Can we clarify something about lottery chances on this board?

[IAmTheBest]

Just because [1st] worst record hasnt gotten the 1st pick most often in the past, doesnt mean that getting 2nd or 3rd worst record increases our chances of winning the lottery.

Every year, the odds are independent of the previous years.

If you flip a coin 20 times, and it lands on tails the first 19 times - it doesnt mean that the 20th flip will be more likely to land on tails assuming the coin isnt rigged. it's still 50/50. Following the same principle, assuming the lottery isnt rigged (and there is no reason to assume that it's rigged especially for the 2nd or 3rd worst record), having the worst record still gives us the highest chances of winning the lottery.

if an educational topic about math isnt allowed on this forum, by all means delete this topic if you want, mods

[Jalen Bluntson]

Yeah...everyone should get simple math. The history of the lottery has people believing it is rigged. So those people toss the math out of the window. The history also shows that the odds have been against the worst record. So people think it gives a better chance not being worst...regardless of math...but unless the fix is in these people are mathematically incorrect.

Either way...worst record keeps us in the top 4....where we absolutely need to be.

[frothbrain]

Yeah...everyone should get simple math. The history of the lottery has people believing it is rigged. So those people toss the math out of the window. The history also shows that the odds have been against the worst record. So people think it gives a better chance not being worst...regardless of math...but unless the fix is in these people are mathematically incorrect.

Either way...worst record keeps us in the top 4....where we absolutely need to be.

And here is the real fallacy that is being repeated.
Justise Winslow gets no respect because he doesn't add flare to his passes.

[IAmTheBest]

Please dont compare winslow to the top 4 prospects. I'm not saying winslow can't become a star like the others - but winslow also has a higher chance of busting. his ceiling is likely lower than the others'. While the others can be franchise centerpieces ,winslow might be a souped up prime Ariza

the fact is that if the franchise was serious about building a true championshp contender it would make sure it could have the highest probability of drafting their targets - the big guns. We were in prime position to unequivocally have the worst record, but instead we A) played melo against the sixers and davis-less pelicans B) played bargnani vs the spurs and sixers C) didnt bench galloway against this orlando team

any one of these points may have massive implications over the next decade of knicks basketball

[Bill Pidto]

Oh wow... you guys need to get over this quick. There's still two games to play.

Trust me, I was rooting for the Magic to beat the Knicks last night. Of course I want the Knicks to land the first pick. But I'm not mad at the players or the organization over it. I'm not going to point fingers now and look at wins from earlier this season and cite them as major mistakes by the front office or the coaching staff lol. That's crazy.

It's funny.. a lot of fans have been angry at Phil for how bad the team was this year. Now, we're going to have a group of fans that are mad at him for winning too many games despite having the worst record in Knicks history.

At some point, you gotta just sit back and let nature run its course so to speak. I'll be really disaapointed if the Knicks don't get a top 3 pick. And I'll probably think back to last night's "heroics" from Hardaway if that's what winds up happening. But you can't expect this team to throw games.

Some of these guys have been playing really hard despite the record and you have to respect that. The Knicks have a lot of guys who are trying to stick in the league, and there's no way they should think about the team's draft order over their own careers. Timmy has struggled so much this year. You don't think he enjoyed making some big plays last night? Should Fisher have told him to miss that go-ahead 3? Should Phil Jackson have made that call from wherever he was watching? Come on..

[Jalen Bluntson]

Yeah...everyone should get simple math. The history of the lottery has people believing it is rigged. So those people toss the math out of the window. The history also shows that the odds have been against the worst record. So people think it gives a better chance not being worst...regardless of math...but unless the fix is in these people are mathematically incorrect.

Either way...worst record keeps us in the top 4....where we absolutely need to be.

And here is the real fallacy that is being repeated.
Justise Winslow gets no respect because he doesn't add flare to his passes.

Winslow at 4 then. Mudiaye hasn't played much so if people consider him consensus top 4 along with Towns Okafor and Russel...then grab Winslow at 4 if you end up there. But I want towns..and worst record still gives you best shot no matter who you want.

[Thugger HBC]

Just because [1st] worst record hasnt gotten the 1st pick most often in the past, doesnt mean that getting 2nd or 3rd worst record increases our chances of winning the lottery.

This post is utter silliness because I seriously doubt anyone has actually said this. Folks who in their own world really want that top pick overall come up with every argument in the world to believe worst is best for it while that thought has been thoroughly disproved.

Here is something that has been said......

25% chance doesnt have better odds on the first pick, because there is a 75% chance it WILL go elsewhere. That is fact and proven.

