The Road for Wiggins begins tomorrow night!!!

[Celtics18]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20130520/nba-draft-lottery-2013-odds-orlando-magic-charlotte-bobcats/

I thought folks needed to be reminded of the odds of getting the top pick in the draft.  Even for the very worst team, they go into lottery night with only a 25% chance at the number one pick. 

[D.o.s.]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20130520/nba-draft-lottery-2013-odds-orlando-magic-charlotte-bobcats/

I thought folks needed to be reminded of the odds of getting the top pick in the draft.  Even for the very worst team, they go into lottery night with only a 25% chance at the number one pick.

And how much better is that 25% than a 1.5% or 1.7% chance?

And wouldn't you rather have a 25% chance at 1st, a 21% chance at second, and a 17.7% chance at third than, say, a 5%, 6%, and 7% chance at those same slots, like we had in 2006?

http://www.nba.com/history/lottery_probabilities.html

[Celtics18]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20130520/nba-draft-lottery-2013-odds-orlando-magic-charlotte-bobcats/

I thought folks needed to be reminded of the odds of getting the top pick in the draft.  Even for the very worst team, they go into lottery night with only a 25% chance at the number one pick.

And how much better is that 25% than a 1.5% or 1.7% chance?

And wouldn't you rather have a 25% chance at 1st, a 21% chance at second, and a 17.7% chance at third than, say, a 5%, 6%, and 7% chance at those same slots, like we had in 2006?

http://www.nba.com/history/lottery_probabilities.html

I'd rather watch the young players (and the older ones) on this team develop as they make a push for the playoffs.

[D.o.s.]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20130520/nba-draft-lottery-2013-odds-orlando-magic-charlotte-bobcats/

I thought folks needed to be reminded of the odds of getting the top pick in the draft.  Even for the very worst team, they go into lottery night with only a 25% chance at the number one pick.

And how much better is that 25% than a 1.5% or 1.7% chance?

And wouldn't you rather have a 25% chance at 1st, a 21% chance at second, and a 17.7% chance at third than, say, a 5%, 6%, and 7% chance at those same slots, like we had in 2006?

http://www.nba.com/history/lottery_probabilities.html

I'd rather watch the young players on this team develop as they make a push for the playoffs.

I'm with you on that. Just saying that the 25% chance factoid in isolation is a little bit misleading. One team has a 25% chance of getting the #1 pick, but the other teams are still dividing their picks up from the remaining 75%.

i.e. Portland's (#1 pick) 250 lottery balls out of 1000 is a lot nicer than Charlotte's  (#3 pick) 138, to use an example from the 06 draft. That's something that often gets swept under the rug when that figure is pulled up.

[Celtics18]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20130520/nba-draft-lottery-2013-odds-orlando-magic-charlotte-bobcats/

I thought folks needed to be reminded of the odds of getting the top pick in the draft.  Even for the very worst team, they go into lottery night with only a 25% chance at the number one pick.

And how much better is that 25% than a 1.5% or 1.7% chance?

And wouldn't you rather have a 25% chance at 1st, a 21% chance at second, and a 17.7% chance at third than, say, a 5%, 6%, and 7% chance at those same slots, like we had in 2006?

http://www.nba.com/history/lottery_probabilities.html

I'd rather watch the young players on this team develop as they make a push for the playoffs.

I'm with you on that. Just saying that the 25% chance factoid in isolation is a little bit misleading. One team has a 25% chance of getting the #1 pick, but the other teams are still dividing their picks up from the remaining 75%.

i.e. Portland's (#1 pick) 250 lottery balls out of 1000 is a lot nicer than Charlotte's  (#3 pick) 138, to use an example from the 06 draft. That's something that often gets swept under the rug when that figure is pulled up.

Sure, that's why I provided a link to a site that gave the odds for all the lottery teams.  Additionally, the title of this thread is "The Road for Wiggins begins tomorrow night!!!" 

I'm just pointing out that regardless of how the regular season plays out, the chance for Wiggins is slim.  That is, after all, why they implemented the lottery system in the first place--to discourage tanking.

So, if folks want to root for the worst record in the league, have at it.  This is just a reminder of the odds for all lottery finishers. 

