New Lottery Rule suggestion

[TheSundanceKid]

I totally agree and have post a similar idea in the past.

Teams should not be allowed in the top 3 in consecutive years. I would make the rule work so that the team with the #1 pick is not top 5 eligible the following year and top 3 except the year after that. I would also carry that over to making the team draft #2 and #3 ineligible for a top 3 pick the next season.

This should give teams incentive to improve from season to season and not bank on a tank style rebuild. It will also help the middle of the pack lottery teams get a chance to grab elite talent and vault into playoff contention.   

Yeah this is my thinking too. Maybe a team can't have a top 5 pick in 3 consecutive years. Solely applies to their own pick though. This should make teams lean towards shorter "tanking" periods

[BitterJim]

No team should be allowed to be in contention for the #1 pick a year after they pick #1. This Philly tanking or incompetence saga is destroying the league. How can the fans in Philly even stand this absurdity.

I would change that slightly. No team should be allowed to be in contention for the #1 pick the year after they finished last in the league (i.e., would be the most likely to get the #1 pick). This change would protect teams who got lucky in the lottery the year before (e.g., 13th or 14th worst record) and didn't get the #1 pick by tanking.

Mike

That would be horrible for teams that are legitimately bad with few ways of improving, though.  You could have the worst record (not due to tanking, but because your team is bad, maybe you lost a star to injury or FA) and end up with the 4th pick, barely improve (since the 4th pick in most drafts isn't that great, at least initially), and the be barred from a top pick the next year (but if you didn't improve much, you could still be stuck as the worst team, once again preventing you from getting the top pick).

Also, why does being, say, 12th worst and getting the top pick mean you deserve another chance at the top pick the next year more than the team that was the worst the year before but didn't get the top pick?  It might help discourage tanking for the bottom spot, but it would just change it to tanking for the 2nd spot (and could disproportionately punish legitimately bad teams)

[celticsclay]

I totally agree and have post a similar idea in the past.

Teams should not be allowed in the top 3 in consecutive years. I would make the rule work so that the team with the #1 pick is not top 5 eligible the following year and top 3 except the year after that. I would also carry that over to making the team draft #2 and #3 ineligible for a top 3 pick the next season.

This should give teams incentive to improve from season to season and not bank on a tank style rebuild. It will also help the middle of the pack lottery teams get a chance to grab elite talent and vault into playoff contention.   

So by your plan, we wouldn't be eligible for a top 3 pick this year because we got Jaylen at #3 last year.

I doubt they would write this in the language, but I think that if the pick is going to another team it is not really the spirit of a rule change. (I also kind of doubt we will see another trade like this anytime soon so it is unlikely to be a real issue).

 Related, I don't think we really need to expand it to the top 3. I think saying the same team can not win the number 1 pick in back to back seasons is a pretty reasonable suggestion that I could see the league considering. They certainly want the league to have a level of parity and having a rule that prevents the players that are most likely to be superstar prospects going to the same market in consecutive years wouldn't be that bad.

Also to be clear I don't think needs to be thought of only through the lens of Philly. It was pretty dumb when the Cavs won it back to back years (although Bennett was a complete bust). If Sacramento stays incompetent forever and started getting rewarded with back to back lottery wins I wouldn't be a fan of that either. 

Also some of Philly's struggles is just attributed to bad luck. If they took someone like Porzingas or Turner that could play with Embiid they would probably already be a competitive team right now with all their injuries.

[slamtheking]

No team should be allowed to be in contention for the #1 pick a year after they pick #1. This Philly tanking or incompetence saga is destroying the league. How can the fans in Philly even stand this absurdity.

I had proposed something a while back that was a little more extensive to prevent tanking to the extent that Philly took it.

