One guy's solution to "tanking"

[sggatecl]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/phd-students-brilliantly-simple-solution-185100179.html

Teams that do not make the playoffs are ranked based on the number of games they win (or points they accumulate in the NHL) after they are eliminated from playoff contention. The team with the most wins (or points) is then given the top pick in the draft. The team with second-most wins (or points) receives the second pick and so on.

Still not fool proof though. Tank until you're "eliminated" and you have a head start on the non tankers. Would be interesting to see how it worked out though.

 

[Mitchrapp]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/phd-students-brilliantly-simple-solution-185100179.html



Still not fool proof though. Tank until you're "eliminated" and you have a head start on the non tankers. Would be interesting to see how it worked out though.

Yeah I don't think so, lol. Then it really would be the rich get richer..

 

[brewer229]

Yeah I don't think so, lol. Then it really would be the rich get richer..

Well it would be the richest of the teams that weren't good enough to make the playoffs.

This would prevent tanking from the worst of the worst teams. However could involve tanking with the fringe playoff teams. Much better to be the 1st team out of the playoffs (get the #1 pick) than the 8 seed losing 1st round and getting 15th pick.

The only issue is the legitimately bad teams would not have much hope of becoming better.

 

[dubbsco]

There's really no solution to it. They just need to do it like every other sport and have the worst team get the top pick. The lottery is not good.

 

[biggunsbob]

Yup worst gets the first...

 

[Mitchrapp]

Well it would be the richest of the teams that weren't good enough to make the playoffs.

This would prevent tanking from the worst of the worst teams. However could involve tanking with the fringe playoff teams. Much better to be the 1st team out of the playoffs (get the #1 pick) than the 8 seed losing 1st round and getting 15th pick.

The only issue is the legitimately bad teams would not have much hope of becoming better.

Okay. Somehow I thought it meant if you win a title you get 1st pick, get to the finals but lose, 2nd pick and so forth.

 

[Monster]

Nope. Here's the best way to do things...

Switch to worst record gets top pick. If you were in the top 5 picks of the previous year and are again among the worst 5 teams, you automatically are moved to the bottom of the non playoff picks. I believe the only two teams that are there this year are orlando and philly. So, Philly would move down to #13 and Orlando #14.

This guy's method does nothing to help teams who are small market and legitimately bad. At least my way would force those bottom 5 teams to play harder to get out of the bottom 5 at the end of the year.

 

[everyoneneedsasmil]

Don't subsidize losing teams to begin with. Full on even weighted lottery for all non playoff teams, encompassing all picks 1-14. Anything else still leaves incentive to tank. Stop rewarding teams for making bad decisions.

 

[tomdalton22]

The NBA is the only sport where one great player can change a franchise. The worst teams need that chance. Maybe it should be based on the winning percentage over the prior 3 seasons. This would eliminate the "Tim Duncan" type lotto win and probably tanking for one specific player.

 

[@Stakesarehigh]

There's really no solution to it. They just need to do it like every other sport and have the worst team get the top pick. The lottery is not good.

disagree. It would make tanking an even bigger art form.

I'm fine with the lottery i'd probably weight it a little more towards the 8-14 type teams to further discourage tanking and encourage competition. Only in the NBA is a Brad Stevens Celtic like run actually bad for your franchise.

 

[everyoneneedsasmil]

While I understand that one player can make a difference, no one player can make THE difference. Lebron never won a championship in Cleveland. Shaq never won a championship in Orlando. Wade never won a championship without Shaq or Lebron. Even MJ needed Pippen and Phil Jackson to start winning titles.

Historically speaking, championships are built by teams that make a number of good decisions in a row. And more often, really bad teams are those teams that consistently make bad decisions. Just look at Cleveland in the years without Lebron. They continued to make bad decisions and bottomed out. Lucking into all those top picks didn't even matter. Is there any questions that if Lebron hadn't returned, that they would have stayed bad, even with Kyrie and Wiggins?

I would much rather see Phoenix get Okafor/Towns and turn into a legitimately good team than see New York get Okafor/Towns and continue to stink until he jumps ship. I would rather see a smart team land a good player than a dumb team claw their way out of the bottom few just a few years. Look at how bad the Pistons have been despite drafting great and in the mid-lottery. Only when the team has started losing their young players has the team buckled down and made a change. The rest of the league's fans would have hated to see Davis get ruined here, just as we hate seeing him stuck on a team of nobodies run by idiots in New Orleans.

