idea to get rid of tanking

[fitzhickey]

I find the idea slightly insane, as fafnir and d.o.s. point out, the 8th seeded teams would just tank it out in the end of the season, creating more issues than it solves

[Neurotic Guy]

While I don't think that the NBA and NFL draft systems generally provide a good comparison since there are many factors that reduce the value of tanking in the NFL (on most years), there is one thing that the NFL does that could be adapted in the NBA and could make a difference:

Using previous year's division standings, the NFL creates a more difficult schedule for the top teams and an easier schedule for the bottom teams. 

This, of course, wouldn't eliminate tanking in the NBA, but could help turn around a culture of losing in franchises that are perrenial losers.  It could also lead to more competitive games around the league (on the whole) as best teams will play best teams more often, mid-range will play mid-range more often, and bad will play bad more often.   This at least mixes things up and will give some teams a taste of the playoffs sooner rather than later. 

It would be important not to make it ALL about bad plays bad since fairness would be at issue and bad team cities want to host teams with good players, but as in the NFL, just increase the frequency of playing like record teams (based on previous year's records) overall and continue building in-division rivalries by playing in-division teams with frequency. When you have a rivalry -- you increase the emotion of wanting to win.

[oldutican]

The incentive to lose is too great because the difference of one spot in the standings can change the odds of getting a higher pick by anywhere from 9% to 12%. This season, one more loss could increase moving one or even two spots. Solution: Give each lottery team one chance for each loss. Lose 60 games, a team gets 60 chances. Lose 59, get 59 chances, and so on. The total number of chances in the pool equals the total number of losses of the 14 lottery teams. So losing increases your chances, but unlike the current system, each loss only increases your odds slightly.

[jambr380]

The incentive to lose is too great because the difference of one spot in the standings can change the odds of getting a higher pick by anywhere from 9% to 12%. This season, one more loss could increase moving one or even two spots. Solution: Give each lottery team one chance for each loss. Lose 60 games, a team gets 60 chances. Lose 59, get 59 chances, and so on. The total number of chances in the pool equals the total number of losses of the 14 lottery teams. So losing increases your chances, but unlike the current system, each loss only increases your odds slightly.

TP - this is actually a pretty decent idea. The one ball for every team in the lottery would cause the same issues Fafnir discussed (7th and 8th seeds 'tanking' for a chance at a very high pick). This still gives the worst teams a better chance, but not by such a wide margin...it would probably need a bit of tweaking (the worst teams still might not have as much of a chance), but at least it's a step in the right direction.

[jambr380]

My idea is this:

Bottom 4 teams get 4 lottery balls
Teams 5-8 get 3 lottery balls
Teams 9-12 get 2 lottery balls
Teams 13-16 (8th seeds in both conferences) get 1 lottery ball

This way the worst teams still have a clear advantage, but the need to tank isn't as great. A couple of extra wins won't kill your chances and teams can actually kind-of root for their teams to win a few games as the season winds down. The 1 lottery ball for the 8th seeds still gives teams the incentive to try and make the playoffs. I suppose this could even be expanded to include the 7th seeds as well. (maybe 5 balls for the bottom 4, then 4, 3, 2, and 1 for the 7th and 8th seeds).

[freshinthehouse]

The only way to "fix" tanking is to shift the game away from star driven to team driven. 

I don't think there is any way to change this.  In no other team sport does your best player on the court so often, and with so few teammates.  In basketball players play offense and defense, and they are only five guys on the field, compared to baseball and foorball with nine and eleven, respectively.

Hockey comes close with six guys on the ice, but you can compare the minutes a star player plays in either sport.  Wayne Gretzky, arguably the best hockey player of all time, played 20-25 minutes per game.  A hockey game is sixty minutes long.  Contrast that with an NBA star, who will play 40+ minutes per game, and the game is only 48 minutes long.

And it's just not at the NBA level that stars reign supreme.  If one guy shows up to a street ball game is head and shoulders better than the competition, his team is going to win more often than not.

[D.o.s.]

While I don't think that the NBA and NFL draft systems generally provide a good comparison since there are many factors that reduce the value of tanking in the NFL (on most years), there is one thing that the NFL does that could be adapted in the NBA and could make a difference:

Using previous year's division standings, the NFL creates a more difficult schedule for the top teams and an easier schedule for the bottom teams. 

