Lotto odds

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
wutang112878 said:
This certainly reduces the advantage of tanking but it doesnt eliminate it, the more losses you get the better your odds the relationship between losses and chances just changed slightly. 
 
One option is the Celts suggested rotating lottery system, where you get a specific pick each year with a specific schedule.
 
Of course it doesn't eliminate the advantage of tanking. The advantage of tanking will never be eliminated as long as you tie draft position to losing. The problem that the NBA faces is that teams need to balance the incentives of tanking with other incentives (gate revenue, etc). Anything that requires a subjective judgement of "tanking" is a non-starter. So the best approach in my mind is to reduce the tanking incentive. Using straight or modified win-loss records gives the worst teams a small advantage in the draft but doesn't distort the value of a win the way the current system does. It's also a lot simpler. 
 
The Celtics' proposed alternative sucks donkey balls. Teams could get stuck in extended cycles of suck in that scenario, and it incentives truly bad things like collusion with NCAA coaches and players to ensure that they maximize the value of their "turn at the wheel".
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
Some of these anti-tanking "cures" are far worse than the disease.  I was originally hoping the wheel idea was just so ridiculous that it wasn't serious; instead, it appears at least some folks think it's a good thing.  Why?  I have no idea.
 
Seriously, widespread tanking is not the problem it's being made out to be.  Yes, Philly is terrible this year; yes, they could very well get a really good draft pick that could turn out to be a franchise player or even a generational great.  Or they could end up with the 4th pick.  Or they could end up with the next Sam Bowie.  It's been noted that tanking as a strategy is neither necessary nor sufficient to building a winning franchise.  
 
No matter what system is put in place, there will be times a team gets lucky.  The current system is by no means perfect, but it at least gives fans of teams stuck in a down year some hope.  Maintaining fan interest in the various franchises is, you know, kind of important.  
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
Personally, if we are going to change the system (and I am all for that) I want one that virtually eliminates tanking.  By that I mean that late in the year teams might opt to hold out a player for the remainder of the season to try to improve their position, but most importantly they are not going into a year with the sole purpose to lose and improve lottery odds.  There is Devi's idea, my more radical 'all non playoff teams have the same odds' or crazy stuff like Devi's ranking but any loss after 52 does not improve your chances
 
 
As for the wheel, I love it, love it, love it.  Here are the benefits I see:
  • Tanking 874500% gone
  • Every 5 years you get a top 6 pick, you should have a steady stream of starting caliber players coming into your franchise
  • Success in the draft is more closely tied with being a good drafter than being lucky to get a good selection
  • You can trade specific picks in the future.  Not a 'Nets 1st round pick in 2017' but 'Nets trade the #8 pick in the 2017 draft'
  • There is no need to protect picks
  • Now the playing field is completely level in the draft
As for the case against:
  • It doesnt help crappy teams - sure, they dont get immediate help but there are other mechanisms that could be used to help them such as giving teams additional salary cap space under a certain win threshold
  • Collusion - is there collusion now?  Is anyone from KY staying away from the NBA because they dont like the top 5 teams in the draft?  Everyone just wants to get to free agency ASAP
  • Rich get richer - sure a top 5 team that gets a top 5 picks kind of sucks, I dont have much of a solution or justification for this
 

MainerInExile

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2003
4,825
Bay Area
lexrageorge said:
Some of these anti-tanking "cures" are far worse than the disease.  I was originally hoping the wheel idea was just so ridiculous that it wasn't serious; instead, it appears at least some folks think it's a good thing.  Why?  I have no idea.
I totally agree.  Incentives to lose are bad, but bad teams staying bad is worse.  Any solution that doesn't help shitty teams is not much of a solution IMO.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
MainerInExile said:
I totally agree.  Incentives to lose are bad, but bad teams staying bad is worse.  Any solution that doesn't help shitty teams is not much of a solution IMO.
 
How much worse are the Bucks compared to Orlando? Do they deserve close to double the odds at the first pick?
 
I liked the solution someone came up with: The number 1 and 2 worst records get respectively the 4th and 5th picks while the rest get ping-pong balls. You're never going to solve tanking (not even with the wheel) but this will at least take the bite out of it, especially in the weeks leading up to the end of the season.
 

MainerInExile

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2003
4,825
Bay Area
Devizier said:
 
How much worse are the Bucks compared to Orlando? Do they deserve close to double the odds at the first pick?
Huh?  I'm not saying the current system is the only good one or anyone close to it.  I'm just saying "solutions" like the one right above (worst team gets the 4th pick) are worse than tanking (IMO).  That's not to say that there aren't tons of systems better than what we have now.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
MainerInExile said:
Huh?  I'm not saying the current system is the only good one or anyone close to it.  I'm just saying "solutions" like the one right above (worst team gets the 4th pick) are worse than tanking (IMO).  That's not to say that there aren't tons of systems better than what we have now.
 
In that case, I completely agree.
 
I'll put together something later, illustrating what my fix looks like and how it stacks against the current system.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
These proposals, frankly, are all sort of naive. They're all formed on a very simplistic and unrealistic view regarding the how and why of tanking. Tanking isn't simply about securing a better draft position, though often times that's the result, it's also the necessary result of ridding your balance sheet of bad contracts and getting assets back for players that have no future in your organization. The Sixers roster wouldn't look demonstrably different if they had pick #14 in "The Wheel" next season than it does now. Jrue Holiday, Evan Turner, etc were all pieces their new regime didn't value in the same way their prior regime did, and would have been traded, "wheel" or not. Sam Hinkie didn't trade Jrue Holiday strictly because he wanted a higher draft pick, he traded him because he didn't feel he was a piece that fit into what he wanted the organization to do, and he was offered good value for him. He didn't trade Evan Turner to lose more games, he traded him because Evan Turner had no future in Philly and was on an expiring contract, and he took what he could get for him at the deadline. "The Wheel" wouldn't change a single thing the Sixers have done. They'd still be terrible right now, and rightfully so. Sam Hinkie is making the right decisions, and that organization's in far better shape now than they were 24 months ago.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
Grin&MartyBarret said:
These proposals, frankly, are all sort of naive. They're all formed on a very simplistic and unrealistic view regarding the how and why of tanking. Tanking isn't simply about securing a better draft position, though often times that's the result, it's also the necessary result of ridding your balance sheet of bad contracts and getting assets back for players that have no future in your organization.
 
