I’m not a huge fan of the NBA’s current lottery system. Hoping for abject failure as the road to success doesn’t make sense to me. ESPN’s True Hoop Network recently posted a week’s worth of articles on ending tanking. There was one idea that I thought was particularly interesting. In a presentation at the Sloan Sports Analytics Conference, Adam Gold presented a concept where the team that wins the most games after they are eliminated from playoff contention, gets the first pick in the draft.
For the article at ESPN, see here.
I really like the idea, with one tweak; set the baseline as the “median playoff team” instead of “out of playoff contention”- i.e. the team with the NBA’s 8th best record. The presented concept places too much importance on the strength of a team’s conference. A thirty win team in a strong conference would start racking up opportunities to improve their draft position far in advance on a thirty win team in a weak conference.
To make this more clear, I’ll address how the idea would impact the race for the #1 pick during this season. The basic idea (slightly modified, but totally stolen from Adam Gold) consists of: once a team has enough losses that they cannot surpass the win total of the NBA team with the 8th most wins, the “draft positioning clock” starts for them. The team with the most victories after their “draft positioning clock” starts, gets the first pick in the draft.
For this season’s draft race, the LA Clippers will be the “8th best team baseline”. Using their record over the last few weeks, here is the list of teams that would have started their clock, including the date, number of remaining games as of that date, and record after 04/04 games.
- Charlotte starts on 03/25 and had 20 games left. They are 0 – 6 since.
- Washington starts on 03/27 and had 17 games left. They are 1 – 4 since.
- New Orleans starts on 03/29 and had 16 games left. They are 1 – 3 since.
- Cleveland starts on 04/04 and had 15 games left. They are 0 – 1 since.
- Toronto starts on 04/01 and had 14 games left. They are 3 – 0 since.
- Sacramento starts on 04/03 and had 13 games left. They are 0 – 1 since.
- New Jersey starts on 04/01 and had 12 games left. They are 0 – 2 since.
So Toronto completely takes the driver’s seat on the road to the first pick. Charlotte squanders a good chance to get a leg up.
Based on this scenario; Phoenix would be the last team to be mathematically eliminated from besting the median playoff team. They end up with approximately 5 games to stake their claim to a high draft pick. (Edit: One other aspect that appears to be a benefit of indexing to the NBA’s 8th best team instead of to “playoff contention” is that it’s harder for borderline playoff teams to “game” the system. If a team on the borderline of playoff contention rests some players with ten games left in the season, in order to become mathematically eliminated from the 8th best team, then plays those guys again to try to win many of their remaining games, they could end up making the playoffs, hence becoming eliminated from the top of the draft).
I think the idea is interesting and wanted to bring it to Cavs:the Blog readers for your thoughts. Surely there are imperfections, but it gives the worst teams a solid chance at the highest pick, while continuing to make wins more valuable than losses throughout the last month of the season. I definitely like it better than awarding the best picks in the draft by incentivizing teams to field subpar products, multiplied by the anarchy of a ping pong ball bounce.
This seems silly. Especially when you consider teams like the Cavs who were unduly punished by the vagaries of free agency. So if Dwight Howard bolts Orlando after 2013, Magic fans can basically kiss the next 10 years of basketball relevancy goodbye.
To be honest, I don’t think this sort of thing would be good for the NBA at all.. A team stuck in the lottery for years would have only one way of getting better; free agency. And if that team is a small market team then nobody that’s capable of making a difference would be willing to sign there. Middle of the pack teams would get considerably better when bottom teams would continue to be horrible, leading to scenarios where coaches are unde pressure, owners losing money, poor attendance and worst case scenario, teams having to relocate.
While I agree that tanking is bad for the game, I like the idea of the lottery.. Because how many teams with the worst record have actually gotten the first pick since the lottery was introduced?
The main problem with this is that it punishes the truly crappy teams, especially those with tough end-of-season schedules, and rewards teams that might not be as bad or might be lucky enough to end the season with an easy schedule.
If you look at the Warriors, they seem to be trying to win, but they’ve had a fairly tough schedule and are only 3-7 in their last ten. Under this system, they would be punished for playing good teams and would still go unrewarded for not tanking.
