Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"How to cure tanking"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I like it.
    It's not perfect but it's better than what we have.

    I especially like the system that they only compete for top 3 position in draft.

    The only downside, and it's a big one. Is that it would cause an even greater disparity in conference power because in the NBA today a bad team in the East gets eliminated at the same time as a below average team in the West.

    Fix that and this system is a huge upgrade over what we have.

    Comment


    • #17
      tkfu wrote: View Post
      Having top clubs consistently win championships isn't a problem, in my opinion.

      (And, incidentally, the economics research shows that there's an inverse relationship between league popularity and competitive balance; that is, more fans watch when there's less balance, and just a few elite teams. That's across several different sports and over decades. Fans will still tell you they want more balance if you ask, but they vote the other way with their wallets.)
      Sure I don't doubt that.

      But I'm not sure how that relates to improvement through creating a relegation system. We either have disparity without relegation or disparity with relegation. It seems rather irrelevant to go through the trouble and effort to change the system at that point.

      The only difference I can see is instead of teams intentionally losing to have an outside shot at winning the title later, you have teams who unintentionally lose with little to no shot at winning anything but the low bar title.

      Comment


      • #18
        Xixak wrote: View Post
        Bill Simmons had a great idea to fix tanking during the lockout, iirc it was something like this:

        Take all the non-playoff teams at the end of the season and put them in a Sweet 16 tournament. Single-elimination. The winner would get the #1 pick, 2nd place would get #2, etc. This basically gives a team 0 incentive to tank games. They're going to want to have a good roster available for the tournament so that they have a chance of winning. And the last place team would have just as good of a shot of getting the #1 pick as the 16th last team, because of the single-elimination, any team could get the better of another on any given night.

        This would also increase revenue for the league as well, and make for some very entertaining basketball so doesn't hurt in that respect either. The playoffs would just end later.

        Imagine a Toronto team finishing in 9th (I pray to God we're not actually 9th lol) during the regular season. Heading into the tournament as the top seed in the East and wasting Philly, Charlotte and Milwaukee on their path to playing the Lakers in the finals. A triple OT game, winner takes Wiggins. Raptors down 1, 5 seconds on the clock. Rudy Gay has the ball in his hands, dribbles past Kobe, pulls-up for the J...... BANG RAPTORS WIN RAPTORS WIN! Rudy Gay has just cost himself his starting spot!

        K got a bit carried away...
        I may be wrong but I think the "Fun As Hell Tournament" was actually for the 8th spot in the playoffs rather than the draft order. But damn that's a good idea that needs to be implemented.

        Comment


        • #19
          The lottery was supposed to minimize this but there is always incentive to game the system. This would eliminate it but it rewards mediocre bubble teams, followed by tanking teams followed by playoff team. Would a team just game this system to be good enough to get a high pick but fail to make the playoffs one year for the first overall pick?

          A more radical approach would be to award lottery balls to teams based on meeting certain goals.
          - 1/3 of the balls are awarded on standings (as is)
          - 1/3 of the balls are awarded on fan satisfaction (shown by year over year growth/shrinkage in tickets and ratings)
          - 1/3 of the balls are awarded on the "effort" in upgrading the team personnel through UFA/trades (this is subjective and maybe not be possible but if a team is under the tax and makes smart trades as opposed to tank trades)

          In effect, the lotto pick is based on the standings, the fans satisfaction (as measured how the growth in ticket sales) and the NBA executive committee's assessment on the smart use of assets by the team. The last one might not work because of calls of fixing and the subjectivity in moves like for example the 76ers trading Holiday for Noel and pick might be argued both ways. However a fictional trade of Stuckey+Villa for Gay is deemed poor. And so perhaps the lotto results are equally based on standings and fan satisfaction.

          Comment


          • #20
            Letter N wrote: View Post
            I may be wrong but I think the "Fun As Hell Tournament" was actually for the 8th spot in the playoffs rather than the draft order. But damn that's a good idea that needs to be implemented.
            Yeah it was only for 8th, I kind of adapted it lol.

            The thing I posted wouldn't affect playoff seeding. Actually now that I think about it Simmons original idea kinda sucked. Why would a team give up a shot at Wiggins just for a chance to get blown out in the first round by LBJ or Durant?

            I like my idea better lol

            Comment


            • #21
              Letter N wrote: View Post
              I may be wrong but I think the "Fun As Hell Tournament" was actually for the 8th spot in the playoffs rather than the draft order. But damn that's a good idea that needs to be implemented.
              Yeah it was for 8th seed.. but the biggest deterrent for doing something like this is the west coast/east coast matchups and schedules.

