Would NBA ever consider changing their Draft system?

[slamtheking]

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.

the pre-94 system is very much like what I proposed with teh addition of disallowing consecutive years with a top-3 pick.  would have prevented the Orlando situation.

The one item I would add after some thought is to factor in picks that were traded prior to the draft as well.  Say a team lands the first pick and then the next year they're in the playoffs (which is what they would hope for).  Now suppose that through a prior trade with a team in the lottery this time around they had that team's pick.  Due to the rule preventing teams from having top-3 picks in consecutive years, that team's pick would be held out of the drawing and then seeded based on the lottery team's record.  I'd also be open to making that seeding based on the record of the receiving team instead. 

[fairweatherfan]

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.

I agree with basically everything here - the answer isn't to radically reshape the lottery, it's just to flatten out the odds so the incentives for falling farther and farther in the standings are relatively small.  the league had that at one point but apparently didn't have the will to keep it going after the first "unfair" outcome.

[Fan from VT]

I've posted this in other threads, but you could do some modified thing of:
-Winning a championship means you are ineligible for a top 3 pick for 1 year, a top 2 pick for 2 years and the #1 pick for 3 seasons
-Winning the #1 pick means the same inelibibility.
-Runner up means no top 2 pick for 1 year, no #1 pick for 2 years
-Same for winning the #2 pick.

All else is equal lottery.

[action781]

I've posted this in other threads, but you could do some modified thing of:
-Winning a championship means you are ineligible for a top 3 pick for 1 year, a top 2 pick for 2 years and the #1 pick for 3 seasons
-Winning the #1 pick means the same inelibibility.
-Runner up means no top 2 pick for 1 year, no #1 pick for 2 years
-Same for winning the #2 pick.

All else is equal lottery.

I don't like that.  So if Charlotte won the #1 pick this past year and took whomever they wanted, they would be ineligible for a top 3 pick this year?  And ineligible for a top pick for 3 years?  The #1 pick this year would not make them very good.  Shoot, if I were them, I'd try my best to trade away the pick just to NOT have it.  That's what I don't like about this idea.

[byennie]

Here's my theory:

1) Lottery teams get lottery balls in reverse order according to finish: 13,12,11,10.. 1

2) Every pick in the lottery is drawn, not just the top 3

3) The 1st pick "costs" 13 balls or however many you have, whichever is less. 2nd pick costs 12 balls and so on down the line.

4) Leftover balls carry over to next year

5) Teams can trade their balls (ok, I just wanted to say that).

Why I like it:

1) No team starts with more than a 13% chance of the top pick and there's no real bankable difference between the 5th worst and 1st worst team.

2) You can be unlucky, but every time you are it increases your chances next time. Say you finish last, but get the 5th pick. Next year you will have all of your regular balls, +4.

3) Playoff teams can be in the lottery if they have balls from last year, helping teams fight for the 8th spot.

4) Teams that are bad for just 1 year (read: Spurs/Duncan) are less likely to win, because they will have fewer accumulated balls. But, they're still in the mix.

[action781]

Here's my theory:

1) Lottery teams get lottery balls in reverse order according to finish: 13,12,11,10.. 1

2) Every pick in the lottery is drawn, not just the top 3

3) The 1st pick "costs" 13 balls or however many you have, whichever is less. 2nd pick costs 12 balls and so on down the line.

4) Leftover balls carry over to next year

5) Teams can trade their balls (ok, I just wanted to say that).

Why I like it:

1) No team starts with more than a 13% chance of the top pick and there's no real bankable difference between the 5th worst and 1st worst team.

2) You can be unlucky, but every time you are it increases your chances next time. Say you finish last, but get the 5th pick. Next year you will have all of your regular balls, +4.

3) Playoff teams can be in the lottery if they have balls from last year, helping teams fight for the 8th spot.

4) Teams that are bad for just 1 year (read: Spurs/Duncan) are less likely to win, because they will have fewer accumulated balls. But, they're still in the mix.

I like this idea a lot.  It's like helping balance out the bad luck a bad team might get.  I think this is one of the better original ideas I've heard of.

I think you're incorrect in how you say no team has a higher than 13% chance at the first pick though.  If you have left over balls or if you've traded for some balls, you could certainly have higher.  But I think that's ok.

I like #2 that every pick is drawn too and not just the top 3.

[Eja117]

One thing I like about the current system is no matter how bad Stern fudges us the worst that could ever happen is we drop from 1 to 4. I have no desire to pick last every year.  Oh. Whoops. You were randomly picked to pick last for the 20th year in a row. Geeze. And we use PriceWaterhouseCoopers and everything

[JSD]

At this point, by far the best thing for the NBA to do would be to eliminate all age restrictions.

Under these terms, a player like Wiggins would have been drafted as a project when he was 13 years old and the draft lottery would be a lot less of a sure bet, which would result in little incentive to tank. On top of that, these no longer exploited young athletes could begin making money and getting a good education at a young age. NBA High School, coming to a city near you.

Think MLB. Hardly is tanking even part of the discussion. It is time we evolve as a league and have a legitimate minor league system. The game is too big not to at this point.

[freshinthehouse]

No matter what you do (besides making every team eligible for the lottery, which is silly), there is going to be tanking.  One great player makes such a huge difference in basketball compared to all other sports.  Teams are going to do what they can to get themselves in position for such a player.

[hwangjini_1]

or, just for fun and entertainment, this thought...

first, all teams pick depending upon their win loss record, except play off teams who follow the current record.

the 4 teams with the worst records have a playoff.  their drafting order is set by who WINS the "tournament of losers", runner up, 3rd place, etc. (of course, this pool could be reduced to 8 teams or whatever.)

the other 12 teams who are out of the playoffs simply pick based upon win-loss record.

the incentive is shifted from losing to winning. not perfect, but at least interesting.

[action781]

The GMs (actual GM, not a representative) participate in a bracket-style beer olympics consisting of 4 events:

-Beirut
-Flip cup
-Corn hole toss
-Dizzy bat potato sack race

Since there are only 30 GMs and a full bracket would need 32 entries, the worst 2 teams get to pick which game they'd like to have a first round bye.  The 3rd/4th worst teams then get to pick the remaining game which they'd like the first round bye.  Then the 5th/6th worst choose and then 7th/8th worst.

Each round you last until has a number of points associated with it.  The order of finish determines the order of draft.  Any ties are broken by rock paper scissors.

SOLVED.

[fitzhickey]

The GMs (actual GM, not a representative) participate in a bracket-style beer olympics consisting of 4 events:

-Beirut
-Flip cup
-Corn hole toss
-Dizzy bat potato sack race

Since there are only 30 GMs and a full bracket would need 32 entries, the worst 2 teams get to pick which game they'd like to have a first round bye.  The 3rd/4th worst teams then get to pick the remaining game which they'd like the first round bye.  Then the 5th/6th worst choose and then 7th/8th worst.

Each round you last until has a number of points associated with it.  The order of finish determines the order of draft.  Any ties are broken by rock paper scissors.

SOLVED.

Why aren't you commish of the NBA 

[crimson_stallion]

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.

Because:

1. Come playoff time most seeds are usually determined fairly well in advance, and it's usually only two or three teams who are still in the race in the last week or so.  If GM's know the next draft is going to be a big one, then rather than battle for an 8th seed (only to know they will get knocked out in the first round), some teams will intentionally lose one or two games so that they only JUST miss the playoffs, hence guaranteeing them a top 3 pick in the next leaded draft.

2. Because bad teams have very little opportunity to improve themselves - free agents rarely want to sign for a bad team, and bad teams (being as they are, bad) rarely have any top shelf talent to make solid trades with.  The draft is basically their one saving grace, the one avenue that allow bad teams to improve themselves very quickly and cheaply (if they choose wisely).  It's justice.  If all of the near-playoff teams get the top drft picks then you end up with a situation where the same 10 teams from each conference will be competing for playoff spots every single season, while all of the bad teams just keep getting forever worse. Bad for those teams, bad for the NBA. 

What I do however believe in is another concept of not loading the draft at all.  Keep using a "lottery" method, but don't load it so that the worst teams have better odds.  Put the same number of balls in there for every lottery team (so that it truly is a lottery) and that way it's pure luck and any team could win the top picks.

This genuinely would eliminate tanking because why would you INTENTIONALLY be bad if doing so didn't change your odds of getting a high lottery pick?  You wouldn't, there would be no point.  There would be no benefit to losing so you would play to win, to increase ticket/merchandise sales, to rally more supporters, etc. 

Plus it would save the league from situations where you have one team always getting high picks and wasting them on poor choices (i.e. Jordan/Bobcats).  Instead of the Bobcats getting a top 5 pick every season based on the crappiness, that top 5 pick could just as easilly go to somebody like Phoenix, Milwalkee, Utah as it could to Orlando, New Orleans or Charlotte.

I think that is really the ONLY way to eliminate tanking, and it would remove any argument about fairness because all of those teams have the same shot at #1.

[wdleehi]

1)  Get rid of the lotto.  Worst team gets the best pick.

2)  Increase the age that players can enter the league.  Players get more training before entering the league.  Teams get more time to scout players.  If a player wants to get paid to play, there are other professional leagues out there to get paid. 

3)  Tweak the rules to favor strong teams over strong individuals.  The league is too dependent on superstars to win.  Therefor, teams have to do what ever they can to get the potential star.  Tweaking the rules will give teams more flexibility to create winners. 


4)  Create a true developmental league. 






The worst thing that could happen is to not give the least talented teams (and not all of them end up that way because of bad management) only average talent from the draft.  We already know that they are not attracting the top FA. 

[wdleehi]

At this point, by far the best thing for the NBA to do would be to eliminate all age restrictions.

Under these terms, a player like Wiggins would have been drafted as a project when he was 13 years old and the draft lottery would be a lot less of a sure bet, which would result in little incentive to tank. On top of that, these exploited young athletes could begin making money and getting a good education at a young age. NBA High School, coming to a city near you.

Think MLB. Hardly is tanking even part of the discussion. It is time we evolve as a league and have a legitimate minor league system. The game is too big not to at this point.

NBA is a superstar driven league.


MLB is not.  MLB is a team driven league.