I agree with the concept of keeping the competition alive down the stretch, but the idea of rewarding wins with higher draft picks in any scenario is counter-productive to me. I understand teams on the fringe are eliminated from playoff contention/median record later in the season, thus have fewer “draft clock” games to improve their picks, etc. But there could an instance where an injury/injuries cripples a team for a large portion of a season, eliminates them from the playoffs (or median team record) and they run off a bunch of wins as they get healthy and all of a sudden, a team that would have been in the playoffs can have the #1 draft pick. This could be especially problematic in strong conferences where the weakest teams aren’t all that much worse than those at the #9 spot.
The NBA has as many games as it does in a season to increase the sample size and sift the outliers. Teams play hot and cold throughout a season, occasionally seeming better/worse than they really are (see: Philly vs Boston in the Atlantic division). This draft incentive method uses data from less games than are in a year, and more likely to contain anomaly teams who racked up wins and losses at the right times to draft high. Charlotte is possibly the worst NBA team ever, and if they were to not get the top lottery pick it would be a crime, and they wouldn’t with this system. Losing teams need the talent upgrade most, not the ones who were able to win a lot at the end of the season. But the lottery itself, while frustrating at times, basically exists to detract tanking: even a team with the worst record is not guaranteed the top pick, not even the 2nd. Plus these are pro players driven by competition, none of them WANT to lose, and the lottery just makes sure teams don’t on purpose. I dunno I hate the lottery at times but I don’t see a better way, maybe those guys up top in the NBA got there for a reason haha
just a preface… contraction is not what i am 100% behind but it would solve a free-agency and lottery problem. less teams means more stars and great role players per team. poorly managed teams in less attractive cities are no longer an issue. it would also solve the issue of small markets dont have the fan base or economies to support expensive arenas. contraction would really go along way. think of the teams that could be removed (would anybody be upset if the kings, hornets and bobcats were bought out?) what about other cities like milwaukee, indy, detroit, memphis, minnesota or even the hawks, even the cavs are next. those players will re-enter the “draft”. even make it a sliding one where the order flips in the second round. there would be alot of fans upset, people out jobs and $$$ lost. the reality is the NBA is more a business than it is anything else. (ok, now the commenters below can pick apart my idea)
I’ve heard this argument many times but the reality is that most of these teams aren’t really tanking…They are losing as much now as they were at the beginning of the season…These teams are truly terrible…It would be ridiculous to give the pick away to mediocre teams while awful teams that most likely can only build through the draft get stuck with mid level lottery picks…The system in place now seems to be working fine I really think there is very little reason to address this…
Bumsquare and Matt,
How is this any more silly than drawing pingpong balls? Also I think you’re wrong about the damage it would do to team’s like Cleveland and Orlando. Say that Cleveland bottomed one season, but only got to pick 6th. The next season, they were still bad and picked 7th. Finally with those two players and a couple of value free agent signings, they’re a 30 win team, that closes the season 6 – 5 and gets the first pick. Now instead of the superstar coming to play on the worst team in the league, he’s joining a 30 win team with a couple of other good young players. Won’t that make it more likely that he stays with the team that drafts him?
Also Matt,
If a team is horrible, why shouldn’t the coach and GM be under pressure? Why should they be automatically rewarded for building a horrible team? Also I think your post is kind of self contradictory; arguing that the proposed system wouldn’t help the worst teams, then noting that the worst team rarely wins the lottery.
Jeff,
I think the ESPN article refers to non-playoff teams winning 35% of their games prior to being eliminated from the playoffs, but 30% after elimination. Whether it’s “tanking” or not, teams are definitely doing something that results in them being worse late in the season.
Cody,
How is the randomness of NBA scheduling any different than the randomness of a ping pong ball draw?
Carson,
The Spurs drafted Tim Duncan because of one season of injuries, so that happens in the current system. And regarding the crime of the Bobcats being the worst team ever and not getting rewarded the top pick; isn’t a bit of a crime that a completely mismanaged team that allowed itself to become the worst team ever gets rewarded with the top pick in the draft?
For the record, I think these debate inducing posts are fun.
