PDA

View Full Version : New Lottery System Approved



Westbrook36
09-28-2017, 06:26 PM
Under the new draft lottery rules, the teams with the three worst records will all have 14 percent odds to land the No. 1 pick

Starts in 2019

http://www.nba.com/article/2017/09/28/changes-lottery-resting-players

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/report-nba-approves-draft-lottery-reform-to-prevent-tanking-and-player-resting-rules/

Thoughts?

ChiTownPacerFan
09-28-2017, 06:35 PM
No bueno.

There's now over a 35% chance that the number 1 pick will go to a team out of the top 5 in the lottery. You aren't disincentivizing tanking, you're making it so that bad teams are going to remain bad longer. Especially small market teams.

More-Than-Most
09-28-2017, 06:48 PM
lol the final 2 months of the season will now mean teams from 5-15 will tank hella hard instead of just the top 5 teams tanking hard. :shrug:

The NBA should just make this their new logo for the final 2 months of the season

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Battle-tanks-ps3-icon.png

More-Than-Most
09-28-2017, 06:52 PM
Holy **** that kings pick that goes to either the sixers or celtics could be incredible : )

ChiTownPacerFan
09-28-2017, 06:55 PM
Right, if you're the 9th, 10th, 11th worst team, you're going to be trotting your D league team out there to drop a few spots and give yourself closer to a 10 percent chance to win the top pick.

FlashBolt
09-28-2017, 07:03 PM
No bueno.

There's now over a 35% chance that the number 1 pick will go to a team out of the top 5 in the lottery. You aren't disincentivizing tanking, you're making it so that bad teams are going to remain bad longer. Especially small market teams.

And you're ruining the quality of games if you think tanking is the formula to success.. let's face it, regular season has become terrible lately because these guys are playing like they want to lose.

More-Than-Most
09-28-2017, 07:07 PM
And you're ruining the quality of games if you think tanking is the formula to success.. let's face it, regular season has become terrible lately because these guys are playing like they want to lose.

cant blame that on tanking teams... blame that on the super team **** that started with the celtics years back all the way till now... Teams cant get guys to come to their team because everyone wants to play with everyone else so now bad teams either hit on a superstar like an AD or they are ****ed and doomed to dwell in the lands of mediocrity... If you want to stop the tanking it should start with limiting superteams.... I get why people hate on how the sixers tanked but all those bad years as a fan were worth it than when we were relevant with an iggy etc and basically stuck in purgatory.

dhopisthename
09-28-2017, 07:08 PM
I don't think this changes as much as they would want. there is still incentive to tank like the 76ers did you just have worse odds. The biggest difference as mentioned is that now you might see teams tank in the 7-10 range.

FlashBolt
09-28-2017, 07:16 PM
cant blame that on tanking teams... blame that on the super team **** that started with the celtics years back all the way till now... Teams cant get guys to come to their team because everyone wants to play with everyone else so now bad teams either hit on a superstar like an AD or they are ****ed and doomed to dwell in the lands of mediocrity... If you want to stop the tanking it should start with limiting superteams.... I get why people hate on how the sixers tanked but all those bad years as a fan were worth it than when we were relevant with an iggy etc and basically stuck in purgatory.

Limiting superteams? That doesn't even make sense. Teams are supposed to be competing every season. No one wants to sign with the Sixers or any other "tanking" team because they don't want to waste their seasons on a team that doesn't and won't be able to compete. When you make it blatant that your team is tanking, the quality of games suck and that's when NBA should step up. Same thing with players resting. A player shouldn't be resting unless they really have a reason to. Otherwise, the NBA isn't really offering you the best games. And you can't talk about players not wanting to be on X team because of X reason. All it takes is one great player on a team and that's up to management to develop their players. Just compare the NBA environment of this year to last year. This has easily been the most exciting NBA offseason and perhaps, the most exciting NBA season I am looking forward to.

LOb0
09-28-2017, 07:29 PM
Now all the teams will tank to get into the top 3.

Nice and pointless. Also it gives less hope to the really bad teams, just what the NBA needed.

warfelg
09-28-2017, 07:53 PM
Lost in this was the NBA also approved new resting rules too.

WaDe03
09-28-2017, 07:59 PM
Lost in this was the NBA also approved new resting rules too.

What were those changes?

WaDe03
09-28-2017, 08:01 PM
913486216514777088

IndyRealist
09-28-2017, 08:45 PM
No bueno.

There's now over a 35% chance that the number 1 pick will go to a team out of the top 5 in the lottery. You aren't disincentivizing tanking, you're making it so that bad teams are going to remain bad longer. Especially small market teams.
Both are true. Yes it makes it harder on genuinely bad teams to get better through the draft. But it also deincentivizes 15 win teams.

Right, if you're the 9th, 10th, 11th worst team, you're going to be trotting your D league team out there to drop a few spots and give yourself closer to a 10 percent chance to win the top pick.

This is also true. End lottery teams will likely shut down players when it becomes obvious they're not getting 8th.

I'm a proponent of a flat lottery. As long as you give worse teams better chances, and guarantee that worse teams will get a top 5-7 pick no matter how the lottery turns out, you will get teams that tank. With a flat lottery you won't see 15 win teams because you have to actively sabotage your team to make them that bad.

warfelg
09-28-2017, 09:19 PM
What were those changes?

Minimum $100,000 fine for top rotational players (decided by minutes) or stars that are sitting for every nationally televised game.

FlashBolt
09-28-2017, 09:33 PM
Minimum $100,000 fine for top rotational players (decided by minutes) or stars that are sitting for every nationally televised game.

Thank God. But how would they actually determine if someone shouldn't play due to a small injury?

warfelg
09-28-2017, 09:36 PM
Thank God. But how would they actually determine if someone shouldn't play due to a small injury?

That's the issue with it that people are poking holes in. But it seems as though it's going to be based on availability before and after.

So think:
Game Saturday Lebron plays 35 minutes.
Doesn't play Tuesday nationally televised game.
Game Friday Lebron plays 34 minutes.

