Absolutely - and that's why it would cause teams to be (a) less likely to tank to get to #1 and (b) more likely to pick solid/reliable picks making fliers more likely to fall. That also would help the college game by encouraging people to stay longer so they could become that proven talent rather than the flier.
In this scenario, the #9 & #10 teams are going to do everything they can to tank, because they would be hugely rewarded for getting to #8. This would be interesting - but it would probably also make the problem of the worst teams being perpeutally bad that much worse.
Not necessarily, the drop off from 8 to 9 doesn't have to be huge if it's going to present a problem. There's always going to be a "race to the edges" where teams are trying to avoid being the odd-man out, we already have that with the current format (i.e. teams racing to be the 8th playoff team or the team with the worst record). Like I said, I can't see a real effective or fair solution that doesn't include actually changing the format of the playoffs or getting rid of several teams.
The Lottery Can't reward borderline playoff teams by brutally punishing crappy teams. A near borderline team could tank just to get a top 6 pick for multiple years. NOT FAIR! How will the crappy teams get better? Bad play isn't always management "tanking". Thats of course if I am understanding the whole Teams 1-14 concept. Is Team 1 the best or worst team? I do like your idea of splitting the chances. Have the current system for top 5 picks. Then do it again for picks 6-10 and again for 11-14 for all the teams left. This would mean more borderline playoff teams would have better picks more likely in the 6-10 range and it doesn't guarentee crappy teams the top picks. Maybe even skew the percentage slightly to still favor the worse teams just not as much. And the lottery playoffs could be that skewing factor: :grin: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=5990764#post5990764
Personally I used to be for the current system. I did put the brakes on true tanking that was obvious in the early 80s. However I can see the need to take the lottery setup one step further. If you don't make the playoffs, you enter the lottery just like today but no weighting. Each team has just as much of a chance to get the number 1 pick as the number 14 pick. 15-30 will be picked based on your standing. Simple. Keeps the hard core tanking down. Sure you may still have some tanking to not get into the playoff to get a pick but you don't penalize teams like the Rockets that try.
You have to give teams at the bottom of the standings some kind of incentive to win. You can't just let all the lottery teams have an equal shot. That severely punishes the 8th seed in the playoffs. Hell, you'd see teams trying to tank OUT of the playoffs if that were the case. What 6th, 7th, or 8th seed ever wins a title anyway? (Oh, that's right, the '95 Rockets, lulz) I like the idea of "grouping" the chances among teams. Create "blocks" of equal lottery chances that include 3-4 teams, with odds for better picks increasing as you go to the next block. That will always give crappy teams incentive/reason to win games, to up their chances of getting a better pick. If they stay crappy forever, then it's their own damn fault. Get a good GM, make some Morey moves, and climb your way up to the "top" lottery group if you want to stop sucking. Otherwise, be a Donald Sterling.
I liked the idea at Sloan Analytics. Odds for the number one pick based on number of wins after being mathematically eliminated from the postseason. This heavily favors teams which are knocked out early but still gives them reason to win.
Donny Derp's Stupid Solution: All teams in each "group" have an equal chance of landing picks in each category, in ascending order of their probability. Teams 11-14: Picks 11-14 (worst chance), 7-10 (better), 4-6 (better still), 1-3 (best chance). Teams 7-10: Picks 7-10 (worst chance), 11-14 (better), 1-3 (better still), 4-6 (best chance) Teams 4-6: Picks 4-6 (worst chance), 1-3 (better), 11-14 (better still), 7-10 (best chance) Teams 1-3: Picks 1-3 (worst chance), 4-6 (better), 7-10 (better still), 11-14 (best chance). Of course this is breaking it into quadrants, whereas my earlier example used 3 groups. 3 might make it more fair to the really bad teams. Teams 9-14: Picks 9-14 (good), 5-8 (better), 1-4 (best chance). Teams 5-8: Picks 9-14 (good, albeit higher probability over teams 9-14), 1-4 (better), 5-8 (best chance). Teams 1-4: Picks 1-4 (good), 5-8 (better), 9-14 (best chance). Does that make sense?
Addressing this, what about making all teams in the lottery? The 9th seed already has very little chance of winning it - why not give the 8th seed an even smaller chance, etc? Or just take the 1-4 seeds out, but including the 5-8th seeds in the playoffs. Homecourt is a huge reason to fight for a top 4 seed, so there's no incentive to tank to #5 instead of #4. But it would encourage the mediocre teams to fight for the playoffs because they wouldn't lose their lottery incentive.
Repped. Beat me to the punch. Not to get political, but the NBA draft system is more representative of the effects of the welfare system in America over the other major sports. The parity in the NFL negates the the "welfare system" effect. You have little mom and pops busting their asses running a small business, or the young entrepanour risking all his assets to make it big, or doctors and nurses working 12-16 hour days, you have CEO's of major corperations humping it just to support a single and able to work mother of 8 children born from 6 different fathers. You got whole families working high paying jobs for cash but also draw a welfare check while driving their brand new 5 series BMW's. Sorry. I digress. I compare Morey to the entrepenour scenario at this point because they are constantly trying to make that move that will catapult their business into the next stratusphere. It is what it is both in the NBA and in the welfare system. Until something changes, i.e. new leadership when Stern retires or sweeping reform the likes this nation has not seen since the New Deal, we will just be spinning our wheels. What upset me was that the NBA had their chance with the Lockout over the summer but they blew it. A hard cap and ungaranteed contracts would have changed the NBA for the better.
My design is not so much to change teams position on winning. It is to change their mindset on losing (tanking). I think that most teams do truly try at the beginning of the season to see if they magically gel. What happens is somewhere around mid-to-late season, they see the writing on the wall and realize winning is only penalizing them by giving them a worst shot at a good pick. If you have the same odds of getting the #1 pick whether you are the worst team in the league or just missed the playoffs, neither team will have any incentive on semi-intentional losing because losing is not getting them anything that winning doesn't also give them. Of course you could have a bubble playoff team (see Rockets) that just wants to lose to get into the lottery but if you are that good to make the playoffs, I doubt you want to tank for a 35% chance at landing a 1-5 pick. Heck that same team could tank and only end up with 1 position better than they would have gotten if they wouldn't have tanked. ie. I don't see this as a problem with the non-weighted lottery system. Those that make the playoffs should still be weighted. They better teams need less help and that's were teams are picking up gray area players that may go at 20 or 25 or 30. And if you are in the playoffs, you want to win to get a higher seat more than you want to lose to get a better pick.
I think the point is that a team like the Rockets could liquidate their veterans have cap space and still win more games than teams like the Kings and the Wizards. We do have a culture of winning, and a good front office and a good coaching staff. So I'm not sure what we're taking advantage of? We could lower our standards and still come up with nothing.
The reason the scale was too much risk at the top of the draft, so I don't think they're going to go back. But, I had a similar idea. I would make the rookie contracts much shorter, perhaps with a higher minimum age to enter the draft. That puts more emphasis on teams managing their caps and dulls the impact of the talent in the draft. If you draft a superstar, he'll snap to a market rate by his 3rd or 4th season, and if you're not smart about it, you'll either lose that young superstar, cut veteran secondary pieces, or pay the luxury tax. So the focus shifts more to free agency and cap management. Of course, that bleeds into the league's other problem -- marquee cities having an inherent advantage in attracting free agents.
The NBA Today podcast talked a little bit more about the tanking topic. There guest wrote an article on how it would be next to impossible to be lucky enough to pull off what OKC was able to do and how your kidding yourself if you think there is an OKC model to follow to get better. heres the link if you are interested. http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=7747323
This is why I mentioned before. True lotto (no weighting.) BUT the lotto is expanded 4 spots to include the 7th and 8th seeds from both conferences. This would eliminate all tanking IMO. Because a 6th seed isn't going to tank for the 7th seed, a 6th seed is usually a team on the come up that's very hungry to win and a lot of times every year there are not many games between the 4-6 seeds. Also now by doing this there is no reason to lose games any more. You don't get more lottery balls all you are doing is becoming a loser. Also there IS a OKC model to follow to respond to the previous post. Throughout the years teams get a gift from the basketball heavens and it changes their fortunes. Duncan, Lebron, Durant, Hakeem, Dwight...the list goes on and on of players who were drafted and changed their teams fortunes almost right away.
What I would do: Worst teams in each conference are automatically given the #4 and #5 picks in the draft. Bad teams need a lifeline to stay competitive, especially in the modern age where small markets are slighted in free agency. But you should see "reverse tanking" at the bottom of the standings, with teams fighting and clawing to stay out of the bottom spots. Next 4 in each conference (8 total, "seeds" 10-14) are all given a flat lottery probability for the #2 pick Teams with Homecourt advantage in the first round of the playoffs are excluded from the lottery - again, you need to draw the line to avoid super teams upsetting competitive balance. Does any one really want to see a fluke that sends Anthony Davis or Robinson to the Heat, Thunder, Lakers, or Bulls? "Seeds" 5-9 in each conference are all given a flat lottery probability for the #3 pick "Seeds" 5-14, minus the winners of the #2 and 3 pick, in each conference are given a probability based on standings, in a lottery for the #1 pick. If the season ended today: CHI, MIA, ORL, PHI excluded OKC, SAS, LAL, LAC excluded Bobcats get #5 pick Hornets get #4 pick Lottery run for 3, 2, 1 picks #3 pick MUST go to a team among IND, ATL, BOS, NYK, MIL DAL, MEM, UTA, DEN, HOU #2 pick MUST go to a team among CLE, DET, TOR, NJN, WAS PHO, MIN, POR, GSW, SAC #1 pick can go to one of 18 remaining teams from the two above pools, with Indiana having a 0.585% (1/171) chance and Washington having a 10.526% (18/171) chance to win. (Houston with a 4.094% chance)
I've brought it up before, but the other thing I'd do to stop tanking is introduce two lightning rounds to the playoffs (while maintaining the above). Worst team from each conference is left out, making it a double whammy to finish last (auto-slotted to the 5th or 4th pick) - front offices would be under fire any time they finish last, and the fan dollar is ultimately the biggest stick. Rd 1 (8 games over 2 nights or as a Super Saturday) 14 vs 7 13 vs 8 12 vs 9 11 vs 10 (seeds 1-6 rewarded with rest) Rd 2 (4 games, 1 night) 14/7 winner vs 11/10 winner 13/8 winner vs 12/9 winner Rd 2 winners become the "new" 7th and 8th seeds and the playoffs resume as normal (with the initial round maybe going back to best of 5 games) This keeps every team in the hunt all the way through, eliminating the doldrums of March and April as teams fall out of contention and start packing it in, insulting paying customers.
I posted this earlier, but my ideal system is a modified lottery that takes into account the current composition of a team as well as their recent history. The ideal system both rewards teams for attempting to get better, as well as allowing for "churn", where teams aren't consistently picking in the same spot year after year.
