<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">SECAUCUS, N.J. (AP) -- The NBA may consider examining its draft lottery system after speculation some teams weren't trying their best to win late in the season, with the hope of improving their chances of getting the top pick. Stern would like the owners to talk about the current weighted lottery, which gives teams with the worst records the best chance of selecting No. 1. He said he likes the system but wasn't happy with the way some teams played down the stretch. "I haven't spoken to a lot of owners," Stern said. "On the end of the season and what teams do competitively, I think we should look at the lottery system and see whether it can be improved. I believe that." Boston, which had the second-best chance of winning the lottery, rested some starters for the fourth quarter of a game and blew a lead. "It's a system that favors teams to not win games," Philadelphia 76ers president and general manager Billy King said. "I think any time you have a system like that, it's not good for the league. It's something I'm sure that will be brought up and discussed and debated." </div> Source: Yahoo Sports
You know what would be something? If Stern rigged the lottery to get the three tanking teams (Boston, Memphis, and Milwaukee) to get left out of the top three while he continued to ruin Phoenix's chances of improving by making sure ATL got the number 3 pick. Ah...the conspiracies....
<div class="quote_poster">Mamba Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">You know what would be something? If Stern rigged the lottery to get the three tanking teams (Boston, Memphis, and Milwaukee) to get left out of the top three while he continued to ruin Phoenix's chances of improving by making sure ATL got the number 3 pick. Ah...the conspiracies....</div> I was thinking that too. "Hmm, I could kill a few birds with one stone. Teach the tankers not to mess with the system, teach Phoenix not to mess with me and try to even out of the East by helping out the Hawks." <div align="center"></div>
I think they should just get rid of the lottery all together, I think after todays events, its evident its not really a fair system, where the draft is meant to help improve the worst teams, and the 2 worst teams arnt picking until 4 and 5.
How isn't it fair? Luck plays a good part in it, and the two worst teams were unlucky. Say they change the system and the worst team gets first pick...say Oden came out next year, instead. A terrible team would more than likely tank their season to get him. The lottery is fine. It's luck.
I think it should just go by Win / Loss record, finish with the worst record, and you get the first pick in the draft. It's kind of stupid if lets say the Clippers got the #1 pick in the draft, even though they're technically the 14th worst team in the league, while the teams that need the most help (Boston & Memphis) are pushed furthur down the order. Teams can tank with the way it is currently anyway, so I mean thats going to happen no matter what.
Dallas got Josh Howard at 29. Seattle got Rashard Lewis at 32. Milwaukee got Michael Redd at 42. Gilbert Arenas went in the 40s, Carlos Boozer in the 30s. All All-Stars. Dirk went 8, Amare dropped to 9, Pierce dropped to 10 etc. It's only when there is a can't miss superstar or two that people whinge about the draft lottery system. Otherwise it comes down to scouting, judgement and luck. Boston could have had Brandon Roy last year, but instead opted for Telfair and a salary dump. And FWIW, that is the first time since the lottery was introduced that the worst three teams have all missed a top three pick. Looking at all the contenders in the league, San Antonio is the only one who is really built around draft luck, and even they have surrounded Duncan with Parker (pick 28) and Ginobili, who went second round.
Yeah, it should be restated that scouting plays a big part in it. Unless it's can't-miss superstars, the drafts are all toss ups. Who was the number 1 pick in the '98 draft? It was Olowkandi. Does his career resemble anything of a number 1 pick? More often then not, high draft picks aren't always the most accomplished ones. Even current stars such as Kobe, Pierce, Arenas, Nash were all picked quite a while away from the number 1 pick. It really depends on the player, and the direction that the team is heading, and thus, it depends on luck more then anything.
It seems everyone forgot about the Houston kicker yelling out Reggie Bush's name when he missed a kick and lost a game. I'd hate to see a lottery-less NBA over the course of 82 games. It'd be 10 times worse than the last month of this season and teams would tank even if there wasn't a "can't-miss" prospect like Oden or Durant. I personally think the systems fine the way it is. And for all the fans that are complaining about how they were screwed by the lottery, at least you've never had to see your team win the lottery but pick 2nd overall.
I would actually like the whole draft process to be televised, instead of them just showing someone open up the envelopes. Who knows what goes down behind the scenes?