Expect a fine for that sitting game.

FlashBolt
09-28-2017, 11:57 PM
That's the issue with it that people are poking holes in. But it seems as though it's going to be based on availability before and after.

So think:
Game Saturday Lebron plays 35 minutes.
Doesn't play Tuesday nationally televised game.
Game Friday Lebron plays 34 minutes.

Expect a fine for that sitting game.

Wow, so they're pretty much going to do this on a case-by-case basis? I'm sure teams will figure a way around it. Adam Silver is a total boss. He's done so much for the NBA already. Easily the best commissioner in sports right now.

Scoots
09-29-2017, 12:35 AM
Minimum $100,000 fine for top rotational players (decided by minutes) or stars that are sitting for every nationally televised game.

It's not every nationally televised game, it's any nationally televised game. There are also possible penalties for resting players for road games.

It's pretty pointless. Are they really going to penalize a team for them activating different players at the end of their roster? Or is it only for "stars"? And of course they can't do anything about injury reports and by mid-season every player has a health issue.

The lottery and rest changes are just PR.

BKLYNpigeon
09-29-2017, 12:51 AM
It doesn't matter, teams will still tank regardless.

I bet a lot of teams will tank to avoid playing the Warriors in the second round of the playoffs.

tredigs
09-29-2017, 01:17 AM
I don't think you guys are giving this plan enough credit. 14% for all 3 of the bottom 3 teams really does decentivize actively tanking, with that being lower than the current odds at landing #1 from the #3 pick (15%. Worst team currently has a 25% chance at #1), and the 3rd worse team having only a 40% chance of landing a top 3 pick.

What will happen though is that there's going to be much more movement in the draft lottery (those ratings are going up), with better teams often leap-frogging worse teams. But I don't see that as a negative. This idea that "smaller market teams" are the ones who will get hit here - NO - poorly run teams are the ones that are worse hit here. New York is the biggest market in America for ****s sake. OKC is the smallest. Bulls - massive market. Philly - massive market (and their tanking attempts the past few years would be void if this system was already in place). OKC, San Antonio, Utah, Memphis... extremely small markets. It's how you are ran, not the market size.

lakers squad
09-29-2017, 02:28 AM
This is going to make first rd picks extremely valuable!

More-Than-Most
09-29-2017, 03:38 AM
Wow, so they're pretty much going to do this on a case-by-case basis? I'm sure teams will figure a way around it. Adam Silver is a total boss. He's done so much for the NBA already. Easily the best commissioner in sports right now.

of course there is ways... lebron was dizzy with lightheadedness.. lets see the NBA try to get around that. Lebron had tightness in some part of his body... nomatter what the NBA will look like the bad guy

Vinylman
09-29-2017, 06:20 AM
And you're ruining the quality of games if you think tanking is the formula to success.. let's face it, regular season has become terrible lately because these guys are playing like they want to lose.

oh boy... they are incorrectly addressing the natural outcome of the other stupid rules in place of max deals, birds rights, TPE's, Taxpayer Exceptions..., restrictive extension rules all of which have the effect of concentrating talent in fewer and fewer teams...

this change is beyond idiotic and nothing more than window dressing...

fix the disease (see above) not the symptom (tanking)

warfelg
09-29-2017, 07:29 AM
It's not every nationally televised game, it's any nationally televised game. There are also possible penalties for resting players for road games.

It's pretty pointless. Are they really going to penalize a team for them activating different players at the end of their roster? Or is it only for "stars"? And of course they can't do anything about injury reports and by mid-season every player has a health issue.

The lottery and rest changes are just PR.

Every national televised game and any nationally televised game is the same thing.

Nope just stars and top of rotation players. They arenít worried about the end of bench.

Scoots
09-29-2017, 09:49 AM
Every national televised game and any nationally televised game is the same thing.

Nope just stars and top of rotation players. They arenít worried about the end of bench.

Every nationally televised game means ALL of them. No players are going to be rested for ALL of the games. The penalty is if they miss ANY nationally televised game for "rest".

So did they define "stars and top of rotation"? Is it top 7 by minutes? Any player who averages over 20 minutes?

Still, it's all moot since the players can just be listed on the injury report.

Vinylman
09-29-2017, 09:59 AM
Every nationally televised game means ALL of them. No players are going to be rested for ALL of the games. The penalty is if they miss ANY nationally televised game for "rest".

So did they define "stars and top of rotation"? Is it top 7 by minutes? Any player who averages over 20 minutes?

Still, it's all moot since the players can just be listed on the injury report.

I agree that it is all window dressing but the thing it should eliminate is the "mass" resting of players

warfelg
09-29-2017, 11:07 AM
Every nationally televised game means ALL of them. No players are going to be rested for ALL of the games. The penalty is if they miss ANY nationally televised game for "rest".

So did they define "stars and top of rotation"? Is it top 7 by minutes? Any player who averages over 20 minutes?

Still, it's all moot since the players can just be listed on the injury report.

So you're really going to argue the semantics of every vrs any here. I think it was quite easy to understand what I was inferring, which is also the way it was written in the ESPN article. Every nationally televised game will be what's included in this structure.

Hawkeye15
09-29-2017, 12:20 PM
I imagine the "resting fine" will be about as enforced as the flopping fine

THE MTL
09-29-2017, 01:54 PM
I know alot of you are talking about the bad small market teams now have a lower chance, but honestly tanking has only hurt the league. It's the same teams that have gotten these Top picks for 5 years now. I like that the teams 6-10 have a better shot, because its those teams that are truly trying to better themselves.

KnickNyKnick
09-29-2017, 04:18 PM
funny thing is it will still seem like teams are tanking, because in the past many of those low win teams weren't trying to tank lol. they were just that bad.

Scoots
09-29-2017, 07:59 PM
So you're really going to argue the semantics of every vrs any here. I think it was quite easy to understand what I was inferring, which is also the way it was written in the ESPN article. Every nationally televised game will be what's included in this structure.

I corrected, YOU argued it :)

And every nationally televised game being subject to penalty isn't the same as a fine for "stars that are sitting for every nationally televised game" :)

And yes, I'm a total pedant but I usually keep it under control.

redsox12
09-29-2017, 08:31 PM
I hate the NBA's draft rules, it would be so simple to just have the worst team get the first pick, so forth and so on and get rid of the lottery.

AllBall
09-29-2017, 08:36 PM
The NBA was doing pretty good with rule changes, but they really layed and egg with both of these terrible rule changes.

1. They're incentivizing teams to enter the bottom 3, it's easier to get there than to getting to the absolute bottom 1.

2. Teams will just start players. Play them for 1 minute, yank them out, and sit them out for the rest of the game. It's too easy to get around that rule. They're not going to put in a minimum minutes played on it.

IndyRealist
09-29-2017, 08:47 PM
I hate the NBA's draft rules, it would be so simple to just have the worst team get the first pick, so forth and so on and get rid of the lottery.

That would be terrible. If the worst team was guaranteed the #1 pick, you'd most definitely get 9 win seasons.

redsox12
09-29-2017, 10:12 PM
That would be terrible. If the worst team was guaranteed the #1 pick, you'd most definitely get 9 win seasons.

I don't think tanking for a year is bad if you need a big time young player. Atlanta for example was great just two years ago with Horford, Teague, and Milsap. If the fans have to sit through a bad season to get to draft Michael Porter and start competing again, thats not a bad deal.

tredigs
09-29-2017, 10:20 PM
The NBA was doing pretty good with rule changes, but they really layed and egg with both of these terrible rule changes.

1. They're incentivizing teams to enter the bottom 3, it's easier to get there than to getting to the absolute bottom 1.

2. Teams will just start players. Play them for 1 minute, yank them out, and sit them out for the rest of the game. It's too easy to get around that rule. They're not going to put in a minimum minutes played on it.

Point #1 is definitely not true in the least. The worst team in the league (and 2nd and 3rd) now have a worse chance at the #1 pick then the #3 pick did under the 2016 rules. Think about that fact and then realize the error in your statement... see what I'm saying?

I highly doubt the vast majority of coaches would dare to be that petty - but 20 minute games for starters are certainly in play on road b2b's (and far better than the alternative). By starting the season earlier and eliminating some of the b2b's + making it a real issue, they will have already likely done enough to reduce the number of sits by quite a bit.

Silver is a boss. He is doing a great job as commish.

IndyRealist
09-29-2017, 10:33 PM
I don't think tanking for a year is bad if you need a big time young player. Atlanta for example was great just two years ago with Horford, Teague, and Milsap. If the fans have to sit through a bad season to get to draft Michael Porter and start competing again, thats not a bad deal.

It's not that easy. Players don't actually tank. They're playing for their next contract, or auditioning for their next employer. To tank you have to actively trade away all your good players in order to lose games. Once you do that you may end up with a #1 pick, but you're going to have to turn over almost your entire roster as well to eliminate the losing culture and bad habits you deliberately created.

AllBall
09-29-2017, 11:41 PM
Point #1 is definitely not true in the least. The worst team in the league (and 2nd and 3rd) now have a worse chance at the #1 pick then the #3 pick did under the 2016 rules. Think about that fact and then realize the error in your statement... see what I'm saying?

No. I don't.

Before

250 combinations, 25.0% chance of receiving the No. 1 pick
199 combinations, 19.9% chance
156 combinations, 15.6% chance
119 combinations, 11.9% chance
88 combinations, 8.8% chance
63 combinations, 6.3% chance
43 combinations, 4.3% chance
28 combinations, 2.8% chance
17 combinations, 1.7% chance
11 combinations, 1.1% chance
8 combinations, 0.8% chance
7 combinations, 0.7% chance
6 combinations, 0.6% chance
5 combinations, 0.5% chance

Now

140 combinations, 14.0% chance of receiving the No. 1 pick
140 combinations, 14.0% chance
140 combinations, 14.0% chance
125 combinations, 12.5% chance
105 combinations, 10.5% chance
90 combinations, 9.0% chance
75 combinations, 7.5% chance
60 combinations, 6.0% chance
45 combinations, 4.5% chance
30 combinations, 3.0% chance
20 combinations, 2.0% chance
15 combinations, 1.5% chance
10 combinations, 1.0% chance
5 combinations, 0.5% chance

Now it's no longer a race to the worst record, but the 3rd worst record. If I'm trying to tank, I know that all I have to do is get to 3rd worst record, and that getting to 2nd or 1st worst record will not garner me a better chance at the #1 pick.

tredigs
09-30-2017, 12:06 AM
No. I don't.

Before

250 combinations, 25.0% chance of receiving the No. 1 pick
199 combinations, 19.9% chance
156 combinations, 15.6% chance
119 combinations, 11.9% chance
88 combinations, 8.8% chance
63 combinations, 6.3% chance
43 combinations, 4.3% chance
28 combinations, 2.8% chance
17 combinations, 1.7% chance
11 combinations, 1.1% chance
8 combinations, 0.8% chance
7 combinations, 0.7% chance
6 combinations, 0.6% chance
5 combinations, 0.5% chance

Now

140 combinations, 14.0% chance of receiving the No. 1 pick
140 combinations, 14.0% chance
140 combinations, 14.0% chance
125 combinations, 12.5% chance
105 combinations, 10.5% chance
90 combinations, 9.0% chance
75 combinations, 7.5% chance
60 combinations, 6.0% chance
45 combinations, 4.5% chance
30 combinations, 3.0% chance
20 combinations, 2.0% chance
15 combinations, 1.5% chance
10 combinations, 1.0% chance
5 combinations, 0.5% chance

Now it's no longer a race to the worst record, but the 3rd worst record. If I'm trying to tank, I know that all I have to do is get to 3rd worst record, and that getting to 2nd or 1st worst record will not garner me a better chance at the #1 pick.

