The Timberwolves’ 30-point win in Dallas on Monday helped contribute to a, umm, record – not one the NBA wanted to see set … again.
Through Friday’s results, there have been 89 games decided by 30 or more points in the association this season, the most ever in a single campaign.
The previous record of 80 was set … last season.
Blowouts galore.
Nine NBA games were played Friday night. Five of those featured margins of 30-plus points.
At the core of the lack of competitiveness is, of course, tanking – front offices and head coaches putting their heads together to intentionally set their teams up to fail in order to produce the highest probability of securing a high draft selection.
By year’s end, you have half the teams trying to figure out ways to win every game, and at least a third of the other ones attempting to achieve the exact opposite.
The end result – snoozefests for the paying customer. In March and April, when excitement should be mounting as the playoffs quickly approach, the league instead produces some of its least compelling basketball of the entire season.
There were 54 NBA games played over the last seven days. Only 10 – 18.5% – were decided by single digits.
The NBA acknowledges the issue. It’s why the League is considering three proposals to curb tanking, with all of the potential “solutions” aimed at lottery reform. But past attempts to achieve similar solutions proved futile.
Because, at the end of the day, it’s still more advantageous for bad teams to lose the most games. And the best way to do that is to trot out the worst collections of talent via roster construction and lineup creation.
Nothing the NBA has produced in terms of ideas will fix that.
So here’s one that will: The draft order should be determined by the number of competitive losses a team accrues.
A simple definition for a competitive loss: A defeat in which the margin was within 15 points.
No more incentivizing blowout losses. Those will do teams no good. If you can’t supply the paying customer with a competitive basketball game, then you will not benefit from the result.
Sure, there are flaws within this system, as is the case in all of them.
-A team could be penalized for being overly aggressive in pursuit of a desperation comeback late in a contest and seeing an 11-point loss turn into a 16-point defeat, though that sounds more like the actions of a non-lottery team, anyway.
-Teams could still sit their best players late in games in which they’re winning or trailing by only a few points in an attempt to increase their odds of adding another lottery-worthy L to their ledger.
Utah has committed the latter crime against basketball multiple times in recent weeks, sitting starters for entire fourth quarters in an attempt to secure defeat. That strategy remains pertinent here, though deploying it for 10-plus minutes could cost you a competitive loss somewhere along the way, so, at minimum, you’d be playing with fire.
At least the Jazz have proven good enough – even when they’re down numerous starters – to field lineups that require late tinkering to avoid victories.
That in itself shows a level of competence teams such as the Wizards – who routinely embarrass basketball – have yet to exhibit. And if you can’t prove yourself capable of putting out rosters that can merely compete on a night to night basis, then maybe you aren’t yet ready to house and develop a true, franchise-altering young talent.
In some ways, this system protects the prospective draftees. If it were implemented this season, the Wizards would rank in a tie for ninth among the 10 non-postseason teams, with only 25 qualifying losses (tying Milwaukee).
Dallas would pick No. 1 for the second straight season, while Memphis and New Orleans (whose pick is owed to Atlanta) would be slotted at No. 2 and No. 3 and the Pacers would pick fourth.
Meanwhile, teams like Brooklyn, the Wizards and Milwaukee would be tasked with fielding more competitive collections of talent in the offseason. Putting that onus on teams could lead to more roster opportunities for qualified veterans who are sometimes prematurely squeezed out of the association simply because they aren’t quite good enough to contribute to a title contender but aren’t bad enough to drag down a bottom feeder.
Force a few more adults onto the floor and watch the product improve.
There is certainly room for adjustments within the system. Perhaps the competitive loss quotient is only used to determine the lottery percentages, versus the ultimate order. Maybe your win total on the season could serve as a tiebreaker.
As it stands, the entertainment value would be off the charts. Yes, there would be some chicanery – whether it be fouling with 15 seconds left when you’re down 17, or perhaps running out the clock in the final two minutes when trailing by 10.
But imagine the fun for a fan base in celebrating a shot at the buzzer to trim the deficit from 16 to 14 in March to take one more step toward nabbing a game-changing talent in the ensuing summer’s draft.
And, most importantly, all 30 teams would be playing perhaps not to win, but at least to compete over the final month of the season. What an improvement that would be.
Because what happened Friday – what happened this week, what’s happened this season – simply cannot be accepted as the NBA’s new norm.
It’s a persistent slap in the face to all who regularly consume the league’s product. And that, above all else, is bad business.
How would it look?
How the NBA draft order would currently stand using the competitive loss quotient (with wins serving as the tiebreaker):
Dallas: 40
New Orleans: 37 (pick would go to Atlanta)
Memphis: 37
Indiana: 36
Sacramento: 33
Utah: 32
Chicago: 31
Brooklyn: 30
Milwaukee: 25
Washington: 25