Hoops

Kerr suggests NBA lottery changes to solve tanking

OK, old topic but I've been thinking about this.

I've taken the idea of NASCAR's "The Chase", and applied it to the NBA. What if, after the All-Star game, a separate ladder for teams out of the playoffs, or on the bubble is assembled. The best record after the ASG, but out of the playoffs wins the #1 pick, the 2nd best gets #2.

To protect the genuinely crappy teams, they will have an asterix next to them, that for example, the worst record is guaranteed the 3rd pick, the 2nd worst gets the 6th, 3rd worst gets the 9th. So those picks are set in stone, and the rest of the picks around them are up for grabs.

Just throwing it out there, smash it apart if you like. I do like daneo's idea of rewarding teams who do good things for the communtity/charity etc. Maybe that could be factored in as well?

That would be interesting Vart, so the last 10 teams get between 20-30 balls each in the draw...

Interesting, also maybe avoids some tanking as I'd imagine most teams would be happy to know they are in with that many possibilities of a pick!

I like the 1/14 chance suggestion. I just think the reverse might start happening with that. The bottom 4 or 5 clubs, in the playoff positions, might start thinking that they have no shot in the playoffs, and try to slip out. This scenario would be no good for anyone. The bottom clubs may still lose out on the best picks, the middle of the road clubs, might accidentally sneak into the playoffs and miss out on the lottery, and the slightly better clubs could get better unfairly.

I could be wrong, but nothing in the NBA would surprise when it comes to tanking.

Straightforward measures include fining teams a significant portion of money or reducing their salary cap limit for the following year.

To make it fair for genuinely weak teams (decimated by injury, or weak roster that is trying to win every game), the penalties could only apply to teams who have been in the top 5 lottery for consecutive years.

Heres a idea, what if they looked outside the box a bit.

How about they look away from what position they finish and start look to reward clubs on other tangable and intangible items.

*Community work
*Stability
*Facility improvements
*Responsible management of contracts
*Life after basketball transition courses

Reward teams who don't make the finals who are looking to improve the league.

I'm with Beantown & Ingles13 - great to see some lateral thinking, but sadly not practical.

Give them all equal chances (1/14) or, at best, give the bottom seven only a slightly better chance (2/21 versus 1/21).

Oh sorry, forgot to say, Speed44, that I think a post-season tournament for the bottom 16 teams or so wouldn't work because of the extra games players would be adding to an already over-long season.

The NBA also wouldn't want to hold such a tournament in parallel with the playoffs, because it would be seen to be taking some of the focus away from the teams that had earned post-season berths. So the tournament would have to be held after the end of the season and that would mean bringing back players who hadn't played for a couple of months.

So while I like your idea in isolation, I just don't think it would realistically get any support from either the players or the league.

I like the idea of not rewarding tanking. Every year, there is probably only 25 teams actually trying to compete and 4 or 5 who couldn't give a toss how many games they win!

You could lock the teams with the four worst records out of the top 4 picks. Then teams that can't make the playoffs would still have something to play for late in the season and their fans would have something to sustain their interest too.

I don't think this would lock the bottom four teams into a cycle of failure either. First of all, they'd still probably get a top 10 pick, which if used well, could net them a franchise player.

Secondly, experience counts for a lot in the NBA. A team in the bottom four would have an incentive to put together a team of savvy vets to drag them out of the bottom four. Good GMs could really make a name for themselves building great TEAMS of players that work well together and embrace the role of plucky underdog.

Think a team of guys like (off the top of my head) Ben Gordon, Nate Robinson, Luke Ridnour, Drew Gooden, Carlos Delfino, Baby Davis, etc. All solid professionals who have had decent careers, but who are never going to play a big role on a championship team. Those guys would love turning up each game to try to knock off the big fish and win enough games to keep their team out of the bottom four.

This is the first year its really became a big issue because of the strength of next years class. but i dont think its generally a big issue.

In recent years alot of it came down to bad management and bad luck

Bad management - Bobcats. Terrible draft choices, terrible trades

Bad Luck - Portland, aka greg oden and Brandon Roy

Unless you have a superstar it will take a few years for that team to get good. Look at the Bulls and Clippers now, teams that have built around a strong draft coming good 4 years after they got top picks. Cleveland were starting to look good until lebron fled. I think Washington is going to be alot better this year with a healthy John Wall.

