NBA to Consider Draft Lottery Reform

draft lottery process to discourage tanking

The proposal, which dominated the lottery-reform discussion in league meetings this week, is essentially an attempt to squeeze the lottery odds at either extreme toward a more balanced system in which all 14 teams have a relatively similar chance at the no. 1 pick, per sources familiar with the proposal.
[…]
The goal of this initial proposal is obvious: to prevent out-and-out tanking among the league’s very worst teams for the No. 1 pick. Equalizing the odds for the five worst teams, and giving the next few clubs odds very close to that 11 percent chance, goes a long way toward removing the incentive to race toward the bottom. That slice of the reform targets team’s like last season’s Sixers and the 2011-12 Bobcats, both of which rather blatantly constructed rosters designed to be as bad as possible in those particular seasons. The end goal was a 25 percent chance at the top pick. The NBA’s proposal would grant such teams just an 11 percent shot at it, merely a hair better than the chances for mid-rung lottery teams that, in some seasons, are at least within spitting distance of the playoff race after 40 or so games.
By keeping the odds for the very best lottery teams on the low side — just 2 percent — the league is working to avoid building in any incentive for a team chasing the No. 8 spot to tank out of the playoffs.

The topic is hot again. Seems Silver really wants to discourage tanking.

Last edited by NovU on Fri Jul 18, 2014 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

i like the idea of them drawing for more than 3 picks. i miss the days when all lottery teams were drawn

Top 4 with equal chances helps prevent the worst teams from tanking except those on the 4/5 bubble, but evening out the chances a little helps discourage that a bit more. Also drawing for top 6 increases the chances of bad teams sliding down so this is way better than all the other proposals, especially that stupid wheel idea.

Top 4 with equal chances helps prevent the worst teams from tanking except those on the 4/5 bubble, but evening out the chances a little helps discourage that a bit more. Also drawing for top 6 increases the chances of bad teams sliding down so this is way better than all the other proposals, especially that stupid wheel idea.

i agree. the wheel idea was one of the worst things i ever heard. i wish they would draw for all the spots again but i am happy with the top 6

Those proposed reforms aren't a bad idea. Less incentive to tank, but the lottery still achieves its purpose: giving struggling teams a chance to add new talent and become competitive again.

I still don't think tanking is a huge problem. No one's been proven to have intentionally lost games, beyond cutting their losses with a go-nowhere roster and looking to start over (a reasonable course of action), or raising the white flag with a few games left in the season, long after they've been mathematically eliminated from the postseason (again, no issues there). When it came down to it, only a couple of teams could truly be accused of tanking, and they weren't doing anything particularly shady.

Of course, the common cry is that the lottery is rigged anyway. Mind you, if that's true, then tanking isn't a problem to be concerned with or indeed doesn't exist, as NBA teams would no doubt be aware of the reality of the lottery - being in on the whole thing, after all - and thus would have no incentive to tank in the first place. Conversely, if tanking is a real problem because everyone has a legitimate shot at winning the top pick if they do that, then there's no issue of the lottery being rigged.

i agree. the wheel idea was one of the worst things i ever heard. i wish they would draw for all the spots again but i am happy with the top 6

Here's how the wheel would look like.
http://i5.minus.com/iQ6x8xPmn1LGu.png
I like

Seems like I'm the only one who doesn't agree. Hmmmm

Not as stupid as the wheel, but it doesn't really remove incentive to tank. Sucking ass still gets you the best chance to get a high pick. All this will accomplish is teams trying really hard to be bottom 5 (and not necessarily the worst in the league) and low seed playoff teams who are sure to be swept or win 1 game at most in the first round might decide they want to participate in the lottery instead, with the vastly increased top pick chances for almost-playoff teams.

it might have prevented the 76ers from losing just about every damn game to end the season

At least they didn't have a habit of blatantly throwing 4th quarters like a certain other team.

At least they didn't have a habit of blatantly throwing 4th quarters like a certain other team.

i dont know what you are talking about

Really? A few examples should make it very obvious:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 10BOS.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 40MEM.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 10LAL.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 50DET.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 90ATL.html (8-25 in the final 5:10!)

Oh, and then there's this too.

Still positive the Sixers tried harder to lose?

i was saying all season that the celtics failed at tanking. they tried and for some reason could land a top 3 even though it was clear they wanted to lose lol

It's failure on Danny Ainge's part. He undermined Brad Stevens and Jordan Crawford. He tried to make it up by trading away Jordan Crawford but by that time Wiggins was a goner, too far out of reach.

Then Ainge screwed up even more by drafting Marcus Smart who's to shoot 30% consistently alongside Avery Bradley also to shoot 30% for another historical failure at backcourt (once they trade Rondo). Solution is to bring back Jordan Crawford or try tanking once more.

At least they didn't have a habit of blatantly throwing 4th quarters like a certain other team.

i dont know what you are talking about

Our dear senile Sauru

The Sixers are against the reform.

The NBA is pushing toward changes to the draft lottery system by next season but is facing a strong objection from the Philadelphia 76ers, the franchise that could suffer the most from it, multiple sources told ESPN.com.

