Must Read: Per Zach Lowe, NBA floating a proposal that would end tanking

[AtLaS]

I made that statement thinking you would connect the dots. You still aren't getting it.

I said SIGNIFICANT paycuts. LeBron, Wade and Bosh took 2.5 million less per year than they could've received. That is not a significant paycut, as my question of whom has taken a 5+ million paycut. If Miami's highest offer to LeBron, Bosh, or Wade was 10 million per, would any of them have taken it? It is highly doubtful. Noone wants to be the goat of a big 3 that makes half of what their respective other "big 3" do. Especially not early in their career.

The NBA did not try something similar in the late 90s. There has never been a hard cap in the NBA.

Of course the players agents are going to negotiate the highest possible salary, they are not going to take less (proving my point). However, teams aren't going to pay a player 35+ unless it is LeBron or the next big superstar. They are going to be paid what similar players are paid, with of course some laughable exceptions along the way, as there is in every other sport.

The 35+ million mark would essentially be what the 250+ million contract is in baseball. We see one every 3-4 years, but it is far from the norm.

[NBASupes]

I made that statement thinking you would connect the dots. You still aren't getting it.

I said SIGNIFICANT paycuts. LeBron, Wade and Bosh took 2.5 million less per year than they could've received. That is not a significant paycut, as my question of whom has taken a 5+ million paycut. If Miami's highest offer to LeBron, Bosh, or Wade was 10 million per, would any of them have taken it? It is highly doubtful. Noone wants to be the goat of a big 3 that makes half of what their respective other "big 3" do. Especially not early in their career.

The NBA did not try something similar in the late 90s. There has never been a hard cap in the NBA.

Of course the players agents are going to negotiate the highest possible salary, they are not going to take less (proving my point). However, teams aren't going to pay a player 35+ unless it is LeBron or the next big superstar. They are going to be paid what similar players are paid, with of course some laughable exceptions along the way, as there is in every other sport.

The 35+ million mark would essentially be what the 250+ million contract is in baseball. We see one every 3-4 years, but it is far from the norm.

If Lebron is making 35-40 mil, best believe the others would want something close to that. Saying otherwise is taking a shit on NBA players and using fantasy sports logic with real world people. Honestly, everyone in this country is probably worth 5 dollars a hour but with cost of living, our effort to learn skills, our needs, and our willingness to work, we feel we are entitled to much more. NBA players are no different. Who are you to tell players what they should make and same for me. I wouldn't like some NBA player say I am worth this amount of money because you can learn these skills on Lydia and youtube and the thousand dollar software is just upgrades and what not.

[sturt]

Not sure it's that simple, guys. One season's preemptive number one may or may not be next season's preemptive number one.

But let's say it is that simple. Is there a framework here that, with some tweaking, might avoid the criticism?

Maybe.

What if, for instance, instead of being specifically slotted into one position for each draft and alternating each year, you had three teams slotted this year into 1-3, another three slotted into 4-6, and so on... ten groups. And, pertinent to the criticism, there would be a mini-lottery held to assign the specific draft slot for each team in a group. So, in effect, you would know if you were drafting 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12, 13-15, 16-18, 19-21, 22-24, 25-27, or 28-30 in a given year (and alternating each year), but until the ping pong balls fall, if you were in the 1-3 group, you wouldn't know if you would be #1, #2, or #3.

So, with that modification, I could see it working pretty well.

See if you can be satisfied with the framework above, if given this one additional tweak that tilts the system ever so slightly to GMs in greater need....

Teams would not know which of the 10 triad groups into which they would be placed, but rather would self-select themselves into the triads, under the premise that a team could not select a given triad (1-3, 4-6, 7-9 and so on) more than once over a ten-year period.

Thus, the only order of business on lottery night would be this self-selection process. In fact, there's no reason to call it "lottery night" anymore... it would be "triad selection night."

The team with the worst record, would get things started by announcing to the emcee which of the ten triads they would like to occupy for this draft.

If they have 1-3 available to them (having not been in that triad previously) and if the draft class appears to be appealing enough, they rationally will select that group, but might choose a 4-6, 7-9 or other triad based on their internal discussions of what best suits their situation.

Then, the second-worst team would follow suit, and then the third and so on.

Note that it is conceivable, if not likely, that several teams will opt to for a draft triad lower than their recent season's record would have otherwise suggested... based on what triad groups they would have already filled over the 10-year period and based on their projections of the talent crop.

What happens if you are one of the better teams, and when it comes your turn to elect a triad, most other teams have already self-selected into their triads and there are no triads available that you did not already occupy? Good question. Simple answer. In that case, you go into a pool along with whatever other teams are in that position, and the luck of the ping pong balls determine your triad for that draft year.

On Draft Night, all teams having already been assigned a triad, the NBA Draft Show tips off by assigning specific draft slots... first, the 28-30 triad, then the 25-27, then the 22-24, and so on, right down to the pinnacle ping pong ball drop for 1-3.

So, all of the important criteria cited in this thread seem to be covered...

- Tanking is virtually eliminated

- Draft-eligible players are confounded from timing their NBA entry to control what team they end up with

- Teams with better records are substantially disadvantaged from placement in a higher draft triad

Edited December 26, 2013 by sturt

[Diesel]

I agree there may be some of that but I doubt a 5th seed would start tanking to secure a spot in that lottery. Home playoff games generate a lot of revenue for teams and they'd have to get the owners on board as well.

If I'm a GM... and My team has the chance to get the next Lebron James for the next 5-7 yrs or play in the playoffs and lose in the first round, I'm going after the pick. The next Lebron James brings more revenue.

[Diesel]

back to antitanking talk...

Decentivising teams that tank is the answer. You can not stop teams from going for a once in a lifetime player. What would you do to get the next Bill Russell or the next Kareem?? However, what you can do is make sure that while they have tanked to get to that player, they have paid dearly for interrupting the league. In none of the suggestions I have heard thus far, there is no payment for the team. The team gets the ultimate win in every case. They get the best player in the draft and they can say... "Hey we bucked the system" Orlando has done it so many times, it's just unfair.

So here's what you do...

20%, 10%, 5%.

These are the luxury taxes paid by the players and teams of the top three teams in the draft lottery.

There is no wheel of danger. There is no Pulling of the cards. There are no magic numbers. There's just the pick and a fine.

[sturt]

Given Diesel's post, perhaps it wasn't clear how the proposal I've put forward (see below) disincentives teams from tanking.

1) Teams may only slot themselves into the 1-3 triad once every ten years.

2) Even after slotting themselves into that triad, a team is only assured of a 1 in 3 chance at the #1 slot.

====================================

Not sure it's that simple, guys. One season's preemptive number one may or may not be next season's preemptive number one.

But let's say it is that simple. Is there a framework here that, with some tweaking, might avoid the criticism?

Maybe.

What if, for instance, instead of being specifically slotted into one position for each draft and alternating each year, you had three teams slotted this year into 1-3, another three slotted into 4-6, and so on... ten groups. And, pertinent to the criticism, there would be a mini-lottery held to assign the specific draft slot for each team in a group. So, in effect, you would know if you were drafting 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12, 13-15, 16-18, 19-21, 22-24, 25-27, or 28-30 in a given year (and alternating each year), but until the ping pong balls fall, if you were in the 1-3 group, you wouldn't know if you would be #1, #2, or #3.

So, with that modification, I could see it working pretty well.

See if you can be satisfied with the framework above, if given this one additional tweak that tilts the system ever so slightly to GMs in greater need....

Teams would not know which of the 10 triad groups into which they would be placed, but rather would self-select themselves into the triads, under the premise that a team could not select a given triad (1-3, 4-6, 7-9 and so on) more than once over a ten-year period.

Thus, the only order of business on lottery night would be this self-selection process. In fact, there's no reason to call it "lottery night" anymore... it would be "triad selection night."

The team with the worst record, would get things started by announcing to the emcee which of the ten triads they would like to occupy for this draft.

If they have 1-3 available to them (having not been in that triad previously) and if the draft class appears to be appealing enough, they rationally will select that group, but might choose a 4-6, 7-9 or other triad based on their internal discussions of what best suits their situation.

Then, the second-worst team would follow suit, and then the third and so on.

