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

[fishonjazz]

I think they should actually eliminate the lottery. No more flat odds, just do it like the NFL does. Worst team gets the best pick, 2nd worst gets #2, etc. (they can start this year if they want to. . .)

Will it eliminate the worst teams from tanking? No - but it will eliminate the teams that are outside of the top few picks from being bad on purpose and hopefully make it so more of them are fighting to make the play-in instead.

Combine this with limitations on having a top 3 pick in 2 out of 3 seasons (they automatically get dropped to 4 or lower) to avoid completely bottoming out for multiple years, and I think it could prove to eliminate all but the most egregious forms of tanking. Eliminated the incentive to lose and teams will stop doing it.

I also like limiting how picks can be protected moving forward. Make a standard for all pick protections - unprotected, top 3, and lottery protected. That’s it. I’m sure it will come with a bunch of unintended consequences, but that makes it very easy to know if they’ll keep their picks or not and force teams to compete because there’s little incentive to lose to keep a pick.

I like this. Really simple too

Sent from my OPD2203 using Tapatalk

 

[Coach Ellis]

Honestly, the more I think about it is make a rule you can only win the lottery once every 3 years.

Not sure that would solve tanking how ever. Because teams will still want the worst record possible.

I just think that will even out the dispersion of players. For instance SA won 2 years ago they would not be eligible to win this year. That would also make some picks not worth as much of they win the lotto the previous year the next 2 years unprotected pics might not be worth as much as they could not win. I think carrying over winning with another teams pick would also count towards the 3 year rule.

Say the jazz won a top 3 pick with say the minny pick. Best the jazz could get next year would be #4 and that would mean they had the worst record next year.

There would still need to be wrinkles to iron out.

I took my thought process and gamed it out for the last three seasons - just to see what would have changed. Here’s how it broke down.

(2020 Top 3 - Minnesota, Golden State & Charlotte - teams eligible again for a top 3 pick in 2023
2021 Top 3 - Detroit, Houston & Cleveland - eligible again in 2024)

2022
01 - Orlando - Paulo Banchero (same)
02 - OKC - Chet Holmgren (same)
03 - Sacramento (moves up because Houston is ineligible) Jabari Smith, Jr.
04 - Houston - Keegan Murray
(It’s possible that these two picks don’t change based on who Sacramento preferred)

2023
01 - San Antonio (moves up because both Detroit and Houston are ineligible) Victor Wembanyama
02 - Charlotte (Detroit & Houston ineligible) Brandon Miller
03 - Portland (Detroit & Houston ineligible) Scoot Henderson
04 & 05 - Detroit & Houston would be switched in order, so it’s possible that Amen ends up with the Pistons and Ausur ends up with the Rockets
06 + - everything else stays the same. . .

2024 - this is where it gets interesting
01 - Washington (moves up because Detroit is ineligible) - Sarr or Risacher
02 - Toronto (moves up because Detroit, Charlotte, Portland and San Antonio are all ineligible this year and keep their pick, but it conveys to San Antonio in 2025) Risacher or Sarr
03 - Memphis (Detroit, Charlotte, Portland & San Antonio are all ineligible) probably Clingan at this point?

Then you have Detroit, Charlotte, Portland, San Antonio, Utah, Chicago and Houston (via Phoenix) with Sheppard, Castle, Holland, Salaun, Dillingham, Edey, Williams, Buzelis and Topic all considered to be likely high picks.

It would change things, but not in any overly dramatic way. The bottom teams would probably tank pretty hard to get that best pick, but it eliminates the availability to do it again for at least two years. I think it would actually work pretty well tbh.

 

[NUMBERICA]

I think they should actually eliminate the lottery. No more flat odds, just do it like the NFL does. Worst team gets the best pick, 2nd worst gets #2, etc. (they can start this year if they want to. . .)

Will it eliminate the worst teams from tanking? No - but it will eliminate the teams that are outside of the top few picks from being bad on purpose and hopefully make it so more of them are fighting to make the play-in instead.

Combine this with limitations on having a top 3 pick in 2 out of 3 seasons (they automatically get dropped to 4 or lower) to avoid completely bottoming out for multiple years, and I think it could prove to eliminate all but the most egregious forms of tanking. Eliminated the incentive to lose and teams will stop doing it.

I also like limiting how picks can be protected moving forward. Make a standard for all pick protections - unprotected, top 3, and lottery protected. That’s it. I’m sure it will come with a bunch of unintended consequences, but that makes it very easy to know if they’ll keep their picks or not and force teams to compete because there’s little incentive to lose to keep a pick.

Given that so much of what drives tanking is specifically getting to the top of the draft, regulating/capping that outcome is probably the single-most effective tool at combatting tanking (while still giving organically bad teams better draft positioning in the aggregate). The only reason we have a lottery in the first place is to lower the chances that losing games on purpose lands you a franchise-changing pick, so why not just be more intentional about it and spread the wealth in the process? I don’t get how randomness and chaos is supposed to create parity and competitiveness.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

So here's an outside the box way to potentially improve tanking.

Allow 16 or 17 year olds to get drafted, but keep the rule that they can't play in the NBA until the year they turn 19.

The benefit of tanking would be more risky and more delayed. It think this would discourage more teams from going this route.

(FWIW I don't necessarily like this idea, but just throwing it out there).

 

[NUMBERICA]

Given that so much of what drives tanking is specifically getting to the top of the draft, regulating/capping that outcome is probably the single-most effective tool at combatting tanking (while still giving organically bad teams better draft positioning in the aggregate). The only reason we have a lottery in the first place is to lower the chances that losing games on purpose lands you a franchise-changing pick, so why not just be more intentional about it and spread the wealth in the process? I don’t get how randomness and chaos is supposed to create parody and competitiveness.

Can someone tell me how in the **** the Celtics and Lakers were able to reload with high picks while already being loaded in the late 70’s and 80’s?

Capping those top-end outcomes (and going even further by eliminating the lottery) removes the ability for teams to repeatedly just get “lucky” and by extension removes any suspicion that the league is rigging lottery outcomes.

The more I think about this, the more I like it. Regulate/cap the top of the draft and after that just let the draft fall by record. All three poles of the discussion (1. How do we stop tanking? 2. How do we create opportunities for bad teams to improve? 3. How do we facilitate fairness, competitiveness, and trust in the system?).

 

[Coach Ellis]

Given that so much of what drives tanking is specifically getting to the top of the draft, regulating/capping that outcome is probably the single-most effective tool at combatting tanking. The only reason we have a lottery in the first place is to lower the chances that losing games on purpose lands you a franchise-changing pick, so why not just be more intentional about it and spread the wealth in the process? I don’t get how randomness and chaos is supposed to create parody and competitiveness.

I agree. It’s why I think this would be the most effective solution. Simplify the process, to reward the truly bad teams, but still limit the effectiveness of long-term tanking. Add to that the simplified pick protections, and I think it makes it really easy to get rid of the worst offenders.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

Can someone tell me how in the **** the Celtics and Lakers were able to reload with high picks while already being loaded in the late 70’s and 80’s?

Capping those top-end outcomes (and going even further by eliminating the lottery) removes the ability for teams to repeatedly just get “lucky” and by extension removes any suspicion that the league is rigging lottery outcomes.

The more I think about this, the more I like it.

I'm not sure, but the lottery wasn't invented until the mid-late 80's so I don't think it has anything to do with the lottery.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

I agree. It’s why I think this would be the most effective solution. Simplify the process, to reward the truly bad teams, but still limit the effectiveness of long-term tanking. Add to that the simplified pick protections, and I think it makes it really easy to get rid of the worst offenders.

I do think the solution is simple and easy to execute, I'm just not sure if it does enough. When teams are eliminated from the playoff/play in they will still want to maximize the value of their pick by being as bad as possible. There is still no real incentive to winning games for a large majority of teams at the end of the season and even improving their pick by one or two spots could be all the incentive they need.

That said, I haven't thought of a better solution that would likely get approved, so maybe there just isn't a good way.

 

[NUMBERICA]

I agree. It’s why I think this would be the most effective solution. Simplify the process, to reward the truly bad teams, but still limit the effectiveness of long-term tanking. Add to that the simplified pick protections, and I think it makes it really easy to get rid of the worst offenders.

Only thing I might touch with pick protections is that perhaps capping the top of the draft should also apply to when a team owns another team’s unprotected pick. I’m envisioning a team that has the #1 pick then wins another top-3 pick from another team (but not allowing them that outcome).

That, or just cap protections at top-3; no unprotected picks allowed. Would probably be better for competitiveness to not allow teams to destroy their franchises, a la the Stepien Rule. Would also probably lube the trade market somewhat if you don’t have teams demanding unprotected picks because they can’t.

 

[Coach Ellis]

I'm not sure, but the lottery wasn't invented until the mid-late 80's so I don't think it has anything to do with the lottery.

Celtics - Bird was drafted 6th overall in 78, but didn’t play for them until 79. Boston made a crap ton of trades before the 1980 draft and ended up with the #1 pick (via Detroit), which they traded to Golden State for Robert Parrish and the 3rd overall pick - which was used to take Kevin McHale. Danny Ainge was drafted in the 2nd round in
1981.

