This is what tanking is about...

[TheDude]

all this so-called tanking got us was the best pick available to give to Phoenix....

[AHF]

Quote:

---

all this so-called tanking got us was the best pick available to give to Phoenix....

---

I didn't know that the draft lottery had already taken place. What were the results?

[Sothron]

Quote:

---

all this so-called tanking got us was the best pick available to give to Phoenix....

---

If that does happen all it will show is our idiot GM didn't know how to tank properly. He should have called Ryan Gomes and asked him, he seems to know the 411.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Quote:

---

CBA, I have to give you credit for responding to each and every one of these people who simply don't understand statistics. I wouldn't have the patience.

The funny thing is that these people DO understand stats in certain contexts. Like you said, they know they'd rather have JJ take the last second shot than Ivey, even though both JJ and Ivey MIGHT make it and both JJ and Ivey MIGHT miss it. So they inherently get the concept that you want to go with the higher odds even if it's not a sure thing. But somehow, when it comes to the NBA lottery, they refuse to follow that same path of logic and just throw their hands up in the air and say "it's a lottery!"

---

(( spinning merry-go round ))

I understand statistics and probability perfectly. It's just that in the case of the lottery, probability has to take a backseat to actual outcomes. That's all my position has been on this from the jump.

What you guys try to do, is make like a 10% increase in probability to get a top 3 pick overall, is some significant difference. The past 12 years of the lottery pretty much debunks that, because the difference between #3 and #5 isn't that significant at all. That's why out of the 36 possible spots to get a top 3 pick in the past 12 years, the #4 and #5 teams have gotten into the top 3 9 times, while the #2 and #3 teams have solidified top 3 picks 10 times. The #1 team has locked down a top 3 selection 11 times.

Breakdown of 36 possible draft positions in the top 3 for the last 12 years.

worst - 11 times ( 2 times at #1 )

2nd - 4 times ( 1 time )

3rd - 6 times ( 4 times )

4th - 3 times ( 0 times . . hopefully, that will change for us )

5th - 6 times ( 3 times )

6th - 14th - 5 times ( 2 times )

Here are some more interesting numbers. Here are the number of times a particular team lands in the 2nd or 3rd position, if they don't secure the #1 spot, during the last 12 years.

worst - 9 times

2nd - 3 times

3rd - 2 times

4th - 3 times

5th - 3 times

6th - 14th - 3 times

We can spin those numbers any way we want, to fit our own arguments. What it tells me though, is that the #1 team has a significant advantage over the rest of the teams. Their chances of landing at #2 or #3 can increase to around 30 - 40% per position selection, by the time that 2nd and 3rd selection comes around.

When you talk about those other teams, their best chance to crack the top 3, actually comes in the very first selection for the #1 spot. And why is that? It's because it's the only time that the #1 team will have just 1/4 ( 25% ) of the ping-pong ball combinations. If the 5th worst wants to crack into the top 3, this is the time where they are most likely to do it. As the selections go on, it becomes increasingly more difficult for those teams outside the top 3 to crack through.

The funny thing is, I'm not disagreeing with you guys about the probabiliy that each team has to get a top 3 pick. I know that they increase, depending on how bad your record is. And I can even understand your rationale about how you can have some hope in the probability aspect of the draft concerning getting a top 3 pick.

What I am disagreeing with you guys about, is the significance of those probabilities, when it comes to getting a top 3 pick. To me, there is a difference between being worst and 4th. But there is very little difference between being 3rd and 4th . . or 4th and 5th, because you're only moving up a few percentage points per selection. Yet, some of you guys have whined and cried about every single position that we moved up or down . . when it has been pretty clear for a while now, that we were going to land somewhere between 3rd and 5th.

If you're the worst team, you're chances of landing at at least #3 increase significantly, if the #2 or #3 team lands in the top spot. Why? Because the number of possible total combinations decrease by about 15 - 20%. But if someone outside the top 3 lands in that spot, it puts the #3 team in extreme jeapordy of landing outside the top 3, with the #2 team on pins and needles.

You guys talk about the probability of a top 3 pick, like the top 3 positions are set after the first set of numbers are drawn. Like the top 3 positions in this draft are chosen simultaneously. If that were the case, I'd be in total agreement with you guys. But it's not.

It takes 3 sets of combinations of numbers to complete the draft lottery in a given year. And the past 12 years have proven that the lottery is significantly influenced by what team gets that #1 slot. If a team outside of the top 3 gets that #1 slot, the draft has been affected tremendously over the years. And if you go by the "small" sample size that we've seen over the past 12 years, that's happened 42% of the time. And here's what's funny about that. If you actually look at the chance of the top 3 teams getting that #1 pick in the 2007 draft . .

worst - 25%

2nd - 20%

3rd - 16%

total: 61%

. . you'd clearly see that the chance of a team outside of that top 3 landing #1 this year, is around 39% . . which is pretty close to the statistical average that has been shown over the past 12 years. LOL . . so much for the small sample size.

