Draft Lotto Thread (2025 edition)

[hrdboild]

The mutability of knowledge is certainly a defining principle of scientific study, but in the absence of new information, the presently known remains our best understanding of the world and universe in which we live, and therefore it remains the footing from which we must operate. What else is there, until we learn something new? We can reserve intellectual space for that which we deem inexplicable and beyond our current comprehension, but we do ourselves no favors by ignoring the ground beneath our feet. As a species, we craft value systems, social mores, laws, and the like from a shared understanding of what is known. When our understanding of the known shifts, we update those value systems, social mores, laws, etc. in accordance with our refreshed understanding of our world.

I'm attempting to be conscientious about KF.com rules around discussion of current events/politics, so I'll frame an example this way. There's not a lot of sense in granting Flat Earthers a seat at the legislative table simply because they've reserved a considerable amount of their intellectual space for that which they deem inexplicable, in spite of all available evidence to the contrary. That's not a valuable kind of open-mindedness, and it would be deeply unwise to charge such persons with stewardship of the FAA, for instance. Instead, we should charge the administration of such an important agency to persons who recognize and understand the known physical laws that govern our world. After all, Newtonian physics does not meet any kind of reasonable threshold for skepticism in 2025. At least, not until we learn something new.

And more to the point, the NBA draft lottery likewise does not meet any kind of reasonable threshold for skepticism. The stakes aren't as high as airline safety, but they are still quite high for the various stakeholders involved, all of whom have a vested interest in the fair execution of that lottery. After all, if the game was "rigged" in your favor one year, it could be "rigged" against you in every other year. This is why its incredibly challenging to get the wealthy owners of sports franchises to vote for the removal of one of their own; they operate with a shared understanding that safety for one is safety for all, and in the inverse, that what threatens one can threaten all.

So while the NBA may not march every member of every ownership group, every front office staffer, every coach, player, and fan to the stage for the ping pong ball selections, what we know about the draft lottery, its agreed-upon logic, the representatives and stakeholders who witness its administration, and the monumental difficulties that would exist in executing and covering up a lottery grift of the size and scope being suggested here by many, it is folly to craft an argument assuming a "rigged" lottery process that doesn't strain credulity. It doesn't mean you can't craft that argument, of course. Any mind is free to think as it wills. But... what's the point?

I mean, I can argue until I'm blue in the face that I'm being "scammed" about any number of things, like, say, that my morning tea is not authentic and does not, in fact, come from Sri Lanka, despite the claims on its labels and the supply chain data that supports its transit from that part of the world to my kitchen table. But what would be the point of such an argument? Yes, I was not personally privy to the tea leaves that were plucked from a Sri Lankan farm and then shipped overseas, but my existing insight into the tea world and free trade, as well as the strong reputation of Steven Smith Teamaker, suggests that it's fair to say I know from where my tea is being sourced. It would strain credulity to say that I'm being scammed by Smith Teas simply because there may be some plausible outcome I have not yet considered.

I get what you're saying in abstract and like you I want to be careful about getting specific on anything overtly political so I'll try to frame this carefully. We're communicating through an online message board so I can assume everyone here is at least a little bit aware of some current events and the advancements in technology which go along with making this communication possible. What you're describing is a collective shared understanding (of physics, biology, history, language, etc) from which social customs are derived and by which mutually agreed upon changes to laws and customs are made when changing conditions demand it. Is that fair to say? Based on what you know about history and what you see all around you, does that sound like a process that exists (has ever existed) or does it sound more like a theoretical ideal?

In your example you dismiss 'Flat Earthers' off-hand as failing to meet the threshold of intellectual discourse demanded of the legislative body in this country and yet at the same time you're leaning on science which is over 100 years old to anchor your arguments about what is and is not plausible. I didn't bring up Multiple-Worlds Interpretation to be pedantic, I brought it up to illustrate that the state-of-the-art in scientific research is far beyond the current mainstream model of the universe that you are using to ground your world view. MWI fully obeys the Schrödinger equation where most of the other quantum mechanical models tweak the math in order to conform better to a 'shared understanding' of plausibility because scientists are human and many of them just are not ready to accept that so many of their existing models could be that wrong. There were also scientists during the period of time in Europe that we now refer to as the Dark Ages and all of them had models of the universe which they used to ground their hypothesis. None of them knew they were living in a time that future historians would look back on and brand with the scarlet letter 'I' for Ignorance.

As regards the NBA, you and the Capt. are focusing on the process of how ping pong balls are placed into a hopper and drawn. That's just theater. I can go to a magic show and watch doves vanish from thin air and people teleport across the stage. I don't need to know how it was done to know it was an illusion (and frankly, I don't want to know -- the reality of it is always pretty dull). I don't care to know how or if the ping pong ball hopper is or is not manipulated. What I do strongly believe to be true is that everything related to professional sports is subject to the same economic realities that you and I fit into. Consumer goods prices fluctuate based on the principles of supply and demand but they also fluctuate based on the will of the companies which produce them, ship them, and re-sell them. And without some level of independent oversight, there is no check on these companies' ability to set those prices as high as they can get away with in order to maximize profits.

The whole Tim Donaughy scandal took place at a time when sports gambling was, for the most part, not a legally sanctioned activity in this country. Now every major sports league in the U.S. actively promotes sports gambling and some even take a share of the profits. In that context, is there more motivation or less motivation for the NBA to manipulate game scores, create matchups which target larger segments of the population, synergize with broadcasting corporations to push narratives and drive engagement, and so on? I can see how the motivation to do all of the above must be so high that even the most honest and scrupulous among us might subconsciously bend the rules from time to time. And then when that goes well, bend them a little more.

And just briefly about 2002, I've always felt that the team's collective will was so badly broken by what transpired in Game 6 (blatant one-sided manipulation on the part of the league appointed officiating team) that they went into Game 7 already feeling like they needed to work 10 times harder to win the next game while their opponent obviously felt the exact opposite. In a matchup that close (because the Lakers in 2002 were also a damned good team) phycological edge can be (and in this case, I think, was) the factor which tips the balance to one side. The massive disparity in free throw shooting percentages in that game that you cited above points directly at psychological edge being the deciding factor.

And I also think (much more controversially I assume) that the NBA had finally resolved to make up for this in 2018 when the draft lottery shined on us with a top prospect playing at the University of Arizona and a lock to be drafted by Phoenix at #1 and a #2 prospect out of former Yugoslavia with ties to Vlade through the Yugoslav national team destined to play for the team that established a strong international fandom in that part of the world throughout the early 2000s. But Vlade Divac couldn't just secure the rebound, he had to tap it out to Robert Horry at the three-point line (metaphorically speaking) so now Luka Doncic plays on the Lakers and we may have to wait another 40 years for the NBA to give us another chance to make the right decision.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I get what you're saying in abstract and like you I want to be careful about getting specific on anything overtly political so I'll try to frame this carefully. We're communicating through an online message board so I can assume everyone here is at least a little bit aware of some current events and the advancements in technology which go along with making this communication possible. What you're describing is a collective shared understanding (of physics, biology, history, language, etc) from which social customs are derived and by which mutually agreed upon changes to laws and customs are made when changing conditions demand it. Is that fair to say? Based on what you know about history and what you see all around you, does that sound like a process that exists (has ever existed) or does it sound more like a theoretical ideal?

In your example you dismiss 'Flat Earthers' off-hand as failing to meet the threshold of intellectual discourse demanded of the legislative body in this country and yet at the same time you're leaning on science which is over 100 years old to anchor your arguments about what is and is not plausible. I didn't bring up Multiple-Worlds Interpretation to be pedantic, I brought it up to illustrate that the state-of-the-art in scientific research is far beyond the current mainstream model of the universe that you are using to ground your world view. MWI fully obeys the Schrödinger equation where most of the other quantum mechanical models tweak the math in order to conform better to a 'shared understanding' of plausibility because scientists are human and many of them just are not ready to accept that so many of their existing models could be that wrong. There were also scientists during the period of time in Europe that we now refer to as the Dark Ages and all of them had models of the universe which they used to ground their hypothesis. None of them knew they were living in a time that future historians would look back on and brand with the scarlet letter 'I' for Ignorance.

As regards the NBA, you and the Capt. are focusing on the process of how ping pong balls are placed into a hopper and drawn. That's just theater. I can go to a magic show and watch doves vanish from thin air and people teleport across the stage. I don't need to know how it was done to know it was an illusion (and frankly, I don't want to know -- the reality of it is always pretty dull). I don't care to know how or if the ping pong ball hopper is or is not manipulated. What I do strongly believe to be true is that everything related to professional sports is subject to the same economic realities that you and I fit into. Consumer goods prices fluctuate based on the principles of supply and demand but they also fluctuate based on the will of the companies which produce them, ship them, and re-sell them. And without some level of independent oversight, there is no check on these companies' ability to set those prices as high as they can get away with in order to maximize profits.

