instead of ping pong balls, an idea to eliminate tanking.

[bdm860]

Imagine Portland vs. Seatle game determining the number one and number two draft picks in a draft that features greg oden and kevin durant.

I understand what you're saying, you're trying to make games at the end of the season more meaningful, problem with that though, the players still don't care.  Professional athletes are cocky and think they can do it all themselves.  That Portland/Seatle game to determine #1 pick, you think Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge would have been playing a lot harder knowing if they win their team could draft Durant or Oden to potentially replace one of them, take away minutes and shots from them, and hurt their chances at a bigger pay day?

You think Zack Randolph would have played harder at the end of the season so his team would have a shot at Blake Griffin?

Remember Pierce said if the Celts got #1 or # 2 in '07 he was going to ask to be traded?  How would that have helped him play harder?  Or play at all?  You think he would risk further injury for to himself and played at the end of the season to help his team get a better pick and start rebuilding?  

There's just no way that works.

[toinewalka]

I understand what you're saying, you're trying to make games at the end of the season more meaningful, problem with that though, the players still don't care.  Professional athletes are cocky and think they can do it all themselves.  That Portland/Seatle game to determine #1 pick, you think Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge would have been playing a lot harder knowing if they win their team could draft Durant or Oden to potentially replace one of them, take away minutes and shots from them, and hurt their chances at a bigger pay day?

You think Zack Randolph would have played harder at the end of the season so his team would have a shot at Blake Griffin?

Remember Pierce said if the Celts got #1 or # 2 in '07 he was going to ask to be traded?  How would that have helped him play harder?  Or play at all?  You think he would risk further injury for to himself and played at the end of the season to help his team get a better pick and start rebuilding? 

There's just no way that works.

I just threw a TP your way, that makes too much sense.

[Reyquila]

Tanking does not guarantee 1st draft choice; tanking didnt help the celtics with Oden...
 

[dark_lord]

Tanking does not guarantee 1st draft choice; tanking didnt help the celtics with Oden...
 

or duncan

[Steve from Milford]

So what's wrong with "tanking".

First of all exists in all sports and only the NBA felt they had to do something and all they ended up doing was creating injustices.

Second what exactly is tanking. Is it really teams trying to lose or is it bad teams not playing their best players because with nothing to play for it is time to see what they have at the end of the bench. A time for experimentation. Any coach who didn't take advantage of this opportunity should be fired because they are hurting the long term growth of their team for no good reason.

Third, if teams are really trying to lose they hurt themselves and their fans in the long term (see Clippers) as they develop a culture of losing.

Drafting by worst team first was created to help bad teams get better. Why throw road blocks in their way to solve a problem that really doesn't exist?

[cdif911]

change the draft. at seasons end the worst team gets disbanded, its players become eligible for the NBA draft, forfeiting their contracts, they go back to the rookie scale.  So this year, Sacramento would become a voided team.  Now LA (or Washington depending on the tiebreaker) choses between Blake Griffen or Kevin Martin - not bad eh?  that would be pure motivation to stay in the league

every year add a team in a new developing market that is safe from elimination from the league for 5 years... don't wanna say - hey Seattle, you got your sonics back, oh wait you didn't..sorry.  They get built by an expansion draft and through getting 2 automatic first rounders, through a lottery system (it can be 1 random pick 1-10 and 1 random 11-30 - a really lucky team gets the 1st, the 11th and some good cast offs)

this could work people!

[cdif911]

Tanking does not guarantee 1st draft choice; tanking didnt help the celtics with Oden...
 

thank god!

[Arok325]

I haven't read everyone's posts yet so I don't know if it has been mentioned yet but how about this idea: The lottery is based on team's records vs. playoff teams. 

Therefore the best records vs. playoff teams will get better draft picks.  I think this method works because first of all it gives losing teams a reason to keep competing from a coaching perspective.  Also bad teams will not be rewarded for tanking and this also bolsters the competition because playoff teams will be tested harder leading to more exciting games. 

What do people think? I realize that this may not motivate players but it will force coaches to at least keep the teams competitive (e.g no shutting down elite level players for the end of the season).

[nickagneta]

Well call me biased, but I still prefer the idea in this thread http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=29410.30 and this thread http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=29515.15 by that poster johnnyrondo on a different lottery system.    No system will be perfect, but you want a system where every team is playing to win, games that fans buy tickets for feature the team's best players (no sitting out for tanking), and you want the brightest young stars to be dispersed around the league. Well that's my opinion at least.

