TheNorthCydeRises

Quote: BTW Luke actually made a higher percentage of his jumpers this year than Lue. Hell . . he should've . . seeing that Lue was hurt for 2/5ths of the year. When healthy, I'm taking Lue. And I've been one of Lue's biggest critics over the years. I'd still take him and Speedy ( when healthy ) over Ridnour. Dang . . playtime is over for me on the computer, but I could name 20 - 30 guys in this league that I would rather have running the point for ATL, than Luke. I'd rather even have Steve Blake than Luke. At least Blake can defend the position, and score when need be, even if his jumper is terrible as well.

Quote: Quote: Everything else, Lue does better. And even the playmaking aspect of Luke's game isn't head and shoulders above Lue . . That's like saying Lue's shooting isn't head and shoulders above Speedy's shooting. Luke got an invite to try out for the national team. I guess Speedy's invitation got lost in the mail. I am pretty much neutral on Luke, but i must say your post is pretty ridiculous. The Hawks gave up 5.5 more ppg when Lue was playing while the Sonics gave up only .8 ppg more when Luke was playing. And Watson, one of the best defenders at the point in the league, was Lukes replacement. Yet you are saying that the only thing Luke does better than Lue is pass? And i don't get this whole obsession thing. I don't see a Luke obsession here. I do see an obsession with improving the pg situation by any means necessary and i am definitely on board with that. Ex . . I know you have league pass. How many Sonics games have you watched this year? There was a reason why Luke got benched in mid-season, for Earl. It had to do with his poor defense and his inconsistent offense. And you and I know that Speedy had BY FAR his worst season of his entire career. I've watched Speedy for many years, and he's never looked that bad. Something definitely had to be wrong with him. His game is built on speed and defense, so when his knees started to give out on him, it affected his entire game. I'd be SHOCKED if Speedy had anywhere close to the season he had this year, once the 07 - 08 campaign begins. And even if we acquired Law or Conley in the draft, it wouldn't shock me at all to see them playing behind a healthy Speedy Claxton. And a healthy Speedy Claxton is a far greater asset to the Hawks, than a healthy Luke Ridnour would ever be. The health issue is the main issue with Speedy. Not his play on the court when healthy. As far as their not being an obsession with Luke, I've seen his name mentioned in possible trades, more than any other player this season. People are convinced that he could help the Hawks. He'll do exactly what Lue does, and give the points right back to the opponent, when he's playing defense.

EDS . . that's BS. He's not better than a healthy Tyronn Lue who is a far better offensive player than Luke is, and knows when to pick his spots to score. He's not better than a healthy Speedy Claxton, who is 3X the defender that Luke is and only slightly less of an offensive player. Luke is a better playmaker than both of those guys . . but only slightly. People act like Luke would be the answer at PG with the Hawks. That's crazy to say, if you've ever seen Luke play. Given the minutes, a guy like Jose Calderon could do exactly what Luke does right now, more efficiently on BOTH ENDS of the floor. Give me a BU PG like Calderon any day of the week, over Luke.

They're not happy at all with those two. Yet, people still talk about Ridnour being an option with the Hawks. LOL . . I'll rather stick with the 3.5 headed moster at the point. ( Lue, Speedy, AJ, and Salim being the .5 )

