1.    Tanking Part II:    The last month of the season has not really been too engaging.  Most teams locked into their playoff or lottery slots pretty early.  Even the eight seed battle in the East sorted itself out with little suspense.  This has turned many a writers (including myself) to the inevitable "resting" of key players on bad teams to improve odds of winning the lottery.  John Hollinger and Bill Simmons both gamely came up with solutions to the tanking issue.

 

The current lottery system assigns odds for getting the top pick based upon the number of losses a team accrues.  This encourages a bad team to lose even more than it already has in order to improve its odds of winning big in the lottery.  When it was first instituted in 1985, the lottery system gave all the non-playoff teams equal odds of winning a top three pick, whether they lost 40 games or 60 games but this system was abandoned in 1994 when it seemed like the better lottery teams were getting the top picks.  So, losses have become more of a premium and the bad teams seem to chase this goal.  How do we fix this problem?  Hollinger advocated keeping the current system but freezing the odds to match the standings as of March 15.  Simmons has some radical side thoughts but basically would like to return to the old lottery system, where odds are not affected by number of losses accrued.  Sports Law Blog also had a great breakdown of the tanking phenomenon and some possible solutions and the downside of each of these solutions.

 

I am somewhat agnostic about the whole issue.  There are a number of questions that have to be answered before we can really resolve the issue.  The most fundamental question is: are teams tanking?  It doesn't seem that teams are overtly trying to lose but good players do seem to hit the injured list and bench players seem to get much more playing time.  There is also a palpable sense of ennui to these meaningless games, though I'm not sure how to quantify that point because a game between two bad teams late in the year usually won't grab you whether they are playing their best players or not.  But it bears repeating that tanking was at least as big a problem before any lottery was ever instituted and was the reason we have a lottery to begin with. 

 

This leads us to the next question: what is the purpose of the draft lottery?  It seems the lottery, as currently constituted, seeks to reduce incentive for tanking but also still give the worst teams better odds of winning than the teams just off the playoff pace.  The real question is how to balance those two conflicting goals.  It should theoretically be possible to re-weight the loss accrued odds so that some advantage is conferred to be a really bad team, just not as much as you get right now.

 

Indeed, in a chat on ESPN.com yesterday, David Stern seemed to agree with that solution noting that "there has been suggestion we should unweight [the lottery] a bit and I would say that is something we will look at after the season is over."   A jiggering of the odds also won't eliminate tanking.  No matter what the system, teams will manage their way to be in the best possible position.  But I think the lottery isn't meant to eliminate tanking as much as it is to give somewhat less of a reward for tanking.  Let's face it...bad teams lose even when they're trying so, tanking a bit more usually isn't that much of a stretch.
 

The interesting final point on all of this, as Simmons points out, is that losing the most games does not guarantee getting the top pick, and, in fact, the team with the worst record has won the lottery less often than better teams.  The bad teams continue to tank, however, because they want that shot at a franchise changing star like Shaquille O'Neal or LeBron James.  But how often does the best player in the draft end being that star?  Here is a look at the top pick and the player who ultimately ended up being the best in each draft from 1979 through 2001 (it's a bit early to make judgments about the drafts of the last few years):

 

Year    Top Pick                        Best Player

1979  Magic Johnson          Magic Johnson

1980  Joe Barry Carroll      Kevin McHale (3rd overall)

1981  Mark Aguirre            Isiah Thomas (2nd overall)

1982  James Worthy           James Worthy and Dominique Wilkins (3rd overall)

1983  Ralph Sampson         Clyde Drexler (14th overall)

1984  Hakeem Olajuwon     Michael Jordan (3rd overall)

1985  Patrick Ewing             Karl Malone (13th overall)

1986  Brad Daugherty         Tie between Mark Price (25th overall), Dennis Rodman (27th overall), and Jeff Hornacek (46th overall)

1987  David Robinson         David Robinson

1988  Danny Manning         Mitch Richmond (5th overall)

1989  Pervis Ellison             Shawn Kemp (17th overall)

1990  Derrick Coleman       Gary Payton (2nd overall)

1991  Larry Johnson            Dikembe Mutombo (4th overall)

1992  Shaquille O'Neal        Shaquille O'Neal

1993  Chris Webber             Chris Webber

1994  Glenn Robinson          Jason Kidd (2nd overall)

1995  Joe Smith                    Kevin Garnett (5th overall)

1996  Allen Iverson              Kobe Bryant (13th overall)

1997  Tim Duncan                Tim Duncan

1998  Michael Olowokandi  Dirk Nowitzki (9th overall)

1999  Elton Brand                 Elton Brand and Shawn Marion (9th overall)

2000  Kenyon Martin           Michael Redd (43rd overall)

2001  Kwame Brown             Gilbert Arenas (30rd overall)

 

The upshot of this exercise is that franchise-changing stars don't come along too often and you won't always find them with the first pick anyway.  When a Greg Oden-type comes up, teams will fall all over themselves to tank for him.  The small percentage chance of getting this type of player (in terms of lottery winning and then in terms of the player's actual ability) is worth a few wins in the short term.  It's always been that way before the lottery and today but I'm comfortable enough with a small re-weighting of the lottery to address the tanking issue.

 

2.    The Eight Seed:    Let's put all that tanking stuff aside for this year and talk about something more interesting...the playoffs.  More specifically the reward for winning that coveted (depending upon who you ask) eight seed.  With the exception of the 1998-99 Knicks and the 1993-94 Nuggets, both of whom needed serious heroics, no eight seed has ever gotten out of the first round since the playoffs were expanded to eight teams in 1983-84.  But the quality of eight seeds can vary wildly from year-to-year.  Indeed, eight seeds have won run the gamut from 30 wins to 47.  Here's a look at the eight seeds, ranked by regular season record (the 1998-99 teams were pro-rated to an 82-game season):

 

Year	Team	W-L	Pyth	Playoffs
2000-01	T-Wolves	47-35	45-37	1 and 3
2004-05	Grizz	45-37	48-34	0 and 4
2005-06	Kings	44-38	44-38	2 and 4
2002-03	Suns	44-38	44-38	2 and 4
2001-02	Jazz	44-38	44-38	1 and 3
1998-99	Knicks	44-38	44-38	12 and 8
1996-97	Bullets	44-38	46-36	0 and 3
1999-00	Kings	44-37	49-33	2 and 3
2003-04	Nuggets	43-39	44-38	1 and 4
1997-98	Nets	43-39	46-36	0 and 3
1991-92	Lakers	43-39	38-44	1 and 3
2004-05	Nets	42-40	36-46	0 and 4
2002-03	Magic	42-40	41-41	3 and 4
2001-02	Pacers	42-40	42-40	2 and 3
1999-00	Bucks	42-40	42-40	2 and 3
1995-96	Heat	42-40	45-37	0 and 3
1993-94	Nuggets	42-40	45-37	6 and 8
1993-94	Heat	42-40	48-34	2 and 3
1989-90	Pacers	42-40	41-41	0 and 3
1988-89	Celtics	42-40	44-38	0 and 3
2000-01	Pacers	41-41	40-42	1 and 3
1998-99	T-Wolves	41-41	43-39	1 and 3
1997-98	Rockets	41-41	39-43	2 and 3
1994-95	Nuggets	41-41	43-39	0 and 3
1992-93	Pacers	41-41	46-36	1 and 3
1990-91	Sonics	41-41	44-38	2 and 3
1989-90	Rockets	41-41	45-37	1 and 3
2005-06	Bucks	40-42	38-44	1 and 4
1986-87	Bulls	40-42	43-39	0 and 3
1995-96	Kings	39-43	33-49	1 and 3
1992-93	Lakers	39-43	38-44	2 and 3
1990-91	Knicks	39-43	40-42	0 and 3
1988-89	Blazers	39-43	45-37	0 and 3
1991-92	Heat	38-44	38-44	0 and 3
1987-88	Knicks	38-44	40-42	1 and 3
1983-84	Kings	38-44	37-45	0 and 3
1986-87	Nuggets	37-45	39-43	0 and 3
2003-04	Celtics	36-46	37-45	0 and 4
1996-97	Clippers	36-46	36-46	0 and 3
1984-85	Suns	36-46	35-47	0 and 3
1984-85	Cavaliers	36-46	34-48	1 and 3
1994-95	Celtics	35-47	36-46	1 and 3
1985-86	Spurs	35-47	36-46	0 and 3
1983-84	Bullets	35-47	33-49	1 and 3
1987-88	Spurs	31-51	29-53	0 and 3
1985-86	Bulls	30-52	31-51	0 and 3

 

-As you can see we have yet another reason to send Kevin Garnett our condolences.  His Wolves won 47 games in 2000-01, but even when his team was good, they were stuck in a really good conference and matched up with a good Spurs team.  In the Eastern Conference, the Wolves would've been a five seed and drawn an old Knicks team (that was beaten by the Raptors).

 

-The best team, in terms of point differential, was the 1999-00 Kings, who were 44-38 but scored to a 49-33 record.  The Kings were arguably the best team of the bunch.  They took a historic 1999-00 Lakers to a deciding game and would develop into a very good team the next season.

 

-Forget expansion, it seemed that the NBA was thinnest in the mid-1980s.  Among others, the Bulls, Spurs, and Bullets of the mid-1980s were not good but were able to sneak into the playoffs because there were so many crappy teams.  Incidentally, the 1985-86 Bulls were without Michael Jordan, who broke his foot early on in the season but returned for the playoffs (and lit up the 1985-86 Celts for 63 points).  By contrast, only a few random teams from more recent years were so poor (the 2003-04 Celts and the 1996-97 Clipps).

 

-The 1987-88 Spurs, were the worst team, in terms of expected won-loss at 29-53.  Their starting lineup consisted of Johnny Dawkins, Alvin Robertson, Walter Berry, Frank Brickowski, and Greg Anderson.  Brick led the team in boards with 6.9 rpg(!) and the team was outscored by almost 5 points per game.

 

-The 2004-05 Grizz were pretty good but had the misfortune of matching up poorly with a quick Suns team.

 

-Here's my All-Eight Seed All-Star Team:

 

PG:  John Stockton, 2001-02, 13.4 ppg, .517 FG%, 3.2 rpg, 8.2 apg, 21.9 PER

SG:  Michael Jordan, 1986-87, 37.1 ppg, .482 FG%, 5.2 rpg, 4.6 apg, 29.8 PER

SF:   Tracy McGrady, 2002-03, 32.1 ppg, .457 FG%, 6.5 rpg, 5.5 apg, 30.3 PER

PF:   Kevin Garnett, 2000-01, 22.0 ppg, .477 FG%, 11.4 rpg, 5.0 apg, 23.9 PER

C:     Patrick Ewing, 1990-91, 26.6 ppg, .514 FG%, 11.2 rpg, 3.0 apg, 23.7 PER