My Draft Lottery Thoughts

[green]

First, the lottery will never fix tanking. The Wheel route is the only way to stop tanking, but that has its issues as well and we've covered that already.

So, if we know tanking is a part of the game, and we accept that, and we don't want the wheel system, then why have a lottery at all?

Teams will tank, we can't stop them, so why not speed up the process so teams don't stay bad forever. Just do away with the lottery teams tank. Why pretend they don't? If you want to help small market teams, l and they suck, let them get the #1 pick.

 

[♪alt13]

what about this? Make the worst team ineligible for the lotto. They automatically get the 4th pick.

30th-picks fourth
29th-16%
28th-16%
27th-15%
26th-13%
25th-11%
24th-9%
23rd-7%
22nd-5%
21st-3%
20th-1%
19th-.75%
18th-.5%
17th-.5%

league holds the last 1.25%

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

First, the lottery will never fix tanking. The Wheel route is the only way to stop tanking, but that has its issues as well and we've covered that already.

So, if we know tanking is a part of the game, and we accept that, and we don't want the wheel system, then why have a lottery at all?

Teams will tank, we can't stop them, so why not speed up the process so teams don't stay bad forever. Just do away with the lottery teams tank. Why pretend they don't? If you want to help small market teams, l and they suck, let them get the #1 pick.

That would take Tanking to a new level. If the next Lebron was coming out next year, some team would go 3-79 or something. It would bring out the most blatant tanking (players on the court intentionally not playing well, missing shots, turnovers, etc). Teams would never stoop to that level in a lottery system when at best it's a 25% chance of getting a transcendent player.

 

[The Midnight]

First, the lottery will never fix tanking. The Wheel route is the only way to stop tanking, but that has its issues as well and we've covered that already.

So, if we know tanking is a part of the game, and we accept that, and we don't want the wheel system, then why have a lottery at all?

Teams will tank, we can't stop them, so why not speed up the process so teams don't stay bad forever. Just do away with the lottery teams tank. Why pretend they don't? If you want to help small market teams, l and they suck, let them get the #1 pick.

The wheel will favor the big market team even more than the proposed system. Because the proposed system was rejected, I don't think the wheel while have a chance whatsoever.


Also Silver has not given up. All the teams unanimously referred the proposed system back to the Competitions Committee to take a 2nd look for any unintended consequences. I suspect the Committee will tweak the system to make it a bit less "flat" at the top end, and there will probably be a revised system for voting in 4-5 months time, with it being implemented from next season onwards.


Sorry Green, but I think the Wheel is dead... it's time to let it go...

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

The wheel will favor the big market team even more than the proposed system. Because the proposed system was rejected, I don't think the wheel while have a chance whatsoever.


Also Silver has not given up. All the teams unanimously referred the proposed system back to the Competitions Committee to take a 2nd look for any unintended consequences. I suspect the Committee will tweak the system to make it a bit less "flat" at the top end, and there will probably be a revised system for voting in 4-5 months time, with it being implemented from next season onwards.


Sorry Green, but I think the Wheel is dead... it's time to let it go...

I seriously might quit watching NBA basketball entirely if they went to a "wheel" method. Something like that might work in Baseball or Football (where one individual player has less of an impact on a game) but it won't work for basketball.

 

[oldtimer]

I still like my idea of a three year weighted average for all nonplayoff teams. No team can have the number 1 pick in back to back years. Very few teams would tank 3 years in a row just to get the number one pick. This helps the teams that are truly bad but also has a little protection against bad franchises losing year after year. I wish the competition committee would propose something like that.

 

[The Midnight]

I seriously might quit watching NBA basketball entirely if they went to a "wheel" method. Something like that might work in Baseball or Football (where one individual player has less of an impact on a game) but it won't work for basketball.

Yeah I agree. The best example of why it will fail is still the fact that a player coming out of college can wait 1-2 more year before entering the 'lottery' so that he can go to a team of his choosing (i.e., bigger market teams like LA or NY) and the system will allow that to happen.


