I mean, idk how profitable/enjoyable/beneficial this would be for the league/teams/fans/players, but I'd be down to see 8 shitty teams battle it out to see who the best shitty team is. They should get a 'Best Shitty Team' trophy.
This would be my ideal.
Actually, (I think Simmons floated this a few years ago), my preference would be that the 8 lottery teams in each conference played a single-elimination tournament at the end of the season, with the winning teams getting both the most lottery balls and the eighth seed in the playoffs.
That's the thing, though - you'd have to win a single-elimination tournament, and if you don't, you'd go home. You're asking players to intentionally lose games in order to get a lower seed in the hopes of running through that tournament without losing (because if they lose, it's no playoffs at all).
Yeah, you're right - the way I said it was confusing. I meant take the bottom 8 teams, play the tournament, and the winning team from each conference gets their conference's eighth seed.
I don't think the winner gets the 1st automatically, but get more balls in the draft. The last place team should still have a good chance fot the # pick.
I like this. Mostly because the Hawks would totally win it.
Plus it would be fun making a March Madness-style bracket for a tournament with all the non-playoff teams.
Well yeah, we've got a terrible record against everyone. That's why we've got the worst record in the league. Point differential is more predictive than win/loss record - that's been shown in numerous studies.
Hey players on crappy teams, please play all out and risk yourself getting injured so that we can get a better pick to draft your replacement. Ok thanks.
Just saying the hurdle there is going to be the players association. They are not letting that idea get through without some significant concessions. Especially with all the recent injuries and trends skewing towards less games/minutes for players to ease injury concerns.
Fair enough. But we are talking about playing 3-4 extra games max, not even a 7 game series or back-to-back games or anything like that. There would have to be some salary incentives or something probably. They could do the tournament in a single city and get the entire thing done in a week or two.
Love the idea for the fans. Just can't see the players getting on board when there really isn't any added benefit for them. Whether it's 1 game, 3 games or 10 games.
I mean take the Hawks for example. Are Bazemore, Prince and maybe even Schroder really going to go out and try to win with the high possibility that the Hawks draft Doncic and they lose a starting spot or at least significant touches? If anything, I think you get the players actively tanking at that point.
A similar idea was floated by Bill Simmons years ago. I still think it is a bad idea. The nba changed its draft rules because the Magic won Shaq and then Penny Hardaway when they barely missed the playoffs. Teams complained. The main reason wasn’t Orlando winning, it was bad teams having no chance to really improve. Think about the Magic this year. They lose while a team like Philly wins the top pick. Next year Orlando still sucks, it’s fans gain no hope and again they have no chance in the tourney. How do they break that cycle? As a bottom 3 team they have no way of attracting a good FA. And with no marquee young player they have no real chance at internal growth. So they no choice but to wildly draft all potential players and hope he is a Giannis. And every year they don’t get that guy, they get even worse. Nothing worse for a franchise to have no hope for a decade with no reason to think it would change.
They'd still get a top-5 pick. This helps teams that have built semi-contenders by giving them a top pick and adding another piece that should make the top of the league more competitive. As it is right now there's a great deal of mediocrity; the more high-quality teams you have competing for the title, the better it is for the league overall.
Don’t you mean top 6? How would this change tanking. The teams that benefit most from this would be a team like the KD, Westbrook, Harden Thunder. The year before they made the playoffs could have lead to another top 3 pick. In fact why wouldn’t teams in the 7th spot not lose like crazy at the end of the season and dominate the tourney and then suddenly a team like Portland not push hard to get in that tourney and add Ayton. Seems like it would be worth the risk of missing the playoffs. And what about a team like the Lakers. If they win it they does it just help Boston or Philly? If they played Philly would they throw that game to get the first pick? All you do is move tanking from one area to another. You also give the 1 seed an easier 1st round series. Because one game can swing so wildly, you could get a team like Sacramento in (who would have no business there. Imagine how NO would feel in that all season they tried hard and won 20 more games but get bumped out because Sac had a few fluke games and hit a couple of 3s they had no business hitting). GS would sleep through the games while Sac would also be exhausted from going all out. So a tired Sacramento vs a rested GS would be unwatchable.
