The art and agony of the tank (split from game thread)
- Thread starter New Era
- Start date
- Status
If nobody voted in their own division that would also kind of cancel out. The idea - which I didn't fully flesh out above, my apologies - would be that each front office would *rank* all 30 teams, not just give one vote. Eventually you have to throw in the vote for a bad team in your own division. But yes, making the votes public would probably help there from being too much shenanigans (while also allowing front offices to "punish" teams that are perceived as tanking).
This is true. The current system is designed to be a middle ground between ensuring the worst teams get the best picks (competitive balance) and giving teams less incentive to tank (anti-tank). Whether it's ideally balanced in trying to address both of those goals is very hard to say, but it seems close to me. And, just my opinion, to have a chance at really improving the system (both discouraging tanking and trying to get the best pick to the worst teams) I think we need to look outside the box. It's easy to propose a solution that fixes one of the two. Both is not nearly so easy.
This is true. The current system is designed to be a middle ground between ensuring the worst teams get the best picks (competitive balance) and giving teams less incentive to tank (anti-tank). Whether it's ideally balanced in trying to address both of those goals is very hard to say, but it seems close to me. And, just my opinion, to have a chance at really improving the system (both discouraging tanking and trying to get the best pick to the worst teams) I think we need to look outside the box. It's easy to propose a solution that fixes one of the two. Both is not nearly so easy.
IMO, the tanking problem isn't solved by this. Many lottery teams are in the lottery for years. Which means the 3 year records are likely to be somewhat close. And you could have teams tanking most the season (like Philly has done before) to make up a 10+ game difference if there was one.
To me, the only system that will truly dissuade losing on purpose is one that doesn't provide better odds for losing more games.
IMO, you either go back to the NFL's system of draft order by set by inverse record or you give all the non-playoff teams the same exact odds. If you do the 1st, you'll still have teams incentivized to lose games but it'll likely not be as rampant as it is now. If you do the 2nd, there's absolutely no incentive to lose because it doesn't matter if you finish with the worst record in the league or the 14th worst.
To me, the only system that will truly dissuade losing on purpose is one that doesn't provide better odds for losing more games.
IMO, you either go back to the NFL's system of draft order by set by inverse record or you give all the non-playoff teams the same exact odds. If you do the 1st, you'll still have teams incentivized to lose games but it'll likely not be as rampant as it is now. If you do the 2nd, there's absolutely no incentive to lose because it doesn't matter if you finish with the worst record in the league or the 14th worst.
If you set the draft order by inverse record, the incentive to lose games will be larger than now, not smaller. Now there is a randomization (the lottery) which attempts to make the record not 100% predictive of draft order. If record becomes more closely tied to draft order (going by inverse record ties it completely to draft order) then each loss actually benefits the team MORE than now, when losses are only lotto balls and not actual draft position.
I think the equal weighting of all 14 lottery teams might actually be the best solution. As it is currently your odds of getting a top 3 pick are tied to your record so the incentive is to lose as much as possible, bottom out to draft your superstar, and then build from there. The problem is some teams (Cleveland) get lucky and win the lottery on their first (and second and third) try while others (us) can't win a top 3 pick in 10 years of trying. Granted we never tried to game the system like Philadelphia and maximize our odds for multiple years but is that really what the NBA is trying to do with the draft? Reward teams for losing on purpose? Probably not.
If they go back to equal weighting the only way to improve your odds is to be in the lottery for more years which means missing the playoffs for an extended period. Not a good outcome either but at least the draft would be theoretically helping teams that need the most help without giving any 1 team the option of artifically inflating their odds. Presumably teams will improve once they draft a star player and become playoff teams provided they don't sabotage themselves with terrible trades. You still have the issue of luck being a factor but I wonder if our odds of getting a top 3 pick in 10 years of missing the playoffs would actually be better with a 3 in 14 chance (21.4%) every year instead of whatever our mid lotto odds add up to on this current system. Then if we're really that concerned about teams winning top 3 picks year after year without actually becoming good enough to make the playoffs (see Hinkie's plan of targeting injured big men and draft and stash international prospects) you could add a rule that says you can't win a top 3 pick in consecutive years. It's a simpler solution and it does what the draft is supposed to do which is to hopefully distribute talent to the teams which need it most without actively encouraging intentional losses.
Other possible improvements could be drawing the first 5 picks in an equally weighted lottery instead of just the top 3, removing the option of adding protections on traded picks so it's an all our nothing deal like in the NFL (bad teams really have to think long and hard before trading their picks in this case which means the value of those picks go up), maybe tell teams that they can't trade first round picks at all only swap rights. There could also be three rounds instead of two with the second and third round order determined by record only but teams can draft players directly to their D league affiliates and have them protected for 2 years with the option to add them to the active roster with an NBA contract at any point in those 2 years or relinquish their rights.
If they go back to equal weighting the only way to improve your odds is to be in the lottery for more years which means missing the playoffs for an extended period. Not a good outcome either but at least the draft would be theoretically helping teams that need the most help without giving any 1 team the option of artifically inflating their odds. Presumably teams will improve once they draft a star player and become playoff teams provided they don't sabotage themselves with terrible trades. You still have the issue of luck being a factor but I wonder if our odds of getting a top 3 pick in 10 years of missing the playoffs would actually be better with a 3 in 14 chance (21.4%) every year instead of whatever our mid lotto odds add up to on this current system. Then if we're really that concerned about teams winning top 3 picks year after year without actually becoming good enough to make the playoffs (see Hinkie's plan of targeting injured big men and draft and stash international prospects) you could add a rule that says you can't win a top 3 pick in consecutive years. It's a simpler solution and it does what the draft is supposed to do which is to hopefully distribute talent to the teams which need it most without actively encouraging intentional losses.
Other possible improvements could be drawing the first 5 picks in an equally weighted lottery instead of just the top 3, removing the option of adding protections on traded picks so it's an all our nothing deal like in the NFL (bad teams really have to think long and hard before trading their picks in this case which means the value of those picks go up), maybe tell teams that they can't trade first round picks at all only swap rights. There could also be three rounds instead of two with the second and third round order determined by record only but teams can draft players directly to their D league affiliates and have them protected for 2 years with the option to add them to the active roster with an NBA contract at any point in those 2 years or relinquish their rights.
I am sure the fans who fork over thousands of dollars a season care very much if their team puts out a purposely inferior product to game the lottery.
Maybe draft odds should be tied to consecutive years out of the playoffs. If the years are tied then split them. I may be biased but I think long playoff droughts are pretty good indicators of who needs help.
Maybe draft odds should be tied to consecutive years out of the playoffs. If the years are tied then split them. I may be biased but I think long playoff droughts are pretty good indicators of who needs help.
Coming from Europe and growing up with the rules of european soccer and basketball, I don't have an issue with the equal weighting method. If your team sucks in european leagues you have way more problems than complaining about lottery probabilities. If you're one of the worst 2-3 teams you're going down to second league which is a financial catastrophy for most teams that they often don't recover from. Moreover, since there is no college or draft system at all and the best teams have the most money to invest in youth development, the best teams will get the best youth players. And if not, they just buy them from smaller clubs.
So my frame of reference lets me perceive the american sport leagues as so teamfriendly and protective that a equally weighted 7% at a top prospect really looks nice for bad teams. If you're however used to the american sports system, I can see why some would perceive equal weighting as unfair.
So my frame of reference lets me perceive the american sport leagues as so teamfriendly and protective that a equally weighted 7% at a top prospect really looks nice for bad teams. If you're however used to the american sports system, I can see why some would perceive equal weighting as unfair.
