Board opinion: do we want to beat Miami?

[drosestruts]

Win. Then go beat the Cavs.

[The Explorer]

With the possibility of getting a game or two against Cleveland for this young squad, you have to take that as a big boost going into next season.

Just about everyone on the roster except Vucevic will theoretically be better next year, and you have a rookie coming in. There is no downside to getting playoff experience.

[ShouldaPaidBG]

Yes, I want a playoff series. We won't get completely rolled.

[Dan Z]

There's a name for people who prefer to move up 1-3 slots in the draft over winning in the playoffs, the name is LOSER. Your imaginary gain 4 year down the road from drafting some 19 year old who could be anywhere from RoY to flat out buster is a joke. Grab what you can now. What about FAs who are going to get the same basic contract from any of 4 teams do they pick the one who terminally loses at the end of the season, makes a quick exit from the play in or playoffs? No and you know why? When they sign with that loser team they don't just have the pressure of upping their game slightly, the spotlight is on them to make this team better to get well past the show up and lose bunch they've been, and the reason players don't want to walk in and be the guy pulling his new team up is he's got to play next to 6-9 guys who haven't learned to win those final games to advance and if they fail like they always have HE gets the blame.

For those that would prefer not to make the playoffs, I assume that's motivated more by having a chance, albeit a slim one, of moving into the top four. I doubt it's much about 12 vs. 15.

I agree...it's not about 1-3 spots in the draft. Either they end up with #13 or get lucky and are in the top part of the draft. I doubt the results will be anything else (if they miss the playoffs).

At this point my take is...just let it play out however it plays out.

As for free agents...nobody is coming to Chicago and if they want to come here it'll have to be through a trade.

[kodo]

Silver should really let the play-in teams retain their lotto odds even if they make the playoffs. Fans shouldn't ever even be having a discussion whether it's better to make the playoffs or not if the team is within range.

And conversely, a team already rewarded with high picks like Orlando and then losing twice in a row shouldn't be rewarded with a chance at Cooper Flagg or some other #1.

Play-in has largely been a success but the entire draft punishment for play-in winners was done poorly.

[ImSlower]

At this point I don't consider the 7.2% a relevant factor. A chance to steal one lucky win against Cleveland would most likely be a great step for our young guys.

Unfortunately for the tanking fans, Utah n co are far more willing to totally wreck their season than our FO. No way we get a top tier player except an extremely lucky trade win now. For instance, we get Zion and win the maybe 1 in 6 dice roll that he gives us four or five really great seasons.

In any case, two play in wins and a real playoff series, as likely a beat down as it would be, is the best bet to maybe somehow trade for a real star. The draft is no longer our goal.

So, go Bulls! I get to fully root for our guys to win win win. Then if we lose I can gnaw on the 7.2% of hope, I guess!

[jnrjr79]

At this point I don't consider the 7.2% a relevant factor. A chance to steal one lucky win against Cleveland would most likely be a great step for our young guys.

I can't really understand being a fan of a team whose last period of relevance was predicated on a 1.7% chance of getting the #1 pick and drafting Derrick Rose to not view the chance of moving up in the draft as a "relevant factor."

It doesn't really matter, because it's not like the Bulls at this point can really do anything one way or the other about it, but whether you're in the lottery or not is fairly significant in the scheme of things.

[ImSlower]

At this point I don't consider the 7.2% a relevant factor. A chance to steal one lucky win against Cleveland would most likely be a great step for our young guys.

I can't really understand being a fan of a team whose last period of relevance was predicated on a 1.7% chance of getting the #1 pick and drafting Derrick Rose to not view the chance of moving up in the draft as a "relevant factor."

It doesn't really matter, because it's not like the Bulls at this point can really do anything one way or the other about it, but whether you're in the lottery or not is fairly significant in the scheme of things.

I'm well aware of our lottery luck that year. And our lottery failings since. Don't worry, I vastly prefer a real chance at a franchise changing draft - but I advocated for losses/veteran benching back when we had realistic chances in the bottom 6. 92.8% of the time, the Bulls will have a #12 or 13 pick if we lose. Yes, one in thirteen universes, we zoom to an exciting Top 4 pick. So in this specific case, as of April 14th, I think play-in wins and a proper playoff series - even a beat-down - resulting in a #15 pick is a far superior scenario than losing, then receiving a #12 pick and hoping for a 1-in-13 dice roll to jump up. I hope that clarifies my description of relevance.

[jnrjr79]

At this point I don't consider the 7.2% a relevant factor. A chance to steal one lucky win against Cleveland would most likely be a great step for our young guys.

I can't really understand being a fan of a team whose last period of relevance was predicated on a 1.7% chance of getting the #1 pick and drafting Derrick Rose to not view the chance of moving up in the draft as a "relevant factor."

It doesn't really matter, because it's not like the Bulls at this point can really do anything one way or the other about it, but whether you're in the lottery or not is fairly significant in the scheme of things.

I'm well aware of our lottery luck that year. And our lottery failings since. Don't worry, I vastly prefer a real chance at a franchise changing draft - but I advocated for losses/veteran benching back when we had realistic chances in the bottom 6. 92.8% of the time, the Bulls will have a #12 or 13 pick if we lose. Yes, one in thirteen universes, we zoom to an exciting Top 4 pick. So in this specific case, as of April 14th, I think play-in wins and a proper playoff series - even a beat-down - resulting in a #15 pick is a far superior scenario than losing, then receiving a #12 pick and hoping for a 1-in-13 dice roll to jump up. I hope that clarifies my description of relevance.

Things that have a 7% chance of happening still happen fairly often. If I had a 7% chance of shooting myself playing Russian Roulette, I’d be freaked out, and if I have a 7% chance of winning Mega Millions, I’d be unbearably nervously excited.

But sure, I agree there is also potential developmental benefit if the young guys played well in the play-in/playoffs. I’m really fine with either scenario. I’m just not blasé about the fact that there is upside and downside to both scenarios.

[JohnnyKILLroy]

The fact that we’re in this with the kids and not Lavine and Derozan equals phukyeah go for the win.

[ImSlower]

I can't really understand being a fan of a team whose last period of relevance was predicated on a 1.7% chance of getting the #1 pick and drafting Derrick Rose to not view the chance of moving up in the draft as a "relevant factor."

It doesn't really matter, because it's not like the Bulls at this point can really do anything one way or the other about it, but whether you're in the lottery or not is fairly significant in the scheme of things.

I'm well aware of our lottery luck that year. And our lottery failings since. Don't worry, I vastly prefer a real chance at a franchise changing draft - but I advocated for losses/veteran benching back when we had realistic chances in the bottom 6. 92.8% of the time, the Bulls will have a #12 or 13 pick if we lose. Yes, one in thirteen universes, we zoom to an exciting Top 4 pick. So in this specific case, as of April 14th, I think play-in wins and a proper playoff series - even a beat-down - resulting in a #15 pick is a far superior scenario than losing, then receiving a #12 pick and hoping for a 1-in-13 dice roll to jump up. I hope that clarifies my description of relevance.

Things that have a 7% chance of happening still happen fairly often. If I had a 7% chance of shooting myself playing Russian Roulette, I’d be freaked out, and if I have a 7% chance of winning Mega Millions, I’d be unbearably nervously excited.

But sure, I agree there is also potential developmental benefit if the young guys played well in the play-in/playoffs. I’m really fine with either scenario. I’m just not blasé about the fact that there is upside and downside to both scenarios.

I think I just shouldn't have used the term "relevant", as we're both saying something close. I was an avid and careful gambler for a very long time. Simply saying "7% happens very often" doesn't mean anything to me - I understand precisely how often it happens over time. That's the precise definition of odds. In my opinion, the gamble for 7% odds at Top 4 is not as valuable as the victories. It's simply too low of odds for the expected return. Referring to our 1.7% victory as something to affect a decision in 2025 would be the definition of gambler's fallacy.

The counter-argument to hoping for wins is that it's arguable that the long-term affects on our current players if they simply lose this week vs. two marquee wins for their young careers and an inevitable loss to Cleveland wouldn't be much different. Matas will still be a great second year talent even if we lose to Miami, and then we can all collectively sit at the craps table and hope our 7% hits. In that sense, I'm with you in that I won't really be too bummed if we lose on Thursday, because like you said, a 7% event possibility is more exciting than knowing we're at #15 and probably drafting someone who won't elevate the franchise.

[jnrjr79]

I'm well aware of our lottery luck that year. And our lottery failings since. Don't worry, I vastly prefer a real chance at a franchise changing draft - but I advocated for losses/veteran benching back when we had realistic chances in the bottom 6. 92.8% of the time, the Bulls will have a #12 or 13 pick if we lose. Yes, one in thirteen universes, we zoom to an exciting Top 4 pick. So in this specific case, as of April 14th, I think play-in wins and a proper playoff series - even a beat-down - resulting in a #15 pick is a far superior scenario than losing, then receiving a #12 pick and hoping for a 1-in-13 dice roll to jump up. I hope that clarifies my description of relevance.

Things that have a 7% chance of happening still happen fairly often. If I had a 7% chance of shooting myself playing Russian Roulette, I’d be freaked out, and if I have a 7% chance of winning Mega Millions, I’d be unbearably nervously excited.

