|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
lalakersfan88
Star Player
Joined: 13 Jun 2008
Posts: 1324
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If the Lakers get to get top 3 I'll be happy, but if they don't I'll still be a Lakers fan. Nothing will ever be easy, that's why this is a game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lakers4life78
Star Player
Joined: 09 Apr 2012
Posts: 1959
Location: Southern California
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | Yong wrote: | | LAkers 4 Life wrote: | | The ramifications of winning this year's draft lottery goes beyond just the draft picks involved. If they lose this year's pick, they keep all of next year's picks, but since they'll probably be tanking again, they'll end up losing on premier free agent talents like Paul George since I don't see him wasting his prime on one of the worst teams in the league. And then that snowball will spiral down the hill to 2019 when they suck again and still lose their first rounder from the Dwight Howard trade. So losing this year's first rounder could potentially set the franchise back at least 2 years in their rebuild plan. At that point, it's already too much of a losing culture. |
This ^ 100000000000000000
Its not about 2018 pick vs 2017 pick. But also losing a very high 2019 pick and being a less attractive destination to FA |
What makes you think that the 2019 pick will be very high? Or that getting this year's pick will entice Paul George while losing it would mean he won't sign here? |
because they think the first rounder this year will be a star in his first year and all the free agents will drool obver LA next summer.
in reality, the rookie will another raw one and done player and the Lakers will be a bad team next year, pick or not.
_________________
17 time World Champions |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
audioaxes
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 12573
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lakers4life78 wrote: | | LakerFan1977 wrote: | | The lack of faith in the progress of the core guys and added paranoia isn't going to help come draft time, we are not going to fall out of a top 3 pick and the odds are still in our favor that we get our No. 1 prospect, sure it is a lot better feeling to get a guarantee but the sweat is actually the entertaining part not added doubt and paranoia that doesn't help anyone |
Lakers young core is garbage. Sacto has as much young talent. If you think this core is elite, I have an ocean to sell you in Kansas. This team just won a few games against teams mailing it in or banged up. |
i wouldnt call them garbage but its definitely beyond naive for people to think that after a few decent garbage time wins that we somehow have an elite core that doesnt need more help. If we want to be contenders later on and not just an "ok team" we need as many assets as we can get which include the 2017 top 3 pick.
_________________
(bleep) Kawhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakers4life78
Star Player
Joined: 09 Apr 2012
Posts: 1959
Location: Southern California
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| audioaxes wrote: | | lakers4life78 wrote: | | LakerFan1977 wrote: | | The lack of faith in the progress of the core guys and added paranoia isn't going to help come draft time, we are not going to fall out of a top 3 pick and the odds are still in our favor that we get our No. 1 prospect, sure it is a lot better feeling to get a guarantee but the sweat is actually the entertaining part not added doubt and paranoia that doesn't help anyone |
Lakers young core is garbage. Sacto has as much young talent. If you think this core is elite, I have an ocean to sell you in Kansas. This team just won a few games against teams mailing it in or banged up. |
i wouldnt call them garbage but its definitely beyond naive for people to think that after a few decent garbage time wins that we somehow have an elite core that doesnt need more help. If we want to be contenders later on and not just an "ok team" we need as many assets as we can get which include the 2017 top 3 pick. |
Lakers are 14-45 in their past 59 games, even after this win streak. They have the worst point differential in the NBA, worse than the Nets. By any metric this is a terrible team. Laker homer fans needs to take off the purple and gold shades Sure, Ingram looks better and has upside and Russell may be a solid player, neither hardly looks like a franchise guy, let alone Nance, Randle or Clarkson.
_________________
17 time World Champions |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lakers4life78 wrote: | | audioaxes wrote: | | lakers4life78 wrote: | | LakerFan1977 wrote: | | The lack of faith in the progress of the core guys and added paranoia isn't going to help come draft time, we are not going to fall out of a top 3 pick and the odds are still in our favor that we get our No. 1 prospect, sure it is a lot better feeling to get a guarantee but the sweat is actually the entertaining part not added doubt and paranoia that doesn't help anyone |
Lakers young core is garbage. Sacto has as much young talent. If you think this core is elite, I have an ocean to sell you in Kansas. This team just won a few games against teams mailing it in or banged up. |
i wouldnt call them garbage but its definitely beyond naive for people to think that after a few decent garbage time wins that we somehow have an elite core that doesnt need more help. If we want to be contenders later on and not just an "ok team" we need as many assets as we can get which include the 2017 top 3 pick. |
Lakers are 14-45 in their past 59 games, even after this win streak. They have the worst point differential in the NBA, worse than the Nets. By any metric this is a terrible team. Laker homer fans needs to take off the purple and gold shades Sure, Ingram looks better and has upside and Russell may be a solid player, neither hardly looks like a franchise guy, let alone Nance, Randle or Clarkson. |
Those two #2 picks don't look like franchise guys after year one and two, but out of this new crop of untested college kids, the one the Lakers draft will be a franchise player. I'm sure of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerFan1977
Starting Rotation
Joined: 02 Sep 2005
Posts: 581
Location: Southern California
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the good news is that were only going to get better, and if the draft goes right we are going to be better faster, you also have to remember that these guys are very very young, if these players were added to a playoff team you would see a different quality to them, but they have no superstars, all stars or ever quality veterans, Mozgov and Deng are 3rd closer to 4th tier lever players if there is even a 4th tier, the point is if we can somehow work around there horrible contracts we can build a winner in 3yrs
_________________
Hambuger! The cornerstone of any nutritious breakfast |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| audioaxes wrote: | | lakers4life78 wrote: | | LakerFan1977 wrote: | | The lack of faith in the progress of the core guys and added paranoia isn't going to help come draft time, we are not going to fall out of a top 3 pick and the odds are still in our favor that we get our No. 1 prospect, sure it is a lot better feeling to get a guarantee but the sweat is actually the entertaining part not added doubt and paranoia that doesn't help anyone |
Lakers young core is garbage. Sacto has as much young talent. If you think this core is elite, I have an ocean to sell you in Kansas. This team just won a few games against teams mailing it in or banged up. |
i wouldnt call them garbage but its definitely beyond naive for people to think that after a few decent garbage time wins that we somehow have an elite core that doesnt need more help. If we want to be contenders later on and not just an "ok team" we need as many assets as we can get which include the 2017 top 3 pick. |
Wait who said after the few garbage wins that we have an elite core? Did anyone actually say that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LAkers 4 Life
Franchise Player
Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 14629
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | Yong wrote: | | LAkers 4 Life wrote: | | The ramifications of winning this year's draft lottery goes beyond just the draft picks involved. If they lose this year's pick, they keep all of next year's picks, but since they'll probably be tanking again, they'll end up losing on premier free agent talents like Paul George since I don't see him wasting his prime on one of the worst teams in the league. And then that snowball will spiral down the hill to 2019 when they suck again and still lose their first rounder from the Dwight Howard trade. So losing this year's first rounder could potentially set the franchise back at least 2 years in their rebuild plan. At that point, it's already too much of a losing culture. |
This ^ 100000000000000000
Its not about 2018 pick vs 2017 pick. But also losing a very high 2019 pick and being a less attractive destination to FA |
What makes you think that the 2019 pick will be very high? Or that getting this year's pick will entice Paul George while losing it would mean he won't sign here? |
It's about having trade assets. The Lakers need as many as they can get in order to be in a position to make the big move that they'll need to make. If they keep this year's pick, then they'll have a top pick that they can keep and develop or trade away for an established player. I don't think the front office is looking to give away that many more years before becoming truly competitive.
The only best-case scenario that I can see for the Laker if they lose the 2017 pick would be the Boston Celtics scenario when they traded for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett. But even then they had an establish star in Paul Pierce which made the two trades easy to make. Only way the Laker can repeat that scenario is if someone steps up to an established star level, and that's not happening by next year. Now if a bunch of star players want to collude like Miami's big 3, I don't have a problem with that either. But that probably won't happen with two albatross contracts taking up that space. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Goldenwest
Star Player
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2802
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm perfectly fine with the Lakers at still a 46% chance of retaining their pick and a nice little wining streak to end the season. Even that little bit helps toward building for next year....
