Board 8 > NBA Playoffs topic 3: nerf the Warriors

(+) Yeah! (+)

Yeah the Magic have it rough, but at least you're not the Nets
---

Yeah I picked the year in which the Pistons started to suck. But despite being so awful during that time period we got exactly zero picks in the top 5. In fact we never drafted higher than 7th.

And that's why we're largely still irrelevant.
---

Man, finally get top 3 and its moved to 5. I'm happy with 5 but still. We should get 2 really solid guys with two top 10 picks. Plus we get Bogdan this year. Rudy is opting out so we have more money to spend. A really young core. We have some hope

Boston is going to be rediculous especially when Demarcus leaves New Orleans for them
---

.404 is, like, not that bad a record at all in a givenvyear though. The Pistons have just never had *that* awful a record, unfortunately.

But luck really matters. The team I feel bad for is Charlotte. Got #2 in a rigged draft with Anthony Davis after literally winning 7 games and clawed back to respectability with absolutely no thanks for it.
---

SeabassDebeste posted...

But luck really matters. The team I feel bad for is Charlotte. Got #2 in a rigged draft with Anthony Davis after literally winning 7 games and clawed back to respectability with absolutely no thanks for it.

in fairness they could have gotten Dame Lillard, Bradley Beal or Andre Drummond. There was some good talent there for them at #2 and they blew it
---

The thing is we shouldn't be rewarding losing in the first place. It's stupid.

No one wants to 'reward' losing, just like no one wants to 'reward' a person not having a job. But the NBA works because it's national. If you don't have a draft as an 'equalizer' then it becomes a rich-get-richer/poor-get-poorer situation. Even with the draft, that tends to happen. Minnesota would *not* have a promising future if they didn't draft Karl Anthony Towns. But the NBA doesn't want to just lose Minnesota.
---

I wish I knew why people said the lottery encourages losing. without the lottery it'd be tank city with the worst record guaranteed the first pick. the problem is that individual players mean so much more in basketball vs. other sports. the draft is disproportionately valued.
---

philadelphia already is tank city
---

I think without the lottery, someone would have managed to tank harder than Brooklyn, who didn't even own their pick. So I'd say the lottery is working alright
---

transcience posted...

I wish I knew why people said the lottery encourages losing. without the lottery it'd be tank city with the worst record guaranteed the first pick. the problem is that individual players mean so much more in basketball vs. other sports. the draft is disproportionately valued.

I THINK people who say things like this are not seeing the alternative as "worst record picks first" but rather "picks are completely randomized" or some other bizarre thing that would never actually exist.
---

transcience posted...

I wish I knew why people said the lottery encourages losing. without the lottery it'd be tank city with the worst record guaranteed the first pick. the problem is that individual players mean so much more in basketball vs. other sports. the draft is disproportionately valued.

Like I posted earlier, playoff style tournament between lotto teams to determine placement. Better regular season record rewarding home court advantage. Only problem would be traded picks and teams no showing

Either that or flip the lottery odds. Worst record gives us worst odds at number 1 pick. Don't reward teams for being bad. And it dis courage tanking. Look at the Lakers and Philly, teams absolutely tank for picks

The Lakers won like 5 straight toward the end of the season
---

Right but they were very obviously tanking prior to that which made their winning spree at the end of the season even more bizarre

Obviously no one is tanking that hard because Brooklyn was last and they didn't even own their pick. If someone really wanted to tank I'm pretty sure they could have done worse than the Nets who had no reason to tank.

The Suns even shut down a lot of good players near the end of the season to "give the young players experience and develop them" and even with the 2nd worst record they got shut out of the top 3.

Of course, Jackson will probably fall in their lap anyway because Philly probably grabs a guard, and the Suns are solid at guard with Bledsoe, Booker, and Knight... so it worked out pretty well for them
---

Yeah that's kind of what I was getting at. If nobody could out tank Brooklyn who didn't have their pick then either no teams really tanked or they're all just really bad at tanking.
---

one thing that disgusts me is tanking for protected picks. get rid of pick protection, or enforce pick swaps instead of protection. lakers don't tank this hard if they can't keep their pick. same with the 2012 warriors.
---

Lottery actually encourages tanking more than discourages it.

1. Teams with 9th/10th worst record entering final weeks of season are encouraged to fall spots because not only would say getting to 7th worst record give them likely a better pick but also better odds at getting into the top 3. 10th is 6%, 7th is 15% and there isn't usually a huge difference in wins between the spots so it encourages tanking from mid-lottery picks.

2. The team with the worst record only has a 25% chance of picking #1, while a 36% chance of picking fourth. Which basically means the odds are of you drafting 4th instead of 1st are higher and that can be the difference between truly transformative talent and a solid but unspectacular starter. Which means that team is likely to be back down in the gutter bottom three next year instead of rising up out of that spot a little bit. Hence why teams through a combination of lottery bad luck and inept management wind up stuck there for years.
---

ShatteredElysium posted...

The thing is we shouldn't be rewarding losing in the first place. It's stupid.

There should be a bigger incentive to making the playoffs, that a team who can't make the playoffs is using the draft to improve chances towards accomplishing the goal. The problem is that so few teams typically have a good chance of competing for a title. For a while, it felt likes teams were good at grabbing a star and some backup and even if they weren't true contenders, they were marketable.

So, say you made the playoffs. You can add a certain $$ to max contracts, or apply it to the salary cap, or you earn some trade exception, etc. Then everyone who fails to make the playoffs has an equal shot at the lottery.
---

neonreaper posted...

ShatteredElysium posted...

The thing is we shouldn't be rewarding losing in the first place. It's stupid.

There should be a bigger incentive to making the playoffs, that a team who can't make the playoffs is using the draft to improve chances towards accomplishing the goal. The problem is that so few teams typically have a good chance of competing for a title. For a while, it felt likes teams were good at grabbing a star and some backup and even if they weren't true contenders, they were marketable.

So, say you made the playoffs. You can add a certain $$ to max contracts, or apply it to the salary cap, or you earn some trade exception, etc. Then everyone who fails to make the playoffs has an equal shot at the lottery.

These are some really awful ideas.
---

Would never be considered but it would be interesting if we had some cap based draft system where you bid on draft slots. Maybe like an assigned part of the salary cap or even just inclusive of the salary cap. So if you want to blow it up and bid big on an upcoming draft, you'd have to shed salaries

Having a playoff for draft picks seem interesting but is also flawed

-You would be giving the best of the worst the best pick
- Guys have no incentive to play, and actually incentive to play worse so that they dont get upstaged by a better guy coming in the draft
---

You fix tanking by letting players choose their own team after declaring for the NBA. No one wants to play for a shitty team.
---

Don't see an issue with rewarding best of the worst. Plus the gap between non playoff teams is generally a lot smaller than the gap between playoff teams. So in a one off game or like best of 3 there's a far higher chance for upsets.

UItimaterializer posted...

You fix tanking by letting players choose their own team after declaring for the NBA. No one wants to play for a shitty team.

there it is, the worst idea yet
---

Not surprised it's a Warriors "fan" that suggests it, too.

Cause I'm sure Stephen Curry was dying to play for the Warriors back in 2009.

You know how you reduce tanking? Get rid of the lottery. Your bottom 3 are still gonna tank no matter what but teams that know they're not fighting for lottery odds but just simply draft position have less incentive to tank. Or make it so that only the top 5 enter some form of lottery and everyone else drafts in position of finish.
---

MZero11 posted...

UItimaterializer posted...

You fix tanking by letting players choose their own team after declaring for the NBA. No one wants to play for a shitty team.

there it is, the worst idea yet

In fairness I stole it from Colin Cowherd and he explained why it's a good idea better than I could.

Rock calling anyone a bandwagon fan is hilarious.
---

Well Colin Cowherd is a fucking horrendous gasbag so that's not surprising

If players could choose they'd either go to

A) The best teams (Golden State, Cleveland, maybe San Antonio)
B) Prestigious/big market teams (LA Lakers, Boston, Miami)
C) Their home town team

Like, the Jazz might as well fold. Same with the Timberwolves, the Suns, the Pacers, the Hornets... like no good players are going to those teams
---

Until someone comes up with a better idea than the lottery I am fine with the lottery. Not a fan of any of those.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

neonreaper posted...

