Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

NBA Draft Lottery History from 1994-2009 versus the odds

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    NBA Draft Lottery History from 1994-2009 versus the odds

    2011 UPDATE:

    Upon review, my numbers are not accurate. I had falsely assumed the odds remain the same each year (at least starting with 1994), I inadvertently produced the wrong odds in my thread.

    I had assumed that team records and tie breakers first determined the order of the draft, and then once the order was established, I assumed that the number of lottery balls was always the same for each slot. I was wrong. They are NOT the same. Turns out, if teams tie in record, FIRST they SPLIT the AVERAGE of the number of balls between both of their slots, and THEN there's a tie breaker to determine who gets the extra ball (if applicable). Looking again at draft express, the ball count for teams changes every year. Even the #1 slot may not receive the usual 250 balls. If that team ties with another team, they SPLIT the number of balls the 1st and 2nd slot usually receive.

    So if you are the #1 slot in the lottery, you MAY NOT NECESSARILY HAVE 250 balls

    ===============

    For anyone wondering where we stand in the 2010 lottery, I was curious so I decided to take a look at the modern history results of the lotto.

    1994 was the first year for the lottery's current system that will still be in use for the 2010 selections.

    I wanted to look at the history of the lottery since '94 to compare what was supposed to happen (so to speak) versus what did happen.

    Let's look at the #1 overall pick.

    1994 - Went to the 4th worst record
    1995 - Went to the 5th worst record
    1996 - Went to the 2nd worst record
    1997 - Went to the 3rd worst record
    1998 - Went to the 3rd worst record
    1999 - Went to the 3rd worst record
    2000 - Went to the 7th worst record
    2001 - Went to the 3rd worst record
    2002 - Went to the 5th worst record
    2003 - Went to the 1st worst record
    2004 - Went to the 1st worst record
    2005 - Went to the 6th worst record
    2006 - Went to the 5th worst record
    2007 - Went to the 6th worst record
    2008 - Went to the 9th worst record
    2009 - Went to the 3rd worst record

    In 16 years, the worst team has won the lottery twice (12.5%)

    The 2nd worst team has won the lottery once (6.25%)

    The 3rd worst team has won the lottery five times (31.25%)

    The 4th worst team has won the lottery once (6.25%)

    The 5th worst team has won the lottery three times (18.75%)

    The 6th worst team has won the lottery twice (12.5%)

    The 7th worst team has won the lottery once (6.25%)

    The 8th worst team has never won the lottery.

    The 9th worst team has won the lottery once (6.25%)

    The 10th or worse team has never won the lottery.

    ================================================

    Now let's look at the #2 overall pick.

    1994 - Went to the 1st worst record
    1995 - Went to the 1st worst record
    1996 - Went to the 3rd worst record
    1997 - Went to the 5th worst record
    1998 - Went to the 5th worst record
    1999 - Went to the 1st worst record
    2000 - Went to the 4th worst record
    2001 - Went to the 8th worst record
    2002 - Went to the 2nd worst record
    2003 - Went to the 6th worst record
    2004 - Went to the 4th worst record
    2005 - Went to the 1st worst record
    2006 - Went to the 2nd worst record
    2007 - Went to the 5th worst record
    2008 - Went to the 1st worst record
    2009 - Went to the 6th worst record

    In 16 years, the worst team has won the 2nd pick five times (31.25%)

    The 2nd worst team has won the 2nd pick twice (12.5%)

    The 3rd worst team has won the 2nd pick once (6.25%)

    The 4th worst team has won the 2nd pick twice (12.5%)

    The 5th worst team has won the 2nd pick three times (18.75%)

    The 6th worst team has won the 2nd pick twice (12.5%)

    The 7th worst team has never won the 2nd pick.

    The 8th worst team has won the 2nd pick once (6.25%)

    The 9th or worst team has never won the 2nd pick.

    ================================================

    Finally, let's look at the #3 overall pick.

