Draft tie-breaker - We're #8!

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
#61
Maybe you can math this up

That looks like the lotto page, which doesn't take into account the ties, which change the ball allocation. You should look at the 2016 draft page, which has the correct odds.

(In fact, I know they're correct because I fixed them myself. Unless somebody came along and unfixed them.)

So the .000 (rounded) chance that we have to fall to 11th is correct. What's the actual number? It's on my other computer. It's small.
 

funkykingston

Super Moderator
Staff member
#63
That looks like the lotto page, which doesn't take into account the ties, which change the ball allocation. You should look at the 2016 draft page, which has the correct odds.

(In fact, I know they're correct because I fixed them myself. Unless somebody came along and unfixed them.)

So the .000 (rounded) chance that we have to fall to 11th is correct. What's the actual number? It's on my other computer. It's small.
But are those the Kings actual odds of jumping up into one of the top 3 spots? My understanding was that regardless of coin flips to determine position post lottery, any teams with ties share an equal number of combinations for the lottery itself.
 
#64
That looks like the lotto page, which doesn't take into account the ties, which change the ball allocation. You should look at the 2016 draft page, which has the correct odds.

(In fact, I know they're correct because I fixed them myself. Unless somebody came along and unfixed them.)

So the .000 (rounded) chance that we have to fall to 11th is correct. What's the actual number? It's on my other computer. It's small.
I'm guessing the Kings have somewhere around an 0.018 chance. I just took the average of the three odds, so I doubt that's correct. But considering we have the same chances as the Bucks/Nuggets I doubt it's the full 0.28.
 
#65
That looks like the lotto page, which doesn't take into account the ties, which change the ball allocation. You should look at the 2016 draft page, which has the correct odds.

(In fact, I know they're correct because I fixed them myself. Unless somebody came along and unfixed them.)

So the .000 (rounded) chance that we have to fall to 11th is correct. What's the actual number? It's on my other computer. It's small.
I believe we have a 6.8% chance with ties to land top 3
 
#67
But are those the Kings actual odds of jumping up into one of the top 3 spots? My understanding was that regardless of coin flips to determine position post lottery, any teams with ties share an equal number of combinations for the lottery itself.
We have an equal chance of jumping into the top 3 as Milwaukee and Denver (if those are the teams that tied with us), give or take a tenth of a percentile.

Coin flip only determines draft position if we (or any team behind us) doesn't move up.
 
#71
We have an equal chance of jumping into the top 3 as Milwaukee and Denver (if those are the teams that tied with us), give or take a tenth of a percentile.

Coin flip only determines draft position if we (or any team behind us) doesn't move up.
In the event that teams finish with the same record, each tied team receives the average of the total number of combinations for the positions that they occupy. In 2007, the Minnesota Timberwolves and the Portland Trail Blazers tied for the sixth worst record. The average of the 6th and 7th positions in the lottery was taken, resulting in each team getting 53 combinations (the average of 63 and 43). Should the average number not be an integer, a coin flip is then used to determine which team or teams receive the extra combination(s). The result of the coin flip is also used to determine who receives the earlier pick in the event that neither of the tied teams wins one of the first three picks via the lottery.
Didn't realize we ended up with he same number of ping pong balls. Orders more important for us, so this is still a nice little victory.

http://www.fearthesword.com/2012/4/23/2970645/the-rules-of-the-nba-draft-lottery-tiebreaker
 

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
#75
Won't work that way. Those teams are only 9 or 10 (possibly) AFTER the draft lottery. Right now, all three teams will divide the 56 lotto combinations with somebody getting the leftovers. Do we get those since we got picked 8th, I wonder?
We have 19 combos, Denver has 19 combos, and Milwaukee has 18 combos. I don't understand the rest of your comment - it's certainly possible that Denver and Milwaukee both move up to the top three.
 
#76
I don't understand the rest of your comment - it's certainly possible that Denver and Milwaukee both move up to the top three.
That's why I placed 'probably' in parenthesis. I fully understand that its possible.

We have 19 combos, Denver has 19 combos, and Milwaukee has 18 combos.
That's what I was wondering. Who got the 2 extra combinations. Glad to know we did with today's draw. I thought it might be just for 8, 9, 10 if neither of the 3 moved up and not necessarily for the extra combinations.
 
#80
I'm glad we are most likely keep the pick as it is another asset BUT I would be very surprised if we don't trade it and actually keep the player that we might use the pick on in the draft. Ideally we get a bit of luck, get into the top 3 and trade it to Chicago for Butler.
 
#83
who would you rather draft?
I really like Murray, but I'm having ptsd from Jimmer, McLemore, and Stauskas. I think McLemore and Stauskas will turn out to be solid, if not good NBA players...but I think we'd have to go through the same thing with Murray. Struggling young SGs who can't make shots, despite being only known for their shooting. His lack of lateral quickness is making me think of Jimmer/Stauskas. He has tons of bball iq and confidence, but so did Nik. Nik has struggled his first 2 years.

I believe Murray has a really high ceiling if he improves his ball handling. He can become a combo-guard. I wouldn't mind taking him at all, but I don't know what he would be able to accomplish here in Sacramento. We haven't been able to develop our guards outside of IT.

I believe the Kings should go BPA, and if that BPA is Murray, then sure. If Murray was off the board, I'd go after a PF/C at 8. I know we just drafted WCS, but there's lots of high potential bigs here. Most of these guys are 19-20yearsold with higher ceilings than WCS. If we traded down, I'd probably go after a PG in Jackson or Baldwin
 
#86
That's why I placed 'probably' in parenthesis. I fully understand that its possible.
I'm not sure what the point of your post is. Did you think I believe it's likely that 9 and 10 move to 1 and 2? Or do you think it's more likely I was joking about our luck? (you also didn't say "probably", you said "possibly", making your post even more baffling).

