fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Draft reform vote coming up
- Thread starter Jazz4ever
- Start date
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
that would make tanking worse imo. The ninth worst team would feel pretty confident about their chances at the number one pick if they could just get down to six.
Example: Kobe would have been healthy for the round robin last year.
framer
Well-Known Member
Heh, just make sure that roster spots 10-15 have to be populated with fans of the team selected by lotto and there has to be at last one of the fans in the game at all times. That should do it. . .
framer
Well-Known Member
Player had to play in at least 50% of the games in order to be eligible for the draft pick throw down. That would preclude you from picking up a ringer at the deadline just for the tournament.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
I don't think the system does much to resolve "tanking," but it makes the league look better in the eyes of those who have been complaining for the last several years about it.
If a team is bad, the best way to improve is still to get good picks (quality at great value for 4 years). Sure, there are usually 1-3 viewed as "cant-miss" in every draft, but generally each draft is 5-7 deep in terms of impact players. So the incentive is still there, perhaps even MORE so, to finish with the worst record. The current system ensures a team won't drop more than 3 spots. So finish in the 3-4 slot and you still get a pick no lower than 7th. But it's rare to drop more than a couple of positions. So you miss out on Wiggins this year? You still likely get Parker or Embiid.
However, the revised system has a 33% chance the worst team finishes with the #7 pick. Likewise, the 2nd and 3rd worst have the same percentage at finishing with the 7-10 picks. No guarantee of a top-3 pick, but who wants to fall out of the top 7-8, or even worse, out of the top-10?
Look at it this way. Would teams have wanted to tank even more this season if the likelihood increased they'd end up with a McDermott instead of a Randle? If anything, I think there will be MORE incentive to end up bottom-3 so a team doesn't fall out of the top-10.
If a team is bad, the best way to improve is still to get good picks (quality at great value for 4 years). Sure, there are usually 1-3 viewed as "cant-miss" in every draft, but generally each draft is 5-7 deep in terms of impact players. So the incentive is still there, perhaps even MORE so, to finish with the worst record. The current system ensures a team won't drop more than 3 spots. So finish in the 3-4 slot and you still get a pick no lower than 7th. But it's rare to drop more than a couple of positions. So you miss out on Wiggins this year? You still likely get Parker or Embiid.
However, the revised system has a 33% chance the worst team finishes with the #7 pick. Likewise, the 2nd and 3rd worst have the same percentage at finishing with the 7-10 picks. No guarantee of a top-3 pick, but who wants to fall out of the top 7-8, or even worse, out of the top-10?
Look at it this way. Would teams have wanted to tank even more this season if the likelihood increased they'd end up with a McDermott instead of a Randle? If anything, I think there will be MORE incentive to end up bottom-3 so a team doesn't fall out of the top-10.
GVC
Well-Known Member
The odds of winning any of the top 6 picks are exactly the same for each of the bottom 4 teams, so there's less incentive for the clear bottom 3 or 4 teams to compete for the bottom spot as Philly and Milwaukee did this past season. Lottery teams outside the bottom 4 have a better chance at a top 3 pick, a chance at a pick in the 4-6 range, and a smaller change in odds by moving into the bottom 4 under the proposed system, so their incentive to lose more is also reduced. You're over-thinking this. This will almost certainly reduce tanking (not that I think tanking is much of a problem).
An example:
Under the proposed system, moving from 4th to 3rd (in lottery standings) wouldn't change your odds of receiving any of the top 6 picks, has a relatively small effect on your odds at picks 7-9, and only lowers your odds of receiving the 10th pick from .3% to 0.
Under the current system, moving from 4th to 3rd increases your odds of receiving a top 4 pick from 47.65% to 69.5%, and eliminates the 1.25% chance you receive the 7th pick.
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure I like my idea that much more, I just find it strange that there is an arbitrary line (between picks 4 and 5) where odds suddenly start to decline. Why is that line not after picks 5, 6, or 7? The larger the percentage increases are between teams, the greater the odds of a team considering tanking at the end of the year.
In terms of keeping the worst teams in the league from fighting over the bottom few spots, the league's proposal is excellent. Does anyone know if they are still just using the lottery for the top 3 picks? Will it expand to the top 4+ picks?
If I could create my own lottery system, I would have "years absent from playoffs" as a factor somehow. In other words, a team that has missed the playoffs for 4 consecutive seasons gets a percentage boost somehow. I know some might think this sounds silly, but there are some franchises that are trying to do the "right thing" by winning as many games as possible each year, but just can't break through. Not all high picks (or more specifically "draft classes") are created equal. The two teams with the longest playoff droughts (Minn 10 years, Sac 8 years) haven't had as many high picks as you would think. The ones they have had haven't panned out like most thought they would (Derrick Williams, Wes Johnson, Tyreke Evans, Thomas Robinson). In the last 10 years these teams have had TWO top 3 pick (D. Williams and OJ Mayo- Traded for K Love).
Anyone else ever considered this?
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
GVC
Well-Known Member
Top 6 picks. I posted the full odds earlier in the thread.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Well, Minny and Sacramento have been two of the worst run franchises in the NBA. Remember Khan drafting nothing BUT PG's? You can't give a franchise a "mulligan" just because they are terrible at evaluating and/or keeping talent. Look at the LA Clippers turning things around when that racist, penny-pincer decided to actually build a team. I'm not sure what the answer is. Yes, Philly has tanked for a couple of seasons and GS did the same to Utah in order to retain their pick. Personally, I saw nothing wrong with the old system. It sure set Cleveland up nicely - in precisely the year LeBron made his choice. But if you believe the lottery can't be rigged, then I just don't see a problem.
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
I don't know if you can blame everything on poor management. Many of the picks these teams made were praised by the media, analysts, and fans. Derrick Williams and Tyreke Evans were supposed to turn their franchises around. Many on this board were praying that Wesley Johnson would somehow fall to the Jazz. It is impossible to know exactly how a player will pan out once they start getting massive paychecks. It's even harder to get picks correct now since the top prospects don't even play 5-on-5 at the combine. This can make it difficult to tell if someone's skillset will translate to the NBA or not.