So when you're the #3 team, you can live with the worst or 2nd worst getting that #1 pick, because they collectively have a 45% chance in doing so. But when the 3rd team stacks their 16% chance up against the 4th - 14th teams, which have a 39% chance, you see how that could be a problem. And when you look at it like that, you can even see where the worst team ( 25% vs 39% ) has had problems securing that top spot over the years.

Like I've always said. I wish this entire process were shown live, selection by selection. You'd clearly see what I'm talking about.

Those are just facts . . not probabilities.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Bus . . plus we were finally starting to get people off of injury, especially our PGs ( Lue and Speedy ).

It's just a shame that we couldn't win a few more of those games after the All-Star break. The San Antonio and Phoenix games pretty much went down to the wire. And we just flat out blew the New Orleans, Washington, New York games. That 4 game win streak in early March, could've very easily have been a 7 out of 8 game win streak, if we'd held the lead in those 3 games that we blew.

Yet, this loser crowd wanted to give up in January, just for a "chance" to get Oden or Durant. That loser mentality can go right out the door as far as I'm concerned.

[mrhonline]

Quote:

---

If that does happen all it will show is our idiot GM didn't know how to tank properly. He should have called Ryan Gomes and asked him, he seems to know the 411.

---

I had planned to start a thread on May 21st telling non-tankers to expect the "take credit or blame someone else" threads after the lottery. Thanks for giving me a quote to use.

It's so boringly predictable around here anymore. If it works out, it's because anyone could have figured it out. If it fails, it's Knight's fault.

Such thoroughly brilliant logic.

[CBAreject]

Quote:

---

I understand statistics and probability perfectly. It's just that in the case of the lottery, probability has to take a backseat to actual outcomes.

---

1) No, you most certainly do not

2) Actual outcomes? Probability takes a "backseat" to "actual outcomes"? If I flip a coin 3 times and get 2 heads and one tail, does that mean it is a weighted coin? Or better yet, does it mean that tails is due? Those "actual outcomes" mean more than probability, according to you.

3) I refuse to read the rest of this extremely long, extremely thoughtless post. You are just not very smart, and you are wasting your time.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Quote:

---

History is completely meaningless regarding the lottery.

---

LOL. See the BDawg reply.

Quote:

---

So, you'd still rather have the #6 record? What gives?

---

Compared to #1 or #2 . . of course not. But once you start talking about going down to 3rd through 6th, the significance of where you land, doesn't matter much. See the BDawg reply again.

Quote:

---

A statistical anomaly. This doesn't mean 5th is better than 1st. With a small sample size, we're likely to see something unusual.

---

Corporations make decisions every day, based on 10 year trends. LOL @ small sample size. Not when you're talking about 36 separate selections in 12 years. There's a reason why the difference between teams 3rd - 6th isn't that great at all. See the BDawg reply.

Quote:

---

Actually, all of these things are equally unimportant, since history is completely meaningless. Regardless, the fact that someone in the top 3 will probably get unlucky doesn't mean anything. What's important is the top 3 teams do not have to GET LUCKY to pick top 3. They have to get unlucky to not pick top 3 (save #3, who is just a hair more likely to pick outside the top 3).

---

LOL @ you still saying that history is completely meaningless. Luck has nothing to do with it. The odds clearly show that the odds are statistically stacked against them, during each selection. These teams are competing against the total number of combinations that each other team has left on the board. This isn't a head to head competition between the 3rd and 9th team . . or the 1st and 6th team.

Quote:

---

A total crap shoot would imply that the probability of each team (who is not the #1 team) is equal. Since the probability for the #2 team is far greater than that for the #10 team, for example, it is clear to almost everyone that it is NOT a total crap shoot. Please continue to insist it is, though. Someone will surely believe you eventually.

---

Like I said, this isn't a head to head competition between teams, when talking about each selection. Each team is basically competing against the entire field. And the only thing that matters, are the percentage chance that they have overall. But each team must realize that there is a good chance that the field will overtake them, especially if they're not the #1 team ( and even they are at a disadvantage during that 1st selection ). The #2 team can deal with #1 being statistically better than them. But if anyone below #2 jumps ahead of #2, then a real problem arises. It's simple mathmetics and it's easy to see.

Quote:

---

What variables? You know your probabilities precisely before the draft. Thsoe are "constants". I guess you must mean the lottery balls themselves are variables. How exactly is that "too many"? How do they work against you? They don't know whose number they are drawing...

---

See . . you and others are so obsessed with the "probability" aspect of your chances, that you don't see what "actually" goes on during the lottery. LOL @ what variables.

- the fact that the total sample size ( number of combinations ) CHANGES, each time you go through the 3 pick selection process.

- the fact that the outcome of the lottery can be significantly changed, depending on who gets that #1 pick, before the other 2 picks are decided.

Those are the varibles that I'm talking about. There is nothing that is constant or fixed about this lottery. That's why it's been so unpredictable over the years. Oh I forgot, you don't look at history.

Quote:

---

OK. All in with KK vs. AK suited is almost precisely the probability that the #1 team gets a top 3 pick. You are wrong. Besides, I didn't say that KK vs 67 was "like the lottery". I was using that example to show how the fellow didn't understand probability. You are wrong again. Notice that I instructed him not to take my illustration literally and say "but we couldn't have been the worst team!" I did that because I knew that you concrete thinkers cannot think abstractly. Notice that you were not smart enough to avoid this error.

---

Is it I that can't think abstractly, or is it you that can't think when given concrete numbers? It's funny, I can throw out statistics, FACTS and nubmers, even with different scenarios happening, to disprove what you guys say. But all you "tankers" can do, is throw out the probability numbers, try to use that as gospel, and not look at ANYTHING else to back up your claim.

And none of you have yet to prove that what I'm saying is wrong. And I'm not even saying that your probabilities are wrong. I'm just saying that you're putting waaaaay too much stock in those probabilities, especially when it comes to the teams from 3rd - 6th. The nature of the lottery constantly proves that nothing is abstract, nor concrete, after that first selection comes down.

Quote:

---

This is still not entirely true. The #1 and #2 teams are LIKELY to get a top 3 pick. The #3 team is roughly 50/50.

---

#1 is definitely likely to get a top 3 pick. The system is set up for them. If I said otherwise, I apologize. When it comes to #2 though, it really depends on if #1 is out of their way in the selection process. The 12 year trend of 2nd worst has show them pick #1 twice . . #2 once . . #3 once . . and #4 five times. Can you figure out why, or is the evidence too "concrete" for you to understand?

Quote:

---

Talking about having "a significant advantage compared to the field" is BS, too. Even if the #3 team is not more likely to get a top 3 pick than ALL OF TEAMS 4-14 combined, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT ANYBODY (EXCEPT YOU) WOULD BE STUPID ENOUGH TO PREFER BEING TEAM 14 (since team 14 is in the group 4-14, which is a favorite to get a pick over team 3).

---

LOL . . of course I wouldn't want to be 14th. But that's not what you guys have been arguing over the past month. You guys have been selling that being #3 is significantly better than being at #5. And because of that, there is no other option for a team, but to get as low as they can, to increase their chances.

My position all along, has been that a 3% or a 6% increase/decrease either way, really doesn't affect the outcome of the lottery, if you're not the worst team. Crying over being #5 as opposed to being #3, is silly. And that's what you guys have constantly done over the past month.

At #3, the 2 worst teams in the draft have an advangage over you, as well as teams 4th - 14th. That's why if #3 doesn't land in that top spot, they're usually thrown completely out of the mix for a top 3 spot. The same goes with the # 5 team. LOL . . it's easy to understand.

Quote:

---

Let's turn around your silly logic. Let's use baseball, which is more of a numbers game. No one team in baseball is a favorite to win the world series. Even the best team is likely to not win the world series, due to the chance aspect of the game. Does that mean that you would prefer to not be the best team? Answer that question. It's not rhetorical.

---

And another one of you guys problems, are that you use analogies that make no sense to your arguments. If you're going to use baseball, use this one.

You the Atlanta Braves manager, and your opponent has a left-handed pitcher on the mound. You also have a man at 2nd base. You currently have a guy in Jeff Francour, who had the day off, who hits .300 against left handed pitching but also has a .429 average with runners in scoring position that you can sub in to pinch hit.

Going to the plate, you have Chipper Jones, who is currently hitting .300 against left handed pitching, but only is hitting .222 with runners in scoring position.

(( these are their actual numbers, by the way ))

Your probability logic tells you that you'll probably replace Chipper with Chris, solely because he's more likely to get a base hit off of that left hander THIS YEAR and drive in a run, than Chipper will.

My logic tells me that Chipper has been a big time player over the years, and it really doesn't matter to me if Jeff is more likely to get a hit THIS YEAR and drive the run in . . I'm still rolling with Chipper because I don't see a significant difference between the two. HISTORY has shown me that Chipper is the guy to have in this situation. And if the situation were reversed, I'd probably leave Jeff in to hit, instead of replacing him with Chipper, because Jeff can get it done as well.