I see a lot of stuff on these boards. And while we all have an opinion, I've never understood this obsession that some of these posters have with acquiring Luke Ridnhour. Somebody PLEASE explain it to me. Luke's career numbers: 9.6 ppg 5.2 apg 42% FG 34% 3FG 85% FT Hollinger wrote last year the the Sonics were the "worst defensive team EVER" . . and the play of Ridnour was a big reason for that. And yet, you have people on THIS BOARD suggesting we trade Marvin Williams in some sort of package deal to get LUKE "friggin" RIDNOUR or Chris Wilcox? Luke is a nice PG who can find people, but he's far from a good PG in this league. People could probably list about 25 PG in this league that they'd rather have, than Luke Ridnour. And some of those PGs are backups themselves. Luke has been benched this year for Earl Watson. You know . . the "great" PG, that "all-star" caliber player Earl Watson. And what's worst, is that Luke may have peaked right now as an NBA player. There's nothing in his makeup that says that he can be a 14 ppg . . 8 assist guy. He'll probably forever be that 11 ppg . . 6 assist guy in the NBA. Translation = HE WILL NEVER BE CLOSE TO WHAT NASH IS AS A PG . . EVER!! But his name constantly gets brought up in a trade on this board. When you look at Luke, the ONLY thing he does better than a Tyronn Lue, is pass the ball. Everything else, Lue does better. And even the playmaking aspect of Luke's game isn't head and shoulders above Lue . . or Speedy Claxton, for that matter. Because if it was, the Sonics would be much better than what they are right now. Luke is not an impact player. When the trade deadline came up, and Seattle was wanting at 1st round pick for Luke, people looked at the Sonics like they were CRAZY . . . C-R-A-Z-Y!! Only delusional Hawksquawkers would DARE give the Sonics a 1st round pick or a previous 1st rounder, for a guy like Ridnour. And yet, people on this board want a "pass-first PG" so bad here, that they're willing to take on potentially ANOTHER backup caliber PG in Ridnhour, and ship out Marvin Williams before we even know what his ceiling is? Unbelievable. You want a PG Hawksquawkers? Take Law with that #11 pick. I can almost guarantee you that he'll have a bigger impact from the PG position in his first 3 years, than Luke "I'm not even on Jason Willaims level" Ridnour ever did.

Quote: Quote: No one is saying Oden, Durant, Conley or Hibbert aren't far superior to current players on the Hawks roster. So don't even go there. What I am saying is that you need BALANCE - i.e., mixture of youth and vets. No team with three rookies, no matter how good they are, is going anywhere fast. Chicago won 47 games and went to the playoffs with 4 rookies playing prominent roles. (Gordon, Deng, Duhon, & Nocioni) Your Bulls are the exception to the rule. LOL . . and what that team did was incredible, seeing that they started the season 0 - 9. But when talking about those Bulls, you also have to talk about what happened the following year. At 47 wins, expectations were high. So how did those Bulls respond? They responded by playing inconsistent basketball for 3/4ths of the year, needing a big time winning streak at the end, just to get to the 41 win mark and get into the playoffs. The loss of Curry had a lot to do with that, but the lack of quality vets on the team had a lot to do with it as well. That's why your team went out and got experienced vets like a Ben Wallace and a PJ Brown, to solidify the middle. Although Curry and Chandler are better players, they're also more inexperienced players. And inexperienced players tend to be erratic with their consistency on a nightly basis. ( see the Hawks ) Now look at the Bulls. Pretty much challenged all year for the #2 seed in the East. Only had a bad stretch in November because of all of those road games . . ( lol . . damn that circus. Move it to Wrigley Field and let them freeze in the cold ). Once they got back on track, they never looked back. And look at them now. The young core playing great for the most part ( except Hinrich, who is point shaving right now ), and the old vets doing all of the dirty work. ( LOL . . it was a 9 point game when I started typing this. Now it's down to 3. ) But for the most part, young teams just don't win in this league. And if they do win during the regular season, they probably won't do much in the playoffs. Experience + talent >>> Youth + extreme talent Right now, a dimished skills Chris Webber is a better player than a young, talented, but inexperienced Eddy Curry. Tony Parker is a better player than Chris Paul, even if Chris is more of the prototypical PG. At this time of the year, which player would you rather have? A Robert Horry or a Tyrus Thomas? Most people will take Horry, even if Thomas is by far the better athlete and potentially the better player. Even though the younger player has more talent in each case, the experience factor can really hurt a young player in this league. And veteran teams seem to always know what to do and when to do it. And they don't have to be told or taught these things either. Good teams in this league will hardly ever trade a veteran for a young player. They'll almost always trade for another experienced veteran. Conversely, those teams will trade a good young player for a good veteran any day of the week. The Bulls did just that, and because of it, it may have helped their young core develop more rapidly. Good win by the Bulls today.

