CelticsStrong
Around the League => The Draft => Topic started by: jambr380 on September 28, 2017, 03:32:16 PM
-
So, it is official and it begins in 2019. How will this affect the Cs and the
Lakers/Sac pick?
Also, how do you feel about the changes?
The three highest lottery seeds will now each have a 14% chance of getting the top pick compared to 25% for the team with the worst record, 19.9% for the team with the second-worst record and 15.6% for the team with the third-worst record in the lottery system used since 2005.
The number of picks determined by the lottery will also increase to four from three, meaning the team with the worst record could fall to the fifth pick compared to the fourth pick in the previous lottery system. The team with the second-worst record will pick no lower than sixth, the third-seed no worse than seventh and the fourth seed no worse than eighth.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2017/09/28/nba-passes-draft-lottery-reform-board-governors-meeting/713708001/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2017/09/28/nba-passes-draft-lottery-reform-board-governors-meeting/713708001/)
Also, please feel free to merge with the other thread proposing the reform. I just didn't see it on a quick search.
-
Good for us.
"The three highest lottery seeds will now each have a 14% chance of getting the top pick compared to 25% for the team with the worst record, 19.9% for the team with the second-worst record and 15.6% for the team with the third-worst record in the lottery system used since 2005"
If the Lakers are 2nd or 3rd worst team, its now less likely the pick will become #1. Very good considering the protection on the pick
Also Brooklyn pick is now less likely to be the 1st overall pick No matter what.
"The number of picks determined by the lottery will also increase to four from three, meaning the team with the worst record could fall to the fifth pick compared to the fourth pick in the previous lottery system. The team with the second-worst record will pick no lower than sixth, the third-seed no worse than seventh and the fourth seed no worse than eighth."
This might be our only concern. 2nd worst team can now fall to 6 and the 4th worst can fall to 8th. Obviously puts us in a bad spot but we will need luck with or without reform anyways for this pick to convey this draft
-
Slightly increases Sac pick being 1, which is bad, but increases chances of it being higher overall, which is good. Has no bearing on LA pick obviously.
-
Good for us.
"The three highest lottery seeds will now each have a 14% chance of getting the top pick compared to 25% for the team with the worst record, 19.9% for the team with the second-worst record and 15.6% for the team with the third-worst record in the lottery system used since 2005"
If the Lakers are 2nd or 3rd worst team, its now less likely the pick will become #1. Very good considering the protection on the pick
Also Brooklyn pick is now less likely to be the 1st overall pick No matter what.
It doesn't go into effect until the 2019 draft so this change has no bearing on the LAL pick. That drawing will still be under the old rules.
-
That doesn't really stop tanking.
-
Slightly increases Sac pick being 1, which is bad, but increases chances of it being higher overall, which is good.
I'm not following. Where are you projecting Sacramento to be?
If they're a bottom-3 team in 2019, doesn't this hurt our chances of getting #2 or #3?
-
Absolutely terrible idea that will now cause bad teams to be bad for longer. Will have the opposite effect of what the league wants. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the prior system at all.
-
That doesn't really stop tanking.
Nothing stops the incentive to tank outside of just a purely random draw where all teams, playoffs or not, get the same odds.
Flattening the odds reduces the incentive for lottery teams to keep sinking in the standings, though it might slightly increase the incentive to fall out of the playoffs and into the lottery.
-
That doesn't really stop tanking.
Nothing stops the incentive to tank outside of just a purely random draw where all teams, playoffs or not, get the same odds.
Flattening the odds reduces the incentive for lottery teams to keep sinking in the standings, though it might slightly increase the incentive to fall out of the playoffs and into the lottery.
Adam silver thinks he can solve everything. Teams will still fight to have a top 3 worst record. It changes nothing.
How about when a team like the sixers tanks in such an obvious manner, you boot the owner and force a team sale. Otherwise, the league isn't serious about tanking
-
Did they implement any rules about having a top-X pick in consecutive years or over a certain span of years?
The implications of that was more intriguing to me then flattening the odds.
-
Well, at the very least I think this makes trading the Brooklyn pick in the Kyrie trade more palatable.
With this being the last year to really take advantage of tanking and with there being at least half a dozen teams that are outright tanking/bad enough to be a bottom-three team, I think you'll see a major tank race in the latter half of this season. That probably should be enough to keep Brooklyn/Cleveland out of the top-three barring some lottery night luck.
Granted, that might also hurt our chances of getting the LA pick this year, too.
-
Don't love the idea of the percentages changing, but am okay with increasing the # of teams who can win the lottery from 3 to 4. Teams that aren't great, but are trying will have a better chance at landing a franchise player.
