Make the playin and win one but lose the second get the lowest lottery odds for the number one pick and then pull off a miracle and get a top 3 pick!
I've said for a long time that I think the best answer for tanking is to give the highest lottery odds to the best non-playoff teams instead of the worst ones. Would make it much more possible for middling teams to get out of purgatory.
What if you give the play-in teams an equal shot as the top 4 and 5? The loser gets the same odds as top five and the winner gets the same odds as top four? If the winner wins the next series their odds drop to top six. And then only 10 teams make the lottery based on record, plus the 4 play-in teams. Or is that too complicated? *Edit* changed number of lotto teams to total 14
The Warriors won and the Suns lost so they are tied with each other at .500 The Kings are still playing the Pelicans in Sacramento.
The NBA should just make the odds the same for all 14 lottery teams when choosing the top 4 picks. I am fine with a team intentionally losing 1 or 2 play-in games to miss the playoffs, or intentionally missing the play-in. Keeping the draft order the same as now after 1-4, the teams that lose in the play-in still most likely get the pick that they are slotted for by their record, 11-14. What is not fine is a team like Washington losing 82% of their games and getting a better chance at the first pick. The team with the most losses is still is rewarded with the 5th pick (at worst) .
Blazers 3.5 games behind the 3 teams in 9th-11th seeds with identical records. But at this point, I'm wondering if losses are a bigger factor than wins. Blazers have 4 more losses. Phoenix almost certainly will win the tie=breaker over Portland; the series is 2-2 but the 2nd tiebreaker is conference record and there's almost no chance the Blazers can catch them. So the Blazers are 4.5 games behind Phoenix. The season series between PDX/Kings & PDX/GS is still to be determined. Blazers have to beat Warriors in both remaining games. And they have to win at Sacramento I think the Warriors are going to be better with Butler. Kings might be with LaVine instead of Fox by the way, Phoenix got drubbed, at home tonight, by Denver. The Nuggets having been playing pretty well lately and they are always tough at home. I'd be surprised if Portland wins either of these two games after the all-star break, Blazers get the Lakers at the Moda, but it's the 2nd of a b2b for LA. Then it's 3 'easier' road games until the March gauntlet starts
I don't think it would matter take this season: come in as the 9th or 10th seed in the play-in and you're locked into the 8th seed. So here's your choice: win your play-in games and you get OKC who has HCA and the best record in the NBA...or...lose and you get an equal shot at Flagg or Bailey. I think more teams will find ways to lose than find ways to win.
I've never thought tanking is a problem. It can be unseemly but it's one of the least unseemly things about the NBA
So then we could have a team tank a playin game to get the same lotto chances as a team that lost 82% of their games? The current structure sounds way better to me.
I just don't see a problem with this. Washington has a roster with a bunch of young players and is building for years from now. Sure they are losing a lot today, but that is a more fun team to follow than Kuzma/Poole/Beal/Westbrook type of vets they held onto in prior years. I wish we followed that blueprint instead of our AytonGrantAnt trio earning 100 million. If a team makes the playin and loses that game intentionally on national TV the day before the playoffs that's 20x bigger problem and a major embarrassment for the team as well as the NBA.
See if you did this structure then your still incentivising teams to build a losing roster like the Wizards. This actually sounds like one of the worst structures possible as we'll still have teams tanking to guarantee a top5 pick and we'll have play in games tanking to try and jump into the top4.
Yeah, but that fucks over teams that are genuinely unlucky. You know, like us (with Oden, Roy et al.)
