There has been a lot of talk on Truehoop and our bbs about the problem with the incentives for tanking. If you want to get a franchise player, tanking is still the way to go. But it is unpleasant to watch a team intentionally lose games. I was thinking about a system that could alleviate this problem. The essential idea would be that the season would effectively be broken into two parts. The first part of the season (which would end when about 2/3 of the games had been played) would determine your initial draft/lottery position, in reverse order. This would be just like the current system except that it would end at the 2/3 point of the season. In the last 1/3 of the season, teams would be able to move up or move down in their position based on positive (rather than negative) won-loss record. So the idea is that after the 2/3 point you are in the 10 spot, then you can actually move up to a better draft/lottery position by winning more games. Under this system, teams trying to get a lottery pick would still be incentivized to tank the 1st 2/3 of the season, but then would be incentivized to win in the last 1/3. I think it would be difficult for most teams to suddenly make a turnaround if they had established a losing culture. So this would reward teams that have developed a winning culture and play well at the end of the year. Also, most teams begin the season hoping to have a chance to make the playoffs. Most teams don't truly begin tanking until about 1/3 of the season is over. So that leaves only about 1/3 of the season when teams will be throwing games, whereas under the current system tanking teams throw 2/3 of their games. There are a lot of parameters to tweak in this system, e.g. at what point in the season to make the switchover (perhaps the right timing would be the trade deadline), and how strongly to weight the effects in the two parts of the season. My guess is that you'd want to weight them about equally. Actually, under this system the Rockets would have a poor draft pick this year, since they played well up to about the 2/3 point and have sucked at the end of the year. But this system would largely resolve the conflicts between the anti-tanking and pro-tanking posters on the BBS. Anyway, just a thought. Any comments would be welcome.
One edit: I think it would still be appropriate to exclude any teams that make the playoffs from the lottery.
The rules would be the same as the current system on that, meaning it's fine. What I meant was, you need to make sure that top teams cannot game the system by playing mediocre ball until the trade deadline, then winning all the rest of their games to squeak into the playoffs and also end up with a high pick. However, the disincentive from giving up home court advantage in the playoffs might be enough to prevent this.
My bad, I didn't see this. Props for thinking about it first. After some consideration, I think the trade deadline is the ideal time to have the switch, as this is the point when many teams thrown in the towel by trading away their good players. Starting the mini-tournament at that point discourages teams from being sellers, and realigns everyones incentives.
The solution to tanking is actually a lot simpler than that. Give every team in the lottery the same odds of winning. Pick all 14 spots in ascending order. There is too much talent to not be able to compete in the basketball world. What I mean is, if Charlotte really wanted to compete, they could have improved their roster to the point of competing for the playoffs. What has to be widened is the amount of money teams, coaches, and players make by making the playoffs versus missing the playoffs. There should be a greater monetary incentive than there is in place now for everybody in the NBA food chain clear down to the players. That way even if a GM wanted to tank to get in the lottery and get a 7.14% chance of drafting a player with an approximate 25% or less chance of being a superstar, then he'd have a difficult time getting his coach and players to cooperate. Make the player monetary incentive very substantial and tiered toward lower salary players. In other words, a minimum salary player gets an extra $1 million if they are on the playoff roster and they get prorated portions of the $1 million depending on how long they were on the roster.
Some teams know that you build a team with good young player is the proper way to rebuild a team. Some teams don't want to go out and sign 36 year old centers and 29 year old point guards to try to compete for a playoff spot.
You lost me here, too, what. If this is a pro-Grizzlies post, sure they've done well. Seems a little off-topic, though. Anyway, jopatmc, yeah I think your suggestion isn't bad either. However, I think that the huge amount of luck in it is not ideal. Drafts are almost always very very top heavy. The system you suggest turns the league into even more of a dice roll than it already is. At least this two-part season idea gives teams more control of their destiny.
yeah, it's off-topic. but i do agree that a lottery playoff for ping pong balls is a great idea. in fact I suggested it. last 10 games, etc.
We are getting better believe it or not just not the traditional way, something has to go our way....eventually
My solution: Give the team with the worst record the #1 pick. Then: Give the team with the top record not in the playoffs the #2 pick. Next best record #3 pick. Next best record #4 pick. Etc. Etc. In other words, the team that is absolutely the most horrid gets that top pick to turn the franchise around, but everybody else better bust @ss to win.
Actually I agree that we are getting better. The main reason is the addition of Sammy & Cammy. Since we got them, we've won the opening tip 90% of the time. So we start the 4th with the ball. With them we persivered with out our starting back court & were in the middle of the playoff hunt. We lost our momentum when we started to incorporate Lowery back into the rotation & also lost Sammy for a while. Now if you want to eliminate tanking, here's how you do it. Give the non playoff team with the most wins the #1 pick. The #2 pick goes to the non playoff team with the 2nd most wins & so-forth. That way teams'll be trying to win games at the end of the season, instead of tanking.
Badly managed teams should not be rewarded with the advantages of screwing up high draft choices. And the teams with the worst records are most most often the worst managed and coached teams in the league. Simply putting in a competent front office, scouting, and coaching will improve most teams enough to compete for playoff positioning. The whole idea of tanking for Anthony Davis needs to be brought to an end. It's not fair to NBA fans going to see guys compete. IF your team is playing Charlotte, you know it's a W, there's no real competition. If your team is Charlotte, you know that you are going to watch the Washington Generals lose to the Globetrotters every night. That is a joke! Remove the advantages of higher lottery pick odds and incentivize players, coaches, and GMs with bonus pay for making the playoffs and all of a sudden all the teams will be working to compete, not working to fail while only half are working to compete.
I would actually make the case that the bobcats are better managed than the rockets. Anybody can throw money at a veteran free agent, that doesn't make the rockets better managed. How hard is it to do that? If you want to talk about badly managed teams, the scale you use should be more than your won loss record in a single season.
What if a percentage of overall NBA income of from the regular season is withheld for teams that make the playoffs?
