 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » The NBA Lottery
DeVeau31
So would getting a marketing superstar like Oden or Durant...
Play your ass off to possibly make the 8 seed, or lose your last 5 to get into an unweighted draft lottery?
May 23, 2007 at 02:36PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
I don't think the Owner would let that happen. Even just 2 or 3 home playoff games generate a ton of revenue for the team.
Tyson
So would getting a marketing superstar like Oden or Durant...
Play your ass off to possibly make the 8 seed, or lose your last 5 to get into an unweighted draft lottery?
FuriousGiorge
This is a complete overreaction to what happened down the stretch. Once again, I blame Bill Simmons.
May 23, 2007 at 02:42PM View BBCode
Which you have very little chance of winning.This is a complete overreaction to what happened down the stretch. Once again, I blame Bill Simmons.
turkob
the only solution is a 30-team lottery, which is a bad idea
so i'm with FG, the NBA just needs to learn to live with it, the system is fine as it is
May 23, 2007 at 02:43PM View BBCode
as long as there is any advantage to intentional losing, it will occurthe only solution is a 30-team lottery, which is a bad idea
so i'm with FG, the NBA just needs to learn to live with it, the system is fine as it is
DeVeau31
May 23, 2007 at 02:54PM View BBCode
the system sucks. NFL has the best draft in all of sports, just adapt that.
Admin
I was at the so-called Reggie Bush Bowl a couple years ago in San Fran. Both teams played hard, the game even went into Overtime. I was also at this year's final T-Wolves game against Memphis where the T-Wolves sat Garnett and lost ot the worst team in the league by 30 points at home. It was despicable.
Tyson
May 23, 2007 at 02:58PM View BBCode
For whatever reason, the NFL seems to have avoided the tanking issue. The commissioner must have put the fear of God into the teams or something, because you don't see it like you do in the NBA.I was at the so-called Reggie Bush Bowl a couple years ago in San Fran. Both teams played hard, the game even went into Overtime. I was also at this year's final T-Wolves game against Memphis where the T-Wolves sat Garnett and lost ot the worst team in the league by 30 points at home. It was despicable.
Tyson
DeVeau31
With the lottery system, every team has a shot at a top 3 pick, so you're going to see a few teams lose games at the end to improve their 0.7% chance to a 2.1% chance. However, if you have the draft order be the reverse order of finish, then you're not going to see 14 teams all tanking at the end.
May 23, 2007 at 03:03PM View BBCode
you will always have a team or two tank, that's just how sports work. You need to allow the bad teams to get better though, that's the end result.With the lottery system, every team has a shot at a top 3 pick, so you're going to see a few teams lose games at the end to improve their 0.7% chance to a 2.1% chance. However, if you have the draft order be the reverse order of finish, then you're not going to see 14 teams all tanking at the end.
barterer2002
May 23, 2007 at 03:06PM View BBCode
The difference between the NBA and the NFL is that the fortunes of an NBA team can be directly tied to the superstar. The better the player the more likely the championships. In the NFL, hall of fame caliber players can never make a super bowl because the rest of the team sucks. Thus the impact of that singular player isn't worth the efforts to tell your guys to go out and try to lose.
FuriousGiorge
There is no real structural difference between the NFL draft and the NHL's, and MLB's. The only difference is that it's televised. I'm not exactly sure how (once again) the NFL gets credit for some great leap of creativity, when all they do is slot teams in the reverse order of finish and then have Chris Berman make stupid jokes over it.
May 23, 2007 at 03:06PM View BBCode
Originally posted by DeVeau31
the system sucks. NFL has the best draft in all of sports, just adapt that.
There is no real structural difference between the NFL draft and the NHL's, and MLB's. The only difference is that it's televised. I'm not exactly sure how (once again) the NFL gets credit for some great leap of creativity, when all they do is slot teams in the reverse order of finish and then have Chris Berman make stupid jokes over it.
DeVeau31
The NHL has a lottery.
May 23, 2007 at 03:16PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
Originally posted by DeVeau31
the system sucks. NFL has the best draft in all of sports, just adapt that.
There is no real structural difference between the NFL draft and the NHL's, and MLB's. The only difference is that it's televised. I'm not exactly sure how (once again) the NFL gets credit for some great leap of creativity, when all they do is slot teams in the reverse order of finish and then have Chris Berman make stupid jokes over it.
The NHL has a lottery.
FuriousGiorge
May 23, 2007 at 03:20PM View BBCode
Indeed they do. Well, they once did it straight, just like the NBA did. There's nothing inherently "better" about the NFL system, the one that the NHL and NBA both used and then discarded.
