Drafting for Picks, Not Wins is bad teams 'tank' for better draft positions. It sits in the Incentives dimension (INC) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™ as element HBT-INC-0097, within the Sports Perverse Pattern family. The core principle: bad teams 'tank' for better draft positions. In incentive terms, it matters because it changes the payoff people perceive before they choose — which means it can be designed for, or exploited.
Scientific Definition
Bad teams 'tank' for better draft positions.
Plain-English Definition
Bad teams 'tank' for better draft positions.
Feynman Explanation
We're not losing. We're optimizing the draft.
Core Principle
Bad teams 'tank' for better draft positions.
Mechanisms
Pending editorial review.
Bad teams 'tank' for better draft positions.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Reward systems for failure produce failure.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Inputs (Triggers)
Pending editorial review.
Outputs (Behaviors)
Pending editorial review.
Behavioral Signature
We're not losing. We're optimizing the draft.
Examples
- NBA and NFL teams in late-season decline.
- Reward systems for failure produce failure.
Pending editorial review.
Original analysis from The Incentives Lab — how this element behaves inside real payoff structures.
Why this element matters to incentive design
The mistake with this element is treating it as irrationality. It is almost always a rational response to a payoff nobody wrote down. The mechanism underneath it is straightforward: bad teams 'tank' for better draft positions. You can recognize it in the field by its signature: we're not losing. We're optimizing the draft. Every element in the Incentives dimension changes the perceived payoff of an action before the action happens, which is exactly where incentive design has leverage.
How it gets exploited
Left undesigned, reward systems for failure produce failure. It is amplified whenever reward systems for failure produce failure. Inside organizations that shows up as reward systems for failure produce failure. The pattern is the same one Goodhart's Law describes: the measurable proxy attracts the effort, and the purpose behind it quietly loses funding.
How the Lab designs around it
The redesign move is to lottery systems. Sliding-scale incentives. Treat it as infrastructure. Once you can see it in your own system, most of the argument about culture resolves itself.
Famous Experiments
Pending editorial review.
Design Principles
- Lottery systems. Sliding-scale incentives.
Measurement Approaches
Pending editorial review.
Evidence
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
The Perverse Incentive Lens™
How this behavior is exploited — and how to redesign around it.
- Lottery systems. Sliding-scale incentives.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Interactive Mini Network
Click any neighbor to re-center the graph and follow the threads of connection.
Knowledge Graph Neighbors
Auto-linked to the rest of the Human Behavior Taxonomy by family, domain, dimension, and shared keywords.
Once any player dopes, everyone is forced to consider it.
Coaches paid on titles take more risk; coaches paid on attendance take less.
Discount framing nudges people to buy things they wouldn't otherwise want.
Productivity targets compress visits, raising misdiagnosis and burnout.
A federal mandate intended to lower drug costs for the poor became a profit engine for hospitals and contract pharmacies.
Earn-outs designed to retain founders often demotivate the team they bought.
Funnels rewarded for new logos under-invest in retention and lifetime value.
Free products monetize attention, structurally aligning incentives against user time well spent.
Tenure-track jobs replaced by low-paid adjuncts, lowering cost and quality.
Training for appearance can crowd out mobility, longevity, and mental health.
Cuts that lift margin this quarter erode product quality and brand equity over years.
Per-bushel subsidies reward overproduction of specific crops regardless of soil, market, or nutritional need.
Where Drafting for Picks, Not Wins is cited in the corpus
Essays, field guides, and diagnostics from The Incentives Lab that apply this element.
- Field guideIncentives: definition, types, examples
The parent field guide for this element.
- ReferenceThe laws of incentives
Goodhart, Campbell, and the Cobra Effect.
- EssayThe Comp Plan Is the Strategy
Where this element meets compensation design.
- ReferenceThe Periodic Table of Human Behavior
The full 1,267-element map this page belongs to.
- CourseIncentives 101
The free ten-part primer on reading a payoff structure.
Questions about Drafting for Picks, Not Wins
- What is Drafting for Picks, Not Wins?
- Drafting for Picks, Not Wins is bad teams 'tank' for better draft positions. It sits in the Incentives dimension (INC) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™ as element HBT-INC-0097, within the Sports Perverse Pattern family. The core principle: bad teams 'tank' for better draft positions. In incentive terms, it matters because it changes the payoff people perceive before they choose — which means it can be designed for, or exploited.
- What is an example of Drafting for Picks, Not Wins?
- Reward systems for failure produce failure. The Incentives Lab catalogs everyday, organizational, and historical instances of this element on its Human Behavior Taxonomy™ page (HBT-INC-0097).
- How is Drafting for Picks, Not Wins exploited?
- Reward systems for failure produce failure.
- How do you design around Drafting for Picks, Not Wins?
- Lottery systems. Sliding-scale incentives.
- Which behavioral dimension does Drafting for Picks, Not Wins belong to?
- Drafting for Picks, Not Wins is classified in the Incentives dimension (INC) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™, family "Sports Perverse Pattern", class "Perverse Incentive". Its permanent identifier is HBT-INC-0097 and its evidence grade is C.