PDA

View Full Version : Van Gundy doesn't like that lottery rewards losing


dirt_dobber
03-27-2007, 11:40 AM
The Dallas Mavericks with the No. 1 pick in the 2007 NBA draft? If Rockets coach Jeff Van Gundy had his way, that could happen.

Van Gundy wants to open up the NBA draft lottery to all 30 NBA teams in an effort to keep teams from losing intentionally to hopefully secure the No. 1 pick.

"I think every team should have an equal chance at winning the lottery, from the best team all the way down," Van Gundy told The Houston Chronicle. "I don't want to accuse anyone of anything. I would say to take away any possible conflict of interest, everyone should have an equal chance at the top pick all the way down. That way there would be absolutely no question by anybody about anything.

"If it's better for the game, they should do it. I never quite understood why losing is rewarded, other than [for] parity."

================================================== ======================
edited to add rest of article................

Last week, weeks after Van Gundy's suggestion, Boston coach Doc Rivers did not play Paul Pierce and Al Jefferson in the fourth quarter of a loss and questions immediately arose that he was beginning a late-season dive for lottery position.

"I was not tanking the game," Rivers said after it appeared he was. "I was not throwing the game or anything like that."

But that should not even need to be answered. And with players going out with injuries, fans should not have to ask if players are hurt, or helping their teams lose. The Bucks are loaded with season-ending injuries that some will suggest would not have been season-ending had Milwaukee had reason to win. Ray Allen could be ready to shut it down in Seattle. Pierce has begun talking about calling it a season in Boston.

There will be more incidences to raise suspicions, though few could match the Timberwolves last season having Mark Madsen launching 3-pointers in an effort to improve draft position or stress-test the rims.

Of course, it is easier for Van Gundy to make his proposal with his team having won a weighted lottery, moving up from fifth to first to get Yao Ming. He works in an arena with a pair of championship trophies won a decade after the Rockets successfully tanked to the top pick, Hakeem Olajuwon.

But even if there is something wrong with the rich getting richer, as would happen in the Van Gundy plan, getting rewarded for losing, especially for intentionally losing, is worse.

Van Gundy's solution is extreme — and beyond anything the NBA will consider. But if teams abuse the system, the system should be changed.

It is a weighted lottery now, with the worst teams having the best chance, but not a great chance of winning the lottery. As much as the league might like reviving its weakest teams, it also should not reward those that disrespected the game and its customers.

It's seems clear that winning should be good, losing bad. Benefiting from losing is a problem that could be solved without going as far as Van Gundy suggested. Making the lottery a true lottery would do it.

Let them pick the top 14 in the draft randomly. Then no one would feel compelled to lose.

Award most deserving
With award season fast approaching, we're beginning to hear talk about Coach of the Year, and with it, the annual renewal of the ridiculous argument that someone's team has exceeded preseason prognostications.

By that line of thinking, victory is not based on who does best, but who does better than predicted. By that logic if a team expected to really stink actually turns out to be no worse than mediocre, its coach would have done a better job than Avery Johnson.

As fun as it might be to grade and mock the 'expert' picks, the idea is to be great, or at least very good. They don't give out trophies for better than expected.


According to The Chronicle, Van Gundy presented his proposal to the NBA, but wasn't taken seriously.

rabbitproof
03-27-2007, 12:04 PM
That's kind of unrealistic.

They should equalize the current lottery players a bit more so that the drops in odds aren't marked by record rank but rather by record themselves.

Nash13
03-27-2007, 12:04 PM
I don't think there should be a lottery. I think the crappy teams should have the most balls, but they should extend the lottery for all 30 teams instead of the ones who don't make the playoffs. I also think that would make teams hesistant to trade draft picks.

Dirkenstien
03-27-2007, 12:30 PM
I don't think there should be a lottery. I think the crappy teams should have the most balls, but they should extend the lottery for all 30 teams instead of the ones who don't make the playoffs. I also think that would make teams hesistant to trade draft picks.


I agree with this. I don't think every team should have an equal chance of winning the lottery but I do think that every team should have a chance at winning it. That would string out the odds so that they are not as favorable to the teams that lose more games.

Yes, bad teams need top players, but we are rewarding bad teams with the way the lottery is set up now, not giving them a chance at improving their situation.

12 Tone Melodies
03-27-2007, 12:32 PM
If memory serves, part of the reason for going to the lottery was to make it less attractive for a team to just tank the remander of the season for the #1 pick

Dirkenstien
03-27-2007, 12:33 PM
Also, I think either the team with the best record or the team who wins the championship should be given a slight "bonus increase" in their chances of winning the lottery for their achievement so to reward winning more and sort of raise the stakes to keep teams competitive throughout the entire season and not rest guys up for the playoffs.

