share

Lottery Odds

Rip255
Registered User
Joined: 11/30/2013
Posts: 490
Points: 895
Offline
Lottery Odds

How do you guys feel about the odds given to teams that don't make the playoffs every season.

I think they are still too generous for the worst teams considering that in a worst-case scenario you get at least the 4th pick.

I'm not happy that Cleveland won the lottery because I dislike the team, but I am happy because those that tanked didn't get the #1 pick.

I think the odds should be as follows:

Bottom 3 teams from each conference each get 10% chance of winning

Remaining 4 teams from each conferece each get 5% chance of winning.

Wouldn't this eliminate tanking if you knew that winning wouldn't cost you ping-pong balls?


KidB
Registered User
Joined: 04/23/2014
Posts: 88
Points: 115
Offline
Then what about picks 2 - 14

Then what about picks 2 - 14 ?

hbomb3300
Registered User
Joined: 04/18/2013
Posts: 318
Points: 498
Offline
Wheel

I'm a fan of the Wheel idea but your idea isn't bad. The great thing about the wheel is it's completely equal for everyone. People say they don't want the best teams to have a chance at top talent but wouldn't it be exciting to see Wiggins land in Miami or Exum go to the Pacers? The teams that land in the lottery every year should not be rewarded for the incompetence.

machu46
Registered User
Joined: 06/21/2012
Posts: 980
Points: 1594
Offline
No, that would not be

No, that would not be exciting lol. It would be awful for the parity of the league to see guys like Wiggins and Exum go to the best teams in the NBA.

At the end of the day, there's just no way to get rid of tanking without doing something like the wheel where it's just completely random, but that just creates even larger issues than the lottery system currently does.

It would kind of help if you go to a playoff format for non-playoff teams to determine the top picks, but then you'd have teams that generally make a push for the 8 seed now back off so that they have a great chance at getting the #1 pick.

The only new format that I've heard that might not be awful would be doing something where teams are randomly split into 5 groups of 6, and then you have a wheel kinda thing where one year, Group A gets the 1-6 picks, Group B gets 7-12, C gets 13-18, D gets 19-24, and E gets 25-30. Then you use the team's record over the previous 3 years to determine the exact order within each group, so for example, if Group A is:

Miami, Milwaukee, Golden State, Lakers, Pistons, and Nuggets, and they happen to have the 1-6 slots this year, it would look like this:

1. Detroit (83 wins over the past 3 years)

2. Milwaukee (84 wins over the past 3 years)

3. Lakers (113 wins)

4. Warriors (121 wins)

5. Nuggets (131 wins)

6. Miami (166 wins)

I think that this gives you a pretty good balance of the top rookies going to bad teams while still not encouraging tanking too much (in this case, it would make sense for Milwaukee and Detroit to bottom out to try to get the #1 pick, but in other situations, Milwaukee could be as bad as they want and still only end up with the best pick out of their group of 6).

But all in all, it's just pretty much impossible to get rid of tanking without creating even bigger problems.

hbomb3300
Registered User
Joined: 04/18/2013
Posts: 318
Points: 498
Offline
Wheel

Well you may be in the minority but most casual NBA fans are attracted to the teams loaded with stars like the Heat, Shaq and Kobe's Lakers, or more recently the Celtics trio. Watching two average teams go at it isn't very exciting. The NBA has never been about parity... only 8 franchises have won the championship in the past 30 years. Handing poorly run franchises top talent rarely does the league any good.

DS Lewis
Registered User
Joined: 06/07/2011
Posts: 8
Points: 9
Offline
minor changes

I've been thinking that the worst three should be in a virtual tie. A drawing would determine their order if they don't win a top three spot and their odds would all be dropped to about 150/1000 combiniations. Message would be that if you finish bottom three that you could very well end up with #6 so why build a team to be record-setting bad.

I feel the extra combinitations should be dvided amongst teams that have not lucked into a top three pick over the two to three years with a slight progressivity helping teams that have had the worst records among those that have not won recent lotteries.

Bad teams are often correlate with bad management, but part of the draft is that there still needs to be hope for the fans of the teams in cities that are not free agent destintation hot spots. I think the NBA actually needs a level of parity closer to the NFL if it wants to expand its fanbase. Otherwise, only people living in or with ties the storied (or large-market) fanchise will have interest in the future.

RSS: Syndicate content