My idea to stop tanking

[hateraid]

How about instead of luck of the draw the NBA uses this formula:

You take the teams that finish with the 4 worst records. The team with the best record in the last 10 games of the regular season wins the 1st pick. 2nd gets 2nd, 3rd gets 3rd and 4th gets 4th. After that it goes by record.

This way it eliminates purposely losing to better chances and it forces last place teams to win out. It also ramdomizes it to depend on other teams winning or losing. Plus it gives more incentive to win

Think it would work?

[Labissiere]

Or it encourages them to tank sooner when they actually had a chance rather than giving up late and tanking only at the end of the season.

[hateraid]

Or it encourages them to tank sooner when they actually had a chance rather than giving up late and tanking only at the end of the season.
But even still you can't garuantee where you finish 10 games left in the season. Even if your scenario played out imagine 7 games ago your asking the Suns, Wolves, Lakers, and Sixers to try and play out the rest of their games with the best record? They might even play themselves out of this lottery scenario. It makes it more interesting then just tank and pray. At LEAST you're playing for something

[Sarcastic]

Not fair at allm. What if a team loses it's best player at the end of the year, and can't win games? Or if one of the teams plays a particularly harder schedule than the others. Basing the pick on an arbitrary point of the season's result is not a good idea. The entire season counts.


The only way to stop tanking is the Wheel, but the idea is too foreign to people for it to ever be embraced. If Philly absolutely knew they had the 27th pick this year, and the first next year, there would be no reason for them to try to lose games in any year.

[Mr. Jabbar]

in this colluded/diluted era the only way is contraction

[Im Still Ballin]

your idea to stop tanking


How about instead of luck of the draw the NBA uses this formula:

You take the teams that finish with the 4 worst records. The team with the best record in the last 10 games of the regular season wins the 1st pick. 2nd gets 2nd, 3rd gets 3rd and 4th gets 4th. After that it goes by record.

This way it eliminates purposely losing to better chances and it forces last place teams to win out. It also ramdomizes it to depend on other teams winning or losing. Plus it gives more incentive to win

Think it would work?

[hateraid]

Imagine the Sixers winning 7-3 in their last 10 but finishing 5th last and out of the top four?

Or a team in 5th going 6-4, finishing 4th and having the best record out of the bottom 4 and taking 1st pick?

It's not whoever has the 4 worst records at 71 games plays it out, it's the bottom 4 and take the best record gets first pick. It is way more intruiging

[Sarcastic]

Also you're asking players to play harder to find their replacements. If you're a rotation bench player, the pick will probably be the one taking your job. You wanna play harder for that?

[90sgoat]

Just even the odds out more so that tanking for the worst positions isn't a benefit anymore and on the other hand teams fighting hard for playoffs still have a good shot at a top pick.

[ZenMaster]

IMO the best thing would be not to have a draft at all, second best is the proposed wheel solution as it is as fair as can be towards all teams.

[hateraid]

Not fair at allm. What if a team loses it's best player at the end of the year, and can't win games? Or if one of the teams plays a particularly harder schedule than the others. Basing the pick on an arbitrary point of the season's result is not a good idea. The entire season counts.


The only way to stop tanking is the Wheel, but the idea is too foreign to people for it to ever be embraced. If Philly absolutely knew they had the 27th pick this year, and the first next year, there would be no reason for them to try to lose games in any year.
Losing your best player would still make you competitive to bottom dwelling teams.

I agree the whole season counts, that's why this formula works. It puts value to win for last place teams

[hateraid]

Also you're asking players to play harder to find their replacements. If you're a rotation bench player, the pick will probably be the one taking your job. You wanna play harder for that?

So then why play at all? That doesn't make any sense. If there's o incentive to win then why is there incentive to lose? Winning and trying is an audition to better your NBA career. So you support not trying and tanking because you're not going to play on that team anyways?

[Sarcastic]

So then why play at all? That doesn't make any sense. If there's o incentive to win then why is there incentive to lose? Winning and trying is an audition to better your NBA career. So you support not trying and tanking because you're not going to play on that team anyways?

Players don't tank. Organizations tank.

In the Wheel example, what incentive does Philly have to tank if they have guaranteed 27th pick this year, and 1st next year? Teams tank because there is incentive. The incentive needs to be removed to stop tanking.

[sd3035]

Or just give all lottery teams an equal chance

[Derka]

Every team that doesn't make the playoffs gets the same chance; you can't make it anymore fair than that. Incentivizing losing is ridiculous. And I say this as a fan of a team that stands to benefit from another team losing a lot under the current lottery structure.

[sd3035]

How about instead of luck of the draw the NBA uses this formula:

You take the teams that finish with the 4 worst records. The team with the best record in the last 10 games of the regular season wins the 1st pick. 2nd gets 2nd, 3rd gets 3rd and 4th gets 4th. After that it goes by record.

This way it eliminates purposely losing to better chances and it forces last place teams to win out. It also ramdomizes it to depend on other teams winning or losing. Plus it gives more incentive to win

Think it would work?

That will make teams try to lose the first 72, then try to win the last 10

[DukeDelonte13]

Just even the odds out more so that tanking for the worst positions isn't a benefit anymore and on the other hand teams fighting hard for playoffs still have a good shot at a top pick.


cavs got wiggins fighting for the playoffs and losing.



The system is not broken. Look what philly has to show for years of tanking. Jack Sh*t.

[sd3035]

Every team that doesn't make the playoffs gets the same chance; you can't make it anymore fair than that. Incentivizing losing is ridiculous. And I say this as a fan of a team that stands to benefit from another team losing a lot under the current lottery structure.


It's really that simple. Sometimes the simplest solution is also the best

[sd3035]

cavs got wiggins fighting for the playoffs and losing.



