NBA Fixing the NBA

This is the part I found most interesting of the 3 proposals:

Lottery teams would reach a minimum win total floor in each season, such as 25 wins. If a team falls short of the floor, it gets slotted to meet the floor. Top 4 drawn as part of lottery, as is currently.
Click to expand...

I like the general premise of this, but it needs a little tweaking. If it were like this, then it still doesn't really give you any incentive to reach the floor, while the point would be to get teams competing to win games to meet the floor. Winning 15 games gets you in the exact same spot as winning 25 games... so you still don't really have any incentive. You could modify this and say that any team that doesn't reach the floor gets slotted at 5 and after, in reverse order of the win total.

For example, say the season ends like this (team and number of wins)

IND - 17
BKN - 18
WAS - 19
SAC - 22
UTA - 25
DAL - 26
MEM - 27
NOP - 27
MIL - 28
CHI - 30
GSW - 34
POR - 27
MIA - 41
CHA - 42

You your lottery slotting would be:

1. UTA
2. DAL
3. MEM
4. NOP
5. SAC
6. WAS
7. BKN
8. IND
9. MIL
10. CHI
11. GSW
12. POR
13. MIA
14. CHA

The idea here is that you actually punish teams for not hitting the floor, with an inherent enhanced punishment for missing the floor the most.

The thing I'd be concerned about is setting the floor realistically. 25 games might be too high... some teams are just bad and will struggle to win 25 games even if they are trying. Maybe 20 or 22 is a better number, although if 25 is the floor it will also give GMs an incentive to build shit rosters from the get-go, which is part of my beef with the tanking discussion. It largely focuses on coaching decisions and not enough emphasis is put on GM decisions to tank. Silver even absolved GMs in his comments saying "there is a difference between tanking and a true rebuild" - basically making an argument that if a GM decides to tank, it's a "true rebuild" but if a coach tanks then it's a "tank". They're the same damn thing.
 
scott said:
This is the part I found most interesting of the 3 proposals:



I like the general premise of this, but it needs a little tweaking. If it were like this, then it still doesn't really give you any incentive to reach the floor, while the point would be to get teams competing to win games to meet the floor. Winning 15 games gets you in the exact same spot as winning 25 games... so you still don't really have any incentive. You could modify this and say that any team that doesn't reach the floor gets slotted at 5 and after, in reverse order of the win total.

For example, say the season ends like this (team and number of wins)

IND - 17
BKN - 18
WAS - 19
SAC - 22
UTA - 25
DAL - 26
MEM - 27
NOP - 27
MIL - 28
CHI - 30
GSW - 34
POR - 27
MIA - 41
CHA - 42

You your lottery slotting would be:

1. UTA
2. DAL
3. MEM
4. NOP
5. SAC
6. WAS
7. BKN
8. IND
9. MIL
10. CHI
11. GSW
12. POR
13. MIA
14. CHA

The idea here is that you actually punish teams for not hitting the floor, with an inherent enhanced punishment for missing the floor the most.

The thing I'd be concerned about is setting the floor realistically. 25 games might be too high... some teams are just bad and will struggle to win 25 games even if they are trying. Maybe 20 or 22 is a better number, although if 25 is the floor it will also give GMs an incentive to build shit rosters from the get-go, which is part of my beef with the tanking discussion. It largely focuses on coaching decisions and not enough emphasis is put on GM decisions to tank. Silver even absolved GMs in his comments saying "there is a difference between tanking and a true rebuild" - basically making an argument that if a GM decides to tank, it's a "true rebuild" but if a coach tanks then it's a "tank". They're the same damn thing.
Click to expand...
The second proposal was also the most intriguing to me.

What about setting the floor at the 5th worst record, rather than a pre-determined number of wins? And after that the pre-lottery order is set by whoever is closest to the 5th worst, regardless of direction, with ties going to the worse team.

In your example, the lottery slots would be

1. UTA (25 wins, 5th worst record)
2. DAL (1 win away from UTA)
3. MEM (2 wins away, assume they win tiebreaker vs NOP)
4. NOP
5. SAC (3 wins away, wins tiebreaker vs MIL due to having a worse record)
6. MIL (3 wins away, loses tiebreaker vs SAC due to having a better record)
7. CHI (5 wins away)
8. WAS (6 wins away)
9. BRO (7 wins away)
10. IND (8 wins away)
11. GSW
12. POR
13. MIA
14. CHA

Aiming for the 5th worst record, rather than worst overall record, would give the worst teams an incentive to improve their rosters and not just strip them down entirely. Tanking would become piecemeal and strategic rather than a season-long race to the bottom.

