Cuban "We did everything possible to lose games"

[hpantazo]

Do the Mavs get punished for this? I mean, even though we know all the teams are doing it and he's the only one being honest, that's an outright admission to tanking, which goes against the NBA's push to put a good product on the floor and on tv every night.

[action781]

Which is why we need something like:
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-nbas-possible-solution-for-tanking-good-bye-to-the-lottery-hello-to-the-wheel/

The wheel is an absolutely dumb solution in search of an imaginary problem.

How does this thread and many many others exist on an imaginary problem?

Which is why we need something like:
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-nbas-possible-solution-for-tanking-good-bye-to-the-lottery-hello-to-the-wheel/

That's largely nonsense. Not a solution, and not feasible in any form or shape.

I disagree.

[action781]

The solution to tanking is to just go back to throwing 14 name cards in a rotating drum and having the commissioner pick out three for the top three picks.  Or have a weighted lottery but for all 14 picks, so the team with the worst record could conceivably get pick #14.

Mike

I like the idea of a weighted lottery for all 14 picks as opposed to the current top 3.

I don't like the idea of every playoff team having an equal chance at #1, I think that could make tanking even *worse* potentially.  Why would any fringe playoff team want to grab a 6-8 seed in a year if they could have a 1/14 chance at a transcendent, franchise-changing talent that was available in the draft?  It would get very ugly.

[Smokeeye123]

There is no fix to tanking. If you have a lottery wheel, the teams scheduled that year will tank. If you decide to give everyone in the bottom 14 an equal chance, teams like Sacremento and Denver will be left to rot as they are small markets and will have a massively harder time becoming a better team than cities like LA, Miami, Chicago or even Boston since no free agents will sign there. If you're team is genuinely horrible, you deserve a high pick.

[BitterJim]

There is no fix to tanking. If you have a lottery wheel, the teams scheduled that year will tank. If you decide to give everyone in the bottom 14 an equal chance, teams like Sacremento and Denver will be left to rot as they are small markets and will have a massively harder time becoming a better team than cities like LA, Miami, Chicago or even Boston since no free agents will sign there. If you're team is genuinely horrible, you deserve a high pick.

...why? The wheel means that your pick is locked in for that year, no matter how you finish.  Tanking would have no effect on the pick you get, all you would get is lower attendance, and a worse place to start from if you trade away players to get worse.

Tanking exists solely to get a better pick. If you take away the correlation between having a worse record and getting a better pick, then teams would stop tanking.  The issue isn't "would the wheel prevent tanking" (because it would), it's "would the wheel prevent legitimately bad teams from becoming good again" (which is a very big question)

[crimson_stallion]

The teams who miss the playoffs all go through to the lottery with an equal number of lottery balls, and the teams who do make the playoffs are ordered as they are now (by record).

Gives no incentive to tank, as coming last or missing the playoffs by one game makes no difference to your odds at the #1 pick.  It would truly be random. 

Teams who try to do the 76ers thing (and miss the playoffs intentionally) could do that 4 or 5 years running and still fail to get a single #1 pick.  Only real risk is that teams who are on the cusp of the playoffs (but who know they have no shot at a title) may just lose one or two games on purpose so they fall in to the lottery.  But even then the incentive is low because with 14 teams all having equal amounts of ping pong balls, the probability of you getting a high pick is very low - you could very easily miss the playoffs for nothing.   

One genuine issue with this is that you may have teams who genuinely suck year after year (e.g. Sacramento) who just get unlucky with the lottery and get no picks.  But at least if that happens you can't blame the system for being biased, as every one of those teams have the same odds and ultimately, luck is luck. 

[crimson_stallion]

It's hard for the league to get upset at him for saying this. 

I mean really - if you know for a fact that you've been eliminated from any chances of making the playoffs, and you still have like 10 games left...why would you bother trying to win?  It achieves nothing.  There is literally nothing to be gained bar "respect". 

And why is that?  Because of the way the NBA sets up the lottery.  If you can't be really good, then the next best thing you can do is to be really bad.   There is no incentive to make an effort and fall short.

[Moranis]

The teams who miss the playoffs all go through to the lottery with an equal number of lottery balls, and the teams who do make the playoffs are ordered as they are now (by record).

Gives no incentive to tank, as coming last or missing the playoffs by one game makes no difference to your odds at the #1 pick.  It would truly be random. 

Teams who try to do the 76ers thing (and miss the playoffs intentionally) could do that 4 or 5 years running and still fail to get a single #1 pick.  Only real risk is that teams who are on the cusp of the playoffs (but who know they have no shot at a title) may just lose one or two games on purpose so they fall in to the lottery.  But even then the incentive is low because with 14 teams all having equal amounts of ping pong balls, the probability of you getting a high pick is very low - you could very easily miss the playoffs for nothing.   

One genuine issue with this is that you may have teams who genuinely suck year after year (e.g. Sacramento) who just get unlucky with the lottery and get no picks.  But at least if that happens you can't blame the system for being biased, as every one of those teams have the same odds and ultimately, luck is luck.

this really us a terrible idea. First it creates an incentive to miss the playoffs. Imagine Detroit wins the lottery this year because they lost 1 more gane than Chicago.  Which is better long term for your franchise a 1 in 14 shot at a franchise altering player or a first round playoff loss. Second, most teams are just legitimately bad and not tanking. Brooklyn has had no incentive to tank for two seasons and still has finished in the bottom 3. Bad teams need good players to not be bad.  You do it this way and the same teams will always be bad.

[JohnBoy65]

I still like the idea of replacing the draft with a rookie free agency period. The idea is the better you off the less you can offer.

So the nets would be able to offer a rookie the 4yr 30 million contract, but the Warriors could offer someone 4 years at league minimum. So Fultz could go to Golden State on a league minimum deal, or chase money at a worse team.

You could then trade your contracts. So you're basically replacing draft picks with contracts. That'd be fun.

[Smokeeye123]

There is no fix to tanking. If you have a lottery wheel, the teams scheduled that year will tank. If you decide to give everyone in the bottom 14 an equal chance, teams like Sacremento and Denver will be left to rot as they are small markets and will have a massively harder time becoming a better team than cities like LA, Miami, Chicago or even Boston since no free agents will sign there. If you're team is genuinely horrible, you deserve a high pick.

...why? The wheel means that your pick is locked in for that year, no matter how you finish.  Tanking would have no effect on the pick you get, all you would get is lower attendance, and a worse place to start from if you trade away players to get worse.

Tanking exists solely to get a better pick. If you take away the correlation between having a worse record and getting a better pick, then teams would stop tanking.  The issue isn't "would the wheel prevent tanking" (because it would), it's "would the wheel prevent legitimately bad teams from becoming good again" (which is a very big question)

I assumed the wheel meant that a set number of teams can only pick top 6 and then those 6 teams picked in order of record.  Still, some teams need multiple picks in the top 5 in consecutive years to build something. Is Denver or Milwaukee ever going to attract anyone otherwise?

[kozlodoev]

Which is why we need something like:
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-nbas-possible-solution-for-tanking-good-bye-to-the-lottery-hello-to-the-wheel/

The wheel is an absolutely dumb solution in search of an imaginary problem.

How does this thread and many many others exist on an imaginary problem?

It's on the Internet. It must be real!

[crimson_stallion]

The teams who miss the playoffs all go through to the lottery with an equal number of lottery balls, and the teams who do make the playoffs are ordered as they are now (by record).

Gives no incentive to tank, as coming last or missing the playoffs by one game makes no difference to your odds at the #1 pick.  It would truly be random. 

Teams who try to do the 76ers thing (and miss the playoffs intentionally) could do that 4 or 5 years running and still fail to get a single #1 pick.  Only real risk is that teams who are on the cusp of the playoffs (but who know they have no shot at a title) may just lose one or two games on purpose so they fall in to the lottery.  But even then the incentive is low because with 14 teams all having equal amounts of ping pong balls, the probability of you getting a high pick is very low - you could very easily miss the playoffs for nothing.   

One genuine issue with this is that you may have teams who genuinely suck year after year (e.g. Sacramento) who just get unlucky with the lottery and get no picks.  But at least if that happens you can't blame the system for being biased, as every one of those teams have the same odds and ultimately, luck is luck.

this really us a terrible idea. First it creates an incentive to miss the playoffs. Imagine Detroit wins the lottery this year because they lost 1 more gane than Chicago.  Which is better long term for your franchise a 1 in 14 shot at a franchise altering player or a first round playoff loss. Second, most teams are just legitimately bad and not tanking. Brooklyn has had no incentive to tank for two seasons and still has finished in the bottom 3. Bad teams need good players to not be bad.  You do it this way and the same teams will always be bad.