The system is not broken. Look what philly has to show for years of tanking. Jack Sh*t.


The point isn't if their tanking leads to a top pick. The point is to stop tanking so we can have more entertaining games

It is nice to see tankers get shitty picks though lol

[hateraid]

That will make teams try to lose the first 72, then try to win the last 10

You can't be serious. No team would ever try that over a first overall pick nor would a team likely being 0-72 win 10 games after that. Stop exaggerating

[Sarcastic]

Wait why does tanking need to be stopped? It happens in other sports, and no one tries to stop it.

[hateraid]

Wait why does tanking need to be stopped? It happens in other sports, and no one tries to stop it.

I would suggest it for NHL too but in NBA a number 1 pick is more impactful than any other sport.

[ZenMaster]

Wait why does tanking need to be stopped? It happens in other sports, and no one tries to stop it.

Because it goes again the #1 idea of competitive sports, which is to try and win. In which other sports does this happen and where? I have only ever heard of US sports having teams loosing on purpose, so it's not normal.

[Sarcastic]

Because it goes again the #1 idea of competitive sports, which is to try and win. In which other sports does this happen and where? I have only ever heard of US sports having teams loosing on purpose, so it's not normal.

When Peyton Manning got hurt a few year back, the Colts tanked for Andrew Luck.

Last year a few teams were tanking for the top spot in the NHL draft. There's a video of a Sabres fan cheering when his team loses a game at the end of the year.

Shit happens all the time in other sports and nobody says shit.

[Derka]

When Peyton Manning got hurt a few year back, the Colts tanked for Andrew Luck.

Last year a few teams were tanking for the top spot in the NHL draft. There's a video of a Sabres fan cheering when his team loses a game at the end of the year.

Shit happens all the time in other sports and nobody says shit.
Well then that's their problem. Perhaps they've reached a level of jadedness with their sports that drowns out any rational discussion of how competition and professionalism are supposed to work. Maybe they're willing to just passively accept it.

Doesn't mean we have to be. Perhaps NBA fans speaking up about how ridiculous the idea of purposely losing and being rewarded for it is and continuing to pressure the Association to alter its line on this one will spur change. Maybe it won't. But "not saying shit" certainly isn't helping anybody.

[Sarcastic]

I would suggest it for NHL too but in NBA a number 1 pick is more impactful than any other sport.

So if an NBA pick is so valuable, then all incentive to tank needs to be removed. Also since it's so valuable, all 30 teams should get one. The Wheel is the only mechanism that does both.

[hateraid]

So if an NBA pick is so valuable, then all incentive to tank needs to be removed.

EXACTLY my point and what I propositioned. And creates competition for that valued draft where winning is the incentive and prevents end of season tanking


Also since it's so valuable, all 30 teams should get one. The Wheel is the only mechanism that does both.

Absolutely not. League still requires parity for it to be successful and entertaining. Terrible idea.

[nba_55]

Let's take this year's Sixers who have been tanking hard. How does your idea stop them? They are 9-65. The team with the 2nd worst record is 15-59. They can try really hard the last 10 games without having to worry being the 5th worst instead of 4th worst. It's the same for the Lakers.

[Sarcastic]

Well then that's their problem. Perhaps they've reached a level of jadedness with their sports that drowns out any rational discussion of how competition and professionalism are supposed to work. Maybe they're willing to just passively accept it.

Doesn't mean we have to be. Perhaps NBA fans speaking up about how ridiculous the idea of purposely losing and being rewarded for it is and continuing to pressure the Association to alter its line on this one will spur change. Maybe it won't. But "not saying shit" certainly isn't helping anybody.

For whatever reason it may be, people only seem to care in the NBA when teams are awful on purpose. The Pittsburgh Pirates used to put out the shittiest, cheapest team possible for like 20 years straight years, but they still made a profit because of revenue sharing.

The other thing I don't get is why is it OK for Popovich to strategically lose games, to rest his players, or different seeding, and people cheer him for it, but it's not OK for the Sixers to strategically lose games to acquire better players? They are both doing the same thing, just to varying degrees: not trying to win on purpose.

[Sarcastic]

EXACTLY my point and what I propositioned. And creates competition for that valued draft where winning is the incentive and prevents end of season tanking



Absolutely not. League still requires parity for it to be successful and entertaining. Terrible idea.

Your idea does not stop tanking. It just changes the timetable for when teams will lose. A team like the Sixers will greatly rest all their players in the first 72 games, and play all their best players 45 minutes in the last 10.

Also how would it be fair if say the Sixers played all non playoff teams, and the Lakers played 10 straight playoff teams? Lakers might be trying harder and still go 0-10. Sixers might try a little hard and go 10-0.

[Sarcastic]

The Wheel also gives absolute parity. All 30 teams get a number 1 pick at some point. In the current system we've had teams with multiple number 1 picks (Cleveland), and teams that have never gotten a #1 pick in their entire history (Denver). In the Wheel, Cleveland will never get three #1 picks in 4 years, and the Nuggets are assured of a #1 pick at some point.

Perfect parity.

[FKAri]

in this colluded/diluted era the only way is contraction

Contract the 10 worst teams in the league. Put the players in a draft and condemn those teams' season ticket holders to death by firing squad.

[bigkingsfan]

Perfect parity.
Not even close, then it becomes luck of the draw due to the prospect each year. If you draft a bust at #1 then you're fk beyond comprehension for years.

[Sarcastic]

Contract the 10 worst teams in the league. Put the players in a draft and condemn those teams' season ticket holders to death by firing squad.

You can't contract based on winning percentage. You think the NBA would get rid of the Lakers, Knicks, and Nets?

Also each owner would have to be paid the value of their franchise in reimbursement. You're talking nearly $10 billion, and that's not even dealing with the lawsuits from cities that built arenas for some of these teams.

[hateraid]

The Wheel also gives absolute parity. All 30 teams get a number 1 pick at some point. In the current system we've had teams with multiple number 1 picks (Cleveland), and teams that have never gotten a #1 pick in their entire history (Denver). In the Wheel, Cleveland will never get three #1 picks in 4 years, and the Nuggets are assured of a #1 pick at some point.

Perfect parity.

:no:

That doesn't account for poor draft years with shallow talent, or create parity for perennial winners (It will only separate them from the bottom feeders ever further). This is only valid if an entire playing field was EVEN. Again, poor idea. This concept would work on a show like Survivor, not in a competitive sports league.

[Sarcastic]

Not even close, then it becomes luck of the draw due to the prospect each year. If you draft a bust at #1 then you're fk beyond comprehension for years.

No. You will still get a #2, and a #3, etc. Maybe your #1 is a bust, but maybe your #2 is Kevin Durant.

It's a crapshoot regardless.

[hateraid]

Not even close, then it becomes luck of the draw due to the prospect each year. If you draft a bust at #1 then you're fk beyond comprehension for years.

Exactumundo

[bigkingsfan]

No. You will still get a #2, and a #3, etc. Maybe your #1 is a bust, but maybe your #2 is Kevin Durant.

It's a crapshoot regardless.

NBA wheel

http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/4484507/lotterywheel_medium.png

So after the #1, you get 25, 15, 24, 13.

Yes that's a huge setback if you draft a bust.

[Fire Colangelo]

I don't see why this is a problem....

You have to realize that players and coaches themselves don't tank..... what incentive does a player have to tank? What incentive does a coach have to tank?

Sure... the organization can intentionally sign shitty players, but that just means the good players get signed by better teams leading to better competition up top..... it all evens out in the end.

Not to mention there's only a couple teams "tanking" every year and we've had that since.... forever. So what's the problem? What team other than the 76ers are actively tanking? Maybe the Lakers?

Sure... what the Sixers are doing right now are fking pathetic, but what one or two teams are doing doesn't ruin the league in general. If you don't like watching the 76ers.... the solution is simple, don't watch them.

[hateraid]

NBA wheel

http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/4484507/lotterywheel_medium.png

So after the #1, you get 25, 15, 24, 13.

Yes that's a huge setback if you draft a bust.

Exactly. Think about when Portland drafted Oden, or when Toronto drafted Bargnani would be a better example. They'd be ****ed and would come close to the position they have now based on a wheel concept.

[Sarcastic]

NBA wheel

http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/4484507/lotterywheel_medium.png

So after the #1, you get 25, 15, 24, 13.

Yes that's a huge setback if you draft a bust.


In a 10 year window, you get a 1, 6, and a 7. That's a pretty good haul in 10 years. If you can't make that work, then you suck at drafting.

[bigkingsfan]

In a 10 year window, you get a 1, 6, and a 7. That's a pretty good haul in 10 years. If you can't make that work, then you suck at drafting.
Which goes back to the point, if you draft a bust at #1, you're fked beyond comprehension. Only way this works if you have a Lebron every year.

[Sarcastic]

Exactly. Think about when Portland drafted Oden, or when Toronto drafted Bargnani would be a better example. They'd be ****ed and would come close to the position they have now based on a wheel concept.


How about the teams that have never even had the chance to draft a number 1? How is it fair to them? Don't you want parity? In the Wheel all teams get a #1. That's the definition of parity as it relates to the draft.

[Sarcastic]

Which goes back to the point, if you draft a bust at #1, you're fked beyond comprehension.

If you draft a #1 bust, you're fcked now. At least in this you are getting a 6 and 7 soon.

Teams need to learn to draft better. Stop reaching on Anthony Bennett, or letting Andre Drummond drop 10 spots. Stop covering for failed executives that pick Nick Stauskas or Jimmer Fredette as high lotto picks. If you make those types of picks you should be fcked beyond comprehension.

[Sarcastic]

I don't see why this is a problem....

You have to realize that players and coaches themselves don't tank..... what incentive does a player have to tank? What incentive does a coach have to tank?

Sure... the organization can intentionally sign shitty players, but that just means the good players get signed by better teams leading to better competition up top..... it all evens out in the end.

Not to mention there's only a couple teams "tanking" every year and we've had that since.... forever. So what's the problem? What team other than the 76ers are actively tanking? Maybe the Lakers?

Sure... what the Sixers are doing right now are fking pathetic, but what one or two teams are doing doesn't ruin the league in general. If you don't like watching the 76ers.... the solution is simple, don't watch them.


Pretty much. Maybe their pot from revenue sharing can be taken away if they are found to be purposely losing. That would cause teams to try to compete if you took their money away.

[Sarcastic]

Since the NBA lottery began in 1985, only 18 organizations have had a #1 pick. So 12 teams have never had a #1 pick. How is that parity or fair in any way?

[bigkingsfan]

If you draft a #1 bust, you're fcked now. At least in this you are getting a 6 and 7 soon.

How in the world is five years soon? #6/#7 aren't exactly franchise players either. From the last three years :

Willie Cauley-Stein
Emmanuel Mudiay
Marcus Smart
Julius Randle
Nerlens Noel
Ben McLemore

[hateraid]

Every team that doesn't make the playoffs gets the same chance; you can't make it anymore fair than that. Incentivizing losing is ridiculous. And I say this as a fan of a team that stands to benefit from another team losing a lot under the current lottery structure.

Dude, I'm one of 6 Sixers fans on here. It doesn't benefit my team.

