ESPN Page 2: Tanks for nothing, NBA

[Triple T's]

Tanks for nothing, NBA

By Bill Simmons
Page 2

Editor's note: This column appears in the April 23 issue of ESPN The Magazine.

If ESPN ever creates a channel called ESPN Anti-Classic, I hope it launches with a telecast of April 4's stink bomb between Milwaukee and Boston. Ever seen opponents basically shave points at the same time? Well, it happened. Already playing without Andrew Bogut and Charlie Villanueva, Milwaukee shelved Mo Williams ("sore knee") and Michael Redd ("sore knee") in a desperate bid to blow the game for lottery position. And it would have worked, but they sorely underestimated an always-say-die Celtics team missing Paul Pierce ("sore elbow") and Al Jefferson ("hog-tied to a radiator"). Milwaukee lost by winning; Boston won by losing; every paying customer lost, period.

Paul Pierce
AP Photo
When the goin' gets tough ... Pierce gets to the bench.

It's a phenomenon unique to the NBA. With 30 teams and only a handful of superstar prospects per decade, landing Greg Oden or Kevin Durant really is like winning the lottery. You'd be foolish if you didn't try to swing the odds in your favor, even if that means exaggerating injuries, giving crunch-time minutes to scrubs and disgracing the integrity of the game. When Charlotte's tanking plans were recently dashed by 12th man Walter Herrmann -- who improbably ignited a few upset wins -- I half expected them to hire Shane Stant to attack Herrmann after a practice, followed by Walter rolling around like Nancy Kerrigan, screaming, "Why? Why???"

Two months ago in this space, when I introduced the concept of "fantanking" and rooted for an Oden-inspired Celtics collapse, I swear, my heart was in the right place. For the greater good, and under the current rules, the Celtics needed to lose and keep losing. And that's what happened. At the same time, I can't imagine the NBA feels good about a system that encourages fans to turn on their own teams. Remember, the league created the lottery in 1985 to prevent tanking. After six years of tinkering, it settled on a system of weighted Ping-Pong balls, until Orlando landed back-to-back No. 1 picks (defying 66-1 odds the second year). Panicking, the league significantly increased the odds that bad teams would finish in the top three, inadvertently leaving the door open for tanking again.

In retrospect, though, what's worse: Tankapalooza 2007 or a young team winning two straight lotteries? Did it negatively impact TV ratings, attendance or general fan interest to have a suddenly stacked Magic team? Were you turning off your TV in the mid-'90s because Shaq and Penny were on? The NBA's crucial mistake was forgetting that it's better to have more quality teams, even at the expense of a few extra doormats. This isn't the NFL; parity can't work. Remember the late '70s and the deadly stretch of seasons after the NBA/ABA merger? Everyone thinks play suffered because of rampant coke use and the first wave of overpaid/underachieving superstars, which was partially true. The bigger problem? The merger loaded every team's roster to the degree that nobody could stand out. From 1977 through 1979, only six teams won more than 50 games, only six won fewer than 30, and nobody won more than 58 or fewer than 22. What's fun about that?

On the flip side, when the Lakers, Celtics, Sixers and Pistons were battling for control of the 1980s, did anyone care that the Clips, Cavaliers, Warriors and Kings were dreadful? Was it a coincidence that the NBA peaked from 1987 to 1993, with a lopsided league of quality teams and crummy teams? Call it the 600/400 Rule: More teams finishing above .600 (50 wins or more) and under .400 (50 losses or more) makes for a more entertaining league. During the glorious '88 season, my choice for the greatest ever, there were eight plus-.600 teams and six sub-.400 teams in a 23-team league.

During another superb stretch, from 1991 to 1993, there were 24 plus-.600 teams and 24 sub-.400 teams (two-thirds of the league). Again, that's a good thing. We want to watch good teams with star players. The more the merrier, right? Just look at this lackluster 2007 season, when we're saddled with six plus-.600 teams, five sub-.400 teams and 19 in-the-middle teams. Sure, it's moredifficult to improve because of the salary cap and luxury tax, and it's nearly impossible to snooker other GMs (even Isiah has wised up). But I blame the lottery for foisting modified parity on us. Ever since Orlando went back-to-back, top picks have gone to lousy teams every spring, creating a vicious circle in which the lottery replenishes weak teams with blue-chippers who aren't ready to carry weak teams. In the past 14 years, only one No. 1 pick made his team competitive instantly: Tim Duncan, who joined a contender that had slipped only because of injuries. Looking back, was it bad that Duncan and David Robinson played together? Was the NBA's competitive spirit compromised? Of course not.

