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

[SoberasHotRod]

Maybe no guaranteed contracts like NFL
If player is a dud you can cut him and not be trapped by a contract

How does this help with tanking?

 

[KqWIN]

Blending the years and also limiting the amount of times you can jump into the top 4 would be helpful and spread the love a bit. I think if odds were just based on win loss record and not relative position so that there isn't a huge difference between team 3 that won 20 games and team 5 that won 22 games. That would cause some play in teams to tank out of the play in though as they'd have bigger odds.

Yeah....I just think a blend really hit's hard against "we have to lose this game tomorrow at all costs". This is especially the case if the record in the current year isn't included and it's only previous years. Instead of "we lost against Brooklyn and now that has directly increased our odds at top 4 pick by X%" it's now "we lost against BKN and now that will effect our odds by some small amount in the future". Then you can add in limits on the amount of times you can "win" the lottery or make it so winning the lottery greatly effects odds at winning it again. Honestly, I think the more convoluted it gets the better because then we won't see all these snap decisions with a direct tanking benefit. It's just too tempting right now to look at the standings and directly see the consequences of finishing one game ahead or below another team.

I think if you can combine that with just a little bit of incentive for winning it creates a much better situation. Let's just say you get a little exception that you get to use the next summer, it's based on standings, and it doesn't count against tax. At that point I think you can really start believing that winning that game against other ****** team is more beneficial. At the very least, you don't feel that sinking feeling in your stomach that winning the game is only bad.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Alright. I have a solution I was waiting for the pod to release but too much other stuff.

A lot of the odds stuff simply moves the target. You have to disconnect the teams own record from the draft positioning directly. I had this thought about Brooklyn. They have Johnson and are having this nice surprise start and their pick is roughly where the suns pick is. What if they didn't do the deal to get their own picks back and just said those guys can give us their picks... so we will just ball.

So here is my solution... you have a ****** team draft essentially at the beginning of the year. If you are the worst team in the league you get the first pick which other team you think will be the worst and you get their draft/lotto odds positioning. The order would follow whatever your record was. Lots of surprises happen each year and if teams aren't actively trying to lose it will be harder to predict who is bad and good. While you do get a slight benefit for being bad this year... the reward is like 2 years away since you get the first pick at the beginning of the season. It would also create some enmity potentially (players may not care) but one team is saying... "we bet you suck this year" so its not nice... we want some added competitiveness right? Its weird I know but it removes the conflict of interest teams have in losing.

On top of that I make rules that you can only draft #1 once every 4 years. You can only move into the top 4 2 out of 4 years. So like Houston moving up 4 straight years wouldnt happen... its spreads some of the luck around. I might say maybe 1 out of 3 years.

So you root for the demise of other teams... how many extra Minnesota games have you watched this year? Now fans have a rooting interest in at least two franchises. So you've created enough variances and uncontrollable factors that they will just "play it straight" for the most part hopefully.

I think with any of these solutions the owners will push back hard. These guys feel like they have more control/power and wouldn't relinquish that power easily.

You might have some teams on the margins still happy to place themselves at the top of the selection order, but in general I think this is a great idea.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

Personally I don't like the idea of capping the number of top picks a team can get. Drafts vary widely in the level of talent and especially the top end level of talent. It would not be fair to draft Risacher and then not be able to have a chance at Flagg, for example.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

That's definitely an idea that I've never heard before and hadn't though of myself. Great Work!

I assume a team couldn't pick themselves which would defeat the whole purpose. Teams would also try hard to prove the team that picked them wrong, which would be funny.

Correct. So Wiz have to pick someone else. Maybe they pick Brooklyn and damn... now they are in the play in. Or a team that has an injury now doesn't hold the guy out for lotto positioning cuz that might be going to a long term competitor.

As @NUMBERICA mentioned... some teams would still be fine getting better positioning in the ****** team draft. But the benefit is going to be minimal and far removed and owners might be hesitant to hurt the business just for that.

I also think there would be a slight ratings and social media boost from hate watching other teams. I always check in on the Wolves (not the Cavs as much) but I am a sicko so maybe most fans wouldn's.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Personally I don't like the idea of capping the number of top picks a team can get. Drafts vary widely in the level of talent and especially the top end level of talent. It would not be fair to draft Risacher and then not be able to have a chance at Flagg, for example.

Maybe its 2 out of 4 years to move into the top 4. I just think its also unfair that some teams don't get that chance when they suck for so long. Houston for example has moved up 4 straight years... we never have.

 

[idiot]

Last year (not going to look up the details now), I proposed a system with flattened (but still graduated) odds that included all teams in the draft lottery and all draft positions as part of the lottery.

Goal was to:
- disincentivize tanking (or and missing playoffs) by making the odds difference between different pre-lotto positions so small as to make tanking seem like a foolish proposition
- keep the overall system of rewarding bad teams through the draft more than rewarding good teams (retaining a kind of lifeline that, on the aggregate will help bad teams retool a bit, but not so strong a lifeline that it is seen as a better value proposition than winning and retaining good players)

Can't remember the details. But maybe worst record gets like a 5% chance of number one, and best record gets a 1% chance, with 0.3% chance difference for every change in pre-draft position. (And then similar, if slightly changing odds for all the rest of the picks.

Biggest downside I see:
- more conspiracy theorizing about lottery outcomes

 

[SoberasHotRod]

Correct. So Wiz have to pick someone else. Maybe they pick Brooklyn and damn... now they are in the play in. Or a team that has an injury now doesn't hold the guy out for lotto positioning cuz that might be going to a long term competitor.

As @NUMBERICA mentioned... some teams would still be fine getting better positioning in the ****** team draft. But the benefit is going to be minimal and far removed and owners might be hesitant to hurt the business just for that.

I also think there would be a slight ratings and social media boost from hate watching other teams. I always check in on the Wolves (not the Cavs as much) but I am a sicko so maybe most fans wouldn's.

Having a rooting interest makes watching and following a sport much more enjoyable.

Maybe the only problem I can think of right now is that when your team plays against the team who's draft position it holds, then teams might try and pull off some dirty stuff.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Personally I don't like the idea of capping the number of top picks a team can get. Drafts vary widely in the level of talent and especially the top end level of talent. It would not be fair to draft Risacher and then not be able to have a chance at Flagg, for example.

Another solution here would be teams can "opt out" of moving up in a particular year if the draft seems weak. Teams in the 11-14 range get no opt out but they would land a top 4 pick if all 10 teams opted out... so that's still kinda spreading the love.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Having a rooting interest makes watching and following a sport much more enjoyable.

Maybe the only problem I can think of right now is that when your team plays against the team who's draft position it holds, then teams might try and pull off some dirty stuff.

Nah... cuz you want them to lose. There would be extra on those games.

 

[slc]

How does this help with tanking?

Gives bad teams another avenue to get better players?

 

[JimLes]

Draft picks are entirely too valuable and this is what's causing so many of the issues mentioned in this thread. And draft picks were made too valuable by the introduction of rookie scale contracts.

We need to go back to the system where you have to negotiate contracts with your FRPs. It would solve so much of this stuff. Failing that, ban trading of picks. I would absolutely love that.