How are you this confused? The third worst record now has a WORSE chance at a #1 pick and a top-3 pick then they did in 2016. If you want to even begin to make a point, state that it is a race to the 4th worse record, where that team now has a 12.5% chance at the #1 pick instead of the previous 11.9%. Which I'm sure all teams are just salivating over...

In short, there is NO point to have the worst record, NO point to have the 2nd worst record, and an even LESS point to have the 3rd worst record than in previous seasons. But, hey - maybe all these teams will be clamoring for that 4th worst and 5th worst slot for the extra minuscule percentage points.

tredigs
09-30-2017, 12:11 AM
I will also add that the percentages are ideal in that all teams outside of the bottom 5 still have a <10% chance at the top pick, with 9-14 having less than a 5% chance, and 12-14 having 1.5% or lower. That is a very well thought out, very solid system.

AllBall
09-30-2017, 12:16 AM
How are you this confused? The third worst record now has a WORSE chance at a #1 pick and a top-3 pick then they did in 2016. If you want to even begin to make a point, state that it is a race to the 4th worse record, where that team now has a 12.5% chance at the #1 pick instead of the previous 11.9%. Which I'm sure all teams are just salivating over...

Every season we go through the same thing. There are 3 teams clearly trying to tank. You just put the 2nd and 3rd worst on level ground with the worst record. The fact that percentage wise it's less at the #2 and #3 spot than in 2017 doesn't matter, you just made their primary competition, the one with the worst record, that much less of a challenge for them. The only thing this will disincentive is being the absolute worst. Or get 4 more wins out of the bottom 4, whoopp-dee-fn-doo.

tredigs
09-30-2017, 12:23 AM
Every season we go through the same thing. There are 3 teams clearly trying to tank. You just put the 2nd and 3rd worst on level ground with the worst record. The fact that percentage wise it's less at the #2 and #3 spot than in 2017 doesn't matter, you just made their primary competition, the one with the worst record, that much less of a challenge for them. The only thing this will disincentive is being the absolute worst. Or get 4 more wins out of the bottom 4, whoopp-dee-fn-doo.

You don't get it. EVERY bottom 3 team now has LESS incentive to tank, specifically the worst and 2nd worst teams. That's it. Period. And there is no significant increase in odds for the 4th/5th worst teams to give them any extra incentive to tank. The bottom line is that now no team has any realistic chance at the top pick, and the incentive for that 1 in 5 to 1 in 4 chance at #1 is a thing of the past. Tanking will reduce accordingly, I GUARANTEE that.

Shammyguy3
09-30-2017, 12:34 AM
tredigs is 100% right

Aust
09-30-2017, 12:47 AM
I like the change :shrug:

Scoots
09-30-2017, 11:43 AM
Every season we go through the same thing. There are 3 teams clearly trying to tank. You just put the 2nd and 3rd worst on level ground with the worst record. The fact that percentage wise it's less at the #2 and #3 spot than in 2017 doesn't matter, you just made their primary competition, the one with the worst record, that much less of a challenge for them. The only thing this will disincentive is being the absolute worst. Or get 4 more wins out of the bottom 4, whoopp-dee-fn-doo.

The thing is, that while you are right that there is no need to aim for the #1 pick over the #3 pick compared to before, the odds of getting the #1 pick from one of those top 3 picks is FAR lower than it was before so the odds of multiple teams really trashing their rosters for multiple years goes way down because the odds of a good return on the tank is far lower than it was before.

I find it interesting that in all of our discussions on lottery reform I don't recall flattening the odds of the top 3 picks coming up ... doing that AND making the odds for all 3 picks worse than the old 3rd pick is an interesting double move. I like the move, the only issue will be if a mid-lottery team gets lucky for multiple consecutive years the bad teams will complain again and we may see yet another adjustment.

east fb knicks
09-30-2017, 12:49 PM
Dum fcking rule scrap the whole lottery and just do a 1 or 2 game tournament. To determine the top pick thats the only way to stop tanking

KnickNyKnick
09-30-2017, 01:14 PM
Dum fcking rule scrap the whole lottery and just do a 1 or 2 game tournament. To determine the top pick thats the only way to stop tanking

in that tournament does the winner get the 1st pick or the loser? lol #extratankgame

IndyRealist
09-30-2017, 02:03 PM
You don't get it. EVERY bottom 3 team now has LESS incentive to tank, specifically the worst and 2nd worst teams. That's it. Period. And there is no significant increase in odds for the 4th/5th worst teams to give them any extra incentive to tank. The bottom line is that now no team has any realistic chance at the top pick, and the incentive for that 1 in 5 to 1 in 4 chance at #1 is a thing of the past. Tanking will reduce accordingly, I GUARANTEE that.

The worst team drops no further than 5th, 2nd worst to 6th, etc. So there is still reason to be worst.

da ThRONe
09-30-2017, 02:47 PM
The league issue with tanking just got worse with this rule. I really question the intelligence of people who work in some of the highest levels of sport leagues sometimes.

Laker Legend42
09-30-2017, 06:34 PM
This new system doesn't matter at all. The whole thing is fixed anyways. This is just so people think they are doing something.
If one of the top prospects home team has a top pick that kid is staying home.
Lebron 2004
D. Rose 2008
L. Ball 2017
Or if a team loses its best player and they really suck they get the pick
Just to name a few.
Chris Paul got the hornets Anthony Davis
Kevin love got the wolves Wiggins and kat.

Here's a free one. The reason why the nba is cool with stopping the Chris Paul trade and the lakers being beyond horrible is because no matter what the lakers are going to make money and bank roll the rest of the league. Last year the closest team to the lakers in earnings was the warriors.

tredigs
10-01-2017, 10:14 PM
The worst team drops no further than 5th, 2nd worst to 6th, etc. So there is still reason to be worst.
And? Obviously they won't and should not make it perfectly even for all lottery teams.

IndyRealist
10-01-2017, 10:40 PM
And? Obviously they won't and should not make it perfectly even for all lottery teams.

If there's reason to tank, teams will tank. So they've fixed nothing.

