The Race for the #1 pick

[KB21]

The standings as of now in the race for the #1 pick:

TEAM/(Record, percentage, current streak)/games back

1. Orlando Magic (15-42, .263, Won 2) --

2. Chicago Bulls (16-39, .291, Lost 1) -2

3. Washington Wizards (16-37, .302, Lost 4) -3

4. Phoenix Suns (18-39, .316, Lost 7) -5

5. Atlanta Hawks (18-37, .327, Lost 2) -6

[chillzatl]

As long as we're there, we have a great chance of getting the #1. Remember, the worst record rarely gets the #1. So I'm more than content to be in the bottom 3.

I have confidence in our team being that much worse than all those teams. I don't think we'll win more than 4 games the rest of the way.

[CBAreject]

Look, the worst team has a 25% chance at the #1 pick through the lottery. OF COURSE the worst team rarely gets the #1 pick. They only have a 25% chance! BUT, it is pure ignorance to say, 'Well, I'd rather be number 2 or 3.'

The #2 team has less chance than the #1 team, as does the #3 team and so on. Why would you 'be more comfortable' with less of a chance? Oh, I ask, but I actually know. With 98% of Americans, anecdotal evidence is more convincing than mathematical probability. Because you've seen the #1 team have 'bad luck' in the past, you only assume that's going to continue.

What's funny is that half of the ignoramuses go the other way and say that the #1 team is 'due'. That's what they said about Cleveland last year. Those same people think that if the roulette wheel lands on red 4 straight times, it's probably going to land on black that 5th time. It's due. The trials are INDEPENDENT, PEOPLE! The 5th spin does not depend on what happened in the first 4 spins!!!!!!

AUGH!

Why is this so frustrating? I dunno. It's such a simple concept, but the overwhelming majority of people do not understand it. What's worse is that they don't understand it even after having it demonstrated to them.

OH, and the Hawks are 4 games back of the Magic, not 6

[Nicholasp27]

cbareject,

i think u misunderstood him

he said he'd be content with bottom 3

last time i checked, bottom 3 included #1...

he didn't say he wanted 2 or 3, just that he wanted at least bottom 3 to be happy

kb21,

we're actually tied for #4 there if u look at us tanking the rest of the games, because if we do, and they do too, then we'll have a tied record since every team plays 82 games

all we have to do is lose the last 27 games and then wiz or bulls have to win just 2 more and orlando win just 3 more and pho win just 1 more and we'll be the worst!

of course, knowing the hawks, we'll end up winning 3-5 more, keeping us out of the top 3

[CBAreject]

No, he didn't explicitly say that, but he MORE than implied it.

Here's what he said:

"Remember, the worst record rarely gets the #1. So I'm more than content to be in the bottom 3."

What do you think that means? What??? If he'd said, 'I want to be in the bottom three,' alone, then I couldn't have argued. However, he IMPLIES that it's better not to be #1, but to just be in the bottom 3 (2 or 3). Why does he advise us to REMEMBER that being the worst team isn't necessarily best?? Why? Think!

If it's not spelled out for you in black and white, you miss it altogether.

[Nicholasp27]

i don't think he was implying that at all

i think he was just stating that he wants to be bottom 3 to have a good shot at the #1 pick

he didn't say he didn't want to be #1, just that it's not the end of the world if we aren't #1, so long as we're top 3 so we get a top pick (and still have a decent shot at #1)

i think u read too much into his statement because you're either mad at people who don't understand logic/probability or you just wanted to come across as an intelligent person

[CBAreject]

Quote:

---

i don't think he was implying that at all

---

Fine. I think he was. Maybe he didn't say, 'I don't want to finish last! It's bad luck!' However, his language did not indicate that, 'It's not the end of the world if we don't finish last.' If I am exaggerating his position in one direction, you are exaggerating it in the other.

This is obviously a difference of opinion, and I will never convince you of mine.

Quote:

---

i think u read too much into his statement because you're either mad at people who don't understand logic/probability or you just wanted to come across as an intelligent person

---

I read too much into his statement because I was angry? No, if I am angry in the first place, it is because I read too much into his statement, and not the other way around.

Now, that is poor logic. Am I a jerk? Perhaps. Do I come on here to vent because I can't do it to people's faces at work without getting fired? Probably. Is that right? No, sir.

I know two things for certain, though. First, I'm not mad at people because they don't understand. I'm mad at them because they don't care to understand. Thinking is a lost art. No one wants to do it because it doesn't result in gaining wealth or getting laid in the short term.

Secondly, I have nothing to gain by trying to appear intelligent to a group of people who don't know anything about me and whom I'll never meet.