[Sarcastic]

How in the world is five years soon? #6/#7 aren't exactly franchise players either. From the last three years :

Willie Cauley-Stein
Emmanuel Mudiay
Marcus Smart
Julius Randle
Nerlens Noel
Ben McLemore


That's a good young core.


Also Curry was drafted at 7.

Learn to draft better.

[90sgoat]

Do you not understand, if you give every non-playoff team the same, or almost the same odds for nr. 1, teams will STOP tanking and try to build a winning team - within a longer term process - because they don't have to be the worst to get the best odds.

This means that 'tanking' teams will not stock up on d-leaguers, but more like Celtics or Charlotte, try to build a core of younger players. This will mean more parity in the bottom, no on purpose atrocious teams.

[bigkingsfan]

That's a good young core.


Also Curry was drafted at 7.

Learn to draft better.
You don't get them all at once, it's one of those per five years.
No one knew Curry was going to be the current player or he'd be drafted #1.

[nba_55]

Do you not understand, if you give every non-playoff team the same, or almost the same odds for nr. 1, teams will STOP tanking and try to build a winning team - within a longer term process - because they don't have to be the worst to get the best odds.

This means that 'tanking' teams will not stock up on d-leaguers, but more like Celtics or Charlotte, try to build a core of younger players. This will mean more parity in the bottom, no on purpose atrocious teams.

That's a good idea. I'm okay with the current system and if they were to replace it, it should be with this one.
The only problem is some teams like last year's OKC could get too good with this system. Imagine OKC with KAT.

[Fire Colangelo]

Pretty much. Maybe their pot from revenue sharing can be taken away if they are found to be purposely losing. That would cause teams to try to compete if you took their money away.

Technically that's already happening.... tanking teams have to decrease ticket prices to get people to buy tickets and are already losing money that way.

Maybe there should be a consequence for a team that's constantly among the worst 3-5 teams in the league?

But even that's..... kind of unfair. Some teams just have bad luck and there's just nothing you can do.

[Sarcastic]

You don't get them all at once, it's one of those per five years.
No one knew Curry was going to be the current player or he'd be drafted #1.


No one should get them all at once. The point is everyone gets a chance at #1. Everyone gets a chance at #2. Everyone gets a chance at #3. Everyone gets a chance at #4....Everyone gets a chance at #30.

Over a 30 year window it evens out for everyone. Your #1 can be Kwame, but your #2 can be Durant, and your #7 can be Curry.

[Sarcastic]

That's a good idea. I'm okay with the current system and if they were to replace it, it should be with this one.
The only problem is some teams like last year's OKC could get too good with this system. Imagine OKC with KAT.

That's exactly the problem. The draft is supposed to help the bad teams get better. If OKC gets same chance at #1 and gets Towns, only because they had 1 injury season, it's not fair to the other 29 teams.

[bigkingsfan]

No one should get them all at once. The point is everyone gets a chance at #1. Everyone gets a chance at #2. Everyone gets a chance at #3. Everyone gets a chance at #4....Everyone gets a chance at #30.

Over a 30 year window it evens out for everyone. Your #1 can be Kwame, but your #2 can be Durant, and your #7 can be Curry.
In an ideal world every team wishes they can draft a Durant and Curry at those spots. Those aren't realistic scenario at all. Curry is best #7 in history, Durant has an argument for #2.

[Derka]

Dude, I'm one of 6 Sixers fans on here. It doesn't benefit my team.
Well, drafting in the lottery several times in the last decade with a smattering of Top 5 picks in there and another one certain to come your way certainly hasn't benefitted your team either.

[Sarcastic]

In an ideal world every team wishes they can draft a Durant and Curry at those spots. Those aren't realistic scenario at all. Curry is best #7 in history, Durant is a top 3 #2.


You're not gonna bust at all spots. And if you did, then you don't deserve to be drafting NBA talent. Over 30 years you're gonna get some hits at the right spots.

I mean teams go through multiple decades of sucking. How many top 5 picks did the Clippers screw up under Sterling? Teams like that shouldn't be rewarded with so many high picks.

[bigkingsfan]

You're not gonna bust at all spots. And if you did, then you don't deserve to be drafting NBA talent. Over 30 years you're gonna get some hits at the right spots.

I mean teams go through multiple decades of sucking. How many top 5 picks did the Clippers screw up under Sterling? Teams like that shouldn't be rewarded with so many high picks.
Hindsight 20-20
Drafting after all, is a crapshoot.

[Sarcastic]

Hindsight 20-20
Drafting after all, is a crapshoot.


But your argument against the Wheel "if you bust on #1, you're ruined forever". You're obviously not. You can still put together a good team from drafting at other spots. You don't need to hit on #1 to be a good team.

[bigkingsfan]

But your argument against the Wheel "if you bust on #1, you're ruined forever". You're obviously not. You can still put together a good team from drafting at other spots. You don't need to hit on #1 to be a good team.
25, 12, 24, 13 for the next four years are picks that you can put a good team together now? Okay.

[Sarcastic]

25, 12, 24, 13 for the next four years are picks that you can put a good team together now? Okay.


And over the next 6 years you get a 6, 7, and 2.

Teams can go through bad stretches. Happens all the time.



At least there would be no tanking, which is the point of all this, no?

[Sarcastic]

Cleveland went 1, 1, 4, 1 over a four year period. How is that fair at all when 12 teams have never gotten a 1 in their history?

[bigkingsfan]

And over the next 6 years you get a 6, 7, and 2.

Teams can go through bad stretches. Happens all the time.



At least there would be no tanking, which is the point of all this, no?
Small markets fans would completely give up on their team, it would be nearly impossible to improve your team in the short term since you can't compete in free agency. I personally wouldn't wait another five years for another high draft pick, I'd find a new team to root for, fk that.

