Alternative ideas for a shady lottery

[fairweatherfan]

I was thinking turtle races. 

Every team would be represented by a turtle, chosen randomly by an independent turtle breeder. Then the owners would get the opportunity to paint their turtles anyway they please, this is to prevent any sort of confusion just in case you lose track of which turtle is yours.

The order the turtles finish is the order of the draft. This is a completely fair system. Seeing as how everyone will get the same shot to win.  You just have to pick the right turtle.

Let the games begin!

Next up on Outside the Lines: Lottery Turtle Doping, is the NBA covering up a growing scandal?   

[Fafnir]

reverse lottery, best team to not make the playoffs gets the most ping pong balls, that way there's an incentive to be good

The problem is that this way the tanking incentive isn't to be as bad as possible, it's to be just bad enough to barely miss the playoffs.  Say you're a mediocre team like the Pacers with a chance at the 8 spot.  You can fight to keep the spot and get maybe 2 home games before getting clobbered in the 1st, and take the #15 pick, or you can let up a bit, play some bench guys, and get a very good shot at a Top 3 pick, which can help revenue (with the added star power) and help build the team into a legit contender down the road. 

Playoff games are a big source of revenue, so there'd be less tanking your way, but it would happen sooner or later when some real blue-chippers were in play, and it'd be a huge black eye to the league. 

I support the old lottery method - 14 teams, 14 ping-pong balls, all spots are drawn.  There's still a slight incentive to miss the playoffs, but a 1/14 chance wouldn't motivate very many teams no matter who the #1 prospect is.  And you could do the lottery live, like they used to do, which would add to the excitement.

Agreed on the incentives section, you'd have medicore teams tank to get high lottery talent.

Tim Duncan/Shaq/Chris Webber are worth missing the playoffs as a 7th or 8th seed.

[ChefEricT]

This may be a little crazy, but here it is.


At the All Star break, the 8 worst teams(4 in each conference) each pick one representative for a One-On-One tournament.  A stipulation would be that each teams representative would have to be under contract going forward and not expiring.  And the tournament brackets would be setup for an East vs West final.

Not only would this spice up All Star weekend, but it would make tanking down the stretch pointless.

[KG_ended_Bias]

How about this. Every team is available for lottery even the Championship caliber teams except for this difference. Playoff teams get 1 ball apiece, non playoff teams get 2 balls. Same lottery system based on their formula how often these random numbers come up produces the winner. This method would totally kill tanking and make owners & GM's make more trades in season and be more aggressive in the free agent market to improve their teams as opposed to laying back lazy and knowing the draft can help you out. Bottom 3 teams shouldn't be rewarded more than a middle of the pack team playing their hearts out for the playoffs and missing out at the end. I call it the Indiana Pacers syndrome, here is a team that never tanks but stays middle of the pack because they never with lottery and always stays on the same place pick 9-14 every year. And the good teams just may strike gold and get lucky enough to extend a dynasty its only fair in keeping the NBA's integrity.

[Moranis]

I'm curious, what teams do people think actually tanked a season (or the end of one)?  I mean seriously, is tanking really a problem?  I can't think of a team that I thought tanked games.  Sure teams may hold guys out as a result of an injury a bit longer if the team isn't anygood, but is that really tanking?  Sure teams might play some young guys a few more minutes if the team sucks, but is that really tanking?  I would like someone to please identify which teams tanked.  Just the last ten years will be fine.

I really believe the worst team should get the best pick, like every other sport.  Seems like the only truly fair way to do it.

[Fafnir]

I'm curious, what teams do people think actually tanked a season (or the end of one)?  I mean seriously, is tanking really a problem?  I can't think of a team that I thought tanked games.  Sure teams may hold guys out as a result of an injury a bit longer if the team isn't anygood, but is that really tanking?  Sure teams might play some young guys a few more minutes if the team sucks, but is that really tanking?  I would like someone to please identify which teams tanked.  Just the last ten years will be fine.

The Timberwolves clearly tanked in the final game of the season in 2005-2006.

Mark Madsen played 30 minutes and took 7 three point shots. If they had won that game they'd have gone into a three way tie for lottery position with Golden State and Houston.

I'll also argue that the C's played Rondo less and Telfair more during the 06-07 season because they wanted to lose game after it became clear that the season was a lost cause.

[slamtheking]

Many thought that the first lottery in 1985 was rigged because the Knicks won Patrick Ewing.  The league went to a weighted system.  When Orlando, the best team to miss the playoffs, won the first pick on a 1-in-66 chance in 1993, they weighted it further.

I would go with a weighted system similar to the current one, but instead of picking three teams for the top three slots no matter their record, you give teams advancement in draft slots.  One team gets to move up three slots, another gets to move up two slots, and a third team gets to move up one slot.

For example, let's say in 2010, the Wizards get +3, the 76ers get +2, and the Nets get +1.  The draft order would then go Nets, Wizards, Wolves, Kings, 76ers, Warriors, Pistons....

As long as draft position has some relation to win-loss record, tanking will always be a possibility.  You either have to get rid of the idea of a lottery, decrease the relationship between lottery odds and win-loss record, or decrease the incentive for finishing worse.  I opt to do the latter.

That's actually an alternative I hadn't seen or thought of before AND actually sounds pretty reasonable.  TP for you

[slamtheking]

I'm curious, what teams do people think actually tanked a season (or the end of one)?  I mean seriously, is tanking really a problem?  I can't think of a team that I thought tanked games.  Sure teams may hold guys out as a result of an injury a bit longer if the team isn't anygood, but is that really tanking?  Sure teams might play some young guys a few more minutes if the team sucks, but is that really tanking?  I would like someone to please identify which teams tanked.  Just the last ten years will be fine.

I really believe the worst team should get the best pick, like every other sport.  Seems like the only truly fair way to do it.

I suggest our very own Celtics leading up to the Oden/Durant draft as an example. 

[the_Bird]

I'm curious, what teams do people think actually tanked a season (or the end of one)?  I mean seriously, is tanking really a problem?  I can't think of a team that I thought tanked games.  Sure teams may hold guys out as a result of an injury a bit longer if the team isn't anygood, but is that really tanking?  Sure teams might play some young guys a few more minutes if the team sucks, but is that really tanking?  I would like someone to please identify which teams tanked.  Just the last ten years will be fine.

The Timberwolves clearly tanked in the final game of the season in 2005-2006.

Mark Madsen played 30 minutes and took 7 three point shots. If they had won that game they'd have gone into a three way tie for lottery position with Golden State and Houston.

I'll also argue that the C's played Rondo less and Telfair more during the 06-07 season because they wanted to lose game after it became clear that the season was a lost cause.

Miami, in the season they won like 15 games.  They had a lot of injuries, but it sure didn't seem like they pushed to get anybody back before the end of the season.  Wade was hurt, but kind of like the season the C's tanked with Pierce, it seemed that they weren't pushing to get him back on the court before the season was over.  I think they had like 5 D-Leaguers in the rotation as one point, and it sure seemed like they weren't all that upset about it.

Of course, karma being karma, they got Michael Beasley for all of their troubles.

[guava_wrench]

The tanking problem is already addressed fine. A much worse problem is the chance of giving a team like the Spurs a player like Tim Duncan when they have a down year due to injury, but are not one of the worst teams.

Also, there is no reason why young teams shouldn't play to develop young guys instead of playing better vets when they know they have no hope for this season. Many fans perceive this as 'tanking', but it is actually just wisely using your players, irrespective of the draft.

[RockinRyA]

Why not make it like a real lottery? Like there are times that there are no winners 

[Moranis]

I'm curious, what teams do people think actually tanked a season (or the end of one)?  I mean seriously, is tanking really a problem?  I can't think of a team that I thought tanked games.  Sure teams may hold guys out as a result of an injury a bit longer if the team isn't anygood, but is that really tanking?  Sure teams might play some young guys a few more minutes if the team sucks, but is that really tanking?  I would like someone to please identify which teams tanked.  Just the last ten years will be fine.

The Timberwolves clearly tanked in the final game of the season in 2005-2006.

Mark Madsen played 30 minutes and took 7 three point shots. If they had won that game they'd have gone into a three way tie for lottery position with Golden State and Houston.

I'll also argue that the C's played Rondo less and Telfair more during the 06-07 season because they wanted to lose game after it became clear that the season was a lost cause.

Miami, in the season they won like 15 games.  They had a lot of injuries, but it sure didn't seem like they pushed to get anybody back before the end of the season.  Wade was hurt, but kind of like the season the C's tanked with Pierce, it seemed that they weren't pushing to get him back on the court before the season was over.  I think they had like 5 D-Leaguers in the rotation as one point, and it sure seemed like they weren't all that upset about it.

Of course, karma being karma, they got Michael Beasley for all of their troubles.

Did the Washington Redskins tank when they pulled McNabb for Grossman?  How about the Broncos when they trotted out Tim Tebow?  Are we tanking right now because Shaq isn't playing, even though he could be?  Do baseball teams tank when they keep people on the DL that don't really need to be on it or when they start young pitchers?

Minnesota is the best example I can see, but that was 1 game.

[droponov]

In that Oden/Durant year, I remember that Boston, Milwaukee, Minnesota and some other team were clearly tanking. Playing weird rotations, holding back players with minor injuries. It was the worst year I can remember in the lottery era.

But tanking is something that a handful of teams may or may not do in the last month of the season. It impacts a negligible quantity of games and it's always an opportunity to discover new talents. If there's a team clearly playing to lose on the floor, then the league should get involved. But tanking teams generally do it by putting as little talent on the floor as possible. The effort is roughly the same of every other lottery headed team.

[LooseCannon]

What's worse, a team that might actually only be the fifth-worst team tanking their way to the #1 pick or the Lakers with Kobe either gone or injured/declining missing the playoffs by a few games and lucking their way into one of the top picks?  A lot of people are suggesting systems which treat the second scenario as a much more desirable outcome.

[BballTim]

The tanking problem is already addressed fine. A much worse problem is the chance of giving a team like the Spurs a player like Tim Duncan when they have a down year due to injury, but are not one of the worst teams.

  I think the best solution is to do a smaller lottery, only for the bottom 4-5 picks, with the same type of weighting they have today. But weight the draft positions for the non-playoff teams based on a three year average, something like 50% on your current record, 35% on the prior year's record and 15% on your record from two years ago. That lowers the value for tanking with the lottery and with the weighting of the prior seasons. Deciding to lose your last 10 or so games won't give you the boost it does now. Plus a good team that has an injury or two can't really jump to the front of the line.