Search results

My comment about the different model wasn't about the Jazz. It was about whether the model works in the NBA as a whole (that's 30 times more data than the Jazz's history provides in the same time period -- a much better sample size). The model (at least at its most optimistic) hasn't worked for...

I did mention about a page back that the new CBAs are part of changed (and ever-changing NBA landscapes). But whether they mean more or less need for tanking (or more correctly, based on the point of the OP, more or less success from tanking) is something that's above my paygrade to answer.

It's going to take a lot of creativity. Maybe there's no such thing as one correct path. I don't pretend to know the answer for the Jazz's case, but when the old model (finish bottom five, grab a top draft pick and then, if lucky, have that player lead you to a championship) hasn't worked for...

And we haven't even mentioned how the changed lotto odds impact the results obtained from bottom-5 finishes. Or how CBA changes have made it more difficult to consolidate power at the top. Or how having more teams in the league may impact things. I guess my point is that there's a real argument...

I think your point is correct. I think it's more than this, as well -- perhaps the way skill sets are used in the NBA, or maybe also a bigger pool of players that are competing for limited NBA spots -- that lead to this change. I have done a small study on how the value of higher picks compared...

It's cherry picking in a sense, of course. But it's cherry picking because I think it's the exact pattern most of us (me included) hope to obtain with this tank. Isn't it worth knowing how things have gone recently in producing this pattern? We're not out here talking much about how we can...

I'm glad you're responding with real (and good) data. I do think more recent data matters more than older data. It's a different league in many ways than it was for the generation drafted in the 20th century. But we'll have to wait 20 more years to see if the tide turns once again more toward...

Yeah, probably no better time for Alex to leave.

I don't think I'm overlooking anything. I don't disagree with anything you say here. I'm actually totally with you and others like @SoberasHotRod and @KqWIN (though I clearly annoy him and others). I think you guys perfectly understand what's at stake. Tanking is a valid tool, one that's...

Does this bit of data help you all feel better? I wouldn't want anyone to lose faith in the prevailing (mostly data-free, beyond that it's better in a vacuum to have higher odds and higher picks) narrative about the value of tanking: Out of the past 25 NBA champions, 8 of the teams (nearly 1/3)...

We're hoping that a bottom-5 finish allows us to draft up a player who can eventually become the top player on a championship team for us. Though it's hard to think soberly about this with the narrative that tanking is self-evidently the best path to a championship (or only path for small...

Yes, you didn't use "massive". Apologies if I implied that you did. But the argument that we're both participating in started with a post that did use that term so I felt the issue was still in play.

I'd argue that this is the wrong way to see it. The difference of 3.5% is the same whether it's 1% vs 4.5%, 76% vs 79.5%, or 10.5% vs. 14%. Having the odds go your way with just a 3.5% better chance is not nothing (and thus we're still tanking), but it's simply a small difference and is far...

I think the point (at least for me) is that just saying "best odds" is not a good justification for then moving to "massive effects." The difference between best and 2nd best odds is not always "massive." And I'm pretty sure this is one of those situations where the difference is best labeled...

Yeah, didn't see that until after I had posted -- sorry.

They don't have to get into the top 4 in order to get a 5th or 6th post-lottery draft slot (if they finish 5th or 6th pre-lottery). It's only if they finish 7th pre-lotto that they can only keep their pick if they move up to 1-4 in the lotto. But they have plenty of possibility (given the...

Not to single you out, because I think you're a good poster and I've seen this type of argument from many other people, but I just can't get behind this kind of rhetoric about "massive effects." I just want to hear someone who uses this kind of phrasing/thinking to use real numbers to try to...

How do they have to hit top-4 to keep their pick? If they hit 5th or 6th, they still keep their pick, don't they (top 6 protected)? If they finish 5th in standings, they have 21.8% of hitting 5th or 6th in the lotto (in addition to their odds of hitting top 4). If they finish 6th worst, then...

Not sure where you're getting your percentages from. Going from Tankathon, I get them at 63.9% if they finish 5th worst (possible, though probably not likely). At 6th they'd be at 43.4%. Even if they stay at 7th, they have 34.5% odds of keeping their pick. You're not calculating as if the...

Sure, I'm for this.