Alternative ideas for a shady lottery

[BballTim]

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.

  Tanking in football is less prevalent because it will get you one great player out of 22 starters compared to one great player out of 5 starters. You can't win 6 titles in the nfl if 40% of your starters are on the level of a Steve Kerr, John Paxson, Luc Longley or Scott Williams.

[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.

  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.

Interesting idea. Still, no matter what formula you use, there will always be unintended consequences and occasional results that we find troublesome.

[the_Bird]

Playing young players who you expect have a good chance of being part of your team's future is one thing.  Trotting out career d-leaguers with no realistic hope of ever being NBA-rotation players, in substitute for trying to get any of your solid veteran players back on the court, is something else. 

The whole point is you can't PROVE tanking, anyway.  All I know is it sure seemed like some pretty minor injuries kept all of Miami's good players out a whole lot longer than would usually be expected, just like Pierce's injuries seemed to linger especially long in that season of ours.

Besides, Miami brought in Ricky Buckets and Mark Blount - of course they weren't trying to win ballgames!

[BballTim]

The whole point is you can't PROVE tanking, anyway. 

  As far as the fans are concerned, the suspicion of tanking is enough of a problem.

[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.

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.

  Tanking in football is less prevalent because it will get you one great player out of 22 starters compared to one great player out of 5 starters. You can't win 6 titles in the nfl if 40% of your starters are on the level of a Steve Kerr, John Paxson, Luc Longley or Scott Williams.

You actually can, having 40% of your roster be effective specialists works in the NFL, but that still means you need a core 12-15 highly talent players and solid guys behind them.

[wdleehi]

Scrap the lottery.  Worst team gets first pick.



Change how games are called to help the stars only.  Make it so a team with a collection of good players but no stars can be competitive.  

[BballTim]

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.

  Tanking in football is less prevalent because it will get you one great player out of 22 starters compared to one great player out of 5 starters. You can't win 6 titles in the nfl if 40% of your starters are on the level of a Steve Kerr, John Paxson, Luc Longley or Scott Williams.

You actually can, having 40% of your roster be effective specialists works in the NFL, but that still means you need a core 12-15 highly talent players and solid guys behind them.

  You say effective specialists, I say below average players that can only contribute in certain situations. I don't think you can hide 4-5 of those on offense and on defense at the same time. It's like having 4-5 full time defenders that are only good vs the run or vs the pass as every down players.

[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.

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.

  Tanking in football is less prevalent because it will get you one great player out of 22 starters compared to one great player out of 5 starters. You can't win 6 titles in the nfl if 40% of your starters are on the level of a Steve Kerr, John Paxson, Luc Longley or Scott Williams.

You actually can, having 40% of your roster be effective specialists works in the NFL, but that still means you need a core 12-15 highly talent players and solid guys behind them.

  You say effective specialists, I say below average players that can only contribute in certain situations. I don't think you can hide 4-5 of those on offense and on defense at the same time. It's like having 4-5 full time defenders that are only good vs the run or vs the pass as every down players.

Teams do it all the time via substitution and scheme.

[Finkelskyhook]

I think Stern got it exactly right with how the ping pong balls "fell" in the 2007 draft.  

The teams that overtly tanked shamelessly drafted in the worst possible position based on current lottery rules.  

I think the best overall way is to go back to teams drafting in order of the worst record.  With overtly tanking teams losing their draft pick altogether.  

It's not terribly hard to figure out who's trying to put out a competitive product and who's tanking.

The whole point is you can't PROVE tanking, anyway.

  As far as the fans are concerned, the suspicion of tanking is enough of a problem.

OH MY, BballTim...Are you kidding?

Paul Pierce scores 50pts against Orlando one game...And is sat for the season after...In addition to the team's three best players beside him...(one of whom said he could play)...And whom,  except Pierce, come back after they've gotten to where they want record wise?

[BballTim]

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.

  Tanking in football is less prevalent because it will get you one great player out of 22 starters compared to one great player out of 5 starters. You can't win 6 titles in the nfl if 40% of your starters are on the level of a Steve Kerr, John Paxson, Luc Longley or Scott Williams.

You actually can, having 40% of your roster be effective specialists works in the NFL, but that still means you need a core 12-15 highly talent players and solid guys behind them.

  You say effective specialists, I say below average players that can only contribute in certain situations. I don't think you can hide 4-5 of those on offense and on defense at the same time. It's like having 4-5 full time defenders that are only good vs the run or vs the pass as every down players.

Teams do it all the time via substitution and scheme.

  Does this have anything to do with the discussion? I'm not sure whether my response should be to have you imagine that you couldn't sub between plays to make the analogy more basketball-like, or to challenge you to name a single team that won 6 titles with below average players in 8-9 of their starting positions.

[Fafnir]

Does this have anything to do with the discussion? I'm not sure whether my response should be to have you imagine that you couldn't sub between plays to make the analogy more basketball-like, or to challenge you to name a single team that won 6 titles with below average players in 8-9 of their starting positions.

Yes it does, because you made the comparison that teams can't make do in Football with 40% role players like the Bulls did.

I don't get what your making up a fake no sub rule will get us. There are no teams in football that have won 6 titles with the same core of players. Dynastys have been shorter in the NFL due to shorter careers and how talent needs to be more dispersed on the roster.

Off hand the Saints won a title with some pretty average to bad starters, as did the Colts, as did the Packers this year. In my original comment I was considering bench players as well, because Kerr never started for the Bulls I didn't think we were only talking about starting players.