Note that it is conceivable, if not likely, that several teams will opt to for a draft triad lower than their recent season's record would have otherwise suggested... based on what triad groups they would have already filled over the 10-year period and based on their projections of the talent crop.

What happens if you are one of the better teams, and when it comes your turn to elect a triad, most other teams have already self-selected into their triads and there are no triads available that you did not already occupy? Good question. Simple answer. In that case, you go into a pool along with whatever other teams are in that position, and the luck of the ping pong balls determine your triad for that draft year.

On Draft Night, all teams having already been assigned a triad, the NBA Draft Show tips off by assigning specific draft slots... first, the 28-30 triad, then the 25-27, then the 22-24, and so on, right down to the pinnacle ping pong ball drop for 1-3.

So, all of the important criteria cited in this thread seem to be covered...

- Tanking is virtually eliminated

- Draft-eligible players are confounded from timing their NBA entry to control what team they end up with

- Teams with better records are substantially disadvantaged from placement in a higher draft triad

Edited December 26, 2013 by sturt

[Wretch]

See if you can be satisfied with the framework above, if given this one additional tweak that tilts the system ever so slightly to GMs in greater need....

Teams would not know which of the 10 triad groups into which they would be placed, but rather would self-select themselves into the triads, under the premise that a team could not select a given triad (1-3, 4-6, 7-9 and so on) more than once over a ten-year period.

Thus, the only order of business on lottery night would be this self-selection process. In fact, there's no reason to call it "lottery night" anymore... it would be "triad selection night."

The team with the worst record, would get things started by announcing to the emcee which of the ten triads they would like to occupy for this draft.

If they have 1-3 available to them (having not been in that triad previously) and if the draft class appears to be appealing enough, they rationally will select that group, but might choose a 4-6, 7-9 or other triad based on their internal discussions of what best suits their situation.

Then, the second-worst team would follow suit, and then the third and so on.

Note that it is conceivable, if not likely, that several teams will opt to for a draft triad lower than their recent season's record would have otherwise suggested... based on what triad groups they would have already filled over the 10-year period and based on their projections of the talent crop.

What happens if you are one of the better teams, and when it comes your turn to elect a triad, most other teams have already self-selected into their triads and there are no triads available that you did not already occupy? Good question. Simple answer. In that case, you go into a pool along with whatever other teams are in that position, and the luck of the ping pong balls determine your triad for that draft year.

On Draft Night, all teams having already been assigned a triad, the NBA Draft Show tips off by assigning specific draft slots... first, the 28-30 triad, then the 25-27, then the 22-24, and so on, right down to the pinnacle ping pong ball drop for 1-3.

So, all of the important criteria cited in this thread seem to be covered...

- Tanking is virtually eliminated

- Draft-eligible players are confounded from timing their NBA entry to control what team they end up with

- Teams with better records are substantially disadvantaged from placement in a higher draft triad

The problem with that system is the range in which the impact players are found. Starting with like...the 10th pick or so, there is a marked drop off in superstar/elite talent produced. So, you're really only concerned about the top 3 triads: 1-3, 4-6, and 7-9. It would certainly discourage tanking, but it's going to strike a mortal blow to teams that strike out on a bust (or just an average player).

Moreover, the system needs to help the worst teams. The best teams need no assistance and they should never be rewarded with a prime drafting position.

back to antitanking talk...

Decentivising teams that tank is the answer. You can not stop teams from going for a once in a lifetime player. What would you do to get the next Bill Russell or the next Kareem?? However, what you can do is make sure that while they have tanked to get to that player, they have paid dearly for interrupting the league. In none of the suggestions I have heard thus far, there is no payment for the team. The team gets the ultimate win in every case. They get the best player in the draft and they can say... "Hey we bucked the system" Orlando has done it so many times, it's just unfair.

So here's what you do...

20%, 10%, 5%.

These are the luxury taxes paid by the players and teams of the top three teams in the draft lottery.

There is no wheel of danger. There is no Pulling of the cards. There are no magic numbers. There's just the pick and a fine.

I think that's a very bad idea...if a team isn't tanking and just can't win, they could be looking at indefinite monetary penalties. For a franchise that's financially troubled, you're looking at a nightmare scenario. There's no need to punish bad teams even further.

