32 replies to this topic

[Saints Rest]

I was going to post this in the P&G NBA/Stern thread in reference to Jim Rome's question to Stern about allegations of fixing the lottery.

The lottery was put into place in 1985 to counter accusations that the Rockets and several other teams (in 1984) were deliberately losing their regular season games in order to secure the worst record and subsequently the chance to obtain the first pick. The first year of the lottery resulted in the controversial Ewing/Knicks lottery which was likely the beginning of the first Sten conspiracy theory.
After using a simple weighted system for a few years, Orlando won the lottery in 1993 (with only a 1.5% chance to win) resulting in their pick of Chris Webber (which turned into Penny Hardaway) to go with Shaq (the previous year's lottery winner's #1 pick, also Orlando). So, again, the NBA tinkers with the system.

Since the weighted lottery system introduced in 1990, only three teams with the worst record went on to win the lottery while only four teams with the second-worst record have won the lottery. That's 7 years out of 23.

What value does the lottery still have? How is it that no other sport feels the need to craft some sort of system to prevent teams from tanking games? Isn't the idea of the draft to help the league's worst teams recover? Yet the NBA has only allowed that to happen about 1/3 of the time. Seven times (again, about 1/3 of the time), the top pick has gone to a team with no worse than the 6th-worst record. And here we are in 2012 with another Stern Conspiracy -- "The Lottery is Rigged."

So I ask again: Does the NBA still need the lottery?

[wutang112878]

I would say yes. A few examples I can think of:

• The Lebron draft. Cleveland recognized that they could possibly be drafting a once in a generation type talent. With the lottery there was some reason why they shouldnt completely tank.
• The Duncan draft. The Celts tanked, no question about it, and it was MLs master plan to get Duncan and basically build the franchise around him.
• Durant/Oden draft. I dont think either of these franchises really tanked, but because of the talent that was coming down the pipeline there was an incentive for franchises to do so.

The way I see it, when the top talent is someone like say Kyre Irving, who is good but not franchise changing, then there isnt much need for a lottery. But when the top talent is a Lebron, Duncan, Durant, a true franchise changing player, then the lottery is important to provide some reason for bad teams not to tank.

[geoffm33]

Not an answer to your question, but why isn't the% chance tied to your record? If the worst 3 teams had 12, 13, 14 wins respectively then the worst team has a 38% better chance than the third worst team (250 chances to 156 chances). Not sure how to best pull it off, but the weighted system has it's flaws.

Edited by geoffm33, 14 June 2012 - 12:47 PM.

[Hendu's Gait]

I'm with Rome. The issue isn't if NBA needs one, but whether it (and the NHL's) is fair and whether the NFL and MLB could use one.

Edited by Hendu's Gait, 14 June 2012 - 12:49 PM.

[Tony C]

i think the NFL could use one -- the Luck Bowl thing just sort of sucks some of the life out of a season and a team's fans. It was lousy to see a Colts game last year knowing they'd rather win than lose (not that individual players weren't trying, they have their own self-interest at stake). Not a big deal as they would have sucked, anyway, but leaves a bad taste all the same.

I don't see what the big deal is about the worst team rarely winning the lottery. It's just basic math that they won't (hell, in my fantasy baseball league we have a lottery for our draft and the worst team never seems to "win"). I have no problem with that. The upside down draft still performs its generic function of distributing talent in a slightly redistributive way, but I don't think we should worry too obsessively about compensating ineptitude. If a sucky team drafts #4 instead of #1, tough s**t.

[Super Nomario]

I was going to post this in the P&G NBA/Stern thread in reference to Jim Rome's question to Stern about allegations of fixing the lottery.

The lottery was put into place in 1985 to counter accusations that the Rockets and several other teams (in 1984) were deliberately losing their regular season games in order to secure the worst record and subsequently the chance to obtain the first pick. The first year of the lottery resulted in the controversial Ewing/Knicks lottery which was likely the beginning of the first Sten conspiracy theory.
After using a simple weighted system for a few years, Orlando won the lottery in 1993 (with only a 1.5% chance to win) resulting in their pick of Chris Webber (which turned into Penny Hardaway) to go with Shaq (the previous year's lottery winner's #1 pick, also Orlando). So, again, the NBA tinkers with the system.

Since the weighted lottery system introduced in 1990, only three teams with the worst record went on to win the lottery while only four teams with the second-worst record have won the lottery. That's 7 years out of 23.

What value does the lottery still have? How is it that no other sport feels the need to craft some sort of system to prevent teams from tanking games? Isn't the idea of the draft to help the league's worst teams recover? Yet the NBA has only allowed that to happen about 1/3 of the time. Seven times (again, about 1/3 of the time), the top pick has gone to a team with no worse than the 6th-worst record. And here we are in 2012 with another Stern Conspiracy -- "The Lottery is Rigged."

So I ask again: Does the NBA still need the lottery?

A generational talent has more impact in the NBA than in any other league, with the only exception maybe an Andrew Luck-type QB prospect (there was "Suck for Luck," but you didn't hear of anyone "Not Tryin' for Matt Ryan"). Teams absolutely tank; the Celtics sat Paul Pierce for like 50 games with a moderate ankle injury the Oden / Durant year. I believe this was studied in Wages of Wins; they found evidence of teams tanking less once the lottery was instituted, though tanking ticked up somewhat once the current weightings were introduced.

[moondog80]

The value of the lottery, beyond anything it may do to ensure a fair effort from all teams, is publicity. All that attention for David Stern announcing the result of a random number generator.

[jon abbey]

I think some kind of lottery in the NBA is essential (and I'm fine with the current system, including not showing the actual selection publicly), can you imagine what the season LeBron was coming out would have been like otherwise? Half the league would have been trying to go 0-82 from day 1, that would have been ugly.

[Toe Nash]

Teams still tank anyway as once you're out of the playoff hunt (or think you are) you may as well even if it doesn't assure you the top pick. So they rest stars, try weird lineups, and so on. But as long as the players they put on the court are trying I don't see the problem.

I do think that if there was no lottery you may see guys playing at 50% effort a lot more, especially in the last month or so, and that would be bad.

I kind of like some version of the NHL's system. For those who don't know, in the NHL every team that doesn't make the playoffs gets entered in the lottery, and one team wins. But that team can only move up 4 spots. So you avoid fringe playoff teams getting real top players, but also cut down on tanking. The worst team by record does get the #1 pick 48% of the time, but if they don't they will pick second.

In the NBA I think some modification of this could work well, since the shittiest part (for Celtics fans at least) is when you've had to suffer through a terrible season, have a terrible record but then end up picking 5th (unless you trade that pick for Ray Allen). Just have a limit on how far teams can move up or down from what their pick "should" be to mitigate any extreme bad luck.

[MannysDestination]

When considering the four big sports, the NBA seems to have the most justifiable reason for having a lottery - concentrated rosters, particularly when it comes to floor time. A superstar might be responsible for 30-40% of a team's total scoring, and nearly 20% of total minutes played. No other sport comes close to that much reliance on a single individual. Even in football where the QB is hugely important, it won't mean dick if his o-line sucks, or if his receivers just can't get open.

One wrinkle to the lottery is alluded to in other posts - it actually expands the number of teams that are incentivized to tank. If you're the third worst team, you have a large incentive to not become the fourth worst team.

Edited by MannysDestination, 14 June 2012 - 01:55 PM.

[Ed Hillel]

Yes, though I think there should be serious consideration into changing the odds. The team with the worst record should be getting better than a 25% chance of landing the top player, in my opinion. I think I'd take a few of the bottom teams out of the lottery completely and add those percentage points to the worst team in the league.

As for the lottery, and rigging, I still think there are ways to conduct it that would get viewership and heavily reduce suspicion. I still think the method I proposed in the other thread would work out great for everyone.

[Super Nomario]

Here's an article on the evidence of (and incentives for) tanking:
http://causalsportsf...or-not-to-tank/

[Marbleheader]

I would add some kind of protection in place to prevent teams like the '96 Spurs, '11 Colts from having one down year and landing the top pick due to an injury. Somehow have it weighted based on the current year's standings, but factoring in the team's 5 year record when weighing their percentages.