People always leave out the fact that: 1) There was no JJ in the discussion, at the time we drafted Marvin. That means the best player on the Hawks at that time, was Al Harrington. 2) It was pretty much assumed that Harrington would leave us at the end of that 05 - 06 season. That means we probably needed to DEVELOP or go out and get a young talent that could be a superstar. 3) We failed to get the 2 guys who we were really going after, Michael Redd and Ray Allen, who were SUPERSTARS or an emerging one at that time. I think the Marvin pick was solely made by BK, because he was the guy that most people projected to be a SUPERSTAR in 5 years. Not Bogut . . not Paul . . definitely not Deron . . but MARVIN. And if that came to pass, he'd be the guy that the team would be constructed around. I think after a year of wathing Smoove and Chill, BK was probably uncertain about how good these guys could potentially be. If we'd picked #1, Bogut would be the choice. At #2, BK was going for the superstar talent. And that was Marvin. Period. If we'd landed a guy like Redd, I think BK definitely takes Paul. But because we didn't, BK wanted that superstar talent first, then go out and get his PG. And if everything didn't work out, he always had an unsigned Tyronn Lue in his back pocket, to man the ship until we obtained a guy that could take his place. Then the JJ deal started to develop. That pretty much changed everything for Marvin and the impact he could have with the Hawks in year 1. Now, JJ became the "future" of the Hawks. That potential superstar player that we could build the franchise around. Young players need the opportunity to showcase their skills, in order to improve in the long run. After we acquired JJ, the decision was made to bring Marvin along slowly. This year, it was about taking the "wraps" off of him, and see if he could develop at a faster rate. Then the injury happens, and derails that process for a full month. And because it's a hand injury, it took him 2 - 3 more weeks to get comfortable enough in the strength of the hand, to not worrying about it getting banged around. People have to keep this all in mind, when talking about Marvin and his development as a player. If healthy, there should be no excuses for Marvin. And if he plays up to his potential, people shouldn't have to make any, because he'll be a good and consistent ballplayer.

By the way . . I'm setting you guys up for my "anti-tanking" lottery idea. Stay tuned for that in the coming days or in about a week. Carry on with this discussion though. I'm sure CBA is ready to blast me for my lastest comments.

Yes sir. If they're not in that 8th spot, they're somewhere in the top 3. Let's hope the odds hold up, until they get to our pick.

That's a great point you just brought up. It would seem to discourage tanking, but because of the probability numbers, it seems to do the opposite. LOL . . call me a consipircy theorists, but I think those probability numbers, while true, are misleading, and give unrealistic false hope to people. It's like Mark Twain said . . "There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Tony Delk scored 50 points in a game once. Maybe he could've been a 30 ppg scorer if he wanted to. Shoot, put Salim back in time, and maybe he averages 25 ppg and runs circles around Bob Cousy. Seriously though . . Diesel, it is kind of unfair to say that Cobb couldn't do now, what he did back then, because the athletes are better now. If that's the case, how good would Kevin Garnett be back in 1965, if he had the same skill set that he had now? Or is it more likely that KG would've never tried to be a 7 foot SF back in those days? If you're going to say that Cobb couldn't do what he did back then, you also have to assume that Cobb wouldn't be undergoing the same type of workout, practice, and training regiments that these athletes do now. So Soth is right about putting Bonds back in time. LOL . . no flaxseed oil for him back in those days. And I'm sure he wouldn't be a workout demon.

No, I believe those 38% odds. But I do think the 38% odds number for us is unreliable, when talking about a single lottery. And they're definitely not the type of odds to feel good about. It may represent the pre-draft odds we have now, but I don't think we can rely on that number because of the number of teams below us, and the number of combinations that they possess. That element of luck for a lesser team to move up, is a little stronger than is given credit for. That "luck" has a lot to do with the number of combinations that they hold. On a per team basis, you're exactly right though. It's all about luck, from the top on down. And that's why that 1st selection is so important in this lottery process. Those teams 5 - 12 hold almost 28% of the combinations right off the bat. That's a little more than the worst team itself at 25%. DJ says that teams like Minny and Portland scare him. Well, I'll add Seattle to that group as well. Between those 3 alone, they hold a little over 19% of the combinations on that very first pick . . basically the equivalent of the combinations that the 2nd worst team have. By themselves, they aren't a signficant threat. Together, you see how they ( teams 5 - 7 ) can completely fug up the process. And it seems to happen just about every year. The percentages are on their side. Combined, their probability number of getting a top 3 pick, would be the 3rd highest in the lottery. And that's why the process is so unpredictable. If one of those teams jump us, we're probably screwed. And that scenario is more likely to happen, than us jumping into the top 3. Let's hope not though. In the TV broadcast, if no one is called behind us by the time they get to the 4th spot, I'll feel really good about us moving up to possibly even #1 or #2. All I'm doing guys, is breaking the process completely down. It's too simple for me to just say that our odds at a top 3 pick lie at 38% right now, and leave it at that. I break it down to see if that 38% is a number we can count on, or a number that we probably don't need to worry about, because it's unlikely to happen.

