• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NBA draft lottery reforms to discourage tanking falls short of passing

Status
Not open for further replies.
X

XiaNaphryz

LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11744283/nba-owners-fail-pass-draft-lottery-reform

An effort to reform the NBA's draft lottery process failed to get enough votes to pass at the league's board of governors meeting Wednesday, sources told ESPN.

While the final vote was 17-13 in favor of the reform, according to Grantland's Zach Lowe, that falls short of the required 23 votes needed to push the change through.

Sources had said the reform had been expected to pass ahead of Wednesday's vote.

The crux of the reform plan was to discourage the idea of tanking -- or losing on purpose -- to increase a team's ability to get a better spot in the draft lottery.

The reforms would have given the league's four worst teams identical odds (around 11 percent) of winning the top pick, with the fifth team having about a 10 percent chance and the rest of the teams with declining odds. Under the current system, the team with the worst record has a 25 percent chance at the No. 1 pick and the second-worst team has a 19.9 percent chance, with each subsequent team's odds declining slightly.

Since the league's weighted lottery system was adopted for the 1985 draft, only four teams with the worst or tied-for-worst record have earned the top overall pick. The 2004 Orlando Magic are the most recent team to finish with the NBA's worst record and land the No. 1 overall pick, which they used to select Dwight Howard.
Click to expand...
 
C

cubicle47b

Member
It's not an easy problem to solve. You don't want teams to tank on purpose, but want to offer bad teams a chance to turn themselves around by drafting good players and making coaching and administration changes. It's not like they don't have measures in place to discourage tanking with the current system. Those measures are why Cleveland got the #1 pick this year. It's just not very effective and I'm not sure this change would be either. If you're a bad team, you still want to be in the bottom 4. I suppose there's less of a race to the bottom.

If it was easier to prove that teams were tanking, I'd be more in favor of penalizing teams than trying to fix it through the lottery.
 
I

Isotope

Member
sam-hinkie-slide-usa_0.jpg
 
K

KingGondo

Banned
Ken Masters said:
Half the NBA tanking every season makes the nba season tough to watch
Click to expand...
This isn't anything close to the truth.

The simple fact is that talent is unevenly distributed throughout the league and that most of the great players are on only a few teams.

The only way to achieve something resembling parity in the NBA would be to limit each team to one designated max contract player. This would force most of the great teams in the NBA to break up and give more teams a chance to win a title.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
KingGondo said:
This isn't anything close to the truth.

The simple fact is that talent is unevenly distributed throughout the league and that most of the great players are on only a few teams.

The only way to achieve something resembling parity in the NBA would be to limit each team to one designated max contract player. This would force most of the great teams in the NBA to break up and give more teams a chance to win a title.
Click to expand...

The only way to increase parity would be to get rid of max contracts. Max contracts moves the power from the GM to the players. The players know they're going to get the same amount of money. Might as well join up with some good friends and go wreck face.
 
G

gcubed

Member
so if the worst team rarely gets the first pick anyway, and all they are doing is evening the odds for the first 4 teams, whats stopping people from tanking again? It'll just encourage people to be bad enough to be in the bottom 4, so instead of being a race to be the worst, that rarely nets you a #1 pick anyway, there will be a race to be in the 4 worst, opening the door for more teams to tank.

I have to be missing something here
 
T

TheDrizzlerJ11

Member
gcubed said:
so if the worst team rarely gets the first pick anyway, and all they are doing is evening the odds for the first 4 teams, whats stopping people from tanking again? It'll just encourage people to be bad enough to be in the bottom 4, so instead of being a race to be the worst, that rarely nets you a #1 pick anyway, there will be a race to be in the 4 worst, opening the door for more teams to tank.

I have to be missing something here
Click to expand...
The odds for the worst teams are now worse. It's a weird way of doing it though, not that they are.
 
D

darkazcura

Member
Ken Masters said:
Half the NBA tanking every season makes the nba season tough to watch
Click to expand...

This is the actual problem. Perception. Half the NBA doesn't tank. Not every team can be 500 or above. Tanking is such an overrated concept and rarely actually occurs. Probably one or two teams every couple years. This year it was just Philly. The Bucks, Celtics, Magic, etc didn't tank last year. There's just always going to be several bad teams.

I do like the proposed odds better, though.

gcubed said:
so if the worst team rarely gets the first pick anyway, and all they are doing is evening the odds for the first 4 teams, whats stopping people from tanking again? It'll just encourage people to be bad enough to be in the bottom 4, so instead of being a race to be the worst, that rarely nets you a #1 pick anyway, there will be a race to be in the 4 worst, opening the door for more teams to tank.

I have to be missing something here
Click to expand...

The proposed odds are much more gradual. The bottom 4 teams would have like a 10.5 percent chance at the top pick. The next few teams have a progressive chance dropping from 10 to 5 or around that. It makes no sense to tank half a season for a 2 percent increased chance. If I believed tanking was actually a huge issue, this system would be a huge, huge, huuuuge improvement. I still like the system anyway.
 
G

gcubed

Member
TheDrizzlerJ11 said:
The odds for the worst teams are now worse. It's a weird way of doing it though, not that they are.
Click to expand...

ah ok, i read that paragraph wrong. I re-read it and it makes sense.

Once they realize that the draft isn't the problem with the NBA having a glut of shit teams that are stagnant for years they can move past this.
 
K

KingGondo

Banned
Cybit said:
The only way to increase parity would be to get rid of max contracts. Max contracts moves the power from the GM to the players. The players know they're going to get the same amount of money. Might as well join up with some good friends and go wreck face.
Click to expand...
Assuming your idea also came with a salary cap, then yes that could possibly work.
 
F

fertygo

Member
gcubed said:
so if the worst team rarely gets the first pick anyway, and all they are doing is evening the odds for the first 4 teams, whats stopping people from tanking again? It'll just encourage people to be bad enough to be in the bottom 4, so instead of being a race to be the worst, that rarely nets you a #1 pick anyway, there will be a race to be in the 4 worst, opening the door for more teams to tank.

I have to be missing something here
Click to expand...

Yeah also why I hate the proposed system, the worst team isn't getting enough incentive as it is.
 
R

ratcliffja

Member
Cybit said:
The only way to increase parity would be to get rid of max contracts. Max contracts moves the power from the GM to the players. The players know they're going to get the same amount of money. Might as well join up with some good friends and go wreck face.
Click to expand...

This won't happen because GMs will do anything to prevent themselves from making stupid mistakes. The'll make sure that they can't accidentally invest too much into somebody who suddenly busts or gets injured and becomes a shell of his former self.
 
N

Ninja Scooter

Member
the draft system in all sports is bunk, but NBA is one of the worst. It's almost always the same few teams year after year. At some point you have to stop rewarding these teams for ineptitude and incompetence. It's in the league's best interest and overall health to stop sending potentially good young prospects to garbage organizations where they don't have a chance to succeed.

My simple solution would be to put teams in the back of the line if they are in the lottery one season. Basically if you get the number 1 pick this year, then next year you automatically have pick 16 (or whatever the last lottery pick is) if you miss the playoffs again. Everyone else gets bumped up a spot.
 
A

Archaix

Drunky McMurder
There seemed to be at least 7 teams actively tanking last season. I'm not sure how 23 votes seemed obtainable.
 
K

KingGondo

Banned
Ninja Scooter said:
the draft system in all sports is bunk, but NBA is one of the worst. It's almost always the same few teams year after year. At some point you have to stop rewarding these teams for ineptitude and incompetence. It's in the league's best interest and overall health to stop sending potentially good young prospects to garbage organizations where they don't have a chance to succeed.
Click to expand...
This is a false narrative. Is it really the same shitty teams that get the best talent every season?

Sure, you have a few perennial lottery teams that are always terrible (Sacramento is the most obvious example), but the very reason they're in the lottery year after year is because they draft poorly. The best talent *doesn't* go there in spite of their shittiness. Look at this list of players: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAC/draft.html

Ben McLemore. Jimmer. Thomas Robinson. Tyreke (when Steph was still on the board). There were better players on the board in every one of those drafts.