That's the difference between you and I . . and "tankers" and "anti-tankers". WE let things play itself out and roll with the consequences, whether it be good or bad.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I understand statistics and probability perfectly. It's just that in the case of the lottery, probability has to take a backseat to actual outcomes.

---

1) No, you most certainly do not

2) Actual outcomes? Probability takes a "backseat" to "actual outcomes"? If I flip a coin 3 times and get 2 heads and one tail, does that mean it is a weighted coin? Or better yet, does it mean that tails is due? Those "actual outcomes" mean more than probability, according to you.

3) I refuse to read the rest of this extremely long, extremely thoughtless post. You are just not very smart, and you are wasting your time.

---

LOL @ thoughtless. I'm anything but thoughtless sir. It's not my fault that I can explain away how less important probability is in the lottery, compared to actual odds and outcomes. Disprove my numbers . . that's all I ask you to do, if you're think I'm wasting my time.

Your simple mind doesn't allow you to see how the lottery actually works. Nothing is equal or set in this lottery. The variable constantly changes as you go through the lottery process. The variable doesn't change, when flipping a coin.

You can turn your bad analogy the other way.

You have a 50% probability of a guy making or missing a free throw. Those are the only outcomes . . make or miss.

But when you talk about Lorenzen Wright, the actual outcome is fare less than 50% most of the time. Conversely, when you talk about Steve Nash, the outcome is far greater than 50%.

The variable between Lorenzen and Steve, is that Lo's FT mechanics and concentration levels are so bad, that it causes him to miss far more than he makes.

Steve's FT shooting mechanics and concentration levels are so good, that he hardly ever misses.

Yet . . the bare bones probability of making and missing a FT, is 50/50. But you have to take in accout of how the variables can change the outcome. That's how you have to look at the NBA draft lottery, plain and simple.

LOL . . I understand it perfectly. And it won't be "luck" when a team outside of the top 3, breaks through in the lottery. Just hope that the team that breaks through, is us . . and hope we break through at #1.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I understand statistics and probability perfectly. It's just that in the case of the lottery, probability has to take a backseat to actual outcomes.

---

1) No, you most certainly do not

2) Actual outcomes? Probability takes a "backseat" to "actual outcomes"? If I flip a coin 3 times and get 2 heads and one tail, does that mean it is a weighted coin? Or better yet, does it mean that tails is due? Those "actual outcomes" mean more than probability, according to you.

3) I refuse to read the rest of this extremely long, extremely thoughtless post. You are just not very smart, and you are wasting your time.

---

I also have a huge problem with the idea that "actual outcomes" somehow are more meaningful than probabilities.

A ten sample window is very insignficant for purposes of statistics.

When you know actual probabilities, you should stop the analysis there because that is MUCH more accurate than anything you can get from running a comparison of actual results.

If you want to meaningfully measure the future probable outcomes based on actual results, you need a larger sample size. Even if you had a trillion samples, though, nothing could be more accurate than looking at the actual probability if it is available to you.

That is as far as you need to go here as far as evaluating what we are up against in this draft.

[bfwolf]

This is obvious to anybody with a rudimentary understanding of statistics OR half a brain, AHF. Unfortunately, Northcyde has neither...

[bfwolf]

So listen, Northcyde, you don't sound like a bad guy, but nonetheless you don't understand statistics despite your frequent "LOL"s and protestations that you understand them perfectly.

So I've designed a little experiment to help you understand statistics better. Hawksquawk is all about sharing knowledge, right?

I want you to go play the draft lottery simulator on espn.com 300 times. But I want you to break it up into 20 15-time groups. So the first 15 lotteries you play will be group A, the second 15 lotteries you play will be group B, the third 15 lotteries you play will be group C, etc. Then I want you to come here and post the results of each group in terms of winning a top 3 pick. Here's a sample result.

Group A

--------

Worst team: 1st pick: 6.7%, 2nd pick: 13.3%, 3rd pick: 13.3%

2nd worst team: 1st pick: 13.3%, 2nd pick: 20%, 3rd pick: 13.3%

3rd worst team: 1st pick: 0%, 2nd pick: 6.7%, 3rd pick: 20%

4th worst team: .....

5th worst team: .....

So do that for all 14 teams for group A, and then post it again for Group B, Group C, Group D, until you get through all 20 groups.

Look at the results you get. You will notice that in many groups, the worst team is outperformed by the second worst team or even the third worst team. You'll notice that sometimes the 4th worst team gets no picks at all while the 5th worst team seems to do pretty well. In short, you'll notice general trends of the worse teams faring better, but it will still look like a total crapshoot.

