NBA Fixing the NBA
- Thread starter DAF86
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2025
- Messages
- 7,169
- Reaction score
- 9,133
It will be a complete mystery to everyone when the play-in teams start hard tanking after the all-star break.
LeBowen
Believe
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2025
- Messages
- 4,779
- Reaction score
- 4,458
I think a lot of Spurs fans don't realize we made it out like bandits, the league is basically trying to prevent the current Spurs situation from happening again.
We got the best player in the league and two two-way guards with star potential in consecutive drafts, it's just unfair, no other word for it.
And if the league stops it from happening again, other teams won't be able to catch up with us by doing the same thing.
All I know is that they'll come up with the worst possible solution and that we should be happy we're done with the lottery for the next couple of decades.
That was my first thought as well. Portland, GS, hell even the Clippers this year, all would have started tanking about 10-20 games ago to get those 8% odds.
bozhemoi
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2025
- Messages
- 970
- Reaction score
- 462
Flattening the odds will unsurprisingly punish the worst teams and give teams that are pretty good but still struggling a massive boost. It'll cause teams to avoid the play-in or just throw games instead of playing unwinnable playoff battles.
I mean, look. If we want to admit there is a current problem with tanking, then is this a recent problem? I would say it's a recent problem, because there wasn't an issue before.
Then, what changed to make it a problem? What, in the rules, changed in how lotteries were run? Why, they flattened the odds and then there's a prevalence of pick protections, which didn't exist before.
So, instead of non-flattening the odds or looking at protected picks, they're going to flatten the odds even more and throw even more teams into the pot who can start tanking.
Meanwhile, there are teams currently sitting players in order to get the right playoff spots. Why isn't Silver doing anything about them?
To me, you need to un-flatten the odds. You need to incentivize teams for playing their players (not punish them for being terrible). You need to somehow compensate teams for constantly losing the lottery. Some of those may be impossible to do, but, look, the way these bad teams get better is by getting the pick of the best players. Full stop. Benefiting the non-worst teams ain't the way to go.
I mean, look. If we want to admit there is a current problem with tanking, then is this a recent problem? I would say it's a recent problem, because there wasn't an issue before.
Then, what changed to make it a problem? What, in the rules, changed in how lotteries were run? Why, they flattened the odds and then there's a prevalence of pick protections, which didn't exist before.
So, instead of non-flattening the odds or looking at protected picks, they're going to flatten the odds even more and throw even more teams into the pot who can start tanking.
Meanwhile, there are teams currently sitting players in order to get the right playoff spots. Why isn't Silver doing anything about them?
To me, you need to un-flatten the odds. You need to incentivize teams for playing their players (not punish them for being terrible). You need to somehow compensate teams for constantly losing the lottery. Some of those may be impossible to do, but, look, the way these bad teams get better is by getting the pick of the best players. Full stop. Benefiting the non-worst teams ain't the way to go.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2025
- Messages
- 7,169
- Reaction score
- 9,133
Ironically, their solution to preventing the current Spurs situation is going to work exactly in our favor, as I can almost assure you that at least one of our swaps is going to fall into this new flattened lotto odds range and be even more valuable than it was previously. Chef's kiss.
Yep. People want to pretend that isn't the case, but it's going to be one of those "wow, who could have seen this coming aside from everybody" situations after a few years when the dust settles.
Well said, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the irony of what tonight's OKC-DEN game will look like. We were told that part of the reason to address tanking was to think of the poor fans who paid to see their heroes, Keyonte George and Pascal Siakam, but are robbed of the opportunity. I feel pretty confident that whatever people paid for even the best Jazz v Pacers tickets pales in comparison to some of the prices people paid for a late season OKC v DEN matchup that will now feature Chris Youngblood and Brooks Barnhizer going up in an epic battle against David Roddy and KJ Simpson.
At the end of the day, what OKC and DEN do tonight is in the best interest of their franchises and they should be allowed to do that, just like whatever the Jazz and Pacers are doing is in their best interest of theirs (just like the Spurs were able to do what was in the best interest of theirs when they rolled out a Diop/Branham/Graham/Tre Jones/Mamu lineup late in the season ahead of winning the lottery.
I can't think of a single instance where the league has been made better by Adam Silver thinking he knows what is better for teams than the teams themselves.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2025
- Messages
- 7,169
- Reaction score
- 9,133
If we wanted to really nerd out and have fun with adjusting lottery odds... we could have luck-adjusted lotto odds. So for example, the next time the Spurs are in the lotto they get their odds diminished and those ping-pong balls get transferred to the Pistons (for example, if they were in the same lotto) to make up for historical good/bad luck.