The only hit they've had in the last several years was Boogie Cousins, and even then they've failed to develop such a talent as they should. He's the perfect example of a player that would have thrived in a good organization much earlier instead of having his career threaten to go off the rails several times already.

Bad teams already get punished by drafting poorly, making reactionary trades, and failing to develop what talent they do have. In other words, they get punished for sucking.

I think the current system basically works, but I also understand why people get salty when the Cavs luck out year after year.
yankeehater said:
As a 76ers fan I am glad this did not pass.
Click to expand...
While I'm glad it didn't pass for different reasons, fuck the Sixers and fuck Hinkie.
 
turnbuckle

turnbuckle

Member
Ken Masters said:
Half the NBA tanking every season makes the nba season tough to watch
Click to expand...

Yup. I stopped watching several years ago. Too many bad teams, too many bad teams playing even below their talent levels for the sake of tanking.

My shitty Detroit Pistons are too dumb to tank so they wallow in perpetual sub-mediocrity.

Nothing worse as an NBA fan than having a team finish outside of the lottery unless they're a legitimate title contender. There's only 4-5 of those in most seasons (sometimes less than that).
 
N

Ninja Scooter

Member
KingGondo said:
This is a false narrative. Is it really the same shitty teams that get the best talent every season?

Sure, you have a few perennial lottery teams that are always terrible (Sacramento is the most obvious example), but the very reason they're in the lottery year after year is because they draft poorly. The best talent *doesn't* go there in spite of their shittiness. Look at this list of players: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAC/draft.html

Ben McLemore. Jimmer. Thomas Robinson. Tyreke (when Steph was still on the board). There were better players on the board in every one of those drafts.

The only hit they've had in the last several years was Boogie Cousins, and even then they've failed to develop such a talent as they should. He's the perfect example of a player that would have thrived in a good organization much earlier instead of having his career threaten to go off the rails several times already.

Bad teams already get punished by drafting poorly, making reactionary trades, and failing to develop what talent they do have. In other words, they get punished for sucking.

I think the current system basically works, but I also understand why people get salty when the Cavs luck out year after year.
While I'm glad it didn't pass for different reasons, fuck the Sixers and fuck Hinkie.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, how do we know how those players are going to develop if they don't go to crap organizations? Maybe those players were busts because of who drafted them? I mean yeah you have your great players who are going to be great no matter what, the transcendent talents, but even with a guy like Duncan, had he gone to the mid90s era Sterling Clippers instead of the Spurs with Pop, would we be talking about the same player and career? Where players go matters in their development.
 
B

Bay Maximus

Banned
This would have been an OK first step.

They also should reduce the number of games to the 70-75 range in order to reduce or eliminate back-to-back games excluding two home games.

Then do away with max contracts and apply a hard cap for parity.

NBA would be so much more exciting.

Optional:
invest in D Rose a cyborg leg. Go Bulls!
 
K

KingGondo

Banned
turnbuckle said:
Yup. I stopped watching several years ago. Too many bad teams, too many bad teams playing even below their talent levels for the sake of tanking.

My shitty Detroit Pistons are too dumb to tank so they wallow in perpetual sub-mediocrity.
Click to expand...
Well there's your problem.

For what it's worth, you should start watching again. Focus less on the W-L record and enjoy SVG's coaching, the emergence of the nice young talent you guys have, and root for them from night to night. Very few teams in any sport have a realistic chance of winning a title.

Ninja Scooter said:
Here's the thing, how do we know how those players are going to develop if they don't go to crap organizations? Maybe those players were busts because of who drafted them? I mean yeah you have your great players who are going to be great no matter what, the transcendent talents, but even with a guy like Duncan, had he gone to the mid90s era Sterling Clippers instead of the Spurs with Pop, would we be talking about the same player and career? Where players go matters in their development.
Click to expand...
I don't understand how this problem is fixed by the proposal that got voted down. It would just result in more blue chip players going to teams with, on average, a slightly less-shitty record.

Surely there have to be some measures the NBA could take to punish the type of shameless season-throwing that the Sixers are engaging in right now. It's obvious to everyone that they're being intentionally noncompetitive.

