Sefko Says Del is Done

by Wes Cox on May 24, 2007 3:34 PM CDT in News Comment 5 comments

I skipped over this article this morning because I thought it was going to be a duplicate of the one in the Star-Telegram. The one where Jeff Caplan said in passing that Del Harris could possibly take another position within the organization.

Eddie Sefko went a step further than that today, essentially saying that Del Harris's days on the Mavs bench are over.

Avery Johnson will be looking for two new bench coaches in the coming days.

The Mavericks also must decide who takes Del Harris' spot on the bench. It's possible Joe Prunty will become Johnson's No. 1 assistant, replacing Harris. But there certainly will be at least one new member of the staff on the bench next to Johnson.

Harris has been offered another job in the organization.

So does that mean Harris isn't welcome back as the assistant? That would definitely surprise me.

--------------------

Also, Mark Cuban has come up with a solution to "fix" the lottery, which I think is pretty good.

Replace the lottery with a simple better team record or coin flip based on conference standings. In other words, for the last two teams in each conference , the team with the better record gets the first pick. If its a tie, there is a coinflip. The next to last in each conference face off. The better record gets the 3rd pick, a coin flip breaks a tie, all the way up the standings.

This wont completely eliminate teams from committing to "player evaluation games" at the end of the season, but it does take into account the relevant strengths of the conferences and teams places within the conferences. Its possible that a 25 win team in the better conference is a much better team than a 25 win team in the weaker conference, yet they both get equal weight in the current lottery. They shouldn't.

What makes this system potentially exciting is that teams will have something to play for at the every end of the season. How much fun would it have been watching Boston and Memphis compete to win enough games to get the #1 pick?

0 recs | Comment 5 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Lotter "fix"

I like a lot of Mark's ideas on his blog, but I think this is a horrible idea. The lottery needs MORE chance to discourage tanking, not less.

Take this season for example. If Boston had known that they'd be guranteed to at worst receive the #2 pick if they finished with the worst record in the East, don't you think they'd have tanked even worse?

And would you really want a situation where the worst teams in each converence meet late in the season, and the first pick is actually on the line, not just the best odds at the first pick? I mean can you imagine Boston and Memphis playing in the last week of the season this year, and whoever loses is GURANTEED Greg Oden?

It's a horrible, horrible idea, imo.

Again, you need MORE chance. Give all the lottery teams more even odds, if your goal is less tanking.

by jthig32 on May 26, 2007 9:52 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

That's what

they do in the NFL though, and they've never had a problem that I can think of.

My solution:

Use the teams' three year record (as opposed to just that year's record) to determine the picks.

That would stop a lot of the tanking (it's tough to lose enough games late in a season to effect numbers that large) and it would stop the San Antonio Conundrum (when a good team loses it's star player for the year, sucks ass, and then gets a super high pick... thus making a very good team better).

Thoughts?

Dirk Nowitzki: Softer than a melted frosty.

by thedirkatron on May 27, 2007 12:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not bad

Not a bad idea.

by jthig32 on May 27, 2007 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The NFL

Is not concerned with tanking, that's why they do it that way.

Basically, you have two choices:

You make it best for competitiveness. This means you guarantee the worst teams the best picks, thus evening out the talent every year (theoretically). Downside is you have teams losing games on purpose.
You make it mostly chance, therefore eliminating the desire for teams to tank. Downside is you don't good picks for the worst teams.

The NBA is using a hybrid, obviously, to try and get a little of both. If you want to "fix" it, then you have to decide which way you want to fix it. Cuban's idea will increase tanking, not decrease it, imo.

by jthig32 on May 27, 2007 11:07 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

i think

i'd rather have a tier type thing.

bottom 4 teams have equal shot at picks 1-4 which is chosen via drawing.

next 4 teams have equal shots at picks 5-8.

next 4 teams have equal shots at picks 9-12

next 4 teams have equal shots at picks 13-16

and THEN the next 14 teams have equal shot at picks 17-30.

don't like the lottery being just the top 4 picks. a team finishing with the worst record is guaranteed a top 4 pick AND still have a 25% chance of getting the top pick.

then again, maybe that would lead 6 or 7 teams "tanking", but it wouldn't punish teams that aren't tanking buy guaranteeing them a 28th or 29th or 30th pick. everybody would have a shot at a top 17 pick.

by gossamer on May 28, 2007 2:46 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs