Any Statisticians Here? Cleveland...

[pmj]

In 2011, Cleveland had 2.8% chance of winning with the Clips pick.

In 2013, they had 15.6% chance.

In 2014, they had 1.7% chance.

Am I wrong, or is that not .028 x .156 x .017 or .000074256 or 7/1000th of 1% chance to win all 3 drafts??

[NumberSix]

Whoever Cleveland drafts will be a bust.

Cleveland = mush

[tpols]

the league either rigged it , or there are some unseen forces of karma at play.

[RedBlackAttack]

This has been worked out already.

The odds of the Cavaliers winning 2011, 2013, and 2014 lotteries were 13,467-to-1.


the league either rigged it , or there are some unseen forces of karma at play.

Oh yes... the league rigging the draft for the Cavs would definitely make sense when both the Celtics and Lakers had much better odds of landing the top pick. If anything, this result proves that rigging doesn't exist.

The Cavs are not a big market and they weren't awful this past season, either. Hell, they played .500 ball, basically, after Bynum was removed. I believe they had the best record of any team picking in the Top 10.

[hawksdogsbraves]

Wow. It may actually be possible that LeBron bends fate around himself, and left the Cavs with a huge reserve of good karma. If only they could figure out how to make use of it...

[Mrofir]

That may be true but it's a little misleading -- you would have to include the other years in which they were eligible to win in the odds making. A more telling stat would be their chances of winning 3 times in 5 years or whatever. Still extraordinary long shot but not quite as ridiculous.

[Springsteen]

Wow. It may actually be possible that LeBron bends fate around himself, and left the Cavs with a huge reserve of good karma. If only they could figure out how to make use of it...

LeGod is so great he graced Leaveland with the karma of 3 number 1 draft picks when leaving :bowdown:

[rhowen4]

LeBron is ta'veren...

[Cermet]

it's going to be hilarious when clevelend will not pick the one of the consensus 2 picks of this draft. And they will draft somebody who was supposed to be like second round 15 pick. It is really strange that some karma doesn't punish them. With the pick they picked last year they were supposed to not get a nr 1 pick in upcoming 100 years. So yeah this is a proof that karma doesn't exist.

[noob cake]

In 2011, Cleveland had 2.8% chance of winning with the Clips pick.

In 2013, they had 15.6% chance.

In 2014, they had 1.7% chance.

Am I wrong, or is that not .028 x .156 x .017 or .000074256 or 7/1000th of 1% chance to win all 3 drafts??

People win real lotteries all the times with much lower chances.

[oarabbus]

In 2011, Cleveland had 2.8% chance of winning with the Clips pick.

In 2013, they had 15.6% chance.

In 2014, they had 1.7% chance.

Am I wrong, or is that not .028 x .156 x .017 or .000074256 or 7/1000th of 1% chance to win all 3 drafts??



This has been worked out already.

The odds of the Cavaliers winning 2011, 2013, and 2014 lotteries were 13,467-to-1.





13467:1 is 0.00007425558 or the same probability worked out by the OP. You could have said as much instead of acting like the number is different.

[Yankstar]

Easy, league wants Lebron to return to Cleveland for Marketing purposes and to build his legacy so ratings increase. He will be the prodigal son returning after abandoning Cleveland to the dogs. All these draft "accidents" will all be forgotten when Lebron 6 peats with the stacked Cavs.

[brantonli]

In 2011, the Cavs had 22.7% chance of getting the #1 pick, that 2.8% is just the Clipper's pick that they owned, they had their own pick which held a 19.9% chance. So you should amend your calculations to reflect that.

[RedBlackAttack]

13467:1 is 0.00007425558 or the same probability worked out by the OP. You could have said as much instead of acting like the number is different.
I didn't "act as though the number was different" because I didn't compare the two. Simply posted what had been verified in an article already published on the subject. Not exactly something to get worked up over.

[oarabbus]

I didn't "act as though the number was different" because I didn't compare the two. Simply posted what had been verified in an article already published on the subject. Not exactly something to get worked up over.


Fair enough, but turns out the verified article wasn't correct anyway considering Brantonli's post.

[RedBlackAttack]

In 2011, the Cavs had 22.7% chance of getting the #1 pick, that 2.8% is just the Clipper's pick that they owned, they had their own pick which held a 19.9% chance. So you should amend your calculations to reflect that.
The 2.8% chance with the Clippers' pick is what won, though. It's not like the other percentages played any role in that Clips pick hitting the mark. To me, that makes the probability of it happening even more amazing.

[brantonli]

The 2.8% chance with the Clippers' pick is what won, though. It's not like the other percentages played any role in that Clips pick hitting the mark. To me, that makes the probability of it happening even more amazing.

So? The Cavs had 227 ping pong balls, 199 from their own pick, and 28 from the Clippers pick. It doesn't matter who the balls originally belonged to, they all went to the Cavs for the 2011 lottery. It's like buying 10 lottery tickets, each with 0.1% chance of winning, winning the lottery, and then saying you had a 0.1% chance of winning the lottery, when you actually had a 1% chance of winning.

[RedBlackAttack]

So? The Cavs had 227 ping pong balls, 199 from their own pick, and 28 from the Clippers pick. It doesn't matter who the balls originally belonged to, they all went to the Cavs for the 2011 lottery. It's like buying 10 lottery tickets, each with 0.1% chance of winning, winning the lottery, and then saying you had a 0.1% chance of winning the lottery, when you actually had a 1% chance of winning.
No, because all of the said lottery tickets had the same probability of hitting. That's not the case with these two separate picks in the 2011 draft.

The Cavs were going to have two picks... their own and the Clippers' pick, which I think was projected to be 8th. The fact that they got the first pick with the Clippers' probability and the 4th pick with their own was highly unlikely... much moreso than if the Cavs' own pick had landed on No. 1 and the Clips' pick stayed at its projected spot of 8th.

The end result doesn't change, but the probabilities certainly didn't favor that outcome. It's not like all of their ping pong balls -- both the Cavs and Clippers' portion -- were thrown into the same pool for the top pick. It was just as unlikely for the Cavs to win the lottery with that specific pick as it would have been for the Clippers had they kept it.

[brantonli]

not going to post any more on this, because I doubt people on here are actually interested in probability theory. But I don't see why you keep treating the Clips+Cavs picks separately. You are arguing for conditional prob, i.e. the Cavs probability of winning the lottery given only the Clippers pick. I'm talking about the Cavs OVERALL probability of winning the lottery, which was their own pick and the Clips pick. And as far as I know, yes the lottery balls are pooled together to pick the winner:


In the new system, 14 numbered table tennis balls were used. Then, a four-digit combination from the 14 balls were drawn to determine the lottery winner. Prior to the draft, the NBA assigned 1000 possible combinations to the non-playoff teams.


Out of the 1000 possible combinations, the Cavs had 227 (199 from their pick, 28 from the Clips pick), therefore have 22.7% chance of winning the lottery.

if we really want to go back to the previous example, say you bought 2 lottery tickets, one with 5% chance and the other 1% chance of winning. You win with the latter ticket, and then say you had a 1% chance of winning, when in reality you had 6% of winning.

[buddha]

lol at people arguing brantonli

you're pretty much saying that if you had the cavs owned every single pick in the draft they still only had a 2.8% chance of winning because that was the pick that won.

you can't just ignore the other pick or picks they owned.

[KyleKong]

Free SPK

[East_Stone_Ya]

Easy, league wants Lebron to return to Cleveland for Marketing purposes and to build his legacy so ratings increase. He will be the prodigal son returning after abandoning Cleveland to the dogs. All these draft "accidents" will all be forgotten when Lebron 6 peats with the stacked Cavs.

:whatever:

[DukeDelonte13]

it's going to be hilarious when clevelend will not pick the one of the consensus 2 picks of this draft. And they will draft somebody who was supposed to be like second round 15 pick. It is really strange that some karma doesn't punish them. With the pick they picked last year they were supposed to not get a nr 1 pick in upcoming 100 years. So yeah this is a proof that karma doesn't exist.


Chris Grant isn't the GM of the cavs anymore so i guess the league can expect to see more conventional picks.


However, had grant picked the conventional picks we would have Kyrie and Thomas Robinson or Harrison Barnes. Both of which are nowhere near as good as Dion Waiters.

There was no consensus last year.

[pmj]

not going to post any more on this, because I doubt people on here are actually interested in probability theory. But I don't see why you keep treating the Clips+Cavs picks separately. You are arguing for conditional prob, i.e. the Cavs probability of winning the lottery given only the Clippers pick. I'm talking about the Cavs OVERALL probability of winning the lottery, which was their own pick and the Clips pick. And as far as I know, yes the lottery balls are pooled together to pick the winner:



Out of the 1000 possible combinations, the Cavs had 227 (199 from their pick, 28 from the Clips pick), therefore have 22.7% chance of winning the lottery.

if we really want to go back to the previous example, say you bought 2 lottery tickets, one with 5% chance and the other 1% chance of winning. You win with the latter ticket, and then say you had a 1% chance of winning, when in reality you had 6% of winning.

You could say you had a 6% chance of winning overall but only 1% chance with that ticket. Likewise, it would have been much more likely for the Cavs to have won with their pick in 2011. We do have the benefit of knowing which tickets won.

[NumberSix]

The odds of the Cavaliers winning 2011, 2013, and 2014 lotteries were 13,467-to-1.



2 possible outcomes. They do or they don't.


50/50 chance.

[Eric Cartman]

2 possible outcomes. They do or they don't.


50/50 chance.

:biggums:


























:lol

[ZHAKIDD532]

It's too bad they messed up last year's pick.

[r15mohd]

definitely rigged...they need to lessen the obvious by bringing back this

http://media.cleveland.com/cavs_impact/photo/nba-draft-machinejpg-c54cc889285d49e1.jpg

[Dr.J4ever]

I don't know about this. I'm not a statistician. All I know is when I see a 98 or 99% FT shooter go to the line, I never see him miss. When someone tells you there's a 98% chance that a deal happens, do you ever see it not push through?

Don't get me wrong. I'm happy with the Sixers situation, but the Cavs thing is weird.