Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CTMagicUK

Chicago Bulls Draft Pick Watch

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, CTMagicUK said:

Damn... You're right... My bad I was wrong. 

(This is very well explained by the way - also I have a degree in Maths and Stats - which I admittedly haven't used or thought about in 5 years - so my pride and ego are incredibly bruised lol)

My degree, and my job is in accounting - so stats are not my thing really. I had a professor once who used to refer to them as Stats, Stats, and Damn Stats. It took me a long time to really get my head around it. It really helps to think of it as rounds for each pick instead of drawings, since each round results in assigning picks 1 through 4, whereas each drawing may or may not.

Statisticians will tell you that each drawing is relevant in calculating the odds, which is why the odds decline for the worst teams on the chart and it absolutely is when you are looking at "total" odds. The problem is not everyone understands exactly what the odds chart does show and what it doesn't. It shows your odds for being assigned a specific pick number when everything is factored in. For the first pick the math is easy, because it is straight out you have 140 combinations out of 1001 possible, but from then on, the math becomes crazy tough, because you are factoring in your odds based on every single permutation of who won the first pick, including if you won it. (hence some 0% being factored in)

But, when you are looking at each pick individually,  a drawing that does not result in an assignment is irrelevant; and if you didn't win the first pick, then your actual odds of winning the second increases, as do those of everyone who didn't win the first pick. Each subsequent pick, if you didn't win, you have better odds on the next. It's just a different way of looking at the problem. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JJZFL said:

It makes tanking even less likely to succeed....which is fine with me.  I'd actually make the odds for all the non playoff teams the same.  Having teams compete to see who can lose the most for the last third of the season is a travesty that isn't good for the league.

 

4 hours ago, gobucsmagic said:

That’s a ridiculous idea in a league that already has a serious issue with parity, but again, you’ll take any opportunity to spew your anti-tanking bs regardless of the redundancy

To the rest of the forum:  We've had plenty of discussions where we disagreed about various issues, but in general we've managed to avoid attacking the posters we've disagreed with and have not asked them to stop posting.  He can characterize my post as "anti-tanking bs" as a way to try to belittle my post (doesn't work) but in doing so he avoids the issue I raise.  So to you I ask:  Do you think it's a good for the NBA (or any pro sports league) to have roughly a third of the teams competing to lose the most games for the last third of the season?  If so, why?  If not, what would you do to change it?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, JJZFL said:

To the rest of the forum:  We've had plenty of discussions where we disagreed about various issues, but in general we've managed to avoid attacking the posters we've disagreed with and have not asked them to stop posting.  He can characterize my post as "anti-tanking bs" as a way to try to belittle my post (doesn't work) but in doing so he avoids the issue I raise.  So to you I ask:  Do you think it's a good for the NBA (or any pro sports league) to have roughly a third of the teams competing to lose the most games for the last third of the season?  If so, why?  If not, what would you do to change it?

I agree with you 100% that attacking another poster who disagrees is definitely NOT what we want on this forum, and we should actively discourage it. On the other hand, you have been beating that "anti-tanking" drum pretty consistently, and pretty hard in almost every post recently. 

I am not a fan of teams tanking from the All-Star break on, which many have done in the past. I think the play-in has helped, by taking additional teams out of the tanking mix, at least temporarily. It has given a lot more teams incentive to continue trying to win games, either to jump up to  a top-6 seed to avoid the play-in, to maintain the 7th or 8th so they only have to win one play-in, or to try and jump into 9th or 10th to make the play-in. It definitely decreased the length of the "tanking" period, and the number of teams participating in the "tank-off". You could argue that this year there were, at most, 6 teams (20%) that were tanking for a better shot at draft picks. I would argue that it was even fewer, as Minnesota, at 5-5 over their last ten games, either wasn't tanking, or they really suck at it! I think there were more teams participating in "selective tanking" at the very end of the season, either to avoid a specific team/side of the draw for the playoffs, but I'm not sure you will ever be able to mandate against that.

Between COVID, the compressed schedule, and the shortened turnaround between seasons, it seemed like there were a lot of teams playing short-handed and/or missing their best players for extended periods of time. I think this greatly contributed to the perception of tanking/poor quality basketball at times. I don't think for an instant that any players in the league enter a game with the purpose of deliberately losing. Do they always get as pumped for each game? Of course not. 

