Race to the Bottom thread
- Thread starter iowamcnabb
- Start date
QWERTYLICIOUS
Starter
So, in other words, the top 7 teams in each conference at the all star break are the top 7 seeds in the postseason 2+ months later? Am I understanding you correctly? And, even if, let's say, a top 7 seed ends up going on a cold streak and "loses" their way out of finishing the regular season as a top 7 seed in their respective conference, they still make the postseason, and are awarded the seed they ended up with at the all star break? So, technically, a fringe team at the all star break that goes on a massive streak to end the regular season can still fail to make the postseason, even if they end up with a better regular season record at the end of 82 games than 1 or more of the teams that qualify just on the basis of having a better record by the all star break?
Bruh...
QWERTYLICIOUS
Starter
Won't lie. I kinda wanted the infamy of losing out and still ending up with the 5th pick. Because, you know...#Kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaangz!!!
SLAB
Hall of Famer
Won't lie. I kinda wanted the infamy of losing out and still ending up with the 5th pick. Because, you know...#Kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaangz!!!
We’re 100% getting the 5th pick and we’ll love him.
Caccia
Starter
Who?
SLAB
Hall of Famer
Good news is the 5th pick, whoever it ends up being, is really good.
SLAB
Hall of Famer
We’re 5 deep in the really good potential? Yeah, give us 5. We’ll be happy to love and cheer him instead of living through the Luka / Bagley wars again.
Plus we’d 100% pick the wrong guy higher up, so make the other teams do it for us.
Yeah Caleb Wilson and Kingston Flemings (the projected 4th and 5th pick right now) would be easy top 3 picks in most years and in contention for #1 in years that didn't have a zion, Wemby, etc. Both would be incredible starts to a rebuild.
Theres a tier break at 6, but it's not like a drastic drop off. But the top 5 is so good, all 5 id believe in as transformative talents
iowamcnabb
Hall of Famer
And it seems to depend on who you ask. Some have been putting Brown Jr above both Flemings and Wagler.
eleventy
G-League
you asked this: "So, in other words, the top 7 teams in each conference at the all star break are the top 7 seeds in the postseason 2+ months later?"
actually, all 8 playoff TEAMS (in each conference) will be determined at the all-star break, but the actual "seeding" doesn't take place until just before the playoffs begin and the team which winds up being seeded #8 knows they must defend that spot in a "play in" series (set up to favor them). so, less sitting players ("rest") in the week preceding the playoffs.
i think you are going out of your way to nitpick.
but to answer your "questions":
(first a correction: to repeat myself, at the break, you establish the 16 playoff teams, - but not the actual ORDER of the seeding, just the teams that will be IN the playoffs - final record still determines the ORDER - but the team which WINDS UP #8 knows that they will have to face a play-in team - in each conference - but with the odds stacked in their favor).
but you have correctly identified a problem:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, even if, let's say, a playoff seed ends up going on a cold streak and "loses" their way out of finishing the regular season as a playoff seed in their respective conference, they still make the postseason, and are awarded the seed they ended up with at the all star break, perhaps for them, it is not a "blind draw". perhaps that team (that played it's way out of a playoff seed) gets the #15 or #16 seed and the REST is a "blind draw"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, that COULD happen and there would have to be a way to address that, because a team that "fell out" of their playoff seeding (possibly a Milwaukee, who fell out because in game #55, giannis suffers a season ending injury) could "lose" that playoff seeding - perhaps you can figure out a way to "make all teams whole" but i am primarily interested in A) eliminating "tanking" and B) giving bad teams a way to improve - i'm less concerned with teams "in the middle".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) this is still "in development", but the prime directive is "eliminate reasons for bad teams to tank"
i think this would eliminate bad teams "tanking"
2) yes, "playoff teams would be established based on record at the all-star break (after approximately 50 games - each team plays the same number of games by the break), but there would have to be a way to "reseed" teams that go on a "cold streak"
but ORDER of the playoff seeding would still be established by the final records
3) as to your question about "a non-seeded team (a 'lottery' team) getting super hot and winning 20 of their last 30 but is still not in the playoffs",, well, there IS a way to make that eighth seed and if a team is THAT hot, they should stand a good chance. but they would still be a (blind draw) "lottery" team (one of 16 of them), based on their record at the break.
you might say, "what if a team just lost like crazy (to GET in the lottery), then turned it on in the last 30 games to get BOTH (a lottery pick AND playoff seeding)?
i doubt that teams would "tank" (early in the season) just to get into a 16 team "blind draw lottery" (with only an 8 seed as the reward in playoff seeding), but i think that "risk" is worth taking (the current system must be changed).
the lottery could be "weighted" to help bad teams (but not enough so that "tanking" came back into play). the "weighting" could take into account a team's "record over the last five years" or some such criterion.
