwise would because the organization isn't prioritizing success...but it's not this epidemic people make it out to be. The teams "tanking" are just the bad teams...and there will be bad teams regardless. As is, the system gives those bad teams a chance to correct it. Some do, some don't...but at least they get the chance.

JJH's playoff thing makes no sense either. It rewards the best worst team. That's not what the system should be designed to do.

likemystylez
02-27-2014, 02:14 PM
I'm with you. Most of the solutions in general suck. The lottery as currently constructed isn't perfect, but it's still a better system than what most people want it replaced with. The worst teams should be the ones who have the chance to benefit the most from the draft...and in a league where parity is often hard to find, that has to remain in some significant sense. I think the whole tanking thing is overblown. Maybe over the course of a season a team loses a few more games than they otherwise would because the organization isn't prioritizing success...but it's not this epidemic people make it out to be. The teams "tanking" are just the bad teams...and there will be bad teams regardless. As is, the system gives those bad teams a chance to correct it. Some do, some don't...but at least they get the chance.

JJH's playoff thing makes no sense either. It rewards the best worst team. That's not what the system should be designed to do.

I think when a team like the 76ers basically starts tanking in the draft before the season by trading jru holiday for a rookie who isnt going to play- then it gets annoying. Its one thing when the season is already decided and you kinda blow things up over the last 25 games because the extra 3 or 4 games you might have won wouldnt have made a difference at all. (however in the east- you could argue that you are never really out of the playoff hunt... except the bucks LOL)

The bobcats basically tanked for years, and then they draft guys like Adam Morrison, MKG, and DJ augastine.... then they have the nerve to complain during the lockout that they arent generating enough revenue? come on- If any team is going to throw their season away after they have taken their fans hard earned money for season tickets... (all in an effort to bring in adam morrison)- they have no right to complain about how much money they are bringing in

2-ONE-5
02-27-2014, 02:18 PM
Sixers also acquired the Pelicans first rd pick this for Holiday which could be top 8-10. Yea it was a great deal for both sides.

likemystylez
02-27-2014, 02:20 PM
Sixers also acquired the Pelicans first rd pick this for Holiday which could be top 8-10. Yea it was a great deal for both sides.

if the sixers had kept holiday, they had a chance at the playoffs this year

Shammyguy3
02-27-2014, 02:25 PM
Jrue Holiday was an expensive player though. If you suck, why would you want to be locked into a long-term deal for a player that, by the time you have a legit shot of competing in 4-6 years, will be past his prime? Also, Jrue Holiday isn't that good. He's an average point guard to slightly above average point guard in the league. Not to mention, the 76ers just drafted a point guard of their future during that same draft.


If your first rebuilding project didn't turn you into a contender, then you trade your players for assets. That's exactly what PHI did in cutting ties with Turner, Iguodala, Holiday, etc. Would you prefer, as a fan, that you overpay players and not get a chance at winning a ring because you just aren't good enough all while you have almost zero shot of acquiring a future stud in the draft because you don't have a great lottery pick?

I think the easiest solution for this is having the 16 best teams make the playoffs, regardless of record. Change the schedule so you play opponents 2-3 times a year, that would take care of "Weak eastern conference teams play most of their games vs weak eastern conference teams" and "Strong Western conference teams play most of their games vs strong western conference teams".

Currently, the draft is only for the top-3 spots, meaning the #1 worst team is guaranteed a top-4 pick. I think the draft could be drawn for the top-4 spots (in which case the worst record team is not guaranteed a top-4 pick, but is guaranteed a top-5 pick). In that scenario, each team can fall an extra spot in the draft.

JEDean89
02-27-2014, 02:26 PM
my only solution is to unweight the draft so it is less heavy at the top.

1st: 15%
2nd: 12%
3rd: 10%
4th: 8%
5th: 8%
6th: 7%
7th: 7%
8th: 7%
9th: 6%
10th: 5%
11th: 5%
12th: 3.3%
13th: 3.3%
14th: 3.3%

so basically teams won't have to tank all the way down to the worst pick, teams just have to miss the playoffs. if teams are really up for turning down the money and prestige from making the playoffs for a 3.3 to 5% chance of winning the lotto, good for them. GM's would not be able to convince their owners to strip their team down to as bad as possible for a 15% chance to win the lotto. also, top picks would go to better lotto teams more often.

Shammyguy3
02-27-2014, 02:42 PM
my only solution is to unweight the draft so it is less heavy at the top.

1st: 15%
2nd: 12%
3rd: 10%
4th: 8%
5th: 8%
6th: 7%
7th: 7%
8th: 7%
9th: 6%
10th: 5%
11th: 5%
12th: 3.3%
13th: 3.3%
14th: 3.3%

so basically teams won't have to tank all the way down to the worst pick, teams just have to miss the playoffs. if teams are really up for turning down the money and prestige from making the playoffs for a 3.3 to 5% chance of winning the lotto, good for them. GM's would not be able to convince their owners to strip their team down to as bad as possible for a 15% chance to win the lotto. also, top picks would go to better lotto teams more often.

