PDA

View Full Version : How to fix the Nba draft?



More-Than-Most
05-18-2017, 01:01 AM
How about teams can drop more than 3 spots.... Also how about at the final 20 game mark every win adds a pct point on to a lottery team wherever they end up? Say a team like the Lakers who finished 3rd ending up winning like 6 in a row that would add 6 pct points or hell 6 points on to their pct of moving up? It will stop teams from tanking and the top 3 teams really wont win enough games to really fall pct wise if they really are the worst teams in the top 3 and the teams from say 4-14 would all have much more incentive to win thus making the finals games interesting.

Of course there would be a cut off... like the 13th team wouldnt be able to have a similar pct of that in the top 3 but they could jump their pct from say 0.5 to say like 6 pct and so on down the list.

Gibby23
05-18-2017, 01:06 AM
How about teams can drop more than 3 spots.... Also how about at the final 20 game mark every win adds a pct point on to a lottery team wherever they end up? Say a team like the Lakers who finished 3rd ending up winning like 6 in a row that would add 6 pct points or hell 6 points on to their pct of moving up? It will stop teams from tanking and the top 3 teams really wont win enough games to really fall pct wise if they really are the worst teams in the top 3 and the teams from say 4-14 would all have much more incentive to win thus making the finals games interesting.

Of course there would be a cut off... like the 13th team wouldnt be able to have a similar pct of that in the top 3 but they could jump their pct from say 0.5 to say like 6 pct and so on down the list.

No. Would never happen.

LA_Raiders
05-18-2017, 01:09 AM
Interesting idea. I hate teams tanking; I don't bother watching those games. I have not enjoyed a laker game since Kobe was playing; too much tanking.

More-Than-Most
05-18-2017, 01:13 AM
No. Would never happen.

Amazing input... You excel as usual. Of course most of the ideas would never happen... Jesus christ man.

Gibby23
05-18-2017, 01:19 AM
Amazing input... You excel as usual. Of course most of the ideas would never happen... Jesus christ man.

Input on a fantasy land idea? That is the type of input it deserves.

You want a circle jerk around an idea that is flawed and has a 0% chance of even being considered? Have at it. Thread will probably be on page 2 in a day or two.

More-Than-Most
05-18-2017, 01:41 AM
Input on a fantasy land idea? That is the type of input it deserves.

You want a circle jerk around an idea that is flawed and has a 0% chance of even being considered? Have at it. Thread will probably be on page 2 in a day or two.

you bring nothing of substance to any post except constant *****ing... How about you come up with your own idea or wait for it... ignore the thread? You came in to post about a flawed fantasy idea without bringing anything of substance as usual... Just once I want you to use your brain and bring something to a thread... I will wait... Come up with any idea at all because we both know the draft lottery is flawed as ****.

FOXHOUND
05-18-2017, 02:03 AM
Does the NBA draft need fixing? Teams aren't tanking because the NBA draft rewards it, they're tanking because the NBA is currently a two team league and it's pointless to pursue winning without at least one elite player.

More-Than-Most
05-18-2017, 02:06 AM
it really does need fixing... it rewards tanking 100 percent. 2 team league or not the draft process is pretty ****. I do agree though that the super team **** is a big cause of the problem over the past 15 years plus.

More-Than-Most
05-18-2017, 02:08 AM
the heat got **** on because they finished with the same record as the bulls who faced a team that sat all their players the final game or some ****. Thus the red hot heat missed the playoffs.

valade16
05-18-2017, 02:09 AM
I think we have seen a surge of tanking recently, partly because everyone is waiting out GS/Cleveland Browns partly because the system rewards teams for doing so.

FOXHOUND
05-18-2017, 02:17 AM
But the only team to move into the top 3 this year was the 8th spot Kings. Phoenix tanked and dropped from 2 to 4. The Lakers moved from 3 to 2, because destiny demands the Balls apparently, but everyone else moved down a spot. Philly got to 3 thanks to their pick swap.

The last three years have been a rarity where the worst record got the worst pick, but before that it hadn't happened since 2004 and before that 1990.

dhopisthename
05-18-2017, 02:23 AM
you can't fix tanking without the disincentivizing it which creates massive other issues. I think a straight lottery with no odds would be the best way to completely get rid of tanking, but teams on the bubble of the playoffs would then tank to get into the lottery. You can also accidentally create a super team which is the reason they got rid of it after the Magic won 2 in a row and got shaq and webber(who was immediately traded). this isn't a new issue though. Teams have been low key tanking for quite a while. its more pronounced now, but everything is more visible now.

Bostonjorge
05-18-2017, 04:11 AM
Just add a fourth lottery pick. Fixes everything.

LOb0
05-18-2017, 04:28 AM
What's wrong with the draft? How many wins has Philly got for all its suffering?

IndyRealist
05-18-2017, 11:38 AM
Every team outside the playoffs gets 2 ping pong balls. Every team eliminated in the 1st round gets 1. Draw ALL picks 1-22. Completely eliminates tanking. There's no incentive to be worst, and there's very little incentive to try and miss the playoffs, which would be weighed against a minimum of 2 extra games of income on national TV. The bonus is that 1st round exits could get really good players, and propel them into contention, making for more parity and teams with a legit shot at a title.

You simply can't say "we need to help bad teams get better odds" and not expect teams to TRY and be bad.

imagesrdecievin
05-18-2017, 10:52 PM
the heat got **** on because they finished with the same record as the bulls who faced a team that sat all their players the final game or some ****. Thus the red hot heat missed the playoffs.

That team that sat all of their players was the brooklyn nets...

Who didn't even own their pick.

So what does that have to do with tanking?

lakerfan85
05-18-2017, 11:37 PM
This is easy... Picks 9-14 are handed out according to the teams records.. Picks 1-8 are awarded by having a tournament to crown who gets the first pick and so on..

Scoots
05-19-2017, 12:02 AM
If you flatten it out so the picks are all equal or even close to equal then a good team that has a late injury can end up with the first overall pick, and that doesn't help parity. There has to be a way to discourage tanking AND help parity.