The Cavs are a great example of why this is a bad idea in general. They aren’t “tanking” they legitimately suck. They have little talent and a ton of injuries, the only “tanking” they have done is trade Sessions (and arguably keep playing Parker, but the other players on our roster haven’t exactly outshone him by much if at all). This system heavily skews towards young bad teams- ie ones who will start badly and show improvement- and away from old bad teams- ones who start (relatively) well but age and injuries force the decline.
The main problem I have is the perception that “tanking” is even an issue. Hypothetically if the Cavs had 5 more wins would there be more interest in the team? No, not really. Tanking and dreaming of high draft picks keeps interest in otherwise shitty teams, by mixing it up you again skew interest more towards better/younger teams and away from the least interesting (and thus most needy).
Articles like this make me realize how few people understand luck. teams with harder schedules early in the season and easier late ones would benefit from this system, as would teams who had key injuries early instead of late (not to mention the huge East-West discrepancy if “eliminated” from playoffs remained as the determining factor). Consider the difference for the Cavs between Andy going down just 2 or 3 weeks earlier of the season and coming back a week or two after they are eliminated and going down when he did and not making it back at all.
It is also not clear that this type of system would end tanking, and not merely replace it with a different kind of tanking. Imagine a team whose reverse-magic number was 1. Immediate loss- no reason to try, every reason to fail. Of course this pushes back and as soon as a team is obviously out of the playoffs they should start losing EVERY SINGLE FUCKING GAME THEY CAN until they are mathematically eliminated. THEN, and only then, do they try to win. If tanking is a problem there is basically no way to build a scenario in which the worst teams get a good shot at the first pick while also preventing significant tanking. The two are always going to be mutually exclusive.
Since the Hakeem and Jordan draft, the following players have been selected in the top 3 and been on a championship team for the organization that drafted them (or were traded to on draft day) are:
Darko Milicic, Tim Duncan, Jason Kidd (18 years later and after several teams), Sean Elliot (10 years after being drafted, following the Duncan pick), David Robinson,
Basically it’s all Spurs. Combine this with the recent departures of Lebron, Carmelo, Chris Paul, Deron Williams and the Dwight situation; what is the argument for the fact that the current system is helping small market teams get and keep their stars?
As noted in a previous comment, I think the system described above could be helpful in this regard.
Also, this supplements the theme of something I posted on earlier this year; the Thunder are more the exception than the rule.
I think it’s interesting how during the LeBron years in Cleveland, all we wanted to do was win. Then last year we were so bad that all we wanted to do was win. And now this year, when we are bad but not terrible (when Kyrie and Andy are healthy), we finally have a problem with the lottery system and tanking because fans are torn between winning and losing. Just funny how we finally care now. And we won’t care anymore once we are contenders again.
At least the luck associated with the lottery is determined by a full season’s worth of play. In this proposed system, draft order would be determined by an incredibly small sample size that really isn’t indicative of a team’s quality. While the lottery is random, at least the randomness is weighted by performance over a whole season and not just a few games. Also, what if a team is so terrible that even with an easy schedule down the stretch they continue to lose despite attempting to win. Teams like that are totally screwed and this system would prolong their awfulness.
kevin point underscores the fact that part of the thunder’s luck is that team ahead of them chose the busts and the thunker (lucked up) by draft a best fit player in their mold. that is a fortunate situation and cant be replicated. i highly doubt that there will be any proper fix for the lottery. though many see it mute to discuss, contraction and the economics of contraction could work but no owner or fan base want them to be on the chopping block.
baconbacon,
Isn’t Charlotte a young team that should be improving? Isn’t Toronto a relatively older team by comparison? And why wouldn’t this system spur interest in the end of a season and the hope for a great draft pick? I think it would keep fans engaged in the successes and failures of their teams a lot better than the current system.
Regarding luck, teams that were really bad would have 30-ish games to build wins. The effects of schedule randomness would be fairly diluted over that time frame. Teams that had only 8 games, if they had a really easy schedule, would probably end up making the playoffs and not even be part of the system anyways.
Do you really think that decent teams would start the year by tanking, then turn it on in the second half? Don’t most decent teams start the season with some aspiration to have a good season. Certainly the players do.
