NBA scouts expect the 2018 draft class to feature about five to seven elite prospects, and ’18 will also be the last year that the NBA’s current lottery format will be in effect. As a result, we could be subjected to one of the most widespread late-season tanking efforts in league history, multiple league executives tell Tim MacMahon and Brian Windhorst of ESPN.
While most of the teams vying for lottery positioning at the bottom of the NBA standings won’t publicly acknowledge they’d prefer to lose, prioritizing the development of young players is one obvious way to tank in a politically correct manner. Resting veterans and being extra-cautious with minor injuries are other passive tanking strategies.
According to MacMahon and Windhorst, executives around the NBA also believe some teams are engaging in a more “active” form of tanking, which involves “reverse analytics.” Rather than relying on data to determine optimal lineups for winning games, teams may be doing just the opposite, providing coaches with lineups that would perform poorly in certain matchups.
In any form, tanking is a bad look for the NBA, and the fact that so many teams have begun doing so in earnest this early in the 2017/18 season is worrisome.
It’s possible that the minor tweaks the league made to the lottery system will help matters — starting in 2019, the top four spots in the draft will be up for grabs in the lottery, rather than just the top three, and the very worst teams will have a reduced chance of landing one of those top picks.
For instance, under the current format, the worst club in the NBA has a 25% chance to land the No. 1 pick and a 64% chance to get a top-three pick. That team also won’t fall further than No. 4. In the new system, that same team would have a 14% chance at No. 1, a 40% chance at a top-three pick, and could fall all the way to No. 5.
The new system may discourage tanking to some extent, but Moke Hamilton of Basketball Insiders believes that modest lottery reform of that nature isn’t enough — the league needs to overhaul the lottery system entirely, Hamilton argues.
What do you think? What can the NBA do to discourage the widespread tanking efforts we’re seeing in 2017/18? Will the new format solve the problem, or is it merely a band-aid solution for an issue that requires a more significant overhaul?
Jump into the comment section below to share your thoughts!
I think the new format will definitely help to fix this next year. I also believe that teams are inevitably going to focus on winning more next season because of just how badly they’re tanking this year. That could be hard to explain to the fans two years in a row when it’s easy to justify tanking this year because it’s the last year the team with the worst record gets a 25% chance at the #1 pick. I think the fans are smart enough to even want their teams to tank this year, but I expect they’d be less lenient with their team losing when the chances at the top pick are just the same as the team with the 3rd worst record and more even odds with the teams after that. The teams that are tanking hard this year are about to probably get a lot of questions about tanking given that Mark Cuban opened his mouth when he didn’t have to. I believe the attention that will be paid to tanking, the rebound factor that teams will never tank this hard ever again, and the lowered lottery odds for next year will fix the tanking issue enough to where it’s not an issue anymore.
This is probably the most frustrating argument I’ve ever heard of. Tanking is the only reasonable way to quickly turn around a franchise. It’s a natural part of growing into a contender ESPECIALLY in today’s NBA. Altering the lottery odds is useless in practice and in the overarching nature of trying to halt tanking in general – which is foolish.
That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever read. There is far more than one single way to turn around a franchise. The quickest way is not the same as the best way. Franchise players can be found in the middle of the first round too. Curry, Leonard, George, Giannis were all mid first rounders. Meanwhile, “franchise players” such as Anthony Bennett and Michael Kidd-Gilchrist have been chosen recently with top 2 picks. Doing your draft homework and getting very lucky is far more valuable than having a high pick.
Besides, what about the Sixers rebuild has been “quick” anyway?
But really almost nobody knew how good those players are going to be at the time of the draft. And if you look at the top few picks as a whole, in average it has way more talent than any other picks later with the same range.
The fact that nobody knows just reinforces my position. No pick is guaranteed. Yes the #1 pick has a higher probability of being a success than the #10 pick. But is that slightly higher probability worth selling out the integrity of the game? I say no.
Why would anyone just play out a season and earn the 10 seed when they could tank and be 13th even, basketball ownership is much wiser than is forum readers – so if they’re all tanking I’d imagine it’s a qualified and calculated decision
A lot of money and wisdom do not go hand in hand. Although I’d guess about 40% of this country thinks otherwise.
To many owners and fans that probability is everything, since to them it’s either championship or nothing.
Most teams don’t think about championships. The Lakers and Pacers don’t have the talent so don’t worry about it. Very few rookies are immediate impact players. It takes them 3 years just to get up to learning defenses. There’s no reason to get excited about a player until you see him against 5 NBA players.
If that probability is more important to you (or others) than the integrity of the game, then the sport will eventually fail. The loss of trust with a fan will never be fully regained and if you turn off enough fans with an illegitimate game the million dollar contracts will be no more. The integrity of the game should be paramount to everything.
Tanking loses its effectiveness when a third of the league is doing it. If you spend all year losing on purpose and only end up with the 9th pick then you’ve wasted a year and gained close to nothing. Hard to grow as a team when you focus on losing and gain no talent from it.