You'd then give a team like the Memphis Grizzlies, who if they played in the Eastern Conference would win 50 games, wayyyy too great of a chance of winning the lottery under the current playoff system. If you want to reweigh the draft odds then this would be better:

1st: 18% (25%)
2nd: 16% (19.9%)
3rd: 14% (15.6%)
4th: 12% (11.9%)
5th: 10% (8.8%)
6th: 8% (6.3%)
7th: 6% (3.6%)
8th: 5% (3.5%)
9th: 4% (1.7%)
10th: 3% (1.1%)
11th: 2% (0.8%)
12th: 1% (0.7%)
13th: 0.5% (0.6%)
14th: 0.5% (0.5%)

Current % in green. Also, in this scenario if you change the draft odds, I think only the top-2 picks should be up for grabs, guaranteeing the worst record team of nothing lower than the #3 selection

2-ONE-5
02-27-2014, 02:46 PM
if the sixers had kept holiday, they had a chance at the playoffs this year

so what? we are tired of 6-8 seeds and early exits with no real shot at contending its been that way for 10 years now. This is a major city with a great basketball history we want a contender and thanks to Sam Hinkie we are working in that direction for the first time in a long time.

mike_noodles
02-27-2014, 02:55 PM
The best way to discourage it is to make it easier for small market teams to sign big name free agents. Not really sure how you can achieve that. Maybe a once every 5 year $10m bonus that only small market teams could use.

If they want to change the draft lottery, they should remove the cap on how far a team can fall in their drafting position. Right now you can only fall so far, that's part of why teams still tank. The Bucks will draft in the top 4 no matter what right now, in a draft year like this one, that's a nice guarantee to have.

Shammyguy3
02-27-2014, 03:01 PM
The best way to discourage it is to make it easier for small market teams to sign big name free agents. Not really sure how you can achieve that. Maybe a once every 5 year $10m bonus that only small market teams could use.

If they want to change the draft lottery, they should remove the cap on how far a team can fall in their drafting position. Right now you can only fall so far, that's part of why teams still tank. The Bucks will draft in the top 4 no matter what right now, in a draft year like this one, that's a nice guarantee to have.

Then you have to figure out a way to define small-market teams. And then what about middle-market teams... what should they be entitled to? You can't force players to certain teams.

NYCkid12
02-27-2014, 03:16 PM
this discussion always drives me crazy because building a contender, especially for small market teams, requires a complete overhaul in the roster which results in having a team with a very low talent level

Also, I don't ever see teams trying to lose or "tanking" , for example Orlando beat OKC and Indiana a couple of weeks ago, if they were trying to lose why win those games ?? These teams are just bad, plain and simple

Finally, theres no gurantee that if you are the worst team you get the best pick, you have a 25% chance which to me is low for being the worst team in the league

JEDean89
02-27-2014, 03:24 PM
You'd then give a team like the Memphis Grizzlies, who if they played in the Eastern Conference would win 50 games, wayyyy too great of a chance of winning the lottery under the current playoff system. If you want to reweigh the draft odds then this would be better:

1st: 18% (25%)
2nd: 16% (19.9%)
3rd: 14% (15.6%)
4th: 12% (11.9%)
5th: 10% (8.8%)
6th: 8% (6.3%)
7th: 6% (3.6%)
8th: 5% (3.5%)
9th: 4% (1.7%)
10th: 3% (1.1%)
11th: 2% (0.8%)
12th: 1% (0.7%)
13th: 0.5% (0.6%)
14th: 0.5% (0.5%)

Current % in green. Also, in this scenario if you change the draft odds, I think only the top-2 picks should be up for grabs, guaranteeing the worst record team of nothing lower than the #3 selection

a 3.3% chance isn't "way too high" but yes, once every 5 years or so, a fringe playoff team gets rewarded with the top pick. i would like good players go to fringe playoff teams, like d-rose with the bulls. Imagine if Anthony Davis was playing on the Mavs right now? I think that is a better system, one that doesn't incline teams to tank and one that still allows bottom teams to get talented. right now the only way to get a top pick is to tear your team down, 14 teams can't rebuild through the draft each year.

futureman
02-27-2014, 03:24 PM
Have a playoff for the first pick. It would be the NBA NIT.

Shammyguy3
02-27-2014, 03:35 PM
a 3.3% chance isn't "way too high" but yes, once every 5 years or so, a fringe playoff team gets rewarded with the top pick. i would like good players go to fringe playoff teams, like d-rose with the bulls. Imagine if Anthony Davis was playing on the Mavs right now? I think that is a better system, one that doesn't incline teams to tank and one that still allows bottom teams to get talented. right now the only way to get a top pick is to tear your team down, 14 teams can't rebuild through the draft each year.

If Anthony Davis played in DAL, then the Pelicans would be ****ed and the Mavericks would have gotten lucky. Just like the Spurs did with Duncan, the Bulls with Rose. If you're the worst team, you should have as great of odds possible to improve and contend. Giving teams that are already good a chance to contend, when they already have had that chance more recently than an awful team in most cases, takes away any potential parity that could transpire thanks to the draft.

And yeah, a 3% chance is insanely high for a team that could win 50 games.

moshy2
02-27-2014, 06:13 PM
Tanking isn't really a huge problem imo. Are people really enjoying this nba season less because teams are tanking? I mean the East is terrible, but it's not like it hasn't been a good bit lesser than the West for awhile. The West is as crazy as ever. There's not really any proof that tanking is having a negative effect on the nba, so any change that isn't minor (like maybe adjusting the lottery percentages) is a mistake imo

ManRam
02-27-2014, 06:17 PM
I think when a team like the 76ers basically starts tanking in the draft before the season by trading jru holiday for a rookie who isnt going to play- then it gets annoying. Its one thing when the season is already decided and you kinda blow things up over the last 25 games because the extra 3 or 4 games you might have won wouldnt have made a difference at all. (however in the east- you could argue that you are never really out of the playoff hunt... except the bucks LOL)

The bobcats basically tanked for years, and then they draft guys like Adam Morrison, MKG, and DJ augastine.... then they have the nerve to complain during the lockout that they arent generating enough revenue? come on- If any team is going to throw their season away after they have taken their fans hard earned money for season tickets... (all in an effort to bring in adam morrison)- they have no right to complain about how much money they are bringing in

Bobcats didn't tank for years, they're just incompetent.


