Solutions to the tanking epidemic

[KingsFanSince85]

Hopefully the mods will allow this thread to stay in the Kings Rap forum as it does relate to the Kings and their current predicament rather than relegate it to the NBA forum.

Anyway, with all the talk going on about this topic, I thought it might be cool to have a dedicated thread where we can post our ideas toward a potential solution.

A co-worker and I were talking about it the other day and we talked about a couple different scenarios. While we both acknowledged that no solution is perfect nor will all agree on what should be done, I think most agree that the current situation is beyond ridiculous and that something should be done.

In other threads I've mentioned a couple of options I'd be ok with such as going back to the old format where all non-playoff teams have the same odds. However, that option could see teams that barely missed the postseason end up with a top pick which I believe the majority wouldn't want to see. So I thought only the bottom 10 should qualify and that the other 4 should get slotted by inverse record.

However, after thinking about it more and bantering back and forth with my co-worker, we came up with an idea we liked better and could likely garner heavy fan interest.

How about fielding a single elimination tournament for the non-playoff teams to be held during the downtime before the postseason begins or simultaneously with the 1st round? The tourney wouldn't last longer than 1 week and only consist of 4 games for the champion and runner up (who earn the #1 and #2 picks respectively) and consolation game (for #3 and #4). The teams eliminated from the top 4 picks would then be slotted in inverse order of regular season record.

All 14 teams would be in a 16 team bracket format with the top 2 teams (with the best record) earning 1st round byes. The tourney could be played at a neutral site (e.g., Las Vegas) to limit travel or the higher seed could host and have home court advantage.

As the standings are at this moment, the field would look something like this:

#1 Denver Nuggets
#16 BYE

#8 Chicago Bulls
#9 Sacramento Kings

#5 Los Angeles Lakers
#12 Atlanta Hawks

#4 Charlotte Hornets
#13 Memphis Grizzlies
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#6 New York Knicks
#11 Dallas Mavericks

#3 Detroit Pistons
#14 Phoenix Suns

#7 New Jersey Nets
#10 Orlando Magic

#2 Los Angeles Clippers
#15 BYE

Having this tournament would largely eliminate the incentive to tank during the regular season -- as the very worst team could only guarantee the #5 pick and would also not have home court advantage in any tourney game in the event the games weren't all played at a neutral site -- and it could garner a lot of interest from fans of the teams involved thus extra revenue.

Naysayers could quickly point to the fringe playoff teams having a distinct advantage of winning the top picks since they've proven to be better teams over 82 games, but that's the beauty of the single elimination format. Anybody can win one game on any given night. Of course, this idea could be tweaked to an 8 team bracket involving just the bottom 8 teams, but then you might have some late regular season tanking of teams trying to lose their way into the bottom 8.

I like the idea of ALL 14 non-playoff games being involved and it not being decided by lottery odds but rather by the teams themselves.

Feel free to mock this idea, add to it or post your own idea(s).

 

[allrightythen]

I understand the idea, but are players really going to be all that motivated to play hard for a better draft pick? Do players care all that much about draft position?

 

[KingsFanSince85]

I understand the idea, but are players really going to be all that motivated to play hard for a better draft pick? Do players care all that much about draft position?

You could say the same thing about the final month of the regular season (or once they’ve been eliminated) for most non playoff teams.

While some players may not care about the draft position or the possibility of their team improving from it, most of them do love to compete. And if the coaches are fielding their best players and are motivated to win, you’re gonna get more competitive games than we’re seeing now. That’s the idea behind it.

 

[allrightythen]

You could say the same thing about the final month of the regular season (or once they’ve been eliminated) for most non playoff teams.

While some players may not care about the draft position or the possibility of their team improving from it, most of them do love to compete. And if the coaches are fielding their best players and are motivated to win, you’re gonna get more competitive games than we’re seeing now. That’s the idea behind it.

That's true about players in a tank year right now.

I do see how this could keep teams competing until the end of the season and not field these ridiculous g-league teams. I wouldn't be against trying it. Even if the unintended consequences make it a failure it might just be worth it.

 

[John Galt]

I'd rather have a rotating draft order that doesn't have anything to do with WL records. Every 30 years, you get a #1 pick, then you get some other pick (it doesn't have to circle 1-30 in order).

Wipes out ALL incentive to tank in any way shape or form. Not even playoff bubble teams. Nobody ever has a reason to play to lose.

Yes, it means you could have a juggernaut like the Warriors picking first sometimes. But not any more often than anyone else.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Naysayers could quickly point to the fringe playoff teams having a distinct advantage of winning the top picks since they've proven to be better teams over 82 games, but that's the beauty of the single elimination format. Anybody can win one game on any given night.

This sort of thing has been brought up before, but it misses the fundamental point of the lottery. The point of the lottery isn't to distribute the top picks in the draft in some "neat-o way". If it were, then there are all sorts of proposals, like The Wheel, or a postseason tournament, or having all the GMs do a massive karaoke battle, and whatever is neatest, then that's what we do!

But the point isn't to distribute the picks in as fun a way as possible. The point is to try to give the best picks to the worst teams, and vice versa. That's why in league documents the draft is actually called the "Competitive Balance Draft". A postseason tournament will have the long-term effect of giving the best picks to the middle-of-the-road teams and only middle-of-the-road picks to the worst teams, who most need the best picks.

The reason we have a lottery isn't to throw fun into the equation, it is specifically to reduce tanking by reducing the connection between record and draft position. Of course, at the same time it's not a perfect solution because the win/loss columns can't tell the difference between a legitimate loss (bad team) and a tanking loss (not so bad team pretending to be bad). Trying to balance out the desire to eliminate tanking and the desire to award the best picks to the actual worst teams is why the NBA has shaken the whole process up several times, and it has gone from equal odds for all teams in the lottery (the "envelope" era) to the current odds where record has a lot to do with it, and next year will move somewhat in between.

Still, I hold that none of the proposed solutions have ever come close to accomplishing the dual goal of 1) Awarding the best picks to the worst teams and 2) Removing the ability of mediocre teams to imitate the worst teams to their own benefit. It's easy to do one or the other. I happen to believe that both goals can be accomplished by throwing record out of the window altogether, and having the draft order decided by a composite of rankings from all of the front offices in the league, but this idea hasn't gained much traction.

 

[HndsmCelt]

This is not original but I like it: All teams not in the play off get 1 lotto ball. Then teams in the lotto get one extra ball for each year since they were in the play offs. Teams with a top 3 pick are not allowed a top 3 the next year. It is possible to make this top 5, I could go either way on that.

 

[rosa u podne]

I'd rather have a rotating draft order that doesn't have anything to do with WL records. Every 30 years, you get a #1 pick, then you get some other pick (it doesn't have to circle 1-30 in order).

Wipes out ALL incentive to tank in any way shape or form. Not even playoff bubble teams. Nobody ever has a reason to play to lose.

Yes, it means you could have a juggernaut like the Warriors picking first sometimes. But not any more often than anyone else.

I like your idea as it solves a problem of intentionally tanking. However, I have also a problem with so many incompetitive regular season games. When a team establish play-off position (or out of PO), they stop competing, so the teams who played them before are at disadvantage.

My proposal is to make one more lottery. Each win counts as one ping-pong ball. Out of PO teams play lottery for 1-14th pick, PO teams play for the rest. That way each win counts.

For bad teams it becomes more difficult to rise quickly. Thay would have to "play the right way", "establish winning culture" and make smart FO decisions, before being rewarded with better chance for top few picks. When they eventaully win lottery, they are already prepared to really take advantage of it, and start contendning in comming years.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

But the point isn't to distribute the picks in as fun a way as possible. The point is to try to give the best picks to the worst teams, and vice versa. That's why in league documents the draft is actually called the "Competitive Balance Draft". A postseason tournament will have the long-term effect of giving the best picks to the middle-of-the-road teams and only middle-of-the-road picks to the worst teams, who most need the best picks.

Totally get what you're saying. And I prefaced by stating that there is no such thing as a perfect solution. But giving the best picks to the worst teams system isn't working ... not in the NBA at least. Forget "Competitive Balance Draft", we don't even have "Competitive Balance Regular Season". Not when franchises are often tanking by mid-season if not sooner.

It wasn't working back in the early 80's which is why they went to the lottery in 1985. And once they tweaked the system to offer different odds, the tanking problem has increased over time. Now it's a gigantic problem.

While I get that the tournament solution is very, very unlikely and far-fetched -- I still believe it is a better system than the one they've got today. Because of the intentional tanking, we really don't know who the worst teams really are anyway. So why should they be rewarded for the behaviour? I know how much the NBA loves it's $$ so the tourney thing at least seems to check 2 boxes.

That said I'd be totally cool with going back to the 'envelope' method. If the downside is that the very worst teams don't get the best picks and some of the better teams do -- so be it. At least teams wouldn't be incentivized to lose and fans would see better lineups fielded and a better product. And it's not like the worst teams always get the top picks now anyway. Look at the Kings as a prime example. Even when they had the worst record they ended up #4 and more often than not find themselves around #7 despite being a bad team most years.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

This is not original but I like it: All teams not in the play off get 1 lotto ball. Ten teams in the lotto get one extra ball for each year since they were in the play offs. Teams with a top 3 pick are not allowed a top 3 the next year. It is possible to make this top 5, I could go either way on that.

This is a far better system than what they have in place today. No doubt.

I like it.

 

[whozit]

This sort of thing has been brought up before, but it misses the fundamental point of the lottery. The point of the lottery isn't to distribute the top picks in the draft in some "neat-o way". If it were, then there are all sorts of proposals, like The Wheel, or a postseason tournament, or having all the GMs do a massive karaoke battle, and whatever is neatest, then that's what we do!

But the point isn't to distribute the picks in as fun a way as possible. The point is to try to give the best picks to the worst teams, and vice versa. That's why in league documents the draft is actually called the "Competitive Balance Draft". A postseason tournament will have the long-term effect of giving the best picks to the middle-of-the-road teams and only middle-of-the-road picks to the worst teams, who most need the best picks.

The reason we have a lottery isn't to throw fun into the equation, it is specifically to reduce tanking by reducing the connection between record and draft position. Of course, at the same time it's not a perfect solution because the win/loss columns can't tell the difference between a legitimate loss (bad team) and a tanking loss (not so bad team pretending to be bad). Trying to balance out the desire to eliminate tanking and the desire to award the best picks to the actual worst teams is why the NBA has shaken the whole process up several times, and it has gone from equal odds for all teams in the lottery (the "envelope" era) to the current odds where record has a lot to do with it, and next year will move somewhat in between.

Still, I hold that none of the proposed solutions have ever come close to accomplishing the dual goal of 1) Awarding the best picks to the worst teams and 2) Removing the ability of mediocre teams to imitate the worst teams to their own benefit. It's easy to do one or the other. I happen to believe that both goals can be accomplished by throwing record out of the window altogether, and having the draft order decided by a composite of rankings from all of the front offices in the league, but this idea hasn't gained much traction.

On paper it's looks like a wonderful idea. But I also think it looks at the best of what people are capable of, not what they naturally are.

Politics in business, politics in government is nasty business and often not on the up and up. This solution brings politics to the forefront. I would pass.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Reposting my comments from the earlier discussion we had (in the NBA forum, here: https://community.kingsfans.com/threads/how-would-you-fix-the-draft-split.68976/)

I maintain that the problem isn't the draft, it's that limits on free agency (and trades, to some extent) make the draft appear to some teams as their only means of getting better.

Zach Lowe alluded to this in his article about the possible playoff play-in tournament (which I think may make a lot of sense) the other day:

There is no perfect solution to any of this. The only way to eradicate tanking is a complete overhaul of how NBA teams acquire talent, and no one has the stomach for that. A play-in tournament -- and this proposed play-in tournament specifically -- is worth discussing, and that discussion will probably intensify over the next few years.

I think they should try the play-in system and shorten the first round proper to five games again. Fewer teams will give up on the season if they think they have a shot at an upset in the play-in, and then facing the 1 seed isn't as daunting in five games, as opposed to seven.

 

[kingsboi]

another poster alluded to this all ready but what incentive do the players have here to play for better lottery position? I believe some will be down to help their team especially if it helps them get better but not all players will have that mindset. That said, something needs to change, anything...I know they tried tweaking it this season with different odds but the whole system needs a fix and it would be nice to have some small market teams be NBA powerhouses for once rather than the big markets.

 

[Warhawk]

Just a couple thoughts, and nothing too specific/well-thought out as far as mathematical ramifications (I'm sure the Captain will cut this to shreds for some overlooked reason), just some musings (starting simple and getting more complicated (and therefore unlikely) as it progresses).....

Basic: As long as there is a reward tied to win-loss record (better lottery position), there will be tanking. As such, I like the Captain's idea of GM's ranking teams (except their own). This should hopefully help eliminate tanking as a strategy, as rival GMs won't award a team multiple high picks if they are intentionally not being competitive, or intentionally keeping a barely-"legal" low payroll multiple years (or trying to get around that by signing non-competitive older vets to one-year contracts to keep payroll "acceptable" but not being truly competitive), etc. Not trying to compete in hopes for a draft reward (or trying to superficially circumvent such a system) should not be rewarded with high picks no matter your record.

I also like the idea of not being able to be rewarded in multiple drafts (as stated by many over the years), so maybe if you are awarded the #1 pick in a particular year, the next year you can't get better than top 5, then top 3 the second year, then fully available the third year? Or something similar? You can play with the cutoffs and number of years, I just like this idea in general.

Therefore, implementing both of these should prevent obviously tanking/intentionally non-competitive teams from being rewarded and also prevent a situation where a particular team is awarded #1 picks in consecutive years.

Added complexity: Maybe some sort of hybrid system can also be considered (such as is currently used for selecting all-stars), where some combination of 50% weight by record and 50% weight by GM voting is used (to prevent GMs from picking on a particular team or teams for political reasons, etc.) while still generally giving the worst teams the worst picks? So for instance, if Team X is blatantly tanking and get the worst record, they get a guaranteed pick no worse than 15 (the lower 50% of picks based on record) but the GM voting would bump them higher if their actions are viewed as being uncompetitive. In this instance, if other teams find the tanking to be blatant, you (as a GM) could rank them like such:

Draft position (last to first):

30. Team X
29. Warriors
28. Rockets
27. Raptors
26. Cavs
....
1. Kings (wishful thinking)

This would penalize Team X in draft position for tanking, however, it could not bump them behind pick 15 as they had the worst record (50% by record, 50% by voting). Combined with the restriction on no multiple #1 picks in a row (implemented after the above process takes place), this should balance out the picks among the truly bad teams while not rewarding the tankers.

More added complexity: I could even be convinced that once the "bottom" (worst) 3 teams are selected from the above process, an equal-weighted lottery be implemented for the top 3 picks.

 

[whozit]

First off, I think this year might be an outlier in terms of the scope of teams tanking.

However I do think several of the ideas presented in this thread and others could be combined. If in a "normal" draft the first five spots are the desired spots we could use that as the first breaking spot. The bottom five teams have equal shots at the top spot with a little twist. The fifth worst team has to play the seventh worst team in a one game "playoff." If the seventh seeded team beats the fifth seeded team, they become the fifth seeded but don't take part in the chance to move up from there. It also locks the fifth seed into the sixth seed bumping the sixth seed into the seventh. The remaining teams (8-14) have a weighted lottery to fix their seeding with the exception that teams .500 or better can't move up.

 

[whozit]

Since we want teams to be competitive and what I suggested above just moves the goal post, you could make it teams 4-7 play a three game competition to determine seeding (4 against 7, 5 against 6). And the teams that don't get bumped from the bottom five remain in the lottery slanted slightly so the better record has a higher chance.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

If you want to keep the idea that the dire teams in absolute need should get the top picks the best thing to do would be to rank teams by composite record over several seasons (3-5).

The only other solution would be to entice teams that aren't getting top picks to remain competitive for as long as possible to get into the playoffs and help out those teams that are lost in the shuffle. I've suggested that maybe giving teams 10-20 some additional signing money that is outside the cap may be a way to do that. Theoretically it would give teams that are closer to going for it a boost in the arm while the teams at the bottom can draft guys 2-3 years away.

The other ideas move away from the help the worst concept. I'm not sure that that is a horrible thing either. It wasn't the worst thing in the world for the league that Duncan wound up with the Spurs instead of the Rick Pitino experiment. LeBron to Cleveland was also fair, though when he left them getting 3 #1s was just... very very strange.

I have to just say I absolutely LOATHE and DETEST "the wheel". I can't say enough bad things about it so I won't.

 

[Iced Espresso]

Mentioned it here before, real simple.

15-30 are picked by record.

1-14 all randomly selected by a single ping pong ball, but there's a bit more to this.

To give long term struggling teams better odds, every year a team is out of the playoffs consecutively, you get 1 extra ping pong ball.

So if you missed the playoffs for 5 years you get 5 balls, 1 year just 1.

Anyone landing a top 3 pick must resort back to just 1 ball the following year if still in the lotto.

Zero reason to tank besides the fringe playoff teams, maybe in no mans land. But I doubt that would happen much.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

If you want to keep the idea that the dire teams in absolute need should get the top picks the best thing to do would be to rank teams by composite record over several seasons (3-5).

I told you guys already, the WNBA has been on this, and the NBA needs to catch up.

 

[John Galt]

Just for the heck of it could somebody list a few of the most egregious tanking examples this year? Not overall roster construction issues, but situational tanking including bizarre starting lineup or in-game lineup decisions?

Was just thinking to myself - are we really a worse team than Phoenix, Memphis, Atlanta, Dallas, Orlando?

Maybe, fan mentality issues notwithstanding...the system isn't really that bad the way it is. We're probably about the 6th worst team in the league fair and square.

 

[Warhawk]

The bottom five teams have equal shots at the top spot with a little twist. The fifth worst team has to play the seventh worst team in a one game "playoff."

Nobody is going to institute a playoff game for teams in the lottery. Isn't going to happen. The game would be after the regular season where players could still get injured and injured players would be encouraged to play to better a team's lottery position. And, if the team is truly bad enough not to win they are getting penalized for not beating a better team? Really?

 

[KingsFanSince85]

We're probably about the 6th worst team in the league fair and square.

Probably so. But is PHX really as bad as their record suggests? I don’t think so. But they’ve been engineering it that way the entire 2nd half. Same goes for another couple franchises.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Probably so. But is PHX really as bad as their record suggests? I don’t think so. But they’ve been engineering it that way the entire 2nd half. Same goes for another couple franchises.

My take on Phoenix is they are Orlando 3 or so years ago. They think they have a core and now they are tanking but they could just as easily be in the same spot in 3 more years. Their organization feels rudderless. Say what you will about the Kings "needlessly" winning, it sure feels like everyone is on the same page even if a large chunk of redditors and message board posters were willing to write the season off 100%.

Of course if we draft a pure #2 or Trae Young I'll take all that back.

 

[east_sac]

Here is my idea.