It happens, that's why they keep getting high picks until they correct themselves. Current system is not perfect, but the wheel idea is even worse, you're just pushing back development even more.

[Sarcastic]

Small markets fans would completely give up on their team, it would be nearly impossible to improve your team in the short term since you can't compete in free agency. I personally wouldn't wait another five years for another high draft pick, I'd find a new team to root for, fk that.

It happens, that's why they keep getting high picks until they correct themselves. Current system is not perfect, but the wheel idea is even worse, you're just pushing back development even more.

That's a bunch of bull. Most small market teams have not gotten top picks and still draw. Memphis/Vancouver has never gotten a #1 pick, and they've put together a winning franchise, and draw good attendance.

Free agents go where the money and chance to win is. How many free agents turned down the Lakers the past few years? Greg Monroe turned down the Knicks for Milwaukee. There's no merit to the stuff you are saying.

[Derka]

25, 12, 24, 13 for the next four years are picks that you can put a good team together now? Okay.
A team that's about to make the playoffs and is in a good position to have a home series and win it is running the following: 60, 19, 34, 21, 56, 2, 13, 17, 6, 39, 17, 16, 28, 33

So yeah, you can.

[bigkingsfan]

That's a bunch of bull. Most small market teams have not gotten top picks and still draw. Memphis/Vancouver has never gotten a #1 pick, and they've put together a winning franchise, and draw good attendance.

Free agents go where the money and chance to win is. How many free agents turned down the Lakers the past few years? Greg Monroe turned down the Knicks for Milwaukee. There's no merit to the stuff you are saying.

9/21 in their franchise year, they had a top five pick. Four times #2 pick.

He wanted to play for a young playoff team. Jabari and Giannis core would have not been possible with the draft wheel.


A team that's about to make the playoffs and is in a good position to have a home series and win it is running the following: 60, 19, 34, 21, 56, 2, 13, 17, 6, 39, 17, 16, 28, 33

So yeah, you can.
Not impossible, just more difficult to build a winning team without high draft picks. For every Celtics, there's five times the shitty teams.

[Sarcastic]

You must be a big fan of Hinkie and Sixers strat, since only way to win is with high high picks. Building without top 5 picks is too hard.

And their attendance should be all time high, since only time to follow is when you have high draft picks.

Sixers winning it all in 2020 or 2021?

[Dr Seuss]

so your scenario is to tank the first 72 games, then win the last 10

:facepalm

you want to decrease tanking? the bottom 10 teams have 'nearly' the same odds at getting the 1st pick. or every time teams go on a 5 game losing streak, their odds of winning the lottery decrease a small percentage.

[Legends66NBA7]

Don't see it ever stopping, honestly. Biggest reason for me is that all drafts are not equal in strength. And it would suck if you get the #1 pick and get the 2000 or 2013 draft outcome.

[bigkingsfan]

You must be a big fan of Hinkie and Sixers strat, since only way to win is with high high picks. Building without top 5 picks is too hard.

And their attendance should be all time high, since only time to follow is when you have high draft picks.

Sixers winning it all in 2020 or 2021?
I don't care, tanking does not get to me because the worst team only won 3/23 draft lottery. I enjoy watching good team play and my own pathetic franchise.

[nba_55]

The Wheel also gives absolute parity. All 30 teams get a number 1 pick at some point. In the current system we've had teams with multiple number 1 picks (Cleveland), and teams that have never gotten a #1 pick in their entire history (Denver). In the Wheel, Cleveland will never get three #1 picks in 4 years, and the Nuggets are assured of a #1 pick at some point.

Perfect parity.

No, it's not perfect parity. With that system, the rich could get richer and the poor could get more poor. With the wheel, next year, GSW could end up with #1 pick and Sixers could end up with pick #30. That doesn't make the teams more equal. The current system where bad teams get higher picks make the teams more equal.

[nba_55]

Cleveland went 1, 1, 4, 1 over a four year period. How is that fair at all when 12 teams have never gotten a 1 in their history?

The goal of the system is not to give all the teams an equal chance of winning the #1. It's not about being fair. The goal is to make the disparity between the good and bad teams smaller. The wheel doesn't do that at all.

[Sarcastic]

No, it's not perfect parity. With that system, the rich could get richer and the poor could get more poor. With the wheel, next year, GSW could end up with #1 pick and Sixers could end up with pick #30. That doesn't make the teams more equal. The current system where bad teams get higher picks make the teams more equal.


You can't think of it as to what it does in the short term. You have to consider it over a 30 year period. Everyone gets the same number of picks at the same positions.

20 years from now the Sixers and Warriors may be in opposite positions and the Sixers get the #1, and Warriors get the #30. It all evens out in the end.

[Sarcastic]

The goal of the system is not to give all the teams an equal chance of winning the #1. It's not about being fair. The goal is to make the disparity between the good and bad teams smaller. The wheel doesn't do that at all.

No but it removes all incentive to tank. If the Sixers knew they were drafting 12 this year, they would put out a much better roster, and not have D League players. They'd actually try to sign free agents and compete.

That's what creates the parity. Teams won't be bad on purpose.

[ZenMaster]

When Peyton Manning got hurt a few year back, the Colts tanked for Andrew Luck.

Last year a few teams were tanking for the top spot in the NHL draft. There's a video of a Sabres fan cheering when his team loses a game at the end of the year.

Shit happens all the time in other sports and nobody says shit.

But like I said, only US sports.. In the rest of the world losing on purpose is considered absurd, and quite frankly doesn't losing on purpose go against traditional American values?

The only reason teams rebuild through tanking is because of the current system, if that element wasn't there you could instead rebuild while being a fairly winning middle of the pack team. It would greatly increase the overall competition and make many more games a joy to watch, something should be done.

[hateraid]

so your scenario is to tank the first 72 games, then win the last 10

:facepalm



As opposed to tanking all 82 games?

And as I mentioned before that scenario is highly unlikely. No team ever starts a season intending to tank. And even if that scenario happened to play out, you think that team would acquire the best record of the bottom 4? Likely scenario is they would draft 4th.

[Sarcastic]

But like I said, only US sports.. In the rest of the world losing on purpose is considered absurd, and quite frankly doesn't losing on purpose go against traditional American values?

The only reason teams rebuild through tanking is because of the current system, if that element wasn't there you could instead rebuild while being a fairly winning middle of the pack team. It would greatly increase the overall competition and make many more games a joy to watch, something should be done.

Do other countries have drafts to distribute talent to their teams? That's the main reason behind tanking. The draft is the only way primarily to acquire talent.

[Dr Seuss]

or what about discouraging tanking by having repeat offenders - teams in the bottom 4 consecutive seasons - suffer a FO fine/penatly. or teams that go 0-5 w/l streak have to pay a fine to the NBA

owners would only want to pay so many fines until they put together a somewhat respectable team that wont go on 0-5 streaks throughout the season

[Labissiere]

How about every 10 game losing streak makes you drop back a spot for eligible picks. If you have 1 10 game losing streak, you can't get the #1 pick. If you have 2 10 game losing streaks, you can't get #1 or #2. This way the shitty teams still get good picks, but it isn't worth losing on purpose much because if you suck naturally you can't just give up on the season because you may lose your chance at a top pick.

[nba_55]

You can't think of it as to what it does in the short term. You have to consider it over a 30 year period. Everyone gets the same number of picks at the same positions.

20 years from now the Sixers and Warriors may be in opposite positions and the Sixers get the #1, and Warriors get the #30. It all evens out in the end.

I agree the wheel method is the most fair method, the NBA isn't trying to be fair. They want to lower the gap between bad teams and the good teams for the next year.

[Lebron23]

Philly needs to sell their team to a much better team owner.

[nba_55]

No but it removes all incentive to tank. If the Sixers knew they were drafting 12 this year, they would put out a much better roster, and not have D League players. They'd actually try to sign free agents and compete.

That's what creates the parity. Teams won't be bad on purpose.

That parity created with Sixers trying harder could be gone for a long long time if teams like Warriors and SPurs end up with picks #1 and #2. Or imagine the 90's Bulls drafting Shaq or the Lakers drafting Lebron or gsw drafting KAT...

[Sarcastic]

That parity created with Sixers trying harder could be gone for a long long time if teams like Warriors and SPurs end up with picks #1 and #2. Or imagine the 90's Bulls drafting Shaq or the Lakers drafting Lebron or gsw drafting KAT...

Or imagine if they get the #1 pick and it's Anthony Bennett.

Why are doomsday scenarios always used for examples? Every team gets their chance at a 1. Make the most of it. #1 is not only spot to find superstars.

[ZenMaster]

Do other countries have drafts to distribute talent to their teams? That's the main reason behind tanking. The draft is the only way primarily to acquire talent.

That's what I'm saying, the whole idea and setup of the draft system is wrong. The absolute best would be to have a healthy second division and relegation every year.

[Sarcastic]

That's what I'm saying, the whole idea and setup of the draft system is wrong. The absolute best would be to have a healthy second division and relegation every year.

I agree. A draft is highly illegal, and only exists because of the negotiations of labor and ownership. Best way to minimize it's impact is to predetermine position every year.

Doctors don't come out of med school and then get forced to work in far off cities not of their choosing. Why do it with athletes?

[nba_55]

Or imagine if they get the #1 pick and it's Anthony Bennett.

Why are doomsday scenarios always used for examples? Every team gets their chance at a 1. Make the most of it. #1 is not only spot to find superstars.

Another problem with that system is that it evens out in a 30 years period, fans don't work with that time span. Nobody gives a shit about the pick their team got 30 years ago. Fans from bad teams want their team to get better as soon as possible, they don't want to wait for their next top 5 pick 5 years.

[bigkingsfan]

I agree. A draft is highly illegal, and only exists because of the negotiations of labor and ownership. Best way to minimize it's impact is to predetermine position every year.

Doctors don't come out of med school and then get forced to work in far off cities not of their choosing. Why do it with athletes?

Athletes aren't forced to enter the NBA draft, they're free to make a living elsewhere.


Another problem with that system is that it evens out in a 30 years period, fans don't work with that time span. Nobody gives a shit about the pick their team got 30 years ago. Fans from bad teams want their team to get better as soon as possible, they don't want to wait for their next top 5 pick 5 years.
The system will also be upheld for 30 years or else it would be unfair.

[Sarcastic]

Another problem with that system is that it evens out in a 30 years period, fans don't work with that time span. Nobody gives a shit about the pick their team got 30 years ago. Fans from bad teams want their team to get better as soon as possible, they don't want to wait for their next top 5 pick 5 years.

You don't need a top 5 pick to get good. Warriors core is not built on a top 5 pick. Just need to be smart.

[Labissiere]

I agree. A draft is highly illegal, and only exists because of the negotiations of labor and ownership. Best way to minimize it's impact is to predetermine position every year.

Doctors don't come out of med school and then get forced to work in far off cities not of their choosing. Why do it with athletes?
Basketball players can absolutely choose their company. They can apply for a job in the NBA, in Euroleague, in the CBA, etc. However, when you have the job, they can move you around within the company depending on the contract you sign. NBA players chose to apply for jobs in the NBA, they sign contracts, and then are expected to fulfill that contract. Doctors who sign up to work for the military are absolutely forced to work in far off cities that are not their choosing. It is closer to that.

[Sarcastic]

Athletes aren't forced to enter the NBA draft, they're free to make a living elsewhere.

