idea to get rid of tanking

[PhoSita]

The current system is flawed and creates perverse incentives.

That doesn't mean a legitimate alternative is something arbitrary like this.

[Tr1boy]

Also being 9th place doesnt secure the number 1 pick.

Neither does being in last place, yet you still see plenty of teams tearing it down or at least not making much effort to get better once it became clear they weren't going to be good.

Teams have tanked games deliberately to setup playoff matches in the case of falling to the 6th seed and drawing a favorable match up to a weak Nuggets team. (Memphis also tried to lose to avoid the Mavericks who were the second best team in the west to SA)

Teams absolutely would deliberately tank to go from being an 8th seed to getting a premium lottery pick.

Your going off course. Im talking a about idea to avoid teams tanking to the bottom and increasing competition

Your idea would actively promote as many, if not more, teams trying to lose games in order to miss the playoffs. That's what Faf's saying.

You got to win first though dont you? You have to try to win more than you lose

His idea that every team rather take 9th vs 8th is false. Getting to the playoffs is a big deal. Its a start for some who already have enough youngsters.

Also It hasnt happened too often you seen upsets in the nba but its possible. It takes that one team to start the trend and play with other teams mentality or provide hope for future low seed teams

[D.o.s.]

A. Getting to the playoffs.

B. Being better than other teams but staying bad enough to miss the playoffs.


Your idea encourages goal B rather than goal A

[mmmmm]

I concur with Fafnir and D.o.s - this is a flawed "solution" that creates as many if not more problems than it supposedly solves.

It also should be pointed out that, still, at this point in the season, we have fewer teams (just 7) projecting to win under 30 games than last year (eight - with a supposedly 'weak draft').

If tanking is a problem (which I don't believe it is), it is so far no more a problem this season than any season since the weighted lottery came into being.

[PhoSita]

I concur with Fafnir and D.o.s - this is a flawed "solution" that creates as many if not more problems than it supposedly solves.

It also should be pointed out that, still, at this point in the season, we have fewer teams (just 7) projecting to win under 30 games than last year (.

If tanking is a problem (which I don't believe it is), it is so far no more a problem this season than any season since the weighted lottery came into being.

You may be right, though I've always wondered just how many truly terrible teams there can be.  After all, somebody has to win the games, right?  How many teams could plausibly finish with fewer than 30 wins? 

There's got to be a breaking point somewhere that certain teams that are on the edge will say "hey, we've already got some talent here, let's go the other way and try to win a playoff series for once."  The Wizards are an example of that; the Pistons, Cavs, and Hawks probably all saw themselves in that light before the season started, too.

[fitzhickey]

wouldn't this make the bad teams that need the picks completely devoid of talent?

[PhoSita]

wouldn't this make the bad teams that need the picks completely devoid of talent?

Well, any measure that removes the reward for being among the very worst would give the worst teams incentive to spend some more money on some decent veterans in order to move toward the middle.  At the very least, it removes disincentive for doing so.

[mmmmm]

I concur with Fafnir and D.o.s - this is a flawed "solution" that creates as many if not more problems than it supposedly solves.

It also should be pointed out that, still, at this point in the season, we have fewer teams (just 7) projecting to win under 30 games than last year (.

If tanking is a problem (which I don't believe it is), it is so far no more a problem this season than any season since the weighted lottery came into being.

You may be right, though I've always wondered just how many truly terrible teams there can be.  After all, somebody has to win the games, right?  How many teams could plausibly finish with fewer than 30 wins? 

There's got to be a breaking point somewhere that certain teams that are on the edge will say "hey, we've already got some talent here, let's go the other way and try to win a playoff series for once."  The Wizards are an example of that; the Pistons, Cavs, and Hawks probably all saw themselves in that light before the season started, too.

Well, yeah, at some point it is a zero-sum game.

But nevetheless, the premise is that in an 'ordinary' draft, with only a couple of truly great players coming out, because of the lottery, it is far too risky to 'tank'.   'Not worth it for the tiny odds of getting the top pick.    Even the worst team only has a 25% chance at the #1 pick and in many a draft, there is only one player truly worth 'tanking' for.   However, in this up-coming draft, the conventional wisdom is that there are several potentially great players - at least 3 sure-thing super-stars and several other sure-thing future all-stars.  So, in theory, it is 'safer' to tank in THIS season because your odds of getting at least ONE of the top 5 picks is much larger, even if you don't end up with one of the worst two records.

