Race to the Bottom thread

[gunks]

Maybe not but it also speaks to the absolute strength of this class that there’s an argument for him going third overall.

Yussir, good year to be doo doo, that's for sure!

I've been reading that this one could be 6-7 deep with potential franchise changers.

 

[QWERTYLICIOUS]

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?

I've already indicated what I don't like about it...It devalues the 2nd half of the schedule.

 

[eleventy]

I've already indicated what I don't like about it...It devalues the 2nd half of the schedule

alright, let's look at it from your perspective:

you say, "it devalues the 2nd half of the schedule"

in return for:

it eliminates tanking.

IF

it were a one for one trade

and you devalued the 2nd half of the schedule in RETURN for "eliminating tanking"

would that be a fair trade?

mind you, i don't agree that the second half of the schedule is devalued by this plan (none of those bottom eight team - four in each conference - are going to make the playoffs anyway) but if the second half of the schedule would be devalued, WOULD you take that tradeoff to END "tanking"?

(i THINK your answer would be "yes" BUT...)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

who is disadvantaged by the devaluation of the last portion of the schedule?

not the eight playoff teams in each conference - they are named at the all-star break with the seedings to be determined at the close of the regular season

and not the top four non-playoff teams in each conference - they have a potential way to "play in" (to the eighth spot).

so, are the bottom four non-playoff teams in each conference disadvantaged?

well, yes, they are disadvantaged, but it is a disadvantage of their own making (they did not build a good team)

and it is not the "second half of the schedule" that is devalued, but the bottom teams' chances of getting a high pick in the lottery.

they lose a (kind of) "guarantee" that they will receive a "high pick" - except last year, the #13 team got the first pick

but those bottom four teams (currently - actually, only the bottom three) can only be pushed down so far (#1 COULD go to four, #2 to 5, ect)

but i still don't see how they are disadvantaged by the "devaluation of the second half of the schedule".

except that (at worst) they COULD wind up with pick #16 - "could" but not "are going to" - it's a "chance" - they could also get the first or second pick.

so, would you prefer to "protect" those bottom three lottery teams (some of which may be "tanking") in order to "value" the second part of the season?


do you want the bottom eight teams to receive the top eight picks (forget that they caused this problem themselves)?

but to get that outcome, you have to have a system that encourages "tanking" (because if you are in the bottom eight, you are "guaranteed" a pick in the 1-8 range - unless you just want to protect "the top (bottom) three teams.

this is a good draft year (5-7 "valuable" picks)

but keegan's year is looking like only the top three teams truly benefitted from the system (and at least one of them tanked to get there)

so, if three teams benefit from the system we have, how big is that devaluation?


perhaps it could be mitigated by an annual "dispersal draft" where the "best" teams can only "protect" seven or eight players and the "bad" teams can protect eight or nine players.

in any dispersal draft, you select in inverse order of the records (final season standings)

if you think they are "disadvantaged", would "being allowed to select TWO players (from other teams) before a playoff team even got one selection", would that "even things up"?

but i really want to hear a cogent explanation of how the "second half of the season is devalued"

start by saying, "the second half of the season is devalued in THIS particular way."

 

[QWERTYLICIOUS]

alright, let's look at it from your perspective:

you say, "it devalues the 2nd half of the schedule"

in return for:

it eliminates tanking.

IF

it were a one for one trade

and you devalued the 2nd half of the schedule in RETURN for "eliminating tanking"

would that be a fair trade?

mind you, i don't agree that the second half of the schedule is devalued by this plan (none of those bottom eight team - four in each conference - are going to make the playoffs anyway) but if the second half of the schedule would be devalued, WOULD you take that tradeoff to END "tanking"?

(i THINK your answer would be "yes" BUT...)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

who is disadvantaged by the devaluation of the last portion of the schedule?

not the eight playoff teams in each conference - they are named at the all-star break with the seedings to be determined at the close of the regular season

and not the top four non-playoff teams in each conference - they have a potential way to "play in" (to the eighth spot).

so, are the bottom four non-playoff teams in each conference disadvantaged?

well, yes, they are disadvantaged, but it is a disadvantage of their own making (they did not build a good team)

and it is not the "second half of the schedule" that is devalued, but the bottom teams' chances of getting a high pick in the lottery.

they lose a (kind of) "guarantee" that they will receive a "high pick" - except last year, the #13 team got the first pick

but those bottom four teams (currently - actually, only the bottom three) can only be pushed down so far (#1 COULD go to four, #2 to 5, ect)

but i still don't see how they are disadvantaged by the "devaluation of the second half of the schedule".

except that (at worst) they COULD wind up with pick #16 - "could" but not "are going to" - it's a "chance" - they could also get the first or second pick.

so, would you prefer to "protect" those bottom three lottery teams (some of which may be "tanking") in order to "value" the second part of the season?


do you want the bottom eight teams to receive the top eight picks (forget that they caused this problem themselves)?

but to get that outcome, you have to have a system that encourages "tanking" (because if you are in the bottom eight, you are "guaranteed" a pick in the 1-8 range - unless you just want to protect "the top (bottom) three teams.

this is a good draft year (5-7 "valuable" picks)

but keegan's year is looking like only the top three teams truly benefitted from the system (and at least one of them tanked to get there)

so, if three teams benefit from the system we have, how big is that devaluation?


perhaps it could be mitigated by an annual "dispersal draft" where the "best" teams can only "protect" seven or eight players and the "bad" teams can protect eight or nine players.

in any dispersal draft, you select in inverse order of the records (final season standings)

if you think they are "disadvantaged", would "being allowed to select TWO players (from other teams) before a playoff team even got one selection", would that "even things up"?

but i really want to hear a cogent explanation of how the "second half of the season is devalued"

start by saying, "the second half of the season is devalued in THIS particular way."

I've already indicated why I believe the 2nd half of the season would be devalued by your "master plan". I don't need to repeat myself.