46% versus 54% for the 2nd spot: totally fine, its within a 10% + or - margin, the 8-9% difference is basically insignificant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jellojigglin
Star Player
Joined: 18 May 2001
Posts: 1548
Location: Venice, California
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Lakers always land on their feet. I predict a 1 draft pick and some great moves this off season. Future is bright for LA In the next 3 years.
_________________
"Bobbin' and weavin' and let the good get even" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jellojigglin wrote: | | The Lakers always land on their feet. I predict a 1 draft pick and some great moves this off season. Future is bright for LA In the next 3 years. |
You do realize one cannot predict where we'll land right? It's not a prediction, it's a guess. Or a hope. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
foshowtime
Star Player
Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Posts: 4448
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PHILosophize wrote: | | We could have sat DLO and JC in previous meaningless games (vs Memphis, Phoenix, Minny, etc), but other than that yes we have done a good job of tanking. |
I disagree.
In the Spurs game, Luke realized too late that Pop was not going to play anything resembling an NBA team. He should have taken out all of the players earlier. He also should not have called timeouts when the Spurs went on their run.
The Kings game was the worst. Suns actually won and opened the door. We were losing in the Fourth with MWP and others out there. Then Luke, inexplicably put in the Starters. That was Horrible.
Also, Nance should have been shut down. He has been the key to the wins. A guy who hustles as hard as he does will destroy other teams when they are not put forward their best. He also has been injury prone, so that was another horrible decision if you were DEAD SERIOUS about tanking.
_________________
Llluuukkkeee |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| By the way, what's so daft about the pick? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chekmatex4
Starting Rotation
Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 731
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 2:50 pm Post subject: Re: The Lakers have torpedoed their daft pick, and the worst part is..... |
|
|
| KBH wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | Harlemlakerfan wrote: | ...... I don't know what they could have done differently to stop it!
They traded their leading scorer
Sat all of the vets for the season
Played only the young guys, which is usually a recipe for losing and the
Rested the young guys if they had something as small as hang nail.
They did everything that you could do to lose games. You can't expect the players to tank. Jobs are on the line and players play. Now we just have to hope the basketball gods are gonna look out for us and we get some luck in the lottery. Losing our pick this year and 2019 is gonna really sting! |
Is odd how some people seem to think that if we came in with the second-worst record we keep the pic, and the third worst record we lose the pic. The reality is we have about a 56% chance of keeping our pic if we have the third worst record and a 47% chance of keeping or pick if we have the second-worst record |
I've been saying this on multiple message boards to no avail. |
Well, it is still an 8.9% chance that we "lost" out on because of winning. Whether that 8.9% will make a difference we'll never know.
All we can hope for is Lakers keep a top 3 pick with 46.9% chance since they have the 3rd worst record versus 55.8% chance if they had the 2nd worst record. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chekmatex4
Starting Rotation
Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 731
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LAkers 4 Life wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | Yong wrote: | | LAkers 4 Life wrote: | | The ramifications of winning this year's draft lottery goes beyond just the draft picks involved. If they lose this year's pick, they keep all of next year's picks, but since they'll probably be tanking again, they'll end up losing on premier free agent talents like Paul George since I don't see him wasting his prime on one of the worst teams in the league. And then that snowball will spiral down the hill to 2019 when they suck again and still lose their first rounder from the Dwight Howard trade. So losing this year's first rounder could potentially set the franchise back at least 2 years in their rebuild plan. At that point, it's already too much of a losing culture. |
This ^ 100000000000000000
Its not about 2018 pick vs 2017 pick. But also losing a very high 2019 pick and being a less attractive destination to FA |
What makes you think that the 2019 pick will be very high? Or that getting this year's pick will entice Paul George while losing it would mean he won't sign here? |
It's about having trade assets. The Lakers need as many as they can get in order to be in a position to make the big move that they'll need to make. If they keep this year's pick, then they'll have a top pick that they can keep and develop or trade away for an established player. I don't think the front office is looking to give away that many more years before becoming truly competitive.
