Tied with Chicago

Rich4114 · Post #1 » by **Rich4114** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:05 am

So now that Chicago lost tonight, we are tied with them in the standings.

If we tie or have a better record than them, it's the difference between 8th and 9th place (or 28 chances to win the lottery vs 17). This always seems to happen to us at the end of seasons and we end up getting screwed. I know it's not as likely being that the 8th or 9th spots really never land a top 3 spot - but still. We could still technically tie NJ I believe too which would mean #11 worst case scenario. :banghead:

Post #2 » by **Paydro70** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:24 am

How do you figure #11? We're at #8, #9 if we fall behind Chicago... so we'd be #10 if we then fall behind NJ, which would require two losses by then and two wins by us. So #11 is not possible, and #10 extremely unlikely.

I'm hopeful that we get #8 instead of 9... it's almost double the chances at winning 1/2 in the lottery (5% sounds a lot better than 2.5%), and it's just one more chance that we miss out on a player we want.

Post #3 » by **BigSlam** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:47 pm

Lifted this from DanTown8587 on the draft board:

Here we have the list of where the three worse teams have drafted

2007
Memphis (4th), Boston (5th), Milwaukee (6th)

2006
Portland (4th), New York (2nd), Atlanta (5th), Charlotte (3rd)

2005
Atlanta (2nd), Charlotte (5th), New Orleans (6th)

2004
Orlando (1st), Chicago (3rd), Washington (5th)

2003
Cleveland (1st), Denver (3rd), Toronto (4th)

2002
Chicago (2nd), Golden State (3rd), Memphis (4th)

2001
Chicago (4th), Golden State (5th), Memphis (6th)

2000
LA Clippers (3rd), Chicago (4th), Golden State (5th)

1999
Vancouver (2nd), LA Clippers (4th), Chicago (1st)

1998
Denver (3rd), Toronto (4th), Golden State (5th)

1997
Vancouver (4th), Boston (3rd), San Antonio (1st)

1996
Philadelphia (1st), TOR, VAN expansion, Milwaukee (4th), Minnesota (5th)

1995
LA Clippers (2nd), Minnesota (5th), Washington (6th)

1994
Dallas (2nd), Milwaukee (1st), Detroit (3rd), Minnesota (4th)

Here is the teams that DID Draft Top 3 and where they came from:

2007
Portland (tie 6th), Seattle (5th), Atlanta (4th)

2006
Toronto (5th), New York (2nd), Charotte (tie 3rd)

2005
Milwaukee (6th), Atlanta (1st), Portland (5th)

2004
Orlando (1st), Charlotte (EXPAN), Chicago (3rd)

2003
Cleveland (1st), Memphis (6th), Denver (1st)

2002
Houston (5th), Chicago (1st), Golden State (3rd)

2001
Washington (3rd), LA Clippers (8th), Atlanta (5th)

2000
New Jersey (7th), Vancouver (4th), LA Clippers (3rd)

1999
Chicago (3rd), Vancouver (1st), Charlotte (13th)

1998
LA Clippers (3rd), Vancouver (4th), Denver (1st)

1997
San Antonio (3rd), Philadelphia (5th), Boston (1st)

1996
Philadelphia (1st), Toronto and Vancouver (EXP)

1995
Golden State (5th), LA Clippers (1st), Philadelphia (4th)

1994
Milwaukee (T2nd), Dallas (1st), Detroit (T2nd)

Post #4 » by **BigSlam** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:53 pm

The Blazers have been hellishly lucky jumping from #6 to #1 last year and #5 to #3 in 2005 (where they screwed the pooch and took Webster instead of Paul or Williams!!)

Post #5 » by **Paydro70** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:44 pm

....I still don't get why people look at what happened previously. Unless you think the system is rigged, we know EXACTLY what the odds are for us to get particular picks.

Rich4114 · Post #6 » by **Rich4114** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 3:17 pm

Paydro70 wrote:How do you figure #11? We're at #8, #9 if we fall behind Chicago... so we'd be #10 if we then fall behind NJ, which would require two losses by then and two wins by us. So #11 is not possible, and #10 extremely unlikely.

I'm hopeful that we get #8 instead of 9... it's almost double the chances at winning 1/2 in the lottery (5% sounds a lot better than 2.5%), and it's just one more chance that we miss out on a player we want.

My bad, I meant #10 worst case (assuming nobody behind us moves up of course).

We pretty much have no chance to land a top 3 pick. Only once has a team since 1994 got into the top 3 from 7th or 8th spots. I don't see any others higher than that except Charlotte when they were 13th and got Baron Davis.

They really do need to change the lottery system though. Imagine if a semi-good team sitting in the 6th through 14th lottery spots were to win the lottery and get a superstar type of player? You're giving those teams on the playoff bubble a chance to take the next step. Instead what ends up happening is a horrible team ends up being a little less horrible.

Post #7 » by **BigSlam** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 3:58 pm

Paydro70 wrote:....I still don't get why people look at what happened previously. Unless you think the system is rigged, we know EXACTLY what the odds are for us to get particular picks.

It's just interesting and puts it even more in perspective.

Looking at a 5% chance of improvement it's hard not to automatically think we are screwed. But if you look at the history you have something tangible, other than numbers and percentages, that shows there is some hope that we can jump up the draft board because there is proof of it happening before.

It's a glass half full approach.

_tijo_ · Post #8 » by **_tijo_** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:20 pm

I think a bigger deal is the 8 vs. 9 pick rather than the small jump in odds to get the #1.

Meaning that if we lost against the pistons a couple of years ago, we could have had the Chris Paul pick instead of Felton.

For me, that's a bigger deal than the odds of getting Beasley.

Post #9 » by **Paydro70** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:02 pm

We don't have almost no chance, and the fact that it hasn't happened has no relevance whatsoever. Actually, at 8th, our odds of #1 or #2 are closer to 6% than five, better than one in twenty. Unlikely, of course, but not even what I would call "tiny."

Granted, getting ninth, when our odds fall down below 4%, makes things a little harder.

Post #10 » by **Paydro70** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:06 pm

But Tijo, 4/5 is very different from 8/9. I don't know who'll be there at 8, but I'm guessing there's someone at 9 who I'll like about as much. It matters, of course, but there's no homeruns at that level.

amcoolio · Post #11 » by **amcoolio** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:14 pm

4-12 are pretty much all the same value. I rank Mayo a little higher than that bunch.

August Us Seazr · Post #12 » by **August Us Seazr** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:26 pm

Pretty thin odds. Only once has a team finishing 8th from the bottom of the standings been top three. NEVER has a 9th or 10th from the bottom team been top 3. That virtually eliminates our chances, based only on past lottery draws.It also increases our chances of moving back one or two spots. OH WELL! On to the "Best Bang for the Buck" guys.

But then........this is a Lottery. Miami will not have a lock on the # 1 pick. Neither will Minnesota or Memphis. So, there is still some hope. MJ will need to send the luckiest guy he's ever met to be our face for the lottery. And he will need to be the witness for the team. He' pretty darn lucky, himself! Let's see if he can't conjure up some of his brand of magic.

"Dreams of Okafor, Beasley and Crash on the front line"

_tijo_ · Post #13 » by **_tijo_** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:31 pm

Paydro,

You never know. There was a big fall off from 4/5 that year, and you never know who's going to drop. What if OJ starts dropping and it's a choice between OJ and like a DeAndre. One spot could be huge. It may not be huge. But it matters.

CarolinaCash · Post #14 » by **CarolinaCash** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:34 pm

We will win the lottery or will be in the top 3. The lottery is rigged. They help team that need a boost in ticket sales or is about to relocate or trying to stay in a city (Seattle). Charlotte needs a homerun in this draft and David Stern will give it to them.

Post #15 » by **BigSlam** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:32 pm

CarolinaCash wrote:We will win the lottery or will be in the top 3. The lottery is rigged. They help team that need a boost in ticket sales or is about to relocate or trying to stay in a city (Seattle). Charlotte needs a homerun in this draft and David Stern will give it to them.

Loving this glass half full post!!

:clap:

amcoolio · Post #16 » by **amcoolio** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:02 pm

I am in league with the idea that Stern is a crooked commissioner...however, as much as the Bobcats could use some help from Stern and get one of the top 2 picks I don't think he will allow it. This has all the makings of Miami getting #1 and Minny getting #2 (and not needing rose but taking him anyway).

Rich4114 · Post #17 » by **Rich4114** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:20 pm

CarolinaCash wrote:We will win the lottery or will be in the top 3. The lottery is rigged. They help team that need a boost in ticket sales or is about to relocate or trying to stay in a city (Seattle). Charlotte needs a homerun in this draft and David Stern will give it to them.

LOL, I wish. If this is the case, then it should be Charlotte #1, NY #2.

Ideally the West teams can go screw off and the top 3 picks can go to East teams to help shift the balance. It's out of hand now, the Toronto Raptors might make the playoffs as a 6th seed being under .500.

Charlotte #1
NY #2
Indiana #3

Charlotte gets a scoring big man who can rebound to fill in a huge hole, NY gets an awesome PG to fill in a huge hole, and Indiana can finally replace Cancer Tinsley and get back into the playoffs.

Giving top 3 picks to teams like the Clippers, Bucks, T-Wolves, or Grizzlies is like wasting them. And the Heat just won a championship so they deserve to suffer for a while since they traded everything away to get Shaq and have been tanking since the all-star break. The Bulls have already added 1000 lottery picks over the past 10 years, the Sonics are a mess and just got Durrant last year, and the T-Wolves consistantly make poor management decisions. The rest of the teams probably don't need a top 3 pick.