<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It seems everyone forgot about the Houston kicker yelling out Reggie Bush's name when he missed a kick and lost a game. I'd hate to see a lottery-less NBA over the course of 82 games. It'd be 10 times worse than the last month of this season and teams would tank even if there wasn't a "can't-miss" prospect like Oden or Durant. I personally think the systems fine the way it is. And for all the fans that are complaining about how they were screwed by the lottery, at least you've never had to see your team win the lottery but pick 2nd overall.</div> Agree. If anything a lotto like the one we just had would encourage teams to not tank because even getting the worst record in the league doesn't get you the top pick. The tanking would be much worse and more blatant if it was known for sure that the worst team in the league got the #1 pick. There doesn't seem to be any solution to this problem either. Can you blame a horrible team for resting their star player when they are clearly out of the playoffs? Most guys are very beat up, many have nagging injuries and need surgery so its smart for them to get a head start on the offseason and shut it down a few weeks early. However sitting your starters just for the 4th Q seems like obvious tanking, its not possible to prove it and getting rid of the lottory would only condone this type of behavior.
<div class="quote_poster">NTC Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I think they should just get rid of the lottery all together, I think after todays events, its evident its not really a fair system, where the draft is meant to help improve the worst teams, and the 2 worst teams arnt picking until 4 and 5.</div> Portland and Seattle aren't particularly a playoff team for a while. At least, Boston and Memphis had played in the playoff last season. Portland hasn't been in the playoff since Rasheed lefts. So afterall, it is fair and balance in the end.. The lottery system is fine the way it is.
<div class="quote_poster">Brian Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I would actually like the whole draft process to be televised, instead of them just showing someone open up the envelopes. Who knows what goes down behind the scenes?</div> Then you know before hand where the picks are going...lol. So there is no suspense after, and no one is watching. I think Boston got the first pick, they looked at it and said, they don't deserve it, give it to Portland, they are young, and No oden in the east.
Actually, I think Stern would have liked to have Greg Oden in the East. Think of all the amazing match ups that him being drafted by an Eastern Conference team would lead too. Greg Oden vs. Dwight Howard, Greg Oden vs. Chris Bosh, Greg Oden vs. Emeka Okafor, etc. Even the Greg Oden vs. LeBron James/Dwyane Wade match ups would be interesting because some of the best young talents in the NBA would be matching up. It would also help the East catch up to the West talent wise. Also, I'm sure Stern would love to have Oden in a big market city like Boston. The Celtics have a very prolific past and I think Stern would much rather have a budding superstar there than in Portland. I actually can't think of a reason why David Stern wouldn't want Greg Oden in the East.
I don't think it's the fairest system, but nothing comes out the way it's suppose to most of the time. Don't forget the Grizzlies only had a 25% chance at the pick and the Celtics with 19%, if you were to have a spinner, would you really think you'd get the first pick 1 out of 4 or 1 out of 5 times? I don't think it's rigged, because David Stern wouldn't have want the East to slip down even furthur, it's just luck involved.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I think it should just go by Win / Loss record, finish with the worst record, and you get the first pick in the draft. It's kind of stupid if lets say the Clippers got the #1 pick in the draft, even though they're technically the 14th worst team in the league, while the teams that need the most help (Boston & Memphis) are pushed furthur down the order. Teams can tank with the way it is currently anyway, so I mean thats going to happen no matter what.</div> This kinda encourages tanking though, as you know if you have the worst record, you DEFINATELY get the first pick, I don't like it that much. The way it is right now is okay, teams will just have to live with not always getting it the way they want.
<div class="quote_poster">NTC Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I think it should just go by Win / Loss record, finish with the worst record, and you get the first pick in the draft. It's kind of stupid if lets say the Clippers got the #1 pick in the draft, even though they're technically the 14th worst team in the league, while the teams that need the most help (Boston & Memphis) are pushed furthur down the order. Teams can tank with the way it is currently anyway, so I mean thats going to happen no matter what.</div> No way, going by win/loss record definitely ensures tanking. Not very smart. It's fine how it is. It's a lottery. The team with the worst records have the best chance of securing the first pick. They won't necessarily get it, but they have the best shot. That's more than fair. Stern would be smart not to tinker with this.
<div class="quote_poster">Ford_11 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Then you know before hand where the picks are going...lol. So there is no suspense after, and no one is watching. I think Boston got the first pick, they looked at it and said, they don't deserve it, give it to Portland, they are young, and No oden in the east.</div> I think he means that they should televise the actual ping pong balls coming out rather than just opening up the envelopes, just like the real lottery. That way there wouldn't be any conspiracy theories, other than "THEY PUT WEIGHTS IN THE PING PONG BALLS SO THAT THEY WOULDN'T FLOAT UP!"
Oh, I get it. But they don't tell you what team is is for. It's always happend, where the worst team hasn't got that pick. But, I guess it just the way the cookie crumbles, or the way the balls fall.
