LogFAQs > #921832085

ScareChan posted...

I get that but its also counter productive. Take last year's Nuggets for example. They missed the playoffs by one game, were a 2 seed this year. They would have crushed a lottery tournament

on the other hand a team that was just, well, bad like the kings or the suns would lose early and get stuck with a late round lotto pick

For the record I'd have been fine with this. They always say the worst place to be in the NBA is in the middle where you are not good enough to compete but not bad enough to get the high lotto picks. I'd much rather those high lotto picks go to teams actively trying to win rather than those who aren't trying to win.

I mean really the Nuggets should be rewarded for always trying to win (36 > 30 > 33 > 40 > 46 > 54 wins) when compared to the 76ers who actively tried to lose over that same period. If the 76ers actually tried in those years they probably end up with win totals in the high 20s low 30s so why should they be rewarded for not trying?

It's not like I'm a fan of a team who would benefit from this either. Orlando was always a high lotto team from being bad rather than actively tanking.

Get better by winning not through a charity culture that encourages a losing mentality. Because then you get teams like Orlando who even when they do get good players, they struggle to step up because the locker room mentality is so ingrained with losing that it infects the lotto picks and they never learn to play hard and win because losing is seen as acceptable. I feel it's far more counter productive to reward losing than winning.