By Jeje Gomez | Pounding The Rock (PtR), 2026-04-30 23:43:24
据 ESPN 的 萨姆斯·查拉尼亚 (Shams Charania) 报道，NBA 已告知各队总经理，希望最早在 2027 赛季实施新的反摆烂改革。这些广泛的措施预计将获得老板们的足够支持以通过。
新方案以令人困惑的方式彻底改变了乐透的运作方式。来自 SB Nation 的 瑞奇·奥唐纳 (Ricky O’Donnell) 对此做了很好的总结：
- 联盟战绩最差的三支球队处于“降级区”，这意味着他们会失去乒乓球（抽签概率）。
- 倒数第 4 到第 10 名的球队在抽签中获得 3 个乐透球。
- “降级区”的球队获得 2 个乐透球，且顺位不会跌出前 12。
- “东西部各分区的第 9 和第 10 名附加赛种子各获得 2 个乐透球，7-8 名附加赛的负者各获得 1 个乐透球。”
- 乐透区从 14 支球队扩大到 16 支。
- 在现行制度下，只有前 4 顺位通过抽签决定。现在，选秀的前 16 个顺位都将通过抽签产生。
- 球队不能连续两年获得状元签，也不能连续三次抽中前 5 顺位。
这里有很多需要剖析的地方，且大多是负面的，奥唐纳在这里做了大师级的分析。在继续阅读之前，建议先读读那篇文章。
现在，让我们来看看马刺球迷最关心的问题：
拟议的乐透改革对马刺有何影响？
最简单的答案是：没有影响。至少没有实质性的影响。
马刺因为 德阿隆·福克斯 (De’Aaron Fox) 的交易欠国王队一个 2027 年无保护首轮签，但除非发生真正的灾难，否则在今年赢得 62 场胜利后，他们下赛季理应仍是一支季后赛球队。此后，圣安东尼奥掌握着自己所有的选秀权，考虑到其核心阵容的优秀与年轻，这些选秀权本就不该出现在乐透区。这支球队已经完成了摆烂，并为未来做好了准备。
马刺拥有的额外选秀权和互换权会怎样？同样，变化不大。老鹰队欠银黑军团 2027 年的无保护首轮签，他们下赛季有可能退步并陷入附加赛，从而给圣安东尼奥一个冲击状元签的机会。考虑到他们在交易掉 特雷·杨 (Trae Young) 后的成功表现，这看起来可能性不大，但并非完全没有可能。
至于马刺在 2030 年与独行侠、凯尔特人和森林狼的选秀权互换，可能根本不会受到影响。联盟可以在 2029 年选秀后选择退出这种模式，谁知道届时会由什么来取代它。即使保留这种模式，2030 年也还很遥远。目前，预测拥有超级巨星的球队届时会取得成功更为稳妥，但谁也无法确定。也许其中一个互换权会变得更有价值，但我们要到 2029 年才能知晓。
那么，如果改革并不影响每一支球队，为什么它会受到如此多的关注？
这些变化似乎是过激反应
反摆烂规则的微调有必要吗？答案是肯定的。摆烂已经到了必须采取行动的地步。球队会让健康的球员轮休，或者让他们上场打半场就下场，以确保不会赢球。很少有人会认为这样做对联盟或球迷有好处。但是，需要如此剧烈的变革吗？
联盟已经拥有一种可以遏制最公然摆烂行为的手段：罚款。犹他爵士队在 2 月因实质性的“控分”行为被罚款 50 万美元。对于一支 NBA 球队来说，这似乎是零花钱，但如果持续受到处罚，也会感到肉疼。
如果罚款力度不足以震慑摆烂，还有其他针对性的经济惩罚手段。如果连续三年排名垫底的球队不能参与收入分成会怎样？如果提高他们的薪资下限以迫使他们增加支出又会怎样？这类制裁将直接惩罚摆烂球队，而不会在通知极短的情况下彻底改变现状，并可能因为少数几支球队过于公然地致力于垫底而产生大量意想不到的后果。
公平地说，对于像奇才这样的球队，这似乎也是对马刺及其他通过选秀建队成功的球队的一种反应。圣安东尼奥连续三年抽中前五顺位，锁定了 维克托·文班亚马 (Victor Wembanyama)、斯蒂芬·卡斯尔 (Stephon Castle) 和 迪伦·哈珀 (Dylan Harper)。在新制度下，他们将不被允许这样做。问题在于，虽然马刺充分利用了他们的乐透运气，但获得高顺位并不能保证成功。而现在的改变让那些没能像马刺那样摆烂的球队处境更加艰难，却没有真正惩罚到马刺。这一切感觉都非常像是一种应激反应。
季后赛结束后，我们将有时间讨论选秀和休赛期。目前，重要的是要了解，尽管这种深度改革乍看之下似乎不是个好主意，但它不应该对马刺产生任何实质性的伤害。
由生成式 AI 翻译，译文内容可能不准确或不完整，以原文为准。
点击查看原文：How the NBA’s proposed lottery reform affects the Spurs
How the NBA’s proposed lottery reform affects the Spurs
The NBA has informed general managers about the new anti-tanking reforms it hopes to implement as soon as the 2027 season, according to ESPN’s Shams Charania. The wideraging meassures are expected to have enough support from owners to pass.
The new plan completely changes how things work with the lottery, in confusing ways. Ricky O’Donnell from SB Nation summarizes them well:
- The three worst teams in the league are in the “relegation zone,” which means they lose ping-pong balls.
- Teams that finish 4th through 10th in the reverse standings get three lottery balls in the drawing.
- Teams in the “relegation zone” get two lottery balls and can’t fall further than the 12th pick
- “The Nos. 9 and 10 play-in seeds in each conference receive two lottery balls each, and the losers of the 7-8 play-in games receive one lottery ball each.”
- The lottery is expanded from 14 to 16 teams.
- Under the current system, lottery balls are only drawn for the top-4 picks. Now, the first 16 spots in the draft will be up for grabs in the drawing.
- Teams can’t land the No. 1 pick in back-to-back years, and they can’t pick in the top-5 three times in a row.
There is a lot to break down there, mostly bad, and O’Donnell does it masterfully here. Give it a read before continuing.
Now, let’s get to what matters to Spurs fans:
How does the proposed lottery reform affect the Spurs?
The simplest answer to that question is, it doesn’t. Not in any meaningful way, anyway.
The Spurs owe the Kings a 2027 unprotected first-round pick from the De’Aaron Fox trade, but unless something truly catastrophic happens, they should still be a playoff team next season after winning 62 games this year. After that, San Antonio is in control of all of its picks, which should still not be in the lottery, considering how good and young their core is. The franchise already did its tanking and set itself up for the future.
What happens with the extra pick and the swaps the Spurs have? Not much, once again. There’s a chance the Hawks, who owe the Silver and Black their unprotected 2027 first-rounder, take a step back next season and land in the play-in, giving San Antonio a chance at the top pick. Considering how successful they were once they traded Trae Young, it doesn’t seem likely, but it’s not completely out of the question.
As for the pick swaps the Spurs have with the Mavericks, Celtics, and Timberwolves in 2030, they might not be affected at all. The league can opt out of this format after the 2029 draft, and who knows what could replace it. Even if they keep the format, 2030 is a long time away. Right now, it would be safer to predict that franchises that have superstars will be successful by then, but it’s impossible to be sure. Maybe one of those swaps becomes more valuable, but we won’t know until 2029.
So, if the reform doesn’t affect every team, why is it getting so much attention?
The changes seem like a massive overreaction
Were tweaks to the anti-tanking rules necessary? The answer is yes. Tanking had gotten to a point where something had to be done. Teams were sitting healthy players or having them suit up, play for a half, and then sit them out to ensure they would not win. Few people would agree that doing things like that is good for the league or the fans. But was such a drastic change needed?
The league had an instrument to use already that could have curbed the most blatant cases: fines. The Utah Jazz got fined half a million dollars for essentially point shaving back in February. It might seem like chump change for an NBA franchise, but getting consistently hit with them would hurt.
If fines felt not hefty enough to deter tanking, there are other ways to disincentivize monetarily in a targeted way. What if the franchises that finish in the bottom three in consecutive years don’t get to participate in revenue sharing? What if their salary floor gets raised to force them to spend more? Sanctions like that would directly punish the tanking teams without completely changing things with little notice and potentially creating a lot of unintended consequences because a few franchises were too blatant about their commitment to bottoming out.
To be fair to the Wizards of the world, this also seems to be a reaction to the success of the Spurs and other teams that built through the draft. San Antonio picked in the top five three years in a row, securing Victor Wembanyama, Stephon Castle, and Dylan Harper. They would not be allowed to do that with the new system. The issue is that while the Spurs made the most of their lottery luck, landing a high pick doesn’t guarantee success. And changing things now makes it harder for the teams that didn’t get to tank like the Spurs without actually punishing the Spurs. It all feels very reactionary.
There will be time after the playoffs to discuss the draft and the offseason. For now, the important thing to know is that even though such a deep reform doesn’t seem like a good idea at first glance, it shouldn’t hurt the Spurs in any meaningful way.
By Jeje Gomez, via Pounding The Rock