I like Seth and would prefer him and Collision over resigning Rondo. But I still remember how well Ray McCallum played at the end of last year and what he did this year.
I would rather let @Capt. Factorial handle my light work, but I don't think that that's how math works.
I've already been corrected on the second point. This was my response, and I stand by it:Well, you're both right and wrong.
You're correct in that we have a better chance of hitting the lottery than getting passed by three teams. However, we don't know where we will end up pre-lottery yet; if we end up at #10, we only need to be passed by one team to lose the pick, and IfAt1st's odds are close to what I get - he may be assuming a tie for ninth/tenth instead of tenth outright. At #10 by ourselves, we have about a 4% chance of hitting the lottery and about a 9% chance of getting passed by one team.
You know what? Good! If Orlando plays to win, down to the end, and they get rewarded with a Top 3 pick, and the team that held out their good players for "rest" to try and jockey for ping-pong balls gets their comeuppance and loses their pick, then I am here for it!
Go look: http://www.tankathon.com/I would rather let @Capt. Factorial handle my light work, but I don't think that that's how math works.
That's not how probability works, at least not relative to the situation that I was refuting. I have already stipulated to being corrected about the fact that any one team could push us out of the top ten.Go look: http://www.tankathon.com/
I'm using a simplified version of probability, but basically you would add up the % chances that teams 11 through 14 have of getting in the Top 3 picks.
So ~ 10% is greater than our ~ 6.5%
This only assumes that the Kings lose the coin flip to resolve the tie with MIL and DEN (we seem to always lose those) or the Kings win vs Houston (which you publicly say you want them to win, so them being 10th should be a given in thisinsult you lobbedscenario you created).
ummm... EXCUSE ME?!I was merely contesting the claim that the odds of three of them finishing in the Top three was better than us winning the lottery, which is what @IfAt1st said. I mean, it's been over twenty years since I had to take a Stats and Probs course, but I don't remember the math working out like that.
No, I didn't. Don't blame me because you didn't read what I wrote. I never called you psychotic; I didn't even call @theclash4u5 psychotic; I called his idea psychotic, using some of your ramblings as a baseline. That's not the same thing as calling you psychotic but, hey, if the shoe fits...ummm... EXCUSE ME?!
Look, man, you are the one that lobbed the "psychotic" term at me, completely unbidden.
It's not that my premise was flawed, so much as I mis-read @theclash4u5's premise, and replied based on my misreading of his premise, a mistake that I had already stipulated to, before you decided to put your two cents in. The funny part being that you made the same mistake of replying to me based on a misreading of my premise. The point that I made may, indeed, be "irrelevant," but that is the point that I was making, and it is correct. My premise was only flawed inasmuch as I unwittingly and inadvertently created my own straw man. So... sorry about all that, I guess...You were wrong in what you said, and I am right - if you don't want to admit you messed up, I guess that's fine, but don't be saying I came up with the scenario - you stated that the Kings had a better chance of winning the lottery than three teams passing us (which is irrelevant).
Your initial premise was flawed - it doesn't matter if THREE teams are unlikely to pass us in the draft, since you advocate that the Kings keep winning useless games, it only takes one team to vault us for the Kings to lose the draft pick (which you again, openly advocate).
Welcome to the club. Cookies are in the next room.And I took college-level engineering Statistics.
I am fuzzy on the intricacies of it, but I'm pretty damned sure that the probability of 1 of 4 teams passing us in the draft is simply the adding up of their individual probabilities.
LMAO!Actually, not quite. The complication is that if one of the teams passes us into say 2nd position, then the other teams can't get the 2nd position. When the numbers are very small adding them up comes out somewhat close, but the correct formula would be to multiply each of their probabilities of NOT passing us all together, and then subtract that value from 1.
Conditioning would be a good start: his efficiency seems to go way down when he plays over twenty minutes.
Kings have only 1 in 3 chances to end up last in a three-way tie (given that all 4 teams with 32-33 wins are playing someone with a real need for a win, I assume there are losses all around), so Kings' chances of losing the pick is a bit above 3%.
WTH? Imagine my surprise.
1. I worked very late last night and didn't even think about the Kings game.
2. I was too tired to check the board last night.
3. I come here to catch up, see the game thread (thanks Slim!) and read the first page before deciding just to cut to the chase, so to speak.
4. It's become an argument about statistics and probability?
5. I agree totally with Livinthedream
Head or tails between the owners in two-way tie and Rock, paper scissors in three-wayAnyone remember what they use as the tie breaker?
I've already been corrected on the second point. This was my response, and I stand by it:
I have been very firm and very consistent on my "**** the pick" platform. And frankly, if we, who have been "resting" our good players in order to vie for lottery position lose our draft pick because one of the teams that was still playing to win, down to the end, ends up winning the lottery, and pushes us out of the Top 10, then I am here for it! It'd serve us right; from my point of view, losing the pick after playing these games would be exactly the comeuppance we deserve.
Anyone remember what they use as the tie breaker?
Head or tails between the owners in two-way tie and Rock, paper scissors in three-way![]()
Fair enough. I will personally be rooting for draft schadenfreude.While I understand the reasoning behind what your are saying, I disagree with the "deserve" part for one simple reason. In numerous seasons when the team didn't tank and were just plain bad all season long, they never were rewarded by the lottery gods for playing til the end. How many times has this team been screwed over by the lottery process? And they'll likely be screwed over again in the exact scenario you painted.
But, having said that, I think this team is rightfully due some good fortune-- even if it comes via dishonorable methods so-to-speak. I will gladly take and accept the good fortune if it comes our way based upon the years of currency the franchise should have already built up getting screwed over in every which way imaginable.
Ahhhh, how many pages back might we find that post so we know what it is your agreeing with? I probably read it, but with my memory, I've already forgotten what I just wrote.![]()