To answer your Duncan question, he would have been great anywhere, but he would've bolted the for Orlando to play with Grant Hill if he hadn't landed with a good franchise.

Also, it's safe to say that McLemore, Robinson, and Jimmer aren't terrible because the Kings drafted them. They're terrible because they suck and the Kings can't evaluate talent or positional need. And even when they do luck out with a guy like Isaiah Thomas, they end up letting him go for Darren fucking Collison. Kings gonna King.
 
T

tokkun

Member
Under the current system, the team with the worst record has a 25 percent chance at the No. 1 pick ...

Since the league's weighted lottery system was adopted for the 1985 draft, only four teams with the worst or tied-for-worst record have earned the top overall pick.
Click to expand...

That seems strange that the worst team has only gotten it 4 times in the last 30 year. The expected value would be 7-8 times.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
ratcliffja said:
This won't happen because GMs will do anything to prevent themselves from making stupid mistakes. The'll make sure that they can't accidentally invest too much into somebody who suddenly busts or gets injured and becomes a shell of his former self.
Click to expand...

Yep! They literally had to change the rules to protect the GMs and owners from themselves. Every time you think you have to be smart to be really rich, remind yourself of sports team owners. They're so dumb they have to change the rules to save themselves from their own arrogance and stupidity.

KingGondo said:
Assuming your idea also came with a salary cap, then yes that could possibly work.
Click to expand...

Yeah; keep salary cap, get rid of max contracts.
 
K

KingGondo

Banned
tokkun said:
That seems strange that the worst team has only gotten it 4 times in the last 30 year. The expected value would be 7-8 times.
Click to expand...
All kinds of crazy shit has happened over the years. The Bulls lucking into Derrick Rose with the 12th-best odds, the Cavs getting three number 1 picks in 4 years, etc.

yankeehater said:
You have to account for the times that the league has fixed the lottery.
Click to expand...
gtfo.
 
G

gazele

Banned
friskykillface said:
still bs that the cavs got the #1 so many times, also that 1% chance the bulls had in getting rose

bleh
Click to expand...

Well Cleveland didn't have the worst record in 3 out of the 4 times they had he first pick...

I'm not sure what people want, the NBA is already the least rewarding of having the worst record

Tanking is a valid strategy in a flawed system, too many teams make the playoffs, too many games, but those will never Change because of the money involved
 
A

andthebeatgoeson

Junior Member
Ninja Scooter said:
the draft system in all sports is bunk, but NBA is one of the worst. It's almost always the same few teams year after year. At some point you have to stop rewarding these teams for ineptitude and incompetence. It's in the league's best interest and overall health to stop sending potentially good young prospects to garbage organizations where they don't have a chance to succeed.

My simple solution would be to put teams in the back of the line if they are in the lottery one season. Basically if you get the number 1 pick this year, then next year you automatically have pick 16 (or whatever the last lottery pick is) if you miss the playoffs again. Everyone else gets bumped up a spot.
Click to expand...
Then everyone would shoot for a top 5 spot and really tank the year after that. Top 5 and a #1 pick would equal 2-3 years of bad basketball bit help with a rebuild. What do you do with number 2-5?

The proposed system seemed to increase the chance that 500 ball club would get the number one pick. All solutions can be planned for or has major flaws.
 
D

Deleted member 102481

Unconfirmed Member
Whos the college player that should go number 1 this year anyway? I know andrew wiggins had number 1 hype when he was in high school but I don't know who has that hype this year
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Aria: Story Untold Releases in Fall 2024 | Xbox Direct 2024
News
3
1K
Laptop1991 replied
Bloomberg: Behind ‘Suicide Squad,’ the Year’s Biggest Video-Game Flop
2 3
143
9K
MALpractice311 replied
NFL presenting a plan to owners where if you hire a minority head coach or executive you get better draft picks
2
99
4K
DragoonKain replied
Woj: NBA draft lottery reform could be voted in before start of this upcoming season
2 3 4
190
13K
diehard replied
  • Poll
My HONEST Thoughts On Acquisitions & Market Consolidation
Opinion Poll Analysis 2 3
131
11K
Deleted member 471617 replied
Top Bottom