PDA

View Full Version : Why teams should NOT want the worst record for the draft lottery.



egptnwarrior22
02-25-2014, 01:36 PM
It is very very very rare that the team with the worst record actually lands the top pick in the lottery. 2004 was the last time the worst team actually clinched the 1st pick when they drafted Howard. The Cavs did it the year before as well. If you look at the link below, history will show that you want to land between 3-6 to get the #1 pick. Would you rather your team had the best chance to win the lottery or would you rather have historical probability on your side?

http://basketball.******.com/nba/draft/lottery_results/2013

PSD wont let us post real gm in a url...just replace the stars with real gm

2-ONE-5
02-25-2014, 01:47 PM
irrelevant. the worst record gets the best odds and cant fall past the 4th pick which is all that matters. althought this favors my squad at the moment

Teeboy1487
02-25-2014, 02:02 PM
I think every team with a top 5 pick hits the lottery this year. This upcoming draft is amazing.

metsrock229
02-25-2014, 02:04 PM
I think it's 25%, 1 in 4. The odds decrease from there. It's not like the worst record all but guarantees the first pick.

TorontoHuskies
02-25-2014, 02:07 PM
irrelevant. the worst record gets the best odds and cant fall past the 4th pick which is all that matters. althought this favors my squad at the moment

^^^Odds even themselves out you flip a coin 1 million times it will land on heads or tails almost equally. Same thing with the draft unless it's rigged than that's another discussion but assuming it's fair it's always best to be the worst.

ManRam
02-25-2014, 02:11 PM
The best odds are the best odds. Doesn't matter how often they actually have won it in the past, 25% is still better than anything else. :shrug:

The lottery is supposed to decrease the incentivise to outright tank and sabotage individual games, and I think it does to an extent, but again, odds are odds and better odds are better than not-as-good odds.

giants73756
02-25-2014, 02:11 PM
Jesus Christ why is this a thread. OP what draft choice would you want most?

TaylorMays
02-25-2014, 02:12 PM
It is kind of curious that the 3rd worst team has won the lottery more than the worst and second worse teams combined but, it's still kind of dumb to say the worst record isn't as good as something else. Would you rather have a 25% chance or a 15-17% chance of winning. Hypothetically if we have enough lotteries and there isn't some other driving force (CONSPIRACIES ARE REAL) then eventually the worst teams will draft first more than anyone else. And as others have pointed out, I'd guess the average pick of someone with the first pick is around 1.9, the average pick of the second worst record is 2.8 and so on so having the worst record still nets you the highest average pick even though they don't win the most

Kaner
02-25-2014, 02:17 PM
The First Law of Probability states that the results of one chance event have no effect on the results of subsequent chance events. (or something along those lines)

Past lotteries are completely irrelevant to how this years lottery will play out all that matters is that in the next lottery whoever has the worst record has the best chance at the first pick. The only thing history would suggest as we get a bigger and bigger sample is that the nba is fixed or terrible at setting up lotteries.

Spacolie716
02-25-2014, 02:36 PM
What people aren't realizing is that they have to rely on all these players to actually come out for this year to be an amazing draft. You have people like Embiid that are considering staying in for another year. Alot of these players actually should stay because they should polish their game. Embiid being one of them.

Minimal
02-25-2014, 02:56 PM
You're probably one of those who believe in God over science op

REKAL
02-25-2014, 03:11 PM
the four picks (3-6) have a combined 42.6% chance of getting first. Of course its more likely to land there. 25% is still better odds not matter what.

blahblahyoutoo
02-25-2014, 03:41 PM
they should make it so that the team with the worst record is ineligible for 1st pick entirely.
then it'll really be interesting how teams try to strategize how to be bad but not the worst.
you'd see the last place teams actually trying hard to not be last, and then those above them will have to try a bit harder just in case.

Guppyfighter
02-25-2014, 03:44 PM
The First Law of Probability states that the results of one chance event have no effect on the results of subsequent chance events. (or something along those lines)

Past lotteries are completely irrelevant to how this years lottery will play out all that matters is that in the next lottery whoever has the worst record has the best chance at the first pick. The only thing history would suggest as we get a bigger and bigger sample is that the nba is fixed or terrible at setting up lotteries.


You saw how they did the lottery last year, right? Not sure how anyone can think it's rigged.

KnicksorBust
02-25-2014, 05:18 PM
Yeah if it was "have the #1 pick's odds" vs. "have the odds of all the lottery picks" then I'd agree with you.

egptnwarrior22
02-25-2014, 06:44 PM
they should make it so that the team with the worst record is ineligible for 1st pick entirely.
then it'll really be interesting how teams try to strategize how to be bad but not the worst.
you'd see the last place teams actually trying hard to not be last, and then those above them will have to try a bit harder just in case.

dude, thats a pretty sweet idea...all 82 games would have a much higher impact on the plans of every team

egptnwarrior22
02-25-2014, 06:47 PM
the four picks (3-6) have a combined 42.6% chance of getting first. Of course its more likely to land there. 25% is still better odds not matter what.

