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

[stretch]

How many RR Forum members will be rooting for the Wizards tomorrow?

The Wizards are number 2 in the lottery ball position (12 wins) with New Orleans (13 wins) in hot pursuit. The Raptors are at number 4 but have New Jersey, Cleveland, Detroit, and Sacramento breathing down their necks within a game or so of number 4.

[Bendit]

What really needs to change is free agency talent distribution. I was hoping that the new cba would have had more change in this regard. How about using a similar process for free agents...the worst teams get first crack at the pool of free agents (all monies being equal). There could be some tweaking here of course (like worst over 3 years etc). I believe a consequence here would be that there would be a lesser number of players opting out (something about the grass being greener) and addressing the big elephant in the room....talent retention. eg. Would Bosh have opted to leave if Cleveland had first dibs on him? If equitable talent distribution to the most needy is the goal then free agency should be considered as important at least as the draft...and probably more so. Small market teams will not be treated as pariahs any more. The PA will no doubt fight this but in reality the more healthy the greater number of teams are the better for the league and collectively the players.

[Katman]

Let's not confuse tanking with ineptness. What teams are actually deliberately losing games to improve their draft postions? The system is fine, you award bad teams with the top picks becasue that is the best way for them to get better.

Of course the good teams want to change the system so they can acquire new young talent, they're not satified taking all the best players through free agency.

[Employee]

Cleveland's pick wasn't #1. I believe that was the Clippers' pick, which was traded to Cleveland. No tweaking of the lottery system will prevent teams from trading picks.

You're right, there's was the 4th. All bets are off for the Clippers.

[draftedraptor]

The system is fine. Just take a look at europe where the big franchises poach the small ones for their best players. Now imagine the likes of Chris Bosh leaving their franchises for nothing and move to greener pastures leaving the original franchise to rot. Oh wait...never mind...

[wallz]

Been wanting to say something like that for a while Matt. Well said!

[Soft Euro]

The only way to prevent Rasual Butler-type signings is to contract the league to 16 teams.

There just aren't enough "good" players to fill out all 30 rosters.

If that would become reality you could also see more athletes in highschool and college choosing another sport instead of basketball because of better job opportunities and the Butlers still getting a spot on the team instead of being the waterboy. It's not immune to marketdynamics.

[mcHAPPY]

Are people really this fickle?

The problem here is that, generally speaking, most of teams in the lottery right now are smaller market or less 'desirable' teams.

All the national writers are based in larger markets. They are pushing their agendas because their hometown teams are not getting the Anthony Davis or Brad Beal or MKG or Barnes or Drummond or Robinson i.e. top young talent.

The critical thinking skills of people - writers and fans alike - is deplorable. Look at the teams currently in the playoffs and how they got there, generally speaking it was obtaining a talent via the draft and building from there:

Chicago - Rose, Noah - lottery picks
Miami - Wade - lottery pick
Orlando - Howard - lottery pick
Philadelphia - AI - lottery pick
Indiana - draft picks - only George is lottery and a high lottery at that
Atlanta - Horford - lottery (and imagine they had picked Williams or Paul instead of Marvin?)
Boston - Pierce - lottery (and lottery picks for other talent)
New York - big exception and they are 8th seed with limited options past this year
OKC - Durant/Westbrook/Harden - lottery/lottery/lottery
San Antonio - Duncan - lottery
Lakers - Kobe, Bynum - lottery trade, lottery
Clippers - Griffin, CP3 - lottery and assets from lottery
Dallas - Dirk - lottery
Memphis - Gay, Conley, Gasol - lottery, lottery, lottery pick traded
Utah - rebuilding team with young pieces based from lottery and trading Williams (lottery pick) - LOTTERY
Houston - purgatory team


So looking at the 16 teams above, only 3 teams can honestly be said they didn't get their foundation from the lottery (Houston, New York, Indiana). Yes, there were other factors (free agency and trades) but looking at each team, its core is comprised of a lottery pick(s).


The system is fine. The NY writers are bitching because the Knicks have f*cked up a 7 year rebuild in less than a season and they now have no other means of adding highly talented players.

[mcHAPPY]

The only way to prevent Rasual Butler-type signings is to contract the league to 16 teams.

There just aren't enough "good" players to fill out all 30 rosters.

Right you are, sir.

[Nilanka]

Easiest fix to end tanking:

All lottery teams receive the same amount of ping pong balls, if you want to miss the playoffs for an equal chance at 1 and 14, go ahead, explain that to ticket buyers.

Getting a great draft pick does not make a franchise, even getting a bunch of top picks is no guarantee you'll pick well, or manage the overall club well, so I am not inclined to believe it creates competitive balance. In fact, it often retards any possible growth in organizations that have forgotten, literally, what it means to be competitive on the court.

Another thing that bothers me is the stacking of rosters with sub par players, when every team should be trying to employ the best in the world in the best league in the world, not Rasual Butler.

The only way to prevent Rasual Butler-type signings is to contract the league to 16 teams.

There just aren't enough "good" players to fill out all 30 rosters.

[Nilanka]

I think you're half right. The first example does reward bad management, but helps teams that are stuck in the dreaded 9th spot. I think it's much harder to put together a contender in four years in your record is 41-41 than it is if your record is 10-72. Plus if it makes no difference in lottery balls if your team wins 10 games in a year or 41, you would see a more competitive NBA.

As for the Cleveland example, yeah if your franchise player leaves you're hooped, but they just had a bunch of 60 + win seasons. And then they get the #1 overall pick after one bad year? Sorry, I don't feel bad for them.

Cleveland's pick wasn't #1. I believe that was the Clippers' pick, which was traded to Cleveland. No tweaking of the lottery system will prevent teams from trading picks.

[jamesk]

Easiest fix to end tanking:

All lottery teams receive the same amount of ping pong balls, if you want to miss the playoffs for an equal chance at 1 and 14, go ahead, explain that to ticket buyers.

Getting a great draft pick does not make a franchise, even getting a bunch of top picks is no guarantee you'll pick well, or manage the overall club well, so I am not inclined to believe it creates competitive balance. In fact, it often retards any possible growth in organizations that have forgotten, literally, what it means to be competitive on the court.

Another thing that bothers me is the stacking of rosters with sub par players, when every team should be trying to employ the best in the world in the best league in the world, not Rasual Butler.

[Employee]

The first idea rewards crappy management as much or more than the current system. Isn't that part of the issue we are trying to correct: rewarding bad management? Don't see how this does that.

The second proposal suffers from any of these proposals that try to quantify wins/losses. First, the schedule isn't balanced. Conferences and divisions are very different. The order you play teams could potentially have a massive impact on your draft position and that makes no sense. What about factoring in home/away dynamics? What about a team that suffers dramatic injuries? They are doubly punished? Also, in this case, the switch at the trade deadline offers some perverse incentives for teams to tank early (perhaps sitting out players with "injuries") only to miraculously return a day after the trade deadline.

Again, the current system is, as far as I can tell, an imperfect solution but it is the best one anybody has come up with.

I think you're half right. The first example does reward bad management, but helps teams that are stuck in the dreaded 9th spot. I think it's much harder to put together a contender in four years in your record is 41-41 than it is if your record is 10-72. Plus if it makes no difference in lottery balls if your team wins 10 games in a year or 41, you would see a more competitive NBA.

As for the Cleveland example, yeah if your franchise player leaves you're hooped, but they just had a bunch of 60 + win seasons. And then they get the #1 overall pick after one bad year? Sorry, I don't feel bad for them.

[slaw]

A lot of discussion here about tanking here lately (rightfully so).

Anyone reading some of the Truehoop stuff on how to fix teams tanking and rewarding bad teams?

I thought this was a great idea:
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...e-year-lottery

A five year average instead of one really bad year. Makes sense to me, and would be nice for the Raptors (and especially the Warriors!).

This was pretty good too:
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...ogical-lottery

Thoughts?

The first idea rewards crappy management as much or more than the current system. Isn't that part of the issue we are trying to correct: rewarding bad management? Don't see how this does that.

The second proposal suffers from any of these proposals that try to quantify wins/losses. First, the schedule isn't balanced. Conferences and divisions are very different. The order you play teams could potentially have a massive impact on your draft position and that makes no sense. What about factoring in home/away dynamics? What about a team that suffers dramatic injuries? They are doubly punished? Also, in this case, the switch at the trade deadline offers some perverse incentives for teams to tank early (perhaps sitting out players with "injuries") only to miraculously return a day after the trade deadline.

Again, the current system is, as far as I can tell, an imperfect solution but it is the best one anybody has come up with.

[Hello]

I have seen a few of the ideas, espeically in the summer and last year.

The problem with using the averages, is what about if a team suddenly becomes bad?
Ex Cleveland when Lebron left (and us to some point)
When Bron left they had a brutal team, but since they had a great team for the past 3 years they cant start to rebuild right away?
Another two teams are Boston and Portland
Portland had a fairly solid team for the past few years, but decided to blow up and move on. Why should they be delayed from moving on becuase they were a mediocre team?
Or boston, last 3 years they have done really well, but this year they may not make the playoffs, and probably will not next year. We cant they begin to rebuild now?