Draft Lottery

Draft lottery

 

Lakers will win #1. Watch & see

 

 

As a Bucks fan I'd rather have the 2nd. There is no clear #1 this year and the expectations that go with the #1 overall are always unreasonable. With the one and done college farm system few draftees come in anymore and make a significant impact as a rookie. Give them time to develop without the TOP pick expectations.

 

 

...and ESPN can't get the graphics right on the selection show,.

 

Commies.

Go Bucks fan!

Cleveland again?? WTF??

 

At least the Bucks get the 2nd pick.

Of course...

C'mon. It's Cleveland.

 

After Johnny Football leads the footballers to a 4-12 record, they'll need a pick-me-up.

The NBA is really paying Cleveland back for them losing Lebron James.

Was there ever a hot chick named Mallory on TV before ?

Mallory Keaton from Family Ties was pretty tasty back in the day:

 

 

Unless you want to avoid drawing any wood for several days, don't look up the modern day photos of Justine Bateman.  The years have not been kind.

Cleveland only had a 1.7% chance of winning it and go figure

 

in the last 20 years only 3 of the teams with the worst record actually won the draft lottery and it's not fixed?  Uh OK 

Justine needs to mix in a steak now and again.  

I was hoping the Knicks' pick that they traded to Denver would win, just to rub salt into the wounds of everybody at MSG.

since it seems "odds" are pretty complicated for people; the "field" always has a greater chance of getting the first pick than the "favorite".  It shouldn't surprise anyone that the worst team often doesn't get the first pick.  That is the risk in tanking. 

The probability of everyone understanding odds are about the same. Which seems odd. 

not if you normalize the population using z scores.

 

but ain't nobody got time for that

1.7% chance !! Hey at least the Lakers got screwed....and #2 is a good thing boys !!

 

Think it's got to be between Wiggins, Embiid, and Parker.  Of course with Hammonds love for youngsters Exxum is probably in the running. 

Okay, most mocks I've looked at have Wiggins going first (a few have Emiid and fewer still have Parker first.) If it is Wiggins going first, do you take Embiid or Parker at #2?

The problem with odds are over a big enough number they should even out. At 32 times the NBA would of run enough lotteries under the current system to start to get to significant numbers. if by then the worst team in the league are not close to winning 1/4 of the time there begins to statistical evidence the draft is fixed.  As it is the result over time of the NBA draft is beginning to look a suspicious. I think the last time the worst team in the NBA won the lottery was 14 years ago, a normal distribution of wins would be the worst team winning at least 3 times.

In Los Vegas they assume a player is cheat is that they are winning  that is beating the odds. The NBA is close to the point were they would be thrown out of a Los Vegas casino.

There is no doubt that it's not a guarantee that the worst team will win the draft lottery.   Even at 25% those aren't great odds. 

What bugs me is that there have been plenty of instances where teams like the Cavs with literally no chance to win have won it.  In fact,  I'll bet those teams with a less than 2% chance have won it more than the worst teams with a much greater probability. 

There is always an angle - and it goes all the way back to the Knicks and the frozen envelope. 

Just scrap the current format and give it to the teams with the worst records like just about every other sports league does.

clearly the lottery didn't stop teams from tanking, so it really doesn't serve it's original purpose anymore.

 

But it does get to be one more event the NBA can use to get headlines, so I assume it stays. 

 

 

 

Well, not really.  Just like each coin flip is it's own sample and whether you get heads or tails is not dependent in any way over what the flip prior was. 

Except if you flip a coin a hundred times and it comes up heads a hundred times the probability of that happening is so remote that you should be checking to see if a double headed coin is being used.

The league is trying to pay back Cleveland for losing LeBron.  It's as simple as that.  How else can you explain them winning it three times in recent history since he left?

 

It's no different than New Orleans winning the lottery when they were owned by the league, or Chicago winning it and taking Derrick Rose to revitalize a once great franchise, or San Antonio winning it (the ONLY year they tanked) and taking Duncan, or even better the Shaq or Ewing situations.  

 

 

 

I'd speculate the bigger problem is winning the lottery twice and still being in the lottery two years later

It would be odd, but the odds of flipping heads on the 1,001th flip would still be 50/50.

 

It's also not remotely close as an example to what has happened in the NBA lottery. 

 

(I just can't buy for a second the league has a master manipulative plan that has the Clippers suck forever, San Antonio dominate, and to give Cleveland LeBron so they can move him to Miami but still give them a pile of early lottery picks as compensation.  Maybe I am the crazy one.). 

 

Here are some pictures to help explain

It would be odd, but the odds of flipping heads on the 1,001th flip would still be 50/50.

turnip's whole point is that the coin is then likely not a "fair coin" in which case the odds on the 1,001th flip would not be 50/50.

On espn, it was reported Cavs are leaning toward Embid.

 

       
       

Let them. They took bust city last year- a D Leaguer that was a #1 overall. Take the guy with the inability to stay on the court next. They deserve it.

When the Bucks won to get Bogut, they beat the odds. Still think he was the right pick.

Parker, Smart (whom I am warming up to), or Wiggins. I'll still take Parker- he'll be a killer I think. The only issue is he plays SF. Antetokoumpo is also slated to play there. I think Antetokoumpo can play 2G (some), but they would be F heavy. Smart or Exum (who admittedly I know nothing about) would possibly be the play here. Look what Lillard has done for Portland, or Curry for GS. G may be the play...

If Parker is there I take him.  He's the safest choice and a good character guy. 

If he's gone I probably take Smart.  I know he had the issue at Texas Tech with the fan but he is a matchup nightmare.  Much more athletic than people think and tough as nails.  He's also built like a linebacker.

Exum and Embiid are boom or bust guys IMO and I would take Wiggins over those two.  Embiid reminds me of Greg Oden and Exum is simply an unknown 18 year old.

I've changed my mind about the lottery being fixed after watching

 

Scar Jo knew Cleveland was going to win it all along

Well El-KA Bong that link you provided helps makes my point. Out of 22 lottery draws  using the current system the worst team only won twice. Under a normal distribution the worst team should of won 5 and 1/2 times for a variance  of 3.5 a big number for such a small sample. While the sample size of 22 is too small to say with any degree of certainty that the lottery is fix (the sample size at a minimum needs to be at least 32) as things stand now it looks fishy. I suspect if one did a complete analysis taking into account all the long shots that won the lottery that the results would  suggest the lottery is fixed with a fair bit of certainty. I don't need to explain why the NBA is messing with the draft just that the number are currently suggesting they are.

Here is some usefully reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

 

I guess yours is the only logical conclusion.  The NBA established a system to discourage tanking by rewarding the field with a 75% chance of winning the top spot over the ****tiest team.  But as you say, we can conclude with a woefully unstable sample size that something must be fishy. 

 

The odds of Cleveland winning 3 out of 4 years is less than .01 percent (assuming all lotteries are independent, like the coin flip example above).  That is simply amazing.  Not impossible (there is the NBA's trick on us all), but amazing.  Clearly the NBA intends to keep Cleveland losing because it is best for the league, because it seems that is what Cleveland is doing well. 

 

Herb Kohl must also be behind this mastermind, since the Bucks have moved up more than most other teams.  With his departure, so goes the benefit of the balls. 

 

Since all the teams have to be on board with this plan (and all the owners, more concerned with the welfare of the other teams than their own vested interests) as they witness this slight of hand behind closed doors.  They all knew it was in the best interest of the NBA to have CLEVELAND be the top name.  The Lakers and Celtics, being the benevolent franchises they are, knew it was in the best interest of the sport for CLEVELAND to get the first pick in the draft.  Really, this proposed scenario makes way more sense as a conspiracy than something happening by chance. 