You'll NEVER convince me that being a perennial fringe playoff team like Philly was set up to be is better than just blowing it up and starting over. Never. Who cares if it's "annoying" to you...it's the smart move to do and they shouldn't be punished for it.

jsthornton7
02-27-2014, 07:03 PM
Someone proposed this idea somewhere already... but, they should start looking at records over the previous 3 seasons and averaging out the records.


Using the three worst teams so far this season as an example:

MIL: (2014) 11-45 + (2013) 38-44 + (2012) 31-35 = 80-124 or .392 winning % over 3 years
PHI: (2014) 15-43 + (2013) 34-48 + (2012) 35-31 = 84-122 or .408 winning % over 3 years
ORL: (2014) 18-42 + (2013) 20-62 + (2012) 37-29 = 75-133 or .361 winning % over 3 years

That means that:

ORL would select 1st (.361)
MIL would select 2nd (.392)
PHI would select 3rd (.408)

I think that most GMs would be fired if they tried to tank for 3 straight years and that if this plan was implemented then we see more competitive teams.

EastCoastRaptor
02-27-2014, 07:29 PM
This may have already been said but take the record of the team that season and combine it with the 2 seasons prior. So teams that have been bad longer have the best odds at a top pick. This would prevent teams from tanking for a particular draft class like this year. A team would basically need to tank 3 years in a row to get best odds (not likely).

The 16 teams with the best records over the last 3 seasons would pick 15-30. The bottom 14 teams over the 3 year span would go into a lottery. Teams making or missing playoffs in any of these years won't matter to position only record. This would help balance the talent of the conferences as well.

jsthornton7
02-27-2014, 07:48 PM
This may have already been said but take the record of the team that season and combine it with the 2 seasons prior. So teams that have been bad longer have the best odds at a top pick. This would prevent teams from tanking for a particular draft class like this year. A team would basically need to tank 3 years in a row to get best odds (not likely).

The 16 teams with the best records over the last 3 seasons would pick 15-30. The bottom 14 teams over the 3 year span would go into a lottery. Teams making or missing playoffs in any of these years won't matter to position only record. This would help balance the talent of the conferences as well.

I may have just said that in the post directly above yours LOL

TorontoHuskies
02-27-2014, 08:01 PM
I think the draft should only include players with no hometown NBA team (i.e guy like Exum and Embiid) and hometown teams should have first dibs on the homegrown talent until their roster is full. All remaining players from these drafts will be put into the draft with the international players and the draft will rotate each year until all 30 teams have received a first....This would bring way more patriotism/rivalry between teams it would be awesome.

2-ONE-5
02-27-2014, 08:05 PM
holy **** why am i not surprised that you are being serious?

TorontoHuskies
02-27-2014, 08:12 PM
holy **** why am i not surprised that you are being serious?

don't act like that wouldn't be an awesome idea...I'm sure Philadelphia would have a beast team any ways.



Lowry, Waiters, Kidd-gilchrist, Kobe, J nelson, T evans

kobe4thewinbang
02-27-2014, 09:09 PM
I think the only solution is to purge the NBA of 5-10 teams.

2-ONE-5
02-27-2014, 09:15 PM
don't act like that wouldn't be an awesome idea...I'm sure Philadelphia would have a beast team any ways.



Lowry, Waiters, Kidd-gilchrist, Kobe, J nelson, T evans

for an all star type event absolutely.

TorontoHuskies
02-28-2014, 01:05 AM
for an all star type event absolutely.

they should do it for real...whose gonna tank when you got your cities pride on the line that would be an embarrassment. The rivalries would be way better than they are now too because everything would mean so much more to both the players and the fans. You could balance it by giving teams that don't produce many NBA players like Utah more of the International players.

Shammyguy3
02-28-2014, 01:20 AM
You don't "give" teams international players, they enter the draft just like everybody else

slashsnake
02-28-2014, 01:21 AM
What about having a draft rotation with the first round. You get the #1 pick every 30 years. Your draft order is in stone already, 1,30,2,29,3,28.... Just goes on forever then starts over regardless of record.

Let record determine your 2nd round picks. Where you can get a good role player like Parsons, Singler, Landry Fields, Lance Stevenson, Chalmers, DeAndre Jordan, Omer Asik, Novak, etc. Maybe find another way to let record help a team. But not with the 1st round picks

TorontoHuskies
02-28-2014, 01:45 AM
You don't "give" teams international players, they enter the draft just like everybody else

Give them higher odds than because you'd have to balance it for those teams.

Knowledge
02-28-2014, 01:52 AM
This discussion pops up every couples of months and never gets any more intelligent. No one is tanking games, the players and coaches are trying to win. The organizations themselves are being smart (not signing players to deals above their value just to lose in the first or second round).

This isn't the NFL where players are on non-guaranteed deals and are happy to play in any city (especially if the organization shows it is committed to winning). So it makes it that much more important that organizations are smart, build through the draft, and create a culture where guys will want to star (Ex. OKC).

The only fan bases that complain about stuff like this are normally the ones who have been spoiled.

murphturph
02-28-2014, 03:31 AM
THIS IS HOW YOU STOP TANKING!

Every team in the lottery has an equal shot at winning the #1 pick whether your 15th in the conference or 9th in the conference. THen the rest of the teams in the playoffs pick in order of worst record

*Superman*
02-28-2014, 04:28 AM
Rebuilding is not always necessarily tanking. Will a team probably go through a losing phase? Sure. I don't get why its a big deal. There's going to be teams that have the chance to go all out and win and others that have to be smart and start from scratch. Especially smaller market teams that don't always attract the big free agents.

I see you penalized Orlando as a tank team. How exactly are we tanking? Because we arent winning games? Well you see that's kind of what happens when you trade away your best player who anchored the defense and contributed on offense. Yes we have some decent young guys but do you really expect that group of guys to win many games? There isn't one star player on that roster.

Plus tanking isn't always a sure thing. Look at the Cavs who've still been irrelevant even with several top picks. It's still a risk.

Kushed
02-28-2014, 04:44 AM
Tanking doesn't even work so what does it matter?

You can go for the worst record and not even get the #1 pick so the lottery actually does me

slashsnake
02-28-2014, 04:49 AM
This discussion pops up every couples of months and never gets any more intelligent. No one is tanking games, the players and coaches are trying to win. The organizations themselves are being smart (not signing players to deals above their value just to lose in the first or second round).



Obviously there is tanking in the NBA. Players even talk about it saying it is a "business decision" when they get shut down or benched while clearly outperforming the younger player moved into the lineup. When you see an injury where the player is saying he is ready to go and the team wants to hold off another month. When you see a roster ship a good player for future picks or players who they only want to have off their salary cap, that is tanking.

Tanking isn't making your team worse for forever, it is losing more in the present than you would have in order to build a better future. Yes, when you trade a player who can win you more games this year for a chance at more cap flexibility or a better pick next year, that is tanking.

If you trade your lone all-star for a player you are 100% sure will not provide a point for you in the 2013/2014 season, you are tanking this year. You have a good reason for it. An improved pick will probably net you something better than your point guard you gave up. But you are tanking this year.

The players aren't tanking. Nobody is arguing that guys are going out trying to lose. The coach isn't tanking. Nobody is arguing he is calling for a layup when down by 3 in the final seconds and trying to make losing game plans. But that front office, that ownership is sure tanking.

HoopsMachine
02-28-2014, 04:50 AM
If you want to eliminate tanking then remove the incentive and eliminate the draft altogether. NBA should treat rookies as FA's and allow them to choose where they want to play.

slashsnake
02-28-2014, 06:08 AM
Rebuilding is not always necessarily tanking. Will a team probably go through a losing phase? Sure. I don't get why its a big deal. There's going to be teams that have the chance to go all out and win and others that have to be smart and start from scratch. Especially smaller market teams that don't always attract the big free agents.

I see you penalized Orlando as a tank team. How exactly are we tanking? Because we arent winning games? Well you see that's kind of what happens when you trade away your best player who anchored the defense and contributed on offense. Yes we have some decent young guys but do you really expect that group of guys to win many games? There isn't one star player on that roster.

Plus tanking isn't always a sure thing. Look at the Cavs who've still been irrelevant even with several top picks. It's still a risk.

Good points. I don't think Orlando is tanking, they knew they were losing Dwight and either would lose him for nothing or get something in return.

I guess you could point to Cleveland at having had success with tanking in the past. Knowing they had a bad team and in the hunt for Lebron and a very strong draft class, they traded point guard Andre Miller, who just led the NBA in assists and was a rising young star with the team, for projects in Darius Miles and Harold Jamison. A 30 win team went immediately to a 17 win team and they got the #1 overall pick and Lebron James. And the year Lebron left they did nothing to get better, and landed Kyrie Irving.

By the way, that is an awesome bit there with Bosh and Allen.

Goose17
02-28-2014, 08:54 AM
Cleveland are just bad at drafting.

pebloemer
02-28-2014, 09:11 AM
If you just flip the system so the team with the best record that misses the playoffs gets the top pick, you will just create a different system for tanking. The worst teams in the league may be trying to get better, but the 6/7/8 seeds will be more interested in selling off at the deadline. A team shouldn't celebrate barely missing the playoffs. It doesn't solve the problem, it just changes it.

I still think the best way to go is to simply reduce the odds for the worst teams and increase the odds for the better non-playoff teams so there is more "parity of opportunity" among the non-playoff crowd. In addition, having more than just the Top 3 picks as lottery picks (maybe change to Top 5?) would really create a lot more risk for teams intentionally trying to lose.

joshhorvath
02-28-2014, 09:44 AM
i have an idea.. this was discussed in a nhl thread regarding the same topic..

whenever you get mathematically eliminated, you have to try and get as much wins as possible...

the team that gets the most wins after getting eliminated from playoff contention gets 1st pick.

so for example..

team A gets eliminated with 20 games left, gets 11 more wins.

team B gets eliminated with 17 games left, gets 12 more wins..

team C gets eliminated with 15 games left, gets 13 more wins..

team D gets eliminated with 10 games left, gets 3 more wins..

team E gets eliminated with 4 games left, gets 4 wins.

so thats 5 teams.. and with my proposal of rewarding teams that try and win after being eliminated.. these are the top 5 picks..

1. Team C
2. Team B
3. Team A
4. Team E
5. Team D

Goose17
02-28-2014, 09:47 AM
In addition, having more than just the Top 3 picks as lottery picks (maybe change to Top 5?) would really create a lot more risk for teams intentionally trying to lose.

Huh? :/ The lottery is the first 14 picks, not the first 3.


I wouldn't want the number one overall pick. I feel like the first pick, more often than not, doesn't end up having a career anywhere near as successful as the picks following them. I mean just looking at recent history...

I mean;

Elton Brand, Olowokandi, Danny Manning, Coleman, Kwame Brown, Pervis Ellison, Joe Smith, Kenyon Martin and Bargnani.

