I know I am gonna get negged for this, but why is it the "end of the world" for the Bobcats? Why do people feel sorry for them because they didnt get the #1 overall? Jon Barry was saying that they will get a good player at #2 but no where near the level of Anthony Davis.
I dont know if I can ever recall where a guy comes into college and along with another guy (Drummond) is considered the #1 or 2 pick, then in that same year distance himself so far from everyone else that he is on a different tier than even the 2nd pick?
Please remember, some of the greatest players of all time were not #1 overall picks. Namely one in particular who went 3rd overall.
The only bad thing about this situation to me is that the Bobcats dont get to make the selection that everyone else has already made for them.
I dont feel sorry for them in the least bit....because thats what scouting is for. The Lakers have won 5 titles with a #13 overall pick that they basically for nothing. (Yeah, they had to give up Vlade for the pick but they HAD to unload his contract anyway)
You dont make dynasties by getting the 1st overall pick...you do it with good personnel moves. Ask OKC. Hell, its hard to even keep a #1 overall pick under contract today.
So the Bobcats are not in the best position, but 1 pick down isnt the end of the world.
Like I have been saying, Is Davis the probable number 1 pick? Yes. Do I think he will be the best player from this draft? No I don't. I think it benefits them not having the first pick. Hear me out, with all the pressure to take Davis number 1, what if he doesn't pan out? Then the Bobcats & Jordan look like fools again. I don't think Davis is this sure fire Hall of Fame guy everyone is making him out to be. Now the Bobcats can focus on who they think is the second best prospect or fit. They can choose between MKG, Barnes, Drummond(my pick for best player from class), Robinson, Beal, or even PJ3. They have options and very good ones at that. The Bobcats problems aren't going away with 1 draft pick. So get a quality player this year and cross your fingers for next year.
I don't agree with a lot of your logic as the Bobcats clearly deserved the #1 pick after finishing with the worst winning % in history despite consistently trying harder than the likes of Golden State and NO. Losing Anthony Davis is definitely devastating.
But I agree it isn't the end of the world. The Bobcats really like Biyombo at C and he was actually one of the more surprisingly impressive rookies last year. Rumored to be as raw as anyone in the whole draft, he played the whole year as an 18/19-year old, actually started 41 games and averaged 6.4 points, 7.1 boards and 2.1 blocks as a starter while shooting 47.6%. He finished 8th in the league in blocks despite playing just 23.1 minutes.
While Anthony Davis would have formed with him the league's best basket-defending tandem, I really like Thomas Robinson for them here. He's not as great a talent as Davis but he's an even better fit. T-Rob would fit perfectly next to Biyombo at PF as he can contribute on the offensive end right now while boasting great upside in addition to being a phenomenal rebounder with an NBA-ready, if not NBA-exceptional, build. He's a leader with a motor comparable to MKG and could make his teammates better like he did at Kansas. That dynamic big man duo will be a lot for any team to handle.
Apparently MKG, Drummond, Barnes and Beal are all in the fold still at #2 but I love Robinson here for his fit next to Biyombo, ability to contribute right away while still boasting great upside and leadership qualities. Should they take Robinson, I would amnesty Tyrus Thomas (3yrs/$27M, ridiculous) and ride out one more year with the rest of the roster. Kemba Walker, Thomas Robinson and Bismack Biyombo is an intriguing young core as all are noted for their intensity and defensive ability as well as talent. Gerald Henderson put up 15 a game last year on 46% shooting and could be in their future.
If they amnesty Thomas they will only have an estimated $10M committed going into 2013-14, and that's all going to Walker/T-Rob/Biyombo. They will then probably have a high draft pick and $40M to spend. They can re-sign Henderson even to be a 6th man and have a ton of money to throw at the likes of '13 free agents James Harden (max offer, maybe?), Monta Ellis, Tyreke Evans, Josh Smith and Paul Millsap, along with a ton of valuable veterans who could help their core grow.
If Jordan plays his cards right the Bobcats could definitely be OK.
