Proposed Changes to the NBA Draft Lottery
Goto page Previous  1, 2

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
oldschool32
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 19647

PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:40 am    Post subject:

I Bleed P&G wrote:
oldschool32 wrote:
CandyCanes wrote:
It should just be that each team in the lottery has the same chance.


This. Give every team in the lottery the same odds, and limit the number of times you can be in the top two or three consecutively.

The problem with that will be a lot more teams will start to tank to the point that will become a problem.


Why are teams going to tank? I don't see them tanking so they can just barely miss out on the playoffs. Even if that was the case, those teams would still have won 30 plus games, not the 10 to 15 we're seeing now.
_________________
"It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up."-The Greatest
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
70sdude
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 05 Feb 2009
Posts: 4157

PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:09 am    Post subject:

MJST wrote:
Eliminate the draft and make them all free agents and set the 'rookie max' they can be paid by other teams pursuing them.

Problem solved.


Well, the problem created by that move is profit reduction for many clubs, player job eliminations and resulting overall league shrinkage.

Small market or struggling clubs won't be able to cheaply acquire or retain many of the better young or new players. Without additional subsidization of the less profitable clubs, the league shrinks in size as ownership exits the business arena, and fewer player jobs exist.

I doubt the NBA players association would go for it at the bargaining table next go-around.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 118738
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:19 am    Post subject:

Basketball Fan wrote:
As if the draft still couldn't be fixed


Tell us how it can be fixed.
_________________
#lakerclownshow
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 118738
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:23 am    Post subject: Re: Lottery: after watching ESPN 30 for 30 (Orlando Magic)

70sdude wrote:
I'd love to see the lottery drawing be an honest one.

To me, the more disturbing aspect of the lottery has been the impression I've formed from the eye test (only) that the NBA doesn't always conduct an honest weighted lottery draw. There's been a few franchise-propelling long-shot benefactors of lottery ball drops for the top pick that looked stunningly enough like, ummm, well, let's say suspiciously-looking enough to call 'em fixed.

1985: Pat Ewing to the NY Knicks
1993: Chris Webber to the Orlando Magic
1998: Tim Duncan to the San Antonio Spurs

The 1993 odds seemed the worst case, when the team with the longest odds in the lottery (1 in however many) earned the top pick. That pick walked like a duck, quacked like a duck, it was duck.

Here's a fun read (!) on the opposing view on the draft "fairness":

https://squared2020.com/2017/05/23/is-the-nba-draft-lottery-fixed-a-statistical-analysis-of-1994-2017/

I'm no statistics whiz, so apologies given up front for the referral, if you find that the article's thesis doesn't stand up to much rigor in terms of an analytical examination.


The examples you gave did not happen with the current lottery system. The most recent example was 19 years ago. I am not saying it currently isn't fixed, I just don't see how it could be.
_________________
#lakerclownshow
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 118738
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:30 am    Post subject:

Runway8 wrote:
Telleris wrote:
Runway8 wrote:
Just thought of this, how about best record of a non-playoff team gets equal ping pong balls with the worst record. Bad teams will be deterred from tanking because they'll now get ping pong competition from top non-playoff teams. Borderline playoff teams will keep pushing because it's win/win for them.

You go down the line... 2nd best non playoff team gets equal ping pong ball with 2nd worst. 3rd best = 3rd worst, etc

Overall, everyone is motivated from the beginning of the year to get a playoff spot because it's win/win if you don't. But I personally think you need playoff seeding reform, conference and division reform before you need to mess with the lottery.


No matter where you put it, there will be motivations to lose, you need to make the motivations to not lose greater than the motivation to lose, the only spot i could think of to take that away would be to say give the lowest percent to the last non playoff team and all first round losers (because no one would actually try to lose a playoff series for a 1% lottery chance, the trade off would never be worth it).

The risk you run is say a really good team suffers an injury, but that's not really all that different to a year where a team loses them earlier in the year rather than later (see tim duncan)

I like the idea of near odds at the bottom, but there should be a point where it slowly degrades, hopefully as far away from dead last. You'll always have some jostling, but really, the major goal is for the product at the bottom to not descend into an unwatchable (bleep) like it's been so if the degradation is far enough away from the bottom, it should alleviate that.


I just don't think the problem is as big as fans make it out to be. We are the tankers because we are armchair managers. Likewise, the managers in the NBA are the ones who tank, not players. They put them in position to lose by not playing the good players significant minutes, labeling players with bogus injuries, drafting and stashing, etc. Players don't tank so a new hot shot could take their job. Lou Williams spoke about this.

Philly took it to the extreme and so there is this appearance of a problem. But I don't think it's a big problem as the media makes it out to be. I'd like to see playoff seeding reform first.