Then on the other side you have; Shaq, Iverson, Duncan, Lebron, Dwight, Ming and the question marks, Irving, Rose, Wall, Davis, Griffin and Bennett.

I think there's been more first overall picks that were outplayed/less successful than many guys in their draft class than not.

NYCkid12
02-28-2014, 09:48 AM
Obviously there is tanking in the NBA. Players even talk about it saying it is a "business decision" when they get shut down or benched while clearly outperforming the younger player moved into the lineup. When you see an injury where the player is saying he is ready to go and the team wants to hold off another month. When you see a roster ship a good player for future picks or players who they only want to have off their salary cap, that is tanking.

Tanking isn't making your team worse for forever, it is losing more in the present than you would have in order to build a better future. Yes, when you trade a player who can win you more games this year for a chance at more cap flexibility or a better pick next year, that is tanking.

If you trade your lone all-star for a player you are 100% sure will not provide a point for you in the 2013/2014 season, you are tanking this year. You have a good reason for it. An improved pick will probably net you something better than your point guard you gave up. But you are tanking this year.

The players aren't tanking. Nobody is arguing that guys are going out trying to lose. The coach isn't tanking. Nobody is arguing he is calling for a layup when down by 3 in the final seconds and trying to make losing game plans. But that front office, that ownership is sure tanking.

I really disagree with almost everything you said here, to me "tanking" means intentially trying to lose games, which I do not believe ANY team in the league is doing. Looking to the future because you know that no matter what you will not be a championship caliber team this year, to me is not tanking.

So in your opinion what is the difference between a team "rebuilding" and "tanking"??

Goose17
02-28-2014, 09:51 AM
I really disagree with almost everything you said here, to me "tanking" means intentially trying to lose games, which I do not believe ANY team in the league is doing.

I don't think any of the players intentionally try to lose games, but I wouldn't be surprised if the owners do.

NYCkid12
02-28-2014, 10:04 AM
I don't think any of the players intentionally try to lose games, but I wouldn't be surprised if the owners do.

I don't think it's owners as much as it is GMs trying to put together a plan to be successful for a long time. Putting young players together is going to go through growing pains.

The Thunder are considered one of the more successful franchises right now. But it took 3-4 years of being one of the worst teams in the league to build the team they are now. I don't understand why this is looked at in such a negative view.

futureman
02-28-2014, 02:11 PM
Adam Silver comes out tomorrow and makes the announcement that there will be a playoff for the 1st pick this year. The runner up gets the 2nd pick, their opponents in the semifinals get the 3rd and 4th picks. The teams who advance in this playoff get the higher picks. Draft position will also include how long a playoff series went. Lets say a team playing for the 6th pick Takes a series to a Game 6 and loses while the other team closest to them takes their series to a Game 4 and loses. The draft order amongst the rest of the teams will be based on how long a series last and how far teams advanced.

The top 5 worst teams won't like this very much because they will stand no chance at winning and be stuck with picks 10-14 but that's tough for them.

Shammyguy3
02-28-2014, 02:12 PM
Give them higher odds than because you'd have to balance it for those teams.

Give who higher odds for what? If you want to give "small market" teams better odds, then we have a problem with what constitutes a small market team. And if you want to give a team higher odds at getting international players, that's just impossible because those int'l players will be drafted based on how good they are in the draft just like any other player. I have no idea what you're trying to get at, but none of your ideas are realistic


Huh? :/ The lottery is the first 14 picks, not the first 3.

He's talking about how only the top-3 picks are drawn for (you know, you can't jump from the 10th best odds to the 7th pick in the draft, you can only jump up to the top-3 which is why the worst record team is guaranteed a top-4 pick)

bringbackfredex
02-28-2014, 02:28 PM
THIS IS HOW YOU STOP TANKING!

Every team in the lottery has an equal shot at winning the #1 pick whether your 15th in the conference or 9th in the conference. THen the rest of the teams in the playoffs pick in order of worst record

So a team that barely misses the playoffs can get Wiggins or Parker while the teams who are in desperate need of help stay at the bottom......brilliant.

NYCkid12
02-28-2014, 02:48 PM
Why is that we only hear about tanking assosciated with the NBA?

Teams in NFL have horrible seasons, but when that happens it's because of the players/coaching staff/ etc. and not bc they were tanking.....whats the difference?

KnicksFan4Years
02-28-2014, 03:25 PM
I think I have cracked the solution:

A FULL LOTTERY SYSTEM with limitations:

Non-Playoff teams get two slots, while playoff teams get 1 slot. However, a playoff team cannot get a top 10 pick. And Finals teams cannot get a top 20 pick. The lottery would run until all the slots are filled.

Benefits:
A playoff team can get as high as a #11 pick or as low as a #30
A Conference Finals team can get as high as #21 or as low as #30
A non-playoff team can wind up with a pick anywhere from #1 to #30, but 10 non-playoff teams are guaranteed a top 10 slot.

This system takes away the incentive to tank because there is a 33% chance of a non-playoff team not getting in the top 10. It also gives each non-playoff team equal chance of getting a top pick no incentive to lose more games than the other losers. It also puts a greater emphasis on management, smart management.

Free agents will be just as important as draft picks and with sufficient time between lottery and draft, can radically change what teams might do depending on where their teams land.


Example:

Run the lottery and Philly wins the first slot, they get #1 pick.
Run the lottery second time and Golden State wins, so they get the #11 pick.
Run the lottery third time and Toronto wins, so they get the #12 pick.

Etc. until all 30 slots are filled. As the lottery goes on the slots are redistributed to the teams still in the lottery with the non-playoff teams getting twice the number of entries as the playoff teams.

So the chances that a non-playoff team actually gets a pick between 25 and 30 is extremely small.

This gives a fair distribution of talent with the top tier draft talent going to non-playoff teams. The middle tier of playoff talent going to non-contending teams (didn't make the conference finals). And the bottom third going to the contenders and non contending teams that just didn't get lucky in the lottery.


The Second Round would remain the same as it is today in strict reverse win-loss record order.


I think I have eliminated sufficient incentive to tank, while giving the majority of poorer performing teams the chance get the better talent in the draft.

Let me know what you guys think.

KnicksFan4Years
02-28-2014, 03:26 PM
Why is that we only hear about tanking assosciated with the NBA?

Teams in NFL have horrible seasons, but when that happens it's because of the players/coaching staff/ etc. and not bc they were tanking.....whats the difference?

16 game season. A team maybe tanks for 8-10 games at the most.

82 game season. A team could be tanking for 50+ games.

ManRam
02-28-2014, 03:53 PM
I don't think any of the players intentionally try to lose games, but I wouldn't be surprised if the owners do.

The owners (or, front offices) of most of these bad teams that are called "tankers" are rebuilding. Winning in the present doesn't matter at all. That doesn't mean the strategy is a bad one, or something the league needs to prevent. It's teams realizing what they have, realizing that it's not a lot, and looking towards the future and not being self-destructive like a lot of teams used to do.


I'm not certain these front offices WANT to lose, but for many of them it's obviously not their priority. Their priority is to win down the road. And that's something no fan should be upset with their team doing.


Tanking is a term that evolved into being when front offices started using their brains and stopped Joe Dumars-ing themselves. If you have no shot to contend immediately or in the near future, why shell out irresponsible money to stay afloat and be a perpetual 7-12 seed? Why not rebuild? There have ALWAYS been bad teams. That hasn't changed and it's not happening with any more frequency before. It's just that we now have smarter front offices that are often looking big picture and when teams are making a clear (and smart) emphasis on the future we call them tankers. But that strategy is certainly not a bad thing. It's ONLY happening in an effort to be competitive for a long period of time down the road.

NYCkid12
02-28-2014, 04:05 PM
16 game season. A team maybe tanks for 8-10 games at the most.

82 game season. A team could be tanking for 50+ games.

You missed my point, I was saying when a team is bad in the NFL and wins 3-4 games, you very rarely hear media/fans saying the team tanked the season; you usually hear "they didn't have a QB, bad Def, No O-Line, etc."

But in the NBA you always hear "they're tanking" and not "they don't have a strong PG, or solid frontcourt, or overall lack of talent"

More-Than-Most
02-28-2014, 04:07 PM
Tanking isnt the NBA biggest issue... good or great players forcing themselves out to jump to a top 2 team near the deadline is a much much bigger issue.

KnicksFan4Years
02-28-2014, 04:16 PM
Tanking isnt the NBA biggest issue... good or great players forcing themselves out to jump to a top 2 team near the deadline is a much much bigger issue.

When you can draft a player and control him for virtually the first 7 years of his career, it's the front offices that need to do a better job. They need to create cultures of winning. If you took 7 years and had the best player in the game and you couldn't build a perennial contender, then you likely wouldn't have built one even if he stayed there another 7 years.

What is really lacking in the NBA is the "Program" mentality as they have in college. Just like the Spurs keep doing things a certain way and bringing in people and players to keep it going, NBA teams need to have a philosophy/strategy in place continue to run a successful program.

SeoulBeatz
02-28-2014, 04:22 PM
When you can draft a player and control him for virtually the first 7 years of his career, it's the front offices that need to do a better job. They need to create cultures of winning. If you took 7 years and had the best player in the game and you couldn't build a perennial contender, then you likely wouldn't have built one even if he stayed there another 7 years.

What is really lacking in the NBA is the "Program" mentality as they have in college. Just like the Spurs keep doing things a certain way and bringing in people and players to keep it going, NBA teams need to have a philosophy/strategy in place continue to run a successful program.

Agreed, but that type of program culture isn't easy to duplicate. For one, you need Gregg Popovich who is BY FAR the best coach in the NBA.

NYCkid12
02-28-2014, 04:24 PM
Agreed, but that type of program culture isn't easy to duplicate. For one, you need Gregg Popovich who is BY FAR the best coach in the NBA.

Exactly my thoughts...

abe_froman
02-28-2014, 04:28 PM
What is really lacking in the NBA is the "Program" mentality as they have in college. Just like the Spurs keep doing things a certain way and bringing in people and players to keep it going, NBA teams need to have a philosophy/strategy in place continue to run a successful program.

thats harder to do,some teams do that(spurs,bulls,jazz use to be one).but there is such a high turnover in gm's and coaches,all with different philosophies ,its hard to find such stability to create one,than you have some stars who demands like "get rid of a program, if you want me to come" and so many owners/gm's willing to do that

KnicksFan4Years
02-28-2014, 04:38 PM
Agreed, but that type of program culture isn't easy to duplicate. For one, you need Gregg Popovich who is BY FAR the best coach in the NBA.

Yes but teams need to put more energy into building a successful TEAM. Owners and front offices put too much stock in getting that 1 player instead of trying to get the chemistry of players and coach right. They should look at what happens in baseball where there is no cap and a good TEAM can be built up at a low cost and be highly competitive, just as high spending on the best talents.

Pistons won a championship and made it to the conference finals perpetually without a single top 10 player.

Chemistry is the most important thing to winning basketball games. Whether that's players that highly complement each other or a system with the players to maximize it.

And that is where FOOTBALL has it right. You have to commit to a system or change the system to fit the players you have to be successful. Simply having great players isn't going to translate to winning in the NFL.