I am also happy that there is still a benefit for bad teams; the last thing in the world I ever wanted to see was the wheel.
-
Well, at the very least I think this makes trading the Brooklyn pick in the Kyrie trade more palatable.
With this being the last year to really take advantage of tanking and with there being at least half a dozen teams that are outright tanking/bad enough to be a bottom-three team, I think you'll see a major tank race in the latter half of this season. That probably should be enough to keep Brooklyn/Cleveland out of the top-three barring some lottery night luck.
Granted, that might also hurt our chances of getting the LA pick this year, too.
Here's hoping that play in the West helps the LAL pick's chances & playing in the East hurts BKN's.
I really don't want this thing to go to '19.
-
Here's a link to an ESPN article that provides all the percentage chances for every team in the lottery:
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20851002/nba-board-governors-votes-pass-legislation-draft-lottery-reform-guidelines-resting-healthy-players
New 2019 Lottery Odds (Vs. Previous Odds)
NO. 1 (%) TOP-3 (%) TOP-5 (%) EXPECTED PICK
Team 1 14.0 (25.0) 40 (64) 100 (100) 3.7 (2.6)
Team 2 14.0 (19.9) 40 (56) 80 (100) 3.9 (3.0)
Team 3 14.0 (15.6) 40 (47) 67 (96) 4.1 (3.4)
Team 4 12.5 (11.9) 37 (38) 55 (83) 4.4 (4.0)
Team 5 10.5 (8.8) 32 (29) 44 (55) 5.0 (4.7)
Team 6 9.0 (6.3) 28 (22) 37 (22) 5.5 (5.5)
Team 7 7.5 (4.3) 23 (15) 32 (15) 6.2 (6.5)
Team 8 6.0 (2.8) 19 (10) 26 (10) 7.0 (7.6)
Team 9 4.5 (1.7) 15 (6) 20 (6) 8.0 (8.7)
Team 10 3.0 (1.1) 10 (4) 14 (4) 9.2 (9.8)
Team 11 2.0 (0.8) 7 (3) 9 (3) 10.3 (10.8)
Team 12 1.5 (0.7) 5 (3) 7 (3) 11.4 (11.8)
Team 13 1.0 (0.6) 3 (2) 5 (2) 12.5 (12.8)
Team 14 0.5 (0.5) 2 (2) 2 (2) 13.7 (13.8)
-
That doesn't really stop tanking.
Nothing stops the incentive to tank outside of just a purely random draw where all teams, playoffs or not, get the same odds.
Flattening the odds reduces the incentive for lottery teams to keep sinking in the standings, though it might slightly increase the incentive to fall out of the playoffs and into the lottery.
Adam silver thinks he can solve everything. Teams will still fight to have a top 3 worst record. It changes nothing.
How about when a team like the sixers tanks in such an obvious manner, you boot the owner and force a team sale. Otherwise, the league isn't serious about tanking
The problem with this is that Adam Silver has to implement his decisions in reality, not reactionary power fantasy land.
-
It definitely helps our Memphis 2019 pick.
-
I think it won't reduce tanking but it will reduce throwing games. After all, front offices tank. But players do their best because there's a lot on the line (their next contract, pride, etc). Coaches don't have to try and purposefully lose. Or at least do less of that.
-
maybe just letting all the teams having equal chance and let the dice fall where they will. Go back to every game means something and teams stop tanking .
-
How about when a team like the sixers tanks in such an obvious manner, you boot the owner and force a team sale. Otherwise, the league isn't serious about tanking
Then it just turns into this game of trying to tank while having plausible deniability that you really want to win games.
-
lol, Daryl Morey just tweeted:
@samhinkie tanking is solved
;D
Can someone explain to me how this change is supposed to curb tanking? The worst teams still have the best odds at getting the best picks. Bad teams (that is, teams who aren't going to make the playoffs) still have the exact same incentives to tank as they did before. This hasn't actually changed anything.
-
lol, Daryl Morey just tweeted:
@samhinkie tanking is solved
;D
Can someone explain to me how this change is supposed to curb tanking? The worst teams still have the best odds at getting the best picks. Bad teams (that is, teams who aren't going to make the playoffs) still have the exact same incentives to tank as they did before. This hasn't actually changed anything.
It makes a difference. In most drafts, there are only 1 or 2 players at most that are franchise cornerstone types who are worth tanking for. This adjustment makes it so that there really is no incentive to have the worst record in the league. All of the teams at the bottom will have equal chances of landing that 1-3 pick.
It would never make sense to reward teams for making the playoffs, as you suggest. It would end up utterly destroying some franchises that have a hard time winning , and it would make their competition even stronger. I think the ideal adjustment would be to make the odds equal for all lottery picks for non-playoff teams.
-
lol, Daryl Morey just tweeted:
@samhinkie tanking is solved
;D
Can someone explain to me how this change is supposed to curb tanking? The worst teams still have the best odds at getting the best picks. Bad teams (that is, teams who aren't going to make the playoffs) still have the exact same incentives to tank as they did before. This hasn't actually changed anything.
Derek Bodner had a terrific response:
Or: the inflection point on when it makes sense to intentionally lose has been shifted.
-
Yea imo, This seems to open up the range of last minute tankers and decrease the chances of bad teams getting a top pick all at the same time. I liked the prior idea of not letting a team Into the top 3 the following year if they get #1. This only prevents the the Hinkie strategy from working. Owners who are semi tankers are more inclined to the last minute tanking. They closed the corners but opened the middle with this one.
-
Seems like this change really funnels teams that have no hope of going anywhere in the playoffs (so, basically, 2/3 of the league), toward 25-30 wins.
It no longer pays nearly as much to end up around 15-20 wins, but it's also much better to end up in the high 20s rather than the mid 30s.
-
lol, Daryl Morey just tweeted:
@samhinkie tanking is solved
;D
Can someone explain to me how this change is supposed to curb tanking? The worst teams still have the best odds at getting the best picks. Bad teams (that is, teams who aren't going to make the playoffs) still have the exact same incentives to tank as they did before. This hasn't actually changed anything.
It significantly reduces the incentive to lose games as the reward has been marginalized quite a bit, especially for the worst teams. It will not eliminate tanking but should help curb it substantially.
-
lol, Daryl Morey just tweeted:
@samhinkie tanking is solved
;D
Can someone explain to me how this change is supposed to curb tanking? The worst teams still have the best odds at getting the best picks. Bad teams (that is, teams who aren't going to make the playoffs) still have the exact same incentives to tank as they did before. This hasn't actually changed anything.
It significantly reduces the incentive to lose games as the reward has been marginalized quite a bit, especially for the worst teams. It will not eliminate tanking but should help curb it substantially.
significantly reduced incentive? No it doesnt. Insigificantly reduces chance of a top pick by a few percent. Nit significantly
-
Here's a link to an ESPN article that provides all the percentage chances for every team in the lottery:
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20851002/nba-board-governors-votes-pass-legislation-draft-lottery-reform-guidelines-resting-healthy-players
New 2019 Lottery Odds (Vs. Previous Odds)
NO. 1 (%) TOP-3 (%) TOP-5 (%) EXPECTED PICK
Team 1 14.0 (25.0) 40 (64) 100 (100) 3.7 (2.6)
Team 2 14.0 (19.9) 40 (56) 80 (100) 3.9 (3.0)
Team 3 14.0 (15.6) 40 (47) 67 (96) 4.1 (3.4)
Team 4 12.5 (11.9) 37 (38) 55 (83) 4.4 (4.0)
Team 5 10.5 (8.8) 32 (29) 44 (55) 5.0 (4.7)
Team 6 9.0 (6.3) 28 (22) 37 (22) 5.5 (5.5)
Team 7 7.5 (4.3) 23 (15) 32 (15) 6.2 (6.5)
Team 8 6.0 (2.8) 19 (10) 26 (10) 7.0 (7.6)
Team 9 4.5 (1.7) 15 (6) 20 (6) 8.0 (8.7)
Team 10 3.0 (1.1) 10 (4) 14 (4) 9.2 (9.8)
Team 11 2.0 (0.8) 7 (3) 9 (3) 10.3 (10.8)
Team 12 1.5 (0.7) 5 (3) 7 (3) 11.4 (11.8)
Team 13 1.0 (0.6) 3 (2) 5 (2) 12.5 (12.8)
Team 14 0.5 (0.5) 2 (2) 2 (2) 13.7 (13.8)
I like this for the Kings pick. I can see them finishing between the 6th and 9th worst team, so their odds of hitting #1 are higher but still quite low, however their odds off landing top 3 and top 5 increase by 100% or more on average in the 6-9 range.
And if they finish in the bottom 3, they are less likely to land top 3 and top 5 but still have really good odds, and their chances to hit #1 are heavily reduced.
I think I kind of like it either way.
-
lol, Daryl Morey just tweeted:
@samhinkie tanking is solved
;D
Can someone explain to me how this change is supposed to curb tanking? The worst teams still have the best odds at getting the best picks. Bad teams (that is, teams who aren't going to make the playoffs) still have the exact same incentives to tank as they did before. This hasn't actually changed anything.