Notice that the 4 worst records slot in at 5/8/9/10 here. The teams with the worst records down the stretch would be gunning to win as much as possible to get closer to 5th worst. You can't tell me that WAS/BRO/IND would have tanked nearly this hard, both earlier in the season and right now, with this system in place.

You might have some teams in the 9th-11th worst range tank at the end of the season, but this idea seems to be much better than the status quo.

There are probably a lot of fascinating game theory implications here but I haven't put quite that much thought into it.
 
scott said:
This is the part I found most interesting of the 3 proposals:



I like the general premise of this, but it needs a little tweaking. If it were like this, then it still doesn't really give you any incentive to reach the floor, while the point would be to get teams competing to win games to meet the floor. Winning 15 games gets you in the exact same spot as winning 25 games... so you still don't really have any incentive. You could modify this and say that any team that doesn't reach the floor gets slotted at 5 and after, in reverse order of the win total.

For example, say the season ends like this (team and number of wins)

IND - 17
BKN - 18
WAS - 19
SAC - 22
UTA - 25
DAL - 26
MEM - 27
NOP - 27
MIL - 28
CHI - 30
GSW - 34
POR - 27
MIA - 41
CHA - 42

You your lottery slotting would be:

1. UTA
2. DAL
3. MEM
4. NOP
5. SAC
6. WAS
7. BKN
8. IND
9. MIL
10. CHI
11. GSW
12. POR
13. MIA
14. CHA

The idea here is that you actually punish teams for not hitting the floor, with an inherent enhanced punishment for missing the floor the most.

The thing I'd be concerned about is setting the floor realistically. 25 games might be too high... some teams are just bad and will struggle to win 25 games even if they are trying. Maybe 20 or 22 is a better number, although if 25 is the floor it will also give GMs an incentive to build shit rosters from the get-go, which is part of my beef with the tanking discussion. It largely focuses on coaching decisions and not enough emphasis is put on GM decisions to tank. Silver even absolved GMs in his comments saying "there is a difference between tanking and a true rebuild" - basically making an argument that if a GM decides to tank, it's a "true rebuild" but if a coach tanks then it's a "tank". They're the same damn thing.
Click to expand...
This just feels like more attempts to punish terrible teams with no talent for being terrible with no talent. They still haven't figured out how to encourage teams to play as hard as they can, which is what they need to be doing. The worst teams need the best talent, full stop. Until they solve that issue, they're not solving anything and instead and inadvertently getting good picks into the hands of better teams.

tl;dr if a team is awful, they're not making that 25 win barrier, they just can't. so what are your plans here?
 
bozhemoi said:
This just feels like more attempts to punish terrible teams with no talent for being terrible with no talent. They still haven't figured out how to encourage teams to play as hard as they can, which is what they need to be doing. The worst teams need the best talent, full stop. Until they solve that issue, they're not solving anything and instead and inadvertently getting good picks into the hands of better teams.

tl;dr if a team is awful, they're not making that 25 win barrier, they just can't. so what are your plans here?
Click to expand...
Yeah, in the end I think the simplest solution is to have a progressive punishment scale for teams deemed to do the thing they seem to have the biggest problem with: sitting players and not playing to win (sitting guys in the 4th, for example). Just fine those teams, and maybe after so many fines you can lose picks, or whatever.

But generally speaking I don't think they need to do anything. What I proposed above is still worse than the status quo, IMO, but seems the most likely to achieve what they want without totally upending the point of the draft (to help the worst teams get better)
 
Seventyniner said:
The second proposal was also the most intriguing to me.

What about setting the floor at the 5th worst record, rather than a pre-determined number of wins? And after that the pre-lottery order is set by whoever is closest to the 5th worst, regardless of direction, with ties going to the worse team.