I agree, I don't see much of a problem. Last season do you think that the Lakers would have preferred an 8 seed or the lottery? Of course the 8 seed. They tanked when it became apparent that an 8 seed wasn't happening.
_________________
#lakerclownshow
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
70sdude
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 05 Feb 2009
Posts: 4157

PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:17 am    Post subject: Re: Lottery: after watching ESPN 30 for 30 (Orlando Magic)

venturalakersfan wrote:
70sdude wrote:
I'd love to see the lottery drawing be an honest one.

To me, the more disturbing aspect of the lottery has been the impression I've formed from the eye test (only) that the NBA doesn't always conduct an honest weighted lottery draw. There's been a few franchise-propelling long-shot benefactors of lottery ball drops for the top pick that looked stunningly enough like, ummm, well, let's say suspiciously-looking enough to call 'em fixed.

1985: Pat Ewing to the NY Knicks
1993: Chris Webber to the Orlando Magic
1998: Tim Duncan to the San Antonio Spurs

The 1993 odds seemed the worst case, when the team with the longest odds in the lottery (1 in however many) earned the top pick. That pick walked like a duck, quacked like a duck, it was duck.

Here's a fun read (!) on the opposing view on the draft "fairness":

https://squared2020.com/2017/05/23/is-the-nba-draft-lottery-fixed-a-statistical-analysis-of-1994-2017/

I'm no statistics whiz, so apologies given up front for the referral, if you find that the article's thesis doesn't stand up to much rigor in terms of an analytical examination.


The examples you gave did not happen with the current lottery system. The most recent example was 19 years ago. I am not saying it currently isn't fixed, I just don't see how it could be.


OK, I on the other hand can easily visualize any number of ways that controls of the drawing and reveal processes could be corrupted by an unscrupulous pair of participants, be it a commissioner, aide, auditor or team rep.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 18720

PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 12:34 pm    Post subject: Re: Lottery: after watching ESPN 30 for 30 (Orlando Magic)

70sdude wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
70sdude wrote:
I'd love to see the lottery drawing be an honest one.

To me, the more disturbing aspect of the lottery has been the impression I've formed from the eye test (only) that the NBA doesn't always conduct an honest weighted lottery draw. There's been a few franchise-propelling long-shot benefactors of lottery ball drops for the top pick that looked stunningly enough like, ummm, well, let's say suspiciously-looking enough to call 'em fixed.

1985: Pat Ewing to the NY Knicks
1993: Chris Webber to the Orlando Magic
1998: Tim Duncan to the San Antonio Spurs

The 1993 odds seemed the worst case, when the team with the longest odds in the lottery (1 in however many) earned the top pick. That pick walked like a duck, quacked like a duck, it was duck.

Here's a fun read (!) on the opposing view on the draft "fairness":

https://squared2020.com/2017/05/23/is-the-nba-draft-lottery-fixed-a-statistical-analysis-of-1994-2017/

I'm no statistics whiz, so apologies given up front for the referral, if you find that the article's thesis doesn't stand up to much rigor in terms of an analytical examination.


The examples you gave did not happen with the current lottery system. The most recent example was 19 years ago. I am not saying it currently isn't fixed, I just don't see how it could be.


OK, I on the other hand can easily visualize any number of ways that controls of the drawing and reveal processes could be corrupted by an unscrupulous pair of participants, be it a commissioner, aide, auditor or team rep.


1. Sure, you can never completely eliminate the possibility of a conspiracy. If they could fake the moon landings, they could sure as hell fake the NBA lottery.

2. As for VLF's comment about the most recent example being 19 years ago, that was the Tim Duncan pick (which was actually 1997, 20 years ago). The Spurs had the third worst record that year. That was not a longshot, nor is there anything suspicious about it. It's just something that people like to whine about.

3. The Ewing lottery was seven envelopes in a transparent bin. The conspiracy theories about this are well known, but it is not the same system as what is used today.

4. So really Orlando in 1993 was the only time during the ping pong ball era when there was a major surprise. Orlando had the 11th worst record, which gave it the worst odds in the lottery at that time. The conspiracy theory for why the NBA would want to help the Magic was pretty weak. Anyway, the odds structure was modified after 1993.

5. Since then, there have been a couple teams with the ninth worst records (Chicago and Cleveland) that won the lottery. Their odds were actually pretty close to Orlando's odds in 1993. One of these years, the team with the 14th worst record is going to win a lottery. A 0.5% chance is still a chance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 118738
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 12:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Lottery: after watching ESPN 30 for 30 (Orlando Magic)

70sdude wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
70sdude wrote:
I'd love to see the lottery drawing be an honest one.

To me, the more disturbing aspect of the lottery has been the impression I've formed from the eye test (only) that the NBA doesn't always conduct an honest weighted lottery draw. There's been a few franchise-propelling long-shot benefactors of lottery ball drops for the top pick that looked stunningly enough like, ummm, well, let's say suspiciously-looking enough to call 'em fixed.

