knicks1248 wrote:we have 1 pick, cap space, and a clueless coach= another 10 years of lottery balls..

with our luck and history, we are sure to draft the biggest bust in franchise history...You know the saying when it rains it pours.

IMO the knicks should swap picks with somebody and get some veteran leadership, and a very good proven player, Grab a young player in the 15 to 20 spot.

Don't worry they might still trade the pick for Josh smith and Brandon Jennings

Bonn1997 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

VCoug wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Due? Yeah, like Vcoug said: The ping pong balls don't have brains that feel sorry for the 1 and 2 seeds and decide to help them out.

The 1+2 seeds carry 45% odds to win. At some point odds statistically average out. Thats like saying just because the color red came out 8 times in a row--we should expect it to continue because it has--but it doesn't and won't.

No, it's saying that what has happened previously has no bearing on what will happen now or in the future.

Thats not how odds work. At some point the math will work. We might have to wait one hundred years to see which we wont but my guess is the 1+2 seed will come close to winning the lottery 45 times out of 100. Right now its working 8 out of 30 or a little less than 30%. So we will see more 1+ 2 teams win the lottery--my bet:)

No, VCoug is right because these are independent trials (each year is independent). It's like if you have a fair coin, but have gotten 5 heads in a row. Over the next 100 trials, you still expect 50 heads and 50 tails.
Your thinking here is actually what's referred to as the gambler's fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

Yes but as you approach infinity eventually the heads and tails will theoretically occur the exact same amount of times. Both of you guys are right, you and vcing are right that the odds do not change but Briggs is correct in theory that they will even out eventually. The problem with Briggs assertion is that it is a long-run assumption that does not have a bearing on the individual odds of the next draft, and rather is only valid given an infinite set of trials.

Bonn1997 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

VCoug wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Due? Yeah, like Vcoug said: The ping pong balls don't have brains that feel sorry for the 1 and 2 seeds and decide to help them out.

The 1+2 seeds carry 45% odds to win. At some point odds statistically average out. Thats like saying just because the color red came out 8 times in a row--we should expect it to continue because it has--but it doesn't and won't.

No, it's saying that what has happened previously has no bearing on what will happen now or in the future.

Thats not how odds work. At some point the math will work. We might have to wait one hundred years to see which we wont but my guess is the 1+2 seed will come close to winning the lottery 45 times out of 100. Right now its working 8 out of 30 or a little less than 30%. So we will see more 1+ 2 teams win the lottery--my bet:)

No, VCoug is right because these are independent trials (each year is independent). It's like if you have a fair coin, but have gotten 5 heads in a row. Over the next 100 trials, you still expect 50 heads and 50 tails.
Your thinking here is actually what's referred to as the gambler's fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

Didn't IT suffer from that affliction?

smackeddog wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

VCoug wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Due? Yeah, like Vcoug said: The ping pong balls don't have brains that feel sorry for the 1 and 2 seeds and decide to help them out.

The 1+2 seeds carry 45% odds to win. At some point odds statistically average out. Thats like saying just because the color red came out 8 times in a row--we should expect it to continue because it has--but it doesn't and won't.

No, it's saying that what has happened previously has no bearing on what will happen now or in the future.

Thats not how odds work. At some point the math will work. We might have to wait one hundred years to see which we wont but my guess is the 1+2 seed will come close to winning the lottery 45 times out of 100. Right now its working 8 out of 30 or a little less than 30%. So we will see more 1+ 2 teams win the lottery--my bet:)

No, VCoug is right because these are independent trials (each year is independent). It's like if you have a fair coin, but have gotten 5 heads in a row. Over the next 100 trials, you still expect 50 heads and 50 tails.
Your thinking here is actually what's referred to as the gambler's fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

Didn't IT suffer from that affliction?

If the Knicks land the top pick, they will find a way to screw it up!

BRIGGS wrote:

franco12 wrote:there is one thing with the lottery that I can tell with absolute certainty:

If the Knicks land the top pick, they will find a way to screw it up!

Can you imagine if we did a reverse on our draft pick this year to get Rondo?

I'd go find another team to root for, honestly.

10+ years of this dopey owner doing his best to run this franchise into the ground.

An untrained monkey could have stewarded this franchise to a better course over this time.

I'd like to think Phil knows better- and given the fact he traded Tyson for the pair of second rounders, I think he does want to bring in young, cost contained talent.

If we play our cards right, we could have a nice reset of the franchise- you land a top 3 pick in what seems like a deep draft- get lucky and find the next Patrick Ewing - and we will see what could have been if only Bernard had been Healthy when we lucked into Ewing. Add in perhaps a FA signing of impact, or several good, under 30 role players. And I could get excited about what they are building.

Dagger wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Dagger wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

VCoug wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Due? Yeah, like Vcoug said: The ping pong balls don't have brains that feel sorry for the 1 and 2 seeds and decide to help them out.

The 1+2 seeds carry 45% odds to win. At some point odds statistically average out. Thats like saying just because the color red came out 8 times in a row--we should expect it to continue because it has--but it doesn't and won't.

No, it's saying that what has happened previously has no bearing on what will happen now or in the future.

Thats not how odds work. At some point the math will work. We might have to wait one hundred years to see which we wont but my guess is the 1+2 seed will come close to winning the lottery 45 times out of 100. Right now its working 8 out of 30 or a little less than 30%. So we will see more 1+ 2 teams win the lottery--my bet:)

No, VCoug is right because these are independent trials (each year is independent). It's like if you have a fair coin, but have gotten 5 heads in a row. Over the next 100 trials, you still expect 50 heads and 50 tails.
Your thinking here is actually what's referred to as the gambler's fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

Yes but as you approach infinity eventually the heads and tails will theoretically occur the exact same amount of times. Both of you guys are right, you and vcing are right that the odds do not change but Briggs is correct in theory that they will even out eventually. The problem with Briggs assertion is that it is a long-run assumption that does not have a bearing on the individual odds of the next draft, and rather is only valid given an infinite set of trials.

Future tosses don't ever compensate for past tosses. If you get 4 heads in a row and then do a 100,000 more tosses, you'd still expect 50,000 heads and 50,000 tails on those next 100,000. That would make the total 50,004 heads and 50,000 tails.

I never said past tosses affect future tosses. Just that in an infinite sample the distribution of outcomes for a 50/50 probability will always be even, otherwise the probability is not truly 50/50.

Right but Briggs appeared to think the past tosses affected future ones, and you seemed to be saying he was right.

BRIGGS wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Dagger wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Dagger wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

VCoug wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Due? Yeah, like Vcoug said: The ping pong balls don't have brains that feel sorry for the 1 and 2 seeds and decide to help them out.

The 1+2 seeds carry 45% odds to win. At some point odds statistically average out. Thats like saying just because the color red came out 8 times in a row--we should expect it to continue because it has--but it doesn't and won't.

No, it's saying that what has happened previously has no bearing on what will happen now or in the future.

Thats not how odds work. At some point the math will work. We might have to wait one hundred years to see which we wont but my guess is the 1+2 seed will come close to winning the lottery 45 times out of 100. Right now its working 8 out of 30 or a little less than 30%. So we will see more 1+ 2 teams win the lottery--my bet:)

No, VCoug is right because these are independent trials (each year is independent). It's like if you have a fair coin, but have gotten 5 heads in a row. Over the next 100 trials, you still expect 50 heads and 50 tails.
Your thinking here is actually what's referred to as the gambler's fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

Yes but as you approach infinity eventually the heads and tails will theoretically occur the exact same amount of times. Both of you guys are right, you and vcing are right that the odds do not change but Briggs is correct in theory that they will even out eventually. The problem with Briggs assertion is that it is a long-run assumption that does not have a bearing on the individual odds of the next draft, and rather is only valid given an infinite set of trials.

Future tosses don't ever compensate for past tosses. If you get 4 heads in a row and then do a 100,000 more tosses, you'd still expect 50,000 heads and 50,000 tails on those next 100,000. That would make the total 50,004 heads and 50,000 tails.

I never said past tosses affect future tosses. Just that in an infinite sample the distribution of outcomes for a 50/50 probability will always be even, otherwise the probability is not truly 50/50.

Right but Briggs appeared to think the past tosses affected future ones, and you seemed to be saying he was right.

No I did not. I said on the collective whole over a longer stretch of time--the statistical odds would even out. It will take to long in my life to see it--but if there was 100 drafts with the same format we'd see the 1+2 seed win close to 45 times.