I disagree with you in the fact that Jordan wouldnt look like a fool for selecting Davis, he would look more like a fool if he didnt select him. If Davis were a bust, looking in hindsight even, people should remember the hype that basically forced Davis into the number one position. Whoever picks first has to go Davis. The casual fan doesnt know or care about how the hype machine works....only what it produces.
At the same time, you may have a point because there is not much forgiveness being shoveled Portland's way because of Oden. This is due to them selecting Bowie...which one thing had absolutely nothing to do with the other. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the selection of Oden.
The Bulls were actually winners last night by Charlotte's dropping to #2. Yes, they will still get a good player at #2 but not the type of player that is going to make them a contender anytime soon.
Chicago Bulls: Receives 2012 first-round pick (lottery-protected in 2012, top-12 protected in 2013, top-10 in 2014, top-8 in 2015, unprotected in 2016) from the Charlotte Bobcats via the Tyrus Thomas trade on 2/18/10.
surve If five or six years down the road Davis is no better then a shot blocking defensive type and Robinson or Barnes is an all star then people would say the same thing "Jordans fault"
"deserved" is a relative and somewhat rhetorical statement. the lottery exists, so they have to deal with it. IMO an expansion team deserves the #1 overall pick, but they dont get it. (Charlotte was assigned the 4th overall pick when they came into the league)
I actually have grown very disenchanted with the lottery and wish to see it abolished. Will there be tanking? I dont think its as bad as it wouldve been back before the lottery came into existence because the business side and all the young talent in the league and entering into the league makes it difficult for a long-term tanking plan. If a team is one or two loses away from the # 1 pick, well, you cant stop that....but I dont think teams will just willingly lose 25 games straight or there will be a lot of players and personnel looking for new jobs and being forced to accept smaller contracts.
Was Seattle losing Greg Oden devastating to the organization? Was losing Bargnani devastating to Portland? How about Utah and New Orleans losing out on Bogut? See where I am going here?
Yeah, you brought up a great point Surve about unloading Vlade's contract, even though it was only 3.3million at the time of the trade, he had the tem's biggest contract by a whole million, and they needed to clear a bit of cap to extend Elden Campbell and sign Shaq, and they already had Campbell next to Shaq, so they really didn't need Vlade and were looking to trade him anyways.
yes, they will say its Jordan's fault. I dont disagree with that. I actually explained that above. Nobody I know of has Davis not going 1st overall though. History wont be kind to Jordan if the Bobcats continue to lose. My point is, it will be Jordan's fault regardless of who they pick. Charlotte needs to worry about putting together a good team brick by brick like OKC and Chicago have done instead of worrying about not getting Anthony Davis.
not only that, but Charlotte did NOT want Kobe and never did. Kobe never had a say-so in it and even though the Lakers made the deal to trade before the draft, they never said who the player they wanted Charlotte to draft for them. (sheer genius). Other teams who had higher picks werent interested in Kobe either...obviously, because they didnt pick him. It actually came down to what team wanted Vlade and whether or not Vlade wanted to play for that team.
anyway, the point is, it takes a good GM and personnel to make these moves. The 2nd pick isnt a bad pick by any stretch....even Portland's two picks for that one looks attractive to me because you could get a combination of any of these two players....Barnes, Beal, PJIII, Ross, Lamb, Zeller, Sullinger, etc.....
this isnt about getting the first move on the chessboard but how you set up your pieces.
I agree with Joecheck,
Davis will be a good player, but he won't be the best player from this class.
I never thought Davis would be the best player from this class....but even if he is, the other picks can make some noise with their teams.
"Yes, they will still get a good player at #2 but not the type of player that is going to make them a contender anytime soon."
Think about this....when has a big man made their team a contender "anytime soon"? Suggesting that Davis will. Will he make New Orleans a contender as quick as Chris Paul did? (3rd year in the league) Rose (3rd year in the league), Lebron (3rd year in the league...winning record his 2nd year). Kevin Durant (3rd year).
Basically, the closest you have in recent memory is Dwight Howard (Orlando became contender in his 4th year). Without Chris Paul, Griffin will not have turned the Clippers into a contender in 3 years either.
I am not saying anyone in this draft will turn their teams around in 3 years....saying Davis will is a very bold statement. I just dont see him as being that much more impactful that some of the other guys.
We just recently discussed this about who was the better prospect, Davis or Griffin. Out of all the guys I named above, I dont believe Davis will be better than any of them except maybe Griffin...and as I said, Griffin was a good piece but he cant turn a franchise around in 3 years either.
Chooses the team that picks first?
Yes, I am being sarcastic.
Did everyone not know the Hornets were going to suck? They lost Chris Paul AND David West, mind you. Cleveland technically got the 4th pick last year, people. The Clippers got the first pick that happened to go to Cleveland, but why wouldn't Stern have them picking 1 effing 2? Too obvious?
My advice: stop whining and complaining. You know what would be worse? Teams that suck actually flat out TANKING to get the first pick in the draft. If you look at Charlotte (just a pathetically put together team), the Wizards (Jan Vesely may get better, but he certainly didn't help them win last year) and the Hornets (a team playing without the only piece of the Chris Paul trade that could immediately help them for most of the season), which team tanked the least?
One could argue Washington (they won their last 6 games), but I believe the Hornets played well above their capabilities last year. They have a nice young coach in Monty Williams and they had the third highest likelihood of picking. If the Timberwolves pick had moved up, it would be one thing for that to happen again. It didn't. The Bobcats and Wizards slip ONE spot. Oh, the horror!
Lottery conspiracy talk is ridiculous and only has story line evidence that one could make about next to any team. You think it makes the NBA lose credibility? Stop watching it? Possible solution? Otherwise, none of your stories have won me over. Not Derrick Rose to Chicago, not LeBron to Cleveland, none of it. Teams used to have freaking territorial picks! Tom Heinsohn, Wilt Chamberlian and Oscar Robertson were all not technically NBA Draft picks at all, but selections awarded for playing in a certain area.
They used to do things by coin flip. That much more fair? You know, for the team that finishes third, or lost one more game having no shot at possibly improving their draft standing. I think the lottery is cool. I think it tends to be a system that is not monumentally unfair. Sucking your way to first pick is the unfair system. In the NBA, this player will make up 20% of who you have on the floor at a given time. Much more so than any other sport. To let teams tank and get the first pick in multiple drafts is much less fair than the current system.
Yes, I know David Stern hates your team and wants to make your life terrible. Also, here is a brief history of #1 picks that have won championships with the teams that originally chose them:
- Cazzie Russell, New York Knicks 1966: Was the first #1 pick EVER to win a championship with the team that drafted him (possibly the first ever to win a title period, I believe). The wing man was a 6th man scorer for the Knicks 1970 championship team, the one that had Willis Reed, Walt Frazier, Dick Barnett, Bill Bradley and Dave DeBusschere starting. Russell was not around in 1973, when the 2nd pick in the 1967 Draft took an even larger role (Earl Monroe). For those counting, that was 16 Drafts between a #1 pick winning a championship with the team that chose them.
- Lew Alcindor aka Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Milwaukee Bucks 1969: Cap won the 1971 title with Milwaukee, along with former #1 pick (and territorial selection in 1962 by the Cincinnati Royals) Oscar Robertson (Bob Boozer, also a #1 pick by the Cinci Royals in 1959 was also on the team). He would make the Finals again in 1973-74, losing to the Celtics. Ultimately, though, Kareem stuck it out for 6 seasons in Milwaukee before demanding a trade (great article about this happening). That's right, Kareem played fewer seasons in Milwaukee than LeBron James played in Cleveland (lets be fair, LeBron may not have won a ring but had not Oscar Robertson by his side, either). Would be 9 years and another #1 pick before Kareem won his second title.
- Bill Walton, Portland Trail Blazers 1974: Yes, Bill Walton is part of the fraternity of #1 picks who have won titles with the teams that drafted them. He was like Kareem, an absolute catalyst for his first championship winning team. He had a strong supporting cast, but he could make them so much more. When you look in the dictionary under "could dominate without scoring a single point", Bill Walton's picture from 1977 is probably there. The man's career was marred by injuries, but from 1976-78, he may have very well been the best basketball player in the world. He might have won another ring had he not been hurt in 1978, the year he won the MVP while playing in only 58 games. The Blazers record in those games? 50-8. Bill would leave Portland shortly after, miss numerous full seasons and finally play a prominent 6th man role on the 1986 Champion Celtics. As a side note, the Blazers won the title the year after possibly the worst #1 pick in NBA history, LaRue Martin, retired. Another funny thing? The Blazers had the #1 pick in the 1978 Draft, as they took the Pacers selection before "lottery protection" became a must. They drafted Mychal Thompson, but unfortunately Bill Walton missed his entire rookie season and than left for the San Diego Clippers in 1979.
- Magic Johnson, Los Angeles Lakers 1979: Unless Tim Duncan ties him this season, Magic Johnson is the only #1 pick to have won 5 Championships with the team who originally chose him. Joining a team that had gone 47-35 and lost in the Western Conference Finals the year before, Magic nonetheless had a spectacular rookie season. Kareem won MVP, Larry Bird won ROY, Magic had one of the greatest Finals performances of All-Time. His 42 point, 15 rebound and 7 assist Game 6 of the 1980 NBA Finals against Philadelphia is still a thing of legend. With Kareem out (the injury must have been serious enough to keep the NBA MVP from playing), Magic jumped center and took home NBA Finals MVP. He and Kareem would go down as possibly the greatest duo in NBA history (their is some debate, but they were indeed amazing) and win another championship in 1981-82. After that, they got.......
- James Worthy, Los Angeles Lakers 1982: Seriously? You win a championship and get the first pick in the draft? COME ON! Well, that is what happened. I am sure Celtics fans and Lakers haters alike wish David Stern was around to "rig" the lottery, which they did not have until 1985 (when the Frozen envelope theory got the Knicks Patrick Ewing and no titles. "But, Ewing was good!" Well, they still won 0 championships in his time there. Plus, the 2nd time they got to the Finals, it was more because of Patrick Ewing sitting than Patrick Ewing playing). So, the Lakers got "Big Game" James Worthy. Both Lakers #1 picks in 1979 and 1982 were from teams who really wish they could have protected their picks. I was not there at the time, but it seems like the New Orleans Jazz in 1976 and the Cleveland Cavaliers in 1980 were like "These Lakers' got suckered! We are going to be SO good by the time they get our first round picks!" Well, they both sucked and I think the result was a Lakers team that seemed to either win or go to the Finals almost every year. Jerry West was a crafty exec, the Lake show won another three rings with their next #1 pick, with things coming to an abrupt end once Magic shocked the world in 1991. Worthy won the Finals MVP in the last title won by Los Angeles until the Shaq/Kobe era. That made 3 Finals MVP's for Magic, 1 for Kareem and 1 for James. Manu Ginobili can bring up some inevitable comparisons if he kills the Finals this year (though obviously San Antonio was brought together under different circumstances).......
- Hakeem Olajuwon, Houston Rockets 1984: Again BEFORE the lottery even happened. Houston got the first pick in the draft in two consecutive seasons. Orlando pulled the same thing in the lottery era, but Houston actually let the top picks play in the same front court together for a while. They had a solid deal of success, comprising the first (I believe at least called the first) "Twin Towers". They made the Finals in Hakeem's second season, with 7'4 Ralph Sampson making a famous, contorted game winning shot to beat the Lakers. Unfortunately, as guys over 7'3 tend to do, Sampson suffered from a series of injuries. They decided to part ways with Ralph and Hakeem took quite a while to win much without him. He lost 4 consecutive first round series and missed a play-offs before finally making it to the 2nd round in 1992-93, only to lose in 7 to the Seattle Supersonics. With Michael Jordan leaving in 1992-93, Hakeem was the best player in basketball for the next two seasons. He won pretty much everything you could in 1993-94, beating the Knicks in 7. Than in 1994-95, the Rockets lost a bit of steam early, than traded for Hakeem's former college teammate Clyde Drexler, going on to sweep the young Orlando Magic in the Finals. Hakeem may not have been Michael Jordan, who I do not think too many people were touting over him in the 1984 Draft where Michael went 3rd. But, he was the #1 pick who led his draft team to a championship without another prominent #1 pick, which is an impressive feat in its own right.