1. Don't allow a team to pick in the top 5 in consecutive years. If a team gets in the top 5 a 2nd time they get 5 picks added to their ending spot.

2. Owners of teams in the lottery can only attend half as many games as their team wins. Owners own teams to be the center of the show ... exclude them from the show and they won't accept tanking as easily.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
05-19-2017, 08:00 AM
I take note from the NFL. Have compensation picks if you loose big time stars in free agency. Also have 3 or 4 draft rounds once every team has a G-League team to stash players. Have the third and forth round picks unguaranteed. Compensation picks are picked at the designated rounds which they qualify after the round. Probably just scrap the lottery completely. Worst record gets first pick.

Also I probably get rid of the old Ted Stepien rule. Also probably have a lockout and have nonguaranteed contracts. But signing bonuses. But super stars can have no limit for a contract long as it fits in the hard cap salary cap. Also i'd have no vet minimum. Only players that be locked into salaries from old rules would be draft pick rookies. But doubt any of this ever happens.

IndyRealist
05-19-2017, 08:55 AM
If you flatten it out so the picks are all equal or even close to equal then a good team that has a late injury can end up with the first overall pick, and that doesn't help parity. There has to be a way to discourage tanking AND help parity.

1. Don't allow a team to pick in the top 5 in consecutive years. If a team gets in the top 5 a 2nd time they get 5 picks added to their ending spot.

2. Owners of teams in the lottery can only attend half as many games as their team wins. Owners own teams to be the center of the show ... exclude them from the show and they won't accept tanking as easily.

Even in that extremely unlikely scenario, it depends on what you mean by parity. Do you want every team to be .500, or do you want more contenders? I'd rather see 6-8 legit contenders than making bad teams average. If a borderline playoff team can get a top draft pick, that adds a potential contender.

Vinylman
05-19-2017, 09:06 AM
Does the NBA draft need fixing? Teams aren't tanking because the NBA draft rewards it, they're tanking because the NBA is currently a two team league and it's pointless to pursue winning without at least one elite player.

bingo...

the system is fine unless you want to change it to reverse order of finish

It is kind of funny that MTM is the one wanting it changed when Philly TANKED before each season by putting a joke of a roster together... at least other teams have the common decency to try and put a team together before the season and only tank after seeing their season becoming futile.

btw... I have no problem with philly doing whatever they want it is just funny that MTM points out teams that tank once the season is in progress.

Scoots
05-19-2017, 10:19 AM
I take note from the NFL. Have compensation picks if you loose big time stars in free agency. Also have 3 or 4 draft rounds once every team has a G-League team to stash players. Have the third and forth round picks unguaranteed. Compensation picks are picked at the designated rounds which they qualify after the round. Probably just scrap the lottery completely. Worst record gets first pick.

Also I probably get rid of the old Ted Stepien rule. Also probably have a lockout and have nonguaranteed contracts. But signing bonuses. But super stars can have no limit for a contract long as it fits in the hard cap salary cap. Also i'd have no vet minimum. Only players that be locked into salaries from old rules would be draft pick rookies. But doubt any of this ever happens.

I'd be fine with all of this. Bump protected players from 15 to 25 per team. 26 teams have g-league teams now, only 4 more to go for all of the teams to have one.

Rivera
05-19-2017, 10:25 AM
This is easy... Picks 9-14 are handed out according to the teams records.. Picks 1-8 are awarded by having a tournament to crown who gets the first pick and so on..

I came in just to post this. 1 game tournament for the #1 pick for the bottom 8 seeds

Or if you want to try and give an edge to the low seeds

6 team tournament bottom 2 seeds get a bye

Scoots
05-19-2017, 10:33 AM
Even in that extremely unlikely scenario, it depends on what you mean by parity. Do you want every team to be .500, or do you want more contenders? I'd rather see 6-8 legit contenders than making bad teams average. If a borderline playoff team can get a top draft pick, that adds a potential contender.

I want the distance from the best team to the 2nd tier to be smaller, and the distance from the 2nd tier to the next tier to be smaller, and to have no teams losing intentionally. I know it's not going to happen.

I have no problem with a borderline playoff team getting a top pick I just think the odds of it happening should be very small. Smaller than the chances of the worst team getting the first pick.

Scoots
05-19-2017, 10:35 AM
I came in just to post this. 1 game tournament for the #1 pick for the bottom 8 seeds

Or if you want to try and give an edge to the low seeds

6 team tournament bottom 2 seeds get a bye

I'd be fine with that too.

IndyRealist
05-19-2017, 10:46 AM
I want the distance from the best team to the 2nd tier to be smaller, and the distance from the 2nd tier to the next tier to be smaller, and to have no teams losing intentionally. I know it's not going to happen.

I have no problem with a borderline playoff team getting a top pick I just think the odds of it happening should be very small. Smaller than the chances of the worst team getting the first pick.

I don't think you can give the worst team better odds and expect that teams won't try to be the worst. That's the point, the only way to eliminate tanking is to remove all incentive to be worse than the next guy. That by itself will create more parity, since teams won't be deliberately sabotaging their rosters.

da ThRONe
05-19-2017, 01:40 PM
People are trying to solve their preceived problems from the wrong end. You're trying to fix the crime rate by farther criminalizing non violent acts. What people seem to want to propose is figuring out ways to make it difficult for bad teams to get better. Not sure how that fixes the "problem" or improves the quality of the league.

Scoots
05-19-2017, 01:42 PM
I don't think you can give the worst team better odds and expect that teams won't try to be the worst. That's the point, the only way to eliminate tanking is to remove all incentive to be worse than the next guy. That by itself will create more parity, since teams won't be deliberately sabotaging their rosters.

I think a flat lottery will make bad teams more likely to stay bad. It has been tried before to stop tanking and it was universally decided that a flat lottery is too far the other way.

I'd rather find other ways to reduce tanking, like my other suggestions (no two top 5 picks in a row, owner attendance limits)

Other ways to reduce tanking that doesn't include keeping talent from bad teams.

How about reducing league payout based on finishing record?

Get rid of salary matching in trades and allow teams to take players in trades while the team they are coming from keeps some amount of player salary.

Allow unlimited amnesties of contracts.