If they want to play in sports leagues they have to. Without a collectively bargained agreement, a draft would for sure break anti trust law.

[bigkingsfan]

Doctors who sign up to work for the military are absolutely forced to work in far off cities that are not their choosing. It is closer to that.
Correct, my sister's BF is getting stuck in Hawaii for four years.

[nba_55]

You don't need a top 5 pick to get good. Warriors core is not built on a top 5 pick. Just need to be smart.

The point still stands. Fans don't work with that time span. Most of them don't give a shit about 20-30 years before.

[Sarcastic]

Anti trust laws don't apply to government, only private enterprise.

[Labissiere]

Correct, my sister's BF is getting stuck in Hawaii for four years.
That poor bastard.

[bigkingsfan]

If they want to play in sports leagues they have to. Without a collectively bargained agreement, a draft would for sure break anti trust law.
Athletes could be drafted by the NBA and play elsewhere, well within their rights.

[ZenMaster]

The point still stands. Fans don't work with that time span. Most of them don't give a shit about 20-30 years before.

There are many other ways to get good than getting #1 picks, if it weren't for the fact that you get the pick. The reason for teams tanking this hard is that the newest CBA has made it the most favorable model to rebuild through.
The possibility of being able to offer that much more money to a player coming off his rookie contract if you drafted him means that it's not a free market on equal terms.

If teams weren't guaranteed a great reward after having the worst season of all, they would instead have to focus more on getting better as an organization. That includes better player development(including better D-league farm teams), better scouting so you don't draft busts, better coaching and better use of money for contracts.

[90sgoat]

How many nr. 1 picks turned out franchise players in the last 20 years?

Since 1996, * denotes franchise player:

Iverson*
Duncan*
Olowokandi
Brand*
Kenyon Martin
Kwame Brown
Yao Ming*
Lebron*
Dwight*
Bogut
Bargnani
Oden
Rose*
Griffin*
Wall*
Irving
Davis*
Bennet
Wiggins
Towns

About half, 10/20, 11/21 if you include Towns.

That means even with a first pick your expectation of landing a franchise players is only 50%. Philly feels that the hard way, particularly when you draft like shit.

What about 2nd picks?

Since 1996, * denotes franchise player:

Camby
Van Horn
Bibby
Francis
Stromile Swift
Tyson Chandler
Jay Williams
Darko Milicic
Emeka Okafor
Marvin Williams
LMA*
Kevin Durant*
Beasley
Turner
Derrick Williams
MKG
Oladipo

2/20, 3/20 if you include Oladipo/Tyson Chandler which is stretching it.

What about 3rd picks?

Since 1996, * denotes franchise player:

Shareef Abdur Rahim*
Billups
LaFraentz
Baron Davis*
Darius Miles
Pau Gasol*
Dunleavy
Ben Gordon
Deron Williams*
Adam Morrison
Al Horford
OJ Mayo
Derrick Favors
Enes Kanter
Bradley Beal
Otto Porter

3/20, maybe 4-5 if we give Horfor and Favors the opportunity to grow.

In Total for top 3 picks, how many became franchise players?

16/60 - 19/60

27% - 32%

These stats are hugely misleading though as nr. 1 pick has a whopping 50% chance of landing a franchise player while pick 2 and 3 only has a 12.5% chance of landing a franchise player.

This clearly creates a strong incentive to optimize your odds for the nr. 1 pick which means being the worst team.

If - on the other hand - you make the lottery even for all non-playoff teams, you remove the incentive to tank for worst record.

We also have to see the bigger picture here.

Having a high draft pick simply is not valuable outside when there is a clear cut college standout. We're talking talent so great you can't miss it. Are there any of the franchise players picked one, who did not have a great college career or had such obvious athletic talent it was a no miss?

Nope any fool could pick AI from his Hoya career or pick Dwight or Yao.

That really proves that NBA teams are not really that good at drafting. It is all the more clear when you look at how cheaply teams like Warriors (Jerry West) and Spurs (Pop) picked their championship players.

[Sarcastic]

Athletes could be drafted by the NBA and play elsewhere, well within their rights.


Anti trust law has only to do with USA. We don't worry about monopolies in other countries, only in the US.

[bigkingsfan]

Anti trust law has only to do with USA. We don't worry about monopolies in other countries, only in the US.
They can find a different profession, start their own basketball league if they wanted to.

[Mean Joe Bean]

Or just give all lottery teams an equal chance

This is the real solution right here.

You shouldnt be rewarded for being the worst. The NFL is even worse in this matter, automatically giving the #1 pick to the team with the worst record. Pro sports is not a charity.

[hateraid]

This is the real solution right here.

You shouldnt be rewarded for being the worst. The NFL is even worse in this matter, automatically giving the #1 pick to the team with the worst record. Pro sports is not a charity.

That's exactly what I was suggesting. It is not rewarded dead last. It's making the 1st overall pick competitive. Trying to win out the season instead of intentionally losing to better a chance at a higher pick. Adds that bit of intrigue at the end of the season.

[hateraid]

So for example if the season were to actually end today the season looks like this from last to fourth last including L10 record

Sixers 0-10
LA Lakers 2-8
Phoenix 4-6
Wolves 3-7

Draft order would go

1- Phoenix
2- Wolves
3- LA
4- Philadelphia

Last place and losing is NOT getting incentive based on how they finish

[Mean Joe Bean]

So for example if the season were to actually end today the season looks like this from last to fourth last including L10 record

Sixers 0-10
LA Lakers 2-8
Phoenix 4-6
Wolves 3-7

Draft order would go

1- Phoenix
2- Wolves
3- LA
4- Philadelphia

Last place and losing is NOT getting incentive based on how they finish

10 games is too small a sample size to determine who gets the top draft pick. It doesn't really stop teams from tanking either. The 76ers can tank the first 72 games and then try hard the last 10. And some teams have tougher schedules than others at the end. Its not really fair.. No offense but its a terrible idea.

