1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Breaking Down the Luck of the Lottery (Interesting Bill Simmons Article)

Discussion in 'NBA Draft' started by AstroRocket, Apr 12, 2007.

  1. AstroRocket

    AstroRocket Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 1999
    Messages:
    11,814
    Likes Received:
    458
    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/blog/index?name=simmons

    Breaking down the luck of the lottery
    Apr. 11, 2007 | feedback

    I couldn't cram everything into this week's 1,200-word magazine column about the NBA Lottery, so let's follow up with some hardcore data to fully illustrate the futility of the current system.



    The basic premise of my magazine column was twofold: First, the LOTTERY system encourages the same thing it was originally created to prevent (tanking); and second, since weighted Ping-Pong balls effectively guarantee that elite rookies will start their careers on terrible teams, the overall quality of the league has been compromised (because we effectively eliminated the chance of an elite rookie giving a boost to a half-decent team). Right now, there aren't enough good teams or enough bad teams -- hence, the nearly unwatchable 2006-07 regular season, when four-fifths of the league seems handicapped by its roster to some degree -- and as the past 13 years have proven, we're much more likely to see a top-four pick make the conference finals or NBA Finals with a team other than the team that originally drafted him.



    One other note that was left on the cutting room floor from that mag column: The three most dominant teams from 1977-1988 came together more because smart teams snookered dumb teams over anything else. The Celtics stole Kevin McHale and Robert Parish from Golden State for Joe Barry Carroll. The Sixers landed Julius Erving because the Nets couldn't afford him after the ABA/NBA merger and sold him for $3 million. The Lakers landed Magic Johnson and James Worthy by trading New Orleans and Cleveland mediocre players for future first-round picks (for instance, Marc Stein's head would explode if a 2007 team made the equivalent trade of Cleveland giving up an unprotected 1982 first-round pick for Don Ford). One-sided heists simply don't happen anymore, so it's harder and harder for good teams to become great (especially with the salary cap and luxury tax hindering everyone).



    Anyway, check out the following top-four picks in every draft since 1994. In parentheses, we put the Ping-Pong seed of the team that drafted in that spot (for example, Dallas had the worst record in '94):



    1994
    1. Glenn Robinson, Milwaukee (No. 2, tied)
    2. Jason Kidd, Dallas (No. 1)
    3. Grant Hill, Detroit (No. 2, tied)
    4. Donyell Marshall, Minnesota (No. 4)



    1995
    1. Joe Smith, G-State (No. 5)
    2. Antonio McDyess, LAC (No. 1)
    3. Jerry Stackhouse, Philly (No. 4)
    4. Rasheed Wallace, Washington (No. 2, tied)



    1996
    1. Allen Iverson, Philly (No. 2)
    2. Marcus Camby, Toronto (No. 3)
    3. Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Vancouver (No. 1)
    4. Stephon Marbury, Milwaukee (No. 4)



    1997
    1. Tim Duncan, San Antonio (No. 3)
    2. Keith Van Horn, Philly (No. 5)
    3. Chauncey Billups, Boston (No. 2)
    4. Antonio Daniels, Vancouver (No. 1)



    1998
    1. Michael Olowokandi, LAC (No. 3)
    2. Mike Bibby, Vancouver (No. 5)
    3. Raef LaFrentz, Denver (No. 1)
    4. Antawn Jamison, Toronto (No. 2)



    1999
    1. Elton Brand, Chicago (No. 3)
    2. Steve Francis, Vancouver (No. 1)
    3. Baron Davis, Charlotte (No. 13)
    4. Lamar Odom, LAC (No. 4)



    2000
    1. Kenyon Martin, New Jersey (No. 7)
    2. Stromile Swift, Vancouver (No. 4)
    3. Darius Miles, LAC (No. 1)
    4. Marcus Fizer, Chicago (No. 2)



    2001
    1. Kwame Brown, Washington (No. 3)
    2. Tyson Chandler, LAC (No. 8)
    3. Pau Gasol, Atlanta (No. 5)
    4. Eddy Curry, Chicago (No. 1)
    5. Jason Richardson, G-State (No. 2)



