I am under the impression that you guys are confused by the situation. The rolling 5 years would not total a five year span of a particular team but instead would be a five year total of a specific position out of the playoffs.
Your interpretation is how I read it as well, in contrast with how I feel some posters are reading the proposal.
Correct: Lottery Odds for each DRAFT POSITION re-apportioned each year based on prior points earned at draft position, regardless of individual team finish in those prior 5 years.
Incorrect: Lottery Odds for each TEAM re-apportioned each year based on prior points or draft position of that team in those prior 5 years.
I calculate below in second column the odds using the proposed formula from the article for '08-'09 season through '12-13. Third column is actual odds used for 2013 draft. Fourth column is projected 2014 draft using the proposed formula in the article. My numbers don't match the article exactly, likely due to how I handled the non-playoff teams who were above 17th position in the standings (the exceptions they cite), but my numbers are very close.
# "new"2013 2013 "new"2014
17 0.6% 0.5% 0.7%
18 1.6% 0.8% 1.7%
19 2.1% 1.1% 2.1%
20 3.1% 1.5% 3.2%
21 4.4% 2.1% 4.3%
22 5.2% 2.7% 4.8%
23 6.1% 3.6% 6.0%
24 7.3% 4.7% 7.1%
25 8.2% 6.2% 7.9%
26 9.1% 8.1% 9.7%
27 9.8% 10.7% 10.1%
28 11.4% 14.2% 11.1%
29 13.3% 18.8% 12.9%
30 17.9% 25.0% 18.4%
100% 100% 100%
It is clear there are three big impacts on lottery odds:
1) HUGE IMPACT: how many draft positions will have lottery odds, i.e., traditional first pick only, top 3 picks, top 5 picks, and how those odds are re-set with each pick. We don't have a lot of insight as to how that may be done. It could be big.
2) HUGE IMPACT: how many picks a team can move up. My understanding is there is no limit on how many picks a team can move up. That actually hurts Buffalo's chances for the #1 pick, assuming they do indeed finish 30th. Under the 2012 and years-prior system a team could only move up 4 picks maximum, so the 30th team had 25% + 4.7% + 3.6% + etc... = 48% chance at first pick.
3) MINOR IMPACT: A proposed re-apportionment of lottery odds linked to cumulative standings will have a larger impact (in absolute terms) to the bottom 3 teams (compare the 3rd column to the 2nd and 4th) than the remaining teams. But I still feel the impact (if adopted) is smaller than #1 and #2 above, and I think the numbers above support my contention.
Back to the article, I think such a re-apportionment, as proposed in the article,
will favor overt tanking even more by the bottom-most teams. Want to increase your odds from ~18% to closer to the historic 25%? Simply earn fewer points that year. Heck, it will turn tanking into not just a "race" for last place, but instead also a race for the fewest points. Moreover, each successive season will be diluted by fewer cumulative points earned, driving teams to earn even fewer points in future years to achieve the same draft odds as the previous-years 30th place team.
But, if multiple teams overtly tank in a given calendar year, their net effect will be to create a broader "tail" in the cumulative distribution, which will be somewhat "washed out" by the %-of-points-earned basis anyway - a scenario which is already addressed by the current odds-determined-by-place-order finish system.
I see no "anti-tank incentive" from the proposed re-apportionment of lottery odds in #3 above (the Friedman article).