The above will dis-incentivize tanking and also allow teams more ways to improve than just the draft.

I'm sure we can come up with other options too.

Scoots
05-19-2017, 01:43 PM
People are trying to solve their preceived problems from the wrong end. You're trying to fix the crime rate by farther criminalizing non violent acts. What people seem to want to propose is figuring out ways to make it difficult for bad teams to get better. Not sure how that fixes the "problem" or improves the quality of the league.

Exactly.

Scoots
05-19-2017, 01:47 PM
Another proposal is the wheel were the next 30 years drafts are determined now where every team gets every pick in the draft at some point in the next 30 years.

Or go ahead and go for a flat lottery but reduce it to 5 teams. Or limit it to 5 teams and have the chances be slanted but not as heavily.

LA4life24/8
05-19-2017, 01:48 PM
Could we just make the lottery for 1-14? It could be completely shook up this way. Or i had an idea on a reddit thread once


For the lottery you have 3 tiers

1-5
6-10
11-14

Each tier has its own percentage but 1-5 all has equal value 6-10 has equal value 11-14 has equal value.

Any team from any tier can still move up to top 3 but 1-5 has highest percentage, 6-10 less and 11-14 quite a bit less obviously.

It would probably help curb tanking since your in a tier w a respective value that isnt necessarily any better than the few teams around you record wise.

Ie no need to tank from 3rd down to 1 or 9th down to 6.

Idk theres any realistic way to stop tanking but i think an idea such as this would help.

Roast it if you must but id prefer constructive/informative input

IndyRealist
05-19-2017, 01:51 PM
Another proposal is the wheel were the next 30 years drafts are determined now where every team gets every pick in the draft at some point in the next 30 years.

Or go ahead and go for a flat lottery but reduce it to 5 teams. Or limit it to 5 teams and have the chances be slanted but not as heavily.

With a 5 team lottery every non playoff team will be trying to be in the bottom 5.

LA4life24/8
05-19-2017, 01:53 PM
Also on the note of a borderline lottery team getting a high draft pick this is good. Its obviously not gonna happen every time but what if that pick is what pushes said team forward into contendency? Isnt that what the whole point is supposed to be? To helo teams become contenders. I understand that hurts teams at the bottom but its already happening this way anyway. Didnt the kings jump from 10 to 3 this year? And havent the cavs won it from the 9 spot multiple times recently?

Scoots
05-19-2017, 01:55 PM
Or, to reward teams that are trying but failing, have a second lottery for the first 5 teams that are eliminated from the playoffs for the 15th through 20th pick in the draft.

Scoots
05-19-2017, 01:58 PM
Or how about we have judges who determine the cumulative talent level of every team and order the draft based on roster talent with the worst team getting the first pick?

WestCoastSportz
05-19-2017, 01:59 PM
Tanking has become a huge issue and it can't be fun for the fans. Teams that aren't competitive resting their best players is just ridiculous. The teams that actually compete should be rewarded because the team picking 12th through 14th, have the best chances of being a playoff team the following year because thats what the NBA needs. They need competition to ramp up ratings because right now, the lottery is helping bad teams become a little bit better and they'll more than likely be a lottery team the following year.

My idea would be to give the best, non-playoff team, the best chance of getting the #1 pick. This will make the league, as a whole, much more competitive because now, even though a team isn't making the playoffs, they still have something to play for. Even though a team like Philly knows its not a playoff team, they won't constantly rest their best player (Embiid) because now they have an incentive to compete every time they're on the floor. Lets reward winning and not losing. So when a matchup with Sacramento and Denver comes up in April, it still means enough that they could possibly televise it nationally. I think this would get the fans more excited watching a product they can be proud of. The one flaw would be that it keeps a truly bad team bad, but the best player to come out of a draft isn't always the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even 5th picks. Players like Giannis Antetokounmpo (15th), Kawhi Leonard (15th), Dario Saric (12th) and Steph Curry (7th) have been the gems of their draft classes and there's more.

IndyRealist
05-19-2017, 02:00 PM
I think a flat lottery will make bad teams more likely to stay bad. It has been tried before to stop tanking and it was universally decided that a flat lottery is too far the other way.

I'd rather find other ways to reduce tanking, like my other suggestions (no two top 5 picks in a row, owner attendance limits)

Other ways to reduce tanking that doesn't include keeping talent from bad teams.

How about reducing league payout based on finishing record?

Get rid of salary matching in trades and allow teams to take players in trades while the team they are coming from keeps some amount of player salary.

Allow unlimited amnesties of contracts.

The above will dis-incentivize tanking and also allow teams more ways to improve than just the draft.

I'm sure we can come up with other options too.

Flat lottery was the first thing they tried and they changed it rather quickly. I suspect you would not see nearly so many god awful teams if there was no incentive to be god awful.

Teams already lose money for tanking due to poor attendance. They do it because they believe that it will lead them to being a top team if they can land those high draft picks. Monetary punishments likely won't change anything. Plus, owners would have to vote to deliberately set themselves up to lose money, and that's not going to happen.

Unlimited amnesty only helps big markets. Small market teams can't afford to pay guys who are not playing for them.

Salary matching is designed to prevent super teams. Again, removing it would only help a handful of big market teams.

You would end up with even less parity than there is now, and allow LA, NY, BOS, and CHI to dominate the league.

Scoots
05-19-2017, 02:00 PM
Also on the note of a borderline lottery team getting a high draft pick this is good. Its obviously not gonna happen every time but what if that pick is what pushes said team forward into contendency? Isnt that what the whole point is supposed to be? To helo teams become contenders. I understand that hurts teams at the bottom but its already happening this way anyway. Didnt the kings jump from 10 to 3 this year? And havent the cavs won it from the 9 spot multiple times recently?

Or teams who are struggling to move up from the middle will tank to get out of the playoffs to have a chance at a much better pick and the playoffs will get even more lopsided.

IndyRealist
05-19-2017, 02:03 PM
Tanking has become a huge issue and it can't be fun for the fans. Teams that aren't competitive resting their best players is just ridiculous. The teams that actually compete should be rewarded because the team picking 12th through 14th, have the best chances of being a playoff team the following year because thats what the NBA needs. They need competition to ramp up ratings because right now, the lottery is helping bad teams become a little bit better and they'll more than likely be a lottery team the following year.

My idea would be to give the best, non-playoff team, the best chance of getting the #1 pick. This will make the league, as a whole, much more competitive because now, even though a team isn't making the playoffs, they still have something to play for. Even though a team like Philly knows its not a playoff team, they won't constantly rest their best player (Embiid) because now they have an incentive to compete every time they're on the floor. Lets reward winning and not losing. So when a matchup with Sacramento and Denver comes up in April, it still means enough that they could possibly televise it nationally. I think this would get the fans more excited watching a product they can be proud of. The one flaw would be that it keeps a truly bad team bad, but the best player to come out of a draft isn't always the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even 5th picks. Players like Giannis Antetokounmpo (15th), Kawhi Leonard (15th), Dario Saric (12th) and Steph Curry (7th) have been the gems of their draft classes and there's more.

That's even more extreme than my universally reviled flat lottery.

Scoots
05-19-2017, 02:04 PM
Tanking has become a huge issue and it can't be fun for the fans. Teams that aren't competitive resting their best players is just ridiculous. The teams that actually compete should be rewarded because the team picking 12th through 14th, have the best chances of being a playoff team the following year because thats what the NBA needs. They need competition to ramp up ratings because right now, the lottery is helping bad teams become a little bit better and they'll more than likely be a lottery team the following year.

My idea would be to give the best, non-playoff team, the best chance of getting the #1 pick. This will make the league, as a whole, much more competitive because now, even though a team isn't making the playoffs, they still have something to play for. Even though a team like Philly knows its not a playoff team, they won't constantly rest their best player (Embiid) because now they have an incentive to compete every time they're on the floor. Lets reward winning and not losing. So when a matchup with Sacramento and Denver comes up in April, it still means enough that they could possibly televise it nationally. I think this would get the fans more excited watching a product they can be proud of. The one flaw would be that it keeps a truly bad team bad, but the best player to come out of a draft isn't always the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even 5th picks. Players like Giannis Antetokounmpo (15th), Kawhi Leonard (15th), Dario Saric (12th) and Steph Curry (7th) have been the gems of their draft classes and there's more.

The problem is that the teams at the bottom of the playoffs would have huge incentive to tank to JUST miss the playoffs and have a change at #1.

Scoots
05-19-2017, 02:12 PM
Flat lottery was the first thing they tried and they changed it rather quickly. I suspect you would not see nearly so many god awful teams if there was no incentive to be god awful.

Teams already lose money for tanking due to poor attendance. They do it because they believe that it will lead them to being a top team if they can land those high draft picks. Monetary punishments likely won't change anything. Plus, owners would have to vote to deliberately set themselves up to lose money, and that's not going to happen.

Unlimited amnesty only helps big markets. Small market teams can't afford to pay guys who are not playing for them.

Salary matching is designed to prevent super teams. Again, removing it would only help a handful of big market teams.

You would end up with even less parity than there is now, and allow LA, NY, BOS, and CHI to dominate the league.

Or god awful teams would be far more likely to stay god awful year after year.

Tanking teams do lose money, they should lose more. If they still tank despite the money loss, increase the money loss until you find a point that it hurts enough to get them to stop. The point is that there are multiple things to try that have not been tried before. And like you said, owners are volunteering to lose money through tanking already.

Unlimited amnesty helps small market teams that have to overpay to get free agents, and when they flop they are screwed for 4 years. With unlimited amnesty the Grizzlies could offer a max contract this offseason by dumping Parsons, Wright, and Daniels.

Salary matching makes it harder to improve teams. Find another way to restrict super teams.

Scoots
05-19-2017, 02:32 PM
MLB has tanking, people act like it doesn't but that's because they embrace the tank and the draft is far less important in MLB to winning a title.

Here is Bill James' solution:




Here’s my solution. Create a system in which:

Each NBA team has an agreed-upon amount of money that it can use to sign players coming into the league, and
Each player may be drafted not by one team, but by three teams.

In other words, permit a bidding war—thus permitting competition—but a limited bidding war. The bidding war is limited because:

Only three teams can participate for one player, and
Those teams have a limited amount of money that they can spend.

How would this work in practice? Let’s say that each team has a “rookie fund,” and there are limits as to how much each team can put into that fund ($7 million in one year, $25 million over four years) and limits as to how rapidly they can spend out of that fund ($20 million in one year, $45 million over four years). Don’t focus on the precise dollar amounts; that would require negotiations among the teams. The key is each player can be drafted by three different teams. If there are five “special” players in the draft, there aren’t five teams that have a shot at them; there are 15—and really, it is more than 15, if we assume that draft rights can be traded or sold. Let’s say you have a franchise that is determined to acquire, let’s say, Brandon Ingram. In the current system the only way you can take a shot at him is to acquire one of two draft picks—the first, or the second. What if there were six shots instead of just two?

If there were six teams that were going to get a chance to draft Brandon Ingram, two or three of them would put that opportunity on the market, and offer to trade the rights to an Ingram draft pick in exchange for some other package of talent. One of the six worst teams is going to say, well, OK, we have the right to draft Brandon Ingram, but there is no way we can sign him because

We don’t have enough money in our account.
We play in Portland, Oregon, and we don’t think he wants to come to the West Coast.
We already have a player at that position that we like better.
Our scouts don’t think Ingram is as good as he is believed to be.

Some team is going to put its rights to Brandon Ingram on the market for some reason. And what that means is, if you’re the general manager of an NBA team that is 35–47 or 38–44 or something, you don’t have to ruin your team in order to position yourself to get a really good player. There is another pathway open to you.

Look, the problem is that the draft system creates a huge reward for having a bad team. What I am proposing is to break that one huge reward down into a system of much smaller rewards that go to many more teams. The team that finishes 29–53, out of contention … it still gets compensation for its failures. It gets one of the six tickets for Ben Simmons or Brandon Ingram. It can cash in that ticket for an immediate payoff or it can actually try to sign Brandon Ingram. You can take small steps forward, rather than trying to elbow yourself into a position from which you can launch a great leap forward.