Why shouldn't it be even?

tredigs
10-01-2017, 10:46 PM
If there's reason to tank, teams will tank. So they've fixed nothing.

Why shouldn't it be even?

Teams will not tank without a massive incentive to do so. That 1/4+1/5 incentive is gone. Why not even? Kind of a stupid question from a seemingly smart person. Why not give the Warriors even odds at #1 with the Pacers? Same question.

Scoots
10-02-2017, 12:42 AM
If there's reason to tank, teams will tank. So they've fixed nothing.

Why shouldn't it be even?

Teams will still tank. There is no way to both fix that and try to aim for parity. The idea is to reduce the reason to tank while still allowing for the worse teams to improve.

Scoots
10-02-2017, 12:42 AM
Teams will not tank without a massive incentive to do so. That 1/4+1/5 incentive is gone. Why not even? Kind of a stupid question from a seemingly smart person. Why not give the Warriors even odds at #1 with the Pacers? Same question.

Why do you feel the need to insult people?

tredigs
10-02-2017, 04:37 AM
Why do you feel the need to insult people?

Bad habit of being too honest online. I was not trying to insult him.

IndyRealist
10-02-2017, 09:23 AM
Teams will not tank without a massive incentive to do so. That 1/4+1/5 incentive is gone. Why not even? Kind of a stupid question from a seemingly smart person. Why not give the Warriors even odds at #1 with the Pacers? Same question.
Disingenuous comparison. No one said include the Warriors or any playoff team (though I've said that in the past). Fact is, a 25% chance the worst team used to have was not massive incentive to tank, yet teams still did. What's they're banking on is a guarantee of a top 5ish pick, which is still present, along with the best shot at #1, which is also still there.

This doesn't solve tanking at all.

IndyRealist
10-02-2017, 09:31 AM
Teams will still tank. There is no way to both fix that and try to aim for parity. The idea is to reduce the reason to tank while still allowing for the worse teams to improve.

I contend that with a flat lottery you will have more parity, in that teams will not be trying actively to be bad. With no incentive to be worst, teams will build their rosters for cost effective wins to maximize revenue while maintaining financial flexibility to add free agents.

While this won't lead to more contenders, this will lead to bottom and middle teams bunched up together, very close in wins, and vying for playoff spots. And that will give more locations a star could jump to and get paid while still fielding a good team that could be one piece away.

Scoots
10-02-2017, 10:15 AM
I contend that with a flat lottery you will have more parity, in that teams will not be trying actively to be bad. With no incentive to be worst, teams will build their rosters for cost effective wins to maximize revenue while maintaining financial flexibility to add free agents.

While this won't lead to more contenders, this will lead to bottom and middle teams bunched up together, very close in wins, and vying for playoff spots. And that will give more locations a star could jump to and get paid while still fielding a good team that could be one piece away.

Wouldn't that also encourage teams tanking to just miss the playoffs to get into the lottery to possibly win the lottery?

Also, the lottery started as a flat lottery and that lasted 1 year before it was decided it was a broken system.

warfelg
10-02-2017, 10:29 AM
Itís all about the optics of tanking. Going all out for the worse record looks bad.

Move it that teams are fighting to be one of the 5 worse and it looks a little better.

Only two ways to truly eliminate tanking is free market (wonít happen) or the NBA suddenly becomes more team oriented and less stay driven (wonít happen). In that case the best thing to do is move where the tanking happens.

TheDish87
10-02-2017, 11:01 AM
Dum fcking rule scrap the whole lottery and just do a 1 or 2 game tournament. To determine the top pick thats the only way to stop tanking

thats the worst idea ever

Shammyguy3
10-02-2017, 11:26 AM
Looking at it this way, with percent odds at #1 and percent odds for top-3 pick respectively for the worst 8 records:

old system:
team 1 - 25.0% - 64%
team 2 - 19.9% - 56%
team 3 - 15.6% - 47%
team 4 - 11.9% - 38%
team 5 - 8.8% - 29%
team 6 - 6.3% - 22%
team 7 - 4.3% - 15%
team 8 - 2.8% - 10%

new system:

team 1 - 14% - 40%
team 2 - 14% - 40%
team 3 - 14% - 40%
team 4 - 12.5% - 37%
team 5 - 10.5% - 32%
team 6 - 9.0% - 28%
team 7 - 7.5% - 23%
team 8 - 6.0% - 19%


to me, those seem like very reasonable odds to try and promote competitive basketball even among bad teams, while also trying to reward teams that truly need a good pick. For those complaining about the percentages, i'm interested in how you would change it to achieve a good balance between those two goals

Vinylman
10-02-2017, 12:34 PM
I contend that with a flat lottery you will have more parity, in that teams will not be trying actively to be bad. With no incentive to be worst, teams will build their rosters for cost effective wins to maximize revenue while maintaining financial flexibility to add free agents.

While this won't lead to more contenders, this will lead to bottom and middle teams bunched up together, very close in wins, and vying for playoff spots. And that will give more locations a star could jump to and get paid while still fielding a good team that could be one piece away.

parity or middling mediocrity?... but I agree with your overall premise as you have explained it. Again, the single biggest contributor to a lack of parity is the CBA machinations surrounding player salaries and the cap... it is outdated and in an environment where team values have skyrocketed it has enabled owners to throw caution to the wind because they know losing $40 million in a given year is peanuts when your team value has gone up $1 billion in the last 3 years.

Times are good for most owners until the crash comes ... and it is coming

There is a reason that Revenue Sharing was the biggest area of discussion at the recent governors meeting... the **** teams even want to add two teams just for the fees to be collected since it isn't part of the BRI..

Scoots
10-02-2017, 12:45 PM
parity or middling mediocrity?... but I agree with your overall premise as you have explained it. Again, the single biggest contributor to a lack of parity is the CBA machinations surrounding player salaries and the cap... it is outdated and in an environment where team values have skyrocketed it has enabled owners to throw caution to the wind because they know losing $40 million in a given year is peanuts when your team value has gone up $1 billion in the last 3 years.

