With a looming and loaded 2014 draft, ESPN's TrueHoop spent a week diving into solutions to prevent tanking in the NBA. If that peaks your interest but haven't checked it out, here's a link --> http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop
Do you posters agree with any of the solutions from TrueHoop on ridding the NBA of tanking?
If not, what is/are your solution(s) to tanking in the NBA?
Or...if tanking is not a big deal to you, then why is that?
So much tank talk. If I had the skills, I'd post a picture of a Panzer.
I don't see how you could prevent tanking unless you some how "nerfed" the draft system and made it less appealing to be a worse team if you weren't going to make the playoffs. I don't think it's a huge problem really, it's just a rebuilding strategy that has had more success than say what the Bucks are doing. As a fan, I'd rather have a team have a few bad years to get exciting young talent than watch them be an 8th seed every year where we get swept in the playoffs. I really don't see it hurting the NBA too much at this point but I could see how it might start hurting the competitiveness one day but I don't know if there's any plausible solutions.
From reading the article, I could only find the non-weighted lottery interesting (but honestly it can only hurt teams who truly are that bad, like say the Cavs were or the Magic were and they weren't tanking for the most part). I don't like the idea of eliminating the draft or forcing those to fire their GM's for losing seasons.
Let teams do what they want to do, they know the risks. They sell less tickets, jerseys, merch etc if they're not trying to field a winning team every night. It's risk/reward. I think the lottery system is the best thing to deter tanking because if you have the worst record, there still isn't even a 50% chance you'll get the 1st pick.
I think the team with the worst record has a 25% chance of getting the first pick. Considering the disasters drafted at number 2, there often isn't a real consolation prize if you tank to the bottom of the league and you don't get the first pick.
That, and the draft historically becomes a crap shoot only at the #6 slot. Since the lottery was introduced, the top 5 picks in drafts typically produce at a much higher level than 6-14, at least in terms of win shares.
Win shares don't show everything, of course, but it's worth noting that #2 picks have actually produced less of them than the #5 pick.
I think there are issues with every system. In the NBA it's especially complicated because the superstars make a much bigger difference than in the other sports.
Teams need the freedom to rebuild, and the current system allows them to do that. Whether it's intentional (76ers) or unintentional (Bobcats) is not the point. If you want to get a top pick, your team is going to have to go through some losing, so there is a degree of equity about it.
I think the systems on truehoop might allow the playoff teams to go after the top talents. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, but I don't see it being a better system than the one we have.
Lol Thats what the Draft Lottery was created for. Its probably the best solution available.
a good solution to me would be the way european basketball or soccer leagues are set up. the nba will reward the worst teams in a sense giving teams incentive to lose. at the same time, you don't want to necessarily beef up the best teams.
this is about how many leagues are set up overseas:
say the nbdl had as much teams as the nba. you reward the best team or couple teams from the nbdl to play in the nba the following year. then the worst nba team or couple teams go down to the weaker league and play in that league the following year. teams have to earn there way to the top to even get to the top league which in term participates first in drafts, etc. and keeps the competitive balance up more. the idea is like an "a" league "b" league type of scenario. there can be flaws in that system, but it works much better, giving teams less incentive to tank.
I would be open to see a modification of the lottery system.
I love the draft and I would love to see a lottery with exactly the same chance for every team to get the 1st pick.
Maybe it would be sometimes unfair and won't allow weaker franchises to build quicker better teams but it would be very fun and avoid any thought of tanking. Teams would be force to build something serious to contend and not count on draft.
The lottery would be very fun and would become a very surprising night... more entertaining.
Tanking is a story and rebuilding through the draft is another story. Neither of these things are really happening in any big way over the years. This year is a pretty big deal. Also we have a seriously jacked team in the league in the Heat. So the two are combining for this being as tanky a year as you can have. And still the amount of teams that are actually going to tank are not going to be as many as folks are saying.
You said almost exactly what I would have. This years Philly team is about the only one I've ever seen that I would say it actually tanking, and they STILL aren't guaranteed of anything higher than #4.
There have been less obvious instances such as when teams play their blue chippers out of position:
The Sonics/Thunder experimented with Kevin Durant playing shooting guard and Russell Westbrook at point guard in separate seasons.
The same thing is in the works in Orlando with Oladipo at point guard.
Boston once upon a time put Antoine Walker at center during the race for Tim Duncan.
If those all work out, great, but it's going to be a disaster at first when they're playing a position they rarely (if at all) played before. However, it's a disaster that generates a few more losses and a higher chance at a top 5 pick in the process.
Two ideas to help small market teams and competitiveness. One idea comes from mlb. For example, when Lebron James left Cleveland for Miami, it was Miami gets star and Cleveland gets nothing but a probable worse record which results in tanking. Instead, like mlb, Cleveland could receive Miami's pick as compensation based on the type of player leaving. This compensation pick should be based on the players resume. Lebron is a perennial allstar and should command a pick in the first round. Other players with lesser resumes should command less. Even this idea can be flawed based on the teams compensation pick after a winning season. The example of Miami and Lebron results in Miami improved record which sends a likely compensation pick to Cleveland towards the back end of the draft. This brings in my second idea which would be a change in the lottery. First, the teams with the worst record would share similar odds with compensated teams like Cleveland to draft earliest. Second, there could be more of a faceoff lottery between teams 1 - 14 or expand the lottery to a greater number of teams for more faceoffs. This faceoff lottery would just determine the order for best odds for the actual draft lottery. Third, teams excluded from a faceoff lottery would be teams who signed the allstar or teams who are over the salary cap. These teams would end the first round or even go to the second round based on the number of compensation teams that year. Here's how a faceoff lottery could go based on the Cleveland example and the current lottery number of teams. Odds are just hypothetical.
#1 Worst record team faceoff with comp. pick Cleveland (for draft lottery position 1 and 2) odds 50/50
#2 w. record faceoff with #9 w. record (for lottery position 3 and 9) odds 85/15
#3 w. record faceoff with #10 w. record (for lottery position 4 and 10) odds 80/20
#4 w. record faceoff with #11 w. record (for lottery position 5 and 11) odds 75/25
#5 w, record faceoff with #12 w. record (for lottery position 6 and 12) odds 70/30
#6 w. record faceoff with #13w. record (for lottery position 7 and 13) odds 60/40
#7 w. record faceoff with #14 w. record (for lottery position 8 and 14) odds 55/45
#8 w. record faceoff with #15 w. record (for lottery position 9 and 15) odds 50/50 *15th would be expanded or out of lottery pool
Again, the faceoff lottery would only determine which order the teams would represent for the actual draft lottery. Compensation picks would automatically jump into the draft lottery and share the same odds with the worst record. Additional teams with compensation picks would faceoff with teams with the worst records.
Cleveland was compensated 2 1st round picks for Lebron. Are you saying they should have been compensated more? I know Miami wasn't required to but they did to facilitate a sign/trade which is often required especially to move players when you're over the salary cap. Cleveland was also compensated with a huge trade exception which became, if I recall in part, Baron Davis and what became the #1 pick in the draft.
Cleveland is an example that the current system works.
How would Bosh fit into this model?
You can't reward teams for not spending money.
Here's an idea: I think we just put the teams into a playoff where the losing teams continue playing until we have the loser of losers; that city loses their franchise and must become an expansion team in two years. The team that beats that team gets the number one pick.
1 - You need deeper drafts every year, so the benefit of being in the lottery isn't weighted as highly. I think having a 'come out in HS or stay 2-3 years in college' rule would help. Part of the problem with tanking is how much bad teams still miss with their picks while being in the lottery.
2 - You either need a hardened cap and revenue sharing or no artificial restrictions. Though you can't prevent GM's and Owners from being dumb, I think the current collective bargaining agreement will help spread the talent out such that the gap between the best and worst team is smaller than in the past. I think the latter would weed out deadwood owners and lead to franchises relocating to cities where there are viable markets to compete long term.
3 - It'll happen naturally over time. Eventually good strategy duplicates itself, as we see more front office people and coaches from the Spurs, Rockets, etc. get bigger jobs in the league. Advanced stats will show front offices that tanking doesn't work as a strategy, and it's a better make savvy trades to get the best pick possible and actually nail the selection where you're slotted.
The only way you can prevent teams from tanking in my opinion is to give all fourteen teams the same chance of winning it.
I just don't see how the NBA could improve upon their current design without encroaching on the players rights. In reality, if you want to stop tanking you're going to have to change how free agency works too. The reason teams tank is because their main players leave, and they see no other solution to improve the team. Teams like the Bucks or Bobcats really don't have a choice but to tank, because at the end of the day who wants to play in CHA or MIL?
If the NBA were to make free agency a "goes to the highest bidder" auction like event, than I guarantee you wouldn't see as many teams tanking, nor would you see players leave their teams in fear of getting picked up by a less desirable team. Any team could get any player if they were willing to dish out the cash and offer more incentives, and teams like MIL and CHA could make a splash other than getting the #5 pick, or snagging a Gerald Wallace type of player.
But like I said that's just a unorthodox idea, and if the NBA ever conducted itself that way I would probably stop following it as closely as I do. What the NBA does now is its best option, because it leaves everyone alone. To create parity, even if we're talking about draft picks, the players are going to have to give something up, and quite frankly I don't see any reason why they would.
What about little things such as....
1. Make picks unprotected: if a team assumes the risk of tanking, so too should teams throwing draft picks into trades. Teams who gave up picks yet are struggling will have to win as much as possible to make their traded pick less valuable. That, or make picks only top-3 protected. It's like the Bulls have had Charlotte's pick forever and could've used that extra player to put them in contention with Miami, yet they have been sitting on that asset for years.
2. Shorten the season: Aside from back-to-back-to-backs, I loved the 66-game lockout-shortened season. It adds a little more meaning to each game and a little more luck. As another incentive to making the playoffs, the first round could also be moved to a best of 5 games versus 7, making an upset slightly more likely. Shortening the season like this would shave off as much as 20 games each year, lessening the chance of wear and tear injuries and prolonging careers with the less mileage. The added variance also makes games more exciting to a casual fan. Hopefully.
I'd like to think those two changes would be more likely than doing away with the draft, as one TrueHoop post suggested.
last place team has to move cities and change ownership.
Some years its completely worth it to tank, this happens to be one of those years...
Right, I don't think you can discourage tanking this year. The Heat are the front runner by far to win the title. Only the Pacers and Bulls have a realistic shot of beating the Heat. Then out West you have a handful of top teams and then a bunch of also rans. The rest of the league is either stuck or mediocrity of worse. The only realistic option for a majority of teams this year is to tank.
Another reason that tanking makes sense this year is that not only do you have a potentially lucrative top guy in Andrew Wiggins -- a guy who can create buzz, sell tickets, jerseys, and get better TV coverage, even before winning much. Then you have some really good consolation prizes in Jabari Parker, Julius Randle, and Marcus Smart. That means there are 4 legit guys out there, so if you are the worst team in the league you can't really lose. Then there are some other nice players from 5 to almost 15 or 20. This looks like a great draft to build through. Some true studs at the top, some really good guys at the middle of the first round, and even talent well into the second round.
This is an anomaly though. You couldn't really discourage teams from tanking this year. When there are guys out there like Ralph Sampson, or Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, Shaq, or LeBron you cannot discourage tanking. Those guys changed franchises. You would be smart to tank. Also drafts like 1984 were so deep with Hakeem, Jordan, Barkley, and others were the consolation prizes were better than most years top picks. 2003 was similar too, were the top of the draft was loaded with Carmelo Anthony being the ideal consolation prize. Even 1992 with Shaq that had the ideal top guy in a draft that wasn't that deep still had Zo Mourning and Laettner out there as solid players to build around. You can discourage tanking for the 2000 draft or drafts like that, just not the really, really good ones.