With all due respect, this line is pretty condescending. And, as someone who presumably watched the Celtics during the 2006-2007 season, I know you realize that tanking extends much further than dumping contracts:
 
 
In one notorious game late in the season, the Celtics, playing at home, led the woeful Bobcats 69-51 late in the third quarter -- and managed to lose the game by eight points, enhancing their draft positioning. Of course, Celtics coach Doc Rivers denied tanking charges. As Steve Bulpett reported in the Boston Herald: “Rivers insisted there was nothing sinister about leaving Paul Pierce (game-high 23 points) on the bench for the fourth quarter and letting the quintet of Sebastian Telfair, Ryan Gomes, Gerald Green, Allan Ray and Leon Powe stay on the parquet as the lead -- still at 10 with nine minutes left in the game -- disappeared.
 
 
Ryan Gomes had 13 through three quarters, but watched from the bench in the fourth as Boston clinched the worst record in the Eastern Conference and second worst in the league.

"I probably (would have played), but since we were in the hunt for a high draft pick, of course things are different," Gomes said. "I understand that. Hopefully things get better. Now that we clinched at least having the second-most balls in the lottery, the last three games we'll see what happens. We'll see if we can go out and finish some games."
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
Devizier said:
 
With all due respect, this line is pretty condescending. And, as someone who presumably watched the Celtics during the 2006-2007 season, I know you realize that tanking extends much further than dumping contracts:
 
 
Didn't mean to be condescending, but my point still stands. A "draft wheel" might address the rare case of the 2006-2007 Celtics, but it doesn't address the vast majority of bad teams, and is, in my opinion, a huge overreaction to a problem that is perceived to be much larger than it is. The players on the court, night in and night out, are competing to win. They're competing for a long-term spot in this league, a long-term contract, and because professional athletes are, by nature competitive. Front offices and coaches may not always put the most competitive teams on the floor, but there are perfectly valid organizational reasons to do so, and running a sports team is no different than running a business in that you are regularly asked to balance the needs of the present with the goals of the future. Sixers fans have more to be hopeful for at the moment than they have in years, and the general consensus is that their franchise is in very good hands, and has a bright future. I just have a lot of trouble understanding how smart organizational moves necessitate revamping the draft. My post was intended to illustrate that the rebuilding process than many teams in the NBA choose to undergo is much more substantial than simply trying to lose as many games as possible, and the examples that people point to of honest-to-goodness tanking (like the example you cited*) are the exception rather than the rule. Again: the wheel or any of these other proposals wouldn't influence what the Sixers are doing this year, and it certainly wouldn't influence the Bucks, who spent money in free agency this offseason and were trying to compete for a playoff spot.
 
* Though, let's be honest about this: That offseason the Celtics traded the #7 overall pick for Telfair, who was a viewed as a young, extremely talented point guard. Gerald Green was a high-ceiling, raw player who the Celtics had taken in the first round a year prior, and in the first example you provided playing Ryan Gomes was bad, and in the second, he should have played. At that time, playing that lineup was hardly some cardinal sin, but was an honest attempt to get young talent some crunch time reps.
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
Grin&MartyBarret said:
Front offices and coaches may not always put the most competitive teams on the floor, but there are perfectly valid organizational reasons to do so, and running a sports team is no different than running a business in that you are regularly asked to balance the needs of the present with the goals of the future. Sixers fans have more to be hopeful for at the moment than they have in years, and the general consensus is that their franchise is in very good hands, and has a bright future. I just have a lot of trouble understanding how smart organizational moves necessitate revamping the draft.
 
I'm glad you wrote this so eloquently, because it really highlights the problem.  The problem isnt a draft problem, its really a league problem, and the problem is that it is actually smart business in the NBA to put a bad team on the floor under the current rules.  The 'symptom' that we see and we are debating on how to treat is trying to minimize wins to maximum lottery balls.  Compare this to the NFL, NHL and MLB, teams might try to 'clear the books' and make some moves motivated by payroll or the cap but they genuinely dont try to go into a year to maximize losses for draft gain.  A big part of the reason is because its easier to go from worst to first in those sports and another reason is that the perceived impact of getting a top pick in the draft is less in those sports than in the NBA.
 
So rather than treating the symptom perhaps we should treat the disease.  Forget about the CBA, salary cap, all that.  Instead if everything could be instantly rewritten, how do you change the NBA as a league so that its easier for a team to rebuild?  For example, change the cap to a hard $70M and eliminate the 'max' salary limitation, so Lebron could be paid $40M, which should diversify the superstar power throughout the league.  Or allow only one >$12M salary player per team, only one between $10M and $12M and limit contracts to 3 years.  In essence force more quality players to the free agent market and improve the free agent 'pipeline' for bad teams so that the draft 'pipeline' isnt thought of as the only avenue for talent acquisition.  I'm sure there are less radical solutions than what I am suggesting, but these were the best brainstorms I had.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
wutang112878 said:
 
I'm glad you wrote this so eloquently, because it really highlights the problem.  The problem isnt a draft problem, its really a league problem, and the problem is that it is actually smart business in the NBA to put a bad team on the floor under the current rules.  The 'symptom' that we see and we are debating on how to treat is trying to minimize wins to maximum lottery balls.  Compare this to the NFL, NHL and MLB, teams might try to 'clear the books' and make some moves motivated by payroll or the cap but they genuinely dont try to go into a year to maximize losses for draft gain.  A big part of the reason is because its easier to go from worst to first in those sports and another reason is that the perceived impact of getting a top pick in the draft is less in those sports than in the NBA.
 
So rather than treating the symptom perhaps we should treat the disease.  Forget about the CBA, salary cap, all that.  Instead if everything could be instantly rewritten, how do you change the NBA as a league so that its easier for a team to rebuild?  For example, change the cap to a hard $70M and eliminate the 'max' salary limitation, so Lebron could be paid $40M, which should diversify the superstar power throughout the league.  Or allow only one >$12M salary player per team, only one between $10M and $12M and limit contracts to 3 years.  In essence force more quality players to the free agent market and improve the free agent 'pipeline' for bad teams so that the draft 'pipeline' isnt thought of as the only avenue for talent acquisition.  I'm sure there are less radical solutions than what I am suggesting, but these were the best brainstorms I had.
 
Again though, this is an oversimplification of what's happening.  It's far too reductive to look at the Sixers moves, and write off their motivation as trying to "minimize wins to maximize lottery balls." Yes, keeping Jrue Holiday would have won them more games, but they didn't trade Jrue Holiday for more losses, they traded Jrue Holiday for a top 10 pick that they used on a very high ceiling player who happened to be injured. The Evan Turner trade was similar: sure, they might have won a game or two during their recent losing streak had Turner been on the roster, but Turner is an overpaid player who doesn't do any one thing particularly well. If the Sixers felt like he wasn't part of their future--and it's clear they felt that way--it made perfect sense to cash in on him. That the market for him at the deadline was so lukewarm only confirms their thinking that he wasn't worth building around. Fundamentally, you seem to be looking at such moves and thinking "they're trying to lose" where as I look at those moves and see an organization that realized, correctly, that the ceiling of the group of guys they'd assembled wasn't nearly high enough to genuinely compete.
 
As for the second question: I think you're simplifying a bit here, too. It's not that teams see the draft as the only avenue for talent acquisition, it's that they see the draft as far and away the most cost-efficient avenue for talent acquisition. The NBA doesn't differ at all from MLB in this sense; teams prefer drafting an All-Star so they can control their costs, than having to pay them in free agency after they've already established their value. In a salary capped system, it's a huge advantage to get an All-Star on a reasonable deal. Drafting a player--as opposed to acquiring him in free agency, presents a team with a lot more flexibility. That's not going to change by changing how the lottery is weighted. And part of why rebuilding in the NBA is perceived as so difficult because of how few teams actually win championships. Generally speaking, you need a star to win--not just an All-Star--but a top 8ish type player. There just aren't many guys like that out there. Revamping the draft or re-writing free agency, re-doing the CBA, etc. isn't going to change the fact that true star players--players capable of carrying a team to an NBA championship--are a scarce resource. This fact alone makes "rebuilding" (if it's defined as the act of turning a team into a championship contender) a very difficult proposition. It's not a flaw in the system, so much as it seems to be simply the nature of the sport.
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
I am not specifically citing Philly, I am citing more generally the thought that rebuilding is a peak and valley process like business cycles.  In today's rules, for teams that cant just 'reload' by adding some high profile free agents, it absolutely is smart business to intentionally navigate your team into a valley.  You want to have a 'clean slate' where you dont have overpaid players, you have young developing players on your roster and not experienced veterans who have played their best basketball.  Philly was intelligent about how they did what they did under the current rules.  What I am saying is that I would want change the rules so that rebuilding in this manner isnt the smart play and make 'reloading' a more feasible option.  So that when Philly looks at their situation they dont want to move to the clean slate and want to keep what they have and simply add to it.  That however is easier said that done.
 
As for the draft, I think we are talking past one another a bit.  I agree teams see the draft as the most cost efficient way to attract talent, and thats why I would want to change the efficiency of free agency.  If you remove max salaries and implement rules to spread the true top tier talent throughout the league then free agency might be just as efficient as the draft to acquire talent.  If teams could only have one >$12M player Howard couldnt have signed with the Rockets and probably would have signed with the Hawks and in actuality never could have been traded to the Lakers because they have Kobe and Gasol so Orlando might have never had to trade him in the first place.  The effect that this would have on spreading the super star wealth is pretty effective, and if you do this then Philly would probably be just as likely to be just want to get their salary cap situation in order and not necessarily lose as many games because they would probably want to look 'close' to contending to attract a free agent.
 
No as for the winning a championship and needing a top 8ish player, in today's system yes you do.  But look at Indy, they have legit title aspirations and George is good but is he really a top 8ish type guy?  But there is a team that is young and virtually no one on the team is overpaid, and each starter is very good and they are virtually at the salary slots I am talking about.  Hibbert is making $14M, West is $12M and George is on his rookie deal.  Then next year George is getting his new deal so Indy would probably have to move West which would provide an opportunity to someone else.  That cumulative effect will indeed offset the way we currently think of the game that you can only win with a top 8 player. 
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
A big reason NBA rebuilding is hard is that the better teams nearly always win games and especially playoff series. Basektball has the lowest variance of any of the four major American sports plus soccer. There is a phys rev a paper out there somewhere about this.

In baseball, you just need to get to the playoffs and then you have a shot at winning the championship. The NFL plays few games so sometimes the Ravens get hot and win it all. In basketball, if you are mediocre it is a near certainty you will get bounced in the early playoff rounds. Putting it another way: Mediocre teams have a lower chance of winning it all in basketball than any other sport. Wild card teams can have a shot in baseball and football. 6-8 seed NBA teams are in a tough place.

Edit: that means we like randomness in our sport outcomes.
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
Suggestion on how to create more parity and faster rebuilds in basketball: no way they're negotiating non guaranteed contracts. So instead of capping the max dollars of deals, cap the max years at three: two for free agents, three for resignings and let dollars be unlimited.

And I love the draft order suggestion that has the first pick be the team with most wins after they reach a certain loss total. Potential for teams creating phantom injuries for their best players early in the season, but at least they're working hard and fans are rooting for wins at the end.
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
13,410
A Lost Time
I think that obsessing over tanking is obscuring some other areas that could help competitive balance. I think the hard salary cap that wu mentioned is a good idea. The rookie pay scale which essentially forces rookies to get underpaid while creating a market inefficiency that teams try to take advantage of is another. Although to be fair, one thing I ve come to realize by following the NBA is that although rookies are underpaid, I am not sure they change a team's fortunes while they are on the rookie deals. In other words, many teams get cheap rookies, but those rookies really start producing near their peak value 2-4 years down the road as their rookie years expire and their next deal at market value is around the corner. Therefore, I am not sure how big windows of opportunities teams get from their cheap rookie contracts.
 
On another note, I am obsessively following the fight over the last places. The good news these past couple of days is that the Lakers and the Kings won a couple of rather unexpected victories and are thus 2 and 3 games in front of the celtics with 8 games remaining. So I think that the Celtics have at least secured the 5th worst record.

The big battle is vs Utah now with which we are tied now. With two games vs Philly and a couple of other winnable ones, we have the easiest schedule of the two. What happens if we tie? Is there a draw to determine lottery seeding?
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
wutang112878 said:
I am not specifically citing Philly, I am citing more generally the thought that rebuilding is a peak and valley process like business cycles.  In today's rules, for teams that cant just 'reload' by adding some high profile free agents, it absolutely is smart business to intentionally navigate your team into a valley.  You want to have a 'clean slate' where you dont have overpaid players, you have young developing players on your roster and not experienced veterans who have played their best basketball.  Philly was intelligent about how they did what they did under the current rules.  What I am saying is that I would want change the rules so that rebuilding in this manner isnt the smart play and make 'reloading' a more feasible option.  So that when Philly looks at their situation they dont want to move to the clean slate and want to keep what they have and simply add to it.  That however is easier said that done.
 
As for the draft, I think we are talking past one another a bit.  I agree teams see the draft as the most cost efficient way to attract talent, and thats why I would want to change the efficiency of free agency.  If you remove max salaries and implement rules to spread the true top tier talent throughout the league then free agency might be just as efficient as the draft to acquire talent.  If teams could only have one >$12M player Howard couldnt have signed with the Rockets and probably would have signed with the Hawks and in actuality never could have been traded to the Lakers because they have Kobe and Gasol so Orlando might have never had to trade him in the first place.  The effect that this would have on spreading the super star wealth is pretty effective, and if you do this then Philly would probably be just as likely to be just want to get their salary cap situation in order and not necessarily lose as many games because they would probably want to look 'close' to contending to attract a free agent.
 
No as for the winning a championship and needing a top 8ish player, in today's system yes you do.  But look at Indy, they have legit title aspirations and George is good but is he really a top 8ish type guy?  But there is a team that is young and virtually no one on the team is overpaid, and each starter is very good and they are virtually at the salary slots I am talking about.  Hibbert is making $14M, West is $12M and George is on his rookie deal.  Then next year George is getting his new deal so Indy would probably have to move West which would provide an opportunity to someone else.  That cumulative effect will indeed offset the way we currently think of the game that you can only win with a top 8 player. 
 
We're definitely talking past each other a bit. My point is this: why would Philly want to keep what they had in place and add to it? Jrue Holiday is a solid, but unspectacular point guard who doesn't necessarily hurt you, but isn't a big difference maker in a league where the point guard position is extremely strong. Is that worth 11 million dollars a year? I tend to think it isn't, and assume that Hinkie saw MCW sitting there in the draft and thought that there was a very solid chance that he could roughly equal Holiday's value over the next 3-6 years, and saw the opportunity to turn a slightly overpaid player at a deep position into two high-upside young players on favorable salaries. There is more value there, regardless of what the free agent market/salary cap, etc. look like. Doubly so if Nerlens Noel turns out to be a good rim protector at this level, which is a hugely important aspect to any contending team. And beyond just the immediate moves, Philly hasn't finished above .500 in a season since 04-05. There was nothing there to build on, and the organization needed to make fundamental changes, which is not uncommon in the NBA. And I know that you're focused more on the macro while I'm focused on the micro, but my point is that I'm not sure this is an actual issue when you examine it closely.
 
And isn't Indiana actually an example that you don't necessarily have to rebuild in the Philadelphia manner? There are various paths to rebuilding in the NBA because the issues facing each team are unique; because of that, I'm not sure how it's possible to "fix" the issue. The issue is a moving target, as far as I can tell.
 

Brickowski

Banned
Feb 15, 2011
3,755
How about eliminating the draft altogether?  Just let teams with bad records pay their rookies much more than teams with good records and let the players go where they want.  If a 19 or 20 year-old wants to play for the Spurs on a deal starting at $900K per year instead of going to the Sixers on a deal starting at $6-7M per year, let him.
 
Of course, the next LeBron, with a $100M sneaker deal in his pocket right out of high school, might not care about the money, so that a strong team would just get stronger. But those situations occur once in a decade. 
 
