Around the NBA- February 2018

Just needs to be based on revenue.

Nba should split the revenue distribution. Half of it should be split equally between all teams.

The other half should be split based on the winning percentage of the team.

 

Isn't strength of schedule even at the end of the season? I'm confused here?

 

Not if you use each opponent's strength as of the date you played them, not as of the end of the season.

 

SOS will never be even until all teams play all other teams an equal amount - that means either an 87-game (which still wouldn't be entirely even, given the home/away 2/1 split) or a 58-game season (the only way to have true parity in SOS). These days, SOS isn't even equal within conferences, given that teams play some team in their conference 3 times and others 4.

 

I had nothing to do and saw there was a replay of extremely high scoring Denver v Milwaukee game available so I watched it.

Nuggets have quietly built a very good team there. They are a proper small forward away from having a very bright future. Murray, Harris and Jokic are a great foundation to build on and entire starting 5 can shoot threes very well which is extremely impressive. Will be interesting to see how they build but they feel a bit like Warriors before they were ridiculous - two great shooters in the backcourt, a big from second round with great playmaking skills, an experienced free agent star (though he doesn't play now). Their defence needs to improve though but I like their outlook for the near future.

Wasting that pick on Mudiay will set them back a little but then again players that went after him, including Booker, would not have addressed the biggest issues they seem to have and would mostly only add to the riches.

 

Please tell me how this incentivizes parity?

 

"Too quick and strong for the refs to see it...."

Giannis traveled so hard on that play.

 

It does just the opposite. Half of revenue sharing goes to keeping all teams (and the league, as a byproduct) afloat, while the other half is incentive to win games. As long as the financial incentive to win now meets or exceeds the [risky] incentive to tank for the future, it has potential.

Now, whether that proper balance can be found is another question. If one more late season loss gives you a much higher chance at the top pick, how do you device a revenue distribution scale that punishes them as much for that loss? Overshoot the "punishment" and suddenly teams have no incentive to win, period. They're already too screwed to care.

I like the proposal, but thinking it through, I'm unconvinced it would work.

 

To be honest Brooklyn and Orlando have not built awful teams because of their desire to lose as many games as possible, which was my main problem. Brooklyn were a victim of a terrible trade because they did not bother to check the age of players they were acquiring from Boston, Orlando have been run like a joke for the last few years.

Teams like Atlanta, Dallas and Chicago this year were basically stripping their teams of any talent they had in order to get a very high draft pick. This is more of an issue than someone being genuinely bad but trying to get better (even if they are inept with their attempts)

 

The goal isn't to make them happy, the goal is to discourage tanking.

 

So Murray and Harris compare to Steph and
Klay? Millsap compares to Durant?

That core will never be good enough defensively. It starts with the man in the middle, and Jokic is a seive.

 

Just my own personal opinion, but the league would do better by rewarding those losing teams in some way. Just saying, "we aren't going to reward you as much for sucking" isn't going to be much of a deterrent. A lot of these teams are run badly by people who would rather save a few bucks and still jack it in after a certain point in the season. Maybe having the equivalent of a Rule 5 draft for players for G league players or NBA bench players around the league would be way to encourage teams of a certain market size (if they reached a certain winning percentage.) But telling teams it's bad to not tank in a league that is currently dominated by just a few teams is the height of arrogance. And I honestly think Silver is looking for ways outside of the draft as the future of the league. I think it's why he's putting so much stock in the expansion of the G league itself.

 

The logistics of a Rule 5 type draft would be too tricky.

They need to give teams 1-22 (All non 2nd round participants) odds, with the top team having something like a 15% chance to win. Draw for the top 10 teams instead of top 3.

5 Worst Teams Have a 58.9% chance of getting a top
Teams 6-9 Have a 22.7% chance at the top pick
Teams 10-14 have a 12.4% chance at the top pick
Playoff teams have a 6% chance at a top pick

1 - 15%
2 - 13.2%
3 - 11.6%
4 - 10.2%
5 - 8.8%
6 - 7.4%
7 - 6.2%
8 - 5.1%
9 - 4%
10 - 3.1%
11 - 2.7%
12 - 2.4%
13 - 2.2%
14 - 2%
15 - 1.4%
16 - 1.2%
17 - 1.0%
18 - 0.8%
19 - 0.6%
20 - 0.4%
21 - 0.3%
22 - 0.2%

I think that's enough to discourage tanking, while still maintaining parity.

 

Obviously they are all worse and lesser talents (although Harris v Thompson is IMO not that far in terms of ultimate potential), but they play like mini-Warriors, they space the floor very well and Jokic is far better than any center Golden State have had recently. I had Iguodala not Durant on my mind with Millsap though, obviously they are far from being able to attract a Durant but Golden State before Durant were already a fantastic side. It really is a similar team in terms of how it has grown, and I've seen a comparison of 2017-18 Nuggets to 2013-14 Warriors and it made sense. Of course the chance of them becoming a 70+ win team are basically close to zero, but it's not the point.

They could end up being a great offensive team with average defense, although if they start playing team defense better it might get to a point where it doesn't hurt them nearly as much as it might if they don't address the issue. The balance they have on their offense is already spectacular, some of the plays from that Milwaukee game and the previous ones that I've seen were out of this world and a pure joy to watch.

Lyles has also been great for them and is young enough to improve a lot.

I'm not really talking them up as a short-term contender, more as a team who will play very fun basketball for several years to come and at some point might be in championship conversations. When Murray, Harris, Lyles and Jokic hit their peak, Warriors stars will be past their best already. Philadelphia have better outlook for the next decade because of their much superior defense but on the other hand, there aren't any major issues with the health of any of Nuggets prime talents while there are obviously question marks over how long Embiid can sustain high level play without getting hurt. Simmons is on a completely different level to anyone in this conversation though, and if he adds a shot to his game (and he will add a shot, I am confident of that), he will be unplayable.

They seem to have the same issues as us though, i.e. great backcourt but not amazing wings, plenty of money locked into players who are not going to elevate them to a contender (Millsap, IMO it wasn't a great deal, Faried etc.), although our backcourt is better (but also much older) and our center is worse offensive (but superior defensively). Neither of us have any hope at small forward, and both of us seem to have several ways to address the power forward issue but Denver has it better.

 

I don't see one future all-star level player on their team other than Jokic. They have no depth. They don't have Kerr.

Warriors before Kerr is what I'd expect. No better though.

 

Probably. It's still going to be plenty fun for their fans to watch this team going forward, and maybe one of the next two drafts will bring them talent to compete. They could have had Mitchell last year if they hadn't traded him (he wouldn't fit there though).

Philadelphia will be properly insane. Their role in 2018 draft has been largely neglected but it's likely they will have something like no. 9 and no. 22 or so this year. They could address a few issues. Also, Trae Young has been falling so maybe they will be able to get him in the end - that would be nuts because he might be exactly the player they need.

Its a shame for them they lost that Kings pick though (unless it falls no. 1).

 

I'm sure Adam Silver loves this:

 

Fine coming in 3....2...