[KGs Knee]

Let's hope this "road" starts with a win, and is followed by many more.

Hello, you play to win the game!!!

[LooseCannon]

I'm just pointing out that regardless of how the regular season plays out, the chance for Wiggins is slim.  That is, after all, why they implemented the lottery system in the first place--to discourage tanking.

You can't really discourage tanking.  You can just create conditions so that only idiots tank for a full season.

The Celtics just have too great a chance of sneaking into the playoffs and too much of their talent tied up in players on rookie-scale contracts for tanking to be a good idea.  That could change in the middle of the season if Olynyk and Sullinger look like they will never be quality starters in the NBA or if the team gets hit by an injury bug.

[Rondohara]

Change "Wiggins" to "Oden" and it's like 2007 all over again.

Hopefully this is a better 2007 then... we trade our draft picks and assets for good players that get us more than 1 banner. The Lakers get the number one pick and that end up being a bigger bust than Oden so I can laugh on them for years that even after being benefited by the lottery rigging they still suck.
I doubt that will happen though

[Casperian]

I'm with you on that. Just saying that the 25% chance factoid in isolation is a little bit misleading. One team has a 25% chance of getting the #1 pick, but the other teams are still dividing their picks up from the remaining 75%.

i.e. Portland's (#1 pick) 250 lottery balls out of 1000 is a lot nicer than Charlotte's  (#3 pick) 138, to use an example from the 06 draft. That's something that often gets swept under the rug when that figure is pulled up.

A few other things that get swept under the rug quite often in these discussions are a) the chance to miss out on a top 3 pick is bigger than the chance to get one and b) the Celtics aren´t in the lottery every year.

The odds of which record gets to pick first are the average odds, they have no actual meaning for a single team within a particular lottery. Sure, you can say "on average, the odds for the worst record to pick first are 1 in 4", but as people like to say, it´s called a lottery for a reason. Unless you plan to be in every lottery (and who would want that?), it doesn´t make sense to play the odds.

If the Pistons had won 1 more game last season, they would´ve picked 3rd. If the Cavaliers had won 1 more game in 11-12, they would´ve gotten Anthony Davis instead of Dion Waiters. If the Timberwolves had won 16 more games in 10-11, they could´ve picked Irving instead of Derrick Williams.

The best thing about the worst record is the 100% chance of picking in the top 4, not the average odds to get a pick in the top 3.

This supposed trade-off between increased average odds against decreased value of 15 potential trade chips doesn´t actually exist, as one is some abstract, theoretical projection while the other are 15 very real Celtics players under contract.

[BballTim]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20130520/nba-draft-lottery-2013-odds-orlando-magic-charlotte-bobcats/

I thought folks needed to be reminded of the odds of getting the top pick in the draft.  Even for the very worst team, they go into lottery night with only a 25% chance at the number one pick.

And how much better is that 25% than a 1.5% or 1.7% chance?

And wouldn't you rather have a 25% chance at 1st, a 21% chance at second, and a 17.7% chance at third than, say, a 5%, 6%, and 7% chance at those same slots, like we had in 2006?

http://www.nba.com/history/lottery_probabilities.html

I'd rather watch the young players on this team develop as they make a push for the playoffs.

I'm with you on that. Just saying that the 25% chance factoid in isolation is a little bit misleading. One team has a 25% chance of getting the #1 pick, but the other teams are still dividing their picks up from the remaining 75%.

i.e. Portland's (#1 pick) 250 lottery balls out of 1000 is a lot nicer than Charlotte's  (#3 pick) 138, to use an example from the 06 draft. That's something that often gets swept under the rug when that figure is pulled up.

  Don't forget about the (historically) 10% or so chance that a #1 pick that you manage to get will win a title while he's still on your team.

[D.o.s.]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20130520/nba-draft-lottery-2013-odds-orlando-magic-charlotte-bobcats/

I thought folks needed to be reminded of the odds of getting the top pick in the draft.  Even for the very worst team, they go into lottery night with only a 25% chance at the number one pick.

And how much better is that 25% than a 1.5% or 1.7% chance?