- David Robinson San Antonio Spurs 1987/Tim Duncan San Antonio Spurs 1997: Might as well group these guys together, as unlike Magic Johnson, David Robinson never even reached a Finals without his fellow team drafted #1 pick. David Robinson was awesome, but he had the rep of dipping in the big moments. The best David ever did before Duncan was get to the Conference Finals in 1994-95, where Hakeem beat him down even more than he would end doing to Shaq in the Finals (much more, honestly, even though the series went to 6). Than, in 1996-97, the Spurs went through one of the more unlucky seasons a team could face. Robinson was hurt to start the season, came back for 6 games, than broke his foot. Sean Elliott had been hurt as well, but Robinson was monstrously valuable and the Spurs finished 20-62. They certainly chose the right draft to win the lottery in, as a generational type big man who teams had been waiting for since his sophomore season, was available at pick 1. Tim Duncan fit incredibly well with Robinson and the Spurs in general. The Spurs made amazing personnel moves after their first championship, Duncan's 2nd season in 1998-99. The Lakers won 3 straight titles, though the Spurs used the 2nd to last pick of the first round (Tony Parker, 2001) and second round (Manu Ginobili, 1999) that carried on competing for championships and winning them well after David Robinson retired. Tim Duncan is pretty much everything a team could dream of as far as fulfilling the expectations of a #1 pick carrying a franchise. David Robinson obviously gave a nice push and helping hand in the first few years, though.
Well, those are 8 players in 61 drafts since the league has been called the NBA that won titles with their original teams. That means one every 7.6 years. Think that will end up growing as there are now more teams and hence more difficulty in building them into contenders. If you want to "fix the conspriacy" the chances are you might want to fix MUCH more than just the lottery. Still, the Lakers won 5 championships with 3 of those players, plus David Robinson and Tim Duncan won two. I guess my point is, teams usually have to combine with outside talent or get a major piece who more than likely fits the description of a top draft choice somewhere down the line.
Ultimately, winning the first pick tends to be an awesome thing for ones team. It still does not mean your team will win a championship, which to me would be the biggest reason to get upset over "the draft being rigged". If you make good basketball moves, you can win in the NBA. I have yet to see a team not prove this is possible. Even the unluckiest of unlucky teams move up in the lottery every now and than. If you draft well and make smart moves, than you will more than likely have little reason to b!tch about the lottery.
Meanwhile, 11 first picks in a row have not won championships, 18 out of the last 19 have never won a title. There have been 27 drafts in the lottery era and 3 (!) #1 picks have won titles at all (Shaq being the third with Robinson/Duncan the other two). To me, something being rigged would lead to titles, not just teams doing a tad better than they might have otherwise. The NBA was built on teams that make lopsided moves having success. I think you will find most sports tend to be, either with draft value, salary cap or numerous other factors. To complain about the lottery being fixed when I have seen teams such as Sacramento, Milwaukee and Minnesota make the conference finals in the 2000's just has little substance to me. Your story line conspiracy theories may make you think the lottery is rigged, but I think the proof is out there that the rigging does not necessarily lead to the winning teams making dynasties. So, if it IS rigged, than not a lot of proven value is out there for the teams that have been the supposed beneficiaries.
I may not be following you but you talk about the pressure to select Davis would have made it ok for Jordan. I disagree with that. There has been pressure to take certain players in previous drafts. The one that comes to mind recently was greg oden. He was the consensus number 1 pick. He got injured and Durant became a superstar. The Blazers GM is now gone and we debate it to this day if it was a good pick.
So lets say the Bobcats got Davis at 1, and the next team takes Drummond. If Davis just becomes another Taj Gibson(not saying he will just an example) and Drummond becomes David Robinson(again an example), does Jordan not look like a fool? I think he does.
yeah, joecheck, I think you are looking at it from a different perspective. one that may not prove either of us right or wrong. its perception.
I believe the drafting of Sam Bowie was bad, remember when it happened. He had missed 2 whole years in college. He played in the 1979-80-81 seasons, then didnt come back til 1983-84. That was bad and people were saying it at the time that it was bad....low and behold, Bowie was oft-injured, due to "soft bones". Well, missing 2 years of college play due to injuries is sign enough for me not to take him #1. He didnt dominate like Sampson or Tisdale did in college.
There was no such evidence of Oden being a "medical bust" that I recall. That pick was absolutely excusable and the only reason why its debated is because they drafted Bowie. So its the "if you did something dumb once, you obviously did it again theory".
There is nothing that Drummond or anyone else has done to suggest that they will be better than Davis, as Davis has NOT done anything to show that he wont be a great overall pick.
See, Jordan has done something stupid before...and for that reason, no matter who he picks, Davis or anyone else, if they bust he will still be looked at as a bad GM. Not necessarily because of the pick though, but because he didnt do anything to overcompensate his biggest mistakes. He couldve still put together a good team in Washington, but look at all the mistakes he made there. If Jordan doesnt want to be called a dummy, then he needs to put together a respectable team, not just rely on one particular player, whether he is #1 or 2 overall.
are you sure you posted in the right thread? the conspiracy room is 2 doors down.
this post was not about N.O. getting the pick, but about people thinking that Charlotte is going to be much better the next few years with Davis than anyone else in this draft. Or that Charlotte is going to suck for that many more years because they didnt get Davis.
I just dont like the lottery current format and if we are to have a lottery, then go back to the old way, because not only was it more fun but it was at least as fair as we could see. We cant discount any type of conspiracy when everything about the lottery is concealed now. Thats pure blind faith.....may as well drink purple punch.
I didnt see the pre-lottery draft as a problem. There are pros and cons to everything. Who tanked and what did it get them? The Knicks never won a title with Ewing. What's really changed if you can tank and still be guaranteed no lower than the 3rd pick? Sure, everyone wants the #1 pick, but #3 aint bad either.
So I can tank and still get a guy like Kevin Love, Russell Westbrook, Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Melo, Bosh, D-Wade, etc.....
Its not where you pick its what you do with the pick. Tanking gives you a shot at a higher pick, but even if you dont get it, it still puts you in damn good position. So the lottery doesnt solve the problem of tanking, its just throwing dirt on doo doo to cover the stinch.
I think what most people are getting at is unless Davis has a freak accident and is injury plagued his entire career, he would probably have Charlotte in the playoffs maybe by his 2nd or 3rd year. His impact is that impressive. Every team needs a guy like Davis to help them be better. You can have a great scorer (the Warriors when they had Ellis) and not win. I do believe though that just because the Bobcats aren't getting Davis doesn't mean it's the end of the world. I know alot of people are in love with MKG but I think Barnes will be the better pro immediately. It's to early to tell down the line but in terms of instant impact for a team I think Barnes is the guy. Looking back on the past 10 years of NBA Drafts, only four number one picks have been Rookie of the Year. So you basically have a 40% chance of drafting and instant impact guy at number one. I don't know what to consider Griffin seeing as he was the number one pick in 09 but Tyreke Evans won it but he was a number one pick so I will throw him in there. However, other than three number one picks (Bargniani, Oden, Bogut is still up in the air for me but he is too injury prone) the rest have either become the franchise players that people thought they would be or key contributors to the teams turn around. Wall and Irving are still to early to tell but they look like franchise changers to me. This list includes Yao Ming in '02 before the injury of course, Lebron in '03, Dwight in '04, Rose in '08, and Griffin in '09. So it's not the end of the world even though the Bobcats aren't getting Davis, but history shows that getting Davis probably would have paid off in the long run.
You feel sorry for them because this was one pick they couldn't screw up. Now they've got the second pick and they might screw it up.
"I think what most people are getting at is unless Davis has a freak accident and is injury plagued his entire career, he would probably have Charlotte in the playoffs maybe by his 2nd or 3rd year. "
and thats what I am getting at....I dont think he is that good...I mean that is Lebron good, Durant good. basically, if he is that good then he will be getting MVP votes by his 3rd year. I could be totally wrong and everyone else could be right, but I dont see it.
With a title like "The Sky is Falling" and all of the talk about Charlotte not being at the end of the world with the second pick, I have no idea how what I wrote was not only on topic but supportive of your theory. My sarcasm at the beginning was meant as a joke of disagreement, I actually think I was one of the first people to give you a plus one. If you found what I wrote in my post to be as condescending as what you wrote in the post back to me, I apologize, but I was agreeing with you and providing evidence that getting the first pick is not always the end of the world.
Now, to your post about the lottery. How in the world was the old system better? You seem to be older than I am and have claimed you were around before me, I believe it, have little reason not to. The thing is, how on earth was a coin flip, guaranteeing the teams with the worst two records in the league either the first or second selection "more fun" than the lottery. What is more blind faith than two teams sucking their @ss off for a 50/50 chance at the first pick.
By the way, this years lottery basically turned out to make-up what a coin flip would be. Think about it, the worst team in the East and the worst team in the West would flip a coin for first pick. The worst team in the West got the first pick, the worst team in the East got the second pick. The odds of the lottery were more in the Bobcats favor than the Hornets, but you want to give equal odds to both teams and call that "fair". Can we discount coin conspiracy theories either? Absolutely doubt it.
So, I guess I a drinking the sugary water mixed with cyanide provided by cults (the way you said the popular term "drinking the Kool-Aid" was QUITE clever). Also, did I say the lottery SOLVED the problem of tanking? Not in the least. What I did say is, it did not just reward tankers. Those teams would be given high picks (the worse you can do if you finish in the bottom two is have a top 5 selection, which is statistically viable for helping your team more so than any selection after 5 with proven data). Yes, it is not where you pick it is whom, but the where tends to be pretty significant. Plus, you are saying the old way would not allow these guys to get a top 3 selection? Yes, you listed players that went 4-5, but statistically speaking, those players are far more the exception than the rule.
The draft lottery is not necessarily completely fair. I do believe though at the very least, it does not provide a given major reward for teams that tank. Charlotte had more of a chance of getting the 4 pick than any one of the top 3 selections percentage wise. Although, they also had an over 60% chance at a top 3 pick. I guess one would trade that for a 50-50 shot at a top 2 pick, but would teams than not be going crazy to get low? People tank for better lottery odds, so you would see an absolute arms race of $hit play to get the bottom spot in the East/West. How it would not be (or was not circa 1984) more chaotic than the tanking we see now, I have no idea.
Would like you to kind of explain that and maybe see my previous post in a different connotation. It ultimately had a simple point which was showing that the draft lottery does not necessarily make teams champions, as few #1 picks that have been drafted have won titles with the team that selected them. The only two players that have won with their team won 2 (David Robinson) and 4 (Tim Duncan, with two of those being with David Robinson). 4 Championships out of 27 drafts is not an overwhelming number convincing one that a rigged lottery has much success. I was influenced by other posts that claimed the lottery was rigged, but I felt what I wrote supported the fact that having the #1 pick is not the end all be all. If you felt like it stole your thunder or was off-topic, I urge you to read it through different eyes. Your response did little to touch on what I was highlighting and the "stinch" of it was quite off to me.
I think that this is terrible for the Bobcats. I see Anthony Davis as a franchise big man so they missed out on that, and now they have a very tough choice at number 2.
no problem on the post, it was excellent....I just thought you were thinking this was a conspiracy thread....and while I do not like the current lottery format, that was not the main idea I was trying to get across. u good bruh.
I dont think I meant to say the pre-lottery draft was more fun. I was saying, or meant to say the original lottery was more fun, when they say Charlotte would get x-amount of balls with their logo on it and the next worst team would get less balls, and so on. Whatever pick you are on, pull the ball out, whoever's logo it is, gets that pick. That was really suspensful to me.