So long as the rules give teams a bad records an advantage in the draft, teams will tank.  And if teams with bad records do not have an advantage, the bad teams--especially bad small market teams that need young, cost controlled stars--will balk.
 

wilked

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,046
Nick Kaufman said:
 What happens if we tie? Is there a draw to determine lottery seeding?
They essentially split the balls (odds).  There are no tiebreakers
 

wilked

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,046
Next three for Utah and Celts:
 
Boston: @WAS (38-36), vs PHI (16-58), @DET (27-47)
Utah: vs NYK (32-43), vs NO (32-42), @GS (46-28)
 
If Utah doesn't win at least one of those games, Celts can say goodbye to finishing 4th, as Boston will win at least one of those 3.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
Brickowski said:
How about eliminating the draft altogether?  Just let teams with bad records pay their rookies much more than teams with good records and let the players go where they want.  If a 19 or 20 year-old wants to play for the Spurs on a deal starting at $900K per year instead of going to the Sixers on a deal starting at $6-7M per year, let him.
 
Of course, the next LeBron, with a $100M sneaker deal in his pocket right out of high school, might not care about the money, so that a strong team would just get stronger. But those situations occur once in a decade. 
 
So long as the rules give teams a bad records an advantage in the draft, teams will tank.  And if teams with bad records do not have an advantage, the bad teams--especially bad small market teams that need young, cost controlled stars--will balk.
 
I think the draft itself is just too much of a marketing tool to ever go away.  I know I've watched very little of the non-Celtics NBA Finals the past ten years or so, but I always watch the draft. 
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
Grin&MartyBarret said:
 
We're definitely talking past each other a bit. My point is this: why would Philly want to keep what they had in place and add to it? Jrue Holiday is a solid, but unspectacular point guard who doesn't necessarily hurt you, but isn't a big difference maker in a league where the point guard position is extremely strong. Is that worth 11 million dollars a year? I tend to think it isn't, and assume that Hinkie saw MCW sitting there in the draft and thought that there was a very solid chance that he could roughly equal Holiday's value over the next 3-6 years, and saw the opportunity to turn a slightly overpaid player at a deep position into two high-upside young players on favorable salaries. There is more value there, regardless of what the free agent market/salary cap, etc. look like. Doubly so if Nerlens Noel turns out to be a good rim protector at this level, which is a hugely important aspect to any contending team. And beyond just the immediate moves, Philly hasn't finished above .500 in a season since 04-05. There was nothing there to build on, and the organization needed to make fundamental changes, which is not uncommon in the NBA. And I know that you're focused more on the macro while I'm focused on the micro, but my point is that I'm not sure this is an actual issue when you examine it closely.
 
And isn't Indiana actually an example that you don't necessarily have to rebuild in the Philadelphia manner? There are various paths to rebuilding in the NBA because the issues facing each team are unique; because of that, I'm not sure how it's possible to "fix" the issue. The issue is a moving target, as far as I can tell.
 
What Philly did makes sense with the current rules, no disagreement there from me.  What I am saying is that I would like to see a system where what they had could look like a decent foundation to build on, and in a scenario where they actually had a good shot at getting a top tier free agent then tearing the team down wouldnt be a no brainer.  In a world where the top stars are more evenly distributed throughout the league their situation looks a little different, I am sure they would make most of the moves they did but I again am speaking more generally about the situation.  I think it would be a good thing for the league if the typical rebuild plan wasnt to have Step1 be tear it all down.
 
I cited Indy because they are the model for what I would want the NBA to be.  A situation where you have a top 30 talent in George and can build around and dont have to have a top 10 player to team him up with.  Its really all about spreading the stars out throughout the league so to compete with the best teams you dont need top 10 talent
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
wutang112878 said:
 
What Philly did makes sense with the current rules, no disagreement there from me.  What I am saying is that I would like to see a system where what they had could look like a decent foundation to build on, and in a scenario where they actually had a good shot at getting a top tier free agent then tearing the team down wouldnt be a no brainer.  In a world where the top stars are more evenly distributed throughout the league their situation looks a little different, I am sure they would make most of the moves they did but I again am speaking more generally about the situation.  I think it would be a good thing for the league if the typical rebuild plan wasnt to have Step1 be tear it all down.
 
I cited Indy because they are the model for what I would want the NBA to be.  A situation where you have a top 30 talent in George and can build around and dont have to have a top 10 player to team him up with.  Its really all about spreading the stars out throughout the league so to compete with the best teams you dont need top 10 talent
 
That's my point though: if the Indy model has worked, and it has, why is there a need for change? If you trust in your talent evaluators and player development staff, you can absolutely build a very good NBA team without tearing down your organization. But in order for that to work, you have to have an organizational structure in place that warrants keeping it in place.
 
That's what I think you're missing; Philly, Orlando, Cleveland and others have all had to completely gut their entire organizations--both their rosters and front offices--because they did not have the organizational structure in place to be successful. It takes years for those decisions to permeate your organization and for the culture to shift fully, something any Red Sox fan knows well. So organizations aren't deciding to tear down just because of the draft lottery, they're tearing down everything that was in place because there are systemic and organizational issues that need to be resolved. You're never going to avoid that, and these decisions extend far beyond on-court personnel. Indy, on the other hand, has a great organization and has for a decade. They trust their system and their people, and believed that they had something in place to build on, and rightly so. Sam Hinkie would love to get to that point in Philly. It can't happen overnight though, and I just don't see it as an issue that's related to how free agency works or the draft lottery. Nobody tosses away anything they feel is salvageable just to lose games. It's easy to say I want every team to be like one of the best run organizations in the league; it's much harder to actually achieve that, because Indy's success is due to their ability to find guys like Paul, Hibbert, and Stevenson late (relatively in the draft), something not every front office is capable of.
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
Its the fact that so few teams, organizations or GMs (however we want to put it) can actually rebuild the way Indy did, and we dont really have many other examples where a team goes from being bad to having actual title aspirations without adding a top 10 player.  Which gets us to the 'you need to go find a top 10 player' thing and thats what makes it so difficult for teams to rebuild.  Whereas in the model I am proposing where the stars are spread more evenly, you wouldnt need a top 10 guy to contend.
 
