Anti-Tanker? Introducing the 'Wheel'

[Rapstor4Life]

So how does this make teams that legitimately suck better? its a cool idea but the lottery keeps things 50/50 the wheel can make a team like the Pacers get another high pick ><

[wallz]

We'll probably see some *nudge, nudge, wink, winks* from certain teams hoping certain players stay in school another year....

Never thought of that. The next Lebron might decide to stay in school another year to be with a contender instead of a bottom feeder. Still better than the current system though lol, I wish they could start the wheel sooner rather than later

[Letter N]

After thinking about this a bit more I'm a big fan of it.

It would force all GM's into making their team's better year after year, where as now the actual game plan of many GMs is to lose long enough to put together a good crop of young players, and when that fails for one reason or another (bad drafting, team playing too good to be bad but too bad to be great) you end up in an endless cycle of lottery drafting (Clippers, Warriors, Raptors, Bobcats, etc.).

If everyone was always in Win Now mode they would make modest improvements every year and every few years when they have a high pick or a steal in the draft they would make bigger gains.

And really anything is better than teams wanting to lose games.

[wallz]

So how does this make teams that legitimately suck better? its a cool idea but the lottery keeps things 50/50 the wheel can make a team like the Pacers get another high pick ><

It allows them to compete with their eyes on the future. They can still accumulate assets and clear cap space. The only difference is that they won't be able to have a say in when they get good picks, they will get good picks every few years no matter what. This would be awesome for the fans IMO, cheering for bottom feeding teams will actually be a thing!

[Katman]

I find an open free agency solely for draft eligible players would be insanely fun. Wherein the "worst" team based on record would have more money to sign a player and the best team very little. Equivalent to the rookie scale. Where additional penalties would apply to teams over the tax threshold or in repeater tax territory. Players could play for who they want, but get paid on that team's scale. If the eligible player wants to make the most money they play for the worst team, or they play for a pittance on the best team.

I realize that the part that will not make this work, will be players who get massive shoe deals and really don't need the salary. But I'm sure we could come up with other ways limit their access to the best players. Tanking becomes a little less important in this scenario. The goal of the draft was intended to help bad teams become better with access to the better talent.

Unfortunately, if good teams get the best players it will turn into the Premier League.

[Superjudge]

the media place a lot of attention on this "issue" for one reason, THEY are part of the big problem. If hey would stop glamourizing "markets" and start focusing solely on "teams" there would be less fucking bias toward certain markets. Players arent the problem, AGENTS who deal with SPONSERS, linked directly to MEDIA are the problem.

The sooner people learn the REAL game that gets played in pro sports the better.

[p00ka]

Lowe calls this "the most fleshed out proposal"? LOL, he's way too full of himself. If he thinks it's unseemly how teams try and manipulate the current system, the league would be a far greater debacle if they adopted this silliness. Anything remotely close to this will never happen. No, I don't wish to spell it out. Don't like? *shrug*

[Masai Ujiri]

The main issue with this is that college players might start gaming the system. Say Jabari is the top prospect. If Milwaukee has the top pick in 2014, but Chicago is set to have it in 2015, he would obviously just stay another year.

[Masai Ujiri]

The premier league actually has more legit title contenders than the nba does. Arsenal, Chelsea, united, city, Liverpool, Everton, Tottenham all in the hunt atm

[Nilanka]

The premier league actually has more legit title contenders than the nba does. Arsenal, Chelsea, united, city, Liverpool, Everton, Tottenham all in the hunt atm

Are they restricted by a salary cap?

[yertu damkule]

Lowe calls this "the most fleshed out proposal"? LOL, he's way too full of himself. If he thinks it's unseemly how teams try and manipulate the current system, the league would be a far greater debacle if they adopted this silliness. Anything remotely close to this will never happen. No, I don't wish to spell it out. Don't like? *shrug*

you do realize that it isn't his proposal, right?

can you explain why you think this proposal is 'silliness,' at least in terms of how it compares to the current system?

[Kuh]

Hate the wheel: design a better lottery instead

Human brains are wired to find uncertainty interesting: that's why we watch sports.

To maximize uncertainty and entertainment, the NBA should give high draft picks to poor teams (long term poor teams should improve keeping the game uncertain), and keep a lottery (vs. the boring predictability of the 30 year wheel).