 

As for your math, I'm not familiar with your creative methodology for determining variance.  I went to Wikipedia, and it told me I needed to determine the average of the squared difference of the mean.  That is not what you did.  Using your math for my coin flip example, if you flipped a coin 100 times and had it come up head 46 times, you would assume the variance was abnormally high and must mean the NBA really, really wants to see a winner in Cleveland (a better example would be 22 times, to keep with the unstable sample size theme).  Your bringing up the normal curve could be useful, if you were willing to calculate the standard deviation for the lottery, and determine if something happening 10% of the time, when expected to happen 25% of the time falls outside of the normal range?  And if so, just how far outside the normal range?  For example, would it be like flipping 45 heads (1 standard deviation) or 40 heads (two standard deviations)?  I simply don't have time to run enough trials (the math for 100 coin flips is easy after 6 sam adams, for a sample where each participant has a different probability, not so much), but I would speculate we are within at least two standard deviations, which means there is a 95% likelihood we are ok to the point of not raising eyebrows (unless that is what they want us to do.  Cripes this rabbit hole just keeps getting deeper and deeper).  Of course, you are welcome to do the math yourself being the one so concerned that the fix is on, just please calculate variance correctly. 

 

So, the results are an outlier, but statistically significant and not outside the realm of chance?  It doesn't look that way to me, even with the overwhelmingly obvious evidence the NBA feels the need to control these outcomes, really the only scenario that makes sense.  I'm guessing the NBA knew the best player in the draft was going to fall outside the consensus top 4, so as to not raise any suspicions, they manufactured the balls to keep LA and Boston where they can really sign the genuine talent. 

after 6 sam adams

Do I ever LOVE Sam Adams.  My beer of choice.

I'm guessing the NBA knew the best player in the draft was going to fall outside the consensus top 4, so as to not raise any suspicions, they manufactured the balls to keep LA and Boston where they can really sign the genuine talent.

Huh?

Sarcasm, right?

If it's such a valid process why hold it behind closed doors?  I mean, really?

As for Boston and LA - it's not like they are in the lottery year after year but that same theory has worked pretty well in the past for Chicago (Rose),  San Antonio (Duncan), New York (Ewing), a 41 win Orlando (Shaq),  among others.

The real conspiracy theory would be for Cleveland to improve and LeBron return the prodigal son and win a title.  Talk about a storybook ending.

I'm really still waiting for a theory I buy.  You think the nba wanted a dynasty in San Antonio?  The nba orchestrated Lebrun leaving Cleveland so they could suck, draft badly, then have him come back?  Why the hell are the bucks one of the top teams to have benefited from the lottery?  

 

It it is held behind closed doors for the drama.  I'f they did it in front of everyone, they could not count down from the bottom to number one.  are we assuming the new Bucks ownership was cool with Cleveland getting the top pick under the conspiracy theory hore****?  

Clearly a case of one whopper of a statistical aberration where motive seems a stretch to identify.

 

Still, striking the #1 in 3/4 years is compelling.

 

Leastways, it seems that way to me.

And for a bit of sports trivia, on the Spur's #1.

 

Just a reminder that Robinson went down that year else no way the team would have been in the lottery.

 

So, one year a team with no Robinson -and- Duncan to the following year with both.  Quite an addition.  Each would be considered one of the better #1's ever.

Rumors abound that Hammond covets Dante Exum.

Little reading up on him and it appears intriguing, especially considering Hammond's penchant for taller players who create mismatches. He's 6'6", plays the point, is compared to Micheal Carter-Williams, attacks the rim, and has a 6'9" wingspan. You really get the feeling this is the kind of guy Hammond loves. Signed with Kobe's agent. Turns 19 in July.

And this might be where the selection of Drew makes the most sense- he knows how to coach PGs. Feed your coach the talent that he needs for his system. And looking around the league, it is easy to see- Lillard, Wall, Westbrook... The league is going with the big PGs with the ability to blow by anyone, look to score, create...

I have a feeling it's going to be Exum. Then your startng lineup is a bunch of tall, long armed, young guys. If they can get Sanders' head on straight, might be a pretty formidable lineup if they develop properly...