now, as to your contention that REALLY bad teams might only get a #13 pick (after the blind draw) and not have a chance to "improve" (much - remaining bad), that IS a problem. perhaps here is where my previously suggested plan (that there be a "player draft" at the close of each season, similar to an expansion draft, but where the number of "protected" players differ by playoff seeding - or playoff "performance").
perhaps the top seeds in each conference by playoff seeding - or by playoff "performance" - get to protect "less" players" (maybe only six or seven) while the #5 or #6 seeded teams (either before the playoffs actually begin, or afterwards, when their "performance" - IN the playoffs - can be taken into account) get to protect nine or ten.
and maybe "better" teams (established by playoff seeding), can lose MORE players in that "draft" than teams lower in the standings - say "two" or even "three" players as opposed to "one" player exposed and lost by middling or "bad" teams.
the "selecting" order of those unprotected players could be determined by a formula that took into account how recently, or how often bottom feeders had succeeded (or not succeeded) in the past five or ten years.
or something like that.
QWERTYLICIOUS
Starter
Yeah, no, sorry, this idea is dumb.
Because...why the H-E-Double Hockey sticks would I give a crap about the 2nd half of my team's regular season if, in the first half, they don't find themselves in the top 8, EVEN if they're within striking distance of the top 8 heading into the break???
Respectfully, your proposal would essentially be a slap in the face to any franchise who has heated up post-all star break to elevate themselves into a playoff position after a rather sub-par 1st half of the season.
Also, I was not implying that a team would "tank" in the 1st half of the season...I was/am talking about those instances where a team just goes on a bad streak, or is hit with the injury bug, in the 1st half. Even if that team remains within striking distance of jumping into the top 8 during the 2nd half of the season, they shouldn't be considered for the postseason many months later, during which anything can happen, and they can easily jump one of the lower seeds?
So, theoretically speaking, let's say the Kings sit at, oh I don't know, 30-25 (55 games), heading into the All Star break, and find themselves 3 games out of the 8th seed, but proceed to go on a massive run after the All Star break, finishing with a 50-32 record, good for a top 8 record in the conference, they shouldn't be rewarded for their second half performance simply because they finished out of playoff contention after the 1st half of the season?
Good luck getting this to pass the casual fan's eye test...
Also, with your proposal, please explain to me how, as a fan, the 2nd half of the season would interest me enough to want to pay attention knowing that my team, no matter where they end up in the standings after 82 games, wouldn't even make the postseason because of a subpar 1st half?
Because...why the H-E-Double Hockey sticks would I give a crap about the 2nd half of my team's regular season if, in the first half, they don't find themselves in the top 8, EVEN if they're within striking distance of the top 8 heading into the break???
Respectfully, your proposal would essentially be a slap in the face to any franchise who has heated up post-all star break to elevate themselves into a playoff position after a rather sub-par 1st half of the season.
Also, I was not implying that a team would "tank" in the 1st half of the season...I was/am talking about those instances where a team just goes on a bad streak, or is hit with the injury bug, in the 1st half. Even if that team remains within striking distance of jumping into the top 8 during the 2nd half of the season, they shouldn't be considered for the postseason many months later, during which anything can happen, and they can easily jump one of the lower seeds?
So, theoretically speaking, let's say the Kings sit at, oh I don't know, 30-25 (55 games), heading into the All Star break, and find themselves 3 games out of the 8th seed, but proceed to go on a massive run after the All Star break, finishing with a 50-32 record, good for a top 8 record in the conference, they shouldn't be rewarded for their second half performance simply because they finished out of playoff contention after the 1st half of the season?
Good luck getting this to pass the casual fan's eye test...
Also, with your proposal, please explain to me how, as a fan, the 2nd half of the season would interest me enough to want to pay attention knowing that my team, no matter where they end up in the standings after 82 games, wouldn't even make the postseason because of a subpar 1st half?
eleventy
G-League
getting an "oops, ran into problems" when i try to post my reply... will try again later
eleventy
G-League
trying again:
taking your questions in reverser order:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Also, with your proposal, please explain to me how, as a fan, the 2nd half of the season would interest me enough to want to pay attention knowing that my team, no matter where they end up in the standings after 82 games, wouldn't even make the postseason because of a subpar 1st half?"
answer:
they HAVE a path to the postseason (in fact, EIGHT teams have that opportunity - 4 in each conference) - the "play-in" (for the 8th seed in each conference). if they had a subpar 1st half, they aren't very good anyway, but at least HALF the teams angling for a play-in path to the #8 seed WILL have that possibility KEEPING their fans (even you) engaged.
and, there are the things we are looking at now - even though the kings are "out of it" - we would still create a list of draft eligible players we would be interested in (NOT knowing if we would have the #1, #7 or #15 pick - hope springs eternal).
plus, with a "player draft/protect some-expose some", scenario, you would and be looking at your own team's weaknesses and identifying players you would want to select for your team from other teams.
"how, as a fan, the 2nd half of the season would interest me enough to want to pay attention"
the kings are the worst team in hoops and you ARE still paying attention, aren't you?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So, theoretically speaking, let's say the Kings sit at, oh I don't know, 30-25 (55 games), heading into the All Star break, and find themselves 3 games out of the 8th seed, but proceed to go on a massive run after the All Star break, finishing with a 50-32 record, good for a top 8 record in the conference, they shouldn't be rewarded for their second half performance simply because they finished out of playoff contention after the 1st half of the season?"
answer:
yes, the kings (in your scenario) should NOT be rewarded - they knew they had to finish in the top 8 and they failed to do that (by three games)
but their season isn't over - in fact, they are well positioned for the "play-in" (to get the #8 seed - so are three other teams in the west and four in the east). do you mean to say that you would stop following a team that got hot after the break? bullcrap. your team is 30-25 and still has a chance to win the #8 seed and you're going to what - watch spring training?
every year, "some" team that finishes in the top eight loses to a lower seeded team in the first round of the playoffs. the kings (#3) lost to the warriors (#6). one year a #8 defeated a #1 (in the first round - i guess you want a "do-over")
the kings were "not rewarded" for their regular season record (except in "home court advantage") and who thinks that was "unfair"?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Also, I was not implying that a team would "tank" in the 1st half of the season...I was/am talking about those instances where a team just goes on a bad streak, or is hit with the injury bug, in the 1st half. Even if that team remains within striking distance of jumping into the top 8 during the 2nd half of the season, they shouldn't be considered for the postseason many months later, during which anything can happen, and they can easily jump one of the lower seeds?"
answer:
"... so, I was not implying that a team would "tank" in the 1st half of the season...
well, good, we've eliminated "tanking" - and that is the main point.
and they still have a path into the playoffs (and there will be fans of three other western conference teams also holding out hope).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because...why the H-E-Double Hockey sticks would I give a crap about the 2nd half of my team's regular season if, in the first half, they don't find themselves in the top 8, EVEN if they're within striking distance of the top 8 heading into the break???"
again, they HAVE a path into the playoffs
and they have a draft lottery coming up and have to be prepared to pick at ANY spot
and a dispersal draft - so you want to watch max/nique/devin and see who most needs to be upgraded
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yeah, no, sorry, this idea is dumb."
answer:
No, yeah, not sorry - i think there is a spring training game on today.
QWERTYLICIOUS
Starter
In an earlier post, you said:
And now, you say:
My advice is for you to pick one and stick with it, and not jump around too much...
If you're saying, in your first post, that the NBA should establish the top 8 seeds after the first half of the season, then why, as a Kings fan, would I be MORE engaged than I already am this season (which, yes, I will admit that I still am) knowing that I finished the 1st half outside of the top 8, and have absolutely no chance of making the postseason, even if the team went on a crazy run in the 2nd half and finished with a top 8 record?
Are we really trying to imply that the 2nd half of the season shouldn't matter when it comes to playoff seeding at the end of the day, and should only matter for draft position? GTFO of here if that is the case. And, if that were to be the case, then why even play any games at all after the first 50? Why not just propose a more simpler solution of reducing the number of games to 50, and hosting the all star festivities after the NBA Finals (kind of like how the NFL did it back in the day)????
And now, you say:
My advice is for you to pick one and stick with it, and not jump around too much...
If you're saying, in your first post, that the NBA should establish the top 8 seeds after the first half of the season, then why, as a Kings fan, would I be MORE engaged than I already am this season (which, yes, I will admit that I still am) knowing that I finished the 1st half outside of the top 8, and have absolutely no chance of making the postseason, even if the team went on a crazy run in the 2nd half and finished with a top 8 record?
Are we really trying to imply that the 2nd half of the season shouldn't matter when it comes to playoff seeding at the end of the day, and should only matter for draft position? GTFO of here if that is the case. And, if that were to be the case, then why even play any games at all after the first 50? Why not just propose a more simpler solution of reducing the number of games to 50, and hosting the all star festivities after the NBA Finals (kind of like how the NFL did it back in the day)????
I like the idea of just making the regular season shorter. Get to the part everyone cares about (the playoffs) quicker and stop allowing teams to rest healthy players.
