Lottery count down

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

...We get kicked in the nuts!!!!

Search your feelings Suns forum... you know it to be true.

I know. Fech

 

[pokerface]

...We get kicked in the nuts!!!!

Search your feelings Suns forum... you know it to be true.

Is a top three a kick in the nuts? Define what you mean.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

We'll get 4. No doubt about it.

 

[pokerface]

We'll get 4. No doubt about it.

Sounds like you guys are wishing for it

 

[Hoop Head]

http://www.azcentral.com/story/spor...uns-devin-booker-nba-draft-lottery/320916001/

That's a good video in the link, it's only 1m37s. It highlights some odd facts about the history of the lottery. I hope we get either #1 or #3. The history of the #2 overall picks isn't very good, I know position doesn't dictate potential but there have been a lot of busts taken at #2 with better players selected right after them. There exceptions listed are Durant, LeMarcus Aldridge, and Tyson Chandler. If Tyson Chandler is being used as one of the best players picked at #2 then that says something considering he was thought of as a bust by Chicago and traded away for peanuts after the first 5 years of his career.

Some other #2 picks were Michael Beasley, Hasheem Thabeet, Darko Milicic, and Shawn Bradley. The #3 pick seems to produce better players when you look back to when the lottery started in 1990.

 

[pokerface]

That's a good video in the link, it's only 1m37s. It highlights some odd facts about the history of the lottery. I hope we get either #1 or #3. The history of the #2 overall picks isn't very good, I know position doesn't dictate potential but there have been a lot of busts taken at #2 with better players selected right after them. There exceptions listed are Durant, LeMarcus Aldridge, and Tyson Chandler. If Tyson Chandler is being used as one of the best players picked at #2 then that says something considering he was thought of as a bust by Chicago and traded away for peanuts after the first 5 years of his career.

Some other #2 picks were Michael Beasley, Hasheem Thabeet, Darko Milicic, and Shawn Bradley. The #3 pick seems to produce better players when you look back to when the lottery started in 1990.

With all due respect Kingdad prior draft picks and their outcomes means almost nothing. Players are too individualistic and the sample sizes (for odds) are far too small to get even the most remotely accurate reading. Fans trying to read some meaning in a sample size of just three decades of lottery drafts (that's just thirty times) is laughable considering that when dealing with probabilities in general hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of times are used as the standard to predict future outcomes.

 

[Errntknght]

With all due respect Kingdad prior draft picks and their outcomes means almost nothing. Players are too individualistic and the sample sizes (for odds) are far too small to get even the most remotely accurate reading. Fans trying to read some meaning in a sample size of just three decades of lottery drafts (that's just thirty times) is laughable considering that when dealing with probabilities in general hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of times are used as the standard to predict future outcomes.

It depends on the cost and value of generating trials(samples), how many are used - hundreds are much more common than hundreds of thousands. In this case where you're considering success of choices people have made, past history of any length is largely useless, except that it does show, in general, that higher draft picks are more successful than lower ones, as you'd expect. I don't think you'll find that holders of the #2 picks will offer to trade with #3 pickers because the recent form of the #2 pickers is poor.

Theire might be something going on, like the #2 pickers are so distraught by their close miss to getting #1 that they are inclined to go for the home run and swing wildly, whereas #3 pickers play it safe. Who knows.

 

[Hoop Head]

With all due respect Kingdad prior draft picks and their outcomes means almost nothing. Players are too individualistic and the sample sizes (for odds) are far too small to get even the most remotely accurate reading. Fans trying to read some meaning in a sample size of just three decades of lottery drafts (that's just thirty times) is laughable considering that when dealing with probabilities in general hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of times are used as the standard to predict future outcomes.

I get that, it's just the #2 pick worries me in a superstitious way. I think Errntknight is onto something as well about why they may not pan out as often, because they try to swing for higher potential players to make up for not getting the #1 pick. Another thing that could play a part in that is with the 24 hour news-cycle now online, the radio, and TV there are more talking heads out there and they'll overrate someone even in a draft class with a clear #1 pick just so they can debate who should be #1. All the debate and analysis can artificially inflate a players value.

I think that's happening with Fox this year, not to the very top of the draft but his stock has improved a good deal since the end of the NCAA season and before the combine. He's a good prospect but he was viewed as someone who would go between #8 to #13 and now he's projected to go as high as #4 with most mock drafts having him gone by #8. With no games, interviews, or the combine, how does someone move that much? I can see it on a team's board but not with the talking heads. It's in a teams best interest not to leak big moves in a players value because they'd want to be able to draft them later, if possible.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Sounds like you guys are wishing for it

You must not be old enough to have endured the full history of Arizona sports nut kickings we've all experienced. PTSD.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

With all due respect Kingdad prior draft picks and their outcomes means almost nothing. Players are too individualistic and the sample sizes (for odds) are far too small to get even the most remotely accurate reading. Fans trying to read some meaning in a sample size of just three decades of lottery drafts (that's just thirty times) is laughable considering that when dealing with probabilities in general hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of times are used as the standard to predict future outcomes.

I agree that you can't look at prior players to determine future successes of players taken at that draft slot. However, what you can do is look for patterns and try to avoid falling into similar traps. Learn from history. What I see in the history of two slot is that in all likelihood the most talented player in the draft went #1 (with some exceptions). The team with the #2 slot was likely desperate to hit a homer in in that position. Makes sense since they are in the 2 slot. So the most talented player is gone. So what's enticing? An all star franchise center. Look at the 2 slots over time. Lots of high upside "potential" centers taken. Maybe higher than more talented players. Why? Because of their scarcity. If you have an all star center you have an automatic advantage over most teams. The Webber-Bradley-hardaway draft is one the best examples I can recall with this. Webber was the best talent. He went #1. Penny was really 1a in that draft but Bradley was too tantalizing as a franchise center.

The lesson learned for me if I'd don't get lured by the beautiful yet deadly sirens song of the franchise center when there's someone better available.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

.

Theire might be something going on, like the #2 pickers are so distraught by their close miss to getting #1 that they are inclined to go for the home run and swing wildly, whereas #3 pickers play it safe. Who knows.

This is kind of what I'm saying. But I don't think it's because they're "so distraught" (they'll have a lot least a month to recover emotionally from the lottery), but I do think they are under increased pressure at that slot.

 

[SirStefan32]

Power of positive thinking. We are getting number one.

 

[pokerface]

It depends on the cost and value of generating trials(samples), how many are used - hundreds are much more common than hundreds of thousands. In this case where you're considering success of choices people have made, past history of any length is largely useless, except that it does show, in general,[Bold] that higher draft picks are more successful than lower ones, as you'd expect. [/Bold] I don't think you'll find that holders of the #2 picks will offer to trade with #3 pickers because the recent form of the #2 pickers is poor.

Their might be something going on, like the #2 pickers are so distraught by their close miss to getting #1 that they are inclined to go for the home run and swing wildly, whereas #3 pickers play it safe. Who knows.

Honestly that is the only truth we can hang on to that higher picks have a better chance of success "in general". Of course it would be almost impossible to put a percentage on it.

I like your guys theory that maybe with the #2 pick that teams shoot for the fences more therefore it increases chances for a "bust". There could be some truth to that.

 

[pokerface]

Power of positive thinking. We are getting number one.

Yay!! I'm a believer dammit!

Ahh... Koolaid tastes good in the morning!

 

[JCSunsfan]

I am so stinking nervous about this.

 

[AsUpRoDiGy]

I am so stinking nervous about this.

You're not going to be nervous after we get numero uno!

 

[leclerc]

Number one!

 

[Mainstreet]

Am I the only one that read that article and then was relieved that the Suns weren't included?

Atleast we aren't in that boat.


BTW I'm sticking to my original prediction from page 1 in this thread, we'll pick 4th.

There is a a 31.9 percent chance you are right if we look at the odds for getting the 4th pick.

Now we must reboot your thinking.

Really, it's like the Tankathon Simulator. Anything can happen. What the Suns need is a huge dose of luck.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Is a top three a kick in the nuts? Define what you mean.

Honestly, anything below 2 will piss me off. I can live with 3 because there's the outside chance Jackson ends up a stud, but any lower and we got screwed.

 

[pokerface]

Honestly, anything below 2 will piss me off. I can live with 3 because there's the outside chance Jackson ends up a stud, but any lower and we got screwed.

Yeah I really really want top 2 because if we slide to 3 then the suns almost have to take Ball.


I have to agree with ya Cheese

 

[Hoop Head]

PS.. how do I make someone else's post bold? [BOLD] [/BOLD] don't seem to work.

Are you using a computer or a tablet/phone? If you're using a computer just highlight the portion you wish to bold in the quote and click the B on the formatting bar, it's the first button on the left. I don't use my phone on this site so I'm not sure if you're using a mobile device.

 

[pokerface]

Are you using a computer or a tablet/phone? If you're using a computer just highlight the portion you wish to bold in the quote and click the B on the formatting bar, it's the first button on the left. I don't use my phone on this site so I'm not sure if you're using a mobile device.

I'm using my phone. I just did what you said.

Thanks Kingdad

 

[Hoop Head]

I'd love to get #1 but am fine with any in the top 3, getting #3 would be much easier to process if that means the Lakers lose their pick also.

 

[pokerface]

I'd love to get #1 but am fine with any in the top 3, getting #3 would be much easier to process if that means the Lakers lose their pick also.

That's true. We can't forget about the Lakers.

Still...Third pick equals getting Ball in my head. Don't know how to feel about that.

 

[Mainstreet]

I think any pick in the top 3 will be gold. Even if the Suns are in position to draft Ball other teams will be clamoring to trade with the Suns.

Actually any pick in the top five should be good although I worry some about the Suns drafting Tatum.