Lakers - already had Kareem and then Magic was drafted 1st overall in 79 (with the Jazz pick from the disastrous Gail Goodrich acquisition) and James Worthy was drafted 1st overall in 82 (from a pick they got in a trade with Cleveland)

This was before pick protections were introduced, and owning another bad teams picks (plus some luck/good drafting) was how you built a dynasty back before free agency.

 

[idiot]

Given that so much of what drives tanking is specifically getting to the top of the draft, regulating/capping that outcome is probably the single-most effective tool at combatting tanking (while still giving organically bad teams better draft positioning in the aggregate). The only reason we have a lottery in the first place is to lower the chances that losing games on purpose lands you a franchise-changing pick, so why not just be more intentional about it and spread the wealth in the process? I don’t get how randomness and chaos is supposed to create parity and competitiveness.

I have to admit that I'm surprised that everyone has just ignored my odds-flattening lottery rejiggering earlier in this thread that tries to do exactly this (is it because no one can read/fully comprehend tankathon-style odds?): while keeping the aspect of giving the worst teams the highest average pick, my idea moved the "sweet spot" of winning the lottery for the top 5 picks to the middle of the standings and greatly flattened them out in the process (several teams max out at 5% chance for #1 pick).

I mean if there's some obvious flaw that I overlooked, I'd like it to be pointed out, but nobody gave it the time of day.

 

[GunterD]

For anyone who cares to give an assessment about this idea for rejiggering the lotto odds to try to solve tanking, I welcome your thoughts. (And yes I know there are ideas that do away with the lotto altogether that could well be more attractive -- I'm just trying to think what's possible IF the NBA wants to solve tanking while keeping a lotto).

The principles I've tried to follow:

• Make the race to the bottom unattractive (with the odds for a top-5 pick going down for the worst 10 teams, rather than up) while still, on average, helping worse teams with the draft more than better teams
• Reward winning more than the current system
• Get rid of the idea that "the middle is the worst place to be," while simultaneously maybe giving a little more value to the play-in race

The table should be read like you'd read the Tankathon Lottery odds page, with all of the numbers in the Picks 1-30 and Top-5 pick columns being the odds (in percent). (Thanks to the Universal Draft Lottery Simulator website for making the math that is way to hard for me possible to see worked out).

View attachment 18295

Wasn't actively posting at this point so I'll admit I just brushed past it in catching up with the thread.

It does mostly achieve your stated objectives of keeping the average good pick going to the worst teams, but rewarding the best teams with the best chance at the top 5, which would incentivize mediocre teams still pushing hard to win, to a certain point.

I think it pushes the idea a little bit too hard. While its true that many of the best players were drafted outside the top 5, its also true that you are way way more likely to find a great player in the top 5 than at any other position. So I think it becomes really difficult for really bad teams to pull themselves out of that hole. The occasional win for teams near the top is going to push a championship favorite to an untouchable decade-long juggernaut at some point.

I have generally heard that home court advantage in the NBA playoffs has become less and less important, which is one of the things that has led to teams resting star players a lot. This gives a little more incentive for them to do that. Towards the ends of seasons we may see teams near the tops of the standings rest players a little more, since dropping from a 3 seed to a 4 seed isn't going to matter too much for the playoffs, but gives a decent boost to the lottery odds.

Making the middle the "best" place to be is kind of interesting. The way you would see team churn would probably involve the big markets mostly hanging out near the top and reloading via free agency, occasionally dipping into that middle tier when players retire, and then bouncing back up either through draft luck or free agency. You'd see a lot fewer teams completely gutting themselves when they lose their big guns. I think it would be even more devastating to smaller market teams when their big name players leave in free agency. There would still be a tier of teams without hope of getting into the sweet spots that would probably still field very uncompetitive teams and decide they are better off losing for that 6 spot than trying to claw their way up the charts.

There's probably some equation that balances the relative value of a #1 pick vs the value of lower picks. Though the details of that would probably vary between draft classes, someone is going to run that on this chart and find some "expected maximum value" slot and the dominant strategy is going to end up being trying to capture the 7 or 8 spot, which is going to end up with some weird situations where teams above that slot are tanking and teams below it are trying to win.

I dunno, its an interesting idea. I'm probably not seeing everything with it. But gut feel, its going to create a scenario where top tier playoff teams rest the superstars more frequently, and maybe even intentionally tank a bit towards the end of the season, and mediocre teams try a weird combination of tanking and competing to try to reach a specific number slot. And some lottery luck is going to end up creating a superteam, with the odds of that happening to someone probably favoring the bigger markets