Draft reform vote coming up

[da ThRONe]

If every fan was as into his team as most posters on here are, you are probably right. The problem is that the casual fans make up a lot of the attendance. If they don`t show up to the games, it could mean a world of hurt for the financials of the team in the short run, with absolutely no guarantee of making in back even with a nice pick up in the draft. We`re talking about sports here, which most people watch to be entertained. Most people don`t like losing and start watching something else if a team is really bad over a period of time.

My point is if you are at the bottom those causal fans aren't watching anyways. What's the difference between 20-62 and 30-52 if your a causal fan? It's better to go 20-62 and ensure you'll be in the bottom 5 instead of going 30-52 and risk falling into the next group of percentage points.

So teams will rest their talented vets and/or trade them to acquire future assets once the season goes array regardless of this rule change. What Philly did is rarer than the loaded draft class this past draft. No need making wide sweeping changes based off of with the 6ers did.

 

[♪alt13]

No they might be winning something else though


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Leastern Conference Finals

 

[fishonjazz]

My point is if you are at the bottom those causal fans aren't watching anyways. What's the difference between 20-62 and 30-52 if your a causal fan? It's better to go 20-62 and ensure you'll be in the bottom 5 instead of going 30-52 and risk falling into the next group of percentage points.

So teams will rest their talented vets and/or trade them to acquire future assets once the season goes array regardless of this rule change. What Philly did is rarer than the loaded draft class this past draft. No need making wide sweeping changes based off of with the 6ers did.

What's your plan then?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Guys, I know, it can happen. But, it IS hard to believe. Like it's hard to believe that you could win the lottery.

The chances you cite are ginormous compared to the chances that you and I would have engaged in the conversation we have, each saying the things that we did. The odds of that were far less than 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%, yet it happened anyway. Do you think that was the result of some sort of rigging or conspiracy, or do you think that such statistics are meaningless in retrospect, and that the reality is that something had to happen and therefore something did.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

My point is if you are at the bottom those causal fans aren't watching anyways. What's the difference between 20-62 and 30-52 if your a causal fan? It's better to go 20-62 and ensure you'll be in the bottom 5 instead of going 30-52 and risk falling into the next group of percentage points.

So teams will rest their talented vets and/or trade them to acquire future assets once the season goes array regardless of this rule change. What Philly did is rarer than the loaded draft class this past draft. No need making wide sweeping changes based off of with the 6ers did.

I think you are wrong because the reward for losing on purpose under the proposed system is way too small. With odds like that tanking in order to rebuild is no longer a viable strategy, and that's good for the league as a whole because it means that more games are likely to be competitive.

I am in favor of the new system. I never want to pull for my team to lose again. While it was the right strategy for the Jazz, it was the wrong strategy for the league. And I agree with the others who hate the wheel. There is no perfect way, but th proposed strategy is the best solution I've seen.

 

[fishonjazz]

I think you are wrong because the reward for losing on purpose under the proposed system is way too small. With odds like that tanking in order to rebuild is no longer a viable strategy, and that's good for the league as a whole because it means that more games are likely to be competitive.

I am in favor of the new system. I never want to pull for my team to lose again. While it was the right strategy for the Jazz, it was the wrong strategy for the league. And I agree with the others who hate the wheel. There is no perfect way, but th proposed strategy is the best solution I've seen.

Iawtp

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

I don't understand why the numbers have to be tiered like this. Why can't it be:

#1 12%
#2 11.5%
#3 11%
#4 10.5%
#5 10%

The math probably doesn't work out for my specific example, but why do blocks of teams need the same % chance? I can't imagine a 1/2% point would really encourage tanking. I also wish they would draw for every pick, 1-14.

 

[fishonjazz]

I can't imagine a 1/2% point would really encourage tanking.

1/2% point is better than 0.

Lots of people out there are numbers people that will go with the odds everytime.

Let's say the jazz and kings are tied for last place and play each other in the final game of the year.
The loser of the game gets a better chance (no matter how small that chance is) at the #1 pick.

I would be hoping that the jazz lose. Jazz management would probably hope they lose too.

If both teams have the same chance for the number one pick regardless of the outcome then we would all be hoping for a win.

 

[ema]

The chances you cite are ginormous compared to the chances that you and I would have engaged in the conversation we have, each saying the things that we did. The odds of that were far less than 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%, yet it happened anyway. Do you think that was the result of some sort of rigging or conspiracy, or do you think that such statistics are meaningless in retrospect, and that the reality is that something had to happen and therefore something did.

Doesn't change the fact that it's hard to believe. For instance, I wouldn't be convinced that it wasn't rigged at all if you haven't provided the information that there was the video of it.

And I still would prefer it to be aired live and 100% transparent.

 

[GVC]

1/2% point is better than 0.

Lots of people out there are numbers people that will go with the odds everytime.

There's a trade-off here: Teams that tank may see a decline in ticket (including season tickets) and merchandise sales if they blatantly tank. The cost of tanking should be about the same under the scheme proposed by AA above, but the benefit would STILL (relative to the proposed system) by reduced substantially.

Moving from 29th (19.9% shot at the #1 pick under the current system) to 30th (25%) increases a team's odds at receiving the #1 pick by better than 25% (5 percentage points) under the current system. Under AA's proposal above, moving from 29th to 30th only increase a team's odds of landing the #1 pick by 4% (.5 percentage points). That may still be enough of a difference for a team to tank in a draft year with a generational talent at the top (think LeBron), but probably wouldn't entice a team to tank otherwise.

 

[fishonjazz]

Moving from 29th (19.9% shot at the #1 pick under the current system) to 30th (25%) increases a team's odds at receiving the #1 pick by better than 25% (5 percentage points) under the current system. Under AA's proposal above, moving from 29th to 30th only increase a team's odds of landing the #1 pick by 4% (.5 percentage points). That may still be enough of a difference for a team to tank in a draft year with a generational talent at the top (think LeBron), but probably wouldn't entice a team to tank otherwise.

So what you are saying is that the current lottery means the most tanking.... AA's lottery means the 2nd most tanking.... And the nba's new proposal means the least amount of tanking.

I agree with you

 

[GVC]

So what you are saying is that the current lottery means the most tanking.... AA's lottery means the 2nd most tanking.... And the nba's new proposal means the least amount of tanking.

I agree with you

I'm saying the difference between the proposed system and AA's suggestion is negligible in terms of tanking. I was also pointing out that you were ignoring the costs of tanking.

 

[fishonjazz]

I'm saying the difference between the proposed system and AA's suggestion is negligible in terms of tanking. I was also pointing out that you were ignoring the costs of tanking.

I was not ignoring the cost. Cost is obvious and understood by all so it was not really being discussed.

Team make less money when blatantly tanking.
Ya I think we can all agree on that

 

[GVC]

I was not ignoring the cost. Cost is obvious and understood by all so it was not really being discussed.

Team make less money when blatantly tanking.
Ya I think we can all agree on that

So why would a team blatantly tank at a cost for such a small increase in their chances at the #1 pick? That argument only makes sense if tanking is costless.

 

[fishonjazz]

So why would a team blatantly tank at a cost for such a small increase in their chances at the #1 pick? That argument only makes sense if tanking is costless.

I never said that they would.

I presented a scenario where the jazz and another team are tied for last place.

They play each other in the last game of the season.

Under AA scenario, I root for my team to lose (this is bad imo)

Under the new proposal I root for my team to win (this is good imo)


Also, since there is such a negligible difference between the nba new proposal and AA's..... why would AA like his proposal so much more anyway

 

[♪alt13]

even though .5% change per slot might not be enough for a gm to tank it is plenty for many fans. You don't want your fans in your stadium rooting for losses. Creating a bottom tier with even odds for the hopeless is a good idea imo.

 

[GVC]

I never said that they would.

I presented a scenario where the jazz and another team are tied for last place.

They play each other in the last game of the season.

Under AA scenario, I root for my team to lose (this is bad imo)

Under the new proposal I root for my team to win (this is good imo)


Also, since there is such a negligible difference between the nba new proposal and AA's..... why would AA like his proposal so much more anyway

I like the proposed system just fine. One game tanked in a season of 1230 games isn't so bad IMO.

 

[fishonjazz]

I like the proposed system just fine. One game tanked in a season of 1230 games isn't so bad IMO.

I agree.... and zero games tanked is even better.

 

[GVC]

even though .5% change per slot might not be enough for a gm to tank it is plenty for many fans. You don't want your fans in your stadium rooting for losses. Creating a bottom tier with even odds for the hopeless is a good idea imo.

Agreed.

As an aside, it's probably worth pointing out that the best non-playoff team would have a worse shot at a top 3 pick under the proposed system (although they'll also have a shot they currently don't have at the #4-6 picks).

 

[fishonjazz]

even though .5% change per slot might not be enough for a gm to tank it is plenty for many fans. You don't want your fans in your stadium rooting for losses. Creating a bottom tier with even odds for the hopeless is a good idea imo.

This guy gets it