What's new
By:

My idea on how to fix lottery/tanking

HermanG

HermanG

Well-Known Member
2025 Award Winner
This has been discussed some and we've had some interesting proposals and I may have missed if someone already suggested something like this.... but I think the way to solve tanking is to simply make "build through the middle" option better. So being a feisty play-in loser or a bubble team would be incentivized. Here is one example of how it could be achieved:

Teams are grouped in 3 groups for draft lottery:
Group 1: Bottom 8 teams based on regular season record
Group 2: Teams outside bottom 8 but also outside playoffs (so 9-14)
Group 3: Playoff teams

Top 3 picks are drawn with even odds between 8 Group 1 teams
Picks 4-6 are drawn with even odds between 6 Group 2 teams
Pick 7 onwards are awarded based on reverse standings for the remaining 22 teams who didnt win in either one of the two draws

The catch here is, that group 2 has a higher chance to win even though the prize is smaller. Top tier talent (e.g. all the "generational" prospects) still go to the worst teams helping them out of the cellar, but being in the middle group actually gives you a better chance to top 6 than being in the bottom 8 does. The downside of this is that would someone actually fold their play-in game for the higher odds? That is bad revenue-wise in the short term, so I'd imagine not many owners would be in favor of that.. but still its arguably worse PR-wise than what currently transpires annually.
 
HermanG said:
This has been discussed some and we've had some interesting proposals and I may have missed if someone already suggested something like this.... but I think the way to solve tanking is to simply make "build through the middle" option better.
Click to expand...
You simply shifted the ground zero of tanking up a bit. The worst tanking would be done by teams in the current Portland-Bulls-Nets tier: everyone will be dropping the games like crazy to secure the worst 6/7 record. And, of course, the teams below them would do some moderate tanking as well so they cannot be pushed out too high. So, essentially, you gave more teams an incentive to tank.
 
Did you see this thread?

SoberasHotRod

Thread 'Solving For Tanking, We're smart, let's figure it out'

I think the majority of us would agree that sitting a healthy 23 year old Walker Kessler to make it more likely that we lose a game to have better lottery odds is a problem in the NBA. Teams should be incentivized to win as many games while achieving other goals like player development, etc. Flattening the odds has probably helped, but we are proof this year that it didn't fix the problem. It's possible that any proposal to fix the solution would create more negative effects than we currently have, but we should at least try.

This thread is to post your proposed solution (it doesn't...
 
SoberasHotRod said:
Did you see this thread?

SoberasHotRod

Thread 'Solving For Tanking, We're smart, let's figure it out'

I think the majority of us would agree that sitting a healthy 23 year old Walker Kessler to make it more likely that we lose a game to have better lottery odds is a problem in the NBA. Teams should be incentivized to win as many games while achieving other goals like player development, etc. Flattening the odds has probably helped, but we are proof this year that it didn't fix the problem. It's possible that any proposal to fix the solution would create more negative effects than we currently have, but we should at least try.

This thread is to post your proposed solution (it doesn't...
Click to expand...
I think I did since this has been simmering somewhere in the back of my head, but I went few pages back to see if we had a thread and didnt notice that (or it was probably further down the list).
 
jazznik said:
You simply shifted the ground zero of tanking up a bit. The worst tanking would be done by teams in the current Portland-Bulls-Nets tier: everyone will be dropping the games like crazy to secure the worst 6/7 record. And, of course, the teams below them would do some moderate tanking as well so they cannot be pushed out too high. So, essentially, you gave more teams an incentive to tank.
Click to expand...
What? That makes no sense. Giving teams in the middle better picks than they get on average right now makes more teams wanna tank to the bottom? What are they doing, trying to escape the improved odds at 9-14?

You are one true galaxy brain sir.
 
HermanG said:
What? That makes no sense. Giving teams in the middle better picks than they get on average right now makes more teams wanna tank to the bottom? What are they doing, trying to escape the improved odds at 9-14?

You are one true galaxy brain sir.
Click to expand...
Under the proposed rules, those Group 2 teams are now fully locked out of the chance at a generational talent type of pick (Wemby, Flagg, etc.) so they would be incentivized even higher to not get locked out of a chance.
 
I don't personally love proposals that are based on shifting lottery odds. They might be more practical than some of the more radical proposals, but they don't really solve the problem.

To truly solve the problem I think you need to:
- Decouple losing with the chance at the best prospects
- Create better alternatives to team building than the draft (e.g. encourage free agency)
 
The one I saw that I love. Once a team is mathematically out of the playoffs it then becomes whoever wins the most games out of those teams. A team that is out first has the most opportunity to rack up the most wins.
 
kcgar said:
The one I saw that I love. Once a team is mathematically out of the playoffs it then becomes whoever wins the most games out of those teams. A team that is out first has the most opportunity to rack up the most wins.
Click to expand...

I've seen this proposed, but I just don't get it. How does this really help?

At least in my mind the problem with tanking is teams gaming the system (sitting healthy players). Wouldn't this proposal just make bad teams tank as hard as they can until they are eliminated? Teams trying to play well for a quarter of the season isn't really the point in my opinion.
 
The more I hear this discussion the more I just want a 'take your turn' approach.

Take the weighted records from the past three years and create a permanent order of all NBA teams worst to best with worst picking first, then shift 3 slots 'up' each year for everyone, but incremented by 1 within their groups of 3, so each takes turn being first in their grouping-

i.e. year 1: x = 1 in group y = 2 in group, z = 3 in group, the next year x is 3, y is 1, and z is 2.

and that 'grouping' migrates similarly through the draft- first year 28, 29, 30, next year 25, 26, 27.

This gives every team exactly the same weighted advantage over time in the draft and it becomes up to them to manage their picks/assets wisely.

You can then create a very hard cap to help offset some of the advantages in free agency for the big city teams, just don't try addressing it in the draft.
 
kcgar said:
The one I saw that I love. Once a team is mathematically out of the playoffs it then becomes whoever wins the most games out of those teams. A team that is out first has the most opportunity to rack up the most wins.
Click to expand...
So you just get hardcore tanking to start then a team magically gets healthy and starts winning
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top