The only best-case scenario that I can see for the Laker if they lose the 2017 pick would be the Boston Celtics scenario when they traded for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett. But even then they had an establish star in Paul Pierce which made the two trades easy to make. Only way the Laker can repeat that scenario is if someone steps up to an established star level, and that's not happening by next year. Now if a bunch of star players want to collude like Miami's big 3, I don't have a problem with that either. But that probably won't happen with two albatross contracts taking up that space. |
Exactly this. Lakers need the assets to rebuild. The Lakers failed to get assets in a trade for Pau and he left in free agency, leaving the Lakers with nothing. Boston's rebuild was accelerated because they traded Pierce and Garnett for assets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144469
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:07 pm Post subject: Re: The Lakers have torpedoed their daft pick, and the worst part is..... |
|
|
| chekmatex4 wrote: |
Well, it is still an 8.9% chance that we "lost" out on because of winning. Whether that 8.9% will make a difference we'll never know.
All we can hope for is Lakers keep a top 3 pick with 46.9% chance since they have the 3rd worst record versus 55.8% chance if they had the 2nd worst record. |
Or we could wish that they had won more games and finished with the 5th worst record if that team gets the #1 pick.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
awntawn
Starting Rotation
Joined: 29 Apr 2016
Posts: 953
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:43 pm Post subject: Re: The Lakers have torpedoed their daft pick, and the worst part is..... |
|
|
| chekmatex4 wrote: | Well, it is still an 8.9% chance that we "lost" out on because of winning. Whether that 8.9% will make a difference we'll never know.
All we can hope for is Lakers keep a top 3 pick with 46.9% chance since they have the 3rd worst record versus 55.8% chance if they had the 2nd worst record. |
If we do lose our pick, we can say for certain that there's only a 8.9% chance that winning those extra games at the end was the reason for it.
Everyone needs to chill. We owe Philly a pick no matter what, and there's no guarantee that we'd get a better prospect this year than we would next year. In fact, next year's pick being unprotected gives us the potential to lose out on even more by keeping it this year.
The only thing that's really at stake is the 2019 pick, and if we're still bad enough by then for that to really hurt, then we have bigger problems than going from 2nd to 3rd worst in the standings, because it suggests that we've completely whiffed on 2018 free agency again, which we're banking on pretty heavily.
I think there are a lot of delusional people thinking Fultz or Ball are going to come in next year and instantly elevate the team to make our pick irrelevant next year. Realistically, that's not how it works. Long term, yes, obviously it's better to add a new top prospect. But short term, the team is in a much better position to improve the on-court basketball product without bringing in another rookie who needs to play a bunch of net negative minutes.
You could make the argument that, if the biggest priority is the 2018 free agent market, then not getting the pick this year would actually put us in a better position to land a big fish than another year spent trying to develop a new rookie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17880
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:00 pm Post subject: Re: The Lakers have torpedoed their daft pick, and the worst part is..... |
|
|
| awntawn wrote: | | chekmatex4 wrote: | Well, it is still an 8.9% chance that we "lost" out on because of winning. Whether that 8.9% will make a difference we'll never know.
All we can hope for is Lakers keep a top 3 pick with 46.9% chance since they have the 3rd worst record versus 55.8% chance if they had the 2nd worst record. |
If we do lose our pick, we can say for certain that there's only a 8.9% chance that winning those extra games at the end was the reason for it. |
Just to clarify, if we do lose our pick, there's actually a 17% chance or so that winning those extra games was the reason for it.
