True Hoop discusses an interesting post by Craig Kwasniewski regarding lottery-bound NBA teams seemingly attempting to lose games in order to secure more ping-pong balls in the forthcoming lottery. Other writers have observed the same phenomenon. For instance, Celtics Blog recently chronicled "Operation Shutdown," the sudden rash of "injuries" experienced by the Celtics, which closed out the season by losing 5 of their last 6 games--games started by bench players, while Paul Pierce & Co. sat out. Many Celtics fans, myself included, were disappointed to see the team win last night and thus tie the Minnesota Timberwolves for the NBA's 6th worst record, meaning fewer ping pong balls for the Men in Green. Speaking of ping pong balls, I calculated the following probabilities chart, based on a variety of sources, for the 2006 Lottery. I think it is right, but let me know if it needs any changes (my last statistics class was in college . . . and it's been 10 years since I took that class):
| 2006 NBA Draft Lottery Probabilities (now reflecting tie-breakers) | Ping-Pong Balls | 1st Pick Likelihood | 2nd Pick Likelihood | 3rd Pick Likelihood | Likelihood of 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Pick |
| Portland Trailblazers, 21-61 | 250 | 25.0% | 21.6% | 17.8% | 64.4% |
| New York Knicks, 23-59 | 199 | 19.9% | 18.8% | 17.0% | 55.7% |
| Charlotte Bobcats, 26-56 | 138 | 13.8% | 14.3% | 14.5% | 42.6% |
| Atlanta Hawks, 26-56 | 137 | 13.7% | 14.1% | 14.2% | 42.0% |
| Toronto Raptors, 27-55 | 88 | 8.8% | 9.7% | 10.6% | 29.1% |
| Minnesota T-Wolves, 33-49 | 53 | 5.3% | 6.4% | 7.1% | 18.8% |
| Boston Celtics, 33-49 | 53 | 5.3% | 6.4% | 7.1% | 18.8% |
| Houston Rockets, 34-48 | 23 | 2.3% | 2.7% | 3.4% | 8.4% |
| Golden State Warriors, 34-48 | 22 | 2.2% | 2.4% | 3.0% | 7.6% |
| Seattle Supersonics, 35-47 | 11 | 1.1% | 1.3% | 1.6% | 4.0% |
| Orlando Magic, 36-46 | 08 | 0.8% | 0.9% | 1.0% | 2.9% |
| New Orleans Hornets, 38-44 | 07 | 0.7% | 0.8% | 1.0% | 2.6% |
| Philadelphia 76ers , 38-44 | 06 | 0.6% | 0.7% | 0.9% | 2.2% |
| Utah Jazz, 41-41 | 05 | 0.5% | 0.6% | 0.7% | 1.8% |
The chart seems to show that non-playoff teams could, in fact, perceive an interest in losing games, particularly since most drafts have three or four outstanding prospects, and then a sharp drop-off in talent. While players have no apparent reason to play poorly, an owner or general manager could seemingly instruct or pressure the head coach to give more minutes to bench players.
Perhaps the most recent and egregious example of purposeful losing by an NBA team occurred in the 1996-1997 season, when teams were jockeying for the worst record, in hopes of securing the coveted first pick in the draft, which would be used to select Tim Duncan. At the time, the Celtics were coached by M.L. Carr, who was also the team's general manager. The team lost 67 games, thus securing the worst record (but it didn't win the lottery). Having watched a number of their games that season, it seemed that they always found a way to lose. Five years later, Carr would assert that he was indeed trying to lose games:
Carr suggested his last season as Celtics coach in 1996-97, during which the team suffered through a franchise-worst 15-67 record, was a tank job designed to deliver the incoming coach (Rick Pitino) with strong draft position.Do we believe Carr when he says that he was trying to lose games--with the obvious implication that the team's record didn't reflect his talents as a coach or GM--or did he lose games simply because he wasn't very good at coaching or team management? We'll probably never know. But what's interesting is that the lottery system was seen as a way of deterring teams from tanking games. As I wrote in Illegal Defense: The Irrational Economics of Banning High School Players from the NBA Draft:
"That was part of the orchestration," said Carr, an obvious indictment of the entire organization and its part in encouraging a losing season in an attempt to get the first overall pick (Tim Duncan). As it turned out, the Celtics lost out on Duncan and settled for the third and sixth overall picks.
Mark Cofman, Celtics Dismiss Outspoken Carr, Boston Herald, Feb. 1, 2001, at 84.
The NBA Draft has possibly created incentives for teams to lose games in order to secure better draft position. Such a concern was amplified at the end of the 1983-84 season, when the Houston Rockets were alleged to have deliberately lost games in order to secure the worst record in their conference, thereby giving them a 50 percent to chance to win the top pick and select Hakeem Olajuwon, who starred at nearby University of Houston. After this scenario played out, the concept of the “Lottery” was adopted during the 1984 NBA owners’ meetings, whereby all seven non-playoff teams would have an equal chance to secure picks one through seven.The lottery system has evolved quite a bit over the years. But does it need further adjustment in order to deter apparent purposeful losing? Kwasniewski proposes several solutions, including giving every non-playoff team an equal chance at winning the lottery. Interesting idea, and it would likely eliminate purposeful losing, but it seems to go against the talent re-distributive purpose of the draft: supply the most potential help to the weakest teams. But does the current lottery system work? And do teams actually try to lose games or is that more conspiracy and hindsight bias than truth?
0 comments:
Post a Comment