Feeling Nos_sturt_damus-like

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If I'm in a raffle that has 100 tickets and I have 25 of those tickets and I lose... Yes, I'm am unlucky.

---

So you have a 75% chance of losing, you lose, and you think you're unlucky?All that means is that you didn't get lucky. There's middle ground between lucky and unlucky.Walk across the street and find $1 million in a bag halfway across - LuckyWalk across the street and get hit by a bus - Unlucky Walk across the street and nothing happens at all - that's neither lucky nor is it unlucky.

Quote:

---

It's no different if I'm in the raffle that has 100 tickets and I have 95 of those and I lose... I'm still unlucky (If that is a word).

---

In this case you have a 5% chance of losing, which is much lower than 75% chance of losing, wich IS VERY DIFFERENT.95% chance of winning and you lose - that's bad luck.25% chance of winning and you lose - that's normal.The line you draw is somehere around 50%.If you have a 51% chance of winning and you lose you're slightly unlucky.

Quote:

---

The point that you miss is that Lucky has the line drawn between winning and not winning.

---

Not true at all. First of all sports are not games of chance. You have a direct influence on the outcome. You can be very unlucky and win a game. You can be very lucky and lose a game. If you're supposed to win and something unlucky occurs that cause you to lose, you are unlucky. If you play bad and lose, that's not unluck.If you're supposed to win statistically speaking in a game of chance and you lose, you're unlucky, and you're unlucky to the degree with which you were supposed to win.95% and 25% are VERY different odds of winning, therefore you are more unlucky to lose with a 95% chance of winning than with a 25% chance of winning.

---

I don't think you can give a percentile definition to lucky and unlucky.For instance, if you go into the Hospital with a 61% chance of living and you live... do you mean to tell me that you're not Lucky to be Alive??If you have a 75% chance to keep your Job and you keep it... You mean to tell me that you're not lucky to have a job?By the same token, if you have a 75% chance to Lose your Job and you lose it, doesn't that mean that you were unlucky?

[exodus]

Quote:

---

The Dictionary Defines Bad Luck as:

an unpredictable outcome that is unfortunate

---

if you are a 4/1 favorite to win a hand of hold'em going into the river then you are expected (predicted) to win. If you lose then that is bad luck.

If you define bad luck as something that is unpredictable (couldn't be forseen) then nothing in the lottery is bad luck because all possible outcomes are known in advance.

If you have the worst record then you know you will be picking 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th. It is predictable that you will receive one of the 4 places therefore, by your unpredicable definition, it isn't bad luck even if you move down to 4th. It is predictable that you will receive one of the 4 places therefore, by your unpredicable definition, it isn't bad luck even if you move down to 4th. In fact fourth place is the most likely single outcome, at 35.8%, for the team with the worst record.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Let me ask you...Was our getting Horford and Law Luck or expected?Moreover, in the circumstance, do you think Indiana Pacers fans feel like they were unlucky or it was expected?

---

I'll give you my personal take on this.We were hugely favored to keep the Law pick and for it to be the #10 pick. Had we lost it (i.e., it landed in the top 3) or had it dropped (an unlikely scenario involving one or more of the 11-13 teams moving into the top 3), that would have been bad luck. So we were not lucky to get the #10 pick with the Indy pick - that was by far the most likely outcome.For the Pacers, they should not feel unlucky. This was the most likely outcome. Had they kept their pick they should have felt incredibly lucky.We were favored to lose the Horford pick this year (i.e., for it to be in the 4-7 range). We were lucky to end up with a top 3 pick and Horford. That was unexpected and not a likely outcome for the Hawks.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

We were hugely favored to keep the Law pick and for it to be the #10 pick

---

If it was the 10th pick we would have lost it. It was top 10 protected. Indy wasn't unlucky at all because if they had lost a couple more games they would have kept the pick. They didn't have a realistic shot at the playoffs. They had control just like we had control in 2004 and allowed ourselves to be tied by the Clipps. We were very lucky to get the 11th pick because when the trade was initially made the 11 pick was the best possible outcome for us.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

We were hugely favored to keep the Law pick and for it to be the #10 pick

---

If it was the 10th pick we would have lost it. It was top 10 protected. Indy wasn't unlucky at all because if they had lost a couple more games they would have kept the pick. They didn't have a realistic shot at the playoffs. They had control just like we had control in 2004 and allowed ourselves to be tied by the Clipps. We were very lucky to get the 11th pick because when the trade was initially made the 11 pick was the best possible outcome for us.