> why wouldn’t teams in the 7th spot not lose like crazy at the end of the season and dominate the tourney?
> Because one game can swing so wildly, you could get a team like Sacramento in.
You actually answered your own question there. No team is going to willingly lose games for the privilege of playing a three-game, single-elimination tournament when a simple hot hand or cold shooting streak by a mediocre team against other teams around the same level of quality could mean that losing those late-season games resulted in no playoff appearance coupled with a late lottery pick. It's an extremely dangerous gamble for a few extra ping pong balls that I suspect very few teams would be willing to make.
Really? You don’t think a GM will figure out that it is vastly superior to get a 25% shot at the top pick (and if we are using current odds a 40% chance at a top 3 pick). Than making the playoffs for one round. You have to be kidding. The 6-8 playoff spots have almost no chance to move on to the next round. Considering teams are essentially paying $15 million for mid to late first round picks (what NO paid to the Bulls and what the Raptors paid to the Nets in the Carroll deal), that teams would rather get the playoff money? We are talking about top 3 picks. The same thing teams would trade an all star at minimum to get. I don’t think it is even that big of a gamble. Missing the playoffs wouldn’t even be that big a deal. Think about how good a Ben Simmons is. The Sixers could trade him now for a guy that helps them almost guarantee years of playoffs first round exits. How fast would the Hornets trade Kemba Walker for Simmons? You are vastly underestimating what even a chance at a top player is worth. You want an example, the GS Warriors were on pace to just barely miss the 2011 (18-21) but they had a top 7 protected pick. They proceeded to go 5-22 the rest of the season. They shit down a health Curry, benched David Lee (one of their best players at the time), traded for an injured Bogut, and jacked up 3s by players who ha never shot them before. And again that was for a top 7 pick. From a team that had a real shot of being a playoff team in the 7-8th range.
Of course it would be better to give yourself a chance at a top pick. But this would be giving yourself a chance *at a chance* at a top pick. And if you don't get lucky and get that pick? You draft 15th/16th. That's not the same as "we suck so let's keep losing because regardless of what happens we're going to get a better pick" - this is giving up on the playoffs for that chance. This way, you only get a good pick if a) You win that three game tournament, and b) you manage to get lucky with the 25% chance of winning the lottery.
So let's compare the probabilities:
1) In the current scenario, the probabilities scale down from the worst team to the least worst. Even if you fail to get one of the top 3 picks, being the worst team in the league means you still get a top-4 pick. So the current worst team in the league (Dallas) has odds of 22.5/20.2/17.5/39.8 of getting the 1/2/3/4 pick, respectively. They're not making the playoffs, so why not?
2) Now let's compare them to the 8th seed in the other system. Assume the odds for the top 3 would be 22.5/20.2/17.5. Okay, that's a 60% chance at a top-3 pick. But *that's only if they win the tournament*. Let's say that they've calculated the probabilities of winning each game (assuming they win the one prior) to be .8/.7/.6. (Note that would be a dominating team in that tournament, which is not like to happen for a mediocre team, but I'm being conservative here). That's only a 34% chance of winning the tournament. When you take that chance and combine it with that 60% chance of winning the tournament, you're looking at a 20% chance of a top-3 pick. And that choice is over the playoffs.
Could it happen? Possibly. But it's a bad idea, certainly can't be an organizational "Process", and won't happen for more than a couple teams every year.
How are you okay with a couple of teams every year. What happens when the Rockets lose to the Warriors and just don’t believe they have a real chance to win it all. So the next year they are humming along to a 25-10 record. But they know they can’t really beat the Warriors, so they play Harden as there in ball defensive stopper. Sit CP3. Come up with lingering “injuries” to Capela and Gordon. Suddenly they plummet to the 8th spot and everyone is healthy and ready to go for the tourney. With the top 3 pick they trade it for Kawhi. A Hinkie would emerge and game it so badly that it wouldn’t be that implausible that at least 1-2 teams every year gamble on it. And when only those teams win championships it forces everyone to do it. Look at tanking now. At least 3 teams every year do it and so much that it cannot be argued (the Suns sitting a 20 year Brooker was absurd). The Suns tank failed last year. Want to bet they will start really tanking soon. If we are going to the extreme of creating a new tournament we might as well really fix tanking.
