'25-26 NBA Thread

[wadesworld]

Why is tanking an issue? It's also not really fixing bad teams, so it's just hurting their businesses. Look at who the bad teams have been. Not many go from bad to good. Bad teams are usually staying bad for a long time. Pels, Nets, Hornets, Wizards, Portland, Utah, Sacramento. If they want to keep tanking, let them. Just hurting themselves.

[MuggsyB]

Why is tanking an issue? It's also not really fixing bad teams, so it's just hurting their businesses. Look at who the bad teams have been. Not many go from bad to good. Bad teams are usually staying bad for a long time. Pels, Nets, Hornets, Wizards, Portland, Utah, Sacramento. If they want to keep tanking, let them. Just hurting themselves.

Then should they lower the ticket prices if their goal is to lose?  Whatever happened to actually trying?

[WhiteTrash]

Why is tanking an issue? It's also not really fixing bad teams, so it's just hurting their businesses. Look at who the bad teams have been. Not many go from bad to good. Bad teams are usually staying bad for a long time. Pels, Nets, Hornets, Wizards, Portland, Utah, Sacramento. If they want to keep tanking, let them. Just hurting themselves.

NBA/NFL/NHL owners and GMs would disagree with you. There are data points to support the tanking strategy. Not a guaranty to success (hmmm maybe like transfer portal players), but higher daft picks hit at a higher rate. Maybe not dramatically higher rates, but sometimes these teams are forced to work in the margins to gain any advantage possible.

If tanking for higher draft picks doesn't provide an advantage, why haven't the leagues gone to just picking in alphabetical order? 

[MU82]

Support for drastically changing the draft lottery is growing. One proposal I've heard would really shake things up:

Only the 12 teams that make the playoffs at the end of the regular season would be out of the lottery. So even the four teams that eventually qualify for the playoffs via the play-in tournament would be in the lottery. And then the lottery would NOT be weighted.

That would mean a team finishing with the worst record in the league would have no statistical advantage to get an earlier pick over a team that makes the playoffs via the play-in tournament.

Seems extreme, but maybe it's time for extreme.

[The Sultan]

Support for drastically changing the draft lottery is growing. One proposal I've heard would really shake things up:

Only the 12 teams that make the playoffs at the end of the regular season would be out of the lottery. So even the four teams that eventually qualify for the playoffs via the play-in tournament would be in the lottery. And then the lottery would NOT be weighted.

That would mean a team finishing with the worst record in the league would have no statistical advantage to get an earlier pick over a team that makes the playoffs via the play-in tournament.

Seems extreme, but maybe it's time for extreme.

Well, all you do then is move the incentive to tank further up the standings. Because I would much rather be the #7 seed than the #6 seed in that scenario. So I would end up with an equal shot at the #1 pick in the draft, plus only have to win one of two games at home to stay in the playoffs? Yes please.

I think what needs to be addressed are the repeat offenders. For instance, put in a rule that teams can't be in the lottery more than two times over a four year stretch.

Then there is the lottery wheel idea...

[JWags85]

Why is tanking an issue? It's also not really fixing bad teams, so it's just hurting their businesses. Look at who the bad teams have been. Not many go from bad to good. Bad teams are usually staying bad for a long time. Pels, Nets, Hornets, Wizards, Portland, Utah, Sacramento. If they want to keep tanking, let them. Just hurting themselves.

I think part of the issue is that when tanking is blatant, the on-floor product is so noticeably BAD.  Its one thing when teams shut down a star nursing an injury for the last few months of the season, or dump salary/players at the deadline for future picks and to improve their draft position.  But when you have teams determining they are tanking weeks before the All Star break (like the Jazz) and turning their games into a joke as a result, it goes against the spirit of the NBA and makes the league look bad.  A big part of the commissioners job is maintaining league image, and giving critics tons of ammunition about lazy stars, regular season games being meaningless, etc... in addition to the terrible on the floor product, its a PR issue as much as anything.

People complained about load management where they buy tickets when the Clips or Lakers were in town and Kawhi/LeBron sat out, that's nothing compared to buying tickets for Nets/Jazz and not seeing MPJ or Claxton and instead getting a starting line up including Nolan Traore, Terrance Man, and Day'ron Sharpe playing a second half that sees Lauri, Keyonte George, and Jaren Jackson sit in favor of 20+ minutes for Brice Sensabaugh, Jon Konchar, and Oscar Tshiebwe.

Despite there being data to support tanking, the fact is plenty of organizations still mess that up so they have multiple seasons of them churning out slop for a result that doesn't necessarily improve.  I'm not bothered/offended by tanking, I'm not calling for Adam Silver's head, but I definitely use WAY less League Pass then I would otherwise when a quarter of the teams are unwatchable.

[MU82]

Well, all you do then is move the incentive to tank further up the standings. Because I would much rather be the #7 seed than the #6 seed in that scenario. So I would end up with an equal shot at the #1 pick in the draft, plus only have to win one of two games at home to stay in the playoffs? Yes please.

Not sure how easy it would be to spend an entire season "tanking" for the #7 seed instead of #6 - and that's the thing the NBA is talking about addressing, teams tanking entire seasons.

Now, I suppose a team that's on the playoff/play-in line with two games to play could try to orchestrate getting the 7 seed somehow, but even that wouldn't be easy, especially if another team or two is trying to do the same.

Anyhoo, I'm not even sure I like the plan, but I did find it interesting so I mentioned it here.

[The Sultan]

Not sure how easy it would be to spend an entire season "tanking" for the #7 seed instead of #6 - and that's the thing the NBA is talking about addressing, teams tanking entire seasons.

Now, I suppose a team that's on the playoff/play-in line with two games to play could try to orchestrate getting the 7 seed somehow, but even that wouldn't be easy, especially if another team or two is trying to do the same.

Anyhoo, I'm not even sure I like the plan, but I did find it interesting so I mentioned it here.

Good points about the tanking. I guess until you really loosen the tie between draft position and record, there is not much incentive for teams to change.

[WhiteTrash]

This is probably a flawed option, but what about eliminating the draft and teams bidding for players?  Obviously there would be a cap, but you wouldn't need to be bad to buy the best player.

I'd guess it would hinder the trade market?

[The Sultan]

This is probably a flawed option, but what about eliminating the draft and teams bidding for players?  Obviously there would be a cap, but you wouldn't need to be bad to buy the best player.

I'd guess it would hinder the trade market?

I think all things being equal, even with a cap, teams like Utah are going to end up having to pay more for a player than a team like the Lakers.

Maybe another way to do it is to have teams submit blind bids for players and the players get to choose which one they would take. (But bids would undoubtedly be leaked I guess.)

[WhiteTrash]

I think all things being equal, even with a cap, teams like Utah are going to end up having to pay more for a player than a team like the Lakers.

Maybe another way to do it is to have teams submit blind bids for players and the players get to choose which one they would take. (But bids would undoubtedly be leaked I guess.)

Understood, but the concept was players go to the highest bidder without input from the players.

I'm sure there are faults in the concept, but just throwing something out there.

[MU82]

This is probably a flawed option, but what about eliminating the draft and teams bidding for players?  Obviously there would be a cap, but you wouldn't need to be bad to buy the best player.

This, unsurprisingly, is the union's preferred remedy. Hard to imagine the owners would be big fans of it.