League Unveils some Anti-Tanking Proposals

[Kernewek]

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

I tend to agree with you (and said as much in another thread on this, i think), but it is worth keeping in mind that teams like the Kings already exist under the current system.

[jambr380]

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.

I thought that top-5 rule applied to a franchise's own picks, not necessarily ones they have as a result of trades from other franchises.  does it truly apply to any picks a team has acquired?

Yeah, this might be the stupidest part of the rule. It only matters where the picks originate from, not who's actually picking. For instance, if the Jazz land in the top 5 for a 3rd consecutive year, but have already traded their pick to MEM, then MEM would be ineligible to pick in the top 5.

On top of that, if the Jazz own a pick from CHI, they can still pick in the top 5 even though their pick would be ineligible. And this can go on forever. The Jazz could pick in the top 5 for as many consecutive years that they own somebody else's pick. And of course, reacquire the rights of doing so with their own picks after taking a year off.

[Celtics2021]

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

I tend to agree with you (and said as much in another thread on this, i think), but it is worth keeping in mind that teams like the Kings already exist under the current system.

Exactly.  You have teams like the Kings and Wizards that are perennial bottom-feeders even with tanking.  The Wizards have not exceeded 50 wins or made it past the second round since the 70s.  Their best stretch since then came 9 to 11 years ago, coming off a run where they picked 1, 6, 3, and 3 in four seasons, and they could only max out at 49 wins before that team fell apart.  I do not think this rule gives the Wizards a better chance, but it is also not clear that it will give them any worse of an opportunity.

[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.

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

I tend to agree with you (and said as much in another thread on this, i think), but it is worth keeping in mind that teams like the Kings already exist under the current system.

Exactly.  You have teams like the Kings and Wizards that are perennial bottom-feeders even with tanking.  The Wizards have not exceeded 50 wins or made it past the second round since the 70s.  Their best stretch since then came 9 to 11 years ago, coming off a run where they picked 1, 6, 3, and 3 in four seasons, and they could only max out at 49 wins before that team fell apart.  I do not think this rule gives the Wizards a better chance, but it is also not clear that it will give them any worse of an opportunity.

The Wizards had a better chance to win games, make the playoffs and engage their fan base under those rules. 

[Kernewek]

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

I tend to agree with you (and said as much in another thread on this, i think), but it is worth keeping in mind that teams like the Kings already exist under the current system.

Exactly.  You have teams like the Kings and Wizards that are perennial bottom-feeders even with tanking.  The Wizards have not exceeded 50 wins or made it past the second round since the 70s.  Their best stretch since then came 9 to 11 years ago, coming off a run where they picked 1, 6, 3, and 3 in four seasons, and they could only max out at 49 wins before that team fell apart.  I do not think this rule gives the Wizards a better chance, but it is also not clear that it will give them any worse of an opportunity.

The Wizards had a better chance to win games, make the playoffs and engage their fan base under those rules.

In a vacuum, sure, but I think the underlying point is that poor management & ownership can sink a team - regardless of the rules surrounding the draft lottery - remains sound.

[Vermont Green]

The thing with drafting is that there are only a few players that come along that make a real difference, impact a title.  And you don't even know for sure who they are.  The top players in the league that have impacted a championship in the last several years include the following:

Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (11th)
Jayson Tatum (3rd)
Nikola Jokic (41st)
Steph Curry (7th)
Giannis Antetokounmpo (15th)
LeBron James (1st)
Kawhi Leonard (15th)

That is it for the last 14 seasons or so.   7 Players.  And only one of them was an actual consensus #1.  A few other recent #1s may join this group (Cunningham, Flagg), but for every one of those that has a chance, there are several others that are more like Zaccharie Risacher, Zion Williamson, Deandre Ayton, Markelle Fultz, Ben Simmons, Karl-Anthony Towns, Andrew Wiggins, Anthony Bennett, and on an on.

Tanking and drafting fails more than it succeeds, just ask PHI fans.  That is why I don't understand how some want to see the Celtics start down that path.  It may well come to that as some point for the Celtics, but I am in no rush for it.

[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.

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

I tend to agree with you (and said as much in another thread on this, i think), but it is worth keeping in mind that teams like the Kings already exist under the current system.

Exactly.  You have teams like the Kings and Wizards that are perennial bottom-feeders even with tanking.  The Wizards have not exceeded 50 wins or made it past the second round since the 70s.  Their best stretch since then came 9 to 11 years ago, coming off a run where they picked 1, 6, 3, and 3 in four seasons, and they could only max out at 49 wins before that team fell apart.  I do not think this rule gives the Wizards a better chance, but it is also not clear that it will give them any worse of an opportunity.

The Wizards had a better chance to win games, make the playoffs and engage their fan base under those rules.

