How would you fix the draft? (split)

[eMBarkat10n]

I was saying hypothetically if that was a method the NBA wanted to use the help stop tanking.

My apologies, as I was not aware that you were speaking "hypothetically"...

 

[eMBarkat10n]

This is just a blatant disregard for how math works and enormous sample size issues. The result in this case is utterly meaningless; it doesn't matter if the team with the worst record never wins the top overall pick again in NBA history. It will still give that team with the worst overall record the best chance of any other team of landing the top overall pick.

Which it should. What I am trying to say here, though, is....Eliminate the "odds" and rank solely by "record", and teams are more likely to tank as a result, because they will know that if they tank enough, and finish with the worst record in the league, they're guaranteed a number 1 pick. I don't see how that eliminates tanking. By having the current lottery system, a team still needs the lottery draw to land in their favor to land the number 1 pick. And, from the evidence I provided, I don't see how someone can argue that the current system is flawed when more teams outside of the top 3 have landed the number 1 pick than those inside the top 3. If any tweaks are to be made to the current system, all I say is don't do any more than give a few teams (top 3 or 4) an equal chance at landing the top pick (which will be done starting next year). But, if I were in charge, and had to pick, I'd stick with the current system, because you still have to beat the odds to land that number 1 pick, or even 2nd or 3rd. I don't care that the rest of the draft is ranked in inverse order of regular season record.

For those of you who want the media/fans/owners to rank, I don't think that will fly in the league. Because, if you ask me, a team will constantly rank those teams within their division towards the bottom of the pack. Always. The Kings are always going to rank the Warriors, Clippers, Suns, and Lakers towards the bottom of the pack. Why would they rank them any higher? And, as a result, how would that be fair to those 4 teams?

IMHO, I don't think there will ever be the "right solution" to the problem. People these days will find ways to complain about any process that is implemented. That's the problem with society as a whole, not everyone is ever going to be happy with the current situation. We're always going to have a "Battle of Epic Proportion", if I may. Which, I guess, is why stuff like this is actually somewhat entertaining to dive into. As long as we are able to keep it civil.

 

[burekijogurt]

Love the idea of penalizing bad teams with lowered odds.
On top of that I'd institute a sort of premier league relegation to a lower division. Perpetually bad teams like the kings would be forced to get their S together or spend eternity in "the dungeon".

BTW, are there lower level leagues that could be tied to the NBA like that in existence now similar to the lower level leagues in European soccer? i don't think so right? G league is a parallel league for developing players and you cannot relegate to / promote from NCAA.

 

[eMBarkat10n]

BTW, are there lower level leagues that could be tied to the NBA like that in existence now similar to the lower level leagues in European soccer? i don't think so right? G league is a parallel league for developing players and you cannot relegate to / promote from NCAA.

Not currently, but they could easily make the G League the "Divison 2" league, and the NBA the "Division 1" league, and implement relegation/promotion.

I actually kind of want to see them implement relegation/promotion with Soccer out here (MLS, and USL). I think that would be rather interesting. I highly doubt we will ever see a professional league implement relegation/promotion in the United States, though. It would be awesome if they would, but I don't see it happening.

 

[burekijogurt]

Not currently, but they could easily make the G League the "Divison 2" league, and the NBA the "Division 1" league, and implement relegation/promotion.

I actually kind of want to see them implement relegation/promotion with Soccer out here (MLS, and USL). I think that would be rather interesting. I highly doubt we will ever see a professional league implement relegation/promotion in the United States, though. It would be awesome if they would, but I don't see it happening.

yeah i don't see it either. also, if you did that, you would have to do away with the draft. the only equalizer then would be cap rules in the top league.

 

[Kingster]

That sort of thing has been suggested before, but usually for three years and not five. Five years would be a real long time to plant a team in the mid-high portion of the draft after a fall from grace, which can happen pretty quickly if all things go wrong at once (injuries, losing players to free agency, etc.). It would also mean that teams like the Cavs, who turn it around the other way quickly would get the benefit of high draft picks during their run of success.

Personally I think that while it's an interesting suggestion, five years is too long. Three would be better. But still, I feel like most people trying to tweak the lotto are doing just that - tweaking. I think we need to get more reductive than that. Go back to the basics. Ask ourselves what we are trying to accomplish by setting the draft order, then ask whether this can be accomplished by means that are more tamper-proof than the current system. Get creative. What if win/loss record isn't the only way?

I have my own thoughts on this and I'm sure I've shared them here before, but it would be interesting to see if anybody goes back to basics and finds themselves going down the same road I did.

Split the difference and make it a four year running average. What is the typical period for a team's turnaround? Four years? Not three years, that's for sure, unless you really hit the lotto and are able to draft a once in a generation player like LBJ.

 

[Iced Espresso]

Every team out of the playoffs gets 1 ping pong ball

Spots 1-14 are all randomly assigned.

For every season a team missed the playoffs they get one extra ball, so a team in a 5 year rut would get 5 balls until they got their pick.

Lotto starts at pick 1 down to 14.

Only teams that may tank are teams real close to making the playoffs.

 

[VF21]

Every team out of the playoffs gets 1 ping pong ball

Spots 1-14 are all randomly assigned.

