Boston Celtics’ Mike Zarren discusses NBA Draft lottery reform

http://celticswire.usatoday.com/2018/02/28/boston-celtics-assistant-gm-team-counsel-mike-zarren-discusses-nba-draft-lottery-reform-wheel-proposal/


Boston Celtics’ Mike Zarren discusses NBA Draft lottery reform



By: Greg Cassoli | 2 hours ago



Mike Zarren has developed one of the more interesting anti-tanking draft reform proposals the NBA has ever seen. He’s keeping the fine details to himself for the moment.

The 2018 NBA tankathon is upon us. Eight teams are within 2.5 games of having the league’s worst record and all but the Brooklyn Nets are likely to do all they can to ensure that they lose as many games as possible down the stretch.

If that feels antithetical to the purpose of the league, it’s because it is. The teams with the NBA’s worst records are given the greatest odds at securing a top pick in the following summer’s draft (for now), incentivizing them to lose. A lot.

It’s a structure that can lead to some pretty ugly basketball. There is a small pocket of people that hold the process of losing on purpose, also known as tanking, as something of a necessary evil. There are certainly some interesting story lines related to roster development inherent to the process, but for the most part it’s a blight on the league.

The NBA is implementing a new set of lottery odds next year, redistributing the chance of winning the lottery more evenly with the hope of curbing the most extreme forms of tanking. The three worst teams in basketball will be given a 14% chance at the number one overall pick, with declining odds assigned by record from that point forward.


The result will create slightly more random pick assignments, but it still gives teams plenty of reasons to lose. Tanking is likely to remain a problem.

That leaves NBA consumers, and those concerned with their happiness, searching for answers. Boston Celtics Assistant General Manager and Team Counsel Mike Zarren has pitched one of the more radical solutions to the NBA on several occasions.

The proposal, known by many as simply “the wheel” is one in which teams would be assigned draft picks based on a predetermined order, independent of record. The following was reported in 2013 by Zach Lowe, discussing the original concept:

Each team would simply cycle through the 30 draft slots, year by year, in a predetermined order designed so that teams pick in different areas of the draft each year. Teams would know with 100 percent certainty in which draft slots they would pick every year, up to 30 years out from the start of every 30-year cycle.

Zarren has since submitted a simplified version of his wheel to Adam Silver, but ultimately the league opted in favor of its more modest changes to lottery odds.


Mike Zarren
@mikezarren
In response to a bunch of questions: someday will post whole wheel proposal (it accounts for expansion/contraction/etc & has a couple different transition ideas). But not now; we just passed lottery reform that starts next year. Let's see how it does.

5:02 PM - Feb 27, 2018
70
See Mike Zarren's other Tweets


Zarren announced, via Twitter, that he plans to keep the full proposal for “the wheel” private, out of respect for the NBA’s efforts to quell tanking via alternative methods. He’s not going to keep outsiders in the dark forever though.

Zarren indicated that he will release the proposal to the public in its entirety at some point down the road. Whether or not that comes as part of additional draft reforms remains to be seen.



bob



.

Just one more example of how the old days were better than these ones.

"We got to divvy up these players. Anyone got some ping pong balls"?

"Ping pong balls? Give me your hat".

"Fabulous! I got Zaslofsky. Picking names out of a hat was a great idea. I've got the leagues best scorer, who did you get"?

" i got some local yokel named Cousy".

The NBA has serious glaring problems despite Boston's ability to transcend them. Most teams are mediocre to awful and will remain so.

The biggest problem to me is the refs.

I think it was Windhorst or one those guys saying the new way to tank is to use reverse analytics. They look for which rotations do not work well together.

Getting rid of tanking without improving how games are called will not fix things, imho. Bad teams will probably get worse. They will no longer be able to get the top players when they should.

The league let the Philly and ref problems go on for too long. The sport is closer to professional wrestling than pure sport. But like I said, the Celtics transcend all of that thanks to the run Danny went on as a GM.

Tanking is problematic but look at super teams and their impact on the competitive landscape. I think it's a cause and effect relationship.


KJ

k_j_88 wrote:Tanking is problematic but look at super teams and their impact on the competitive landscape. I think it's a cause and effect relationship.


KJ

There's truth to what you say. I think though with better refs, a team led by no names playing the right way could surprise. A couple years ago Golden State was running illegal screens which might explain why they won so many games. I don't know if they're still getting away with it. That made it pro wrestling for basketball.

But you're right, a 70 win team adds on Durant. Golden State is the reason everything seems predetermined.

I agree. Basketball rosters are more about quality than depth. The top players are pure money. It kind of turns into men against boys for great teams against the rest of the league.

k_j_88 wrote:Tanking is problematic but look at super teams and their impact on the competitive landscape. I think it's a cause and effect relationship.


KJ

I agree that the "super team" scenario has hurt the game just as much as the "tanking" phenom.

one way to fix the super team issue is to move to a HARD cap and allow each team to designate one player who's salary is outside of that cap.

that way each team can play their STAR player (or another teams) whatever they want. one star in each teams pot, so to speak.

yes we might still see older players go to play with teams that have a chance at a title, like Wade and such now. But I so think that type of model would restrict the super teams of today much more.

as for tanking, perhaps the league should just go back to worst team gets the top pick again. at least then only 2-3 teams will be competing for that top pick instead of more , due to the lottery game.

also the hard cap with star exception and a higher cap MINIMUM could also be used to help avoid tanking (at least at the rate it's been done in recent years).

Just some of my ideas, absolutely NONE of them will be considered by the NBA.

Getting new talent through the draft is the best way for a team that is mediocre/sub-mediocre. Shedding bad contracts to start a rebuild process should not be designated as tanking.

People say Memphis is deliberately tanking, but they don't have Conley, arguably their best player.


KJ




KJ

Basketball is very unique - when compared to Baseball and Football - because Basketball affords the player the chance to play the entire game as an active participant on every single play. Football has super stars seating on the bench for half the game - Baseball has super stars playing the full game but unfortunately the superstar hitter can sit on the bench for innings while the other 8 batters take their swings. No wonder that a super star basketball player or two is in such demand in the NBA. I've done the research that shows that every single NBA champ since the 1979-80 season has had at least one super star on its roster. Their impact on the NBA is the reason why the big bucks are doled out to them. Now - how are you going to change that when better management of the dollar and the luck of the draw (draft) are such an important part of the equation?
Any ideas?

swish

swish wrote:Basketball is very unique - when compared to Baseball and Football - because Basketball affords the player the chance to play the entire game as an active participant on every single play. Football has super stars seating on the bench for half the game - Baseball has super stars playing the full game but unfortunately the superstar hitter can sit on the bench for innings while the other 8 batters take their swings.  No wonder that a super star basketball player or two is in such demand in the NBA. I've done the research that shows that every single NBA champ since the 1979-80 season has had at least one super star on its roster. Their impact on the NBA is the reason why the big bucks are doled out to them. Now -  how are you going to change that when better management of the dollar and the luck of the draw (draft) are such an important part of the equation?
     Any ideas?

  swish

Swish, what is your opinion on the refs and star calls? I agree that the greatest of NBA greats are simply in a higher tier from most other players and more impacting than stars in other sports.

Thirty teams times 15 for rosters means there are only 450 NBA players at any given time. There must be something very special about each player or at least the top 300 if rosters only truly go ten deep for quality.

I think the pitiful job by both refs and a chunk of the franchises explains why most games are boring and predictable. I stopped watching college basketball, but I do somewhat recall those refs seemed to be more fair with upsets occurring much more often.

Level the playing field for all players and then we'll see how great some of these so-called divas truly are.Apparently the NBA allowed Golden State to run illegal screens for at least a whole year. There are videos at Youtube proving this.

You stick up for new players versus old school ones, but I'd love to see the modern guys only allowed a step and a half with no palming. I want pure sport, not entertainment packaging. The NBA lacks integrity due to the refs. It's the elephant in the room, imho. It's tough to answer this debate question when rookies and players on the bubble don't get many breaks.

The NBA thinks showtime puts people in the seats and glued to the televisions. Pink hat fans will always stick around if their teams are doing well, but grizzled old-school fans like me might not. And the irony is I'll be the type called the pink hat fan who only watches when my team does well. When and if the Celtics hit the bottom again, and if the NBA still has these same issues, I will find something better to do. The NBA is not that fan-tastic.

/end of rant

Phil Pressey wrote:

swish wrote:Basketball is very unique - when compared to Baseball and Football - because Basketball affords the player the chance to play the entire game as an active participant on every single play. Football has super stars seating on the bench for half the game - Baseball has super stars playing the full game but unfortunately the superstar hitter can sit on the bench for innings while the other 8 batters take their swings.  No wonder that a super star basketball player or two is in such demand in the NBA. I've done the research that shows that every single NBA champ since the 1979-80 season has had at least one super star on its roster. Their impact on the NBA is the reason why the big bucks are doled out to them. Now -  how are you going to change that when better management of the dollar and the luck of the draw (draft) are such an important part of the equation?
     Any ideas?

  swish

Swish, what is your opinion on the refs and star calls? I agree that the greatest of NBA greats are simply in a higher tier from most other players and more impacting than stars in other sports.

Thirty teams times 15 for rosters means there are only 450 NBA players at any given time. There must be something very special about each player or at least the top 300 if rosters only truly go ten deep for quality.

I think the pitiful job by both refs and a chunk of the franchises explains why most games are boring and predictable. I stopped watching college basketball, but I do somewhat recall those refs seemed to be more fair with upsets occurring much more often.

Level the playing field for all players and then we'll see how great some of these so-called divas truly are.Apparently the NBA allowed Golden State to run illegal screens for at least a whole year. There are videos at Youtube proving this.

You stick up for new players versus old school ones, but I'd love to see the modern guys only allowed a step and a half with no palming. I want pure sport, not entertainment packaging. The NBA lacks integrity due to the refs. It's the elephant in the room, imho. It's tough to answer this debate question when rookies and players on the bubble don't get many breaks.

The NBA thinks showtime puts people in the seats and glued to the televisions. Pink hat fans will always stick around if their teams are doing well, but grizzled old-school fans like me might not. And the irony is I'll be the type called the pink hat fan who only watches when my team does well. When and if the Celtics hit the bottom again, and if the NBA still has these same issues, I will find something better to do. The NBA is not that fan-tastic.

/end of rant

Phil

I guess I do rag on the old timers - but simply to set the record straight in regards to just how different the game was back in the 40's, 50's and 60's - the early years of the nba. I started following the nba back in 1948 at the age of 16. I loved every minute of those early years but my how the game has changed - certainly not played the way it is now. But then so hasn't baseball and football gone through major changes over the years. I've never been one to tell the younger generations that the way to play the game is to copy the so called "good old days". For example - here are a couple major changes changes that have taken place since those early years.

2 point field goal percentages (league averages) ranged from .380 in 1956-57 to.446 in 1967 -68. This past year the league average was .510. An awful lot of bricks in those days. The addition of the one handed jump played a big part in the shooting evolution of the late 50's into the and 60's.
And here's a phase of the game you really would have loved.
Free throw Attempts back in the Russell years averaged between 70.0 and 76.6 per game. This past year it has been about 43.8 per game. We referred to the game in those days as a "no touch em sport". Swallow your whistle was an often heard plee'
And then there was the scantily used off shooting hand - hanging by your side but rarely used for dribbling purposes. I guess you can't miss something that you never had so I thought that it was the greatest show at the time - but to go back to those early years - no way.

swish

Worst record gets first pick.

No lottery. There will always be a temptation to tank; so be it.

The NBA is not different than other sports leagues in terms of franchise viability and the desire to eventually be competitive.

The NBA would be better off.

Swish, you always make good points. I think it's refreshing that you stick up for the new era of ballplayers. My counterpoint is that human evolution couldn't have changed that much over fifty years. If Bill Russell had been born in 1995, I'm sure he'd be bigger and stronger adapting to the modern game. Maybe he would have learned how to shoot. I agree it is kind of fun to think of things like those two hand shots. The underhand free throw was funny. I'm not making fun of the past. I agree with you. It'd be like bashing the silent film makers. They were the pioneers and tried their best under their own current conditions.

