2025 Draft Lottery

[Billl]

It used to be envelopes. now you can essentially control by making the ball heavier

This is why the whole system needs to be thrown away. We can always point to the ping pong ball being heavier, the envelope being frozen, always going to be able to nit-pick it until we come up with something new.

Some pretty smart people in this league, you'd think there would be a true way to randomize this without 95% of NBA fans having to roll their eyes every other year when another miraculous outcome happens.

software lol

um, I'm sorry, but this is just not true. Actual randomization is one of the biggest outstanding computing problem. It's literally not a technology that exists.

Anyway, if you think conspiracy theorists who think the NBA is messing with the weight of pingpong balls will trust a computer generated "random" drawing, you are out of your mind.

[Invictus88]

This is why the whole system needs to be thrown away. We can always point to the ping pong ball being heavier, the envelope being frozen, always going to be able to nit-pick it until we come up with something new.

Some pretty smart people in this league, you'd think there would be a true way to randomize this without 95% of NBA fans having to roll their eyes every other year when another miraculous outcome happens.

software lol

um, I'm sorry, but this is just not true. Actual randomization is one of the biggest outstanding computing problem. It's literally not a technology that exists.

Anyway, if you think conspiracy theorists who think the NBA is messing with the weight of pingpong balls will trust a computer generated "random" drawing, you are out of your mind.

random.org uses atmospheric noise in its number generation which for all intents and purposes is likely good enough for most scenarios; including this one.
https://www.random.org/

At that point you could equate the atmospheric noise to subtle air currents flowing into the box with the ping pong balls or slight deformities in the balls caused by manufacturing processes. What is the definition of *truly* random? Which set of outside influences is more preferable?

In my opinion if it's no longer showing deterministic characteristics under scrutiny and over a good sample has outcomes matching calculated probabilities then it's good enough.

But you hit on the biggest problem and that's trust. Folks don't trust what they don't fully understand. Those same folks will then hungrily bite on a falsified explanation that is explained in terminology that they can relate to.

My conclusion is it doesn't matter what method is used to perform the lottery. There will always be those that distrust the results; especially if those results don't fall in line with their interests / narrative.

[Snakebites]

The fact you only see the end results and not the actual lottery is all you need to know. What are you hiding? Even playing number lottery across states, you actually see them draw the balls. The nba is rigged and stagged somewhat. The only conspiracy is denial imo

Sure.

Except this isn't true.

The actual drawing is available for anyone to watch.

[Billl]

software lol

um, I'm sorry, but this is just not true. Actual randomization is one of the biggest outstanding computing problem. It's literally not a technology that exists.

Anyway, if you think conspiracy theorists who think the NBA is messing with the weight of pingpong balls will trust a computer generated "random" drawing, you are out of your mind.

random.org uses atmospheric noise in its number generation which for all intents and purposes is likely good enough for most scenarios; including this one.
https://www.random.org/

At that point you could equate the atmospheric noise to subtle air currents flowing into the box with the ping pong balls or slight deformities in the balls caused by manufacturing processes. What is the definition of *truly* random? Which set of outside influences is more preferable?

In my opinion if it's no longer showing deterministic characteristics under scrutiny and over a good sample has outcomes matching calculated probabilities then it's good enough.

But you hit on the biggest problem and that's trust. Folks don't trust what they don't fully understand. Those same folks will then hungrily bite on a falsified explanation that is explained in terminology that they can relate to.

My conclusion is it doesn't matter what method is used to perform the lottery. There will always be those that distrust the results; especially if those results don't fall in line with their interests / narrative.

The pingpong balls are using randomness in air current circulation that nobody has been able to defeat using any existing tech. It's a much better solution. It's also infinitely easier for a regular human observer to verify. The whole thing is documented and shared live on the NBA tv connection with teams and the public. If that doesn't keep the crazies at bay, a black box computer solution absolutely will not.

[BadMofoPimp]

I doubt there was anything random about it. Probably some handshake deal behind closed doors as in give up Doncic to boost LA/Lebron and we give you AD and #1 draft pick. Should pacify some Mavs fans. NBA has been rigged for years so no surprise here. I actually expected this to happen.

[Cowology]

I dunno if we've really paid enough attention to SA. Wemby, Castle, Fox AND the #2?? That team is going to be a problem for a very long time.

[Invictus88]

um, I'm sorry, but this is just not true. Actual randomization is one of the biggest outstanding computing problem. It's literally not a technology that exists.