If that team can’t sign him … well, the money remains in the account for next year. Two-thirds of draft picks go unfulfilled. You can take some of the money and go after Brice Johnson, who you also drafted in the second round, and leave some of it in the kitty for next year. (If you have three draft picks for each player, then the last draft pick for Brice Johnson isn’t going to go before the late second round.) The draft would also certainly have to be longer. Five rounds would be more or less equivalent to two, since you wouldn't have exactly the same 30 players drafted three times each.

Scoots
05-19-2017, 02:38 PM
Or, from FiveThirtyEight:

The team with the wins after they are eliminated from the playoffs gets the 1st pick, etc.

and:


We could eliminate tanking by creating a world in which nobody owned their own pick, but instead owned stock market-style futures on other teams’. Teams get to pick other teams’ finishing positions in the following year as their own. The worst team gets to pick the team whose draft position they would like to have next year (not their own), next the second worst team would pick whose draft position they want, etc.

warfelg
05-19-2017, 03:37 PM
Could we just make the lottery for 1-14? It could be completely shook up this way. Or i had an idea on a reddit thread once


For the lottery you have 3 tiers

1-5
6-10
11-14

Each tier has its own percentage but 1-5 all has equal value 6-10 has equal value 11-14 has equal value.

Any team from any tier can still move up to top 3 but 1-5 has highest percentage, 6-10 less and 11-14 quite a bit less obviously.

It would probably help curb tanking since your in a tier w a respective value that isnt necessarily any better than the few teams around you record wise.

Ie no need to tank from 3rd down to 1 or 9th down to 6.

Idk theres any realistic way to stop tanking but i think an idea such as this would help.

Roast it if you must but id prefer constructive/informative input

This has been my take for a long time. Tiered odds makes it a lot less imperative to be the worst. Except my proposal includes having the 8 seed from both conferences be included.

warfelg
05-19-2017, 03:46 PM
Or, from FiveThirtyEight:

The team with the wins after they are eliminated from the playoffs gets the 1st pick, etc.

and:

I think the thing here is you don't fix tanking with any of these issues.

What you have to do reduce the necessity to be the worst team. If you do things do the worst team doesn't have a measurable advantage to a top 3 pick over say 2, 3, 4, maybe 5; and you give bonuses for certain spots; now it doesn't matter if you tank or not.

BTW how laughable were Luke Waltons "we were rewarded for not tanking" statements?

Scoots
05-19-2017, 03:57 PM
I think the thing here is you don't fix tanking with any of these issues.

What you have to do reduce the necessity to be the worst team. If you do things do the worst team doesn't have a measurable advantage to a top 3 pick over say 2, 3, 4, maybe 5; and you give bonuses for certain spots; now it doesn't matter if you tank or not.

BTW how laughable were Luke Waltons "we were rewarded for not tanking" statements?

All teams that end up in the top 5 that ever talk about not tanking are a joke.

warfelg
05-19-2017, 04:24 PM
All teams that end up in the top 5 that ever talk about not tanking are a joke.

For the most part yes. I do think there are a few genuine bad teams and injury stricken teams from time to time that are there.

Scoots
05-19-2017, 04:30 PM
For the most part yes. I do think there are a few genuine bad teams and injury stricken teams from time to time that are there.

True, and even those teams should never mention tanking.

warfelg
05-19-2017, 05:08 PM
True, and even those teams should never mention tanking.

One thing you can say about us Philly fans is we never thought any different. We were tanking. Lol.

Scoots
05-19-2017, 08:45 PM
One thing you can say about us Philly fans is we never thought any different. We were tanking. Lol.

True, but there is debate about when it started and when it was ending :)

warfelg
05-19-2017, 11:01 PM
It started June 27th 2013. Died in April 2016.

Scoots
05-20-2017, 04:07 PM
It started June 27th 2013. Died in April 2016.

See! :)

LA4life24/8
05-20-2017, 04:41 PM
This has been my take for a long time. Tiered odds makes it a lot less imperative to be the worst. Except my proposal includes having the 8 seed from both conferences be included.

I mean i think its a good idea. The bottom teams NEED a way to improve the draft is the best way for this to happen. Because of the nature of the game 1 great player can make a pretty big difference to a bad team

GREATNESS ONE
05-20-2017, 04:47 PM
Only people who didn't watch Lakers game would think that Luke Walton statement was a joke or hilarious. We went on a ****ing win streak at the end of the season. I don't think tank was in mind, especially how Phoenix came with that tank at the end. It flipped, because we didn't fully embrace the tank, Lakers are just a very very young team.

crewfan13
05-20-2017, 11:26 PM
To me, all this focus on stopping tanking isn't going to improve the quality of games or teams in the league. So a guy like melo doesn't play the last 5 games because his team is out of the playoffs. Who cares, it's not like fans are flocking to that game anyway.

All of these anti tanking solutions seem to assume that the quality of basketball improves drastically if teams don't sit their players. But honestly, it probably doesn't. I'm a bucks fan and the bucks spent the better part of 15 years or so in purgatory. They were rarely bad enough for an early pick but never good enough to even win a playoff series. We constantly made the types of win now moves the anti taking crowd seems to encourage, like overpaying for free agents like drew Gooden and John salmons or trading for guys like monta Ellis and swinging a deadline deal for JJ Redick. Constantly winning between 35-43 or so games a year with very little chance of improving isn't fun for fans either. Just about every city would have a decent portion of fans that drop off if that quality of team happened for 6-8 years.

The issue in the NBA isn't tanking. It's that teams, especially smaller market teams, view the draft as the only legit way to significantly improve their team. You fix tanking by providing an alternate route to making your team better. It'll never happen, but you do that by eliminating max contracts and fixing the issues with the "soft" cap that allows a team like golden state to sign Durant then use their bird rights to lock up curry. Or not allowing Lebron to basically opt out of his contract every year so Cleveland can use their cap without him then he signs over the cap.

Scoots
05-20-2017, 11:58 PM
To me, all this focus on stopping tanking isn't going to improve the quality of games or teams in the league. So a guy like melo doesn't play the last 5 games because his team is out of the playoffs. Who cares, it's not like fans are flocking to that game anyway.

All of these anti tanking solutions seem to assume that the quality of basketball improves drastically if teams don't sit their players. But honestly, it probably doesn't. I'm a bucks fan and the bucks spent the better part of 15 years or so in purgatory. They were rarely bad enough for an early pick but never good enough to even win a playoff series. We constantly made the types of win now moves the anti taking crowd seems to encourage, like overpaying for free agents like drew Gooden and John salmons or trading for guys like monta Ellis and swinging a deadline deal for JJ Redick. Constantly winning between 35-43 or so games a year with very little chance of improving isn't fun for fans either. Just about every city would have a decent portion of fans that drop off if that quality of team happened for 6-8 years.

The issue in the NBA isn't tanking. It's that teams, especially smaller market teams, view the draft as the only legit way to significantly improve their team. You fix tanking by providing an alternate route to making your team better. It'll never happen, but you do that by eliminating max contracts and fixing the issues with the "soft" cap that allows a team like golden state to sign Durant then use their bird rights to lock up curry. Or not allowing Lebron to basically opt out of his contract every year so Cleveland can use their cap without him then he signs over the cap.

There were proposals about giving teams other ways to improve rather than just the draft. And it's not about small market vs large market ... it's about good Owner/GM vs bad owner/GM.

da ThRONe
05-21-2017, 12:11 AM
To me, all this focus on stopping tanking isn't going to improve the quality of games or teams in the league. So a guy like melo doesn't play the last 5 games because his team is out of the playoffs. Who cares, it's not like fans are flocking to that game anyway.

All of these anti tanking solutions seem to assume that the quality of basketball improves drastically if teams don't sit their players. But honestly, it probably doesn't. I'm a bucks fan and the bucks spent the better part of 15 years or so in purgatory. They were rarely bad enough for an early pick but never good enough to even win a playoff series. We constantly made the types of win now moves the anti taking crowd seems to encourage, like overpaying for free agents like drew Gooden and John salmons or trading for guys like monta Ellis and swinging a deadline deal for JJ Redick. Constantly winning between 35-43 or so games a year with very little chance of improving isn't fun for fans either. Just about every city would have a decent portion of fans that drop off if that quality of team happened for 6-8 years.

The issue in the NBA isn't tanking. It's that teams, especially smaller market teams, view the draft as the only legit way to significantly improve their team. You fix tanking by providing an alternate route to making your team better. It'll never happen, but you do that by eliminating max contracts and fixing the issues with the "soft" cap that allows a team like golden state to sign Durant then use their bird rights to lock up curry. Or not allowing Lebron to basically opt out of his contract every year so Cleveland can use their cap without him then he signs over the cap.


This is exactly what I mean by solving problems from the wrong end. Make the league more competitive with the proper rule changes and the incentive to tank becomes irrelevant. With so much of the top end talent concentrate on a handful of teams the best outcome is to collect the most amount of future superstar players on cheap contracts and that means drafting them.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
05-21-2017, 08:58 AM
Could eliminate the one and done young kids out of school. Make them eligible at the age of 22 or higher.

Scoots
05-21-2017, 09:10 AM
This is exactly what I mean by solving problems from the wrong end. Make the league more competitive with the proper rule changes and the incentive to tank becomes irrelevant. With so much of the top end talent concentrate on a handful of teams the best outcome is to collect the most amount of future superstar players on cheap contracts and that means drafting them.

But that doesn't solve what happened with the Warriors where they drafted their core 7, 11, and 35. The Kings have 5, 10, and 33 IIRC so theoretically they could do it this year. Teams think they need to tank to get elite talent, but right now teams are not encouraged to develop their young talent, rather they are encouraged to rush them, and with the draft the best talent is on the worst teams where they develop bad habits and it takes so long to develop with top draft picks that teams end up losing or trading away the first wave of talent before they have built a "team". To fix that it needs to be easier to develop a team around a player.

Scoots
05-21-2017, 09:14 AM
Could eliminate the one and done young kids out of school. Make them eligible at the age of 22 or higher.

I agree. Not only would teams get more developed players which would give them better performers for the first years of their only cheap contracts, also theoretically teams will be more able to evaluate players in the draft so the teams higher in the draft will have fewer busts.

da ThRONe
05-21-2017, 10:32 AM
But that doesn't solve what happened with the Warriors where they drafted their core 7, 11, and 35. The Kings have 5, 10, and 33 IIRC so theoretically they could do it this year. Teams think they need to tank to get elite talent, but right now teams are not encouraged to develop their young talent, rather they are encouraged to rush them, and with the draft the best talent is on the worst teams where they develop bad habits and it takes so long to develop with top draft picks that teams end up losing or trading away the first wave of talent before they have built a "team". To fix that it needs to be easier to develop a team around a player.

The reason they had enough cap space to sign Durant is because of max contracts. Curry took a safe deal that has paid off for the Warriors but they couldn't be out bid with Klay so they had the room to add Durant. Outside of that I have no problem with what the Warriors did. Good for them drafting in such an outstanding fashion.

Aust
05-21-2017, 05:11 PM
But the only team to move into the top 3 this year was the 8th spot Kings. Phoenix tanked and dropped from 2 to 4. The Lakers moved from 3 to 2, because destiny demands the Balls apparently, but everyone else moved down a spot. Philly got to 3 thanks to their pick swap.

The last three years have been a rarity where the worst record got the worst pick, but before that it hadn't happened since 2004 and before that 1990.

We moved up because our win streak at the end. The basketball Gods approved :)

crewfan13
05-22-2017, 09:18 AM
The reason they had enough cap space to sign Durant is because of max contracts. Curry took a safe deal that has paid off for the Warriors but they couldn't be out bid with Klay so they had the room to add Durant. Outside of that I have no problem with what the Warriors did. Good for them drafting in such an outstanding fashion.

Not only that, but because of max contracts, money was almost completely out of the equation for Durant when deciding on what to do in free agency. He could have gotten more to stay in okc, but after he decided to leave, everyone he met with could have offered the same deal.