Or, since the NBA is never going to cut back on the number of games and reduce their paychecks, why not reset the standings on January 1? We have the Emirates Cup in November and December for prize money and teams get just over two months to figure out their rotation and make roster changes early in the season. The stats still count, players get to make their pitch for All Star selections. Then it all goes back to 0-0 in January and the regular season runs until mid-April like it does now.
That way if you find yourself at say 8-24 when the calendar year ticks over, it doesn't matter. You have a new 50 game season starting to try to earn your way into the playoffs. There might still be some tanking when we get to the second half of March but it'll be a few weeks worth instead of a few months cause nobody is impossibly far behind. What do we lose in this scenario? Seems like it mostly solves the problem without needing to make any other logistical changes.
Or, since the NBA is never going to cut back on the number of games and reduce their paychecks, why not reset the standings on January 1? We have the Emirates Cup in November and December for prize money and teams get just over two months to figure out their rotation and make roster changes early in the season. The stats still count, players get to make their pitch for All Star selections. Then it all goes back to 0-0 in January and the regular season runs until mid-April like it does now.
That way if you find yourself at say 8-24 when the calendar year ticks over, it doesn't matter. You have a new 50 game season starting to try to earn your way into the playoffs. There might still be some tanking when we get to the second half of March but it'll be a few weeks worth instead of a few months cause nobody is impossibly far behind. What do we lose in this scenario? Seems like it mostly solves the problem without needing to make any other logistical changes.
eleventy
G-League
i think you are "playing"
while i'm not sure of the chronology between my two statements, it sounds like the "second" is part of an "evolvement".
in the first (statement) i identify the problem.
in the "second" part, i pose a solution (i DID say that this was an "evolving" plan).
it seems like your goal is "gotcha"
you said:
"If you're saying, in your first post, that the NBA should establish the top 8 seeds after the first half of the season, then why, as a Kings fan, would I be MORE engaged than I already am this season"
answer:
because there is a "second chance" for half the "non-playoff" teams. 8 of them (four in each conference) "play off" setting up a "play-in" set of games between the winner in each conference and the #8 playoff seed in each conference.
that won't help the kings (if we were starting this this year) as they will likely be in "the bottom four" in the west, but you have a different draft to plan for as well as a "dispersal draft" (annually)
get it?
BuddyBuckets
Bench
In addition to never letting the bottom climb out, It made me think of the unwanted (or maybe wanted?) consequences. Consider certain teams
Thunder - 22/23
Rockets -23/24
Pistons - 24/25
I'm sure you can find an example or two every year. Young teams that finish in the middle but are clearly on the rise. Now they are going to gift these teams another pick.
The only 2 real middle teams I can think of are the Kings/Bulls. Teams who never really bottomed out and tried to just maintain play-in level.
QWERTYLICIOUS
Starter
Sooooo.....top 4 West + top 4 East???
eleventy
G-League
well, yes, this is another way, kind of like strike shortened seasons, where there was one set of seedings "pre-jan 1" and a second playoff seeding "post jan 1"
whozit
Starter
The first 30 games need to mean more than just the Emirates cup...... That is a long preseason.
Perhaps the top of the standings can challenge the eighth seed if for some reason they are not in the top eight at the end of the season.
eleventy
G-League
kind of
top 4 OF THE BOTTOM EIGHT, west, same in east
the bottom four in each conference are SOL
SOMEONE has to suffer.
eleventy
G-League
yes, the top 4 NON-PLAYOFF teams in each conference can play off to select ONE team (in each conference) to "play-in" against the #8 seed (in each conference). but the odds will be against them.
and if you do it right, you might be able to "replace" the "regular season cup games" with two four team "tournaments" (maybe even HOLD those tournaments in the emirates - right after the regular season ends in mid-april)
to clarify, when you said this:
"... if for some reason they are not in the top eight at the end of the season."
they will NOT be in the top eight
because the top eight will be set in stone at the all-star break (by record)
the only thing to be determined will be what spot each team occupies - determined by final standings.
Last edited:
QWERTYLICIOUS
Starter
I kind of see where you're trying to go with this, but sorry (respectfully), I don't like it at all. Nor do I see how it would eliminate tanking.
Last edited:
eleventy
G-League
it ends tanking becaue the lottery becomes a blind draw between 16 teams (8 in each conference - i should keep saying, "this is a plan for AFTER expanision boosts each conference to 16 members")
ok?
what don't you like about it?
gunks
Hall of Famer
Don't think he's gonna slide to 5 my friend, although I agree with the premise.
(Don't think he's gonna slide past 1 overall honestly)
Tetsujin
The Game Thread Dude
Maybe not but it also speaks to the absolute strength of this class that there’s an argument for him going third overall.
Not only that, but I wouldn't be shocked or surprised by it. Peterson and Booz are very deserving if they go ahead of AJ.
Which, again, absurd that's even a question