That favors the bigger market teams big time and that surely goes against what the NBA is trying to do.

 

[The Midnight]

I still like my idea of a three year weighted average for all nonplayoff teams. No team can have the number 1 pick in back to back years. Very few teams would tank 3 years in a row just to get the number one pick. This helps the teams that are truly bad but also has a little protection against bad franchises losing year after year. I wish the competition committee would propose something like that.

You'd be surprise. The 76ers have already done it 2 straight years heading into its 3rd.

 

[Crawlnstall]

The lottery needs work we can all agree on that. But the wheel is not the answer and neither is getting rid of the lottery. Look at how bad the Colts tanked for Luck, you'd see the same thing, but on a grander scale. I really like the idea of having no team win back to back lottery's and taking a weighted average of losses.

 

[MDAV28]

Wasn't there an idea floating around about using the last 3 years records in determining draft order? I think that could be worked with.

 

[The Midnight]

Wasn't there an idea floating around about using the last 3 years records in determining draft order? I think that could be worked with.

I think any system that puts the fate of who you pick squarely on the results of the teams is dangerous. At least with the ping pong balls you have some uncertainty which may prevent teams from wanting to tank HARD. If a team knows that it'll need a win percentage of 20% to get the #1 pick this coming year, it'll do its absolute best to lose that many game.


I think the proposed lottery was a step in the right direction, it just needed to be tweak a bit more to be less 'flat' at the top end, giving the 5-6 worse teams slightly better odds.

 

[The Midnight]

This is the proposed odds of the system that was rejected:

1 - 12.0%
2 - 12.0%
3 - 12.0%
4 - 12.0%
5 - 11.5%
6 - 10.0%
7 - 8.5%
8 - 7.0%
9 - 5.5%
10 - 4.0%
11 - 2.5%
12 - 1.5%
13 - 1.0%
14 - 0.5%

May be revise it to be:

1 - 16.0%
2 - 15.0%
3 - 14.0%
4 - 13.0%
5 - 12.0%
6 - 10.0%
7 - 8.0%
8 - 5.0%
9 - 3.0%
10 - 1.5%
11 - 1.0%
12 - 0.5%
13 - 0.5%
14 - 0.5%


I think that is something the smaller market teams can look at and say, OK, that still give us something to work with at the end. Bigger market team should see less tanking. Win/Win.

 

[MDAV28]

I think any system that puts the fate of who you pick squarely on the results of the teams is dangerous. At least with the ping pong balls you have some uncertainty which may prevent teams from wanting to tank HARD. If a team knows that it'll need a win percentage of 20% to get the #1 pick this coming year, it'll do its absolute best to lose that many game.


I think the proposed lottery was a step in the right direction, it just needed to be tweak a bit more to be less 'flat' at the top end, giving the 5-6 worse teams slightly better odds.

Sorry, I was thinking it would determine the order of the lottery. I quickly calculated what the lottery would have looked like last season based on last 3 years records (with 50% of the weight from current record and 25% for the previous 2)


Collective Records Lottery
1. Bucks (same)
2. Kings (increased 5 spots)
3. Magic (same)
4. 76ers (decreased 2 spots)
5. Cavaliers (increased 4 spots)
6. Pistons (increased 2 spots)
7. Pelicans (increased 3 spots)
8. Jazz (decreased 4 spots)
9. Celtics (decreased 4 spots)
10. TWolves (increased 3 spots)
11. Lakers (decreased 5 spots)
12. Suns (increased 2 spots)
13. Knicks (decreased 1 spot)
14. Nuggets (decreased 3 spots)

And then you would do the lottery from there. I don't think this is how it should necessarily be, but I think it could be something to work with. It would be much harder to intentionally tank 3 consecutive years.

 

[The Midnight]

Sorry, I was thinking it would determine the order of the lottery. I quickly calculated what the lottery would have looked like last season based on last 3 years records (with 50% of the weight from current record and 25% for the previous 2)


Collective Records Lottery
1. Bucks (same)
2. Kings (increased 5 spots)
3. Magic (same)
4. 76ers (decreased 2 spots)
5. Cavaliers (increased 4 spots)
6. Pistons (increased 2 spots)
7. Pelicans (increased 3 spots)
8. Jazz (decreased 4 spots)
9. Celtics (decreased 4 spots)
10. TWolves (increased 3 spots)
11. Lakers (decreased 5 spots)
12. Suns (increased 2 spots)
13. Knicks (decreased 1 spot)
14. Nuggets (decreased 3 spots)

And then you would do the lottery from there. I don't think this is how it should necessarily be, but I think it could be something to work with. It would be much harder to intentionally tank 3 consecutive years.

OK but I think the issue here is still the fact that it 'could' potentially encourage long term 'tank', which is possibly worse than a 1-2 year tank.


That would be one of the 'unintended consequences' Adam Silver and the owners were talking about. If a team had sucked for 2 years, why not suck 1 or 2 more years and get multiple lottery picks? It becomes like a bad habit, the team's value goes down, bad for the league overall.


I still think rejigging the lottery odds as I propose above is still the better way to go. Something that sits between what the current odds are and what the rejected odds were.

 

[MDAV28]

OK but I think the issue here is still the fact that it 'could' potentially encourage long term 'tank', which is possibly worse than a 1-2 year tank.


That would be one of the 'unintended consequences' Adam Silver and the owners were talking about. If a team had sucked for 2 years, why not suck 1 or 2 more years and get multiple lottery picks? It becomes like a bad habit, the team's value goes down, bad for the league overall.


I still think rejigging the lottery odds as I propose above is still the better way to go. Something that sits between what the current odds are and what the rejected odds were.

See I think you could look at it the opposite way, if you suck the last 2 years, it's kind of like a safety blanket for actually TRYING to be good. If your record is bad the last 2 years, you still could have a better lottery pick than you normally would if you actually try to win. I'll just use the TWolves for example, the 2 years before last season they were under .400. Then last season they do better and get close to .500, but in this situation they end up with 10th best odds instead of 13th.

Also look at it based on the Jazz situation last off season. There's no way we just let Jefferson and Millsap walk and make that salary dump trade from Golden State because even with a terrible season, we ended up with only the 8th best odds in that situation.

Like I said, I don't think that is the solution, but I think it is something that could be worked with.

 

[MDAV28]

I still like my idea of a three year weighted average for all nonplayoff teams. No team can have the number 1 pick in back to back years. Very few teams would tank 3 years in a row just to get the number one pick. This helps the teams that are truly bad but also has a little protection against bad franchises losing year after year. I wish the competition committee would propose something like that.

I don't know how I missed this before my posts. I'm with you.

 

[The Midnight]

See I think you could look at it the opposite way, if you suck the last 2 years, it's kind of like a safety blanket for actually TRYING to be good. If your record is bad the last 2 years, you still could have a better lottery pick than you normally would if you actually try to win. I'll just use the TWolves for example, the 2 years before last season they were under .400. Then last season they do better and get close to .500, but in this situation they end up with 10th best odds instead of 13th.

Also look at it based on the Jazz situation last off season. There's no way we just let Jefferson and Millsap walk and make that salary dump trade from Golden State because even with a terrible season, we ended up with only the 8th best odds in that situation.

Like I said, I don't think that is the solution, but I think it is something that could be worked with.

OK so I think it comes down to which system would you rather have: Weight Average vs Rejigging Lottery Odds.


I think it comes down to whether you would rather have: Long Term Tank VS One Off Tank.