Just give all lottery teams equal chance at #1. Problem solved.

[hateraid]

10 games is too small a sample size to determine who gets the top draft pick. It doesn't really stop teams from tanking either. The 76ers can tank the first 72 games and then try hard the last 10. And some teams have tougher schedules than others at the end. Its not really fair.. No offense but its a terrible idea.

Just give all lottery teams equal chance at #1. Problem solved.

How does everyone come to this conclusion about tanking 72 games then winning out the last 10?
That would NEVER happen. And I repeat for the following reasons:

- No team would ever enter a season intentionally tanking from the gitgo.
- Competing only for the last ten games the likelihood of winning it out is slim to none. What team with the worst record would possibly have the best record out of the bottom 4? And if they did, they deserve the top pick for at least competing.
- There is no garuantee they would even finish in the bottom 4 after winning out. They could very well finish 5th and out of top 4 pick

It makes it extremely intriguing at the bottom half at the end of the season. It forces the middle half to compete for a spot knowing that they don't have a shot at top pick.

[Mean Joe Bean]

How does everyone come to this conclusion about tanking 72 games then winning out the last 10?
That would NEVER happen. And I repeat for the following reasons:

- No team would ever enter a season intentionally tanking from the gitgo.
- Competing only for the last ten games the likelihood of winning it out is slim to none. What team with the worst record would possibly have the best record out of the bottom 4? And if they did, they deserve the top pick for at least competing.
- There is no garuantee they would even finish in the bottom 4 after winning out. They could very well finish 5th and out of top 4 pick

It makes it extremely intriguing at the bottom half at the end of the season. It forces the middle half to compete for a spot knowing that they don't have a shot at top pick.

Yeah but what if Lottery Team A plays the Warriors, Spurs, or other tough matchups in the last 10, while Lottery Team B plays all sub .500 teams?

Sample size too small.

And hasnt it seemed like Phillys been tanking from the gitgo the last 3 years?!

[hateraid]

Yeah but what if Lottery Team A plays the Warriors, Spurs, or other tough matchups in the last 10, while Lottery Team B plays all sub .500 teams?

Sample size too small.

And hasnt it seemed like Phillys been tanking from the gitgo the last 3 years?!

Not at all. A lot of bad luck and inexperience hurt them. And according to my formula they aren't being rewarded the first pick. They are picking 4th. So your example supports my formula. You honestly think 10 games ago they could have finished with a better record than Phoenix or Minnesota, knowing those teams too would be competing for the same pick?

[Mean Joe Bean]

Well, I think Philly has purposefully put together an uncompetitive roster the last 3 years so they can gather as many top 3 picks as possible, hoping to build a good young team in the future.

And I've mentioned twice already that its too small of a sample size and teams may have tougher opponents in the last 10 games than others, but you have yet to address that flaw in your idea. A team that plays the Warriors twice in thier last 10 games should be treated equal to a team that can potentially play the 76ers twice in the last 10?

[hateraid]

Well, I think Philly has purposefully put together an uncompetitive roster the last 3 years so they can gather as many top 3 picks as possible, hoping to build a good young team in the future.

And I've mentioned twice already that its too small of a sample size and teams may have tougher opponents in the last 10 games than others, but you have yet to address that flaw in your idea. A team that plays the Warriors twice in thier last 10 games should be treated equal to a team that can potentially play the 76ers twice in the last 10?

Yes, because nobody choses their schedule. If you're competing then the remaining schedule should be irrelevant. When you're a bad team it wouldn't matter who you're playing so luck of the draw. Plus chances are each team will face tough opponents in their final games. The top 4-6 teams would be equally as dangerous to the bottom 4 teams.

[hateraid]

Plus you go into those games COMPETING instead of laying down and surrendering a W because at least there is something to play for

[Mean Joe Bean]

Hey its your idea. You like it and it doesnt sound like theres anything anyone can say to make you think otherwise.

I like the other guy's idea. Just give equal chance at the #1 pick to all the lottery teams... or maybe just the bottom 5? Whats wrong with that idea? Seems more viable than yours....

[hateraid]

Hey its your idea. You like it and it doesnt sound like theres anything anyone can say to make you think otherwise.

I like the other guy's idea. Just give equal chance at the #1 pick to all the lottery teams... or maybe just the bottom 5? Whats wrong with that idea? Seems more viable than yours....

As a Sixers fan yes I welcome that. I'd rather see teams compete than lay down and surrender W's
It makes it something to play for. I actually got the idea listening to an NHL radio show and the way they laid it out sounded legit and exciting

[Nash]

There is only one way to do this:

Reward the team that fought until the end but didn't make the playoffs and finsihed 9th. That would stop teams from tanking and losing would actually be penalized instead while trying would get rewarded.

[hateraid]

There is only one way to do this:

Reward the team that fought until the end but didn't make the playoffs and finsihed 9th. That would stop teams from tanking and losing would actually be penalized instead while trying would get rewarded.

It would not create parity with the bottom teams. Bottom teams will be destined to be in the basement forever a long ass time.

[D. Toretto]

There is only one way to do this:

Reward the team that fought until the end but didn't make the playoffs and finsihed 9th. That would stop teams from tanking and losing would actually be penalized instead while trying would get rewarded.

I think all lottery teams having the same chance would be the fair option. Although I like this idea - but you would have to make it in such a way that bottom teams aren't destined to stay there forever.

Maybe split it... I don't know, like 9th gets first pick, 10th second and then equal chances. I don't know.

This would definitely eliminate tanking.