Hoops Rumors

Late-season tanking is a perennial issue for the NBA, but it has been particularly bad so far in 2025, with teams who have their eye on the draft lottery employing new strategies in an apparent effort to get around the league’s player participation policies.

As Tom Haberstroh of Yahoo Sports and John Hollinger of The Athletic write, one approach that multiple teams have used this month is to hold key players out of crunch-time situations. Haberstroh refers to it as “quiet quitting.”

For instance, while Raptors forward Scottie Barnes has only missed one game this month, he has played more than 30 minutes in just three of 11 outings after averaging 34.7 MPG in 46 pre-March contests. Barnes and other Raptors starters have been on the bench in the fourth quarter of multiple games.

Because players like Barnes and Jazz forward Lauri Markkanen qualify as “stars” under the NBA’s player participation policy, holding them out of games entirely without a valid reason could prompt a league investigation — Utah has already faced one $100K fine for its usage (or lack thereof) of Markkanen.

However, that policy only explicitly applies to players who have made an All-Star or All-NBA team over the past three seasons. That means that the Nets, for instance, were able to hold a “non-star” like Cameron Johnson out of last Thursday’s game for “rest” even though Johnson was healthy and Brooklyn didn’t play on either Wednesday or Friday, Haberstroh observes.

When the NBA flattened its lottery odds several years ago, the goal was to reduce the incentives for losing games. But those changes haven’t been as effective as hoped in part because the league hasn’t incentivized winning for lottery-bound teams, Hollinger argues.

As Hollinger explains, even if losses didn’t improve a team’s lottery odds and draft position, a club like Toronto or Utah may not be incentivized to compete hard for wins at this point of the season, since there’s little reason to push a franchise player like Barnes or Markkanen, who are on lucrative long-term contracts, too hard in games that essentially don’t matter. “Asking a team to put meaningful players at risk in meaningless games is inherently a contradiction,” Hollinger writes.

So what could be done to address the issue? Tim Bontemps and Kevin Pelton of ESPN spoke to sources around the NBA about that subject and came up with a few possible ideas, some more viable than others.

Flattening the lottery odds even further was one of the ideas mentioned. Another was determining the odds based on how the lottery teams fare against one another during the season. However, both suggestions are complicated by the fact that a borderline playoff team may decide that having a viable shot at the No. 1 pick is a better outcome than eking out a playoff spot and being on the receiving end of a first-round beatdown from a top seed.

There would also likely be resistance to any proposal that significantly reduced the odds of the league’s very worst teams having a shot at top draft picks, since the NBA still wants to encourage competitive balance and avoid miring a club in a rebuild that it can’t find its way out of.

Multiple sources suggested to ESPN that removing mid-lottery pick protections on traded draft picks could be one step in the right direction. For instance, one of the most egregious cases of tanking in recent years saw the 2023 Mavericks rest players at the end of the season in an effort to hang onto their top-10 protected pick, even though they still had a shot at the play-in tournament. Allowing a pick to be top-four protected or top-14 protected, without any options in between, could eliminate that kind of scenario.

Another idea posed by sources who spoke to Bontemps and Pelton would be to count team wins instead of losses after the All-Star break for the sake of determining the draft lottery order.

For example, if a team posted a 19-35 record before the All-Star break, then went 18-10 the rest of the way, its “lottery record” would be 29-53, with its pre-All-Star wins added to its post-All-Star losses. If a second team that was also 19-35 at the break went 10-18 after the All-Star game, its “lottery record” would be 37-45, resulting in less favorable odds than the club that performed better down the stretch.

We want to know what you think. Does the NBA need to take steps to address its tanking problem? If so, what approach makes the most sense?

Head to the comment section below to weigh in with your thoughts!