It significantly reduces the incentive to lose games as the reward has been marginalized quite a bit, especially for the worst teams. It will not eliminate tanking but should help curb it substantially.
significantly reduced incentive? No it doesnt. Insigificantly reduces chance of a top pick by a few percent. Nit significantly
It takes away 44% of the lottery balls that the worst team was receiving and it takes away some 30% of the lottery balls the 2nd worst team was receiving and redistributes them to the other lottery teams. It also allows the worst teams to fall 1 more spot in the draft if their lottery balls do not come up. The NBA is not doing this just because, it clearly takes away some of the incentive to tank from the worst offenders.
What I find interesting is that OKC was the only team to vote against these changes. Are they really that afraid Westbrook and George are leaving? This would directly impact their 1st tanking year if they do leave following this year...
-
Why did they not put astop on picking 1st on consecutive years..somthing the Cavs have astonishingly accomplished in the past
-
This isn't good tbh, you'll see as near playoff teams suddenly draft a cornerstone due to the increased lottery odds, all this does is to ensure the worst stay the worst.
-
I mean in some ways it actually helps the Kings pick. The worst case scenario was Kings get #1 overall but Pili keeps the pick and we get the Phili pick (likely much later). With the flattening out of #1 odds this scenario seems less likely. It really depends on where the pick falls. I
-
This isn't good tbh, you'll see as near playoff teams suddenly draft a cornerstone due to the increased lottery odds, all this does is to ensure the worst stay the worst.
Near playoff teams or not, they are still eliminated and theyd have to be extremely lucky anyways if ever they do get a top 3 pick.
It may happen in the future but it won't be the norm though.
-
It definitely helps our Memphis 2019 pick.
Not really...at least not yet. The pick is protected top 8 in 2019 and top 6 in 2020. In 2021, it goes unprotected. It is not really realistic to think that we will make it to 2021, even if they are horrible, since now there is a better chance that pick falls out of the top 8 or top 6.
Still, I am happy to have the pick and it gives us something to look forward to.
Why did they not put astop on picking 1st on consecutive years..somthing the Cavs have astonishingly accomplished in the past
I totally agree with this. I suppose an amendment will be made or perhaps they aren't worried about it as much with the worst teams having far less of a chance to actually get the top pick.
-
This isn't good tbh, you'll see as near playoff teams suddenly draft a cornerstone due to the increased lottery odds, all this does is to ensure the worst stay the worst.
Near playoff teams or not, they are still eliminated and theyd have to be extremely lucky anyways if ever they do get a top 3 pick.
It may happen in the future but it won't be the norm though.
That increased chance doesn't sit well with me, the increase should only go to the bottom 6-7 teams.
-
As long as the Lakers always pick LAST and Celtics FIRST .....im Ok with the revisions
-
This is a pretty decent summation of my thoughts.
https://www.si.com/nba/2017/09/29/nba-draft-lottery-reform-adam-silver-76ers-suns-knicks-bulls
-
As long as the Lakers always pick LAST and Celtics FIRST .....im Ok with the revisions
So you're happy to have the worst record in the league as long as the Lakers have the best one? Hmmmmm....
-
This is a pretty decent summation of my thoughts.
https://www.si.com/nba/2017/09/29/nba-draft-lottery-reform-adam-silver-76ers-suns-knicks-bulls
That's pretty close to how I feel about it as well. I always hate the kind of "real NBA fan" talk but I think he's right that a lot of those complaining about tanking aren't watching the Suns in Februayr anyway and real Suns fans know what's up. Just like Philly fans, as a group, were never really the ones upset about Hinkie's tanking (as far as I've experienced).
Anyway, this is the big point in the piece and what I've been saying about this lottery reform:
Imagine it's February 2019. The three worst teams will have an equal shot at landing the top pick to draft Canadian guard R.J. Barrett, and there's going to be some very real incentive for the fourth and fifth-worst teams to lose their way into that top three, while the three worst teams will try to out-lose them to stay there. That's five teams with compelling reasons to lose.
-
Infant given year there are only ever 5 or 6 teams that are struggling / tanking. Beyond that are the teams in transition or decline and then the playoff teams. What this new system largely does is spread the probabilities over the bottom 6 teams. So whilst it is still beneficial to drop to the bottom, the incentive is much lower now when compared to the benefits of building a team culture and trying to win. Those bad teams will still struggle to win even if they try, look at Brooklyn!
It's a good change that should have happened a while back. Imagine if the odds had been this way in the 2013 draft. Teams doing it the right way like Utah and us could have been rewarded and tanking teams punished until they started rebuilding like a proper team should.
It may even have the knock on effect of helping teams climb faster post losing as well. If they are encouraged to build a team and not just lose for a superstar then that can only benefit them.