1. The team winning the lottery is excluded from the lottery for 3 years. 
2. The teams winning the 2nd and 3rd picks in the lottery are excluded from the lottery for 1 year.
This pertains to their own picks, not a pick they received from another team
This would penalize a franchise like Philly blatantly tanking for years since they cannot do better than 4th for 2 years if they win the lottery and are excluded from the top 3 for the following year if they get the 2nd or 3rd pick.
A team like the C's wouldn't be penalized since their projected lottery picks are coming from another franchise.
This also would have little impact on teams that have a down year and end up in the lottery infrequently.  It would also allow a team that misses the playoffs for several years to have increased odds of getting a top 3 pick that may put them over the hump in getting to the playoffs. 


for example, Philly would have still gotten Noel since he was the 6th pick.  The following year, they're still eligible for the lottery and, assuming they still get #3, they get Embiid.  The following year, they can't get #3 so best they can do is get #4.  No Okafor but perhaps Gordon or Smart.  This year, they'd still have the shot at Simmons after doing their one year of 'penance'.  not a complete elimination of what they would have compiled in terms of players but Okafor would definitely have ended up somewhere else that probably could have used him like Orlando or Boston.
Philly would also now be prevented from getting a top 3 pick for 2 years now.  The way they're playing, they could very well end up with another top pick this year.

[Cman]

No team should be allowed to be in contention for the #1 pick a year after they pick #1. This Philly tanking or incompetence saga is destroying the league. How can the fans in Philly even stand this absurdity.

I like the suggestion, but am upset that this thread is about the NBA. I clicked on this thinking it was about me having a better chance at winning a million dollars.

[Moranis]

Philly tanked in the lead up to 3 drafts.  Philly was only the worst team in the league 1 time and landed the #1 pick that year.  The other two seasons, Philly was the 2nd worst team and didn't even get a top two pick in either draft. 

That all leads me to the conclusion there is nothing wrong with the system at all.  It works as intended.

[mmmmm]

This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

[LooseCannon]

Philly tanked in the lead up to 3 drafts.  Philly was only the worst team in the league 1 time and landed the #1 pick that year.  The other two seasons, Philly was the 2nd worst team and didn't even get a top two pick in either draft. 

That all leads me to the conclusion there is nothing wrong with the system at all.  It works as intended.

The lottery punishes tankers by making losing games less correlated with draft position, so yes, it is working as intended.  Some teams may get lucky, but a long-term tank job is a gamble with the odds against you.

[Vermont Green]

I think it would be an OK adjustment to say that no team can have the top pick two years in a row.  There is a number of ways this could be implemented.  I think to say after getting #1, no better than #5 the next year and no better than #3 the second year after.  That would be enough to take the fun out of tanking without totally punishing legitimately bad teams.  If a team got #1, #5, #3 in successive years that still should be some decent talent.

In terms of traded picks, that is easy, the rule would not apply to traded picks.  The rule is to address tanking.  Traded picks have no issue with tanking.  This rule would actually encourage rebuilding teams to trade their pick after getting the #1 which would be even better for discouraging tanking.

[Moranis]

I think it would be an OK adjustment to say that no team can have the top pick two years in a row.  There is a number of ways this could be implemented.  I think to say after getting #1, no better than #5 the next year and no better than #3 the second year after.  That would be enough to take the fun out of tanking without totally punishing legitimately bad teams.  If a team got #1, #5, #3 in successive years that still should be some decent talent.

In terms of traded picks, that is easy, the rule would not apply to traded picks.  The rule is to address tanking.  Traded picks have no issue with tanking.  This rule would actually encourage rebuilding teams to trade their pick after getting the #1 which would be even better for discouraging tanking.

Since the lottery was implemented only two teams have had #1 in back to back years and the second year the teams were pretty good and just go lucky.  The 92-93 Magic won 41 games and just missed the playoffs.  The year before they had the 2nd best odds.  The 13-14 Cavs won 33 games and had the 9th best odds.  They had the 3rd best odds for the 13 draft they won as well. 

There really isn't any reason to make changes.  The system is working just fine.

[Vermont Green]

There really isn't any reason to make changes.  The system is working just fine.

There is a reason.  The changes would make tanking less likely.  You have quoted figures that indicate teams are not getting back to back #1s all that often but clearly the system is not preventing teams from tanking or from tanking being part of the discussion.  There is a website dedicated to tanking (at least one).  Tanking or even the perception of tanking is bad for the league.  That is the reason to consider a change to the rule.

[LooseCannon]

There really isn't any reason to make changes.  The system is working just fine.

There is a reason.  The changes would make tanking less likely.  You have quoted figures that indicate teams are not getting back to back #1s all that often but clearly the system is not preventing teams from tanking or from tanking being part of the discussion.  There is a website dedicated to tanking (at least one).  Tanking or even the perception of tanking is bad for the league.  That is the reason to consider a change to the rule.

There is no good reason.  The only reason to change things is to pacify crybabies.

[Redz]

No team should be allowed to be in contention for the #1 pick a year after they pick #1. This Philly tanking or incompetence saga is destroying the league. How can the fans in Philly even stand this absurdity.

I had proposed something a while back that was a little more extensive to prevent tanking to the extent that Philly took it.

1. The team winning the lottery is excluded from the lottery for 3 years. 
2. The teams winning the 2nd and 3rd picks in the lottery are excluded from the lottery for 1 year.
This pertains to their own picks, not a pick they received from another team
This would penalize a franchise like Philly blatantly tanking for years since they cannot do better than 4th for 2 years if they win the lottery and are excluded from the top 3 for the following year if they get the 2nd or 3rd pick.
A team like the C's wouldn't be penalized since their projected lottery picks are coming from another franchise.
This also would have little impact on teams that have a down year and end up in the lottery infrequently.  It would also allow a team that misses the playoffs for several years to have increased odds of getting a top 3 pick that may put them over the hump in getting to the playoffs. 


for example, Philly would have still gotten Noel since he was the 6th pick.  The following year, they're still eligible for the lottery and, assuming they still get #3, they get Embiid.  The following year, they can't get #3 so best they can do is get #4.  No Okafor but perhaps Gordon or Smart.  This year, they'd still have the shot at Simmons after doing their one year of 'penance'.  not a complete elimination of what they would have compiled in terms of players but Okafor would definitely have ended up somewhere else that probably could have used him like Orlando or Boston.
Philly would also now be prevented from getting a top 3 pick for 2 years now.  The way they're playing, they could very well end up with another top pick this year.

I think you'd find a lousy team still tanking even if they weren't eligible for the top pick.  They'd still be assuring themselves of the best possible position.

[hwangjini_1]

The C's situation with Brooklyn (and the joy it provided all of us as C's fan) has made me think it would be an interesting idea if the whole lottery system was revamped so no team owns the right to their own pick.

It was definitely a great situation for us as C's fan last year (and again this year, and possibly next as well) to be able to root for our team to make the playoffs while also being able to dream of landing a franchise player at the top of the lottery.

Then on the flip side, we have Brooklyn and the "why would they tank" attitude.  Now think if this were the case for all teams.  Why would any team tank if they didn't control their own pick?

My idea is after the real draft at the end of June, but before free agency starts, the NBA holds another draft where teams pick another team's pick to control for the upcoming season (or seasons) and you can't pick your own team.  I imagine the 2016 draft pick draft to go something like this:

#1 Philly picks Brooklyn
#2 Lakers pick Philadelphia
#3 Brooklyn picks Phoenix
.
.
.
#10 Milwaukee picks New Orleans
.
.
#14 Chicago picks Washington
#15 Houston picks Dallas
.
.
.
#29 San Antonio picks Golden State
#30 Golden State picks San Antonio

Imagine how great that could be for Chicago or Houston or even Milwaukee fans.  Actually we don't have to imagine because it's exactly how we feel with the Brooklyn picks.  At the same time, Washington and Dallas don't have have the temptation to sit out Wall or Dirk for the rest of the year after they dislocate the pinky finger on their non-shooting hand in mid-February.

Even better if they hold this "draft pick draft" once every 2 or 3 years instead of every year.  So you're not just tying yourself to a teams pick for the next season but the next X seasons. 

And sure you can say teams would tank for position in this new "draft pick draft", but after the first time this draft happens, you'd be tanking this season to latch your hopes on another teams record the next season, before you even know who they draft, sign, or trade for?

Just spit balling here, and I'm sure there's tons of holes, but it's got me intrigued the more I think about it.  Now instead of rewarding teams for incompetence, you're rewarding them for their long term projection analysis for other teams (although it's still probably going to boil down to luck).  It would be especially interesting right before a big free agent year.  Like in 2010, Cleveland had the best record in the league, but does a team drafting at the top think LeBron is going to split?  It would give us even more to talk about and speculate on before free agency!

actually, i like this idea. it would be fun. 

[KGs Knee]

i would also add in - scrap the one and done rule

You're right, you should be eligible at 18 years old or after completing high school, whichever comes first.

Enough of forcing these kids to go to college.  And the ones that do choose to go should be paid.

You [dang] well better bet if you are making millions off of my talent I am demanding to be paid for my labor.