ShatteredElysium posted...

The thing is we shouldn't be rewarding losing in the first place. It's stupid.

There should be a bigger incentive to making the playoffs, that a team who can't make the playoffs is using the draft to improve chances towards accomplishing the goal. The problem is that so few teams typically have a good chance of competing for a title. For a while, it felt likes teams were good at grabbing a star and some backup and even if they weren't true contenders, they were marketable.

So, say you made the playoffs. You can add a certain $$ to max contracts, or apply it to the salary cap, or you earn some trade exception, etc. Then everyone who fails to make the playoffs has an equal shot at the lottery.

These are some really awful ideas.

You cannot grasp my mystique
---

Is mystique code for "ways that I can ensure there is zero competitive balance in the league"?

Does 41-41 Miami HEAT deserve equal shot at a top 3 pick as 24-58 Phoenix Suns?
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Is mystique code for "ways that I can ensure there is zero competitive balance in the league"?

Does 41-41 Miami HEAT deserve equal shot at a top 3 pick as 24-58 Phoenix Suns?

Bad teams should not be bailed out for their bad decisions/management. There should not be an incentive to lose in a competitive sport.

It's not like I'm saying this as a fan of a team who would benefit from this, I'm a fan of an awful team.

So how exactly are they supposed to improve their roster? Free agents aren't going to want to go there
---

It's interesting to read these ideas about the draft and lottery, it's like a bunch of you forgot that Soccer exists and don't realize what happens to a league when measures aren't enacted to improve parity. Bad teams should definitely be rewarded.
---

UItimaterializer posted...

Rock calling anyone a bandwagon fan is hilarious.

Isn't he just a fan of all the (pathetic) Detroit teams? >_>
---

The mighty Detroit bandwagon with their 2 championships in the last 30 years
---

By winning. Is it going to be harder than most places? Of course it is.

But how about we look at the recent lottery top 3

2017 - Boston, Lakers, Philly (Bottom 3 of lotto: Heat, Nuggets, Pistons)
2016 - Philly, Lakers, Boston (Bulls, Suns, Jazz)
2015 - Minnesota, Lakers, Philly (OKC, Suns, Jazz)
2014 - Cavs, Bucks, Philly (Suns, Wolves, Magic)
2013 - Cavs, Magic, Wizards (Jazz, Mavericks, OKC)

The bottom 3 of the lotto has generally been smaller market teams than the top 3. So if anything, reversing the lotto odds would have helped smaller teams more than the current system.

Plus generally speaking you're going to have more smaller market teams in the lotto than the playoffs anyway. So if you made the lotto odds equal for all lotto teams, it's not like you'd suddenly be rewarding way more big teams than small. If anything it would help those smaller market teams that are on the cusp of playoffs but can't breakthrough due to being less attractive in free agency and are too far down the lotto to get a good pick

thundersheep posted...

It's interesting to read these ideas about the draft and lottery, it's like a bunch of you forgot that Soccer exists and don't realize what happens to a league when measures aren't enacted to improve parity. Bad teams should definitely be rewarded.

Not saying the lotto should go completely. Still give the non-playoff teams first dibs, just don't reward the worst of the lot more than the rest. Reward all of those who miss out equally or reward in reverse order to now. Teams could still gradually build up and you don't get the bullshit of being handed a superstar purely because you sucked more than everyone else for a prolonged period of time. Make them fucking work for it through good management, scouting and building their way up

Also, the disparity in soccer isn't anything to do with the lack of lottery. It's because it's a sport that has no salary cap and a transfer system that lets the big teams just buy the big players off the smaller teams if their scouting fails. So the teams with the most money are dominant

Add in a salary/transfer cap and things would change. Of course the bigger teams would still have an advantage by virtue of players preferring to play for them but there would be a far greater chance of teams breaking through.

Ok but there's two problems with that:

What's the incentive for teams like the Bulls and Blazers? They had the same record as the Heat but squeaked into the playoffs and got wrecked. The Heat get a big boost because they lost the tiebreaker to get into the playoffs?

Second of all, winning is kind of hard when your roster sucks and you have no way to improve it. Players would be more willing to go to say. Miami, Detroit, or Denver who are on the cusp and have some good talent, than like the Kings.

Also Boston only has the top pick because the Nets are dumb. There's a team not being bailed out for bad decisions right there. and Philly's pick should be Sacramento
---

The Bulls didn't get wrecked. The Bulls got unlucky and had a key player injured. So the incentive is they make the playoffs where they at least have a chance of progressing, albeit a slim one (in the case of the Trail Blazers). But realistically you could apply that to anyone who isn't Golden State or the Cavs, none of them really stood any chance of winning.

You can flip it the other way too. The Raptors were 51-31 and had the joint 5th best record in the country. Are they more likely than the Lakers to win a championship? Sure. How much more likely though? Absolutely minuscule. Yet the Lakers get a chance to nab a superstar that could change that because they sucked whilst the Raptors have zero chance of doing so because they actually tried to produce a competitive team

And it's not like this is a one off for the Lakers, they have had the 2nd pick 3 years in a row whilst the Raptors have been in the playoffs all that time but without a realistic chance of winning

By the way, the Warriors won a title with a core made up of Curry (7th pick), Thompson (11th pick) and Green (2nd rounder)

The Wolves, for example, decided to draft two PGs instead of Curry, and Derrick WIlliams over Klay Thompson (and Kemba Walker, Kawhi Leonard, and Jimmy Butler). Hell, Isaiah Thomas was the last pack of the second round in that draft. So it's not like these teams are getting guaranteed benefits for being bad. They still have to choose the right players, and often fail. Tanking has historically not really worked out all that well. Good teams are usually built by ripping someone else off or free agency
---

Right, they are not getting a guaranteed shot but they sure as shit are getting a better shot than most. And in some cases, repeatedly.


Maybe they just need to penalize your odds if you have already landed a Top 3-5 pick in the last few years. Or outright prevent you from landing another Top 3 pick if you already got one in the last whatever years (3 sounds fair).

Nelson_Mandela posted...

UItimaterializer posted...

Rock calling anyone a bandwagon fan is hilarious.

Isn't he just a fan of all the (pathetic) Detroit teams? >_>

Just Tigers and Pistons. Hell I ain't even a Red Wings fan and they just had a big streak end!
---

The problem you guys are seeing has little to do with the draft and more to do with the severe lack of parity in the NBA.

If we didn't have essentially two super teams that were the only viable championship contenders, this wouldn't be a problem.
---

ShatteredElysium posted...

The Bulls didn't get wrecked. The Bulls got unlucky and had a key player injured. So the incentive is they make the playoffs where they at least have a chance of progressing, albeit a slim one (in the case of the Trail Blazers). But realistically you could apply that to anyone who isn't Golden State or the Cavs, none of them really stood any chance of winning.

You can flip it the other way too. The Raptors were 51-31 and had the joint 5th best record in the country. Are they more likely than the Lakers to win a championship? Sure. How much more likely though? Absolutely minuscule. Yet the Lakers get a chance to nab a superstar that could change that because they sucked whilst the Raptors have zero chance of doing so because they actually tried to produce a competitive team

Fair, the Bulls did well. Just replace with the Pacers then who were 1 win better. It's not fair to award Miami so much more over those teams because now you're just rewarding the worst of the fringe playoffs teams, so it's still rewarded for being bad.

The difference with teams like the Raptors and such is that they can lure free agents and have assets already they can trade to make moves. If you have bad players and bad draft picks, you have no assets to trade and you can't get a top prospect. On top of that, with no future success on the horizon free agents won't want to join either
---

you could do lottery based on your record from past 4 years, and weighting the most recent year to count for more
---

Maybe they should have the top 5 draft in reverse order
So the fifth worst team drafts first, then 4th, 3rd, etc. and then after the worst team, go from 6-14 in the normal order.

Tanking will be less effective but actual bad teams still get good picks. Might work pretty well
---

rested LeBron looks dangerous
---

Boston can't turn around this quickly, not against Lebron and Kyrie
---