Indy got its players via the draft and then was savvy enough to resign them at non-ridiculous numbers, but thats difficult for most teams to do.  Even if a GM finds the right guys they tend to overpay just to keep them, so GMs really need to be saved from themselves to a degree which is why I think the 'salary slots' (where you can only have 1 >$12M player) will make their job somewhat easier and spread the talent as well.  In a world where a team can genuinely go to the free agent market to get a real impact player, without doing something like giving the max to a guy who isnt a true max guy, then teams could decide to really build around free agency and just supplement with the draft.  Today the model typically is to find the foundation pieces in the draft and supplement with free agency.  If we flip that model and make things easier on the GM, then I dont think we see organizations having to tear themselves down to build themselves back up. 
 

ishmael

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 3, 2006
640
Wu: I think Marty's point is that the Indy model is out there. It just requires ownership to have faith in a GM and give them time to execute against the model.
 
The problem with your proposal is that it just shifts the pressure points. Tier 1 superstars would always be paid that way, but tier 1b guys (of the 2008 Paul Pierce/Paul Gasol, 2010 Chris Bosh category) would probably be forced to choose between winning and money. My prediction is that this would lead to a money grab for the first contract and then a pay cut on the second contract in order to form super teams, which defeats the purpose of distributing the talent around the league, since it would mean clear Tier 2 guys (David West, Nikola Pekovic) would still get paid like superstars to play in the less desirable locations in the league...
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
Kind of repeating myself, but I agree its out there, the issue I am suggesting that we might want to solve is changing the system so its easier for teams to implement.  The ownership and GM problems have been around for ever and some franchises just cant repeatedly successfully rebuild, which is why I think revamping the system so that every franchise has hope of a quick turnaround which would be good for the league in general.
 
I think you are missing the biggest effect which is that you will never have 2 Tier1 or 2 Tier2 players on the same team unless one is on a rookie deal, thats really ground breaking for the NBA.  Then if your talent is more evenly distributed, unless we are talking climate, the less desirable locations actually look a lot more desirable because everyone has a better chance to win than the current system provides.  Now as for the pay cut, how many NBA players have really taken less to sign somewhere?  The significant players that I can think of are the Spurs Big3, and the Heats Big3 (taking like $2M less per season).  Thats really, really rare, so I would assume it would be equally rare in a slotted NBA universe.
 
Just thinking of some good players who would be broken up:
  • Brooklyn could only have 1 of Williams, Joe Johnson, Lopez, Pierce and KG
  • Knicks could only have 1 of Carmelo, Amare and Chandler
  • Indy could have Hibbert, West or George (starting next year)
  • Bulls could have either Rose or Noah
  • Heat could have Lebron, Wade or Bosh
  • OKC could have Durant or Westbrook
  • Clips could have Paul or Blake Griffin
  • Warriors could have only Bogut, Lee or Iggy
  • Lakers could have Kobe or Gasol
  • Spurs could have Parker and either Duncan or Ginobli
  • Houston could have Howard or Harden
  • Grizz could have Randolph or Gasol
 
By my guess the guys who would be spread amongst the other 18 teams are: Joe Johnson, Pierce, KG, Amare, Chandler, Hibbert, West, Wade, Bosh, Westbrook, Griffin, Lee, Iggy, Kobe, Ginobli, Harden and Randolph, so basically every team gets 1 of these Tier1 (although some of them are on outdated deals) players.  5 teams instantly get some great building blocks when they get Wade, Bosh, Westbrook, Harden or Hibbert.  Thats really a completely different NBA landscape
 
So imagine if the Atlanta got Harden, it would be easy to find a side kick for him the same way he helped the Rockets get Howard.  Or if Westbrook went to Philly, their rebuilding just took a major step forward and they would have their key piece in place.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
wutang112878 said:
Kind of repeating myself, but I agree its out there, the issue I am suggesting that we might want to solve is changing the system so its easier for teams to implement.  The ownership and GM problems have been around for ever and some franchises just cant repeatedly successfully rebuild, which is why I think revamping the system so that every franchise has hope of a quick turnaround which would be good for the league in general.
 
I think you are missing the biggest effect which is that you will never have 2 Tier1 or 2 Tier2 players on the same team unless one is on a rookie deal, thats really ground breaking for the NBA.  Then if your talent is more evenly distributed, unless we are talking climate, the less desirable locations actually look a lot more desirable because everyone has a better chance to win than the current system provides.  Now as for the pay cut, how many NBA players have really taken less to sign somewhere?  The significant players that I can think of are the Spurs Big3, and the Heats Big3 (taking like $2M less per season).  Thats really, really rare, so I would assume it would be equally rare in a slotted NBA universe.
 
Just thinking of some good players who would be broken up:
  • Brooklyn could only have 1 of Williams, Joe Johnson, Lopez, Pierce and KG
  • Knicks could only have 1 of Carmelo, Amare and Chandler
  • Indy could have Hibbert, West or George (starting next year)
  • Bulls could have either Rose or Noah
  • Heat could have Lebron, Wade or Bosh
  • OKC could have Durant or Westbrook
  • Clips could have Paul or Blake Griffin
  • Warriors could have only Bogut, Lee or Iggy
  • Lakers could have Kobe or Gasol
  • Spurs could have Parker and either Duncan or Ginobli
  • Houston could have Howard or Harden
  • Grizz could have Randolph or Gasol
 
By my guess the guys who would be spread amongst the other 18 teams are: Joe Johnson, Pierce, KG, Amare, Chandler, Hibbert, West, Wade, Bosh, Westbrook, Griffin, Lee, Iggy, Kobe, Ginobli, Harden and Randolph, so basically every team gets 1 of these Tier1 (although some of them are on outdated deals) players.  5 teams instantly get some great building blocks when they get Wade, Bosh, Westbrook, Harden or Hibbert.  Thats really a completely different NBA landscape
 
So imagine if the Atlanta got Harden, it would be easy to find a side kick for him the same way he helped the Rockets get Howard.  Or if Westbrook went to Philly, their rebuilding just took a major step forward and they would have their key piece in place.
 
