NBA Lottery: Open to all teams?

[Andrew]

Van Gundy Wants To Open NBA Lottery To All Teams

Rockets coach Jeff Van Gundy wants to open up the NBA draft lottery to all 30 NBA teams in an effort to keep teams from losing intentionally to hopefully secure the No. 1 pick.

"I think every team should have an equal chance at winning the lottery, from the best team all the way down," Van Gundy told The Houston Chronicle. "I don't want to accuse anyone of anything. I would say to take away any possible conflict of interest, everyone should have an equal chance at the top pick all the way down. That way there would be absolutely no question by anybody about anything.

"If it's better for the game, they should do it. I never quite understood why losing is rewarded, other than [for] parity."

According to The Chronicle, Van Gundy presented his proposal to the NBA, but wasn't taken seriously.

Sound suggestion or absurd notion?

Personally, I think it's a suggestion that has some merit but shouldn't be implemented. On one hand it's a system that appears to be rewarding losing but on the other hand, why should the elite teams in the league get to pick the top talent out of college? Lottery teams are in much greater need of fresh talent and it's in the NBA's best interests for those teams to build and improve their roster so that the league remains competitive. You need that rise and fall in the league to keep things interesting and allow teams to climb out of the NBA basement.

Also, I for one don't relish the thought of the NCAA's best getting drafted only to sit behind established stars on the top teams for the first three or four years of their career, something that would no doubt happen from time to time if all teams were eligible for the lottery.

Allowing all 30 teams to enter the lottery is much more unfair to the teams at the bottom of the standings than it is fair to the teams at the top. As ugly as tanking games may be, if a team suffers through six dreary months of a losing season then they've earned a shot at improving their roster in the upcoming draft in my book.

[TomCat]

not cool. not fair at all to the bottom teams. keep it the way it is

[grusom]

IMO, the best solution would be to give all lottery teams equal chances to get the top pick, and then make a second lottery for the playoff-teams.

[TomCat]

i have a way to do it. 1st round should stay the way it is. 2nd round be an entire league lottery

[grusom]

bah, who cares about the second round?

Teams are tanking to get at least a top 5 pick

[Andrew]

IMO, the best solution would be to give all lottery teams equal chances to get the top pick, and then make a second lottery for the playoff-teams.

Is that really a fair system though? After all, when you look at the teams that are coming from behind in the playoff race and trying to crack the top eight, you're often talking about teams that have underachieved or lost a notable amount of games due to injuries rather than a team that is incapable of being competitive. I think the basement teams should still have better odds of getting the top three picks and thus be in the best position to draft the player they want (or need).

A second lottery for playoff teams is an interesting idea but again I think the lesser teams should be picking first as they would tend to be in greater need of new talent. The top teams have already been rewarded for their play by virtue of homecourt advantage in the Playoffs and their rosters tend not to have too many weaknesses thus they usually don't need to look for much help in the upcoming draft. They can always attempt to trade up if they really want to shake up their roster.

[Matt]

IMO, bottom 5 should have the exact same chances of getting the #1 pick, and keep the rest the same.

[Elbeen]

i am thinking of 15% chance for each of the bottom 5 teams and 1% each for the rest of the teams

[yosifun]

I agree with Andrew, making equal chances for all the teams would be the dumbest idea I have heard in the last 10 years...

So far I only liked Matt's idea, becasue the difference between the bottom 5 teams is really small and becasue in the ending of the season those teams will see that they are the worst and will begin a "I will lose most until the end of the season" competition to increase their chances for the number 1 pick.

[beau_boy04]

teams tanking their season is not good for the league or fans.

At least the NBA has a better lottery system than the NFL. In the NFL, the worse teams are granted with the right to choose first, the team with the worst record choosing first of course. In the Nba, there is at least a lottery, and the team with the worst record doesn't always come up with the top pick

The Nba lottery system is adequate enough for now.

[Bruce]

but IMO though, I think the playoff teams should be in some kind of a lottery as well. Just like what grusom said. otherwise, the playoff teams would suffer, because their rosters get old really fast.

Perennial playoff contenders (with the exception of San Antonio) can't get good players out of the draft, because their picks are too low. The last option is just to break the bank, and go for expensive free agents.

[cyanide]

teams tanking their season is not good for the league or fans.

Exactly, which is why all teams would not condone such a thing. The current system works and is fair. It'd suck if Dallas walked away with the 4th pick and Phoenix somehow snatched the 6th pick. The league didn't even take Van Gundy's proposal seriously, and that's the way it should be kept.

[Matt]

well it also comes down to better scouting, look how many excellent players come from picks 16 up! Then again, having a higher pick doesn't guarantee a good player.

[TSquared]

that's absolutely right.. but i think it should be fair to every team.. all teams should be joining the lottery pick.. either way, it's still not reasonable coz the most shitty team still doesn't get to pick first.. they still have a lottery..

if their aim is to better the bottom teams, why not allow the most shitty team to pick first.. it doesnt make sense

[maes]

I think Van Gundy's idea isn't very well thought out, but the current system does have flaws that he points out.

My solution would be to have the draft order be based on cumulative record, not just that year's record.

For example, the 1997 draft. Tim Duncan goes #1 to the Spurs, which is exactly the kind of the thing the draft is supposed to prevent. For the entire decade the Spurs have been a 50+win team /w David Robinson. By all rights that pick should have gone to Philly, who haven't won more than 30 games since 1992. Tim Duncan & Iverson in Philly would have actually revitalized that team (I've always felt Duncan was really an East Coast player).

Looking at the opposite angle, since 2000 Sonics have been a so-so team. They should get some help in the draft but probably not superstars. In one year, 2004, they decide to play their hearts out and grab 56 wins. They are punished for performing by getting the #26 position in a very good draft. They missed out on Frye, Bynum, Sean May, Granger, Gerald Green, even home town hero Nate Robinson.

Any of those guys would have hugely helped the Sonics. Look at the Sonics roster:
Andre Brown: undrafted
Mike Wilks: undrafted
Damien Wilkins: undrafted
Earl Watson: 40th pick
Rashard Lewis: 32nd pick
Gelabale: 48th pick

Basically i think the draft should look at the long term record, say the past 3 years cumulative. That means you won't one of the best teams in the NBA getting a Tim Duncan because of just an injury. That also means teams tanking in a year like this one won't help very much.

Last 3 years Memphis has won 50, 45, and 49 games. And this year they have the best chance of picking #1. That's tanking, and cumulative records would stop that.

[grusom]

I think Van Gundy's idea isn't very well thought out, but the current system does have flaws that he points out.

My solution would be to have the draft order be based on cumulative record, not just that year's record.

For example, the 1997 draft. Tim Duncan goes #1 to the Spurs, which is exactly the kind of the thing the draft is supposed to prevent. For the entire decade the Spurs have been a 50+win team /w David Robinson. By all rights that pick should have gone to Philly, who haven't won more than 30 games since 1992. Tim Duncan & Iverson in Philly would have actually revitalized that team (I've always felt Duncan was really an East Coast player).

Looking at the opposite angle, since 2000 Sonics have been a so-so team. They should get some help in the draft but probably not superstars. In one year, 2004, they decide to play their hearts out and grab 56 wins. They are punished for performing by getting the #26 position in a very good draft. They missed out on Frye, Bynum, Sean May, Granger, Gerald Green, even home town hero Nate Robinson.

Any of those guys would have hugely helped the Sonics. Look at the Sonics roster:
Andre Brown: undrafted
Mike Wilks: undrafted
Damien Wilkins: undrafted
Earl Watson: 40th pick
Rashard Lewis: 32nd pick
Gelabale: 48th pick

Basically i think the draft should look at the long term record, say the past 3 years cumulative. That means you won't one of the best teams in the NBA getting a Tim Duncan because of just an injury. That also means teams tanking in a year like this one won't help very much.

Last 3 years Memphis has won 50, 45, and 49 games. And this year they have the best chance of picking #1. That's tanking, and cumulative records would stop that.

Nice idea, but what if one of those teams got Greg Oden or Kevin Durant, turned in to a solid playoff team, and then still had a good pick in next years draft because they sucked so bad the two previous years?

Byt it would indeed take care of the tanking problem.

[Elbeen]

I think Van Gundy's idea isn't very well thought out, but the current system does have flaws that he points out.

My solution would be to have the draft order be based on cumulative record, not just that year's record.

For example, the 1997 draft. Tim Duncan goes #1 to the Spurs, which is exactly the kind of the thing the draft is supposed to prevent. For the entire decade the Spurs have been a 50+win team /w David Robinson. By all rights that pick should have gone to Philly, who haven't won more than 30 games since 1992. Tim Duncan & Iverson in Philly would have actually revitalized that team (I've always felt Duncan was really an East Coast player).

Looking at the opposite angle, since 2000 Sonics have been a so-so team. They should get some help in the draft but probably not superstars. In one year, 2004, they decide to play their hearts out and grab 56 wins. They are punished for performing by getting the #26 position in a very good draft. They missed out on Frye, Bynum, Sean May, Granger, Gerald Green, even home town hero Nate Robinson.

Any of those guys would have hugely helped the Sonics. Look at the Sonics roster:
Andre Brown: undrafted
Mike Wilks: undrafted
Damien Wilkins: undrafted
Earl Watson: 40th pick
Rashard Lewis: 32nd pick
Gelabale: 48th pick

Basically i think the draft should look at the long term record, say the past 3 years cumulative. That means you won't one of the best teams in the NBA getting a Tim Duncan because of just an injury. That also means teams tanking in a year like this one won't help very much.

Last 3 years Memphis has won 50, 45, and 49 games. And this year they have the best chance of picking #1. That's tanking, and cumulative records would stop that.

Nice idea, but what if one of those teams got Greg Oden or Kevin Durant, turned in to a solid playoff team, and then still had a good pick in next years draft because they sucked so bad the two previous years?

Byt it would indeed take care of the tanking problem.

you are correct, what will happen then

[Christopherson]

That and what about the 99-00 Bulls team. They sucked ass because everyone left after the championship, yet because of past sucess they shouldn't get a high pick? Your idea is creative, but thats it. It isn't very good. The system in place now is fine. I see no problems with it. Sure a few teams tank, but thats kind of fun and interesting all at the same time.

[Andrew]

teams tanking their season is not good for the league or fans.

No argument here but weren't you advocating the Bulls tanking the season to get Oden at one point?

For example, the 1997 draft. Tim Duncan goes #1 to the Spurs, which is exactly the kind of the thing the draft is supposed to prevent. For the entire decade the Spurs have been a 50+win team /w David Robinson. By all rights that pick should have gone to Philly, who haven't won more than 30 games since 1992. Tim Duncan & Iverson in Philly would have actually revitalized that team (I've always felt Duncan was really an East Coast player).

Well, in a situation like that the system doesn't seem fair but as Christopherson pointed out, that kind of system wouldn't be fair to a dismantled team looking to rebuild, such as the Bulls after the 1998 season. It wouldn't be fair to penalise any of the Bulls teams that struggled through six basement dwelling seasons from 1999 to 2004 just because a more successful Bulls squad produced multiple 50+ seasons (including a few 60+ and the 72 win seasons) and six championships, nor would it help the cycle of teams rising, falling and rebuilding.

[Metsis]

2nd round of the draft is ok and correct in my opinion. It is purely derived from winning percentage or each team and has nothing to do with the lottery.

Play-off bound teams usually have solid rosters and don't have glaring holes in them and basically have more assets than the bottomdwellers. So I think the play-off hounds drafting positions should stay the same.

But the teams that aren't in the play-off picture is a bit messed up. The system is pretty good and doesn't have glaring holes in them, but tanking teams just take advantage of the system. I would say that the worst teams should have better chances at landing the top picks than the teams that almost made the play-offs but this difference shouldn't be as big as it is right now. The worst team should have only a slight edge over teams that missed the play-offs... An edge that still mattered, but isn't large enough to justify going all out losing on the league. We're talking about 14 teams here and that makes the average percentage of little more than 7 percent with equal chance. What I propose is that the teams with worst records should have about 9-10 percent chance at landing the top pick and teams with best records in lottery would have like 4-6 percent chance at landing the top pick.

So even going all out and challenging for a play-off spot wouldn't totally leave you out of the lottery picture for the top picks and also tanking wouldn't guarrantee a top pick in the draft either. This would make teams more competetive and wouldn't make the season a total waste for teams that didn't get into the play-offs and have only like a 1-2 percent chance at landing something good from the draft, while tanking teams have 20-25 percent shot at the top pick...

Worst teams should have an edge in the lottery, but only a slight edge... Small enough to discourage teams from tanking because it makes the game less entertaining and alienating fans would over weight the ping-pong ball odds...

But that's my two sents on the issue... The system needs a little work to make the teams see tanking as a bad option... And thus provide us with better games where all the teams are trying their hardest to win.

[Christopherson]

Like Andrew said:

After all, when you look at the teams that are coming from behind in the playoff race and trying to crack the top eight, you're often talking about teams that have underachieved or lost a notable amount of games due to injuries rather than a team that is incapable of being competitive. I think the basement teams should still have better odds of getting the top three picks and thus be in the best position to draft the player they want (or need).

There is a really big difference from a team like Denver, the Clippers, or Indiana and teams like Charlette, Boston, and Portland. To give a high draft pick to the former rather than latter defeats the spirit of a draft. A draft is traditional help in reverse order of the previous season's standings where the worst teams get the best pick in order to balance out the power in the League. The NBA has a lottery to deter teams from tanking, as opposed to what happens in the NFL. In the NBA, the worst team only has a 25% chance of winning the lottery. I think the current system is definatley fair. Folks, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Matt]

As said, the purpose of the draft is to improve teams.....look @02-03 standings....
Miami 25 57
Toronto 24 58
Denver 17 65
Cleveland 17 65
these teams drafted LBJ, Melo, CB4, & Wade.....now they are all playoff teams.

tanking doesn't even guarantee the #1 pick....Houston got it by finishing 5th from bottom, New Jersey 6th, Milwaukee 6th, Toronto 7th. So 4 of the last 6 #1 picks went to teams 5th from the bottom & up.

[Axel]

I've always respected Van Gundy, and I think he has had some good ideas in the past. He's right in some regards on this one as well. I do think every team should have a chance to get the number one pick, but certainly not an equal chance.

Here's a few suggestions I would have:

1. Every team gets a certain number of 'tickets' or balls based on perforamce

2. After the non playoff teams, playoff contenders are arranged based on playoff performance, so the NBA champions are always last to pick.

The good thing about this is that mediocre/bad teams like Orlando, New Jersey, Knicks, etc that barely make the playoffs in a weak conference still have a chance of get a higher pick. Obviously the number of chances would be highly skewed in favor of the lesser teams, but at the very least, a few teams would move up or down in the draft that wouldn't have normally happened.

Creative idea by Van Gundy. It would be a great solution to throwing away the season, but I honestly don't believe that is too big of a problem to worry about.

I also found merit to his idea of getting rid of fouling out.

[Jackal]

Instead of having a lottery, they should just deal out Scratch cards to all the teams.

Let them scratch out and see who they landed.

[benji]

I don't see why "tanking" is such a big deal. If they can't make the playoffs without doing something like winning 60+% of their remaining games why would you not play younger guys? Your season is over. Why play Paul Pierce 40+ mpg just to get an extra two-three wins?

If we're going to punish teams for tanking in the short term to improve in the long, why don't we punish teams for being terrible? The Hawks had a playoff calibur team in Ratliff-AbdurRahim-Robinson-Glover-Terry, if they would have just plucked a few bench players from the NBDL and free agency. They could've been a 35-40 win team and made the playoffs in the ruins of the East for a number of years. Instead they blew up the team for a shot at trying to eventually be a better team. That's "tanking" for a better future also. Why didn't the NBA strip them of their draft picks?

Tanking alienates fans? I'm sure fans of Cleveland are far more happy with LeBron leading their team over Andre Miller.

Last 3 years Memphis has won 50, 45, and 49 games. And this year they have the best chance of picking #1. That's tanking, and cumulative records would stop that.

That's not tanking. They were without their best player for half the year. Four of their five starters from last season were not around at the start of the year. CHUCKY ATKINS was their best player until Gasol came back. Infact, the team isn't "tanking" it just isn't that good. Gasol is playing better than ever, and nobody on the team is playing that out of wack with how they played last season. They're pretty good on offense, but their defense sucks. Sure they aren't giving the full effort there, but they lost their best defender (Battier) along with Wright, Jackson and Jones (solid defenders) and nobody on this team outside of Dahntay Jones is even close to being a stopper.

Yeah, it'd be nice if teams didn't tank and tried even in futile meaningless games for a win. But short of making the games played by robots, we can't remove the human element. You be the one to tell the millionares on the Hawks, Hornets, Bucks, etc. why they should give a shit and risk injury in games that are irrelevant. Hell, even the top teams don't play hard every game. In an 82 game season even the best and hardest working teams coast a least a third of the season, otherwise they wouldn't have anything left for the playoffs.