And that's why the lottery sucks: Not only does it render the occasional Duncan/ Robinson pairing nearly impossible, not only does it reward poorly run clubs like the Hawks (103 games under .500 since the 1998-99 season), it encourages also-rans to bottom out once they suffer some bad luck because they know it's their best chance to eventually contend. So can't we admit that the lottery system has failed? Shouldn't the element of luck play a bigger role than it does?

Anyway, here's my solution:
1. Contract to 27 teams and dump Memphis, Charlotte and Atlanta, three cities that can't support NBA basketball and never could. Then we'll have a league-wide lottery to determine positioning for the dispersal draft of players from those three teams. (Note: We've already sedated Chad Ford just in case this happens.) And if a contender like Chicago happens to end up with Pau Gasol ... I think we'll manage.

2. Change the lottery back to that of the late '80s: one envelope per team, same odds for everybody, top three draft spots only. Boom! We've solved the tanking problem. If a half-decent team happens to land a franchise player, like the Wolves getting Oden and pairing him with KG ... I think we'll manage.

3. Shorten the regular season by four games, guarantee the top six seeds in each conference, then have a double-elimination tourney for the seventh and eighth seeds between the remaining 15 teams. I suggest this for five reasons. First, it would be entertaining as hell. In fact, that's what we'll call it: the Entertaining-as-Hell Tournament. Second, I'm pretty sure we could get it sponsored. Third, the top 12 teams get a reward: two weeks of rest while the tournament plays out.

Fourth, a Cinderella squad could pull off some upsets, grab an eighth seed and win fans along the way. And fifth, with the Entertaining-as-Hell Tournament giving everyone a chance, no team could tank down the stretch without insulting paying customers beyond repair. That's the lamest thing about tanking: not that it's morally unsound, but that fans pay full price to see a depleted group of losers with dubious intentions. At a recent Bobcats-Celtics game, my father (a 34-year season ticket-holder) watched Boston toss away a double-digit lead while Pierce and Jefferson watched from the bench. To his right, a fan screamed at Doc Rivers, "You're doing the right thing!" To his left, another fan screamed that the collapse was "an absolute disgrace!" And as my father told me later, the disturbing thing was that both guys were right.

[Dirkenstien]

I don't like any of his "solutions" but I do think the odds should be more spread out and that the championship team should receive a slight increase in their odds as an additional incentive for teams competing for the 8th seed spot

[Triple T's]

sadly he makes a few good points about the state of the NBA. Really these young kids arent able to resurect these bad franchises all by themselves because they arent mature enough A. or B. were not ready for the NBA from the start. Which means that they are being pulled from college sooner than they are ready. But for those teams, the new talent puts butts in seats and so what you gonna tell a kid to do, turn down millions now for more practice? plz. The NBA doesnt even need a NBDL because the bottom 3rd is that anyways.

Think about it, other than being loyal to fans (yeah right) what else do teams like milwaukee have to gain by playing thru the injury? To be fodder for a first place team in the playoffs? To risk further injury? Im sure the players feel it more than the coaches with their less than inspiring play. Its amazing how players with something to play for play other than losing again and again. Why do you think teams get up for Dallas and not for someone like, say the Boston Celtics. They could beat us by 3 and lose to Celtics by 20. Thius league is pathetic.

[alexamenos]

the sports guy raises a valid point that I frankly hadn't thought about much before.....

....the lottery system not only means that the best college players go to the worst teams (roster as constructed at time of draft), but also the worst franchises (organization for an extended period of time). I wonder how many top 5 or top 10 "busts" might not have been such busts had they wound up with better franchises???? (ie, franchises that had a better culture and were generally more likely to surround the high pick with quality support on and off the court).

i completely agree with the sports guy's assessment of parity -- parity is boring, greatness is great.

alex's revised lottery system proposal:

Each team gets balls in the lottery hopper (no dirty jokes about balls in the hopper, please). The number of balls = (1-w%)*10.....so, a team like memphis would get about 8 balls in the hopper, 500 teams like the Lakers or the Wizards would have 5 balls in the hopper and the Mavs and Spurs of the world would each get 2 balls.

