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
No comments:
Post a Comment