 

[dubbsco]

Exactly. And look at what has happened with Philly. They have had like a top 5 pick for what seems to be a decade straight. And they still suck.

I have flipped back and forth 90 times between the "win or lose" for the Pistons this year, but at this point it doesn't really matter. So just go out and win and sign Reggie to a big deal. Let Monroe go. They'll be in business.

 

[everyoneneedsasmil]

I still don't like Reggie. His defense has been poor his entire career, even on good defensive teams. Also, seeing what has happened with Jennings, Augustin, and now Jackson, I'm pretty sure SVG's system can make ANY PG look good. The fact is, Reggie can't shoot or score efficiently, and hasn't even been as good as the perennially overrated Jennings.

The draft will work itself out. But dropping big money on Jackson at the expense of Monroe (or any other near max player) seems like poor management. That said, SVG's tenures in Orlando and Detroit kind of point to him being bad with money.

 

[dubbsco]

Really? I don't know how much more the guy can do to have earned his place. System or not, he's been a revelation after a slow start. I like Jennings, but I am worried he won't be the same again. He's also very frail and can't rebound.

This team has looked worlds sharper without Monroe out there. Him and Drummond together at the same time just doesn't work. I'd much rather see them spend big money on a future star PG than a solid big man.

 

[tomdalton22]

Really? I don't know how much more the guy can do to have earned his place. System or not, he's been a revelation after a slow start. I like Jennings, but I am worried he won't be the same again. He's also very frail and can't rebound.

This team has looked worlds sharper without Monroe out there. Him and Drummond together at the same time just doesn't work. I'd much rather see them spend big money on a future star PG than a solid big man.

The problem is we don't know if he is a future star or just an average PG...but they have to pay to find out.

 

[grandy]

What if they worked out a system involving rookie contracts and team performance?

I can't speak to the exact details since I'm unfamiliar with the structure of rookie contracts, but basically something that involves lowering the contract length or eliminating club options (of course they'd have to work something out money-wise so the NBPA doesn't throw a fit). This way a team couldn't tank every year to stockpile high picks and keep them around for several years.

Just a rough example...a top 5 pick would be an unrestricted FA if his team finished in the bottom 5 his first two seasons. If his team did improve (past whatever the threshold is) then a club option would activate, another year of improvement, another club option, up to a maximum.

Teams would (hopefully) work harder to keep their valued young talent around and young players would have the opportunity to bolt if the team showed no improvement. Perhaps even throw in a no-trade clause so a team in danger of losing their young player can't unload them for picks.

One concern I have with this is that a rookie might half-ass it in the hopes of getting out early, but at the same time that won't look very good on the FA market.

 

[zoombabyzoom]

Yeah Jackson, statistically has had Top 3 PG in the NBA stat wise in the past 20 or so games. Saw that on ESPN.

Kid is flat out amazing.

 

[zoombabyzoom]

Just make it so the lottery stays the same except:

No team can land inside the Top 5, for 3 consecutive years.

 

[dubbsco]

Of course not Tom, just as you don't know if Okafor, Mudiay, etc... will be stars. But right now, you have the guy in your system and have the advantage in terms of signing him.

 

[everyoneneedsasmil]

What if they worked out a system involving rookie contracts and team performance?

I can't speak to the exact details since I'm unfamiliar with the structure of rookie contracts, but basically something that involves lowering the contract length or eliminating club options (of course they'd have to work something out money-wise so the NBPA doesn't throw a fit). This way a team couldn't tank every year to stockpile high picks and keep them around for several years.

Just a rough example...a top 5 pick would be an unrestricted FA if his team finished in the bottom 5 his first two seasons. If his team did improve (past whatever the threshold is) then a club option would activate, another year of improvement, another club option, up to a maximum.

Teams would (hopefully) work harder to keep their valued young talent around and young players would have the opportunity to bolt if the team showed no improvement. Perhaps even throw in a no-trade clause so a team in danger of losing their young player can't unload them for picks.

One concern I have with this is that a rookie might half-ass it in the hopes of getting out early, but at the same time that won't look very good on the FA market.

This still incentivizes tanking for at least one year. Or, it incentivizes strategic tanking. If your team falls into the top 5, suddenly teams could just throw the whole season as they realize it's #1 or bust. I'm against any system whereby losing is the smarter course of action. The only way to do that is to lock in pick #s (wheel idea) or have an unweighted lottery. Any penalties on multiple years of failure still provide cause to fail hard for one year.