For every season a team missed the playoffs they get one extra ball, so a team in a 5 year rut would get 5 balls until they got their pick.

Lotto starts at pick 1 down to 14.

Only teams that may tank are teams real close to making the playoffs.

I would "like" this a dozen more times if I could. So simple and yet so completely solving the problem as far as people who object to tanking are concerned.

 

[206Fan]

The new system will be fine. I like the current layout, but w.e.

Draft isn't broken. Horrible teams just need to stop their poor drafting. AKA THE KINGS. but we're not alone. Charlotte and arguably Orlando is in the same boat too.

 

[kingsfan1984]

Every team out of the playoffs gets 1 ping pong ball

Spots 1-14 are all randomly assigned.

For every season a team missed the playoffs they get one extra ball, so a team in a 5 year rut would get 5 balls until they got their pick.

Lotto starts at pick 1 down to 14.

Only teams that may tank are teams real close to making the playoffs.

This is pretty good idea. Simple yet effective.

Not a huge difference in the teams out of playoffs. Lie the each year additional ball added

 

[RichieInRocklin]

If, in a given year, teams x,y, & z, land respectively in 1st, 2nd and 3rd place for the lotto draft, then if they were still in the lotto draft the next year, they would get assigned 14th, 13th, and 12th for that next year, with the rest of the lotto teams moving up based on their won/loss record (as it is now), and every place, 1 through 14, would still get the same lotto balls as now. Therefore, any tanking should be effective for only a year. There would be more issues to be decided in this draft suggestion, but this is my basic idea.

 

[Sac.1989]

im one of the few that has no problem with the current draft, the current playoff structure and prior to this season, the all star west v east game.

we need to plan and spend our resources better. From picks to cap space, simple as that. There is no magic wand that will help us when we continually blow picks and spend money sub optimally.

 

[ockingsfan]

I heard Scott Boras propose a similar idea on a podcast with Jonah Keri. It's an interesting idea. You could add another element to it by creating a separate salary cap for guys on their rookie deals (you'd have to do away with the strict rookie scale, though, given that there would be no draft pick to tie it to) so teams would have to be strategic in how they pursue rookies. And it would (presumably) prevent the same teams from getting the top rookie each year if they've already used up their rookie cap space on a top rookie the season before.

That wouldn't work because there will be a lot of the marquee rookies taking smaller and shorter deals to get into big markets where they could easily make up the difference in salary with endorsement deals.

Someone like rookie LeBron could go to the Lakers or Knicks on a 1 or 2 year deal and make big bucks in endorsements and after their initial deal sign a big contract with their teams.

It would be a case of the rich getting richer every year. The Kings would be stuck with the Quincy Doubys every year.

 

[Sactown ExPat]

That wouldn't work because there will be a lot of the marquee rookies taking smaller and shorter deals to get into big markets where they could easily make up the difference in salary with endorsement deals.

Someone like rookie LeBron could go to the Lakers or Knicks on a 1 or 2 year deal and make big bucks in endorsements and after their initial deal sign a big contract with their teams.

It would be a case of the rich getting richer every year. The Kings would be stuck with the Quincy Doubys every year.

Very unlikely. In soccer, the best talents are very, very rarely groomed at the big clubs. The big clubs don’t have the patience, and their comparative advantage is in waiting for a senior player to prove themselves in a top league, and then overpay for that guy. BTW, Lebron was never leaving Ohio. If he wanted to start somewhere else, he could have. Stern was still in charge of Lebron’s draft year. It illustrates that rookies going to the big markets is as mich of a risk for them as it is for the club.

 

[ockingsfan]

Very unlikely. In soccer, the best talents are very, very rarely groomed at the big clubs. The big clubs don’t have the patience, and their comparative advantage is in waiting for a senior player to prove themselves in a top league, and then overpay for that guy. BTW, Lebron was never leaving Ohio. If he wanted to start somewhere else, he could have. Stern was still in charge of Lebron’s draft year. It illustrates that rookies going to the big markets is as mich of a risk for them as it is for the club.

Rookies would always be cheaper than any max players, the big city clubs would always be able to afford them. Any advantage in pay (on a rookie scale) would easily be erased with endorsement deals in a big market.

A top level player like Ayton, Ben Simmons, Kyrie Irving, etc (without strong regional ties), most likely pick the big city and their agents would most certainly steer them there.

If the player can chose between the Lakers or the Kings, I would say that the probability is very high they chose the Lakers almost every time.

It would be just like free agency. The small markets would continue to get screwed.

 

[ockingsfan]

To fix the NBA Lottery you need to even out the odds.

I would even out the odds and drop down the guarenteed spot for the worst record.

Tier 1: Worst record teams #1-5 would all have 10 percent odds of winning the lotto.

Tier 2: Worst record teams #6-10 would have 7 percent odds of winning the lotto.

Tier 3: Worst record teams #1-14 would have a 3.75 percent odds of winning the lotto.

The Lottery would determine the first 6 picks. Picks #7-14 is slotted according to worse record.

The team with the worst record would be guarenteed only the 7th spot, instead of the 4th. Thus lessening the advantage of tanking.

I would also add in the stipulation that if you win a top 3 pick, that team is blocked from the Lotto the next year.

I think this would end the need and advantage of tanking pretty quickly.