NYCkid12
02-28-2014, 04:42 PM
Yes but teams need to put more energy into building a successful TEAM. Owners and front offices put too much stock in getting that 1 player instead of trying to get the chemistry of players and coach right. They should look at what happens in baseball where there is no cap and a good TEAM can be built up at a low cost and be highly competitive, just as high spending on the best talents.

Pistons won a championship and made it to the conference finals perpetually without a single top 10 player.

Chemistry is the most important thing to winning basketball games. Whether that's players that highly complement each other or a system with the players to maximize it.

And that is where FOOTBALL has it right. You have to commit to a system or change the system to fit the players you have to be successful. Simply having great players isn't going to translate to winning in the NFL.

comparing sports is like comparing apples to oranges....

The Pistons may be the only example I can think of where a team without a top 10 player in the league has won a champonship. Anyone I am missing?

The majority of championships won are with a minimum of 1 star which is why GMs are all hunting for their one star to build around

Jamiecballer
02-28-2014, 05:06 PM
The only system that would truly eliminate tanking is one with predetermined draft positions ie the wheel.

KnicksFan4Years
02-28-2014, 05:11 PM
comparing sports is like comparing apples to oranges....

The Pistons may be the only example I can think of where a team without a top 10 player in the league has won a champonship. Anyone I am missing?

The majority of championships won are with a minimum of 1 star which is why GMs are all hunting for their one star to build around

I am comparing philosophies to win in a team sports game. That doesn't change. Did anyone predict Phoenix being as good as they are this season? No. But the chemistry worked out and they are highly competitive.

When players are part of a good team chemistry, they overachieve. And, sometimes that confidence and success translates to a player going to another level.

TorontoHuskies
02-28-2014, 05:37 PM
Give who higher odds for what? If you want to give "small market" teams better odds, then we have a problem with what constitutes a small market team. And if you want to give a team higher odds at getting international players, that's just impossible because those int'l players will be drafted based on how good they are in the draft just like any other player. I have no idea what you're trying to get at, but none of your ideas are realistic



He's talking about how only the top-3 picks are drawn for (you know, you can't jump from the 10th best odds to the 7th pick in the draft, you can only jump up to the top-3 which is why the worst record team is guaranteed a top-4 pick)

What I'm saying would be a change for the entire structure of the NBA but would reduce tanking at the same time. It would never happen because the NBA would have to restructure the rosters of all the current teams and certain teams would lose their current stars.

Basically it would be like this:
1) all current NBA players would be released from their contracts
2) Local teams get first chance at local talent

76ers would get claim on:
Evans, Bryant, Kidd-Gilchrist, Lowry, Waiters ,etc

Bobcats would get claim on:
Paul, Wall, Henson, etc

Cavilers would get claim on:
Curry, K martin, James, etc

Bulls would get claim on:
Rose, Wade, Shumpert, Iguodala, A Davis and Jabari Parker in draft.

Hawks would get claim on:
J Smith, D howard, etc

Wizards would get claim on:
Durant,

Raptors would get claim on:
Wiggins, Thompson, Ennis, Bennett ,etc

3)States with multiple teams (i.e LA) would have to be divided in sections or enter a random lottery to determine the order of who gets 1st pick (would rotate until all wanted players are claimed).

4)Initially Every team would start out with no players and have 15 picks. For each local player a team claims they forfeit a pick. Some teams may be able to select an entire local roster and use up all their picks.

5) Every international player,player from a state with no local team, or player not chosen by the local team would be placed in the draft and the team with the most picks remaining after the local player claims would get first shot at the draft. For example if the Chicago went with an all Chicago roster they wouldn't get a pick. Whereas a team that had few local players like Utah would get first since they would have most of or all their picks remaining.

6) For future drafts the rules would be similar where teams could use their picks to claim the local player (they lose their pick if they do). Teams that lack worthy local players in the draft would rotate evenly each year so that team that picked first the last draft would pick last this draft (History would be taken in consideration also to make sure it's fair).

*So basically the whole idea is to reward cities for contributing to the NBA and encourage teams to help develop players locally. The rivalries between teams would be insane for this type of league and it would be a lot more entertaining for the fans having hometown players to cheer for on each team. In this type of environment tanking wouldn't exist because teams, players and fans would be literally representing what their city means to the game and the draft would never benefit the worst teams unless it was naturally their turn.

Vinylman
02-28-2014, 06:22 PM
People are so dumb... tanking is just a sympton of the real disease (ie a lack of talent in general).

Sorry to tell you guys but if you want a better product the only way to get it is through contraction... of course a hard cap would be a step in the right direction but only a part of the best solution.

There is a reason the NFL has the best product.

lol, please
02-28-2014, 06:27 PM
I figured it out. It's a little out there, but it makes sense once you think about it. How do we stop ownerships from tanking games. Especially in the East.

We all know that the top 14 teams that have the most losing records get into the lottery and it usually leads to the worst trade deadline movements ever. Well why doesn't the NBA flip it on them? Instead of the worst records getting the most ping pong balls, why not the best records of the worst.

So if you have for instance in 2012/'13 the worst teams in the Lottery were as followed.

1. Orlando
2. Charlotte
3. Cleveland
4. Phoenix
5. New Orleans
6. Sacramento
7. Detroit
8. Washington
9. Minnesota
10. Portland
11. Philadelphia
12. Toronto
13. Dallas
14. Utah

Instead of Orlando getting most ping pong balls, Utah at #14 should. B/c they are atleast making a competitive effort in the league to improve.