1. How does this give an incentive to miss playoffs? Missing the playoffs would give you the exact same odds at a #1 pick as the other 13 teams who missed the playoffs. Your probability of getting a high pick (or of any bad team getting a high pick) is extremely low.

2. If a team is legitimately bad and not tanking, then so what?  It's up to that team to try to make changes to get better.  Develop your players.  Try to make trades.  Sign free agents.  How many times has Sacramento had a top 3 pick, and what good has it done them?  On the other hand how many times have the Spurs managed to pull golden players out of late picks? There's more to basketball development then simply "gift future stars to all the bad teams". 

3. So if you purposely miss the playoffs, only to end up with the 8th or 9th pick, then you end up with more or less nothing.  Some teams ARE always bad.  Sacramento.  Orlando.  Phoenix.  New York.  Those teams have been garbage now for close to a decade.  Cleveland is another team you can add to that list - it was signing of Lebron James (not any draft pick) that made them relevant again.   Philly and the Lakers have had high pick after high pick after high pick for years on end now and they are still garbage. 

The way things are now, the only way anybody gets anywhere is by either being a really, really good team - or by being a really, really crap team. If you happen to be a team stuck in the middle (see 2000's Hawks) then you get stuck in mediocrity forever until you eventually decide to give up, blow it up, and tank.

In the option I propose, it solves that issue.  Teams who are narrowly missing the playoffs, instead of being stuck in limbo forever, will get a fair shot at a franchise changing player who could change their fortunes overnight.

Teams who are really bad will also get a fair shot at a franchise changing player.

The teams who are already very good (good enough to win a playoff round or two) won't be given that chance - and will have to try to luck it out by trying to pick a "diamond in the rough" with picks in the 15-30 range like they do now.

I don't see the issue. 

Teams that miss the playoffs miss it because they aren't good enough to be genuinely competitive.  Lets say they do miss the playoffs by only a game or two - how does that change things?  If they didn't tank those two games and they happened to make it through, they likely get swept in the first round.  So it's not like we're talking about 50 win teams scoring #1 picks here.  Were' talking about 0.450 - 0.500 teams that are fringe playoff teams having a chance to pick up a player who could change their fortunes.

It would make the league far more unpredictable, as opposed to now where, year by year, you almost always have a pretty good idea of who is going to suck, who is gong to dominate, and who is gong to barely make the playoffs.  A team like Miami (who just missed the playoffs) could pick up a fluke high pick in the draft and come back next year with a vengeance.

On a plus side, it would pretty much completely eliminate the scenario where teams like the Lakers and Sixers can go and guarantee top 4 picks for 3 or 4 years running simply by being as bad as they possibly can be.  I think that's great, because anybody with the slightest respect for competitive sport should frown upon the Sixers dirty tactics.

Instead the teams who do end up getting a high pick would cherish it every time, knowing there are no guarantees as to when the next one is coming around, and would have incentive to think very carefully about who they select. 

[mef730]

Let's do this Hunger Games-style. Each of the bottom-14 teams picks a representative and that person goes to a deserted island with the other 13 reps. They battle it out and the teams pick in reverse order of deaths.

It might not be a solution in the long run, but it would definitely drive ratings.

Mike

[Moranis]

The teams who miss the playoffs all go through to the lottery with an equal number of lottery balls, and the teams who do make the playoffs are ordered as they are now (by record).

Gives no incentive to tank, as coming last or missing the playoffs by one game makes no difference to your odds at the #1 pick.  It would truly be random. 

Teams who try to do the 76ers thing (and miss the playoffs intentionally) could do that 4 or 5 years running and still fail to get a single #1 pick.  Only real risk is that teams who are on the cusp of the playoffs (but who know they have no shot at a title) may just lose one or two games on purpose so they fall in to the lottery.  But even then the incentive is low because with 14 teams all having equal amounts of ping pong balls, the probability of you getting a high pick is very low - you could very easily miss the playoffs for nothing.   

One genuine issue with this is that you may have teams who genuinely suck year after year (e.g. Sacramento) who just get unlucky with the lottery and get no picks.  But at least if that happens you can't blame the system for being biased, as every one of those teams have the same odds and ultimately, luck is luck.

this really us a terrible idea. First it creates an incentive to miss the playoffs. Imagine Detroit wins the lottery this year because they lost 1 more gane than Chicago.  Which is better long term for your franchise a 1 in 14 shot at a franchise altering player or a first round playoff loss. Second, most teams are just legitimately bad and not tanking. Brooklyn has had no incentive to tank for two seasons and still has finished in the bottom 3. Bad teams need good players to not be bad.  You do it this way and the same teams will always be bad.