In your example, the lottery slots would be

1. UTA (25 wins, 5th worst record)
2. DAL (1 win away from UTA)
3. MEM (2 wins away, assume they win tiebreaker vs NOP)
4. NOP
5. SAC (3 wins away, wins tiebreaker vs MIL due to having a worse record)
6. MIL (3 wins away, loses tiebreaker vs SAC due to having a better record)
7. CHI (5 wins away)
8. WAS (6 wins away)
9. BRO (7 wins away)
10. IND (8 wins away)
11. GSW
12. POR
13. MIA
14. CHA

Aiming for the 5th worst record, rather than worst overall record, would give the worst teams an incentive to improve their rosters and not just strip them down entirely. Tanking would become piecemeal and strategic rather than a season-long race to the bottom.

Notice that the 4 worst records slot in at 5/8/9/10 here. The teams with the worst records down the stretch would be gunning to win as much as possible to get closer to 5th worst. You can't tell me that WAS/BRO/IND would have tanked nearly this hard, both earlier in the season and right now, with this system in place.

You might have some teams in the 9th-11th worst range tank at the end of the season, but this idea seems to be much better than the status quo.

There are probably a lot of fascinating game theory implications here but I haven't put quite that much thought into it.
Click to expand...
I like it from a game theory perspective just because it creates interesting incentives... I do think Mr Body brings up a good point that this is just punishing bad teams for being bad, which I don't like... but at least what you and I have suggested here isn't *too* disruptive... but I still say just leave things as they are and fine teams as needed.
 
This thread is titled "Fixing the NBA" so really the best topic to do that would be for us to discuss officiating and rules that punish defense and encourage foul baiting.

imho tbqh
 
- call moving screens consistently
- go back to not rewarding offensive players for initiating contact by veering of course from their straight line path and going directly into defenders
- post game flopping reviews need to be more regular and more punitive. do it thrice and its a one game suspension. particular emphasis on head-snapping
 
Last edited:
bozhemoi said:
This just feels like more attempts to punish terrible teams with no talent for being terrible with no talent. They still haven't figured out how to encourage teams to play as hard as they can, which is what they need to be doing. The worst teams need the best talent, full stop. Until they solve that issue, they're not solving anything and instead and inadvertently getting good picks into the hands of better teams.

tl;dr if a team is awful, they're not making that 25 win barrier, they just can't. so what are your plans here?
Click to expand...
The fact is that the top 3 worst teams have been tanking all season. So we don’t exactly know what the 3 worst teams actually are. We just know the ones who are the best at deliberately losing.

I like 22 wins minimum to qualify for a top 3 pick. If you don’t meet that threshold then the 4th pick is the next best place you can be slotted. Unless another team moves up.

Currently we have 5 teams that would fall below that threshold and I’d be willing to bet that if the minimum was 22 those 5 teams would probably all be above that threshold this season.

I don’t think it’s a horrible idea at all and if you made it 24 wins you’d have a lot of those bottom teams making way more of an effort. Perhaps even building their rosters out a bit differently to ensure they meet the minimum.
 
bozhemoi said:
Only the third idea is close to anything sane, and I still have trouble figuring out how it's supposed to work.

They keep wanting to flatten the odds even more, when that's been a big part of the problem. Before they flattened the odds a few years back (or whatever), the worst teams were pretty much identified early in the season. Now, with the current format, teams are encouraged to tank very early, constantly, and more teams are encouraged to tank. Before, teams like Chicago, Milwaukee, all these teams in the 7-10 range or so, would already be out of it, so would have no incentive to tank.

So what do the geniuses at the NBA do? They want to flatten the odds even more. This will just add to the mess. The only way for bad teams to get better, especially in markets that aren't free agent destinations, is to get top picks. That's literally the lifecycle of the NBA (and NFL and NHL). You're bad, you get better players, you get good again. Instead, they want to ensure that the teams that aren't struggling are as likely to get the best picks. Sheer madness.
Click to expand...
If 1-14 all have the same odds, there is zero incentive to tank. I’m not talking flattening, I’m talking FLAT. The problem with rewarding bad teams is that teams then want to BE bad, tanking. Most Bad teams do not get better, they serial tank.

If you ensure that bad teams always get good picks, TANKING WILL NEVER STOP.
 
