Van Gundy doesn't like that lottery rewards losing

[Warhawk]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2814358

The Dallas Mavericks with the No. 1 pick in the 2007 NBA draft? If Rockets coach Jeff Van Gundy had his way, that could happen.
Van Gundy wants to open up the NBA draft lottery to all 30 NBA teams in an effort to keep teams from losing intentionally to hopefully secure the No. 1 pick.
"I think every team should have an equal chance at winning the lottery, from the best team all the way down," Van Gundy told The Houston Chronicle. "I don't want to accuse anyone of anything. I would say to take away any possible conflict of interest, everyone should have an equal chance at the top pick all the way down. That way there would be absolutely no question by anybody about anything.
"If it's better for the game, they should do it. I never quite understood why losing is rewarded, other than [for] parity."
According to The Chronicle, Van Gundy presented his proposal to the NBA, but wasn't taken seriously.



Well, there are a lot of ways you could adjust it.

1. PO teams cannot get top pick (or top 3, or whatever), but are eligible after that.
2. Have the graduated scale weighted heavily to the non-PO teams.
3. Have equal weight for non-PO teams and lesser equal weight for PO teams.
4. ??? - probably lots more options - those are just a few.

You could also mix-n-match to refine the system as well.

But do you want to give PO teams a shot (even remote) at winning it all? I thought it was all about parity, hence the reason only non-PO teams are in. Would you want to have it so PO teams can't get the top pick (or 3, or whatever), but then get 1 ping-pong ball apiece for the rest of the lottery positions? Make the whole first round a lottery with the second based on season record?

 

[Bricklayer]

"If it's better for the game, they should do it. I never quite understood why losing is rewarded, other than [for] parity."

Uh yes, dip****.

I mean that's a colossal duh.

I'm pretty sure of the major North American sports the NBA is the only who even tries to muddy the waters a bit with a lottery. You are the worst team in football, baseball, hockey, think you just get the #1 pick no questions asked.

Suffice it to say its never going to open to all the teams, and it never should. The system is set up to give bad teams a chance to one day be good. Jeff may not see the value in that...now that his team is good again, but its an absolute core principle to keep fans of losing teams involved.

 

[tyrant]

it should stay the way it is. if not good teams just get better. and some teams just really suck and need a good pick in the draft to keep from having to move to another city. but i like where JVG is going with that idea. if the NBA can tweak it a little bit....

 

[Superman]

Suffice it to say its never going to open to all the teams, and it never should. The system is set up to give bad teams a chance to one day be good. Jeff may not see the value in that...now that his team is good again, but its an absolute core principle to keep fans of losing teams involved.

The only thing is, how often does the team with the first overall pick actually get better the next season because of the player they draft? That number one pick doesn't automatically translate into success anymore. I mean, in the past ten years, only three top picks actually got into the playoffs the following season, if I'm not mistaken (Yao Ming, Tim Duncan, Allen Iverson). Maybe later on down the line they help out like Dwight Howard, and maybe that will get better now that high school players have to go to college for at least one season.

Sure the number one pick is a distinct advantage, and the lottery is designed to promote parity, but it doesn't always work that way, I don't think. I agree with van Gundy on the idea that losing is rewarded, and a lot of teams, I'm sure, tank games down the line to get a better pick. And you're right, it happens in every other professional league in the US. But think about how different the fans of the Kings on this very site would be if the lottery didn't reward the worst teams.

There's no reason to redesign the lottery in order to give playoff teams a better shot at top picks. I just don't think that the teams with the worst records should automatically have the best chances of winning top picks. I think it's rewarding failure, when you should be rewarding success.

Parity is great and all, but the NBA is best when the historic teams (Boston, LA, NY, etc.) are good. Small market teams don't drive the League's economy upward as much as big market teams do. And I'm a fan of a small market team, so I'm torn on this topic. But parity hasn't won the Kings a championship yet. In fact, if we had better picks in the past 6 or 7 drafts, we'd probably still be a contender because we would have had a shot at guys like Andrew Bynum and Chris Bosh and Stromile Swift, etc.