-----------

The rough draft of this plan was met with opposition by 76ers management, who are in the midst of a multiseason rebuilding project that is depending on a high pick next year. The 76ers, sources said, are hoping to get the NBA to delay plans for at least a year because it acts as a de facto punishment while just playing by the rules that have been in place.

The 76ers, however, may have a struggle to gain support from Silver or fellow teams on holding off the changes. Philadelphia's planned sink to the bottom has caused a drag on revenues in one of the league's largest markets and it is has upset some fellow teams, sources said.

They would be opposed to it indeed, keep drafting injured players and tank away to get that #1 only to see Cleveland get it.

Fuck that Jew.

Fuck that Jew.

Yep. Not too long ago he was publicly supporting what the Sixers are doing. Now he's rushing this reform through to punish them - and make no mistake, that's all it really is. This won't fix the "problem" of tanking at all - teams will just chase bottom 5 instead of worst in the league and 7-8th seed playoff teams will be tanking themselves out of the playoffs with the bigger odds for almost-playoff teams at getting a high pick.

want to fix it? make every single team have equal chance (regardless of how they finish) at being drawn then draw for every single spot, 1-30. just fucking throw 30 ping pong balls into a giant machine and put that shit live on tv. now start drawing 1-30

It still won't get the Celtics the number one pick.

It still won't get the Celtics the number one pick.

probably the 30th pick year after year. i am just saying its the only sure fire way to eliminate tanking. of course the first time a team wins only 14 games and ends with the last pick in round 1 people will lose their shit but whatever. i would like it better with a hard cap but thats never gonna happen

A hard cap would obviously be much better for competitive balance, but it doesn't look like that's truly what the NBA is after. The NBA wants big markets to have an advantage and contend almost constantly, because a team from Los Angeles or New York will always generate more money than a team in Milwaukee or Minnesota. The NBA wants big 3s, superteams, etc. because they attract the casual fan.

Non-destination teams tank because the draft is pretty much all they have if they want to build a contender. And then people have the balls to complain about it. And then they want to reform the system so that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, by making the draft even more random and therefore limiting the impact it can realistically have in a rebuild. Why fix the problem when you can just join the dumbass Bill Simmons crowd crucifying one team that hasn't even broken any rules or done anything that hasn't been done before, many times.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/8/19/6 ... ve-balance

Anyone who followed the 2011 NBA lockout knows the phrase "competitive balance" should come with a trigger warning.

NBA officials, led by then-deputy commish Adam Silver, insisted that competitive balance was the driving force behind a laundry list of reforms to the league's economic system. From a stricter luxury tax to new restrictions on the types of transactions high payroll teams can make, competitive balance was the official rationale. Silver, his then-boss David Stern and owners lamented that so many teams entered a season with little hope of even making the postseason, let alone winning a title. Many of the reforms approved in the new collective bargaining agreement were presented as solutions to that problem.

These days, there's a different reform we talk about in NBA circles: the draft lottery. The league may take action before the season begins and establish new odds for the 2015 NBA Draft, despite the protests of the Philadelphia 76ers. As I've argued, lottery reform is a thing precisely because Sixers GM Sam Hinkie has so effectively and so nakedly played the draft to his advantage. That's not a criticism of Hinkie or his plan -- under the current system, it's a totally valid strategy that's considerably less destructive than some would have you believe.

To be successful in the NBA, you need stars. The easiest way to get a star is to draft him. Half of all NBA stars are drafted within the top five picks. The best way to get a top-five pick is to be among the five worst teams in the NBA. Like it or not, this system is in line with the idea of competitive balance: you strengthen the weak teams in the hopes that they can catch the strong teams. If you alter that system to hurt the chances of the weakest teams to improve and democratize the odds of getting those high-pick stars to some degree, you are working against competitive balance.

Under the proposed reforms, a team like the Suns -- who barely missed the playoffs with a well above .500 record -- would have better chances of landing a top-five pick. Meanwhile, the odds of the worst teams to stay in the top five would decrease. The league would be creating a greater chance of the rich getting richer at the expense of the worst teams.

Lottery reform certainly has some competitive balance benefits. By removing part of the incentive to be awful, more teams could try to be competitive every season. Teams like the Magic, who last year continued their multi-year rebuild by loading up on minutes for project players, could have prioritized winning a bit more knowing that being really bad wouldn't have helped much more than being just bad. The idea is that you'd have fewer teams acting like the Sixers, Magic and Celtics and more teams acting like Hawks, Suns, Cavaliers and Kings. Atlanta made the playoffs in the shallow East. Phoenix was the best lottery team ever. Cleveland tried hard to win. Sacramento attempted to boost its win total to spark an attitude reversal.

But the Cavaliers and Kings still stunk, just like other try-hard squads like Milwaukee, Detroit, New York and New Orleans. And here's the dirty secret about competitive balance: unless you have every single team in the 35- to 47-win range, you're going to have awful teams every season. The best way to get those awful teams back on the horse as soon as possible is to give them the best incoming players via the draft.

Does the benefit of shrinking the incentive to tank outweigh the consequence of hurting the cleanest tool of competitive balance available to the league? This is what the NBA must realize when it comes to draft reform.

Well put.