AK-47 fair enough.
Think that meant you guys would have Harrison Barnes?
He has the potential to be a great player

Have to admit though, Utah's draft picks in recent years/player movements haven't been great.

I think it all tends to balance out. You get some good luck, you get some bad luck.

But in terms of dealing with situations they can control (Selecting players in the draft), Utah need to do a better job

But won't it discourage the tanking problem? That's what we're trying to solve here. Why would anyone "try" and finish last (or even bottom 3) with that in place. Sure, the seedings could do with some tweaking maybe, but I think it would be decent for all.

Has the "weighted odds" lottery really made many teams better? Maybe OKC, but other than that, it's been an abysmal failure generally. This way, teams can't really afford to salary dump, and tank. The Bucks for example, may not have traded away young talent like Harris if they knew they had the Lottery Tournament coming? Maybe it would encourage bad teams to build (hold onto decent talent) rather than constantly "rebuilding".

Also, there are no guaranteed wins in those match ups above. The Magic would be up against a tired (after the 1st round V Knicks), old Celtics in the 1st round. Charlotte could match it with the Bucks. Out of all of them, maybe only Dallas over Phoenix is a sure bet, even then I wouldn't be comfortable backing them in a one-off game on the Suns' homecourt. The Cavs could have easily beaten the Jazz this season, especially at the Q.

The reason they give the best odds to the last place team is so the worst get better.

That system you suggested there does not do that! the middle range teams get better, the top teams drop down to middle teams and worst stay worst.

What if, during the playoffs (after the 1st round), the lottery teams plus 2 eliminated teams from the 1st round with the worst season records, play a 16 team elimination style tournament with the winner taking the #1 pick, runner-up 2nd etc?

This would be played concurrently with the NBA Playoffs, with the teams ranked by their records. The worst teams would get homecourt. This past season, the 1st round matchups would've been:

Orlando (20-62) V Boston (Lucky Loser #1)
Charlotte (21-61) V Milwaukee (LL #2)
Cleveland (24-58) V Utah (43-39)
Phoenix (25-57) V Dallas (41-41)
New Orleans (27-55) V Philadelphia (34-48)
Sacramento (28-54) V Toronto (34-48)
Washington (29-53) V Portland (33-49)
Detroit (29-52) V Minnesota (31-51)

I think it would be really interesting. One match elimination like the NCAA tourney. Teams WOULD NOT want to finish last and play a playoff team (Orl V Bos for example). It'd probably be more exciting than the early games of the 2nd round of playoffs.

It would also encourage teams on the fringe of the playoffs, but with a slightly dodgy W/L record (Milwaukee), to push for that playoff spot and play one of the 2 lowest ranked teams in the Lottery Tournament (if they lose in the 1st round of the playoffs of course), instead of tanking and missing the playoffs.

For the players in the Lottery Tournament teams, this would give them the chance to show off their "big game" capabilities which may not have otherwise been put on show. For example, Tobias Harris has a MASSIVE clutch game and gets the Magic over the line against the Celtics.

For the league, they could auction off the rights to the tourney to a TV network for decent dollars.

Thoughts? Problems?

Vart, hit the nail on the head. That should have been my Jazz's pick!

Perhaps just alter the draft lottery probability distribution?

For example:

Instead of the worst team having ~25% chance of landing the #1 pick, they have ~15%. The final lottery pick would have a greater chance of landing the #1 pick, such as ~2% (rather than the fraction of a percent chance they have under the current system).

Obviously the probabilities used would be different to those I've described.

In essence: adjust the probability distribution enough to create sufficiently less incentives to tank by reducing the odds of landing a high draft pick. This way perennial bottom-feeders still have a high chance of improving through the draft, but cannot rely on it.

To me this seems the simplest solution to 'tanking' without creating unnecessarily complicated rules exceptions.

Warriors are a great example of how to build a team without tanking.

Pacers are another prime example. Hill, George, Hibbert were all first round picks, though none of those went higher than number 10. Stephenson was pick 40. Granger went at 17 (1st round but still not that high).

Then they went out and got a nice free agent in West in 2011.

Unfortunately, GMs don't have that much patience and confidence in their players.

Bird had/has both. He drafted/made moves for that entire Pacers starting unit and the team is reaping the rewards.

In drafts like next year, tanking for a couple of teams seems like a low risk, high reward option.

Beyond Wiggins teams will still have guys like Parker, Randle, Marcus Smart, Aaron Gordon.

So even if you slip to the 5th/6th pick, you are still looking at a franchise type player.