Sure, there's a chance that Durant still takes a little less money to go play in golden state, but I'm sure it's a more difficult decision if there were other teams offering significantly more money.

The NBA labor deal is a pretty good dea for the players, so it's not going to change, but that's really the big issue. Any deal that truly aims to level the playing field more, which should in turn improve the quality of the league and make tanking not such a desirable option, would hurt the players earning. The mid level players would be the ones especially impacted. You'd have to take away max contractsand probably do away with the exceptions and rights that allow teams to go way over cap and still improve. The top 20 or so players in the league wild make a ton of extra money, which would probably force them to split up more, but everyone else would make less. So there's no way to get to that point.

Scoots
05-22-2017, 01:00 PM
Not only that, but because of max contracts, money was almost completely out of the equation for Durant when deciding on what to do in free agency. He could have gotten more to stay in okc, but after he decided to leave, everyone he met with could have offered the same deal.

Sure, there's a chance that Durant still takes a little less money to go play in golden state, but I'm sure it's a more difficult decision if there were other teams offering significantly more money.

The NBA labor deal is a pretty good dea for the players, so it's not going to change, but that's really the big issue. Any deal that truly aims to level the playing field more, which should in turn improve the quality of the league and make tanking not such a desirable option, would hurt the players earning. The mid level players would be the ones especially impacted. You'd have to take away max contractsand probably do away with the exceptions and rights that allow teams to go way over cap and still improve. The top 20 or so players in the league wild make a ton of extra money, which would probably force them to split up more, but everyone else would make less. So there's no way to get to that point.

People keep bringing up Durant to the Warriors as an issue to fix ... there is no need to fix something that will NEVER happen again. The Warriors were built through the draft, signed a particularly perfect set of veteran free agents, hired the right coach for them, all of which is incredibly unlikely ... then add that they would have matched Barnes. The only reason they could pay KD is because the players union refused to smooth the cap increase so the Warriors could look at Barnes and KD and pay just a little more to upgrade from Barnes to KD ... but that huge amount sudden of cap space on top of a complete great team isn't going to happen ever again.

I don't disagree that the league needs to change, but the current CBA took steps to reduce "super teams" odds of happening, and other issues are more prevalent.

crewfan13
05-22-2017, 08:16 PM
Maybe this exact situation won't happen, but the general idea can still happen in a few different ways. One is like Lebron, where he essentially takes one year deals where he can opt out, let his team eat up their cap, then sign him beyond the cap. There's nothing stopping from more guys from doing that, especially if you have an owner willing to throw a ton of money in to try to get a ring.

Or if a team drafts a stud or two in the same or very close drafts. It may be difficult to convince free agents to come play with young guys. But if you save your young players and don't sign then prior to hitting restricted free agency, you can sign free agents with your cap, the extend your young guy or match his RFA contract beyond the cap. That's really the crux of the issue. Sure the Durant issue may be a relatively unique situation, but it's a very good highlight of the greater issue. And I don't blame Durant or GS for this. The league practically encourages it.

still1ballin
05-22-2017, 11:18 PM
How about teams can drop more than 3 spots.... Also how about at the final 20 game mark every win adds a pct point on to a lottery team wherever they end up? Say a team like the Lakers who finished 3rd ending up winning like 6 in a row that would add 6 pct points or hell 6 points on to their pct of moving up? It will stop teams from tanking and the top 3 teams really wont win enough games to really fall pct wise if they really are the worst teams in the top 3 and the teams from say 4-14 would all have much more incentive to win thus making the finals games interesting.

Of course there would be a cut off... like the 13th team wouldnt be able to have a similar pct of that in the top 3 but they could jump their pct from say 0.5 to say like 6 pct and so on down the list.

You mad you didn't get the lakers pick?

GREATNESS ONE
05-23-2017, 12:05 AM
You mad you didn't get the lakers pick?

lol he's a hater 100. That's ok.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
09-09-2017, 04:06 PM
This maybe the thread you were looking for Scoots.

Scoots
09-10-2017, 11:05 PM
This maybe the thread you were looking for Scoots.

I think it is. Thanks.

da ThRONe
09-11-2017, 06:36 AM
Not only that, but because of max contracts, money was almost completely out of the equation for Durant when deciding on what to do in free agency. He could have gotten more to stay in okc, but after he decided to leave, everyone he met with could have offered the same deal.

Sure, there's a chance that Durant still takes a little less money to go play in golden state, but I'm sure it's a more difficult decision if there were other teams offering significantly more money.

The NBA labor deal is a pretty good dea for the players, so it's not going to change, but that's really the big issue. Any deal that truly aims to level the playing field more, which should in turn improve the quality of the league and make tanking not such a desirable option, would hurt the players earning. The mid level players would be the ones especially impacted. You'd have to take away max contractsand probably do away with the exceptions and rights that allow teams to go way over cap and still improve. The top 20 or so players in the league wild make a ton of extra money, which would probably force them to split up more, but everyone else would make less. So there's no way to get to that point.

I don't think you have to do away with max contracts just adjust them. That combine with a more hardcap should go along way and evening out the talent. Without completely leveling the monetary balance between average players and star players.

Scoots
09-12-2017, 09:13 AM
I don't think you have to do away with max contracts just adjust them. That combine with a more hardcap should go along way and evening out the talent. Without completely leveling the monetary balance between average players and star players.

Regardless of the cap model, the draft is king, and the NBA owners are not likely to change the rules to make it more likely they lose their draft picks that do work out. The cap rules have changed a lot over the years and the one constant is that the best owners and GMs get the most out of the rules. If there was a hard cap next year it would be higher than the soft cap is now so I'm not sure it would make a significant difference in the distribution of talent.

One way to improve the draft would be to not allow players to enter the draft until they are 4 years out of high school. More data means fewer mistakes.

Scoots
09-15-2017, 09:46 AM
The NBA competition comittee made their recommendation and it's supposedly to make the worst 3 teams have an equal 14% chance at the first pick and a sliding scale after that. Previously the team with the 3rd worst record had a 15.6% chance at the top pick. So, they have made it considerably less desirable to have a worst 3 record, and made it slightly more desirable to miss the playoffs. They went from a 61% chance of a bottom 3 team getting the top pick to a 42% chance, which also means they went from a 39% chance of a non worst 3 team getting the top pick to a 58% chance of it happening. If too good a team wins the lottery a little too often I predict they'll change the rates around again.

Supposedly set for 2019 draft if it's adopted.

Vinylman
09-15-2017, 09:58 AM
The NBA competition comittee made their recommendation and it's supposedly to make the worst 3 teams have an equal 14% chance at the first pick and a sliding scale after that. Previously the team with the 3rd worst record had a 15.6% chance at the top pick. So, they have made it considerably less desirable to have a worst 3 record, and made it slightly more desirable to miss the playoffs. They went from a 61% chance of a bottom 3 team getting the top pick to a 42% chance, which also means they went from a 39% chance of a non worst 3 team getting the top pick to a 58% chance of it happening. If too good a team wins the lottery a little too often I predict they'll change the rates around again.

Supposedly set for 2019 draft if it's adopted.

If the worse teams start losing the top 3 picks consistently and the guys in the mid-teens get the pick it will be horrible for talent distribution... I guess the small markets won't care that much though since they will make money either way...

The concentration of talent is a long term problem for the league... this only creates the potential for it to get much worse.

warfelg
09-15-2017, 11:23 AM
The NBA competition comittee made their recommendation and it's supposedly to make the worst 3 teams have an equal 14% chance at the first pick and a sliding scale after that. Previously the team with the 3rd worst record had a 15.6% chance at the top pick. So, they have made it considerably less desirable to have a worst 3 record, and made it slightly more desirable to miss the playoffs. They went from a 61% chance of a bottom 3 team getting the top pick to a 42% chance, which also means they went from a 39% chance of a non worst 3 team getting the top pick to a 58% chance of it happening. If too good a team wins the lottery a little too often I predict they'll change the rates around again.

Supposedly set for 2019 draft if it's adopted.

I personally love it. It's what I've been asking for out of the reform.

Scoots
09-15-2017, 12:53 PM
I personally love it. It's what I've been asking for out of the reform.

Yeah ... it's fine, but it's a pretty big increase in the odds and that could result in some strange results. They considered it for next year ... if they did that and the Brooklyn pick ended up #1 we'd never have heard the end of the conspiracy theories.

McAllen Tx
09-18-2017, 09:30 AM
My idea to fix tanking would be to have all non-playoffs teams winning % after their 50th game to decide the order of the draft. Best winning % in a teams last 32 games gets the 1st pick. (That's non-playoff teams. ) Second best winning % gets the 2nd pick and so forth for all 14 teams.

After teams 50th game there is close to 2 weeks until the trading deadline. So instead of teams looking to trade players to tank the rest of the way every team will be looking to trade to get better. Every game will be important down the stretch. A top team could be playing for home court in the playoffs while the bad team would be playing for draft positioning.

Every team would be playing to win. Reward winning.

That's how IMO you stop tanking. Sure you can have a borderline playoff team that went on a winning streak at the end of the season that can tank 2-3 games and get a top 3 pick but they put themselves in that position by winning.

warfelg
09-18-2017, 09:39 AM
My idea to fix tanking would be to have all non-playoffs teams winning % after their 50th game to decide the order of the draft. Best winning % in a teams last 32 games gets the 1st pick. (That's non-playoff teams. ) Second best winning % gets the 2nd pick and so forth for all 14 teams.

After teams 50th game there is close to 2 weeks until the trading deadline. So instead of teams looking to trade players to tank the rest of the way every team will be looking to trade to get better. Every game will be important down the stretch. A top team could be playing for home court in the playoffs while the bad team would be playing for draft positioning.

Every team would be playing to win. Reward winning.

That's how IMO you stop tanking. Sure you can have a borderline playoff team that went on a winning streak at the end of the season that can tank 2-3 games and get a top 3 pick but they put themselves in that position by winning.

Reason why you'll never see that is the trade market. I saw some GMs (or assistant can't remember which) get asked about it and he said that those teams would effectively kill the trade market. Your taking teams that would traditionally be a seller and making them a buyer.

warfelg
09-18-2017, 09:39 AM
Yeah ... it's fine, but it's a pretty big increase in the odds and that could result in some strange results. They considered it for next year ... if they did that and the Brooklyn pick ended up #1 we'd never have heard the end of the conspiracy theories.

You have those theories anyways. All I've wanted was some type of flattening that the difference between 1 and 6 wasn't so big that there was a need.

Next step is to include the 8 seeds from both conferences in the lotto.

McAllen Tx
09-18-2017, 10:20 AM
Reason why you'll never see that is the trade market. I saw some GMs (or assistant can't remember which) get asked about it and he said that those teams would effectively kill the trade market. Your taking teams that would traditionally be a seller and making them a buyer.

Superstars will always be in a position to demand trades in the NBA and teams will always have to make the choice of trading him or gambling on losing him for nothing. The trades that it will die out are the tanking trades.

There will still be cap clearing trades. Teams will always take on bad contracts if the trading team makes it worth it. Trades that are totally lateral on paper talent wise only difference being money owed.

I know it would never happen cause it would make GMs jobs harder and players wouldn't get as long contracts as they are getting now. We will see a lot of 2 year deals and that's not gonna happen.

Imagine that though, a league that rewards winning and competency.

warfelg
09-18-2017, 10:26 AM
GMs aren't interested because lateral moves don't do anything. It's like reshuffling chairs on the Titantic, in the end it makes no difference.

So if everything is dependent on so many wins after...; what motivation do teams have in moving anyone? Why would I trade a guy who contributes for my team but could be a role players elsewhere. A championship contender doesn't have to road to improve because the team with the asset to trade loses automatically but decreasing the chance to win.

GMs and Owners don't want that. Suddenly it's the middle teams that trade out everyone, and guess what? Those guys get traded to bad teams rather than good ones because bad teams theoretically have assets to trade out that good teams don't.

Bad contract trades are a dying breed anyways since GMs are becoming smarter about what they want, contracts given out, and knowing that they need space since the cap will be flatter.