Anti-Tanker? Introducing the 'Wheel'

[dzoni71]

Very interesting concept. I love the way it eliminates tanking which I loathe, but at the same time it makes it so much harder for bad teams to catch up.
An ideal way would actually be to use a hybrid-model of the wheel and draft lottery:
1. Each team would receive a predetermined wheel slot, but not for their draft pick, but for their draft pick group. A group is an array of 6 consecutive draft picks, ie 1-6, 7-12, 13-18, 19-24, 25-30. You would be guaranteed a pick inside your draft group, but a lottery would determine which exact pick you would receive.
2. Draft inside the group would be determined by lottery balls, where last placed team inside the group would receive the most.
3. Each year you would be in a group with 5 different teams until the end of a 5 year period where you would have selected inside each of the 5 groups.
4. In the sixth year you would again be with the same 5 teams as in year one, except you will not be able to have the same draft pick number as in year one. So say in year one you were in group one and had the second overall pick, in year six you could win picks 1,3,4,5 or 6.
5. The same process continues after the 10th year, except in year 11 you will not be able to receive draft pick numbers from year 1 or 6.
6. After the 15th year a complete new wheel would be set-up from year one to eliminate determination of your future picks.

This concept would:
1. Eliminate almost completely tanking as you would have very little to gain going against only 5 teams instead of 29 fighting for draft position.
2. Give bad teams a better chance of higher draft picks inside the draft groups.
3. Eliminate the possibility of top-draft talent wanting to return to college so they can pick their future teams.
4. Keep all the fanfare of the lottery for the NBA.

[p00ka]

the penalizing idea's are ridiculous.

the draft, as set up i perfect.

the problem is much deeper.... and it has everything to do with how the league has promoted certain markets and fucked over other.

with media and marketing attached to agents and agencies who have ties to the markets.... its a lose lose for some markets.

It isn't perfect, but better than anything else anyone has come up with, now or ever. The league wants at least some chance for small market teams, and teams that have had bad luck, and teams that have had bad management for years but turning it around, to have a crack at that next Duncan/LeBron/KD. Yes, tanking is a problem, but a necessary evil that goes with the territory. The good news is that most teams that go the purposeful tank route get burned by the lottery. Karma's a bitch, and the basketball gods love her.

[mcHAPPY]

Much less, but teams will still tank. The point is to get teams to stop tanking and ruining the game for the fans.

There will never be a league where every single team is competitive.

There will always be teams that need to take a step back to take numerous forward.

With all the focus on tanking (not just on RR) people think all losing is intentional when in fact some teams are just grossly mismanaged and/or bad due to uncontrollable circumstances.


If the goal for every team is to compete for a championship each year, then one must reassess their goals. If the goal is to build towards one, then not all teams can focus on the here and now. I love this quote:

There is a lot of confusion about tanking. It does not mean that a coach tries to lose and that the players try to lose. It means that all personnel decisions are made with an eye to the future, and nothing is done to enhance the immediate prospects of the team. Good veterans who will not be around in two or three or four years have no role to play so they get traded or benched. A team plays young and inexperienced guys who will likely lose, even trying as hard as they can to win. But if the team does ever contend, these are the players who will be on that team. The coach will work hard to install his system and teach the players to play properly; he is not trying to allow bad habits to form. This was how the Celtics tanked in 2007, after Pierce went down with his injury. As one who watched nearly every Celtics game that year, I can state that it was an entertaining team.

http://www1.realgm.com/article/23109...ssible-Mission

If the NBA truly wants to eliminate tanking offer financial incentives to teams to be competitive. Base percentage of revenue sharing upon record or give larger portions to playoff teams since they typically have higher payrolls. It would also penalize teams like Toronto who field uncompetitive teams (last 4 years) with ridiculous payrolls.



I don't agree with the wheel. The year a phenom comes out and goes to a conference finalist because it was their year will explain why. Kuh's concept of redistributing the odds and significantly reducing the guaranteed incentive to tank strikes a very balanced approach to ensuring competitiveness in the league and a respectable product, in my opinion.

[psrs1]

it would also have the unintended consequence of eliminating about 20% of the teams in the league. for many teams, being able to draft players & retain their rights on cheap rookie scale contracts is the only hope they have. remove any likelihood of the top-tier incoming players from signing with, say, the wolves, or the grizzlies, or the bobcats, and those teams, after a few seasons, would really be struggling to put a competitive team on the floor, and bums in the seats. a true 'free market' as you propose would overly weight the 'top' teams (read: teams who play in a favourable location &/or have access to substantially more resources), leading to even more disparity between the top & bottom teams, until the bottom-most teams would no longer be financially viable.

We should have implemented a hard cap with previous work stoppage. That would have levelled the playing field.

[yertu damkule]

i was torn on the idea...but then i saw wilbon refer to it as 'stupid,' which tells me that it's brilliant.

[Letter N]

We should have implemented a hard cap with previous work stoppage. That would have levelled the playing field.

I'm pretty sure the luxury tax is the only thing keeping a bunch of these lower teams profitable.

[golden]

The Wheel is dumb. What they need to do is cycle the good GMs through different franchises.

But seriously, the answer here is money - as it always is.

1. Start with a hard cap. I mean really hard. No loopholes or exceptions. If signing a player puts you over the cap, then you can't sign him.
2. No max salary. Meaning Lebron will cost you 2/3rd of your cap.
3. No draft & no rookie scale. Everybody comes into the league as a free agent.

So basically, your currency is your cap and as soon as you use that up, you can't sign any more good players. Players now have no limit on what they can earn. Owners have the same cost certainty since salary cap is a % of revenue. Main difference is the middle and lower talent players will get screwed - which they should because they are easily replaceable. Big 3's will be very difficult accumulate.

[dzoni71]

Main difference is the middle and lower talent players will get screwed - which they should because they are easily replaceable.

You nailed it right there, lower talent will get screwed, that lower talent dominates the NBA player union voting = no way they would sign on that. In fact, I think that that's just about the only thing not standing a chance to be accepted in the CBA.

[KHD]

then how do you keep the league competitive?

Smart scouting, youth teams.

[mcHAPPY]

You nailed it right there, lower talent will get screwed, that lower talent dominates the NBA player union voting = no way they would sign on that. In fact, I think that that's just about the only thing not standing a chance to be accepted in the CBA.

Yup.

Average salary in the NBA is about $5M.

The median salary is around $2.5M.

For every Kobe Bryant there are 10 other guys making $2.5M or less.

[golden]

You nailed it right there, lower talent will get screwed, that lower talent dominates the NBA player union voting = no way they would sign on that. In fact, I think that that's just about the only thing not standing a chance to be accepted in the CBA.

Not to mention the real parasites of the system - the player agents. And that's really sad. A true open system that would pay fair market value for performance with unlimited upside would be rejected by lesser union members who don't deserve the compensation they are getting. Almost like real life, isn't it? Democracy has its flaws, sometimes.

[Superjudge]

Meh.

The League only promote the big markets.
They are in bed with advertisers
who are in bed with agencies
who are in bed with agents
who lead players back to the big markets




Wake up people. Detach from the Matrix. The issue isnt the draft, or bad scouts ,or poor GM's, or tanking.

The issue is that the system is set up, and supported to make money in the largest markets.

The fun part in Canada, Toronto is one of those markets, but it faces unique biases so even though it provides a great source of revenue for the league, it isn't supported or promoted by the american marketing machine. End result, Agents dont want their clients in Canada.

AND THAT is why you tank.
AND THAT is why you PRAY for a Canadian kid like Wiggans, who has a small chance to be a star.

[ezz_bee]

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 ><

You what makes teams better? Good management. There's a lot of stuff people want to point to but at the end of the day it's management. How has the draft lottery helped the Cavs, Kings, Wolves? They've all had lots of top end picks, but have been terrible year in and year out. Wolves seem to be on the right track (management change) and Sac-to is up in the air (new owners) Cavs, despite all their top picks, are still a mess. A lottery doesn't change that, good management does.

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 don't see it happening, but it would be fun. I also don't have an issue with it. Just a quick question, in your hypothetical scenario would you HAVE to spend they allotted money for your spot. For instance if you were the worst team, but the top 4 players signed with other teams for less money, would you have to give the 5th best player the full amount? That would minimize the incentive to tank, because you risk overpaying if top talent goes elsewhere...

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.

It's definitely a possibility, but I think the risk of injury, and guaranteed money should make it less likely. Also, a player who stays in the draft an extra season so they can be drafted by the Lakers, could be outshined by a freshman who the Lakers draft, and could end up with the Milwaukee Bucks. I'm sure the NBA has rules that prevent players from talking to players until they have entered the draft. Although none of these reasons can eliminate collusion entirely, I think they'd combine to make it not happen very often, if ever.

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.

I have no problem tweaking the draft lottery to minimize the incentive to tank, which your odds certainly help to do. It is probably more likely to get owners to agree on a tweak to the current system than to get a new system entirely.

I like this.

Too much collusion possible with wheel.

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

Matt, I can't believe you have a problem with the wheel. First, the new system won't take place until all current draft pick transactions have been executed, which means their will be a minimum of 5-10 year lead up, where management will know they new system is coming. Any conference finalist that ends up with the generational talent, will have gotten there by good management, why shouldn't get that pick? Why should they be penalized doing more with the same amount of resources as all other GM's? I'm a fan of the wheel because it will cut through all the other BS about why teams are unsuccessful (weather, media attention, taxes, small market etc.) and focus on the real reason teams are bad... MANAGEMENT!

Very interesting concept. I love the way it eliminates tanking which I loathe, but at the same time it makes it so much harder for bad teams to catch up.

The problem with the current system is that the bad teams aren't catching up anyway. You can't fix bad management. You can only get rid of or change a system where bad management can hide behind being crappy at their jobs by saying you need to be bad to be good. Get rid of the incentive to be bad and Gm's will be evaluated more effectively and terrible ones won't be tolerated (as much).

It isn't perfect, but better than anything else anyone has come up with, now or ever.

Can't resist. For someone who always complains about posters wearing "blinders", and enjoys picking nits, there's nothing like an absolute statement to show off your hypocrisy!

There will never be a league where every single team is competitive.

There will always be teams that need to take a step back to take numerous forward.

With all the focus on tanking (not just on RR) people think all losing is intentional when in fact some teams are just grossly mismanaged and/or bad due to uncontrollable circumstances.

Agreed, now don't particularly care how they fix the incentive problem with the draft, just that they DO. What I LIKE about the wheel is it levels the playing field at the management level, cuts through all the other BS. Also, isn't there a parallel between you example of a conference finalist getting the generational talent, and the Spurs being bad for 1 year due to injury, and getting Tim Duncan, which lead them being the most successful team in the last 15 years? Was that bad for basketball? Where the Spurs only good because they got lucky? OR where they also, one of, IF not the best managed franchise in the league? I really think you need to revisit your aversion to the wheel.

What they need to do is cycle the good GMs through different franchises.

But seriously, the answer here is money - as it always is.

When it comes to the NBA I actually think your first statement is more accurate than your second. There are a few studies that show the link between the salary of the roster and success is tenuous at best. It'll never happen, I wouldn't want it to even if it was possible, but it's good ownership and management that makes the difference, NOT money. Although money doesn't hurt, it is not NEARLY as important as good management. And that goes beyond the cluster**** that is the Nets.

Meh.

The League only promote the big markets.
They are in bed with advertisers
who are in bed with agencies
who are in bed with agents
who lead players back to the big markets




Wake up people. Detach from the Matrix. The issue isnt the draft, or bad scouts ,or poor GM's, or tanking.

The issue is that the system is set up, and supported to make money in the largest markets.

Craig's Christmas Conspiracy!!!

If you believe that the best 5 teams right now (in any order) are the Heat, Pacers, Blazers, Thunder, Spurs, that doesn't do a lot to support your theory, since 4 of them (all but the Heat) are small market. Also what about the Knicks? The Mecca of the basketball world, they should be the best team in the NBA based on the logic of your system. With literally years of this system being in place there is ample data and time for the effects of the system you are pointing to have a HUGE effect. So why ARENT the Knicks the winningest team in the history of the NBA, or at the very least just behind the Lakers and Celtics? How do you account for the fact they've been mediocre at best, even with all the advantages they should have? I would argue, that they have TERRIBLE ownership/management which TRUMPS all the incentives they should have being in the biggest media market in NA (or second biggest?). Or are the Knicks actually the Spurs, and vice-versa... an ingenious maneuver by the Matrix to hide its tracks... ~I think you are on to something here~

In fact you could argue that in NY case the system worked against them, as being a big market got them Melo, and that (according to some sources) they traded for Bargs because of the agency he was with.

There is no matrix. Yes there are some advantages that you point out based on market size and advertising, but they have less of an effect than good ownership/management. Also Toronto is a HUGE market we are also under performing based on the system you say is in place, again I would point to management/ownership accounting for the difference between the advantage of being a big market and success on the court. Being a big market may help you attract big names, but if you sign those guys for more than they're worth (cough Amare, cough, cough) you will not be able to be a contender. Management trumps money... just about every time.

[Miekenstien]

nice post ezz but i don't think i could disagree with the wheel more. i do agree it is management that ultimately enables a team to survive but the idea of the spurs or heat getting the top pick when they are capped out and then able to sign him for four years is a deal breaker for me.

i still think the draft is the best way to introduce talent into the league and what a team does with it is up to them. i think the idea i like the most is keeping the draft where a team can only drop a certain amount of places but also have a tournament to determine order for the non playoff teams. teams on the brink of the playoffs should be able to break out of no mans land and it encourages teams to not give up striving for improvement.

[ezz_bee]

nice post ezz but i don't think i could disagree with the wheel more. i do agree it is management that ultimately enables a team to survive but the idea of the spurs or heat getting the top pick when they are capped out and then able to sign him for four years is a deal breaker for me.

i still think the draft is the best way to introduce talent into the league and what a team does with it is up to them. i think the idea i like the most is keeping the draft where a team can only drop a certain amount of places but also have a tournament to determine order for the non playoff teams. teams on the brink of the playoffs should be able to break out of no mans land and it encourages teams to not give up striving for improvement.

I'm not married to the idea of the wheel, although I do like the fact that every team gets the same picks just spread out. That way it's not what you get (draft position) it's how you use it.

BUT as I mentioned, ultimately I just want the incentive to tank minimized and I'm pretty much okay with any solution that does that including rejiggering the distribution of lotto balls.