Anyway, if you think conspiracy theorists who think the NBA is messing with the weight of pingpong balls will trust a computer generated "random" drawing, you are out of your mind.

random.org uses atmospheric noise in its number generation which for all intents and purposes is likely good enough for most scenarios; including this one.
https://www.random.org/

At that point you could equate the atmospheric noise to subtle air currents flowing into the box with the ping pong balls or slight deformities in the balls caused by manufacturing processes. What is the definition of *truly* random? Which set of outside influences is more preferable?

In my opinion if it's no longer showing deterministic characteristics under scrutiny and over a good sample has outcomes matching calculated probabilities then it's good enough.

But you hit on the biggest problem and that's trust. Folks don't trust what they don't fully understand. Those same folks will then hungrily bite on a falsified explanation that is explained in terminology that they can relate to.

My conclusion is it doesn't matter what method is used to perform the lottery. There will always be those that distrust the results; especially if those results don't fall in line with their interests / narrative.

The pingpong balls are using randomness in air current circulation that nobody has been able to defeat using any existing tech. It's a much better solution. It's also infinitely easier for a regular human observer to verify. The whole thing is documented and shared live on the NBA tv connection with teams and the public. If that doesn't keep the crazies at bay, a black box computer solution absolutely will not.

I think we are in agreement but I still see folks talking about weighted ball theories in other threads. Some folks truly will not be satisfied.

But as an aside are you implying that someone has been able to defeat atmospheric noise-based randomness then? I agree having it behind a black box is far less desirable for the average joe and observability. But on just the merits of whether something is 'truly random' I don't see how either approach is any better than the other (which is something you previously claimed was not possible via computerized methods -- although maybe you claim sampling from the noise is cheating?).

[MortSahlfan]

I still don't believe the lottery is rigged, but boy that was the most suspicious outcome there could have been lol.

It annoys me that Nico Harrison gets Cooper Flagg through pure luck even though he has proven himself to be terrible at his job. Good for Mavs fans though who deserve a reason to cheer for their team again.

There's no way he made that trade. He gets paid to be the fall guy.

That's an ownership move.

I wouldn't be surprised if ownership pushed him to trade Luka. But I do think he was the one who decided to speak to the Lakers only and then accept that terrible trade return. Any GM competent at their job would've been able to net multiple young prospects and five first round picks for Luka.

When I read "It was too late - Nico gave him a verbal agreement" I thought "Even more bull".. As if he could just trade Luka without even mentioning it to ownership.

There could be a lot of reasons they got little back. Just weird to say they were afraid of Luka's availability (he was a week from returning, never had a major injury) while AD is much older and always injured (first game)..

[Billl]

random.org uses atmospheric noise in its number generation which for all intents and purposes is likely good enough for most scenarios; including this one.
https://www.random.org/

At that point you could equate the atmospheric noise to subtle air currents flowing into the box with the ping pong balls or slight deformities in the balls caused by manufacturing processes. What is the definition of *truly* random? Which set of outside influences is more preferable?

In my opinion if it's no longer showing deterministic characteristics under scrutiny and over a good sample has outcomes matching calculated probabilities then it's good enough.

But you hit on the biggest problem and that's trust. Folks don't trust what they don't fully understand. Those same folks will then hungrily bite on a falsified explanation that is explained in terminology that they can relate to.

My conclusion is it doesn't matter what method is used to perform the lottery. There will always be those that distrust the results; especially if those results don't fall in line with their interests / narrative.

The pingpong balls are using randomness in air current circulation that nobody has been able to defeat using any existing tech. It's a much better solution. It's also infinitely easier for a regular human observer to verify. The whole thing is documented and shared live on the NBA tv connection with teams and the public. If that doesn't keep the crazies at bay, a black box computer solution absolutely will not.

I think we are in agreement but I still see folks talking about weighted ball theories in other threads. Some folks truly will not be satisfied.

But as an aside are you implying that someone has been able to defeat atmospheric noise-based randomness then? I agree having it behind a black box is far less desirable for the average joe and observability. But on just the merits of whether something is 'truly random' I don't see how either approach is any better than the other (which is something you previously claimed was not possible via computerized methods -- although maybe you claim sampling from the noise is cheating?).

That is absolutely cheating in terms of computer science. It's just feeding a computer a randomized data sample. The problem in computing is GENERATING the randomized data. It's like saying you've got a self driving car but there when it's a human sitting with a joystick and directing the computer.

[BadMofoPimp]

There's no way he made that trade. He gets paid to be the fall guy.

That's an ownership move.

I wouldn't be surprised if ownership pushed him to trade Luka. But I do think he was the one who decided to speak to the Lakers only and then accept that terrible trade return. Any GM competent at their job would've been able to net multiple young prospects and five first round picks for Luka.

When I read "It was too late - Nico gave him a verbal agreement" I thought "Even more bull".. As if he could just trade Luka without even mentioning it to ownership.

There could be a lot of reasons they got little back. Just weird to say they were afraid of Luka's availability (he was a week from returning, never had a major injury) while AD is much older and always injured (first game)..

Lets say the NBA approached you and offered AD and the #1 overall pick for Luka to help their favorite child (Lebron/Lakers), would you say no?

[Invictus88]

The pingpong balls are using randomness in air current circulation that nobody has been able to defeat using any existing tech. It's a much better solution. It's also infinitely easier for a regular human observer to verify. The whole thing is documented and shared live on the NBA tv connection with teams and the public. If that doesn't keep the crazies at bay, a black box computer solution absolutely will not.

I think we are in agreement but I still see folks talking about weighted ball theories in other threads. Some folks truly will not be satisfied.

But as an aside are you implying that someone has been able to defeat atmospheric noise-based randomness then? I agree having it behind a black box is far less desirable for the average joe and observability. But on just the merits of whether something is 'truly random' I don't see how either approach is any better than the other (which is something you previously claimed was not possible via computerized methods -- although maybe you claim sampling from the noise is cheating?).

That is absolutely cheating in terms of computer science. It's just feeding a computer a randomized data sample. The problem in computing is GENERATING the randomized data. It's like saying you've got a self driving car but there when it's a human sitting with a joystick and directing the computer.

It's very much splitting hairs.

Yes, that particular piece of data was never generated on chip / within a circuit board. It wasn't from a clock tick. But if it's reliable, effective and readily available does. it. really. matter?

If I write an app and I use a library that fetches random numbers from random.org is the consumer of my app adversely affected in any way? Will the digital logic gods come strike me down because I utilize a few ones and zeros that didn't originate within the system?

Who cares?

I'd argue that clock signals might as well be considered cheating then. Because while they are integral to your cpu they are basically sampling a physical phenomena (measuring vibrations of a quartz crystal or ceramic) to generate your square wave. Is sampling a quartz crystal okay and sampling the atmosphere noise not?

[Billl]

I think we are in agreement but I still see folks talking about weighted ball theories in other threads. Some folks truly will not be satisfied.

But as an aside are you implying that someone has been able to defeat atmospheric noise-based randomness then? I agree having it behind a black box is far less desirable for the average joe and observability. But on just the merits of whether something is 'truly random' I don't see how either approach is any better than the other (which is something you previously claimed was not possible via computerized methods -- although maybe you claim sampling from the noise is cheating?).

That is absolutely cheating in terms of computer science. It's just feeding a computer a randomized data sample. The problem in computing is GENERATING the randomized data. It's like saying you've got a self driving car but there when it's a human sitting with a joystick and directing the computer.

It's very much splitting hairs.

Yes, that particular piece of data was never generated on chip / within a circuit board. It wasn't from a clock tick. But if it's reliable, effective and readily available does. it. really. matter?

If I write an app and I use a library that fetches random numbers from random.org is the consumer of my app adversely affected in any way? Will the digital logic gods come strike me down because I utilize a few ones and zeros that didn't originate within the system?

Who cares?

I'd argue that clock signals might as well be considered cheating then. Because while they are integral to your cpu they are basically sampling a physical phenomena (measuring vibrations of a quartz crystal or ceramic) to generate your square wave. Is sampling a quartz crystal okay and sampling the atmosphere noise not?

I'm sorry. This is very much not a debatable topic. It's absolutely not splitting hairs. It's one of the major unsolved problems of computing. If the difference isn't important to you, you are free to not care about it.

[Snakebites]

I dunno if we've really paid enough attention to SA. Wemby, Castle, Fox AND the #2?? That team is going to be a problem for a very long time.

Seems to make a lot of sense for them to trade the number 2 pick. Or I guess they could trade Fox.

But the number 2 pick will fetch a mighty price to a team looking to add a young point guard.

Either way they're in amazing shape. Of course the BIG asterisk with that is Wemby's health given what he was diagnosed with. It's the same sword of Damocles that is hanging over Ausar's career that we try not to think about.

But yeah, assuming we're being optimistic about that, the Spurs are tough. That was at least as annoying to me as the Mavs landing Flagg.

The West is set for a long time. We also could be seeing Giannis moving out west this offseason too My money is still on Houston for the Giannis sweepstakes.

[Invictus88]

That is absolutely cheating in terms of computer science. It's just feeding a computer a randomized data sample. The problem in computing is GENERATING the randomized data. It's like saying you've got a self driving car but there when it's a human sitting with a joystick and directing the computer.

It's very much splitting hairs.