              As a fan this would be awesome.. but as a player I would hate it.. why would I want to play in a "who sucks the worst" tourney just so the team could draft someone that could potentially replace you. Most players would (I assume) rather just start their summer vacation.

              Comment


              • #22
                Isn't the purpose of the lottery to help shitty teams climb out of the cellar? To help establish parity?

                If we award more ping-pong balls to teams who win more, then shitty teams continue to remain shitty....thus completely defeating the purpose of the lottery.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Nilanka wrote: View Post
                  Isn't the purpose of the lottery to help shitty teams climb out of the cellar? To help establish parity?

                  If we award more ping-pong balls to teams who win more, then shitty teams continue to remain shitty....thus completely defeating the purpose of the lottery.
                  This is why my tournament idea works though. Only the worst teams in the league would be competing for the top picks. Playoff teams would be entirely exempt from the process.

                  I realized an issue with it though... traded draft picks. Why would a team compete hard just so another team can take their pick and pick higher? I'm not sure what a solution would be for this though...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Xixak wrote: View Post
                    This is why my tournament idea works though. Only the worst teams in the league would be competing for the top picks. Playoff teams would be entirely exempt from the process.

                    I realized an issue with it though... traded draft picks. Why would a team compete hard just so another team can take their pick and pick higher? I'm not sure what a solution would be for this though...
                    The best workaround for this would be money.. give players money (their incentive) for winning in this tournament. The money can come from sponsors of the tourney itself so everybody wins

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Xixak wrote: View Post
                      This is why my tournament idea works though. Only the worst teams in the league would be competing for the top picks. Playoff teams would be entirely exempt from the process.

                      I realized an issue with it though... traded draft picks. Why would a team compete hard just so another team can take their pick and pick higher? I'm not sure what a solution would be for this though...
                      Aren't most traded picks lottery protected? They'd be trying to win in the tournament for the same reasons some Raptors fans wanted the team to tank hard to not hand over their pick to OKC this year. Shouldn't be a problem for the Entertaining as Hell tournament.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        TRX wrote: View Post
                        Aren't most traded picks lottery protected? They'd be trying to win in the tournament for the same reasons some Raptors fans wanted the team to tank hard to not hand over their pick to OKC this year. Shouldn't be a problem for the Entertaining as Hell tournament.
                        True I didn't think about that. Most teams have enough sense to put some protection on their picks so it would be up to you to play your way into keeping it.

                        Man this could have some fun story-lines lol. Say Detroit and Charlotte missed the playoffs, Charlotte has Detroit's pick top 9 protected and they play each other in the first round. If Charlotte wins they guarantee themselves 2 lottery picks, if they lose, Detroit retains their pick and can continue playing to try and increase it.

                        Would be interesting to watch a Finals match with the Knicks and Nuggets if they miss the playoffs in 2016 (we get the worse of those two picks). They'd be playing to keep their pick with the winner selecting #1 overall and the loser handing the #2 overall to Toronto lol

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Craiger wrote: View Post
                          ...

                          The problem is the economics of players within the game of basketball, compounded by the economics of the sport (ie. CBA and teams), makes the draft too valuable for some. Unlike other sports a single (or a few) players make all the difference to the productivity of the team as a whole. Maybe a goalie in hockey or a QB in football can be comparible, but thats one position vs any of the 5 in basketball.

                          So every team wants or needs 1, 2 or 3 of those extremely productive players.

                          Then on the macro level, there is a significant inequality in the access to resources. First from the actual ability spend, and secondly from the ability to attract labour (although these two are often related). Factor in how valuable the cost of production is from that small labour pool of elite labour (superstar contracts and superstars on rookie scale/rfa contracts), and we have the core reason for tanking (and going to the draft) being so valuable.
                          This is the entire problem, in my opinion. Every sport plays more players than basketball. In baseball, they literally take turns. In hockey, even the most durable players only play half the game and can't exactly just hold onto the puck. Football puts twice as many on the field and switches off offence and defence. (I think? I don't watch football at all, haha) Superstars cannot make their true worth on the field and amazing rookies are prevented even further with four-year rookie deals. The only way you get the most bang for your buck is with superstars (who are coincidentally top ten picks, for the most part).

                          I completely agree with you. The only way to fix parity/tanking is not to create a better process for who gets the #1 picks, but to create a better system in which a great pick is not such a game-changing asset. Let superstars actually get paid like superstars (whatever that equilibrium is when the "market" settles).