The whole Tim Donaughy scandal took place at a time when sports gambling was, for the most part, not a legally sanctioned activity in this country. Now every major sports league in the U.S. actively promotes sports gambling and some even take a share of the profits. In that context, is there more motivation or less motivation for the NBA to manipulate game scores, create matchups which target larger segments of the population, synergize with broadcasting corporations to push narratives and drive engagement, and so on? I can see how the motivation to do all of the above must be so high that even the most honest and scrupulous among us might subconsciously bend the rules from time to time. And then when that goes well, bend them a little more.

And just briefly about 2002, I've always felt that the team's collective will was so badly broken by what transpired in Game 6 (blatant one-sided manipulation on the part of the league appointed officiating team) that they went into Game 7 already feeling like they needed to work 10 times harder to win the next game while their opponent obviously felt the exact opposite. In a matchup that close (because the Lakers in 2002 were also a damned good team) phycological edge can be (and in this case, I think, was) the factor which tips the balance to one side. The massive disparity in free throw shooting percentages in that game that you cited above points directly at psychological edge being the deciding factor.

And I also think (much more controversially I assume) that the NBA had finally resolved to make up for this in 2018 when the draft lottery shined on us with a top prospect playing at the University of Arizona and a lock to be drafted by Phoenix at #1 and a #2 prospect out of former Yugoslavia with ties to Vlade through the Yugoslav national team destined to play for the team that established a strong international fandom in that part of the world throughout the early 2000s. But Vlade Divac couldn't just secure the rebound, he had to tap it out to Robert Horry at the three-point line (metaphorically speaking) so now Luka Doncic plays on the Lakers and we may have to wait another 40 years for the NBA to give us another chance to make the right decision.

Third eye wide open!

 

[Padrino]

In your example you dismiss 'Flat Earthers' off-hand as failing to meet the threshold of intellectual discourse demanded of the legislative body in this country and yet at the same time you're leaning on science which is over 100 years old to anchor your arguments about what is and is not plausible. I didn't bring up Multiple-Worlds Interpretation to be pedantic, I brought it up to illustrate that the state-of-the-art in scientific research is far beyond the current mainstream model of the universe that you are using to ground your world view. MWI fully obeys the Schrödinger equation where most of the other quantum mechanical models tweak the math in order to conform better to a 'shared understanding' of plausibility because scientists are human and many of them just are not ready to accept that so many of their existing models could be that wrong. There were also scientists during the period of time in Europe that we now refer to as the Dark Ages and all of them had models of the universe which they used to ground their hypothesis. None of them knew they were living in a time that future historians would look back on and brand with the scarlet letter 'I' for Ignorance.

I suppose I don't understand what you're arguing. Or implying. Is it your opinion that all deserve a seat at the table, regardless of known facts and quality of evidence? I'm not getting it. Is it that you're operating from a nihilistic position? Do you simply view knowledge as an impossibility, therefore it doesn't matter who is trusted with decision-making power, since we'll never know for certain that we are "right"?

I mean, we have heaps of evidence to ground our understanding of the shape of the earth and it's gravity, evidence that without fail overturns any oddball notion that the earth is flat. On the flip side, we do not have heaps of evidence to overturn our basic understanding of Newtonian physics. One of these things is not like the other, and I have no problem dismissing those who fail to meet certain thresholds for discourse. "Don't suffer fools" is not a foolproof maxim, but it does save headaches, and from time to time, it saves lives.

And just briefly about 2002, I've always felt that the team's collective will was so badly broken by what transpired in Game 6 (blatant one-sided manipulation on the part of the league appointed officiating team) that they went into Game 7 already feeling like they needed to work 10 times harder to win the next game while their opponent obviously felt the exact opposite. In a matchup that close (because the Lakers in 2002 were also a damned good team) phycological edge can be (and in this case, I think, was) the factor which tips the balance to one side. The massive disparity in free throw shooting percentages in that game that you cited above points directly at psychological edge being the deciding factor.

I'm not sure if you're just agreeing with me here, but either way, I do think this largely makes my point for me. Game 6 was certainly a psychological downer for the players and for the fans. But dozens of great teams have rebounded from difficult losses and mentally rallied themselves to win a hard-fought series. Untimely misses. Poor execution. Lack of leadership. Miscommunication. Blown calls. Frustration. Anger. These things can tear any team apart at the seams, and the conference finals are a terrible place to come undone. Game 6 was a travesty and remains a travesty. But game 7 was always right there for the taking. And the Kings couldn't take it. Very few titles are won without hardship, and that team lacked the mental toughness necessary to overcome their particular hardships.