---

Yep. That was my brain fart. Replace all the 10s with 11s in my previous post (and any 11s with 12s). However, the premise of what I was writing was 100% accurate for us going into the lottery. We were not lucky to keep the Indy pick or for it to be 11 going into the lottery. (Change when you are looking at it and an argument can be made along the line that ex just did that we were lucky to end up with the 11th - but he would agree it was not luck if you are looking at the outcome based on where we stood after the conclusion of the season but before the lottery).

[exodus]

Quote:

---

We were not lucky to keep the Indy pick or for it to be 11 going into the lottery.

---

We were a 97% favorite to keep the pick on lottery day.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

We were not lucky to keep the Indy pick or for it to be 11 going into the lottery.

---

We were a 97% favorite to keep the pick on lottery day.

---

And thus it was not "lucky" to keep the pick.

[Diesel]

It was top ten protected...I asked we were lucky to get both Horf and Law. Not just Law.I think we were definitely Lucky..That third pick was nothing but Luck.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

I think we were definitely Lucky.. That third pick was nothing but Luck.

---

of course we were. I haven't seen anyone in this thread dispute that. Of course sturt thinks we were "due" for some good luck.we had a 42.34% chance of landing one of the top 3 picks so yes we got lucky, doubly so because if we didn't win we would have lost the pick.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Simply put, lucky would be doing better than the expected outcome, unlucky would be doing worse than the expected outcome.

---

Okay, let's go with that one... I'll agree that there's some logic in that.

Consider this.

That still fails to consider the fact that (1) there is a finite number of other teams, each of whom could claim a given slot, and each of whom has their own "expected outcome" that impacts Team X's "expected outcome" since no team can share the same slot (ie, in the way that two lottery winners can choose the same numbers and share the prize); and (2) some team likely (and definitely where #1 is concerned) is better positioned to gain a given draft slot than any other team is... to ignore that is to ignore the real world of the draft, which is that every slot is filled, ie, we don't skip draft slots.

So, more precisely, let me propose back to you that truly "lucky" would be doing better than the average expected increase/decrease in draft position of all other teams.

In theory, then, if the mean is for a team to slot one below their pre-draft slot, then that becomes the zero point... and all teams that beat the mean are "lucky," and all teams that do not are "unlucky" (... though you still end up with some number of teams that probably come close enough to the mean to prompt debate as to how far away from the mean one must go before it is categorized as "lucky" or "unlucky.")

Quote:

---

In 2005, our expected position was:

25.0%*1 + 21.46%*2 + 17.74%*3 + 35.8%*4 = 2.64

---

So, by this calculation (which I agree is correct), we can easily render the first of the 16 numbers we would need to figure this out... 2.64 minus 2 equals 0.64.

We do that for the other 13 teams, add those numbers up, divide by 14, and we have the precise dividing line between "lucky" and "unlucky."

Quote:

---

It's not a matter of opinion.

---

Lascar, I appreciate your authoritative tone, but on principle, on this one you overstep... the Truth-in-Lending Act, just for quick example, was created because businesses were choosing to apply different calculations to the same term with some modicum of rationale to back any of those calculations up... it WAS a matter of opinion, at least, until people come to an agreement on how to define a term.

That's not to discount the definition you've brought--it would rightfully get a lot of support were it put to a vote... but I'm not finding it just that way in any dictionary yet, and I bet neither are you (?)... so at the end of the day, it is an "opinion" of how the term should be defined and thus calculated.

---

I started to actually calculate all of this, but realized immediately just how complicated/time-consuming it'd be to come up with the chances for everyone beyond ATL: We could only receive 1, 2, 3 or 4; while NO could receive 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5; CHA could only receive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6; and then all hell breaks loose, as fourth-place UTA could receive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7... and so on... and, of course, all that the citation gives us to work with is the percentages for the first three slots... we'd have to work out everything else on our own.

