Jed Zeppelin said:
Can somebody explain to this simpleton why we don't get the 17 pick? On espn.com, I go to the standings, switch to league, and count up from the bottom and Brooklyn is 17. Am I missing something?
Lotto odds
- Thread starter ishmael
- Start date
Can somebody explain to this simpleton why we don't get the 17 pick? On espn.com, I go to the standings, switch to league, and count up from the bottom and Brooklyn is 17. Am I missing something?
Yes, this was my thing yesterday:
- The Hawks will make the playoffs ~5 games under .500 and will be "rewarded" with no lottery pick.
- Memphis or Dallas will end the season with a record 8-12 games better than the Hawks (playing in a tougher conference), and they will get a lottery pick for missing the playoffs.
Forcing a worse team to deal with a worse pick is a correctable failure in the basketball draft system.
- The Hawks will make the playoffs ~5 games under .500 and will be "rewarded" with no lottery pick.
- Memphis or Dallas will end the season with a record 8-12 games better than the Hawks (playing in a tougher conference), and they will get a lottery pick for missing the playoffs.
Forcing a worse team to deal with a worse pick is a correctable failure in the basketball draft system.
Celtics 2.5 point favorites against Philly (in PHI) and Utah is 6 point favorites in Salt Lake over the Lakers. These two games will more or less settle out the lotto odds.
Celts at 7, Lakers at 9. Can't wait...
If Celtics and Lakers lose, we have a 3-way tie for 4th place with a game to go...
Edit to add: trying to wrap my head around what is preferred...3 way tie for 4th or 2 way tie for 5th?
Celts at 7, Lakers at 9. Can't wait...
If Celtics and Lakers lose, we have a 3-way tie for 4th place with a game to go...
Edit to add: trying to wrap my head around what is preferred...3 way tie for 4th or 2 way tie for 5th?
I could get equally excited over Vonleh, Exum or Gordon, but less so for Smart, and even less so for Randle. The sixth seed has a nearly 35% chance at picking outside the top six, while with the fifth seed that drops to less than 9%. If Randle, as expected, goes before any of those guys, it shouldn't be an issue, but it'd be nice not to have to sweat it out.
So, unless Utah wins miraculously in Minnesota and we lose to the Wizzards, we ll end up with the fifth spot in the lottery.
Nick Kaufman said:
It's not impossible; the last day of the season is always a mess as far as guys sitting out, and Love has already sat a couple of games this month. I feel better about the Celtics losing, since Washington is playing to avoid Miami in round 1.
For what it's worth, and probably not much, the Trailblazers and Sonics were the 7th and 5th "seeds" in the 2007 lottery. It would be nice for once that the Celtics had that sort of luck in the draft.
BigSoxFan said:
Wouldn't Wiggins be the Durant to Embiid's Oden? In that wild scenario, I don't see Ainge drafting Oden v.2.
I could easily see Ainge 2007-draft-ing the pick for an instant impact, though.
It would be an even wilder scenario if teams, fearing that Embiid is Oden v. 2.0, pass on him, and then he turns out to be Olajuwon v. 2.0?
In any event, Wiggins is no Durant.
In any event, Wiggins is no Durant.
Nick Kaufman said:
With a win, the Celts could also end up tied for the fifth spot with the Lakers, who seemingly have -0.0% chance of beating the Spurs. That would lower their chances of the #1 pick from 8.8% to about 7.6% depending on the coin flip. Their odds of getting a Top 3 pick would fall from 29.1% to about 25.3% (again coin flip dependent), or roughly the same odds the Bucks have of picking first overall.
A tie for 4th with Utah would make those odds ~10.4% and ~33.5% respectively.
The Spurs have less than nothing to play for so it would not be completely shocking if LA won that game. Washington has plenty of incentive to beat the C's tonight and avoid Miami in the first round.
I believe if the Celts tie LA they get the earlier 5th pick because they lost the series to them (I am aware that for ping pong balls they get an equal number of balls). Anyone know the 4/5 tiebreaker with Utah - they finished 1-1 against each other?
For the limited time that he played, Oden was actually a terrific player. But the injury red flags were everywhere with him even before he entered the NBA. Obviously, Embiid has similar issues. If Embiid has anywhere close to Oden's talent, I'd be ecstatic to see the Celtics grab him. I don't really love anyone in the draft.
Not lotto, but still, shouldn't we hope the C's lose to Washington tonight and that Brooklyn wins?
Lose Remerswaal said:
We want the Nets to lose to the Cavs which would cause them to end up with the same record as the Wizards (44-38). We have the Nets pick in this years draft and it's currently slotted at 18, but if they end up with the same record as the Wizards then a coin flip decides the which team gets the higher pick.
Didn't we win a coinflip in 2006 to figure out where we pick? Did they change how that's done?
Things I want tonight: Celts lose, Utah wins (obviously.) I also want Toronto to win and Brooklyn to lose. That way, the Nets avoid the Bulls in the first round. In the semifinals, they get the Heat and the Bulls get the Pacers.
Things I want tonight: Celts lose, Utah wins (obviously.) I also want Toronto to win and Brooklyn to lose. That way, the Nets avoid the Bulls in the first round. In the semifinals, they get the Heat and the Bulls get the Pacers.
Yes, just found that they use the coin flip not just to split ping pong ball averages, but also to determine tie breakers outside of the top 3 picks. If Utah holds on, we would flip with them for the fourth.
http://www.fearthesword.com/2012/4/23/2970645/the-rules-of-the-nba-draft-lottery-tiebreaker
http://www.fearthesword.com/2012/4/23/2970645/the-rules-of-the-nba-draft-lottery-tiebreaker
10.35% chance at 1
33.5% chance at top 3 (Wiggins, Parker, Embiid)
If we don't move up, coin flip if we pick 4th or 5th (Exum or Randle)
33.5% chance at top 3 (Wiggins, Parker, Embiid)
If we don't move up, coin flip if we pick 4th or 5th (Exum or Randle)
Glad they ended up tied for 4th, but I wish they could have cracked the bottom three.
The one thing that strikes me about this whole process is how the lottery doesn't materially discourage teams from trying to lose. You still have strictly better odds at a higher pick if you lose more. This thread is evidence that the stated purpose of the lottery is not being achieved.
The one thing that strikes me about this whole process is how the lottery doesn't materially discourage teams from trying to lose. You still have strictly better odds at a higher pick if you lose more. This thread is evidence that the stated purpose of the lottery is not being achieved.
Statman said:
I knew that. Not sure how/why I posted it backwards. Maybe a server outage will lose this post for me?
So Nets did lose. Good.
Steve Dillard said:
That's not quite true.
The coin flip determines if who picks first outside the top 3, Celtics or Jazz. Since teams ranked 6 - 14 can get a top 3 pick that would push the Celtics and Jazz down the draft board if they don't get a top 3 pick. The coin toss would decide which team gets the higher pick. It could be 4th and 5th, but also could be 7th and 8th, etc.
That beng said, I tried the simulation once, the Celtics got the #1 pick. I am not trying the simulation again.
breaking news... if you believe in conspiracy theories, Bucks (theoretically a 25% probability) should win the NBA lottery. Go book your special trip to the casinos to place your bets:
Hedge fund billionaires buy Bucks for $550 M and secure a deal, that includes a $100M gift from current selling owner senator Kohl plus $100M from the new owners to the city to build a new arena & keep the team in Milwaukee.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2014/04/16/report-hedge-fund-billionaires-to-buy-nba-bucks-for-550m/
NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said Kohl's "historic and unprecedented $100 million gift to the city of Milwaukee to secure the future of this franchise emphatically underscores his passion, commitment and generosity to his community."
Hedge fund billionaires buy Bucks for $550 M and secure a deal, that includes a $100M gift from current selling owner senator Kohl plus $100M from the new owners to the city to build a new arena & keep the team in Milwaukee.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2014/04/16/report-hedge-fund-billionaires-to-buy-nba-bucks-for-550m/
NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said Kohl's "historic and unprecedented $100 million gift to the city of Milwaukee to secure the future of this franchise emphatically underscores his passion, commitment and generosity to his community."
The Celts have lost the coin flip. Utah gets the extra ping pong ball in the lottery, and they also pick ahead of the Celtics should they both fail to secure a top 3 pick.
Should either not gain a lottery selection, Boston can pick no better than 5th and no worse than 8th with its first choice, while the Jazz won't be higher than 4th or lower than 7th.
The good news is that the Nets also won their coin flip vs the Wizards, so the Celts' other 1st-rounder will be #17 overall.
Should either not gain a lottery selection, Boston can pick no better than 5th and no worse than 8th with its first choice, while the Jazz won't be higher than 4th or lower than 7th.
The good news is that the Nets also won their coin flip vs the Wizards, so the Celts' other 1st-rounder will be #17 overall.
Rewarding old owners or new owners for giving money to cities would not be in the current owners' best interests.ALiveH said:
What's in the current owners' best interests is a team in a high profile city getting a superstar that the NBA can market like crazy, thus drawing viewers and making all the owners more money.
That's not the only scenario that a conspiracy might arise from, but its generally true that Silver represents the owners group who primarily care about their franchises' value.
That said even if Stern threw a lottery to the Knicks, seems unlikely Silver would take that risk in his first year--- or ever.
Playing devils advocate, its also advantageous for the current owners to have franchises sell for big money, just like real estate. If the Bucks sold for $400M the current owners probably take a bigger hit than they would gain in the market superstar in big market scenario. Lets face it, the NBA is desperate for owners because I dont think Prokhorov gets approved in any other league. I really think there is a case to be made that Silver might do anything to get this franchise to sell for a high number.
If Stern were still in power I think we would take this conspiracy theory more seriously and think this was standard operating procedure for him. I also think the common belief is that Silver is more trustworthy, transparent and less of a douchebag than Stern but we really dont know much about him yet other than his goofy, friendly persona while making 2nd round picks. And the guy did basically have Stern as his mentor, so the choir boy must have been corrupted somewhat. I dont think Silver is evil like Stern is, but I need to see some evidence that he really is as nice and he actually presents himself.
If Stern were still in power I think we would take this conspiracy theory more seriously and think this was standard operating procedure for him. I also think the common belief is that Silver is more trustworthy, transparent and less of a douchebag than Stern but we really dont know much about him yet other than his goofy, friendly persona while making 2nd round picks. And the guy did basically have Stern as his mentor, so the choir boy must have been corrupted somewhat. I dont think Silver is evil like Stern is, but I need to see some evidence that he really is as nice and he actually presents himself.
These theories are basically self-fulfilling. If Milwaukee wins, conspiracy! If the Lakers win, conspiracy! If the Celtics win, conspiracy! There's a theory you can construct around pretty much any outcome. If it's Boston or LA, the league wants a star on one of it's marquee franchises. If it's Milwaukee, they're rewarding a new ownership group. The hilarious part of these theories is that people who believe them point to the Ewing draft as evidence, and ignore that the Knicks had the league's 3rd worst record and were only 2 wins better than the two teams tied for worst. It's not as if the Knicks winning was sone statistical anomaly, and yet somehow it's gone down in lore as this gift from the league. The lotto process is well publicized and overseen by an outside auditor. The process of rigging it would be very complicated, and the risk of that being exposed hugely, hugely outweighs the benefits of getting Joel Embiid or whoever to Milwaukee.
Grin&MartyBarret said:
The thing about the Ewing lottery was that there was a prevailing attitude at that time that it would be huge for the league if the Knicks were good. I remember that in 1977 they expanded the playoffs and people thought that this was to help the Knicks be in contention. This was the first lottery ever, and there was a clear #1 pick:
in fact, while Olajuwon and Sampson were very highly regarded, Ewing was thought of as the most sure-thing franchise center since Walton.
So there were a lot of us who went into this new lottery thinking that the league probably wanted the Knicks to win, and all but expecting them to win, not have a 1 in 7 chance (which were the supposed odds). I was at a Celtics playoff game when the lottery results were announced and most people said "of course."
I can see how looking back this all seems nutty, but at the time it just seemed like it was quite possibly the NBA practicing what they believed was good business.
Anyway, if the Knicks had not won the lottery it would have been interesting because they would have been under enormous pressure to pick Chris Mullin (which would have been a perfectly good pick at #2, but he dropped to #7). And enormous is the wrong word because it understates the pressure by an order or two of magnitude.
Grin&MartyBarret said:
Put the statistics aside because I agree with your point on that. Watch this, look at the 6 second mark how only one envelope hits the side and gets a corner bent. Look at the 47 second mark and see how it just so happened that the bent corner envelope was the #1 pick. This doesnt prove anything, other than the fact that the draft was a little fishy
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX1kMlG8c7Y[/media]
Grin&MartyBarret said:
Now getting to more serious matters. I find the 'audit' argument to be completely ridiculous. Ernst & Young does it, how much revenue do they get from this audits and other audits like this? Maybe 0.1% of their revenue? How much of their revenue is affected by this? For example, if this was blown up as as rigged lottery, are their accounting clients really jumping ship? Really they dont give a crap about this. This is more marketing than actually business for them.
As for the well publicized, the one thing I will never understand is why they began doing the actual lottery process behind closed doors. Why cant they put the ping pong ball selection process on TV? That just seems utterly ridiculous to me.
Stern: We need a plan to rig our billion dollar league and ensure Patrick Ewing ends up on the Knicks. Who has an idea?wutang112878 said:
Random guy: Throw the envelope against the side of the cage on live TV and hope it bends?
Stern: Well, nobody's gonna beat that. Let's go with it.
How much of Ernst & Young's revenue relies on the trustworthyness of their brand? Why would they want to risk damaging that for such a small fee?wutang112878 said:
And sure, televise it. They open it up to journalists already, so I'm sure it's only a matter of time.
Grin&MartyBarret said:
Yeah, that's insane. Also, another envelope could've easily been bent in the subsequent spinning.
Also, a lot of these theories are predicated on the owners or David Stern seeking to further enrich themselves. I don't think most NBA owners own a basketball franchise in order to make more money, with Donald Sterling a possible exception.
Grin&MartyBarret said:
Because there is evidence that they take those risks. Look at the lawsuit they settled due to their work auditing Lehman Brothers. You could make the case that they would be idiotic to risk damaging their core auditing business by doing some sketchy work with just one client, but they did it, it happened. Their brand has been tarnished before and will be again, they really dont protect it the way most people think they do. So yeah, I really dont think they would care if they were proven to be completely incompetent auditing the NBA lottery because the Lehman Brothers thing was way worse and they got through that without much of a problem.
I should clarify my point. I am not suggesting that this is proof that E&Y and Stern have fixed lotteries. I am simply debunking the idea that fixing the lottery is impossible because E&Y would never risk their immaculate reputation.
Whether their decision to buy the team was a pure business decision or partially related to sports fandom, they certainly don't want to throw money away. They all want their franchises to go up in value. If they didn't really care about making money there would never be strikes or lockouts.slamminsammya said:
wutang112878 said:
E&Y made over $150M from Lehman Bros during the period 2001 to 2007 to take an aggressive accounting position. How much would the NBA have to pay E&Y to commit outright fraud.
I have to assume that each team hires its own auditors; if that is the case, the NBA account for E&Y would be peanuts in comparison. E&Y is simply not going to take the risk.
Plus, if E&Y really were complicit in helping the NBA commit fraud and committing fraud itself, not only would E&Y have to be paid hundreds of millions, each person involved in the conspiracy (and there have to be several) would have to be paid so much money that they wouldn't ever blackmail the NBA. How much would that cost.
And who from the NBA is paying all the money. Mark Cuban is paying a portion of this in order to ensure Patrick Ewing goes to the Knicks?
What more needs to be said about this?
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
I could continue to defend my point and say things like EY is really taking virtually zero risk because if it was proven they completely f'd up the NBA 'audit' it would have virtually zero affect on their overall revenue.
I will say while I love professional basketball, I hate all things NBA from Stern, to the cap structure, and most of the NBA league rules. Basically anytime I get the opportunity to trash the NBA I will, so take my comments with a grain of salt.
What does this even mean? Cuban wasn't around then. It was a different time with different economics and dynamics. Also in 1985 many of us actually could recall league owners pooling their money to try to get another franchise center to New York, so it's not all as fantasy-land as you imply.wade boggs chicken dinner said:
wutang112878 said:
Why would it not effect their revenue? First, they'd get sued for consumer fraud, and it would certainly be a class action. They'd certainly lose millions, at least in attorney fees. Also, they'd certainly take a reputational hit and they'd lose the NBA account and possibly any other pro sports franchises, whatever that is worth.
They aren't going to do it. Your point that E&Y has no risk is wrong, and frankly, the converse is a better question - what does E&Y get out of participating in the fraud? I mean really, if they don't get fees for doing it, what is the point?
snowmanny said:
Sorry, I was on a bad connection and thought the short-hand would work but it obviously didn't.
The point is this. If you agree that E&Y would only allow a draft to be fixed if they were paid enormous amounts of money to do so (although admittedly WT does not agree with this and he believes that E&Y is going to participate in this fraud for at their regular billing rate) the 30 owners would have to know that the NBA is paying an exorbitant fee to E&Y. Do we really think that the owners are going to allow this fee to pass unnoticed? Isn't someone going to question why the fee is so high? Because basically, this fee is being financed 1/30th by each owner.
In other words, the 30 NBA owners are not going to sign off on an exorbitant accounting fee unless they know exactly why they are paying it. And once they learn why the fee is being charged, they just aren't going to pay it.