In an effort to find the most competitive and revenue-making postseason as possible, many leagues have tinkered with their playoff format. In fact, since 2002, each of the big four major sports leagues (NBA, NHL, MLB, NFL) have all changed their playoffs in some way. The most recent proposed change is the NFL expanding their playoffs from 12 to 14 teams, which is something that will be discussed in the upcoming months prior to the start of the season. While I think change can be good for sports leagues, I think there is a danger of the playoff format becoming too unconventional or allowing too many teams in. In this article, I'll take a look at the four major sports leagues, their playoff format, and how it fits and stacks up against the other leagues.
MLB
Number of Participants: 10 (33.3% of league makes postseason)
Format: One Game Wild Card, Divisional Series (Best of 5), League Championship Series (Best of 7), World Series (Best of 7)
Overall: I'm a big fan of the way baseball's playoffs are set up, particularly with the addition of a single elimination Wild Card game. Previously, it was just the team with the best record that was not a division winner, and they would automatically play the highest seeded team. Considering there are 30 teams that play 162 games, only allowing four teams in is a bit harsh. The Wild Card game was added in 2012 and I'd say has been a big success so far. In 2012, the Cardinals would not have even made the playoffs under the old system as they were the second wild card team. They proceeded to win the Wild Card game on the road, beat the Reds in 5 in the Divisional Round, and push the eventual World Series Champion Giants to seven games in the League Championship Series.
The 2013 Wild Card round saw one of the more memorable postseason games of late. The Pittsburgh Pirates, having not been to the postseason since 1992, gained the first Wild Card spot and home field advantage for that game, in a highly competitive NL Central. They faced fellow division foe, the Cincinnati Reds, for the right to go to the Divisional Round. What followed was arguably the most electric baseball crowd ever. Just ask Johnny Cueto. Facing a rattled pitcher, and having a talented roster in their own right, the Pirates were able to march onto the next round, before falling to the other postseason member of the NL Central, the St. Louis Cardinals.
I actually think baseball could use to expand to include six teams for their playoffs. The one game Wild Card is exciting, but I just think there are more than five teams in each league worthy of making a run at a World Series. Consider that in 2012, the Rays, Angels, and Dodgers were all left out, while in 2013, the Rangers only missed out by one game. Those were four talented teams that just played 162 games for nothing expect a higher draft pick than the playoff teams. While moving from 10 to 12 starts to get very close to allowing half the league in, I think 12 is a reasonable number to allow to compete in postseason play. I think there is more parity than ever in baseball as teams like the Orioles and A's are competing amongst the Yankees of the world. Even a team like Detroit that I remember used to be the laughing stock of the league, has consistently competed year in and year out as of late.
While the extra team is something I would like to see, I wouldn't be too upset if they didn't change it. The win or go home Wild Card game is great for the fans and TV ratings. With the baseball season being so many games as is, it makes sense for a best of five round to start the playoffs, followed by the traditional best of seven for the next two rounds. MLB seems to have found the best formula for determining a champion.
NHL
Number of Participants: 16 (53.3% of league makes postseason)
Format: Four Rounds (All Best of 7)
Overall: The newest kink in the NHL's postseason involves how the teams are seeded and who the winners face in subsequent rounds. Eight teams from each league still get in, but now with the leagues being split into two divisions, the top three teams from each division qualify automatically regardless of record with the two new Wild Card spots being occupied by the teams with the best records that did not finish in the top three of their division. The Wild Card can come from either division so you could have five from one division and three from the other. The seeding, or rather lack of seeding, is where it gets tricky.
The division winners play the two Wild Card teams based on points (division winner with most points plays the Wild Card team with the least points). The second place team then plays the third place team in their own division. This can lead to tough first round draws, particularly if one division did much better than the other. Look at the Eastern Conference this year. By record, Boston and Pittsburgh are the top seeds and also won their division. Great. Tampa Bay and Montreal, however, have the next best records, but are in the same division, essentially creating a 3 vs 4 matchup. Tampa Bay has already been eliminated by Montreal, who finished a point behind Tampa Bay, but four points ahead of the New York Rangers (second place in the other division), and six points ahead of the Philadelphia Flyers (third place).