A tournament would solve the problem though. You have to win your pick - it's not given to you. Yeah, you can tank your way into the tourney, but there's no guarantee that you'll be able to secure the pick you're tanking for. Moreover, if they're seeded in reverse, winning during the regular season is going to get you a better draft pick. So if you want to throw in the towel, fine...but teams that play hard and fight to win are going to get a better draft pick than you. The problem is solved.

Honestly, you don't even need a tournament (though I think it'd be fun). Just divide the lottery into 3 sections:

Upper (1-4), middle (5-8), and lower (9-14).

Place them the way we normally place the lottery teams.

Swap the 4th and 5th teams based upon COMPETITIVE criteria (vs. each other, vs. the league, etc.). Ditto for the 8th/9th and flip a coin for the last lottery slot/last playoff slot.

THEN...reverse the order in each group, best record to worst.

Tank to get one of the bottom 4 picks? Fine, but you may end up with the 4th worst record in the league and get swapped to the 5th drafting position because you had a poor showing against that team during the regular season. You can try to tank for a specific spot, but the competitive seeding for the draft means you will likely be moved to a less favorable position because you didn't play so well during the year.

There is no way for any of these teams to know how the final standings will look. There's really no way to plan for which teams to lose against to secure a better position. The only advantage you have in the draft is to win during the regular season as much as you can. As opposed to losing to secure a better drafting position. A tournament would really spice it up, IMO...but it wouldn't be entirely necessary. The solution to the "tank" problem is to simply give these teams a reason to WIN during the regular season.

[timdawg777]

They should follow the example of European soccer. Create a relegation system with two divisions. That will end all tanking.

[sturt]

The problem with that system is the range in which the impact players are found. Starting with like...the 10th pick or so, there is a marked drop off in superstar/elite talent produced. So, you're really only concerned about the top 3 triads: 1-3, 4-6, and 7-9. It would certainly discourage tanking, but it's going to strike a mortal blow to teams that strike out on a bust (or just an average player).

Moreover, the system needs to help the worst teams. The best teams need no assistance and they should never be rewarded with a prime drafting position.

My friend, first, with any given draft, the number of talent tiers and the depth within any given tier will vary... and I doubt that many teams drafting at #10 are going to be just as happy at #13, let alone just as happy at #30.

Second, look, there have to be consequences for bad decisions, or you just end up rewarding bad decisions. The very desire to limit the effect of those bad decisions is counterproductive to constraining the tanking strategy. If you're going to put the crimps on consequences for the bad teams out of fear of rewarding good ones, you ought to just be satisfied with the present circumstance.

Finally, implementing this structure does not remove from even the bad teams who made bad choices when they were in higher triads any possibility of improvement... free agency still exists as a viable option.

As for the tournament thing... now c'mon guys... you can't have it both ways. You're setting up a system that laws of probability prescribe will reward the middling teams far more often than the teams that you suggest "deserve it."

Edited December 27, 2013 by sturt

[AtLaS]

If Lebron is making 35-40 mil, best believe the others would want something close to that. Saying otherwise is taking a shit on NBA players and using fantasy sports logic with real world people. Honestly, everyone in this country is probably worth 5 dollars a hour but with cost of living, our effort to learn skills, our needs, and our willingness to work, we feel we are entitled to much more. NBA players are no different. Who are you to tell players what they should make and same for me. I wouldn't like some NBA player say I am worth this amount of money because you can learn these skills on Lydia and youtube and the thousand dollar software is just upgrades and what not.

A player is only worth what a team is willing to pay him. Period. This has nothing to do with fantasy. If LeBron gets 35, Wade may think he's worth 30, but if no team offers that much, than he has to take the best possible offer or leave the NBA. He has no alternative. I'm saying to let the system dictate what a player is worth.

Why do we not see more $250+ million contracts in MLB? It will be the same way in the NBA, rather than seeing multiple max contracts given out every year like we do now.

[ViperXX79]

Why do we not see more $250+ million contracts in MLB? It will be the same way in the NBA, rather than seeing multiple max contracts given out every year like we do now.