Doesnt mean 25% is worthless, every now and then it does cash in.....but it rarely happens for a reason.

The assurance of the worst record only provides guarantee of not falling below 4. Thats the mindset to have.

[IAmTheBest]

Oh wow... you guys need to get over this quick. There's still two games to play.

Trust me, I was rooting for the Magic to beat the Knicks last night. Of course I want the Knicks to land the first pick. But I'm not mad at the players or the organization over it. I'm not going to point fingers now and look at wins from earlier this season and cite them as major mistakes by the front office or the coaching staff lol. That's crazy.

It's funny.. a lot of fans have been angry at Phil for how bad the team was this year. Now, we're going to have a group of fans that are mad at him for winning too many games despite having the worst record in Knicks history.

At some point, you gotta just sit back and let nature run its course so to speak. I'll be really disaapointed if the Knicks don't get a top 3 pick. And I'll probably think back to last night's "heroics" from Hardaway if that's what winds up happening. But you can't expect this team to throw games.

Some of these guys have been playing really hard despite the record and you have to respect that. The Knicks have a lot of guys who are trying to stick in the league, and there's no way they should think about the team's draft order over their own careers. Timmy has struggled so much this year. You don't think he enjoyed making some big plays last night? Should Fisher have told him to miss that go-ahead 3? Should Phil Jackson have made that call from wherever he was watching? Come on..

sitting back and letting nature run its course is for losers and will only land you into the half ass section unless youre unbelievably lucky and a diamond falls into your lap. This is true for anything in life - you have to make opportunities for yourself to be successful. i'm not mad at players trying. i'm mad at phil's office and his extension in fisher allowing it to happen.

i was never angry at phil for how bad the team was, so what you wrote about that doesnt a pply to me

[IAmTheBest]

Just because [1st] worst record hasnt gotten the 1st pick most often in the past, doesnt mean that getting 2nd or 3rd worst record increases our chances of winning the lottery.

This post is utter silliness because I seriously doubt anyone has actually said this. Folks who in their own world really want that top pick overall come up with every argument in the world to believe worst is best for it while that thought has been thoroughly disproved.

Here is something that has been said......

25% chance doesnt have better odds on the first pick, because there is a 75% chance it WILL go elsewhere. That is fact and proven.

Doesnt mean 25% is worthless, every now and then it does cash in.....but it rarely happens for a reason.

The assurance of the worst record only provides guarantee of not falling below 4. Thats the mindset to have.

Since around january Ive been seeing this line of reasoning from several posters - people have actually been saying this.

"worst is best" has not been disproved.

25%>20% (second pick) > 16% > 12 % ....etc - and this is an undeniable fact. worst is best - this is an undeniable fact unless you have evidence that the draft is rigged in which case it wouldnt matter

But I do agree with you about not the guarantee about having a top 4 pick - that is the imperative aspect of having the worst

[kingquan316]

What Knicks are doing winning these games is just dumb. Nothing else needs to be said.

Just pray that the lotto gods bail the Knicks out from their own stupidity if they don't get the worst record.

[Thugger HBC]

Just because [1st] worst record hasnt gotten the 1st pick most often in the past, doesnt mean that getting 2nd or 3rd worst record increases our chances of winning the lottery.

This post is utter silliness because I seriously doubt anyone has actually said this. Folks who in their own world really want that top pick overall come up with every argument in the world to believe worst is best for it while that thought has been thoroughly disproved.

Here is something that has been said......

25% chance doesnt have better odds on the first pick, because there is a 75% chance it WILL go elsewhere. That is fact and proven.

Doesnt mean 25% is worthless, every now and then it does cash in.....but it rarely happens for a reason.

The assurance of the worst record only provides guarantee of not falling below 4. Thats the mindset to have.

Since around january Ive been seeing this line of reasoning from several posters - people have actually been saying this.

"worst is best" has not been disproved.

25%>20% (second pick) > 16% > 12 % ....etc - and this is an undeniable fact. worst is best - this is an undeniable fact unless you have evidence that the draft is rigged in which case it wouldnt matter

But I do agree with you about not the guarantee about having a top 4 pick - that is the imperative aspect of having the worst

i seriously doubt you've seen posters post getting the 2nd or 3rd record is better odds then worst overall at the top overall.

Worst is not best because 25%<<<<<75%. The 25% is foolery. Of course it's rigged, the NBA doesnt advocate tanking, thats why they put %'s on it. Tanking for worst has rarely benefited any team. The guarantee is top 4, that is all.

There's a reason why the NBA wont do it like the NFL. The NFL has a fool proof worst is first.

[IAmTheBest]

Just because [1st] worst record hasnt gotten the 1st pick most often in the past, doesnt mean that getting 2nd or 3rd worst record increases our chances of winning the lottery.

This post is utter silliness because I seriously doubt anyone has actually said this. Folks who in their own world really want that top pick overall come up with every argument in the world to believe worst is best for it while that thought has been thoroughly disproved.

Here is something that has been said......

25% chance doesnt have better odds on the first pick, because there is a 75% chance it WILL go elsewhere. That is fact and proven.

Doesnt mean 25% is worthless, every now and then it does cash in.....but it rarely happens for a reason.

The assurance of the worst record only provides guarantee of not falling below 4. Thats the mindset to have.

Since around january Ive been seeing this line of reasoning from several posters - people have actually been saying this.

"worst is best" has not been disproved.

25%>20% (second pick) > 16% > 12 % ....etc - and this is an undeniable fact. worst is best - this is an undeniable fact unless you have evidence that the draft is rigged in which case it wouldnt matter

But I do agree with you about not the guarantee about having a top 4 pick - that is the imperative aspect of having the worst

i seriously doubt you've seen posters post getting the 2nd or 3rd record is better odds then worst overall at the top overall.

Worst is not best because 25%<<<<<75%. The 25% is foolery. Of course it's rigged, the NBA doesnt advocate tanking, thats why they put %'s on it. Tanking for worst has rarely benefited any team. The guarantee is top 4, that is all.

There's a reason why the NBA wont do it like the NFL. The NFL has a fool proof worst is first.

dude why are you calling me a liar lol. Are you saying i'd just make this topic for fun?

Youre missing a major point about the chances - 25% is not greater than 75%, but it is greater than 20% etc.....aka we will have the greatest chance of winning the lottery with the worst record, aka worst record is best for winning the lottery

"of course it's rigged' - sorry i dont just believe conspiracy theories with no backing whatsoever

[kingquan316]

Just because [1st] worst record hasnt gotten the 1st pick most often in the past, doesnt mean that getting 2nd or 3rd worst record increases our chances of winning the lottery.

This post is utter silliness because I seriously doubt anyone has actually said this. Folks who in their own world really want that top pick overall come up with every argument in the world to believe worst is best for it while that thought has been thoroughly disproved.

Here is something that has been said......

25% chance doesnt have better odds on the first pick, because there is a 75% chance it WILL go elsewhere. That is fact and proven.

Doesnt mean 25% is worthless, every now and then it does cash in.....but it rarely happens for a reason.

The assurance of the worst record only provides guarantee of not falling below 4. Thats the mindset to have.

Since around january Ive been seeing this line of reasoning from several posters - people have actually been saying this.

"worst is best" has not been disproved.

25%>20% (second pick) > 16% > 12 % ....etc - and this is an undeniable fact. worst is best - this is an undeniable fact unless you have evidence that the draft is rigged in which case it wouldnt matter

But I do agree with you about not the guarantee about having a top 4 pick - that is the imperative aspect of having the worst

i seriously doubt you've seen posters post getting the 2nd or 3rd record is better odds then worst overall at the top overall.

Worst is not best because 25%<<<<<75%. The 25% is foolery. Of course it's rigged, the NBA doesnt advocate tanking, thats why they put %'s on it. Tanking for worst has rarely benefited any team. The guarantee is top 4, that is all.

There's a reason why the NBA wont do it like the NFL. The NFL has a fool proof worst is first.

Isn't he talking about worst being the best odds compared to other teams of getting the 1st pick? If u a betting man and u either wanna bet the worst team winning the lotto or the rest of the field, then of course u would bet the field. Even though the worst team hasn't won the lotto the most, that doesn't change the fact that the worst team do have the best odds compared to the other teams, and the past winners has no effect on the present winner.

I never talk about wanting the worst record for the first pick in the draft, I always talk about getting a 100% chance at being a top 4 pick. Cause I know that 75%>25%, but getting the extra odds compared to other teams doesn't hurt. Although I think that some people here act like they are already preparing on getting Okafor or Towns with the constant posting and threads arguing for either of the two, when the odds are not that great as it seems even with the worst record.

[Thugger HBC]

Since around january Ive been seeing this line of reasoning from several posters - people have actually been saying this.

"worst is best" has not been disproved.

25%>20% (second pick) > 16% > 12 % ....etc - and this is an undeniable fact. worst is best - this is an undeniable fact unless you have evidence that the draft is rigged in which case it wouldnt matter

But I do agree with you about not the guarantee about having a top 4 pick - that is the imperative aspect of having the worst

i seriously doubt you've seen posters post getting the 2nd or 3rd record is better odds then worst overall at the top overall.