You might like this article from 538:

"Which NBA Team Is Wronged By The Refs The Most?"
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-nba-team-is-wronged-by-the-refs-the-most/

My hypothesis is that the refs hurt younger players. The problem with 538's article is that it only looks at the last two minutes of close games. So if a team is bad enough to never be in close games, how could they be robbed by refs according to 538's criteria?

I'm just fumbling around trying to say that bad officiating seems to help stars and hurt rookies and non-stars struggling to find niches.

Yes to the other comments. The league should have clamped down on Philly in real time. I somewhat recall Silver going out of his way to say Philly did nothing wrong but I'm not sure.

Maybe just go to the wheel system. Over a long period, it would always even out. There'd be an end to tanking, period.

NYCelt wrote:Worst record gets first pick.

No lottery. There will always be a temptation to tank; so be it.

The NBA is not different than other sports leagues in terms of franchise viability and the desire to eventually be competitive.

The NBA would be better off.

you and I think WAY too much alike.

kdp59 wrote:

NYCelt wrote:Worst record gets first pick.

No lottery. There will always be a temptation to tank; so be it.

The NBA is not different than other sports leagues in terms of franchise viability and the desire to eventually be competitive.

The NBA would be better off.

you and I think WAY too much alike.

I think my wife would tell you that's not a good thing.

Tanking is understandable as getting a better pick in each round of the annual draft would always seem to guarantee better players than having your picks later in the draft.

BUT, watching your team "tank" has to be absolutely terrible, and I am so glad that the Cs/Ainge did not pull this stunt on us when Stevens first arrived.

wideclyde wrote:Tanking is understandable as getting a better pick in each round of the annual draft would always seem to guarantee better players than having your picks later in the draft.

BUT, watching your team "tank" has to be absolutely terrible, and I am so glad that the Cs/Ainge did not pull this stunt on us when Stevens first arrived.

clyde,

It's understandable that tanking would take place - and for me that's ok as long as the tanking does not involve the the coach or players. Owners and General Managers must also look to the future - and that's where the tanking, with an eye to the future, comes into play. Even then there are ways to make the tanking less desirable.

swish

Phil Pressey wrote:Swish, you always make good points. I think it's refreshing that you stick up for the new era of ballplayers. My counterpoint is that human evolution couldn't have changed that much over fifty years. If Bill Russell had been born in 1995, I'm sure he'd be bigger and stronger adapting to the modern game. Maybe he would have learned how to shoot. I agree it is kind of fun to think of things like those two hand shots. The underhand free throw was funny. I'm not making fun of the past. I agree with you. It'd be like bashing the silent film makers. They were the pioneers and tried their best under their own current conditions.

You might like this article from 538:

"Which NBA Team Is Wronged By The Refs The Most?"
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-nba-team-is-wronged-by-the-refs-the-most/

My hypothesis is that the refs hurt younger players. The problem with 538's article is that it only looks at the last two minutes of close games. So if a team is bad enough to never be in close games, how could they be robbed by refs according to 538's criteria?

I'm just fumbling around trying to say that bad officiating seems to help stars and hurt rookies and non-stars struggling to find niches.

Yes to the other comments. The league should have clamped down on Philly in real time. I somewhat recall Silver going out of his way to say Philly did nothing wrong but I'm not sure.

Maybe just go to the wheel system. Over a long period, it would always even out. There'd be an end to tanking, period.

Phil

In regards to your below statement.

" My counterpoint is that human evolution couldn't have changed that much over fifty years. If Bill Russell had been born in 1995, I'm sure he'd be bigger and stronger adapting to the modern game. Maybe he would have learned how to shoot. "

Sure you could make that argument - when comparing anything from the past - like convertingthe P51 fighter of world war 2 - into the F16 fighter of the present day - you know - tear it down and modernize it with all the present day space technology. And if you could do this make over - which plane would have been your choice to fly into combat back in 1945. Now technically that may not be called evolution - so I'll call it the march of time - and its short term affect on everyday living - an automatic type of obsolescence built into the past.
swish

Thanks Swish for articulating what you did. It was fantasy on my part to picture Bill Russell born 25 or so years ago. You are talking reality.

I just sent you a private message. I think we might know each other in real life and am curious if it is true. Take care.

Swish is not the same guy! In my defense, there were a few good reasons to think they might be the same dude. I'm just posting here to provide some closure.