But we are seeing a huge increase in MLB contracts. Look at Cano's deal. Ellsbury got huge money and most think he didn't exactly earn it on the field. The deal Grienke got is going to push the deal Kershaw gets through the roof. The speculation about Mike Trout's future contract is that it's going to be the biggest deal ever. Those are just a handful of contracts. Prices are going through the roof. Bench guys are making more than ever. The ARod deal started this and make no mistake it's not getting any cheaper for teams.

[Wretch]

My friend, first, with any given draft, the number of talent tiers and the depth within any given tier will vary... and I doubt that many teams drafting at #10 are going to be just as happy at #13, let alone just as happy at #30.

Second, look, there have to be consequences for bad decisions, or you just end up rewarding bad decisions. The very desire to limit the effect of those bad decisions is counterproductive to constraining the tanking strategy. If you're going to put the crimps on consequences for the bad teams out of fear of rewarding good ones, you ought to just be satisfied with the present circumstance.

Finally, implementing this structure does not remove from even the bad teams who made bad choices when they were in higher triads any possibility of improvement... free agency still exists as a viable option.

As for the tournament thing... now c'mon guys... you can't have it both ways. You're setting up a system that laws of probability prescribe will reward the middling teams far more often than the teams that you suggest "deserve it."

I agree that the number of talent tiers is going to vary. There are quality players available all over the draft and some years, there are more quality players than others. Let's not delude ourselves here though... The further you move away from the 1st pick, generally speaking...not incrementally, the smaller your chances are of finding game changing talent. If you haven't fished out a game changer out of the bottom 3 triads...you're screwed, on the draft anyway, for a minimum of 7 years.

That's like us...taking Chill (4-6 triad), then us taking Marvin Williams (1-3 triad). We'd have to gamble on picks 7-9 in the 2006 draft - and we're not guaranteed the best pick in that slot. What this does is put more pressure on free agency...and what I see coming out of that is MORE bad contracts than ever.

The top tier players will still be in demand and can still sign anywhere they please. But if you strike out on the draft and have to wait 7 years for the HOPE of a lottery pick in the range of 1-3...you are looking at that 2nd and 3rd tier of free agency with much more desperation. That Marvin Williams we're wondering about? Oh, you're not going to just let him walk. If you could limit the triad system to just the bad teams and give them a shorter window, it might work. Otherwise, I'd hate to be a team like us drafting in the early to mid 2000's with that system.

As for the tourney...

On any given night, any team can beat any team. That has to be especially true if we're talking about the bottom half of the NBA. If you split the tourney into tiers, you've got teams of relative stature going against each other. Teams 1-4, 5-8, and 9-14...how you finish is how you pick...in each subset. It works the same without the tourney. Just seed the lottery the same way using their regular season success.

[AtLaS]

But we are seeing a huge increase in MLB contracts. Look at Cano's deal. Ellsbury got huge money and most think he didn't exactly earn it on the field. The deal Grienke got is going to push the deal Kershaw gets through the roof. The speculation about Mike Trout's future contract is that it's going to be the biggest deal ever. Those are just a handful of contracts. Prices are going through the roof. Bench guys are making more than ever. The ARod deal started this and make no mistake it's not getting any cheaper for teams.

This is a different argument, which I agree with. However, the MLB does not have a hard cap. This would force teams to be more conservative.

[sturt]

If you haven't fished out a game changer out of the bottom 3 triads...you're screwed, on the draft anyway, for a minimum of 7 years.

And another way of saying it... if you didn't find a game changer when you had the chance, it's on you... it's your own fault... you got the same chance that every other franchise got... and notably, all of them will also have 7 years of 10-30 picks...

When you think about it... you don't expect that teams should have advantage in free agency by getting higher salary caps just because they're perennial losers... so, as long as the system is fair and every GM has the same opportunity to make an impact on his team, it's only reasonable to construct the draft in this way.

What this does is put more pressure on free agency...and what I see coming out of that is MORE bad contracts than ever.

I've acknowledged that it puts more pressure on free agency. I have confidence that the new cap tax is going to be effective. But, yes, I'd also like to see it considered to reduce roster slots based on the number of upper-25% salaries on a given team's roster... I think that one's entirely reasonable and yet seemingly never explored. It seems a good counterbalance worthy of more thought.

Btw... besides free agency, of course, you can still make trades.

If you could limit the triad system to just the bad teams and give them a shorter window, it might work. Otherwise, I'd hate to be a team like us drafting in the early to mid 2000's with that system.

Again... the very desire to limit the effect of those bad decisions is counterproductive to constraining the tanking strategy. If you're going to put the crimps on consequences for the bad teams out of fear of rewarding good ones, you ought to just be satisfied with the present circumstance.

As for the tourney...

On any given night, any team can beat any team. That has to be especially true if we're talking about the bottom half of the NBA. If you split the tourney into tiers, you've got teams of relative stature going against each other. Teams 1-4, 5-8, and 9-14...how you finish is how you pick...in each subset. It works the same without the tourney. Just seed the lottery the same way using their regular season success.

Again... you can't have it both ways. You can't complain that you want the worst teams to be positioned perennially to benefit from the draft, and then set up a system that laws of probability prescribe will reward the middling teams far more often.

[Wretch]

And another way of saying it... if you didn't find a game changer when you had the chance, it's on you... it's your own fault... you got the same chance that every other franchise got... and notably, all of them will also have 7 years of 10-30 picks...

When you think about it... you don't expect that teams should have advantage in free agency by getting higher salary caps just because they're perennial losers... so, as long as the system is fair and every GM has the same opportunity to make an impact on his team, it's only reasonable to construct the draft in this way.

I've acknowledged that it puts more pressure on free agency. I have confidence that the new cap tax is going to be effective. But, yes, I'd also like to see it considered to reduce roster slots based on the number of upper-25% salaries on a given team's roster... I think that one's entirely reasonable and yet seemingly never explored. It seems a good counterbalance worthy of more thought.

Btw... besides free agency, of course, you can still make trades.

Again... the very desire to limit the effect of those bad decisions is counterproductive to constraining the tanking strategy. If you're going to put the crimps on consequences for the bad teams out of fear of rewarding good ones, you ought to just be satisfied with the present circumstance.

Again... you can't have it both ways. You can't complain that you want the worst teams to be positioned perennially to benefit from the draft, and then set up a system that laws of probability prescribe will reward the middling teams far more often.

The first problem is...it's not always your fault if you don't get "The guy." No matter how much preparation you make going into the draft, there are TONS of x-factors that have nothing to do with your due diligence. Injuries? Too bad.

Substance abuse? Your fault.

Psychological issues? [World's smallest violin]

Whatever the hell was wrong with Marvin Williams? Waaaah.

And sometimes, you just pick the wrong guy...or the wrong guy falls to you.

All that on top of the fact that players simply do not pan out the way we expect them to. Moreover, you don't get the same chance that every other team gets because every draft class is different. LeBron or Duncan is not always there. Hell a guy like Dwight Howard, who is raw and needs a ton of development, is not always there.

Bad teams need to fish in the upper part of the draft until they get something that works (or trade those rights for something that works). That's acceptable to me and not really the issue. IMO, the heart of the issue is simply keeping those bad teams as honest as possible during the regular season so that they aren't intentionally losing to improve draft position. I think with the right tweaking, competitive lottery seeding or a tournament would do just that.

[Wretch]

...and as far as rewarding the middling teams, if you separate the lottery/tournament into tiers and limit the better teams (late lottery) to drafting 9 - 14, it's not like they have the advantage over the absolute worst (high lottery) teams. You still have the worst teams picking in the best spots, but you take out the incentive to lose on any given night because those losses could come back to bite you when the competitive seeding comes into play.

There's no way to predict how the standings will be at the end of the season...thus there is no way to gain an advantage during the regular season but to COMPETE.

[sturt]

The first problem is...it's not always your fault if you don't get "The guy." No matter how much preparation you make going into the draft, there are TONS of x-factors that have nothing to do with your due diligence. Injuries? Too bad.

Substance abuse? Your fault.

Psychological issues? [World's smallest violin]

Whatever the hell was wrong with Marvin Williams? Waaaah.

And sometimes, you just pick the wrong guy...or the wrong guy falls to you.

All that on top of the fact that players simply do not pan out the way we expect them to.

Same hazards that any other team faces. In constructing policy, we have to assume that karma deals with all teams equally in that regard... can't build reasonable policy around the exceptions/outliers.

Moreover, you don't get the same chance that every other team gets because every draft class is different.