 

[VF21]

The only thing is, how often does the team with the first overall pick actually get better the next season because of the player they draft? That number one pick doesn't automatically translate into success anymore. I mean, in the past ten years, only three top picks actually got into the playoffs the following season, if I'm not mistaken (Yao Ming, Tim Duncan, Allen Iverson). Maybe later on down the line they help out like Dwight Howard, and maybe that will get better now that high school players have to go to college for at least one season.

I brought this very point up a while back. The only team that has really been successful in the short term because of their draft pick is San Antonio. While the draft picks themselves have often gone on to success, it's usually NOT with the team they originally were drafted by. It's trades that most often seem to predicate the leap to the top of the stack IMHO.

But, having said that, I do not think there's a problem with the worst team getting the best pick. And I don't think it's rewarding failure so much as simply acknowledging that some teams simply aren't competitive enough. That assumes, of course, that there isn't a rush to "tank" simply to get the best draft pick.

That's what I would like to see addressed although I admit to not having a clue how they could do it. Tanking is fundamentally wrong and contrary to the whole concept of sports and competition in general.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

The quality level always goes up around here when Supes is posting; how's the kid?

 

[Superman]

I brought this very point up a while back. The only team that has really been successful in the short term because of their draft pick is San Antonio. While the draft picks themselves have often gone on to success, it's usually NOT with the team they originally were drafted by. It's trades that most often seem to predicate the leap to the top of the stack IMHO.

Elton Brand, Steve Francis, Chris Webber, Jason Kidd, Antonio McDyess, Mike Bibby and Chauncey Billups, were all top three picks. All were moved within the first three years of their careers, and all went on to have more success with other teams.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I brought this very point up a while back. The only team that has really been successful in the short term because of their draft pick is San Antonio. While the draft picks themselves have often gone on to success, it's usually NOT with the team they originally were drafted by. It's trades that most often seem to predicate the leap to the top of the stack IMHO.

Do the Bucks count? They drafted Alcindor with the #1 pick in 1969, and won the championship in 1971.

What about Portland? They took Bill Walton with the #1 in 1974, and won the title in 1977. For that matter, what about the Lakers? Drafted Magic #1 in 1979, and won the title in 1980!

Or are you only counting the lottery era?

 

[Superman]

But, having said that, I do not think there's a problem with the worst team getting the best pick. And I don't think it's rewarding failure so much as simply acknowledging that some teams simply aren't competitive enough. That assumes, of course, that there isn't a rush to "tank" simply to get the best draft pick.

That's what I would like to see addressed although I admit to not having a clue how they could do it. Tanking is fundamentally wrong and contrary to the whole concept of sports and competition in general.

I'd say that all the non-playoff teams should have an equal shot at the top pick. I'd bet you that we wouldn't see teams winning less than 20 games in a season.

No one is going to like that idea, but at least it would address the fundamental flaw in the lottery, the way it's currently set up. Tanking games doesn't give you an advantage. Making the playoffs does. I doubt you'd see any teams purposely missing the playoffs in order to have a shot at the first pick. Especially now when a playoff berth guarantees you at least four nationally televised games, two of them at home.

 

[VF21]

Do the Bucks count? They drafted Alcindor with the #1 pick in 1969, and won the championship in 1971.

What about Portland? They took Bill Walton with the #1 in 1974, and won the title in 1977. For that matter, what about the Lakers? Drafted Magic #1 in 1979, and won the title in 1980!

Or are you only counting the lottery era?

Lottery era primarily. I can't find the other post I made but I think I only went back about 15 years.

 

[Superman]

Do the Bucks count? They drafted Alcindor with the #1 pick in 1969, and won the championship in 1971.

What about Portland? They took Bill Walton with the #1 in 1974, and won the title in 1977. For that matter, what about the Lakers? Drafted Magic #1 in 1979, and won the title in 1980!

Or are you only counting the lottery era?

I was only counting the past 10-15 years or so. When you see a huge difference in the quality of the players being drafted. You don't see too many first round picks propelling their teams into the playoffs the next season.

 

[Superman]

The quality level always goes up around here when Supes is posting; how's the kid?

She's good. 17 months, 33 lbs. Talkin', walkin', using the potty when she feels like it. I have a few grey hairs now, and I drive a lot slower. I also post a lot less.