I see what you're saying, and in a vacuum, that would definitely lead to more competitive balance. But have fun explaining to the player's union that only 30 guys in the league get to make more than 12 million dollars a year.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
Also, I think you're drastically overestimating NBA GM's ability to sign the right free agents. The Pistons, for instance, have basically followed the model you're pitching exactly. Twice, really. The first time around they tried to outsmart the rest of the NBA by spending big on 2nd tier free agents the summer before the LeBron/Carmelo/etc. class and tried to add on to the core of Hamilton, Prince and Wallace by signing tier two free agents like Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva. And then last offseason they added another tier two type guys in Josh Smith and Brandon Jennings to a pretty promising young core in Drummond and Monroe, and in both cases failed miserably. Your system still doesn't protect teams that hire and trust Joe Dumars in any way.
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
Grin&MartyBarret said:
 
I see what you're saying, and in a vacuum, that would definitely lead to more competitive balance. But have fun explaining to the player's union that only 30 guys in the league get to make more than 12 million dollars a year.
 
That would be a sticking point, but with that comes 30 guys that have no max salary, so its a bit of give and take.  And in today's salary structure there are 30 guys that make more than $14M, so its really not radically different
 
 
Grin&MartyBarret said:
Also, I think you're drastically overestimating NBA GM's ability to sign the right free agents. The Pistons, for instance, have basically followed the model you're pitching exactly. Twice, really. The first time around they tried to outsmart the rest of the NBA by spending big on 2nd tier free agents the summer before the LeBron/Carmelo/etc. class and tried to add on to the core of Hamilton, Prince and Wallace by signing tier two free agents like Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva. And then last offseason they added another tier two type guys in Josh Smith and Brandon Jennings to a pretty promising young core in Drummond and Monroe, and in both cases failed miserably. Your system still doesn't protect teams that hire and trust Joe Dumars in any way.
 
No it absolutely doesnt fix 'sign the wrong guys', there is no doubt about that.  But chances are if Dumars actually had a real shot to sign a Tier1 guy he wouldnt be giving Josh Smith his >$12M slot, so imagine instead of Smith he got Harden.  Now he would be looking to fill his next slot (say its $10-12M), which is currently empty and then his 3rd to 5th best players are Villanueva, Stucky and Jennings who while not great do have some talent. 
 

 
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
Brickowski said:
How about eliminating the draft altogether?  Just let teams with bad records pay their rookies much more than teams with good records and let the players go where they want.  If a 19 or 20 year-old wants to play for the Spurs on a deal starting at $900K per year instead of going to the Sixers on a deal starting at $6-7M per year, let him.
 
Of course, the next LeBron, with a $100M sneaker deal in his pocket right out of high school, might not care about the money, so that a strong team would just get stronger. But those situations occur once in a decade. 
 
So long as the rules give teams a bad records an advantage in the draft, teams will tank.  And if teams with bad records do not have an advantage, the bad teams--especially bad small market teams that need young, cost controlled stars--will balk.
Just catching up on this thread so I'm missing a chunk of posts. Anyways, I'm a fan of this system. I'm also not sanguine about its prospects. Anything that costs the ownership their revenue share will not come to pass. And the NBAPA will not take money from veterans to ensure that rookies get a fair contract. I also think that this system would require a complete revision of free agency as we know it. Eliminating the max player contract, for one. The hard salary cap has been bandied around the thread, and I think it would work, except for the fact that "poorer" franchises would be pissed about losing their lux. tax revenue.
 
The old draft system, where teams got a number of balls inversely proportional to their seeding (worst team got 11 balls, next-worst 10, etc.) was much better than the current one. Less complicated and more of an even slope. But then Orlando got the Chris Webber pick (with a less than 1% likelihood) and everyone wet their pants.
 

Steve Dillard

wishes drew noticed him instead of sweet & sour
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2003
5,932
7 Detroit............27 48 ..............BRKL, BOS, ATL, CLE, CHI, TOR, OKC 7 Sacramento ...............27 48...............GS, DAL, OKC, PORT, LAC, MINN, PHO 6 LA Lakers...................25 50...............DAL, LAC, HOU, GS, MEMP, UTAH 4 Utah ...........................23 52...............NO, GS, DAL, PORT, DEN, LAL, MINN 4 Boston........................23 52...............PHIL, DET, ATL, CHAR, CLE, PHIL, WA 3 Orlando .....................21 54...............CHAR, MINN, BRKL, WA, BRKL, CHI, IND 2 Philadelphia...............16 59 1 Milwaukee...................14 61

 
Down the strech with 7 games left, tied for fourth,   Realistically, we're between 4-6, as I doubt we could rise to 7th (4 wins), or get to 3rd (Orlando winning two), but I included them anyway.
 
As between Utah and the Lakers, unfortunately we have three winnable games, two against Philly,   Two wins would tie us with LA at 6th, but LA might win one more down the stretch (LA and Utah have a common game, so one of them will win it.)
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
13,410
A Lost Time
I think it's between us and Utah at this point. Shame the Lakers didn't beat Sacramento last night though.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,478
Melrose, MA
Devizier said:
The Celtics' proposed alternative sucks donkey balls. Teams could get stuck in extended cycles of suck in that scenario, and it incentives truly bad things like collusion with NCAA coaches and players to ensure that they maximize the value of their "turn at the wheel".
Teams get stuck in intensive cycles of suck under the current system.  How did the Celtics do between Bird's retirement and the Garnett trade?  Better, I suppose, than the Clippers did over the same time span.
 