Times are good for most owners until the crash comes ... and it is coming

There is a reason that Revenue Sharing was the biggest area of discussion at the recent governors meeting... the **** teams even want to add two teams just for the fees to be collected since it isn't part of the BRI..

I was pretty early on pointing out the coming crash with TV revenue possibly shrinking on the next contract ... but now I wonder what the possible collapse of the NFL's popularity around CTE and it's various other scandals will free up some money for the NBA to scoop up.

warfelg
10-02-2017, 12:53 PM
I was pretty early on pointing out the coming crash with TV revenue possibly shrinking on the next contract ... but now I wonder what the possible collapse of the NFL's popularity around CTE and it's various other scandals will free up some money for the NBA to scoop up.

Someone was talking about the popularity of sports the other day and how hard it is to really vault up.

NFL: Even with these issues the NFL will have a strangle hold on the fact that it's a scarce commodity that even with "ratings down" it still blows away many other things on TV. This is like the Napster craze. Streaming services are up, live TV is down, but not as down as it was. And that's the way it's going to go. The Late 90's/Early 2000's were a golden age because you haven't had streaming yea, but with cable packages you could watch anyone anywhere. NFL will always be a regional sport.

NBA: NBA lives between the NFL and MLB. It's not local, but it's not quite national. It's not as scarce as the NFL, but there's less than the MLB. The other part is the NBA is more star driven than the NFL. In the NBA, what could happen with the next TV contract is the older stars are out or on their way out, the next generation is on it's way out, and we have a lull like we did between MJ and LBJ. The other "problem" is the offseason has become more interesting than the regular season.

MLB: The most regional sport there is. Because things happen daily, rosters change daily, and there's a large number of players, you tend to follow your local team and outside of that, it's hard to get news on your team.

Vinylman
10-02-2017, 01:34 PM
I was pretty early on pointing out the coming crash with TV revenue possibly shrinking on the next contract ... but now I wonder what the possible collapse of the NFL's popularity around CTE and it's various other scandals will free up some money for the NBA to scoop up.

nah... the nfl money still isn't maximized because they got lazy and renewed for the drunk money with DirecTV bypassing the coming on Demand model because of the market black out issues.... overall TV money for the NFL will go up again during the next cycle because of the on demand component.

Jamiecballer
10-02-2017, 01:40 PM
If there's reason to tank, teams will tank. So they've fixed nothing.

Why shouldn't it be even?

i agree with you. i would be quite happy with that arrangement as well. although i think what they've done is clearly superior to what they had - something i didn't feel certain of until i saw the actual breakdown of percentages and saw how much closer the odds have gotten. it's better. it's something.

IndyRealist
10-02-2017, 02:00 PM
Wouldn't that also encourage teams tanking to just miss the playoffs to get into the lottery to possibly win the lottery?

Also, the lottery started as a flat lottery and that lasted 1 year before it was decided it was a broken system.
More parity, not complete parity. If the difference between 6th and 12th is like 5 games, could you really tell me any given team was definitely tanking? Players do not tank. They have their own incentives to play well for. Organizations choose to sabotage their roster or lineup. That's difficult to do after the trade deadline.

One year is not a sufficient sample size for an event that happens once a year. #thingswelearninanalytics

IndyRealist
10-02-2017, 02:06 PM
parity or middling mediocrity?... but I agree with your overall premise as you have explained it. Again, the single biggest contributor to a lack of parity is the CBA machinations surrounding player salaries and the cap... it is outdated and in an environment where team values have skyrocketed it has enabled owners to throw caution to the wind because they know losing $40 million in a given year is peanuts when your team value has gone up $1 billion in the last 3 years.

Times are good for most owners until the crash comes ... and it is coming

There is a reason that Revenue Sharing was the biggest area of discussion at the recent governors meeting... the **** teams even want to add two teams just for the fees to be collected since it isn't part of the BRI..

If teams are not sabotaging their rosters, it's more likely everyone moves toward the middle. Teams like Cleveland and Golden State won't have nearly so many easy nights where they rest their stars. I'm not saying a 73 win team is suddenly a 50 win team, but with fewer gimmes and more tired players, the whole league will at least feel more competitive.

tredigs
10-02-2017, 04:13 PM
Looking at it this way, with percent odds at #1 and percent odds for top-3 pick respectively for the worst 8 records:

old system:
team 1 - 25.0% - 64%
team 2 - 19.9% - 56%
team 3 - 15.6% - 47%
team 4 - 11.9% - 38%
team 5 - 8.8% - 29%
team 6 - 6.3% - 22%
team 7 - 4.3% - 15%
team 8 - 2.8% - 10%

new system:

team 1 - 14% - 40%
team 2 - 14% - 40%
team 3 - 14% - 40%
team 4 - 12.5% - 37%
team 5 - 10.5% - 32%
team 6 - 9.0% - 28%
team 7 - 7.5% - 23%
team 8 - 6.0% - 19%


to me, those seem like very reasonable odds to try and promote competitive basketball even among bad teams, while also trying to reward teams that truly need a good pick. For those complaining about the percentages, i'm interested in how you would change it to achieve a good balance between those two goals

The new system is ideal. The NBA already has the flattest draft format in pro sports, and a top-5 pick does not guarantee a damn thing regardless. Most top-5 picks are not remotely close to franchise shifters, and many don't even amount to a starting role 5 years down the line. If you're relying on the draft to win, you have already lost.

Scoots
10-03-2017, 12:54 AM
Someone was talking about the popularity of sports the other day and how hard it is to really vault up.

NFL: Even with these issues the NFL will have a strangle hold on the fact that it's a scarce commodity that even with "ratings down" it still blows away many other things on TV. This is like the Napster craze. Streaming services are up, live TV is down, but not as down as it was. And that's the way it's going to go. The Late 90's/Early 2000's were a golden age because you haven't had streaming yea, but with cable packages you could watch anyone anywhere. NFL will always be a regional sport.