Dirkenstien
03-27-2007, 12:37 PM
If memory serves, part of the reason for going to the lottery was to make it less attractive for a team to just tank the remander of the season for the #1 pick

They had the right idea, but it still favors and "rewards" losing teams too much. The odds should be more drawn out and as I mentioned in my previous post, we should reward winning with some type of incentive bonus to increase the chances in the lottery.

pickupyonuts
03-27-2007, 12:38 PM
if it is changed to where every team can get involved in the lottery but the worse teams have better chances, it would be very good for the league. there would then be more trading lottery picks for pieces that would actually help your team. most trades nowdays (with a few exceptions of course) is trash for trash. if everyone had a lottery pick to trade or use, it would be tiiiiight.

nowhereman
03-27-2007, 12:43 PM
cough yao ming cough

don't bite the hand that feeds you

TripleDipping
03-27-2007, 12:43 PM
The current lottery system serves the purposes of helping the worse teams and make them more competitive. I don't see a problem it.

pickupyonuts
03-27-2007, 12:45 PM
The current lottery system serves the purposes of helping the worse teams and make them more competitive. I don't see a problem it.
the problem is it makes the bottom of the league more competitive...they see who can lose more games.

Dirkenstien
03-27-2007, 01:01 PM
The current lottery system serves the purposes of helping the worse teams and make them more competitive. I don't see a problem it.

It encourages and rewards losing. Look at Boston, they don't know who they are or what they're doing in terms or either winning games or losing them. I think it would take a lot of heat off of those coaches like Doc Rivers to appease the public by losing games when he really just wants to compete to win. The league would benefit from changing this system.

nowhereman
03-27-2007, 01:55 PM
it's better than in football.

i don't really see how else to do it... it's tough in basketball. I mean, imagine if the spurs won a championship and drafted lebron james the next summer.

left texas
03-27-2007, 02:23 PM
it's better than in football.

i don't really see how else to do it... it's tough in basketball. I mean, imagine if the spurs won a championship and drafted lebron james the next summer.

How about the Mavs getting Oden or Durant? Salary cap (even though soft) helps regulate some of the advantages. Will be interesting to see what the league does. Probably minor changes.

Remember some owners care about winning more than others.

And1
03-27-2007, 10:40 PM
cough yao ming cough

don't bite the hand that feeds you

:)
and Hakeem O-, the Dream.

Tokey41
03-27-2007, 10:57 PM
All of the non playoff teams should have an equal chance at the #1 pick, that would definitely eliminate any tanking and keep the competitive nature of every club going.

Rhylan
03-27-2007, 10:59 PM
The lottery itself was instituted to prevent teams (see Houston, 1982 & 1983) from throwing regular season games to guarantee a spot. Now that's not enough? It's craziness.

Pro sports leagues need reverse finish order drafts... bottom line. This luck crap is BS.

Somewhat tangential, but I have been meaning to point out how a select few teams seem to have had more than their share of superstar big men over the years... Houston being one of these, which is what got me thinking of this. Houston has had FIVE centers in the last 25 years average damn near 20/10 at least one season - Elvin Hayes, Moses Malone, Ralph Sampson, Hakeem Olajuwon, and Yao Ming. That franchise has had an embarrassment of riches in big men.

Anyway... the teams in my idle thought...

Houston.. Moses, Olajuwon, Yao
Lakers.. Mikan, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq
Philly.. Wilt, Moses
San Antonio.. Robinson, Duncan
Orlando.. Shaq, Dwight Howard

Houston, San Antonio, and Orlando have the lottery to thank for some of that love.

There's no real hard & fast criteria for what gets a guy on that list, necessarily, I'm just thinking freakish big men only come along every so many years... yet name me a dominant big man who won at least one ring and never played for any of the five teams above. It's a damn 30 team league and these teams have had multiple guys where at least 15 teams haven't even come close to having one.

Bill Russell is the obvious choice. But, one could argue that Boston should be on that list of enchanted teams given their fortunes with Parish and McHale...

The only other person I can think of is Bill Walton, and had he not broken down, I betcha he'd have played for LA eventually!

foglemann
03-28-2007, 09:40 AM
SA is such a joke, they tank that one year, get the #1 pick in a year where Duncan is clearly the best player, then win all the titles. Just looks fishy.