I've got a question for your system. The idea is that every year there is a lottery but that everyone gets a top 3 pick every ten years no matter their record. So let's do an example:

2010 Winners: Boston Lakers Bulls
2011 Winners: Wiz Cavs Spurs     2010 winners can't be in lottery
2012 Winners: Nets Knicks Portland    2010 and 2011 winners can't be in lottery
2013 Winners: Thunder Heat Magic    2010, 2011 and 2012 winners can't be in lottery
2014 Winners: Toronto Warriors Suns 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 winners can't be in lottery
2015 Winners: Philly Pistons Rockets   2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 winners can't be in lottery
2016 Winners: Bucks Pacers Nuggets   2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 winners can't be in lottery
2017 Winners: Mavs TWolves Hawks 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 winners can't be in lottery
2018 Winners: Memphis Kings Hornets 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 winners can't be in lottery
2019 winners are automatically: Bobcats, Jazz, Clippers

Now comes the questions.

Because you can only win one time in any 10 year period are Boston, Lakers and the Bulls the automatic winners in 2020 with the lottery just deciding what order they are in?

Or do you start all over again with the 30 teams and go by decade? Because if you do is that fair to a team that got selected early one decade and late another decade making it 17-19 years between top three picks?

Just wondering?

[guava_wrench]

It also doesn't really work because teams will have drastically different points at which they are technically eliminated from the playoffs...for some teams it could go right down to the last couple games.  For others, it could be determined far sooner than that.

In particular, the differences in records of other teams in the conference and division play too big of a role in determining elimination.

It also favors teams that have a more difficult early schedule and an easier later schedule. Or teams with injuries in the beginning of the season and not at the end.

The main problem is all games should count equally.

Since there is no problem with the ping pong balls, let's stick with that.

The problem I have with ping pong balls is that teams are awarded ping pong balls for losing games.

I disagree that all games should count equally.  Why should they?  The christmas day matchup celts and lakers was a bigger deal than golden state and milwakee bucks november 22.
And game 7 is a bigger deal than game one.  The point of this idea is to give MORE meaning to otherwise meaningless games at the end of the season.  Wouldn't it be nice if the victor between the worsed two franchises in a game at the end of the season could determine each franchise respective draft picks?  Imagine Portland vs. Seatle game determining the number one and number two draft picks in a draft that features greg oden and kevin durant.  

if you really like ping pong balls though, we could keep them.  But i would rather award ping pong balls for teams winning rather than losing.  The team that gets the most wins after being eliminated from the playoffs should get the most ping pong balls, etc.  

Please name a team sport where teams get better draft picks for winning?

At least the NBA has something in place. Adding randomness is the BEST solution, because you cannot guarantee the best pick by losing wisely.

It is also bizarre that people are complaining about teams being rewarded for losing when the teams with the worst record usually don't get the top pick!

This is a non-story.

[Tr1boy]

even though the idea is great so that teams try to not tank on purpose to get a better chance at #1, like many have disputed it really wouldn't help genuinly terrible teams.

The lotto idea is really good imo. You have seen the celtics not get the 1st pick already when they should have in theory.

[hwangjini_1]

It also doesn't really work because teams will have drastically different points at which they are technically eliminated from the playoffs...for some teams it could go right down to the last couple games.  For others, it could be determined far sooner than that.

exactly. what if team A is eliminated with1 month to go and wins 1 game the rest of the way.

team b, who has a much better record is eliminated with one week left in the season and wins 2 games.

team b gets a higher pick even though they were better.

nice try, but personally i like this idea.

you take the teams with the worst regular season record and transfer their first round picks immediately to the celtics.

i like it! 

[slamtheking]

Well call me biased, but I still prefer the idea in this thread http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=29410.30 and this thread http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=29515.15 by that poster johnnyrondo on a different lottery system.    No system will be perfect, but you want a system where every team is playing to win, games that fans buy tickets for feature the team's best players (no sitting out for tanking), and you want the brightest young stars to be dispersed around the league. Well that's my opinion at least.

I've got a question for your system. The idea is that every year there is a lottery but that everyone gets a top 3 pick every ten years no matter their record. So let's do an example:

2010 Winners: Boston Lakers Bulls
2011 Winners: Wiz Cavs Spurs     2010 winners can't be in lottery
2012 Winners: Nets Knicks Portland    2010 and 2011 winners can't be in lottery
2013 Winners: Thunder Heat Magic    2010, 2011 and 2012 winners can't be in lottery
2014 Winners: Toronto Warriors Suns 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 winners can't be in lottery
2015 Winners: Philly Pistons Rockets   2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 winners can't be in lottery
2016 Winners: Bucks Pacers Nuggets   2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 winners can't be in lottery
2017 Winners: Mavs TWolves Hawks 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 winners can't be in lottery
2018 Winners: Memphis Kings Hornets 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 winners can't be in lottery
2019 winners are automatically: Bobcats, Jazz, Clippers

Now comes the questions.

