Have not seen this (rather simple) solution to NBA tanking suggested, have you?

[sturt]

Thinking it might have merit. Troubleshoot and see if you disagree.

 

1. Draft order is determined by adjusted regular season W/L %.

2. "Adjusted" to mean the W/L % calculated as:

• (a) W/L record through the date that a non-playoff team was eliminated from the playoffs (as normal)

...combined with...

• (b) W/L record for games thereafter that date, but counting all wins as, instead, losses and all losses, instead, as wins

 

 

 

[Diesel]

Wouldn't that just penalize you for being bad?

What if you're Detroit.  Right now you're like 4 win and 37 loses.. (I don't know)...

And you're eliminated at game 50.. when your say 5 and 45...

You have 32 games left with this bad team.  You're saying that all your loses are now wins?

so they can end up...  35-47?

They were legitimately bad... they are getting penalized for it. 

 

[sturt]

37 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Wouldn't that just penalize you for being bad?

What if you're Detroit.  Right now you're like 4 win and 37 loses.. (I don't know)...

And you're eliminated at game 50.. when your say 5 and 45...

You have 32 games left with this bad team.  You're saying that all your loses are now wins?

so they can end up...  35-47?

They were legitimately bad... they are getting penalized for it. 

 

 

Yes.

So, in other words, you really never want to go into a season without having spent some money to be able to put, at least, a mediocre product on the floor.

This idea gets teams away from the idea of leaning so heavily on the draft... as tanking teams do... without any serious talent acquired in free agency.

You don't want to be anything close to "legitimately bad."

 

From Spotrac... how DET acquired the 15 players currently on the team...

 

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

49 minutes ago, sturt said:

Thinking it might have merit. Troubleshoot and see if you disagree.

 

1. Draft order is determined by adjusted regular season W/L %.

2. "Adjusted" to mean the W/L % calculated as:

• (a) W/L record through the date that a non-playoff team was eliminated from the playoffs (as normal)

...combined with...

• (b) W/L record for games thereafter that date, but counting all wins as, instead, losses and all losses, instead, as wins

 

 

 

I haven't seen math like this since Rosie Perez in White Men Can't Jump.

 

[AHF]

This is an interesting idea.  Do you think using a set date instead of "when eliminated from the playoffs" would be better since the "when eliminated" clause means that the rules are different for teams in different conferences?  If you have two terrible teams, for example, being in a conference with worse teams means you get to run up your losses for longer than your equally terrible counterpart in the other conference.  If you set it at a date certain that corresponds to when teams usually start getting eliminated then it provides more a level playing field for all the teams that want the next big player.

[LucastheThird]

This proposal would have the top picks going to teams that just missed the play-in in hopes that the rookie could put them in the playoffs.

 

 

[AHF]

3 minutes ago, LucastheThird said:

This proposal would have the top picks going to teams that just missed the play-in in hopes that the rookie could put them in the playoffs.

 

 

I'd like to see this rule applied to last season and see how it shakes out.  I don't think teams that just miss would be the top ones necessarily because they would almost never get eliminated from the playoffs and they wouldn't have such a terrible record.  

The Mavs last year were eliminated on April 8 from the playoffs.  So you take their 38-43 record and then add a win for their last loss so they end up with a 39-43 record overall instead of 38-44.  

The Rockets were eliminated after their loss on March 7 at which point they were 15-50.  They went 7-10 down the stretch after elimination.  So their record moves to 25-57 instead of 22-60.  

The Spurs were also eliminated after March 7 when they were 16-49.  They went 6-11 down the stretch.  So their record becomes 27-55.

So it is:

Houston 25-57 adjusted record

San Antonio 27-55 adjusted record.

Mavs 39-43 adjusted record.  

At least based on this data point, it looks like it wouldn't change the standings that dramatically but would incentivize teams that want to "tank" to stink for most of the season while keeping enough dry powder to try to win down the stretch.  It is an interesting idea.

[sturt]

1 hour ago, LucastheThird said:

This proposal would have the top picks going to teams that just missed the play-in in hopes that the rookie could put them in the playoffs.

That makes sense in the scenario Diesel laid out, but while every year has its bad teams, DET is exceptionally bad... so really have to look more into history and test it.

 

 

1 hour ago, AHF said:

I'd like to see this rule applied to last season and see how it shakes out.  I don't think teams that just miss would be the top ones necessarily because they would almost never get eliminated from the playoffs and they wouldn't have such a terrible record.  

The Mavs last year were eliminated on April 8 from the playoffs.  So you take their 38-43 record and then add a win for their last loss so they end up with a 39-43 record overall instead of 38-44.  

The Rockets were eliminated after their loss on March 7 at which point they were 15-50.  They went 7-10 down the stretch after elimination.  So their record moves to 25-57 instead of 22-60.  

The Spurs were also eliminated after March 7 when they were 16-49.  They went 6-11 down the stretch.  So their record becomes 27-55.