[geoffm33]

Yes, though I think there should be serious consideration into changing the odds. The team with the worst record should be getting better than a 25% chance of landing the top player, in my opinion. I think I'd take a few of the bottom teams out of the lottery completely and add those percentage points to the worst team in the league.

As for the lottery, and rigging, I still think there are ways to conduct it that would get viewership and heavily reduce suspicion. I still think the method I proposed in the other thread would work out great for everyone.

So there would be a group of teams that don't enter the lottery as well as miss out on the playoffs? I like that idea. Further incentive to make the playoffs (or do a better job at tanking I suppose).

[wutang112878]

I would add some kind of protection in place to prevent teams like the '96 Spurs, '11 Colts from having one down year and landing the top pick due to an injury. Somehow have it weighted based on the current year's standings, but factoring in the team's 5 year record when weighing their percentages.

I like the idea but I think its a difficult line to draw. Take these 2 examples, the 96 Spurs lost Robinson for a year, were awful and with the addition of Duncan became an elite team. The 11 Colts lost Manning, I know all the reports are bullish at this point but we dont know if he will recover and be the old Peyton again and he could just be an average QB for the rest of his career. How do you make a distinction between those 2 situations? Unless the logic is that to get a top pick the team needs to suck for a significant period of time, which probably isnt that bad of a strategy.

[Nick Kaufman]

I would add some kind of protection in place to prevent teams like the '96 Spurs, '11 Colts from having one down year and landing the top pick due to an injury. Somehow have it weighted based on the current year's standings, but factoring in the team's 5 year record when weighing their percentages.

That's a great idea. Great idea. UEFA has rankings for teams participating in its competitions which determine draws and such. It measures the last 5 years.

[Nick Kaufman]

I like the idea but I think its a difficult line to draw. Take these 2 examples, the 96 Spurs lost Robinson for a year, were awful and with the addition of Duncan became an elite team. The 11 Colts lost Manning, I know all the reports are bullish at this point but we dont know if he will recover and be the old Peyton again and he could just be an average QB for the rest of his career. How do you make a distinction between those 2 situations? Unless the logic is that to get a top pick the team needs to suck for a significant period of time, which probably isnt that bad of a strategy.

Rumor is they made Robinson lose the year; he was healthy. If you draft based on the last 5 years, you help the truly awful franchises; all the same, it's tough to tank on purpose of 5 years, since the cost is too high and then GMs and coaches have to think of their job security if they keep losing for such an extended amount of time.

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

I like the "5 year" idea too.

Alot.

Now we just need to get a hold of Stern.

[wutang112878]

Rumor is they made Robinson lose the year; he was healthy. If you draft based on the last 5 years, you help the truly awful franchises; all the same, it's tough to tank on purpose of 5 years, since the cost is too high and then GMs and coaches have to think of their job security if they keep losing for such an extended amount of time.

I think the counter-argument is the franchises that are just clueless. For every 96 Spurs, we have the Clippers [who might have finally turned it around but it took decades], and more recently the Bobcats, the T-Wolves, Warriors, Wizards, etc. While it seems like a good idea to have a draft system to help these franchises, if they just continue to make bad decisions then the intent of this system is kind of pointless. Take the Clippers draft history for the 90s, it was beyond bad.

If we really want to make changes to help bad franchises, I think getting them good GMs will be more effective than changing the lottery system.

[Toe Nash]

Rumor is they made Robinson lose the year; he was healthy. If you draft based on the last 5 years, you help the truly awful franchises; all the same, it's tough to tank on purpose of 5 years, since the cost is too high and then GMs and coaches have to think of their job security if they keep losing for such an extended amount of time.

I agree mostly, but you might run into some issues for teams on the upswing. For example, Cleveland had won 22 (shortened season), 32, 30, 29 and 17 games the 5 seasons previous to drafting LBJ. All those records were in the bottom third of the league (or close, just guessing) so they probably would have still had the #1 pick. (If they didn't, we can just assume they did for the sake of my example.)