But, so far, no more teams are in the gutter than in most typical seasons.

I mean, look at teams like NOP & Minnesota.  No chance at the playoffs, yet clearly trying to win whatever games they can.  NOP, especially should have incentive to tank hard, because if they got a top-5 pick, they could keep it (it is a protected pick they traded to Philly).  Yet they, so far, are not doing so.

That may change, of course, as we go down the final stretch.   But so far, it looks to me like most GMs don't put any special stock in tanking to get draft position.

[Moranis]

wouldn't this make the bad teams that need the picks completely devoid of talent?

Of course it would.  The reality is any team that finishes at or near the bottom of the standings does so because it just isn't good enough to compete.  This notion of tanking is just silly.  Good teams win, bad teams lose.  Period.

[PhoSita]

That may change, of course, as we go down the final stretch.   But so far, it looks to me like most GMs don't put any special stock in tanking to get draft position.

I think you're right insofar that the idea that a large bloc of GMs in the league in a given season would try to actively sabotage their teams, especially down the stretch, seems to be an exaggeration of what's really going on.

However, the primary difference I see between teams like Minnesota and New Orleans vs Boston, Orlando, and Philadelphia is that the two former teams already have superstars on board.  They can't strip the roster too much or blatantly try to bottom out because they want to keep that star happy enough to stick around.  Minnesota is obviously failing at that.  New Orleans has a few more years to get it right.

We'll see how the Celtics view their situation by what they do this summer and in the next year.  Do they make moves to try and become competitive again quickly in order to keep Rondo around, or do they focus instead on building a really young core and move on from Rondo?

I think teams that lack that superstar in tow are more likely to blatantly bottom out.  That's how I interpret the behavior of Orlando, Boston, and Philadelphia in particular.  There are only so many teams in that situation each season, though.  But then, of course, you have teams that can't get out of their own way.  The Kings are really bad, and have incentive to get better ASAP (and they've been trying) in order to keep Cousins happy (and generate good will in the fanbase for the new owners), but they're still keeping pace with the Celtics in the loss column.

[Tr1boy]

wouldn't this make the bad teams that need the picks completely devoid of talent?

Of course it would.  The reality is any team that finishes at or near the bottom of the standings does so because it just isn't good enough to compete.  This notion of tanking is just silly.  Good teams win, bad teams lose.  Period.

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.

Also I dont agree with fafnir. You build all those wins throughout the year. Then with 10 games left you start losing on purpose. You can but that is an embarrassment to your city and fans.

[PaulAllen]

The only way would be to give all lottery teams equal odds( ie one ball for each team)..then use the current format of top 3 teams balls selected get those first 3 picks then all other teams according to record fall in place behind.

[fitzhickey]

wouldn't this make the bad teams that need the picks completely devoid of talent?

Of course it would.  The reality is any team that finishes at or near the bottom of the standings does so because it just isn't good enough to compete.  This notion of tanking is just silly.  Good teams win, bad teams lose.  Period.

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.

Also I dont agree with fafnir. You build all those wins throughout the year. Then with 10 games left you start losing on purpose. You can but that is an embarrassment to your city and fans.

I doubt the fans or the city would care at all if you bring them the next Tim Duncan, or the next Kobe

[D.o.s.]

wouldn't this make the bad teams that need the picks completely devoid of talent?

Of course it would.  The reality is any team that finishes at or near the bottom of the standings does so because it just isn't good enough to compete.  This notion of tanking is just silly.  Good teams win, bad teams lose.  Period.

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.

Also I dont agree with fafnir. You build all those wins throughout the year. Then with 10 games left you start losing on purpose. You can but that is an embarrassment to your city and fans.

I doubt the fans or the city would care at all if you bring them the next Tim Duncan, or the next Kobe

I don't think the bar even has to be that high -- the Bay Area forgave the Warriors pretty quickly, and they only  tanked for Harrison Barnes.

[GreenWarrior]

I think they should stick all the lottery teams in a tournament, 1 game series through the finals. winner gets the 1st pick, loser gets the 2nd.