    2002
    1. Yao Ming, Houston (No. 5)
    2. Jay Williams, Chicago (No. 1, tied)
    3. Mike Dunleavy, G-State (No. 1, tied)
    4. Drew Gooden, Memphis (No. 2)



    2003
    1. LeBron James, Cleveland (No. 1, tied)
    2. Darko Milicic, Detroit (thru Memphis, No. 6)
    3. Carmelo Anthony, Denver (No. 1, tied)
    4. Chris Bosh, Toronto (No. 3)



    2004
    1. Dwight Howard, Orlando (No. 1)
    2. Emeka Okafor, Bobcats (expansion)
    3. Ben Gordon, Chicago (No. 2)
    4. Shaun Livingston, LAC (No. 3)



    2005
    1. Andrew Bogut, Milwaukee (No. 6)
    2. Marvin Williams, Atlanta (No. 1)
    3. Deron Williams, Utah (No. 4)
    4. Chris Paul, New Orleans (No. 2, tied)
    5. Raymond Felton, Bobcats (No. 2, tied)



    2006
    1. Andrea Bargnani, Toronto (No. 5)
    2. LaMarcus Aldridge, Chicago (via NY, No. 2)
    3. Adam Morrison, Charlotte (No. 3)
    4. Ty Thomas, Portland (No. 1)



    Some follow-up notes ...



    • The No. 5 seed (Smith, Bargnani, Yao) won the lottery more times than the No. 1 seed (LeBron and Howard) and the No. 2 seed (Robinson and Iverson). Kinda funny when you consider the widespread tanking that's happening right now.



    • Out of 39 potential top-three spots in those 13 lotteries, teams seeded lower than No. 5 cracked the top-three five times: two 6-seeds ('05 Milwaukee and '03 Detroit via Memphis), one 7-seed ('00 New Jersey), one 8-seed ('01 Clippers) and one 13-seed ('99 NO/Charlotte). In other words, you had about a 13 percent chance of seeing ANY TEAM seeded lower than No. 5 crack the top three in any given year ... which means the league's crappiest teams had an 87 percent chance of grabbing an elite rookie and infecting the first stage of his career with nonstop losing (call it the Elton Brand Corollary).



    • Since 1994, the Grizzlies have drafted in the top-four seven times (with their 2003 pick going to Detroit); the Clippers have done it six times; and the Bulls have done it six times since 1999 (once via a New York pick). Why do we keep rewarding poorly managed teams with elite rookies? Why? It makes no sense.



    • Four teams had top-four picks for at least three straight years: The Sixers during 1995-97, the Grizzlies during 1996-2000, the Clippers during 1998-2001 and the Bulls during 1999-2002. The Sixers eventually played in the 2000 Finals (and lost). The Grizzlies haven't won a single playoff game. The Clippers finally made the playoffs last season ... now they're on the fringe of the lottery again. And the Bulls made the playoffs in 2005 and 2006 but never seriously contended.



    • Since 1994, only three top-four picks won a title: Duncan three times with the Spurs (who drafted him), Wallace with the '04 Pistons (his fourth team) and Billups with the '04 Pistons (his fifth team).



    • Only two top-three picks played in a Finals with the teams that originally drafted them: Martin (the '02 and '03 Nets) and Iverson (the '00 Sixers). Only one top-three pick played in a conference finals with the team that originally drafted him: Robinson (the '00 Bucks).



    • Seven top-four picks played in either the NBA Finals or a conference finals with a different team than the team that drafted them: Kidd, Stackhouse, Wallace, Van Horn, Billups, Bibby and LaFrentz. All of those players were traded by their original teams within four years.



    • Only four teams immediately became playoff teams by landing a top-four pick: The '98 Spurs with Duncan (20 wins to 56), the '00 Hornets with Davis (26 wins to 49), the '04 Nuggets with Anthony (17 wins to 43) and the '07 Raptors with Bargnani (headed for 45-plus wins and a top-four seed).



    • Four other teams became playoff teams within two years of landing a top-four pick (without help of a trade): the '96 Pistons (46 wins, first-round loss), the '04 Rockets (45 wins, first-round loss), the '05 Bulls (47 wins, first-round loss) and the '07 Jazz (headed for 50-plus wins and a top-five seed).



