Problem is, the Lakers will have zero incentive to lose games whereas other teams might decide to tank the season. For instance, last year the Lakers started 10-10 and from then on their record was 16-46.
Yeah, because that really helped Brooklyn the last two years. And they started off 4-5 last year. So that 10-10 start was just them overachieving. Can you point to a particular decision made after game 20 that caused them to lose more games?
Do people really not get this? Tanking is far rarer than people think. For instance, the Lakers had EVERY incentive to tank last year because they would have lost their draft pick if it fell outside the top 3. Yet they won 5 straight right at the end of the season. Orlando could have tanked but their winning percentage didn't fall (5 out of their last 13 is actually better than their winning percentage last year). Phoenix won 2 of their last 3 (6-16 their last 22 is just about what they did all year). The same holds true for every other team and prior seasons bear out the same result - tanking is actually really rare. I could go into the numerous reasons why this is (fanbase, locker room ramifications, sponsors) but there are many reasons against tanking.
It's rare that teams tank an entire year. The 76ers did it a couple of years. Teams tend to do it when there's a superstar coming up in the draft (aka Lebron, Tim Duncan). But that's not what we're talking about here. The tanking we're discussing is the type of lobbying for a better draft pick.
Here's the thing - it doesn't make a tremendous difference even if they did it. Post-All Star break there's generally 26 or 27 games left. Even if there's evidence of tanking, that doesn't typically happen until around the ASB. At that point it's really too late. The teams tempted to tank are only winning at a 1/3rd clip. So they would be expected to win only about 8 or 9 games. Teams that start to tank typically still win games just at a reduced rate. The net effect would be about 3 or 4 fewer wins at best. It's enough to move a couple of draft slots at best.
In a nutshell:
(1) Bad teams are bad and will lose anyway
(2) Tanking is really rare
(3) Most tanking results in very minor differences in W/L totals
So can we PLEASE put to bed this myth of "no incentive to tank" making bad teams somehow better?
It's simply not true.