David Robinson got hurt, Spurs tanked for Tim Duncan. Knicks tanked for Ewing. Its part of the game. Sixers got Ben Simmons and Embiid. Wolves got Wiggins and CAT. You tank the contend Or you’re the average team forever.. 7, 8, 9th and never contend.
To be fair, the Wolves got Wiggins via the Cavs.
The Spurs didn’t tank, they lost because Robinson got hurt. He was basically a one man team like LeBron. Take LeBron off the Cavs and you have a lottery team, but not a tanking team. Tanking is losing on purpose, not losing because you are bad. Losing your star player to injury is not tanking.
What you are forgetting with Philly is that before they started their tanking they were the #8 seed in the playoffs, then they wasted 5+ years by not even trying, now they are the #8 seed in the playoffs with fancier names. How is that better?
You are also forgetting that the Wolves didn’t get Wiggins by tanking, they traded Kevin Love for him. They also got Anthony Bennett in that deal too, who was picked #1 in the same draft that Giannis went #15. They also didn’t tank to get KAT (how do you misspell initials?), they were just bad for a long time. They had probably 10 lottery picks before that who were flops. Jonny Flynn ring a bell?
And by the way, the Knicks tanking for Ewing is what got the lottery started in the first place. The commissioner and owners decided that what the Knicks did was very, very wrong and changed it. It is not part of the game, the system was changed because of it. It is, in its essence, cheating. Cheating the fans out of a legitimate product which they have paid for.
The goal of every team should be to make the playoffs every year. The reason that the worst teams pick first in the draft is to create parity and help those teams get back to the playoffs. But teams tanking is a terrible situation, and its hard when your team isn’t going to make the playoffs to actually watch their games since in reality it’s only going to get better if they lose.
I believe the ultimate solution is to give all 14 non-playoff teams an equal percentage chance of obtaining any of the first 14 picks. This way all teams are trying to make the playoffs and if they fail to make the playoffs there’s no advantage of finishing with a worse record than another non-playoff team.
If a team barely misses the playoffs and ends up with the #1 pick, then in all probability they’ll make the playoffs the following season. A team that finishes last, but doesn’t get a high pick will not be able to rebuild as quickly. But teams will have to look for other more creative ways to rebuild than to simply tank year after year until they finally get a franchise player to build around.
Eventually a team that’s consistently out of the playoffs will end up with enough top 14 picks to finally put together a playoff team and a perennial playoff team will eventually need to rebuild. The cycle will still continue. We just won’t have the next franchise player always going to the worst team.
A situation like San Antonia getting Duncan even though they already had a good team (with a bad record due to Robinson’s injury the year before) will happen more often. They weren’t out of the playoffs for a long period like Philadelphia has done in more recent years.
Why not give the 1st pick to the team with the best record to not make the playoffs? Seems a logical way to keep teams playing all year long.
I have argued that for years. Simply inverting the draft lottery completely will stop tanking. Perhaps something like for each win after a certain deadline, say March 1st, you get one ping pong ball. We need to stop rewarding losers in this society. Just being bad should not get you a reward.
You’ll have an inverted tanking system though. Sure the really bad teams will try to compete, but the teams just on the inside of the playoff picture might try to lose a couple of games to fall just out of the playoffs and into the #1 draft pick. In that case, it’ll be easier for the team to justify tanking because they’ll say something like “We knew we weren’t going far in the playoffs so we decided going dor the #1 pick was the better option”.
The best solution, in my opinion, would be to even out the odds even further (say to the 8-10 worst teams) having the same chance for a top 3 pick and the remaining non-playoff teams be slightly behind that.
I don’t think its necessarily fair to just say because your team is bad you shouldn’t have a chance at the best pick though. The post-Decision Cavs would be a good example of this. They were bad just because that roster was pretty terrible and not necessarily because they were tanking. Sure they could’ve made some moves to not be terrible and push themselves to mediocrity, but that doesn’t do anything for the franchise unless they get lucky and find some steals in the middle of the draft. I agree that rewarding losers is wrong but inverting the lottery system (to how you suggested) isn’t that much of a better option.
If they do, then they need to be thrown out of the league. The whole goal of the NBA is not to get the #1 draft pick. The goal is to win a championship. Getting the #1 pick does not guarantee you a future championship either. For the last 20 years, only 2 #1 picks have won championships, LeBron and Kyrie. And that was on the same team. Plus it took LeBron 13 years to win it for the team that picked him.
Yes, the road is extremely difficult for the #8 seed to win even a first round series. But a championship shouldn’t be easy. And it is not impossible. A few years back, Philly went to the conference finals as an 8 seed. Then they started “the Process” and haven’t been back until possibly this year (although that is not guaranteed). The one guarantee there is, the #9 seed will not ever win a championship under the current system. The #8 at least has a chance.
Yes the post-Decision Cavs were bad. So why should we be putting the most talented newcomers to the league on that team? The #1 pick could push the 9 seed to the playoffs next year. He will probably do nothing for the Kings for example. But the Kings could get a 15 pick and then next year an 11 and then a 7 to eventually build a winning team. Isn’t it in the best interest of the league for the hot rookies to actually be in the playoffs? Jayson Tatum is in, and Fultz might be, but Lonzo isn’t, Fox isn’t, Jackson isn’t. But a draft inversion last year would have those players on Detroit, Denver, Portland, and Miami…all teams with a chance at the playoffs and their records would possibly be even better with those guys.
I would much rather see the #1 pick in 2018 go to the Jazz or the Hornets to push them higher instead of him wasting away his rookie contract on an Orlando team or an Atlanta team that just isn’t close to being competitive.
I mean there’s no real good way to fix the lottery. Teams shouldn’t be rewarded for being bad, but rewarding the average teams with the #1 pick will be bad as well (at the very least, players’ salaries will skyrocket due to inflation since the bad teams will be giving out bad contracts to try and be mediocre). I don’t mean to sound blunt, but your solution doesn’t sound any better than what is currently in place. It rewards being average. If you reward the teams that just miss the playoffs with a high draft pick, they’ll eventually fall into the trap of surrounding their #1 pick with bad contracts (to keep their core) since the players they would end up drafting in the future (with lower picks) are more than likely not going to be significant contributors. Then those teams will have to blow it all up, which still doesn’t stop teams from being bad.
Honestly, the only way to truly stop tanking, of any kind, is to give all teams (playoff and non-playoff teams) the same odds in the draft. I cringe a little at thinking that championship contenders might just “luck” into multiple top 5 draft picks in consecutive drafts (as it’ll lead to dynasty teams) but they’ll also have a hard time keeping their original core and all those high draft picks together unless the owner is willing to send themselves to luxury tax hell (which means that more star-caliber players could reach the open market).
Players salaries will not skyrocket, but they may go up a bit. All it means is that there are more teams are competing. That is the goal of the NBA. If there are not 30 teams competing for the championship, then maybe we don’t need 30 teams. If the league can only support 24 teams that actually try, then maybe contraction is the answer and a creation of a bigger, two-tiered minor league system. I have a feeling that will be the ultimate solution to tanking. It’s not what I want to happen, but I think it is what will happen. Look at the ABA. Corruption and lack of integrity among owners led to that league’s downfall where only 4 franchises ultimately survived. Slightly different situation, but the same principles were involved.
Well, in spirit, FIVE teams actually survived the ABA’s folding. There was a deal with the owners of the Spirits of St. Louis that allowed the owners to, in perpetuity, take a slice of the NBA’s TV rights. The league eventually cut a deal to end the ‘greatest sports deal of all-time’ back in 2014. The Spirit owners cleared somewhere between a half-billion and a BILLION dollars for folding their team. That said, your point about how many competitive teams means teams in smaller cities would only ever see exhibition ball and that’s not right. I understand that rules to keep the Milwaukee’s and the Sacramento’s alive grate, but I saw the Kareem Abdul-Jabbar/Oscar Robertson era in Milwaukee and I remember the Chris Webber/Vlade Divac era in California’s capital. Every dog has it’s day … out on a fair playing field. Thus, we need SOMETHING to send otherwise starry-eyed youngsters to places they wouldn’t think of otherwise. I live near Toronto. It’s been … difficult … to get players interested in going through Customs a gazillion times each year. The draft has introduced a number of players to the pleasure of living in Toronto. It’s a great city. THEY might have never known that without the draft.
That said, the draft is far from perfect and there needs to be an emphasis on WINNING to improve lottery odds, not losing. It might also put an end to this odious practice of buying out players. This rejigs the actual contending teams to a degree that upsets the value of a full season in the NBA. Would I have liked the Lakers to have bought out Channing Frye and let him sign with the Raptors? Sure. And I am a little upset that the Warriors, Rockets, and Sixers seem to be the destination of choice for the good ones this year. BUT, if their original teams NEEDED those players to earn wins in a POSITIVE DRAFT BOARD that rewarded wins AFTER being eliminated from the PlayOffs, the buyouts would end. To the good of the Raptors which would be serendipity.
For every 5 games you lose after 45 losses, you lose your best player to the Warriors.
I suggest the 14 non playoff teams compete in a tournament. The winner gets the #1 pick, runner up gets 2nd… etc.
The team finishing last gets the 14th pick
Twenty games to go Eight teams within 2 games of bottom. No tanking there!
How about fining every team in the lottery $600,000?
They’ll always draft according to record. Next years way is fairer than this years. There will always be tanking. Some will depend on who’s available. Building a team through the draft is a lot cheaper. If you can get a DeAndre Ayton, Luka Doncic, or Marvin Bagley for $7 million vs. an average NBA player for $12 million, you are better off financially. I respect Golden State for what they did. I hope Klay Thompson and Steph Curry can play their entire careers together. That would be awesome especially since loyalty is gone.