In a vacuum, sure, but I think the underlying point is that poor management & ownership can sink a team - regardless of the rules surrounding the draft lottery - remains sound.

That is true; some front offices and ownership groups will always be lesser than others.  But, taking away one avenue to get immediately better doesn't help anybody.  If nothing else, bad lottery results will kill enthusiasm even before the start of a season.

You're correct that the Kings are mismanaged, and even when handed the opportunity to land a superstar in Luka they bungled it.  But, handcuffing a terrible franchise just leads to poorer decisions. 

[Moranis]

The thing with drafting is that there are only a few players that come along that make a real difference, impact a title.  And you don't even know for sure who they are.  The top players in the league that have impacted a championship in the last several years include the following:

Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (11th)
Jayson Tatum (3rd)
Nikola Jokic (41st)
Steph Curry (7th)
Giannis Antetokounmpo (15th)
LeBron James (1st)
Kawhi Leonard (15th)

That is it for the last 14 seasons or so.   7 Players.  And only one of them was an actual consensus #1.  A few other recent #1s may join this group (Cunningham, Flagg), but for every one of those that has a chance, there are several others that are more like Zaccharie Risacher, Zion Williamson, Deandre Ayton, Markelle Fultz, Ben Simmons, Karl-Anthony Towns, Andrew Wiggins, Anthony Bennett, and on an on.

Tanking and drafting fails more than it succeeds, just ask PHI fans.  That is why I don't understand how some want to see the Celtics start down that path.  It may well come to that as some point for the Celtics, but I am in no rush for it.

Historically unless you have a top 35 player in the history of the gane you aren't going to win the championship. And if you are to win multiple championships you almost always need a top 15 player.  Exceptions happen once every so often (24 Celtics, 04 Pistons are the 2 most recent and the Knicks wouldn join that list if they win).  So you need that player and without him it is a major uphill battle.  So tanking to win a title of course doesn't work often because you need to tank in the right year and have the right luck. Most teams tank not to win the title, but to make the playoffs, to have deep runs, and generally play winning basketball because what is the alternative. 

The question for Bodton is, what is the realistic path back into title contention with the current group? If it starts being about hitting on late 1st eound picks or trying to squeeze the life out of veteran minimum type players, that isn't a great option.  Now maybe it is still worth it to have nice regular seasons and win a playoff series or two, but if that is the realistic end game, how long will fans keep showing up, is that worth paying luxury taxes, is it worth not capitalizing on player's value when they are at their peak value, etc.

[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.

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

I tend to agree with you (and said as much in another thread on this, i think), but it is worth keeping in mind that teams like the Kings already exist under the current system.

Exactly.  You have teams like the Kings and Wizards that are perennial bottom-feeders even with tanking.  The Wizards have not exceeded 50 wins or made it past the second round since the 70s.  Their best stretch since then came 9 to 11 years ago, coming off a run where they picked 1, 6, 3, and 3 in four seasons, and they could only max out at 49 wins before that team fell apart.  I do not think this rule gives the Wizards a better chance, but it is also not clear that it will give them any worse of an opportunity.

The Wizards had a better chance to win games, make the playoffs and engage their fan base under those rules.

In a vacuum, sure, but I think the underlying point is that poor management & ownership can sink a team - regardless of the rules surrounding the draft lottery - remains sound.

That is true; some front offices and ownership groups will always be lesser than others.  But, taking away one avenue to get immediately better doesn't help anybody.  If nothing else, bad lottery results will kill enthusiasm even before the start of a season.

You're correct that the Kings are mismanaged, and even when handed the opportunity to land a superstar in Luka they bungled it.  But, handcuffing a terrible franchise just leads to poorer decisions.

The Kings also haven't really bottomed out much.  The Luka draft in 2018 is the only time the Kings have had a top 3 pick since Billy Owens was taken 3rd in 1991 and they traded that one to the Warriors. The Kings are actually an example of what can happen when you don't let truly bad teams draft in the top 3.  The only other recent top 5 picks from the Kings were Keegan Murray at 4 in 2022 and De'Aaron Fox at 5 in 2017 and those were both good picks, but the team never got a mega star. They just hung around in mediocrity without truly bottoming out. Now sure, they blew 2018, no question, but that was their 1 and only real shot at landing a difference maker. 

The Spurs on the other hand have had 3 consecutive top 4 picks with Wemby 1, Castle 4, and Harper 2.  3 consecutive drafts of landing premier players including a guy headed towards an all time great career.  Bad teams need volume at the top of the draft.  That is how they build a winning team.  That is actually what hurt the Cavs so much in 2003 when they got Lebron.  The year before rhey took Dajuan Wagner at 6 and the year after Luke Jackson at 10, not great obviously but after that Lebron had them too good to get a real 2nd star (they obviously bungled the Boozer thing badly).  The Sonics/Thunder took Durant, Westbrook, and Harden in consecutive drafts 2, 4, 3.  Boston had the 3rd and 1st pick in consecutive drafts (from another team)  and ended up with Brown and Tatum. The Knicks went the free agency and trading route.  The Thunder built their current team through trades, other teams draft picks, and a small tank.  There are many ways to get there, but it all comes down to talent, and talent is typically found near the top of the draft. 

