- Thread starter gunks
- Start date

Only 14 teams are in the lottery - the ones not in the playoffs. So the chances of those 14 teams to win the lottery and get the #1 pick total 100%. Teams 15-30 are in the playoffs and have 0% chance of winning the lottery since they aren't in it.

I never once mentioned teams 15-30. From the get go I've stated that I would be for increasing the odds for teams in the lottery across the board and not just in the top 3 since the team with the worst record gets a 25% change of winning the lottery and from there the percentages decrease. If teams in the 6-14 range let's say for example have the same odds or increased odds than originally stated in the rules, then that wouldn't be the worst thing to happen to the NBA imo.

#1 - 25%

#2 - 19.9%

#3 - 15.6%

#4 - 11.9%

#5 - 8.8%

#6 - 6.3%

#7 - 4.3%

#8 - 2.8%

#9 - 1.7%

#10 - 1.1%

#11 - 0.8%

#12 - 0.7%

#13 - 0.6%

#14 - 0.5%

Total: 100.0%

Now, let's modestly increase the odds of every team in the entire lottery across the board by 1%:

#1 - 26%

#2 - 20.9%

#3 - 16.6%

#4 - 12.9%

#5 - 9.8%

#6 - 7.3%

#7 - 5.3%

#8 - 3.8%

#9 - 2.7%

#10 - 2.1%

#11 - 1.8%

#12 - 1.7%

#13 - 1.6%

#14 - 1.5%

Total: 114.0%

Whoops! We can't do that, because now the odds add up to more than 100%. In fact, we can't increase the odds of any one team by any amount without decreasing the odds of another team or teams by a matching amount, otherwise the total odds would add up to more than 100%, and that's nonsensical. Saying that we should increase the odds of everybody is akin to saying that we should break a three-way tie by giving each of three teams a 50% chance to win a single coin toss.

Current odds for each team in the lottery:

#1 - 25%

#2 - 19.9%

#3 - 15.6%

#4 - 11.9%

#5 - 8.8%

#6 - 6.3%

#7 - 4.3%

#8 - 2.8%

#9 - 1.7%

#10 - 1.1%

#11 - 0.8%

#12 - 0.7%

#13 - 0.6%

#14 - 0.5%

Total: 100.0%

Now, let's modestly increase the odds of every team in the entire lottery across the board by 1%:

#1 - 26%

#2 - 20.9%

#3 - 16.6%

#4 - 12.9%

#5 - 9.8%

#6 - 7.3%

#7 - 5.3%

#8 - 3.8%

#9 - 2.7%

#10 - 2.1%

#11 - 1.8%

#12 - 1.7%

#13 - 1.6%

#14 - 1.5%

Total: 114.0%

Whoops! We can't do that, because now the odds add up to more than 100%. In fact, we can't increase the odds of any one team by any amount without decreasing the odds of another team or teams by a matching amount, otherwise the total odds would add up to more than 100%, and that's nonsensical. Saying that we should increase the odds of everybody is akin to saying that we should break a three-way tie by giving each of three teams a 50% chance to win a single coin toss.

#1 - 25%

#2 - 19.9%

#3 - 15.6%

#4 - 11.9%

#5 - 8.8%

#6 - 6.3%

#7 - 4.3%

#8 - 2.8%

#9 - 1.7%

#10 - 1.1%

#11 - 0.8%

#12 - 0.7%

#13 - 0.6%

#14 - 0.5%

Total: 100.0%

Now, let's modestly increase the odds of every team in the entire lottery across the board by 1%:

#1 - 26%

#2 - 20.9%

#3 - 16.6%

#4 - 12.9%

#5 - 9.8%

#6 - 7.3%

#7 - 5.3%

#8 - 3.8%

#9 - 2.7%

#10 - 2.1%

#11 - 1.8%

#12 - 1.7%

#13 - 1.6%

#14 - 1.5%

Total: 114.0%

Whoops! We can't do that, because now the odds add up to more than 100%. In fact, we can't increase the odds of any one team by any amount without decreasing the odds of another team or teams by a matching amount, otherwise the total odds would add up to more than 100%, and that's nonsensical. Saying that we should increase the odds of everybody is akin to saying that we should break a three-way tie by giving each of three teams a 50% chance to win a single coin toss.

Update: if they reform the lotto, it'll take place after this upcoming lottery!

So Vlade's rebuild plan to be horrible and young this season and get a top pick in this upcoming draft is still on!

Trust the Process.

so if the percentages turn out to be 114%, then decrease the odds for the teams in the top 3 or top 5 if you must and spread it across the board as much as possible, making teams think twice about intentionally tanking to acquire star players.

OK, I (and others, I think) apparently have no idea what you are trying to convey. Can you please give us an example. Like, maybe lay out the odds you would like to see teams have to win the lottery or something? Because I have no idea what you are trying to say or accomplish.

How about something along the lines of giving the worst team in the league a 10% chance of winning the lottery and teams slotted 2-14 have a 7%

Let me have a go at it:

First, in order to adress any imballance between the conferences I say we must TOTALLY disregard the actual playoff appearance, and give lottery chances to the lower half of the league (i.e. the

It's very plain: Playoff participation and lottery participation simply shouldn't be mutually exclusive, nor should they be connected or linked in any other way!

The lottery is designed to ballance the league, so it should only be effected by the strength of teams, regardless of their conference affiliation. The playoffs action, on the other hand, MUST have 8 teams in each conference, simply to form the brackets of head-to-head elimination series (8=>4=>2=>1).

So, the lower half of the league gets that lottery boost, while the upper half doesn't. Clear and simple.

Now to the actual odds:

In order to reduce the incentive to tank I would indeed make the odd-curve considerably less steep.

Something like:

#1 - 12.97%

#2 - 12.07%

#3 - 11.16%

#4 - 10.27%

#5 - 9.37%

#6 - 8.46%

#7 - 7.57%

#8 - 6.67%

#9 - 5.76%

#10 - 4.87%

#11 - 3.97%

#12 - 3.06%

#13 - 2.17%

#14 - 1.27%

#15 - 0.36%

Total: 100.0%

What say you?

Should I file for a patent on this one?

Well, consider this format patent-pending, (with this very post being my publicly made patent-claim).

Last edited:

Here's my 2 cents.

Let me have a go at it:

First, in order to adress any imballance between the conferences I say we must TOTALLY disregard the actual playoff appearance, and give lottery chances to the lower half of the league (i.e. the**15** worst teams, with the smallest number of wins) even if some of them may be ranked 5th or 6th in their (pathetic) conference, and get their share of post-season action, while in the stronger conference, some bottom dwellers (even in the 11th or 12th place) may not be eligible to participate in the lottery even though they can only dream of the playoffs.

It's very plain: Playoff participation and lottery participation simply shouldn't be mutually exclusive, nor should they be connected or linked in any other way!

The lottery is designed to ballance the league, so it should only be effected by the strength of teams, regardless of their conference affiliation. The playoffs action, on the other hand, MUST have 8 teams in each conference, simply to form the brackets of head-to-head elimination series (8=>4=>2=>1).

So, the lower half of the league gets that lottery boost, while the upper half doesn't. Clear and simple.

Now to the actual odds:

In order to reduce the incentive to tank I would indeed make the odd-curve considerably less steep.

Something like:

#1 - 12.97%

#2 - 12.07%

#3 - 11.16%

#4 - 10.27%

#5 - 9.37%

#6 - 8.46%

#7 - 7.57%

#8 - 6.67%

#9 - 5.76%

#10 - 4.87%

#11 - 3.97%

#12 - 3.06%

#13 - 2.17%

#14 - 1.27%

#15 - 0.36%

Total: 100.0%

What say you?

Should I file for a patent on this one?

Well, consider this format patent-pending, (with this very post being my publicly made patent-claim).

Let me have a go at it:

First, in order to adress any imballance between the conferences I say we must TOTALLY disregard the actual playoff appearance, and give lottery chances to the lower half of the league (i.e. the

It's very plain: Playoff participation and lottery participation simply shouldn't be mutually exclusive, nor should they be connected or linked in any other way!