Yes, that particular piece of data was never generated on chip / within a circuit board. It wasn't from a clock tick. But if it's reliable, effective and readily available does. it. really. matter?

If I write an app and I use a library that fetches random numbers from random.org is the consumer of my app adversely affected in any way? Will the digital logic gods come strike me down because I utilize a few ones and zeros that didn't originate within the system?

Who cares?

I'd argue that clock signals might as well be considered cheating then. Because while they are integral to your cpu they are basically sampling a physical phenomena (measuring vibrations of a quartz crystal or ceramic) to generate your square wave. Is sampling a quartz crystal okay and sampling the atmosphere noise not?

I'm sorry. This is very much not a debatable topic. It's absolutely not splitting hairs. It's one of the major unsolved problems of computing. If the difference isn't important to you, you are free to not care about it.

It's not an 'unsolved problem of computing'. That implies there is eventually a solution to be found.

You will never be able to create a non-deterministic outcome from a completely deterministic system. You can try to create facsimiles by increasing the complexity of deterministic actions you take until it is not humanly possible to tell the difference. But in the end it's simply a compilation of steps that, if followed in sequence, will always generate the same result (and therefore is not random).

I'm saying that it doesn't matter anymore. Suitable substitutions are available that, for all intents and purposes, function the same as if they were wholly computer-generated. To the consumer using the apps it's immaterial and indistinguishable. And because they come from non-deterministic sources they aren't subject to the same limitations as pure digital logic / computer science.

[Billl]

It's very much splitting hairs.

Yes, that particular piece of data was never generated on chip / within a circuit board. It wasn't from a clock tick. But if it's reliable, effective and readily available does. it. really. matter?

If I write an app and I use a library that fetches random numbers from random.org is the consumer of my app adversely affected in any way? Will the digital logic gods come strike me down because I utilize a few ones and zeros that didn't originate within the system?

Who cares?

I'd argue that clock signals might as well be considered cheating then. Because while they are integral to your cpu they are basically sampling a physical phenomena (measuring vibrations of a quartz crystal or ceramic) to generate your square wave. Is sampling a quartz crystal okay and sampling the atmosphere noise not?

I'm sorry. This is very much not a debatable topic. It's absolutely not splitting hairs. It's one of the major unsolved problems of computing. If the difference isn't important to you, you are free to not care about it.

It's not an 'unsolved problem of computing'. That implies there is eventually a solution to be found.

You will never be able to create a non-deterministic outcome from a completely deterministic system. You can try to create facsimiles by increasing the complexity of deterministic actions you take until it is not humanly possible to tell the difference. But in the end it's simply a compilation of steps that, if followed in sequence, will always generate the same result (and therefore is not random).

I'm saying that it doesn't matter anymore. Suitable substitutions are available that, for all intents and purposes, function the same as if they were wholly computer-generated. To the consumer using the apps it's immaterial and indistinguishable. And because they come from non-deterministic sources they aren't subject to the same limitations as pure digital logic / computer science.

You've got numerous faulty assumptions in your initial statement. Tolleges are very much still working on the problem. It's fine if you don't care. Go ahead and use the internal time functions in your program. However, that's very different then saying you just developed a way to tell time without using a quartz clock if step 1 is "give me the data from a quartz clock".

Anyway, we have a super easy pingpong ball lottery that is just as random as anything you'll be able to write and it's infinitely more verifiable.

[Invictus88]

I'm sorry. This is very much not a debatable topic. It's absolutely not splitting hairs. It's one of the major unsolved problems of computing. If the difference isn't important to you, you are free to not care about it.

It's not an 'unsolved problem of computing'. That implies there is eventually a solution to be found.

You will never be able to create a non-deterministic outcome from a completely deterministic system. You can try to create facsimiles by increasing the complexity of deterministic actions you take until it is not humanly possible to tell the difference. But in the end it's simply a compilation of steps that, if followed in sequence, will always generate the same result (and therefore is not random).

I'm saying that it doesn't matter anymore. Suitable substitutions are available that, for all intents and purposes, function the same as if they were wholly computer-generated. To the consumer using the apps it's immaterial and indistinguishable. And because they come from non-deterministic sources they aren't subject to the same limitations as pure digital logic / computer science.

You've got numerous faulty assumptions in your initial statement. Tolleges are very much still working on the problem. It's fine if you don't care. Go ahead and use the internal time functions in your program. However, that's very different then saying you just developed a way to tell time without using a quartz clock if step 1 is "give me the data from a quartz clock".

Anyway, we have a super easy pingpong ball lottery that is just as random as anything you'll be able to write and it's infinitely more verifiable.

No. I'm saying just call the api from random.org and fetch the randomization from there. I care that we are using something truly random. I just don't artificially hold on to a need that that data is coming directly from my cpu. My program still functions the same at the surface -- better in fact. That's what you don't seem to be getting? But we are going in circles.

[Billl]

It's not an 'unsolved problem of computing'. That implies there is eventually a solution to be found.

You will never be able to create a non-deterministic outcome from a completely deterministic system. You can try to create facsimiles by increasing the complexity of deterministic actions you take until it is not humanly possible to tell the difference. But in the end it's simply a compilation of steps that, if followed in sequence, will always generate the same result (and therefore is not random).

I'm saying that it doesn't matter anymore. Suitable substitutions are available that, for all intents and purposes, function the same as if they were wholly computer-generated. To the consumer using the apps it's immaterial and indistinguishable. And because they come from non-deterministic sources they aren't subject to the same limitations as pure digital logic / computer science.

You've got numerous faulty assumptions in your initial statement. Tolleges are very much still working on the problem. It's fine if you don't care. Go ahead and use the internal time functions in your program. However, that's very different then saying you just developed a way to tell time without using a quartz clock if step 1 is "give me the data from a quartz clock".

Anyway, we have a super easy pingpong ball lottery that is just as random as anything you'll be able to write and it's infinitely more verifiable.

No. I'm saying just call the api from random.org and fetch the randomization from there. I care that we are using something truly random. I just don't artificially hold on to a need that that data is coming directly from my cpu. My program still functions the same at the surface -- better in fact. That's what you don't seem to be getting? But we are going in circles.

I'm not even sure what you are arguing at this point. We already have a truly random mechanism for choosing numbers and nobody trusts it. Fetching data from an api isn't more reliable, more random, or more likely to make people trust the process. They literally draw the numbers in front of witnesses and stream the entire process so the whole world can see it and we still have people saying "if it wasn't rigged, why don't they show the drawing?"

Anyway, I was at a conference and this guy was demonstrating large models to predict world cup matches and it required a random seed. So he ran it all and england won. Then he ran it a few more times and they all came back with england winning. Then he scrolled down to the bottom and he had a line that set the winner to england no matter what the model predicted! That's what the conspiracy fans would assume is happening in if there was an NBA draft app. This isn't a problem with the tech used for the lottery.

[Invictus88]

You've got numerous faulty assumptions in your initial statement. Tolleges are very much still working on the problem. It's fine if you don't care. Go ahead and use the internal time functions in your program. However, that's very different then saying you just developed a way to tell time without using a quartz clock if step 1 is "give me the data from a quartz clock".

Anyway, we have a super easy pingpong ball lottery that is just as random as anything you'll be able to write and it's infinitely more verifiable.

No. I'm saying just call the api from random.org and fetch the randomization from there. I care that we are using something truly random. I just don't artificially hold on to a need that that data is coming directly from my cpu. My program still functions the same at the surface -- better in fact. That's what you don't seem to be getting? But we are going in circles.

I'm not even sure what you are arguing at this point. We already have a truly random mechanism for choosing numbers and nobody trusts it. Fetching data from an api isn't more reliable, more random, or more likely to make people trust the process. They literally draw the numbers in front of witnesses and stream the entire process so the whole world can see it and we still have people saying "if it wasn't rigged, why don't they show the drawing?"

Anyway, I was at a conference and this guy was demonstrating large models to predict world cup matches and it required a random seed. So he ran it all and england won. Then he ran it a few more times and they all came back with england winning. Then he scrolled down to the bottom and he had a line that set the winner to england no matter what the model predicted! That's what the conspiracy fans would assume is happening in if there was an NBA draft app. This isn't a problem with the tech used for the lottery.

I agreed entirely on the trust factor of using a more observable method of randomness. I differed on your assertion of the viability to obtain a good random solution using a computer and associated tools available. I'm not going further here. I'm sure folks are sick of this. Let's move on.

[mike06181]

Perhaps a change in the lottery so that the worse 5 teams are in a lottery for the top 5 spots and the rest of the non playoff teams in a separate lottery for picks 6- and on.

[Snakebites]

I'm not sure there is a happy medium here to be honest.

I think you're either incentivizing tanking or making it too likely that teams that are decent win the lottery.

A big part of the problem is the disparity in the conferances and the fact that all teams that miss the playoffs (regardless of record) are in the lottery. The Mavericks easily would have been a playoff team in the East. The Spurs would have been before Wemby went out.

There's definitely an argument that the lottery should be based on record rather than who's in the playoffs- that might help equalize the conferances a bit. But the western conferance owners would never agree to such a rule change.