Bucks Diary

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Bucks Diary's 20 Spins: Volume 11


Another loss, another 20 Spins. If this game is teaching you anything, Bucks fans, it should be this: Brace yourselves for the Big Screw. Although my money pick results (1 or 2) were improved (30% -- exactly the results Frank's math suggested), I still landed the decided majority of my spins below the Bucks rightful 3rd spot (60%). And once again, the most frequent result was the 5th pick (40%).

Are you beginning to understand what I posted earlier? Namely, that for the worst teams, the NBA Lottery is really just a fool's gamble (meaning it has more likely downside than upside).

Say No to Noah


If you notice on the ESPN Lottery Generator, Chad Ford has the Bucks selecting Florida's Joakim Noah if they should land out of the money picks. That is my worst nightmare, and I can't believe they would do it.

If you want a saner reading of the draft prospects, I urge you to read Aran Smith's article he just posted on Nbadraft.net. I am pretty much in agreement with his skeptical assessment of Noah's pro potential, as well as his measured assessment of Hibbert's potential, and glowing assessment of Oden's.

Clarification: This year's Lottery is only a fool's gamble for the two worst teams. For a team like the Bucks, in the third worst spot, it is still a good risk. That is because, for them, the potential benefit of moving up into one of the top two picks far exceeds the potential cost of moving down, even as far as the 6th pick. That is not the case for the two worst teams. They have no upside in the Lottery, only a steep, steep downside.

6 Comments:

At April 4, 2007 at 1:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Imagine if Bango's Big Board only had 5 possible options, I think at that point I would have no fear heading into the lottery in this draft. I like your 70s/80s analogy a lot though.

I know Pressey mentioned it a while back, but if you're not taking a look at the team boards on RealGM once in a while, I think you'd find some things there you'd like. I only checked them out recently and it puts a lot of the fun in tanking. Celtics fans think it'll be a struggle to lose tonight with 8 healthy guys, and with their coach I can't blame them.

 
At April 4, 2007 at 5:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The way I understand the lottery, the 1-3 picks are lottery generated, and picks 4-14 go to the remaining teams in order of worst to best record. That is what makes tanking relevent. The Bucks want to finish with the second worst record, to almost assure themselves of at list the #4th pick.

 
At April 4, 2007 at 5:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're right, if they're the third-worst they can't do worse than 6th, if 3 other teams get drawn ahead of all of the top-3 teams. If they can fall to second-worst, they couldn't get lower than the 5th pick, and after Memphis's awful year they could still wind up with the #4 pick if they're not drawn in the lottery. Reminds me of their expansion years when they couldn't get the top pick by agreement even if they were drawn for it.

 
At April 4, 2007 at 6:23 PM, Blogger Blogmaster said...

Every one of the comments is absolutely correct. The Bucks odds of landing one of the top two picks would increase if they fell to second worst.

My point about it being a sucker's bet is this: If you have the second worst record in any other league I know of, you are assured of drafting no worse than second.

In the NBA, you are subjected to a lottery wherein any of the other nonplayoff teams can steal your draft position away from you. And, while you may have the best chance of any of the individual teams of moving up one spot, the sheer number of teams with a chance to steal your spot makes the odds much greater that you will fall at least two spots.

 
At April 4, 2007 at 10:36 PM, Blogger laserbomb said...

Got something here, because I was starting to take Boston basically clinching #2 a little too seriously:

2006: 5th-worst team at #1, 2nd-worst at #2, tied 3rd-worst at #3
2005: 6th-worst, worst, 5th-worst
2004: worst, new team, 2nd-worst
2003: tied worst, 6th-worst, tied worst
2002: 5th-worst, tied worst, tied worst
2001: 3rd-worst, 8th-worst, 5th-worst
2000: 7th-worst, 4th-worst, worst
1999: 3rd-worst, worst, 13th-worst
1998: 3rd-worst, 5th-worst, worst
1997: 3rd-worst, 5th-worst, 2nd-worst
1996: worst, new team, new team
1995: 5th-worst, 4th-worst, worst
1994: tied 2nd, worst, tied 2nd
1993: 13th-worst, 5th-worst, 7th-worst
1992: 2nd-worst, 7th-worst, worst

 
At April 4, 2007 at 11:05 PM, Anonymous paulpressey25 said...

Don't worry about us always falling back to the fifth hole...I have a good feeling if we can stay in the top three.

My real worry is Atlanta....they are all out tanking for that third spot.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home