The old system would sometimes get matchups like these because the top three division winners were protected, so sometimes the 4 vs 5 matchup would feature teams with better records than the third seed. With the league now split into two divisions, I think it would be better competitively, if the division winners were still protected, but the other four teams play each other based on points, regardless of division. This year is also the first time that the NHL has gone with a fixed bracket system, rather than reseeding after each round. Previously, after each round, the highest remaining seed would face the lowest remaining seed. Since there are technically no seeds this time around, a NCAA style bracket is set up. So the winner of the St. Louis-Chicago series knows that it will face the winner of the Colorado-Minnesota series, no questions asked.
This format, similar to the NCAA Tournament, gives the lower seeds a better chance. This is because, since there is no reseeding, they have a shot to avoid some of the higher seeds. Under the old format, if you were an eight seed and every other top seed won out, you would have to go through the one seed, two seed, three seed, and potentially the one seed from the other conference. Under this format, if Dallas (technically the 8th seed) were to beat Anaheim, there's a good chance they wouldn't have to face Colorado (technically the 2nd seed) at all. It's hard to judge this system since we're not even through a full round with this format. The only thing I think needs changing is who the second and third place teams in each division play in the first round. Even though more than half the league gets into the postseason, I think the NHL has the talent to justify that.
NBA
Number of Participants: 16 (53.3% of league makes postseason)
Format: Four Rounds (All Best of 7)
Overall: If any league could use to reduce the number of playoff teams, it's the NBA. As far as parity goes in the four major sports, I think basketball is the worst one. Just look at the Eastern Conference this year. It has really been a two team race all year with Miami and Indiana battling for the top two seeds with no real threat to worry about. "But wait, the Hawks are up 2-1 on the Pacers," you might say. Correct. In fact, before this series started I picked the Hawks in 6. I picked them, however, not because the Hawks are a good team, but because the internal collapse by the Pacers is one of the most astonishing I have ever seen. If the Hawks were playing Miami, I'd probably pick the Heat in five, maybe even a sweep. This proves my point even more, as the Eastern Conference has now become a one-team conference. I know everyone is going to point to Brooklyn's undefeated regular season against the Heat, and I wish I could make a case for the Bulls if they face them, but let's be honest, it's the Heat and everyone else in the East.
Out West it's a bit trickier because many would argue that the Phoenix Suns deserved to make the playoffs. A legit argument could be made as they would have finished tied for third in the East. Then you have the fact that the Clippers are the only top seed in the East to be leading their series. Still, I think when it all shakes out, it will be the Clips, Thunder, and Spurs fighting for the right to go to the NBA Finals. I think the biggest example of why the NBA could use to decrease its playoffs is because the lowest seed to ever win an NBA title was the 1995 Houston Rockets (some Jordan guy was off playing baseball).
Six is a fairly low seed to win a title from, but not when you consider the recent success of lower seeds in the other major sports. The LA Kings ran the gauntlet in the NHL in 2012 by starting as the eight seed and beating the one, two, and three seed in their conference on their way to a Stanley Cup victory. MLB has had four teams win a World Series as a Wild Card team since 2002 (Angels, Red Sox, Marlins, Cardinals). In the NFL, the Steelers in 2005 and the Packers in 2010 started as six seeds and won the Super Bowl, playing all their games on the road. Certainly a Memphis over San Antonio or Golden State over Dallas in the first round has happened, but for the most part, it's really only the top teams contending for the title. I doubt I'll even watch another Heat-Bobcats game this series.
Personally, I would be in favor of a six team NBA playoff. Narrow the three divisions in the NBA down to two and have the two division winners get a bye. Then the three plays the six and the four plays the five in a best of five series. I would also set it up bracket style where the one seed would face the winner of the four/five matchup and the two seed would face the three/six winner. I think if the NBA really wants to have lower seeds contend, they need to make their salary cap rules tighter so that parity can actually exist in the NBA rather than Big Threes and Fours being set up, while the 76ers and Bucks are left with D-Leaguers.
NFL
Number of Participants: 12 (37.5% of league makes postseason)
Format: Single Elimination, Four Rounds
Overall: The NFL, being the only of the four major sports to be single elimination, is arguably the most exciting. There is no such thing as having a bad Game 1, regrouping, and coming out stronger for Game 2. If you lose Game 1, see ya. Similar to baseball, the NFL places a lot of emphasis on winning your division in order to make the playoffs. Last year, if you were an AFC team, you had to win your division as the AFC West took both the Wild Card spots with the Kansas City Chiefs and the San Diego Chargers. Unfortunately for the Wild Cards, home field isn't based on record, so a Wild Card team with a better record may end up being the road team in the first round.
Probably the most famous case of this was in 2010 when the Seattle Seahawks won a dreadful NFC West with a 7-9 record, but got to host the 11-5 New Orleans Saints. Marshawn Lynch went all BEAST MODE as the Seahawks knocked off the Saints in one of the more surprising playoff results ever. This, coupled with the Steelers and Packers mentioned earlier, would suggest that expanding the NFL playoffs wouldn't be such a bad idea. Personally, I'm not a fan.
While the Seahawks did win that game, they lost the next round and failed to make the playoffs the next year. The Steelers and Packers were both extremely talented teams who found their stride at the right time. The Steelers were actually favored in the Super Bowl against the top seeded Seahawks the year they won. The Packers, meanwhile, never lost a game by more than four points and had Aaron Rodgers as their QB. Not your typical number six seeds. Now let's take a look at the number seven seeds in 2013.
I'm assuming with this new system, that the top overall seed in each conference would get a bye with the two playing the seven, three playing the six, and five playing the four, with division leaders protected for home field advantage. With that in mind, the seventh seeded Arizona Cardinals would have been traveling to the second seeded Carolina Panthers in the NFC, while the seventh seeded Pittsburgh Steelers would have been traveling to the second seeded New England Patriots. Don't get me wrong, Arizona was a good team last year and actually beat the Panthers 22-6 earlier in the year. Still, with Carson Palmer at the helm with a matchup in Seattle the following week if they were to win, doesn't make me like their chances.
The Steelers would have drawn the scarier assignment having to go to Foxborough to face Tom Brady and the Patriots. They were already destroyed by Brady in early November to the tune of 55-31. They rallied after that game and went 6-2 down the stretch to finish 8-8. Still, only two of those wins were against playoff teams (Green Bay, Cincinnati), and the two losses were against teams that missed the playoffs (Baltimore, Miami). I think the Steelers would have gotten trounced if they were to play New England, as it would have almost been a bye for the Patriots.
With the physicality of the NFL, I think the format is good as is, especially with rewarding the top two overall teams in each conference with a bye. I hope that they hold off on expanding the playoffs, as the competitiveness is good as is. It's a revenue making opportunity for sure, as numerous fans will fill the stadium and watch on TV if an additional game was added. I just think that in terms of having the most deserving teams in the postseason in the NFL, that the current system does a good job of that.
It's not easy to determine what makes a great playoff system. Fans want to see competitiveness, but commissioners and owners see more teams and games as more revenue (see: college football playoffs). There will always be a fine line between allowing the right number of teams in and having too many in, which will inevitably vary from year to year. I just hope that leagues learn to put revenue and league exposure aside to produce the most competitive product in the postseason, whether that's with two teams or thirty.
My Playoff System Rankings (for how they fit their sport)
1. MLB
2. NFL
3. NHL
4. NBA
Matty O
Friday, April 25, 2014
Friday, April 4, 2014
The V-Plan, NBA Draft & Tanking
Parity is a word thrown around in a lot of sports. League commissioners continue to strive for competitive balance within their respective leagues. It helps smaller markets compete, helps keep games closer, and gives teams hope that their time at the bottom of the league will not be long lasting. One of the strategies used to try and create parity is the reverse order draft, where the worst teams record wise, get the highest draft picks (barring a trade). The problem is that now teams are being accused to "tanking," or losing on purpose, in order to obtain a higher pick. Why bust your butt to win games when you know you won't make the playoffs, if you can get the next Michael Jordan in the draft?
Philadelphia 76ers
This issue usually rears its ugly head particularly once the regular season winds down and the race for last is on. This year, however, it seems like the 76ers wanted to get a head start in the race. From January 31st to March 27th, the 76ers managed to lose an NBA record tying 26 losses in a row. The tanking speculation increased when, in February, the 76ers traded away Evan Turner, Spencer Hawes, and Henry Sims. All three players were averaging 26 minutes plus for the Sixers and Turner and Hawes were both in the top five in points per game for the team. The Sixers will argue that they were trying to get rid of those three contracts and open up cap space, while outside observers will claim that they are getting rid of some of their core pieces in order to have a better chance at a high pick in a loaded 2014 NBA draft.
While some believe they are tanking, I truly think the Sixers are simply trying to rebuild. Their 26 game losing streak just happened to be a side effect of that. It's not like the Sixers were just giving away games. The players are working hard, no matter who is on the court. While their streak certainly had its share of bad losses, they were also able to hang with a lot of good teams. They lost by six in Brooklyn, seven in Indiana, eight to the Bulls at home, then by ten to the Bulls in Chicago three days later, before finally picking up a 123-98 win over Detroit on March 29th. I watched both of the Bulls games, and they certainly were giving effort. The difference in skill was just too great. Teams like Oklahoma City and San Antonio hammered them, but they do that to a lot of teams. They just so happened to play them during this awful stretch.
They still have one of the best rookies in the league in Michael Carter-Williams, and probably would have been better this year had they spent their sixth overall pick in the 2013 NBA Draft on a player that would play this year. Instead, they chose Nerlens Noel, who might have been the number one overall pick had he been healthy. The Sixers knew he would be out for this season, but drafted him anyways based on his performance at Kentucky and the potential that he brings. Had they gone with a Ben McLemore (selected seventh) or Trey Burke (selected ninth), maybe their losing streak would have been five or ten instead of 26.
The question that commissioners and other league officials are concerned with is how to set up a draft system where tanking either has less of an effect on draft position, or discourages it completely.
NBA Draft
The NBA draft is unique because it is the only draft among the four major sports leagues (NBA, NHL, MLB, NFL), that uses a lottery system to determine the first three picks. MLB and the NFL both use a no lottery, reverse order system based on regular season record. If you finish last in the league, you know for certain that you will have the number one overall pick in the upcoming draft, as long as you still have the rights to the pick. The NHL, has a lottery system, but it only determines the number one pick. All the teams that didn't make the playoffs have a weighted chance of getting the pick, but once the first pick is determined, then the draft order is determined by record for the non-playoff teams, and playoff performance for the playoff teams.
The NBA has a weighted lottery for the first three picks, with teams having varying percentages to obtain one of those picks based on their regular season record. Once those three picks are determined, the rest of the draft order is based on record. With this system, introduced in 1990, the team with the worst record can fall no further than the fourth overall selection. The chance of obtaining the number one overall pick range from 25% for the worst team to 0.5% for the 14th worst team. Interestingly, despite trying to promote parity with the draft, only three times since 1990 has the worst team actually won the lottery. The Nets in 1990, Cavaliers in 2003, and Magic in 2004 were the only teams to have the best odds and win the draft lottery. They chose Derrick Coleman, LeBron James, and Dwight Howard, respectively.
On the flip side, there have been nine teams with a less than 10% chance of obtaining the top overall pick that have gotten it: The Magic in 1993 (1.52%), Warriors in 1995 (9.4%), Nets in 2000 (4.4%), Rockets in 2002 (8.9%), Bucks in 2005 (6.3%), Raptors in 2006 (8.8%), Trail Blazers in 2007 (5.3%), Bulls in 2008 (1.7%), and Cavaliers in 2011 (2.8%). Notable players selected were Chris Webber, Kenyon Martin, Yao Ming, Derrick Rose, and Kyrie Irving. So, while the odds may be against you, it is still possible for a talented team that missed out on the playoffs to wind up with a franchise changing player.