Finally I don’t know how you can bad mouth the impact of “luck”, while apparently liking a system that is based on a ping pong draw.
Matthew,
I just think it’s a decent debate. I wasn’t thinking about the lottery when the team was wining 60 games, but why would I have been. Now that the team stinks, the lottery discussion is more towards the forefront of my mind.
I don’t get the logic behind this at all. it almost seems that it simply SHIFTS the tanking to earlier in the season. Under this system, let’s start a season with the Charlotte Mass Effect 3 Endings and the Phoenix Trending Twitter Topics. Teams that you can judge just by their names. One is the most epically awful thing ever and the other can be really bad or really clever. So the Charlotte ME3Es lose their first 45 games, because they 1.) would normally have a -12 ppg differential, and 2.) they sit their starters in 4th quarters because they don’t want to win close games. The Phoenix TTTs start off slow amid uncertainty but find their stride here and there reeling off some streaks. So in early March the Charlotte ME3Es are eliminated from the lottery, and decide “our season starts today Shepards!” They are still terrible, but find a way to win 10 of the next 32 games. The Phoenix TTTs suffer a late season injury to Kneeve Stash, and despite their best efforts, go 0-3 in their final 3 games (all after being eliminated).
So the Charlotte ME3Es responded to the non-tanking incentives by tanking more, and earlier, the Phoenix TTTs played as hard as they could all year long, and the ME3Es win the first pick, and the TTTs get the 16th pick, and we’ve accomplished what?
Honestly I think the only solution is eliminating a lot bunch franchises. Every suggestion I’ve seen has holes in it that are quickly pointed out. With fewer teams in the league the talent pool increases all around and it helps diminish the impact of having a superstar. I think the league is in a pretty big mess right now, with a lot of good player rotting on really bad teams that no one wants to pay to see. Tanking will still exist, but it would be less necessary.
I think a very simple way to both decrease tanking and increase competition is to award ping pong balls based on a strength of schedule/point differential basis.
The reason is that the only TRUE disincentive for tanking is the media/fan charge of tanking. What ruined Vince Carter’s legacy more, that he didn’t win anything, or that he admitted he didn’t always try? These athletes/coaches have pride/big egos and are very fine losing games because of lack of talent, but not fine losing games and being accused of quitting.
Therefore, you have a truly awful team with a horrible ppg/diff and can you really say they are “tanking”? Or are they just bad? Tanking to me is when you don’t try your best with the talent you have and it’s easily sniffed out. Are the Cavs really tanking? They don’t get Ramon Sessions back next season. He’s not coming back, so saying that trading him is tanking doesn’t make any sense. Cavs now have less talent. If Byron Scott starts playing 5 centers at once and laughing on the sidelines, there would be a torrent of criticism lobbed at him, grant, and gilbert.
A true “tanking” team is one that purposely finds a way to get an L despite the capability to get a W. That is tanking. That team would accomplish this by sitting players or just not caring. This would be so obvious. To combat the disincentive of getting caught, a team would play hard right up till the end, and then poorly execute in the last minute or so. These games wouldn’t be 40 point blowouts. They’d be “oh, they played hard but the ball just didn’t bounce their way.” This is the kind of stuff you want to keep from happening. The incentive to LOOK like you aren’t tanking, but still be gunning for Ls at the end. You separate the truly bad teams from the “I don’t really care about the bottom line I just have to make it look like we’re trying” by using ppg differential instead.
Based on PPG/Diff only, here is how the order would change today with BEFORE and then AFTER
X.) BEFORE / AFTER (delta pick)
1.) Charlotte / Charlotte (+0)
2.) New Orleans / Washington (+1)
3.) Washington / Cleveland (+1)
4.) Sacramento / New Jersey (+3)
5.) Cleveland / Sacramento (-1)
6.) G State / Detroit (+5)
7.) New Jersey / New Orleans (-5)
8.) Minnesota / Toronto (+1)
9.) Toronto / G State (-3)
10.) Portland / Minnesota (-2)
11.) Detroit / Phoenix (+3)
12.) Utah / Utah (+0)
13.) Milwaukee / Milwaukee (+0)
14.) Phoenix / Portland (-4)
There are many things to like and dislike about this proposed system as well as the current system. How about a “Double Lottery”? What I mean by this is first do a lottery to determine which lottery process will be used that year. (e.g. the current system, this method or some other plausible lottery/selection structure). Then, after the lottery drawing to determine which lottery/selection system is selected, then that system is implemented. I would propose that all this happens AFTER the season in completed.