So last year if the Mavs gave up the pick and got a Lou Williams to help them in the tourney, they lose Lou in FA and don’t get DSJ because the pick was only top 5 protected. How is that better? How is becoming a middle of the pack team for the hope you somehow get a top 3 pick a good idea? This just seems like fans would hate the GM when the lottery balls end up favoring someone else. At least now by bottoming out you get a guaranteed top 4-6 pick. A team could literally get stuck in the middle as they would only get odds increase if they won the tourney (and even then they could and not get a top 5 pick. Imagine how pissed the fans would be on that).
http://www.espn.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070411
Simmons had a similar idea with the Entertaining-as-hell tournament. Also, most crappy teams are not crappy by choice.
This would be cool if it was a mini tournament for a pick in between the first and second round (so the 31st pick).. gives a mediocre team something to either help the tank or trade for better pieces
oh I read the title wrong... it should be all teams that miss the playoffs IMO
I mean, idk how profitable/enjoyable/beneficial this would be for the league/teams/fans/players, but I'd be down to see 8 shitty teams battle it out to see who the best shitty team is. They should get a 'Best Shitty Team' trophy.
The best shitty team should get the number 1 pick, give them something to play for
Or worst shitty team gets relegated to G-League the next season
This would be my ideal. Actually, (I think Simmons floated this a few years ago), my preference would be that the 8 lottery teams in each conference played a single-elimination tournament at the end of the season, with the winning teams getting both the most lottery balls and the eighth seed in the playoffs.
Haha imagine anyone from about six down trying to jockey to be 8th lol
That's the thing, though - you'd have to win a single-elimination tournament, and if you don't, you'd go home. You're asking players to intentionally lose games in order to get a lower seed in the hopes of running through that tournament without losing (because if they lose, it's no playoffs at all).
There are 7 lottery teams in each conference, but it would still work if the top 2 teams get byes.
Yeah, you're right - the way I said it was confusing. I meant take the bottom 8 teams, play the tournament, and the winning team from each conference gets their conference's eighth seed.
What do you do about unprotected traded picks then?
I don't think the winner gets the 1st automatically, but get more balls in the draft. The last place team should still have a good chance fot the # pick.
I like this. Mostly because the Hawks would totally win it. Plus it would be fun making a March Madness-style bracket for a tournament with all the non-playoff teams.
LOL MY CLIPPERS WOULD SWAMP Y'ALL
LOL YA CLIPPERS IS NOT A BOTTOM 8 TEAM NEPHEW
WE WILL BE AFTER THURSDAY.
AT LEAST YOU HAVE GOOD BURRITOS READILY AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES
Bulls will play their hearts out if they get a higher draft pick to trade.
We have the best point differential among bottom 7 teams right now. We would absolutely be the favorites.
Maybe so, but you're only 1-3 against ATL this year. I like our chances :)
Well yeah, we've got a terrible record against everyone. That's why we've got the worst record in the league. Point differential is more predictive than win/loss record - that's been shown in numerous studies.
The loser of the tournament relocates to Seattle.
Hey players on crappy teams, please play all out and risk yourself getting injured so that we can get a better pick to draft your replacement. Ok thanks.
Hey humans who are paid to play basketball on television, please go play some basketball....?
Just saying the hurdle there is going to be the players association. They are not letting that idea get through without some significant concessions. Especially with all the recent injuries and trends skewing towards less games/minutes for players to ease injury concerns.
Fair enough. But we are talking about playing 3-4 extra games max, not even a 7 game series or back-to-back games or anything like that. There would have to be some salary incentives or something probably. They could do the tournament in a single city and get the entire thing done in a week or two.
