What Are the Odds the Lakers Make the Playoffs?

[AdagioPace]

they wouldn't make the playoffs even with Paul George + current Lakers' roster in the West, let alone this current bunch of teenagers and scrubs

greatly superior teams like Blazers,Pelicans,Nuggets,Grizzlies are not guaranteed to make the playoffs

[baldur]

Lmao Rings dont lie is such a tease

Ok well look at this. These are the amount of games each player I listed played last season:

brook lopez: 75 games
Brandon Ingram: 79 games
Larry Nance: 63 games
KCP: 76 games
Randle: 74 games

Ball and Kuzma are both young so I don't see them getting major injuries that would sideline them for 15 games. I'm talking 15 consecutive games due to injury. Not miss one game here, miss one game there because of a flu, 5 days because of food poisoning, it has to be consecutive 15 games due to an injury. Larry Nance was the only guy last season that missed 19 games and I'm not even sure if that was consecutive.

How is that better? There's a very high chance at least one of them misses at least 15 games. There's not a high chance that the Lakers playoff.

Not a high chance at all. See post above. All the guys except one didn't even miss 10 games. Most of the guys I listed are in their early 20s. Lopez probably the oldest of the group and he played 75 games last season. Any poster can take this bet. I'm surprised the guy that said Moz is better than Lopez hasn't taken the bet.

I think most people here really believe that if the Lakers stay healthy they will get to the playoffs.

Please. You're using a one season sample of data and in that sample, one of your guys would have voided the bet.

Also, you made the amount of wins more favorable for yourself as well. I said playoffs, which is likely going to be 41-45 wins this year, and now you're adjusting to 40.

If you or anyone else is confident that the Lakers are making the playoffs, I want to hold you accountable to that claim, not some more favorable scenario.

Even though he might be trolling, he is right on this one. 15 games is a fair number considering their injury history, and he says 15 consecutive games which makes it fairer. And then you are complaining about the size of sample data, we are a mainly team of rookies and sophomores, how large could the data possibly be? Of course we should take into account the last season. Plus you are also complaining about the number of games should be won, instead you ask for using making the playoffs as barrier. 40 wins is not far from making the playoffs. So this is another excuse by you.

[TTP]

Ok well look at this. These are the amount of games each player I listed played last season:

brook lopez: 75 games
Brandon Ingram: 79 games
Larry Nance: 63 games
KCP: 76 games
Randle: 74 games

Ball and Kuzma are both young so I don't see them getting major injuries that would sideline them for 15 games. I'm talking 15 consecutive games due to injury. Not miss one game here, miss one game there because of a flu, 5 days because of food poisoning, it has to be consecutive 15 games due to an injury. Larry Nance was the only guy last season that missed 19 games and I'm not even sure if that was consecutive.



Not a high chance at all. See post above. All the guys except one didn't even miss 10 games. Most of the guys I listed are in their early 20s. Lopez probably the oldest of the group and he played 75 games last season. Any poster can take this bet. I'm surprised the guy that said Moz is better than Lopez hasn't taken the bet.

I think most people here really believe that if the Lakers stay healthy they will get to the playoffs.

Please. You're using a one season sample of data and in that sample, one of your guys would have voided the bet.

Also, you made the amount of wins more favorable for yourself as well. I said playoffs, which is likely going to be 41-45 wins this year, and now you're adjusting to 40.

If you or anyone else is confident that the Lakers are making the playoffs, I want to hold you accountable to that claim, not some more favorable scenario.

Even though he might be trolling, he is right on this one. 15 games is a fair number considering their injury history, and he says 15 consecutive games which makes it fairer. And then you are complaining about the size of sample data, we are a mainly team of rookies and sophomores, how large could the data possibly be? Of course we should take into account the last season. Plus you are also complaining about the number of games should be won, instead you ask for using making the playoffs as barrier. 40 wins is not far from making the playoffs. So this is another excuse by you.

How is it another excuse by me? My only request was that I'd bet anyone against the Lakers making the playoffs. That was literally the only condition. Seems pretty reasonable to ask for that condition to be met.

As far as how large the data could be. You would look at the historical average injury rate for NBA players, and then use that to consider the probability that one out of seven rotation players gets injured for 15+ games. I think you'd find the bet would get voided a very large percentage of the time, which is why the condition is ridiculous.

[ckman]

Even though he might be trolling, he is right on this one. 15 games is a fair number considering their injury history, and he says 15 consecutive games which makes it fairer. And then you are complaining about the size of sample data, we are a mainly team of rookies and sophomores, how large could the data possibly be? Of course we should take into account the last season. Plus you are also complaining about the number of games should be won, instead you ask for using making the playoffs as barrier. 40 wins is not far from making the playoffs. So this is another excuse by you.

That's not a fair bet at all. It might be acceptable if the condition is bets voided due to injury of one or two top players .
7 people including bench players is ridiculous. Basically , to bet against RDL , you're betting on all of those 7 players without serious injury the whole season instead of how Lakers perform.
One freak accident to anyone of them, and you're either draw or lose your bets.

[markjay]

Well 5% (1 in 20) would be 19-1 odds, but if I were going to risk money on this, I'm certainly not doing it for a charity bet. I'm also not making a real money bet with a random that I don't know because the risk of getting freerolled is too great. Also, my goal would be to make a favorable bet for myself, not a breakeven one. If I'm going to tie up 1900 dollars on a bet that lasts the next year plus, I'm going to want considerably more favorable odds. Finally, I can't imagine real money bets are allowed per forum rules.

I'm not interested at all in making fractional expected value bets here. I'm only interested in making lock bets with homers that make outlandish claims.

I said 20-1 because you said "less than 5%" and that would be generous. Anyway, thanks for making it clear who doesn't want to be held accountable for their outlandish views


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

That's an interesting interpretation for not wanting to make a close to breakeven bet where if I win, I risk not getting paid, and don't even get the financial reward myself for a view that, by your own admission, I wasn't boldly proclaiming and had to be asked about. You want me to tie up 2000 dollars for a year making a bet for an expected value of likely <30 dollars that I might get freerolled on, and my unwillingness to do that means I don't want to be held accountable.

Claiming that the Lakers have a very small chance of making the playoffs is also much closer to popular opinion than claiming they are greater than 50%. If someone said they thought the Lakers were 20% to make the playoffs, I'd think they were being pretty generous, but probably wouldn't deem them worthy of being called out for an outrageous take.

Fair enough. However, if you are interested in calling out outlandish views, let's look at where they are coming from. More than 20 people in this thread said that the Lakers have a 0.01% chance or less of making the playoffs. One person said ".00000001%" . I would say the outlandish views are heavily unbalanced in the direction of underestimation, as these assertions (.01% or less) are underestimations by at least 100 fold from even a very negative realistic assessment of the actual odds of the Lakers making the playoffs.

[JellosJigglin]

Please. You're using a one season sample of data and in that sample, one of your guys would have voided the bet.

Also, you made the amount of wins more favorable for yourself as well. I said playoffs, which is likely going to be 41-45 wins this year, and now you're adjusting to 40.

If you or anyone else is confident that the Lakers are making the playoffs, I want to hold you accountable to that claim, not some more favorable scenario.

Even though he might be trolling, he is right on this one. 15 games is a fair number considering their injury history, and he says 15 consecutive games which makes it fairer. And then you are complaining about the size of sample data, we are a mainly team of rookies and sophomores, how large could the data possibly be? Of course we should take into account the last season. Plus you are also complaining about the number of games should be won, instead you ask for using making the playoffs as barrier. 40 wins is not far from making the playoffs. So this is another excuse by you.

How is it another excuse by me? My only request was that I'd bet anyone against the Lakers making the playoffs. That was literally the only condition. Seems pretty reasonable to ask for that condition to be met.

As far as how large the data could be. You would look at the historical average injury rate for NBA players, and then use that to consider the probability that one out of seven rotation players gets injured for 15+ games. I think you'd find the bet would get voided a very large percentage of the time, which is why the condition is ridiculous.

Just remove Nance from the list. He missed 16 consecutive games so he barely broke the threshold. Considering how flippantly people wave off the Lakers it really doesn't seem that crazy for him to put a *if healthy* contingency on the bet. Is that the thing that suddenly turns people's confidence? There are people saying even if they added PG13 they'd still have no chance, so what's the worry in RDL saying they have a chance if they're healthy. The only other Laker fan I see making that prediction is Lavar Ball.

[dho4ever]

Even though he might be trolling, he is right on this one. 15 games is a fair number considering their injury history, and he says 15 consecutive games which makes it fairer. And then you are complaining about the size of sample data, we are a mainly team of rookies and sophomores, how large could the data possibly be? Of course we should take into account the last season. Plus you are also complaining about the number of games should be won, instead you ask for using making the playoffs as barrier. 40 wins is not far from making the playoffs. So this is another excuse by you.

How is it another excuse by me? My only request was that I'd bet anyone against the Lakers making the playoffs. That was literally the only condition. Seems pretty reasonable to ask for that condition to be met.

As far as how large the data could be. You would look at the historical average injury rate for NBA players, and then use that to consider the probability that one out of seven rotation players gets injured for 15+ games. I think you'd find the bet would get voided a very large percentage of the time, which is why the condition is ridiculous.

Just remove Nance from the list. He missed 16 consecutive games so he barely broke the threshold. Considering how flippantly people wave off the Lakers it really doesn't seem that crazy for him to put a *if healthy* contingency on the bet. Is that the thing that suddenly turns people's confidence? There are people saying even if they added PG13 they'd still have no chance, so what's the worry in RDL saying they have a chance if they're healthy. The only other Laker fan I see making that prediction is Lavar Ball.

the contingency is stupid because its a very easy failsafe for the person who Proposed it to get to out of the bet.
And at the same time, its stupid because its valid even if the contingency happens but then everything goes in his favor.
So in short, no we're not hating on Rings for being a Laker fan. We're hating on him for being a 3 year old.

[Lalouie]

going on last season's final standings, lal would need +15 wins to get to the #8 seed. if one is to assume there might be dropoff of a couple of teams like the jazz and clips, 1)how much will they really drop, 2) what about the five teams ahead of the lakers that didnt make the playoffs, including the kings, pelicans, and timberwolves, 3)and for some context about getting +15wins,,,jordan +11, magic+11, lebron +18, shaq+21,,,and do the lakers have any real stars. so aside from getting 41 wins the lakers have to jump over 5 other non-playoff teams to do it

= chances are a zillion to 1....and i love zo

Lakers will be battling the clipps or jaxzz for the last two spots it would seem. You will see how bad the clipps are without cp3. Steep drop off for them.

If the Clips are done you better nab that over/under on their record and bet big on the under. I mean right now Vegas has them at 41 and a 1/2 wins so Vegas already expects a drop but it seems like you are predicting they would be lucky to win 40 games.

Either that or bet on your Lakers for over they are 32.5 wins now which is out of the playoff picture in most cases so if they are clearly a playoff team then that's an easy win with the over.

i'd bet over because of lonzo. his affect in the team will be deep, even though they lack a star. 7 games seems a bit trifling to me