And wouldn't you rather have a 25% chance at 1st, a 21% chance at second, and a 17.7% chance at third than, say, a 5%, 6%, and 7% chance at those same slots, like we had in 2006?

http://www.nba.com/history/lottery_probabilities.html

I'd rather watch the young players on this team develop as they make a push for the playoffs.

I'm with you on that. Just saying that the 25% chance factoid in isolation is a little bit misleading. One team has a 25% chance of getting the #1 pick, but the other teams are still dividing their picks up from the remaining 75%.

i.e. Portland's (#1 pick) 250 lottery balls out of 1000 is a lot nicer than Charlotte's  (#3 pick) 138, to use an example from the 06 draft. That's something that often gets swept under the rug when that figure is pulled up.

  Don't forget about the (historically) 10% or so chance that a #1 pick that you manage to get will win a title while he's still on your team.

Doesn't necessarily have to be a #1 pick. If you expand that list out to top 4 it gets much friendlier.


Where's that giant list you made of guys who won an NBA title in the last 20 years? Magic, Bird, Kobe, Duncan, Isaiah, Shaq  etc. Almost all of those guys were top 4 picks, and about half of them won a championship with the same team that drafted them (excepting Shaq and LeBron. And Kobe, if you really want to go by the letter).

Look at the Finals MVP award--most of those guys were drafted by those teams. Rick Barry & Walton are weird ones, owing to their ABA affiliation.
http://www.nba.com/history/finalsmvps.html

[BballTim]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20130520/nba-draft-lottery-2013-odds-orlando-magic-charlotte-bobcats/

I thought folks needed to be reminded of the odds of getting the top pick in the draft.  Even for the very worst team, they go into lottery night with only a 25% chance at the number one pick.

And how much better is that 25% than a 1.5% or 1.7% chance?

And wouldn't you rather have a 25% chance at 1st, a 21% chance at second, and a 17.7% chance at third than, say, a 5%, 6%, and 7% chance at those same slots, like we had in 2006?

http://www.nba.com/history/lottery_probabilities.html

I'd rather watch the young players on this team develop as they make a push for the playoffs.

I'm with you on that. Just saying that the 25% chance factoid in isolation is a little bit misleading. One team has a 25% chance of getting the #1 pick, but the other teams are still dividing their picks up from the remaining 75%.

i.e. Portland's (#1 pick) 250 lottery balls out of 1000 is a lot nicer than Charlotte's  (#3 pick) 138, to use an example from the 06 draft. That's something that often gets swept under the rug when that figure is pulled up.

  Don't forget about the (historically) 10% or so chance that a #1 pick that you manage to get will win a title while he's still on your team.

Doesn't necessarily have to be a #1 pick. If you expand that list out to top 4 it gets much friendlier.


Where's that giant list you made of guys who won an NBA title in the last 20 years? Magic, Bird, Kobe, Duncan, Isaiah, Shaq  etc. Almost all of those guys were top 4 picks, and about half of them won a championship with the same team that drafted them (excepting Shaq and LeBron. And Kobe, if you really want to go by the letter).

Look at the Finals MVP award--most of those guys were drafted by those teams. Rick Barry & Walton are weird ones, owing to their ABA affiliation.
http://www.nba.com/history/finalsmvps.html

  Bird and Kobe weren't top 4. But expand to top 4 players instead of #1 players over the last 30 or so years and those 120 or so picks have probably yielded 5-6 players who led the team that drafted him to a title, so the 1 in 10 goes to 1 in 20 or so.

[D.o.s.]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20130520/nba-draft-lottery-2013-odds-orlando-magic-charlotte-bobcats/

I thought folks needed to be reminded of the odds of getting the top pick in the draft.  Even for the very worst team, they go into lottery night with only a 25% chance at the number one pick.

And how much better is that 25% than a 1.5% or 1.7% chance?

And wouldn't you rather have a 25% chance at 1st, a 21% chance at second, and a 17.7% chance at third than, say, a 5%, 6%, and 7% chance at those same slots, like we had in 2006?

http://www.nba.com/history/lottery_probabilities.html

I'd rather watch the young players on this team develop as they make a push for the playoffs.

I'm with you on that. Just saying that the 25% chance factoid in isolation is a little bit misleading. One team has a 25% chance of getting the #1 pick, but the other teams are still dividing their picks up from the remaining 75%.

i.e. Portland's (#1 pick) 250 lottery balls out of 1000 is a lot nicer than Charlotte's  (#3 pick) 138, to use an example from the 06 draft. That's something that often gets swept under the rug when that figure is pulled up.

  Don't forget about the (historically) 10% or so chance that a #1 pick that you manage to get will win a title while he's still on your team.

Doesn't necessarily have to be a #1 pick. If you expand that list out to top 4 it gets much friendlier.


Where's that giant list you made of guys who won an NBA title in the last 20 years? Magic, Bird, Kobe, Duncan, Isaiah, Shaq  etc. Almost all of those guys were top 4 picks, and about half of them won a championship with the same team that drafted them (excepting Shaq and LeBron. And Kobe, if you really want to go by the letter).

Look at the Finals MVP award--most of those guys were drafted by those teams. Rick Barry & Walton are weird ones, owing to their ABA affiliation.
http://www.nba.com/history/finalsmvps.html

  Bird and Kobe weren't top 4. But expand to top 4 players instead of #1 players over the last 30 or so years and those 120 or so picks have probably yielded 5-6 players who led the team that drafted him to a title, so the 1 in 10 goes to 1 in 20 or so.

Out of players who have lead their teams to a title, most of them have been top four picks. Bird's a wonky exception, because of the junior rights. Kobe's a proper exception, but his draft stock had a lot to do with his lack of collegiate level experience.

So while not all top four picks are players capable of leading a team to a championship, most players who are capable of leading their teams to championships are top 4 picks.

[footey]

someone should have told this team we are tanking for wigs.  not playing that way tonight v Raptors. Lots of hustle.  Well coached. Good D, so far.  Fun to watch!!

[BballTim]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20130520/nba-draft-lottery-2013-odds-orlando-magic-charlotte-bobcats/

I thought folks needed to be reminded of the odds of getting the top pick in the draft.  Even for the very worst team, they go into lottery night with only a 25% chance at the number one pick.

And how much better is that 25% than a 1.5% or 1.7% chance?

And wouldn't you rather have a 25% chance at 1st, a 21% chance at second, and a 17.7% chance at third than, say, a 5%, 6%, and 7% chance at those same slots, like we had in 2006?

http://www.nba.com/history/lottery_probabilities.html

I'd rather watch the young players on this team develop as they make a push for the playoffs.

I'm with you on that. Just saying that the 25% chance factoid in isolation is a little bit misleading. One team has a 25% chance of getting the #1 pick, but the other teams are still dividing their picks up from the remaining 75%.

i.e. Portland's (#1 pick) 250 lottery balls out of 1000 is a lot nicer than Charlotte's  (#3 pick) 138, to use an example from the 06 draft. That's something that often gets swept under the rug when that figure is pulled up.

  Don't forget about the (historically) 10% or so chance that a #1 pick that you manage to get will win a title while he's still on your team.

Doesn't necessarily have to be a #1 pick. If you expand that list out to top 4 it gets much friendlier.


Where's that giant list you made of guys who won an NBA title in the last 20 years? Magic, Bird, Kobe, Duncan, Isaiah, Shaq  etc. Almost all of those guys were top 4 picks, and about half of them won a championship with the same team that drafted them (excepting Shaq and LeBron. And Kobe, if you really want to go by the letter).

Look at the Finals MVP award--most of those guys were drafted by those teams. Rick Barry & Walton are weird ones, owing to their ABA affiliation.
http://www.nba.com/history/finalsmvps.html

  Bird and Kobe weren't top 4. But expand to top 4 players instead of #1 players over the last 30 or so years and those 120 or so picks have probably yielded 5-6 players who led the team that drafted him to a title, so the 1 in 10 goes to 1 in 20 or so.

Out of players who have lead their teams to a title, most of them have been top four picks. Bird's a wonky exception, because of the territorial rights. Kobe's a proper exception, but his draft stock had a lot to do with his lack of collegiate level experience.

So while not all top four picks are players capable of leading a team to a championship, most players who are capable of leading their teams to championships are top 4 picks.

  None of what you said does anything to change the roughly 1 in 20 chance that you'll draft a player who will lead your team to a title with a top 4 pick.