Re: random thought snd questions?

[Jim McMaster <mcmaster@sweng.stortek.com>]

In message <Pine.SGI.3.93.970303144800.28982A-100000@world.std.com>, Adam A Suc
hocki said:
> 
> > This is not correct...together, the top (bottom) three teams have a 60.7% o
> f 
> > getting the first pick.  If you add the fourth-worst team, you get almost a
>  
> > 3/4 chance that one of them will get the top pick.  After the top three pic
> ks, 
> > the order of finish *is* the draft order.
> I don't see how what I said wasn't correct.  My point is that order of
> finish is not the same as where a team picks after the lottery.  The worst
> record does not even come close to guaranteeing the number one pick.  It
> is more likely that that worst record will not get the pick than it is
> that they will.  As you just stated, there is a 25% chance that some team
> other than the top four will get a top pick.  I was compairng the
> advantage of being first to second (50 balls out of 1000) - a 5% extra
> chance, and stating that is not worth putting a lot of worry to whether we
> finish first or second.
>
If I recall your original post correctly, you said something like "It is more 
likely than not someone other than one of the first three teams will get the 
first pick."  I apologize if I am misquoting the statement you edited 
out...that is my best recollection.  That is definitly incorrect...the first 
three teams get 60.7% of the combinations, all the other teams combined have 
only a 39.3% chance.  That is definitely *not* "more likely than not.

Nothing in life is assured, but the lottery weighting is so heavy that an 
extra place does make a big difference.  Yes, the last-place team has "only" a 
5% better chance than the next-to-last, but since that is the difference 
between 25% and 20%, the last-place team has a 250/200 better chance, which 
means they are 25% more likely to get it.  (Yes, I am ignoring the fact 
Vancouver cannot get the first pick.)  In a lottery drawing, I would really 
rather have 250 chances out of 1000 rather than 200...statistically, that is a 
*big* difference.

I will admit people seem to be taking the lottery odds as if they were draft 
positions...what else would you suggest in making predictions?  That is, after 
all, the most likely scenario.  Would you rather discuss, "Gee...if the 
Celtics get the first two picks, should they take Duncan and Mercer or Duncan 
and Van Horn?"  That is certainly not as reasonable as discussing Duncan/Van 
Horn/Mercer/Battie plus someone likely to be around in the 7 (or 6 or 5) to 9 
slot.

> > > 5.  Ok, I've seen Sura play several times now (last night was the worst) 
> -
> > > other than one pre-season game, I have seen little (besides a vertical
> > > leap) to get excited over.  Why have there been so many calls to trade fo
> r
> > > him?
> > > 
> > Uhhhh....because he is a far better SG than anyone the Celtics have?  Of 
> > course, you can say that about practically every other SG in the league, to
> o.
> >
> 
> Well, I've yet to see Sura play better than Todd Day, Dana Barros, or Greg
> Minor - based on box scores and the times he's been on TV - Sura has been
> more inconsistent than Day, and less productive.  He is a better ball
> handler than Minor, but has been very out of control.  What makes him a
> far better SG than any of the Celtics guards?
> 
Barros is short and cannot create his own shot.  Day is, in my opinion, one of 
the worst NBA players I have ever seen...selfish, inconsistent and stubborn.  
I think Minor could actually be better than Sura, if he could stay healthy and 
get some decent coaching...but Sura has shown a lot more so far, and in a 
Cleveland system that does not take full advantage of his athleticism.  All in 
all, I would rather have many other guards (Sura included) than any of the 
Celtics'.

Opinions are like odiferous body parts, I guess...that is mine.  Individually 
or as a group, I think the Celtics' shooting guard collection is putrid.  
Adding Dee Brown to the mix only makes it worse.

> Adam
> 
> 

- -- 
Jim McMaster
mailto:mcmaster@sweng.stortek.com