What's new
By:

Following Potential 2025 Draftees

so crazy that there is a (basically) 50% chance that the team with the worst record gets the 5th pick in the draft. but that's what the nba has done to avoid rewarding tanking and i can appreciate that. sucks when it's your team, but it's a solid "safety" measure.
 
seattlejazzfan said:
so crazy that there is a (basically) 50% chance that the team with the worst record gets the 5th pick in the draft. but that's what the nba has done to avoid rewarding tanking and i can appreciate that. sucks when it's your team, but it's a solid "safety" measure.
Click to expand...
Ehh. The problem is teams that don’t need the help nearly as much are getting a huge boost in odds. It mechanistically works against parity and it hasn’t reduced tanking, so I think that’s a failure. In fact, one could argue it’s increased tanking in worse ways since teams are now incentivized to tank out of the play-in.

Regulating how often teams get to the top of the draft is light-years better of a solution, IMO. Teams will know whether it’s even possible to get to the top of the draft, it wouldn’t make much sense to tank in consecutive years, but organically bad teams stuck in a rut will still have better picks on average and much higher odds of hitting high once in a shorter window.
 
NUMBERICA said:
Ehh. The problem is teams that don’t need the help nearly as much are getting a huge boost in odds. It mechanistically works against parity and it hasn’t reduced tanking, so I think that’s a failure. In fact, one could argue it’s increased tanking in worse ways since teams are now incentivized to tank out of the play-in.

Regulating how often teams get to the top of the draft is light-years better of a solution, IMO. Teams will know whether it’s even possible to get to the top of the draft, it wouldn’t make much sense to tank in consecutive years, but organically bad teams stuck in a rut will still have better picks on average and much higher odds of hitting high once in a shorter window.
Click to expand...
I think where I’m at is this:
-team with the worst record cannot win the 1st overall pick
-eligibility for a, say, top-3 pick is you can only obtain such a pick once every, say, 3 years.
-the four (?) worst eligible teams (teams that haven’t drafted top-4 in the previous 3 years) enter the lottery for the four first picks (though, the worst record cannot win the 1st overall pick). Odds are essentially flat.
-all non-eligible teams for the four-team lottery simply pick in inverse order of record.
 
Last edited:
NUMBERICA said:
Ehh. The problem is teams that don’t need the help nearly as much are getting a huge boost in odds. It mechanistically works against parity and it hasn’t reduced tanking, so I think that’s a failure. In fact, one could argue it’s increased tanking in worse ways since teams are now incentivized to tank out of the play-in.

Regulating how often teams get to the top of the draft is light-years better of a solution, IMO. Teams will know whether it’s even possible to get to the top of the draft, it wouldn’t make much sense to tank in consecutive years, but organically bad teams stuck in a rut will still have better picks on average and much higher odds of hitting high once in a shorter window.
Click to expand...
Yep it's the exact model that would lead to "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer" type of scenario. Spurs was a legit playoff team before losing Wemby and all they really needed was to tank for about a month to have only 8% less chance at #1 than the worst team in the league with 17 more losses. There are definitely better solutions than messing with lottery odds .
 
NUMBERICA said:
I think where I’m at is this:
-team with the worst record cannot win the 1st overall pick
-eligibility for a, say, top-3 pick is you can only obtain such a pick once every, say, 3 years.
-the four (?) worst eligible teams (teams that haven’t drafted top-4 in the previous 3 years) enter the lottery for the four first picks (though, the worst record cannot win the 1st overall pick).
-all non-eligible teams for the four-team lottery simply pick in inverse order of record.
Click to expand...
These are solid. Overall should just be some mechanism that’s spreads out the lotto luck. Maybe top pick every 4 years and can only move up into the top 4 two out of 4 years or something. If you get the number 1 pick you can’t move up for 4 years either. I would even allow team to pass on moving up if they don’t like the draft. So if Atlanta didn’t want #1 last year then declared yourself out of the lotto.
 
NUMBERICA said:
I think where I’m at is this:
-team with the worst record cannot win the 1st overall pick
-eligibility for a, say, top-3 pick is you can only obtain such a pick once every, say, 3 years.
-the four (?) worst eligible teams (teams that haven’t drafted top-4 in the previous 3 years) enter the lottery for the four first picks (though, the worst record cannot win the 1st overall pick).
-all non-eligible teams for the four-team lottery simply pick in inverse order of record.
Click to expand...
-I think I would make it 2 out of every 5 years for those teams that get stuck in bad drafts.

- I also think you have to have rules about teams with All NBA players already who happen to have bad injury luck randomly in a year.
 
SoberasHotRod said:
-I think I would make it 2 out of every 5 years for those teams that get stuck in bad drafts.

- I also think you have to have rules about teams with All NBA players already who happen to have bad injury luck randomly in a year.
Click to expand...
I’m okay with item 1. Been trying to solve for the issue of bad drafts.

I’ve also been trying to figure out the Tim Duncan scenario… but that seems hard to solve. Maybe a team is ineligible if they won a playoff series the year before? Or maybe they were a top-4 seed?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top