1985: Pat Ewing to the NY Knicks
1993: Chris Webber to the Orlando Magic
1998: Tim Duncan to the San Antonio Spurs

The 1993 odds seemed the worst case, when the team with the longest odds in the lottery (1 in however many) earned the top pick. That pick walked like a duck, quacked like a duck, it was duck.

Here's a fun read (!) on the opposing view on the draft "fairness":

https://squared2020.com/2017/05/23/is-the-nba-draft-lottery-fixed-a-statistical-analysis-of-1994-2017/

I'm no statistics whiz, so apologies given up front for the referral, if you find that the article's thesis doesn't stand up to much rigor in terms of an analytical examination.


The examples you gave did not happen with the current lottery system. The most recent example was 19 years ago. I am not saying it currently isn't fixed, I just don't see how it could be.


OK, I on the other hand can easily visualize any number of ways that controls of the drawing and reveal processes could be corrupted by an unscrupulous pair of participants, be it a commissioner, aide, auditor or team rep.


Every team would have to be involved since a representative of every team observes and signs off on the process.
_________________
#lakerclownshow
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Telleris
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 May 2013
Posts: 2272

PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:23 pm    Post subject: Re: Lottery: after watching ESPN 30 for 30 (Orlando Magic)

venturalakersfan wrote:
70sdude wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
70sdude wrote:
I'd love to see the lottery drawing be an honest one.

To me, the more disturbing aspect of the lottery has been the impression I've formed from the eye test (only) that the NBA doesn't always conduct an honest weighted lottery draw. There's been a few franchise-propelling long-shot benefactors of lottery ball drops for the top pick that looked stunningly enough like, ummm, well, let's say suspiciously-looking enough to call 'em fixed.

1985: Pat Ewing to the NY Knicks
1993: Chris Webber to the Orlando Magic
1998: Tim Duncan to the San Antonio Spurs

The 1993 odds seemed the worst case, when the team with the longest odds in the lottery (1 in however many) earned the top pick. That pick walked like a duck, quacked like a duck, it was duck.

Here's a fun read (!) on the opposing view on the draft "fairness":

https://squared2020.com/2017/05/23/is-the-nba-draft-lottery-fixed-a-statistical-analysis-of-1994-2017/

I'm no statistics whiz, so apologies given up front for the referral, if you find that the article's thesis doesn't stand up to much rigor in terms of an analytical examination.


The examples you gave did not happen with the current lottery system. The most recent example was 19 years ago. I am not saying it currently isn't fixed, I just don't see how it could be.


OK, I on the other hand can easily visualize any number of ways that controls of the drawing and reveal processes could be corrupted by an unscrupulous pair of participants, be it a commissioner, aide, auditor or team rep.


Every team would have to be involved since a representative of every team observes and signs off on the process.


Heh, have people seen how its done now?

4 numbers are drawn, one after the other via ping pong balls (i believe all balls are weighed as well so they're shown to be identical) like a casino game, you win by the 4 numbers being part of yours, so say 2, 5, 8, 3, then whoever has 2583 wins. You don't just need the numbers, but the order.

There is a member of every team involved in the room whose allowed to check it over beforehand and then signs off that it was legit.
_________________
Entertainment comes before Sport in ESPN
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
70sdude
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 05 Feb 2009
Posts: 4157

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:28 am    Post subject:

There's ways to dupe onlookers even today. Weighting the actual balls themselves secretly beforehand to influence their likelihood of any group of them being drawn into the selection chamber - early or late - could be done. Varying the air stream in the hopper from ball to ball could also be done to influence the outcome. Payoff of the folks who actually label, count or place the ping pong balls into the controlled environment is also possible' the counts could be altered easily. That's just three ways that the current system has an assumed transparency and thus its "controls" are assumed to be adequate but of course, any outcome dependent on human hands is corruptible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 18720

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:28 pm    Post subject:

70sdude wrote:
There's ways to dupe onlookers even today. Weighting the actual balls themselves secretly beforehand to influence their likelihood of any group of them being drawn into the selection chamber - early or late - could be done. Varying the air stream in the hopper from ball to ball could also be done to influence the outcome. Payoff of the folks who actually label, count or place the ping pong balls into the controlled environment is also possible' the counts could be altered easily. That's just three ways that the current system has an assumed transparency and thus its "controls" are assumed to be adequate but of course, any outcome dependent on human hands is corruptible.


Well, sure, a good sleight of hand artist could find a way to switch the ping pong balls even with everyone watching. You can never absolutely disprove a conspiracy theory. If the government can blow up the World Trade Center and frame al-Qaeda, the NBA lottery would be a piece of cake by comparison.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2010 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB