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

[idiot]

The article I quoted from above strengthens my suspicion that there's two separate things going on with the draft that are not often enough acknowledged as separate:

1. The NBA's notion that top picks should be awarded to the teams that need talent the most (the worst teams). In other words, the NBA wants to help bad teams become competitive.
2. The notion that championship teams need top players, which are easiest to obtain through the draft.

#1 is kind of the idea that the NBA wants a get-out-of-jail-free card for bad teams, while #2 has been used by (bad or sometimes not-bad) teams as a get-rich-quick scheme.

I support the first goal, but think the 2nd is where the tanking problems come in.

The problem we have now is that the current system entangles the two goals. It's not simply helping bad teams become competitive again, but it's also functioning as a way for (at least some) teams to believe that they HAVE to be bad to have any shot at winning a championship.

So for me, any proposal to really fix the system has to keep elements of goal #1, while eliminating intentional losing as a get-rich-quick scheme.

I tried back on post #54 of this thread to give an idea that tweaks rather than gets rid of the lottery. The principle there was to help bad teams become competitive, but then have the lower-end of competitive teams have the best chance of winning a greatly flattened lottery. So the process of rebuilding would be a two-step process. If you're really bad, the draft will help you become competitive. But being competitive will give you the best chance of finding a generational player.

But there's other ways to reach both objectives. (I just prefer to keep the lottery and tweak it to make it better.)

 

[slc]

Thinking any of the 5 worst teams could use the #1 pick
Seems it does not matter which one gets the #1 pick
But sometimes someone outside the bottom five will get the #1 pick
Not sure how to remedy that though

 

[Chargers Jazz Angels]

Honestly, the more I think about it is make a rule you can only win the lottery once every 3 years.

Not sure that would solve tanking how ever. Because teams will still want the worst record possible.

I just think that will even out the dispersion of players. For instance SA won 2 years ago they would not be eligible to win this year. That would also make some picks not worth as much of they win the lotto the previous year the next 2 years unprotected pics might not be worth as much as they could not win. I think carrying over winning with another teams pick would also count towards the 3 year rule.

Say the jazz won a top 3 pick with say the minny pick. Best the jazz could get next year would be #4 and that would mean they had the worst record next year.

There would still need to be wrinkles to iron out.

 

[HermanG]

Honestly, the more I think about it is make a rule you can only win the lottery once every 3 years.

Not sure that would solve tanking how ever. Because teams will still want the worst record possible.

I just think that will even out the dispersion of players. For instance SA won 2 years ago they would not be eligible to win this year. That would also make some picks not worth as much of they win the lotto the previous year the next 2 years unprotected pics might not be worth as much as they could not win. I think carrying over winning with another teams pick would also count towards the 3 year rule.

Say the jazz won a top 3 pick with say the minny pick. Best the jazz could get next year would be #4 and that would mean they had the worst record next year.

There would still need to be wrinkles to iron out.

This has been suggested by many, so this is not targeted at you... but it can create a situation where 8 teams outside of playoff picture are ineligible due to having won within the last two years, which means the 4 winners come from the other 6 lottery teams.

66% chance at top 4 would cause end of season tanking like never before and it could extend much higher up in the standings.

 

[Chargers Jazz Angels]

This has been suggested by many, so this is not targeted at you... but it can create a situation where 8 teams outside of playoff picture are ineligible due to having won within the last two years, which means the 4 winners come from the other 6 lottery teams.

66% chance at top 4 would cause end of season tanking like never before and it could extend much higher up in the standings.

Great point. The wheel seems like it might be the best scenario.

 

[NUMBERICA]

New idea: the team with the worst record CANNOT win the #1 pick. I think there’s more evidence the league already secretly does this than that they go out of their way to pick teams to win the lottery, so why not just make it policy to combat tanking egregiousness? I believe this would have massive impact in mitigating tanking egregiousness.

Add that to:
-traditional tie-breaking convention is inverted for draft order in the lottery to disincentivize tank battles. For example, if the Jazz and Pelicans ended with the same record, the Pelicans would draft higher than the Jazz for winning their head-to-head matchup.
-and my favorite: regulating how much a team is allowed to jump into the top-___ to spread the wealth and disincentivize teams from tanking for several years straight.

 

[NUMBERICA]

New idea: the team with the worst record CANNOT win the #1 pick. I think there’s more evidence the league already does this than that they go out of their way to pick teams to win the lottery, so why not just make it policy to combat tanking egregiousness. I believe this would have massive impact on combating the egregiousness.

(After this year, of course )))

 

[GunterD]

Been a few pretty good ideas discussed in here recently I think.

Removing lottery protections on the non-lottery winning picks would help some, at least with the jockeying that gets done at the higher picks, though I don't think that part is the worst part of tanking. It would have the side effect of making draft picks more variant in value, which probably actually makes it harder to use them in trades, which kind of also makes it harder to build a team through the "aquire lots of assets, then combine them and trade them for better players" thing we've been trying to do. So it might also have at least a little bit of a negative impact on the ability of a small market team to build a roster through trades.

Putting a minimum win cap, or even better, disallowing the worst team from winning the lottery actually would be a really big win I think. Teams trying to tank enough to get 2nd or 3rd worst, but still out-win each other, makes it so there's going to be some competitiveness to win. Probably not throughout the entire season, but the need to be able to pick up a couple wins here and there when you need them would also stop GMs from utterly gutting their teams. I think it would also be kind of fun at the end of the year, when the playoff teams start taking their foot off the gas so they are ready for the postseason, to suddenly have a period of time when the bottom 4 teams in the league suddenly become very competitive. I think this could be fun.

Shortening the season and spreading out the games a bit is just something that would massively benefit the NBA in general, improve the product all the way across the board. Tough to implement for a number of reasons, but something they really ought to do.

The wheel removes tanking incentives completely, but also tips the NBA balance of power too strongly towards the big markets. Having more shots in the draft is about the only competitive advantage a small market team has over the big teams. And, especially since the college players can now make quite a bit of money staying in college, I think that top prospects would game the wheel and manipulate their draft class to align with the bigger market teams picking high.

 

[Thee Idiotic Minivan K]

The only true way to stop tanking is take draft picks away.

 

[Chargers Jazz Angels]

Here is what the AI has for fixing tanking in the NBA

The best solution to curb tanking in the NBA involves a combination of lottery reform and addressing pick protections. Flattening the lottery odds to eliminate the significant disparity between the worst and second-worst teams would discourage tanking for a better lottery position. Additionally, removing or significantly reducing pick protections would make tanking less enticing, as teams would need to compete for playoff spots to secure their draft picks.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

1. Flatten the Lottery:

• Purpose:
  To make the odds of winning the lottery more equal for all non-playoff teams.
  
  
• How it works:
  All teams that miss the playoffs could have a roughly equal chance (e.g., 1 in 14) of landing the top pick.
  
  • Reduces the incentive to lose games at the end of the season.
    
    
  • Encourages teams to compete for playoff spots, even if they are not championship contenders.
    
    
  • Increases the likelihood of seeing competitive games late in the season.
    

2. Address Pick Protections:

• Purpose:
  To make the value of a draft pick less dependent on the team's record and more on their overall performance.
  
  • Remove or reduce protections: For example, instead of having a top-3 or top-6 pick protection, the pick could be lottery-protected, meaning the team gets a lottery pick but not necessarily a high one.
    
    
  • "Top-4" protection: Teams that finish in the top four would be guaranteed a top-4 pick.
    

3. Other potential solutions:

• Penalties for tanking:
  While more controversial, the NBA could consider penalties for teams that blatantly and intentionally tank.
  
  
• Consider a modified version of the current lottery system:
  One possibility is to extend the lottery drawing to determine the top eight picks.
  

By implementing these changes, the NBA can create a more competitive and engaging league where teams are incentivized to perform their best throughout the season, not just at the end for the sake of a lottery pick.

 

[GunterD]

This is why I don't trust AI with anything right now.

(side story, I once saw a commercial I thought was kind of funny that talked about great shows having one-word titles and included "ER" in the mix. I tried to search for the commercial, and the AI overview came back saying something along the lines of

"A large number of very popular shows included one word titles because they are evocative, easy to remember, and impactful. Examples of popular shows with one word titles include:

Friends
ER
Lost
Dexter
Twin Peaks
Dawsons Creek
Mork and Mindy")

 

[SoberasHotRod]

I think where I've landed after all of the great suggestions is that draft picks are tied to cap space somehow. The players union would never let it happen, but I think teams should have options on how to build a team with the draft being one option, trades being an option, and free agency being an option. I would still want to create more parity in free agency with a hard salary cap and removing max contracts, but it wouldn't be as big of a priority if teams still had a way to build their team through the draft.

Here is one way this could work:

- Continue to have a salary floor, so that teams can't just completely gut their teams
- At the end of the year teams with cap space can use the space to bid on different draft positions.
- If there is a tie bid, then those teams are put in to a lottery with equal odds for the pick.
- The draft bidding would start with the 1st pick and move through picks 30. So if a team lost out on the 1st pick they can then put all of their cap space in to the 2nd pick and so on.
- Once your cap space bid wins a pick it is taken away from your cap space for future picks. So a team could choose to go all in for a bid on a pick or they could choose to divide it among multiple picks.
- The second round would be based off of record.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

I think where I've landed after all of the great suggestions is that draft picks are tied to cap space somehow. The players union would never let it happen, but I think teams should have options on how to build a team with the draft being one option, trades being an option, and free agency being an option. I would still want to create more parity in free agency with a hard salary cap and removing max contracts, but it wouldn't be as big of a priority if teams still had a way to build their team through the draft.

Here is one way this could work:

- Continue to have a salary floor, so that teams can't just completely gut their teams
- At the end of the year teams with cap space can use the space to bid on different draft positions.
- If there is a tie bid, then those teams are put in to a lottery with equal odds for the pick.
- The draft bidding would start with the 1st pick and move through picks 30. So if a team lost out on the 1st pick they can then put all of their cap space in to the 2nd pick and so on.
- Once your cap space bid wins a pick it is taken away from your cap space for future picks. So a team could choose to go all in for a bid on a pick or they could choose to divide it among multiple picks.
- The second round would be based off of record.

I was waiting for some criticism of this idea, but I'll go ahead and throw it out there myself. The risk would be that when a generational prospect would come around that everyone would create as much cap space as possible, which would really cause some chaos.

The other thing people might not like is that a large portion of the NBA would regularly be at the salary floor, which I'm actually ok with. Some of the alternatives involve super flat odds where many teams have a chance at winning the lottery and this would basically do the same thing. At least with this option teams can still be strategic.

Potentially to appease the players union you could take all of the cap space that is used to win bids on draft picks and divide it amongst the players so that they aren't losing out on that money. I would also be in favor of giving them increased revenue sharing.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

In order of preference for proposals I think the Wheel + Hard Cap + No Max Contracts would be my first preference since every team would be incentivized to be as good as possible every year. Also, trading for draft picks would be extremely straight forward. I don't like the idea without the hard cap/no max contracts because it makes building a team harder for small market teams. My second preference is for my idea with the cap space used for bidding on draft picks. I think this idea works even if you don't have a hard cap/no max contracts. It will disincentivize some teams from building the best team possible in the off season, but would eliminate teams not trying to win during the season. My third favorite proposal is HH's idea of getting to pick someone else's draft pick the following year. It would be really fun, but it doesn't completely discourage losing.

Unfortunately all of these ideas are so far out there that I don't think they are realistic. I think I need to go back through and look at the most realistic and effective idea. At that point I think you might be more interested in limiting tanking vs eliminating it.

 

[sanders]

Great points! I’ve been thinking about the same thing for a while. Tanking is a tough topic, especially when you look at the long-term benefits vs. the short-term pain. But I do think there’s a smart way to go about it.


One idea I’ve heard that makes a lot of sense is to build the team with younger, high-upside players who can develop and improve, even while the team isn’t winning a ton of games. This way, you’re not just throwing away seasons; you’re letting guys like Kessler, Markkanen, and maybe even some of the younger draft picks really grow. If they can get consistent minutes, they might surprise people down the line and actually end up contributing much earlier than expected.


Another aspect is looking for trades that set up for future flexibility rather than just accumulating picks for the sake of it. Some teams might be willing to move solid, but not star-level, players for younger talent and future picks. That way, you’re not just tanking for a high pick but also securing assets that could be part of the future build.


But at the end of the day, it’s all about balance. You can tank, but if you end up losing that fan interest or damaging the team’s culture, it can set you back in other ways. So yeah, it’s about getting smart with how you build and develop during these lean years.


What are your thoughts on trying to blend a rebuild with staying competitive in certain games, even if it means losing for the bigger picture?

 

[Coach Ellis]

I think they should actually eliminate the lottery. No more flat odds, just do it like the NFL does. Worst team gets the best pick, 2nd worst gets #2, etc. (they can start this year if they want to. . .)

Will it eliminate the worst teams from tanking? No - but it will eliminate the teams that are outside of the top few picks from being bad on purpose and hopefully make it so more of them are fighting to make the play-in instead.

Combine this with limitations on having a top 3 pick in 2 out of 3 seasons (they automatically get dropped to 4 or lower) to avoid completely bottoming out for multiple years, and I think it could prove to eliminate all but the most egregious forms of tanking. Eliminated the incentive to lose and teams will stop doing it.

I also like limiting how picks can be protected moving forward. Make a standard for all pick protections - unprotected, top 3, and lottery protected. That’s it. I’m sure it will come with a bunch of unintended consequences, but that makes it very easy to know if they’ll keep their picks or not and force teams to compete because there’s little incentive to lose to keep a pick.

 

[GunterD]

I think they should actually eliminate the lottery. No more flat odds, just do it like the NFL does. Worst team gets the best pick, 2nd worst gets #2, etc. (they can start this year if they want to. . .)

Will it eliminate the worst teams from tanking? No - but it will eliminate the teams that are outside of the top few picks from being bad on purpose and hopefully make it so more of them are fighting to make the play-in instead.

Leaning in to the tanking concept instead of trying but failing to disincentivize it means the tanking teams get what they want faster and stop tanking sooner. So teams tank for less time, and fewer teams are doing it at the same time. All flattening the odds does is make it take more time to get the benefit you are looking for, while pushing the incentive to lose all the way up to the borderline playoff teams.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

I also like limiting how picks can be protected moving forward. Make a standard for all pick protections - unprotected, top 3, and lottery protected. That’s it. I’m sure it will come with a bunch of unintended consequences, but that makes it very easy to know if they’ll keep their picks or not and force teams to compete because there’s little incentive to lose to keep a pick.

The most egregious tanking that the league should care the most about is a team losing in the play in on purpose, so I think if you are limiting what protections can be placed, the lottery protected is probably the most important to remove.

 

[GunterD]

I think where I've landed after all of the great suggestions is that draft picks are tied to cap space somehow. The players union would never let it happen, but I think teams should have options on how to build a team with the draft being one option, trades being an option, and free agency being an option. I would still want to create more parity in free agency with a hard salary cap and removing max contracts, but it wouldn't be as big of a priority if teams still had a way to build their team through the draft.

Here is one way this could work:

- Continue to have a salary floor, so that teams can't just completely gut their teams
- At the end of the year teams with cap space can use the space to bid on different draft positions.
- If there is a tie bid, then those teams are put in to a lottery with equal odds for the pick.
- The draft bidding would start with the 1st pick and move through picks 30. So if a team lost out on the 1st pick they can then put all of their cap space in to the 2nd pick and so on.
- Once your cap space bid wins a pick it is taken away from your cap space for future picks. So a team could choose to go all in for a bid on a pick or they could choose to divide it among multiple picks.
- The second round would be based off of record.

It is an interesting suggestion. My gut feel would just be that its a little too complicated to not have exploitable edge cases that will result in unintended consequences, but those may be able to be ironed out with small rule changes.

The biggest problem might be that it sounds to me like it might adjust the NBA salary dynamic in a way that the players union will not allow. Pretty sure the players are going to say "tanking is a you problem" and are going to be unwilling to accept any solution that requires them to sacrifice anything at all.

You mentioned a few of these yourself. Its going to incentivize non-competitive teams to sit right at the floor salary level. You could maybe counteract that with shifting the profit sharing an equivalent percentage towards the players.

This would also probably eliminate a few roster spots from the NBA, as teams would be more incentivized to carry minimum size rosters to maximize their cap space when they want to bid on the draft.

One thing I needed to ask a clarification on. Does your cap space bid then become the salary of the player when you win? When you say a win takes away from your cap for future picks, does that mean in the same draft or in future drafts? If its in future drafts, how long does the hold last?

I interpreted it as you bid the cap space, then you pay the player that much money. Its an interesting concept, it makes building through the draft riskier because you have to commit more to higher picks, who may end up injured or not panning out. Doing that would shift the money balance among players from vets towards rookies which the union may not agree to.

The gap between cap and floor right now is about 14 million, and the first round pick salary is, looks like, about 10 million, so I guess that's not a huge deviation. Though it also probably has the effect of dramatically raising the salary for the first few draft picks, and dramatically lowering the salary for the rest beyond some kind of threshold that's probably around pick 7. Salary disparity like that is also something the union usually fights.

It probably means even after getting good players, teams still try to sit at the salary floor until they are sure they can make a championship run. So instead of spending several years trying to build up a team and find a good fit, you'd surround your guys with minimum contract players, and then once you've acquired enough high picks, you try to make a sudden surge. Its not exactly tanking, the teams at least would be trying to win, but you still have GMs intentionally assembling subpar teams even when they have good players. Though it will also get increasingly hard to keep your salary at the floor as you add bid wins so eventually you will be forced out of that strategy.

It might do something weird to draft classes. Players may actually try to congregate into a strong draft class, with the assumption that teams are going to be saving more cap space to be available in that draft, so the losers on the highest picks may still be more willing to burn a bit of space on the next guys down. Or not, I'm not as sure about this one.


I dunno. Its an interesting idea. It has some merits, the strongest being total disincentivation of intentional in-season losing, while leaving smaller market teams the ability to build through the draft. It creates lots of really fun auction scenarios with the draft and roster building strategies, in a complicated system that a really clever GM could probably use their skill to make a good team. It could work, if everyone could agree to it.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

The purpose of protections is to adjust for the value of a pick in a trade as well as protect the team against extremely bad outcomes. I think a top 4 protection is good enough to shield against extremely bad outcomes, and then teams can get creative on leveling value.

For example maybe a team could trade a top 4 protected pick and then the other outcomes are pre negotiated. For example if the pick falls between 5-10 the pick can be purchased for 4 2nd round picks. If the pick is between 11-15 it can be purchased for 3 2nd round picks.