What's new
By:

Woj: The NBA's Board of Governors passed draft lottery reform today

KqWIN said:
And you're argument, which is 100000% true because what? Tim Duncan and LeBron James are all time greats? Again, do you want to go through all of the top picks that failed, and all of the guys who are not top picks who are also all time greats? After that, we can go through all of the moves events and events that led to teams like the Spurs winning multiple championships.

I don't suppose that the Spurs win 5 rings without Ginobili, Parker, Leonard, and Pop. I think they deserve some credit as well.
Click to expand...

lmfao

Without Duncan none of that is possible.

Drafting high is the single most important thing for a franchise. Just cuz some teams have screwed it up doesn't make them less valuable.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
lmfao

Without Duncan none of that is possible.

Drafting high is the single most important thing for a franchise. Just cuz some teams have screwed it up doesn't make them less valuable.
Click to expand...

And without Parker, Ginobili, Leonard, and Pop...what happens? Ask KG, he might have a good idea.

Even if you consider it the most important thing, which I don't, it's not the only thing that matters. People act like getting the 8th seed means that you will be there for the end of time, and that if you get a top 5 pick you are guaranteed a superstar and success. It doesn't work that way. Getting a high draft pick doesn't guarantee you a superstar. And even if you get the superstar it doesn't guarantee that you'll be a contender.
 
KqWIN said:
And without Parker, Ginobili, Leonard, and Pop...what happens? Ask KG, he might have a good idea.

Even if you consider it the most important thing, which I don't, it's not the only thing that matters. People act like getting the 8th seed means that you will be there for the end of time, and that if you get a top 5 pick you are guaranteed a superstar and success. It doesn't work that way. Getting a high draft pick doesn't guarantee you a superstar. And even if you get the superstar it doesn't guarantee that you'll be a contender.
Click to expand...

Cool. It's still the best thing that can happen to your franchise if you arent one of the top FA destination for star UFA's.
 
I feel like this is a bit lazy, and a bit of a cop out by the NBA. These things should be looked at on a case by case basis. Meaning if there is a hint of a team tanking, then that franchise needs to be investigated, and if found guilty, punishments need to be handed out. By this current reform, you're basically saying teams are guilty-by-association, meaning the bad teams that aren't actually tanking are thrown a blanket over them, along with the teams that actually are tanking. But you know, a case by case scenario means more work for the NBA, you need to investigate and of course it takes time, and resources.

So what is the negative of a case by case basis apart from my last sentence above? It could bring negative attention to the NBA. Media would be all over the news that investigations are in place, essentially putting putting the league into a light that it shouldn't be in, and I'm fully aware of that. What the NBA have done however, should not be the solution, there has to be a better way. Even with the negative connotations of a case by case scenario, the league can easily try and spin this positively and make it known that they are 'stamping out the nonsense' in the league. It can also be very tough to prove that a team is tanking, there's that as well.

Make the punishments harsh for the teams found guilty, let the harsh punishments be known prior of course, and try and build a big deterrent for teams even thinking about it.

I'm all for my stance being changed by a good, solid argument, but as of right now, this is how I feel.
 
Jack Strop said:
What are the odds of jumping from the 20's into the top-4?
Oh, a team can't? Then there is zero impact to the Jazz. Even if Utah misses the playoffs, they won't be terrible. Unless Lindsey trades Gobert, there's not going to be another tank/rebuild. Next summer or the one after would need to be the time to acquire an all-star wing or PF via free agency.
Click to expand...
Missing the playoffs would mean that this impacts the jazz.
 
Cappy_Smurf said:
Utah was never going to go the Hinkie route. Even when we are bad, we're not the worst. We had a #3 pick once in the last few decades, and got jumped by 2 teams anyway. If anything, this will give us a better chance to jump into the top 4 from the 5-10 spots. This change is much more likely to work in Utah's favor than against it.
Click to expand...

Hard to say. The West is really tough and if we didn't strike gold on Gobert, would be going into the future desperately needing a top 3 pick. We all like to think DL is good enough to find a Gobert level talent in the later first round reliably, but he will probably be the first to tell you it involves a ton of luck. Not sure how the Jazz voted this time, but my guess was against it.
 
The only vote against lottery reform was OKC, with the Mavs abstaining.

The notion that lottery reform is bad for small market teams is just silly IMO. The current system incentivizes teams to bottom out and move every decent player to be as bad as possible to be guaranteed a good draft pick. The teams that can afford to totally bottom out, are big market teams who have large fanbases, extremely rich owners and lucrative tv deals. Small market teams cannot afford it in the same way and the last decade shows it. Over the last 10 years, the average market size for a bottom three record was 13,9. The average market size for team with a record between 10-14 was 17,7. This shows that small market teams are overrepresented at the end of the lottery, not at the top of it. Small market teams seem to value merely fighting for a play off spot more than big market teams do.

The new model is better for small market teams as it lets you stay at least semi-relevant while still having a shot at a top pick.
 
Hedda Gambler said:
The only vote against lottery reform was OKC, with the Mavs abstaining.
Click to expand...
It's because OKC is one of the few teams that have actually tried and benefited from targeted and planned tanking and they know first hand the benefit of it.

The notion that lottery reform is bad for small market teams is just silly IMO. The current system incentivizes teams to bottom out and move every decent player to be as bad as possible to be guaranteed a good draft pick. The teams that can afford to totally bottom out, are big market teams who have large fanbases, extremely rich owners and lucrative tv deals. Small market teams cannot afford it in the same way and the last decade shows it. Over the last 10 years, the average market size for a bottom three record was 13,9. The average market size for team with a record between 10-14 was 17,7. This shows that small market teams are overrepresented at the end of the lottery, not at the top of it. Small market teams seem to value merely fighting for a play off spot more than big market teams do.
Click to expand...

This actually shows fault of NBA teams thinking and a huge unexplored potential of a targeted tanking strategy by small market teams.

The new model is better for small market teams as it lets you stay at least semi-relevant while still having a shot at a top pick.
Click to expand...


I disagree strongly with the last sentence. The middle(10-20) is still the worst place you can be in the NBA(if your goal is to win a championship/be contender). It is now slightly better than it was before, but the chance of getting high pick is still very small. If you are in the 10-14 range you are going to get top 3 pick once every 18 years. You cannot really rely on this type of odds to make your team better if you are in the middle. You still need to get to about top 7-8 level where you can within some reason expect a high pick/high end reinforcement and at that point you are not even semi-relevant.
 
stitches said:
This actually shows fault of NBA teams thinking and a huge unexplored potential of a targeted tanking strategy by small market teams.
Click to expand...

What I don`t get with this line of thinking is that you (as in the people who argue for it) seem to think that this strategy is available exclusively for small market teams. If tanking is a guaranteed way to success, why would small market teams be the only ones using it? Big market teams have a lot more flexibility to do this.

Over the last 5 years, the tank commanders in Philly have had an average of 3585 less people in attendance at every home game than our Jazz. With 41 home games and a median prics of $80 for an NBA ticket, this means a cool $12 million less in ticket fees for the 76ers over one season. A loss of $12 million in revenue per season is no problem for a team with a huge tv deal, but would be a serious problem for a team like ours.
 
Hedda Gambler said:
What I don`t get with this line of thinking is that you (as in the people who argue for it) seem to think that this strategy is available exclusively for small market teams. If tanking is a guaranteed way to success, why would small market teams be the only ones using it? Big market teams have a lot more flexibility to do this.

Over the last 5 years, the tank commanders in Philly have had an average of 3585 less people in attendance at every home game than our Jazz. With 41 home games and a median prics of $80 for an NBA ticket, this means a cool $12 million less in ticket fees for the 76ers over one season. A loss of $12 million in revenue per season is no problem for a team with a huge tv deal, but would be a serious problem for a team like ours.
Click to expand...