Exstatic said:
If 1-14 all have the same odds, there is zero incentive to tank. I’m not talking flattening, I’m talking FLAT. The problem with rewarding bad teams is that teams then want to BE bad, tanking. Most Bad teams do not get better, they serial tank.

If you ensure that bad teams always get good picks, TANKING WILL NEVER STOP.
Click to expand...
I've always been impressed how you can be so wrong while simultaneously being so confident.

This just shifts the incentive to tank to the teams near the 14/15 cutoff to perform the hardest tank you've ever seen. Let's see... you can get demolished in the first round by OKC/SAS/DET/BOS... or you can have the same odds at the #1 pick as the worst team in the league... I wonder what teams will choose... teams battling for actual playoff position will be hoping they have some bubble teams on their schedule to end the season, they'll be the most egregious tank jobs you've ever witnessed (remember the Mavs throwing end of season games to keep their pick a few years ago... it will be that, but multiple teams).

Teams fight to make the playoffs now because there is little difference between the 14th pick and the 15th pick, and the 0.7% chance at the Top Pick isn't worth it. But now you're giving the 14th worth team the same chance at the #1 pick as the absolute worst team, incentivizing them to tank. Overtime, actors will always revert to responding predictably to incentives... we only have a couple thousand years of human history to prove this.

Ironically, it's flattening the odds that led to the increase in tanking that we have now... and people solution is to flatten them further? I would normally be flabbergasted by the lack of thought put into these suggestions... but I used to be a university professor, so I've already seen it all.
 
The only way to truly eliminate the incentive to tank is to completely divorce the draft order from team record. Then there will truly be no incentive to tank. But no one wants that (and rightfully so, because no one except for a Thunder or Spurs fan would want the Thunder or Spurs getting handed the #1 pick)

The ideas to try to create financial incentives/penalties are the next best thing. Inescapable rule of the universe: on the whole people will respond to incentives, quite reliably and quite predictably.
 
scott said:
The only way to truly eliminate the incentive to tank is to completely divorce the draft order from team record. Then there will truly be no incentive to tank. But no one wants that (and rightfully so, because no one except for a Thunder or Spurs fan would want the Thunder or Spurs getting handed the #1 pick)

The ideas to try to create financial incentives/penalties are the next best thing. Inescapable rule of the universe: on the whole people will respond to incentives, quite reliably and quite predictably.
Click to expand...
With a minimum floor the thought is that you don’t need to fix the entire thing. You just need to fix it enough to create a 5-6 game competitive swing. Bad teams can still be bad but at least you’ll get a small improvement in effort. That slight improvement in parity could move the needle enough that the hardcore tanking isn’t so egregious.
 
BacktoBasics said:
With a minimum floor the thought is that you don’t need to fix the entire thing. You just need to fix it enough to create a 5-6 game competitive swing. Bad teams can still be bad but at least you’ll get a small improvement in effort. That slight improvement in parity could move the needle enough that the hardcore tanking isn’t so egregious.
Click to expand...
But once you get to the floor... what is going to stop teams from tanking all the rest of their games? Using this year's Utah team as an example, they'll just race to 25 wins and then shut everyone down, like they're doing now anyway.

I find some of these proposals interesting, but they're ultimately just re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic. These teams suck, because they want to suck. Whatever mechanism you come up, so long as there is an incentive to suck at some point... they'll find a way to do so.

But... let's say we achieve the result of more parity among non-playoff teams, have we really made the league better? Are people tuning in/out because the race between lottery teams isn't competitive enough? At the end of the day, people are going to tune in to watch stars and good teams. On a macro level, WAS and SAC being slightly more competitive for their March matchup still isn't going to get anyone other than the sickos to watch it.

I understand the argument that local fans might want to see their team's stars play... but do they? Weren't we all here rooting for Ls while chasing after Wemby and Castle? Weren't we all wanting more Ls and for Fox to have his surgery after Wemby got his DVT? Fans are smart enough to understand the joy of tanking... and most are okay with not seeing Sabonis and Lavine go out and get a few more dubs... who's the real victim here anyway?

And for context... viewership is up bigtime for the NBA this year and at one point this season (I haven't seen an update) it was the second most-watched NBA regular reason of all time.

