Economists vs. tanking (ESPN)

I think that's the best alternative to the current system I have yet heard of -- though I'm not one eager to get rid of the current system anyway.

 

I'm in favor of this, but ONLY if the league creates a special webpage that shows a countdown timer and a list of bids on the current pick. Publicly viewable Ebay for NBA GMs, is what I'm saying.




Seriously though, I think this would be enjoyable and add a major level of strategy that benefits us Morey-led folks, but I don't think it really solves the problem at hand.

 

This is brilliant. By far the best system proposed I've heard of. Would add a whole other level of intrigue to the off season.

My only concern is that these credits have to be weighed very carefully and perhaps only allow certain number of credits to carry over. Like vacation hours for work. If there was no limit to how much you could carry over, you could have some unfair results. For example, let's say a team like the Heat saved up for 3 years and the credits are distributed in a way that now they have enough to get a top 5 pick in a loaded class like 2014, it would be completely unfair.

 

That's a pretty good idea.

I once thought of a similar idea: trading of ping pong balls in the lottery. In that system, every team, including the playoffs teams would be in the lottery. They just would have lower odds according to the records. Every draft position, not just the top 3, in the first round would be determined by the lottery. Teams could not trade their picks. They could only trade ping pong balls before the lottery. And of course, they could still trade drafted players afterwards.

 

Interesting.

Yes, this would make the market more liquid. To some degree, I would argue that the market is already very liquid, given the frequency of trades in the NBA relative to the NFL (though this probably has more to do with the differences in the CBAs).

It's not a perfect system. To some degree, it would incentivize MORE tanking, as the results (gaining a top pick) would become somewhat more guaranteed rather than lottery oriented. The 2013 draft is a good example of this. Let's say Orlando and Phoenix don't like what they see for the 2013 draft, but they really like Wiggins in 2014. So they tank for both the 2013 and 2014 seasons and blow all of their credits on a top pick. It's possible that a mid-level team could trade enough players for credits to outbid Orlando and/or Phoenix, but I find that unlikely (ie, only Morey).

Still, I like the intrigue this could bring to the game. I imagine Morey would excel in this system, as ultimately it boils down to valuing players appropriately.

IMO, the real problem in the NBA is the lack of a hard salary cap. The current system introduces a non-basketball related element to the game that detracts from the overall product. The league should be more about which players, coaches and management can out maneuver the others, rather than which owner is willing to blow the most money.

 

This is why I don't think this system would work without a carry-over limit. There should be a carry-over limit on credits generated by your record and no limits on credits you traded for. Actually, I think it would be fine if you can't carry over your own generated credit at all year to year.

 

Or maybe a credit being carried over is only worth a percentage of what it was before (Ie, 1 credit turns into .7 credits).

 

Or too make it easy, you can turn any 2 credits this year into 1 credit next year.

 

I don't see this working. Unlike the NFL or MLB, one franchise player means everything in the NBA. Every year with a prospect would be a massive bidding war for the top 1-2 picks. Bad teams would deplete their rosters and future credits to amass the most credits this year to bid on a Wiggins. This is just substituting tanking for roster/asset tanking. Roster/asset tanking would be a million times worse than minutes/lineup tanking.

And from a competitive standpoint, you'd have smart teams like the Rockets, Spurs, and Pacers stockpiling credits and either drafting 5-10 every year, or running the table with strings of consecutive picks in the 2nd round. Now I'm all for that, because I hate seeing talent wasted on incompetent franchises, but part of the draft is throwing the dregs a bone. The league would have to add multiple fleecing clauses to the rulebook and eventually ban Morey.

 

I was thinking about that, but that may be too drastic. But if we're trying to abolish tanking then my definition of 'too drastic' may be off.

 

Also if credits don't have to be used every year, good teams who don't need to draft necessarily could just stock pile for years until they need to and then they theoretically could draft picks 1 and 2 possibly or something of the sort.

I mean for the past 3 years the Heat could have been stock piling credits and could be for 2 or 3 more years. Then when they finally need to draft I'd imagine they would have a scary amount, right?

 

Sure, but I am sure we are talking about the worst team having say 50 credits and the Heat having say 5.

 

why not implement the lottery to see who is given the most credits

 

Yeah it depends on the implementation of the Credits but it's probably an easy fix. Especially if credits are scaled down a percentage every year. Like 25% first year, 20% second year, 15% and so on. Or whatever.

 

is the theory that in the proposed "protected pick" trade, that the warriors would have made a "credits protected" trade wherein they essentially agreed to give the jazz their "won/loss" credits for the year up to a certain amount?

so if the 8th worst record was worth 100 credits, they would make it a "100 credits" protected trade? if they finished 10th worst, the jazz would get all of their credits, but if they finished 7th worst (or worse) then the jazz just get the same 100 credits? therefore, the jazz know they are getting something no matter what and the warriors don't have any particular incentive to edge below 8th worst other than the extra credits it would naturally bring to have a worse record? and the theory is this would give both teams incentive to trade since there is no discontinuity in the results like there was before?


how would credits be assigned for won/loss record? with about the same fall-off in value as the current ping pong ball weighting? one would think it would have to be much more linear, perhaps even inverted. otherwise the bad won/loss teams might be able to easily outbid some of the good won/loss teams for later first round picks.

also, how would the auction work (i'm at work and have only seen the spoiler, maybe it explains). when you bid a certain number of credits on a slot, are those not available for other bids? could you bid up to your allotment on every slot and then at the assigning of each pick, you would simply lose any winning bid credits from any bids on future picks?


would there be a cutoff day for credit accumulation at some point before the completion of the auction process or would teams be able to vie for credits up to the very end?


the math nerd in me would love to see something like this. the realist in me says the current system isn't that broken and nothing like this could be feasibly implemented (or at least no one involved would want this level of complication). could you imagine the accusations that would start flying when some GM gave another gm a few extra credits in a trade to push him over the top for the top pick?


of course, it might just make tanking worse because you could put an actual target on how bad you need to be/how many players you need to trade to lock in the first pick. right now, you still have the relatively small chance of winning the lottery getting in the way of assuring yourself the top pick.

 

Here's a quick idea that I think both promotes parity and discourages tanking:

Make it so that once a team gets a top 5 pick, it is not eligible for getting another top 5 pick the next season.

You can make the rule covering top 3, top 6, or top 7, or top whatever pick that one deems proper. The idea is that a team can't bank on having consecutive high picks.

On the tanking prevention front, this would make the so-called "OKC strategy" less attractive because it will take longer to accumulate very high draft picks on your roster.

On the parity front, it prevents situations like when Orlando scored 1st overall picks in 2 straight seasons (got Shaq, and traded next year's top guy, Webber, for Penny Hardaway and other picks). It spreads the elite talents around a bit more.

 

Haven't thought through all the ramifications, but this is a very intriguing idea that's way out of the box and has the potential to be alot of fun.

too much disparity in the quality of draft classes for this to be fair

The auction system achieves your desired effect of spreading wealth around, except teams are not forced to waste their top pick (credits) on a poor draft class. If you blow all your credits one year, you most likely will not have enough to bid for the top pick the following year so it would be near impossible to get high picks in multiple years.

You could even have credits expire after a few seasons like frequent flyer miles. Use it or lose it. That way teams couldn't horde credits for a decade and then cash in for consecutive years.

 

1. ^^ The disparity between drafts is a factor in the present system, too. One year, the #1 guy is Kwame Brown, the next Kenyon Martin, the next, Yao Ming and the next, Lebron James.

Life wasn't "fair" to Washington and was more than "fair" to Cleveland in these years.

As far as the "no consecutive top picks" system goes, the one big inference would be that in a year like 2013-- no "elite" prospects in the 2013 draft, several projected elite prospects in 2014-- teams will have incentive to try hard NOT to get a top 5 pick, which would be a good thing for competition, and you'll have fans actually rooting for their teams rather than against their teams.


2. Another idea, perhaps to be used in conjunction with the above: The # of lotto balls that a team has is determined by its combined records over the last 3 seasons.

This will give help to teams that are truly down in the dumps for a while and in need of assistance. It will also decrease the marginal value of each loss in the greater scheme of things. It will make the GSW/Harrison Barnes situation, in which GS traded a top 7 protected pick to Utah, so they had incentive to lose enough games to get the 7th pick, less likely because it will be harder to manipulate your draft position-- you'll have to tank for the long term in order to increase your odds.

 

Problem with these types of systems, let's just say teams stop tanking, that means the team that finishes last is actually the worst at winning, not the best at losing. So now after the 2013 pick, not only do they suck this season, they have no way of really improving.

You end up with a system that stops teams tanking by making the bad teams stay bad. Taking hope away from the bad teams is a really good way to ruin their franchise.