Hitting a wall from current performance level. That's a scary thought.Lonzo...may hit the rookie wall at some point.
Im with you. I loved Ayton before this season started and so far I think I'm still on him. Any of the top three being mentioned would be fantastic however.I want Ayton so bad it hurts. Keep on playing Lonzo Luke!!!
That's a pretty dooshy move
I'm all for it. Can't get enough of NBA drama. Would have been better if Randle had pushed him into the scorer's table but it ain't the 80s anymore.That's a pretty dooshy move
I know it's early but given what Mitchell, Fox, and Smith are doing, and the flashes that Fultz showed, I doubt Lonzo is going to be the 2nd best point guard taken out of this draft or the 2nd best player picked out of the Pac-12.2 points(2-2 from FT line), 1 rebound, 3 assists, 3 TO for the #2 pick
6th only gives you a 15% chance of conveying:They might be 4th from bottom after december, but I think that bottom-5 is going to be hard to maintain by the end of the season. I can see memphis righting the ship just enough, but Chi/Atl/Dal/Sac/Pho are all realllly bad. My recollection is that 6th still gives about a 50/50 chance of the pick conveying, and that really feels like the best case scenario. 7-10 feels more likely, with some combo of Mem/LAC/BRK falling below them around March.
All of which I say mainly to prevent getting my hopes up for what this team looks like over the next 5 years with another top-5 pick in the mix.
On talent the Lakers are better and they have no incentive to tank, but you never know how chemistry will work and a team's season will progress. The Lakers have a potentially volatile mix in that most of their rotation is rookies or young second year players (Ingram, Ball, Kuzma, Hart) or free agents-to-be the team doesn't plan on resigning because they want the cap space (Lopez, KCP, Randle, Brewer, Clarkson has a longer contract but the team clearly wants him off the books). The former group doesn't really know how to play at the NBA level yet and most of them haven't gone through the grind of a full season. And the latter group has to be worrying about their next contract and future in general, thinking about how their playing time this year might affect that, and wondering whether Walton is unfairly favoring the young guys over them. Clarkson is rumored to be on the block, Randle and Walton apparently exchanged a few death stares in Denver the other night, etc. Meanwhile, Walton's seat could get pretty hot, particularly given the unrealistic expectations that the team (along with Lavar) created for themselves going into this season with all the ridiculous New Showtime talk. Maybe it will all turn out fine but it could also go pretty badly from a team chemistry and cohesion standpoint.They might be 4th from bottom after december, but I think that bottom-5 is going to be hard to maintain by the end of the season. I can see memphis righting the ship just enough, but Chi/Atl/Dal/Sac/Pho are all realllly bad. My recollection is that 6th still gives about a 50/50 chance of the pick conveying, and that really feels like the best case scenario. 7-10 feels more likely, with some combo of Mem/LAC/BRK falling below them around March.
All of which I say mainly to prevent getting my hopes up for what this team looks like over the next 5 years with another top-5 pick in the mix.
Seed Odds of #2 - #5 Pick
1 75.0%
2 80.1%
3 80.4%
4 70.9%
5 46.5%
6 15.2%
7 10.7%
8 7.2%
9 4.4%
10 2.9%
11 2.1%
12 1.8%
13 1.6%
14 1.3%
If somebody with a better record than them wins a top 3 pick, they get bumped down. See the Celtics having the second worst record and picking 5th in the Oden/Durant draft.wait for seeds 4 and 5, why wouldn't it just be 100% minus the odds of getting #1? I guess they could tie for 5th, but absent that edge case, isn't it guaranteed to be a top-5 pick and the only question is whether it hits the #1 exception? They either ping-pong their way into a top-3 pick, or they get the pick their record has "earned", right?
Not sure what you are asking but full breakout of odds by seed and draft position here: http://www.tankathon.com/pick_oddswait for seeds 4 and 5, why wouldn't it just be 100% minus the odds of getting #1? I guess they could tie for 5th, but absent that edge case, isn't it guaranteed to be a top-5 pick and the only question is whether it hits the #1 exception? They either ping-pong their way into a top-3 pick, or they get the pick their record has "earned", right?
It's going to be hilarious to see a starting lineup of Guerschon, Ojeleye, and Nader in the frontcourt and a backcourt rotation of Rozier, Larkin, and Jabari Bird.C's play the Nets at home on April 11 (final game of the reg. season). Would be interesting if the Nets and Lakers were tied and the C's had their seed sewn up whether Boston might somehow let one slip away...
Thanks. So the spread (after the first 3 teams) for a team to get a worse pick than their finish suggests is based on the odds that a team below them jumps above them based on a first-3-teams pingpong ball. Or more than one team.If somebody with a better record than them wins a top 3 pick, they get bumped down. See the Celtics having the second worst record and picking 5th in the Oden/Durant draft.
I won't feel comfortable unless Stevens is also benched.It's going to be hilarious to see a starting lineup of Guerschon, Ojeleye, and Nader in the frontcourt and a backcourt rotation of Rozier, Larkin, and Jabari Bird.
Seed Team Rec chg
1. CHI 19-63 ---
2. ATL 22-60 -2
3. SAC 24-58 ---
4. PHO 28-54 +2
5. LAL 29-53 ---
6. DAL 31-51 +2
7. BRK 31-51 +2
8. MEM 33-49 +1
9. LAC 34-48 ---
10. NYK 35-47 -1
11. ORL 36-46 ---
Team bbfef 538 diff
CLE 48.6 55 -6.4
OKC 43.1 47 -3.9
MIN 43.4 47 -3.6
GSW 60.7 64 -3.3
SAS 47.7 51 -3.3
Team bbfef 538 diff
NYK 41.3 35 +6.3
DEN 40.9 44 -3.1
PHI 46.1 43 +3.1
MIA 37.0 40 -3.0
DET 46.5 44 +2.5
Team bbfef 538 diff
ATL 27.3 22 +5.3
BRK 35.3 31 +4.3
MEM 37.1 33 +4.1
LAL 31.8 29 +2.8
PHO 25.5 28 -2.5
It's all right here.It would make sense that the Lakers finishing with the 2nd worst record in the league would give the Celtics the best chance of redeeming the pick, but is that actually true? Would the better odds of that pick becoming the 1st lower the odds of the pick actually conveying? is it possible the 3rd pick is more valuable in that sense? Has this been explained already?
By .3%, which isn't really worth the trade off for a higher chance to pick at 2, 3 or 4.It's all right here.
http://www.tankathon.com/pick_odds
Looks like 3rd gives a slightly better chance.
Also looks to me like B-Ref is a simpler extrapolation of what has happened so far this season (basically, Pythag record and strength of schedule) whereas 538 may include more priors about "real" team quality based on previous seasons (incl. playoffs) and/or past ratings of individual players. At least, that's what I get from their big discrepancies on the Knicks, Hawks and Cavaliers.Looks like basketball reference is more conservative (i.e. good teams less good, bad teams less bad) which would explain its being more stable, but not necessarily make it a better predictor.
And if we're still left at #2, I might literally pass out.All I know is if we make the commercial break and the Lakers are in the top 3 I’m not going to breathe for 5min
In fairness, you foisted the #1 on them last year.The fear, obviously, is Philly getting #1 (for the third straight year, good christ)
? The Cs got what looks likely to be the far better player in the Philly deal, and also took away one of Philly's blue chip assets.The fear, obviously, is Philly getting #1 (for the third straight year, good christ) and us getting nothing, and then a year later Sacramento has made a few moves and comes in at #10. And then Philly dominates the East for the next decade instead of us. That trade was like some complex options or derivatives construct, where it either pays off spectacularly or winds up in total disaster.
Yeah - very little of that scenarios has to do with the trade. Yes, if Philly wins the lottery again, then they will be very well positioned with Doncic, Simmons and Embiid, but that was going to be true regardless of the Fultz/Tatum swap. That doesn't make the trade a disaster - it just means that Philly was exceptionally well set up for the future.? The Cs got what looks likely to be the far better player in the Philly deal, and also took away one of Philly's blue chip assets.
If Tatum is better than Fultz, the Celtics completely owned that trade, regardless of results, full stop.
In the scenario painted above, which asset was that?? The Cs got what looks likely to be the far better player in the Philly deal, and also took away one of Philly's blue chip assets.
the LAL/SAC pick.In the scenario painted above, which asset was that?
Yup, per bowiac's point, the Sixers were *really* well-stocked, and thanks to the Tatum trade, they lost both Tatum and one of their two strong picks.the LAL/SAC pick.
Even in the scenario you laid out where the Sac pick finishes 10, this offseason it’s going to be projected as a top 5 pick. Philly lost the ability to make the Lakers pick and trade the unprotected Sac pick for another vet to help woo LeBron.In the scenario painted above, which asset was that?
Fair enough. But my point was that the variance on total value received by both sides remains huge, possibly dependant on the pingpong balls. Even if Tatum proves better than Fultz in the long-haul, those are essentially "sunk costs" at the moment. What is undetermined is where we fall between these two extremes, which while unlikely are not inconceivable:Even in the scenario you laid out where the Sac pick finishes 10, this offseason it’s going to be projected as a top 5 pick. Philly lost the ability to make the Lakers pick and trade the unprotected Sac pick for another vet to help woo LeBron.
Yup, some massive swings in future expectation are possible for sure.1) Philly gets 2018 #1, Boston gets 2019 #10
2) Philly gets 2018 #6, Boston gets 2019 #10
(...)
3) Boston gets 2018 #2, Philly gets 2019 #10
Fair enough. But my point was that the variance on total value received by both sides remains huge, possibly dependant on the pingpong balls. Even if Tatum proves better than Fultz in the long-haul, those are essentially "sunk costs" at the moment. What is undetermined is where we fall between these two extremes, which while unlikely are not inconceivable:
1) Philly gets 2018 #1, Boston gets 2019 #10
2) Philly gets 2018 #6, Boston gets 2019 #10
(...)
3) Boston gets 2018 #2, Philly gets 2019 #10
Between Door #1 and Door #3 is an enormous swing in expected future value to the teams, given the theoretical 7 years of team control, 4 of them below-market. That dynamic just isn't in play with the Kyrie trade (who is mostly a known quantity), or really any other trade that comes readily to mind* since Billy King. Ainge and Celtics Nation have a whole lot riding on those balls.
* I freely admit I know maybe a tenth of what Port Cellar regulars know about recent trade history, if that.