to give more weight to teams with better records?

It would help address the problem of tanking, and would reward teams who played better.

It'd be a smart idea to not include teams that missed the playoffs by one spot, so that they don't tank at the end to try and get a top pick instead of being bounced in the first round.

[This message has been edited by sharkenleo (edited 4/25/2012 5:34p).]

Care to elaborate?

At the very least, don't give the worst teams the most weight.

quote:

---

No.

---

No, not every bad team is tanking... There are some teams that are bad because they are poorly coached, poorly managed or just don't have the ability to hold on to talent. The draft is working just fine and does not need to be tweaked.

Not all teams are, but if you're near the bottom and you know a few more wins will give you a better shot at the top pick, they'll play with a bit more fire and it would give the league some better games, imo.

What I suggested isn't perfect by any means, but I wouldn't say the current system is either.

Look at the Hornets. They're actually playing some pretty good ball right now.

To me, it seems fair that they would get a better shot than say Charlotte.

The current setup already discourages tanking as much as it possibly can without completely destroying parity.

Teams like Toronto, Washington, and Charlotte are already hamstrung by mismanagement - they don't need the draft stacked against them as well.

quote:

---

Not all teams are, but if you're near the bottom and you know a few more wins will give you a better shot at the top pick, they'll play with a bit more fire and it would give the league some better games, imo.

---

While I agree with this sentiment, a team like Charlotte is literally so bad it doesn't matter how hard they play. At some point there's no practical way to give draft preference to teams that are tanking/not tanking, teams with a couple of key injuries, and teams that legitimately need the first pick because they're just that bad. I think the current system balances that as much as possible.

[This message has been edited by Judge (edited 4/25/2012 5:55p).]

I'd be ok with giving every team in the lotto even odds to win the first four picks then reverse sequential ordering from there as well as put tighter restrictions on these protected pick trades and stuff. That would do enough in terms of disincentivizing tanking as well as encourage teams in putting a team that would win the most games immediately on the floor. Realisitically, after the 4th or 5th pick in 90% of drafts, it's all a crap shoot after that anyway.

JVG suggested the other day that that teams in the 5th-8th seed in the east and west should be added to the lottery. I thought that was kind of interesting.

JVG also suggested one year that every team should be involved in the lottery.

quote:

---

Teams like Toronto, Washington, and Charlotte are already hamstrung by mismanagement

---

That's precisely why the idea that they get the best players and talent makes little sense really. You mention Washington, John Wall's a perfect example. Great talent, but teamed with a bunch of knuckleheads... put together by a poorly managed franchise. Wall could be great, but if he stays on the Wizards too long? Stevie Franchise Jr.

I'd rather teams and management of teams like the Rockets (even though I'm critical of Morey, he has shown lots of ability of finding good team role players who have their heads screwed on straight), Suns, Bucks, or even the Blazers... all who have shown some ability in being able to build somewhat competitive rosters with less than teams like the Kings, Warriors, Wizards, or Raptors continue to get top talent only to poop it out stinkier a few seasons later. That does absolutely nothing in terms of improving competitive balance.

Toronto is a joke of a franchise

They need to be relegated to the D League.

Wizards have to be worse.

^^^^^^^^

Exactly. It'll never happen but man that would make things so much better. There aren't enough superstars to go around and with less teams, maybe we'd be fortunate enough to see good players like Iguodala play their natural role as 2nd or 3rd banana instead of trying to be the #1 option.

quote:

---

Look at the Hornets. They're actually playing some pretty good ball right now.

To me, it seems fair that they would get a better shot than say Charlotte.

---

Look at the Spurs. They're actually playing some pretty good ball right now.

To me, it seems fair that they would get a better shot than say New Orleans.

How are worse teams supposed to improve if they aren't given higher odds?

Keep it the same but make the worst team ineligible for the top2 picks

jack, playoff teams aren't included, sorry i didn't clarify

Umich's idea is pretty good.

One NBA writer suggested that teams 8-16 in each conference should play in a bracket of 1-game winner-takes-all games to get to the 8 seed. I think that would be awesome.

every team in the league should be included in a lottery or it should be scrapped all together. NFL draft should be the model

I forget who's idea it was, but I heard an idea that I think would work.

Basically, you get one ping pong ball for every win AFTER your team has been eliminated from playoff contention.

That gives the really bad teams more opportunities to add balls because they play more games while eliminated. It also gives those teams a ton of motivation to try really hard to win late in the season.

None of these really get to the issue of figuring out the difference between a team being really bad (in which case, they would get screwed over by all of these scenarios) and teams tanking (in which case, they are still capable of manipulating these systems by selectively throwing and winning games). They are all complications of the current system that don't seem to really fix anything.

For example, lets say the next Tim Duncan is coming out in the 2014 draft but there is a dropoff after that. The Bobcats are legitimately terrible, barely capable of getting 10 wins, but they are ineligible for the top 2 picks. Or you add a "playoff" for the top pick, and the Bobcats get crushed in the first round by a Knicks team that tanked the regular season because Carmelo left and they knew they weren't a title contender... the Knicks were actually capable of making the playoffs; they are in the top half of the league talent-wise but they wanted Tim Duncan II. Or if you get an extra ball for every game after elimination, the Knicks tank early, get eliminated, then start playing hard. They win 8 games after getting eliminated, the Bobcats only manage 1. Maybe it's insignificant or at least less important if you also get balls based on absolute ranking, but I still think solutions along these lines are just going to encourage an arms race of competing tactics to get the best picks.


All that said, I have no solution to the problem. It's kind of hard to have a hard standard for determining that a team isn't trying to win... it's easy enough to fake nagging injuries, trade off contributors, or even have your starters take it easy if all else fails.

EDIT: now with examples.


[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited 4/26/2012 5:11p).]