Everything Tanking ;) Raptor still have a long shot at 3rd worst record...

[DoubleD]

What about a playoff bracket for losing teams ?

14 lottery teams ranked from 1 to 14 based on W/L record.

Best 2 teams are exempted of 1st round, teams 3-14 play to go to last 8 in a single game, March madness style.

At the end, winner of the bracket gets pick #1, finalist gets #2, #3 and #4 are determined by a "losers' game". Then from #5, you go as usual (from worst to best record).

Cool things about this :

# Teams will fight for their seed til the end of the season
# All teams get a bit of postseason action
# Sure, best teams (or should i say least sucking teams) are advantaged, but everything can happen in a single game.

I really like this idea... as would the NBA and most teams, as it would create more games and excitement for all teams.. leading to more revenue. And everyone wants a way to create more revenue.

The only problem with this is that the worst teams now have pretty bad odds of getting the first 3-4 picks. They need a handicap to INCREASE their odds in winning this mini tournament.
Maybe the worse 2 teams get the By!?!

[mcHAPPY]

Hahaha And there is the 'flaw' I was looking for. Thanks Matt!
It'd be a race to see who can be eliminated from the Playoffs first.

But I guess since that makes very little FINANCIAL sense, its a little less of an option.

I like the idea though. Realistically most teams are going balls out in the first couple of months. In a normal season it is usually not until January when teams start to lose faith, hope, effort, or whatever you want to call it..... oh yeah, tank.

[Apollo]

Without defeating the key principal of the draft You'll never find a way to prevent teams from cutting talent so that they're even more outmatched down the stretch.

The idea of having them awarded a better slot for winning games after being mathematically eliminated from the playoffs runs counter to the point of the draft. Teams get high draft picks in part due to their lack of competitiveness. Flipping the concept at the last moment to me seems... Well, stupid. I think the draft is as good as it gets.

[Snizzoop]

Hahaha And there is the 'flaw' I was looking for. Thanks Matt!
It'd be a race to see who can be eliminated from the Playoffs first.

But I guess since that makes very little FINANCIAL sense, its a little less of an option.

Yeah, that's not REALLY a flaw. In order for a team to be mathematically eliminated from the playoffs by game 41, that team would have to lose all 41 games, AND the top eight teams would have to go undefeated over those same 41 games. NOT gonna happen...it's literally impossible as those teams have to play each other at some point.

The awarding points per win after mathematical elimination is pure genius. Sure, the first teams eliminated would have more chances to build that point total, but seeing as they are the worst teams, they need those extra chances. That being said, since they are so bad, they probably won't win many of those games, potentially giving those that are mathematically eliminated later a good chance to "catch up" to the truly awful.

The only true down side I see is that scheduling becomes important down the stretch. If an awful team gets stuck playing top caliber teams to the end of the season, the chance of accruing points would be slim.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

Whoa ... this just blew my mind.
I've spent 4 minutes trying to find a flaw in this system, and have yet to do so.
If I can't find one in 4 minutes, then there likely isn't one. hahah

The only down side I can think of immediately is what it would do to the trade deadline and the notion of "buyers" and "sellers". Not only is there "tanking", but being eliminated from the playoffs gives teams the opportunity to unload bad contracts, veteran players, etc... that a team's fanbase wouldn't accept prior to or during the season, but suddenly encourage once they are in "looking forward" mode.

While not perfect, I think the NBA draft lottery is the best system from among the 4 major sports leagues, for improving teams and at least attempting to avoid all-out tanking.

[Bendit]

Looking at this season for example how many of the eg. 6 worst teams are truly in tank mode (supported and seriously practiced by the coach and players). Iam hard pressed to point to any including the Bobcats and the Raptors. The tank nation is us the fans and the 6 teams are just plain bad. I will say though that BC was quite purposeful in choosing this roster to facilitate a bad season while the Bobcats theoretically could have been much better than they have if their 2 high picks (Biyombo & Kemba) played at a higher level.

My suggestion would be to eliminate the weighting (have a straight lottery) amongst the worst 4 teams, retain the weighting for the next 10 and then by record. My hope is that teams will find their natural level of competence without an incentive to play badly except maybe at the very end of the season when jockeying to get into the worst 4 group might occur by those on the edge. No incentives/guarantees for the top picks.

[Hugmenot]

My suggestion would be to eliminate the weighting (have a straight lottery) amongst the worst 4 teams, retain the weighting for the next 10 and then by record. My hope is that teams will find their natural level of competence without an incentive to play badly except maybe at the very end of the season when jockeying to get into the worst 4 group might occur by those on the edge. No incentives/guarantees for the top picks.

Unfortunately, the jockeying for position into the worst 4 group would likely create a scenario like the one which actually happened in the 1983-84 season.

I'll pass.

[stretch]

From ESPN's Beckley Mason:

One of the clearest lessons from the 2012 Trade Deadline is that tanking is no longer a strategy to be discussed in accusatory whispers, as it was when Cleveland trashed its season to improve its chances of netting LeBron James. In today’s NBA, tanking is a way of life.

NBA teams and fans are willing to throw away entire seasons (full of games that people pay good money to attend) to end up at the top of the lottery with an empty capsheet, also known as “Position A” for building a longterm winner.

Don’t like it? Well don’t blame NBA front offices, their job is to win within the current system.

So blame the system.

It's time to fix the system.

[malefax]

Here's a nice solution

Rank the teams that are in the lottery (failed to make the playoffs) 1-14, with one being the worst record, etc.

Take a ball for each team ranked 7-14. Draw one of those: the team drawn gets the 14th pick. Add the ball for team 6, draw for the 13th pick. Add the ball for team 5, draw for the 12th pick, etc. For picks 8-1, you just keep drawing from the remaining balls.

This way, there's a bit of an advantage of having a worse record, but any team can win the lottery, and record doesn't make such a big difference in the rankings.

[TheGloveinRapsUniform]

From ESPN's Beckley Mason:





It's time to fix the system.

I really cant imagine how players agree to tanking.
Its one year removed from their playing careers.

[Apollo]

It's time to fix the system.

What exactly? Remove one of the few avenues a small market team like Oklahoma City has to build a contender? The league's current system is fine and if some teams want to tank then so be it. They should have to answer to their own fans, not the league on this topic. The league's only concern should be when teams don't following the league rules. Fans vote with their dollars. If you don't like it, abstain. Seriously, teams are doing this because we the fans have confirmed that collectively we're willing to pay for it.

For the record I don't feel that most teams are tanking. Maybe some general managers are placing their teams at a disadvantage but the coaches and players are still out there trying to win.

Here's a nice solution

Rank the teams that are in the lottery (failed to make the playoffs) 1-14, with one being the worst record, etc.

Take a ball for each team ranked 7-14. Draw one of those: the team drawn gets the 14th pick. Add the ball for team 6, draw for the 13th pick. Add the ball for team 5, draw for the 12th pick, etc. For picks 8-1, you just keep drawing from the remaining balls.

This way, there's a bit of an advantage of having a worse record, but any team can win the lottery, and record doesn't make such a big difference in the rankings.

How does this stop teams from tanking? There is still a benefit to the worst team in this scenario.

[slaw]

The problem with the NHL proposal is that it isn't really fair if you're a team that isn't eliminated until the last game of the season. Why don't your wins count? It would also be completely unfair and unworkable given unbalanced schedules and, even more simply, the timing of when you played teams. Teams with identical records could have huge deltas in their draft position based on nothing more than when they played certain teams. Something as simple as an injury or suspension could cost teams draft slots. So, teams are punished for having guys hurt and playing tough year-end scheds? Nonsense.

Also, something else to keep in mind. Why are NBA teams rebuilding this way? Cause it works. Is it guaranteed? No, of course not. But GMs look at the Cavs, the Heat, the Bulls, the Spurs, the Thunder, etc. and there's a reason they are trying to get the top pick. For 90% of teams, they won't get a top of the food chain guy unless they draft him. If you take away the hope of getting the next Lebron or Griffin, you honestly may as well fold up 15 or so teams.

[Nilanka]

The problem with the NHL proposal is that it isn't really fair if you're a team that isn't eliminated until the last game of the season. Why don't your wins count? It would also be completely unfair and unworkable given unbalanced schedules and, even more simply, the timing of when you played teams. Teams with identical records could have huge deltas in their draft position based on nothing more than when they played certain teams. Something as simple as an injury or suspension could cost teams draft slots. So, teams are punished for having guys hurt and playing tough year-end scheds? Nonsense.

Also, something else to keep in mind. Why are NBA teams rebuilding this way? Cause it works. Is it guaranteed? No, of course not. But GMs look at the Cavs, the Heat, the Bulls, the Spurs, the Thunder, etc. and there's a reason they are trying to get the top pick. For 90% of teams, they won't get a top of the food chain guy unless they draft him. If you take away the hope of getting the next Lebron or Griffin, you honestly may as well fold up 15 or so teams.

+1

The system works.

Some impatient fans may not like it...but nobody's holding a gun to their head to watch [temporary] ugly basketball.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

As has been pointed out, a very small percentage of teams with the worst record have actually won the lottery, so it's not like tanking is an absolute way to get the top pick.

In fact, there's been a couple instances where the concept of the lottery has utterly backfired:

1) Orlando drafted Shaq 1st overall in 1992 and the team improved significantly the following season, narrowly missing the playoffs. With the worst odds of winning the lottery, they did just that. They drafted Chris Webber 1st overall and immediately traded him to Golden State for Penny Hardaway (1993 3rd overall pick) and 3 future 1st round picks! Tanking the 1992-93 season definitely didn't work out for the bottom feeding teams that year.

2) The 1995-96 Spurs, featuring all-star David Robinson, lost the western conference semi finals to Utah. They had high hopes to improve in the 1996-97 season, but injuries decimated their team and they missed the playoffs with the 3rd worst record (Robinson played only 6 games that season). However, the Spurs won the lottery and drafted Tim Duncan 1st overall... you know the rest. The Spurs weren't really a "bad" team and certainly not the most despearate for a franchise changing star, but thanks to injuries and the lottery, the 'twin towers' were formed and championships followed.


My point is that there are many ways for teams that are "not deserving" to get top draft picks, be it through injury, tanking or lottery luck. The bottom line is that there is no perfect system. The last few seasons have seen consensus #1 picks (ie: Davis, Irving, Wall, Griffin) which is why this debate has come to the forefront. However, in a draft without a consensus #1 pick (ie: 2006 when Bargnani went 1st overall), you could very well see several teams pick their top choice, making the debate a moot point.

I think the NBA lottery is a good balance between trying to help the worst teams improve and trying to prevent purposeful losing.

[TheGloveinRapsUniform]

As has been pointed out, a very small percentage of teams with the worst record have actually won the lottery, so it's not like tanking is an absolute way to get the top pick.

In fact, there's been a couple instances where the concept of the lottery has utterly backfired:

1) Orlando drafted Shaq 1st overall in 1992 and the team improved significantly the following season, narrowly missing the playoffs. With the worst odds of winning the lottery, they did just that. They drafted Chris Webber 1st overall and immediately traded him to Golden State for Penny Hardaway (1993 3rd overall pick) and 3 future 1st round picks! Tanking the 1992-93 season definitely didn't work out for the bottom feeding teams that year.

2) The 1995-96 Spurs, featuring all-star David Robinson, lost the western conference semi finals to Utah. They had high hopes to improve in the 1996-97 season, but injuries decimated their team and they missed the playoffs with the 3rd worst record (Robinson played only 6 games that season). However, the Spurs won the lottery and drafted Tim Duncan 1st overall... you know the rest. The Spurs weren't really a "bad" team and certainly not the most despearate for a franchise changing star, but thanks to injuries and the lottery, the 'twin towers' were formed and championships followed.


My point is that there are many ways for teams that are "not deserving" to get top draft picks, be it through injury, tanking or lottery luck. The bottom line is that there is no perfect system. The last few seasons have seen consensus #1 picks (ie: Davis, Irving, Wall, Griffin) which is why this debate has come to the forefront. However, in a draft without a consensus #1 pick (ie: 2006 when Bargnani went 1st overall), you could very well see several teams pick their top choice, making the debate a moot point.

I think the NBA lottery is a good balance between trying to help the worst teams improve and trying to prevent purposeful losing.

Very good post.