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            TRX wrote: View Post
                            This is the entire problem, in my opinion. Every sport plays more players than basketball. In baseball, they literally take turns. In hockey, even the most durable players only play half the game and can't exactly just hold onto the puck. Football puts twice as many on the field and switches off offence and defence. (I think? I don't watch football at all, haha) Superstars cannot make their true worth on the field and amazing rookies are prevented even further with four-year rookie deals. The only way you get the most bang for your buck is with superstars (who are coincidentally top ten picks, for the most part).

                            I completely agree with you. The only way to fix parity/tanking is not to create a better process for who gets the #1 picks, but to create a better system in which a great pick is not such a game-changing asset. Let superstars actually get paid like superstars (whatever that equilibrium is when the "market" settles).
                            The only solution I can think of besides the tournament would be contracting teams. What you're suggesting with "superstars get paid like superstars" sounds to me like you want no cap? The NBA would turn into pro soccer except without the vast number of teams to balance things out. Prokhorov, the Knicks and Lakers would just buy everyone... There would be even less parity.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Nilanka wrote: View Post
                              Isn't the purpose of the lottery to help shitty teams climb out of the cellar? To help establish parity?

                              If we award more ping-pong balls to teams who win more, then shitty teams continue to remain shitty....thus completely defeating the purpose of the lottery.
                              The lottery rarely works in the way you describe. The shitty teams remain shitty for the most part lottery after lottery (Bobcats, Raptors, Wizards, Kings, Magic, Pelicans, 76ers). I know there are lottery success stories like OKC and now perhaps Cleveland but there are more examples of NBA success of teams built outside the lottery like the Heat, Celtics, Spurs, Lakers, Grizzlies, the Mavs a few years ago and perhaps the Rockets now.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I think you need to start by asking what tanking behaviour you want to prevent:
                                Are you most concerned about teams that have been pretty good for a few years, then attempt to tank hard to do a quick rebuild (probably Boston this year);
                                Are you concerned about teams that lose a star player for a bunch of games and so decide to tank the remainder of their games (Cleveland last year);
                                Are you concerned about teams that are just perpetually at the bottom of the standings and no number of high draft picks seem to make a difference (Charlotte, like forever)? Arguably, this one isn't tanking, it's just being bad at basketball. But perhaps it should also be punished rather than rewarded.
                                Are you more concerned about not having games between crappy teams in April where neither team wants to win, or where a crappy team doesn't show up in a game against a contender that they were probably going to lose anyway?
                                Are you concerned about stretches where a team puts their best players on the court, and loses all their games through bad basketball, or are you more concerned about stretches where a team loses because they keep injured players shut down longer than medically necessary?

                                I think you need to start with the assumption that players on the court are not going to tank, and coaches are rarely going to tank. It's tanking on a managerial level that you want to prevent; manipulating a team's roster to structure it to lose. The problem with many of the proposed solutions (wins after elimination, end of season tournament, etc.) is that they actually make it easier for a team to 'manage' its way to a top draft pick. So what are the symptoms of managerial tanking? Losing streaks late in the season, especially those where the team doesn't show up for any of the games (Portland last year is a perfect example). A lot of loses to other non-playoff teams. A drastic drop-off in a team's performance from one year to the next.

                                I think this is a decent start:

                                rap wrote: View Post
                                A more radical approach would be to award lottery balls to teams based on meeting certain goals.
                                - 1/3 of the balls are awarded on standings (as is)
                                - 1/3 of the balls are awarded on fan satisfaction (shown by year over year growth/shrinkage in tickets and ratings)
                                - 1/3 of the balls are awarded on the "effort" in upgrading the team personnel through UFA/trades (this is subjective and maybe not be possible but if a team is under the tax and makes smart trades as opposed to tank trades)
                                I like the second category. Third category not so much (too subjective), but it's attempting to address the correct issue.

                                One potential solution would be to have a number of different ways that teams can achieve 'lottery points', and the ways that teams can earn points are ways that tend to go against management level tanking. You can earn points from close loses, from wins against other non-playoff teams, etc. And lose points from factors like a long losing streak, or late season loses, etc.
                                But the key element is that while the factors that go into the equation for lottery points are known at the beginning of the season, the exact formula changes from year to year, is decided by the head office at the beginning of the season, and kept secret (just filed with a law firm) until the end of the season. So GMs can't intentionally tank because they don't know exactly what factors affect their rankings. A long losing streak might hurt them, a blowout loss might hurt them, a significant drop-off in wins or attendance from last year to this year might hurt them.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X