I think the league is OK with One Off Tank, ala what the Jazz is doing, they've only really 'tanked hard' last year and looks like they should improve this year. What I don't think the league is happy with is what the 76ers are doing which is a systematic Long Term Tank:

- Drafted injured guys 2 years running (Noel in 2013, Embiid in 2014)

- Drafted a guy that cannot come over for 2 years (Dario Saric)


It is a systematic, Long Term Tanking plan they've got going there in Philly. The Weight Average system will not solve what the 76ers are doing - if anything it would enhance it, and I think that would be a concern for the league.

 

[MDAV28]

OK so I think it comes down to which system would you rather have: Weight Average vs Rejigging Lottery Odds.


I think it comes down to whether you would rather have: Long Term Tank VS One Off Tank.


I think the league is OK with One Off Tank, ala what the Jazz is doing, they've only really 'tanked hard' last year and looks like they should improve this year. What I don't think the league is happy with is what the 76ers are doing which is a systematic Long Term Tank:

- Drafted injured guys 2 years running (Noel in 2013, Embiid in 2014)

- Drafted a guy that cannot come over for 2 years (Dario Saric)


It is a systematic, Long Term Tanking plan they've got going there in Philly. The Weight Average system will not solve what the 76ers are doing - if anything it would enhance it, and I think that would be a concern for the league.

I guess I just don't see it that way. I don't think the 76ers would have been as intentionally bad as they were in hopes of getting 11.9% chance (4th odds) at the number 1 pick.

I don't think a team that is just plain, unintentionally bad for two seasons, would want to continue to be bad. The system would make it worth it to be better because you will still end up with an OK pick based on your last two seasons.

To be honest, I think a bigger concern with that system would be if a team in a situation to push for a the playoffs as a low seed and likely to be knocked out early, or just miss the playoffs and end up with a top 10 pick and better chances at moving up based on their average from the previous seasons.

 

[The Midnight]

I guess I just don't see it that way. I don't think the 76ers would have been as intentionally bad as they were in hopes of getting 11.9% chance (4th odds) at the number 1 pick.

I don't think a team that is just plain, unintentionally bad for two seasons, would want to continue to be bad. The system would make it worth it to be better because you will still end up with an OK pick based on your last two seasons.

To be honest, I think a bigger concern with that system would be if a team in a situation to push for a the playoffs as a low seed and likely to be knocked out early, or just miss the playoffs and end up with a top 10 pick and better chances at moving up based on their average from the previous seasons.

Yup agreed with all that too.


At the end of the day if I were a small market team I'm more likely to vote against the weighted average system because I would need to be bad for 3-4 years to get a decent pool of talent, and that certainly would hit me HARD in the pocket.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I'm more a proponent of a sliding scale system. Teams 1-14 are ranked 1 to 14 worst to best.

Team 1 can draw for picks 1-3 and given 4
Team 2 can draw for picks 1-4 and given 5
Team 3 can draw for picks 1-5 and given 6
Team 4 can draw for picks 1-6 and given 7
Team 5 can draw for picks 2-7 and given 8
Team 6 can draw for picks 3-8 and given 9
Team 7 ---------------------4-9------------10
8 5-10 11
9 6-11 12
10 7-12 13
11 8-14
12 9-14
13 10-14
14 11-14


And I'd make it even odds for each pick drawn for those teams that qualify for that pick. In this scenario, teams can only gain three slots but keep the scenario where you can only drop 3 slots.

Tanking will still occur, but I believe there'd be less mid range tanking.

EDIT: This scale is very malleable. Can stretch it out to have guaranteed picks later, or start the draw for better teams earlier. Can also stretch guaranteed picks out. Guarantee pick for, say, Team 2 to be 2 picks after Team 1.

Tiebreakers are easy. Can be done two ways. Can draw tied teams before the lottery, forcing one team into the better team position, or you can give both teams the same starting point, and draw for if neither team draws a pick, like what is done now. For example, two teams tie for Team 6 position. The both are entered into the drawing at pick 3, but neither draw after pick 8, at that point the tiebreaker draw delegated pick 9 to the winner and pick 10 to the loser.