Probability theory and an understanding of mathematics.
When the outcome is unknown the best any human can do is achieve the best odds. I'd rather have "AA" than "KK" or "9s8s" in a hand of hold 'em.
No on knows what the winning combination is yet, that combination has not been created yet it is in the future. Thus the best position is the one which will result in the most favorable outcome in the draft lottery.
If you're going to get metaphysical and talk up how falling to the 5th for the C's led to Allen which led to KG which led to a title was the best position the day after the C's draft lottery then you're just talking hindsight and mysticism.
The idea that because the future is unknown thus we can't evaluate what's a good situation int the present is an argument against any sort of critical thought.
Thanks for the arrogance, but I know a thing or two about math, as well.
No metaphysics, I´m talking facts. Unlike you. You also didn´t answer my question. Which source do you have that turns your beliefs into knowledge? Where´s the equation?
As I said, you do not know, you believe. You believe in probability. Of course, that´s your prerogative. You can believe in probability, Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, for all I care. I like facts. Who said that if people do not believe in God, they´d believe in anything?
Here are some "facts":
We´re talking about a (hopefully) one-off event of the Celtics being in the lottery, a random event which can have any kind of outcome, even the worst position winning it all. That´s why your poker reference has no bearing on the topic at hand, as a professional poker player plays millions of hands in his career. Additionally, the chance (see: probability) for the worst record to win it all is 3x smaller than the chance for it to not win.
Since I don´t know who´s going to win it, and you don´t know who´s going to win it (even though you claim otherwise), how about we both accept that any attempt to "game" the system is futile? If we could accept this "fact" as common ground, we could finally move on from this useless exercise and focus on the stuff which actually (you know, in reality) has a tangible influence on our future records.
Unless you want to admit right now that, in fact, you do not know what the best position is, why don´t you put your money where your mouth is, and make a little bet with me? Let´s say 200 Bucks for a good cause of the winner´s choice?
If I'm reading this correctly, you're saying that any uncertainty is exactly the same as total uncertainty? That's really interesting, I've never met a probability denialist before. Would you like to play cards sometime?
I have to say, that was a pretty ludicrous argument being made.
It's pretty simple.
Lets say there are 6 boxes on the table in front of you, and each of these boxes contains a rubber ball. 4 of the boxes contain a red ball each, 2 of the boxes contain a blue ball each.
The aim is that you need to pick a colour, then pick a box. If the colour of the ball inside that box matches the colour you guessed at the start, you get to keep your house plus you win a new car on top. If the colour is wrong, you lose your house and end up living on the street.
The boxes are jumbled in a randomised order so you have no idea which box has which ball.
If you had to choose red or blue, which would you choose?
Personally, I would choose red. There is no CERTAINTY that you will choose a red one - it's entirely possible it may be blue. But there are four red balls and only two blue - there is greater chance of the ball being red, so you are less likely to be living on the street...even if there are no guarantees.
Lottery is kind of a similar scenario.
Since 1990 the #1 pick has been won by a bottom five team 17 times. That's 74% of all drafts in the past 23 years being won by a team with a bottom 5 record. The breakdown by position is as follows:
* Worst record has won 3 times (13%)
* Second-worst record has won 4 times (17%)
* Third-worst record has won 5 times (22%)
* Fourth-worst record has never won (0%)
* Fifth-worst record has won 5 times (22%)
Teams outside of the bottom 5 have won the #1 pick six times, or 26% of the time. The breakdown by position is as follows:
* Sixth worst record has won twice (8%)
* Seventh, Eighth, Nineth and Eleventh worst records have each won once (4%)
With the exception of the 4th worst record never winning a #1 pick (I would put this down to a statistical anomoly resulting from small sample size) history shows you are almost certainly better off having a bottom 5 record than not having a bottom 5 record.
If you finish 6th you still have a shot, but it's still a fairly slim one.
If you finish with a record outside of the bottom 6, you have a very little chance of getting the #1 pick.
Now many people could look at this and say that the 6th, 7th, 9th or 11th pick has a better history than the 4th pick, so finishing 4th means you are practically doomed. Not so when you broaden the horizons a little.
This history is based exclusively on which teams secured the #1 pick - how about the which teams have secured say, picks in the top 3?
Heres the history of the teams that have secured a top 3 picks since 1990, out of a total of 69 possibilities - percentages rounded to the nearest whole number:
Worst record: 16 time (23%)
2nd Worst record: 8 times (12%)
3rd Worst record: 14 times (20%)
4th Worst record: 8 times (12%)
5th Worst record: 11 times (16%)
6th Worst record: 6 times (9%)
7th Worst record: 2 times (3%)
8th Worst record: 4 times (6%)
9th Worst record: 1 time (1%)
10th Worst Record: 1 time (1%)
11th Worst Record: 0 times (never got a top 3 pick)
12th Worst Record: 0 times (never got a top 3 pick)
13th Worst Record: 1 time (1%)
Over 23 years there were a total of 69 top-3 picks.
46 of those 69 picks (66%) went to teams that had bottom 4 records.
57 of those 69 picks (83%) went to teams that had bottom 5 records
63 of those 69 picks (91%) went to teams that had bottom 6 records
In 23 years there have only been 6 cases our od 69 (9%) where a team with a 7th worst or better record got a top 3 pick.
Based on this history, can you realistically argue that there is no benefit to tanking when it comes to draft success?
No, you can't.
Why?
Because clearly the teams with bottom 6 records have been by far the most successful in past drafts.
Does this guarantee that if you finish in the bottom 6, you will get a top 3 pick? No.
Does it mean that if you finish in the top 3 you will get a top 3 pick? No.
Does it suggest that you'll have a far better chance if you do? Yes.
So if it's 1/3 of the way through the season and you still have a chance to make the playoffs if you play well, maybe the tanking strategy isn't right. But if you are already eliminated from playoff contention and you have absolutely nothing to gain (aside from pride) from winning the remaining few cames, then you are absolutely better off tanking those last few games if it means you will guarantee yourself a bottom 6 record (or better yet, bottom 5) record.
If you slip from the 7th worst record to the 6th worst record, your chance of a top 3 pick is historically about 3x higher.
If you slip from the 7th worst record to the 5th worst record, your chance of winning a top 3 pick is hostirically about 5x higher.
That means that losing 1 or 2 extra games in a draft like this may well mean the difference between drafting Joel Embiid/Jabari Parker or drafting Julius Randle/Marcus Smart.
Topic: 8 games left. I think we finish 5th worst with 29.2% chance of a top 3 pick. (Read 59827 times)