Gut feeling. Knicks will not get rewarded for being terrible. Never happens.
I thought Lakers were gonna win it last yr.
Worst record means no less than 4th pick. There will be good players available.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Although Bonn1997 said something about 'gamblers fallacy', meaning with regards to odds, what has come before has no bearing on what will come next.
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.
Reggie said last night the last time the team with the worst record got the first pick was 2004 when the Magic got D12
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.
how many times have one of the worst two teams dropped to 4? Very rare. We are getting a top 3.. I have no doubt
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.
Not good odds? I disagree...64% is good enough for an all in push. What do you want, a sure thing?
Top 4 pick is better than we have had since Ewing. And we're in play for OK4. Not sure what you're looking for, but I will be happy if we lose all of our remaining games while giving our yoots max burn to improve. Phil will have his pick of our litter, he'll have a top 4 draft pick; and he'll have $30mil to spend. And we have Melo.
Thems is building blocks and tinker toys. Fans should be happy for some sort of future.
Need I say: no sign of Dolan anywhere. What more could we ask for?
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.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.
And 5 out of 9 times the worst record got the second pick. I'd love to snag OK4, but a #2 is the next best thing. I have no gut feelings about other teams getting the pick over the Knicks. That's just being a neg for no good reason.
I am visualizing the Knicks getting it, but will live with whatever pick we get, likely a top 3 or top 2. As long as we don't start winning games and messing up our mojo, we should be fine. Idiots like Chuck saying no free agents will want to come to NY is stupid. Our money is just as green as any other team, and we have Jax running the show. Only Melo and a couple of yoots will be retained after this season. So FAs (and their reps) won't be thinking next year is a repeat of this one. We dumped our bad deals (hoping Caldy goes next) and have a totally fresh slate with a top 3 scorer in his prime.
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.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.
Moonangie 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.
Not good odds? I disagree...64% is good enough for an all in push. What do you want, a sure thing?
Top 4 pick is better than we have had since Ewing. And we're in play for OK4. Not sure what you're looking for, but I will be happy if we lose all of our remaining games while giving our yoots max burn to improve. Phil will have his pick of our litter, he'll have a top 4 draft pick; and he'll have $30mil to spend. And we have Melo.
Thems is building blocks and tinker toys. Fans should be happy for some sort of future.
Need I say: no sign of Dolan anywhere. What more could we ask for?
Not very good odds we are going to get the first pick, but I agree this is the best position the team has been in as far as a high pick. Just as important, it won't be Mills making the pick, but Phil.
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.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.
CrushAlot 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.
Reggie said last night the last time the team with the worst record got the first pick was 2004 when the Magic got D12
Yikes! No matter what that stat is chalked up to, its still not good news. 11 years.
If we don't get the number 1 pick, can we all agree to stop comparing OK4 to Duncan and instead compare him to Al Jefferson- it will help ease the pain
What these stats do show is that being the WORST team is important. We are doing a great job of that. Lose to the 76ers and it will be job done. Those games could be hilarious as BOTH teams try to lose. Will be betting the under big in that one.
Regarding our partners of ineptitude: I expect Minny would take Okafor... is it a foregone conclusion that Philly would?
Just wondering.