DeVeau31
May 23, 2007 at 03:23PM View BBCode
it is better though. It discourages tanking if you think about it. Worst is the worst and gets the #1 pick, etc. With a lottery, 14 teams get a chance at the pick, which now encourages 14 teams to lose games in order to get into the lottery. Why wouldn't they, I mean all players are hyped up as "lottery pick", so teams want to get into that and get that chance.
FuriousGiorge
May 23, 2007 at 03:27PM View BBCode
That really doesn't make any sense. In the NFL you can immediately move up A LOT of spots by losing one or two games. In the NBA, you have to dump a whole bunch of games just to increase your odds, and even then you can get shafted (as we saw last night). It is as Bart said - NFL teams don't (seem) to tank because one player doesn't make the difference between putrid and competitive.
DeVeau31
May 23, 2007 at 03:32PM View BBCode
exactly my point. There will always be a team or two that will tank. However, with a lottery and teams wanting to increase their odds, they see a few teams doing it and they do it as well.
FuriousGiorge
1) Positional inflexibility. If the top prospect in a draft is a quarterback, and you already have one, then you aren't going to take that QB and move him to running back. You'll just wait until your turn and take a player who fits your needs better, no big deal. In the NBA, if the top prospect is a center and your best player is already a center, you simply move one of them to power forward, and you've lost nothing.
2) Salary slotting. In the NFL, there is a huge monetary difference between the top pick and, say, the sixth. Often you're better off with the sixth pick just so he doesn't blow up your cap. In the NBA, rookies are slotted into salaries, making the top pick much less of a financial burden.
May 23, 2007 at 03:34PM View BBCode
For the record, here are two more reasons why NFL teams don't tank:1) Positional inflexibility. If the top prospect in a draft is a quarterback, and you already have one, then you aren't going to take that QB and move him to running back. You'll just wait until your turn and take a player who fits your needs better, no big deal. In the NBA, if the top prospect is a center and your best player is already a center, you simply move one of them to power forward, and you've lost nothing.
2) Salary slotting. In the NFL, there is a huge monetary difference between the top pick and, say, the sixth. Often you're better off with the sixth pick just so he doesn't blow up your cap. In the NBA, rookies are slotted into salaries, making the top pick much less of a financial burden.
DeVeau31
May 23, 2007 at 03:40PM View BBCode
let's not get started on the salary system in the NBA, which happens to suck MUCH more than their lottery system.
tm4559
May 23, 2007 at 03:41PM View BBCode
did they stop giving those big contracts to the rookies in the NBA? i haven't been keeping up with it very well, sorry. i thought they were still paying those guys like crazy. or do they just get it from Nike or somebody now instead?
FuriousGiorge
I was simply pointing out the ways in which the NFL and NBA draft are different that have nothing to do with the lottery, and why not seeing tanking in the NFL has nothing to do with not having a lottery.
It is pretty clear that having a lottery decreases the reward for tanking, although it doesn't eliminate it completely.
May 23, 2007 at 03:54PM View BBCode
Originally posted by DeVeau31
let's not get started on the salary system in the NBA, which happens to suck MUCH more than their lottery system.
I was simply pointing out the ways in which the NFL and NBA draft are different that have nothing to do with the lottery, and why not seeing tanking in the NFL has nothing to do with not having a lottery.
It is pretty clear that having a lottery decreases the reward for tanking, although it doesn't eliminate it completely.
DeVeau31
We will agree to disagree then.
You will always have a couple teams tank, no matter what sport it is. The problem with the lottery is that it encourages 14 teams to tank, not just 1 or 2.
May 23, 2007 at 03:59PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
It is pretty clear that having a lottery decreases the reward for tanking, although it doesn't eliminate it completely.
We will agree to disagree then.
You will always have a couple teams tank, no matter what sport it is. The problem with the lottery is that it encourages 14 teams to tank, not just 1 or 2.
FuriousGiorge
The reward for tanking when you're on the fringes of the lottery and just outside of the playoffs is much less than the reward for playing hard and trying to get into the 8th seed. Even if you get swept, you get two extra home games worth of revenue, a boost of fan base loyalty, and a chance of winning a playoff series which is higher than your chance to land a top 3 pick. Ask the Warriors if they wish they had tanked in order to get some miniscule lottery percentage. In addition, the risk of tanking your way out of the 8th seed and into the lottery is HUGE - if your fan base caught a whiff of you doing that, they'd never forgive you - the coach and GM, at least, would be out the door, and the owner might not survive the scandal either. And all that risk for something around a 1% chance that you'd land one of those top picks.
The bottom 8 teams or so, the ones without any chance at the playoffs, will have an incentive to tank with a lottery. But they'd also have an incentive to tank without a lottery - more so, since rather than percentages, they'd be seeing direct upward movement in the draft with every game they lost.