I think this could be a good solution too. That's sortof what I was getting at indirectly -- more years out of the playoffs means more chances in the lottery and removing the weightings we have now means it's less likely a team wins the #1 overall pick in their first year of missing the playoffs (like Cleveland, Washington, and New Orleans have done recently) just because they lost their franchise player and lost 80% of their games. As a fan of this team it's hard to feel much sympathy for a team that rides a superstar to 5 or 6 straight playoffs and then loses them and immediately gets a shot at another superstar. Just having your odds increase incrementally every year like you suggest until you make the playoffs and reset the clock could work too. It decreases the chances of a team toiling in mid-lotto purgatory for an entire decade like we have. You might get teams tanking the end of the year if they're looking at either a first round sweep or a very good chance at a top 3 pick but in any case it would be far less prevalent than it is now.
The reason tanking and the current lottery system works is instant gratification. Teams see who is likely available in the upcoming draft with plenty of time to be worse long enough to get a potential star.
If lottery percentages were tied to number of years out of the playoffs this wouldn't be viable. The teams whose fans have endured losing longer get the better shot to crawl back into relevancy.
If lottery percentages were tied to number of years out of the playoffs this wouldn't be viable. The teams whose fans have endured losing longer get the better shot to crawl back into relevancy.
Instant gratification? Greg Oden anyone?
I'd much rather see the FANS who pay way too much for tickets to games get instant gratification in terms of seeing their team play hard and try, regardless of the potential draft pick. Either that, or force teams who intentionally tank to reduce ticket prices, offer rebates for season ticket holders who have to pay for their tickets months in advance, and even give refunds to fans who still attend games when the team decides to tank.
I'd much rather see the FANS who pay way too much for tickets to games get instant gratification in terms of seeing their team play hard and try, regardless of the potential draft pick. Either that, or force teams who intentionally tank to reduce ticket prices, offer rebates for season ticket holders who have to pay for their tickets months in advance, and even give refunds to fans who still attend games when the team decides to tank.
@VF21
I think you misunderstood me or likely I didn't word it well.
By instant gratification I am referring to how quickly a team can go from decent to tank mode based on who is projected to declare for the upcoming draft. Teams that have been cellar dwellers for years might stay that way because another team liked the upcoming draft and tanked the best.
Not referring to fans.
I think you misunderstood me or likely I didn't word it well.
By instant gratification I am referring to how quickly a team can go from decent to tank mode based on who is projected to declare for the upcoming draft. Teams that have been cellar dwellers for years might stay that way because another team liked the upcoming draft and tanked the best.
Not referring to fans.
Thought I would give the lottery overall a try. Feel free to tear it apart.
Teams are awarded draft pts as follows
Lottery 100
1st round PO loss 80
2nd round PO loss 60
Rest 40
Draft rules:
Teams barter draft pts for players, highest pts wins
Picks are announced by the highest points bid
In case of a tie, teams have 2 minutes to rebid. If still tied, most regular season losses wins the tie
If a team does does not win a pick, their pts return to their pool
Teams have five minutes after each round to re-evaluate their bids
Once a team is out of draft points they are done with the draft
Non-lottery teams can't pick before 16 unless by trade or no bids are presented by Lottery teams
Draft lasts for 60 picks or there are no more bids
Players can be traded for draft points
Unspent draft points can be rolled over to the following year
Teams are awarded draft pts as follows
Lottery 100
1st round PO loss 80
2nd round PO loss 60
Rest 40
Draft rules:
Teams barter draft pts for players, highest pts wins
Picks are announced by the highest points bid
In case of a tie, teams have 2 minutes to rebid. If still tied, most regular season losses wins the tie
If a team does does not win a pick, their pts return to their pool
Teams have five minutes after each round to re-evaluate their bids
Once a team is out of draft points they are done with the draft
Non-lottery teams can't pick before 16 unless by trade or no bids are presented by Lottery teams
Draft lasts for 60 picks or there are no more bids
Players can be traded for draft points
Unspent draft points can be rolled over to the following year
I disagree from the standpoint that there will be a smaller pool of teams vying for the #1 or even bottom 2 or 3. And on average you'll have 2 or 3 teams out of the 14 still competing for the #8 up until the last week or so. In short, I believe there'd be less teams doing this.
If a team is in the #7 slot and they are 3 games ahead of #6, tanking to maybe move up 1 spot doesn't make as much sense as it does in an effort to gain more chances at a top 3 pick. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen at all, I just believe it would be far less than the current system where everyone is trying to get more combinations for a top 3.
In summary, I'm not saying it's a good system but I do believe it would be better than what we have now. History sorta backs me up in that we didn't see as much jockeying under that system as we do now. Back when Houston did it, there were maybe 2 or 3 teams doing it.
Having said all that, I still believe the best solution is giving all 14 non-playoff teams the same opportunity like they did from 1985 until 1994 (or whatever year it changed).
If a team is in the #7 slot and they are 3 games ahead of #6, tanking to maybe move up 1 spot doesn't make as much sense as it does in an effort to gain more chances at a top 3 pick. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen at all, I just believe it would be far less than the current system where everyone is trying to get more combinations for a top 3.
In summary, I'm not saying it's a good system but I do believe it would be better than what we have now. History sorta backs me up in that we didn't see as much jockeying under that system as we do now. Back when Houston did it, there were maybe 2 or 3 teams doing it.
Having said all that, I still believe the best solution is giving all 14 non-playoff teams the same opportunity like they did from 1985 until 1994 (or whatever year it changed).
Last edited:
What's it matter anyway? The team is in that predicament because they aren't any good anyway so it's not like you're missing out on exciting basketball that means anything.
Hell, I've been much more invested in the lottery teams this year than I ever have because of our two picks. It's been much more interesting to me to see how it pans out, rather than watching Collison, Temple, Tolliver etc get big minutes and put on slightly more competitive, albeit still bad basketball.
Hell, I've been much more invested in the lottery teams this year than I ever have because of our two picks. It's been much more interesting to me to see how it pans out, rather than watching Collison, Temple, Tolliver etc get big minutes and put on slightly more competitive, albeit still bad basketball.
So basically an auction system - that's definitely thinking outside of the box.
It's not clear whether you're proposing that teams bid for a pick or bid for a player. Presumably they would bid for a pick, so the first "item" up for auction is not "Marquelle Fultz" but it's "Pick #1 in the draft". Another question is whether teams winning picks would then select their player immediately or if player selection would occur after the picks are all assigned. It seems like the bids are blind, but in that case I'm not sure you really want a re-bid, just break the tie immediately. And I think you may have meant to say that non-lottery teams can't pick before 14 (the number of lottery teams) unless a lotto team hasn't bid (that might cause some intrigue, because a fairly low bid could win the 14th pick).
There are a couple of other questions, such as how many years would points roll over (just one, or indefinitely?), if there is a minimum number of points that must be spent (can a team just decline to bid at all in a weak draft and have a dominating hand the next year?), and whether or not there's a limit to the number of picks a team can acquire in a single draft.
But this is interesting. I'd have to think about whether it would do a good job of both removing the incentive to tank and correcting competitive imbalance. My initial thought is that while the point payouts you describe would de-incentivize tanking, there isn't much correction for competitive imbalance. But it's worth thinking about.
It's not clear whether you're proposing that teams bid for a pick or bid for a player. Presumably they would bid for a pick, so the first "item" up for auction is not "Marquelle Fultz" but it's "Pick #1 in the draft". Another question is whether teams winning picks would then select their player immediately or if player selection would occur after the picks are all assigned. It seems like the bids are blind, but in that case I'm not sure you really want a re-bid, just break the tie immediately. And I think you may have meant to say that non-lottery teams can't pick before 14 (the number of lottery teams) unless a lotto team hasn't bid (that might cause some intrigue, because a fairly low bid could win the 14th pick).
There are a couple of other questions, such as how many years would points roll over (just one, or indefinitely?), if there is a minimum number of points that must be spent (can a team just decline to bid at all in a weak draft and have a dominating hand the next year?), and whether or not there's a limit to the number of picks a team can acquire in a single draft.
