2025-26 NBA | Page 25 | Syracusefan.com

2025-26 NBA

This may have been mentioned, or needs its own thread, but the NBA should consider a draft playoff. Teams outside the playoffs have a play down to determine draft order. Players will need to have played X% of games to be eligible. One and done, or 2/3.
 
Capt. Tuttle said:
This may have been mentioned, or needs its own thread, but the NBA should consider a draft playoff. Teams outside the playoffs have a play down to determine draft order. Players will need to have played X% of games to be eligible. One and done, or 2/3.
Expand...
Who gets the better picks ? The winners or losers ?
 
Capt. Tuttle said:
This may have been mentioned, or needs its own thread, but the NBA should consider a draft playoff. Teams outside the playoffs have a play down to determine draft order. Players will need to have played X% of games to be eligible. One and done, or 2/3.
Expand...

So what happens when a team own's another teams lottery pick which happens every season and for typically at least a few picsk.

For example the Pacers pick (held by Clippers)
Or the Clippers pick (Held by OKC)

Are the Pacers and Clippers going to play hard on behalf of the other team.
 
jncuse said:
So what happens when a team own's another teams lottery pick which happens every season and for typically at least a few picsk.

For example the Pacers pick (held by Clippers)
Or the Clippers pick (Held by OKC)

Are the Pacers and Clippers going to play hard on behalf of the other team.
Expand...

Would they play hard on behalf of their own team even?

In a league with a ton of player movement I’m not sure how incentivized players would be to play super hard to try and improve a draft pick for a team that the may not even be on next year (or maybe they are on the team and the improved pick takes minutes from them!)
 
The basic issue is that there is an imbalance between the rewards and the outcomes of choices.

Basic thesis - Tanking rewards losing. The NBA and organizations improve when we reward winning and development.

1, I propose that half of a team's lottery odds are locked in after 41 games, and the second half of the odds lock in based after the second 41 games. The odds on the first 41 function as they do now, where the biggest losers get the best odds. That acknowledges the reality that some teams lack talent to compete. To reward the right behavior, we incentivize winning the back half of the season. The teams that land in the lotto with the best winning percentages the second 41 games get the best odds.

Some possible consequences - tanking still happens, but since it's only worth it to do it the first half of the season, that's the only time we see it. Truly bad teams would want to give themselves the best chance at keeping high lottery odds by competing the second half of the season. That could make for more interesting playoff races since there would be fewer easy wins. It's also possible that this reduces "load management" for lesser competitive teams, limiting star minutes, etc. It might mean teams are stingier at the trade deadline.

2, the 4 teams that do finish with the worst 4 records are encouraged to develop talent. This could go a couple of ways. 1 is they get an additional two-way contract to offer. Another way is they could get 1 of 4 sandwich picks between the 1st and 2nd round with some salary cap relief. The sandwich picks would function like standard 2nd round picks and serve as an additional asset as a player or tradeable player that could be used to acquire other draft picks or talent.

Some possible consequences - losing teams still get a bit of a boost, but to take advantage of it they need to put efforts toward good things like player development instead of hoping to luck into odds of landing a generational player. It's a slower build so not as appealing as just "we got a great player." This would potentially devalue second round draft picks since it pushes them back 4 spots or if you go the extra two way contract out it's debatable that moves a franchise much since the best ever two ways are guys like Lu Dort, Alex Caruso, Naz Reid.
 
OttoinGrotto said:
The basic issue is that there is an imbalance between the rewards and the outcomes of choices.

Basic thesis - Tanking rewards losing. The NBA and organizations improve when we reward winning and development.

1, I propose that half of a team's lottery odds are locked in after 41 games, and the second half of the odds lock in based after the second 41 games. The odds on the first 41 function as they do now, where the biggest losers get the best odds. That acknowledges the reality that some teams lack talent to compete. To reward the right behavior, we incentivize winning the back half of the season. The teams that land in the lotto with the best winning percentages the second 41 games get the best odds.

Some possible consequences - tanking still happens, but since it's only worth it to do it the first half of the season, that's the only time we see it. Truly bad teams would want to give themselves the best chance at keeping high lottery odds by competing the second half of the season. That could make for more interesting playoff races since there would be fewer easy wins. It's also possible that this reduces "load management" for lesser competitive teams, limiting star minutes, etc. It might mean teams are stingier at the trade deadline.

2, the 4 teams that do finish with the worst 4 records are encouraged to develop talent. This could go a couple of ways. 1 is they get an additional two-way contract to offer. Another way is they could get 1 of 4 sandwich picks between the 1st and 2nd round with some salary cap relief. The sandwich picks would function like standard 2nd round picks and serve as an additional asset as a player or tradeable player that could be used to acquire other draft picks or talent.

Some possible consequences - losing teams still get a bit of a boost, but to take advantage of it they need to put efforts toward good things like player development instead of hoping to luck into odds of landing a generational player. It's a slower build so not as appealing as just "we got a great player." This would potentially devalue second round draft picks since it pushes them back 4 spots or if you go the extra two way contract out it's debatable that moves a franchise much since the best ever two ways are guys like Lu Dort, Alex Caruso, Naz Reid.
Expand...
Make the owners of the lottery teams do a live auction for the lottery pick.
 
Rockets another Ime special. Takes Reed off the court for the last part of the game and it becomes congestion turnover festival. 18 pt FOURTH QUARTER lead blown . 9 turnovers in the 4th. Was Caleb Joseph running point ?
 
I noted Jokic with the near triple double by halftime... 19-13-9. Wondered how many times it has been done before.

Based on some quick googling this has been done by 7 players, and 9 times in NBA history.

Luca Doncic 29/10/10
Jalen Johnson 11/10/12
Domantas Sabonis 22/11/11
Nikola Jokic 16/11/12 and 19/10/10
Russell Westbrook 11/10/10 and 11/10/12
Jason Kidd 14/10/10
Kevin Johnson 14/11/14
 
OttoinGrotto said:
The basic issue is that there is an imbalance between the rewards and the outcomes of choices.

Basic thesis - Tanking rewards losing. The NBA and organizations improve when we reward winning and development.

1, I propose that half of a team's lottery odds are locked in after 41 games, and the second half of the odds lock in based after the second 41 games. The odds on the first 41 function as they do now, where the biggest losers get the best odds. That acknowledges the reality that some teams lack talent to compete. To reward the right behavior, we incentivize winning the back half of the season. The teams that land in the lotto with the best winning percentages the second 41 games get the best odds.

Some possible consequences - tanking still happens, but since it's only worth it to do it the first half of the season, that's the only time we see it. Truly bad teams would want to give themselves the best chance at keeping high lottery odds by competing the second half of the season. That could make for more interesting playoff races since there would be fewer easy wins. It's also possible that this reduces "load management" for lesser competitive teams, limiting star minutes, etc. It might mean teams are stingier at the trade deadline.

2, the 4 teams that do finish with the worst 4 records are encouraged to develop talent. This could go a couple of ways. 1 is they get an additional two-way contract to offer. Another way is they could get 1 of 4 sandwich picks between the 1st and 2nd round with some salary cap relief. The sandwich picks would function like standard 2nd round picks and serve as an additional asset as a player or tradeable player that could be used to acquire other draft picks or talent.

Some possible consequences - losing teams still get a bit of a boost, but to take advantage of it they need to put efforts toward good things like player development instead of hoping to luck into odds of landing a generational player. It's a slower build so not as appealing as just "we got a great player." This would potentially devalue second round draft picks since it pushes them back 4 spots or if you go the extra two way contract out it's debatable that moves a franchise much since the best ever two ways are guys like Lu Dort, Alex Caruso, Naz Reid.
Expand...

This in theory will reduce the number of teams that tank.

But if I am reading your proposal correctly, it could also result in some teams tanking right from Game 1 of the season, rather than say Game 41. Which i think is "worse" tanking and worse for the league. Less teams tanking, but those doing it feels even dirtier.

So it might help the # of tankers, but like many solutions it causes other problems.
 
jncuse said:
This in theory will reduce the number of teams that tank.

But if I am reading your proposal correctly, it could also result in some teams tanking right from Game 1 of the season, rather than say Game 41. Which i think is "worse" tanking and worse for the league. Less teams tanking, but those doing it feels even dirtier.

So it might help the # of tankers, but like many solutions it causes other problems.
Expand...
Yeah, that's what I'm trying to acknowledge - there are going to be unintended consequences no matter what.

I think it's worth trying some stuff though (except for the wheel, that is all-time stupid). We have all kinds of history that the current lotto setup encourages the things we don't want. Let's take a shot on seeing if there are ways to have different incentives for better behaviors.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
174,644
Messages
5,272,509
Members
6,198
Latest member
NickMar

Online statistics

Members online
234
Guests online
4,237
Total visitors
4,471
Totals may include hidden visitors.


P
Top Bottom