[slamtheking]

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

I tend to agree with you (and said as much in another thread on this, i think), but it is worth keeping in mind that teams like the Kings already exist under the current system.

Exactly.  You have teams like the Kings and Wizards that are perennial bottom-feeders even with tanking.  The Wizards have not exceeded 50 wins or made it past the second round since the 70s.  Their best stretch since then came 9 to 11 years ago, coming off a run where they picked 1, 6, 3, and 3 in four seasons, and they could only max out at 49 wins before that team fell apart.  I do not think this rule gives the Wizards a better chance, but it is also not clear that it will give them any worse of an opportunity.

The Wizards had a better chance to win games, make the playoffs and engage their fan base under those rules.

In a vacuum, sure, but I think the underlying point is that poor management & ownership can sink a team - regardless of the rules surrounding the draft lottery - remains sound.

That is true; some front offices and ownership groups will always be lesser than others.  But, taking away one avenue to get immediately better doesn't help anybody.  If nothing else, bad lottery results will kill enthusiasm even before the start of a season.

You're correct that the Kings are mismanaged, and even when handed the opportunity to land a superstar in Luka they bungled it.  But, handcuffing a terrible franchise just leads to poorer decisions.

The Kings also haven't really bottomed out much.  The Luka draft in 2018 is the only time the Kings have had a top 3 pick since Billy Owens was taken 3rd in 1991 and they traded that one to the Warriors. The Kings are actually an example of what can happen when you don't let truly bad teams draft in the top 3.  The only other recent top 5 picks from the Kings were Keegan Murray at 4 in 2022 and De'Aaron Fox at 5 in 2017 and those were both good picks, but the team never got a mega star. They just hung around in mediocrity without truly bottoming out. Now sure, they blew 2018, no question, but that was their 1 and only real shot at landing a difference maker. 

The Spurs on the other hand have had 3 consecutive top 4 picks with Wemby 1, Castle 4, and Harper 2.  3 consecutive drafts of landing premier players including a guy headed towards an all time great career.  Bad teams need volume at the top of the draft.  That is how they build a winning team.  That is actually what hurt the Cavs so much in 2003 when they got Lebron.  The year before rhey took Dajuan Wagner at 6 and the year after Luke Jackson at 10, not great obviously but after that Lebron had them too good to get a real 2nd star (they obviously bungled the Boozer thing badly).  The Sonics/Thunder took Durant, Westbrook, and Harden in consecutive drafts 2, 4, 3.  Boston had the 3rd and 1st pick in consecutive drafts (from another team)  and ended up with Brown and Tatum. The Knicks went the free agency and trading route.  The Thunder built their current team through trades, other teams draft picks, and a small tank.  There are many ways to get there, but it all comes down to talent, and talent is typically found near the top of the draft.

or in the case of the Lakers - talent comes from poaching top talent for peanuts from the other teams in the league.

[Vermont Green]

The Spurs on the other hand have had 3 consecutive top 4 picks with Wemby 1, Castle 4, and Harper 2.  3 consecutive drafts of landing premier players including a guy headed towards an all time great career. 

I know you are never going to let of this (I am probably no less stubborn), but the SAS example proves my point.  They were horrible for multiple consecutive drafts.  Starting in 2019-20, their win total was 32, 33, 32, 22, 22, 34.  That is (6) seasons of pretty bad teams.  And even with that, if Wembanyama did not happen to come along, and the right ping pong ball didn't bounce their way, where would they be for all of that?  If not Wembanyama, SAS probably ends up with someone like Brandon Miller (who went #2).  Are Castle, Harper, and Brandon Miller going to have them in the Conference Finals?

If the Celtics go this route, how many seasons will they have to be bad waiting for the next Wembanyama to come along?  And when that player does come along, how do you know the ping pong balls will go in your favor?  On a probability basis, they probably will not go your way so you could be bad for 5 seasons and still miss out on that one generational player that comes along.  In the meantime, you have built a team of players like Fox, Murray, Harper, Castle, and Miller (if you are lucky, it could be much worse than this), not better than Tatum and Brown and maybe never will be better.

Now sometimes (fairly often actually) those generation players get taken in the middle of the first round or even the second round.  Teams just get lucky and end up with SGA or Giannis or Jokic.  But at least those teams didn't have to tank for 6 seasons just to hope that maybe they get the #1 pick in a draft that has a clear generational player.