Report: Proposed NBA Draft Lottery Revamp Has Team Owners’ Support

http://nesn.com/2014/10/report-proposed-nba-draft-lottery-revamp-has-support-of-owners/




Report: Proposed NBA Draft Lottery Revamp Has Team Owners’ Support

by Zack Cox on Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 6:13PM



Some rather major changes could be in store for the NBA’s draft lottery.

A new proposal for the lottery that aims to eliminate tanking as an attractive option for struggling franchises has strong support among NBA owners, sources told Grantland’s Zach Lowe.

Lowe also reports that owners could vote to adopt the new system as early as this season.

Here’s how it would work: Instead of the last-place team having a 25 percent chance of landing the No. 1 pick, the bottom four teams each would have an 11 percent chance of winning the lottery. The new system also would bump up all lottery-bound teams’ chances of earning the top spot, as the non-playoff team with the best record would have a 2 percent chance of winning, as opposed to the 0.5 percent chance it has under the current rules.

Boston Celtics head coach Brad Stevens, whose team finished outside of the playoffs last season for the first time since 2006-07, said Wednesday that he understands the desire for an updated format. Stevens specifically praised the innovative “wheel” idea hatched by Celtics assistant general manager Mike Zarren that would rotate the top pick among the 30 NBA franchises on a yearly basis regardless of record.

“I don’t really know as far as the standpoint of where (in the process) that is,” Stevens said. “I love Mike Zarren’s idea of the 30-year wheel, or whatever he came up with. … I think it’s great. I think they need to look at all that. But from a player’s and coach’s standpoint, you’re playing and coaching, and you’re doing everything you can to win the next game. I think that’s all you can do. But I do understand why that would be a good thing to tweak.”

Unsurprisingly, the Philadelphia 76ers, who are in the midst of a multi-season tank job, reportedly are not one of the teams in favor of lottery reform.




bob
MY NOTE:  Every sharp object has been removed from Sam Hinkie's office as he updates his resume to look for the next position he can occupy and destroy by calling an air strike on himself.



.

I'm in favor of anything that'll make the draft a more equitable crap shoot.

Sam

I think they should tweak the lottery but keep much of it the same.
Very rarely does the worst team get the #1 pick.
I am in favor of keeping the odds for each team as they are now but add limits about how often teams can have the #1 or a top 3 pick.
I don't want the 14th worst team to have the same odds at the #1 pick as the worst team has.

I like the wheel

gets rid of tanking completely

I still like the simplicity of worst record gets first pick.

Yes, that could give a team incentive to tank. Maybe once. But how often is that going to happen when you need to keep your fan base buying tickets?

It would probably eliminate the Cleveland outcome of recent years, too.

I don't like the wheel proposal at all.
Would anyone want to see OKC win 65 games this year and then have the #1 pick next summer because it is their turn?
No sports handles their draft with anything close to the wheel proposal.
Many teams are bad, just because they don't have a lot of talent, not because of tanking.
Last season the Lakers and Celtics didn't tank.
They just were not good teams and had little talent and/or young players.

tjmakz wrote:
I don't want the 14th worst team to have the same odds at the #1 pick as the worst team has.

That's not what the article says.

The worst team would have an 11% chance and #14 would have a 2% chance.

Besides, it's annoying that teams like Philly get rewarded with high picks for deliberately poor management


KJ

k_j_88 wrote:

tjmakz wrote:
I don't want the 14th worst team to have the same odds at the #1 pick as the worst team has.

That's not what the article says.

The worst team would have an 11% chance and #14 would have a 2% chance.

Besides, it's annoying that teams like Philly get rewarded with high picks for deliberately poor management


KJ

I don't think you change a system because of how people perceive the management of one team. 
Let Philly or others tank.
But just change the system so they can't get a top 3 or so pick over a certain amount of years.
So, don't you think teams can and will tank if they are approaching the trade deadline, going nowhere, and are the 5th or 6th worst team? They know if they get to the 4th worst team, they have an increased chance of getting the #1 pick.
Tanking doesn't always mean trying to get the worst record.

tjmakz wrote:
I don't think you change a system because of how people perceive the management of one team. 
Let Philly or others tank.
But just change the system so they can't get a top 3 or so pick over a certain amount of years.
So, don't you think teams can and will tank if they are approaching the trade deadline, going nowhere, and are the 5th or 6th worst team? They know if they get to the 4th worst team, they have an increased chance of getting the #1 pick.
Tanking doesn't always mean trying to get the worst record.

It's not based on the management of just one team (Philly). It's been a widely discussed subject concerning most perennially bad ball clubs that are perceived to be tanking for a better pick.

I agree that teams shouldn't get the #1 pick 3 out of 4 years as Cleveland did. I believe I've expressed a great amount of disgust with that very fact.

Also, what you're saying about picks is essentially true now from a percentages standpoint. As it is now, there are defined percentages for each and every position. This new system levels out the chances more.



KJ

Why should the chances be leveled out more? Bad/Mediocre teams will have an incentive to be a bad team if they know they have the same chance at the #1 pick as does the worst team in the league.

Most or all teams have to rebuild and hit bottom every once in a while.
Boston traded away Pierce and Garnett knowing that they would be worse in the next couple of years.
The Lakers signed mostly journeymen to one year contracts last year. They knew they would be bad.

For the perennial bad teams, that's why I think all you need to do is build in safeguards where they can't get a top 3 pick or a top 5 pick in certain years when they have already had these picks. So, if a Philly has the worst record again, then maybe they can have no higher then the #6 pick.

As long as losing is rewarded, there will be an incentive to lose, whether or not it is taken. The current system, which allowed Cleveland 3 picks in 4 years, is flawed, because it allowed that result - certainly not a fair distribution of talent. This would be even more obvious if Bennett were as good as Irving. The new proposal may reduce incentive, but is no cure. The wheel is the cure, but will certainly hurt weaker teams, whose dreams of salvation through the draft will die. NY Celt's pitch for worst record leads to first pick offers the most incentive to tank, but because the incentive is obvious, not confused with caveats, percentages and ping pong balls, I think teams might hesitate more to trade away their chances, or worse, dog it a little.
I don't think there's a perfect way. Hawk

Another solution I read somewhere is that a team with a top 3 pick cannot pick HIGHER than that the following year. So if you have 1,2 or3 you can be NO higher than 4th then next season regardless how crappy you are. Three different teams would get the top three picks each year.

Rewarding failure once is bad enough but doing it year after year with the same team is a joke.

beat

Beat,

I like that idea.


KJ