• All teams who don't make the playoffs get 100 draft points.
• All teams who make the playoffs get 50 draft points.
• Teams can bank left-over draft points for one year
• Playoff teams can't bid until after the 8th pick
• The Lowest ranked team who hasn't won a bid will announce the player that is up for draft or pass to the next lowest ranked team, The team making the announcement must bid on the player with the minimum bid for that pick # e.g. pick 1 minimum bid is 50, picks 2 - 6 are 48, 46, etc. down to the 6th pick. Picks 7 - 14 are 35, Picks 15 - 30 are 15, and 30 - 60 are 5
• Tied bids are allowed one re-bid, and must either increase their bid or drop out of the re-bid. If tied after the re-bid, the lowest ranked team wins
• Once all teams have passed twice, the draft ends.
• Trades can include drafts points.

This way there is no benifit to tanking. And it's up to the team to figure out who they want and how to spend the draft points they have in order to try and get him.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Making s team's draft position be determined by their average record over 3-4 seasons is really the best of a bunch of mediocre-to-bad options. The only surefire way to eliminate tanking is to eliminate the draft itself.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Making s team's draft position be determined by their average record over 3-4 seasons is really the best of a bunch of mediocre-to-bad options. The only surefire way to eliminate tanking is to eliminate the draft itself.

The "plus" to this is a team could be bad for 2-3 years and "prove" they deserve a good pick, and then get 2 or 3 good ones on the way up rather than get a few middling picks on the way down and one crack at a good one. In some ways this system just builds teams that develop players for a few years before they sign with a contender.

However it's now been 15 years since the #1 overall transformed a team overnight and I think that with the way league has morphed into who can shoot the highest 3pt % I think we'll see more #1 overalls that go to horrible teams struggle.

 

[VF21]

Making s team's draft position be determined by their average record over 3-4 seasons is really the best of a bunch of mediocre-to-bad options. The only surefire way to eliminate tanking is to eliminate the draft itself.

And, all things considered, perhaps that's the real solution. Maybe the draft is like that broken down Chevy you've been fixing and fixing and fixing and fixing ... It runs good again, kinda, for a while and then breaks down again. Perhaps it's just time to finally break down and get something new, something that meets your needs now and not what you needed back in the day.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

The "plus" to this is a team could be bad for 2-3 years and "prove" they deserve a good pick, and then get 2 or 3 good ones on the way up rather than get a few middling picks on the way down and one crack at a good one.

It also prevents teams from "dipping their toe" into that tanking game for a year to get a top prospect, and then dipping right back out.

In some ways this system just builds teams that develop players for a few years before they sign with a contender.

I think I lost the thread of the conversation here, but if I'm interpreting the context clues correctly, my rebuttal would be that this would also put the onus back on the ownership, where it belongs, to hire competent people to run their organizations, so that all your prospects don't leave after a few seasons to go to a contender, but instead stick around, because they buy into what you're trying to build there.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

And, all things considered, perhaps that's the real solution. Maybe the draft is like that broken down Chevy you've been fixing and fixing and fixing and fixing ... It runs good again, kinda, for a while and then breaks down again. Perhaps it's just time to finally break down and get something new, something that meets your needs now and not what you needed back in the day.

I support a solution of eliminating the draft, combined with eliminating max salaries, while also making the salary cap a little more rigid, if not going all the way to a hard cap. The problem would go a long way towards resolving itself in a few years.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I think I lost the thread of the conversation here, but if I'm interpreting the context clues correctly, my rebuttal would be that this would also put the onus back on the ownership, where it belongs, to hire competent people to run their organizations, so that all your prospects don't leave after a few seasons to go to a contender, but instead stick around, because they buy into what you're trying to build there.

This is somewhat of a fair point except for the fact that players seem to be recruiting their buddies to their teams and in some ways teams that are doing most everything right get the shaft (OKC springs to mind).

It didn't work as well as planned and I'm sure it would work even less today but Miami absolutely did not deserve what they got with LeBron's dream team.