To me there's the problem, you're already promoting owners to quit their seasons w/ the NBA lottery. An owner would rather trade their star player for assets and think about repeating it the following year if possible. So eliminate that. Give the teams that are making an effort, give the ownerships that are making an effort to stay competitive in your league the ability to prove they belong, instead of stuck in the middle. Make this NBA competitive. Make the games count. Instead of some franchise banking on trying to fall to that #1 spot, make them fight for that #14, 13, 12. Maybe then the trade deadline wouldn't be so dead, maybe then teams actually stop waiting for the draft and fight for the draft and who knows the season instead.

Seeing how CLE ended up w/ the 1st overall pick in last year's draft, fighting for the worst record, I think w/ this method, instead of CLE it would have been TOR. Then Dallas w/ the #2 and DET would have had the #3. Make the end of the season mean something again. Stop giving away premium young athletes to places that don't have a culture set on being competitive.

What do you guys think?

No business or team consisting of people with a true competitive nature ever lose intentionally, and never give up unless completely irrational to pursue a certain endeavor. The sooner you come to terms with this reality, the sooner we can welcome you into this brotherhood we call, mature, intelligent, adults.

Tanking is a term coined by fickle fans who can't bear to accept that the team is really doing that poorly and more times than not, cannot do better for a variety of reasons. It's also foolish to put so much stock into something which largely can be a tossup, no matter what metrics and history and intangibles they may bring to the table, this something being a draft pick.

TorontoHuskies
02-28-2014, 06:28 PM
People are so dumb... tanking is just a sympton of the real disease (ie a lack of talent in general).

Sorry to tell you guys but if you want a better product the only way to get it is through contraction... of course a hard cap would be a step in the right direction but only a part of the best solution.

There is a reason the NFL has the best product.

They have the best product because nothing is guaranteed meaning you have to actually have to play to earn your money.

abe_froman
02-28-2014, 06:30 PM
What I'm saying would be a change for the entire structure of the NBA but would reduce tanking at the same time. It would never happen because the NBA would have to restructure the rosters of all the current teams and certain teams would lose their current stars.

Basically it would be like this:
1) all current NBA players would be released from their contracts
2) Local teams get first chance at local talent

76ers would get claim on:
Evans, Bryant, Kidd-Gilchrist, Lowry, Waiters ,etc

Bobcats would get claim on:
Paul, Wall, Henson, etc

Cavilers would get claim on:
Curry, K martin, James, etc

Bulls would get claim on:
Rose, Wade, Shumpert, Iguodala, A Davis and Jabari Parker in draft.

Hawks would get claim on:
J Smith, D howard, etc

Wizards would get claim on:
Durant,

Raptors would get claim on:
Wiggins, Thompson, Ennis, Bennett ,etc

3)States with multiple teams (i.e LA) would have to be divided in sections or enter a random lottery to determine the order of who gets 1st pick (would rotate until all wanted players are claimed).

4)Initially Every team would start out with no players and have 15 picks. For each local player a team claims they forfeit a pick. Some teams may be able to select an entire local roster and use up all their picks.

5) Every international player,player from a state with no local team, or player not chosen by the local team would be placed in the draft and the team with the most picks remaining after the local player claims would get first shot at the draft. For example if the Chicago went with an all Chicago roster they wouldn't get a pick. Whereas a team that had few local players like Utah would get first since they would have most of or all their picks remaining.

6) For future drafts the rules would be similar where teams could use their picks to claim the local player (they lose their pick if they do). Teams that lack worthy local players in the draft would rotate evenly each year so that team that picked first the last draft would pick last this draft (History would be taken in consideration also to make sure it's fair).

*So basically the whole idea is to reward cities for contributing to the NBA and encourage teams to help develop players locally. The rivalries between teams would be insane for this type of league and it would be a lot more entertaining for the fans having hometown players to cheer for on each team. In this type of environment tanking wouldn't exist because teams, players and fans would be literally representing what their city means to the game and the draft would never benefit the worst teams unless it was naturally their turn.
so to eliminate tanking you propose to destroy several franchises?

not every city has top protects playing where there are franchises,so what about them? they always get the left overs, doomed to never get better?

we get it,you're happy that wiggins or whoever is from canada,thats great,just bandwagon to wherever the **** he goes(which i suspect you will)...you are way to obsessed over it

Vinylman
02-28-2014, 06:36 PM
They have the best product because nothing is guaranteed meaning you have to actually have to play to earn your money.

not true... even if you play your best you can get cut because your future cap cost isn't worth it...

The NFL is set up to insure talent parity by not having to many teams and by forcing teams to make tough choices (ie they can't stockpile talent at any cost).

TorontoHuskies
02-28-2014, 06:45 PM
so to eliminate tanking you propose to destroy several franchises?

not every city has top protects playing where there are franchises,so what about them? they always get the left overs, doomed to never get better?

we get it,you're happy that wiggins or whoever is from canada,thats great,just bandwagon to wherever the **** he goes(which i suspect you will)...you are way to obsessed over it

they don't get leftovers they get a better shot at players from non local markets. As for killing teams this would make many teams that have been dying survive..Look at what Charlotte, Atlanta, and Cavs have produced for the NBA they don't deserve to be in the positions they are and they wouldn't be under those rules .

LongIslandIcedZ
02-28-2014, 06:53 PM
There is too much gray area in between "Tanking" and "Not talented enough to win"

Maybe Orlando is busting their *** to win as many games as possible, their just not good enough to. They should be penalized for that?

Kushed
02-28-2014, 07:59 PM
Just seen chad fords idea to take the record from a combined 3 seasons.

Teams won't try to tank for 3 consecutive years otherwise the GM will get fired and the fans won't stand for it.