One motivation for tanking despite the fact that only three teams with the best odds have won the lottery, is that you are guaranteed at least the fourth overall pick. The problem is that the fourth pick has been the definition of hit-or-miss recently. Since 2000, the fourth overall pick has only three players that have made an All-Star Team in Chris Bosh, Chris Paul, and Russell Westbrook. The likes of Tyrus Thomas, Drew Gooden, and Marcus Fizer, however, have faded into NBA obscurity. So while the perceived safety net of getting the fourth pick at worst is there, it is crucial that a team with the worst record, most likely in the midst of rebuilding, gets a franchise player. Also of note, Bosh and Paul are no longer with the teams that originally drafted them, and won zero titles for the Raptors and Hornets while they were there.
Personally, I like the way the NBA draft is set up. As shown by the statistics of teams getting the top pick, tanking doesn't really guarantee you anything. While your odds increase, you still only have a 25% chance of getting that top overall pick. Those odds really aren't that good. I would actually like to see the worst teams have an increased chance and further decrease the other team's odds. Most likely, these teams really need a high quality player, regardless of if they're tanking or not. For instance, I'm fairly certain the Magic weren't tanking last year when they finished with the worst record. They just really weren't that good and really could have used a top pick. Fortunately for them, they got the second pick and the Cavaliers selected Anthony Bennett. The Magic got Victor Oladipo, who I think will be a great player down the road (was selected for this year's Rising Stars Game). If the league really is focused on promoting parity, it is crucial that the worst of the worst have the best chance of a franchise player and, to me, 25% is far too low.
The V-Plan
In an effort to come up with a solution to promoting parity, while discouraging tanking, Sacramento Kings owner Vivek Ranadive recently suggested something he called the V-Plan. There's two parts to it, and certainly comes out of left field. The first part of his plan is that the draft odds would be determined at the All-Star break rather than at the end of the season. The lottery system would remain, but those odds would be set and there would be nothing you could do in the second half of the season to change that. The second part of the plan would call for the top seven teams in each conference making the playoffs, but then have an NCAA style elimination tournament between all non-playoff teams to determine the eighth spot. He claims this would create excitement and give fans of teams at the bottom something to hope for like a Mercer or Dayton in this year's tournament.
While I don't agree with most of his plan, there are some pros to it. The first pro is that it would allow rebuilding teams to get a better understanding of what they have. For instance, if you are the fifth worst team, now maybe you start or rookie or give him more playing time to see how he performs. Another scenario might be allowing a player that was injured to not rush back. Since the draft order cannot change, coaches might be more inclined to let players just sit out the rest of the season rather than rushing them back.
Another pro is that his tournament style proposal for the eighth seed would certainly create some excitement, and probably some memorable upsets or runs. Can you imagine if there was a tournament like that this year and the Sixers won? The team accused of tanking as the eight seed? That would be pretty cool drama particularly in a one and done format. TV ratings would probably be pretty high for those games and would give players from the bottom teams a chance to showcase their skills since their television time in the second half of the season is rather limited.
Unfortunately, I don't think this system solves anything. Part one of the plan is what I have the most problem with because it doesn't account for a few things. The first is that teams can and will still tank, just at the start of the season and during the prior off-season. The Sixers, you could argue, actually started their tanking process at the draft because they had to trade away Jrue Holiday, arguably their best player, to the New Orleans Pelicans so the Sixers could draft Nerlens Noel. Had this system been in place, I guarantee you that at least Evan Turner would have been gone before the regular season started as well. While all fans can hope that their team is going to do well this year, usually management seems to have in mind what their team is capable of. Some people in Philly may have had faith in the Sixers, but I'm pretty sure management knew all along they were going to dump some contracts, it was just a matter of when.
The second thing that it doesn't account for is injuries and/or trades. If LeBron James were injured for the first half of the season when he was in Cleveland, you can bet that the Cavs would have been towards the bottom of the league. If he comes back and they start winning again, well then there goes the parity. With him, they were one of the top teams in the East. If he didn't play in the first half of the season, however, and the order was frozen at the All-Star break, there's a chance that the number one pick could go to the team with the best player in the league. That would destroy parity and really wouldn't be healthy for the league.
