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

[SoberasHotRod]

I just thought of and new idea, so haven't had time to critically think about it too much:

Let teams draft kids out of high school, but keep the age requirement for playing in the league.

Drafting guys younger makes drafting as a strategy less likely to be successful and having them wait a year makes the reward less instant.

I'm not sure if the Gleague is a great place to put these kids and I would hate to remove them from NCCAB, so maybe not a great idea.

 

[The Midnight]

I just thought of and new idea, so haven't had time to critically think about it too much:

Let teams draft kids out of high school, but keep the age requirement for playing in the league.

Drafting guys younger makes drafting as a strategy less likely to be successful and having them wait a year makes the reward less instant.

I'm not sure if the Gleague is a great place to put these kids and I would hate to remove them from NCCAB, so maybe not a great idea.

I think you’re killing the patient to save the leg by doing that, not he other way round.

 

[The Midnight]

Personally I don't think tanking is that big an issue people make it out to be. The lottery odds are flat enough that only 3-4 teams are incentivized to do it religiously each year. Out of 30 teams that’s not a bad thing.

It’s just a normal process of getting really bad before you get really good.

Great organizations are strong enough to embrace that, played within the rules and come back stronger.

It’s the whiny impatient fanbase that wants everything NOW that’s the problem.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

Actually remove the word "lottery" and it does fix tanking. Every team has equal odds at every pick. Regardless of playoffs or no playoffs.
But there are a ton of crappy consequences to that which might be worse than tanking.

Such as the worst team getting a really bad pick?

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

Because then you are letting a human decide who is tanking and who legitimately sucks or has legit injuries. No bueno.

Have an nba appointed doctor for every team every player out for injury has a routine check by said doctor he determines if that player can play or not, and have specific rules for resting players when they can when they can’t crap like that it really isn’t that difficult

 

[The Midnight]

Also to add, the League isn't a fair League.

Larger market teams like the Lakers are forever better at attracting free agents.

The lottery (and tanking) is a secret weapon for smaller market teams to get back on equal terms.

It’s a way of keeping the League in balance.

Remove that and the balance tips the other way.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Actually remove the word "lottery" and it does fix tanking. Every team has equal odds at every pick. Regardless of playoffs or no playoffs.
But there are a ton of crappy consequences to that which might be worse than tanking.

It is way, way worse than the fact that 5-10 teams every year since kinda forever have been tanking.

 

[Park Bites]

You wouldn't give a team 1 and 2 in a 4 year span

You would need some kind of analytical value model to come up with the best order (which they have probably already done)

Very true but the concept is still true

 

[bopahull]

For the 1,000,000th time, that would create a scenario where teams on the margins of making the playoffs tank out of making the playoffs. We already see this on occasion, making that change would shift that phenomenon into overdrive and just shift tanking from the bottom of the league to legitimately competitive teams which is not better. Worse, it actively un-evens the playing field.

The notion that this is a simple fix is stunningly small-minded.

That's why I included the second fix which I think would be more viable and more effective in discouraging tanking.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

Having the team that most needs the best player in the draft get them makes sense. It doesn't quite feel right to reward badly managed teams, but let's just go with the premise that all teams are about equally managed and they just go through cycles of being bad and good. Let's also go with the premise that there was a system to detect and discourage sitting healthy players.

If that were true then it would make sense to get rid of the lottery all together and have the team with the worst combine record over the last three years to get the top pick. This way if a team like Philidelphia that already has 3 stars on the team randomly has a crazy injury year, they wouldn't get the top pick. It would also discourage teams from bottoming out since it would be a long process to get a top pick, and most teams wouldn't be able to stomach it.

Combine that with a hard cap and no max contracts and other modifications to encourage free agency and now teams have a real choice on team building. They can bottom out for a guaranteed 3 years, or they can pursue free agents.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Having the team that most needs the best player in the draft get them makes sense. It doesn't quite feel right to reward badly managed teams, but let's just go with the premise that all teams are about equally managed and they just go through cycles of being bad and good. Let's also go with the premise that there was a system to detect and discourage sitting healthy players.

If that were true then it would make sense to get rid of the lottery all together and have the team with the worst combine record over the last three years to get the top pick. This way if a team like Philidelphia that already has 3 stars on the team randomly has a crazy injury year, they wouldn't get the top pick. It would also discourage teams from bottoming out since it would be a long process to get a top pick, and most teams wouldn't be able to stomach it.

Combine that with a hard cap and no max contracts and other modifications to encourage free agency and now teams have a real choice on team building. They can bottom out for a guaranteed 3 years, or they can pursue free agents.

Thats just complete BS though. There are what, 10 teams (at most, that's probably being too generous), who have a player most would deem a player who can realistically when a ring with as your best player. So many more teams need that player than just the worst team. That's why I hate the lottery. That's why being the Jazz sucked for so long (not really, I didnt think it "sucked" but it was always lame knowing the team was too good to ever get "that" player).

Enter The Wheel where every team is afforded the same draft position over 30 years and they actually have to do the job of being a good GM/Franchise to build their teams.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

Thats just complete BS though. There are what, 10 teams (at most, that's probably being too generous), who have a player most would deem a player who can realistically when a ring with as your best player. So many more teams need that player than just the worst team. That's why I hate the lottery. That's why being the Jazz sucked for so long (not really, I didnt think it "sucked" but it was always lame knowing the team was too good to ever get "that" player).

Enter The Wheel where every team is afforded the same draft position over 30 years and they actually have to do the job of being a good GM/Franchise to build their teams.

The game theory podcast had a recent episode with tank rankings where they rated how much each team needed Cooper Flagg. That's kind of how the idea came from.

The Wheel is completely fair, but requires even more luck than the lottery since drafts are not created equal. A team would really have to luck out on getting their top picks during years where top pick worthy guys are in the draft.

FWIW, I'm just putting these thoughts out there as theoretical ideas that should be considered. I continue to think that ideas like the Wheel are incomplete without addressing the need for alternative ways to build a team outside of the draft.