The problem with the draft lottery is not just tanking in one season, but doing so repeatedly (somewhat like the baseball Astros).  Also, there is the problem of rewarding incompetent management. Do you get a better basketball product by lavishing high draft picks on the Clippers for decades?  Or by just letting them founder?
 
The potential collusion issue may be a problem, although not necessarily.  Players' financial incentives usually lean towards getting into the NBA ASAP rather than holding out to go to a particular team.  However, that could be addressed by allowing teams to draft players during their age 18 year and retaining their rights while they are in college (similar to how the NHL does it).
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
Eddie Jurak said:
 
The problem with the draft lottery is not just tanking in one season, but doing so repeatedly (somewhat like the baseball Astros).  Also, there is the problem of rewarding incompetent management. Do you get a better basketball product by lavishing high draft picks on the Clippers for decades?  Or by just letting them founder?
 
This change be highlighted enough.  From 98 to 2005 the Clips had picks 1, 4, 3, 2, 8, 6, 4 overall respectfully.  Thats insane.  Then from 05 to 10 they had 12, (no first rounder), 14, 7, 1, 8 overall respectfully.  That first stretch is an abomination.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
I'm sure this is an optimistic read on things, but as the NBA becomes a more mature league, I think historic runs of Ted Stepien-like incompetence are going to be rarer and rarer.
 

wilked

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,046
Huge boost for the lotto chances last night with a loss to Philly, but another tough test tonight.  Detroit hasn't broken 100 points in 5 of the last 7, but the game is at home and they are favored by 6.  
 

Steve Dillard

wishes drew noticed him instead of sweet & sour
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2003
5,932
6 LA Lakers...................25 51.............LAC, HOU, GS, MEMP, UTAH, SA
5 Utah ..........................24 52.............GS, DAL, PORT, DEN, LALMINN
4 Boston.......................23 54..............ATL, CHAR, CLE, PHIL, WA
3 Orlando .....................22 55..............BRKL, WA, BRKL, CHI, IND
 

TheDeuce222

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
380
Last night was enormous for seeding purposes. Up double digits in the third and end up blowing it in the last few minutes. Orlando beating a team they had no business beating also gives us a fighting chance of at least tieing them and sitting the third/fourth most ping pong balls with Orlando (and going to a coin flip if neither team gets a spot in the top 3 for the highest non-top 3 pick). Gotta keep the losing going. Sad but true.
 

wilked

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,046
Steve Dillard said:
6 LA Lakers...................25 52.............HOU, GS, MEMP, @UTAH, @SA
5 Utah ..........................24 52.............@GS, DAL, PORT, @DENLAL, @MINN
4 Boston.......................23 54..............@ATL, CHAR, @CLE, @PHIL, WAS
3 Orlando .....................22 55..............BRKL, WAS, @BRKL, @CHI, IND
I added a few more teams ( <0.500 teams) in blue and home/away.  All of the above are winnable games.  
 
Orlando doesn't play a team with a losing record, and Boston plays 3/5 against teams with losing record (albeit, all games on the road).  I just can't see them ending up with the same record
 
That common game between Utah / Lakers will be huge
 
Interesting that all of the 'easy' games are on the road (except Lakers/Utah being in LA)
 

zenter

indian sweet
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2005
5,641
Astoria, NY
I'm at a loss at how the Grizzlies/Mavericks should be allowed to get a better pick than the Hawks. There aren't many changes I'd make to this system which don't create new harms, but in a world where it's the Bestern Conference and the Leastern Conference, the best way to promote competitive balance is to have the worst teams have higher picks. Quite simply, the draft lottery odds and draft order should be 100% based on record.
 
Also: my gut tells me Ainge wants McDermott in addition to whoever he picks first, for floor-spacing and (obvious) scoring option reasons. Is my gut wrong? If not, in addition to the Nets pick, what would it take for the Nuggets (for example) to part with ~11?
 

gmogmo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
768
Hingham, Ma
In my lifetime said:
Tonight really helps those odds --
Magic beat the Nets to tie the Celtics who lose after collapsing in the 4th
 
That game was a double bonus as it essentially locks the Nets pick we get at #18 with only 4 games left in season (they're 3 games behind Charlotte and the Wizzards)
 

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
959
Connecticut
pedroia'sboys said:
How do the tiebreakers work? If the magic and celtics are tied, is it based on head to head?
 
They would basically share the odds. So if there is a tie for 3rd and 4th, all the "lottery ping pong balls" for 3rd and 4th would be shared between the 2 teams that finish in those positions.  A coin toss determines the odd ball if one exists.
 

mabrowndog

Ask me about total zone...or paint
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
39,676
Falmouth, MA
All hail Tankathon.com 
 
As of this morning, the Celts have a 13.7% chance at the #1 pick, and a 42.4% chance at the top 3.
 
The simulator is fun to play with. My first two runs gave the top pick to the Knicks and Minnesota, and 4 of the next 5 runs went to the Celts.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,333
gmogmo said:
That game was a double bonus as it essentially locks the Nets pick we get at #18 with only 4 games left in season (they're 3 games behind Charlotte and the Wizzards)
 
Coming into the season I thought #20 was the best result possible. It was pretty easy to assume that team would coast to the division title/3 seed and probably end up better than at least a few Western teams. Without that horrendous start they would have, so 18 is a pretty great result for this year's Brooklyn pick. That's still potentially "lottery guy who slipped" range.