The third thing that it doesn't account for is that the second half of the season may become utterly meaningless. While his system doesn't incentivize losing for the bottom teams in the second half of the year, it certainly doesn't incentivize winning either, and some NBA teams truly do want to get a win regardless of the standings. As I mentioned earlier, teams could hold out players returning from injury or experiment with lineups that might tell them what they have for the future, but may not be the best product they can put out on the floor. This would affect seeding at the top of the league because whoever had the easiest schedule would have an even greater chance at getting a top seed. It would also cause fan interest to wane as they come for a competitive game, not a bunch of rookies and D-League-ers trying to figure out the NBA game.
The second part of his plan is much more intriguing. It would increase interest, TV ratings, money for the league, and exposure for the players. Cinderella stories are what make the NCAA Tournament so exciting, and this would be no different. While there may not be incentives to win in the regular season under this plan, there certainly would be during this tournament for the last playoff spot. The problem is that in order for this to work, part one of his plan has to be in place. If this tournament were implemented under the current system, whereby the draft order would be determined after this tournament, the incentive to lose would still be there. If the draft order was determined before the tournament, then there's a chance that parity could be thrown off. What if a team saves an injured player during the second half of the year and brings them back just for the tournament and subsequent playoffs? Now you have a team that perhaps has the second best odds of a first overall pick, that just won the tournament and made it to the Conference Finals. Would it be fair for that team to get a top pick in the next draft?
It's a tricky situation. The ideal goal is to obtain parity, while preventing tanking, but it seems like when one of them is tweaked, it causes the other to become unbalanced. As I mentioned before, I like the NBA draft setup and actually wish more pro sports would switch to it. While your odds increase with losses, nothing you can do can guarantee anything. If you go 0-82, and are the only team to do that, you still only have a 25% chance of getting that top pick. In the NFL, if you go 0-16, and are the only team to do that, you are guaranteed the top pick. It's a situation that I'm sure commissioners will continue to try and perfect, although perfection may not be possible with a draft system in a league that promotes parity.
Matty O
Philadelphia 76ers
This issue usually rears its ugly head particularly once the regular season winds down and the race for last is on. This year, however, it seems like the 76ers wanted to get a head start in the race. From January 31st to March 27th, the 76ers managed to lose an NBA record tying 26 losses in a row. The tanking speculation increased when, in February, the 76ers traded away Evan Turner, Spencer Hawes, and Henry Sims. All three players were averaging 26 minutes plus for the Sixers and Turner and Hawes were both in the top five in points per game for the team. The Sixers will argue that they were trying to get rid of those three contracts and open up cap space, while outside observers will claim that they are getting rid of some of their core pieces in order to have a better chance at a high pick in a loaded 2014 NBA draft.
While some believe they are tanking, I truly think the Sixers are simply trying to rebuild. Their 26 game losing streak just happened to be a side effect of that. It's not like the Sixers were just giving away games. The players are working hard, no matter who is on the court. While their streak certainly had its share of bad losses, they were also able to hang with a lot of good teams. They lost by six in Brooklyn, seven in Indiana, eight to the Bulls at home, then by ten to the Bulls in Chicago three days later, before finally picking up a 123-98 win over Detroit on March 29th. I watched both of the Bulls games, and they certainly were giving effort. The difference in skill was just too great. Teams like Oklahoma City and San Antonio hammered them, but they do that to a lot of teams. They just so happened to play them during this awful stretch.
They still have one of the best rookies in the league in Michael Carter-Williams, and probably would have been better this year had they spent their sixth overall pick in the 2013 NBA Draft on a player that would play this year. Instead, they chose Nerlens Noel, who might have been the number one overall pick had he been healthy. The Sixers knew he would be out for this season, but drafted him anyways based on his performance at Kentucky and the potential that he brings. Had they gone with a Ben McLemore (selected seventh) or Trey Burke (selected ninth), maybe their losing streak would have been five or ten instead of 26.
The question that commissioners and other league officials are concerned with is how to set up a draft system where tanking either has less of an effect on draft position, or discourages it completely.
