#1 seed in lottery only has 25% chance of winning...should it be more?

knicks_please · 05-30-2012, 07:52 PM

i understand the need for not wanting teams to tank, but the way the lottery is currently set up, each team gets a certain number of 4 digit combinations. the #1 team gets 250, which is 1/4 of them. while this makes it more likely for them to get it than any other team, they still have a 75% chance of not getting it, and of some other team just getting lucky that they happened to get the 4 digit number that was pulled...the second place team gets 199, which is still a fair share of combinations, hence the 2nd seed winning a lot...but really its all about luck...which is why its always a random team...you can have all the combinations of numbers you want, but you only have to have the ONE right one that is pulled to win the lottery.

should the NBA change how the lottery system works to make it easier for the #1 seed to obtain the best pick in the draft? because currently constructed although they have the best chance of all teams, they only realistically have a 25% chance to win it...

thoughts?

theautographkid · 05-30-2012, 07:57 PM

I have been saying this for a few years now. Get rid of the Lottery, and give the #1 pick, to the team with the worst record.

hawksfan21 · 05-30-2012, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theautographkid

I have been saying this for a few years now. Get rid of the Lottery, and give the #1 pick, to the team with the worst record.

Agreed. The worst team in the league deserves the top pick IMO

asujbl · 05-30-2012, 08:02 PM

No chance the worst team should get it - tanking in an 82 season is totally different then in 16 games in the NFL.

knicks_please · 05-30-2012, 08:04 PM

i think it should be some kind of lottery system, but it seems like there should be a way to give the #1 pick more of a chance, but then again it IS a lottery...

drob50 · 05-30-2012, 08:05 PM

No, I don't think you should allow the season standings to guarantee a pick #. Leaves it to open to tanking and manipulation.

I think 25% is enough. If a team starts out well, but then makes a trade or has an injury, they could end the season as the worst team, but with a record better than other teams because of the good start - ie Portland losing Oden and Roy

I think the system is good in the way they set minimums for the lower teams, like how Bobcats were guaranteed top 3 or 4 or whatever it was.

volblorx8634 · 05-30-2012, 08:06 PM

Yeah, there has to be a reasonable chance of the number 1 pick not going to the team with the worst record or else all the worst 10 teams would have a tanking competition.

asujbl · 05-30-2012, 08:07 PM

This season was the perfect example - those last 4 teams basically tanked anyway - would have been 10X worse.

natbornkiller · 05-30-2012, 08:09 PM

should be more like 49-51 for the worse team
all the rest the difference

do they still use frozen ping pong balls or random.org ?

Heafy83 · 05-30-2012, 08:13 PM

No I think the lottery is the fairest way to go. In Australian Rules Football the bottom team automatically gets 1st pick in our draft. This has lead to teams deliberatley, what we call tanking, to get bottom spot if they cant make the finals. By tanking I don't mean deliberatley losing but the coach might not field the best team possible or play a lot of players out of position. It has really tarnished our game and I wish they would change it to a Lottery format.
The only other thought is maybe the last 3 teams for each conference playoff for the 1st pick at the end of the season.

05-30-2012, 08:02 PM	#4
asujbl Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 64,840 ohiosundevils	No chance the worst team should get it - tanking in an 82 season is totally different then in 16 games in the NFL. __________________ https://ohiosundevils.smugmug.com/ Browns/Cavs/Tribe/Buckeyes/Jackets/Devils TheFrenzy - “Blowout ain't a place for normies”

05-30-2012, 08:04 PM	#5
knicks_please Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: NYC Posts: 6,975 CutMalikRose	i think it should be some kind of lottery system, but it seems like there should be a way to give the #1 pick more of a chance, but then again it IS a lottery... __________________ Ask me about your PC player

05-30-2012, 08:06 PM	#7
volblorx8634 Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: OC Posts: 4,143 kd35durant	Yeah, there has to be a reasonable chance of the number 1 pick not going to the team with the worst record or else all the worst 10 teams would have a tanking competition. __________________ PC: Sacramento Kings and Cleveland Indians Looking for these cards: 1. 2018-19 National Treasure Tim Duncan Game Gear /10 (non-trim) 2. 2016 Kawhi Leonard Hoops Base Parallels (and Bird's Eye View Gold /10)

05-30-2012, 08:07 PM	#8
asujbl Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 64,840 ohiosundevils	This season was the perfect example - those last 4 teams basically tanked anyway - would have been 10X worse. __________________ https://ohiosundevils.smugmug.com/ Browns/Cavs/Tribe/Buckeyes/Jackets/Devils TheFrenzy - “Blowout ain't a place for normies”

05-30-2012, 08:09 PM	#9
natbornkiller Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: bkNY Posts: 22,835	should be more like 49-51 for the worse team all the rest the difference do they still use frozen ping pong balls or random.org ? __________________ HAH HAH I STILL HAS THE RIGHT TO EDIT THIS !:eatit:

05-30-2012, 07:52 PM	#1
knicks_please Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: NYC Posts: 6,975 CutMalikRose	#1 seed in lottery only has 25% chance of winning...should it be more? i understand the need for not wanting teams to tank, but the way the lottery is currently set up, each team gets a certain number of 4 digit combinations. the #1 team gets 250, which is 1/4 of them. while this makes it more likely for them to get it than any other team, they still have a 75% chance of not getting it, and of some other team just getting lucky that they happened to get the 4 digit number that was pulled...the second place team gets 199, which is still a fair share of combinations, hence the 2nd seed winning a lot...but really its all about luck...which is why its always a random team...you can have all the combinations of numbers you want, but you only have to have the ONE right one that is pulled to win the lottery. should the NBA change how the lottery system works to make it easier for the #1 seed to obtain the best pick in the draft? because currently constructed although they have the best chance of all teams, they only realistically have a 25% chance to win it... thoughts? __________________ Ask me about your PC player

05-30-2012, 07:57 PM	#2
theautographkid Banned Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 3,331	I have been saying this for a few years now. Get rid of the Lottery, and give the #1 pick, to the team with the worst record.

05-30-2012, 08:05 PM	#6
drob50 Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Perth, Australia Posts: 4,369 spur92021	No, I don't think you should allow the season standings to guarantee a pick #. Leaves it to open to tanking and manipulation. I think 25% is enough. If a team starts out well, but then makes a trade or has an injury, they could end the season as the worst team, but with a record better than other teams because of the good start - ie Portland losing Oden and Roy I think the system is good in the way they set minimums for the lower teams, like how Bobcats were guaranteed top 3 or 4 or whatever it was.

05-30-2012, 08:13 PM	#10
Heafy83 Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Adelaide, Australia Posts: 663 ozbballcollector	No I think the lottery is the fairest way to go. In Australian Rules Football the bottom team automatically gets 1st pick in our draft. This has lead to teams deliberatley, what we call tanking, to get bottom spot if they cant make the finals. By tanking I don't mean deliberatley losing but the coach might not field the best team possible or play a lot of players out of position. It has really tarnished our game and I wish they would change it to a Lottery format. The only other thought is maybe the last 3 teams for each conference playoff for the 1st pick at the end of the season.