Quote: And of course, the odds can be calculated right now to say what the odds are of each team getting the #2 pick based on which team gets the #1 pick, and what the odds are of each team getting the #3 pick based on which teams gets the #1 and #2 pick. The "total" odds that have been used to get a top 2 pick or a top 3 pick are based on the weighted average of all those combinations. Right. And I've always understood that. I'll check this thread after lunch.

Quote: Quote: Good stuff Lascar. Now let me ask you this. Can you calculate the odds of each team getting the #2 pick, after the #1 pick ( whomever it is ) has been selected? And after that, can you calculate the odds of each team getting the #3 pick, after the #1 and #2 teams are selected? I'm not asking you to physically do it . . lol . . unless you want to. I'm asking if it can be done accurately for each pick, as the lottery process works itself down. No because you don't know who was selected for the first pick until after the entire draft has been completed. The best he could do is look back on a past draft and see what each team's odds were at each pick in the draft. As you know, that is easy to do. If he had access to watch the draft taking place it would be easy to do what you are asking. He can tell you right now what every team's odds are of getting a top 2 pick in the draft, though. That's correct AHF. Or . . We can do a statistical range of what our odds would be at each pick if the worst team or the #14 team got the top pick. ATL's odds to get the top pick: 11.9% ATL's ACTUAL odds to get the 2nd pick, if they don't get the top pick: 12% - 15.9% The same principle applies if the worst 2 teams got the #1 and #2 picks . . or if the #13 and #14 teams got the top 2 picks. ATL's ACTUAL odds to get the 3rd pick, if they don't get one of the top 2 picks: 12% - 21.6% I think that's how you have to look at the lottery. Others disagree, so I have no choice to respect that, even if I disagree with it. My entire standing on this issue has been this: When you look at this draft from a probability standpoint of getting a top 3 pick, it doesn't truly represent how the lottery process works. I'm not looking at this from the inverse perpective that the lottery is presented on TV. We see the lottery AFTER the results have been tabulated. And TNT/ESPN shows it to us in inverse order, for suspense purposes only. But that's not how the actual lottery process works. The actual lottery process goes from the top . . down. Not from the bottom . . up. So I see why people put so much stock in the top 3 probability aspect, because we're presented the lottery in a way where we don't see the top 3 picks, until the end of the TV presentation. And like I said, that's for suspense purposes only. If the actual ping-pong combination selection were shown live, I think people wouldn't be looking at this from an overall probability perspective. They'd be looking at it from a position by position perspective. If they didn't get that 1st pick, they'd want to know what their chances are to get the 2nd pick. And likewise with the 3rd pick. The odds of the #1 team getting the 3rd pick ( before the draft starts ) is close to 18%, as Lascar accurately points out. But if that #1 team doesn't get one of the first 2 picks, their odds of getting that 3rd pick can be around 40%. It's just a different way of looking at the lottery. And when I look at it that way, I can easily see how and why teams move up into the top 3, when the pre-draft probability numbers says that the odds should be heavily against them.

Good stuff Lascar. Now let me ask you this. Can you calculate the odds of each team getting the #2 pick, after the #1 pick ( whomever it is ) has been selected? And after that, can you calculate the odds of each team getting the #3 pick, after the #1 and #2 teams are selected? I'm not asking you to physically do it . . lol . . unless you want to. I'm asking if it can be done accurately for each pick, as the lottery process works itself down.

To me, the thing that I look for Marvin to improve on the most, is that FG%. I think that's the most important aspect in his development as a player. I want him around that 47% FG mark. If he can get there, and still score 13 - 18 ppg, it'll help this team tremendously. It's also important for Josh Smith to get his FG% around 47% next year as well. We're not going to improve much as a team, if both of those guys are shooting under 45% from the SF and PF spots. Both of them must be more efficient offensive players, to compliment JJ.