I can't prove it... but I bet the poor officiating and foul baiting turns more people off than tanking does.
 
scott said:
But once you get to the floor... what is going to stop teams from tanking all the rest of their games? Using this year's Utah team as an example, they'll just race to 25 wins and then shut everyone down, like they're doing now anyway.

I find some of these proposals interesting, but they're ultimately just re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic. These teams suck, because they want to suck. Whatever mechanism you come up, so long as there is an incentive to suck at some point... they'll find a way to do so.

But... let's say we achieve the result of more parity among non-playoff teams, have we really made the league better? Are people tuning in/out because the race between lottery teams isn't competitive enough? At the end of the day, people are going to tune in to watch stars and good teams. On a macro level, WAS and SAC being slightly more competitive for their March matchup still isn't going to get anyone other than the sickos to watch it.

I understand the argument that local fans might want to see their team's stars play... but do they? Weren't we all here rooting for Ls while chasing after Wemby and Castle? Weren't we all wanting more Ls and for Fox to have his surgery after Wemby got his DVT? Fans are smart enough to understand the joy of tanking... and most are okay with not seeing Sabonis and Lavine go out and get a few more dubs... who's the real victim here anyway?

And for context... viewership is up bigtime for the NBA this year and at one point this season (I haven't seen an update) it was the second most-watched NBA regular reason of all time.

I can't prove it... but I bet the poor officiating and foul baiting turns more people off than tanking does.
Click to expand...
We currently have 5 teams that haven’t reached a floor of 22 games.

7 teams that haven’t reached 25.

So you’re looking a fairly large chunk that would have to make a serious effort to hit the floor early and then tank.

I think that would prolong a tank for a decent amount of time. Plus if you’re even marginally competitive early you might be knocking on a play in.

I’m not saying it’s the answer but it’s an interesting concept.
 
scott said:
I've always been impressed how you can be so wrong while simultaneously being so confident.

This just shifts the incentive to tank to the teams near the 14/15 cutoff to perform the hardest tank you've ever seen. Let's see... you can get demolished in the first round by OKC/SAS/DET/BOS... or you can have the same odds at the #1 pick as the worst team in the league... I wonder what teams will choose... teams battling for actual playoff position will be hoping they have some bubble teams on their schedule to end the season, they'll be the most egregious tank jobs you've ever witnessed (remember the Mavs throwing end of season games to keep their pick a few years ago... it will be that, but multiple teams).

Teams fight to make the playoffs now because there is little difference between the 14th pick and the 15th pick, and the 0.7% chance at the Top Pick isn't worth it. But now you're giving the 14th worth team the same chance at the #1 pick as the absolute worst team, incentivizing them to tank. Overtime, actors will always revert to responding predictably to incentives... we only have a couple thousand years of human history to prove this.

Ironically, it's flattening the odds that led to the increase in tanking that we have now... and people solution is to flatten them further? I would normally be flabbergasted by the lack of thought put into these suggestions... but I used to be a university professor, so I've already seen it all.
Click to expand...
It’s not a season long tank. That actually existed before the idiotic play in was launched, and I don’t remember one damn person in the commissioners office having any problem with it. If the players want to give up their playoff shares for a 7% chance, fucking go for it
 
scott said:
I've always been impressed how you can be so wrong while simultaneously being so confident.

This just shifts the incentive to tank to the teams near the 14/15 cutoff to perform the hardest tank you've ever seen. Let's see... you can get demolished in the first round by OKC/SAS/DET/BOS... or you can have the same odds at the #1 pick as the worst team in the league... I wonder what teams will choose... teams battling for actual playoff position will be hoping they have some bubble teams on their schedule to end the season, they'll be the most egregious tank jobs you've ever witnessed (remember the Mavs throwing end of season games to keep their pick a few years ago... it will be that, but multiple teams).

Teams fight to make the playoffs now because there is little difference between the 14th pick and the 15th pick, and the 0.7% chance at the Top Pick isn't worth it. But now you're giving the 14th worth team the same chance at the #1 pick as the absolute worst team, incentivizing them to tank. Overtime, actors will always revert to responding predictably to incentives... we only have a couple thousand years of human history to prove this.