To my mind, too much work for too little reward.

But again, presuming Lascar's definition (...which again, is as much a construct as the one originally proposed, but I'm saying that I'm willing to buy into it for the purposes of this thread...) in order to completely and finally put the question to rest, Lascar's calculation gives a raw estimated number (e.g., 2.64 for ATL) that needs some standardization to render some true meaning to the number...

That is to say, if it were theoretically possible for EVERY lottery team's actual draft position to somehow calculate to 0.64 greater than they actually drafted, then there would be NO "lucky" or "unlucky" teams... and by way of illustration, if that standardized score were to be 1.0 (i.e., the average team actually drafted exactly 1.0 position better than their raw expected position), then ATL's 0.64 would be on the "unlucky" side... and the opposite holds equally true, that if the standardized score were to be -1.0, then ATL's 0.64 would be on the "lucky" side.

(Surely there's someone at Stats Inc. who'd love to tackle this one.)

[Lascar78]

Dude statistics are clearly not for you. I would suggest just moving onto another subject for your sake.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

I asked we were lucky to get both Horf and Law. Not just Law.I think we were definitely Lucky..That third pick was nothing but Luck.

---

You are combining two totally separate events but looking at them combined - yes, we were lucky to get both the #3 and #11 picks because the odds of getting the #3 pick were 42.34% and the odds of us getting both were 41%. In fact, if we were 100% likely to get the 11th pick then we would still be equally lucky to get (a) both #3 and #11 as we would be to (b) just get #3. This is true even though there would be absolutely no luck at all involved in getting the #11 pick.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

Dude statistics are clearly not for you. I would suggest just moving onto another subject for your sake.

---

Wonderful constructive addition to the discussion. I applaud you.So, I take it that you teach a graduate course in stats, Lascar?

[leftwich]

Sturt, I disagree with your understanding of the law of averages.Saying that we're due for something when comparing it to a 3 or 4 year draft lottery window is a simple minded view on the law of averages (it is just wrong). The law of averages just has to do with the idea that as the sample size increases, the outcome will approach the true percentage. If there were a million draft lotteries and we had about a 25% chance of getting first overall, then we would get first overall close to 250,000. If there were ten million, then the number that we'd get first overall would be closer to 25% than in the trial with 1 million. Whenever words "law of averages" and "due" are used in the same context, it is being wrongly used. Each lottery is an independent event. And no, moving back in the draft the previous year does not mean that you're any more due to get a higher pick the following year than the next team.And Exodus is right- moving one spot forward is not the same as moving one spot back. The draft lottery is set up so every team has a shot at the top 3, which means if you are a top team (lottery ball-wise) you're going to move back more frequently than you move forward. Having the most lottery balls and getting the second overall pick is lucky, because there's a better chance against it happening than there is for it happening.

[Lascar78]

Quote:

---

Wonderful constructive addition to the discussion. I applaud you.

---

Dude this is like arguing about basketball with some guy telling you that he thinks that Ben Wallace is a better shooter than Jason Kapono, and that he's just been unlucky that his shots rim out a lot. At some point, it's not a matter of opinion, it's just wrong. We've explained this stuff at length in the past, some guys don't get it. I'm not writing it all all over again. You don't get it. Honestly. You write well and I'm sure you're a bright guy, but statistics are just not for you. I'm sure there are other areas where you know more than me.

Quote:

---

So, I take it that you teach a graduate course in stats, Lascar?

---

No but I do have a PhD in engineering and took some statistics along the way. And besides, it only takes an undergrad intro to statistics type class to understand it better than you do. Saying that the statistics suggest that somebody is "due" for something is the easiest way to know that they know absolutely nothing about statistics. It's like a guy claiming to understand knowing basketball and not knowing that you can't double dribble. When you're dead wrong on something and trying to win an argument about it, it's not going to work. You're not willing to listen so arguing about it does no good. I'm not going to keep repeating that you can't hold the ball with both hands between every dribble just because you're saying it's a matter of opinion and you think it's fine.

[sturt]

Dude. Lascar.

Exodus justifiably should feel attacked.

