CBAreject

I guess you mean that the Bobcats are 4th? Anyhow, for the sake of arguments, we should hope that this tie holds up.

That would be good, at this point. If we win again, we lose more balls by falling out of a tie.

Orlando

Chicago

Wash

Phx

LAC

Atl

I'm going to be sick. Yeah! I'm glad we won 3 games recently to secure a mediocre pick and another decade of mediocrity. I'm Joe Fan who doesn't understand delayed gratification. *barf*

Sura - 3 yr 9.2 million. (starts at 3)

Jax - 4 year 27 million. (starts at 5.5)

Pryz - 1 year 3.3 million. (3.3)

Swift - 4 years 23 Million. (5)

Leon Smith - 3 year 7 million. (2, and WHY???)

Brevin Knight - 3 year 8 Million. (2.5)

Draft Smith/Humphries in the first round. Sato in the Second. (Total 4 mil)

OK, so you have spent 3 + 5.5 + 3.3 + 5 + 2 + 2.5 + 4 = 25 million bux of our cap space?????

Do we even have that to spend? AND, you spent some of it on Leon Smith????? I'm going to be sick.

Actually, 3.3 comes of the books with Pryz. If you add that to Henderson and Crawford's salaries, that's enough for a FA the following year. HOWEVER, I would rather not sign all of these mediocre players. Mullin was quoted in the AJC today. He mentioned that many NBA teams had gotten into trouble by overspending on mid level players. Doesn't sound like he wants to do what you propose.

True we stand a good chance at topping Chicago, but to win another game would require an upset. Washington, on the other hand plays 2 below .500 teams, 2 .500 teams, and 1 top notch opponent. So, you think we will 'probably' pull an upset, but there is 'no way' that Washington will? I would hesitate to say that there is 'no way' that Washington could tie us.

We cannot pick 4th. The Bobcats are slated to pick there.

It's top 3 or 5th.

I think some of us have taken to this scrappy bunch, but we should remember that they lose the majority of the time. Some think that these close losses mean that the addition of one player while retaining the 'core' will merit a playoff berth next season.

We should understand why we lose these games, though. Sure, the rebounding could be better. However, the chief reason for our losses are a lousy shooting percentage.

Bob Sura and Jason Terry both shoot for low percentages, and a championship cannot be won this way. I argue that those two in the backcourt will not go far.

Stephen Jackson may be a different story. I like what he's doing. However, Sura and Terry cannot be our starting guards if we're to have championship aspirations.

I spend all this time listing the odds for each scenario, including the one in which we tie with Washington. Then, you say that it doesn't do any good to tie with them?

It does plenty of good to tie with Washington. While it's true that they get a higher pick IF WE BOTH fall out of the top 3, we would greatly increase our chances at a top 3 by tying.

The lotto balls are divided between all teams, with bad teams getting more than better teams. If there is a tie between two teams, those teams have the same number of balls. So, for our circumstances, the number of balls for the 3 team and the number for the 4 team are averaged, and we get the same number as washington.

Is he related to Prybilla?

The Clippers have had very high picks and been horrible in spite of them.

HOWEVER, we can't say that the Clippers would've been better off picking a little lower.

That's my point. All things equal, I want the highest pick possible. Suppose the Spurs picked 2nd when Duncan was available. Suppose the Bulls picked 7th when Jordan was available. Suppose the Cavs picked 4th when LeBron was available.

Those franchises were or will be made by their picks.

I know, it sucks that we have to place our hopes on a high school kid, but what else have we got? You know, we wouldn't have to trade up if we'd just tank.

Delayed gratification, folks.

I like being lousy! Let's go 3-3 the rest of the way! I can't wait for next year!

P.S. No, I can't help being a sarcastic jerk when it comes to my basketball team. The only solace I had was that the last 5 years of horrible basketball might culminate in a #1 draft pick. That is looking less and less likely. It would be one thing if we had Lebron to build around, but we don't, and we won't be acquiring that star with the 8th pick in the draft.

-How can I root for them to lose? Call it delayed gratification.

The Clippers are 2 games ahead of us in the league standings at 27-50. The Clips have lost 10 consecutive games, though.

This team was a somewhat respectable 25-31 at one point, but has gone 2-19 and will probably lose out and let Phoenix pass or tie them (since they play once more). Since it doesn't appear that LAC will win again, we could easily tie them.

If Phoenix wins once against LAC and finishes with 27 wins and the Clipps lose out, we could very easily finish in a three way tie with them, or, if we're very ambitious, we could pass both of them. That would be a horrible scenario. True, we could still get a high pick, but that would be very improbable,and picking 8th would be lousy. We play Chicago once and Boston twice. We could easily win 2 of those 3.

Those of you who want to win a couple of games to barely nose out of the high pick range may well get your chance.

I have to take exception to this. Nevermind the fact that 'Well if this team is going to be compete every night.' isn't even a sentence. That's not what I'm arguing about.

The thing here is that Nicholas and I both have said that what is IDEAL is that we compete BUT lose. We have never said that such a scenario is probable. We have simply stated that such is the outcome that we would chose if given the choice. Now, you are arguing that the scenario we have chosen is improbable; therefore, we have no right to desire it.

Let's break it down:

NICK's argument: I want the Hawks to play hard and lose close.

PHOOSTAL: You're not a true Hawks fan.

NICK: No, no. Losing is best for us in the long run, but competing gives us a glimmer of hope. It's win/win.

PHOOSTAL: I repeat, you're not a Hawks fan, and we might not even get a good pick if we do lose.

NICK: Sigh. You don't understand expected value. We need to increase our probability in spite of the fact that we cannot be guaranteed a high pick.

PHOOSTAL: OK, but, we probably can't lose and compete at the same time.

NICK: So, you do understand probabilities. However, your point is moot. I've simply stated that it is ideal that we lose and compete, not that it is probable.

OK, so we're probably going to finish #4 worst this year. Here's what it means for us and how much it would help to let Washington catch or pass us:

1) Hawks finish as 4th worst team without a tie:

Scenario Probability

Pick 1st 12.0%

Pick 2nd 12.7%

Pick 3rd 13.4%

Pick top 3 38.1%

Pick 5 or below 61.9%

2) Hawks finish as 3rd worst team without a tie

Scenario Probability

Pick 1st 15.7%

Pick 2nd 15.8%

Pick 3rd 15.7%

Pick top 3 47.2%

Pick 5 or below 52.8%

3) Hawks finish tied for 3rd worst with Washington

Scenario Probability

Pick 1st 13.9%

Pick 2nd 14.4%

Pick 3rd 14.0%

Pick top 3 42.3%

Pick 5 or below 57.7%

So, there you have it. Being number 3 vs. number 4 would increase our chances at a top three by almost 25% (47% vs. 38%). Still, having even a 47% chance at a top 3 isn't very comforting.

Nicholas, you have lectured me about being a jerk, and I deserved it. See, it's frustrating trying to construct logical arguments on this board, only to have them fall on ign'ant ears.

There are two things at work here:

1) It seems our only hope as a franchise is a little lotto luck. That said, we need to lose as much as possible so that we can improve our chances at a high pick. Winning does nothing now but decrease those chances. What's to debate?

2) We also agree that we need to be able to sign a high profile free agent with all of our newfound cap space. BUT, be advised--that will not happen this offseason. No, it will happen next. All things equal, we'd prefer to have something going into next season to pair with said lotto choice, so that we can be a team on the rise. What we need is a skeleton of a team that hustles and will give enough effort next year. SO! we want to lose, but we want to lose close, dammit. We want to say, 'Dang, with just one more player, we're a playoff team next year!'

Why is this hard for people to understand, Nicky? I tell Phoostal that 29 wins is no better than 26, and he responds with what? "Well, if some team with 29 wins gets the #1 pick, you'll wish that we had won some extra games."

GUH? I repeat, GUHHHHH? That makes no sense, Nick. You can never say, 'Oh, if we'd won more games we would've probably picked higher.' It just doesn't work that way, and it's far too draining to try to explain the reason why to someone like Phoostal...so I didn't. You, sir, shouldn't, either. That's a whole lotta commas for such a short sentence, but I assure you that they all were necessary. Perhaps I'm trying to appear intelligent again

Whoa, cowboy. I should hope you can 'handle the fact' that we lost. I mean, we've done it 49 other times this year, and now we benefit from losing, since 29 wins is really no better than 26 and our pick would be worse.

I don't understand your reasoning. First of all, it's terrific that we lost, and that needs no more discussion. Second, it's even better that we played well enough to win, giving us hope for the future. Third, it's better still that we actually lost on a fluke bad call. So, we actually should've won. Aren't the basketball gods smiling down upon us tonight? What gives??

What is the opinion here on Romain Sato? I personally think he is a very complete player. I would love to get him high in the second round, but I believe he has pushed his stock into the bottom of the first.

He is a very strong, skilled, heady player who is very active on defense. I think he will be a terrific NBA player. He's not an all-star, but he's a great guy to have on your team.

I know we should be wary that Dampier is playing well in his contract year, but there's a good chance that it's not a fluke.

I'm not enamored with him because of his previous underachievement, but we should still give Damp a look. So, the question is, how much is he worth to us. I'm not suggesting that we overpay for him at all. I also think we might have to overpay to get him to come here.

Some of you guys suggested paying 10 mil over 3 for Pryz (which I am AGAINST), so what would you pay for Damp?

I would give him a deal starting at 6 mil per year. I think he's the only high level true center we can get through draft or FA. I think we can do that and still have alot of flexibility. We should NOT sign a bunch of guys to 3 to 4 million per year deals, as some are suggesting. For example, if we sign Pryz (3), Sura (4), Jax (6), AND Collier (2), we will destroy our cap space if you factor in two draft picks (4 = 19 total!). Outside of Jax, those guys are all easily replaced.

I hope you don't mean #14.

If we secure the 3rd worst record, we can pick no lower than 7th, and that's a very, very, very unlikely scenario. For the 3rd team to pick 7th this year, three of the 4-13 teams have to land picks 1-3. Then, 1 picks 5th, 2 picks 6th, and 3 picks 7th.

One of the most commonly misunderstood aspects of the NBA draft lottery is that it only entails the top 3 picks. Not every position is up for grabs. Most years, the #1 team cannot pick any lower than 4th. However, this year, the Cats will pick 4th, so the #1 team can pick as low as 5th.

I agree on Freije. He's a tick better than Mottola in my opinion, which means he's good enough to be a backup small in the NBA. I don't think he brings anything that Jason Collier doesn't, though.

I like Kirk Snyder and Sato. Both are strong guards. Snyder is my fave of the 2.

Paul a lotto pick? Interesting. I don't think he'll actually go that high this year, but it's not impossible. He should wait another year. If he comes out, I believe that he would be an excellent choice with the Milwaukee pick. Then we'd just have to find somebody to take JT.

I think Curry was pulled because the Baby Bulls were getting their asses handed to them. Chandler hasn't played much lately because he is injured all the time.

Bulls seem to be playing OK. At one time, I thought the Magic would pass us, but now I think it's the Bulls. Since Chicago will play Orlando twice and us once, they have a great chance to pass us and leave us at #2. I think Orlando has cooled off and will end up #1 easily.

Phoenix is not the same team without Amare. Notice, they were a lottery team the year before he arrived (that's how they drafted him). He has been a non-factor until only recently, and, recently, Phx has won some big games. Of course, now Stephon is gone. I don't think they're tanking at all. They just happen to play in the West which has only gotten stronger since it acquired Allen for 25 games of Gary Payton and Antoine Walker for nobody. Do we have to keep dumping our good players over there?

Phx will be back next year, and they will be scary. They're going to have Marion, Stoudamire, Johnson, a pick and some cap to play with.

Milwaukee has lost 5 consecutive games. We want Milwaukee to be as bad as possible, but not too bad.

They are currently sitting at the #18 spot in the draft. 1-14 are allocated to the lottery teams plus Charlotte. Milwaukee isn't likely to miss the playoffs altogether, but they have to be the 7th seed or better for us to get their pick (top 15 protected!). They are currently #5, but only 3 games up on #8 Cleveland, and Cleveland is playing better ball. Miami will almost certainly pass Milwaukee, as they've won 5 in a row. The good thing is that the Knicks have to also pass Mil, but they're only 2.5 games back.

We really need this pick this year. Ideally, we get it and it's #16. I wouldn't put it past the Bucks to tank all the way. There are 13 whole games left for them, and they've done it before.

seed team record GB L10 streak

#5 Mil 34-35 - 2-8 L 5

#6 Mia 33-37 1.5 8-2 W 5

#7 NY 32-38 2.5 6-4 L 1

#8 Cle 31-38 3 7-3 L 2

#9 Bos 31-40 4 6-4 L 2

No, seriously, we need everything.

A bruiser off the bench, mule? You're right. We do need that. However, I'd put that a little lower on the priority list than:

starting PF, PG or ball handling SG, C, SF if we can't resign Jax

I know we've been entertained in some recent scorefests, but let's not be deceived. This is not a competitive NBA team right now. This is not a team with even a couple of building blocks. I'm even skeptical that SJax is a building block, and I'd rather trade JT than build around him.

I think Jax is a complementary player and JT is no more than trade bait.

What do we need to contend, mule? Talent. Lot's of talent. Okafor...McGrady...maybe KMart (though he won't get away). After that, a pg to run the show. JT, if he can't be traded, is a high-energy player off the bench.

I think finishing 4th would still be OK. We would have the same number of lotto balls as a 4 team usually has. However, we just can't pick 4th in the draft, since the Bobcats will pick there. We'd still have as good a shot at top 3 as a 4 team does.

CBA

I have never seen Dwight play, so I don't know here. However, unless Dwight is KG or 'Bron, I would take Okafor. I just think Okafor is blue chip. He will be very, very good. His defensive ability will make a team a contender by itself.

So, you predicted 180/180, but you observed 178. What are you trying to prove here, that you cannot conclude that the true value is not 180/180?

What deviation are you calculating? Many times the standard deviation of the actual set is not the statistic you need (directly) to draw conclusions. BTW, if that really is all you want, you can type the numbers into excel, and it will calculate the stdev or var within a set for you.

You have to be careful with what you conclude with statistics. There are right ways and horribly wrong ways to use them. BUT, most people don't know the difference anyway, so they don't complain.