The first year with LeBron they had him and a bunch of crap, but he's good enough along with some other improvements that they won 35 games. They ended up with the 10th pick in the next draft and took Luke Jackson. But if you're weighting the previous 5 years into it, you'd be counting their 17-win season along with some other bad ones, and then they may end up with a higher pick and take Luol Deng or Iguodala. Then the next year they'd have LBJ and Iguodala, but you'd still be weighing in their 30, 29 and 17-win seasons so you'd be helping out an even better team.

So weighting multiple years would avoid situations like the 96 Spurs, but it might create teams who get consecutive high picks even though the team was improving a lot.

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Wouldn't the "5 year rule" also unfairly penalize teams like Cleveland who are rebuilding after the loss of a star in free agency?

Edit: Thinking about it further, free agency/trades-because-of-impending-free-agency would create a real issue with a 5 year rule. For instance, this year the Clippers would have had a much higher percentage chance of winning the lottery than the Hornets. Over the last 5 years the Clippers winning percentage is 36% while the Hornets is 53%. It needs to be accounted for somehow that New Orleans lost Chris Paul and David West.

Edited by Grin&MartyBarret, 14 June 2012 - 03:40 PM.

[collings94]

Didn't the Warriors have some goofy trade with Utah that gave the Jazz their pick, unless GS got a top 6 pick? To get rid of tanking, the NBA needs to get tid of trades with dumb clauses like this.

[drleather2001]

Fine, then make it a 2-year average instead of 5.

[BigSoxFan]

Rumor is they made Robinson lose the year; he was healthy. If you draft based on the last 5 years, you help the truly awful franchises; all the same, it's tough to tank on purpose of 5 years, since the cost is too high and then GMs and coaches have to think of their job security if they keep losing for such an extended amount of time.

Robinson was certainly ready to return at some point that year but they held him out (kind of like what the Celtics did with Pierce in 2007). I think other players were treated similarly.

[Super Nomario]

I don't think it's a big deal that the team with the worst record often doesn't get the #1 pick. Anthony Davis is a consensus franchise-changing prospect, and maybe New Orleans will be good in 3-4 years if they can surround him with the right pieces. Meanwhile Charlotte will probably still be awful. But from the standpoint of the whole league, what difference does it make? Davis gives one of those teams a chance to be a competitor. Does it really matter that it's the team that won 21 games this year or the team that won 7? It sucks for fans of Charlotte, but it would suck just as much for fans of New Orleans if they didn't get Davis.

[Marbleheader]

I've outlined it before, but I'd also have a Donald Sterling Rule where a team cannot pick in the top 5 consecutive years, or more than twice in 5 years to help balance the 5 year rule by not rewarding incompetence.

[Infield Infidel]

Can someone give me a reason why they can't do the lottery live?

[Super Nomario]

I've outlined it before, but I'd also have a Donald Sterling Rule where a team cannot pick in the top 5 consecutive years, or more than twice in 5 years to help balance the 5 year rule by not rewarding incompetence.

2007 #2 pick - Kevin Durant
2008 #4 pick - Russell Westbrook
2009 #3 pick - James Harden

I don't think we should discourage teams from building the way OKC did.

[wutang112878]

I don't think we should discourage teams from building the way OKC did.

Urgh, this sucks because its a great example. Based on what they have done since 2007, we can see how they Thunder were building. And based on the Clips in the 90s we could tell they had no idea how to build. Its tough to build a rule around this.

However, considering that the problem is that poorly run franchises generally waste top lottery picks, whats the big deal if these guys pick in the top 5 over and over? I cant think of a championship team that was build because the franchise was allowed to pick in the top 5 over and over. Perhaps we should just allow these teams to self-correct?

I do still think that when a team is run as badly as the Clips or Knicks were during the 90s, eventually the league should step in and try to help out in some way.

[Fishercat]

I'm not a lottery fan at all, but I have another lottery proposal that could be interesting, inspired by some posts in this topic.

We have the five year and two year options proposed, but what about something where the last three years are considered with the more recent years weighted. Non-playoff teams would be entered in the lottery (from the previous year), and their records in the past three seasons would be considered. A simple 3-2-1 system. For instance, Charlotte's winning percentage the last three years were

.106 (11-12), .415 (10-11), and .537 (09-10)

That would make for a weighted winning percentage of .280 with the calculation of ([.106*3]+[.415*2]+.537)/6. For a team like Cleveland, who is two years out from Lebron's exodus, is

.318, .232, and .744

So their weighted percentage would be .360.

Other teams include

New Orleans: .421
New Jersey: .288
Washington: .298
Sacramento: .306
Golden State: .373
Los Angeles Clippers: .492

It seems to me that this would be a pretty decent solution to tanking with some percentage tweaks (maybe it would be 4-3-2-1, or something a bit different) while diminishing the effect of a single great season due to acquiring a ton of good talent (Boston after their first "Big 3" season would have a number of .567, and wouldn't be in my lottery anyway). Yes, Charlotte would still have the best percentage, but it took a historically bad season with no other team having a WP under .300 (5 teams did the year before) to screw up the weights.

Or if you want a different system, you ignore winning percentages all together and do it based on where they ranked in the lottery previously. So if Charlotte got no combinations in 09-10 (as a playoff team) 15 combinations in 10-11 (9th worst team), and 250 combinations in 11-12 (as the worst team), they would have 265 (non-weighted system of 250+15+0) or 780 (3-2-1 weighted, three years, so 250*3; 15*2; 0*1) combinations out of either 3000 or 6000 combos, which if you want to convert that to a 1000-number system, would be 88 (non-weighted) or 130 (weighted) combinations (8.8 to 13% chance) So the Bobcats would have had a 13% chance at Anthony Davis even with their tanking and this weighted system.

For someone like the Clippers, that would mean a 1.8% chance (nonweighted) or 1.35% chance (weighted) of winning the Davis sweepstakes, if you include playoff teams.

I'm not sure which is really better, although I personally think that a weighted system, counterbalanced by greater percentages to the worst teams (25% seems a little low for the worst team, but YMMV), makes some sense.

.

[simplyeric]

Wouldn't the "5 year rule" also unfairly penalize teams like Cleveland who are rebuilding after the loss of a star in free agency?

That might not be a bad thing (although maybe a 3 year weighting would be better [edit: the weighting that Fishercat proposed, or something):
-teams that were just recently (in the last few years) doing well would have to deal with a few years of middling picks, until they get down towards the bottom OR actually put together a team that can compete in the mean time. Or, they can trade picks for players, etc
-teams that have sucked for years would have more than one year of good drafting to help them out of the slump. So, you wouldn't have an issue where one big loss (career ender or finished contract for their superstar) would result in one year of crap, one good pick, and then 10 years of ups and downs in the middle because the one good pick is often not enough to get you back into the mix

Edited by simplyeric, 19 June 2012 - 12:40 PM.

[Dehere]

So there would be a group of teams that don't enter the lottery as well as miss out on the playoffs? I like that idea.

Came in here to post this same thing. The number of teams in the lottery should be cut way down. The 14th worst team in the league should have no shot at the #1 pick, even if it is a 200-1 shot. Hell, I don't even think the 5th or 6th worst teams should have a chance.

My proposal: Every year there are 2-4 teams in the lottery, weighted equally. The number of teams in the lottery would itself be chosen by a lottery after the season. The worst team would still get no worse than the 4th pick and everything after the lottery would be determined on straight record.

[Super Nomario]

Came in here to post this same thing. The number of teams in the lottery should be cut way down. The 14th worst team in the league should have no shot at the #1 pick, even if it is a 200-1 shot. Hell, I don't even think the 5th or 6th worst teams should have a chance.

My proposal: Every year there are 2-4 teams in the lottery, weighted equally. The number of teams in the lottery would itself be chosen by a lottery after the season. The worst team would still get no worse than the 4th pick and everything after the lottery would be determined on straight record.

This is going to really encourage tanking. Teams will know they have no shot at the #1 unless they have at least one of the four worst records.