hopefully only a year of struggling
Printable View
hopefully only a year of struggling
As I already said earlier, that's what the NHL did.Quote:
Tim W. wrote:
Those numbers are:Quote:
Arsenalist wrote:
Minnesota 24 15 17 56
Sacramento 17 25 24 66
Washington 19 26 23 68
New Jersey 34 12 24 70
LA Clipper 19 29 32 80
Golden State 29 26 36 91
Toronto 33 40 22 95
Detroit 39 27 30 96
New York 32 29 42 103
Indiana 36 32 37 105
Philadelphia 41 27 41 109
Memphis 24 40 46 110
Charlotte 35 44 34 113
Milwaukee 34 46 35 115
Oklahoma City 23 50 55 128
New Orleans 49 37 46 132
Houston 53 42 43 138
Phoenix 46 54 40 140
Utah 48 53 39 140
Atlanta 47 53 44 144
Chicago 41 41 62 144
Cleveland 66 61 19 146
Miami 43 47 58 148
Portland 54 50 48 152
Denver 54 53 50 157
Dallas 50 55 57 162
San Antonio 54 50 61 165
Boston 62 50 56 168
Orlando 59 59 52 170
LA Lakers 65 57 57 179
Cleveland would be screwed if this system is implemented, Miami is right after them! lolQuote:
steve___ wrote:
Toronto would kinds be screwed too.
i want us to improve but still be in the lottery. I hate watching this team lose even a few more wins will satisfy me.
Quote:
steve___ wrote:
I don't like this ranking, I rather hope we play next season and earn last place.
Apparently I need to read ALL the comments before I post.Quote:
Arsenalist wrote:
This to me seems like the fairest possible route.Quote:
Arsenalist wrote:
*EDIT: I take that back, Cleveland is thrown under the bus on this one, and in a way so are we and all other teams that have made dramatic changes in the last 3 years.
The NHL draft following the lockout was based on playoff appearances over the last three years, as well as first-overall picks. Had nothing to do with average wins. Basically, each team started with 3 balls, but lost one for every playoff appearance or first-overall selection during the previous three seasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_NHL_Entry_Draft
Here's how the same system implemented in the NBA would work:
1 ball: Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, Orlando, Miami, Cleveland, Philadelphia, San Antonio, Lakers, Dallas, Oklahoma, Denver, Portland, Phoenix, Utah, Memphis, New Orleans
2 balls: New York, Indiana, Charlotte, Milwaukee, Detroit, Washington, Houston, Clippers
3 balls: Toronto, New Jersey, Minnesota, Sacramento, Golden State
I like this better, but wouldn't Boston, Chicago, Orlando, Miami, San Antonio, Laker, Dallas, Oklahoma, Denver and Portland get no balls, because they've made the playoffs the last three years. That makes way more sense, to me.Quote:
octothorp wrote:
Edit: And Cleveland would get zero, as well, since they have two playoff appearances and a #1 pick.
Screw the lottery and screw the NHL system. I hope we go the NFL system which is designed to make the worst team better by giving them the #1 pick. If you finish last you get #1 pick, if you win the superbowl you get the last pick if you lose the superbowl you get second last pick etc.
I should have noted, under the NHL approach, 1 ball was the minimum that any team could receive.Quote:
Tim W. wrote:
If Tim is right, then Toronto would have an 8.1% chance at the first overall pick.Quote:
Tim W. wrote:
EDIT: Ok, if every team gets one ball, then Toronto would have a 6.2% chance at the first overall pick.
I don't like that. If Miami, the Lakers, or one of the other perennial contenders got the #1 pick I would be pissed. And I'm guessing so would a lot of other fans. I don't know anything about hockey, but does one pick have as much of an impact in hockey as it does in the NHL?Quote:
octothorp wrote:
I may be Canadian, but I would rather use the NFL approach than the NHL approach. And I'd use the total number of wins (regular season & playoffs) to determine the top 14 teams only, and their order!! THE REST OF THEM WOULD GET ZERO BALLS!!!Quote:
octothorp wrote:
With rosters of only 12-13 players and two or three top players able to greatly determine the quality of a team, the NBA is much more sensitive to draft order, especially at the top, than the NHL or the NFL. So if the purpose is to promote some competitive parity then it would make sense to give greater weight to lower performing teams than either the NHL or the NFL do. So I like the idea of some assessment of performance over the past few years, but I would give higher odds than the NHL did to the lower ranked teams.
No. a single pick is much more influential in the NBA than in the other professional sports because rosters are smaller and a single player can transform a franchise. It could be a real problem for the competitive balance in the NBA if Miami were to get another transformative star through some lottery system.Quote:
Tim W. wrote:
BC's purpose in life the next year should be getting pictures of other GMs in "compromising" positions and acquire at least one more lottery pick position.
If there is a season the Raps should try their damnedest to lose every single ball game, and trade for more picks. Dump salary. Trade everybody that's not going to be a free agent.
There's no reason for an age limit. Great players dominate even at a very young age. Talent is what counts, not age, because NBA basketball is about athleticism more than anything else. The kind of precise mental mastery of the game that, for example, baseball requires, is not what basketball is about. Wasting years in college, where the coaches let the players do whatever they want, and they're turned into super-heroes who think they can't do any wrong, does not help their development.Quote:
I'm a proponent of raising the draft age, but that screws the Raptors next year, so I'm torn. It's best for the league to raise the age limit, but best for the Raptors to keep it where it is.
If there had been an age limit in tennis (another sport that depends very heavily on athleticism), Boris Becker and Maria Sharapova wouldn't have won Wimbledon at 17. And Martina Hingis wouldn't have won the Australian Open at age 16. And the doubles title at Wimbledon at age 15. Hingis played professionally from ages 14-26, which coincides with a player's peak athletic years. The great Swedish player Bjorn Borg played professionally from ages 14-26 as well.
The league didn't introduce an age limit as a public service. They did it to spare nitwits like Jordan from embarrassing themselves by wasting picks on guys like Kwame Brown. Many players, TJ Fraud and Jose Calderon being two that come to mind immediately, find themselves ineffective when they hit their late 20s and that subtle spark of explosiveness they once had is gone. It's unfair to rob them of potential earnings when their skills are at their peak, as youngsters, just because of the western obsession with college.
If they are taking the average for the past 3 seasons then I seriously feel bad for Cleveland.