NBA: NBA lives between the NFL and MLB. It's not local, but it's not quite national. It's not as scarce as the NFL, but there's less than the MLB. The other part is the NBA is more star driven than the NFL. In the NBA, what could happen with the next TV contract is the older stars are out or on their way out, the next generation is on it's way out, and we have a lull like we did between MJ and LBJ. The other "problem" is the offseason has become more interesting than the regular season.

MLB: The most regional sport there is. Because things happen daily, rosters change daily, and there's a large number of players, you tend to follow your local team and outside of that, it's hard to get news on your team.

Supposedly in a few years doctors will be able to evaluate CTE status non-invasively. When that happens 23 year old players will start retiring at a much higher rate, as this information spreads parents will be more reluctant to let their kids play pee-wee ball and on up. Right now, football has big trouble on the horizon.

Scoots
10-03-2017, 12:57 AM
More parity, not complete parity. If the difference between 6th and 12th is like 5 games, could you really tell me any given team was definitely tanking? Players do not tank. They have their own incentives to play well for. Organizations choose to sabotage their roster or lineup. That's difficult to do after the trade deadline.

One year is not a sufficient sample size for an event that happens once a year. #thingswelearninanalytics

Yes, but what was learned was that when the lottery is flat it's too easy for the worst teams to stay stuck there and when the owners vote most of them see that at some point in the future they may need that pick to fill seats in the next year. I don't have to get shot twice to know I don't want it to happen again.

ChiTownPacerFan
10-03-2017, 02:37 AM
What these anti-tanking measures don't take into account is that some teams just flat out genuinely suck. It happens. You lose key players in free agency. Your team gets old. Devastating injuries. Or even bad management.

With this system, if your team is just plain awful, you're basically screwed. Good luck with that 14% chance to get a franchise player when you're far and away the worst team in the league season after season.

But hey, at least now that team won't be "tanking" for a few years. No, now they can go out and sign a couple of mediocre veterans (because good veterans aren't going to a bottom tier team), and win 26 games each year instead of 21.

Except, now they'll be stuck in that rut much longer. And instead of being really really bad for a few years, and then rebuilding into something interesting, they'll just be really bad for a long long time.

Vinylman
10-03-2017, 07:33 AM
If teams are not sabotaging their rosters, it's more likely everyone moves toward the middle. Teams like Cleveland and Golden State won't have nearly so many easy nights where they rest their stars. I'm not saying a 73 win team is suddenly a 50 win team, but with fewer gimmes and more tired players, the whole league will at least feel more competitive.

Teams will still sabotage their rosters... the new tanking is going to become the "keep your cap open" to be the dumping ground for bad contracts to get young players and picks...

the next rule change will be that you have to be at 70% of the floor before the season starts to stop the above sabotaging

Cap Management is going to become much more difficult moving forward as there are a lot of teams signing guys with exceptions more than cap at this point which means there will inevitably be a cap crisis in the summer of 2019.

IndyRealist
10-03-2017, 08:32 AM
Teams will still sabotage their rosters... the new tanking is going to become the "keep your cap open" to be the dumping ground for bad contracts to get young players and picks...

the next rule change will be that you have to be at 70% of the floor before the season starts to stop the above sabotaging

Cap Management is going to become much more difficult moving forward as there are a lot of teams signing guys with exceptions more than cap at this point which means there will inevitably be a cap crisis in the summer of 2019.

I mean wr don't know because my hypothetical situation depends on having no incentive to tank, i.e. flat lottery and draw 1-14.

IndyRealist
10-03-2017, 08:41 AM
Yes, but what was learned was that when the lottery is flat it's too easy for the worst teams to stay stuck there and when the owners vote most of them see that at some point in the future they may need that pick to fill seats in the next year. I don't have to get shot twice to know I don't want it to happen again.

No, nothing was learned because the league overreacted when New York won the lottery and got Ewing. Conspiracy theories aside, assuming a single random event is indicative of how every event will be defies all logic.

By that logic, if you got shot once and survived, you'd assume you'll always survive every future gunshot. You're a superhero, man.

Scoots
10-03-2017, 09:50 AM
What these anti-tanking measures don't take into account is that some teams just flat out genuinely suck. It happens. You lose key players in free agency. Your team gets old. Devastating injuries. Or even bad management.

With this system, if your team is just plain awful, you're basically screwed. Good luck with that 14% chance to get a franchise player when you're far and away the worst team in the league season after season.

But hey, at least now that team won't be "tanking" for a few years. No, now they can go out and sign a couple of mediocre veterans (because good veterans aren't going to a bottom tier team), and win 26 games each year instead of 21.

Except, now they'll be stuck in that rut much longer. And instead of being really really bad for a few years, and then rebuilding into something interesting, they'll just be really bad for a long long time.

There are great players not drafted at the top of the draft. It's totally possible to go from mediocre to bad to great without a top 5 pick. Bad management is far more often the cause of bad teams than any sort of anti-tanking measure or parity rules.

Scoots
10-03-2017, 09:52 AM
Teams will still sabotage their rosters... the new tanking is going to become the "keep your cap open" to be the dumping ground for bad contracts to get young players and picks...

the next rule change will be that you have to be at 70% of the floor before the season starts to stop the above sabotaging

Cap Management is going to become much more difficult moving forward as there are a lot of teams signing guys with exceptions more than cap at this point which means there will inevitably be a cap crisis in the summer of 2019.

It's not just cap space ... it's having players with tradeable contracts or contracts you can void. Every set of rules someone will take advantage of better than others.

70% of the floor is a very small number in the grand scheme of things. That's a LOT of cap space to play with.

Scoots
10-03-2017, 09:53 AM
I mean wr don't know because my hypothetical situation depends on having no incentive to tank, i.e. flat lottery and draw 1-14.

But there is still incentive to tank in the flat lottery system.

warfelg
10-03-2017, 09:58 AM
There are great players not drafted at the top of the draft. It's totally possible to go from mediocre to bad to great without a top 5 pick. Bad management is far more often the cause of bad teams than any sort of anti-tanking measure or parity rules.

Agreed.