The lottery is designed to ballance the league, so it should only be effected by the strength of teams, regardless of their conference affiliation. The playoffs action, on the other hand, MUST have 8 teams in each conference, simply to form the brackets of head-to-head elimination series (8=>4=>2=>1).

So, the lower half of the league gets that lottery boost, while the upper half doesn't. Clear and simple.

Now to the actual odds:

In order to reduce the incentive to tank I would indeed make the odd-curve considerably less steep.

Something like:

#1 - 12.97%

#2 - 12.07%

#3 - 11.16%

#4 - 10.27%

#5 - 9.37%

#6 - 8.46%

#7 - 7.57%

#8 - 6.67%

#9 - 5.76%

#10 - 4.87%

#11 - 3.97%

#12 - 3.06%

#13 - 2.17%

#14 - 1.27%

#15 - 0.36%

Total: 100.0%

What say you?

Should I file for a patent on this one?

Well, consider this format patent-pending, (with this very post being my publicly made patent-claim).

In order to reduce the incentive to tank I would indeed make the odd-curve considerably less steep.

Something like:

#1 - 12.97%

#2 - 12.07%

#3 - 11.16%

#4 - 10.27%

#5 - 9.37%

#6 - 8.46%

#7 - 7.57%

#8 - 6.67%

#9 - 5.76%

#10 - 4.87%

#11 - 3.97%

#12 - 3.06%

#13 - 2.17%

#14 - 1.27%

#15 - 0.36%

Total: 100.0%

What say you?

Something like:

#1 - 12.97%

#2 - 12.07%

#3 - 11.16%

#4 - 10.27%

#5 - 9.37%

#6 - 8.46%

#7 - 7.57%

#8 - 6.67%

#9 - 5.76%

#10 - 4.87%

#11 - 3.97%

#12 - 3.06%

#13 - 2.17%

#14 - 1.27%

#15 - 0.36%

Total: 100.0%

What say you?

What I also say is that if we want to address both 1) and 2) above simultaneously, we have to move out of a lottery system, or in fact any objective system that bases draft position on record. What we really need is subjectivity (a strange thing for me to say). But hear me out: If all the teams in the league were to *vote* for which teams got which draft slots, it's in their interest to make sure that the absolute worst-positioned teams get the best draft picks (put the best players on a good team, and now you have a stronger competitor) while also being able to sniff out and punish teams for pulling "The Process". If you try to win, but you're not really any good and don't have any super strong future pieces, then you're not a threat and you're likely to get high picks until such time as you are a threat. If you try to tank, you may get punished. Vindictive? Sure. But I bet it would work and be able to address both tanking and competitive balance simultaneously. The lottery simply can't do that, no matter how you tweak the odds. It just shifts the balance towards one or the other.

What I say (and what I have maintained for the last several years at least) is that there is a delicate balancing act between 1) discouraging tanking and 2) trying to ensure that the weakest teams get the best rookie players. Playing with lottery odds can only shift along this axis - your proposal moves closer towards #1 on this axis, making tanking less useful but also allowing the best rookie talent to be more easily spread to better teams, which is presumably worse for league parity. And that's fine, if you think that right now reducing tanking is more important than increasing parity, though I'm not sure I agree.

What I also say is that if we want to address both 1) and 2) above simultaneously, we have to move out of a lottery system, or in fact any objective system that bases draft position on record. What we really need is subjectivity (a strange thing for me to say). But hear me out: If all the teams in the league were to *vote* for which teams got which draft slots, it's in their interest to make sure that the absolute worst-positioned teams get the best draft picks (put the best players on a good team, and now you have a stronger competitor) while also being able to sniff out and punish teams for pulling "The Process". If you try to win, but you're not really any good and don't have any super strong future pieces, then you're not a threat and you're likely to get high picks until such time as you are a threat. If you try to tank, you may get punished. Vindictive? Sure. But I bet it would work and be able to address both tanking and competitive balance simultaneously. The lottery simply can't do that, no matter how you tweak the odds. It just shifts the balance towards one or the other.

What I also say is that if we want to address both 1) and 2) above simultaneously, we have to move out of a lottery system, or in fact any objective system that bases draft position on record. What we really need is subjectivity (a strange thing for me to say). But hear me out: If all the teams in the league were to *vote* for which teams got which draft slots, it's in their interest to make sure that the absolute worst-positioned teams get the best draft picks (put the best players on a good team, and now you have a stronger competitor) while also being able to sniff out and punish teams for pulling "The Process". If you try to win, but you're not really any good and don't have any super strong future pieces, then you're not a threat and you're likely to get high picks until such time as you are a threat. If you try to tank, you may get punished. Vindictive? Sure. But I bet it would work and be able to address both tanking and competitive balance simultaneously. The lottery simply can't do that, no matter how you tweak the odds. It just shifts the balance towards one or the other.

Of course once you establish a human element into the discussion, it's impossible to dismiss all bias. Personally, I'd be fine with going back to the original system. If a team is willing to throw a season down the drain and risk losing season ticket holders just to get the first pick in the draft, then have at it. If your willing to risk all that to acquire an unproven player, that may or may not become an impact player, then maybe you deserve the first choice. Truth is, under the old system, the team that ended up with the first pick in the draft was a bad team. Yeah, there are the rare exceptions like the year the Spurs ended up with Tim Duncan, but I doubt any team in the league wants to be in the lottery.

If were so concerned about the wrong team ending up with a top three pick, then why isn't there some rule that prevents a very good team from acquiring the top pick? It seems it's OK for the Celtics to fleece teams like the Net's and end up with a pantry full of first round picks, but it's not OK to tank. The result is the same, just a different method. Hey, some GM's are smarter than others and you can't make a rule that prevents that. I don't think you can retain the lottery, and change it to the extent where it discourages tanking, without also reducing the opportunities of the most deserving teams. After all, the whole point of the draft is make sure that the worse teams get the best chance at improving.

In my opinion, I doubt the NBA will ever go completely away from the lottery. It gives then one more event on national TV. That means more money, and more PR. The NBA is in the entertainment business, and the lottery is entertainment.

But it would take away the incentive for a playoff bubble to put on the tank. It's not so much the difference between pick #9 and pick #10 that teams sacrifice their integrity for... it is that shot at a top 3 pick. Those tanking to increase their odds at a top-3 draw in the lottery could just go ahead and play out the season to win.

But it would take away the incentive for a playoff bubble to put on the tank. It's not so much the difference between pick #9 and pick #10 that teams sacrifice their integrity for... it is that shot at a top 3 pick. Those tanking to increase their odds at a top-3 draw in the lottery could just go ahead and play out the season to win.

But it would take away the incentive for a playoff bubble to put on the tank. It's not so much the difference between pick #9 and pick #10 that teams sacrifice their integrity for... it is that shot at a top 3 pick. Those tanking to increase their odds at a top-3 draw in the lottery could just go ahead and play out the season to win.

What I also say is that if we want to address both 1) and 2) above simultaneously, we have to move out of a lottery system, or in fact any objective system that bases draft position on record. What we really need is subjectivity (a strange thing for me to say). But hear me out: If all the teams in the league were to *vote* for which teams got which draft slots, it's in their interest to make sure that the absolute worst-positioned teams get the best draft picks (put the best players on a good team, and now you have a stronger competitor) while also being able to sniff out and punish teams for pulling "The Process". If you try to win, but you're not really any good and don't have any super strong future pieces, then you're not a threat and you're likely to get high picks until such time as you are a threat. If you try to tank, you may get punished. Vindictive? Sure. But I bet it would work and be able to address both tanking and competitive balance simultaneously. The lottery simply can't do that, no matter how you tweak the odds. It just shifts the balance towards one or the other.

Use the W-L record to set the draft order, the Lottery after the season ends has 20 balls numbered 60-82, the ball that is picked sets which W-L order is used. I think the record even at game 60 is a very good indication of who the worst teams are. If teams do not know which W-L record will be used, why tank the last 15 games when the final W-L record will probably not be used. It is the knowledge of Which W-L record that gives a team incentive to have a lower record !

Problem fixed!

Edit: just saw Capt Fact make the same case (only more elegantly)