The Utah Jazz and Tanking

[chawx]

Give the teams that don't make the playoffs an equal shot at the picks. That's what I said about 50 posts ago. I need a new PR team I guess.
but it is very different from Chawx's convulted tank 3/4 of the season and then give the pick to the best cheater idea . I missed Okur's idea.

Please re-read what I've put now 4 times...it's not that hard to understand.

At no point (besides MAYBE 2-3 games at the 10-12 games left mark) with my idea is tanking a good idea for teams.

"tank 3/4 of the season then cheat?" what the...?

 

[northeast]

Under your scenario, the top elite pick would always go to teams good enough to compete for the playoffs, that decide they'd rather lose a few games and get the elite pick. You have already said that you don't care that your system favors the better teams getting picks over the worst teams, and that is exactly what would happen. An yes, good teams will tank some games for a 70% chance at the next Shaq or Duncun, or even a 70 % chance at a top 3 pick. Just because they do it earlier in the season and not at the very end does not make it better.

 

[chawx]

Under your scenario, the top elite pick would always go to teams good enough to compete for the playoffs, that decide they'd rather lose a few games and get the elite pick. You have already said that you don't care that your system favors the better teams getting picks over the worst teams, and that is exactly what would happen. An yes, good teams will tank some games for a 70% chance at the next Shaq or Duncun, or even a 70 % chance at a top 3 pick. Just because they do it earlier in the season and not at the very end does not make it better.

No, this is what I posted:

Quick read on how I'd do the draft.

1) Once a team is eliminated from the playoffs they enter the "Draft Playoffs" (DP).

Where does this say that teams will want to tank the first half of the season?

2) The team with the best winning percentage (minimum of 10 games played) gets the #1 pick and so on until you get to the teams who played less than 10 games in the DP (example: picks #1-7 if 7 teams played 10 or more games after playoff elimination).

Winning percentage... bolded for emphasis since you seem to miss this point every time you read a post of mine. Percentage. NOT total wins. ....one more time since you don't read what I put ever: Winning PER-CEN-TAGE...not total wins.

I obviously put winning percentage there so teams will NOT TANK the first half of the year. There's no benefit to being terrible for the first half of the year, that just means you have to play better for a longer period of time to get the best pick... does that make sense? Why would a team purposefully suck for the first 50 games so they would have to try extra hard to win the other 32???

What this does then, is teams that are legitimately badly managed and badly put together and badly coached and play bad will still get in the top 7 of draft picks. They may not get #1 because they'll have to win at some point in the year to earn that spot, but they will get a good player that they can build with.

**Maybe the 2nd round should be based only on winning percentage through the entire season. Worst team = first pick, Champ winner = last pick. That could help some for those teams at the bottom you care about so much to at least get their choice of the 2nd round players available.**

3) The next tier of draft picks (example: #8-14) are given to the other teams eliminated from playoff contention playing less than 10 games in the DP.

=== The only chance at tanking comes around the 13 to 10-games left in the season mark. After that, all teams are in WIN-ONLY mode! ===

Here, I admit, there is potential for a team or two to try and lose a few game to get eliminated before the 10 game mark so that they can get in the upper tier of draft pick selection. Still, for some reason, you think that a team can just lose and win at will. It's not like that, if a team wants to quit with 10 games left and then try and go 10-0 at the end to get that #1 pick in the draft, then so be it, but even if a team was the 96 bulls that won 72 games and lost 10, why in hell do they quit to try and get eliminated from the playoffs and title contention when they know they're the best team in the league already and can win now??!?

4) The remaining picks to the playoff teams are handed out as they are now with an NFL tweak. The team that wins the title gets the last pick no matter what. The other picks (#15-29) are given in win pct order.

5) Tie breakers: head-to-head, Division record, then Conference record. Better records get the higher pick (again, encouraging winning- not losing)

^ This keeps competition high throughout the year. This also doesn't give the best teams the best pick. Obviously there is one part where competition could suck or teams may try to tank, but it would be for like 1 or 2 games tops.

Questions?

This part is easy to get and doesn't need explanation.

 

[northeast]

I am not saying that the best team in the league will tank.

Under your scenario, teams good enough to make the playoffs will be able to get a chance at a top pick if they lose some games they could win.

True of false?

 

[northeast]

We just see it differently.

I think that with your plan, teams that would ordinarily be competing for the honor of losing in the first round of the playoffs will suddenly have the option of throwing some games and getting a top pick.

This is not a problem for you.

 

[BENTLEY]

I'm still really impressed with Chawx's idea. It's by far the best I've heard. We're all just looking for the best solution to the current problem. IMO Chawx's system is way better than what we have now.

If I'm not mistaken, the main problem northeast has with it is the fact that it gives a team like Houston a better pick than a team like Charlotte. Correct?

 

[BENTLEY]

I think we all agree a lottery is fair. But many of us don't feel the actual closed door lottery is fair. There's no transparency, and given the dramatic storylines that always seem to happen in the lottery, some of us find it all very suspicious.
This is why I favor a system without a lottery. Because Stern will keep it closed door and I don't trust him.

 

[northeast]

Good teams would tank games and cheat the system to get the best picks most years.
That is not the only problem, but that is enough.

 

[Pizza The Hut]

Quick read on how I'd do the draft.

1) Once a team is eliminated from the playoffs they enter the "Draft Playoffs" (DP).

2) The team with the best winning percentage (minimum of 10 games played) gets the #1 pick and so on until you get to the teams who played less than 10 games in the DP (example: picks #1-7 if 7 teams played 10 or more games after playoff elimination).

3) The next tier of draft picks (example: #8-14) are given to the other teams eliminated from playoff contention playing less than 10 games in the DP.

=== The only chance at tanking comes around the 13 to 10-games left in the season mark. After that, all teams are in WIN-ONLY mode! ===

4) The remaining picks to the playoff teams are handed out as they are now with an NFL tweak. The team that wins the title gets the last pick no matter what. The other picks (#15-29) are given in win pct order.

5) Tie breakers: head-to-head, Division record, then Conference record. Better records get the higher pick (again, encouraging winning- not losing)

^ This keeps competition high throughout the year. This also doesn't give the best teams the best pick. Obviously there is one part where competition could suck or teams may try to tank, but it would be for like 1 or 2 games tops.

Questions?

I've not read all the subsequent posts but my main problem with this (for tier one or two really) would be that a team's draft placement would hinge too much on a very small sample size and that sample size for say Washington as compared to Charlotte could be vastly different as far as the quality of their opponents during that span. Would it really be fair for Charlotte if they had the worst record all year long and then played a brutal last stretch of 15 games, finishing out at 1-14 and were "rewarded" with the 7th pick (if seven teams qualified for tier one) because they truly do suck that bad?

Again, I read no posts after this and sort of skimmed yours but this was a quick thought if I understood things correctly.

 

[Stoked]

Good teams would tank games and cheat the system to get the best picks most years.
That is not the only problem, but that is enough.

You just described the problem with any system. I'd rather reward excellence or adequateness than crappiness.

 

[northeast]

You just described the problem with any system. I'd rather reward excellence or adequateness than crappiness.

No, you are lying, twisting the truth to make a point.
(a) That is not the problem with any system.
(b) You would be rewarding cheating, not excellence, and to a greater degree than with the current system.

You all can make more points, but I am not going to answer, not because your points are any good, but because it is not worth my time talking more about a bad idea that is not going anywhere. You have ignored the points on the other side that have been made over and over , and bring in more junk.

 

[BENTLEY]

I've tried to understand your point Northeast - not ignore it. Maybe it's just a difference of opinion - and we'll get nowhere trying to convince the other that our opinion is the only valid one. It's like democrats vs. republicans. Or more specifically, free market vs. govt. assistance. You're compassionate towards the bottom organizations and want to help them out - all in the name of parity. And it makes sense. Except these bottom organizations have been given top picks year after year and do nothing with them. So the top picked players eventually just bail on them anyway and join some elite team. This in actuality does not help parity. The same teams pretty much make and miss the playoffs every year. This isn't parity - it's mundane status quo. I'm sick of it.

Give that top pick to a team like Houston. Give the second pick to a team like Phoenix, etc. and the playoffs are shaken up about every year.
And under Chawx's system, the cellar-dwellers can't just tank and get the best pick. They have to play hard for it. They have to earn it. Reward effort. The Sacramento Kings / Golden State Warriors / Charlotte Bobcats have been give lottery picks year after year after year and have made marginal improvement, if that. Under the current system there's no incentive to improve anyway. And a culture of losing permeates these perpetual welfare teams. Let's motivate them by making them play hard for a better pick (rather than worse for one).

Again, I'm all for rewarding effort so pretty good teams can compete with the elite of the league. = PARITY.
If anything, the elite would cry "unfair" because Chawx's system threatens their dynasties. This system will force them to play hard too, 'cause the competition gets that much better every year. = PARITY.

All teams want to make the playoffs UNTIL they are too far out that they decide to tank. Golden State guaranteed to make the playoffs at the beginning of this year. Their decision to tank came after they were so far out that it would better serve their team to go the welfare route. This is messed up. But their goal this year was to make the playoffs - and this was in spite of knowing they would have to give up their pick to the Jazz in a strong draft. STILL they wanted to make the playoffs. So those teams that just miss the playoffs will NOT just barely tank. As if teams can just choose when they'll win or lose. If they're that close they're likely aiming for the playoffs. You think Al Jefferson is thinking right now "let's miss the playoffs so we keep our draft pick this year." Teams close to making the playoffs are going to try to make the playoffs. Owners might want the players to tank but they also probably want their players to make the playoffs because the playoffs = money in their pocket. And even if an owner did want his player to tank he can't purposely miss that last shot. It's up to the players. Players generally don't get rewarded for losing.

This is a long post. Chawx's idea makes better sense than the current system. To me. I understand the concern for the cellar-dwellers, but I feel I've addressed that. And history backs me up. The cellar-dwellers need incentive to play harder. The current system doesn't provide that.

 

[northeast]

I think the proposed system is so complicated and has so many variables that it would lead to all sorts of odd undesirable outcomes that are hard to predict. I don't think you've really worked out all the details as to how it would work for me to even start picking them apart.

In theory, I can see that it would have some advantages. I would have to really have to give it a lot of thought to figure out all the ramifications.

But even assuming it works as you expect, it appears that you would have a two tiered league, where bad teams will just never be able to get better, and also I suspect that the Spurs and D Rob getting Duncun year will be the norm instead of a rare occurence. I would not put it past teams good enough to get to the second round deciding they are better off tanking to get a star player some years.

 

[BENTLEY]

Well, I'm not saying it's perfect. And just because something isn't flawless doesn't mean you should stick with something you know is crap.

Rather than go with "the devil you know," give me the one we don't know. And whatever demons rear their heads can be addressed at that point.

Also, Chawx has tried to explain his system in detail - it seems an organization would only be motivated to tank a handful of games.

But it's not like any of us have Stern's ear or anything. We're just debating for fun. The Megalomaniac isn't giving up his closed door lottery sham.

 

[northeast]

I guess the premise I question is that one or more playoff worthy teams would not tank most years for a chance at a top pick (and often get it.) If this turned out to not be the case, then I would admit it sounds very interesting.

 

[carolinajazz]

...well, with a home lost to the pathetic Suns....the Jazz ARE officially tanking!

 

[theNBAnerd]

I've not read all the subsequent posts but my main problem with this (for tier one or two really) would be that a team's draft placement would hinge too much on a very small sample size and that sample size for say Washington as compared to Charlotte could be vastly different as far as the quality of their opponents during that span. Would it really be fair for Charlotte if they had the worst record all year long and then played a brutal last stretch of 15 games, finishing out at 1-14 and were "rewarded" with the 7th pick (if seven teams qualified for tier one) because they truly do suck that bad?

Again, I read no posts after this and sort of skimmed yours but this was a quick thought if I understood things correctly.

that right there (bolded) is precisely why i think this idea is unfair and has no legs. a team that is eliminated with 20 games to go and a team that is eliminated with 10 games to go could have VASTLY different schedules. you have to equalize that somehow so that you're measuring performance with as few variables as possible.

look at phoenix right now, for example -- assuming they DON'T make the playoffs (and i don't think they will), their last games are @den, lal, @min, @mem, @hou, @sas, por, okc, lac, den, @uta, sas. basically nothing but west playoff contenders, plus games at minny and against portland, who aren't in playoff contention but are decent teams. how do you hold that schedule against them when washington is going to close its season out against mostly eastern non-playoff scrub teams?