What's new
By:

My idea on how to fix lottery/tanking

HermanG

HermanG

Well-Known Member
2025 Award Winner
This has been discussed some and we've had some interesting proposals and I may have missed if someone already suggested something like this.... but I think the way to solve tanking is to simply make "build through the middle" option better. So being a feisty play-in loser or a bubble team would be incentivized. Here is one example of how it could be achieved:

Teams are grouped in 3 groups for draft lottery:
Group 1: Bottom 8 teams based on regular season record
Group 2: Teams outside bottom 8 but also outside playoffs (so 9-14)
Group 3: Playoff teams

Top 3 picks are drawn with even odds between 8 Group 1 teams
Picks 4-6 are drawn with even odds between 6 Group 2 teams
Pick 7 onwards are awarded based on reverse standings for the remaining 22 teams who didnt win in either one of the two draws

The catch here is, that group 2 has a higher chance to win even though the prize is smaller. Top tier talent (e.g. all the "generational" prospects) still go to the worst teams helping them out of the cellar, but being in the middle group actually gives you a better chance to top 6 than being in the bottom 8 does. The downside of this is that would someone actually fold their play-in game for the higher odds? That is bad revenue-wise in the short term, so I'd imagine not many owners would be in favor of that.. but still its arguably worse PR-wise than what currently transpires annually.
 
HermanG said:
This has been discussed some and we've had some interesting proposals and I may have missed if someone already suggested something like this.... but I think the way to solve tanking is to simply make "build through the middle" option better.
Click to expand...
You simply shifted the ground zero of tanking up a bit. The worst tanking would be done by teams in the current Portland-Bulls-Nets tier: everyone will be dropping the games like crazy to secure the worst 6/7 record. And, of course, the teams below them would do some moderate tanking as well so they cannot be pushed out too high. So, essentially, you gave more teams an incentive to tank.
 
Did you see this thread?

SoberasHotRod

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

I think the majority of us would agree that sitting a healthy 23 year old Walker Kessler to make it more likely that we lose a game to have better lottery odds is a problem in the NBA. Teams should be incentivized to win as many games while achieving other goals like player development, etc. Flattening the odds has probably helped, but we are proof this year that it didn't fix the problem. It's possible that any proposal to fix the solution would create more negative effects than we currently have, but we should at least try.

This thread is to post your proposed solution (it doesn't...
 
SoberasHotRod said:
Did you see this thread?

SoberasHotRod

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

I think the majority of us would agree that sitting a healthy 23 year old Walker Kessler to make it more likely that we lose a game to have better lottery odds is a problem in the NBA. Teams should be incentivized to win as many games while achieving other goals like player development, etc. Flattening the odds has probably helped, but we are proof this year that it didn't fix the problem. It's possible that any proposal to fix the solution would create more negative effects than we currently have, but we should at least try.

This thread is to post your proposed solution (it doesn't...
Click to expand...
I think I did since this has been simmering somewhere in the back of my head, but I went few pages back to see if we had a thread and didnt notice that (or it was probably further down the list).
 
jazznik said:
You simply shifted the ground zero of tanking up a bit. The worst tanking would be done by teams in the current Portland-Bulls-Nets tier: everyone will be dropping the games like crazy to secure the worst 6/7 record. And, of course, the teams below them would do some moderate tanking as well so they cannot be pushed out too high. So, essentially, you gave more teams an incentive to tank.
Click to expand...
What? That makes no sense. Giving teams in the middle better picks than they get on average right now makes more teams wanna tank to the bottom? What are they doing, trying to escape the improved odds at 9-14?

You are one true galaxy brain sir.
 
HermanG said:
What? That makes no sense. Giving teams in the middle better picks than they get on average right now makes more teams wanna tank to the bottom? What are they doing, trying to escape the improved odds at 9-14?

You are one true galaxy brain sir.
Click to expand...
Under the proposed rules, those Group 2 teams are now fully locked out of the chance at a generational talent type of pick (Wemby, Flagg, etc.) so they would be incentivized even higher to not get locked out of a chance.
 
I don't personally love proposals that are based on shifting lottery odds. They might be more practical than some of the more radical proposals, but they don't really solve the problem.

To truly solve the problem I think you need to:
- Decouple losing with the chance at the best prospects
- Create better alternatives to team building than the draft (e.g. encourage free agency)
 
The one I saw that I love. Once a team is mathematically out of the playoffs it then becomes whoever wins the most games out of those teams. A team that is out first has the most opportunity to rack up the most wins.
 
kcgar said:
The one I saw that I love. Once a team is mathematically out of the playoffs it then becomes whoever wins the most games out of those teams. A team that is out first has the most opportunity to rack up the most wins.
Click to expand...

I've seen this proposed, but I just don't get it. How does this really help?

At least in my mind the problem with tanking is teams gaming the system (sitting healthy players). Wouldn't this proposal just make bad teams tank as hard as they can until they are eliminated? Teams trying to play well for a quarter of the season isn't really the point in my opinion.
 
The more I hear this discussion the more I just want a 'take your turn' approach.

Take the weighted records from the past three years and create a permanent order of all NBA teams worst to best with worst picking first, then shift 3 slots 'up' each year for everyone, but incremented by 1 within their groups of 3, so each takes turn being first in their grouping-

i.e. year 1: x = 1 in group y = 2 in group, z = 3 in group, the next year x is 3, y is 1, and z is 2.

and that 'grouping' migrates similarly through the draft- first year 28, 29, 30, next year 25, 26, 27.

This gives every team exactly the same weighted advantage over time in the draft and it becomes up to them to manage their picks/assets wisely.

You can then create a very hard cap to help offset some of the advantages in free agency for the big city teams, just don't try addressing it in the draft.
 
kcgar said:
The one I saw that I love. Once a team is mathematically out of the playoffs it then becomes whoever wins the most games out of those teams. A team that is out first has the most opportunity to rack up the most wins.
Click to expand...
So you just get hardcore tanking to start then a team magically gets healthy and starts winning
 
I already gave my suggestion in the og thread,but here goes again:

You change it completely: you get rewarded by bettering your winning percentage. If you got 15 wins last year, and you get it to 20, your record in The draft ranking is 50% increase in the win rate, and probably lands you pretty good position for the draft lottery ranking. If you won 30 games last season, and now 40, your number will be 33%. So, it's easier for the very bad teams improve their chances than the better ones, but they also would have less incentive to have fire sales. Every game would mean something and would encourage for constant growth and winning.

There's still that chance that some team would suck on purpose really badly one year to get the top odds for the lottery in nhe following year by winning, but I think this would reduce teams sucking several years straight on purpose.
 
HermanG said:
What? That makes no sense. Giving teams in the middle better picks than they get on average right now makes more teams wanna tank to the bottom? What are they doing, trying to escape the improved odds at 9-14?

You are one true galaxy brain sir.
Click to expand...
If you are the team number 9 then dropping just one place down all of a sudden gives you BETTER chances at the top 3 picks then the team with the 4rd worst record under the current system (12.5% for the 1st pick, 12.5% for the second pick, 12.5% for the third pick). . And the current system is the one where the Jazz is tanking like crazy without any shame for that coveted 3rd-4th worst finish. The hustle to become the 7th or 8th worst team instead of the 9-12th would a rare treat to watch.

Just think about the current Jazz under your proposed system. Would you be arguing that they should go all out and fight their way to the 32-50 record instead of tanking? Of course, they would then have no chance of getting Flagg, Harper and whoever will be taken third... but for their valiant effort they may have a one-in-eight chance of getting the 4th pick!
 
Last edited:
JazzFever said:
The more I hear this discussion the more I just want a 'take your turn' approach.

Take the weighted records from the past three years and create a permanent order of all NBA teams worst to best with worst picking first, then shift 3 slots 'up' each year for everyone, but incremented by 1 within their groups of 3, so each takes turn being first in their grouping-

i.e. year 1: x = 1 in group y = 2 in group, z = 3 in group, the next year x is 3, y is 1, and z is 2.

and that 'grouping' migrates similarly through the draft- first year 28, 29, 30, next year 25, 26, 27.

This gives every team exactly the same weighted advantage over time in the draft and it becomes up to them to manage their picks/assets wisely.

You can then create a very hard cap to help offset some of the advantages in free agency for the big city teams, just don't try addressing it in the draft.
Click to expand...
The last part is an important part of fixing tanking that almost nobody mentions.
 
JazzFever said:
You can then create a very hard cap to help offset some of the advantages in free agency for the big city teams, just don't try addressing it in the draft.
Click to expand...
So, would you be happy then that once you system is implemented and the Jazz have their 1st pick r scheduled and the upcoming player is Flagg he is saying "You know what? I will stay in college one more year because next year it is the Lakers who have the number 1 pick. I will go to LA and make up all lost money in 2 years in endorsements".

Because it will totally happen.
 
HermanG said:
This has been discussed some and we've had some interesting proposals and I may have missed if someone already suggested something like this.... but I think the way to solve tanking is to simply make "build through the middle" option better. So being a feisty play-in loser or a bubble team would be incentivized. Here is one example of how it could be achieved:

Teams are grouped in 3 groups for draft lottery:
Group 1: Bottom 8 teams based on regular season record
Group 2: Teams outside bottom 8 but also outside playoffs (so 9-14)
Group 3: Playoff teams

Top 3 picks are drawn with even odds between 8 Group 1 teams
Picks 4-6 are drawn with even odds between 6 Group 2 teams
Pick 7 onwards are awarded based on reverse standings for the remaining 22 teams who didnt win in either one of the two draws

The catch here is, that group 2 has a higher chance to win even though the prize is smaller. Top tier talent (e.g. all the "generational" prospects) still go to the worst teams helping them out of the cellar, but being in the middle group actually gives you a better chance to top 6 than being in the bottom 8 does. The downside of this is that would someone actually fold their play-in game for the higher odds? That is bad revenue-wise in the short term, so I'd imagine not many owners would be in favor of that.. but still it’s arguably worse PR-wise than what currently transpires annually.
Click to expand...
Best I’ve seen short of the European two tiered league system. And as that system is probably not financially viable here, the best all around.
 
Many of the things that the league has done to help small market teams have led to encouraging them to tank. Instead of creating a hard cap, the league instead has created rules to help teams retain the guys they draft. This has made the draft the only real way that small market teams can reliably add top tier talent.

Tanking is awful and needs to be addressed, but as a fan of a small market team I would hate for them to get rid of a team's ability to reliably add top talent through the draft, but not open up alternative ways to add top talent.
 
jazznik said:
So, would you be happy then that once you system is implemented and the Jazz have their 1st pick r scheduled and the upcoming player is Flagg he is saying "You know what? I will stay in college one more year because next year it is the Lakers who have the number 1 pick. I will go to LA and make up all lost money in 2 years in endorsements".

Because it will totally happen.
Click to expand...
This can/does already happen.

All the stuff around 2nd contracts though, REEAAALY discourages this behavior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top