For anyone else that is getting confused ... If you get the worst record, you are guaranteed at worst the 5th pick (48% chance) but no lower. If you get the 2nd worst record, you could get the 5th pick (28% chance) or the 6th pick (20% chance) but no lower. If you get the 3rd worst record, you could get the 5th pick (15% chance) or the 6th pick (26% chance) or the 7th pick (7% chance) but no lower. No matter whether you get the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd worst record, your probability of NOT getting the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th pick is the same - 48%. This is pretty high. It's a coin-flip basically whether you'll get a top-4 pick even if you have one of the three worst records. This is also why people want the worst record - the lowest you'll pick with the worst record is 5th. Or in draft terms that people like to use : the ceiling for the 3 worst records is the same - the top pick. But the floor for the 3 worst records is different and the team with the worst record has the highest floor (the 5th spot) in terms of probability. So when somebody says "the three worst records have the same odds in the lottery", ask them what the odds for each of the 5th-7th picks are for each of those teams. From tankathon.com :
Big day today. Potential for a Det win vs Washington and for us to finish just 0.5 games ahead of Orlando.
Well, the night started out good, but the Hawks eventually failed us, Detroit came close, but eventually couldn't pull it out in the end, but the Raptors hung on in a hell of a battle to the end and the TPups won. Pretty good night all-things-considered.
Very good and clear explanation, thank you. If this is a 5 player draft (as some have claimed) it is absolutely crucial that we get the worst record.
I can’t believe the Lakers and hawks are not in the playoffs like come on man, that would bump up the nets pick
Thanks for laying this out simply--much obliged! Needless to say this is the dumbest draft setup in all of pro sports. This needs to be rectified ASAP!
First time I jump on Tankathon and we get #1 straight away!! In this scenario. Magic slipped to 5 and the Blazers had #4 and #10 and took Ivey and Tari Eason. I would absolutely trade Wood for the #10 pick and if the Blazers keep Dame then they will be looking for a better fit than a rookie. Then take Kessler at #15 (which will no doubt get worse with KD coming back). KPJ/Green/Eason/Chet/Sengun sounds like a whole lotta fun
If we strike out in Jabari or Chet it’s this guy maybe even a tie with Chet Jaden Ivey: 6’4 200, 6’10 wingspan. Stats as a Sophomore- 16.5 Points, 5.3 Rebounds, 3.3 Assists, 1.4 Steals, .5 Blocks. 53/45/73 shooting.
6 7 1 4 2 4 7 3 6 3 6 6 1 6 6 6 6 4 7 5 5 6 6 4 4 6 2 3 5 6 3 2 4 6 2 6 6 2 1 4 2 5 3 3 3 1 3 5 6 7 1 5 6 2 3 6 2 5 3 3 7 6 2 6 7 6 1 2 7 4 3 3 6 2 5 5 3 4 6 2 4 2 3 5 6 6 4 2 7 2 6 2 1 2 2 6 7 1 6 3 1: 8 2: 18 3: 16 4: 11 5: 10 6: 28 7: 9 I was bored and just did 100 sims. This was with the current 3rd worst record.
I just remembered that there is approximately a 50% probability our pick lands 5 or later in a 3/4 player draft. Draft lottery day may be pretty darn close to as stressful as last year for me
Actually, it's pretty good. This was the rectification! lol. This takes the incentive to tank out because even if you try to suck, you're not guaranteed a top pick, but just in case you aren't tanking on purpose, it does throw you a few bones. Gone are the days of tanking for Hakeem Olajuwon, Tim Duncan, etc. and having a great chance at being rewarded. Well, sorta ...
That's the difference about last year's draft and this year's for me. Last year, I didn't want to lose the pick to OKC. That was a scary lottery since it was only top-4 protected and we could've lost it. This year, I'm more like "whatever" since the chance to lose the pick isn't there. Last year we had a 48% chance to lose the pick. This year we basically have a 48% of it being 5th, 6th, or 7th in a 4-to-6-deep top-of-the-draft (depending on who you believe).
Sit Scoot for rest of season He's too good and will accidentally help us win a game or three. Keep starting Green and Schroder.
