NBA possibly reform draft lottery

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
What do they want to change?
 
So he wants every team in the lottery to have the same chances of getting Number 1?
 
SIeepwalker said:
No more fight for the eight seed, welcome tanking fight for the 9th
Click to expand...
Yeah, finishing 8 is going to be like the worst possible thing. You're an mediocre team with almost 0 chance of winning in the 1st round. This might be better if it were coupled with an 6 team + first round bye playoffs format like the NFL has. A 6th seed team would be facing a 3rd place team, and it would be a much more competive deal.
 
This is going to have the complete opposite effect/affect (never remember which one to use) intended. No different when they moved the 3 point line in to make it "easier" to make. All it did was give everybody on the roster to start jacking up shots. Messed everything up!
 
The NBA makes their athletes play too god damn many games. The game is so much different than it was back in in the 50s when there was no shot clock.
 
HCP said:
This is going to have the complete opposite effect/affect (never remember which one to use) intended. No different when they moved the 3 point line in to make it "easier" to make. All it did was give everybody on the roster to start jacking up shots. Messed everything up!
Click to expand...
effect
 
so they are changing from bottom 4 teams to bottom 5 teams which would possibly push a high pick to 6 or 7 if you tanked....I can see why they do it...not a huge change but enough to slow down tanking a bit
 
I like this idea:
Another idea born out of the Competition Committee itself that could gather support, league sources said: No team can pick in the top three of the draft in consecutive years. For example, if Minnesota wins the No. 1 pick and drafts Karl-Anthony Towns, it can pick no higher than No. 4 in the next lottery. For now, that idea is outside of the league office's proposal but is expected to be considered in the upcoming committee meeting, sources said.
Click to expand...
 
HCP said:
This is going to have the complete opposite effect/affect (never remember which one to use) intended. No different when they moved the 3 point line in to make it "easier" to make. All it did was give everybody on the roster to start jacking up shots. Messed everything up!
Click to expand...

You can remember it this way.

HCP's hazing of newbies affects everyone. The effect of HCP's hazing of newbies is that everyone hates HCP.

barfo
 
Sinobas said:
The NBA makes their athletes play too god damn many games. The game is so much different than it was back in in the 50s when there was no shot clock.
Click to expand...

No they don't. The games are just too close together.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Let's just add 20 more Blazer games. 4 in the first round, 4 more in the 2nd, 6 more in the WCF, and 6 more in the finals...
Click to expand...

I don't see any need for those extra 2 games in WCF and finals.

barfo
 
Looks like they're about to vote:

Board Of Governors To Vote On New Lottery System, Fines For Resting Players

The competition committee of the NBA has recommended proposals on draft lottery reform and for the resting of players.

Adam Silver has sought solutions to teams tanking and resting players in nationally televised games.

The NBA's proposed changes to the system would begin with the 2019 draft and include a smoothing-out of odds among the league's worst teams. Under the new plan, those teams would each have a 14 percent chance.

In the proposed resting legislation, Silver will have the discretionary ability to fine teams for resting players in several instances. Teams will be encouraged to rest players for home games instead of away games.
 
It seems reasonable to me that leveling the odds for the bottom 3 teams COULD be a way to reduce tanking. I don't think it will eliminate it.

I'd also like to see one additional year of team control of players on rookie contracts. Some teams need help keeping their home grown and developed talent.
Shaq leaving Orlando, Bosh leaving Toronto, Lebron leaving Cleveland first time, as examples.
 
Harry's Raincoat said:
It seems reasonable to me that leveling the odds for the bottom 3 teams COULD be a way to reduce tanking. I don't think it will eliminate it.

I'd also like to see one additional year of team control of players on rookie contracts. Some teams need help keeping their home grown and developed talent.
Shaq leaving Orlando, Bosh leaving Toronto, Lebron leaving Cleveland first time, as examples.
Click to expand...

Shaq woul've stayed in ORL if he didn't get low balled. They should've offered max money but didn't.

Edit: Acutally there was no max offer. They could've written a blank check with no LT.

"In 1996, there was no maximum salary provision in the CBA. There was a salary cap, $24.3 million to be exact, but no max salary and no luxury tax penalty (both were products of the 1998 lockout). This is important. This meant that Orlando -- which owned Shaq's Bird rights and could thus exceed the cap to re-sign its own player, while everyone else had to get him under the cap which in many cases meant a full roster gutting -- could've thrown a blank check at Shaq (and not even incurred the luxury tax they would today) and, I believe, ended the negotiation before it started.

But they didn't do that. Instead, they lowballed him. Almost offensively so."
 
I'd say draw for the top 5, lower the the percent to 20% for the 1st pick and go down from there, and do something like this: (Let me know if anyone actually understands this math, lol).

If a team got a top 5 pick the year before, their lottery chances would drop as follows:
5th: 5% (Worst team would have a 19% chance instead of 20%)
4th: 10% (Worst team would have a 18% chance instead of 20%)
3rd: 15% (Worst team would have a 17% chance instead of 20%)
2nd: 20% (Worst team would have a 16% chance instead of 20%)
1st: 25% (Worst team would have a 15% chance instead of 20%)

If having multiple top 5 picks in successive years, it would add onto each other. For example: the Lakers had the 2nd pick the past two years, therefore if they were the worst team this year (I know they don't have their pick), they'd have a 9% chance at #1 (A Reduction of 55% [20% + 20% + 15%]). It would add until a teams lottery chances were reduced by a maximum of 75% (5% lottery odds for worst team, etc.)

The extra ping pong balls would go to teams that didn't have a top 5 pick last year. They would be reallocated according to a curve (worse teams would get more).

Extra rule: If a team trades a pick over a year before it's respective draft, they receive no deduction if the other team receives that pick. (Essentially, the Nets wouldn't have reduced odds next year if the Cavs receive their pick in the top 5 this year. Same for the Lakers and Celtics).

This would decrease the incentive for tanking in multiple ways:
1.) The longer a team "tanks", the less rewarding it is. The Lakers and 76ers wouldn't have been as rewarded for tanking as they were.
2.) The reallocation and lesser curve makes the difference between the top of the draft and bottom less so, meaning less incentive to rise in the draft.
3.) The 6th pick might be better than 3rd, depending on players available. This is because the team with the 6th pick has no reduction in draft chances the following year, and would get reallocated ping pong balls in the following draft.
 
HCP said:
What do they want to change?
Click to expand...

Didn't they already have the ability to do this?

"In the new resting legislation, Silver will have the discretionary ability to fine teams for resting players in several instances,
including sitting multiple players outside of unusual circumstances in a single game, and healthy players in nationally televised ESPN, ABC and TNT games."
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Let's just add 20 more Blazer games. 4 in the first round, 4 more in the 2nd, 6 more in the WCF, and 6 more in the finals...
Click to expand...
As Ernie Banks used to say, “let’s play three.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top