NBA Draft
The NBA draft is unique because it is the only draft among the four major sports leagues (NBA, NHL, MLB, NFL), that uses a lottery system to determine the first three picks. MLB and the NFL both use a no lottery, reverse order system based on regular season record. If you finish last in the league, you know for certain that you will have the number one overall pick in the upcoming draft, as long as you still have the rights to the pick. The NHL, has a lottery system, but it only determines the number one pick. All the teams that didn't make the playoffs have a weighted chance of getting the pick, but once the first pick is determined, then the draft order is determined by record for the non-playoff teams, and playoff performance for the playoff teams.
The NBA has a weighted lottery for the first three picks, with teams having varying percentages to obtain one of those picks based on their regular season record. Once those three picks are determined, the rest of the draft order is based on record. With this system, introduced in 1990, the team with the worst record can fall no further than the fourth overall selection. The chance of obtaining the number one overall pick range from 25% for the worst team to 0.5% for the 14th worst team. Interestingly, despite trying to promote parity with the draft, only three times since 1990 has the worst team actually won the lottery. The Nets in 1990, Cavaliers in 2003, and Magic in 2004 were the only teams to have the best odds and win the draft lottery. They chose Derrick Coleman, LeBron James, and Dwight Howard, respectively.
On the flip side, there have been nine teams with a less than 10% chance of obtaining the top overall pick that have gotten it: The Magic in 1993 (1.52%), Warriors in 1995 (9.4%), Nets in 2000 (4.4%), Rockets in 2002 (8.9%), Bucks in 2005 (6.3%), Raptors in 2006 (8.8%), Trail Blazers in 2007 (5.3%), Bulls in 2008 (1.7%), and Cavaliers in 2011 (2.8%). Notable players selected were Chris Webber, Kenyon Martin, Yao Ming, Derrick Rose, and Kyrie Irving. So, while the odds may be against you, it is still possible for a talented team that missed out on the playoffs to wind up with a franchise changing player.
One motivation for tanking despite the fact that only three teams with the best odds have won the lottery, is that you are guaranteed at least the fourth overall pick. The problem is that the fourth pick has been the definition of hit-or-miss recently. Since 2000, the fourth overall pick has only three players that have made an All-Star Team in Chris Bosh, Chris Paul, and Russell Westbrook. The likes of Tyrus Thomas, Drew Gooden, and Marcus Fizer, however, have faded into NBA obscurity. So while the perceived safety net of getting the fourth pick at worst is there, it is crucial that a team with the worst record, most likely in the midst of rebuilding, gets a franchise player. Also of note, Bosh and Paul are no longer with the teams that originally drafted them, and won zero titles for the Raptors and Hornets while they were there.
Personally, I like the way the NBA draft is set up. As shown by the statistics of teams getting the top pick, tanking doesn't really guarantee you anything. While your odds increase, you still only have a 25% chance of getting that top overall pick. Those odds really aren't that good. I would actually like to see the worst teams have an increased chance and further decrease the other team's odds. Most likely, these teams really need a high quality player, regardless of if they're tanking or not. For instance, I'm fairly certain the Magic weren't tanking last year when they finished with the worst record. They just really weren't that good and really could have used a top pick. Fortunately for them, they got the second pick and the Cavaliers selected Anthony Bennett. The Magic got Victor Oladipo, who I think will be a great player down the road (was selected for this year's Rising Stars Game). If the league really is focused on promoting parity, it is crucial that the worst of the worst have the best chance of a franchise player and, to me, 25% is far too low.
The V-Plan
In an effort to come up with a solution to promoting parity, while discouraging tanking, Sacramento Kings owner Vivek Ranadive recently suggested something he called the V-Plan. There's two parts to it, and certainly comes out of left field. The first part of his plan is that the draft odds would be determined at the All-Star break rather than at the end of the season. The lottery system would remain, but those odds would be set and there would be nothing you could do in the second half of the season to change that. The second part of the plan would call for the top seven teams in each conference making the playoffs, but then have an NCAA style elimination tournament between all non-playoff teams to determine the eighth spot. He claims this would create excitement and give fans of teams at the bottom something to hope for like a Mercer or Dayton in this year's tournament.
While I don't agree with most of his plan, there are some pros to it. The first pro is that it would allow rebuilding teams to get a better understanding of what they have. For instance, if you are the fifth worst team, now maybe you start or rookie or give him more playing time to see how he performs. Another scenario might be allowing a player that was injured to not rush back. Since the draft order cannot change, coaches might be more inclined to let players just sit out the rest of the season rather than rushing them back.
Another pro is that his tournament style proposal for the eighth seed would certainly create some excitement, and probably some memorable upsets or runs. Can you imagine if there was a tournament like that this year and the Sixers won? The team accused of tanking as the eight seed? That would be pretty cool drama particularly in a one and done format. TV ratings would probably be pretty high for those games and would give players from the bottom teams a chance to showcase their skills since their television time in the second half of the season is rather limited.
Unfortunately, I don't think this system solves anything. Part one of the plan is what I have the most problem with because it doesn't account for a few things. The first is that teams can and will still tank, just at the start of the season and during the prior off-season. The Sixers, you could argue, actually started their tanking process at the draft because they had to trade away Jrue Holiday, arguably their best player, to the New Orleans Pelicans so the Sixers could draft Nerlens Noel. Had this system been in place, I guarantee you that at least Evan Turner would have been gone before the regular season started as well. While all fans can hope that their team is going to do well this year, usually management seems to have in mind what their team is capable of. Some people in Philly may have had faith in the Sixers, but I'm pretty sure management knew all along they were going to dump some contracts, it was just a matter of when.
The second thing that it doesn't account for is injuries and/or trades. If LeBron James were injured for the first half of the season when he was in Cleveland, you can bet that the Cavs would have been towards the bottom of the league. If he comes back and they start winning again, well then there goes the parity. With him, they were one of the top teams in the East. If he didn't play in the first half of the season, however, and the order was frozen at the All-Star break, there's a chance that the number one pick could go to the team with the best player in the league. That would destroy parity and really wouldn't be healthy for the league.
The third thing that it doesn't account for is that the second half of the season may become utterly meaningless. While his system doesn't incentivize losing for the bottom teams in the second half of the year, it certainly doesn't incentivize winning either, and some NBA teams truly do want to get a win regardless of the standings. As I mentioned earlier, teams could hold out players returning from injury or experiment with lineups that might tell them what they have for the future, but may not be the best product they can put out on the floor. This would affect seeding at the top of the league because whoever had the easiest schedule would have an even greater chance at getting a top seed. It would also cause fan interest to wane as they come for a competitive game, not a bunch of rookies and D-League-ers trying to figure out the NBA game.
The second part of his plan is much more intriguing. It would increase interest, TV ratings, money for the league, and exposure for the players. Cinderella stories are what make the NCAA Tournament so exciting, and this would be no different. While there may not be incentives to win in the regular season under this plan, there certainly would be during this tournament for the last playoff spot. The problem is that in order for this to work, part one of his plan has to be in place. If this tournament were implemented under the current system, whereby the draft order would be determined after this tournament, the incentive to lose would still be there. If the draft order was determined before the tournament, then there's a chance that parity could be thrown off. What if a team saves an injured player during the second half of the year and brings them back just for the tournament and subsequent playoffs? Now you have a team that perhaps has the second best odds of a first overall pick, that just won the tournament and made it to the Conference Finals. Would it be fair for that team to get a top pick in the next draft?
It's a tricky situation. The ideal goal is to obtain parity, while preventing tanking, but it seems like when one of them is tweaked, it causes the other to become unbalanced. As I mentioned before, I like the NBA draft setup and actually wish more pro sports would switch to it. While your odds increase with losses, nothing you can do can guarantee anything. If you go 0-82, and are the only team to do that, you still only have a 25% chance of getting that top pick. In the NFL, if you go 0-16, and are the only team to do that, you are guaranteed the top pick. It's a situation that I'm sure commissioners will continue to try and perfect, although perfection may not be possible with a draft system in a league that promotes parity.
Matty O
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)