First, tanking is not the only or even guaranteed way to succeed in building a contender for small market teams... but it is THE BEST way. The reason I make the difference for small market teams vs others is because of the difference in appeal of FAs. Big market teams can afford to rely on attracting the big free agents. Utah cannot. We've never been a FA destination and we probably never will be.

I think small market teams miss the forest for the trees with the same type of calculations you gave here. Sure you will suffer some short-term decline in revenue at the gates, but that's why there is revenue sharing + you can make certain financially beneficial decisions(like being paid to take on bad contracts or selling some second round picks that won't make your team, etc). If successful though, you guarantee yourself a contender for 3-4-5 years at the minimum and those teams win tons of money both at the gates and in the playoffs. You will probably be able to cover all the losses for a potential lets say... 3 year tank with a single playoffs trip to the finals. + you strengthen your brand and ability to generate revenue in other ways once you have a team that legitimately threatens to win it all and/or has generational talent playing for you.

Notice - I'm not saying big market teams don't have it better - they obviously do and they have much larger margin for error both financially and basketball-wise, but we are in the market that we are in. We cannot change that... so once we are in this position we should be looking for ways to maximize the chances for success, independent of what big market teams are doing.
 
stitches said:
Nobody is saying anything is guaranteed.
Click to expand...

Let's look at some numbers.

The average spot where this year's All Stars were taken is 16. Sixteen. That's outside the lottery. 9 out of 24 were taken lower than 14th seed(again, last one of the lottery), and 5 were taken in the second around. Isaiah Thomas was the last player drafted, period, at 60. 4 players were picked at number 1, and only one each at 2 and 3.

Take a look at top 5 picks between 2006 and 2013, so players currently in their prime or just entering their prime. I've got a little table of draft years, draft positions and those players' All-Star appearances as of 2017.

image.png


So that's 56 combined AS appearances. 1.4 per player. I think we can all agree that's a paltry return. I mean, Jamal Magloire had that many All-Star appearances. The best return seems to be the number 1 spot with 20. The rest are between 8 and 13.

Even the number one spot is a crap shoot as 3 out of 8 are goose eggs. Hell, two of those, Bennett and Oden are in serious contention for biggest busts ever. That's scary. One in four chance that even if you get the number one pick, he's going to be a bust so massive, your fans will blush when their names are brought up.

It's pretty terrifying that between 2009 and 2013, only two players drafted 2-5 have made an All-Star game, Harden and Boogie. Again, we're talking players who are 27-30 right now. Fairly unlikely any of them ever will, except maybe Bradley Beal. There is also no year in the sample that more than 2 players drafted in top 5 became All-Stars.

And just as an illustration, here's the 27 players from that sample that haven't played in an All-Star game, starting from 2006.

Greg Oden
Mike Conley
Jeff Green
Michael Beasley
OJ Mayo
Hasheem Thabeet
Tyreke Evans
Ricky Rubio
Evan Turner
Derrick Favors
Wesley Johnson
Derrick Williams
Enes Kanter
Tristan Thompson
Jonas Valančiunas
Micheal Kidd-Gilchrist
Bradley Beal
Dion Waiters
Thomas Robinson
Anthony Bennett
Victor Oladipo
Otto Porter
Cody Zeller
Alex Len

Just look at that list. Conley, Beal and Rubio are very good players and perhaps close to All-Star level. Favors, Turner, Valančiunas are decent contributors on decent teams. Oladipo will probably put up numbers on a very bad team. A few players from the 2013 draft will probably be servicable. The rest of the list is ranging from utter garbage to managing to still get an NBA contract. Oden, Thabeet, Mayo, and Bennett are all out of the league already. I have no idea how Beasley isn't among them. Thomas Williams is 26 and struggling to get 10 minutes a game on a team trying to lose. Several other players, like Kanter, Waiters or Evans can get minutes, but have such glaring holes in their games that no team meaning business will ever give them serious minutes.

I'm really not sure a top 5 pick is the boon you make it sound to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top