Siiiiigh Bill Simmons

[Eagles]

I normally like him but his newest blog/article are some of the worst things I have read in a while.

Link Link

[Snupoker]

I have no idea who you are, but I always seem to hate your posts.

Simmons articles today are no worse/better than normal.

Why did you feel they were so horrible?

-snu

[Jack of Arcades]

I didn't see anything wrong with these. The NBA draft is pretty broken, but I dunno if that has anything to do with the lottery.

[tuq]

I pretty much agree 100% with Simmons in these articles. The guy knows the NBA, and I think the arguments he presented are solid, and clearly well researched.

[Pudge714]

In general he is horribly results oriented, just because the number five sides have ran balls hot in the lottery doesn't mean the system is broken.

This
[ QUOTE ]
• Since 1994, the Grizzlies have drafted in the top-four seven times (with their 2003 pick going to Detroit); the Clippers have done it six times; and the Bulls have done it six times since 1999 (once via a New York pick). Why do we keep rewarding poorly managed teams with elite rookies? Why? It makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is really stupid.

His conclusions are really wrong
[ QUOTE ]
The lottery system was originally created to prevent teams from tanking for better draft picks ... which is exactly what's happening right now (as described in the magazine column). So they completely failed in that regard.

[/ QUOTE ]
Teams tanking one year =! the lottery having no effect on the prevention of tanking.

[ QUOTE ]
The lottery system also hoped to turn the fortunes of struggling franchises. Well, as we just proved, it completely failed in that regard, too. If anything, top-four picks have a significantly better chance of struggling for a few seasons, then getting traded before finally landing on a contending team. It's much, much, MUCH less likely that they will turn around their first franchise themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again this is so results oriented. Having a high pick is clearly an advantage, because teams make scouting mistakes or coaching mistakes or injuries occur. Doesn't mean that having a top 4 pick decreases your odds of getting a franchise player.

[tuq]

Pudge,

His general point about crappy teams being rewarded for their crapiness (and then, for the most part, not capitalizing on said reward) is pretty hard to refute.

[THAY3R]

But the reason they havn't "capitalized on said reward" is mainly because the consensus top picks have been busts.

It's not so much that the Clippers made awful picks as much as it is their picks turned out awfully.

[tuq]

THAYER,

I guess that's true, but there is a reason some teams perennially suck, and it's not just the draft. Therefore, why reward ineptitude?

[Jack of Arcades]

But that's a failing of every draft system, not just the NBA's.

[Pudge714]

tuq,
To try and create some sort of competitive balance. Also here is an example, look at the Toronto Raptors. Before Colangelo they were a mediocre team, poorly run, they were burdened with lots of big contracts and they didn't draft well. Once Colangelo is hired should they get a new shot at drafting near the top? How many years of incompetence should it take for teams to get punished?