Worst is not best because 25%<<<<<75%. The 25% is foolery. Of course it's rigged, the NBA doesnt advocate tanking, thats why they put %'s on it. Tanking for worst has rarely benefited any team. The guarantee is top 4, that is all.

There's a reason why the NBA wont do it like the NFL. The NFL has a fool proof worst is first.

dude why are you calling me a liar lol. Are you saying i'd just make this topic for fun?

Youre missing a major point about the chances - 25% is not greater than 75%, but it is greater than 20% etc.....aka we will have the greatest chance of winning the lottery with the worst record, aka worst record is best for winning the lottery

"of course it's rigged' - sorry i dont just believe conspiracy theories with no backing whatsoever

If posters have said such...prove it. Plain and simple. I feel you made this topic because of the same paranoid folks get every time the Knicks win a game. it happens every single time, y'all are predictable. Had the Knicks LOST, this thread wouldnt have been made.

That can be easily proved, by looking at threads made after the Knicks win....Google has all the treasures in a closet.

And no, you're missing your own point....25% isnt competing with 20 or 12 or 1.6...it's competing with the entire lot.

25%<<<<<<<<<<<<<75%, all day every day, the quicker you deal with that, threads such as this wouldn't exist.

If the 25% had true value, it should cash in more often than it does....it doesnt. It's rigged that way, and it's obvious.

[IAmTheBest]

Since around january Ive been seeing this line of reasoning from several posters - people have actually been saying this.

"worst is best" has not been disproved.

25%>20% (second pick) > 16% > 12 % ....etc - and this is an undeniable fact. worst is best - this is an undeniable fact unless you have evidence that the draft is rigged in which case it wouldnt matter

But I do agree with you about not the guarantee about having a top 4 pick - that is the imperative aspect of having the worst

i seriously doubt you've seen posters post getting the 2nd or 3rd record is better odds then worst overall at the top overall.

Worst is not best because 25%<<<<<75%. The 25% is foolery. Of course it's rigged, the NBA doesnt advocate tanking, thats why they put %'s on it. Tanking for worst has rarely benefited any team. The guarantee is top 4, that is all.

There's a reason why the NBA wont do it like the NFL. The NFL has a fool proof worst is first.

Isn't he talking about worst being the best odds compared to other teams of getting the 1st pick? If u a betting man and u either wanna bet the worst team winning the lotto or the rest of the field, then of course u would bet the field. Even though the worst team hasn't won the lotto the most, that doesn't change the fact that the worst team do have the best odds compared to the other teams, and the past winners has no effect on the present winner.

I never talk about wanting the worst record for the first pick in the draft, I always talk about getting a 100% chance at being a top 4 pick. Cause I know that 75%>25%, but getting the extra odds compared to other teams doesn't hurt. Although I think that some people here act like they are already preparing on getting Okafor or Towns with the constant posting and threads arguing for either of the two, when the odds are not that great as it seems even with the worst record.

Exactly

[Thugger HBC]

Since around january Ive been seeing this line of reasoning from several posters - people have actually been saying this.

"worst is best" has not been disproved.

25%>20% (second pick) > 16% > 12 % ....etc - and this is an undeniable fact. worst is best - this is an undeniable fact unless you have evidence that the draft is rigged in which case it wouldnt matter

But I do agree with you about not the guarantee about having a top 4 pick - that is the imperative aspect of having the worst

i seriously doubt you've seen posters post getting the 2nd or 3rd record is better odds then worst overall at the top overall.

Worst is not best because 25%<<<<<75%. The 25% is foolery. Of course it's rigged, the NBA doesnt advocate tanking, thats why they put %'s on it. Tanking for worst has rarely benefited any team. The guarantee is top 4, that is all.

There's a reason why the NBA wont do it like the NFL. The NFL has a fool proof worst is first.

Isn't he talking about worst being the best odds compared to other teams of getting the 1st pick? If u a betting man and u either wanna bet the worst team winning the lotto or the rest of the field, then of course u would bet the field. Even though the worst team hasn't won the lotto the most, that doesn't change the fact that the worst team do have the best odds compared to the other teams, and the past winners has no effect on the present winner.

I never talk about wanting the worst record for the first pick in the draft, I always talk about getting a 100% chance at being a top 4 pick. Cause I know that 75%>25%, but getting the extra odds compared to other teams doesn't hurt. Although I think that some people here act like they are already preparing on getting Okafor or Towns with the constant posting and threads arguing for either of the two, when the odds are not that great as it seems even with the worst record.

