The Imperfect Science of Tankology (split from Bizarro thread)
- Thread starter ockingsfan
- Start date
The main question I have is whether or not the data is a reliable predictor. I'm not confident that this data is consistent enough to trust as a predictor of what will happen. I think this data is kind of flat and spread out so if it predicts anything its that anything can happen in a draft. If I was an owner I would hope to have an analytics department with much more reliable data and methodology than what we are dealing with here. Most important I would hope the data I'm using to determine the level of talent in a given draft contains data about players that are actually in that draft.
The other issue with using All-Star appearances as a metric is the "popularity contest" nature of the event. Small market teams get less attention so a player getting drafted into a small market faces reduced exposure and reduced likelihood of an All-Star appearance before actual performance is even considered. This makes the data skewed away from players drafted into small markets.
When I look at the players expected to be in the upcoming draft I see 7-10 players in the top tier. I think if the Kings are in the top 7 they will able to draft a player with really high potential. I think the 8-10 range in this draft could be really solid too but maybe lacking in star potential. As a point of reference I thought last years draft had 6 guys with star potential and in 2016 I liked the top 2 but not much else. 2016 is turning out much better that I thought
.
The other issue with using All-Star appearances as a metric is the "popularity contest" nature of the event. Small market teams get less attention so a player getting drafted into a small market faces reduced exposure and reduced likelihood of an All-Star appearance before actual performance is even considered. This makes the data skewed away from players drafted into small markets.
When I look at the players expected to be in the upcoming draft I see 7-10 players in the top tier. I think if the Kings are in the top 7 they will able to draft a player with really high potential. I think the 8-10 range in this draft could be really solid too but maybe lacking in star potential. As a point of reference I thought last years draft had 6 guys with star potential and in 2016 I liked the top 2 but not much else. 2016 is turning out much better that I thought
.No but a high correlation of all star appearances and hall of fame inductees would tell you your data is likely a reasonable indicator.
Also as the reserves are chosen by the head coaches I think the popularity concern is not high. If we were basing off of starters I would agree.
I’m curious were you get your this draft is 10 deep number? Most put it at 5 or so including Ainge who had the Laker pick not convey past 5.
Also as the reserves are chosen by the head coaches I think the popularity concern is not high. If we were basing off of starters I would agree.
I’m curious were you get your this draft is 10 deep number? Most put it at 5 or so including Ainge who had the Laker pick not convey past 5.
Do coaches really fill out those ballots or is it some assistant or PR person?
It's just the number of guys I have that high. I haven't seen any comments from Ainge saying how he rates the up coming draft. Seems like Ainge not conveying the pick past 5 was just a way of hedging his value vs. the Kings unprotected or Philly 2019 pick.
That's just what I see in this draft. There are more than 10 guys in the upcoming draft who have the physical goods to be great, but not all have shown NBA level skill. From what I've watched I count 7-10 who I think are in that top tier who have shown more than the just the raw material to be great.
It's just the number of guys I have that high. I haven't seen any comments from Ainge saying how he rates the up coming draft. Seems like Ainge not conveying the pick past 5 was just a way of hedging his value vs. the Kings unprotected or Philly 2019 pick.
That's just what I see in this draft. There are more than 10 guys in the upcoming draft who have the physical goods to be great, but not all have shown NBA level skill. From what I've watched I count 7-10 who I think are in that top tier who have shown more than the just the raw material to be great.
Coaches.
It isn’t like college football polls where the coaches have never seen these guys play. Most coaches have played the teams and had to game plan for them. They have a pretty good understanding who is good and who isn’t. In some cases as you get to the end of the bench you get a Dragic who may slip in one year which is why I think basing it on 2-3 years is best.
It isn’t like college football polls where the coaches have never seen these guys play. Most coaches have played the teams and had to game plan for them. They have a pretty good understanding who is good and who isn’t. In some cases as you get to the end of the bench you get a Dragic who may slip in one year which is why I think basing it on 2-3 years is best.
So, what happens when there is a 7 way tie for the worst record and a 3 way tie for the 2nd worst record at the end of the year?
This is honestly getting ridiculous with this blatant tanking.
Ultimately, I think the NBA will have to go to a non-weighted lottery system to solve this tanking problem, or something close to being non-weighted.
This is honestly getting ridiculous with this blatant tanking.
Ultimately, I think the NBA will have to go to a non-weighted lottery system to solve this tanking problem, or something close to being non-weighted.
To answer what is possibly a rhetorical question: If there were a 7-way tie the 918 combos allotted to the top 7 teams would be split as evenly as possible: Six teams would each get 131 combinations and one lucky team would get 132. If there were a three-way tie for 8-10, the same principle would apply, 56 combos split among 3 teams, for a 19-19-18 split.
The NBA already tried that (essentially, it wasn't ping pong balls, but the odds were the same) for 5 years from 1985-1989, and clearly wasn't happy with it. The NBA wants to strike a balance between discouraging tanking and giving bad teams a leg up. But the unweighted lottery has problems in that 1) It swings too far one way, potentially sticking honestly bad teams with mid-draft picks for years at a time, and 2) It actually encourages tanking to avoid a playoff spot because finish 8th, you aren't beating the Warriors, but finish 9th and you could easily get the #1 pick.
The NBA is stuck between a rock and a hard place as far as tanking is concerned. They can't embrace it and can't just admit it happens and do nothing about it. On the other hand if they try to curtail it too much they punish the honestly bad teams.
Potential luxury tax penalties could even out the the "haves" a little bit in the up coming years as penalties for the big spenders like the the Cavs and Warriors could surpass $100M next year. I don't know how much money is made off of a championship team (if any), or at what point those ownership groups decide that the rings aren't worth what they're spending to get them. If the luxury tax can punish the spenders enough to dissuade them from continuing then super-teams may stop being a thing giving lower seeded playoff teams some hope, but if things continue as they are they won't and the tanking will only get worse.
If they really want to curtail tanking it has to be organic. They have to take steps to increase parody and give more teams a chance to compete. Being a playoff team doesn't have much meaning anymore unless you're the one of the top 3-4 in the league. There was a time when the 8-1 playoff match-up was fun. Not that the odds were great for the 8 but it wasn't the death sentence it is now. Super-teams have turned a 3rd of NBA teams into tankers and the first round or two of the playoffs into a snooze-fest.
Potential luxury tax penalties could even out the the "haves" a little bit in the up coming years as penalties for the big spenders like the the Cavs and Warriors could surpass $100M next year. I don't know how much money is made off of a championship team (if any), or at what point those ownership groups decide that the rings aren't worth what they're spending to get them. If the luxury tax can punish the spenders enough to dissuade them from continuing then super-teams may stop being a thing giving lower seeded playoff teams some hope, but if things continue as they are they won't and the tanking will only get worse.
If they really want to curtail tanking it has to be organic. They have to take steps to increase parody and give more teams a chance to compete. Being a playoff team doesn't have much meaning anymore unless you're the one of the top 3-4 in the league. There was a time when the 8-1 playoff match-up was fun. Not that the odds were great for the 8 but it wasn't the death sentence it is now. Super-teams have turned a 3rd of NBA teams into tankers and the first round or two of the playoffs into a snooze-fest.
Agree on the 1-8 match up issue, which is why I proposed moving the first round back to five games in the "fix the draft" thread. With seven, there's no shot of an upset. With five, at least there's a chance. Since the league and teams would likely balk at losing the revenue of additional games, I'd have this change go hand in hand with the play-in tournament idea, and make up the additional games that way.
I do think parity would take more than a harsher luxury tax -- I think you need to eliminate or at least raise the level of the individual max salary. The Warriors wouldn't be able to pay Curry, Durant, Green, and Thompson all at market value (assuming you still keep a team salary cap). Of course, this hurts the rank-and-file players, so it will likely never happen.
I'm also starting to wonder if the salary cap itself is counterproductive in that regard. I realize baseball is an entirely different sport, and the impact of an individual star is much less than in basketball, but there is something to the fact that a baseball team can get hot and decide to go all-in one year, and take on a bunch of salary to make that push. You can't really do that in the NBA.
Here's an interesting look at parity in professional sports from Harvard in December 2016: http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2016/12/which-sports-league-has-the-most-parity/
I do think parity would take more than a harsher luxury tax -- I think you need to eliminate or at least raise the level of the individual max salary. The Warriors wouldn't be able to pay Curry, Durant, Green, and Thompson all at market value (assuming you still keep a team salary cap). Of course, this hurts the rank-and-file players, so it will likely never happen.
I'm also starting to wonder if the salary cap itself is counterproductive in that regard. I realize baseball is an entirely different sport, and the impact of an individual star is much less than in basketball, but there is something to the fact that a baseball team can get hot and decide to go all-in one year, and take on a bunch of salary to make that push. You can't really do that in the NBA.
Here's an interesting look at parity in professional sports from Harvard in December 2016: http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2016/12/which-sports-league-has-the-most-parity/
Last edited:
I wonder what could be done to help teams in this spot without screwing over teams at the bottom?
Give them more revenue sharing? A salary cap boost? Maybe reward teams for going for that 7-8 spot instead of dropping to the lotto. I suppose if you do this with the last lotto slots as well and pull them out of the lottery - like slots 1-10 are lotto eligible with equal odds and a restriction from winning two in a row, slots 11-20 get enhanced revenue and salary cap relief - maybe they get to either waive a bad contract or a new type of playoff exception signing (think MLE for bubble teams)? - and slots 21-30 get to be the best 10 teams in the league and don't need help.
Give them more revenue sharing? A salary cap boost? Maybe reward teams for going for that 7-8 spot instead of dropping to the lotto. I suppose if you do this with the last lotto slots as well and pull them out of the lottery - like slots 1-10 are lotto eligible with equal odds and a restriction from winning two in a row, slots 11-20 get enhanced revenue and salary cap relief - maybe they get to either waive a bad contract or a new type of playoff exception signing (think MLE for bubble teams)? - and slots 21-30 get to be the best 10 teams in the league and don't need help.
One thought is to only take the top 7 teams from each conference directly into the playoffs. While calculating the 8th spot based on the record AFTER the trade deadline or All Star break encouraging some marginal teams to try to improve and play well rather than having fire sales and giving the fans crap the rest of the season. Another thought just off the the top of my head is to offer teams 16-25 setp up incentives including additional additional spots for the season and one year raised salary caps enabling them to prospect more, back up their roster and increased trade flexibility. These are just rough ideas being spit balled, but they facilitate a few of the goals of both the draft and the lotto. It continues to incorporate new players into the league (adding a few more opportunities) and helps struggling teams to develop assuming the management wants to and utilizes the opportunities created by the league.
My main point is that severl creative solutions are out there being discussed but the league will first have to realize there is a problem and then work to fix it.
My main point is that severl creative solutions are out there being discussed but the league will first have to realize there is a problem and then work to fix it.
Your idea will be all fine and dandy until a team has an amazing first half of the season, loses their star player for the rest of the season (due to injury) right before/during/after the all-star break/trade deadline, and stinks it up the rest of the way, thus costing them a shot at that 8th seed...
Not to mention....the NBA is an 82 game season....I think teams are going to get excruciatingly annoyed if a team gets in by playing out of their minds for less than 50% of the season (considering that, by all-star weekend and the trade deadline, all teams have already played around 50, in some cases more, games...). I would NOT be a fan of a team making it as an 8th seed simply by going 25 - 5 over the final handful of games after either the trade deadline or the all-star game if they went 10 - 42 over the previous 52 games...And, trust me when I say this, neither would most other people out there...
Just the opposite. Unless the starter has career ending injuries the mythincal 8 seed team that now misses out would NOT have to play a loosing battle with the 1 seed and miss the lotto. They would not only get a lotto pick but the league would also give them a helping step up for the next season when the Star is back. In short they would be in BETTER shape. If anything it is theWild card teams in the playoffs that would be more likely "stuck" in the middle.
Why? #8 seeds are generally cannon fodder anyway and I would guess that more often than not a team playing 8th best in the first 2/3 of the season will contenue to do so the rest of the season. But let say last years DMC to NOP trade had produced the monster squad NOP hoped for and their final 25 games had been better than Portland's. Would a GSW NOP match up have been more exiting? probably. Would Portland be WORSE off with a better draft pick? At the start of the season most fans thought the Blazers were lotto bound with our Aldrich any way. At the end of the day there willl be NO PERFECT system, dishonerable teams will game the system, and occasionally teams might get either lucky or hosed the point is to try to minimize that and encourage good play.
I'd much rather see the league go down to a 30-game schedule than see your idea get implemented. Again, basketball is an 82 game season. A team is rewarded with a playoff spot because of how well they play over an 82 game season. If your idea is implemented, I'd love to see the backlash that will come with a team who positions themselves very nicely to make a move at that 8th seed over the final handful of games, ends up finishing the season on a high note, thus giving them enough wins over 82 games to grab that 8th seed, but has to settle with losing out because some random crappy team at the bottom of the pack goes on a ridiculous run to end the year, and as a result, gets the nod over that team because their record over the final 30 or so games was better.
Think about it for a second. Kings and Lakers battling for that 8th seed. The Kings, over the first 52 games, have a significant edge in terms of record over the Lakers (by more than 1 game). Both teams are battling for that 8th seed. Do you know what the heck will happen, not only to this freaking board (KingsFans.com), but to the freaking city of Sacramento, if, because of your "idea", the Lakers grab that 8th seed because they ended the season going 25-5, while the Kings ended it going 24-6???????????
Think about it for a second. Kings and Lakers battling for that 8th seed. The Kings, over the first 52 games, have a significant edge in terms of record over the Lakers (by more than 1 game). Both teams are battling for that 8th seed. Do you know what the heck will happen, not only to this freaking board (KingsFans.com), but to the freaking city of Sacramento, if, because of your "idea", the Lakers grab that 8th seed because they ended the season going 25-5, while the Kings ended it going 24-6???????????