Would NBA ever consider changing their Draft system?

[xmuscularghandix]

I was driving and thinking about this the other day.

Imagine a system where Playoff teams still drafted in reverse order of standings, but the non-playoff teams drafted in the order that they actually finished?

Hear me out:

Last years top 16 Playoff teams

Miami, OKC, Spurs, Nuggets, Clippers, Grizzlies, Pacers, Nets, Lakers, Hawks, Rockets, Celtics, and Bucks.

These teams would pick 16-30.

THEN

Instead of having the team that finishes last get the first overall pick, why not give that to the team who is just a few games away from being a Playoff team?

I understand that there are other teams that "deserve" it more. But do they actually? Why should the team who loses on purpose get the best young players, shouldn't the teams that are paying for good players and trying to get better deserve the player?

Imagine this scenario: Detroit and Washington are both mathematically eliminated, but are neck and neck in the standings. With 2-3 weeks left in the season, wouldn't you rather see them competing hard to get a better draft pick, instead of dumping their veteran players at the deadline because they know that in order to get better you HAVE TO give away all your good players and suck for a couple years?

And I could give to craps about "Orlando, New Orleans, Charlotte, and Phoenix deserve those picks!" No they don't, what have Charlotte and New Orleans done with all these talented young players that they "earned" from sucking? They still suck. You want to get better players? Sign them, then learn to play better together so that you can win more games and EARN top prospects.

[boscel33]

I could see non playoff teams in reverse order, but why reward the champ with the 16th overall pick.  that doesn't seem right, unless your the champ.

[Fafnir]

So being the 8th seed roadkill gets you the worst pick in the draft, but being the 9th seed gets you the first pick?

You'd see more tanking, really deliberate weird tanking to avoid just making the playoffs.

That's a worse system than what is in place now.

[fairweatherfan]

So being the 8th seed roadkill gets you the worst pick in the draft, but being the 9th seed gets you the first pick?

You'd see more tanking, really deliberate weird tanking to avoid just making the playoffs.

That's a worse system than what is in place now.

I think it's confusingly phrased but that the idea is the playoff teams pick the way they do now - it's just in the lotto where the best teams pick first.  Which means the 8 seed gets #15, and the 9th #1.  Still lots of tanking incentive but not quite as much as jumping from 30 to 1.

[Fafnir]

So being the 8th seed roadkill gets you the worst pick in the draft, but being the 9th seed gets you the first pick?

You'd see more tanking, really deliberate weird tanking to avoid just making the playoffs.

That's a worse system than what is in place now.

I think it's confusingly phrased but that the idea is the playoff teams pick the way they do now - it's just in the lotto where the best teams pick first.  Which means the 8 seed gets #14, and the 9th #1.  Still lots of tanking incentive but not quite as much as jumping from 30 to 1.

Yeah that's more logical.

Its still a terrible idea and makes the draft even worse. Huge incentive to play well and then tank.

Think about it, the Lakers/Rockets/GSW would all have tanked instead of having an exciting playoff race with the Jazz/Mavericks.

At least right now when teams tank they're doing so as bad teams with bad records. This would force talented teams on the cusp of the playoffs to stop trying to win late in the season. Because the reward of Wiggins/Randle/etc is too great.

[Interceptor]

I agree, because the fan experience is also important to consider in a Draft revamp.

Lottery slots shouldn't be weighted by how much you suck (once you are already in there), but how much you win after your team is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs. I want to be rooting for my crappy team to win games in March/April, because every win gives them a higher chance of landing a better pick.

EDIT: consider a point system for this. Teams with worse records have more "chances" to win games because they are eliminated earlier, but teams that barely miss the playoffs can still have a shot at sneaking up if the worst teams keep tanking.

[PhoSita]

I don't really like your particular idea, but I do hope that the NBA considers making some changes to the current draft system.

I think it's possible that they will, especially with a new commissioner coming in.  I don't see how anybody could argue that there aren't changes you could make to the draft system that would improve the fan experience. 

Too many teams each year enter the season knowing they have no shot at being competitive in the playoffs, if they even have a chance to make it there. 

Too many fanbases have to spend season after season watching their team purposefully avoid spending money on free agents or making moves to make the team better in the short term because there's no incentive to do so until a young star comes along in the draft.

[angryguy77]

only if the next commissioner's fingers are not sensitive to cold envelopes 

[Eric M VAN]

Steve Kerr's idea from 8-12-13

http://www.nba.com/2013/news/08/12/morning-tip-steve-kerr-guest-column-fixing-the-nba-lottery/index.html

What if the worst two teams in the league actually had LESS of a chance to win the lottery than the teams ahead of them in the standings?
What if a club that battled all season long to make the playoffs but barely came up short actually had better than a 0.5 percent chance of winning the lottery? If the lottery playing field was more closely leveled, would teams be less likely to embark on losing strategies? Would the competition actually get better at the bottom and middle of the league?

[D.o.s.]

Steve Kerr's idea from 8-12-13

http://www.nba.com/2013/news/08/12/morning-tip-steve-kerr-guest-column-fixing-the-nba-lottery/index.html

What if the worst two teams in the league actually had LESS of a chance to win the lottery than the teams ahead of them in the standings?
What if a club that battled all season long to make the playoffs but barely came up short actually had better than a 0.5 percent chance of winning the lottery? If the lottery playing field was more closely leveled, would teams be less likely to embark on losing strategies? Would the competition actually get better at the bottom and middle of the league?

TP. Steve Kerr's clearly a smart guy, and this article was no exception.

I also really liked Bill Simmons' idea of the single-round elimination tournament for the 8th seed of the playoffs among all the teams that weren't top 7 in the league. Not sure how the league could reconcile that with the draft order, but it would (on paper) help keep teams from tanking.

[slamtheking]

here's a thought.

Step 1. Revert to a less-weighted draft odds system.  say 14 chances for the worst record, 13 for the next worst and so on.
-->gives the worst teams some advantage but not enough to really justify tanking.
Pull the first 3 slots out of the hat and then order everyone else by worst to best record.
-->worst team gets no worse then the 4th pick.  prevent the worst teams from totally getting screwed

Step 2. Next draft, any teams that were in the top 3 from the previous year, are banned from being picked in the top 3 in the following year.  After the first 3 are picked, back to ordering by worst to best record.  measure the odds as if all 14 teams were eligible. 
Example, say the same 3 teams that were the top 3 picks last year have the 3 worst records this year,  they're ineligible.  The worst team still eligible is the 11th best team (4th worst) so they'd get 11 chances at winning, not 14. 
-->prevents bad teams from repeatedly getting top picks.  makes them improve through improving their players/roster or continue to flounder.  No pity for bad management.  (talking to you Michael Jordan.)

It's a lightly-weighted system that would prevent repeat offenders from getting top picks.

Another option I offered after last year's draft was to have tiers of non-playoff teams.  something like bottom 5, next worst 5 and best 4.  Have them do a complete lottery within their tiers.  That would prevent the just-missed-the-playoff teams from getting lucky while helping out the bottom feeders.  it still has the risk of tanking to get in a lower tier but not tanking to the bottom record.  also wouldn't prevent repeat draft winners for crappy teams.

just a couple of thoughts

[manl_lui]

this may be a bad plan, and I haven't put much thought into it

but how about a draft wave? The top 8 teams (top 4 on each conference) gets mid to late draft position. Middle 8 teams (bottom 4 in the playoffs, seed #5 - , gets the highest chance at the lottery pick. The bottom teams then gets the lower % to the lottery pick. I think this way, it gives teams the incentives to do better. Playoff teams needs those players to get over the top. Gives no reason to tank, because you get a lower chance - why not play harder for a chance to get into the playoffs AND get a higher pick.

[LooseCannon]

Step 1. Revert to a less-weighted draft odds system.  say 14 chances for the worst record, 13 for the next worst and so on.

And people are going to whine if the Lakers win the lottery after barely missing the playoffs.

[bdm860]

To me, it seems like the NBA got it right at first when they first started with the lottery, made good improvements, and then made it much worse.

'85, All 9 lottery teams had an equal shot of selecting #1-#9.  Worst team could pick 9th.  Discourages tanking, but could also keep bad teams down with bad luck in the lottery.

'87, the NBA adjusted it, so now only picks #1-3 were selected via the lottery, all the rest were in reverse order of finish (as it is today).  But all lottery teams still had an equal shot of #1.  Probably a step in the right direction, still discourages tanking, but bad teams can't drop too much.

'90, the weighted system.  There's now 11 lottery teams.  Worst team has 11 chances, 2nd worst team has 10 chances, 3rd worst team has 9 chances...,11th worst team (best team to miss the playoffs) gets only 1 chance.  Now the bad teams have a little more help with the odds, but not enough to really encourage tanking.

'94, because Orlando won the lottery back-to-back in '92 (with 21 wins, 2nd worst record) and '93 (41 wins, missed the playoffs on a tie breaker), the NBA decided Orlando's 1.5% odds of winning the lottery after barely missing the playoffs was just too great, which brings us to the system we have now, which basically does exactly what it set out not to do.  Encourage tanking!

Because apparently, Orlando winning back-to-back lotteries and challenging the Bulls for the most popular team in the NBA was somehow bad for the league.  Didn't stop the league from pimping Shaq and Penny like the current Heat though.

I think the systems from ’87-‘93 were the best.  The worst team can drop no more than 3 spots.  And adding small weights in ’90 was probably good too, enough to help the bad teams, but not enough to encourage tanking.  Basically there’s only about 1% better odds between picks in that old system.   Old system, the difference in odds between the 1st and 6th/7th pick, is about the same as the current system’s difference between 1st and 2nd pick, about 5%.  I wonder which system would encourage tanking more?

Unfortunately I doubt the NBA would ever go back to a pre-1994 system.  But I think that system was the best way to do it.

[slamtheking]

Step 1. Revert to a less-weighted draft odds system.  say 14 chances for the worst record, 13 for the next worst and so on.

And people are going to whine if the Lakers win the lottery after barely missing the playoffs.

People would whine about the Lakers winning anything or having any sort of good fortune (can't blame them either because as we all know, the Lakers suck).

Can't be afraid to use a system that could accidentally reward any particular franchise just because they're not liked.  C's would face some serious trouble there, not just the Lakers.