Precisely. Thus, one of the important clauses of the concept, i.e., that teams select the triad within which they will draft... i.e., the reason why a given worst team won't and shouldn't necessarily choose to pick in 1-3 just because they have the opportunity to do so.

Bad teams need to fish in the upper part of the draft until they get something that works (or trade those rights for something that works). That's acceptable to me and not really the issue. IMO, the heart of the issue is simply keeping those bad teams as honest as possible during the regular season so that they aren't intentionally losing to improve draft position. I think with the right tweaking, competitive lottery seeding or a tournament would do just that.

Maybe this is the line in the sand... tanking isn't acceptable to me whether you start the season with that as a strategy or are working the system with odd player substitutions in March... you solve tanking through a policy that precludes it no matter when it's initiated. And this is a fair system.

if you separate the lottery/tournament into tiers and limit the better teams (late lottery) to drafting 9 - 14, it's not like they have the advantage over the absolute worst (high lottery) teams. You still have the worst teams picking in the best spots, but you take out the incentive to lose on any given night because those losses could come back to bite you when the competitive seeding comes into play.

I see what you're saying, but Team 4 is still going to be more likely to acquire the #1 draft slot... ie, the difference between having the chance to draft John Wall instead of Wesley Johnson... chance to draft James Harden instead of Tyreke Evans... chance to draft a Derrick Rose instead of a Michael Beasley... just as Team 8 will be more likely for #5... Team 14 more likley for #9. And the race to be #4 instead of #5 or #6... #8 instead of #9 or #10... will constitute its own version of tanking.

[Wretch]

Same hazards that any other team faces. In constructing policy, we have to assume that karma deals with all teams equally in that regard... can't build reasonable policy around the exceptions/outliers.

Drafting is an inexact science. About as inexact as you can get. LOL I get into this with quite a few of my buddies because they so desperately want to quantify everything - and you can't. You're making the assumption here that each team will have an equal shot at it, given the same options and parameters. The folly in that argument is going back to what I've already said - there are too many factors that are going to skew the end result of what you pick. It's a crap shoot with these players and it's further complicated by the crap shoot of the triad in this system. I mean...look at the luck of the draw in the Oden/Durant/Horford triad. Yes, every team has to deal with that, but OKC comes out of that far better than Portland and Atlanta.

I don't think you can justify the Hawks losing a top 3 pick for the next 9 years on the premise that, "Hey, Memphis could get a raw deal in 2009...they better do their homework!" They better not have any injuries or psychological issues either.

Precisely. Thus, one of the important clauses of the concept, i.e., that teams select the triad within which they will draft... i.e., the reason why a given worst team won't and shouldn't necessarily choose to pick in 1-3 just because they have the opportunity to do so.

This helps, but it's a double edged sword. On one hand - the advantage is you can put yourself in a position to get Durant or LeBron. Though, you're still not guaranteed to get the "prize" talent and you're still bound by those factors outside of your control. You can also opt out of a weak draft. The caveat here though is that by doing so, you're also prolonging your efforts to build a team. I.E. - the sooner you pick a triad, the sooner it comes back around.

Maybe this is the line in the sand... tanking isn't acceptable to me whether you start the season with that as a strategy or are working the system with odd player substitutions in March... you solve tanking through a policy that precludes it no matter when it's initiated. And this is a fair system

Y'know, I honestly agree with you. The ideal solution is to disassociate positive drafting position with negative performance. My only contention here is that the worst teams are the ones who need the most promising drafting position. Any system that doesn't work to better those teams AND doesn't give them an advantage over successful (playoff) teams is an unfair system. I just feel like those teams need help and they should get it. OKC, Miami, and Indiana don't even need the draft.

I see what you're saying, but Team 4 is still going to be more likely to acquire the #1 draft slot... ie, the difference between having the chance to draft John Wall instead of Wesley Johnson... chance to draft James Harden instead of Tyreke Evans... chance to draft a Derrick Rose instead of a Michael Beasley... just as Team 8 will be more likely for #5... Team 14 more likley for #9. And the race to be #4 instead of #5 or #6... #8 instead of #9 or #10... will constitute its own version of tanking.