    1994 - Went to the 2nd worst record
    1995 - Went to the 4th worst record
    1996 - Went to the 1st worst record
    1997 - Went to the 2nd worst record
    1998 - Went to the 1st worst record
    1999 - Went to the 13th worst record
    2000 - Went to the 1st worst record
    2001 - Went to the 5th worst record
    2002 - Went to the 1st worst record
    2003 - Went to the 2nd worst record
    2004 - Went to the 2nd worst record
    2005 - Went to the 5th worst record
    2006 - Went to the 3rd worst record
    2007 - Went to the 4th worst record
    2008 - Went to the 3rd worst record
    2009 - Went to the 4th worst record

    In 16 years, the worst team has won the 3rd pick four times (25%)

    The 2nd worst team has won the 3rd pick four times (25%)

    The 3rd worst team has won the 3rd pick twice (12.5%)

    The 4th worst team has won the 3rd pick three times (18.75%)

    The 5th worst team has won the 3rd pick twice (12.5%)

    The 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th worst teams have never won the 3rd pick.

    The 13th worst team has won the 3rd pick once (6.25%)


    ================================================

    Math versus History thus far:

    Mathematically, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd pick are most likely to go to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd worst teams (obviously).

    Historically, it has yet to ever go exactly that way for all three. Only once have the 3 worst teams all won a top-3 pick at the same time (in 1996, 1st got #3, 2nd got #1, and 3rd got #2).

    Since 1994, (I rounded up/down when necessary, but I'm listing the actual odds of each, so they won't match up perfectly):

    The overall worst team "should have won" the lottery four times (25%), but it has in fact won it only twice (12.25%).

    It "should have won" the #2 pick three times (21.5%), but it has in fact won it five times (31.25%).

    It "should have won" the #3 pick three times (17.8%), but it has in fact won it four times (25%).

    Therefore, historically speaking, if you have the worst record, you're more likely to end up with the 2nd pick, then the 3rd pick, and then the 1st pick in that order.


    The 2nd worst team "should have won" the lottery three times (19.9%), but it has in fact won it only once (6.25%).

    It "should have won" the #2 pick three times (18.8%), but it has in fact won it only twice (12.5%).

    It "should have won" the #3 pick three times (17.1%), but it has in fact won it four times (25%).

    Therefore, historically speaking, if you have the 2nd worst record, you're more likely to end up with the 3rd pick, then the 2nd pick, then the 1st pick in that order.


    The 3rd worst team "should have won" the lottery twice (15.6%), but it has in fact won it five times (31.25%).

    It "should have won" the #2 pick three times (15.7%), but it has in fact won it only once (6.25%).

    It "should have won" the #3 pick twice (15.6%), and it has in fact won it twice (12.5%).

    Therefore, historically speaking, if you have the 3rd worst record, you're more likely to end up with the 1st pick, then the 3rd pick, then the 2nd pick in that order.

    As of this post (1/7/2010), the Indiana Pacers have the 5th worst record in the NBA.

    Mathematically, their odds of winning the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd pick in the lottery are 8.8%, 9.7%, and 10.7% -- 29.2% for winning something (1, 2, or 3)

    Historically, they're looking at 18.75%, 18.75%, and 12.5% -- 50% for winning something (1, 2, or 3)

    Food for thought.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Draft_Lottery
    http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-draft-lottery-history/
    http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-draf...story/winners/
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: NBA Draft Lottery History from 1994-2009 versus the odds

    Great stuff that I'd been pondering. Thanks for posting!

    If anything this should mathematically and historically eliminate all suggestions of tanking. You don't tank for a 5-10% margin of luck (3rd worst to worst record), especially when the max chance for a top pick is 25%.
    Last edited by imawhat; 01-07-2010, 08:54 PM.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: NBA Draft Lottery History from 1994-2009 versus the odds

      nice post....Someone like John Wall alongside Granger and Hibbert could really turn this franchise around
      "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


      Comment

      • #4
        Re: NBA Draft Lottery History from 1994-2009 versus the odds

        What position was Orlando in when they drew the #1 pick for Shaq?
        Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: NBA Draft Lottery History from 1994-2009 versus the odds

          So, the 3rd worst record would be ideal. We definitely don't want to finish below 6th.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: NBA Draft Lottery History from 1994-2009 versus the odds

            the problem is that the sample size is too small - only 16 lotteries to date. this is what probably produces the mismatch in the "mathematical" and "historical" odds. in the long term, the mathematical odds should hold. still, it's interesting to know how past drafts played out.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: NBA Draft Lottery History from 1994-2009 versus the odds

              Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
              What position was Orlando in when they drew the #1 pick for Shaq?
              Orlando had the second-worst record behind Minnesota.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: NBA Draft Lottery History from 1994-2009 versus the odds

                well thank you for that info.....and im not sure if this is the place for it....but lets just throw the draft lottery out!!!!
                I CANT SPELL!

                THERE ARE THOSE THAT HAVE AND THOSE THAT WILL!

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: NBA Draft Lottery History from 1994-2009 versus the odds

                  Originally posted by the jaddler View Post
                  well thank you for that info.....and im not sure if this is the place for it....but lets just throw the draft lottery out!!!!
                  Problem is, that leads to tanking.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: NBA Draft Lottery History from 1994-2009 versus the odds

                    A Priori called and it's pi**ed.





                    Each lottery is a new lottery with no history of the past. Stern, on the other hand, may or may not be so mutually exclusive in determining the probability of winning the lottery.

                    And the reason you don't want to tank is the 25% chance of winning the lottery. Not worth the risk to be that bad. 75% chance you come up short.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: NBA Draft Lottery History from 1994-2009 versus the odds

                      Actually a top five pick should give us someone we could really use.

                      And you don't actually have to get the top pick to win the lottery. The consensus number one doesn't aways turn out to be the best player. For instant MJ was a number three pick.

                      I want Wall, but I know that's far fetched, so I would be happy to get someone to go with Granger and Hibbert, and the chances of doing that are better the higher in the draft you pick.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: NBA Draft Lottery History from 1994-2009 versus the odds

                        Can someone tell me if the next draft is going to be like last seasons where there a few top picks and then drops off from there?
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: NBA Draft Lottery History from 1994-2009 versus the odds

                          Originally posted by Shade View Post
                          Problem is, that leads to tanking.
                          yeah but if you tank for the sole reason of getting the number 1 pick....you wont be able to do anything with that pick........i mean i dont know what the true solution is here.....i dont think you can get a whole team of players to tank.....can you??????

                          ok does anyone have the press release's or any storys from and about the reasoning for the lottery?
                          I CANT SPELL!

                          THERE ARE THOSE THAT HAVE AND THOSE THAT WILL!

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: NBA Draft Lottery History from 1994-2009 versus the odds

                            Originally posted by the jaddler View Post
                            yeah but if you tank for the sole reason of getting the number 1 pick....you wont be able to do anything with that pick........i mean i dont know what the true solution is here.....i dont think you can get a whole team of players to tank.....can you??????

                            ok does anyone have the press release's or any storys from and about the reasoning for the lottery?
                            All O'B has to do is play the players he's been playing. The losses will bring the team spirit down, which would get the same result as tanking.

                            I didn't understand your last question. If you want to read about the upcoming draft see this thread.

                            http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=48913

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: NBA Draft Lottery History from 1994-2009 versus the odds

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              A Priori called and it's pi**ed.





                              Each lottery is a new lottery with no history of the past. Stern, on the other hand, may or may not be so mutually exclusive in determining the probability of winning the lottery.

                              And the reason you don't want to tank is the 25% chance of winning the lottery. Not worth the risk to be that bad. 75% chance you come up short.
                              Thank you for your statistical sense post.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X