I think they should just do a true lottery. Give 14 teams ONE ball and pick it out of the machine. If you do this you eliminate all reasons for tanking. Sure if you are the Bobcats and don't get a top 5 pick you are going to be in trouble but meh...that's what you get for sucking. Doing this would mean even the Bobcats would look to put a better product on the court. NO ONE would welcome being the worst team in the NBA.
I completely agree with the writers sentiment. Sports are all about winning games. I believe that when you stop trying to achieve that goal is when the sport loses meaning. I understand that most teams usually tank to get good but I'm glad the Rockets haven't resorted to that.
The reason the lottery was initiated was because of the Houston Rockets. So I guess the franchise is really to blame.
I think they oughta take teams 15-30... 14 balls to team with worst record - 1 ball to team with best record who missed playoffs...then lottery out the entire first 14 picks. Still weighted for poorer performing teams, but far less guarantee... worst team could theoretically pick 14th... if u wanna tank the whole year for a few more balls - fine, but u could still end up at 14...
It's pretty much something everyone agrees on yet it falls of deaf ears constantly. You should not be rewarded for sucking, you should not get a trophy for being second.
What about a weighted lottery that includes past franchise performance? I would imagine some combination of the NHL Lockout Draft, as well as the NFL style of seeding by playoff finish rather than regular season record. In my hypothetical system, the top 8 teams who make it to the conference semifinals get picks #23-30 based on how they finish. These teams are ineligible for the lottery. All other teams will receive 4 lotto balls. If a team's pick has been drawn into a top 7 selection in the past 3 years, or has a player who would be eligible for the designated player exception (2x All-Star Starter in the past 4 years, 2x All-NBA selection in the past 4 years, MVP in the past 4 years), they lose a ball. Teams lose 1 ball per playoff appearance over the last 3 playoffs. Draw the top 7 teams, then order the remainder of the draft by record, with non-playoff teams picking before non playoff teams. If this system was implemented for the 2011 draft, this is what it would look like: 1. Minnesota: 3 Balls 2. Cleveland: 1 Ball 3. Toronto: 4 Balls 4. Washington: 1 Ball 5. Sacramento: 2 Balls 6. New Jersey: 3 Balls 7. Detroit: 2 Balls 8. LA Clippers: 2 Balls 9. Charlotte: 3 Balls 10. Milwaukee: 3 Balls 11. Golden State: 2 Balls 12. Utah: 2 Balls 13. Phoenix: 3 Balls 14. Houston: 2 Balls 15. Indiana: 3 Balls 16. Philadelphia: 1 Ball 17. New York: 1 Ball 18. New Orleans: 1 Ball 19. Portland: 0 Balls 20. Denver: 1 Ball 21. Orlando: 0 Balls 22. San Antonio: 0 Balls 23. Atlanta 24. Memphis 25. Boston 26. LA Lakers 27. Zombie Sonics 28. Chicago 29. Miami 30. Dallas Thoughts? Might have to play with the weights a bit, but it basically tries to give preference to teams which have not yet found a star, while penalizing those teams who have been given multiple shots at one and failed, or those teams who have tanked for only a single year.
Good but..... think the other way... NBA champions get the first draft pick... the rich gets richer....and there will always be 3 contenders and the rest will suffer in hell.
First, people are proposing even odds for all non-playoff participants. If you want to sell playoff tickets and have a chance to win it all, you lose out on the lottery. Yes, this still causes problems in regards to wanting an 8th seed or not. But at least it's better than tanking fully. Also, the way to handle the "champions get first pick" thing is to make the rookie salary scale more flexible and higher. Can't afford the first pick because you are $20 mil over the cap? Then you need to trade it for lower picks or pay a ton of luxury tax.
I think it was actually the cold envelope that allowed the Knicks to get Ewing. I like the one ping pong ball per non-playoff team idea, except only do it for the first three picks; after that, go in reverse order of records. So it would be like the current system, but with only one ball per team.
Well, we tanked for the opportunity to draft Sampson and then Dream in back-to-back drafts. Knowing that Ewing was coming out the next year, the NBA put the lottery system in place to make it more risky for teams to tank. That lead to more theories (the frozen envelope), and so now we have the weighted lottery system (with x-digit combinations assigned to teams) that we have today.
So a number 1 seed getting bumped by an 8th seed should have equal chance of getting the first pick in the draft? So when Dallas lost to Warriors in 2007, they should have had an equal chance of landing Kevin Durant as OKC?
Never thought of this . .. but that would sound great Force teams to NEVER Tank and all the games would MATTER Encourage a FIGHT TO THE FINISH! Rocket River
Yeah but what about the conundrum where an borderline playoff team, currently the Bucks and the Nuggets (8th seeds), has no shot at passing the first round. Let's say if they lose the last game of the season and avoid the playoffs, they have the best chance out of everyone to land Anthony Davis in the upcoming draft? If they feel they are only missing ONE PIECE and become championship contenders for years to come. The decision to "tank" the last game would become a very easy one.
here's an idea. Prevent teams from getting multiple high lottery picks. i.e. if you get a top 5 pick this year, you can't get higher than top 10 pick the next year. e.g. OK can't get durant + westbrook + harden in consecutive drafts. MN can't get 5 top 5 drafts in consecutive years. redistribute lotto balls also redistribute based on where you pick in the draft last year. If you get a higher pick this year (6), next year, you get less balls if you finish at #6 again this year teams that are make the playoff @ #5-8 gets lotto balls to pick 10-14. teams that are #1-4 get lotto balls to pick 15-25
Although I disagree with his economic comparison and, most notably, this quote: Malcolm Gladwell was onto this years ago (and now he has Jeff Van Gundy on board, among many others) in a conversation with Bill Simmons: "No economist in his right mind would ever endorse the football and basketball drafts the way they are structured now. They are a moral hazard in spades. If you give me a lottery pick for being an atrocious GM, where's my incentive not to be an atrocious GM?" Ummm... how about to win games to attract fans, attention, and money? But he's right that the route Houston is taking is admirable, and I still don't believe there is legitimate proof that it can't/won't work. Especially with how much cap space we have.