    • Of the 15 different franchises that had top-four picks from '94 to '99, eight landed back in the top four within five years: the Bucks ('94/'96 and '05), the Grizzlies ('96-'98 and '03), the Warriors ('95 and '02), the Clippers ('95 and '00; '98-99 and '04), the Hornets ('99 and '04), the Nuggets ('98 and '03), the Raptors ('98 and '03 or '06), the Bulls ('99 and '04) -- and two more are slotted for top-five picks in this year's lottery (the Celtics and Hawks). That's 10 of 15 teams.



    • The top six 2006-07 teams (Dallas, Phoenix, San Antonio, Detroit, Utah and Houston) feature just six top-four picks (Stackhouse, Duncan, Wallace, Billups, Deron Williams, Yao), only three of whom were drafted by their current teams.



    What does all of this mean? We can summarize it in four points:



    1. The lottery system was originally created to prevent teams from tanking for better draft picks ... which is exactly what's happening right now (as described in the magazine column). So they completely failed in that regard.



    2. The lottery system also hoped to turn the fortunes of struggling franchises. Well, as we just proved, it completely failed in that regard, too. If anything, top-four picks have a significantly better chance of struggling for a few seasons, then getting traded before finally landing on a contending team. It's much, much, MUCH less likely that they will turn around their first franchise themselves.



    3. We've had one major lottery success story so far -- the Spurs winning three titles with Duncan -- which was actually a complete fluke because the Spurs averaged 59 wins from '94 to '96, then dropped to 20 wins because their best two players (David Robinson and Sean Elliott) played a combined 45 games in '97. In the past 20 years, only two No. 1 picks won titles for their original teams: Robinson ('87) and Duncan ('97).



    4. For everyone rooting for tanking franchises right now and dreaming of multiple titles with Oden or Durant ... just remember, you never know.



    ----------



    I don't know if anyone's proposed "system" would work, but this is just sad. Most draft picks don't make their true impacts until they're with their 2nd or 3rd team. I have no real idea how you could fix this and keep the league competetive.
     
  2. Joe Joe

    Joe Joe Go Stros!
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 1999
    Messages:
    26,462
    Likes Received:
    16,789
    In the last 20 years, the NBA Finals champ had a player they picked in the top three at least 11 times.
     
  3. geeimsobored

    geeimsobored Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    8,968
    Likes Received:
    3,389
    Hakeem?
     
  4. AstroRocket

    AstroRocket Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 1999
    Messages:
    11,814
    Likes Received:
    458
    He means only guys drafted in the last 20 years.
     
  5. LFE171

    LFE171 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,952
    Likes Received:
    19
    And before 87, actually in just 83 two top 3 guys won 8 championships for their team that drafted them. but he does bring up a good point, ever since dream and MJ graced their teams with rings, it hasn't happened much else. i hope yao can fix this and bring us our deserved rings.
     
  6. saleem

    saleem Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2001
    Messages:
    30,296
    Likes Received:
    14,735
    Robinson didn't win a title for the Spurs. He won it as a role player. If Duncan wasn't there he probably wouldn't have been able to take his team to the playoffs during their 1st championship.
     
  7. emjohn

    emjohn Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    12,132
    Likes Received:
    567
    Dream and MJ don't count in the scope of this particular argument, as they were pre-lottery draft selections.

    Ewing was the first (85), and the draft has been reworked several times since. Simmons is unhappy with the current system, and I agree. I don't really like his proposal though.

    1. I don't think playoff teams need a shot at the top picks. If Phoenix got to take Oden or Durant? Yes, I would have a problem with that.

    2. I think the current system is "overweighted": currently the worst team has a 25% chance at the number 1, second worst a 20%, and best nonplayoff team a 0.5% chance. I don't think equal odds for everyone is fair either. The worst teams deserve a better chance - you'll lose markets if basement teams can't have legit hope for a turnaround. I'd propose: worst (9.6%), 2nd worst (9.2%).....2nd best (5.0%), best (team #14)(4.6%). Weighted, but there's a real chance for lightning to strike if you just missed the playoffs by a hair.