It's just, we only have a 53.1% of losing our pick to begin with. So the odds that we lose our pick AND that we lost our pick BECAUSE of these extra few games is 53% * 17% = 9%, roughly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheBlackMamba
Star Player
Joined: 23 Apr 2007
Posts: 9057
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:18 pm Post subject: Re: The Lakers have torpedoed their daft pick, and the worst part is..... |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | awntawn wrote: | | chekmatex4 wrote: | Well, it is still an 8.9% chance that we "lost" out on because of winning. Whether that 8.9% will make a difference we'll never know.
All we can hope for is Lakers keep a top 3 pick with 46.9% chance since they have the 3rd worst record versus 55.8% chance if they had the 2nd worst record. |
If we do lose our pick, we can say for certain that there's only a 8.9% chance that winning those extra games at the end was the reason for it. |
Just to clarify, if we do lose our pick, there's actually a 17% chance or so that winning those extra games was the reason for it.
It's just, we only have a 53.1% of losing our pick to begin with. So the odds that we lose our pick AND that we lost our pick BECAUSE of these extra few games is 53% * 17% = 9%, roughly. |
Just curious, where does the 17% come from? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Outspoken
Star Player
Joined: 11 Feb 2015
Posts: 8453
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Inspector Gadget wrote: | | PHILosophize wrote: | | We could have sat DLO and JC in previous meaningless games (vs Memphis, Phoenix, Minny, etc), but other than that yes we have done a good job of tanking. |
Lol.
We have Moz/Deng/Young on the DNP list, we had Clarkson playing PG in recent games... the Lakers are doing everything they can to appease the fans... just cause we still have guys who want to prove there worth doesn't mean we can't appreciate the team... yeah getting a pick is important but some of these guys are playing for there NBA and Laker careers. |
putting JC at point and DLO at shooting guard, their natural positions, isn't exactly tanking, in my opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17880
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:36 pm Post subject: Re: The Lakers have torpedoed their daft pick, and the worst part is..... |
|
|
| TheBlackMamba wrote: | | tox wrote: | | awntawn wrote: | | chekmatex4 wrote: | Well, it is still an 8.9% chance that we "lost" out on because of winning. Whether that 8.9% will make a difference we'll never know.
All we can hope for is Lakers keep a top 3 pick with 46.9% chance since they have the 3rd worst record versus 55.8% chance if they had the 2nd worst record. |
If we do lose our pick, we can say for certain that there's only a 8.9% chance that winning those extra games at the end was the reason for it. |
Just to clarify, if we do lose our pick, there's actually a 17% chance or so that winning those extra games was the reason for it.
It's just, we only have a 53.1% of losing our pick to begin with. So the odds that we lose our pick AND that we lost our pick BECAUSE of these extra few games is 53% * 17% = 9%, roughly. |
Just curious, where does the 17% come from? |
The same calculation in my post above, but reversed. To pose it as a math problem:
X = The event that we lose our pick as the #3 seed.
Y = The event that being the #3 seed and not the #2 seed makes a difference (whether it's good or it's bad) to us keeping the pick.
P(X): Probability of losing our pick: 53.1%
P(X,Y): Probability of losing our pick and us being the 3 seed actually mattering: 8.9%
P(Y|X): If we already know that we lost our pick, what is the probability that it was because we are the #3 and not the #2 seed?
In probability, P(X, Y) = P(X) * P(Y|X).
So it's just 8.9%/53.1% = 16.7%, roughly |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TooMuchMajicBuss
Franchise Player
Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Posts: 21079
Location: In a white room, with black curtains near the station
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:43 pm Post subject: Re: The Lakers have torpedoed their daft pick, and the worst part is..... |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | TheBlackMamba wrote: | | tox wrote: | | awntawn wrote: | | chekmatex4 wrote: | Well, it is still an 8.9% chance that we "lost" out on because of winning. Whether that 8.9% will make a difference we'll never know.
All we can hope for is Lakers keep a top 3 pick with 46.9% chance since they have the 3rd worst record versus 55.8% chance if they had the 2nd worst record. |
If we do lose our pick, we can say for certain that there's only a 8.9% chance that winning those extra games at the end was the reason for it. |
Just to clarify, if we do lose our pick, there's actually a 17% chance or so that winning those extra games was the reason for it.