But sure, I agree there is also potential developmental benefit if the young guys played well in the play-in/playoffs. I’m really fine with either scenario. I’m just not blasé about the fact that there is upside and downside to both scenarios.

I think I just shouldn't have used the term "relevant", as we're both saying something close. I was an avid and careful gambler for a very long time. Simply saying "7% happens very often" doesn't mean anything to me - I understand precisely how often it happens over time. That's the precise definition of odds. In my opinion, the gamble for 7% odds at Top 4 is not as valuable as the victories. It's simply too low of odds for the expected return. Referring to our 1.7% victory as something to affect a decision in 2025 would be the definition of gambler's fallacy.

The counter-argument to hoping for wins is that it's arguable that the long-term affects on our current players if they simply lose this week vs. two marquee wins for their young careers and an inevitable loss to Cleveland wouldn't be much different. Matas will still be a great second year talent even if we lose to Miami, and then we can all collectively sit at the craps table and hope our 7% hits. In that sense, I'm with you in that I won't really be too bummed if we lose on Thursday, because like you said, a 7% event possibility is more exciting than knowing we're at #15 and probably drafting someone who won't elevate the franchise.

Yeah, I think we’re mostly on the same page here. We’re just weighing what scenario is better: 0 or 1 play-in wins, while staying in the lottery, vs. 2 play-in wins, losing in the first round (but gaining the experience of the “real” playoffs), and picking at 15, which is probably, but not certainly, close to where they’d be drafting anyway. I don’t think there a clear right or wrong answer here and am not bugged that people have different feelings about what would be best.

[sco]

Things that have a 7% chance of happening still happen fairly often. If I had a 7% chance of shooting myself playing Russian Roulette, I’d be freaked out, and if I have a 7% chance of winning Mega Millions, I’d be unbearably nervously excited.

But sure, I agree there is also potential developmental benefit if the young guys played well in the play-in/playoffs. I’m really fine with either scenario. I’m just not blasé about the fact that there is upside and downside to both scenarios.

I think I just shouldn't have used the term "relevant", as we're both saying something close. I was an avid and careful gambler for a very long time. Simply saying "7% happens very often" doesn't mean anything to me - I understand precisely how often it happens over time. That's the precise definition of odds. In my opinion, the gamble for 7% odds at Top 4 is not as valuable as the victories. It's simply too low of odds for the expected return. Referring to our 1.7% victory as something to affect a decision in 2025 would be the definition of gambler's fallacy.

The counter-argument to hoping for wins is that it's arguable that the long-term affects on our current players if they simply lose this week vs. two marquee wins for their young careers and an inevitable loss to Cleveland wouldn't be much different. Matas will still be a great second year talent even if we lose to Miami, and then we can all collectively sit at the craps table and hope our 7% hits. In that sense, I'm with you in that I won't really be too bummed if we lose on Thursday, because like you said, a 7% event possibility is more exciting than knowing we're at #15 and probably drafting someone who won't elevate the franchise.

Yeah, I think we’re mostly on the same page here. We’re just weighing what scenario is better: 0 or 1 play-in wins, while staying in the lottery, vs. 2 play-in wins, losing in the first round (but gaining the experience of the “real” playoffs), and picking at 15, which is probably, but not certainly, close to where they’d be drafting anyway. I don’t think there a clear right or wrong answer here and am not bugged that people have different feelings about what would be best.

If you throw out the #1 pick, does your answer change? Are Harper or Bailey so likely to be better than whoever is there at 15? I feel like they had a lot of preseason buzz, then failed to separate themselves into the top tier.

[jnrjr79]

I think I just shouldn't have used the term "relevant", as we're both saying something close. I was an avid and careful gambler for a very long time. Simply saying "7% happens very often" doesn't mean anything to me - I understand precisely how often it happens over time. That's the precise definition of odds. In my opinion, the gamble for 7% odds at Top 4 is not as valuable as the victories. It's simply too low of odds for the expected return. Referring to our 1.7% victory as something to affect a decision in 2025 would be the definition of gambler's fallacy.

The counter-argument to hoping for wins is that it's arguable that the long-term affects on our current players if they simply lose this week vs. two marquee wins for their young careers and an inevitable loss to Cleveland wouldn't be much different. Matas will still be a great second year talent even if we lose to Miami, and then we can all collectively sit at the craps table and hope our 7% hits. In that sense, I'm with you in that I won't really be too bummed if we lose on Thursday, because like you said, a 7% event possibility is more exciting than knowing we're at #15 and probably drafting someone who won't elevate the franchise.

Yeah, I think we’re mostly on the same page here. We’re just weighing what scenario is better: 0 or 1 play-in wins, while staying in the lottery, vs. 2 play-in wins, losing in the first round (but gaining the experience of the “real” playoffs), and picking at 15, which is probably, but not certainly, close to where they’d be drafting anyway. I don’t think there a clear right or wrong answer here and am not bugged that people have different feelings about what would be best.

If you throw out the #1 pick, does your answer change? Are Harper or Bailey so likely to be better than whoever is there at 15? I feel like they had a lot of preseason buzz, then failed to separate themselves into the top tier.

There’s no reason to throw out the #1 pick, but even if you did, sure, I’d find it a lot better to have #3 than #15.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

tHe eXperIenCe is sOoo vaLuaBle.

Nevermind the greatest event in this franchise in this century was a lottery ball win (sad I know), but getting stomped in 3 games is going to great. For some reason.

[_txchilibowl_]

tHe eXperIenCe is sOoo vaLuaBle.

Nevermind the greatest event in this franchise in this century was a lottery ball win (sad I know), but getting stomped in 3 games is going to great. For some reason.

The odds of us moving up in the draft are probably less than us drafting another Matas at #15. There's more than one way to acquire talent.

[kodo]

tHe eXperIenCe is sOoo vaLuaBle.

Nevermind the greatest event in this franchise in this century was a lottery ball win (sad I know), but getting stomped in 3 games is going to great. For some reason.

The odds of us moving up in the draft are probably less than us drafting another Matas at #15. There's more than one way to acquire talent.

Agreed, there's two sides to the drafting luck. One is to luck into the top and get an expected star like Ja or Anthony Davis. The other is to pick somewhere in the 1st round and get an unexpected star like Giannis, Booker, Maxey. But the important thing to keep your pick and not give it to Orlando.

[DropStep]

tHe eXperIenCe is sOoo vaLuaBle.

Nevermind the greatest event in this franchise in this century was a lottery ball win (sad I know), but getting stomped in 3 games is going to great. For some reason.

The odds of us moving up in the draft are probably less than us drafting another Matas at #15. There's more than one way to acquire talent.

There is, but then again, Matas was available at #11 and wouldn't have been at #15. So these things do make a difference - moving from 12 to 13 to 15, for example. But going back to your point again, Kel'el Ware was #15 last year. We do have a chance at getting a contributor at 15, a decent chance, even. It's all tiny percentage points that could turn into big outcomes - or they don't, and we'll never really get the answer, and know if those extra percentage points made a difference or not. The only thing we can say for sure is that if you're in the playoffs - that's a tangible, real thing. And it's probably good.

In considering this I realized it took me into the nature of belief in fate, luck, superstition, odds, basketball karma, winning culture, determinism vs. free will, and the (basketball) gods. (And frozen envelopes.) So, nothing big.

[dougthonus]

Things that have a 7% chance of happening still happen fairly often. If I had a 7% chance of shooting myself playing Russian Roulette, I’d be freaked out, and if I have a 7% chance of winning Mega Millions, I’d be unbearably nervously excited.

But sure, I agree there is also potential developmental benefit if the young guys played well in the play-in/playoffs. I’m really fine with either scenario. I’m just not blasé about the fact that there is upside and downside to both scenarios.

This is about where I am at. Also toss in the odds that #15 could be a star too. Maybe they're low, but are they lower than 5%? We've had Kawhi and Giannis in the pastif you make the playoffs, and the gap becomes even smaller.

Also, our actual pick odds of moving up are 5.7% total because we are tied for 12th so we split the odds of 12 and 13, we don't have the #12 pick odds overall. We have a 1.2% chance at the guy people think will be a superstar.

Looking at the 60 players drafted from 2001-2020 in slots 15-17 (say we took a guy in this clump and we aren't looking at exactly one slot). Choosing those years to try and give us a wider sample size without going too far back in history where people were super terrible drafting and avoiding some recent years as those guys haven't had enough time (Sengun is potentially on this path already, which probably leaves total odds about the same if you add years).

Superstars:
Kawhi
Giannis

Multitime all-Stars:
Vucevic
Jrue Holiday

Effectively a 3.3% chance at a superstar, and another 3.3% chance of a multiple time all-star, or about the same odds as moving up and getting a superstar.

[dice]

Silver should really let the play-in teams retain their lotto odds even if they make the playoffs. Fans shouldn't ever even be having a discussion whether it's better to make the playoffs or not if the team is within range.

And conversely, a team already rewarded with high picks like Orlando and then losing twice in a row shouldn't be rewarded with a chance at Cooper Flagg or some other #1.

Play-in has largely been a success but the entire draft punishment for play-in winners was done poorly.

i've been advocating a 30 team lottery (30 "balls" for worst team) for years to avoid any team ever wanting to lose. draw for every slot rather than just top 4. every team could theoretically end up anywhere from 1-30. best night of the nba year would be the multi-hour lotto