In this system the grizz would have about a 1-20 chance of getting the number 1 overall while the mavs would have about 1-100 chance. It's still tilted towards the poorer teams but not to such a ridiculous extent that teams are tanking down the stretch.

in addition to the foregoing, I'd attach the following rules:

the Spurs can only draft the 2nd best argentinian in the draft regardless of their position;
the Mavs can never take another 3 pt shooting 7 footer unless his name Dirk Nowitzki, Jr.

[jthig32]

Really good article.

I liked all three of his ideas. 1 and 3 are never going to happen, but how freaking cool would a tournament like that be?

I dunno, seems cool to me.

[Henry_VIII]

Since we're building pipe dreams, I'll throw this into the mix. Abandon the concept of a conference, and stick with 6 divisions of 5 teams.
Implement a 5 year rotational pairing of divisions (similar to the NFL). So, the SW division could possibly be paired with the Atlantic in year 1, Pacific in year 2, NW in year 3, SE in year 4, Central in year 5, and back to Atlantic in year6, etc.
4 games are played against each team in the same division (20 games)
4 games are played against the teams in the division they're paired with (24 games).
2 games are played against each other team (36 games)
for a total of 80 games.
The top 4 teams from a divisional pairing along with the next best top 4 teams across the league are seeded by record in a best of 7 tournament of 16.

[HexNBA]

"I wonder how many top 5 or top 10 "busts" might not have been such busts had they wound up with better franchises"

yeah just look at someone like boris diaw at atlanta vs phoenix

[Henry_VIII]

Originally Posted by HexNBA

"I wonder how many top 5 or top 10 "busts" might not have been such busts had they wound up with better franchises"

yeah just look at someone like boris diaw at atlanta vs phoenix

You could flip it around also. Would Josh Howard be considered very good had he been selected by, say, the Grizzlies?

[Henry_VIII]

Originally Posted by Triple T's

3. Shorten the regular season by four games, guarantee the top six seeds in each conference, then have a double-elimination tourney for the seventh and eighth seeds between the remaining 15 teams. I suggest this for five reasons. First, it would be entertaining as hell. In fact, that's what we'll call it: the Entertaining-as-Hell Tournament. Second, I'm pretty sure we could get it sponsored. Third, the top 12 teams get a reward: two weeks of rest while the tournament plays out.

After thinking about this a little bit more, this proposal creates another tank dilemma in itself. If this tourney were sponsored and it generated tons of revenue, it would advantageous for borderline teams to tank to get into the tournament. This could be avoided by hosting all of the games in the top 12 teams arenas. Takes care of home court issues as well.

[MavsX]

this article throws out some great ideas. And its true, just because the best couple of players go to the worst teams..that doesn't automatically mean those crappy teams are now going to be contenders...they need to change the way they are doing this soon!

[HexNBA]

Here's his blog followup to the article

---
Breaking down the luck of the lottery
posted: Apr. 11, 2007

I couldn't cram everything into this week's 1,200-word magazine column about the NBA Lottery, so let's follow up with some hardcore data to fully illustrate the futility of the current system.

The basic premise of my magazine column was twofold: First, the LOTTERY system encourages the same thing it was originally created to prevent (tanking); and second, since weighted Ping-Pong balls effectively guarantee that elite rookies will start their careers on terrible teams, the overall quality of the league has been compromised (because we effectively eliminated the chance of an elite rookie giving a boost to a half-decent team). Right now, there aren't enough good teams or enough bad teams -- hence, the nearly unwatchable 2006-07 regular season, when four-fifths of the league seems handicapped by its roster to some degree -- and as the past 13 years have proven, we're much more likely to see a top-four pick make the conference finals or NBA Finals with a team other than the team that originally drafted him.

One other note that was left on the cutting room floor from that mag column: The three most dominant teams from 1977-1988 came together more because smart teams snookered dumb teams over anything else. The Celtics stole Kevin McHale and Robert Parish from Golden State for Joe Barry Carroll. The Sixers landed Julius Erving because the Nets couldn't afford him after the ABA/NBA merger and sold him for $3 million. The Lakers landed Magic Johnson and James Worthy by trading New Orleans and Cleveland mediocre players for future first-round picks (for instance, Marc Stein's head would explode if a 2007 team made the equivalent trade of Cleveland giving up an unprotected 1982 first-round pick for Don Ford). One-sided heists simply don't happen anymore, so it's harder and harder for good teams to become great (especially with the salary cap and luxury tax hindering everyone).

Anyway, check out the following top-four picks in every draft since 1994. In parentheses, we put the Ping-Pong seed of the team that drafted in that spot (for example, Dallas had the worst record in '94):

1994
1. Glenn Robinson, Milwaukee (No. 2, tied)
2. Jason Kidd, Dallas (No. 1)
3. Grant Hill, Detroit (No. 2, tied)
4. Donyell Marshall, Minnesota (No. 4)

1995
1. Joe Smith, G-State (No. 5)
2. Antonio McDyess, LAC (No. 1)
3. Jerry Stackhouse, Philly (No. 4)
4. Rasheed Wallace, Washington (No. 2, tied)

1996
1. Allen Iverson, Philly (No. 2)
2. Marcus Camby, Toronto (No. 3)
3. Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Vancouver (No. 1)
4. Stephon Marbury, Milwaukee (No. 4)

1997
1. Tim Duncan, San Antonio (No. 3)
2. Keith Van Horn, Philly (No. 5)
3. Chauncey Billups, Boston (No. 2)
4. Antonio Daniels, Vancouver (No. 1)

1998
1. Michael Olowokandi, LAC (No. 3)
2. Mike Bibby, Vancouver (No. 5)
3. Raef LaFrentz, Denver (No. 1)
4. Antawn Jamison, Toronto (No. 2)

1999
1. Elton Brand, Chicago (No. 3)
2. Steve Francis, Vancouver (No. 1)
3. Baron Davis, Charlotte (No. 13)
4. Lamar Odom, LAC (No. 4)

2000
1. Kenyon Martin, New Jersey (No. 7)
2. Stromile Swift, Vancouver (No. 4)
3. Darius Miles, LAC (No. 1)
4. Marcus Fizer, Chicago (No. 2)

2001
1. Kwame Brown, Washington (No. 3)
2. Tyson Chandler, LAC (No. 8)
3. Pau Gasol, Atlanta (No. 5)
4. Eddy Curry, Chicago (No. 1)
5. Jason Richardson, G-State (No. 2)

2002
1. Yao Ming, Houston (No. 5)
2. Jay Williams, Chicago (No. 1, tied)
3. Mike Dunleavy, G-State (No. 1, tied)
4. Drew Gooden, Memphis (No. 2)

2003
1. LeBron James, Cleveland (No. 1, tied)
2. Darko Milicic, Detroit (thru Memphis, No. 6)
3. Carmelo Anthony, Denver (No. 1, tied)
4. Chris Bosh, Toronto (No. 3)

2004
1. Dwight Howard, Orlando (No. 1)
2. Emeka Okafor, Bobcats (expansion)
3. Ben Gordon, Chicago (No. 2)
4. Shaun Livingston, LAC (No. 3)

2005
1. Andrew Bogut, Milwaukee (No. 6)
2. Marvin Williams, Atlanta (No. 1)
3. Deron Williams, Utah (No. 4)
4. Chris Paul, New Orleans (No. 2, tied)
5. Raymond Felton, Bobcats (No. 2, tied)

2006
1. Andrea Bargnani, Toronto (No. 5)
2. LaMarcus Aldridge, Chicago (via NY, No. 2)
3. Adam Morrison, Charlotte (No. 3)
4. Ty Thomas, Portland (No. 1)

Some follow-up notes ...

• The No. 5 seed (Smith, Bargnani, Yao) won the lottery more times than the No. 1 seed (LeBron and Howard) and the No. 2 seed (Robinson and Iverson). Kinda funny when you consider the widespread tanking that's happening right now.

• Out of 39 potential top-three spots in those 13 lotteries, teams seeded lower than No. 5 cracked the top-three five times: two 6-seeds ('05 Milwaukee and '03 Detroit via Memphis), one 7-seed ('00 New Jersey), one 8-seed ('01 Clippers) and one 13-seed ('99 NO/Charlotte). In other words, you had about a 13 percent chance of seeing ANY TEAM seeded lower than No. 5 crack the top three in any given year ... which means the league's crappiest teams had an 87 percent chance of grabbing an elite rookie and infecting the first stage of his career with nonstop losing (call it the Elton Brand Corollary).

