League Unveils some Anti-Tanking Proposals

[Roy H.]

I'm just not sure how having the worst team end up at #12 would help the product.  I get that it disincentives tanking, but it can also result in bad teams staying bad for a long time.

[Moranis]

I'm just not sure how having the worst team end up at #12 would help the product.  I get that it disincentives tanking, but it can also result in bad teams staying bad for a long time.

Absolutely. This just will keep bad teams bad for longer.  It is dumb.

[No Nickname]

I'm just not sure how having the worst team end up at #12 would help the product.  I get that it disincentives tanking, but it can also result in bad teams staying bad for a long time.

Absolutely. This just will keep bad teams bad for longer.  It is dumb.

Genuinely curious, did bad teams stay bad from 1985-1989 (I know, five years is a small sample size) when the draft had flat odds for all lottery teams?

[Moranis]

I'm just not sure how having the worst team end up at #12 would help the product.  I get that it disincentives tanking, but it can also result in bad teams staying bad for a long time.

Absolutely. This just will keep bad teams bad for longer.  It is dumb.

Genuinely curious, did bad teams stay bad from 1985-1989 (I know, five years is a small sample size) when the draft had flat odds for all lottery teams?

pretty much and flat odds are not the same as worse odds.  The Clippers, Kings, Pacers, Cavs, and Warriors were all basically bad that entire time. 

[Moranis]

To expand a bit more

Here are the 3 worst teams and where they drafted

85 - Pacers/Warriors (2nd/7th), Knicks (1st)
86 - Knicks (5th), Pacers (4th), Cavs (1st)
87 - Clippers (4th), Knicks/Nets (5th/3rd)
88 - Clippers (1st), Nets (4th), Kings (6th)
89 - Heat (4th), Hornets (5th), Spurs/Clippers (3rd/2nd)
90 - Nets (1st), Heat/Magic (3rd/4th)
91 - Nuggets (4th), Heat (5th), Kings (3rd)
92 - Wolves (3rd), Magic (1st), Mavs (4th)
93 - Mavs (4th), Wolves (5th), Bullets (6th) - it was this draft that caused the league to switch the odds as the Magic ended up 1st after just missing the playoffs and the 3 worst teams all drafted as late as possible

Now sure the Clippers were not the best run franchise, but the 88 draft when they finally got 1, was a terrible draft.  The top 5 were Manning, Smits, Charles Smith, Chris Morris, and Richmond.  Hawkins the 6th pick ended up with the most win shares followed by Mason (53rd) and Strickland (19th).  Then there was Richmond, Majerle (14th), and Grant Long (33rd).  So imagine now under these new rules, this is the draft you get #1 after being bad for several years. At least 89 was also a bad draft, but you did miss out on David Robinson in 87. 

[No Nickname]

To expand a bit more

Here are the 3 worst teams and where they drafted

85 - Pacers/Warriors (2nd/7th), Knicks (1st)
86 - Knicks (5th), Pacers (4th), Cavs (1st)
87 - Clippers (4th), Knicks/Nets (5th/3rd)
88 - Clippers (1st), Nets (4th), Kings (6th)
89 - Heat (4th), Hornets (5th), Spurs/Clippers (3rd/2nd)
90 - Nets (1st), Heat/Magic (3rd/4th)
91 - Nuggets (4th), Heat (5th), Kings (3rd)
92 - Wolves (3rd), Magic (1st), Mavs (4th)
93 - Mavs (4th), Wolves (5th), Bullets (6th) - it was this draft that caused the league to switch the odds as the Magic ended up 1st after just missing the playoffs and the 3 worst teams all drafted as late as possible

Now sure the Clippers were not the best run franchise, but the 88 draft when they finally got 1, was a terrible draft.  The top 5 were Manning, Smits, Charles Smith, Chris Morris, and Richmond.  Hawkins the 6th pick ended up with the most win shares followed by Mason (53rd) and Strickland (19th).  Then there was Richmond, Majerle (14th), and Grant Long (33rd).  So imagine now under these new rules, this is the draft you get #1 after being bad for several years. At least 89 was also a bad draft, but you did miss out on David Robinson in 87.

And for the young guys here, it should be noted that there were only SEVEN teams in the lotter in 1985, 1986, and 1987. 

So even if you had the worst luck, as the worst team in the NBA, you'd still be picking 7th.

Then just NINE teams from 1988 - 1994.

So I guess the new lottery format will REALLY be different in that the worst teams could theoretically pick much farther down the draft.

[Donoghus]

Here we go. It's happening whether we like it or not.

Shams Charania
@ShamsCharania
?
4m
Breaking: The NBA's Board of Governors has passed new anti-tanking rules that include expanding the draft lottery from 14 to 16 teams, a relegation zone where the bottom 3 teams get penalized with lessened chances for the No. 1 pick, and flattened odds, sources tell ESPN.

[
Shams Charania
@ShamsCharania
?
6m
The NBA makes an unprecedented move in American pro sports league by punishing the very worst teams in the draft lottery and creating a new system to incentivize winning ? after months of meetings and conversations among league, ownership and team stakeholders. A radical response?

Shams Charania
@ShamsCharania
The NBA's Board of Governors vote passed 29-1 -- with the Memphis Grizzlies as the lone vote against the new anti-tanking lottery reform, sources tell ESPN.

[Shams Charania
@ShamsCharania
?
5m
The "3-2-1 lottery" is named to represent the number of lottery balls per team. Teams with a bottom-three record -- the relegation area -- have only two lottery balls. Teams that do not qualify for the playoffs or play-in tournament in spots four through 10 receive three lottery balls each.

The Nos. 9 and 10 play-in seeds in each conference receive two lottery balls each, and the losers of the 7-8 play-in games receive one lottery ball each. All 16 teams will in the drawing.

No will be able to win the No. 1 in consecutive years or be able to win three consecutive top-five picks.

[jambr380]

I'm just not sure how having the worst team end up at #12 would help the product.  I get that it disincentives tanking, but it can also result in bad teams staying bad for a long time.

The legit worst teams won't be able to win, while the teams who might otherwise tank will win just enough to get into the 4-10 range. If a team is bad enough, they can't win no matter how much they try. It's a truly stupid system

[Phantom255x]

I'm not really sure how this helps. If anything, it would make a team on the fringe of making the play-in or playoffs probably think, "you know, we might have a decent chance at a Top-5 pick if we just miss the playoffs entirely".

Also, I do like the "no team can win #1 for consecutive years", but "no team can win three straight Top-5 picks" also seems odd. Some teams need that kind of talent or run to build themselves up, and is that implying some team can get "rewarded" behind them by being able to leapfrog into the Top-5 because another team already won it twice in a row.

I know there isn't a perfect solution but it just isn't working. It was feared before, but what if a team like OKC/SAS just takes a step back, has a mediocre season and again wins the lottery or something. How is that gonna help the product as a whole??

[Goldstar88]

I'm just not sure how having the worst team end up at #12 would help the product.  I get that it disincentives tanking, but it can also result in bad teams staying bad for a long time.

The legit worst teams won't be able to win, while the teams who might otherwise tank will win just enough to get into the 4-10 range. If a team is bad enough, they can't win no matter how much they try. It's a truly stupid system

Well, they do the lottery behind closed doors, so Silver will be deciding anyway. 

[Donoghus]

I'm just not sure how having the worst team end up at #12 would help the product.  I get that it disincentives tanking, but it can also result in bad teams staying bad for a long time.

The legit worst teams won't be able to win, while the teams who might otherwise tank will win just enough to get into the 4-10 range. If a team is bad enough, they can't win no matter how much they try. It's a truly stupid system

Well, they do the lottery behind closed doors, so Silver will be deciding anyway. 

That's most likely changing if you read recent reports.

[Vermont Green]

I don't believe any of this will help.  Teams will still shut down their best players once a season is lost and teams will still trade away good players for draft picks once they start "rebuilding" (to get bad on purpose).  The most egregious shenanigans occur when there is a protected pick involved. They really did not address this aspect:

Traded Pick Restrictions: Teams are no longer allowed to trade picks with protections in the 12 to 15 range, a rule designed to stop franchises from gaming the system by keeping their pick if they slide into a specific draft slot.

So you can protect a pick 1-11 but not 12-15?  What does that do?  Nothing in my mind.  Tanking and drafting does not generally work.  It works for some teams.  You have to be lucky.  SAS got Wembanyama, but most teams that tank are not that lucky.  They end up with Ben Simmons or Greg Oden or someone like that.  But teams are still going to "rebuild".  What other choice is there?  Teams will still be gaming the system, it will just be to game it in a different way.  I don't know how to fix this, but these changes would change anything.

[Donoghus]

I don't believe any of this will help.  Teams will still shut down their best players once a season is lost and teams will still trade away good players for draft picks once they start "rebuilding" (to get bad on purpose).  The most egregious shenanigans occur when there is a protected pick involved. They really did not address this aspect:

Traded Pick Restrictions: Teams are no longer allowed to trade picks with protections in the 12 to 15 range, a rule designed to stop franchises from gaming the system by keeping their pick if they slide into a specific draft slot.

So you can protect a pick 1-11 but not 12-15?  What does that do?  Nothing in my mind.  Tanking and drafting does not generally work.  It works for some teams.  You have to be lucky.  SAS got Wembanyama, but most teams that tank are not that lucky.  They end up with Ben Simmons or Greg Oden or someone like that.  But teams are still going to "rebuild".  What other choice is there?  Teams will still be gaming the system, it will just be to game it in a different way. I don't know how to fix this, but these changes would change anything.

Obviously, the answer is the Wheel. 

[Donoghus]

Shams Charania
@ShamsCharania
Sources said the Grizzlies voted against the new lottery reform solely because of the new rule disallowing a team from picking top 5 in 3 consecutive years. As @BobbyMarks42 says, the Grizzlies have the more favorable 2027 first-rounder of Cleveland, Minnesota and Utah, and because the Jazz again have a top-5 pick this year, their first in 2027 cannot be in the top-5 under new rules.