Because you can only win one time in any 10 year period are Boston, Lakers and the Bulls the automatic winners in 2020 with the lottery just deciding what order they are in?

Or do you start all over again with the 30 teams and go by decade? Because if you do is that fair to a team that got selected early one decade and late another decade making it 17-19 years between top three picks?

Just wondering?

TP for you for beating me to the same argument with this idea. 

[slamtheking]

It also doesn't really work because teams will have drastically different points at which they are technically eliminated from the playoffs...for some teams it could go right down to the last couple games.  For others, it could be determined far sooner than that.

exactly. what if team A is eliminated with1 month to go and wins 1 game the rest of the way.

team b, who has a much better record is eliminated with one week left in the season and wins 2 games.

team b gets a higher pick even though they were better.

nice try, but personally i like this idea.

you take the teams with the worst regular season record and transfer their first round picks immediately to the celtics.

i like it! 

I like your idea best. 

I don't think this proposed alternative cuts it for the same reason you've covered.  A truly crappy team eliminated with 25 games to go in the West may win 5-7 games the rest of the way.  A slightly better team is eliminated with 13 games to go and wins 8.  The really crappy team loses out when they deserve it the most.

The best options are:
1. leave it a total crapshoot like it is now.
2. ditch the draft completely and go back to a coinflip between the worst team in each conference.
3. Use a weighted system mentioned by someone else here based on an average of the past 2-3 years.  Picks are based on the worst combined record.  That actually seems like a decent idea.  Prevents a good team with a 1-time dip from getting a top pick (hello SA grabbing Duncan).  That system would hopefully put an end to perenial losers and put a premium on GM skills to keep a team at a high-level without having to stink for several years to get a good pick.

[johnnyrondo]

Well call me biased, but I still prefer the idea in this thread http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=29410.30 and this thread http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=29515.15 by that poster johnnyrondo on a different lottery system.    No system will be perfect, but you want a system where every team is playing to win, games that fans buy tickets for feature the team's best players (no sitting out for tanking), and you want the brightest young stars to be dispersed around the league. Well that's my opinion at least.

I've got a question for your system. The idea is that every year there is a lottery but that everyone gets a top 3 pick every ten years no matter their record. So let's do an example:

2010 Winners: Boston Lakers Bulls
2011 Winners: Wiz Cavs Spurs     2010 winners can't be in lottery
2012 Winners: Nets Knicks Portland    2010 and 2011 winners can't be in lottery
2013 Winners: Thunder Heat Magic    2010, 2011 and 2012 winners can't be in lottery
2014 Winners: Toronto Warriors Suns 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 winners can't be in lottery
2015 Winners: Philly Pistons Rockets   2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 winners can't be in lottery
2016 Winners: Bucks Pacers Nuggets   2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 winners can't be in lottery
2017 Winners: Mavs TWolves Hawks 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 winners can't be in lottery
2018 Winners: Memphis Kings Hornets 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 winners can't be in lottery
2019 winners are automatically: Bobcats, Jazz, Clippers

Now comes the questions.

Because you can only win one time in any 10 year period are Boston, Lakers and the Bulls the automatic winners in 2020 with the lottery just deciding what order they are in?

Or do you start all over again with the 30 teams and go by decade? Because if you do is that fair to a team that got selected early one decade and late another decade making it 17-19 years between top three picks?

Just wondering?

I don't believe I said every team gets a top 3 pick guaranteed every ten years. If I did that was in an earlier version of my idea and I adjusted it to limit a team to two top 3 picks every ten years. In a fair world every team would get one top 3 pick every ten years (30 teams, 30 picks), but that's not how a lottery works. For example if you roll a die 6 times it should land on 3 once, but it could also not land on 3 or land on it twice or more. My system idea simply prevents a team from getting 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 20 top 3 picks. That's not fair to the other teams in the league.

Now you might ask, is it fair for the Celtics to get the #2 pick in let's say 2012 and then the #3 pick in 2016, while the Clippers hypothetically suck and don't get a top 3 pick in many years. Well according to my system the Clippers would still be getting the #4 pick each year if they were that bad and the current system doesn't guarantee a top 3 pick as witnessed by Memphis and Boston in 2007.

Just trying to spread the wealth of where the top prospects go and eliminate tanking.


EDIT: Just checked and I was correct. I never said all 30 teams would be guaranteed a top 3 pick every ten years.