I thought this thread was where the "tank group" could go, seeing as how strategy of winning games or losing games discussion can't be in the game thread.
The statistics are all there. They do not lie. The percentages are spelled out. Probability wise, there is nothing anyone with any modicum of statistical knowledge can say to refute it. Hence the issue we have in this thread.
The cloud picture is a cloud, yes. But there is irrefutable evidence that picking as early as possible gives the best chance for a good player. No one disputes that. Now winning this game gives us a less chances of a lottery pick and a lower draft pick, plain and simple. Hence, winning this game gave us a worse CHANCE at a good player. Not even factoring mock drafts, talent tiers, and where the best fit players go (which we might have missed out on).
Plain and simple: Winning against the Laker's 13th men gave us worse chances of landing a good player. Not made us get a worse player. There are no guarantees, but the higher the pick, the better the CHANCE of a guarantee.
Do you people go to the casino and keep hitting on 17 because you feel like it? Or do you hit 17 because one time a friend didn't hit on 17 and a 4 came out next? Because this is exactly the kind of argument you guys are trying to make. You play the odds as best you can. I can't fathom intentionally screwing the odds because you may end up with the same scenario. Why not start with better odds in the first place?
But hey, at least we stuck it to Devin frickin Ebanks while he was wearing purple. W00t. Let's all hang our cellar dwelling hats on THAT.