What's new
By:

Solving For Tanking, We're smart, let's figure it out

I just thought of and new idea, so haven't had time to critically think about it too much:

Let teams draft kids out of high school, but keep the age requirement for playing in the league.

Drafting guys younger makes drafting as a strategy less likely to be successful and having them wait a year makes the reward less instant.

I'm not sure if the Gleague is a great place to put these kids and I would hate to remove them from NCCAB, so maybe not a great idea.
 
SoberasHotRod said:
I just thought of and new idea, so haven't had time to critically think about it too much:

Let teams draft kids out of high school, but keep the age requirement for playing in the league.

Drafting guys younger makes drafting as a strategy less likely to be successful and having them wait a year makes the reward less instant.

I'm not sure if the Gleague is a great place to put these kids and I would hate to remove them from NCCAB, so maybe not a great idea.
Click to expand...
I think you’re killing the patient to save the leg by doing that, not he other way round.
 
Personally I don't think tanking is that big an issue people make it out to be. The lottery odds are flat enough that only 3-4 teams are incentivized to do it religiously each year. Out of 30 teams that’s not a bad thing.

It’s just a normal process of getting really bad before you get really good.

Great organizations are strong enough to embrace that, played within the rules and come back stronger.

It’s the whiny impatient fanbase that wants everything NOW that’s the problem.
 
fishonjazz said:
Because then you are letting a human decide who is tanking and who legitimately sucks or has legit injuries. No bueno.
Click to expand...
Have an nba appointed doctor for every team every player out for injury has a routine check by said doctor he determines if that player can play or not, and have specific rules for resting players when they can when they can’t crap like that it really isn’t that difficult
 
Also to add, the League isn't a fair League.

Larger market teams like the Lakers are forever better at attracting free agents.

The lottery (and tanking) is a secret weapon for smaller market teams to get back on equal terms.

It’s a way of keeping the League in balance.

Remove that and the balance tips the other way.
 
fishonjazz said:
Actually remove the word "lottery" and it does fix tanking. Every team has equal odds at every pick. Regardless of playoffs or no playoffs.
But there are a ton of crappy consequences to that which might be worse than tanking.
Click to expand...
It is way, way worse than the fact that 5-10 teams every year since kinda forever have been tanking.
 
NUMBERICA said:
For the 1,000,000th time, that would create a scenario where teams on the margins of making the playoffs tank out of making the playoffs. We already see this on occasion, making that change would shift that phenomenon into overdrive and just shift tanking from the bottom of the league to legitimately competitive teams which is not better. Worse, it actively un-evens the playing field.

The notion that this is a simple fix is stunningly small-minded.
Click to expand...
That's why I included the second fix which I think would be more viable and more effective in discouraging tanking.
 
Having the team that most needs the best player in the draft get them makes sense. It doesn't quite feel right to reward badly managed teams, but let's just go with the premise that all teams are about equally managed and they just go through cycles of being bad and good. Let's also go with the premise that there was a system to detect and discourage sitting healthy players.

If that were true then it would make sense to get rid of the lottery all together and have the team with the worst combine record over the last three years to get the top pick. This way if a team like Philidelphia that already has 3 stars on the team randomly has a crazy injury year, they wouldn't get the top pick. It would also discourage teams from bottoming out since it would be a long process to get a top pick, and most teams wouldn't be able to stomach it.

Combine that with a hard cap and no max contracts and other modifications to encourage free agency and now teams have a real choice on team building. They can bottom out for a guaranteed 3 years, or they can pursue free agents.
 
SoberasHotRod said:
Having the team that most needs the best player in the draft get them makes sense. It doesn't quite feel right to reward badly managed teams, but let's just go with the premise that all teams are about equally managed and they just go through cycles of being bad and good. Let's also go with the premise that there was a system to detect and discourage sitting healthy players.

If that were true then it would make sense to get rid of the lottery all together and have the team with the worst combine record over the last three years to get the top pick. This way if a team like Philidelphia that already has 3 stars on the team randomly has a crazy injury year, they wouldn't get the top pick. It would also discourage teams from bottoming out since it would be a long process to get a top pick, and most teams wouldn't be able to stomach it.

Combine that with a hard cap and no max contracts and other modifications to encourage free agency and now teams have a real choice on team building. They can bottom out for a guaranteed 3 years, or they can pursue free agents.
Click to expand...
Thats just complete BS though. There are what, 10 teams (at most, that's probably being too generous), who have a player most would deem a player who can realistically when a ring with as your best player. So many more teams need that player than just the worst team. That's why I hate the lottery. That's why being the Jazz sucked for so long (not really, I didnt think it "sucked" but it was always lame knowing the team was too good to ever get "that" player).

Enter The Wheel where every team is afforded the same draft position over 30 years and they actually have to do the job of being a good GM/Franchise to build their teams.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Thats just complete BS though. There are what, 10 teams (at most, that's probably being too generous), who have a player most would deem a player who can realistically when a ring with as your best player. So many more teams need that player than just the worst team. That's why I hate the lottery. That's why being the Jazz sucked for so long (not really, I didnt think it "sucked" but it was always lame knowing the team was too good to ever get "that" player).

Enter The Wheel where every team is afforded the same draft position over 30 years and they actually have to do the job of being a good GM/Franchise to build their teams.
Click to expand...

The game theory podcast had a recent episode with tank rankings where they rated how much each team needed Cooper Flagg. That's kind of how the idea came from.

The Wheel is completely fair, but requires even more luck than the lottery since drafts are not created equal. A team would really have to luck out on getting their top picks during years where top pick worthy guys are in the draft.

FWIW, I'm just putting these thoughts out there as theoretical ideas that should be considered. I continue to think that ideas like the Wheel are incomplete without addressing the need for alternative ways to build a team outside of the draft.
 
SoberasHotRod said:
The game theory podcast had a recent episode with tank rankings where they rated how much each team needed Cooper Flagg. That's kind of how the idea came from.

The Wheel is completely fair, but requires even more luck than the lottery since drafts are not created equal. A team would really have to luck out on getting their top picks during years where top pick worthy guys are in the draft.

FWIW, I'm just putting these thoughts out there as theoretical ideas that should be considered. I continue to think that ideas like the Wheel are incomplete without addressing the need for alternative ways to build a team outside of the draft.
Click to expand...
Most years there is a really good player at #1, so again, I dont think that's a good argument. And you dont only get the #1 pick, you get 2/3/4/5. The odds of you getting a top 5 pick in only "bad" drafts is low.

Just go look at the list of the #1 picks over the last 10 years. Most are all-stars, and a lot are future HOFers.

The "bad" picks (Fultz/Ayton/Bennett) also werent the overwhelming #1 picks and could have those teams made smarter selections (Luka/Tatum/2013 was weird and no one was taking Giannis #1, so I guess that's also a nightmare draft to select in the top 5). The 2024 draft was truly unique with Risacher and there not being any great talent at #1.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Most years there is a really good player at #1, so again, I dont think that's a good argument. And you dont only get the #1 pick, you get 2/3/4/5. The odds of you getting a top 5 pick in only "bad" drafts is low.

Just go look at the list of the #1 picks over the last 10 years. Most are all-stars, and a lot are future HOFers.

The "bad" picks (Fultz/Ayton/Bennett) also werent the overwhelming #1 picks and could have those teams made smarter selections (Luka/Tatum/2013 was weird and no one was taking Giannis #1, so I guess that's also a nightmare draft to select in the top 5). The 2024 draft was truly unique with Risacher and there not being any great talent at #1.
Click to expand...

You had brought up the need for a guy that can be a #1 guy on a contender, or basically a top 10 guy. Those guys aren't in every draft. It feels like you are being overly attached to the Wheel idea if you are going to pretend that luck wouldn't be a big part of it.

I'm not at the point of comparing ideas yet, so the Wheel might end up being the best option, but there are definite drawbacks that should be considered.
 
SoberasHotRod said:
You had brought up the need for a guy that can be a #1 guy on a contender, or basically a top 10 guy. Those guys aren't in every draft. It feels like you are being overly attached to the Wheel idea if you are going to pretend that luck wouldn't be a big part of it.

I'm not at the point of comparing ideas yet, so the Wheel might end up being the best option, but there are definite drawbacks that should be considered.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is still luck, but less luck
 
Having an NBA wide lottery for the first 5 picks then a straight lottery for all remaining non playoff teams draft positions would eliminate any incentive to tank.
 
bopahull said:
Having an NBA wide lottery for the first 5 picks then a straight lottery for all remaining non playoff teams draft positions would eliminate any incentive to tank.
Click to expand...
Ya mostly I think you are right but of course there are problems with that system that could arise. The NBA champs get the number 1 pick and the legit worst team in the league who isn't even tanking gets a pick that doesn't help much at all and continues to suck.

But I would still prefer that to what we currently have I think.
 
The Midnight said:
Personally I don't think tanking is that big an issue people make it out to be. The lottery odds are flat enough that only 3-4 teams are incentivized to do it religiously each year. Out of 30 teams that’s not a bad thing.

It’s just a normal process of getting really bad before you get really good.
Click to expand...
It feels really strange how conditioned NBA fans have become. Tanking and throwing away whole seasons is not normal. It is as abnormal as there is. Nothing could be less normal. And of all the countries of the world, all sports in them, the NBA is pretty much the only one where it exists (at least to this level).

Of course the draft itself is abnormal and a result of a 1920s antitrust ruling that pro sports has absolutely nothing to do with inter-state anything, because these "exhibitions" are completely "state affairs"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top