Come on now Soth. Posting those kinds of numbers in the NBA is pretty impressive, no matter who you're playing against. If Shelden posted those numbers in summer league, people would've been pretty high on him going into this season. The Shelden hate really started, when he played so poorly this summmer. Now, I think he knows what he has to do, in order to be an effective NBA player. I think now, it's up to the coach ( whomever he is ), to trust him with playing time . . whether it be at the 4 or the 5. I thought at the beginning of this season, that ZaZa would see his PT cut, as a result of Shelden taking some of his minutes. Maybe that will happen next season.

Didn't I say that I completely understood where you guys were coming from with how you calculated the probability? I've never disputed those numbers. I just dispute the significance of them before the lottery begins. LOL @ your urn example. That's exactly how I would do it as well. That's an easy example. The lottery is a "little" different than that though, and you know it. The example you used sees "5" as the number of balls that will always be available in the 2nd selection. In the NBA lottery, the number of possible combinations left to select from can be anywhere from "750" to "999" when that 2nd selection comes down. You'll still use the same formula to calculate the probabilty, but the percentage you come up with, may not be indicitive of the actual scenario that comes down, depending on who gets that 1st pick. Why? Because we're talking about such a wide range that could go down, depending on who gets that #1 pick. My standing the entire time, is that the percentage change from one spot, really isn't that significant, because a team is competing against the rest of the 13 teams in the lottery . . not just against one or two other teams. People have been crying about not being 3rd, instead of 4th . . which is silly to me. All it takes is for your combination to pop up one time in the top 3. So I don't view the probability from a standpoint of our chances to get a top 3 pick. I view it from an individual standpoint, and see what our actual chances could be, as the lottery process develops position by position. So where am I wrong in how I calculated the different scenarios that I came up with? I'm clearly stating what happens when we KNOW what the outcome of the 1st or 2nd picks are, and how many possible combinations are left. I'm not the one that were trying to prove you guys wrong. What I definitely did, was try to give actual scenarios of what could happen, and how moving up or down a position in the draft, was really insignificant in the process. If you don't believe that, then that's on you. But I'm just as comfortable at #4, as I would've been at #5 or even at #3. The "odds" are against us, no matter how you slice. So I pose the same question to you, that I posed to Walter. What are the chances of one of the teams 5th - 14th getting a top 3 pick? Is is lower or greater than 38%? And explain why.

I think what he's saying, is that we can't do the things that many of us want to do ( i.e. - become a running team that maximizes our athleticism ), without a decent PG who can make good decisions running the show. AJ isn't a runner. Lue isn't a runner. Both are much more suited for the 1/2 court offense. Speedy is a runner, but his 100 year old knees wouldn't let him do it this year. So we really couldn't effectively run all year. We can get away with Smoove or Chill starting/leading fast breaks against weak defensive teams. But an average defensive team easily controlled our running opportunities. We just can't live with Smoove leading fast breaks. He has to be the one finishing on the break. That's one aspect that a PG like Conley can bring to the table. Not only can he run, he can also finish going to the hole. A guy like Law is more suited for the 1/2 court style that we try to use now. If we truly wanted to be a running team, we probably should've started Salim at the point, seeing that he was probably the fastest guard on the team this year. Question is . . would the benefits outweigh the obvious negatives? Most fans would say . . heck no.

Quote: Quote: I guess you can call me guilty on calling nbasuperstar dumb, but he slams people more than anyone. He calls this whole board "idiots" because we think Josh Smith is a starter. He thinks Smith will be out of the league when his rookie contract is up. He also claims to be an NBA scout, yet he spells every other word that he types incorrectly. I only namecall when it's already been casted, I don't initiate the action. When YOU make comments such as "what a thoughtless post," "you've wasted your time," or you "nonsense posters" and such, yeah I will say something. Oh, now I see. Only you can decide when it is appropriate to call someone "dumb". When you do it, it is just and righteous. When I do it, it's ego-stroking. Yes, now I follow. I'm glad you write the moral code for the rest of us. Now I know where to go when I need to settle a dilemma. I'd be glad to know how exactly you know that I am the one "initiating the action". How carefully must you keep track of every discussion to be sure of this? Also, how can you be so sure that you are never guilty of initiating? Don't respond to Atlas CBA . . respond to my post. Please discount my numbers, and the logic behind it. You're the one that called me out, so use some FACTS to back up what you say, and make me look dumb.

Walter, I'm not confusing the issue at all. All I'm doing is stating the facts. Like I told CBA, if you want to directly dispute anything I've said about the lottery, go right ahead. But come with FACTS, not with opinions. If you want to have total confidence in that 38% chance to get a top 3 pick, go right ahead. But let me ask you this, what is the chance that a team 5th - 14th will get a top 3 pick? Is it less than 38% or more than 38%? We all know if one of those teams jumps ahead of us in the process, then we're most likely screwed. So is the chance of that happening greater than our chance of getting a top 3 pick? That's why I don't stress out over where we land in the lottery, especially if we have a good idea of the range we're going to eventually be. Our best shot to get into the top 3 comes if Memphis and Boston can get the #1 and #2 spot. Then, when that 3rd selection is chosen, we'll have a 21.6% chance at getting that 3rd pick ( 119 Hawk combinations divided by 551 total combinations that are valid ). Simple mathematics people.

AHF . . we know the formula of determining our percentage for each pick. team combinations / total combinations left on the board = % chance. The lottery is tricky, because they don't take ping pong balls away from the machine. What they do though, is take the combinations that a team has, away from the possibile combinations, once that team is selected for a certain position. So if one of those team's combinations comes up, they simply disregard that combination, and keep selecting until some other combination comes up. That's exactly what happened in 2005, when we got the #2 spot. When selecting the #3 spot, the lottery machine actually spit out one of our combinations again. All they did, was disregard the result, and repeated the process again. This time, Portland came up. http://www.nba.com/features/inside_lottery_050524.html From the article: The next combination brought forth: 1—5—7—14. The Atlanta Hawks claimed the second overall pick in the NBA Draft – down one spot from their regular season finish. The process is repeated for the third pick, but one of Atlanta’s 250 combinations surface again. The balls are returned to the tumbler and redrawn, similar to what would have happened in the event the 1,001st combination, 11—12—13—14, not assigned to a team, had surfaced. The fourth drawing produces the third and final winning combination: 4—10—12—14. The Portland Trail Blazers join Milwaukee and Atlanta in the win-place-show grouping, despite holding only a 10.64 percent chance of winning the third pick. I think I see what is happening here though. Because ping-pong balls aren't being removed, you technically still have 1,000 combinations left in the machine. But after the 1st selection, the lottery process disregards any combination that comes up for a team, after they've already been selected in the #1 or #2 position. What I'm doing, is determining the probability of the team's chances by removing the combinations that won't be counted after a team is selected. But I think the numbers that you guys are using, are the probability numbers if those combinations weren't discarded in the process. Like I said, it's all in the way you look at it. I think the way I'm looking at the lottery, by discarding the combinations once a team has been selected, is the right way to look at it. I haven't seen anything you guys have posted, that can disprove what I'm seeing. If you can, I'll gladly back down on my stance. But it's a pretty common sense issue to me. If the worst team with 250 combinations lands the #1 pick . . and those combinations aren't even counted in selecting the #2 pick . . then the combinations that are counted, will be 750. And if that's the case, the variable changes. Hawks have 119 ping-pong combinations. Hawks odds if 1000 total combinations are valid for that #1 pick: 11.9% Hawks odds if 750 total combinations are valid for that #2 pick: 15.9% That's pretty cut and dry to me.

Quote: ... I think northcyde is wrong on this matter also, but he always gives accurate and intellectual posts, and calling him "dumb" is just more reflection on your egotistical based character.. Atlas, the only reason I disagree with some of you on this issue, is because I don't view the chances of getting the #3 pick as a total percentage. I view it position by position, and look at our percentage chances in that light. Like I'll continue to say, I would love for the ENTIRE process to be shown live, where we could see how the 1st selection directly affected the selection of the next pick pick . . and how that pick affected the chances of someone getting that 3rd pick. But because we're presented with the results of the lottery, and not seeing how the process works, I think people tend to view the lottery as one event that is determined by one element. Guys like Walter think that's the wrong way to look at it, and complicates the matter. He's entitled to his opinion. If you look at it in the same light, then you're entitled to yours as well. This article may help some people truly understand the lottery process. http://www.nba.com/features/inside_lottery_050524.html LOL . . I'm just waiting on CBA's reply. Hope it comes before my lunch break is over, so I can laugh again.

. . not c-l-y-d-e. LOL . . you can't even spell the name right.

Quote: Quote: 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 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. -northclyde's musings on probability and the NBA draft lottery Thought I'd post this in a separate thread since it's so insightful. Now we all understand how the NBA lottery works. It has something to do with "the variable" which is "constantly changing". CBA . . . the "varible" that changes, are the number of TOTAL PING-PONG COMBINATIONS DURING EACH PICK. I love this. And this is why this board is rapidly becoming my favorite site on the net. You guys continue to make me laugh. Let me break it down for your remedial azz CBA, and put you on blast. You have 1000 possible ping-pong ball combinations when the 1st position in the NBA lottery is selected. At this time, we KNOW what our chances to get the #1 pick are. If you're the worst team, you have 250 chances out of 1000. For hypothetical purposes, let's say that the 2nd worst team in the draft gets that top pick. The 2nd worst team has 199 total combinations. Now we go to the 2nd pick: The VARIABLE that changes . . is the TOTAL NUMBER OF COMBINATIONS LEFT IN THE LOTTERY. You subtract 199 from 1000, and you have 801 possible combinations left that the remaining teams have total, in order to determine the 2nd pick. This is called a DEPENDENT EVENT . . OR DEPENDENT PROBABILITY. Dependent probability is defined as when "one outcome can affect the outcome of another." http://www.learningwave.com/chapters/proba...ndependent.html The odds of getting the #2 pick in the draft are DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY WHO GETS THE #1 PICK. This ish is not that hard to figure out. Since the Hawks are the 4th worst team, we have 119 combinations. So our probability to get the 2nd pick would be 119 divided by 801 . . which is 14.9%. But for bad luck's sake, let's say that we don't get the #2 pick, and the #5 team gets the selection, who has 88 combinations. You would then SUBTRACT 88 from 801, and come up with 713 total combinations left for the teams vying for the #3 pick. This also illustrates the property of DEPENDENT PROBABILITY. The 3rd pick in the draft is DIRECTLY AFFECTED by who gets the #1 and #2 picks. Once again, the Hawks have 119 ping-pong combinations left in this lottery. Once the #3 pick is selected, there are 713 total combinations left. So our chance to get the #3 pick in this scenario would be 119 divided by 713 . . which is 16.7% DING!! One of the Hawks combinations is selected, and we get the #3 pick. CBA . . what you and your buddies have been doing, are taking the percentage chances of each selection, and simply adding the percentages, to get your "odds" for a top 3 pick. That's called MUTUAL EXCLUSIVE EVENT PROBABILITY. http://www.richland.edu/james/lecture/m170/ch05-rul.html That's why I've never directly disputed the actual probability numbers that some of you have given. I completely understood what you guys were doing. What I have disputed, are how valid those probabilty numbers are. I do that because we have NO IDEA what our actual probabilty to get the #2 or #3 pick is. We can do a statistical average of our probabilites to get the #2 or #3 picks, and write down a percentage. But we truly won't know what our odds to get the #2 pick will be, UNTIL the #1 pick is determined. The lottery is presented on TV, like it is one event determined by one element. In truth, the lottery is one event determined by three elements. The first element is independent, because we know our percentages right off the bat. The 2nd and 3rd elements are dependent, because we won't know what our percentages are, until the first element is determined. NOW . . disprove anything I've said about the lottery CBA. You try to make me look like an idiot, when you're the one who doesn't understand a thing about probability, and the different conditions that can go along with it. Even Walter didn't dispute what I was saying. He just said that I was making the issue too complex and trying to twist the numbers in a negative light. And he couldn't dispute what I was saying, because he knew that I was right. But for you CBA, you're throwing up stuff like coin flips, which aren't affected by anything. And because of that, it's called an INDEPENDENT EVENT . . OR INDEPENDENT PROBABILITY. That ish has nothing to do with the NBA draft lottery. The draft lottery is much more like Texas Hold-em, where you know your percentage chances just from the 2 cards you receive off the bat. Then, your percentage chance changes as the flop, turn, and river determines the winner. Disprove anything that I've said as being FALSE. That's all I want you to do. But if you do, you better make sure that you're right. (( tossing the keyboard to your dumb azz . . CBA ))