Breaking Down the Luck of the Lottery (Interesting Bill Simmons Article)

Don't know if there are any Mike & Mike fans here, but Greenie proposed a similar solution to the problem. His idea was to make the odds in terms of best record to worst for teams that missed the playoffs. That way, the teams are going to play hard to the end b/c even a win or two could have a big impact on their chances of winning the lottery.

However, critics can always say that the whole point of the lottery is to help the basement teams improve.

My proposal is to give all the teams that missed the playoffs an equal shot at the number 1 pick. After that, go to the records and rank them from best-non playoff records to worst. That way, teams that can actually improve (i.e. the Clippers, Hornets, Warriors) get a player and make things more interesting the next year. Watching some of these talented players wasting their time with the basement teams does nothing to improve the level of play. Imagine if the Warriors get Kevin Durant. He would fit perfectly on that squad. Imagine Baron Davis, J-Rich, Monte Ellis and Kevin Durant running up and down the floor. Thats exciting basketball.

Under the current system, we will see Kevin Durant with the Celtics just hovering around the lower-end of the league with no real shot of doing anything.

 

Why doesn't anyone ever bring up the fact that, since 1985, only three of the teams with the worst record have won the lottery? One was a tie, that's (kinda) four in 22 years ... why don't sports people get up in arms when a rookie QB gets a bunch of snaps in week 12, or an MLB team uses all its AAA players in mid-September?

When my Bulls teams stunk for a few years there, I didn't want them to lose, but I also didn't want to see Brent Barry/Randy Brown/Ron Mercer/Jalen Rose/whatever other veteran players anywhere NEAR the court in the second half of the season. I wanted to see the youngsters get a run. A few extra lottery percentage points were nice in theory, but I knew a loss here and there wasn't going to mean much come May.

 

Ads. Geez, only if i had an opportunity to sell ads for national coverage.

That's very good and smart. They probably charge up the wazoo for the playoffs like the they do tickets.

 

I'm sure there are a half-dozen more important things that my dumb ass is missing. I've just continually read/been told that one playoff game is akin to 5-10 games worth of revenue.

 

I definitely learned something new today.

Now wonder Stern extended the 1st round.

 

That's why I find it funny that teams are trying to have the worst record in the NBA. I knew that it's been a while since a team with the worst record has had the #1 pick (only happened twice in the past 12 years with CLE/LeBron and ORL/Howard). I seriously think Stern pretty much FUBARs the team w/ the worst record because he knows they're tanking hard so he denies them the #1 pick.

The only thing having the worst record gets you is a Top 3 pick and that's not even a guarantee.

 

Unless the lottery system is rigged(I have no reason to believe this is so), the result so far is simply due to a small sample space. If the NBA continues the lottery system for another 100 years or so, we'd likely see the percentages match fairly well with the result.

That may be ok with that particular Bulls team, but what about a bad team with a star big enough to draw fans? For example, a person might've bought season tickets for the Wolves mainly for KG... only to have several games in which he's not present due to team wanting to tank. It may or may not help the team long term wise, but it certainly sucks for the fan for the short term. I think that's why the current system is broken.

 

Small sample size or not, given a hundred years of the lottery, the number one worst team getting the number one pick in the draft 25 percent of the time (to me) doesn't seem like a rate worth dumping games. Really, I just think it's about the playing time for the young players -- second rounders, summer league fodder, or lottery picks looking to stretch out.

I can't argue with the lone superstar scenario. It is what it is, and it stinks. But I can argue against the type of GM that puts a superstar in such an untenable situation that, even after 70 games of superstar play, his team has no shot at the playoffs. These organizations, to me, reap what they sow -- the 9th pick in the Draft. No playoffs, no Oden.

 

It may not to you. I'm just saying that having the worst team in the NBA still gets you the best chance at the #1-3 picks in the draft, despite past result. And since from pick #4 on, you go by record anyway, tanking has no downside. Just that the upside is lesser than the old system. And this obviously matters to teams' management. Even the Spurs held out Robinson and Elliot for the latter part of the season years ago. And they weren't even tanking for the position of the 25% slot in the Duncan lottery.

 

My guess is that the playoffs are huge boost for season tickets sales for the following season. You touched upon that. How many ads have we seen on the tube lately telling fans to insure their playoff seats by getting season tickets for next year? I've noticed several, as well as having it mentioned in interviews. This is the time of year where fans tend to forget about the weeks of the team spinning it's wheels, the irritation at a trade not being made, the lower caliber of play from some players compared to expectations. They get excited, and they start thinking about season tickets for next year, those that can afford them.

 

A team with the #1 pick doesn't have to win the title to consider the situation as a success. Look at Lebron and Yao, neither have won the title yet, but they've turned their teams into contenders.

High draft picks excite the fanbase and provide hope for the future, championship or not. Orlando fans love Dwight Howard, Toronto fans love Chris Bosh, Hornets fans love Chris Paul, and Chicago fans love Ben Gordon and Luol Deng. Numerous other high lotto picks have been great boons to their teams, bringing them out of the gutter. Simmons talks about the Elton Brand syndrome, where lotto picks are destined to lose until they leave. But he ignores the multitude of lotto picks that also win with their teams. It happens.

It's unfortunate that teams tank, but the payoff is there for a reason: these teams need these players.

 

I think Yao can definetly win it all in the next 3 seasons if not this year.

 

The rich getting richer is a good thing...

It's good for the league when McGrady gets to play with Yao, when Shaq has Kobe and Wade, when Bird has McHale and Parish. Elite players need elite teammates to form an elite basketball teams. And elite teams, not parity gets people to watch basketball. Maybe you can market mediocrity to local fans who just love their city and their team, but if you are trying to market the league nationwide, leaving great talent on .500 teams is a waste. KG is an elite talent, but being stuck on the Wolves with no talent means his marketing potential is wasted. We won't even see him at all in the playoffs this time around. The league would be SOOOO much better off if he was, say, playing with Kobe in LA.

 

Also, think about Lebron James... he's no doubt an elite talent.. good enough to keep the team out of the deep lotto territory in most years.

So, what does the current system mean? Increase his chances that he never get to play with another elite guy. The draft won't produce one unless they get really lucky. Nobody will trade one unless they are seen damaged goods or old. Salary cap also severely limits free agency options. Given Z and Hughes salary, they won't have the cap space to pursue another.

Now we have potentially the most gifted young kid condemned to a career on mediocre teams.