It's just, we only have a 53.1% of losing our pick to begin with. So the odds that we lose our pick AND that we lost our pick BECAUSE of these extra few games is 53% * 17% = 9%, roughly. |
Just curious, where does the 17% come from? |
The same calculation in my post above, but reversed. To pose it as a math problem:
X = The event that we lose our pick as the #3 seed.
Y = The event that being the #3 seed and not the #2 seed makes a difference (whether it's good or it's bad) to us keeping the pick.
P(X): Probability of losing our pick: 53.1%
P(X,Y): Probability of losing our pick and us being the 3 seed actually mattering: 8.9%
P(Y|X): If we already know that we lost our pick, what is the probability that it was because we are the #3 and not the #2 seed?
In probability, P(X, Y) = P(X) * P(Y|X).
So it's just 8.9%/53.1% = 16.7%, roughly |
In layman's terms - because it takes away the 47% chance we win a top 3 spot. 8.9 divided by the remaining 53 means there's a 17% chance our record versus Phoenix was the culprit.
IF we lose the pick, there's about a 1 in 6 chance it was because we finished better than Phoenix. But that's not where we're at now. Because it's still quite possible we win the pick, there's slightly less than a 1 in 10 chance the record vs. Phoenix actually affects the outcome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17880
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:46 pm Post subject: Re: The Lakers have torpedoed their daft pick, and the worst part is..... |
|
|
| TooMuchMajicBuss wrote: |
In layman's terms - because it takes away the 47% chance we win a top 3 spot. 8.9 divided by the remaining 53 means there's a 17% chance our record versus Phoenix was the culprit.
IF we lose the pick, there's about a 1 in 6 chance it was because we finished better than Phoenix. But that's not where we're at now. Because it's still quite possible we win the pick, there's slightly less than a 1 in 10 chance the record vs. Phoenix actually affects the outcome. |
Yeah thanks. The bolded is the key point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:16 pm Post subject: Re: The Lakers have torpedoed their daft pick, and the worst part is..... |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | TooMuchMajicBuss wrote: |
In layman's terms - because it takes away the 47% chance we win a top 3 spot. 8.9 divided by the remaining 53 means there's a 17% chance our record versus Phoenix was the culprit.
IF we lose the pick, there's about a 1 in 6 chance it was because we finished better than Phoenix. But that's not where we're at now. Because it's still quite possible we win the pick, there's slightly less than a 1 in 10 chance the record vs. Phoenix actually affects the outcome. |
Yeah thanks. The bolded is the key point. |
Are you guys basically saying that of the 56 ping pong balls PHX would get, 47 of them are shared with us?
And so the point is, even if we lose the pick, chances are quite high that the ping pong ball drawn resulting in the lost pick would have been drawn anyway? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17880
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:34 pm Post subject: Re: The Lakers have torpedoed their daft pick, and the worst part is..... |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | tox wrote: | | TooMuchMajicBuss wrote: |
In layman's terms - because it takes away the 47% chance we win a top 3 spot. 8.9 divided by the remaining 53 means there's a 17% chance our record versus Phoenix was the culprit.
IF we lose the pick, there's about a 1 in 6 chance it was because we finished better than Phoenix. But that's not where we're at now. Because it's still quite possible we win the pick, there's slightly less than a 1 in 10 chance the record vs. Phoenix actually affects the outcome. |
Yeah thanks. The bolded is the key point. |
Are you guys basically saying that of the 56 ping pong balls PHX would get, 47 of them are shared with us?
And so the point is, even if we lose the pick, chances are quite high that the ping pong ball drawn resulting in the lost pick would have been drawn anyway? |
So, I think the analogy you are making is more confusing than clarifying. It's confusing because the 56 "ping pong balls" (out of 100 total) Phoenix gets refer to the draft outcomes where they stay Top-3.
If that's clear, I can answer your question in the framework of this analogy. But since people think of ping pong balls in the draft lottery in a totally different way, I don't want to be needlessly confusing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