That's not what I meant. I meant each individual pick between 3 and 6 hits more often than 1 does.

giants73756
02-25-2014, 07:07 PM
You're probably one of those who believe in God over science op
Whatever you believe, this is an idiotic thing to say.

giants73756
02-25-2014, 07:08 PM
the four picks (3-6) have a combined 42.6% chance of getting first. Of course its more likely to land there. 25% is still better odds not matter what.

That's not what I meant. I meant each individual pick between 3 and 6 hits more often than 1 does.

So are you saying you'd rather have the 3rd pick than the 1st?

Kaner
02-25-2014, 07:19 PM
So are you saying you'd rather have the 3rd pick than the 1st?

no he's saying that historically the teams with the 3rd-6th worst records have gotten the first pick more often then the last placed team.

tredigs
02-25-2014, 07:19 PM
It is very very very rare that the team with the worst record actually lands the top pick in the lottery. 2004 was the last time the worst team actually clinched the 1st pick when they drafted Howard. The Cavs did it the year before as well. If you look at the link below, history will show that you want to land between 3-6 to get the #1 pick. Would you rather your team had the best chance to win the lottery or would you rather have historical probability on your side?

http://basketball.******.com/nba/draft/lottery_results/2013

PSD wont let us post real gm in a url...just replace the stars with real gm

Does history show that exactly the 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th best odds have garnered the #1 pick more so than the team with the best odds (have to remember that the lottery odds have changed over the years and factor that in, too). I'd highly doubt it, and if they do, it's simply due to too small of a sample size. Obviously the field has a higher chance of earning the pick than the one with the best odds (because they still have a minority of the odds), but overall you go with the best chances 10 times out of 10. Not to mention that the lowest pick they can get is higher than the lowest pick a lower odds (better record) team can get.

I mean I get it... the Lakers will likely earn a 3-6 seed and you're somehow trying to justify that it is better, but it's not based in reality.

Don't gamble in Vegas.

giants73756
02-25-2014, 09:17 PM
no he's saying that historically the teams with the 3rd-6th worst records have gotten the first pick more often then the last placed team.

The title would imply otherwise.

blahblahyoutoo
02-26-2014, 12:41 AM
dude, thats a pretty sweet idea...all 82 games would have a much higher impact on the plans of every team

i'm full of great ideas ;)
i'd even go as far as bottom 3 teams have no shot at 1st pick, or picks 1-3. that'll get every team to play hard and stop this tanking bull ****.

any chance the new commish and the owners would be on board? prob not.

JEDean89
02-26-2014, 03:09 AM
^^^ no, i don't like the worst team not having a shot, they just shouldn't have a 25% shot. It should be like 15% for the 1st, 12% for the 2nd, 10% for the 3rd down to 5% for the 14th. That way teams like the Grizz could win the #1 pick and become a great team, like the Bulls when they got Rose. GM's won't be able to convince their owners to tank for a 15% chance at the #1 pick and maybe a 40% chance for a top 4 pick (where the vast majority of allstars have been picked).

COOLbeans
02-26-2014, 04:30 AM
You're probably one of those who believe in God over science op

:confused:

egptnwarrior22
02-26-2014, 09:36 AM
So are you saying you'd rather have the 3rd pick than the 1st?

NO...record and pick are two words that mean entirely different things

In case you haven't been following, the point of this thread is to point out that the team with the worst record, rarely gets the #1 pick. in fact it hasn't happened in over 10 years.

Kaner
02-26-2014, 09:40 AM
NO...record and pick are two words that mean entirely different things

In case you haven't been following, the point of this thread is to point out that the team with the worst record, rarely gets the #1 pick. in fact it hasn't happened in over 10 years.

Okay would you rather have a 25% chance to win something or a 9.4% chance?

koreancabbage
02-26-2014, 09:53 AM
they should make it so that the team with the worst record is ineligible for 1st pick entirely.
then it'll really be interesting how teams try to strategize how to be bad but not the worst.
you'd see the last place teams actually trying hard to not be last, and then those above them will have to try a bit harder just in case.

"strategize to be bad but not the worst"

its not like the worst team gets the first pick all the time anyways. the current system kinda gives teams in the 2-6 range better odds combined of getting the first pick overall than the first overall pick.

Even though they will never do that, it will always never be a lack of effort on the court for the most part. Teams that are consistently in the lottery usually mean they just have bad upper management. Then again, teams like Indiana and OKC have grown out to be contenders from the draft. so its good to that good management/ planned lottery appearances/ drafting well pays dividends