I frankly don't know that there is a good answer for the lottery. You have teams that are consistently in the lottery due to poor management and/or tanking for picks ("the process"), others that are there due to one down year/injuries, and others that can't get the best players to sign (or re-sign) with them due to other factors, like market size. I hate rewarding a team with a high draft pick because their management sucks, I don't think it's right when a good team picks up a high pick because of one bad year (Duncan to San Antonio years ago, Wiseman to GS last year), but I also don't see how bad teams/small market teams get better without increased odds. That situation has been made even worse by the proliferation of the one-and-done mindset, as now players come in much younger, and frequently aren't really developed until close to the end of their rookie contracts; making it more likely that a small market team puts in multiple years teaching/coaching/developing a player, only to end up being forced to trade them, or see them leave for a bigger market in free agency.

If you make even odds for all non-playoff teams, then those in the 7-10 slots will now have to weigh the prospect of going for the playoffs, or tanking for a shot at a top player; you will reduce the incentive to tank for the worst teams, but increase it for the middle teams. The odds were "flattened" twice over the years - first in the 90's because of the Magic winning the #1 pick with a bad record and taking Shaq, then winning it against the odds as a "late-lottery" team and trading it for Penny and extra future picks; and more recently because of Cleveland winning #1 multiple times; and the increase of tanking (aka, "The Process"). Personally, I think the answer is somewhere in the middle - that we have flattened the odds too much, but we can agree to disagree on that. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JJZFL said:

 

To the rest of the forum:  We've had plenty of discussions where we disagreed about various issues, but in general we've managed to avoid attacking the posters we've disagreed with and have not asked them to stop posting.  He can characterize my post as "anti-tanking bs" as a way to try to belittle my post (doesn't work) but in doing so he avoids the issue I raise.  So to you I ask:  Do you think it's a good for the NBA (or any pro sports league) to have roughly a third of the teams competing to lose the most games for the last third of the season?  If so, why?  If not, what would you do to change it?

I'll respond even though JJZFL blocked me. Sorry, but not sorry if he felt "attacked" lol...even though I think its pretty clear it's the idea that was being blasted, not him as an individual, and here's why. There is already a huge parity issue in the league with large markets having a competitive advantage recruiting top FA's. The idea that the league would flatten the odds for the draft lottery, based on JJZFL's assertion that non-playoff teams are deliberately losing games (which I acknowledge in some cases is occurring) would potentially only lead to greater disparity between the have's and the have nots, rendering some teams unable to compete at all. JJZFL would refer to these teams as perennial tankers I assume. 

As I've previously stated, I personally don't think tanking is that big of an issue. If your team sucks, like we did this year largely due to injuries and mid-season trades that were probably overdue, sometimes the only reason to even watch games is for player development and the hope of a high draft pick. Yes, I realize that rooting for losses sucks (but no more so than rooting for meaningless wins against bottom feeders or teams resting players that ultimately only decrease our odds for a top draft pick). I know all of us can't wait for this team to be competitive again, but at least with things the way they are now there is at least some hope, and a legitimate chance, of getting a high draft pick that will yield a player that can help turn things around. If you take that away I'm not sure what you'd be left with, but it could potentially get really ugly, really quickly. I mean can you imagine how hopeless we'd feel if the odds were flattened, Chicago moved into the top 4, and our pick ended up say 7-10? As things stand now we could still end up at pick 7 and lose the Bulls pick, so nothing is guaranteed by losing intentionally as things currently stand.  

As far as keeping teams competing, expanded playoffs (or the play-ins that we currently have) keep two extra teams (and teams within a few games of those teams) per conference in the mix. I'm not sure that including additional teams above and beyond the play-in's is the answer, but again, I also don't think that "tanking" is this giant issue that needs to be remedied at the moment.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Philly's tank was famously dubbed "The Process" by then-Sixers general manager Sam Hinkie. While it led to some embarrassing seasons that saw the 76ers field non-competitive teams, it also helped get them to where they are now: the No. 1 seed in the Eastern Conference.

The Sixers won fewer than 20 games in three consecutive seasons from 2013-14 through 2015-16. During that stretch, Philadelphia went a combined 47-199. They then improved to 28-54 in 2016-17 before reaching the playoffs in each of the next four seasons.

Among the benefits to the tank were the selections of center Joel Embiid (No. 3 overall in 2014) and guard Ben Simmons (No. 1 overall in 2016).

Tanking is and likely always will be part of professional sports leagues in which the worst teams have the best chances at landing the first overall pick in the draft.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10002974-woj-76ers-tanking-spooked-the-league-helped-lead-to-nba-play-in-tournament

Quote

In the NBA, tanking for a top draft pick has been a problem for a long time. Tanking for a specific playoff matchup or bracket hasn’t been as significant a problem, but it certainly reached an embarrassing new low on Sunday. The Los Angeles Clippers out-tanked the lowly Oklahoma City Thunder, and the Denver Nuggets played YMCA ball against the Portland Trail Blazers, both in an attempt to stay as far away from the Los Angeles Lakers as they reasonably could.

https://clutchpoints.com/the-easy-way-for-the-nba-to-prevent-seed-based-tanking-from-clippers-nuggets-and-others/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, The Neighborhood Bully said:

Neither of these provide a solution to tanking for draft position, although the first one discusses the influence of Philly's epic tanking on the idea of the play-ins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gobucsmagic said:

Neither of these provide a solution to tanking for draft position, although the first one discusses the influence of Philly's epic tanking on the idea of the play-ins

It's really quite simple. Every team that doesn't make the playoffs gets 1 ball. Once those are drawn you start with the worst record of the playoff teams and go up. Problem solved!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before they created this stupid play in. I felt that the better odds in the draft should go from 9th and down. That way teams would try to win to either get into the playoffs or just miss it for a chance to get first pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are a small/medium sized market with only 2 finals appearances in 25 odd years. We do not have a reputation of being a team that high quality free agents want to come to. The only way we can realistically become a good team is through trading for a couple of perennial all stars in their prime and build the rest of the roster around them or draft players who have potential to be franchise cornerstones. Both of these outcomes require a competent front office and probably require a mixture of both. With player power in the league strengthening since 2011 (thanks LeBron lol) even players under contract can have a say in where they get traded (ala James Harden) and it helps build a relationship between agents and front offices. That being said it is clear to me that the best chance this team has of being good enough to even dream of winning a first round playoff series ( I do not ask for much haha) is to use the odds in your favour and pick as many players as possible near the top of the draft. This means having bad losing seasons from time to time like the season we had. Whilst it is not a fool proof plan I believe it is currently the best option we have as a team and the direction we as a franchise have chosen to go in anyway. Even if we get the first pick and choose Cade/Green/Mobley (players that I think could be franchise players), there is no guarantees we will win many games next season and we will likely have a high draft pick next season. Two bad years coupled with 2 good young prospects could eventually lead us to being considered as contenders and we have assets that other teams will be interested in. For the time being we should continue to gather valuable assets for future trades/drafts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MagicMoses said:

We are a small/medium sized market with only 2 finals appearances in 25 odd years. We do not have a reputation of being a team that high quality free agents want to come to. The only way we can realistically become a good team is through trading for a couple of perennial all stars in their prime and build the rest of the roster around them or draft players who have potential to be franchise cornerstones. Both of these outcomes require a competent front office and probably require a mixture of both. With player power in the league strengthening since 2011 (thanks LeBron lol) even players under contract can have a say in where they get traded (ala James Harden) and it helps build a relationship between agents and front offices. That being said it is clear to me that the best chance this team has of being good enough to even dream of winning a first round playoff series ( I do not ask for much haha) is to use the odds in your favour and pick as many players as possible near the top of the draft. This means having bad losing seasons from time to time like the season we had. Whilst it is not a fool proof plan I believe it is currently the best option we have as a team and the direction we as a franchise have chosen to go in anyway. Even if we get the first pick and choose Cade/Green/Mobley (players that I think could be franchise players), there is no guarantees we will win many games next season and we will likely have a high draft pick next season. Two bad years coupled with 2 good young prospects could eventually lead us to being considered as contenders and we have assets that other teams will be interested in. For the time being we should continue to gather valuable assets for future trades/drafts.

That is the tank strategy.  But I think it's higher risk than you make it out to be.  If you either don't get very high picks, or if the picks don't turn out to be franchise changers, then all you have left is to be bad, and keep trying it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×