Board opinion: do we want to beat Miami?

[Hangtime84]

I think they need to go through pain and watch all those high turnover games together

[Hangtime84]

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.

Hit with your two way contracts

[ChiTownHero1992]

Heres the thing, no one cheers for losing, even the pro-tank crowd isn't cheering for losing they cheer for making the team better via the draft, via more losses. Everyone wants to see the team succeed and win, that is why we are fans of the team. However many of us see that this team isn't really a playoff team and isn't really a top lotto pick team either which perpetually makes it 10x harder to improve.

Sure i'd love to see them beat Miami, then beat ORL/ATL for a playoff shot but i'm not sure they're good enough to do so. I also wonder how lets say we do win the 2 games and get swept by CLE, how does that affect the coaches, the young guys, etc (hard work for nothing basically).

So yes, i want to watch wins, but no i wouldn't care if the loss comes and they could look to improving their team for next season in hopes we're not in the same exact situation (my guess we will be).

[dougthonus]

FWIW, our odds of moving up are 5.7% not the 7% quoted because we're tied for 12th, not 12th outright.

Also, over the past 20 years the odds of drafting a star from ~15-17 range are considerably higher than the odds of moving up from 12/13 split range AND drafting a star after moving up. The odds of drafting a star from ~15-17 is about 6.6%. The odds of moving up AND drafting a star after moving up generically are probably about 2.5%-3%. Plus you'd get the odds of staying and drafting a star at 12/13, which are higher, but the overall marginal benefit of the odds of moving up is really small.

[jnrjr79]

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.

Sure. That makes sense as far as it goes. But the scenario is really this, basically:

94% chance of drafting #12 plus a 6% chance of moving up and having a significantly increased chance of that player becoming a star vs. drafting at around #15 and having the odds you referenced.

According to this, https://hoopshype.com/lists/nba-draft-history-how-likely-are-you-to-land-a-star-at-each-pick/, there is a 65% chance at #1, 42% chance at #2 45% chance at #3, and 34% chance at #4 of the pick becoming an All-Star. Rounding the numbers, there's a 13% chance at #12, but only a 7% chance at 15 (roughly the same as you noted), so there does seem to be some meaningful difference at those slots, even if the Bulls didn't move up.

So, the scenario here is, roughly:

Lose to Miami:

.94 (chance of not moving up) x .13 (chance #12 is an All-Star) + .06 (chance of moving up) x .46% (chance of star in top 4) = 21% overall chance of securing an All-Star.

Go to playoffs:

7% chance of securing an All-Star at #15.

It's a fairly significant swing. I'm not the biggest math whiz, so let me know if you see anything wrong with this thinking.

[cocktailswith_2short]

There's plenty of dumb gms a good prospect will drop we just have to identify. Look at matas no way he should have made it to 11.

[DuckIII]

FWIW, our odds of moving up are 5.7% not the 7% quoted because we're tied for 12th, not 12th outright.

Also, over the past 20 years the odds of drafting a star from ~15-17 range are considerably higher than the odds of moving up from 12/13 split range AND drafting a star after moving up. The odds of drafting a star from ~15-17 is about 6.6%. The odds of moving up AND drafting a star after moving up generically are probably about 2.5%-3%. Plus you'd get the odds of staying and drafting a star at 12/13, which are higher, but the overall marginal benefit of the odds of moving up is really small.

And I’d rather have those odds than not have them because our team still has considerable work to do in the talent acquisition department. If we had a clear franchise player and core you can project as contending quality I would prefer the playoff experience. But we aren’t even close to that.

Loss please.

[Guru]

Isnt he real question do we want to beat Orlando/Atlanta....Does beating Miami do anything for our draft order?

[cocktailswith_2short]

Isnt he real question do we want to beat Orlando/Atlanta....Does beating Miami do anything for our draft order?

you're correct. Beating Miami drops us one spot right ?

[DuckIII]

I won’t cheer for a loss

I have many times. And will again Wednesday and the game after that if we win.

[DuckIII]

As a fan you don't root against your team for a 7% chance at a top 4 pick.

I’m a Bulls fan. How does one reconcile that?

[cocktailswith_2short]

I won’t cheer for a loss

I have many times. And will again Wednesday and the game after that if we win.

Lol at least you're consistent.

[DuckIII]

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.

If the Bulls actually do reach the playoffs, I assume 100% of us will be rooting mightily for a win.

[prolific passer]

Be nice if the bulls win but the heat are more experienced and are better coached so don't be surprise if they lose. At least they get a lottery pick if they lose in a pretty deep draft.

[Guru]

Isnt he real question do we want to beat Orlando/Atlanta....Does beating Miami do anything for our draft order?

you're correct. Beating Miami drops us one spot right ?

I dont think we move at all.

[dougthonus]

FWIW, our odds of moving up are 5.7% not the 7% quoted because we're tied for 12th, not 12th outright.

Also, over the past 20 years the odds of drafting a star from ~15-17 range are considerably higher than the odds of moving up from 12/13 split range AND drafting a star after moving up. The odds of drafting a star from ~15-17 is about 6.6%. The odds of moving up AND drafting a star after moving up generically are probably about 2.5%-3%. Plus you'd get the odds of staying and drafting a star at 12/13, which are higher, but the overall marginal benefit of the odds of moving up is really small.

And I’d rather have those odds than not have them because our team still has considerable work to do in the talent acquisition department. If we had a clear franchise player and core you can project as contending quality I would prefer the playoff experience. But we aren’t even close to that.

Loss please.

FWIW, we can beat Miami and lose to the loser of Orlando/Atlanta and have the same odds, which is maybe the ideal scenario for someone who roots for the odds.

[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.

Sure. That makes sense as far as it goes. But the scenario is really this, basically:

94% chance of drafting #12 plus a 6% chance of moving up and having a significantly increased chance of that player becoming a star vs. drafting at around #15 and having the odds you referenced.

According to this, https://hoopshype.com/lists/nba-draft-history-how-likely-are-you-to-land-a-star-at-each-pick/, there is a 65% chance at #1, 42% chance at #2 45% chance at #3, and 34% chance at #4 of the pick becoming an All-Star. Rounding the numbers, there's a 13% chance at #12, but only a 7% chance at 15 (roughly the same as you noted), so there does seem to be some meaningful difference at those slots, even if the Bulls didn't move up.

So, the scenario here is, roughly:

Lose to Miami:

.94 (chance of not moving up) x .13 (chance #12 is an All-Star) + .06 (chance of moving up) x .46% (chance of star in top 4) = 21% overall chance of securing an All-Star.

Go to playoffs:

7% chance of securing an All-Star at #15.

It's a fairly significant swing. I'm not the biggest math whiz, so let me know if you see anything wrong with this thinking.

I think this is correct mathematically except that their calculations for values at picks aren't done in a sound way. They are using the literal results of each selection, and aren't smoothing out the curve, so that they have things like you're 0% likely to get an MVP at 14 but 3% likely at 15. Well at 14, you could have taken the guy at 15.

That said, ignoring this quibble, you are correct that I didn't properly account for the gap between what happens at 12 vs 15 when you stay, but I think you'd need to do a lot more work to figure out how big that gap really is vs using their numbers, and I think deciding that methodology to do so fairly is more detail than I want to get into.

[jnrjr79]

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.

Sure. That makes sense as far as it goes. But the scenario is really this, basically:

94% chance of drafting #12 plus a 6% chance of moving up and having a significantly increased chance of that player becoming a star vs. drafting at around #15 and having the odds you referenced.

According to this, https://hoopshype.com/lists/nba-draft-history-how-likely-are-you-to-land-a-star-at-each-pick/, there is a 65% chance at #1, 42% chance at #2 45% chance at #3, and 34% chance at #4 of the pick becoming an All-Star. Rounding the numbers, there's a 13% chance at #12, but only a 7% chance at 15 (roughly the same as you noted), so there does seem to be some meaningful difference at those slots, even if the Bulls didn't move up.

So, the scenario here is, roughly:

Lose to Miami:

.94 (chance of not moving up) x .13 (chance #12 is an All-Star) + .06 (chance of moving up) x .46% (chance of star in top 4) = 21% overall chance of securing an All-Star.

Go to playoffs:

7% chance of securing an All-Star at #15.

It's a fairly significant swing. I'm not the biggest math whiz, so let me know if you see anything wrong with this thinking.

I think this is correct mathematically except that their calculations for values at picks aren't done in a sound way. They are using the literal results of each selection, and aren't smoothing out the curve, so that they have things like you're 0% likely to get an MVP at 14 but 3% likely at 15. Well at 14, you could have taken the guy at 15.

That said, ignoring this quibble, you are correct that I didn't properly account for the gap between what happens at 12 vs 15 when you stay, but I think you'd need to do a lot more work to figure out how big that gap really is vs using their numbers, and I think deciding that methodology to do so fairly is more detail than I want to get into.

I did note looking at their data that it's a relatively smooth decline as you go through the draft - so to your point, I think smoothing it would give you pretty good picture, but looking at the surrounding picks, I think what I put together is in the general ballpark of what it would look like if you smoothed it.

[kodo]

I did note looking at their data that it's a relatively smooth decline as you go through the draft - so to your point, I think smoothing it would give you pretty good picture, but looking at the surrounding picks, I think what I put together is in the general ballpark of what it would look like if you smoothed it.

Doesn't look very smooth to me at least in terms of getitng at least an All-Star, there's a huge decline after top 11 and then almost no decline.

It is interesting that once you draft lower than 11, it doesn't matter. There's not a big difference in All Star results between #12, #18, and #24. That coincides with what we've seen from GMs in pick protections, they usually put in protections for top 12. And of course, we're most likely drafting #12.



It's funny that the worst top pick for producing all-stars is #7, the pick the Bulls are famous for repeatedly getting.

[DuckIII]

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.

Sure. That makes sense as far as it goes. But the scenario is really this, basically:

94% chance of drafting #12 plus a 6% chance of moving up and having a significantly increased chance of that player becoming a star vs. drafting at around #15 and having the odds you referenced.

According to this, https://hoopshype.com/lists/nba-draft-history-how-likely-are-you-to-land-a-star-at-each-pick/, there is a 65% chance at #1, 42% chance at #2 45% chance at #3, and 34% chance at #4 of the pick becoming an All-Star. Rounding the numbers, there's a 13% chance at #12, but only a 7% chance at 15 (roughly the same as you noted), so there does seem to be some meaningful difference at those slots, even if the Bulls didn't move up.

So, the scenario here is, roughly:

Lose to Miami:

.94 (chance of not moving up) x .13 (chance #12 is an All-Star) + .06 (chance of moving up) x .46% (chance of star in top 4) = 21% overall chance of securing an All-Star.

Go to playoffs:

7% chance of securing an All-Star at #15.

It's a fairly significant swing. I'm not the biggest math whiz, so let me know if you see anything wrong with this thinking.

I think this is correct mathematically except that their calculations for values at picks aren't done in a sound way. They are using the literal results of each selection, and aren't smoothing out the curve, so that they have things like you're 0% likely to get an MVP at 14 but 3% likely at 15. Well at 14, you could have taken the guy at 15.

That said, ignoring this quibble, you are correct that I didn't properly account for the gap between what happens at 12 vs 15 when you stay, but I think you'd need to do a lot more work to figure out how big that gap really is vs using their numbers, and I think deciding that methodology to do so fairly is more detail than I want to get into.

Nerds.