Seems unnecessary, but it's an idea... and I just like ideas that involve doing extra math
What difference does it make to have the Bulls winning the lottery over the Pacers? Or the Pelicans over the Jazz? None whatsoever. Why do yall care so much about something that is such a non-issue?
The only downside to having flattened odds is if teams prefer to tank a playoffs spot for a chance at the lottery, but that has an easy solution: just make the playoffs worthy enough (in terms of money and in-game benefits) that teams wouldn't dare to punt that away for a 1 in 14 chance of drafting a guy that may or may not end up being a bust.
bozhemoi
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2025
- Messages
- 970
- Reaction score
- 462
Huh?
You said:
"Benefiting the non-worst teams ain't the way to go."
I gave you examples of "non-worst teams" benefitting in the draft over teams with worse records than them.
It's funny because you don't understanding the point I was trying to make kind of proves it, tbh.
spurraider21
Savvy Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2025
- Messages
- 2,938
- Reaction score
- 2,799
thats a good argument against your position
He doesn't even know what point he was trying to make. He fumbled that bad.
But I understand it as "what's the worst that can happen?" A good team gets a top pick? You mean like the Pacers now, or the Spurs in 97? So what would be the difference?
A mediocre team getting a top pick instead of a trully bad one is a complete non-issue, I don't know why folks are making such a fuss about that.
spurraider21
Savvy Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2025
- Messages
- 2,938
- Reaction score
- 2,799
no im saying Brou being on your side is a bad omenHe doesn't even know what point he was trying to make. He fumbled that bad.
But I understand it as "what's the worst that can happen?" A good team gets a top pick? You mean like the Pacers now, or the Spurs in 97? So what would be the difference?
A mediocre team getting a top pick instead of trully bad one is a complete non-issue, I don't know why folks are making such a fuss about that.
I consider Brou to be one of the best TV journos out there (which isn't saying much). Pretty consistent and fair. Huge Wemby/Spurs bandwagoner right now.
Last edited:
Seems a little skewed though. Would be curious to know how many times each team has been in the lottery in that time. I think we were in the lottery 1 time between 1990 and 2020, no?
Before Devin (who was 12th) and excluding Timmy, I think you have to go all the way back to Sean IIRC.
Seventyniner
Every game is game 1
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2025
- Messages
- 449
- Reaction score
- 429
I don't know if this has been posted anywhere, but there's another anti-tanking idea floating around.
At the end of every game, the team with the higher score gets to decide which of the two teams gets a "point" in the standings.
The higher scoring team gets the standard win for win-loss record purposes.
But playoff seeding and lottery odds (ping pong balls) are determined by these "points", not the actual win-loss standings.
Good team versus good team: both teams will compete for the higher score so they can get the "point" for playoff positioning purposes
Tanking team versus tanking team: both teams will compete for the higher score so they can get the "point" for more ping pong balls
Good team versus tanking team: both teams will get what they want no matter what the final score is (good team gets the "point") but the tanking team wouldn't have any reason to have the lower score at the end of regulation on purpose
There are also fascinating early and mid season strategy implications. Most teams will know early on whether they are competing for the playoffs or for ping pong balls, but the advantage will go to the teams who decide the earliest. The kicker is that the teams who want to "tank" (get more ping pong balls) will have to compete hard anyway, especially against other tanking teams, right out of the gate. The trade deadline would get very spicy too.
This also requires no real changes to the current system. It just sits right on top of the current one but aligns every team's incentives with competing on the court far better than the current system.
All this seems pretty elegant to me, what flaws am I missing here?
At the end of every game, the team with the higher score gets to decide which of the two teams gets a "point" in the standings.
The higher scoring team gets the standard win for win-loss record purposes.
But playoff seeding and lottery odds (ping pong balls) are determined by these "points", not the actual win-loss standings.
Good team versus good team: both teams will compete for the higher score so they can get the "point" for playoff positioning purposes
Tanking team versus tanking team: both teams will compete for the higher score so they can get the "point" for more ping pong balls
Good team versus tanking team: both teams will get what they want no matter what the final score is (good team gets the "point") but the tanking team wouldn't have any reason to have the lower score at the end of regulation on purpose
There are also fascinating early and mid season strategy implications. Most teams will know early on whether they are competing for the playoffs or for ping pong balls, but the advantage will go to the teams who decide the earliest. The kicker is that the teams who want to "tank" (get more ping pong balls) will have to compete hard anyway, especially against other tanking teams, right out of the gate. The trade deadline would get very spicy too.
This also requires no real changes to the current system. It just sits right on top of the current one but aligns every team's incentives with competing on the court far better than the current system.
All this seems pretty elegant to me, what flaws am I missing here?