 

[VF21]

I'd say that all the non-playoff teams should have an equal shot at the top pick. I'd bet you that we wouldn't see teams winning less than 20 games in a season.

Hrm. I think that idea might actually be worth considering. If it would stop the tanking I'd certainly be all for it.

And I'd like to echo Slim's sentiments. It's always great to see you logged on and posting!!

Any pictures of Supergirl you'd like to share?

 

[Superman]

This is the only clear one I have on this computer. This was a couple months ago.

 

[Prophetess]

aww, she's beautiful supes.

glad to see ya posting again.

 

[VF21]

What a cutie! I suppose she's already playing NBA 2007 Live?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Hrm. I think that idea might actually be worth considering. If it would stop the tanking I'd certainly be all for it.

And see, I'd be a hundred percent behind that notion, too; I'm not pro-tank so much as I'm pro-best-long-term-solution... which, given the nature of the beast, unfortunately, appears to be 'tank.'

 

[pdxKingsFan]

The NHL actually does have a lottery but its limited to the bottom 5 teams.

For all the talk of tanking it seems that there are only 3 teams that could be legitimately charged with tanking and they all have pretty serious problems which have lead to their suckitude this season. Its seems more like its the teams on the bubble of competitiveness where fans are calling on the team to wave the white flag and jockey for draft space.

I wouldn't mind seeing the lottery reworked where perhaps all the non-playoff positions were up for grabs with an equal opportunity for each team but a team could only fall a maximum number of spots, but maybe 5 instead of 3. Then televise the drawing of the first 5 balls live at halfcourt of Game 4 of the Finals.

 

[uolj]

The problem with all non-playoff teams getting an equal shot is that the tanking would just move up to the 8th/9th spots in the conference. A lot of teams would rather have a 18.75% chance at a top 3 pick than have to face the Mavericks/Spurs/Suns in the first round. Even a 6.7% chance at a top pick might be better than a playoff series for a team not on the way up. It would be similar to the 5/6 spot last year.

I think weighting things more evenly is a better idea, and I don't mind letting the playoff teams have a chance as well.

Place		Combinations	% Chance
1		84		8.4%
2		78		7.8%
3		72		7.2%
4		66		6.6%
5		60		6.0%
6		56		5.6%
7		52		5.2%
8		48		4.8%
9		44		4.4%
10		40		4.0%
11		38		3.8%
12		36		3.6%
13		34		3.4%
14		32		3.2%
Rd1		25		2.5%
Rd2		12		1.2%
Rd3		5		0.5%
Rd4		2		0.2%
Champ		0		0.0%

The worry is that the bad teams will never get better, but that problem exists with the current setup anyway (see Kings 1986-1998, Warriors 1994-Present, Clippers 1863-Present etc.) With the setup above, only 1 out of every 4 years will a playoff team get the first pick and only 1 out of 16 years will a team that made it past the first round of the playoffs get the first pick.

I think the bigger negative is the amount of luck involved in it. Getting "unlucky" would be normal and no big deal, but if a good team got lucky (see Knicks 1985) then there would be a lot of resentment in the rest of the league.

 

[VF21]

The problem with all non-playoff teams getting an equal shot is that the tanking would just move up to the 8th/9th spots in the conference. A lot of teams would rather have a 18.75% chance at a top 3 pick than have to face the Mavericks/Spurs/Suns in the first round. Even a 6.7% chance at a top pick might be better than a playoff series for a team not on the way up. It would be similar to the 5/6 spot last year.

I don't think that's necessarily true, especially when you use the term "a lot of teams"... For some teams, the difference between being in the red and the black at the end of the year is the playoffs. I think that has to also be considered.

And playoff experience, even if you flush in the first round, is still beneficial to the young guys on the team.

The one thing I really hope is that the team owners will at least address this in the off-season. I honestly believe the time has come for some kind of change if at all possible...

 

[Superman]

The problem with all non-playoff teams getting an equal shot is that the tanking would just move up to the 8th/9th spots in the conference. A lot of teams would rather have a 18.75% chance at a top 3 pick than have to face the Mavericks/Spurs/Suns in the first round. Even a 6.7% chance at a top pick might be better than a playoff series for a team not on the way up. It would be similar to the 5/6 spot last year.

How much revenue is generated from two home playoff games? And how many times has the 1st or 2nd seed taken six-plus games to finish off the 7th or 8th seed?

I'm assuming that two, possibly three home playoff games, plus a chance at a second round appearance (we had a good shot at beating the Spurs, the Lakers had a good shot at beating the Suns) is enough incentive to keep teams from tanking, especially when tanking isn't giving you an advantage.

I think the bigger negative is the amount of luck involved in it. Getting "unlucky" would be normal and no big deal, but if a good team got lucky (see Knicks 1985) then there would be a lot of resentment in the rest of the league.

This is a reasonable concern. One that I think would be reasonably mitigated by the fact that all the non-playoff teams have a shot at the first pick in the draft. It's all about the bounce of the balls.

You could also keep the six division winners - along with the champion, if that team didn't win their division - out of contention for the top five picks. That would all but settle that.

I think any system like that would virtually eliminate tanking the last third of the season for a better shot at a better pick, and it would do away with any griping over a good team getting the top pick.

 

[uolj]

At first I was going to concede that it would be more fans wanting to tank for the 9th spot than the teams. I agree that playoff experience is important, as I'm sure the money from a playoff round is to the owners.

But since I was referring to a system that gives equal opportunity (7.14%) to all non-playoff teams and zero opportunity (0.00%) to all playoff teams, and I was referring to the 8th/9th spots, I think I'll stick with my original point.

Assuming you give out at least 3 picks via lottery, that means a non-playoff team has better than 20% chance at getting a top three pick. I think the incentive would be there for a team that has little chance at beating a #1 seed to tank for a 20% shot at LeBron/Milicic/Anthony, or 15% shot at Oden/Durant. The Kings this year would be a perfect example of that (whether their management agrees or not). Very little benefit to making the playoffs versus a legitimate chance at getting a potential hall of famer.

The point is that you want to minimize the incentive for tanking. I think that giving all non-playoff teams equal opportunity and playoff teams no opportunity increases the incentive for tanking out of the playoffs, so that is why I don't like that plan.

 

[Superman]

At first I was going to concede that it would be more fans wanting to tank for the 9th spot than the teams. I agree that playoff experience is important, as I'm sure the money from a playoff round is to the owners.

But since I was referring to a system that gives equal opportunity (7.14%) to all non-playoff teams and zero opportunity (0.00%) to all playoff teams, and I was referring to the 8th/9th spots, I think I'll stick with my original point.

Assuming you give out at least 3 picks via lottery, that means a non-playoff team has better than 20% chance at getting a top three pick. I think the incentive would be there for a team that has little chance at beating a #1 seed to tank for a 20% shot at LeBron/Milicic/Anthony, or 15% shot at Oden/Durant. The Kings this year would be a perfect example of that (whether their management agrees or not). Very little benefit to making the playoffs versus a legitimate chance at getting a potential hall of famer.

The point is that you want to minimize the incentive for tanking. I think that giving all non-playoff teams equal opportunity and playoff teams no opportunity increases the incentive for tanking out of the playoffs, so that is why I don't like that plan.

Not being a smart-a**, but I think I addressed that in my previous post. In fact, I never suggested giving playoff teams NO opportunity to get the top pick (and maybe you're not directing that comment at me, so I may be out of line). I suggested not giving the worst teams the best chances. The playoff teams - outside of the division winners, who are generally the best teams in the NBA, and the champ, if not a division winner - can still have a shot, just not as good a shot.

The point is to minimize the advantage a team gets from missing the playoffs. That's not being done right now. In fact, the current system maximizes the advantage, and minimizes the fact that making the playoffs, even if you're the last seeded team, is a good thing. Both for ownership ($) and the team (experience, credibility).

You give the 14 non-playoff teams a 5% shot at the first pick, or a 25% shot at a top five pick, whether they won 10 games or 45. Assuming the champion was a division winner, you give the 10 playoff teams that weren't division winners a 3% shot at the top pick, or a 15% shot at a top five pick. And if the champion isn't a division winner, you give the remaining nine playoff teams a 3.33% shot at #1, and a 16.67% shot at picks one through five. That way, the best teams in the League don't have a shot at the top pick, but the worst teams in the League aren't rewarded for losing.

Does that make sense? Is my math right? I didn't double-check it.

The other part of the problem, by the way, is that too many teams make the playoffs, imo. Of course, that won't be changed any time soon, but I think the fact that more than half the League makes the postseason tournament is a bit over the top. In the NFL, only 37.5% of the teams make the playoffs. MLB, only 26.66%. 53.33% seems a bit gratuitous, if you ask me.

 

[uolj]

You're right, I assumed "all the non-playoff teams should have an equal shot at the top pick" meant 0 chance for everybody else. So just apply my arguments to some other fictitious proposal.

I think your math is a little bit off above, but your point is obvious. Basically we agree almost entirely. I'd say that giving a little bit of an advantage based on lower record is appropriate (and probably a necessary compromise), but our setups are still virtually the same.

 

[Bricklayer]

People are still missing the point that team owners have already bent the sytem as far as they are going to, and fartehr than any other professional sport. Complaining about the basketball draft system is like complaining about crash test ratings on a Volvo. And I think a lot of it probably comes from people not really familiar with the history.

Used to be that the NBA, like all the other major sports, simply gave the #1 pick to the very worst team. And teams tanked all over the place (notably Houston to put togetehr its Twin Towers frontline). So they put in the lottery, and in its very first year every non-playoff team got an equal shot, and their were allegations of rigging when the Knicks won it and the really awful teams got left out in the cold. So Stern took a look at this and decided, correctly, that the system had gone too far the other way, and it threatened to create truly franchise killing streaks where teams could get caught in the underclass and have no way out. No assets, and no way to acquire assets. And so they began to progressively weight things, and the weighting has gotten more and more toward the top so that the system now has gotten closer to the original, and normal, worst team gets #1 system.

As an aside, there is NO system, except Van Gundy's wacky rich get richer system, where you can avoid the urge to tnak. If you as the #14 team really did have the same chance at #1, #2, #3 as the worst teams, then everybody would be tanking out of the playoffs. I would in fact be ****ing PISSED at that point of my ownership sacrificed a 1 in 7 shot at grabbing Oden/Durant for a 1 in 1000 shot of beating the Mavs. So long as any line is drawn, everybody wants to be under that line. There is always going to be the temptation to tank at some point.

As a further aside, its a straw man to say that not every #1 pick turns out to be a stud -- the only real question is do MORE #1 picks turn out to be franchise studs than #11 picks, or #19 picks -- that's all that matters. And the answer is yes. And if you happen to get unlucky wioht yours one year, the mere fact you have a #1, the celebrity and hope there, help tide over the fans of bad franchises in a way that getting the #15 never would.

 

[Dave McNulla]

i think they already got a decent system to discourage tanking. how often has the worst team got the number one pick? i'm not going to check, but i'll guess about 25% of the time cause that's their percentage. you can tank your fans out of the building then end up with chauncey billups. it's just not worth it.

now some people would get up in arms if amare stoudamire did what he did last season but played for a mediocre team. everybody would be screaming tank, even though it's just smarter to not risk a guy that's had major surgery for a whole lot of nothing. it's just they couldn't say it because the suns rose to the occasion and got to the wcf.

 

[uolj]

Bricklayer, I don't see any argument in your post that applies to the changes we are talking about.

The NBA has already bent the system as far as they are going to, back when the Knicks drafted Ewing. The system I proposed doesn't go that far. I understand that it is unlikely that they would make major changes, but they have in the past and of course they will in the future. If the changes make sense, they will consider them, and of course we will discuss them.

There would be no franchise killing streaks where poor teams get stuck with no way out. The team with the worst record is guaranteed at least the 4th pick. Worst case is still pretty much the Kings/Warriors/Clippers, which already happens with the current setup.

Teams would be stupid to tank out of the playoffs. The difference between having the 16th best record and losing in the first round versus having the 19th best record is barely 1%. I wrote a long post when I misunderstood Superman's idea about how tanking would still occur if you didn't give the the playoff, but that's not what we're saying. Look at the percentages I posted and tell me where you think a GM would be smart to actually tank.

I honestly think that idea is better than the current one. The details aren't important, but bringing the odds closer together would help avoid tanking for non-playoff teams without a serious affect on the ability for bad teams to improve. Giving playoff teams a shot would then be required to remove incentive for tanking out of the playoffs. Pretty simple.

 

[RaY Z]

What a cutie! I suppose she's already playing NBA 2007 Live?

you mean nba 2k7..... ! nba live 07 is a terrible game, especially for a young kid!

 

[BMiller52]

Why is JVG hatin on us?

 

[Superman]

People are still missing the point that team owners have already bent the sytem as far as they are going to, and fartehr than any other professional sport. Complaining about the basketball draft system is like complaining about crash test ratings on a Volvo. And I think a lot of it probably comes from people not really familiar with the history.

I think if the NBA is around along enough, we'll see some major changes to the way the Draft is conducted.

I am aware of the history, even though that isn't really pertinent to my point. My point is that the Lottery and the Draft reward losing teams (and I think that's a problem because you can intentionally lose games to better your chances, which ruins the competitive balance in the League, which the Lottery and Draft are meant to protect). The Draft is setup to promote parity, but it hasn't really done anything for the small market teams.

As an aside, there is NO system, except Van Gundy's wacky rich get richer system, where you can avoid the urge to tnak. If you as the #14 team really did have the same chance at #1, #2, #3 as the worst teams, then everybody would be tanking out of the playoffs. I would in fact be ****ing PISSED at that point of my ownership sacrificed a 1 in 7 shot at grabbing Oden/Durant for a 1 in 1000 shot of beating the Mavs. So long as any line is drawn, everybody wants to be under that line. There is always going to be the temptation to tank at some point.

I doubt that teams would tank out of the playoffs if they still had a shot at a top pick. Not as good a shot, but the reality is that tanking doesn't guarantee you anything. Making the playoffs guarantees you national television exposure for at least another week while the "losers" are sitting at home, at least two home playoff games, and a franchise that has some sort of credibility.

First of all, a team in playoff contention shouldn't be hanging their future on an Oden or Durant. Like I stated previously, there haven't been many #1 picks that have helped turn a franchise around in the past 10-15 years.

As a fan, I would be pissed that my team tanked out of the playoffs for a 5% chance at landing the #1 pick. Especially when you see teams 1), make a short run in the first round and host three playoffs games, and, 2) draft players in the late first round and early second round (ala Tony Parker and Gilbert Arenas) that wind up being better than the #1 overall pick (Kwame Brown).

I guess I put less stock in the Draft and it's ability to consistently improve a bad team than you do.

As a further aside, its a straw man to say that not every #1 pick turns out to be a stud -- the only real question is do MORE #1 picks turn out to be franchise studs than #11 picks, or #19 picks -- that's all that matters. And the answer is yes. And if you happen to get unlucky wioht yours one year, the mere fact you have a #1, the celebrity and hope there, help tide over the fans of bad franchises in a way that getting the #15 never would.

That is, until #1 (Kwame Brown, Michael Olowakandi) turns out to be a bust, and #9 or 10 or 11 or 15 or 28 or 31 (Dirk Nowitzki, Paul Pierce, Bonzi Wells, Rashard Lewis, Tony Parker, Gilbert Arenas) turn out to be solid NBA players, even All-Stars and MVP candidates.

Like I said, I don't put as much stock in a lottery pick's ability to improve a bad team as most people seem to do. I think lottery picks are largely overrated, especially as a way to promote parity in the NBA.

If the NBA was really concerned about parity, they would install a more rigid and restraining salary cap, giving both large and small market teams alike the opportunity to land big free agents - a much better way of improving your team than the Draft. This is, in my opinion, what has set the NFL apart from the NBA and MLB. Not image, not steroids, not exposure - true parity.

Think about how much money the Knicks and even the Kings have paid to the Clippers and Hawks in luxury taxes over the past four or five seasons. That's definitely rewarding a losing effort. Make it impossible to simply outspend other teams in an effort to put together a star-studded team, and you'd see more parity in the League.

The reality, though, is that the big market teams are the cash cows for the NBA. Them winning consistently is more profitable than an even playing field.