Ironically, it's flattening the odds that led to the increase in tanking that we have now... and people solution is to flatten them further? I would normally be flabbergasted by the lack of thought put into these suggestions... but I used to be a university professor, so I've already seen it all.
Click to expand...
That would never be a problem with the right incentive, and as @Exstatic said: if teams/players are dumb enough to tank playoff ball and money for a 7% chance of getting a kid that may or may not end up being a bust, then let them.
 
DAF86 said:
That would never be a problem with the right incentive, and as @Exstatic said: if teams/players are dumb enough to tank playoff ball and money for a 7% chance of getting a kid that may or may not end up being a bust, then let them.
Click to expand...
In other words, now you're conceding teams will still tank, but now you're coping with "they're dumb in my opinion so it will be okay"

Got it.
 
scott said:
In other words, now you're conceding teams will still tank, but now you're coping with "they're dumb in my opinion so it will be okay"

Got it.
Click to expand...
No, I don't think they would tank. I'm just saying that, in the hypothetical case some do, they would be dumb to do so.
 
These were last year’s numbers, but just getting to the first round was almost as good as winning the cup in December.

per player

First Rd $466,000
Second Rd $568,000
Conf Finals $958,000
NBA runner up $3,803,000
NBA champion $8,805,000

www.essentiallysports.com

How Much NBA Teams Earn in Playoffs Bonus? Full Prize Pool and Payout Breakdown

For players who have a relatively smaller contract, NBA playoffs bonuses for the teams can be a blessing. Read more for the details.
www.essentiallysports.com
 
DAF86 said:
I will expand a bit on why I think flattened odds is the best solution:

1) we have to clarify that these equal odds are for every team that misses the playoffs. Playoffs teams get ranked by record the same way they do now.

2) With this system, there's no incentive to bottom out. You try to build the best team possible and you either make the playoffs, or you get as good a chance as anyone to get the #1 pick. This way, teams can keep players they drafted, developed and the fan base got to root for. For example: the Spurs wouldn't have needed to trade away Dejounte and White to try and get Wemby.

3) One point against this system is that middle of the pack teams (instead of the trully bad ones) might get the best players? My answer to that is "so, what?" What difference does it make if the Bulls get the #1 pick over the Kings? Also, with the current system, are trully the worst teams getting the best young players, or just the teams that blatantly tank? Are the Jazz trully worse than the Blazers or Bulls, or are they just trying to lose?

Also, if you are bad every year, you will inevitably get more than a top pick here and there. At the end of the day, it will be the same as always: teams that know how to draft and develop players will rise and incompetent teams will remain incompetent, as it happens now.

4) The other argument against flattened odds is that borderline playoffs teams might prefer to tank than to make the playoffs and lose in the 1st round. To this, there's a simple solution: making the playoffs should be rewarded enough as to prevent tanking. Not only economically but with on court benefits too. One example could be that if you make the playoffs, you get a luxury tax exemption to help you retain drafted talent.

I really don't see a better solution than this, tbh.
Click to expand...
I like it and have an easy solution for 4)...just make it go deeper! Finalists can't get top8 picks...Conference Finalists not top4 and Conference Semis Finalists not the top pick.
No team that goes as deep will tank for a chance to get a good pick. And those middle of the pack teams that go out early in the playoffs finaly get rewarded for not bottoming out. It actually would be interesting to see, how some middling teams would implement a high pick and it always sucked that going out in round one of the playoffs is worse than being really bad.

It also could be fun to have a live Lottery: starting with 22 balls...picking #1...then inserting 4 balls (the second round losers)...draw #2 to #4...then inserting the two CF losers...and finaly adding the Finalists after the first 8 balls. Much more relatable than the current stuff.

There is only one downside: Teams like Sactown and Washington might vote against it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

spurraider21
Misc NBA Cup Thread
2 3 4
Replies
84
Views
3K
scott
scott
K
The brilliance in what Jalyen Brown did
2
Replies
38
Views
796
spurs10
spurs10
Em-City
Wreckless/malicious plays by opponents on Wemby
Replies
5
Views
302
Shmurs
S
scott
Analysis GRADES: 2/26/26 - Spurs 126 @ Nets 110
Replies
1
Views
99
Coyote2!
Coyote2!
Uriel
Pelton: Spurs have started 4-0 given their weak early schedule
2
Replies
26
Views
902
Dex
Dex
Back
Top