1. How does this give an incentive to miss playoffs? Missing the playoffs would give you the exact same odds at a #1 pick as the other 13 teams who missed the playoffs. Your probability of getting a high pick (or of any bad team getting a high pick) is extremely low.

2. If a team is legitimately bad and not tanking, then so what?  It's up to that team to try to make changes to get better.  Develop your players.  Try to make trades.  Sign free agents.  How many times has Sacramento had a top 3 pick, and what good has it done them?  On the other hand how many times have the Spurs managed to pull golden players out of late picks? There's more to basketball development then simply "gift future stars to all the bad teams". 

3. So if you purposely miss the playoffs, only to end up with the 8th or 9th pick, then you end up with more or less nothing.  Some teams ARE always bad.  Sacramento.  Orlando.  Phoenix.  New York.  Those teams have been garbage now for close to a decade.  Cleveland is another team you can add to that list - it was signing of Lebron James (not any draft pick) that made them relevant again.   Philly and the Lakers have had high pick after high pick after high pick for years on end now and they are still garbage. 

The way things are now, the only way anybody gets anywhere is by either being a really, really good team - or by being a really, really crap team. If you happen to be a team stuck in the middle (see 2000's Hawks) then you get stuck in mediocrity forever until you eventually decide to give up, blow it up, and tank.

In the option I propose, it solves that issue.  Teams who are narrowly missing the playoffs, instead of being stuck in limbo forever, will get a fair shot at a franchise changing player who could change their fortunes overnight.

Teams who are really bad will also get a fair shot at a franchise changing player.

The teams who are already very good (good enough to win a playoff round or two) won't be given that chance - and will have to try to luck it out by trying to pick a "diamond in the rough" with picks in the 15-30 range like they do now.

I don't see the issue. 

Teams that miss the playoffs miss it because they aren't good enough to be genuinely competitive.  Lets say they do miss the playoffs by only a game or two - how does that change things?  If they didn't tank those two games and they happened to make it through, they likely get swept in the first round.  So it's not like we're talking about 50 win teams scoring #1 picks here.  Were' talking about 0.450 - 0.500 teams that are fringe playoff teams having a chance to pick up a player who could change their fortunes.

It would make the league far more unpredictable, as opposed to now where, year by year, you almost always have a pretty good idea of who is going to suck, who is gong to dominate, and who is gong to barely make the playoffs.  A team like Miami (who just missed the playoffs) could pick up a fluke high pick in the draft and come back next year with a vengeance.

On a plus side, it would pretty much completely eliminate the scenario where teams like the Lakers and Sixers can go and guarantee top 4 picks for 3 or 4 years running simply by being as bad as they possibly can be.  I think that's great, because anybody with the slightest respect for competitive sport should frown upon the Sixers dirty tactics.

Instead the teams who do end up getting a high pick would cherish it every time, knowing there are no guarantees as to when the next one is coming around, and would have incentive to think very carefully about who they select.

1. If you are Portland this year what is better for the long term of your franchise, getting hammered 4 straight games by the Warriors or having a 1 in 14 shot at first pick, a 1 in 13 shot at the 2nd pick, etc.? I get we all want to believe making the playoffs should be the goal bit the reality is a team like Portland that is over the cap and has no real shot at winning a title the appeal of a 7% chance at a franchise altering talent is probably pretty high. The current system where there is 0.5% chance is so low there is no incentive to miss the playoffs.

2. How do you expect a bad team to get better if they don't get high draft picks though?  Sure you can find gems later in the draft but a top 3 pick so greatly increases your odds that they really are o  the only thing you can really count on.  I mean what free agent is going to go to a bad team to make them not a bad team. Btw the Kings haven't had a top 3 pick since 1991 (it was 3) which sort of proves my point on top 3 picks (before that it was 1978 - the Spurs have had 3 top 3 picks since 87 including the 1st pick twice and without Robinson and Duncan they have 0 titles). Sure you can mess those top 3 picks up but it is a lot harder to do so.


So your system you make it better to miss the playoffs then get swept in the first round and you keep legitimately bad teams from getting better (or at least greatly decrease the odds of them getting better).

[Roy H.]

David Stern bashed the Nets for resting guys one game. I'm sure he and Silver will have a lot to say about this. /sarcasm