This way teams don’t know what the selection process is, so then they don’t know what they ‘need to do’ to improve their chances of winning the lottery. At the end of the day what we don’t want to have happen is a team try to game the system, so with a ‘double lottery’ you can greatly reduce this likelyhood. I think anytime teams know what they have to do in order to increase their chances for the lottery, then that’s what some teams will do. If you remove that incentive then maybe they’ll just compete there best.
I do think that among lottery ideas, there should be some incentive/motivation and hope for teams that jus miss the playoffs as one of the options. Maybe a system where the non-playoff team that has the best record against other non-playoff teams gets the first pick. There should also be the opposite possibility of the non-playoff team that has the worst record or the cloest to the median record against other non-playoff teams get’s the first pick. In general, the concept of the balls gives certain teams better odds, so to have various lottery selection possibilities that give various records the first pick etc. can go a long way in keeping the draft interesting and keeping competition the best it can be.
I believe relegation is the answer. The bottom two teams go to something similar to the D-league. The top two teams in the D-league get to come to the NBA. Keep the lottery system as is. Teams fight to stay out of those bottom spots, however bad teams can still build through the draft.
The teams relegated to the D-league have an opportunity to remain competitive and build confidence. While in the d-league they can trade and negotiate to try to acquire the best of the d-league so if they do remain at the top of d-league they will be competitive with their expected lottery picks.
Tom Pestak,
I think that point differential would result in the same race to the bottom for the worst 6 or 7 teams while continuing to legitimize GM’s that are just doing a bad job.
ALso, regarding your Charlotte ME3E’s, I think it’s much less likely that a team loses their first 45 games, than whatever may happen with a late season push to be bad. To some extent, your post is exactly the point of the plan I mention above. A bad team keeps fighting through the end of the season and gets a high draft pick because of it. A team that barely misses the playoffs gets a low lottery pick. The biggest difference is that a team that is truly horrible, ends up picking 8th or something.
I don’t think that’s a travesty though. Why do we think that horribly failed teams deserve to be rewarded at the end of the season? It seems that a couple of years of really bad seasons that end in 8th picks and firing the GM, before eventually having the magical 30 win season that adds the 1st pick to a youthful core, will be most likely to help these teams in the long run. The current system ends up with poorly run franchises (by likely bad GM’s) drafting studs and making the organization look more well run than it is. In the long run, the current system could be worse for the franchises.
What’s to stop a team without championship aspirations to tank the beginning of the season, get out of playoffs contention, then start playing? Why not just reverse the lottery and give the mid-level teams a greater percentage chance of winning it? Maybe not to the extreme that the worst record currently holds, but something similiar. i.e. a team that falls at 15 in record gets a 14-16% chance of winning whereas the worst team gets 7-9%?
or, if you wanna simplify it more…. each win a non-playoff team has equals a pingpong ball in the hopper. Might penalize the trule awful teams, though.
The Nupe,
Your idea is interesting. Make the lottery process completely random; teams would really just need to make the moves that are best while considering the present and future….the draft day chips fall where they will.
How about the non-playoff teams get thrown into a consolation bracket where the teams with the best records have the higher seeds and home court advantage in a best-of-3 format?
The champion of the consolation playoffs gets the #1 draft pick, and the remaining draft order is determined the way it is now.
The amusing part is we are considering a similar format for our Fantasy Football league, so non-playoff teams have an incentive to remain competitive.
I would think this format would also generate better ticket sales than a meaningless regular season game of the Nets coming to town
Kevin – I thought about this at lunch, and I’ve come to the conclusion that “this tanking stuff” is something everyone has an opinion on and no one can REALLY agree what the problem even is. Yeah we sort of define it as: “don’t incentivize losing”. Then we come up with all these analyses that prove “getting the #1 pick doesn’t even help you that much, here, look at this list of #1s that have championships minus Tim Duncan.” Then we see the posts that basically say “why the heck do we let these blue chippers end up on terrible teams. Was Tim Duncan getting on the Spurs such a BAD THING?” Then I realize that the BEST example of “tanking” is in fact that Spurs team. A team with a lot of talent and a ton of potential to win, losing like crazy (party because of Robinson injury) and now you’ve rewarded a good team for losing a lot of games and then they become a dynasty. We can’t even really PROVE that tanking exists, it is just conventional wisdom that it happens. Are the Cavs “tanking” right now? Some would say yes, they would point to the Sessions trade. I say that’s not tanking because Sessions isn’t part of their team anymore. It’s not like they can pull a 97 Spurs, have a loaded roster and decide to SUCK (sandwiched between 50+ win seasons), add a HoFer and start a dynasty.
So we have an equal number of people saying “don’t tank it doesn’t help!” and “we need draft picks!”. So that certainly doesn’t prove the incentive even exists. And if we assume it DOES exist no one come up with a solution for it because they can’t agree on how the incentive generates a problem.
That I’ve read articles about tanking which are thankful that the Spurs nabbed Duncan shows how convoluted this argument is. That Spurs franchise was NOT a bad team nor a bad franchise, and they had an incentive to lose a lot of games. And just like no one is really that upset that the Colts are going to get Andrew Luck, no one is really upset the Spurs got Duncan. The way you change this problem is not going to be without a new set of incentives that the league doesn’t want to subsidize.
@John – that would give ever fringe playoff team (think the Bucks/Hawks of the last 6 years) the incentive to JUST MISS that 4-8 seed so they could win the tournament and grab a #1 pick to put them over the top.
It makes the difference between the 8 seed and the 9 seed the difference between the #1 pick and the #15 pick.
I’m telling you guys, the best thing is the current lottery system (no guarantee that more losses = #1 pick, just more probably) with it just tweaked so that it’s more about team’s overall performance (talent level) vs W/L record, which can be slightly deceiving.
In any case, a very clearly defined definition of “tanking” and the problems that arise from “tanking” are needed before you can try to form solutions.
I define tanking as purposely losing winnable games. Having the expected win total far outpace the actual win total for a team of a certain talent. I cannot define any obvious problems that arise from this other than irritating a local fan base. That’s it. Right now, I don’t know many Cavs fans that are just devastated that our draft position is rising.
And don’t we all love OKC? Weren’t they a talent SuperSonics team that blew it up, lost a ton of games, and are now a powerhouse? Didn’t they do a 3 year TANK job?
I agree with The Nupe, random lottery removes incentives for a team to tank and not just do what they believe is best for the team. Actually sounds almost too easy/too perfect of a solution.
Tom Pestak,
I’m not sure how much of your last post is responding to me, or just to various articles you’ve read.
I didn’t try to say that the #1 pick isn’t helpful. I did say that from the last 28 drafts, only the Spurs have employed a player that they drafted in the top 3, in order to win a championship. The current system hasn’t helped teams win championships or retain their superstars (everyone will come laughing at me when the Thunder win this year).
I’m not sure where the Spurs would have picked during the season where they got Duncan, if the system described above was in place. I suppose you could have a situation where a good team suffers a lot of injuries, brings everyone back at the end of the season and gets the first pick, but that would be relatively rare (just like the Spurs situation). I’m not sure the likelihood of this scenario is different between the two alternatives. Good teams aren’t going to throw away a season of their primes, to try to snag the #1 pick.
I don’t think trading Sessions was tanking. I thought that was a good trade. Technically I haven’t said that I think the Cavs are tanking; just that the system is screwy.
Given the current system, I don’t think many people are saying “don’t tank, it doesn’t help”. It helps; although I don’t think it’s quite the magical cure-all that some people do. If anything, the current system may help to mask systematic issues within an organization by giving bad organizations great talent. Again, the team may be better off not getting the best pick immediately after their horrible season, realizing that they are broken and firing the GM, starting with new management, etc.