You, otoh, have no excuse... didn't attack you personally, and while you've had the "decency" to couch it as-if you aren't being a pompous windbag, the whole of your words say just that.

I respect that, given your PhD, you have something to add to this conversation.

And. Dude. You're wrong. I also have something to add to this conversation, though it appears you may just be too steeped in your own full-of-your-self-ness to slow down and recognize that.

I really don't like to put this out there, but I think, given how extreme you've taken this, it's not being a pompous windbag for me to play a little defense.

So, here's the deal: no, I didn't participate in any of your earlier threads about draft luck and averages and such, so, yes, I may be late to your party with regard to conclusions you'd reached back when... entirely your option to either ignore my posts or to respond with your old info... though, I'd caution that just because you reached those conclusions before doesn't mean that all of the factors were taken into account... in fact, it seems readily evident that they weren't, but maybe that's just me.

As to my capacity to understand statistics, it's no big deal except it probably needs to be said so as to temper your cutesy insults... all data collection is completed, and assuming no delays (*wood knocking*), I'll receive my PhD this summer in a social science field... to complete that, I have had both a basic and an advanced course in stats, plus one in non-parametric stats, plus research courses in experimentation, and another in multiple regression. I currently teach an undergrad course in stats, though we do not venture into any inferential stats as the course is currently designed.

Now, your inclination likely will be to respond with some cutesy insult to diminish all of that... but at this point, that's fine... taking that approach would just be being consistent with the previous approach. But at least the personal jabs at my intelligence regarding statistics are not without some third-party challenge, as demonstrated in a transcript from a major land-grant university.

You've ignored any reply to the substance of my previous post, but it's not clear whether you do so out of indignation or whether there's a legitimate disconnect in how I'm attempting to communicate or how you're receiving the communication.

For your sake, and certainly mine, though, I hope you'll just continue to ignore it. It's not apparent that there would be anything compelling or productive spawning from any actual attempt at understanding and analysis on your part. Perhaps you're just still hacked off that anyone has a problem with your hero David The Tyrant Stern... I've tried not to let that dispute color my attitude toward you, however.

Also... leftwich...

First, for what may be obvious reasons (see avatar), I appreciate the choice of user ID.

Second, I have a response to your assertions, but time looks to be short today. I'll do my best to get back with something tomorrow. The skinny is that this discussion at this stage seems to have become analogous to the fact that there are granny-smith apples, yellow-delicious apples, and winesap apples... that is, while not a classic case of "apples and oranges," there appears to be an occasional wrinkle in how different posters are parsing the criteria, and the conclusions may seem to be defendable, but on closer examination are not optimally and precisely relevant to the original pursuit/intent/criteria. I perceive that to be the case specific to your post.

I'll have to wait and offer more later, though, if you care to check back.

[TroyMcClure]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Dude statistics are clearly not for you. I would suggest just moving onto another subject for your sake.

---

Wonderful constructive addition to the discussion. I applaud you.So, I take it that you teach a graduate course in stats, Lascar?

---

Is this what it's going to be like if the Hawks finally start winning? Have you guys tried researching if there is a book or article on this subject? Just a thought.

[Lascar78]

Honestly man, I really don't care either way, so don't waste any more time responding to me, I probably won't read. I thought your comments showed a lack of understanding of stats, if you think I'm wrong, then so be it, no reason to care what I think. I probably wouldn't haven't been so blunt if a very similar discussion hadn't happened a bunch of times in the past, in particular with Diesel. Sorry if you felt insulted.

[exodus]

In sturts defense it may not be a lack of understanding but rather just trying to play spin doctor on the wrong subject. For example it is like saying that the BPA is "the projected best player in 5 years" one year and then saying the BPA is "the player least likely to bust" the year before.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

In sturts defense it may not be a lack of understanding but rather just trying to play spin doctor on the wrong subject. For example it is like saying that the BPA is "the projected best player in 5 years" one year and then saying the BPA is "the player least likely to bust" the year before.

---

Just more "ripples on a shallow pond."Thanks for the excellent illustration.Suffice it to say that the term "best player available" can be qualified depending on a GM's other priorities (beyond mere position-filling)... though I know you don't want to see that, I believe you can... but you just flat-out refuse.