What's new
By:

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

SoberasHotRod said:
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.
Click to expand...
Without the lottery, it’s at best a top 12 pick - I cant see a team throwing their chance at the playoffs for a top 12 pick. Now, if that pick has 3% chance at hitting on the #1 overall pick. . . that changes the calculation in a year like this one and next.

Maybe make it so you can make a pick unprotected, or protect it top 3 or top 10. Eliminate protections for all picks for play-in and playoff teams. If you miss the play-in, there’s zero incentive for losing a game intentionally to keep your pick?
 
GunterD said:
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.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the thoughtful response. I didn't say if the bid money would be the player's salary, because I'm not quite sure what the best way to handle that part would be. You could potentially just keep the salary scale the way it is today and the bid money just goes in to a pot that is paid out to all of the players. Or on the other extreme you could increase the difference between the floor and the cap so that the first picks would make a huge amount of money. That strategy could also be a deterrent from teams taking this strategy so they aren't tying up all their cap space on young players. It also helps with the problem of teams being at the floor for multiple years since it would be difficult to incorporate multiple high cost rookies.

Anyway you do it you would have to have some kind of minimum salary for draft picks/minimum bid. At some point you run out of teams that want to bid on picks and maybe that is way less than 30 picks. Whatever the number is you start the second round at that point based on winning %. So maybe you only get bids for like 15 picks and then another 30 picks for the second round, and then after that everyone is a free agent. I actually think that is fine.

Something that would have to get figured out is how to handle trading of draft picks. It wouldn't really be possible with the system. I suppose you could trade cap space instead... I haven't thought that part through yet.
 
SoberasHotRod said:
Something that would have to get figured out is how to handle trading of draft picks. It wouldn't really be possible with the system. I suppose you could trade cap space instead... I haven't thought that part through yet.
Click to expand...
Ah that is a good point I didn't consider. Trading cap space would be hard, just because draft pick trades are usually really future things and it would be kind of hard to guarantee that you would still have it available. You could still do 2nd round trades, and draft day trades for players. Deals after the season ended but before the draft with teams to have them use their cap space to bid for you, in exchange for a player if the bid panned out. But futures, that is pretty much eliminated by the system. So you are exchanging the "compile a number of smaller assets then consolidate them in a trade for an established star" strategy for this newer build through the draft strategy.

Ramifications would be interesting. Superstar trades and even all star trades would probably stop completely, so trading would become a tool you could pretty much just use to shift pieces around to move bad fits out for better complimentary pieces. You'd be forced to get your core through free agency or the draft. That's maybe countered a bit by making it a bit easier to get that through the draft. It does kind of reduce players' abilities to demand trades, since there's not going to be a reasonable assumption you can get near equivalent value back. Means when you sign big contracts you are stuck with them till they expire. For fans we don't get a competitive team exploded early because the front office blinked.

I dunno this is probably a big obstacle to this strategy.
 
GunterD said:
Ah that is a good point I didn't consider. Trading cap space would be hard, just because draft pick trades are usually really future things and it would be kind of hard to guarantee that you would still have it available. You could still do 2nd round trades, and draft day trades for players. Deals after the season ended but before the draft with teams to have them use their cap space to bid for you, in exchange for a player if the bid panned out. But futures, that is pretty much eliminated by the system. So you are exchanging the "compile a number of smaller assets then consolidate them in a trade for an established star" strategy for this newer build through the draft strategy.

Ramifications would be interesting. Superstar trades and even all star trades would probably stop completely, so trading would become a tool you could pretty much just use to shift pieces around to move bad fits out for better complimentary pieces. You'd be forced to get your core through free agency or the draft. That's maybe countered a bit by making it a bit easier to get that through the draft. It does kind of reduce players' abilities to demand trades, since there's not going to be a reasonable assumption you can get near equivalent value back. Means when you sign big contracts you are stuck with them till they expire. For fans we don't get a competitive team exploded early because the front office blinked.

I dunno this is probably a big obstacle to this strategy.
Click to expand...

OK, with a little thought this is what I'm thinking on trades:

- Teams can trade their current cap space that other teams can use or save for future years. It only effects the team that trades the cap space for the year they trade it, but the team that acquires the cap space can use it indefinitely.
- Teams can't carry over or save their own cap space, only cap space money they get in trades.
- Teams can aggregate their current cap space and cap space acquired in trades, but they can only exceed the difference between the salary floor and cap on picks after 4. (If salaries are tied to bid amounts then the drafted player's salary would be capped at the difference between the floor and the cap so that the 5th pick isn't paid more than the first 4).
- Teams can combine cap space acquired from previous teams to trade to other teams. Again, this isn't actual money that goes in to the team's bank account, but a "Cap Space" number that is just tracked. The actual money is only physically transferred to the new team at the time of the first trade.

Again complicated, but I think it can kind of work and not be too different that trades today.
 
Coach Ellis said:
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.
Click to expand...
I like this. Really simple too

Sent from my OPD2203 using Tapatalk
 
Chargers Jazz Angels said:
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.
Click to expand...
I took my thought process and gamed it out for the last three seasons - just to see what would have changed. Here’s how it broke down.

(2020 Top 3 - Minnesota, Golden State & Charlotte - teams eligible again for a top 3 pick in 2023
2021 Top 3 - Detroit, Houston & Cleveland - eligible again in 2024)

2022
01 - Orlando - Paulo Banchero (same)
02 - OKC - Chet Holmgren (same)
03 - Sacramento (moves up because Houston is ineligible) Jabari Smith, Jr.
04 - Houston - Keegan Murray
(It’s possible that these two picks don’t change based on who Sacramento preferred)

2023
01 - San Antonio (moves up because both Detroit and Houston are ineligible) Victor Wembanyama
02 - Charlotte (Detroit & Houston ineligible) Brandon Miller
03 - Portland (Detroit & Houston ineligible) Scoot Henderson
04 & 05 - Detroit & Houston would be switched in order, so it’s possible that Amen ends up with the Pistons and Ausur ends up with the Rockets
06 + - everything else stays the same. . .

2024 - this is where it gets interesting
01 - Washington (moves up because Detroit is ineligible) - Sarr or Risacher
02 - Toronto (moves up because Detroit, Charlotte, Portland and San Antonio are all ineligible this year and keep their pick, but it conveys to San Antonio in 2025) Risacher or Sarr
03 - Memphis (Detroit, Charlotte, Portland & San Antonio are all ineligible) probably Clingan at this point?

Then you have Detroit, Charlotte, Portland, San Antonio, Utah, Chicago and Houston (via Phoenix) with Sheppard, Castle, Holland, Salaun, Dillingham, Edey, Williams, Buzelis and Topic all considered to be likely high picks.

It would change things, but not in any overly dramatic way. The bottom teams would probably tank pretty hard to get that best pick, but it eliminates the availability to do it again for at least two years. I think it would actually work pretty well tbh.
 
Last edited:
Coach Ellis said:
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.
Click to expand...
Given that so much of what drives tanking is specifically getting to the top of the draft, regulating/capping that outcome is probably the single-most effective tool at combatting tanking (while still giving organically bad teams better draft positioning in the aggregate). The only reason we have a lottery in the first place is to lower the chances that losing games on purpose lands you a franchise-changing pick, so why not just be more intentional about it and spread the wealth in the process? I don’t get how randomness and chaos is supposed to create parity and competitiveness.
 
Last edited:
So here's an outside the box way to potentially improve tanking.

Allow 16 or 17 year olds to get drafted, but keep the rule that they can't play in the NBA until the year they turn 19.

The benefit of tanking would be more risky and more delayed. It think this would discourage more teams from going this route.

(FWIW I don't necessarily like this idea, but just throwing it out there).
 
NUMBERICA said:
Given that so much of what drives tanking is specifically getting to the top of the draft, regulating/capping that outcome is probably the single-most effective tool at combatting tanking (while still giving organically bad teams better draft positioning in the aggregate). The only reason we have a lottery in the first place is to lower the chances that losing games on purpose lands you a franchise-changing pick, so why not just be more intentional about it and spread the wealth in the process? I don’t get how randomness and chaos is supposed to create parody and competitiveness.
Click to expand...
Can someone tell me how in the **** the Celtics and Lakers were able to reload with high picks while already being loaded in the late 70’s and 80’s?

Capping those top-end outcomes (and going even further by eliminating the lottery) removes the ability for teams to repeatedly just get “lucky” and by extension removes any suspicion that the league is rigging lottery outcomes.

The more I think about this, the more I like it. Regulate/cap the top of the draft and after that just let the draft fall by record. All three poles of the discussion (1. How do we stop tanking? 2. How do we create opportunities for bad teams to improve? 3. How do we facilitate fairness, competitiveness, and trust in the system?).
 
NUMBERICA said:
Given that so much of what drives tanking is specifically getting to the top of the draft, regulating/capping that outcome is probably the single-most effective tool at combatting tanking. The only reason we have a lottery in the first place is to lower the chances that losing games on purpose lands you a franchise-changing pick, so why not just be more intentional about it and spread the wealth in the process? I don’t get how randomness and chaos is supposed to create parody and competitiveness.
Click to expand...
I agree. It’s why I think this would be the most effective solution. Simplify the process, to reward the truly bad teams, but still limit the effectiveness of long-term tanking. Add to that the simplified pick protections, and I think it makes it really easy to get rid of the worst offenders.
 
NUMBERICA said:
Can someone tell me how in the **** the Celtics and Lakers were able to reload with high picks while already being loaded in the late 70’s and 80’s?

Capping those top-end outcomes (and going even further by eliminating the lottery) removes the ability for teams to repeatedly just get “lucky” and by extension removes any suspicion that the league is rigging lottery outcomes.

The more I think about this, the more I like it.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure, but the lottery wasn't invented until the mid-late 80's so I don't think it has anything to do with the lottery.
 
Coach Ellis said:
I agree. It’s why I think this would be the most effective solution. Simplify the process, to reward the truly bad teams, but still limit the effectiveness of long-term tanking. Add to that the simplified pick protections, and I think it makes it really easy to get rid of the worst offenders.
Click to expand...

I do think the solution is simple and easy to execute, I'm just not sure if it does enough. When teams are eliminated from the playoff/play in they will still want to maximize the value of their pick by being as bad as possible. There is still no real incentive to winning games for a large majority of teams at the end of the season and even improving their pick by one or two spots could be all the incentive they need.

That said, I haven't thought of a better solution that would likely get approved, so maybe there just isn't a good way.
 
Coach Ellis said:
I agree. It’s why I think this would be the most effective solution. Simplify the process, to reward the truly bad teams, but still limit the effectiveness of long-term tanking. Add to that the simplified pick protections, and I think it makes it really easy to get rid of the worst offenders.
Click to expand...
Only thing I might touch with pick protections is that perhaps capping the top of the draft should also apply to when a team owns another team’s unprotected pick. I’m envisioning a team that has the #1 pick then wins another top-3 pick from another team (but not allowing them that outcome).

That, or just cap protections at top-3; no unprotected picks allowed. Would probably be better for competitiveness to not allow teams to destroy their franchises, a la the Stepien Rule. Would also probably lube the trade market somewhat if you don’t have teams demanding unprotected picks because they can’t.
 
SoberasHotRod said:
I'm not sure, but the lottery wasn't invented until the mid-late 80's so I don't think it has anything to do with the lottery.
Click to expand...
Celtics - Bird was drafted 6th overall in 78, but didn’t play for them until 79. Boston made a crap ton of trades before the 1980 draft and ended up with the #1 pick (via Detroit), which they traded to Golden State for Robert Parrish and the 3rd overall pick - which was used to take Kevin McHale. Danny Ainge was drafted in the 2nd round in
1981.

Lakers - already had Kareem and then Magic was drafted 1st overall in 79 (with the Jazz pick from the disastrous Gail Goodrich acquisition) and James Worthy was drafted 1st overall in 82 (from a pick they got in a trade with Cleveland)

This was before pick protections were introduced, and owning another bad teams picks (plus some luck/good drafting) was how you built a dynasty back before free agency.
 
NUMBERICA said:
Given that so much of what drives tanking is specifically getting to the top of the draft, regulating/capping that outcome is probably the single-most effective tool at combatting tanking (while still giving organically bad teams better draft positioning in the aggregate). The only reason we have a lottery in the first place is to lower the chances that losing games on purpose lands you a franchise-changing pick, so why not just be more intentional about it and spread the wealth in the process? I don’t get how randomness and chaos is supposed to create parity and competitiveness.
Click to expand...
I have to admit that I'm surprised that everyone has just ignored my odds-flattening lottery rejiggering earlier in this thread that tries to do exactly this (is it because no one can read/fully comprehend tankathon-style odds?): while keeping the aspect of giving the worst teams the highest average pick, my idea moved the "sweet spot" of winning the lottery for the top 5 picks to the middle of the standings and greatly flattened them out in the process (several teams max out at 5% chance for #1 pick).

I mean if there's some obvious flaw that I overlooked, I'd like it to be pointed out, but nobody gave it the time of day.
 
idiot said:
For anyone who cares to give an assessment about this idea for rejiggering the lotto odds to try to solve tanking, I welcome your thoughts. (And yes I know there are ideas that do away with the lotto altogether that could well be more attractive -- I'm just trying to think what's possible IF the NBA wants to solve tanking while keeping a lotto).

The principles I've tried to follow:
  • Make the race to the bottom unattractive (with the odds for a top-5 pick going down for the worst 10 teams, rather than up) while still, on average, helping worse teams with the draft more than better teams
  • Reward winning more than the current system
  • Get rid of the idea that "the middle is the worst place to be," while simultaneously maybe giving a little more value to the play-in race

The table should be read like you'd read the Tankathon Lottery odds page, with all of the numbers in the Picks 1-30 and Top-5 pick columns being the odds (in percent). (Thanks to the Universal Draft Lottery Simulator website for making the math that is way to hard for me possible to see worked out).

View attachment 18295
Click to expand...

Wasn't actively posting at this point so I'll admit I just brushed past it in catching up with the thread.

It does mostly achieve your stated objectives of keeping the average good pick going to the worst teams, but rewarding the best teams with the best chance at the top 5, which would incentivize mediocre teams still pushing hard to win, to a certain point.

I think it pushes the idea a little bit too hard. While its true that many of the best players were drafted outside the top 5, its also true that you are way way more likely to find a great player in the top 5 than at any other position. So I think it becomes really difficult for really bad teams to pull themselves out of that hole. The occasional win for teams near the top is going to push a championship favorite to an untouchable decade-long juggernaut at some point.

I have generally heard that home court advantage in the NBA playoffs has become less and less important, which is one of the things that has led to teams resting star players a lot. This gives a little more incentive for them to do that. Towards the ends of seasons we may see teams near the tops of the standings rest players a little more, since dropping from a 3 seed to a 4 seed isn't going to matter too much for the playoffs, but gives a decent boost to the lottery odds.

Making the middle the "best" place to be is kind of interesting. The way you would see team churn would probably involve the big markets mostly hanging out near the top and reloading via free agency, occasionally dipping into that middle tier when players retire, and then bouncing back up either through draft luck or free agency. You'd see a lot fewer teams completely gutting themselves when they lose their big guns. I think it would be even more devastating to smaller market teams when their big name players leave in free agency. There would still be a tier of teams without hope of getting into the sweet spots that would probably still field very uncompetitive teams and decide they are better off losing for that 6 spot than trying to claw their way up the charts.

There's probably some equation that balances the relative value of a #1 pick vs the value of lower picks. Though the details of that would probably vary between draft classes, someone is going to run that on this chart and find some "expected maximum value" slot and the dominant strategy is going to end up being trying to capture the 7 or 8 spot, which is going to end up with some weird situations where teams above that slot are tanking and teams below it are trying to win.

I dunno, its an interesting idea. I'm probably not seeing everything with it. But gut feel, its going to create a scenario where top tier playoff teams rest the superstars more frequently, and maybe even intentionally tank a bit towards the end of the season, and mediocre teams try a weird combination of tanking and competing to try to reach a specific number slot. And some lottery luck is going to end up creating a superteam, with the odds of that happening to someone probably favoring the bigger markets
 
Make any team not over the cap for more than one day in the prior season eligible for the lottery. If you are in the luxury tax you lose your draft pick which would be added in as a lottery pick for all other eligible teams. Will incentivize teams to make smart contracts, and cause the superteams with lots of salary to lose.

The big market teams would never go for this, but it would help with avoiding tanking and cause superteams to give up something for amassing that amount of talent unless players take huge salary cuts.
 
idiot said:
I have to admit that I'm surprised that everyone has just ignored my odds-flattening lottery rejiggering earlier in this thread that tries to do exactly this (is it because no one can read/fully comprehend tankathon-style odds?): while keeping the aspect of giving the worst teams the highest average pick, my idea moved the "sweet spot" of winning the lottery for the top 5 picks to the middle of the standings and greatly flattened them out in the process (several teams max out at 5% chance for #1 pick).

I mean if there's some obvious flaw that I overlooked, I'd like it to be pointed out, but nobody gave it the time of day.
Click to expand...
Apologies. At the time I wasn't interested at all in any proposals dealing with changing the lottery odds. I went and relooked and have some thoughts.

- I don't like any scenario where a top 10 team has a chance at a the top pick. So maybe if you squished things down to odds starting at record 21 it might be better.
- I think this eliminates tanking in the off season, which is the type of tanking that I don't really mind, but it doesn't completely eliminate in game tanking which is my main goal. Teams will still try and get as good of odds as possible even if there isn't a big difference and the bottom teams will try and improve their floor pick at some point at the end of the season.
- This would definitely greatly reduce tanking, but I don't know if I would really prefer the draft to be almost completely random.
 
Last edited:
SoberasHotRod said:
Apologies. At the time I wasn't interested at all in any proposals dealing with changing the lottery odds. I went and relooked and have some thoughts.

- I don't like any scenario where a top 10 team has a chance at a the top pick. So maybe if you squished things down to odds starting at record 21 it might be better.
- I think this eliminates tanking in the off season, which is the type of tanking that I don't really mind, but it doesn't completely eliminate in game tanking which is my main goal. Teams will still try and get as good of odds as possible even if there isn't a big difference and the bottom teams will try and improve their floor pick at some point at the end of the season.
- This would definitely greatly reduce tanking, but I don't know if I would really prefer the draft to be almost completely random.
Click to expand...
All great thoughts. Thanks!

I think any proposal is going to have advantages/disadvantages, advocates/detractors. But yeah, letting a top 10 team have a chance at the top spot will be unpopular (though I think it beats the wheel in this regard).

For the second point: it may lead to some in-season tanking among the bottom teams, but the reward is so much less that (perhaps) over time only the most desperate teams will go there. Would be interesting to see how the teams' calculus changes with this.

Third point: I'd say there's two elements to this. The top 5 picks are much more random than now. But the average picks still benefit the worse records pretty substantially (though not as much as now). For the first of these, I'm kinda in the camp that given how important a single transformational player is, and given the role that luck already plays in getting those players, it might be good to kind of "institutionalize" the role that random luck plays in this. But I know others will disagree.
 
GunterD said:
Wasn't actively posting at this point so I'll admit I just brushed past it in catching up with the thread.

It does mostly achieve your stated objectives of keeping the average good pick going to the worst teams, but rewarding the best teams with the best chance at the top 5, which would incentivize mediocre teams still pushing hard to win, to a certain point.

I think it pushes the idea a little bit too hard. While its true that many of the best players were drafted outside the top 5, its also true that you are way way more likely to find a great player in the top 5 than at any other position. So I think it becomes really difficult for really bad teams to pull themselves out of that hole. The occasional win for teams near the top is going to push a championship favorite to an untouchable decade-long juggernaut at some point.

I have generally heard that home court advantage in the NBA playoffs has become less and less important, which is one of the things that has led to teams resting star players a lot. This gives a little more incentive for them to do that. Towards the ends of seasons we may see teams near the tops of the standings rest players a little more, since dropping from a 3 seed to a 4 seed isn't going to matter too much for the playoffs, but gives a decent boost to the lottery odds.

Making the middle the "best" place to be is kind of interesting. The way you would see team churn would probably involve the big markets mostly hanging out near the top and reloading via free agency, occasionally dipping into that middle tier when players retire, and then bouncing back up either through draft luck or free agency. You'd see a lot fewer teams completely gutting themselves when they lose their big guns. I think it would be even more devastating to smaller market teams when their big name players leave in free agency. There would still be a tier of teams without hope of getting into the sweet spots that would probably still field very uncompetitive teams and decide they are better off losing for that 6 spot than trying to claw their way up the charts.

There's probably some equation that balances the relative value of a #1 pick vs the value of lower picks. Though the details of that would probably vary between draft classes, someone is going to run that on this chart and find some "expected maximum value" slot and the dominant strategy is going to end up being trying to capture the 7 or 8 spot, which is going to end up with some weird situations where teams above that slot are tanking and teams below it are trying to win.

I dunno, its an interesting idea. I'm probably not seeing everything with it. But gut feel, its going to create a scenario where top tier playoff teams rest the superstars more frequently, and maybe even intentionally tank a bit towards the end of the season, and mediocre teams try a weird combination of tanking and competing to try to reach a specific number slot. And some lottery luck is going to end up creating a superteam, with the odds of that happening to someone probably favoring the bigger markets
Click to expand...
Thanks for the thoughts!! I think you've understood and analyzed it well.

I think you're right it would create some weird dynamics, including the best teams perhaps trying to tank a bit toward the end in hopes that they can catch draft magic in the small, but slightly higher odds.

I'm still not sure what can be done about the issue of not risking creating superteams while at the same time getting rid of most tanking (without completely changing the long-time principles of NBA CBAs, which seems unlikely to me).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top