But this is interesting. I'd have to think about whether it would do a good job of both removing the incentive to tank and correcting competitive imbalance. My initial thought is that while the point payouts you describe would de-incentivize tanking, there isn't much correction for competitive imbalance. But it's worth thinking about.
God what a disgusting heartbreaker Laker finish. I wish I could go back in time and NOT find that one on TV. Kicked in the nuts 
By the way, I know Carmichael Dave says there is nothing to the notion that tanking creates a loser mentality, but how do you explain the Wolves still sucking this bad after all the lovely tanking and trades. Sixers too. How do you break the suck chain when you make it your first order of business to suck year after year.
By the way, I know Carmichael Dave says there is nothing to the notion that tanking creates a loser mentality, but how do you explain the Wolves still sucking this bad after all the lovely tanking and trades. Sixers too. How do you break the suck chain when you make it your first order of business to suck year after year.
They weren't a playoff team just yet. No identity or leadership.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...unce-straight-back-from-the-Championship.html
Before looking at the #'s I thought more teams had fought their way back into the premier league from the lower tier. Guess not. Ouch.
I guess the #'s lend to the frantic playing by the teams in danger of relegation and the depression of fans of said clubs. There is no resting or tanking on these teams in danger of relegation. Franchises that fall out of the premier league take a huge hit in the pocket book. You no longer have those top flight clubs coming into your stadium and it gets harder and harder to attract good players the longer you are in the 2nd tier league.
Imagine giving 2nd tier (d league) teams a chance to play in the NBA and knocking down MN or Sac down into the d league for being badly run franchises. I can't think of a better way to light a fire under bad franchises butts.
Before looking at the #'s I thought more teams had fought their way back into the premier league from the lower tier. Guess not. Ouch.
I guess the #'s lend to the frantic playing by the teams in danger of relegation and the depression of fans of said clubs. There is no resting or tanking on these teams in danger of relegation. Franchises that fall out of the premier league take a huge hit in the pocket book. You no longer have those top flight clubs coming into your stadium and it gets harder and harder to attract good players the longer you are in the 2nd tier league.
Imagine giving 2nd tier (d league) teams a chance to play in the NBA and knocking down MN or Sac down into the d league for being badly run franchises. I can't think of a better way to light a fire under bad franchises butts.
I'm just talking about the end of the season when there's nothing left to play for. No chance at the playoffs or anything.
When I think back about the Kings I think of all the great playoff matchups against Utah, LA, Dallas etc. More recently we think about what could have been with Mike Malone or whether we could have made the playoffs with Cousins this year.
No one ever reminisces about the last couple weeks of a no chance at the playoffs season. I think people are overreacting to the whole tanking thing because it's not like we are all looking fondly back at the last few weeks of the past decade wishing we could get those pointless games back where the wins meant nothing other than falling further and further down the draft board.
When I think back about the Kings I think of all the great playoff matchups against Utah, LA, Dallas etc. More recently we think about what could have been with Mike Malone or whether we could have made the playoffs with Cousins this year.
No one ever reminisces about the last couple weeks of a no chance at the playoffs season. I think people are overreacting to the whole tanking thing because it's not like we are all looking fondly back at the last few weeks of the past decade wishing we could get those pointless games back where the wins meant nothing other than falling further and further down the draft board.
It's about playing the odds. It says right there that the exact scenario where we win the #1 pick has only a 3.5% chance of happening. And that's if we stay where we are. If we move down and swap places with Dallas those odds fall to 1.7%. Sure we could get really lucky or really unlucky regardless but I'll take the better odds. Not to mention, in the more likely event that we do not win a top 3 pick (because we never do...) wouldn't you rather pick 6th than 9th? My nightmare scenario is always seeing my favorite player in the draft slip a few spots only to go 1 pick above us. I guess that could happen (and probably will... ) wherever we pick but dammit man (madam)! I can be irrational about things too! It just feels better to feel like we have some control over our own fate. Did I mention how much I hate the lottery? Ugh.
- Status