I live in Indianapolis; the Colts were done last year, Manning or no Manning. They had gotten too old, drafted poorly for too long, it was over. Also, after going 0 – 13, they won two straight games. They kept fighting and still may have faired well in a draft scenario like discussed in the article I reference.
Tom,
I’m not even sure “tanking” is the problem. The current system definitely does incentivize “tanking”, whether it’s happening or not. For some franchises, it almost surely is.
Wouldn’t Cavs fans (or really, insert team name here) be excited if we finished 7 – 8 and got the first pick while playing competitive basketball? Doesn’t that sound ideal compared to whatever the hell is happening right now? Or if the Cavs only went 5 – 10 and got the 3rd pick, wouldn’t that be better than watching the team win and saying “damn, i wish that hadn’t happened.”
I still say the Thunder are the exception and not the rule.
Why is tanking bothersome to anyone but sports writers such as this blog ang TrueHoop? If a fan doesn’t like watching a bad team then watch someone else until said team becomes competitive.
An NBA fans wants one of two things: wins or hope. Tanking at least gives them one.
Tom -
Not sure how a 4/5 seed could “just” miss the playoffs, yet be in the top 1/4 to 1/3 of their conference?
You are assuming that:
a) a team that tanks to get into the consolation bracket will be guaranteed to win it
b) no other team will have the same tanking mentality, because if they did then relatively speaking, tanking to just make it to the consolation playoffs would do nothing because everyone would be doing it, and most importantly…
c) players that are talented enough to form a team that is in the playoffs will be the same players that allow this tanking to occur
i dont buy it
Jimbo,
Honestly, I agree with you. That’s part of the problem. If a fan base is hoping for losses, the attitude might as well be, “call me when the season is over. I can hope for next year while doing something else.” Hardcore fans (like us) won’t necessarily feel that way, but don’t most fans just quit caring? Is that for the best?
Kevin – no I’m responding to the countless articles/opinions I have read on the subject.
John – I was referring to teams that are stuck in that no mans land of the NBA. Teams that are not bottom feeders and not even close to championship contenders. Teams that will fall between 4 and 8 over the course of a few years.
And, quite often, the separation between 4 and 8 is a few games.
As for your a.) Look at the alternative. How many 8 seeds have won the Championship? What is the expected value number of playoff wins for an 8 seed. Compare that, to a guess as to what the odds would be that they’d win this losers bracket? Let’s put it this way, if that was implemented this year, I’d MUCH rather be the 9 seed than the 8 seed and get swept by a Rose or Rose-less Chicago team.
b.) If I’m wrong in that assumption, then you are basically saying MORE teams are tanking. That’s not good, right?
c.) I don’t totally comprehend your statement here, but tanking doesn’t have to manifest itself in the form of PLAYERS not trying. It can be coaching. In fact it is almost always impossible to PROVE when a player “quits” see: James, LeBron. It’s not hard to see when a coach makes a wild substitution or sits a superstar late in games.
As far as the sentiment that it might not be right to reward bad organizations with #1 picks. Who can judge that?
At one time I thought Otis Smith was a genius. He overpaid for the exact players he wanted and the Magic absolutely eviscerated the Cavs defense. Remember when Golden State believed! How cool to put together those players with those skillsets.
The Cavs spent more than any organization not named LAL in the last 3 years of the LeBron era, Danny Ferry assembled a bevy complimentary players to LeBron’s skill set, the Cavs won 60+ games despite injuries in the last 2 seasons, and suddenly they set pro sports loss records. Are they a putrid organization with laughable management?
What is the thing that “tanking” is tainting? Competitive balance? The NBA is like baseball. Teams are popular in their cities and the top 4-5 teams that play on national TV are popular among casual fans. It isn’t football. The disincentive to tanking is the revenue lost from local fan-bases turning off their TVs and not going to the games. If you can sell hope, you can stay afloat.
I just don’t see how the proposed solutions are good for teams like the Cavs, At least with the incredibly easy solution that I proposed, you can disincentivize purposely losing (or really not caring) about close games. No team wants to go out on the court and lose by 50 every night. That being said, if winning a game by 1 pt or losing a game by 1 point does NOTHING (as opposed to EVERYTHING) to change the bottom line then a team is going to go for the win.
youre probably right that its better for a crack at the #1 pick then a sweep in round 1, but how is that different than the scenario that currently exists?
the reality of it is the idea that makes the most practical sense doesn’t always make the most financial sense in a for-profit organization.
pretty sure Stern would go revenue > credibility every time
and have fun going the tanking-by-management/coaching route and telling josh smith, brandon jennings, or monta ellis to sit down and expect them to not have a word to say about it to the media as the fall 4 spots down in the standings.
look at the warriors situation, thats not really great for fans who buy tickets or players who look for desired places/organizations to play for
@John – the Spurs sit their stars when they are in the hunt for the #1 seed. Also, you can play Brandon Jennings 48 minutes a night and still have an atrocious game plan that leads to losing. Hell just draw up iso for Jennings over and over. You get the loss, he gets to be on sportscenter for dropping 68 on 19 of 87 shooting.
Here’s an idea. Keep the draft lottery as is but change two items:
1st: Add up the amount of ping-pong balls (or number combinations, etc.) that the top 3 worst teams get, remove 1/4 of them, then divide the rest evenly amongst those 3 teams. Spread the removed balls/# combos amongst the rest of the lottery bound teams.
2nd: Use the lottery to determine the draft order from the 1st through 13th pick, instead of the 1st through 3rd pick.
What this does is that it increases the risk for the worst team(s) to get the best picks. For example, in the best case scenario, the Charlotte Bobcats could still get the 1st pick, although a bit more difficult for them to do so with their lower percentage chance. But in the worst case scenario, they may end up with the 14th pick. In theory, this should provoke lottery bound teams from “tanking” intentionally.
Another point that I want to bring up. I also agree that “tanking” is not the best move any team should make to improve. But first, it would be wise to provide evidence that the team in question is “tanking”. I’ll bet none of you guys have the guts to meet Dan Gilbert, Chris Grant, and/or Byron Scott face to face, and accused them of “tanking”. They will probably throw you out, and ban you from watching live games at the Q for life. Worse, they’ll also staple a Labron James Miami Heat jersey on you. Heh!!
Right now teams vy for the 8 seed because it’s better to be the 8 seed than the 9 seed. If you suddenly make this losers bracket and the consolation prize is LeBron James (in this case the odds of a 9 seed winning this tourney might be higher than the worst team in the league winning the lottery) you have no created a system where it actually makes more sense to land at the 9 spot vs getting swept in the first round and getting the #14 pick.
no matter where you draw the line, there will always be teams around that line that would probably be better off statistically to lose and drop and i agree with you on that…even in your suggested BCS-like ranking system teams at the lower end would still want to stay low.
the problem with your system is it is not only unexciting for the fans that feed it, but it doesnt generate any additional money for the league or necessarily minimize or eliminate tanking
there probably is no real way to eliminate free loading or tanking unless its a complete random draw, unfortunately
Tom,
I’m not saying this is because of tanking, but are NBA teams popular in their cities? I’m probably just skeptical because I live the city with the league’s second worst attendance.
Looking at the bad teams’ last games; the Kings, Wizards and Raptors all drew approximately 2000 fans less than their season average. The Cavs were 1000 less. New Orleans was at their average and the Warriors (with the world’s most diehard fans) were 1000 above their season average.
I wonder how the effect of having nothing on the line (other than the benefit of losing) affects a team’s bottom line.
Pistons also drew 2000 less than their season average. Bobcats 1600 less.
My point is, that tanking the NFL is bad for the league’s bottom line. Tanking in the NBA might be bad for the team’s bottom line.
Tom Pestak and all,
Thanks for the discussion today. This is the 50th comment and the Cavs game starts in an hour, so it’s a good time for me to wrap up the “Ideas on Tanking” post.
I started the day with two articles queued up: this one and another titled “Come on, Cavs! Lose your last 20 games!!” I put 100 ping pong balls in a hat; 75 with “lose 20″ written on them and the other 25 with “Tanking?”. I pulled out the latter and the rest is history. I think it worked out well; talking about losing every game for a month seemed like a waste, you know “call me when the season’s over.”