Now I want you to sum up all 20 groups into one mega-group. So instead of having 15 lotteries per group, you'll have one group with 300 lotteries. Now I want you to post the results of that mega-group here.

Look at the results. Notice how the worst team clearly does the best? And the second worst team clearly does 2nd best? And the 3rd worst team clearly does 3rd best? And do you notice how the percentages are remarkably similar to the percentages that have been calculated mathematically for each of those teams?

Now, my friend, you understand the difference between a meaningful and unmeaningful sample size.

[CBAreject]

Quote:

---

You have a 50% probability of a guy making or missing a free throw. Those are the only outcomes . . make or miss.

But when you talk about Lorenzen Wright, the actual outcome is fare less than 50% most of the time. Conversely, when you talk about Steve Nash, the outcome is far greater than 50%.

The variable between Lorenzen and Steve, is that Lo's FT mechanics and concentration levels are so bad, that it causes him to miss far more than he makes.

Steve's FT shooting mechanics and concentration levels are so good, that he hardly ever misses.

Yet . . the bare bones probability of making and missing a FT, is 50/50. But you have to take in accout of how the variables can change the outcome. That's how you have to look at the NBA draft lottery, plain and simple.

---

What the deuce are you even talking about? This is just a collection of rancid brain puke. You're just embarrasing yourself here. Have you ever even taken a statistics course? Where? What level? How many? How many math courses have you taken above 2nd semester calculus?

Quote:

---

not my fault that I can explain away how less important probability is in the lottery, compared to actual odds and outcomes.

---

Probability is less important than "actual odds"? Odds and probability are quite the same thing, just expressed in different ways. 2:1 odds is equivalent to a chance of 2/3 or a probability of 67%. Just talking out your ass.

Quote:

---

Disprove my numbers

---

What numbers? If it's the probabilities, you said yourself those don't matter. If it's the "history", then who can disprove that?

I just flipped a coin and it came up heads. Therefore, tails never comes up. It is an impossible outcome. Heads is the only possibility, based on "actual outcomes". Disprove my numbers!

Quote:

---

Nothing is equal or set in this lottery. The variable constantly changes as you go through the lottery process. The variable doesn't change, when flipping a coin.

---

WHAT VARIABLE? You are TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS!

I think you mean to say the NBA lottery involves "conditional probability", which is something I've expounded about ad nauseum on this site in a futile effort to give people free education. They are not appreciative, in general. If you want to talk about conditional probability or Bayes Theorem, please ask me. I doubt you want to know any real mathematics, since you'd much rather wave your hands and talk about how "the variable is constantly changing" without defining WHAT THAT FREAKING EVEN MEANS!!!!!

[CBAreject]

Quote:

---

Your probability logic tells you that you'll probably replace Chipper with Chris, solely because he's more likely to get a base hit off of that left hander THIS YEAR and drive in a run, than Chipper will.

My logic tells me that Chipper has been a big time player over the years, and it really doesn't matter to me if Jeff is more likely to get a hit THIS YEAR and drive the run in . . I'm still rolling with Chipper because I don't see a significant difference between the two. HISTORY has shown me that Chipper is the guy to have in this situation. And if the situation were reversed, I'd probably leave Jeff in to hit, instead of replacing him with Chipper, because Jeff can get it done as well.

---

Everything you said in this entire post was idiotic, but this part was the most idiotic by far.

Let me show you why. First of all, you are the one who uses a small sample size to predict future outcomes. I am the one who realizes what Francouer has done this year is virtually meaningless. WTF do you mean "your logic tells you to pinch hit for Chipper"?

Second, you say "it really doesn't matter to me if Jeff is more likely to get a hit THIS YEAR and drive the run in". This EXPOSES YOUR HORRID IGNORANCE OF STATISTICS. The quite small 14 game sample set from this year does not tell you that Jeff "IS MORE LIKELY TO GET A HIT THIS YEAR". All it tells you is that Jeff HAS HIT MORE FREQUENTLY in the given situation THIS YEAR. That does not mean he IS MORE LIKELY TO GET A HIT IN FUTURE AB's. His higher average is most likely due to random variation. Random variation is why small sample sizes are bad.

You are so far beyond comprehending probability and statistics. You have no clue. I'm going to tell you something that you should take to heart. When the most intelligent members of this board (AHF, for example) are uniformly disagreeing with you on a rather academic topic, you are probably wrong. If you still don't see why, it's probably your pride that is keeping you from seeing the truth.

You are embarrasing yourself. Quit.