PDA

View Full Version : Lottery Rigging Potential



AceMan
04-17-2012, 09:59 PM
It seems like every year, people say that the lottery was rigged. So I want to point something out. Of the teams with the seven worst records, five of them would create legitimate story lines that people could use as "evidence" when claiming the lottery was rigged:

- The Bobcats (currently have 25% chance of winning) could end up with the worst winning percentage in NBA history, and are owned by Michael Jordan. And they're hemorrhaging money. Sending Anthony Davis to Charlotte makes a currently irrelevant franchise relevant.

- The Hornets (currently have a 15.6% chance of winning) lost Chris Paul to a big market and just went through one of the bigger controversies in recent memory (Stern blocking the original CP3 trade). Oh, and they just got sold, people could claim that Benson only bought the team with a wink wink agreement that he'd get Davis.

- The Kings (currently have an 11.9% chance of winning) may be moving. If they stay, Stern wanted them to and gave them Davis to give the city of Sacramento more incentive to get an arena deal done (in fact, for those of you who are even more cynical, Stern could have promised the city Davis if a stadium deal happens between now and the lottery). If they move, Stern wanted to give the new city more reason to support the team.

- The Cavs (currently have an 8.8% chance of winning) won it last year, and are just now getting over losing LeBron. Stern might want to help them get over LeBron even faster by giving them a Kyrie-Davis combo. Winning the lottery twice in a row has to mean it was rigged right?

The Nets (currently have a 5.4% chance of winning) are moving to Brooklyn next year and may not have a recognizable star if Deron leaves. Stern would give them Davis in an effort to convince Deron to stay so a big market would have two stars, and even if Deron still leaves Brooklyn would have one star to rally around. In fact, if the Nets pick falls outside of the top 3 it goes to Portland, so naturally if it is in the top 3 it's because Stern demanded it so a good player would go to a big market instead of a small market.

Add those five percentages with the extra 1.1 New Orleans has from Minnesota, and you have a 67.8% chance of there being a legitimate storyline behind this year's lottery winner, and by extension a bunch of ridiculous claims that it's rigged. That's not counting the 19.9% chance that Washington wins it (a big market team that's been struggling and would get to pair up two Kentucky #1 overall picks in 3 years). Oh, and if any of the other teams with their collective 12.3% wins than it's clearly for Stern throwing everyone off by giving it to the little guy every once in the while.

Here's my point: THE LOTTERY IS NOT RIGGED! There are story lines for EVERY POTENTIAL WINNER! I'm pointing this out now so that next month when one of those teams in the 67.8% wins hopefully nobody is going to make these ridiculous claims.

PleaseBeNice
04-17-2012, 10:04 PM
Rigged

ManRam
04-17-2012, 10:05 PM
If you believe in conspiracy theories like this, there's always away to convince yourself something was rigged.

The reality of the matter is that there are reps from all 30 teams witnessing everything...so you'd think that if one team was getting dicked over...someone would eventually say something about it.

The lottery is not rigged, and I say that with the utmost confidence. I'd bet my first born on that!

bholly
04-17-2012, 10:06 PM
Yup. I've been thinking I'll do a poll a week or two before the lottery, where everyone picks the 2 or 3 teams they think it's most likely to be rigged for. I think there'll be some interesting results.

Raps18-19 Champ
04-17-2012, 10:07 PM
Pathetic. :pity:

Embarrassing people actually think it's rigged.

Outside of the suspicious 2011 lottery, nothing indicates it was rigged.

More-Than-Most
04-17-2012, 10:08 PM
If you believe in conspiracy theories like this, there's always away to convince yourself something was rigged.

The reality of the matter is that there are reps from all 30 teams witnessing everything...so you'd think that if one team was getting dicked over...someone would eventually say something about it.

The lottery is not rigged, and I say that with the utmost confidence. I'd bet my first born on that!


why not just televise the ball being picked instead of how they do it?

homestarunner93
04-17-2012, 10:09 PM
How about just get rid of the idiotic lottery and there won't be any issues with it being rigged.

bholly
04-17-2012, 10:12 PM
Pathetic. :pity:

Embarrassing people actually think it's rigged.

Outside of the suspicious 2011 lottery, nothing indicates it was rigged.

Even the 2011 lottery doesn't suggest it. The Clippers pick that the Cavs had had a 10% chance of moving up and a 2.8% chance of winning overall.
If anything it's less suspicious than Chicago winning in 2008 (6.1% chance of moving up and 1.7% chance of winning overall).

ManRam
04-17-2012, 10:12 PM
How about just get rid of the idiotic lottery and there won't be any issues with it being rigged.

Tanking would be so much more of a bloodbath without the lottery. That would be awesome!

bholly
04-17-2012, 10:13 PM
why not just televise the ball being picked instead of how they do it?

It can take a long time and would be extremely bad/boring television - the reverse order reveal like they currently do is much more exciting.

I definitely agree they should just put the lottery footage online somewhere after the reveal, though. No idea why they don't do that.

LGhost
04-17-2012, 10:16 PM
Those really aren't stories, of course a bad team getting the number 1 draft pick and hopefully changing the team for the better will create good media but bad teams getting the best player would happen regardless of the lottery or not... A good story would be like Chi-Town getting a hometown star and him making the team a serious contender...

You're reaching pretty far with your made up stories and you could come up with an endless amount of "stories" with how out of whack they are...

That's not to be an attack, I also think the NBA is scripted, at least in some regards...

Celticsfan2007
04-17-2012, 10:36 PM
Those really aren't stories, of course a bad team getting the number 1 draft pick and hopefully changing the team for the better will create good media but bad teams getting the best player would happen regardless of the lottery or not... A good story would be like Chi-Town getting a hometown star and him making the team a serious contender...

You're reaching pretty far with your made up stories and you could come up with an endless amount of "stories" with how out of whack they are...

That's not to be an attack, I also think the NBA is scripted, at least in some regards...

Fail. You sir make my eyes bleed.

jrm2054
04-17-2012, 10:38 PM
This in no way convinces anyone who thinks it is rigged that it's not

Cal827
04-17-2012, 10:38 PM
Rigged. Completely Rigged. :D

On a side They should also make a new rule... If a team loses 70, they are guaranteed first or second overall... cause even taking shouldn't get you to 70 losses :facepalm:.. those teams are just plain atrocious.

AceMan
04-17-2012, 10:40 PM
You know what would be awesome? If instead of the lottery, they did something like the team with the 3rd worst record got the 1st pick. Then there would be so much strategy involved in tanking. You'd have to figure out exactly how much to win and tank, but also try to figure out what every other team was thinking in that regard. It would be awesome. Would it be the fair or correct way to determine the picks? Absolutely not, but it would be awesome none the less.

JasonJohnHorn
04-17-2012, 10:43 PM
So there is a story line regardless of which $#!TTY @$$ team wins the lottery. PERFECT!!! Stern will look like he rigged it regardless of who wins it.

For Cleveland fans, I'm really hoping they win. Part of me really wants to see Cleveland win a title without and before LBJ. It would just be a nice story line. That city hasn't won $#!T in any sport in DECADES!!!

I pity them. They deserve something to cheer about!

AceMan
04-17-2012, 10:44 PM
Rigged. Completely Rigged. :D

On a side They should also make a new rule... If a team loses 70, they are guaranteed first or second overall... cause even taking shouldn't get you to 70 losses :facepalm:.. those teams are just plain atrocious.

I agree with this. I mean you'd have to go far beyond tanking to lose that much. It seems ridiculous that the worst team in the league can get the 4th pick. Maybe have the worst team at least be assured a top two pick. I mean look at the Bobcats, based on where there records fell they've been screwed out of Dwight, CP3/Deron and maybe this year Davis because of the lottery. They'd be a freaking juggernaut in the NFL system.

kenzo400
04-17-2012, 10:45 PM
NETS and NO are the teams Nba wants to help the most. The case for that is obvious. Cleveland is getting better with Kyrie and isn't that big of a market. Sacramento would have been dismantled as a team if there weren't a couple of interested buyers. Charlotte should not be in the NBA and i bet Stern would prefer.

Nets 1 pick
NO 2nd

Or NO 1st, Nets 2nd.

I'm calling it right now

Also, why does everyone think its "all or nothing" Perhaps they let the lottery play out some years, or let some teams get whatever pick they naturally deserve and then ensure that some teams get the high pick (1 or 2)

FutureGM
04-17-2012, 10:49 PM
No story for Toronto... It would just be nice to be rewarded for a **** season.

LakersA's49ers
04-17-2012, 10:51 PM
its definitely rigged if the hornets get it

AceMan
04-17-2012, 11:02 PM
NETS and NO are the teams Nba wants to help the most. The case for that is obvious. Cleveland is getting better with Kyrie and isn't that big of a market. Sacramento would have been dismantled as a team if there weren't a couple of interested buyers. Charlotte should not be in the NBA and i bet Stern would prefer.

Nets 1 pick
NO 2nd

Or NO 1st, Nets 2nd.

I'm calling it right now

Also, why does everyone think its "all or nothing" Perhaps they let the lottery play out some years, or let some teams get whatever pick they naturally deserve and then ensure that some teams get the high pick (1 or 2)

My point is that it's like this every year. Every year there are multiple story lines with the number one pick, so more often than not one of them ends up with it so there's fuel to the rigging fire, but there would be fuel almost no matter who got the pick. Look at the history of #1 picks, a lot more often than not it's a random small market team. Look at the history of the really big prospects. Other than Ewing, they all ended up in small markets. Robinson and Duncan in San Antonio, Durant in Seattle, Oden in Portland, LeBron in Cleveland, Shaq in Orlando, a lot more often than not it's random teams winning it. That's why I think people claiming it's rigged is ridiculous. Every so often a big market team wins the lottery, statistically they win it about as often as they should.

bholly
04-17-2012, 11:03 PM
Those really aren't stories, of course a bad team getting the number 1 draft pick and hopefully changing the team for the better will create good media but bad teams getting the best player would happen regardless of the lottery or not... A good story would be like Chi-Town getting a hometown star and him making the team a serious contender...

You're reaching pretty far with your made up stories and you could come up with an endless amount of "stories" with how out of whack they are...

That's not to be an attack, I also think the NBA is scripted, at least in some regards...

So what're the 'good stories'?

1) Home town - we know this one because we hear it about Rose and LBJ
2) Huge market - we know this one because of Ewing
3) New market/arena - we know this one because we're already hearing it on here and in the media (ie Barkley) about the possibility of Anthony Davis to NJN
4) Helping with a team sale / new owners - we know this one because we're hearing it about the possibility of NOH winning this year
5) Compensating a team for losing a player or helping a major star/team - we know this one because of Kyrie to the Cavs after losing LBJ
And maybe even
6) Getting a young superstar help to try and build a dynasty - we know this one because we heard it about Orlando winning in 1993 after getting Shaq the previous year

Six stories that rigged conspiracy theorists have considered evidence of it being rigged at various times. 6 stories that were 'good stories' enough to be proof.

Now let's look at the 2008 draft with D-Rose:
Teams with a good story:
Chicago (story 1), Seattle (3), Minnesota (3: trading Garnett to Boston), Memphis (5: trading Pau to LAL and 4: Heisley had been trying to sell), NYK (2).
Between them that's a 57% chance of a 'good story' winning the lottery.

In 2011 there was Cleveland (story 5), Toronto (5), Washington (4, 6), New Jersey (1), etc. That's a 58% chance of a 'good story' winning the lottery.

The two most often cited 'rigged' lotteries in recent years, and there was a great than 50% chance in each that there would be something that's considered a 'good story' by the rigged people.

This year there'll be Charlotte (story 4), Washington (6), NOH (4), Sacramento (3 or 4), Cleveland (5,6), New Jersey (3), Toronto (2), Golden State (2,3).

Every single one of the current bottom 8 teams fits into one of the stories that has been 'good' enough to be used as evidence of rigging in the past.
Pretty much no matter what happens, this draft is going to be seen as rigged by some.

ManRam
04-17-2012, 11:05 PM
This in no way convinces anyone who thinks it is rigged that it's not

This.

Because they're not thinking based on facts, evidence, or really anything of substance. It's all speculation.

iliketurtles24
04-17-2012, 11:05 PM
its rigged, stern hates minnesota!

LGhost
04-17-2012, 11:09 PM
So what're the 'good stories'?

1) Home town - we know this one because we hear it about Rose and LBJ
2) Huge market - we know this one because of Ewing
3) New market/arena - we know this one because we're already hearing it on here and in the media (ie Barkley) about the possibility of Anthony Davis to NJN
4) Helping with a team sale / new owners - we know this one because we're hearing it about the possibility of NOH winning this year
5) Compensating a team for losing a player or helping a major star/team - we know this one because of Kyrie to the Cavs after losing LBJ
And maybe even
6) Getting a young superstar help to try and build a dynasty - we know this one because we heard it about Orlando winning in 1993 after getting Shaq the previous year

Six stories that rigged conspiracy theorists have considered evidence of it being rigged at various times. 6 stories that were 'good stories' enough to be proof.

Now let's look at the 2008 draft with D-Rose:
Teams with a good story:
Chicago (story 1), Seattle (3), Minnesota (3: trading Garnett to Boston), Memphis (5: trading Pau to LAL and 4: Heisley had been trying to sell), NYK (2).
Between them that's a 57% chance of a 'good story' winning the lottery.

In 2011 there was Cleveland (story 5), Toronto (5), Washington (4, 6), New Jersey (1), etc. That's a 58% chance of a 'good story' winning the lottery.

The two most often cited 'rigged' lotteries in recent years, and there was a great than 50% chance in each that there would be something that's considered a 'good story' by the rigged people.

This year there'll be Charlotte (story 4), Washington (6), NOH (4), Sacramento (3 or 4), Cleveland (5,6), New Jersey (3), Toronto (2), Golden State (2,3).

Every single one of the current bottom 8 teams fits into one of the stories that has been 'good' enough to be used as evidence of rigging in the past.
Pretty much no matter what happens, this draft is going to be seen as rigged by some.

I'm not exactly understanding your position... Do you think it's rigged or not? I ask that because you're saying the NBA is in a lose lose situation, that no matter who gets the pick, they will be viewed as rigged...

Master Mind
04-17-2012, 11:12 PM
New Orleans will get the 1st pick, new owner, new name...It's already in works

bholly
04-17-2012, 11:35 PM
I'm not exactly understanding your position... Do you think it's rigged or not? I ask that because you're saying the NBA is in a lose lose situation, that no matter who gets the pick, they will be viewed as rigged...

I'm saying it's not rigged, same as the OP. I think it's pretty clear. My position is that for just about whoever wins there'll be some storyline that people will use to convince them it's rigged - a storyline just as strong as the ones they've already used.

knicks4life33
04-17-2012, 11:37 PM
hornets are winning it b4 the nba sold it lol

jrm2054
04-17-2012, 11:40 PM
I think the first 3 picks are NO, BK, and Bobcats in no order.

Cal827
04-17-2012, 11:41 PM
You know what would be awesome? If instead of the lottery, they did something like the team with the 3rd worst record got the 1st pick. Then there would be so much strategy involved in tanking. You'd have to figure out exactly how much to win and tank, but also try to figure out what every other team was thinking in that regard. It would be awesome. Would it be the fair or correct way to determine the picks? Absolutely not, but it would be awesome none the less.

Never would a game between the Cavailers and the Raptors in April have so much meaning lol :D

TrueFan420
04-17-2012, 11:57 PM
this gets brought up every year... no one will be able to convince the other that they are right or wrong

2-ONE-5
04-18-2012, 12:04 AM
wow dude your making it sound like Anthony Davis is gonna be some kind of savior. turn it down a notch, or 10

topdog
04-18-2012, 12:14 AM
If you believe in conspiracy theories like this, there's always away to convince yourself something was rigged.

The reality of the matter is that there are reps from all 30 teams witnessing everything...so you'd think that if one team was getting dicked over...someone would eventually say something about it.

The lottery is not rigged, and I say that with the utmost confidence. I'd bet my first born on that!

Paraphrasing David Kahn: "When I saw that little kid representing the Cavs, I knew we weren't getting the #1 pick."

bholly
04-18-2012, 12:17 AM
Paraphrasing David Kahn: "When I saw that little kid representing the Cavs, I knew we weren't getting the #1 pick."

He means someone there witnessing the actual draw would say it isn't legit if it wasn't. Some idiot on the outside thinking it was rigged is no more proof than PSD people thinking it's rigged.

VCaintdead17
04-18-2012, 12:20 AM
How about just get rid of the idiotic lottery and there won't be any issues with it being rigged.

This

new york blue
04-18-2012, 12:26 AM
Believing the NBA lottery is rigged is only slightly less moronic than doubting Obama's birth certificate or believing that 9/11 was an inside job. Those who believe this stuff should sue their high schools for failure to teach...

xk4
04-18-2012, 12:36 AM
This

The lottery isn't a perfect system, rigged or not, but you can't give a team incentive to lose, knowing they will 100% be rewarded by with a star player.

There has to be an element of chance to keep tanking under control.

topdog
04-18-2012, 12:37 AM
None of those really sounds like a rigging storyline to me except for the Hornets' one. The others don't make sense to me.

topdog
04-18-2012, 12:40 AM
He means someone there witnessing the actual draw would say it isn't legit if it wasn't. Some idiot on the outside thinking it was rigged is no more proof than PSD people thinking it's rigged.

Just felt like bringing that up. Here's my big thing though - why have a lottery if you aren't going to show it live? Get a tank of pingpong balls with logos on and set it churning. Once the show's over, the NBA sells the pingpong balls for $5-10 a pop.

TheWhiteMamba
04-18-2012, 12:44 AM
Rigged.

bholly
04-18-2012, 12:51 AM
Just felt like bringing that up. Here's my big thing though - why have a lottery if you aren't going to show it live? Get a tank of pingpong balls with logos on and set it churning. Once the show's over, the NBA sells the pingpong balls for $5-10 a pop.

Because the reverse order reveal show they do has more suspense and is better television than the current process, which can involve draw after draw after draw that don't mean anything, and gives away the #1 (which is what most people care about) first.

Edit: Just realized from your selling the pingpong balls comment that you don't understand how the lottery works. There isn't 1001 balls, there's 14 balls, of which they draw 4 at a time, so 1001 possible combinations. Whoever has that combination (the combinations are allocated to teams beforehand) gets the #1 pick.
Then they put all the balls back in and draw another combination, and whoever has that combination gets the second pick. The problem is the second draw could come up with a combination allocated to the team that had the first pick, in which case the second draw counts for nothing and they have to put all the balls back and redraw until they get a combination of a team that hasn't already been picked.
Once they've got a #2 pick, they put them all back in again and keep drawing until they get a combination of a team that didn't get the #1 or #2, which could take even longer as there's more combinations already gone.

It isn't nearly as exciting watching as having it slowly revealed in reverse order.

HouRealCoach
04-18-2012, 02:00 AM
U guys kill me... Basically if any of those five teams win u will swear its rigged but if any other teams win it u will say "they only had a so & so chance of winning so I know its rigged" lol

JDMVP
04-18-2012, 02:28 AM
Rigged or not.... does it really matter?

The real issue is this, you got all these one and done college players coming into the league. After that they go to the team that they just got drafted too but after a few years they might just sign with the BIG MARKET TEAMS.

bholly
04-18-2012, 02:36 AM
^ How often does that happen?

Drafting teams get 4 years + however long they get them for in RFA (which is almost always 3+ years for top guys).

Who got drafted then signed with a big market team?

JoeDirt05
04-18-2012, 02:58 AM
rigged

SugeKnight
04-18-2012, 03:18 AM
Believing the NBA lottery is rigged is only slightly less moronic than doubting Obama's birth certificate or believing that 9/11 was an inside job. Those who believe this stuff should sue their high schools for failure to teach...says the knocks fan. Ever heard of the frozen envelope?

bholly
04-18-2012, 03:20 AM
says the knocks fan. Ever heard of the frozen envelope?

I have. I'm about as far from a Knick fan as you can be and even I think it's baseless.

ddent12
04-18-2012, 03:33 AM
this

xk4
04-18-2012, 03:35 AM
Wait, so the least bad team out of all the really bad teams gets the first pick?

ddent12
04-18-2012, 03:44 AM
just a thought

jbeezy
04-18-2012, 04:22 AM
I kinda want the Cavs to win it. Kyrie to Davis would be :drool:

abe_froman
04-18-2012, 04:38 AM
says the knocks fan. Ever heard of the frozen envelope?

:laugh2: when first signed up here,i got into it with a few knick fans who tried to convince me that was real and because of it that meant they would get the 1st pick every year for as long as they were a lotto team

bholly
04-18-2012, 04:47 AM
I kinda want the Cavs to win it. Kyrie to Davis would be :drool:

I was saying today that I'm going to root for Utah, in hopes one of Favors/Kanter becomes available because of it.

Edit: unless Philly are in it, then I'll probably root for them.

Sssmush
04-18-2012, 05:27 AM
it's not impossible for it to be rigged. And there's soooooooo much temptation. I mean these crap franchises like the Hornets are selling for $350M a pop...

bholly
04-18-2012, 05:34 AM
It's not impossible, but with auditors and representatives from every team there it'd be pretty damn hard. You'd have to have them all in on it (which seems unlikely - why wouldn't one of the ones who hasn't benefited blown the whistle?), which leaves doing it without them, ie rigging the machine so it spits out the balls you want. That's possible, I suppose, but I'd imagine it's really hard to do without the teams and auditors noticing - don't they even get the machine from an independent place?
I'd say it's possible, but hard enough that with no statistical evidence of it being rigged the only rational result is to conclude that it almost certainly isn't.

bholly
04-18-2012, 05:48 AM
Update to the above:
Since 1993 the NBA has used a machine from Smartplay - currently the 'Smartplay Standard Daily air mix machine' - provided for the draft and accompanied by two Smartplay staff members. Seems like it'd be tough for the NBA to rig that.
Sources:http://www.smartplay.com/sp_news_summer_08.pdf
http://sports.espn.go.com/nbadraft/story?id=1384345

That second link is an ESPN article from when they were allowed in to watch the lottery in 2002 (the Yao Ming draft). The whole thing took 3.5 minutes (I guess that's partly why it isn't on TV? It's quicker than the slow reveal). The guy who says when to stop the thing to pull out a ball even faces away from it so he can't try to cheat.

Patman
04-18-2012, 06:01 AM
Update to the above:
Since 1993 the NBA has used a machine from Smartplay - currently the 'Smartplay Standard Daily air mix machine' - provided for the draft and accompanied by two Smartplay staff members. Seems like it'd be tough for the NBA to rig that.
Sources:http://www.smartplay.com/sp_news_summer_08.pdf
http://sports.espn.go.com/nbadraft/story?id=1384345

That second link is an ESPN article from when they were allowed in to watch the lottery in 2002 (the Yao Ming draft). The whole thing took 3.5 minutes (I guess that's partly why it isn't on TV? It's quicker than the slow reveal). The guy who says when to stop the thing to pull out a ball even faces away from it so he can't try to cheat.


The whole the lottery is rigged is just because other fan bases can't accept that the number fell as they did and even though the worst team has the highest chance for the 1 Pick, the chances for another team to get picked are still very high.

Oh and I'd absolutely would love to see the lottery gone. Can you Imagine last game of the season The Bobcats have 4 wins and playing the Cavs also with 4 wins, maybe we would actually see people try to score on their own basket, or maybe we would witness a zero point game that has to be cancelled after the 10th overtime. Oh the possibilities, wouldn't last for more then one season but would be funny as hell.

STRIKERC
04-18-2012, 08:36 AM
I hope one day the NBA will adapt the relegation system.
The two worse NBA teams get relegated to the D-league and the two best D-league teams get promotion to the NBA. They get the first two picks in the draft then everything follows from there.
Teams will be forced to play hard every game right from the jump. Purposely tank a season and you risk losing everything.

LongIslandIcedZ
04-18-2012, 09:17 AM
Because the reverse order reveal show they do has more suspense and is better television than the current process, which can involve draw after draw after draw that don't mean anything, and gives away the #1 (which is what most people care about) first.

Edit: Just realized from your selling the pingpong balls comment that you don't understand how the lottery works. There isn't 1001 balls, there's 14 balls, of which they draw 4 at a time, so 1001 possible combinations. Whoever has that combination (the combinations are allocated to teams beforehand) gets the #1 pick.
Then they put all the balls back in and draw another combination, and whoever has that combination gets the second pick. The problem is the second draw could come up with a combination allocated to the team that had the first pick, in which case the second draw counts for nothing and they have to put all the balls back and redraw until they get a combination of a team that hasn't already been picked.
Once they've got a #2 pick, they put them all back in again and keep drawing until they get a combination of a team that didn't get the #1 or #2, which could take even longer as there's more combinations already gone.

It isn't nearly as exciting watching as having it slowly revealed in reverse order.

Wow.

I thought there were 1000 ping pong balls.

Cal827
04-18-2012, 11:20 AM
The whole the lottery is rigged is just because other fan bases can't accept that the number fell as they did and even though the worst team has the highest chance for the 1 Pick, the chances for another team to get picked are still very high.

Oh and I'd absolutely would love to see the lottery gone. Can you Imagine last game of the season The Bobcats have 4 wins and playing the Cavs also with 4 wins, maybe we would actually see people try to score on their own basket, or maybe we would witness a zero point game that has to be cancelled after the 10th overtime. Oh the possibilities, wouldn't last for more then one season but would be funny as hell.

:laugh: where is Ricky Davis where you need him?

AceMan
04-18-2012, 11:34 AM
I just thought of the most randomly cool idea ever to fix the lottery system. First of all, we're scrapping the lottery.

Here's what we do: every non playoff team (or rather, team that owns a lottery pick) has a draft of the playoff teams. The team with the worst record gets the first choice. The playoff teams that the lottery teams choose act as representatives for those teams. If you pick the team that wins the championship you get the first pick. And it goes on in that fashion.

HOW ****ING COOL WOULD THAT BE! Imagine a year like last year, would the Cavs have taken the Heat? Which top 5 worst record team would have gotten screwed by the Spurs losing in round one? THIS IS ****ING AWESOME!!!!! What about playoff teams with high lottery picks? Would they pick themselves or the team that they honestly think has the best chance at winning. Can you imagine Mark Cuban owning a lottery pick and then saying "we're going with the Lakers, gotta be logical with the pick".

Teams would have to decide on picking their rivals, one seeds losing would have awesome double meanings, teams would openly root for and against each other, teams would hold grudges if they weren't picked high enough. I'm so freaking excited for this fake impossible idea. We could air it as a big special before the playoffs.

Sinestro
04-18-2012, 11:37 AM
Not rigged....New York hasn't won a lottery since what year? You would think the NBA wants New York to have a star

celtNYpatsHeels
04-18-2012, 11:40 AM
Pathetic. :pity:

Embarrassing people actually think it's rigged.

Outside of the suspicious 2011 lottery, nothing indicates it was rigged.

Cavs win it after losing lebron. Wiz win after their owner dies. Bulls win it with CHicago native Rose having the worst odds. The whole Ewing to the Knicks occurance. How about the new OKC franchise getting Durant and Westbrook? Or Lebron, the Ohio native, going to Cleveland???

The team with the highest odds of landing the #1 pick has only won the lottery 3 times in 21 years

There is a reason that the NBA/ESPN doesnt show the lottery balls being picked.

Anthony Davis to New Orleans or Brooklyn.... BOOK IT!

celtNYpatsHeels
04-18-2012, 11:42 AM
Not rigged....New York hasn't won a lottery since what year? You would think the NBA wants New York to have a star

Not true. New York always has a high payroll. They also always have a ton of fans/followers no matter what.

Its small market teams that need stars to attract revenue.

AceMan
04-18-2012, 11:52 AM
Cavs win it after losing lebron. Wiz win after their owner dies. Bulls win it with CHicago native Rose having the worst odds. The whole Ewing to the Knicks occurance. How about the new OKC franchise getting Durant and Westbrook? Or Lebron, the Ohio native, going to Cleveland???

The team with the highest odds of landing the #1 pick has only won the lottery 3 times in 21 years

There is a reason that the NBA/ESPN doesnt show the lottery balls being picked.

Anthony Davis to New Orleans or Brooklyn.... BOOK IT!

- OKC got Westbrook because they were lucky NOT to get a high pick. They should have had the 2nd pick and been stuck with Beasley, so are you saying the NBA knew Westbrook was a star and Beasley was a bust? And that they wanted to send him to OKC even though at the time he wasn't projected a top 4 pick?

- You realize that in the Ewing lottery that every team had the same odds of winning? They literally all had 1 in 7 chances.

- Explain Duncan to the Spurs when the Celtics had by far the most ping pong balls? How about Shaq to Orlando? Oden to Portland? Admiral to San Antonio?

- Derrick Rose wasn't the consensus #1 overall pick. Chicago very easily could have taken Beasley. Why would the NBA want Beasley in Chicago?

- If Stern wanted to help the new OKC franchise would we have given them the second pick instead of first? You're saying he knew Durant was better than Oden?

- The team with the highest chance of winning the lottery has a 25% chance of winning. They're not supposed to win it every year. 3/21 is almost 15%, so while they aren't winning the lottery statistically as much as they should it's not like it's a ridiculous deviation, especially given the very small sample size of only 21.

- You really think Stern would rig the lottery for the Cavs in a situation where cynical fans like yourself would know he did it? You don't think once in the board meeting where Stern talked about rigging the lottery for the Cavs one of his executives didn't say "hey boss, won't people suspect this? We could have a scandal on our hands". Same goes for Chicago and any other "rigged" lottery. David Stern wouldn't rig something when fans expect it, he doesn't want that controversy, especially if it happened year after year.

- People watch the lottery happen, if it were rigged it would have come out by now.

- Rigging the lottery is a felony, I doubt David Stern is taking that risk.

- That is why you are wrong.

Trace
04-18-2012, 12:06 PM
Confirmation bias.
/thread

lol'ed at the people using statistics to justify "rigging". You've obviously never take a higher level/stats/math course in your life.

3RDASYSTEM
04-18-2012, 12:13 PM
If the draft wasnt rigged for EWING/KNICKS and others then the rogue ref scandal, JOSE blast on MLB wit roids issue and annually when a politician takes a fall for relationship reasons is all a facade....nothings a conspiracy or whatever when its right on the surface and keeps poppin up over and over and apology after apology...rigging is as common as the cases at PSU and SYR, call a spade a spade

B'sCeltsPatsSox
04-18-2012, 12:23 PM
If NJ/Brooklyn or New Orleans wins it the conspiracy theorists will be out in full force.

iam brett favre
04-18-2012, 12:41 PM
I hope the Cavs win. And then in 2-3 they are better than the Heat.

celtNYpatsHeels
04-18-2012, 01:05 PM
- OKC got Westbrook because they were lucky NOT to get a high pick. They should have had the 2nd pick and been stuck with Beasley, so are you saying the NBA knew Westbrook was a star and Beasley was a bust? And that they wanted to send him to OKC even though at the time he wasn't projected a top 4 pick?

- You realize that in the Ewing lottery that every team had the same odds of winning? They literally all had 1 in 7 chances.

- Explain Duncan to the Spurs when the Celtics had by far the most ping pong balls? How about Shaq to Orlando? Oden to Portland? Admiral to San Antonio?

- Derrick Rose wasn't the consensus #1 overall pick. Chicago very easily could have taken Beasley. Why would the NBA want Beasley in Chicago?

- If Stern wanted to help the new OKC franchise would we have given them the second pick instead of first? You're saying he knew Durant was better than Oden?

- The team with the highest chance of winning the lottery has a 25% chance of winning. They're not supposed to win it every year. 3/21 is almost 15%, so while they aren't winning the lottery statistically as much as they should it's not like it's a ridiculous deviation, especially given the very small sample size of only 21.

- You really think Stern would rig the lottery for the Cavs in a situation where cynical fans like yourself would know he did it? You don't think once in the board meeting where Stern talked about rigging the lottery for the Cavs one of his executives didn't say "hey boss, won't people suspect this? We could have a scandal on our hands". Same goes for Chicago and any other "rigged" lottery. David Stern wouldn't rig something when fans expect it, he doesn't want that controversy, especially if it happened year after year.

- People watch the lottery happen, if it were rigged it would have come out by now.

- Rigging the lottery is a felony, I doubt David Stern is taking that risk.

- That is why you are wrong.

Ok maybe the westbrook thing was luck, but they were still granted either Oden or Durant

Stern picked the creased envelope that had the Knicks inside it

Duncan, Robinson, Shaq, Oden probably were not rigged. Im not saying all of the drafts are. The more suspicious question is how Orlando won the draft the following year with Webber...

Sorry but after the NCAA tourny that year there was no doubt who the #1 pick was going to be. And after Chicago was so irrelivant for years, and the accident to Jay williams.... Of coarse Chi gets its native son.

Stern fixed it for the Cavs TWICE... once when Lebron entered, and once when he left. He thought he was slick by giving them the "Clippers" pick

The NBA is fixed. I'm not saying that it is fixed EVERYTIME. But some drafts/lotteries are fixed, some free agents are told where to sign, some games are clearly determined by referees/fouls...

Luca68
04-18-2012, 01:18 PM
i can tell you one thing, the toronto raptors will not be winning the lottery :laugh:

smith&wesson
04-18-2012, 01:30 PM
why not just televise the ball being picked instead of how they do it?


Even the 2011 lottery doesn't suggest it. The Clippers pick that the Cavs had had a 10% chance of moving up and a 2.8% chance of winning overall.
If anything it's less suspicious than Chicago winning in 2008 (6.1% chance of moving up and 1.7% chance of winning overall).


This in no way convinces anyone who thinks it is rigged that it's not


NETS and NO are the teams Nba wants to help the most. The case for that is obvious. Cleveland is getting better with Kyrie and isn't that big of a market. Sacramento would have been dismantled as a team if there weren't a couple of interested buyers. Charlotte should not be in the NBA and i bet Stern would prefer.

Nets 1 pick
NO 2nd

Or NO 1st, Nets 2nd.

I'm calling it right now

Also, why does everyone think its "all or nothing" Perhaps they let the lottery play out some years, or let some teams get whatever pick they naturally deserve and then ensure that some teams get the high pick (1 or 2)


its definitely rigged if the hornets get it


its rigged, stern hates minnesota!


New Orleans will get the 1st pick, new owner, new name...It's already in works


Paraphrasing David Kahn: "When I saw that little kid representing the Cavs, I knew we weren't getting the #1 pick."


Rigged.


rigged


for those of you who want to read and know how the lottery actually works.
http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen/2008/05/the_probability_of_winning_the.php
and also this http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/dissecting-the-nba-draft-lottery/

if you chose not to read them, and continue on your stance then its obvious your simply wanting to beleive in something like a kid who refuses to beleive the wwe is fake...

its a good read. it changed my stance.

ichitownclowni
04-18-2012, 01:43 PM
the people who belive it is rigged also think 9-11 was the goverment

smith&wesson
04-18-2012, 01:54 PM
the people who belive it is rigged also think 9-11 was the goverment

MICHALE MOORE :confused:

Ezekial
04-18-2012, 01:57 PM
It's rigged, but that's cool cuz it being rigged brought D-Rose home.

gaughan333
04-18-2012, 02:35 PM
Cavs win it after losing lebron. Wiz win after their owner dies. Bulls win it with CHicago native Rose having the worst odds. The whole Ewing to the Knicks occurance. How about the new OKC franchise getting Durant and Westbrook? Or Lebron, the Ohio native, going to Cleveland???

The team with the highest odds of landing the #1 pick has only won the lottery 3 times in 21 years

There is a reason that the NBA/ESPN doesnt show the lottery balls being picked.

Anthony Davis to New Orleans or Brooklyn.... BOOK IT!

Durant went to seattle and was the second pick. Westbrook wasn't first overall either.

valade16
04-18-2012, 02:49 PM
I just thought of the most randomly cool idea ever to fix the lottery system. First of all, we're scrapping the lottery.

Here's what we do: every non playoff team (or rather, team that owns a lottery pick) has a draft of the playoff teams. The team with the worst record gets the first choice. The playoff teams that the lottery teams choose act as representatives for those teams. If you pick the team that wins the championship you get the first pick. And it goes on in that fashion.

HOW ****ING COOL WOULD THAT BE! Imagine a year like last year, would the Cavs have taken the Heat? Which top 5 worst record team would have gotten screwed by the Spurs losing in round one? THIS IS ****ING AWESOME!!!!! What about playoff teams with high lottery picks? Would they pick themselves or the team that they honestly think has the best chance at winning. Can you imagine Mark Cuban owning a lottery pick and then saying "we're going with the Lakers, gotta be logical with the pick".

Teams would have to decide on picking their rivals, one seeds losing would have awesome double meanings, teams would openly root for and against each other, teams would hold grudges if they weren't picked high enough. I'm so freaking excited for this fake impossible idea. We could air it as a big special before the playoffs.

No offense, but that is a terrible idea.

It is basically turning the process into gambling.

topdog
04-18-2012, 03:09 PM
Because the reverse order reveal show they do has more suspense and is better television than the current process, which can involve draw after draw after draw that don't mean anything, and gives away the #1 (which is what most people care about) first.

Edit: Just realized from your selling the pingpong balls comment that you don't understand how the lottery works. There isn't 1001 balls, there's 14 balls, of which they draw 4 at a time, so 1001 possible combinations. Whoever has that combination (the combinations are allocated to teams beforehand) gets the #1 pick.
Then they put all the balls back in and draw another combination, and whoever has that combination gets the second pick. The problem is the second draw could come up with a combination allocated to the team that had the first pick, in which case the second draw counts for nothing and they have to put all the balls back and redraw until they get a combination of a team that hasn't already been picked.
Once they've got a #2 pick, they put them all back in again and keep drawing until they get a combination of a team that didn't get the #1 or #2, which could take even longer as there's more combinations already gone.

It isn't nearly as exciting watching as having it slowly revealed in reverse order.

I get how the lottery actually works and I have heard many a fan complain of how boring it is. Hence, I bring up the idea of a lottery like you'd probably see on "The Price is Right." They could pick 3rd 1st and then each of those "dud" draws should they happen would only build suspense and frustration for the big payoff. It'd give the show more grandeur and credibility.

Plus, they can waste time looking at the "big board" of teams after a draw and say "well, it's shaping up like this: with Portland moving up, such and such teams will fall back unless they are one or two."

topdog
04-18-2012, 03:11 PM
Durant went to seattle and was the second pick. Westbrook wasn't first overall either.

Not to mention that Westbrook was considered a ballsy reach pick and is credited to OKC as a result of their good scouting.

SluggeR
04-18-2012, 03:23 PM
Hornets are going to get the #1 pick..book it. They lost their franchise superstar just like the cavs did before they were rewarded with Irving. The only reason I think the NBA won't send Davis to the Hornets, is because they finally found an owner for the team and it seams he will keep the team in new orleans.

topdog
04-18-2012, 03:29 PM
the people who belive it is rigged also think 9-11 was the goverment

So, essentially you are claiming that anyone who doubts the legitimacy of some institution (say a league that by many accounts rigged a playoff series - 2002 Kings/Lakers) automatically believes in all conspiracy theories? To be funny of course.

Shmontaine
04-18-2012, 03:31 PM
the deal is done with NO and the owner right??

so, why would it make sense to 'give' the #1 pick to NO?? they've signed a 10 year lease to stay in NO, and they sold the team... done deal.. move on... you think the owner is going to say something about any alleged 'deal' for the #1 pick if NO doesn't get it??? yeah right...


now charlotte is whole different story... MJ has said he thought of selling the team in a few years, and it may turn into NO#2... a #1 pick would do wonders to avoid such a situation... oh wait, CHA has the best odds to win, does that mean it's rigged if the CHA wins the lottery???

bholly
04-18-2012, 07:37 PM
I get how the lottery actually works and I have heard many a fan complain of how boring it is. Hence, I bring up the idea of a lottery like you'd probably see on "The Price is Right." They could pick 3rd 1st and then each of those "dud" draws should they happen would only build suspense and frustration for the big payoff. It'd give the show more grandeur and credibility.

Plus, they can waste time looking at the "big board" of teams after a draw and say "well, it's shaping up like this: with Portland moving up, such and such teams will fall back unless they are one or two."

But how would you draw the #3 first? The way it's set up, the worst team has 25% of the combinations, so has a 25% chance of winning the first draw, 21.5% chance of winning the second draw, and 17.8% chance of winning the third draw. Doing it in the current order means they have a 25% chance of the first pick, etc.
If you do it in the reverse order, ie make the first draw determine the 3rd pick and the 2nd draw determine the second pick, and the 3rd draw determine the 1st pick, then the worst team would have a 25% chance at #3, 21.5% chance at #2, and 17.8% chance at #1. The second and third worst teams would have almost the same chance at #1 as the worst team.
You'd have a situations where 'winning' the first draw could actually mean losing for a team, because it means you can't get the #1.
It wouldn't work.

masTOR_shake1
04-18-2012, 08:11 PM
are you ****ing kidding me!? the nba is responsible for more things being fixed than bob the **** barker. nevermind the fact that a past ref has come out and admitted that games are fixed, that the kings were ****ed out of a trip to the finals or that the market is set up in a way where small market teams can almost never ever ever keep their players,,,for this sake alone just look at the 1985 draft. it is all over youtube and the most blatent case of ******** that I've ever seen. It's not even funny, that's why they don't video tape it anylonger and no they don't have team reps, only a lawyer swearing to the authenticity. It's too much for me that the bigmarket bulls got hometown hero derek rose when they had a 2% chance of winning the draft, or that the raps won when the top prize was an international player when their odds were low, or that the cavs get the top pick after lebron leaves, when everyone is down (let alone getting their hometown savior in the first place, what a great storyline). such a joke, the nba is best understood as entertainment. even with the miracle mavs there has only been seven franchises to win a title in the last 25 years. what chance do the t-wolves or the raps or the hornets or memphis have unless they draft the best power forward of all time and luck out with two all star picks in the 2nd round like the spurs.


nets will win lotto, my brother called it and it makes sense no matter their standing. moving to brooklyn and d-will wants to leave. book it.

bholly
04-18-2012, 08:24 PM
are you ****ing kidding me!? the nba is responsible for more things being fixed than bob the **** barker. nevermind the fact that a past ref has come out and admitted that games are fixed, that the kings were ****ed out of a trip to the finals or that the market is set up in a way where small market teams can almost never ever ever keep their players,,,for this sake alone just look at the 1985 draft. it is all over youtube and the most blatent case of ******** that I've ever seen. It's not even funny, that's why they don't video tape it anylonger and no they don't have team reps, only a lawyer swearing to the authenticity. It's too much for me that the bigmarket bulls got hometown hero derek rose when they had a 2% chance of winning the draft, or that the raps won when the top prize was an international player when their odds were low, or that the cavs get the top pick after lebron leaves, when everyone is down (let alone getting their hometown savior in the first place, what a great storyline). such a joke, the nba is best understood as entertainment. even with the miracle mavs there has only been seven franchises to win a title in the last 25 years. what chance do the t-wolves or the raps or the hornets or memphis have unless they draft the best power forward of all time and luck out with two all star picks in the 2nd round like the spurs.


nets will win lotto, my brother called it and it makes sense no matter their standing. moving to brooklyn and d-will wants to leave. book it.

Um, yes they do? Where's your source. Each year you even find out the exact identities of some of the people who go.
What makes you say the teams don't send reps? What's your source?

If the Nets don't win the lottery, will you concede it isn't rigged?

homestarunner93
04-18-2012, 08:26 PM
Tanking would be so much more of a bloodbath without the lottery. That would be awesome!

Dumb argument, the NFL and MLB don't really have any problems. Don't see what would make the NBA any different.

bholly
04-18-2012, 08:42 PM
Because the draft isn't as vital in sports like baseball and football because a single player has less impact than in basketball.

In basketball drafting a LeBron or Howard or Rose can completely change the outlook of your team and the value of your franchise. There's a huge amount at stake at the top of the draft, so it's worth tanking for.

In the MLB and NFL one player generally doesn't have nearly the same impact on a franchise. A big impact, sure, but not the same as in basketball.

homestarunner93
04-18-2012, 08:48 PM
Because the draft isn't as vital in sports like baseball and football because a single player has less impact than in basketball.

In basketball drafting a LeBron or Howard or Rose can completely change the outlook of your team and the value of your franchise. There's a huge amount at stake at the top of the draft, so it's worth tanking for.

In the MLB and NFL one player generally doesn't have nearly the same impact on a franchise. A big impact, sure, but not the same as in basketball.

Tell that to the Panthers.

AceMan
04-19-2012, 12:07 AM
Ok maybe the westbrook thing was luck, but they were still granted either Oden or Durant

Stern picked the creased envelope that had the Knicks inside it

Duncan, Robinson, Shaq, Oden probably were not rigged. Im not saying all of the drafts are. The more suspicious question is how Orlando won the draft the following year with Webber...

Sorry but after the NCAA tourny that year there was no doubt who the #1 pick was going to be. And after Chicago was so irrelivant for years, and the accident to Jay williams.... Of coarse Chi gets its native son.

Stern fixed it for the Cavs TWICE... once when Lebron entered, and once when he left. He thought he was slick by giving them the "Clippers" pick

The NBA is fixed. I'm not saying that it is fixed EVERYTIME. But some drafts/lotteries are fixed, some free agents are told where to sign, some games are clearly determined by referees/fouls...

Don't you see the logical fallacy in that though? You're basically saying you're right when the evidence supports it, but when it doesn't (the majority of the time) nothing is happening, still making you right. You're picking and choosing, you're either right a small percentage of the time or not wrong the majority of the time. The vast majority of evidence suggests that the lottery is not in fact rigged, you're using a premise where you have the small percentage that says it is and ignoring all of the evidence that says it isn't to "prove" your point.

Sssmush
04-20-2012, 08:32 PM
Update to the above:
Since 1993 the NBA has used a machine from Smartplay - currently the 'Smartplay Standard Daily air mix machine' - provided for the draft and accompanied by two Smartplay staff members. Seems like it'd be tough for the NBA to rig that.
Sources:http://www.smartplay.com/sp_news_summer_08.pdf
http://sports.espn.go.com/nbadraft/story?id=1384345

That second link is an ESPN article from when they were allowed in to watch the lottery in 2002 (the Yao Ming draft). The whole thing took 3.5 minutes (I guess that's partly why it isn't on TV? It's quicker than the slow reveal). The guy who says when to stop the thing to pull out a ball even faces away from it so he can't try to cheat.

you're right, of course. I would point out, though, that everytime something turns out to be rigged or faked or whatever, the thing that everybody is always saying beforehand is that "this couldn't possibly be faked. It's scientifically proven." etc.

Humans are the masters at lying and faking, and, in general, when something is too unbelievable, or when there is too much incentive to fake something, it invariably turns out to have been rigged or faked. The famous lottery of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries were huge carnivals of vast fakery, cheating and deceit. The mere word "lottery" should give any sensible person pause.

Also, I've seen some pretty amazing, inexplicable magic tricks before, disappearing elephants in the middle of the auditorium, etc, that could'nt "possibly" be faked, but obviously were. Getting a sequence of numbered balls to come out of an air machine with 14 balls in it that matches a card... not so difficult.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GelJZjck9IY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVhJ8pXKaKQ

JWO35
04-20-2012, 08:36 PM
New Orleans will get it...

bholly
04-20-2012, 08:49 PM
you're right, of course. I would point out, though, that everytime something turns out to be rigged or faked or whatever, the thing that everybody is always saying beforehand is that "this couldn't possibly be faked. It's scientifically proven." etc.

Humans are the masters at lying and faking, and, in general, when something is too unbelievable, or when there is too much incentive to fake something, it invariably turns out to have been rigged or faked. The famous lottery of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries were huge carnivals of vast fakery, cheating and deceit. The mere word "lottery" should give any sensible person pause.

Also, I've seen some pretty amazing, inexplicable magic tricks before, disappearing elephants in the middle of the auditorium, etc, that could'nt "possibly" be faked, but obviously were. Getting a sequence of numbered balls to come out of an air machine with 14 balls in it that matches a card... not so difficult.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GelJZjck9IY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVhJ8pXKaKQ

Oh, sure, I mean they could be paying off the Smartplay employees, or whatever. It's definitely possible.
It's just that without any statistical irregularities or oddities in the results, and with it being so tough to rig that it's hard to even think of a way, it's fine to think there's a minute non-zero possibility of it being rigged, but to genuinely think it is rigged based on just about nothing is stupid.

Sssmush
04-21-2012, 05:59 AM
riigged like dis?s?


what up with the fat porn

Sssmush
04-21-2012, 06:12 AM
Oh, sure, I mean they could be paying off the Smartplay employees, or whatever. It's definitely possible.
It's just that without any statistical irregularities or oddities in the results, and with it being so tough to rig that it's hard to even think of a way, it's fine to think there's a minute non-zero possibility of it being rigged, but to genuinely think it is rigged based on just about nothing is stupid.

Well, first of all, over such a small sample size... even if we were talking about hundreds of years worth of results, I can't possibly imagine what kind of "statistical irregularities" you'd be looking for. The team with the least chance of winning or the largest market team in the lottery could win the 1st pick 7 years in a row and it wouldn't be the slightest bit problematic, as far as I can see, mathematically.

Also, I don't think that, let's just call it "the league office", can really see past the immediate present. Seriously, I think that in their minds, every season, every playoffs, every playoff series, every game 7, every championship and every lottery drawing represents a last, desperate chance to "save the league" and to "finally get things right", a last ditch effort to restore profits, as they claw their way up the side of the cliff.

As far as whether the NBA draft lottery is fixed... sure, I'd say it's improbable. But then again, I know absolutely nothing about the company that makes the machine, or any of the people involved in administering the lottery. Basically, it's a TV show. As far as I know, it could be filmed on a studio on the planet Mars with a team of actors from NASA. Seriously, I'm staring at a screen, what do I know?

Now, if New Orleans wins the first overall pick, I'd raise an eyebrow, but that doesn't really mean anything. If I was gonna guess, I'd say N.O. at #1, and Bobcats at their lowest possible draft position, #4 or whatever it is.

Ebbs
04-21-2012, 06:15 AM
People will see what they want to see whether their right or wrong. For all we know it was rigged

ne3xchamps
04-21-2012, 07:00 AM
Ive never liked the nba draft. the lottery just seems too sketchy to me. If the nba just did it like the other 3 major sports this would be a non issue.

tcav701
04-21-2012, 08:22 AM
The fact that they even have a lottery should make any clear thinking individual become suspicious.

blastmasta26
04-21-2012, 02:34 PM
The fact that they even have a lottery should make any clear thinking individual become suspicious.
Why does the existence of the lottery automatically elicit suspicion? The lottery system was implemented in order to curb tanking, as eliminating it is improbable. In basketball, one player can make a dramatic difference in team success. Most recent examples are LeBron and Dwight. The year of 1984, the final pre-lottery draft, the Rockets allegedly tanked to pick either Hakeem or Jordan. Of course tanking still exists in the lottery system, but wasting a season for merely a 1/4 chance at the top pick prevents it from being much worse.

Sssmush
04-21-2012, 06:55 PM
The fact that they even have a lottery should make any clear thinking individual become suspicious.

yeah, a skeptic might say that having a lottery means that there's always an easy way to rig the system, should the need arise.

None of this should interfere with our enjoyment of watching the Amazing Wade flying through the air, or the Kobe, Master of the Dark Arts throwing a ball into a small hoop from 28 feet, or Blake Griffin, the Strongest Man in the World crushing a basketball in his hands.

Rafer17
04-21-2012, 07:33 PM
Tanking would be so much more of a bloodbath without the lottery. That would be awesome!

Seems to work for the NFL, MLB, NHL...

new york blue
04-21-2012, 07:34 PM
The main reason why rigging makes no sense is not the technical question, but the idea of who is in on it. David Stern is not going to do it on his own--why blow his own career for something which does not make much difference to him? And then if you start bringing other people, who do you choose, and how do you pay off people harmed by the process--i.e., pretty much everyone who does not get the number 1 pick and is not very likely to be convinced by the "for the good of the league" defense.

And then of course, you are open to blackmail by everyone else involved, and then you have to hire the Russian mob to silence them and then who do you get to silence the Russian mob?

new york blue
04-21-2012, 07:41 PM
Seems to work for the NFL, MLB, NHL...

The other leagues do not need it. Teams are larger so that one player makes less of a difference. The NFL has a better revenue-sharing system so that the draft matter less, and baseball players are much harder to assess at a young age, so the benefit is less for MLB.

da ThRONe
04-21-2012, 08:29 PM
I think this speaks to the length of the season and the lack of parity(which is farther propitiated by the lottery system). If half of the teams make it to the post season and you still have a huge problem with teams tanking solely for a better percentage of a top draft pick your season is far too long.

Sssmush
04-21-2012, 10:14 PM
The problem would be solved by just having a full 30 team lottery.

Every team gets one ball.

The worst team gets +10 balls.

2nd worst team gets + 9 balls.

...

10th worst team gets + 1 ball.

Pull one ball out for each 1st round pick. Whichever team is on that ball gets that pick.
Example: 1st pick in the first round, pull out one ball -- Dallas Mavericks. Ok, now Dallas
Mavericks get the 1st pick. Remove all the Dallas balls from the lottery basket. 2nd pick in the first round, pull out one ball -- New Jersey. New Jersey gets second overall pick, etc.

Every team gets one draft pick. If they've traded their pick previously, that is settled up afterwards--the Dallas pick is transferred to the Los Angeles Lakers, for example. Only the rights to a teams pick in a particular year is ever traded.

The end.

Also floppers don't get awarded charging or foul calls, but are ignored by the refs as they squirm insolently on the floor whining for a call and their opponent dunks on them.

Sssmush
04-21-2012, 10:17 PM
Freakin' lottery, are you kidding me. What, it's supposed to even out the league and increase competition?

They've been "evening out the league" to make it "more competitive" for what, 30 Years?

And you've STILL got the Bobcats tanking games and wasting everybody's time in 2012. It's a joke. The whole idea that the worse you play the higher draft pick you get is maybe the worst in all of sports.

Sssmush
04-21-2012, 10:22 PM
It's the NBA equivalent of subsidizing ******** pig or corn farmers to NOT produce corn or pigs, causing them to bury them in pits behind their farms so they can get the subsidy dollars.

The Bobcats are making a national spectacle of themselves and of the league, and now the major news sites (Huffington Post, Drudge, etc) are started to report on it, as well as on their march to historic incompetency and the possible allegations of cheating, point shaving and intentional tanking of games in order to get a high draft pick. And none other than MJ, the "legend" of the NBA, the GOAT, is leading the antics.

:clap:

h2r09
04-21-2012, 10:49 PM
people do realize its impossible to rig the lottery the way they do it, correct?

bholly
04-21-2012, 11:01 PM
The problem would be solved by just having a full 30 team lottery.

Every team gets one ball.

The worst team gets +10 balls.

2nd worst team gets + 9 balls.

...

10th worst team gets + 1 ball.

Pull one ball out for each 1st round pick. Whichever team is on that ball gets that pick.
Example: 1st pick in the first round, pull out one ball -- Dallas Mavericks. Ok, now Dallas
Mavericks get the 1st pick. Remove all the Dallas balls from the lottery basket. 2nd pick in the first round, pull out one ball -- New Jersey. New Jersey gets second overall pick, etc.

Every team gets one draft pick. If they've traded their pick previously, that is settled up afterwards--the Dallas pick is transferred to the Los Angeles Lakers, for example. Only the rights to a teams pick in a particular year is ever traded.

The end.

Also floppers don't get awarded charging or foul calls, but are ignored by the refs as they squirm insolently on the floor whining for a call and their opponent dunks on them.

Um, how does this solve anything? It's still a lottery, it just has different odds to the current one. Teams would still tank to get +10 balls instead of +9, or +6 balls instead of +5 or whatever.
It's a lottery that doesn't favour the worst teams as much, but it's still a lottery.

Sssmush
04-22-2012, 12:15 AM
Um, how does this solve anything? It's still a lottery, it just has different odds to the current one. Teams would still tank to get +10 balls instead of +9, or +6 balls instead of +5 or whatever.
It's a lottery that doesn't favour the worst teams as much, but it's still a lottery.

Ok, even though you are right and my idea is a total fail, I am going to pursue this with Palinesque or even Santorumesque bravado and disregard for all facts and reason.

With my system there will be 85 balls total in the lottery. The worst team will have an 11.75% of getting the first pick, the 2nd worst team will have a 10.5% chance of getting the first pick, the 3rd worst team will have a 9.5%, etc.

The top 20 teams will all have a roughly 1% chance of getting the first pick, and each notch a team moves down in the bottom ten teams will only represent a 1% improvement to their odds of getting the first pick (or the next pick, if they miss on the first pick, etc).

So, even the very worst team will still be a 10:1 underdog to get the first pick, a far cry from the current system where continual whining and complaints of unprofitableness and unfairness have forced the league to narrow it to a 4 team lottery for first, with the very worst team almost a coinflip to pick first. After the Bobcats fail to get the first pick this year, we will likely see a system where Michael Jordan is allowed to shoot fish in a barrel with draft pick numbers attached to them.

This system also allows EVERY team an outside shot to get the best pick, which is great for the league. Also, as regards tanking, if a team like the Bobcats is willing to lose, say, 5 extra games down the stretch, and just pound their "fanbase" into abject disgust and revulsion about their team, just to gain a 1% improvement in their odds of drafting first, then I think we gotta let them, if only for the spectacle it affords fans of more respectable NBA franchises.

Watching the Bobcats tank games is kind of like watching Quasimodo try to wipe his *** with some dirty old newspapers in the tower of the cathedral on national live television. They might even have to create a new "Jordan rule" that the team with the worst record in the league can pick no higher than 3rd, thus preventing teams from out tanking each other and forcing them to compete.

tr3ymill3r
04-22-2012, 12:38 AM
The only year I've ever heard a good conspiracy story was when the Knicks got the first pick and landed Patrick Ewing, it's when they used envelopes. The conspiracy was that the Knicks card was hit against the tumbler making it easy to identify when reaching in the tumbler. There's a youtube video of that particular draft. Other conspiracy theorists will say that it's odd that only a few people know who the top 3 picks are before the announcement.
As of right now the only team that the league owes is the Houston Rockets, because they were affected the most by the voided Pau Gasol trade before the season. If the Rockets get a top 5 pick with a .5% then it's safe to assume that it's rigged.

tr3ymill3r
04-22-2012, 12:41 AM
people do realize its impossible to rig the lottery the way they do it, correct?

And you realize that just because a particular ping pong ball was chosen doesn't mean they have to say there's was drawn. For instance the machine spits out the Timberwolves as the number 1 pick, rather they announce the Nets received the top pick. As fans we're kept in the dark about what happens with the top 3 picks.

bholly
04-22-2012, 12:48 AM
And you realize that just because a particular ping pong ball was chosen doesn't mean they have to say there's was drawn. For instance the machine spits out the Timberwolves as the number 1 pick, rather they announce the Nets received the top pick. As fans we're kept in the dark about what happens with the top 3 picks.

The teams each have a representative in the room. You're saying the Timberwolves see themselves win the actual lottery then go along with the league's idea to give it to the Nets anyway? Why would they even bother doing the draw if every team just agrees afterwards who it goes to? Why not just go into a room and pretend they do a draw?

When someone says it's impossible to rig the way they do the lottery now, maybe you should learn how they do the lottery before questioning that.

topdog
04-22-2012, 01:16 AM
But how would you draw the #3 first? The way it's set up, the worst team has 25% of the combinations, so has a 25% chance of winning the first draw, 21.5% chance of winning the second draw, and 17.8% chance of winning the third draw. Doing it in the current order means they have a 25% chance of the first pick, etc.
If you do it in the reverse order, ie make the first draw determine the 3rd pick and the 2nd draw determine the second pick, and the 3rd draw determine the 1st pick, then the worst team would have a 25% chance at #3, 21.5% chance at #2, and 17.8% chance at #1. The second and third worst teams would have almost the same chance at #1 as the worst team.
You'd have a situations where 'winning' the first draw could actually mean losing for a team, because it means you can't get the #1.
It wouldn't work.

I did consider this when I posted and I felt like it wasn't a big deal because the odds are not that different and have not produced a ton of last place = 1st pick situations. It can easily be argued that the worst 3 teams in the league most years pretty equally need talent (at least if they attempt to put a legitimate team together).

topdog
04-22-2012, 01:21 AM
The teams each have a representative in the room. You're saying the Timberwolves see themselves win the actual lottery then go along with the league's idea to give it to the Nets anyway? Why would they even bother doing the draw if every team just agrees afterwards who it goes to? Why not just go into a room and pretend they do a draw?

When someone says it's impossible to rig the way they do the lottery now, maybe you should learn how they do the lottery before questioning that.

Nothing is impossible especially in a business that stands to gain or lose money.

Do we actually know what happens in the room? I was under the impression that there were combinations of numbers assigned to each team and that they are randomized and computer-drawn. So, 1.how would the representatives know all their combinations and 2.you certainly can rig a computer. Also, I have not seen an article on the specifics of the drawing process only how the odds are calculated and whatnot. If anyone has an article on the actual event, that would be enlightening for many.

bholly
04-22-2012, 01:51 AM
I know it's possible, and I've stated pretty clearly several times that of course it's possible - it's just extremely unlikely. I used the word impossible in that post as part of me paraphrasing someone else (who used the word impossible).

Yes, we know what happens in the room. It's publicly available info and easy to find. Here's the ESPN story I already posted in this thread:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nbadraft/story?id=1384345

And no, they can't just draw a combination then make up which team it belongs to - it isn't that hard to print each team out a sheet with all their combinations. They're allocated in order, not randomly (because it makes no difference), so it's not that hard to know what your combinations are. Here's a page that lists the Celtics' combinations for the 2007 draft - note that this page is from a week before the 2007 lottery:
http://www.nba.com/celtics/draft/2007-draft-lottery-combinations.html

The teams know beforehand what their combinations are. I think I've even seen a picture of them written up on the wall in the lottery room where everyone can see them, but I might be wrong about that.
Edit: yup, from that ESPN article, they have "eight laminated poster boards with all 1,000 four-digit combinations and the teams assigned to each combination."

Sssmush
04-22-2012, 01:56 AM
The only year I've ever heard a good conspiracy story was when the Knicks got the first pick and landed Patrick Ewing, it's when they used envelopes. The conspiracy was that the Knicks card was hit against the tumbler making it easy to identify when reaching in the tumbler. There's a youtube video of that particular draft.

Yes, those were the golden days of the NBA lottery, when the lottery was totally failproof, and David Stern would personally reach his hand into the bin and pull out one of the envelopes with the team's name inside.

Now it's all computerized, with sequences of random numbers. And it should be plainly obvious to everyone, that it is impossible for someone to rig a computer (or "program" it, as they say) to generate the outcome they want.

I mean, sure, 10s of millions of dollars are at stake but I'd still say there's absolutely no way it could be rigged. No way. Impossible.

bholly
04-22-2012, 02:02 AM
Yes, those were the golden days of the NBA lottery, when the lottery was totally failproof, and David Stern would personally reach his hand into the bin and pull out one of the envelopes with the team's name inside.

Now it's all computerized, with sequences of random numbers. And it should be plainly obvious to everyone, that it is impossible for someone to rig a computer (or "program" it, as they say) to generate the outcome they want.

I mean, sure, 10s of millions of dollars are at stake but I'd still say there's absolutely no way it could be rigged. No way. Impossible.

There is no computer involved. Again, before you question the system, at least understand the basics of how it works.

Sssmush
04-22-2012, 02:16 AM
Ok, this is perhaps the cheesiest link I have ever posted on PSD, but I think this actually explains one way the NBA lottery could possibly be rigged, or hints at it. I was trying to think of what the angle might be, why it is set up with each team having so many possible number combinations... I feel like there is something going on with that but I can't figure it out actually, and I am super busy right now.

But anyways, there's this:


“Yes, I personally am involved in it. Lottery ping-pong balls have a small valve, like a basketball or soccer ball, only it’s very tiny, and nearly invisible. We use a hypodermic needle to inject heavier-than-air gasses such as radon into the balls we don’t want to come up. At first, we tried helium in the ones we did want to rise, but they jumped up so quickly that it was obvious. Lotteries are raking in much more than if the games were honest, and people don’t know they have literally no chance!”

“If you think about it logically, you certainly don’t play anyway. You are betting that you can predict which six of 45 or more balls are going to come out of the hopper. In some games, the order even matters! It’s a sucker’s bet, and that’s when it’s honest! Most drawings are rigged, making the odds zero in infinity!

http://www.uncoveror.com/lottery.htm

That's just one possibility. Another would be something like a targeted ultrasound device or something like that. First, you insure that the team you're favoring gets a bunch of favorable combinations, then you use targeted ultrasound to slightly heat up the air within the balls with their numbers, causing them to rise higher in the machine and get sucked out. It would probably be possible to double or triple a team's odds of winning, if not to insure it outright. Also, the secret "rigging" machine could be totally outside the lottery air popper and the auditors; those guys are honest and are just playing the role of stooges. The ACTUAL cheat machine is located behind the walls of room 3A, where a sophisticated machinery "zaps" the chosen balls. It might be possible to do something like this with slightly different paint on the balls, or some kind of coating that interacts with infrared light somehow, but that doesn't weigh anything.

All the fuss about the sanctity of the machine and the envelopes and all that misdirects you from how the real control could be exerted.

On the other hand, Charles Barkley just said he thinks the lottery is rigged, and will be suspicious if NJ gets the Davis pick... which means we are fools and the NBA lottery definitely is NOT fixed.

Cal827
04-22-2012, 02:25 AM
:laugh: This is basically having two walls talking to each other: as someone said before, there's no convincing the other side lol

Rndy
04-22-2012, 02:44 AM
And with a 0% chance the Chicago Bulls win the rights to draft Anthony Davis! WOOO! I still always felt it was very fishy how stars always seem to go to their home teams. Ewing Knicks, Lebron Cavs, Rose Bulls. I've always felt it was rigged but I don't really care tbh. I'm surpised Cavs didn't try to throw this season to get Davis and Irving who would be one of the best up and coming duos.

bholly
04-22-2012, 03:51 AM
And with a 0% chance the Chicago Bulls win the rights to draft Anthony Davis! WOOO! I still always felt it was very fishy how stars always seem to go to their home teams. Ewing Knicks, Lebron Cavs, Rose Bulls. I've always felt it was rigged but I don't really care tbh. I'm surpised Cavs didn't try to throw this season to get Davis and Irving who would be one of the best up and coming duos.

Ewing had early childhood in Jamaica, teens in Cambridge, Mass., then went to Georgetown. He didn't go to his home team.

So that leaves two guys? One who went to the team with the biggest chance? It's hardly evidence of it being rigged.
Especially with so many people not going to their hometown teams. Kyrie (NJN, 6th highest chance), Blake Griffin (OKC, 4th), Oden (IND, 11th), Bogut (college ball in Utah, 4th), Dwight (Atlanta, 5th), Yao (Asian population around GSW where 'rigged' people said he'd go, 1st), Kwame (Georgia, Atlanta 5th), K-Mart (Dallas, 12th), etc.
There's a long history of 'home' teams missing out, even with much better odds than Chicago had. People just remember the year Chicago got lucky because that's how people think - selective memory and confirmation bias.

Sssmush
04-22-2012, 05:51 AM
As I think I already mentioned, even if we had a sample size of hundreds of years worth of NBA lotteries, the fact that this team or that team got the 1st pick in such and such a context or whatever cannot possibly be construed as "evidence" for the lottery being fixed.

I mean, maybe if New York had a 10% chance to win, and got the first pick 10 years in a row, then I might say you might have some slight evidence or cause for concern. But even 10 out of 10 first place wins is far from impossible, and really isn't even all that improbable.

Sssmush
04-22-2012, 05:53 AM
also the fact that they have continually narrowed the lottery more and more, till now it is almost like 2 teams with a shot for the first prize, shows that it is probably not rigged and not intended to be rigged. If anything, the randomness of it surprised the NBA planners, so you can see that it is set up to be far less random now.

krazylegz
04-22-2012, 06:23 AM
Pathetic. :pity:

Embarrassing people actually think it's rigged.

Outside of the suspicious 2011 lottery, nothing indicates it was rigged.

soooo...outside of a huge example of how its rigged (2011 lottery)....its not rigged???...your funny:clap:

bholly
04-22-2012, 06:37 AM
As I think I already mentioned, even if we had a sample size of hundreds of years worth of NBA lotteries, the fact that this team or that team got the 1st pick in such and such a context or whatever cannot possibly be construed as "evidence" for the lottery being fixed.

I mean, maybe if New York had a 10% chance to win, and got the first pick 10 years in a row, then I might say you might have some slight evidence or cause for concern. But even 10 out of 10 first place wins is far from impossible, and really isn't even all that improbable.

That's what I mean. As long as the team with 25% chance is winning ~25% of the time, and the team with 10% chance is winning ~10% of the time, and no teams are running wayy above or below expectation, etc, there's no statistical evidence for it being rigged. If there were extremely unlikely events happening, as you say, then that could be evidence that it doesn't work the way they say it does, and there are plenty of ways to look for and test for that type of evidence (as anyone who's taken just about any intro stats course at any college will know), but the evidence just isn't there.

Any 'evidence' people claim they have based on 'all these unlikely things keep happening' is just selective evidence and confirmation bias - nothing has happened that's in the slightest bit shady from a statistical perspective.

Without any statistical evidence of it being rigged, and without any obvious flaw in the system that suggests it could be rigged, there's just no reason to think it is other than bad reasoning. Of course you can't prove it absolutely isn't, but that's true of anything. There just isn't any reason to think it's rigged, and in fact it's overwhelmingly likely that it isn't (given the difficulty of doing it), so imo it just takes a pretty badly uninformed person, or perhaps a 'special' mind, to still insist that it must rigged like so many here do.

bholly
04-22-2012, 06:45 AM
soooo...outside of a huge example of how its rigged (2011 lottery)....its not rigged???...your funny:clap:

Again, how is that a huge example of it being rigged? The Clippers/Cavs pick had a 10% chance of moving up. The fact that it did isn't evidence of anything other than that it's possible.

tcav701
04-22-2012, 09:33 AM
yeah, a skeptic might say that having a lottery means that there's always an easy way to rig the system, should the need arise.

None of this should interfere with our enjoyment of watching the Amazing Wade flying through the air, or the Kobe, Master of the Dark Arts throwing a ball into a small hoop from 28 feet, or Blake Griffin, the Strongest Man in the World crushing a basketball in his hands.

Any time there is a system in place in which people with a financial interest in the outcome have an opportunity to manipulate the results, they will. It's human nature. People cheat on their taxes, lie to their bosses, etc.

It is a very idealistic point of view to think people in control will not manipulate what they can to increase the value of their product. Doing so is exactly how these people came into power and is exactly how business works.

What kills me is the same people that believe the league would never do anything to ruin the integrity of the game find it feasible that players would throw games to secure a better draft pick for their team.

Sure, professional athletes playing for contracts and personal gain would lower their FA value to help a team they most likely wont play for the following year.

If we have learned anything about players over the past few years its that they dont give a **** about the team and are interested in their stats and taking their talents elsewhere.

So which is more likely?

Players playing like **** and diminishing their personal value so their team at the time can get a higher draft pick. And keeping quiet about it.

OR

Rich executives influencing the outcome of their draft order to create a higher grossing product.

Hmmmmm.....

ccugrad1
04-22-2012, 11:36 AM
I believe the lottery is "rigged" when the NBA wants it to be. Like Rose with Chicago, LeBron with Cleveland, the Knicks with Ewing (in the sense that the NBA needed something good in NY at the time), The Spurs with Tim Duncan.

PC
04-22-2012, 12:23 PM
No, it's not rigged plain and simple. Ernst & Young (one of the Big 4 accounting firms) audits this. The same accounting firm that audits the financial statements of Fortune 500 companies. Do you really think they would taint their reputation, and in all likelihood risk going out of business, just to rig the NBA lottery?

Hawkeye15
04-22-2012, 12:28 PM
Until they draw the ping pong balls in front of everyone, and the ENTIRE process is out there for everyone to see, my Wolves *** will believe its tainted.

Fact: The Wolves, in 17 tries, have NEVER moved up once.
Fact: This year, the Wolves pick goes to New Orleans no matter what.
Fact: This year, the Wolves pick will leapfrog into a top 3 pick, because the Wolves won't be getting it.

The NBA lottery is a joke. I won't guarantee its rigged or tainted, but there is a long line of fishy *** results.

bigsams50
04-22-2012, 12:41 PM
There have been too many questionable moments for me to think the lottery isnt rigged. LBJ to Cleveland, Rose to Chicago, Wall to Washington after the gun debacle, Irving to Cleveland after LBJ left. NBA needs to get rid of the lottery system. Its bs.

bholly
04-22-2012, 04:40 PM
Until they draw the ping pong balls in front of everyone, and the ENTIRE process is out there for everyone to see, my Wolves *** will believe its tainted.

Fact: The Wolves, in 17 tries, have NEVER moved up once.
Fact: This year, the Wolves pick goes to New Orleans no matter what.
Fact: This year, the Wolves pick will leapfrog into a top 3 pick, because the Wolves won't be getting it.

The NBA lottery is a joke. I won't guarantee its rigged or tainted, but there is a long line of fishy *** results.

And as I've sait to you before:


Minnesota are 0-15 of getting the #1. But if you look at the odds (like I just did) you'd see that there was a 13.5% probability of that happening, given their probabilities in each lottery. That's barely less likely than rolling a 6. If you picked up a die right now, and rolled a 6, would you say 'this die is fishy.'? No, but that's essentially what you're doing.

If you look at their lotteries over the last decade, they've picked above their most likely spot twice (2 spots above last year, 1 spot above in 2008), below their most likely spot once (1 spot below in 2007) and at their most likely spot the other 4 times.

Taking into account all their probabilities, not just the most likely, their average expected pick in those years is 5.5987, while their average actual pick is 6. So over the last 7 drafts, they've run, on average, less than half a pick below where they should expect to. That's amazingly close to expectation with such a small sample size.

Seriously, using Minny as proof the draft is rigged is completely ridiculous. Any half assed statistical analysis can show that they don't run bad at all. The assertion is statistically laughable, and it does a disservice to the forum that a respected poster repeats it.

naps
04-22-2012, 05:04 PM
I don't believe it's rigged. But then again the drafts of Patrick Ewing, Derrick Rose, Kyrie Irving make me think otherwise. If Hornets or Bobcats get first pick this year then it's gonna generate more doubt.

Sssmush
04-22-2012, 06:03 PM
No, it's not rigged plain and simple. Ernst & Young (one of the Big 4 accounting firms) audits this. The same accounting firm that audits the financial statements of Fortune 500 companies. Do you really think they would taint their reputation, and in all likelihood risk going out of business, just to rig the NBA lottery?

Oh yeah, jeez, accountants would NEVER lie.

Especially a huge elite accounting firm handling an enormous account like the NBA, they could would never, ever lie on their clients behalf. Ever.

EVER!!

tcav701
04-22-2012, 06:05 PM
Oh yeah, jeez, accountants would NEVER lie.

Especially a huge elite accounting firm handling an enormous account like the NBA, they could would never, ever lie on their clients behalf. Ever.

EVER!!

:clap::clap::clap:

Lying is the largest part of an accountants job.

Sssmush
04-22-2012, 06:14 PM
Any time there is a system in place in which people with a financial interest in the outcome have an opportunity to manipulate the results, they will. It's human nature. People cheat on their taxes, lie to their bosses, etc.

It is a very idealistic point of view to think people in control will not manipulate what they can to increase the value of their product. Doing so is exactly how these people came into power and is exactly how business works.

What kills me is the same people that believe the league would never do anything to ruin the integrity of the game find it feasible that players would throw games to secure a better draft pick for their team.

Sure, professional athletes playing for contracts and personal gain would lower their FA value to help a team they most likely wont play for the following year.

If we have learned anything about players over the past few years its that they dont give a **** about the team and are interested in their stats and taking their talents elsewhere.

So which is more likely?

Players playing like **** and diminishing their personal value so their team at the time can get a higher draft pick. And keeping quiet about it.

OR

Rich executives influencing the outcome of their draft order to create a higher grossing product.

Hmmmmm.....

First of all... tanking games to move up in the draft is pretty well documented and is the rationale for entire draft lottery system in the first place.

Second, you're right that companies will always do what's in their best interest and are therefore not above cheating and deception, however an entertainment company like the NBA has to weigh the advantages (of, say, having Patrick Ewing in New York) versus the risks and downsides, of possibly having a "Black Sox" style cheating scandal, which decimates the leauge's reputation and integrity and forces all of the executives to leave in utter disgrace.

Of course the league was able to weather the Donaghy scandal, which was actually incredibly bad, and not even bat an eye. Just a few tense words from Stern, and "presto" there IS no Donaghy problem or NBA refereeing, there never has been, never was one, done. I say there's no problem therefore there's no problem.

And that's what actually worked. No information, no disclosure, no external investigation, just a closed door plea deal and a blanket statement.

That's actually much worse than a "fixing the lotto" scandal would be, I'd say, but then again to many people the idea that you can't trust the lotto would be calamitous.

tcav701
04-22-2012, 06:18 PM
First of all... tanking games to move up in the draft is pretty well documented and is the rationale for entire draft lottery system in the first place.

Second, you're right that companies will always do what's in their best interest and are therefore not above cheating and deception, however an entertainment company like the NBA has to weigh the advantages (of, say, having Patrick Ewing in New York) versus the risks and downsides, of possibly having a "Black Sox" style cheating scandal, which decimates the leauge's reputation and integrity and forces all of the executives to leave in utter disgrace.

Of course the league was able to weather the Donaghy scandal, which was actually incredibly bad, and not even bat an eye. Just a few tense words from Stern, and "presto" there IS no Donaghy problem or NBA refereeing, there never has been, never was one, done. I say there's no problem therefore there's no problem.

And that's what actually worked. No information, no disclosure, no external investigation, just a closed door plea deal and a blanket statement.

That's actually much worse than a "fixing the lotto" scandal would be, I'd say, but then again to many people the idea that you can't trust the lotto would be calamitous.

Thats pretty much my point.

They are openly admitting one scandal to justify another.

Sssmush
04-22-2012, 06:26 PM
That's what I mean. As long as the team with 25% chance is winning ~25% of the time, and the team with 10% chance is winning ~10% of the time, and no teams are running wayy above or below expectation, etc, there's no statistical evidence for it being rigged. If there were extremely unlikely events happening, as you say, then that could be evidence that it doesn't work the way they say it does, and there are plenty of ways to look for and test for that type of evidence (as anyone who's taken just about any intro stats course at any college will know), but the evidence just isn't there.

Any 'evidence' people claim they have based on 'all these unlikely things keep happening' is just selective evidence and confirmation bias - nothing has happened that's in the slightest bit shady from a statistical perspective.

Without any statistical evidence of it being rigged, and without any obvious flaw in the system that suggests it could be rigged, there's just no reason to think it is other than bad reasoning. Of course you can't prove it absolutely isn't, but that's true of anything. There just isn't any reason to think it's rigged, and in fact it's overwhelmingly likely that it isn't (given the difficulty of doing it), so imo it just takes a pretty badly uninformed person, or perhaps a 'special' mind, to still insist that it must rigged like so many here do.

But yeah, again, you use the word "statistical evidence," and over the sample size we're talking about (say, 20 or 30 lottery drawings) there is just no such thing. Heck, guys like Barkley are even saying that if a particular team wins the 1st pick in ONE SINGLE LOTTERY, one iteration, then that would constitute evidence of fixing.

Again... even if, say, New York had a 10% chance of getting the first pick in each of the last 10 years, and had won the 1st pick every year, ten times in a row.

THAT would not be "statistical evidence" of the lottery being rigged. And even if they won it again this year, with just a 5% chance, for their 11th straight #1 pick overall, that would still not be statistical evidence.

Over such a small sample size, random variance makes such a scenario totally possible.

All that being said, there ARE clearly ways to rig a lottery, and just the fact that they use a "lottery" would seem to give them a built in way to pull the wool over every one's eyes and pull a fast one, if it was necessary.

Not this year, not next year... but say 2 or 3 years from now, if there's some super hot player who is clearly, clearly the next Jordan or the next Shaq, better than those guys, even. That guy is NOT going to Minnesota or Milwaukee for 7 years, he's just not. He's going to a big market or somewhere favorable.

So, rigging is clearly possible, which I think was the original question, although it probably doesn't happen, or at least not very often. But I would never discount the possibility of them doing it if they had a reason to, I think they would jimmy the lotto in a second if they had a good reason to.

Also, ironically, the Ewing draft when Stern pulled the envelope from the barrel was probably on the up and up, Stern was probably totally innocent and wouldn't have dreamt of trying to cheat there.

bholly
04-22-2012, 06:32 PM
But yeah, again, you use the word "statistical evidence," and over the sample size we're talking about (say, 20 or 30 lottery drawings) there is just no such thing. Heck, guys like Barkley are even saying that if a particular team wins the 1st pick in ONE SINGLE LOTTERY, one iteration, then that would constitute evidence of fixing.

Again... even if, say, New York had a 10% chance of getting the first pick in each of the last 10 years, and had won the 1st pick every year, ten times in a row.

THAT would not be "statistical evidence" of the lottery being rigged. And even if they won it again this year, with just a 5% chance, for their 11th straight #1 pick overall, that would still not be statistical evidence.

Over such a small sample size, random variance makes such a scenario totally possible.

All that being said, there ARE clearly ways to rig a lottery, and just the fact that they use a "lottery" would seem to give them a built in way to pull the wool over every one's eyes and pull a fast one, if it was necessary.

Not this year, not next year... but say 2 or 3 years from now, if there's some super hot player who is clearly, clearly the next Jordan or the next Shaq, better than those guys, even. That guy is NOT going to Minnesota or Milwaukee for 7 years, he's just not. He's going to a big market or somewhere favorable.

So, rigging is clearly possible, which I think was the original question, although it probably doesn't happen, or at least not very often. But I would never discount the possibility of them doing it if they had a reason to, I think they would jimmy the lotto in a second if they had a good reason to.

Also, ironically, the Ewing draft when Stern pulled the envelope from the barrel was probably on the up and up, Stern was probably totally innocent and wouldn't have dreamt of trying to cheat there.

Yes, that would be statistical evidence. Of course it would. I don't have the time to actually run the tests just to placate people about a hypothetical, but I guarantee you just about every test of the distribution would show that as a statistically significant result, even over a 20 draw sample size.
There's a 1 in 10,000,000,000 chance of a 10% chance hitting 10 times in a row. Of course that would be statistical evidence.
The things we have seen aren't anything close to that level of unlikelihood, by several orders of magnitude.

Sssmush
04-22-2012, 11:01 PM
Yes, that would be statistical evidence. Of course it would. I don't have the time to actually run the tests just to placate people about a hypothetical, but I guarantee you just about every test of the distribution would show that as a statistically significant result, even over a 20 draw sample size.
There's a 1 in 10,000,000,000 chance of a 10% chance hitting 10 times in a row. Of course that would be statistical evidence.
The things we have seen aren't anything close to that level of unlikelihood, by several orders of magnitude.

I would disagree with you there.

Now, if you were to look forward from 2001 and say "what are the odds that the Knicks, with a 10% chance to win, will get the 1st pick in the draft 10 years in a row?" Then yes I agree those are some very long odds.

BUT, what are the odds of the Knicks drawing the 1st pick in 2001? 9:1 against.

Ok, so they get lucky and hit it in 2001. Now, 2002, what are their odds? Again, they have a 10% chance and are 9:1 against.

Assuming they get lucky again, what are their odds in 2003? Etc.

So, if we're looking BACK at a series of discrete events in this very limited sample, there's simply no way we can say that this or that longshot winner, or this or that pattern of longshot winners constitute statistical "evidence."

In fact, if the Knicks won 10 times in a row with a 10% chance, and the lottery was shown to be reasonably secure and well-monitored and cheat proof, then I would say that it is 100 times more likely that the Knicks simply got lucky than that the NBA lottery is fixed.

And, especially, if people are talking about the NY Ewing pick, or Barkley talking about the New Jersey pick this year, forget about that. There's simply NO WAY a single draw, no matter how improbable, could be evidence that the NBA lottery is fixed.

It's always possible to rig a lottery though. The whole smoke and mirrors aspect of it makes it completely possible.

bholly
04-22-2012, 11:43 PM
If you're college age, take an intro stats course. You'll benefit from it.

Also look up evidence in the dictionary. It doesn't mean 'incontrovertable proof' like you seem to think.

Sssmush
05-01-2012, 06:19 PM
If you're college age, take an intro stats course. You'll benefit from it.

Also look up evidence in the dictionary. It doesn't mean 'incontrovertable proof' like you seem to think.

From wikipedia:


In probability theory, to say that two events are independent intuitively means that the occurrence of one event makes it neither more nor less probable that the other occurs. For example:

The event of getting a 6 the first time a die is rolled and the event of getting a 6 the second time are independent.

By contrast, the event of getting a 6 the first time a die is rolled and the event that the sum of the numbers seen on the first and second trials is 8 are not independent.

If two cards are drawn with replacement from a deck of cards, the event of drawing a red card on the first trial and that of drawing a red card on the second trial are independent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_(probability_theory)

As regards evidence, you're right, there is a vital distinction between evidence and 'proof'. But there are also many different kinds of evidence, some of which are far stronger than others.

In this case, the evidence you are talking about stems from the mathematical improbability of the events, which leads you to infer that there must be some cheating or fixin' going on.

But since it is 100% mathematically possible for New York to have won those hypothetical draft lotteries, this suspicion based on the low probability would be extremely weak evidence. It is just a suspicion, really.

For instance, say if I got hit by lightning right through the window in my living room. The odds against this might be several billion to one against. Nevertheless, it happened. I can't rationally say that therefore I have evidence that Thor, the god of thunder, or Zeus, the god of the sky, have directly attacked me for the impiety of watching pornography, especially when it cannot be proven that Thor or Zeus even actually exist.

I hope that makes sense. This was a fun conversation and you make some great points. :cool:

boolish
05-01-2012, 06:22 PM
Pathetic. :pity:

Embarrassing people actually think it's rigged.

Outside of the suspicious 2011 lottery, nothing indicates it was rigged.

bron went to CLE.
drose went to CHI in one of the biggest long shots in history.

boolish
05-01-2012, 06:27 PM
No, it's not rigged plain and simple. Ernst & Young (one of the Big 4 accounting firms) audits this. The same accounting firm that audits the financial statements of Fortune 500 companies. Do you really think they would taint their reputation, and in all likelihood risk going out of business, just to rig the NBA lottery?

the same accounting firm that audited enron and worldcom? no but one of the "big four" did audit those two frauds.

BigBlueCrew
05-01-2012, 06:36 PM
the same accounting firm that audited enron and worldcom? no but one of the "big four" did audit those two frauds.

no...Arther Anderson did those and they dont exist anymore...geez

bholly
05-01-2012, 07:06 PM
From wikipedia:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_(probability_theory)

As regards evidence, you're right, there is a vital distinction between evidence and 'proof'. But there are also many different kinds of evidence, some of which are far stronger than others.

In this case, the evidence you are talking about stems from the mathematical improbability of the events, which leads you to infer that there must be some cheating or fixin' going on.

But since it is 100% mathematically possible for New York to have won those hypothetical draft lotteries, this suspicion based on the low probability would be extremely weak evidence. It is just a suspicion, really.

For instance, say if I got hit by lightning right through the window in my living room. The odds against this might be several billion to one against. Nevertheless, it happened. I can't rationally say that therefore I have evidence that Thor, the god of thunder, or Zeus, the god of the sky, have directly attacked me for the impiety of watching pornography, especially when it cannot be proven that Thor or Zeus even actually exist.

I hope that makes sense. This was a fun conversation and you make some great points. :cool:

Seriously, take an intro stats class before you talk about this more. You're obviously well out of your depth talking about these things and it's getting a little embarrassing to read. These are real concepts about which there is a huge amount of widely available knowledge and theory, and you're debating them as a lay person with who has apparently never encountered the concepts in any sort of formal setting. I'm not saying you're stupid or anything - quite the opposite, you seem like someone who's naturally inquisitive about this stuff, which is great - but go and learn the basics of the subject before you argue about it with people. Even if you don't care about arguing with people, it's interesting stuff, so I'd recommend learning about it anyway.

I'm not inferring from those events that there's something going on for certain, I'd be inferring that it's extremely unlikely that those results would come from the distribution they're supposed to. Again, I never said those results would be proof of it being rigged, I'd say they'd be evidence enough to lead you to strongly question it. Not proof, evidence. A suggestion. So far, through 20 or so years of the lottery, there is nothing with the statistical significance to suggest anything of the sort.

I have no idea what the point of that wikipedia quote is. You learn statistical independence in high school - posting a quote explaining it isn't teaching anyone anything. It isn't relevant to our conversation about the Knicks winning 10 times in a row, because each draw is independent under our base assumptions.

Sssmush
05-01-2012, 08:01 PM
Seriously, take an intro stats class before you talk about this more. You're obviously well out of your depth talking about these things and it's getting a little embarrassing to read. These are real concepts about which there is a huge amount of widely available knowledge and theory, and you're debating them as a lay person with who has apparently never encountered the concepts in any sort of formal setting. I'm not saying you're stupid or anything - quite the opposite, you seem like someone who's naturally inquisitive about this stuff, which is great - but go and learn the basics of the subject before you argue about it with people. Even if you don't care about arguing with people, it's interesting stuff, so I'd recommend learning about it anyway.

I'm not inferring from those events that there's something going on for certain, I'd be inferring that it's extremely unlikely that those results would come from the distribution they're supposed to. Again, I never said those results would be proof of it being rigged, I'd say they'd be evidence enough to lead you to strongly question it. Not proof, evidence. A suggestion. So far, through 20 or so years of the lottery, there is nothing with the statistical significance to suggest anything of the sort.

I have no idea what the point of that wikipedia quote is. You learn statistical independence in high school - posting a quote explaining it isn't teaching anyone anything. It isn't relevant to our conversation about the Knicks winning 10 times in a row, because each draw is independent under our base assumptions.

Yeah... at this point, I'm not sure what exactly we're disagreeing on, or what specifically you think I'm saying that is so incredibly wrong.

The point about the independent events is exactly what you say, that each NBA lottery drawing is an independent event. Therefore, looking BACK in time at the previous drawings, it's incorrect for us to say "see, the odds against New York getting Ewing + Cleveland getting Lebron + Chicago getting Rose + Los Angeles getting Griffin was 5 billion to one."

Similarly, it's a very weak kind of evidence to say that because Chicago won the lottery as a 19-1 underdog, or a big market team won the lottery even as a 99-1 underdog, that that somehow constitutes "evidence" that it's rigged. Once the balls are in the air, it is perfectly possible for any particular ball to win. I agree that if we had a significantly larger sample we would eventually be able to declare that such and such course of events is staggeringly improbable, and thus it becomes more likely that something is rigged, but looking at 20 or 30 NBA draft lotteries, with the amount of variance that we've seen, I just don't see how you can possibly claim to see "evidence" of fixing just from the results across that sample size. Something like a suspicious comment from an NBA owner or a league office person would be far, far more powerful evidence, even if it was relatively meaningless.

Stop me if I'm wrong. Also, something like Barkley saying that "if NewJersey wins the #1 pick this year, then we finally have evidence that it's fixed" is clearly incorrect. It may make you suspicious that it's fixed, but there is just no causal connection or empirical evidence of any kind there to lead you to the conclusion that it's fixed.

bholly
05-01-2012, 08:11 PM
You're wrong. I'm stopping you.
You're right that there's no evidence that leads you to a conclusion that it's fixed. You're right that Barkley is wrong. You're right that we haven't seen evidence that it's fixed, and that a larger sample size would help.

You're still wrong about the New York thing and the independence thing. It's the independence of those draws that allows us to go back and multiply the probabilities to find out the overall probability.
It's because of independence that we can say that a 10% chance hitting in 10 out of 10 independent draws is 1 in 10^10.
You keep focussing on whether we're looking forwards or backwards and that's irrelevant - the probability of those events happening is/was still the same.

Chicago hitting a 1 in 20 shot isn't strong evidence and isn't going to give any statistically significant results. Chicago hitting a 1 in 60 shot (which is closer to what it actually was) is about the same.
New York hitting 10 straight 10% shots, a serious of outcomes that have a 1 in 10,000,000,000 probability of occurring, would be very very strong statistical evidence.

Again, take an intro stats class and this point will be obvious to you, and our point of difference will be obvious.

NoahH
05-01-2012, 08:38 PM
True that. Good investigating.

I still think New Orleans will get it tho :hide:

Gram
05-01-2012, 09:08 PM
It may be rigged. :shrug: I'd have to see some more questionable number 1 picks though.

Sssmush
05-01-2012, 11:37 PM
You're wrong. I'm stopping you.
You're right that there's no evidence that leads you to a conclusion that it's fixed. You're right that Barkley is wrong. You're right that we haven't seen evidence that it's fixed, and that a larger sample size would help.

You're still wrong about the New York thing and the independence thing. It's the independence of those draws that allows us to go back and multiply the probabilities to find out the overall probability.
It's because of independence that we can say that a 10% chance hitting in 10 out of 10 independent draws is 1 in 10^10.
You keep focussing on whether we're looking forwards or backwards and that's irrelevant - the probability of those events happening is/was still the same.

Chicago hitting a 1 in 20 shot isn't strong evidence and isn't going to give any statistically significant results. Chicago hitting a 1 in 60 shot (which is closer to what it actually was) is about the same.
New York hitting 10 straight 10% shots, a serious of outcomes that have a 1 in 10,000,000,000 probability of occurring, would be very very strong statistical evidence.

Again, take an intro stats class and this point will be obvious to you, and our point of difference will be obvious.

Look... the scenario of the Knicks winning the #1 pick with a 10% chance 10 years in a row might be a bit extreme, but again it is subjective how you estimate your P-value when comparing the unlikeliness of this occurring versus the unlikeliness that the lottery is blatantly rigged and the commissioner is a crook, which could be extremely low.

Again, over a sample size of 10 draft lotteries, it's very difficult to say that the outcome is impossible. For instance, you put the probability of the Knicks winning ten out of ten at 10 billion to 1; just for comparison, the odds of a straight flush losing to a royal flush are something like 45 billion to 1, however I have actually seen this occur. (89 of spades vs AK of spades, board comes TJQ of spades).

Or, for instance, consider craps. Rolling a 2 in craps, snake eyes, is 35-1 against. But how many times have you seen a fairly long sequence of twos? I don't play craps a lot, but I know I've seen it, not 10 in a row but I'm sure it happens sometimes.

Like say this year, it's a very different thing if the order is something like Cleveland #1, Sac #2, Charlotte #3, New Orleans #4, New Jersey #5, washington #6, GS #7, and if today I TELL YOU that it will be that exact order in the actual drawing, and we bet on it, and then it occurs exactly that way.

Anyway, my problem with this line of reasoning, although the exact threshold of improbability is subjective and up for debate, is that if you first present the proposition that the NBA lottery could be fixed, and then you backward compare it with draft results (over a small sample) and try to use that as evidence of the lottery being fixed, for one thing, it's totally hypothetical and unknown as to whether it's even possible to fix the lottery (there might be some foolproof safeguard in place). Secondly, we also have no idea HOW the lottery might be fixed if it was. For all we know, Golden State might be the leauge's favorite team, not New York, because the NBA owes some debt to developers in California. So you're presupposing not just that the lottery is fixed, but also HOW it's fixed, based on your own theories, and then using the improbability of events which have already happened as evidence. Events that are very far from mathematically impossible.