[Game] Jazz at Kings, Sunday, May 16th, 6 PM Pacific (9 PM Eastern)
- Thread starter Capt. Factorial
- Start date
The rigged lottery theory is that the NBA *League Office* wanted Ewing in New York for ratings purposes. On the other hand, *Team Front Offices* in a team-by-team vote will probably be less likely to send top picks to NYC/LA/Miami, etc. even when those teams are bad because the turnaround path for those teams can be so short. And of course, there's no reason why the vote couldn't be public.
I guess there's an argument for not wanting to send star players to the bad teams that could potentially ruin them, but if you set up a system that accomplishes that, then you're almost certain to create an underclass of say 5 teams that has very little chance of ever breaking out of the cellar. I don't think the NBA wants that from a competitive standpoint. If there were a plan for a B-League and metric-football-style relegation, then I think a proposal like that is more palatable.
I agree that this seems better than using a single-year record, but I think it would have to be combined with some sort of system that locked teams out of, say, the top four for a year or two after hitting the lottery, or you'd get situations where the Cavs land LeBron and then have top five picks for the next two or three years because their aggregate record remains poor. Unless that's the sort of thing you really want to see, but it would encourage 3-5 year tanks instead of just one-year tanks, and that could really get ugly.
Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, my suggestion is not that the front office vote sets the lottery, but that there is no lottery at all and the front office vote sets the pick directly. This sort of system would be able to immediately react to the results of the previous year's draft, so it wouldn't have the "lag" that a 3-5 year aggregate record would likely have.
I've never quite understood the proposals that suggest the tournament style you discuss here. The entire point of the lottery since it has been instituted has been to "reward" the worst teams because they need the most help, with a randomization component that was designed to discourage outright tanking (but which seems to not do a great job of that). Tournament suggestions (or others that reward the best pick to mediocre teams rather than the worst teams) seem to completely turn the rationale of the draft order as established over the past few decades on its head. I really thought most folks agreed at a basic level that the best picks should go to the worst teams, and the majority of discussion surrounding changing the draft order mechanism revolved around eliminating tanking. Then people start embracing tournament-style solutions that eliminate tanking, but do it at the expense of overturning the rationale of the draft and potentially creating a permanent underclass of teams. And I just don't know if people really want to do that, or if they just see a clever mechanism that discourages tanking and favor the bright shiny new idea without considering the other consequences of it.
I guess there's an argument for not wanting to send star players to the bad teams that could potentially ruin them, but if you set up a system that accomplishes that, then you're almost certain to create an underclass of say 5 teams that has very little chance of ever breaking out of the cellar. I don't think the NBA wants that from a competitive standpoint. If there were a plan for a B-League and metric-football-style relegation, then I think a proposal like that is more palatable.
I agree that this seems better than using a single-year record, but I think it would have to be combined with some sort of system that locked teams out of, say, the top four for a year or two after hitting the lottery, or you'd get situations where the Cavs land LeBron and then have top five picks for the next two or three years because their aggregate record remains poor. Unless that's the sort of thing you really want to see, but it would encourage 3-5 year tanks instead of just one-year tanks, and that could really get ugly.
Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, my suggestion is not that the front office vote sets the lottery, but that there is no lottery at all and the front office vote sets the pick directly. This sort of system would be able to immediately react to the results of the previous year's draft, so it wouldn't have the "lag" that a 3-5 year aggregate record would likely have.
I've never quite understood the proposals that suggest the tournament style you discuss here. The entire point of the lottery since it has been instituted has been to "reward" the worst teams because they need the most help, with a randomization component that was designed to discourage outright tanking (but which seems to not do a great job of that). Tournament suggestions (or others that reward the best pick to mediocre teams rather than the worst teams) seem to completely turn the rationale of the draft order as established over the past few decades on its head. I really thought most folks agreed at a basic level that the best picks should go to the worst teams, and the majority of discussion surrounding changing the draft order mechanism revolved around eliminating tanking. Then people start embracing tournament-style solutions that eliminate tanking, but do it at the expense of overturning the rationale of the draft and potentially creating a permanent underclass of teams. And I just don't know if people really want to do that, or if they just see a clever mechanism that discourages tanking and favor the bright shiny new idea without considering the other consequences of it.
But the original lottery gave equal odds to everyone. It effectively killed tanking, then the NY Knicks got Ewing and everyone lost it and demanded the bad teams get better odds.
Anyways, I don't necessarily think you need to "reward" bad teams. Especially when the poorly managed teams seem to do things like constantly finish 7/8/9/10 in the standings and get locked out of picks and in the off chance they get them, they blow them. So why not kill any incentive for "smart" FOs to game the system and put the future stars on teams that they might be able to instantaneously boost into the playoffs?
It is, 100% a complete change in philosophy from the last 35 years. But would it be wrong?
Anyways, I don't necessarily think you need to "reward" bad teams. Especially when the poorly managed teams seem to do things like constantly finish 7/8/9/10 in the standings and get locked out of picks and in the off chance they get them, they blow them. So why not kill any incentive for "smart" FOs to game the system and put the future stars on teams that they might be able to instantaneously boost into the playoffs?
It is, 100% a complete change in philosophy from the last 35 years. But would it be wrong?
I think right/wrong probably aren't really the words I would want to use. To be honest, the NBA should implement whatever philosophy regarding the order of draft picks that they (collectively) prefer. I think various different philosophies have various different positive/negative consequences and it's all about how you weight those consequences.
For my preference, I think the danger of creating a permanent (or at least semi-permanent) underclass of teams is a negative consequence of the tournament methods that significantly outweighs any other negative consequences of other methods (such as tanking, the chance that talented players are drafted onto bad teams and don't reach their potential). And in addition to the general fear of that permanent underclass, I have the specific fear that the Kings would likely be one of the teams that settled into the permanent underclass. To be fair, we've been in an underclass for the last 15 years, so some might ask what's the difference, but at least our fanbase currently has the hope of getting out of our funk and into the playoffs with good drafting and savvy front office moves. If we were told that once we fall to be one of the worst teams in the league, we'd never pick above #5 and we'd probably be permanently bad, the fanbase might evaporate...and then so would the franchise.
I find that potential consequence worse than tanking, so for me it's not a change in philosophy that I would favor.
For my preference, I think the danger of creating a permanent (or at least semi-permanent) underclass of teams is a negative consequence of the tournament methods that significantly outweighs any other negative consequences of other methods (such as tanking, the chance that talented players are drafted onto bad teams and don't reach their potential). And in addition to the general fear of that permanent underclass, I have the specific fear that the Kings would likely be one of the teams that settled into the permanent underclass. To be fair, we've been in an underclass for the last 15 years, so some might ask what's the difference, but at least our fanbase currently has the hope of getting out of our funk and into the playoffs with good drafting and savvy front office moves. If we were told that once we fall to be one of the worst teams in the league, we'd never pick above #5 and we'd probably be permanently bad, the fanbase might evaporate...and then so would the franchise.
I find that potential consequence worse than tanking, so for me it's not a change in philosophy that I would favor.
