| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 7365
Location: Underground
Back to top |
 Posted: 05/19/15 7:27 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| root_thing wrote: |
Those 29 wins last season would severely lessen the impact, and the Mercury also won 19 games in 2013. There are 5 teams that have won 29 games or less in the last two seasons combined:
CT 13+10=23
Tulsa 12+11=23
NY 15+11=26
SA 16+12=28
Sea 12+17=29 |
The problem with this is that it is looking at it as an "all or none" rather than as an improvement overall.
By tanking for one season, you would have improved draft position in 3 years. This would actually incentivize all out tanking for a season. Be epically bad and suddenly you are drafting 5-6 spots higher for the next 3 years, no matter how much you improve. Win the championship and draft in the middle!
Let's use the Mercury as an example here. Their picks over the last three years have been #2 (lottery odds), #9, and #12.
If we had been using the 3 year system, their picks would have been #3 (lottery odds), #3 (lottery odds), and #9.
So for one year of tanking, they would have gained significant upgrades in two of the three drafts--one of which would have put them back in the lottery--and still been in position to get one of the "three to see" in 2013. |
If you had a three-year system, there would be no need for a lottery. Or you could keep the current structure for determining standing, and use the three year total to determine the order of the top four instead of a lottery. There are all kinds of tweaks you can make to augment the system.
What we're really talking about is keeping a good team from tanking for an elite player. That's the number 1 or 2 pick. In a no lottery, 3-year system, Phoenix gets Skylar Diggins in 2013 instead of Griner. Do we have as much complaining about Phoenix tanking if that were the case? So, they tie for the 3rd draft slot in 2014 and end up with McBride or Thomas. Diggins and McBride together still don't scare me as much as Griner. It's easier to replace two good offensive guards than it is to find another mobile 6-8 center who is good on offense and dominant on defense.
In terms of the three year impact, it cuts both ways. Yes, it would help Phoenix if you look backward, but it would hurt them going forward. If they tanked again this year, it's almost certain the Mercury couldn't get a top 4 pick even if they won zero games (48 wins already in the bank). And the 29 wins last season would continue to hurt them in the following draft.
_________________
You can always do something else.
|
|
Luuuc
#NATC
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21928
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/19/15 7:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I think even a 2 years system could be effective. I don't see teams purposely sucking for 2 seasons in a row. That could really be damaging to them with the fans.
3 years would be even more effective in covering up a one-off aberration of a season.
The problem is, the more years you stretch it out for, the longer it also takes for the teams that truly need help to actually get it. So do you build the system around its intended purpose, or do you focus on the exploitation factor? It's not an easy fix.
If Phoenix hadn't defied the odds of getting the #1 pick from the fewest number of lottery balls I really don't think this would be as big of an issue. So personally I don't think we should overreact too much just based on that one random anomaly.
_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
|
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/19/15 7:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| If the Mercury had gotten pick 4 and DC pick 1, no one would be worried about tanking - it would instead be the cautionary tale of tanking gone bad. I think the problem is, however, it wasn't a purely "random" anomaly - or at least it didn't look like one.
|
|
Michelle89
Joined: 17 Nov 2010
Posts: 16464
Location: Holland
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/20/15 4:22 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Randy wrote: |
| If the Mercury had gotten pick 4 and DC pick 1, no one would be worried about tanking - it would instead be the cautionary tale of tanking gone bad. I think the problem is, however, it wasn't a purely "random" anomaly - or at least it didn't look like one. |
I don't think it was random that Phoenix was tanking in a year were they could get Griner with the 1st pick, EDD with the 2nd and Diggins with the 3rd. That is a pretty big chance of landing atleast 1 good or a really good player
_________________
"Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson were and are the dynamic duo. They're the one-two punch. They're all the clich�s possible to describe people that perfectly complement each other, who make each other better and also bring out the best in the team." �Karen Bryant
Last edited by Michelle89 on 05/20/15 10:51 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
p_d_swanson
Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 9713
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/20/15 6:56 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| FS02 wrote: |
| The best thing to do would be to make the lottery depend on the last 2 years of results. |
I believe this is the new arrangement. The four non-playoff teams this season will have their 2014 and 2015 win totals combined to determine lottery position...
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16358
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/20/15 12:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| p_d_swanson wrote: |
| FS02 wrote: |
| The best thing to do would be to make the lottery depend on the last 2 years of results. |
I believe this is the new arrangement. The four non-playoff teams this season will have their 2014 and 2015 win totals combined to determine lottery position... |
Really?
|
|
Happycappie25
Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 4174
Location: QUEENS!!!!
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/20/15 12:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| p_d_swanson wrote: |
| FS02 wrote: |
| The best thing to do would be to make the lottery depend on the last 2 years of results. |
I believe this is the new arrangement. The four non-playoff teams this season will have their 2014 and 2015 win totals combined to determine lottery position... |
when was this decided, this is good news IF true.
_________________
"Leave it to the NCAA women's basketball committee to turn a glass slipper into glass ceiling" Graham Hays
|
|
LosLynxAngeles
Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Posts: 860
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/20/15 12:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Happycappie25 wrote: |
| p_d_swanson wrote: |
| FS02 wrote: |
| The best thing to do would be to make the lottery depend on the last 2 years of results. |
I believe this is the new arrangement. The four non-playoff teams this season will have their 2014 and 2015 win totals combined to determine lottery position... |
when was this decided, this is good news IF true. |
if this was true. the mercury would have absolutely no reason to tank. no way they would get the 1 or 2 picks
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24351
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/20/15 12:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| It's something they really ought to announce before the season starts though, so that everyone knows what the situation is. For crying out loud tell us something, WNBA. |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/20/15 12:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| p_d_swanson wrote: |
| FS02 wrote: |
| The best thing to do would be to make the lottery depend on the last 2 years of results. |
I believe this is the new arrangement. The four non-playoff teams this season will have their 2014 and 2015 win totals combined to determine lottery position... |
Lottery position or draft position? If it is just lottery position, then there is still a chance that a tanking team could get the #1 overall. Where if it is draft position and they are throwing out the lottery all together, this would likely preclude some teams from any chance at that pick, no matter how many games they lose this year.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/20/15 1:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Maybe it would be simpler to just say teams that make their conference finals will have no higher than pick #5 for the succeeding three years.
If you're one of the top four teams in the league there's no excuse for you to drop that far that fast in only three years unless you're trying to do so. I can't think of a better way to spread the wealth.
|
|
|
|