May 23, 2007 at 04:08PM View BBCode
At some point common sense has to take over your thought process here.The reward for tanking when you're on the fringes of the lottery and just outside of the playoffs is much less than the reward for playing hard and trying to get into the 8th seed. Even if you get swept, you get two extra home games worth of revenue, a boost of fan base loyalty, and a chance of winning a playoff series which is higher than your chance to land a top 3 pick. Ask the Warriors if they wish they had tanked in order to get some miniscule lottery percentage. In addition, the risk of tanking your way out of the 8th seed and into the lottery is HUGE - if your fan base caught a whiff of you doing that, they'd never forgive you - the coach and GM, at least, would be out the door, and the owner might not survive the scandal either. And all that risk for something around a 1% chance that you'd land one of those top picks.
The bottom 8 teams or so, the ones without any chance at the playoffs, will have an incentive to tank with a lottery. But they'd also have an incentive to tank without a lottery - more so, since rather than percentages, they'd be seeing direct upward movement in the draft with every game they lost.
barterer2002
Tom I think you're overstating things here to say that every sport has tanking issues, either that or we're not using the same defination of tanking. I've been assuming that the defination in place for this converstation was the teams that lose on purpose in order to secure better drafting position. Clearly that's what the Celtics were doing this season (and what the Rockets did to get Hakeem which is why the lottery was put into place in the first place). I am fairly certain that no MLB team dives to the bottom to move up a spot or two in the draft order. I'm 85% confident that the NFL teams aren't doing it. I'll admit that I don't follow hockey closely enough to see if they do or not (although they must do it some or there wouldn't be a lottery). But I don't think its accurate to say that every sport has teams tanking to get better draft picks.
May 23, 2007 at 04:15PM View BBCode
Originally posted by DeVeau31
You will always have a couple teams tank, no matter what sport it is. The problem with the lottery is that it encourages 14 teams to tank, not just 1 or 2.
Tom I think you're overstating things here to say that every sport has tanking issues, either that or we're not using the same defination of tanking. I've been assuming that the defination in place for this converstation was the teams that lose on purpose in order to secure better drafting position. Clearly that's what the Celtics were doing this season (and what the Rockets did to get Hakeem which is why the lottery was put into place in the first place). I am fairly certain that no MLB team dives to the bottom to move up a spot or two in the draft order. I'm 85% confident that the NFL teams aren't doing it. I'll admit that I don't follow hockey closely enough to see if they do or not (although they must do it some or there wouldn't be a lottery). But I don't think its accurate to say that every sport has teams tanking to get better draft picks.
DeVeau31
Tanking is in every sport. Once a team realizes they suck more than they originally thought, players lose interest and the team loses more and doesn't have fight. Hey, why not try and get a better pick to get a better player? Less so in baseball since those guys are usually 3 years away from seeing an MLB roster, but still.
May 23, 2007 at 04:21PM View BBCode
ok, I will admit a little exaggeration when referring to the 10-14 teams in the lottery or whatever based on final 2 weeks of the season. That said, are you trying to tell me that the 3-9 teams played their asses off to try and win some extra games...or played half-heartedly in order to increase their percentages?Tanking is in every sport. Once a team realizes they suck more than they originally thought, players lose interest and the team loses more and doesn't have fight. Hey, why not try and get a better pick to get a better player? Less so in baseball since those guys are usually 3 years away from seeing an MLB roster, but still.
mr1313
May 23, 2007 at 04:25PM View BBCode
There is no reasoning with them Tom, so why bother. Teams tank period, ask the Spurs and David Robinson. 1313
tm4559
May 23, 2007 at 04:26PM View BBCode
didn't the marlins fire that giradi guy because he didn't manage the team to lose more last season?
whiskybear
I'm going to go ahead and say that this "psychology of losing" that you describe has nothing to do with players intentionally losing games to get some help in the draft next year -- it has to do with waking up every morning (at noon) to the realization that you still play for the Memphis Grizzlies.
May 23, 2007 at 04:27PM View BBCode
Originally posted by DeVeau31
Once a team realizes they suck more than they originally thought, players lose interest and the team loses more and doesn't have fight.
I'm going to go ahead and say that this "psychology of losing" that you describe has nothing to do with players intentionally losing games to get some help in the draft next year -- it has to do with waking up every morning (at noon) to the realization that you still play for the Memphis Grizzlies.
FuriousGiorge
(Sorry, can't help it. That avatar, it hypnotizes me.)
May 23, 2007 at 04:29PM View BBCode
Where the white bitches at?!(Sorry, can't help it. That avatar, it hypnotizes me.)