So it is:

Houston 25-57 adjusted record

San Antonio 27-55 adjusted record.

Mavs 39-43 adjusted record.  

At least based on this data point, it looks like it wouldn't change the standings that dramatically but would incentivize teams that want to "tank" to stink for most of the season while keeping enough dry powder to try to win down the stretch.  It is an interesting idea.

Whoa.

Thanks for doing that homework, chief, seriously. Was on my radar, but too much of last week has gotten pushed into this week professionally, so wasn't going to bother with it for at least awhile.

 

Here's the thing. You don't adopt something like this all at once, and surprise teams with it. That doesn't happen (or very rarely). Teams get some heads-up that this is something being considered, and more than likely these kinds of things make it into the next CBA, or if not, it/s a 50/50 coin flip whether they fade away or, given more time, gain popularity for the next one after that.

[Diesel]

Why not just anti-tank??

Why not just lose early.. get to the date of elimination... and then try to win.   If you indeed have a good team but you have a prize like Wimbly... You make everybody happy when you antitank.

Imagine Boston with Wimbly.

[sturt]

7 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Why not just anti-tank??

Why not just lose early.. get to the date of elimination... and then try to win.   If you indeed have a good team but you have a prize like Wimbly... You make everybody happy when you antitank.

Imagine Boston with Wimbly.

 

So, players tank, or front offices do?

 

My opinion, I say front offices do.

 

I say players are always doing their best to justify their roster spot, and get to that next bigger contract.

 

So, if any of that is true, then it's not really so much about players deciding to lose early, but rather about front offices stocking their rosters so that will allow them to lose early... then, to your point, how do you take a roster that is stocked in a way to lose early but that, then, you flip a switch and suddenly they win a lot. Now that you bring it up, sure as hell would be interesting to see some bad team look to acquire all the talent they could at the February deadline rather than dumping guys.

 

 

[AHF]

12 hours ago, sturt said:

That makes sense in the scenario Diesel laid out, but while every year has its bad teams, DET is exceptionally bad... so really have to look more into history and test it.

 

 

Whoa.

Thanks for doing that homework, chief, seriously. Was on my radar, but too much of last week has gotten pushed into this week professionally, so wasn't going to bother with it for at least awhile.

 

Here's the thing. You don't adopt something like this all at once, and surprise teams with it. That doesn't happen (or very rarely). Teams get some heads-up that this is something being considered, and more than likely these kinds of things make it into the next CBA, or if not, it/s a 50/50 coin flip whether they fade away or, given more time, gain popularity for the next one after that.

I am wondering if you would need to set a date earlier in the season.  For example, if you chose the All-Star game as the break point that might do more to drive behavior more.  If you aren't eliminating teams from playoff contention until March and April that just seems like shuffling chairs on the deck rather than making changes that will truly drive pro-competitive behavior.

For 2022, here are some of the inflection points for teams:

22 win Magic eliminated March 12, 2022

23 win Pistons eliminated March 19, 2022

35 win Wizards & 37 win Knicks eliminated April 1, 2022

 

I'm not sure this format has enough of a tail after elimination to really drive significant behavior.

[macdaddy]

To me it doesn't have to be this complicated.  Just base it on the team record for the last three years.  

[sturt]

2 hours ago, macdaddy said:

To me it doesn't have to be this complicated.  Just base it on the team record for the last three years.  

I'm with you. I think that's been a proposal that's been out there for awhile that makes a lot of sense. Apparently, though, there's some reason it's not caught on... dunno.

I don't, otoh, consider this newly-come-to-light concept "complicated." Its advantage over the 3-year aggregate is that it's so simple and especially that it's so clearly visible that, if scheduled to be implemented at whatever point X-number of seasons from now, it's almost certainly to my mind going to get immediate results... ie, that teams will begin phasing out of their mentality of total reliance on the draft at a down point in their cycle.

3 hours ago, AHF said:

I'm not sure this format has enough of a tail after elimination to really drive significant behavior.

I'm open to the thought, once I have a chance to maybe put together, say, a 3 season chart to analyze it better.

In theory, the mere threat itself is a driver of behavior toward not relying so very heavily on the draft that you leave yourself open to the possibility--not only because of the actual ramifications to your draft slot, but because of how the natives (fans) will react to playing games in which winning comes with a price.

 

Backing up, having thought about it while driving today... might want to think about something to balance the equation since top tier players routinely will be more attracted to the highest visibility franchises. So, the thought being, if you're going to provide disincentive for teams being content to stock their rosters completely through drafting, wanting them to always attempt at minimum to be mediocre, give all the lesser-visibility franchises some mechanism for competing more aggressively in the market.

( @macdaddy that might be the "complicated" part. I've not given that enough thought to have an opinion.)

 

 

 

 

[Diesel]

On 1/22/2024 at 10:16 PM, sturt said:

 

So, players tank, or front offices do?

 

My opinion, I say front offices do.

 

I say players are always doing their best to justify their roster spot, and get to that next bigger contract.

 

So, if any of that is true, then it's not really so much about players deciding to lose early, but rather about front offices stocking their rosters so that will allow them to lose early... then, to your point, how do you take a roster that is stocked in a way to lose early but that, then, you flip a switch and suddenly they win a lot. Now that you bring it up, sure as hell would be interesting to see some bad team look to acquire all the talent they could at the February deadline rather than dumping guys.

 

 

Yeah... Coach sit players who have back ailments.   Knee inflammation.   COVID.  Whatever you want to call it.  You keep out key players and your team will not win. 

Then put the key players back in play after the elimination date.

 

[Diesel]

15 hours ago, macdaddy said:

To me it doesn't have to be this complicated.  Just base it on the team record for the last three years.  

Yeah.. that's simplier but doesn't that penalize a team with a legit injury. 

When San Antonio got Duncan, DRob was out for most of the season with a legit injury.  Tanking was practical.   If you go by the three year record, then the same team that won the lottery last year, can probably win it again this year. 

 

 

[Diesel]

12 hours ago, sturt said:

'm with you. I think that's been a proposal that's been out there for awhile that makes a lot of sense. Apparently, though, there's some reason it's not caught on... dunno.

The three plan.

Year 1  30-52

Year 2  21 - 61

Year 3 20-62    - This gets them the #1 pick overall. 

Year 4:  41 - 41....  Because they have 2 seasons prior with a record of 41-123...  this team is still at the top of the lottery board.   Maybe not #1 but probably top 5...

They are top 5.. but they were a .500 team.   Whereas there may be a legit 4-78 team, who had a bad season and a major injury.. and because they were better than average the two seasons previous, they probably picking in the teens.

 

 

[Watchman]

On 1/22/2024 at 5:51 PM, Diesel said:

Wouldn't that just penalize you for being bad?

What if you're Detroit.  Right now you're like 4 win and 37 loses.. (I don't know)...

And you're eliminated at game 50.. when your say 5 and 45...

You have 32 games left with this bad team.  You're saying that all your loses are now wins?

so they can end up...  35-47?

They were legitimately bad... they are getting penalized for it. 

 

Why reward bad management/ownership?

[Watchman]

13 hours ago, sturt said:

I'm with you. I think that's been a proposal that's been out there for awhile that makes a lot of sense. Apparently, though, there's some reason it's not caught on... dunno.

I don't, otoh, consider this newly-come-to-light concept "complicated." Its advantage over the 3-year aggregate is that it's so simple and especially that it's so clearly visible that, if scheduled to be implemented at whatever point X-number of seasons from now, it's almost certainly to my mind going to get immediate results... ie, that teams will begin phasing out of their mentality of total reliance on the draft at a down point in their cycle.

I'm open to the thought, once I have a chance to maybe put together, say, a 3 season chart to analyze it better.

In theory, the mere threat itself is a driver of behavior toward not relying so very heavily on the draft that you leave yourself open to the possibility--not only because of the actual ramifications to your draft slot, but because of how the natives (fans) will react to playing games in which winning comes with a price.

 

Backing up, having thought about it while driving today... might want to think about something to balance the equation since top tier players routinely will be more attracted to the highest visibility franchises. So, the thought being, if you're going to provide disincentive for teams being content to stock their rosters completely through drafting, wanting them to always attempt at minimum to be mediocre, give all the lesser-visibility franchises some mechanism for competing more aggressively in the market.

( @macdaddy that might be the "complicated" part. I've not given that enough thought to have an opinion.)

 

 

 

 

Or better yet, just make the entire draft random, and set a hard cap.

[Diesel]

5 hours ago, Watchman said:

Why reward bad management/ownership?

IF you feel that way... then why not just have a rotation of who gets what pick.   I'm sure that there's a fair rotation that can be made. 

Here's the thing.. and this is why the Draft lottery is rigged:

Above everything else, the commish has to make sure that every team puts a good product on the floor.  i.e. No market can die.  If a Market dies, the commish shares part of the blame.   

To overcome that, the commish has to make sure that every team has an opportunity to get good players.   That's why there is a draft in the first place.   Usually, the draft takes the worst team from the previous season and gives them the chance to get the best player out of college.   Since Basketball is a 5 man team on the court at one time, 1 great player can make a team go from worst to first.  Unlike other sports.  So tanking is a real thing. 

The point of the Lottery was to keep teams from tanking.. but it doesn't.  I mean, if I purposely lose games, the worst I can get is 4th.  However, what has happened is that 14 teams get to be handpicked by the commish to receive one of 3 picks every year.  In doing so, the commish can guarantee that a team stays competitive, he can work out diplomatic solutions for players, he can pay off debts owed to teams.   

Having a rotation of picks will take away the commish's power to change the landscape of teams. 

 

[Diesel]

Here's an interesting Fact....

Atlanta Hawks = No #1 picks overall    is equivalent to     Atlanta Hawks = No Chips. 

is this a false equivalency... or is this a true relationship?