• Since 1994, the Grizzlies have drafted in the top-four seven times (with their 2003 pick going to Detroit); the Clippers have done it six times; and the Bulls have done it six times since 1999 (once via a New York pick). Why do we keep rewarding poorly managed teams with elite rookies? Why? It makes no sense.

• Four teams had top-four picks for at least three straight years: The Sixers during 1995-97, the Grizzlies during 1996-2000, the Clippers during 1998-2001 and the Bulls during 1999-2002. The Sixers eventually played in the 2000 Finals (and lost). The Grizzlies haven't won a single playoff game. The Clippers finally made the playoffs last season ... now they're on the fringe of the lottery again. And the Bulls made the playoffs in 2005 and 2006 but never seriously contended.

• Since 1994, only three top-four picks won a title: Duncan three times with the Spurs (who drafted him), Wallace with the '04 Pistons (his fourth team) and Billups with the '04 Pistons (his fifth team).

• Only two top-three picks played in a Finals with the teams that originally drafted them: Martin (the '02 and '03 Nets) and Iverson (the '00 Sixers). Only one top-three pick played in a conference finals with the team that originally drafted him: Robinson (the '00 Bucks).

• Seven top-four picks played in either the NBA Finals or a conference finals with a different team than the team that drafted them: Kidd, Stackhouse, Wallace, Van Horn, Billups, Bibby and LaFrentz. All of those players were traded by their original teams within four years.

• Only four teams immediately became playoff teams by landing a top-four pick: The '98 Spurs with Duncan (20 wins to 56), the '00 Hornets with Davis (26 wins to 49), the '04 Nuggets with Anthony (17 wins to 43) and the '07 Raptors with Bargnani (headed for 45-plus wins and a top-four seed).

• Four other teams became playoff teams within two years of landing a top-four pick (without help of a trade): the '96 Pistons (46 wins, first-round loss), the '04 Rockets (45 wins, first-round loss), the '05 Bulls (47 wins, first-round loss) and the '07 Jazz (headed for 50-plus wins and a top-five seed).

• Of the 15 different franchises that had top-four picks from '94 to '99, eight landed back in the top four within five years: the Bucks ('94/'96 and '05), the Grizzlies ('96-'98 and '03), the Warriors ('95 and '02), the Clippers ('95 and '00; '98-99 and '04), the Hornets ('99 and '04), the Nuggets ('98 and '03), the Raptors ('98 and '03 or '06), the Bulls ('99 and '04) -- and two more are slotted for top-five picks in this year's lottery (the Celtics and Hawks). That's 10 of 15 teams.

• The top six 2006-07 teams (Dallas, Phoenix, San Antonio, Detroit, Utah and Houston) feature just six top-four picks (Stackhouse, Duncan, Wallace, Billups, Deron Williams, Yao), only three of whom were drafted by their current teams.

What does all of this mean? We can summarize it in four points:

1. The lottery system was originally created to prevent teams from tanking for better draft picks ... which is exactly what's happening right now (as described in the magazine column). So they completely failed in that regard.

2. The lottery system also hoped to turn the fortunes of struggling franchises. Well, as we just proved, it completely failed in that regard, too. If anything, top-four picks have a significantly better chance of struggling for a few seasons, then getting traded before finally landing on a contending team. It's much, much, MUCH less likely that they will turn around their first franchise themselves.

3. We've had one major lottery success story so far -- the Spurs winning three titles with Duncan -- which was actually a complete fluke because the Spurs averaged 59 wins from '94 to '96, then dropped to 20 wins because their best two players (David Robinson and Sean Elliott) played a combined 45 games in '97. In the past 20 years, only two No. 1 picks won titles for their original teams: Robinson ('87) and Duncan ('97).

4. For everyone rooting for tanking franchises right now and dreaming of multiple titles with Oden or Durant ... just remember, you never know.

[MavsX]

this shit is crazy!

but true


stern needs to change this shit asap

[Windmill360]

Apparently, we are "tanking" because we are resting our players for the postseason. Per Cold Pizza.