The current system is OK in principle, but overly rewards failure. Here's an alternative weighting:
1. Give each non-playoff team lottery balls: 17 for the worst down to 3 for the best (140 balls total).
2. Have the top 14 picks all be done by lottery: draw #1, remove the winning team's balls, then re-spin for #2, etc.

If you use these exact numbers:
- around half the time, the #1 pick does NOT go to a bottom 5 team
- if you are the worst team in the league you have <50% chance of a top 4 pick
- if you just miss the playoffs you have ~10% chance of a top 4 pick
- if you move by 4 places from 14 to 10 lottery balls, your chance of picking #1 goes from 10% to 6.5%

In this case, the payoff from losing is much lower and less certain. There's also a high risk of looking like an absolute idiot if you tank: you may still end up with a #11-14 pick as the worst team in the league. That can ruin careers very fast.

P.S. If you try just missing the playoffs to get a good pick, you still have a >80% chance of picking outside the top 6. So this is again a risky strategy: it's probably better to make the playoffs if you can. The riskier the payoff, the less likely that people will attempt it ... and they'll just focus on winning games.

P.P.S. This weighting makes it longer/harder for a bottom-of-the-basement team to improve to mediocre ... and given the CBA to help you, there is no excuse to remain at the bottom forever, even if you have unlucky draft lotteries.

[octothorp]

I'd like a system that incorporates this, but doesn't totally abandon ranked seeding. How about this:

Rather than a 30 year cycle, there's a five year cycle, with each team drafting in each tier (1-6, 7-12, 13-18, 19-24, 25-30), over the course of the cycle. However, within each tier, teams are still ranked according to standings. If you're the worst team in the league in a year that you're in tier 1, you draft #1 overall. If you're the top team in the league and you're in tier 3, you draft 18th. You could also add a random element to group #1. You also set up the tiers so that each tier has one team from each division, meaning that talent is more or less equally distributed around the league.

[yertu damkule]

The main issue with this is that college players might start gaming the system. Say Jabari is the top prospect. If Milwaukee has the top pick in 2014, but Chicago is set to have it in 2015, he would obviously just stay another year.

i really have a hard time thinking a player is going to put millions at risk by playing another year and potentially hurting their draft stock (even if staying would benefit them as a player over the long term), and the example you cite is pretty extreme (i.e. a potential top pick staying in school for the chance to be taken by his hometown team).

this goes for wiggins, and how raptors fans seem all frothy because he's stated he'd like to play for toronto. i hope people realize that making that statement isn't the same as him saying he ONLY wants to play for the raps, just that it'd be nice. he'll happily play for whichever team selects him, because with this CBA, rookies coming into the league just don't have much leverage (other than staying in school, which is super risky).

[mcHAPPY]

Human brains are wired to find uncertainty interesting: that's why we watch sports.

To maximize uncertainty and entertainment, the NBA should give high draft picks to poor teams (long term poor teams should improve keeping the game uncertain), and keep a lottery (vs. the boring predictability of the 30 year wheel).

The current system is OK in principle, but overly rewards failure. Here's an alternative weighting:
1. Give each non-playoff team lottery balls: 17 for the worst down to 3 for the best (140 balls total).
2. Have the top 14 picks all be done by lottery: draw #1, remove the winning team's balls, then re-spin for #2, etc.

If you use these exact numbers:
- around half the time, the #1 pick does NOT go to a bottom 5 team
- if you are the worst team in the league you have <50% chance of a top 4 pick
- if you just miss the playoffs you have ~10% chance of a top 4 pick
- if you move by 4 places from 14 to 10 lottery balls, your chance of picking #1 goes from 10% to 6.5%

In this case, the payoff from losing is much lower and less certain. There's also a high risk of looking like an absolute idiot if you tank: you may still end up with a #11-15 pick for all your 'efforts'. That can ruin careers very fast.

P.S. If you try just missing the playoffs to get a good pick, you still have a >80% chance of picking outside the top 6. So this is again a risky strategy: it's probably better to make the playoffs if you can. The riskier the payoff, the less likely that people will attempt it ... and they'll just focus on winning games.

I like this.

Too much collusion possible with wheel.

How would people feel if Miami drafted Parker, wiggins, smart, exum, embiid this year?