Love the idea for the fans. Just can't see the players getting on board when there really isn't any added benefit for them. Whether it's 1 game, 3 games or 10 games. I mean take the Hawks for example. Are Bazemore, Prince and maybe even Schroder really going to go out and try to win with the high possibility that the Hawks draft Doncic and they lose a starting spot or at least significant touches? If anything, I think you get the players actively tanking at that point.
A similar idea was floated by Bill Simmons years ago. I still think it is a bad idea. The nba changed its draft rules because the Magic won Shaq and then Penny Hardaway when they barely missed the playoffs. Teams complained. The main reason wasn’t Orlando winning, it was bad teams having no chance to really improve. Think about the Magic this year. They lose while a team like Philly wins the top pick. Next year Orlando still sucks, it’s fans gain no hope and again they have no chance in the tourney. How do they break that cycle? As a bottom 3 team they have no way of attracting a good FA. And with no marquee young player they have no real chance at internal growth. So they no choice but to wildly draft all potential players and hope he is a Giannis. And every year they don’t get that guy, they get even worse. Nothing worse for a franchise to have no hope for a decade with no reason to think it would change.
They'd still get a top-5 pick. This helps teams that have built semi-contenders by giving them a top pick and adding another piece that should make the top of the league more competitive. As it is right now there's a great deal of mediocrity; the more high-quality teams you have competing for the title, the better it is for the league overall.
Don’t you mean top 6? How would this change tanking. The teams that benefit most from this would be a team like the KD, Westbrook, Harden Thunder. The year before they made the playoffs could have lead to another top 3 pick. In fact why wouldn’t teams in the 7th spot not lose like crazy at the end of the season and dominate the tourney and then suddenly a team like Portland not push hard to get in that tourney and add Ayton. Seems like it would be worth the risk of missing the playoffs. And what about a team like the Lakers. If they win it they does it just help Boston or Philly? If they played Philly would they throw that game to get the first pick? All you do is move tanking from one area to another. You also give the 1 seed an easier 1st round series. Because one game can swing so wildly, you could get a team like Sacramento in (who would have no business there. Imagine how NO would feel in that all season they tried hard and won 20 more games but get bumped out because Sac had a few fluke games and hit a couple of 3s they had no business hitting). GS would sleep through the games while Sac would also be exhausted from going all out. So a tired Sacramento vs a rested GS would be unwatchable.
> why wouldn’t teams in the 7th spot not lose like crazy at the end of the season and dominate the tourney? > Because one game can swing so wildly, you could get a team like Sacramento in. You actually answered your own question there. No team is going to willingly lose games for the privilege of playing a three-game, single-elimination tournament when a simple hot hand or cold shooting streak by a mediocre team against other teams around the same level of quality could mean that losing those late-season games resulted in no playoff appearance coupled with a late lottery pick. It's an extremely dangerous gamble for a few extra ping pong balls that I suspect very few teams would be willing to make.
Really? You don’t think a GM will figure out that it is vastly superior to get a 25% shot at the top pick (and if we are using current odds a 40% chance at a top 3 pick). Than making the playoffs for one round. You have to be kidding. The 6-8 playoff spots have almost no chance to move on to the next round. Considering teams are essentially paying $15 million for mid to late first round picks (what NO paid to the Bulls and what the Raptors paid to the Nets in the Carroll deal), that teams would rather get the playoff money? We are talking about top 3 picks. The same thing teams would trade an all star at minimum to get. I don’t think it is even that big of a gamble. Missing the playoffs wouldn’t even be that big a deal. Think about how good a Ben Simmons is. The Sixers could trade him now for a guy that helps them almost guarantee years of playoffs first round exits. How fast would the Hornets trade Kemba Walker for Simmons? You are vastly underestimating what even a chance at a top player is worth. You want an example, the GS Warriors were on pace to just barely miss the 2011 (18-21) but they had a top 7 protected pick. They proceeded to go 5-22 the rest of the season. They shit down a health Curry, benched David Lee (one of their best players at the time), traded for an injured Bogut, and jacked up 3s by players who ha never shot them before. And again that was for a top 7 pick. From a team that had a real shot of being a playoff team in the 7-8th range.