Within the lottery tiers of competitive seeding (or a tournament) I don't think any team has a decided advantage over the other. Surely, if you have one big tourney, then one of those runners up for the 8th seed in the west is likely to dominate all the way to the top. But within each tier...it's anybody's game in a one and done. If you just seed the lottery competitively, you could swap the teams around based upon who performed the best. Now, the teams that finish with better records will obviously have the advantage to move up here (within each tier)...BUT...

Isn't that what we want? Moreover, what's the difference between 1-4? 5-8? 9-14? Within those tiers, it's still a pretty good shot at an outstanding quality player - and you may also luck up and a guy fall to a lower tier that shouldn't. Kobe? Paul Pierce? Dirk? You could try to be bad all you want, but it doesn't increase your odds of getting the best pick in your tier. And if you swap say the 4/5 or the 8/9, you may end up 5 (*edit, can't count!) places out of the position you tanked for. So it's punitive as well.

Just to illustrate, take the bottom 4 teams in the league right now for example:

1) Milwaukee, 2) Utah, 3) Orlando, 4) Philly

Tank City...and in the current tank-friendly system, Milwaukee has the best chance at the #1 pick because they sucked the worst.

BUT...introduce competitive seeding here:

Who had a better record vs. this group?

Who had a better record vs. their division?

Who had the largest losing margin?

Who won the most road games?

Who won the most games vs. playoff teams?

You could use all sorts of competitive criteria...and NOW what teams do during the regular season actually matters. And if it's a tournament, which one of those 4 is the favorite in a one and done? The same applies for each tier of drafting. How do you prevent tanking to move into a better tier? THAT part could get tricky...but suppose you seed the teams in reverse and flip the teams at the border of each tier based upon their competitiveness?

...aaaaand look. I've wrote a book. lol (Though I do enjoy the level-headed discussion )

Edited December 27, 2013 by WretchedDamnCrow

[Wretch]

(Somebody be sure to tell Dolfan I wrote a book!) :D

[Diesel]

Given Diesel's post, perhaps it wasn't clear how the proposal I've put forward (see below) disincentives teams from tanking.

1) Teams may only slot themselves into the 1-3 triad once every ten years.

2) Even after slotting themselves into that triad, a team is only assured of a 1 in 3 chance at the #1 slot.

====================================

See if you can be satisfied with the framework above, if given this one additional tweak that tilts the system ever so slightly to GMs in greater need....

Teams would not know which of the 10 triad groups into which they would be placed, but rather would self-select themselves into the triads, under the premise that a team could not select a given triad (1-3, 4-6, 7-9 and so on) more than once over a ten-year period.

Thus, the only order of business on lottery night would be this self-selection process. In fact, there's no reason to call it "lottery night" anymore... it would be "triad selection night."

The team with the worst record, would get things started by announcing to the emcee which of the ten triads they would like to occupy for this draft.

If they have 1-3 available to them (having not been in that triad previously) and if the draft class appears to be appealing enough, they rationally will select that group, but might choose a 4-6, 7-9 or other triad based on their internal discussions of what best suits their situation.

Then, the second-worst team would follow suit, and then the third and so on.

Note that it is conceivable, if not likely, that several teams will opt to for a draft triad lower than their recent season's record would have otherwise suggested... based on what triad groups they would have already filled over the 10-year period and based on their projections of the talent crop.

What happens if you are one of the better teams, and when it comes your turn to elect a triad, most other teams have already self-selected into their triads and there are no triads available that you did not already occupy? Good question. Simple answer. In that case, you go into a pool along with whatever other teams are in that position, and the luck of the ping pong balls determine your triad for that draft year.

On Draft Night, all teams having already been assigned a triad, the NBA Draft Show tips off by assigning specific draft slots... first, the 28-30 triad, then the 25-27, then the 22-24, and so on, right down to the pinnacle ping pong ball drop for 1-3.

So, all of the important criteria cited in this thread seem to be covered...

- Tanking is virtually eliminated

- Draft-eligible players are confounded from timing their NBA entry to control what team they end up with

- Teams with better records are substantially disadvantaged from placement in a higher draft triad

you offer a great decentive but there's no coming back from your decentive. Also, every year, three new teams regardless of record. Eventually, a really good team will have a 33% chance at a great player?