VCoug wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:I dont know the odds but the team with the worst record doesn't win the lottery often. We need a big and a PG. If Okafor is gone I hope there is a PG worth drafting.

That's because the team with the worst record only has a 25% chance of winning the lottery. In fact, the worst overall record only has a 64% chance of choosing in the top 3.

Wow, not very good odds.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/benchwarmerdan/status/551446790198034434

Although Bonn1997 said something about 'gamblers fallacy', meaning with regards to odds, what has come before has no bearing on what will come next.

VCoug wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

VCoug wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:I dont know the odds but the team with the worst record doesn't win the lottery often. We need a big and a PG. If Okafor is gone I hope there is a PG worth drafting.

That's because the team with the worst record only has a 25% chance of winning the lottery. In fact, the worst overall record only has a 64% chance of choosing in the top 3.

Wow, not very good odds.

Yeah, it's meant to reduce tanking.

smackeddog wrote:Yeah, one of the beat writers tweeted a picture showing how rare it's been that the worst team gets the top pick. I think the Lakers will end up with the no 1.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/benchwarmerdan/status/551446790198034434

Although Bonn1997 said something about 'gamblers fallacy', meaning with regards to odds, what has come before has no bearing on what will come next.

He is exactly right. The fact that the worst team hasn't won in so long is simply an aberration. Repeated over the "long run", the odds will even out and you'll see the team with the worst record winning at the appropriate clip. Thus since the team with the worst odds still mathematically has the best chance, teams should aim for the worst record no matter what has happened in the past.

H1AND1 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:Yeah, one of the beat writers tweeted a picture showing how rare it's been that the worst team gets the top pick. I think the Lakers will end up with the no 1.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/benchwarmerdan/status/551446790198034434

Although Bonn1997 said something about 'gamblers fallacy', meaning with regards to odds, what has come before has no bearing on what will come next.

He is exactly right. The fact that the worst team hasn't won in so long is simply an aberration. Repeated over the "long run", the odds will even out and you'll see the team with the worst record winning at the appropriate clip. Thus since the team with the worst odds still mathematically has the best chance, teams should aim for the worst record no matter what has happened in the past.

Exactly, math is on our side now. The odds must work back to average out and the worst record is due the #1 pick.
After seeing more video of Okafor, that guy is definitely the #1 pick. He has so much Tim Duncan (but more amped/energetic) in his offensive game. Sorry, I don't watch a ton of ball, but his footwork and moves inside just reminded me of Tim. If we don't get the #1 pick, I don't think we can go with Towns, he is just too far away. Perhaps that guard Briggs mentioned as he can contribute. Yeah, that part bit with that guy currently on the Lakers. But, now, with a lot of cap space and Melo, we need someone who can contribute more than Towns.

earthmansurfer wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:Yeah, one of the beat writers tweeted a picture showing how rare it's been that the worst team gets the top pick. I think the Lakers will end up with the no 1.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/benchwarmerdan/status/551446790198034434

Although Bonn1997 said something about 'gamblers fallacy', meaning with regards to odds, what has come before has no bearing on what will come next.

He is exactly right. The fact that the worst team hasn't won in so long is simply an aberration. Repeated over the "long run", the odds will even out and you'll see the team with the worst record winning at the appropriate clip. Thus since the team with the worst odds still mathematically has the best chance, teams should aim for the worst record no matter what has happened in the past.

Exactly, math is on our side now. The odds must work back to average out and the worst record is due the #1 pick.
After seeing more video of Okafor, that guy is definitely the #1 pick. He has so much Tim Duncan (but more amped/energetic) in his offensive game. Sorry, I don't watch a ton of ball, but his footwork and moves inside just reminded me of Tim. If we don't get the #1 pick, I don't think we can go with Towns, he is just too far away. Perhaps that guard Briggs mentioned as he can contribute. Yeah, that part bit with that guy currently on the Lakers. But, now, with a lot of cap space and Melo, we need someone who can contribute more than Towns.

that's the gambler fallacy Bonn1997 was talking about- what has come before has no bearing on what will happen this year- they are two completely independent events. The deluded gambler (i.e. me!) would look at that record and say "well the worst team is due to have either the 1st pick or the 3rd, because neither has happened in a while", but the reality is the odds will be exactly the same as they were in each if those previous years. The lottery machine doesn't remember what came before.