This, of course, wouldn't eliminate tanking in the NBA, but could help turn around a culture of losing in franchises that are perrenial losers.  It could also lead to more competitive games around the league (on the whole) as best teams will play best teams more often, mid-range will play mid-range more often, and bad will play bad more often.   This at least mixes things up and will give some teams a taste of the playoffs sooner rather than later. 

It would be important not to make it ALL about bad plays bad since fairness would be at issue and bad team cities want to host teams with good players, but as in the NFL, just increase the frequency of playing like record teams (based on previous year's records) overall and continue building in-division rivalries by playing in-division teams with frequency. When you have a rivalry -- you increase the emotion of wanting to win.

NFL teams have the luxury of one-game a week schedules and no conflicting arena usage when creating their schedules, though.

The NBA doesn't.

[freshinthehouse]

Did the ml carr era celtics team lose bc they were bad or bc of tim duncan?

I rather see teams win to get duncan.

That 96-97 team was a 28-34 win team if healthy.  Then the injuries piled up.  Did that team not rush players back from injury (a.k.a. tanking), but even if they brought back all of those players as quick as medically possible that was still a bottom 5 team in the league.

[freshinthehouse]

I just don't understand all this handwringing over tanking.  And it seems like it is strictly an NBA issue.  Rarely do people get up in arms when struggling MLB teams sell off their vets for pennies on the dollar and then march out a triple-A squad for the rest of the year.

I think a lot of it is that fans don't want to accept the fact that their team is bad.  Tanking or not, most of the teams in the bottom of the league right now would still suck even if they didn't have their 2014 first round pick to look forward to.

[HomerSapien]

The incentive to lose is too great because the difference of one spot in the standings can change the odds of getting a higher pick by anywhere from 9% to 12%. This season, one more loss could increase moving one or even two spots. Solution: Give each lottery team one chance for each loss. Lose 60 games, a team gets 60 chances. Lose 59, get 59 chances, and so on. The total number of chances in the pool equals the total number of losses of the 14 lottery teams. So losing increases your chances, but unlike the current system, each loss only increases your odds slightly.

TP, this idea is interesting.  The answer to tanking is flattening out the odds of getting the top picks.  While I think tanking is an overblown problem, why have an incentive in the system that could encourage teams to not try for annual improvement of their team. 

Teams battling for the 7th and 8th seeds are still a long way from being in the championship hunt, so I see no problem with them getting a reasonably high chance at a top 3 or 5 pick to continue the development of their team.  And if a bad team does get lucky like San Antonio with Duncan, or Orlando with Shaq and C-Webb/Penny to set them up for years to come is it really that bad of an outcome?  The NBA is better with a marketable group of strong teams as opposed to a whole bunch of middle of the road teams like the NFL.  Additionally, under the NBA's current CBA retaining a collection of young studs beyond their rookie deals will pose its own set of challenges.

[LooseCannon]

Even if you change the incentive for tanking so that tanking is a foolish idea, you will always have some teams desperate enough to tank, so long as losses have some degree for correlation to draft position.

[Timdawgg]

I still like the lottery wheel idea...

http://tracking.si.com/2013/12/23/nba-considering-wheel-system-for-draft/

[D.o.s.]

I think it should be a three-on-three tournament between the GMs and their assistants.

[LooseCannon]

I still like the lottery wheel idea...

http://tracking.si.com/2013/12/23/nba-considering-wheel-system-for-draft/

Let's say that 10-12 years from now, the league is ready to add a couple of expansion teams and it makes absolute sense to do so.  What happens to the wheel?

[Tr1boy]

The other idea i had to deter tanking is

The first 5 slots (lottery) can be won by any team, then teams pick in order from last to best record

No big incentive to draft at 6th or 7th spot for the worse teams

This in turn could make FA interesting in some ways. For example if Indiana gets the #1 pick (Embiid) and Hibbert is set to become a UFA, maybe Indiana will let him walk and save money in the process. Hibbert also goes to another team, balancing out the league talent level.  This kind of scenerio can rarely happen for a bad team.