I still have no idea what the point of your post was, despite a weak attempted explanation when you realised you'd made a mistake.
 
#87
I'm not sure what the point of your post is. Did you think I believe it's likely that 9 and 10 move to 1 and 2? Or do you think it's more likely I was joking about our luck? (you also didn't say "probably", you said "possibly", making your post even more baffling).

I still have no idea what the point of your post was, despite a weak attempted explanation when you realised you'd made a mistake.
And I'm more baffled by yours.

The only mistake I made was misquoting myself, apparently, because I didn't care to go back and proof whether I used the word probably or possibly. Not sure where the weak attempt was, but C'est la vie.

The original point was that if Milwaukee or Denver end up 1 or 2, it has nothing to do with what happened with the draw today. The post I responded to seemed to indicate, tongue in cheek, that it was a possibility. It's not.
 
#89
Absolutely! Great news! By the way, I'm not negative at all for the Kings future. This team has something that a lot of teams lack - chemistry among players. I trust Vlade more than anybody else in the previous years to get the coach situation solved in a positive way. If that goes right, we'll be an over 0.500 team right away. Blatt is my leading candidate. Walton would be, but I just cannot see that happening. He's got too many great opportunities.

For me, the only team going up that has some potential to pass us is the Timberwolves (and that depending if they get their coach situation solved correctly). I see Dallas, Houston and the Clippers falling behind with OKC following them if Durant bolts (in my opinion he will). Grizzlies will probably also be on a downward slope even when they get their injured players back. Gasol will be older and recovering and there will be roster changes.
 

hrdboild

Moloch in whom I dream Angels!
Staff member
#90
The original point was that if Milwaukee or Denver end up 1 or 2, it has nothing to do with what happened with the draw today. The post I responded to seemed to indicate, tongue in cheek, that it was a possibility. It's not.
You're so sure about this. Maybe I can seed a little doubt...

The NBA used to put cards with each team's logo on them into unmarked envelopes and then randomly select the winners. Since 1990 they use a lotto ball system where 14 numbered balls are put in a hopper and 4 of them are randomly drawn to produce a number combination. Unlike the state lottery, the order is not significant -- just the particular combination of 4 numbers. The first combination drawn decides the #1 pick, the next one #2, and the last one #3. Before the lottery 1000 different combinations of numbers are divided up between the lottery teams based on the agreed upon odds. Since we're in a 3-way tie for 8,9, and 10 the allotted number of combinations for those 3 picks (28, 17, and 11 respectively) are added up and divided by three with the result being that two teams get 19 combinations and one team gets 18 combinations.

That's the basics of the lotto draw, but depending on your view of quantum physics I think it's also possible to take it one step further -- and this applies to your suggestion that these are two distinct events and have nothing to do with each other. I suppose most people would say that we won the coin flip but we don't currently know if we've won the lottery but I think the way in which those two events are directly related makes this point of view a conceptual impossibility. The coin flip doesn't just determine the order that those 3 teams draft in should none of them win a top 3 pick, it also determines which combinations are allotted to which team. In other words, we were given 19 particular number combinations as the result of this coin flip not 19 identical balls with a Kings logo on them. If our combination gets pulled or not pulled, it will partly be the result of this very coin flip because if the coin flip had slotted us 9th we would have received an entirely different allotment of 19 number combinations and yet another allotment of 18 combinations if we were 10th. It's not two distinct events, it's one event with a time gap of about 5 weeks separating the setup from the payoff. Were it possible to somehow trade or alter your number combinations in the intervening time gap between the coin flip and the lotto draw that would be a different situation, but that's not the case.

For this reason I don't think we really know the results of who won this coin flip until after the lottery. Drafting 8th is definitely better than drafting 10th, but it's not better than drafting 1, 2, or 3. Odds are we won the coin flip since the likelihood of all three teams staying where they are is much greater than the likelihood of any of them moving up. We are talking about pretty slim odds of 56 out of 1000 here for each of the top 3 picks. But those odds only apply to us right now because we haven't witnessed the lottery draw yet. You could say we exist in a superposition of both winning and not winning until the lotto draw is determined -- photons bounce off of ping pong balls and back to our eyes and the waveform is collapsed into one state or the other. That's one theory, but one that I don't personally agree with. You could also say that we have already won or lost, we just won't know which is the case until our 4th dimensional brains pass further along in the time dimension and witness the final event. On May 20th we'll be able to say definitively in retrospect whether we won this coin flip or not but as of today, the outcome is determined but unknown.

I like that theory better and I'm tempted to endorse it. It means that probabilities are fictions invented by our inability to conceptualize time as anything other than a straight axis with a single degree of freedom. The only real uncertainty is in our relation to any given point on the time axis. But I have to admit that I don't think it's the best explanation and the more I think about it, the less I believe it. The reason I find this theory hard to believe is because it creates an imaginary point in time from which you can look back and see the outcome of every event that has ever occurred (or will ever occur). The probability of all events is reduced to either zero or one like a story which has already been written but is being told to you for the first time. What I would say instead is that we have both won the coin flip and not won the coin flip. And when May 20th arrives we (collectively) will witness the outcome where we lose the lottery but win the coin flip, the outcome where we win the lottery (and thus also the coin flip), and also the outcome in which we lose the lottery and also lose the coin flip. All three of them are true and probability tells us how likely it is that we observe one or the other. For example, 19 times out of 1000 we witness our number being pulled and Adam Silver announcing that we've won the top pick (and get to trade it to Philadelphia). If there's some way to choose to live in one of those possible worlds instead of the other 981 possible worlds I wish somebody would tell me how, but even if there isn't I believe that those worlds exist. Or at least I'm more inclined to believe in them than superpositions or predetermination.
 
Last edited: