Hearing about the revised draft lottery where teams that drafted 1st can't draft in the top 3 the next year kind of made me think that flat systems are terrible and dynamic ones are much better.

My idea which can be built upon:

The 7th worst team drafts 2nd in the first implementation of this system. They accumulate -5 points--->every year the accumulated points is moved 1 closer to 0, so the next season whatever their pick is after the lottery goes down 4 spots. Smallest movers are sorted first (eg. some team that would select 8th and has -1 moves to 9, then a team with -2 moves from 7 to 9 and the former team moves back to 8 (they would stay at -1, but then move to 0 (always move 1 closer to 0) for next year and the team that moved from 7 to 9 goes back to 0 for the next season unless other teams moved them elsewhere.

I think a system like this is more fair to every team and dynamic systems are better than static ones in almost every situation.


You could give much flatter odds in the lottery as it would eventually kind of balance out for all teams. Eg. The 17th best team has a 5% chance to win the lottery, while the worst team only has a 9% chance to win the #1 pick (or any individual lottery selection). You could open the lottery to 5 picks or more picks too. This would make it so that things will sort of balance out between all teams eventually and really disincentivize tanking in any particular year.


If the 14th worst team got the #5 pick one year and finishes 16th the next season in the playoffs their pick would fall all the way from #15th to 23rd. If they luckboxed the #1 pick and won the championship the next season they would obviously be locked into 30th that year, but with a -11 the following they will be locked into picking 30th for a number of years as long as they are finishing in the top few teams.

seadude our lines are:

denver 45.5
portland 42.5

$100 each gl

That's a really interesting system bigt2k4.

Def one of the better lottery draft alternatives that I've heard or read about.

Thanks, I legitimately made it up as I was typing on realGM in a response to how I think the 1st pick one year won't be able to pick top 3 the next and how that really wouldn't solve anything other than preventing some random team from getting super lucky like the Cavs did a while back.

RealGM huh? I know see why you thought DeRozan was a HOF'er.

RealGM despises Demar more than here

You're welcome.

Nothing wrong with spreading the lottery luck around.

Also it's to note that the lottery odds were changed after the Magic won it again right after binking Shaq.

One of the strangest realizations of adulthood has been that the vast majority of "famous" people/performers are glorified bums with some gigs here and there.

Depends on your definition of "here and there," I guess. Some actors and musicians work less than half the year. Athletes seem to work around 7-10 months of the year. Politicians most of the year. What other categories of famous people were you thinking of?

From wiki:

Got it, gl. Jokic rules Nurkic drools.

I just think it's stupid to try too hard to prevent teams from getting super lucky.

The Aria tested a game called protection poker, where you were guaranteed 20% of the pot if you got it in as a 65% favorite. A lot of the monkeying around with draft schemes seem similar. It's just a bunch of results-oriented crybaby over-reaction.

Solutions to whatever draft problems there are should be to increase randomness so that wacky outcomes are more likely and working hard at tanking correlates less to draft success.

not much toronto can do? who else can play at the level of them for cheaper? plus by 2020 it should be a bargin.

I forgot to mention, I was pretty shocked that Portland's line came out so low and like your side a lot more.

Instead of a lotto Adam Silver should just select which teams have the Top 3 picks and then order the rest by record.


Oh wait...

I still like my idea of a more nolottery, but order it as such so that it's the last 3 years worth of records, with the most weight being given the the least-recent.

For example if it were this year, make the #1 pick go to the team that had the worst record in 2014-15, 2015-17, 2016-2017 (just the first 42 games of the final year).

They could weight them something like:

2014-15 counts as 60%
2015-17 counts as 35%
The first 42 games of 2016-17 counts as 15%

I think it accomplishes a few things:

- Perennially bad teams can still be rewarded.
- Single year tankers aren't rewarded by nearly as much.
- Nobody has any real incentive to tank at the end of the year.
- Teams who rebuild right can still make the playoffs and get lottery picks.
- Perhaps most importantly, there will be a much larger gap between teams and their position in the tankathon to the point where I can't see them losing games on purpose. For example if a team knows they are slated for the third pick next year they'd likely be many many games ahead of the team that's going to get the 2nd pick to the point where it wouldn't make sense to tank.

+1

This seems like it would incentivize teams to tank multiple years in a row and be rewarded by weighted average

Perhaps, my thinking is that the fact that your pick could be #1 if you are say the 3rd worst team right now incentivizes teams to tank even more. While I agree that being the worst team 3 years in a row would be a huge deal, I think the costs out-weigh the incentives a lot more because you'd have to wait two more years to see any rewards. It would be like Hinkie telling the 76ers to tack 3 more years to the plan. Committing to being very bad is one thing, but committing to being the worst and then reaping the rewards 2 years later seems like a high price to pay.

Plus with little weight at the end of the year and no weight in the short term, only the really bad teams would be encouraged to tank, which to me is less of an issue because they are bad anyway. What I don't like to see is a third of the league start to shut down players after 60 games.

Teams should be incentivized to make the playoffs.
I think first round losers should get a boost in draft odds.

Strengthen the middle class to make more contenders, imagine if OKC or Portland could've landed a top 5 pick in this years draft.

I agree with this. Give some hope to the middle class!

What if it went:

Worst
Worst
Best

Incentive for teams to improve over 3 years

the whole thing is completely stupid if - as per this year - the actual lottery isn't done in public

If a first round pick goes all four years on the rookie scale contract without making the playoffs, or even coming within x games of it, his team loses restricted free agency rights.

This creates incentive for some teams to try to make the playoffs, even if just barely, and creates disincentive for a team to be bad for an extended period if they have a potential star on the roster.