If you want we can start a thread in the football sub-forum if you think this is vearing too OT.

[BballTim]

Does this have anything to do with the discussion? I'm not sure whether my response should be to have you imagine that you couldn't sub between plays to make the analogy more basketball-like, or to challenge you to name a single team that won 6 titles with below average players in 8-9 of their starting positions.

Yes it does, because you made the comparison that teams can't make do in Football with 40% role players like the Bulls did.

I don't get what your making up a fake no sub rule will get us. There are no teams in football that have won 6 titles with the same core of players. Dynastys have been shorter in the NFL due to shorter careers and how talent needs to be more dispersed on the roster.

Off hand the Saints won a title with some pretty average to bad starters, as did the Colts, as did the Packers this year. In my original comment I was considering bench players as well, because Kerr never started for the Bulls I didn't think we were only talking about starting players.

  Sigh. I guess I must have made up the fake no sub rule because you decided that the way to get around having "specialists" as EVERY DOWN players was to sub them in and out as the situation dictates. Oops on the Kerr thing, should have gone with another of their sub-par point guards, but this is still a complete sidetrack that doesn't have anything to do with the discussion.

[Fafnir]

Does this have anything to do with the discussion? I'm not sure whether my response should be to have you imagine that you couldn't sub between plays to make the analogy more basketball-like, or to challenge you to name a single team that won 6 titles with below average players in 8-9 of their starting positions.

Yes it does, because you made the comparison that teams can't make do in Football with 40% role players like the Bulls did.

I don't get what your making up a fake no sub rule will get us. There are no teams in football that have won 6 titles with the same core of players. Dynastys have been shorter in the NFL due to shorter careers and how talent needs to be more dispersed on the roster.

Off hand the Saints won a title with some pretty average to bad starters, as did the Colts, as did the Packers this year. In my original comment I was considering bench players as well, because Kerr never started for the Bulls I didn't think we were only talking about starting players.

  Sigh. I guess I must have made up the fake no sub rule because you decided that the way to get around having "specialists" as EVERY DOWN players was to sub them in and out as the situation dictates. Oops on the Kerr thing, should have gone with another of their sub-par point guards, but this is still a complete sidetrack that doesn't have anything to do with the discussion.

Okay. I still think if you look back at the GB/Saints/Colts/Pittsburgh SB teams you'll find an awful lot of "meh" players.

I think the lottery system works just fine. You can't force coaches to play their best players, so you really can't prevent tanking.

[BballTim]

Does this have anything to do with the discussion? I'm not sure whether my response should be to have you imagine that you couldn't sub between plays to make the analogy more basketball-like, or to challenge you to name a single team that won 6 titles with below average players in 8-9 of their starting positions.

Yes it does, because you made the comparison that teams can't make do in Football with 40% role players like the Bulls did.

I don't get what your making up a fake no sub rule will get us. There are no teams in football that have won 6 titles with the same core of players. Dynastys have been shorter in the NFL due to shorter careers and how talent needs to be more dispersed on the roster.

Off hand the Saints won a title with some pretty average to bad starters, as did the Colts, as did the Packers this year. In my original comment I was considering bench players as well, because Kerr never started for the Bulls I didn't think we were only talking about starting players.

  Sigh. I guess I must have made up the fake no sub rule because you decided that the way to get around having "specialists" as EVERY DOWN players was to sub them in and out as the situation dictates. Oops on the Kerr thing, should have gone with another of their sub-par point guards, but this is still a complete sidetrack that doesn't have anything to do with the discussion.

Okay. I still think if you look back at the GB/Saints/Colts/Pittsburgh SB teams you'll find an awful lot of "meh" players.

I think the lottery system works just fine. You can't force coaches to play their best players, so you really can't prevent tanking.

  You can't prevent tanking, but you can decrease the probability that a team will be rewarded for tanking.

[guava_wrench]

Does this have anything to do with the discussion? I'm not sure whether my response should be to have you imagine that you couldn't sub between plays to make the analogy more basketball-like, or to challenge you to name a single team that won 6 titles with below average players in 8-9 of their starting positions.

Yes it does, because you made the comparison that teams can't make do in Football with 40% role players like the Bulls did.

I don't get what your making up a fake no sub rule will get us. There are no teams in football that have won 6 titles with the same core of players. Dynastys have been shorter in the NFL due to shorter careers and how talent needs to be more dispersed on the roster.

Off hand the Saints won a title with some pretty average to bad starters, as did the Colts, as did the Packers this year. In my original comment I was considering bench players as well, because Kerr never started for the Bulls I didn't think we were only talking about starting players.

  Sigh. I guess I must have made up the fake no sub rule because you decided that the way to get around having "specialists" as EVERY DOWN players was to sub them in and out as the situation dictates. Oops on the Kerr thing, should have gone with another of their sub-par point guards, but this is still a complete sidetrack that doesn't have anything to do with the discussion.

Okay. I still think if you look back at the GB/Saints/Colts/Pittsburgh SB teams you'll find an awful lot of "meh" players.

I think the lottery system works just fine. You can't force coaches to play their best players, so you really can't prevent tanking.

  You can't prevent tanking, but you can decrease the probability that a team will be rewarded for tanking.

Teams will learn how to manipulate every system.

The truth is NBA teams already only get a small draft boost from losing games due to the lottery. The league already decreased the probability. But when a team has nothing to gain from winning, even the smallest advantage is an advantage.

The answer? Don't worry about it. Not a big deal.