How Tanking ruins the NBA and possible solutions

[JimLes]

the relegation idea scares me and i'm glad they don't do it here in american leagues. no easier way to render your team entirely irrelevant or eternally mediocre.

It is okay to support a team that is mediocre or irrelevant, you know?

 

[Strutter]

Decided to add some more stats to the conversation. Here is a chart showing the average of win shares for all the players drafted in each draft slot (1-30) over the past 11 years.



I don't really adore win shares as a stat, but career PER wasn't easily attainable. If there was interest in a chart that showed that, I could possibly work on one. It'd take a while, though.

EDIT: Why is my pic so small? Can I get some mod help or something?

 

[Strutter]

In case I can't get the pic resized, you should still be able to see the noticeable curve of the graph. While there are busts and hidden gems in every draft, there is certainly a much stronger chance of getting a great player in the first 10 rounds.

 

[Doublea]

There were 260 top 10 picks in those 26 years. 97/260 is 37%. The other 163 players were not, so we have 63% there.

Shouldn't you be looking at how many players in the top 10 ended up not being all stars and then adding that to 97?

 

[JimLes]

Shouldn't you be looking at how many players in the top 10 ended up not being all stars and then adding that to 97?

I did. That's the 163 players.

Out of 260 players drafted in the top 10 between 1980 and 1996, 97 played in at least one All-Star game and 163 did not. I don't understand what the confusion is.

 

[JimLes]

In case I can't get the pic resized, you should still be able to see the noticeable curve of the graph. While there are busts and hidden gems in every draft, there is certainly a much stronger chance of getting a great player in the first 10 rounds.

I'm not denying that, I'm talking about what the odds are that you get a great player when picking in the 1-10 range versus getting a crap player in the same range.

 

[The Midnight]

So, you penalize Utah for 20+ years of success and reward Orlando, Charlotte, and Cleveland for sucking? That's not fair.

The really lousy teams would still get the best shot at the top picks. But they would have no incentive to out-stink each other. That would mean that, when general managers constructed their teams over the summer, they would be more likely to add a player or two that would improve their team, because the downside risk (losing ping-pong balls for the lottery) would not be there.

This would also help take care of the perception problem. Once the season was underway, there would be no question: The players on the court would try to win. So would the coaches. This would make the worst teams more watchable, which would be good for fans, and good for the credibility of the league. There would still be bad teams, but that's true in every league. You just don't want anybody thinking it is good to be the worst.

The teams in the upper tier of the lottery would also be unlikely to tank. They would have too much to gain by making the playoffs, even as a No. 8 seed: at least two home games' worth of revenue, positive publicity with the fan base, playoff experience for younger players, and the once-a-decade chance of pulling an upset. That's not worth giving up for a two-percent chance at the No. 1 pick. That's why the bottom half of the lottery would be weighted -- you can't have teams bailing on a playoff race.

Oh, I suppose that in the final week or two of the season, teams that have been eliminated from the playoff hunt might tank, to slightly increase their lottery odds. But they would be tanking a game or two. They wouldn't be tanking the whole season.

Some general managers would still decide to rebuild by trading their best players for draft choices and young talent, and to free up salary-cap space. But that falls under patience, not tanking. You see similar moves in other sports.

Teams are like people; for the most part, they act out of self-interest. The NBA just has to make sure it is not in team's best interests to tank. A simple tweak of the lottery would help.

 

[franklin]

I have the solution. For the next four season, the last place team will be removed from the league and its players put into a contraction draft starting in reverse lottery finishing order then open the waiver bidding wire for playoff teams. The talent is spread too thin and competition too low, and this will solve two problems at once.

 

[Strutter]

I'm not denying that, I'm talking about what the odds are that you get a great player when picking in the 1-10 range versus getting a crap player in the same range.

Then I'm confused where your point is going after that. Of course there are busts everywhere in the draft (as I mentioned before). However, you have a much higher chance of drafting a star player in the 1-10 range than outside of the 1-10 range.

Assuming that you need star players to compete at the highest level (pretty sure that's a hard point to argue against), then your best chance of competing is getting a high lottery pick. Logic seems to check out to me.

 

[NUMBERICA]

I have the solution. For the next four season, the last place team will be removed from the league and its players put into a contraction draft starting in reverse lottery finishing order then open the waiver bidding wire for playoff teams. The talent is spread too thin and competition too low, and this will solve two problems at once.

Not bad, but it's a short-term solution, tanking-wise. And I think four teams contracted is a bit much.

 

[BTP]

Then I'm confused where your point is going after that. Of course there are busts everywhere in the draft (as I mentioned before). However, you have a much higher chance of drafting a star player in the 1-10 range than outside of the 1-10 range.

Assuming that you need star players to compete at the highest level (pretty sure that's a hard point to argue against), then your best chance of competing is getting a high lottery pick. Logic seems to check out to me.

I think his point is more along the lines of:
You still gotta select the right players which hasn't been exactly the case as evidenced by his numbers. Also you can find a lot of diamonds in the rough as only 60% of the total allstars were picked in the top10.

 

[The Fresh Prince]

But if we darft Jabari Parker and he's the second coming of Michael Jordan, then your whole logic that I didn't read becomes irrelevant, right.

Oh, but you bout it bout it, Doe?