But, you are more likely to find success in the draft in the top 5 than elsewhere. The reason some guys do fall is bad management. Wolves fans would hate me for this but what if they take Curry over Flynn or Rubio? Who do the warriors then take? Does Curry turn out the same.

Every now and then you get a KL/Draymond where people overlook that guy because theyíre still raw/undersized/not at a premiere program, and with the right coaching they explode. IMO thatís a combo of good management, great coaching, and luck.

NBA is a sport where there isnít an easy or quick fix to the problems. Itís steps. First itís lottery reform. Next should be the extension rules. So stupid you have to wait a certain number of years. Should be able to sign it whenever.

Scoots
10-03-2017, 10:03 AM
No, nothing was learned because the league overreacted when New York won the lottery and got Ewing. Conspiracy theories aside, assuming a single random event is indicative of how every event will be defies all logic.

By that logic, if you got shot once and survived, you'd assume you'll always survive every future gunshot. You're a superhero, man.

"Nothing was learned"? They learned a lot. You act like it's impossible to learn anything from a single experiment. The odds of a good team winning the lottery in a flat lottery is wildly higher, you don't need experimentation to know that to be true. 1 flat lottery was enough for the NBA owners to learn that they didn't like it. The NBA is an entertainment business and conspiracy theories and the complaints of their customers let alone their owner members are real data the NBA felt they needed to react to, just like they are doing this year with this change. Most of the changes the NBA makes are for PR reasons or to mollify annoyed owners.

You miss the point with the being shot analogy. I know that getting shot sucks enough that I will immediately put more effort into not getting shot again ... my survival leaves me around to tell others that getting shot sucks. The NBA is not a science organization interested in iterative testing.

Scoots
10-03-2017, 10:06 AM
Agreed.

But, you are more likely to find success in the draft in the top 5 than elsewhere. The reason some guys do fall is bad management. Wolves fans would hate me for this but what if they take Curry over Flynn or Rubio? Who do the warriors then take? Does Curry turn out the same.

Every now and then you get a KL/Draymond where people overlook that guy because theyíre still raw/undersized/not at a premiere program, and with the right coaching they explode. IMO thatís a combo of good management, great coaching, and luck.

NBA is a sport where there isnít an easy or quick fix to the problems. Itís steps. First itís lottery reform. Next should be the extension rules. So stupid you have to wait a certain number of years. Should be able to sign it whenever.

Sure, the odds are better at the top of the draft, but the comment was that bad teams will be doomed to forever be bad teams ... and that's not true. Bad teams screw up top 5 picks all the time ... because they are bad teams I suppose.

Vinylman
10-03-2017, 10:20 AM
It's not just cap space ... it's having players with tradeable contracts or contracts you can void. Every set of rules someone will take advantage of better than others.

70% of the floor is a very small number in the grand scheme of things. That's a LOT of cap space to play with.

it is but the real risk is a team being down around 50% which is where the sixers were a couple of years ago...

at 70% you can really only take on one big bad deal once. or a couple of smaller deals multiple times.

If the Lakers strike out in FA this summer I want them to hold onto their cap and take on bad deals as a facilitator for a contender. It is why I was so pissed when they spent all the money on Moz and Deng in 2016.

IndyRealist
10-03-2017, 11:04 AM
"Nothing was learned"? They learned a lot. You act like it's impossible to learn anything from a single experiment. The odds of a good team winning the lottery in a flat lottery is wildly higher, you don't need experimentation to know that to be true. 1 flat lottery was enough for the NBA owners to learn that they didn't like it. The NBA is an entertainment business and conspiracy theories and the complaints of their customers let alone their owner members are real data the NBA felt they needed to react to, just like they are doing this year with this change. Most of the changes the NBA makes are for PR reasons or to mollify annoyed owners.

You miss the point with the being shot analogy. I know that getting shot sucks enough that I will immediately put more effort into not getting shot again ... my survival leaves me around to tell others that getting shot sucks. The NBA is not a science organization interested in iterative testing.

It's literally a random event. They took one result and said, "we don't like how this works". That's pretty much the definition of a knee jerk reaction. They all knew the odds when it was implemented. If it was ok then, changing it after one iteration is illogical. They overreacted because they went from "worst team gets the best pick no matter what" to "wtf the best team got the best pick, screw that".

Scoots
10-03-2017, 06:45 PM
it is but the real risk is a team being down around 50% which is where the sixers were a couple of years ago...

at 70% you can really only take on one big bad deal once. or a couple of smaller deals multiple times.

If the Lakers strike out in FA this summer I want them to hold onto their cap and take on bad deals as a facilitator for a contender. It is why I was so pissed when they spent all the money on Moz and Deng in 2016.

Well, if you are planning a multi-year tank you can take on a bad contract, stretch them, take on another, stretch them, take on another, stretch them, rinse and repeat.

Scoots
10-03-2017, 06:48 PM
It's literally a random event. They took one result and said, "we don't like how this works". That's pretty much the definition of a knee jerk reaction. They all knew the odds when it was implemented. If it was ok then, changing it after one iteration is illogical. They overreacted because they went from "worst team gets the best pick no matter what" to "wtf the best team got the best pick, screw that".

Again, you are acting like they can't learn anything from one event. They learned that good teams getting good picks was bad for PR and made them uncomfortable. TV networks make a pilot, see how it works, and decide not to make more ... it happens all the time in entertainment. Is it your contention that all pilots should get at least a 2 or 3 year run to see how it works out since 1 event is not sufficient data?

Vinylman
10-04-2017, 08:23 AM
Well, if you are planning a multi-year tank you can take on a bad contract, stretch them, take on another, stretch them, take on another, stretch them, rinse and repeat.

you can stretch a player you traded for?

Scoots
10-04-2017, 10:12 AM
you can stretch a player you traded for?

As far as I know the only restrictions on stretches are that you can't stretch the current year's salary after Aug 31, the maximum length of the stretch gets shorter after Aug 31, and you can't re-sign the stretched player until after the original stretched contract expiration date.