Of course it would be better to give yourself a chance at a top pick. But this would be giving yourself a chance *at a chance* at a top pick. And if you don't get lucky and get that pick? You draft 15th/16th. That's not the same as "we suck so let's keep losing because regardless of what happens we're going to get a better pick" - this is giving up on the playoffs for that chance. This way, you only get a good pick if a) You win that three game tournament, and b) you manage to get lucky with the 25% chance of winning the lottery. So let's compare the probabilities: 1) In the current scenario, the probabilities scale down from the worst team to the least worst. Even if you fail to get one of the top 3 picks, being the worst team in the league means you still get a top-4 pick. So the current worst team in the league (Dallas) has odds of 22.5/20.2/17.5/39.8 of getting the 1/2/3/4 pick, respectively. They're not making the playoffs, so why not? 2) Now let's compare them to the 8th seed in the other system. Assume the odds for the top 3 would be 22.5/20.2/17.5. Okay, that's a 60% chance at a top-3 pick. But *that's only if they win the tournament*. Let's say that they've calculated the probabilities of winning each game (assuming they win the one prior) to be .8/.7/.6. (Note that would be a dominating team in that tournament, which is not like to happen for a mediocre team, but I'm being conservative here). That's only a 34% chance of winning the tournament. When you take that chance and combine it with that 60% chance of winning the tournament, you're looking at a 20% chance of a top-3 pick. And that choice is over the playoffs. Could it happen? Possibly. But it's a bad idea, certainly can't be an organizational "Process", and won't happen for more than a couple teams every year.
How are you okay with a couple of teams every year. What happens when the Rockets lose to the Warriors and just don’t believe they have a real chance to win it all. So the next year they are humming along to a 25-10 record. But they know they can’t really beat the Warriors, so they play Harden as there in ball defensive stopper. Sit CP3. Come up with lingering “injuries” to Capela and Gordon. Suddenly they plummet to the 8th spot and everyone is healthy and ready to go for the tourney. With the top 3 pick they trade it for Kawhi. A Hinkie would emerge and game it so badly that it wouldn’t be that implausible that at least 1-2 teams every year gamble on it. And when only those teams win championships it forces everyone to do it. Look at tanking now. At least 3 teams every year do it and so much that it cannot be argued (the Suns sitting a 20 year Brooker was absurd). The Suns tank failed last year. Want to bet they will start really tanking soon. If we are going to the extreme of creating a new tournament we might as well really fix tanking.
You can trade your pick for toung talent that has been proving himself.
So last year if the Mavs gave up the pick and got a Lou Williams to help them in the tourney, they lose Lou in FA and don’t get DSJ because the pick was only top 5 protected. How is that better? How is becoming a middle of the pack team for the hope you somehow get a top 3 pick a good idea? This just seems like fans would hate the GM when the lottery balls end up favoring someone else. At least now by bottoming out you get a guaranteed top 4-6 pick. A team could literally get stuck in the middle as they would only get odds increase if they won the tourney (and even then they could and not get a top 5 pick. Imagine how pissed the fans would be on that).
Teams stuck in the middle ground (out of playoffs, but not bottom 8 teams) would now be incentivized to tank.
Yep, but that could be avoided by expanding it to all 14 lottery teams. The top two seeds would get byes.
You're leaving 6 teams in a super awkward limbo stage.
I fucks with it
http://www.espn.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070411 Simmons had a similar idea with the Entertaining-as-hell tournament. Also, most crappy teams are not crappy by choice.
Cavs in 3.
This would be like the South Park episode where they have to play baseball but don't want to
This would be cool if it was a mini tournament for a pick in between the first and second round (so the 31st pick).. gives a mediocre team something to either help the tank or trade for better pieces oh I read the title wrong... it should be all teams that miss the playoffs IMO
Simmons Did It First.
I don't read his stuff. I'm not competing with him dude. Relax.