    Currently the chances of the pick going to one of the 5 worst teams is: 81.2%
    Chances of it going to teams # 10-14: 3.7%
    It's overly skewed, IMO.
    In my proposal, chances of it going to one of the worst 5 teams is 45% and to the back 5, 27%

    Evan
     
    #7 emjohn, Apr 12, 2007
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2007
  8. francis 4 prez

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Messages:
    22,025
    Likes Received:
    4,552

    i think that's pretty good. you can never get rid of a system that gives the best picks to the worst teams. everyone uses it for a reason, to encourage and give the possibility of turnarounds, but preventing it from automatically going to the team that sucks the most is a good idea and i like spreading the chances around more than they currently do. 1 in about 20 or 25 is a nice chance for team #14 without making it too likely. i might give more than 10% to the worst team, but the general idea i think is the right one.
     
  9. sbyang

    sbyang Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,937
    Likes Received:
    43
    Say your system is in place. What stops a team like Orlando from saying, hmmmm, do we really want to go to the playoffs and get swept and embarrassed? We've got a decent chance of getting Kevin Durant. Your system might slow down the tanking at the bottom, but it would open up tanking for the middling teams! Some teams might want to miss the playoffs on purpose!
     
  10. Joe Joe

    Joe Joe Go Stros!
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 1999
    Messages:
    26,462
    Likes Received:
    16,789
    The easiest way to enusre tanking doesn't happen is to attack the pocketbook of the owner. Leave the system the way it is, but give the teams that do better a larger portion of the luxury tax money.
     
  11. emjohn

    emjohn Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    12,132
    Likes Received:
    567
    For a 5% chance? I have a hard time envisioning that. Players on a team in the hunt won't take it well if asked to dog it. They've got more pride than the fans do in this regard.

    A rich getting richer system....I dunno. Playoff teams already get extra revenue, aside from the increased excitement (re: fan dollars) that naturally comes from a winning team.

    Evan
     
  12. sbyang

    sbyang Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,937
    Likes Received:
    43
    Right now it makes sense for a team like Orlando to miss the playoffs basketball wise. They can't do it because of finances and marketing. They'd be losing out on some revenue and some evidence of progress just to move up a spot. Maybe the 5% swings it the other way.
     
  13. BigTex

    BigTex Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    3,373
    Likes Received:
    4,520
    wow the grizzlies got screwed out of iverson and duncan
     
  14. aaaa

    aaaa Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2002
    Messages:
    324
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well they do have that rule where a new team couldn't get a number one pick for the first 5(?) years of their existence or something like that. :mad:
     
  15. KellyDwyer

    KellyDwyer Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,660
    Likes Received:
    86
    Yeah, about 5% of the time.

    Owners wait their entire year for the postseason payoff. Even two games at home during the postseason makes up for a year's worth of disappointing attendence. You have no idea what even a token appearance in the playoffs brings. The Grizzlies would have been sold in 2004 at a bargain rate had they missed the playoffs -- those six games spread out over three years made up for millions.
     
  16. McGradySNKT

    McGradySNKT Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    2


    What is it that brings on the multiplied revenues? Is it ticket sales, tv, radio?
     
  17. KellyDwyer

    KellyDwyer Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,660
    Likes Received:
    86
    They can sell ads on court that are going to be seen by a national audience, both Turner and Disney are forced to give local outlets TV ad time, the ticket prices are pumped up -- and often coupled with ten game plans for the next season. It's especially prevalent in areas where fans are notoriously ho hum about regular season games (looking at you, Jersey).
     
  18. today

    today Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    2,224
    Likes Received:
    1,206
    I'm sure this idea has been mentioned before, but what about having all non-playoff teams get an equal shot in the lottery? Then the remaining playoff teams would draft in order of record.

    This would remove the problem of teams trying to tank in the last few games of the year, as it does not reward losing.

    Is this a viable option that the league is looking at? Have any of the league's new ideas been released?
     
  19. A-Train

    A-Train Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    39
    Van Gundy made a suggestion that every team in the league have an equal shot at the number one pick.

    "With the first pick of the 2007 draft, the Houston Rockets select Kevin Durant from the University of Texas!"

    This was also discussed here
     
  20. gr8-1

    gr8-1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    7,918
    Likes Received:
    4
    I'm one of the three people that think it can/has been rigged.
     

Share This Page