Nah, he's openly defending winning the lottery, thats why he keeps bringing up the 25% odds.

I get it, 250 chances in a lot of 1001 is better odds than some who has 199. Thats obvious. but that aint how it works. Your 250 is stacked against the 1001, not against the 199 and so forth individually but rather collectively.

Look at it like this, if you have a 25% chance of living...chances are you're a dead man walking, but you have some hope if you want to call it that.

[IAmTheBest]

da **** come on man

I'm saying 250 vs 1001 is better than 199 vs 1001....plain and simple

meanwhile there are people on this board who believe that just because 2nd/3rd worst record wins more than worst record, it behooves the knicks to not be worst record

[Thugger HBC]

You only made this thread because the Knicks won, had they lost you wouldnt have made it. It happens every single time.

You're hoping to WIN the lottery, thats why you are defending the 25% when sensible fans want the worst record because it guarantees top 4 status.

Common sense tells you 25% isn't better than 75%. You cats act like when they choose who drafts third, then second, they are gonna toss the other combos out with it....they arent.

[kingquan316]

i seriously doubt you've seen posters post getting the 2nd or 3rd record is better odds then worst overall at the top overall.

Worst is not best because 25%<<<<<75%. The 25% is foolery. Of course it's rigged, the NBA doesnt advocate tanking, thats why they put %'s on it. Tanking for worst has rarely benefited any team. The guarantee is top 4, that is all.

There's a reason why the NBA wont do it like the NFL. The NFL has a fool proof worst is first.

Isn't he talking about worst being the best odds compared to other teams of getting the 1st pick? If u a betting man and u either wanna bet the worst team winning the lotto or the rest of the field, then of course u would bet the field. Even though the worst team hasn't won the lotto the most, that doesn't change the fact that the worst team do have the best odds compared to the other teams, and the past winners has no effect on the present winner.

I never talk about wanting the worst record for the first pick in the draft, I always talk about getting a 100% chance at being a top 4 pick. Cause I know that 75%>25%, but getting the extra odds compared to other teams doesn't hurt. Although I think that some people here act like they are already preparing on getting Okafor or Towns with the constant posting and threads arguing for either of the two, when the odds are not that great as it seems even with the worst record.

Nah, he's openly defending winning the lottery, thats why he keeps bringing up the 25% odds.

I get it, 250 chances in a lot of 1001 is better odds than some who has 199. Thats obvious. but that aint how it works. Your 250 is stacked against the 1001, not against the 199 and so forth individually but rather collectively.

Look at it like this, if you have a 25% chance of living...chances are you're a dead man walking, but you have some hope if you want to call it that.

I interpreted his post as an argument against people that says the team with the worst record hasn't won the lotto the most, so stop bitching about possibly not getting the worst record.

Idk, the odds are what they are, and when I see the percentage and the rules, I want that damn worst record, and it pisses me off that they are winning and giving even the slightest possibility of screwing themselves of a top 4 pick.

[Thugger HBC]

Isn't he talking about worst being the best odds compared to other teams of getting the 1st pick? If u a betting man and u either wanna bet the worst team winning the lotto or the rest of the field, then of course u would bet the field. Even though the worst team hasn't won the lotto the most, that doesn't change the fact that the worst team do have the best odds compared to the other teams, and the past winners has no effect on the present winner.

I never talk about wanting the worst record for the first pick in the draft, I always talk about getting a 100% chance at being a top 4 pick. Cause I know that 75%>25%, but getting the extra odds compared to other teams doesn't hurt. Although I think that some people here act like they are already preparing on getting Okafor or Towns with the constant posting and threads arguing for either of the two, when the odds are not that great as it seems even with the worst record.

Nah, he's openly defending winning the lottery, thats why he keeps bringing up the 25% odds.

I get it, 250 chances in a lot of 1001 is better odds than some who has 199. Thats obvious. but that aint how it works. Your 250 is stacked against the 1001, not against the 199 and so forth individually but rather collectively.

Look at it like this, if you have a 25% chance of living...chances are you're a dead man walking, but you have some hope if you want to call it that.

I interpreted his post as an argument against people that says the team with the worst record hasn't won the lotto the most, so stop bitching about possibly not getting the worst record.

Idk, the odds are what they are, and when I see the percentage and the rules, I want that damn worst record, and it pisses me off that they are winning and giving even the slightest possibility of screwing themselves of a top 4 pick.

Thats the point though, if that truly was his reasoning, then stop defending the 25%....it hasnt proven to be an advantage because it isnt.

The worst record's advantage in this draft is getting a consensus very good player with any pick between 1-4. Winning at this point might take that away. I fully agree on this point.