.
Pelicans Report
 
Page 3 of 48 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 1197

Thread: 2022-23 Offseason Thread

  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Taker597 View Post
    If I have to listen to people tell me Pelicans got a 26.3% of getting a top 4 pick... I'm going to lose my mind. Odds don't work in 400%. It's 100%. It's 6.5% per pick we land in the top 4. They don't add up. They average out. Every pick is the same odds. Have more picks at the same same odds don't give you relatively more odds. You're adding them up to make a much bigger number than what it truly is..

    6% - 6.3% - 6.7% - 7.2%

    Those are odds of the top 4 picks. Which averages out to the true odds 6.5% in the top 4.

    If some was to ask the cumulative odds of all 4 picks. It's 26.3% out of 4 control simulations. It's really silly. It's just grossly misleading, because it's out of 400%. But it's 4 seperate simulation.

    You can't add the odds together to get true odds unless you labeled that's clearly out of 400%.

    It's frustrating and misleading and empty numbers
    Actually it's 26,3% of getting a top 4 pick. The request is "at least one pick is in the top 4", so in the case you have to add all percentage for 1 to 4 slots and subtract the combination odds (here's 0 since there's only one pick). If you want an example, let's say you face 4 doors, two open on stairs, one on a flat room and the last lead to a hole. If you randomly pick the doors, there's 50% odds to end in a stairs, 25% odds to end in the flat room and 25% odds to end in a hole. Now if the request is "to not pick a door leading to an hole", you have 3 chances out of 4, so 50%+25%=75% odds. Hope it helps clarify.

    Speaking of odds, let's say the Knicks end up winning the lottery and offer Mitchell Robinson + the number one pick for Zion ( they need that star power and Thibodeaux doesn't like rookies), would you consider it ? If not, what additionnal assets would you need ?
    Last edited by Blattman; 04-29-2022 at 06:42 AM.

  2. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Blattman View Post
    Actually it's 26,3% of getting a top 4 pick. The request is "at least one pick is in the top 4", so in the case you have to add all percentage for 1 to 4 slots and subtract the combination odds (here's 0 since there's only one pick). If you want an example, let's say you face 4 doors, two open on stairs, one on a flat room and the last lead to a hole. If you randomly pick the doors, there's 50% odds to end in a stairs, 25% odds to end in the flat room and 25% odds to end in a hole. Now if the request is "to not pick a door leading to an hole", you have 3 chances out of 4, so 50%+25%=75% odds. Hope it help clarifies.

    Speaking of odds, let's say the Knicks end up winning the lottery and offer Mitchell Robinson + the number one pick for Zion ( they need that star power and Thibodeaux doesn't like rookies), would you consider it ? If not, what additionnal assets would you need ?
    Ok im just going to be a stupid Aussie and say this math is totally wrong. and Taker597 is right, in my 'high school level math' brain.

    The lotto isnt just dropped in one go. There are 4 chances for us to beat the odds and in each case it's a small chance so accumulating it to a 25% overall chance is probably wrong.

    But again, I'm dumb. So the math prof on the board (please dont be Paelewhatever) explain it.

  3. #53
    Pistol Pete Would Be Proud!! Tinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Impose View Post
    Ok im just going to be a stupid Aussie and say this math is totally wrong. and Taker597 is right, in my 'high school level math' brain.

    The lotto isnt just dropped in one go. There are 4 chances for us to beat the odds and in each case it's a small chancso accumulating it to a 25% overall chance is probably wrong.

    But again, I'm dumb. So the math prof on the board (please dont be Paelewhatever) explain it.
    Don’t try and over think it. Taker is 100% INCORRECT! There are 1001 ping pong balls. Of those 1001, Pelicans have 60ish for 1st pick, 60ish for 2nd, 60ish for 3rd pick and 60ish for 4th pick. That’s 240ish out of 1001. Pretty simple 24% to land in top 4.

  4. #54
    Pistol Pete Would Be Proud!! Tinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Blattman View Post
    Actually it's 26,3% of getting a top 4 pick. The request is "at least one pick is in the top 4", so in the case you have to add all percentage for 1 to 4 slots and subtract the combination odds (here's 0 since there's only one pick). If you want an example, let's say you face 4 doors, two open on stairs, one on a flat room and the last lead to a hole. If you randomly pick the doors, there's 50% odds to end in a stairs, 25% odds to end in the flat room and 25% odds to end in a hole. Now if the request is "to not pick a door leading to an hole", you have 3 chances out of 4, so 50%+25%=75% odds. Hope it helps clarify.

    Speaking of odds, let's say the Knicks end up winning the lottery and offer Mitchell Robinson + the number one pick for Zion ( they need that star power and Thibodeaux doesn't like rookies), would you consider it ? If not, what additionnal assets would you need ?
    This☝️☝️☝️, but in simpler form. There are 1001 ping pong balls . Of those, the Pels have approx 60 that give them 1st, approx 60 give them 2nd, 60ish that give them 3rd and 60ish that give them 4th pick. This 240-260ish out of 1001. This 26% . Not quite sure what common core math Taker is implementing.

  5. #55
    Why do we need a PG? I thought everyone agreed that Zion was at his best in the role of facilitating offense as a point forward. CJ - BI - Herb - Zion - JV is the starting lineup. Jose the 6th man, Trey and Nance off the bench. Naji there in case we need minutes when someone is hurt. The two pieces I would like us to add are a big man and a 3 & D player. A big man who can protect the rim and play defense in matchups against good centers. And a 3 and D guy who can reliably hit some open perimeter shots while not compromising us on the defensive end. And its beating a dead horse to say this but would like to move on from Graham.
    Last edited by hornetsrebirth; 04-29-2022 at 07:41 AM.

  6. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by hornetsrebirth View Post
    Why do we need a PG? I thought everyone agreed that Zion was at his best in the role of facilitating offense as a point forward. CJ - BI - Herb - Zion - JV is the starting lineup. Jose the 6th man, Trey and Nance off the bench. Naji there in case we need minutes when someone is hurt. The two pieces I would like us to add are a big man and a 3 & D player. A big man who can protect the rim and play defense in matchups against good centers. And a 3 and D guy who can reliably hit some open perimeter shots while not compromising us on the defensive end. And its beating a dead horse to say this but would like to move on from Graham.
    I agree that this team really doesn't need a true point guard, we have enough facilitators on the team as it is. I will add, though that based on a recent interview AD did on the Pels, we may not see a lot of Point Zion from Willie's offense next year. Apparently Bi is not a fan of it at all.

  7. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Blattman View Post
    Actually it's 26,3% of getting a top 4 pick. The request is "at least one pick is in the top 4", so in the case you have to add all percentage for 1 to 4 slots and subtract the combination odds (here's 0 since there's only one pick). If you want an example, let's say you face 4 doors, two open on stairs, one on a flat room and the last lead to a hole. If you randomly pick the doors, there's 50% odds to end in a stairs, 25% odds to end in the flat room and 25% odds to end in a hole. Now if the request is "to not pick a door leading to an hole", you have 3 chances out of 4, so 50%+25%=75% odds. Hope it helps clarify.

    Speaking of odds, let's say the Knicks end up winning the lottery and offer Mitchell Robinson + the number one pick for Zion ( they need that star power and Thibodeaux doesn't like rookies), would you consider it ? If not, what additionnal assets would you need ?
    You’re reading the chart horizontally. I'm reading it vertically with the draft hit rate.

    You’re talking about cumulative odds. I'm looking true odds per pick.

  8. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinman View Post
    Don?t try and over think it. Taker is 100% INCORRECT! There are 1001 ping pong balls. Of those 1001, Pelicans have 60ish for 1st pick, 60ish for 2nd, 60ish for 3rd pick and 60ish for 4th pick. That?s 240ish out of 1001. Pretty simple 24% to land in top 4.
    No... It's both right.

    Houston has 47.9% of getting a the 5th pick.

    Do you say they have 51.2% of getting a top 4.

    Or do you say they got 4 chances to hit at around 13%? Just because you have 4 chances. It doesn't mean your odds are truly greater than 13%.

    Only get 4 chances to win the draw 14% , 13.4%, 12.7%, and 12%.... If they lose out. They guarantee to be the 5th spot by default if they lose out. If you want the true odds per pick, because you are looking at the graph vertically. It would about an average of this hits.

    Each pick works in 100% value vertically. If you jumble up the top 4 picks. You're saying Pelicans have a 26.3% out of true odds of 400% to get a top 4 picks. The horizontal chart is really empty math. I get what you're saying horizontally... It tells you that there is a 26% chance of our pick. But does the odds add up?

    The context you mean is that you're talking about slot fall from the horizontal graph. The graph tells you have to fall in these parameters depending on these odd. Yet, they do not take into a count of hit rate. Which is what really wins you the pick.

    More chance at the same odd don't stack vertically with the graph unless you have more more picks.

    It's more of a misconception thing. True hit rate vs. Misconception of cumulative odds. Reading the chart vertically vs. Horizontal
    Last edited by Taker597; 04-29-2022 at 11:30 AM.

  9. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Taker597 View Post
    You’re reading the chart horizontally. I'm reading it vertically with the draft hit rate.

    You’re talking about cumulative odds. I'm looking true odds per pick.
    With you're way, in the example of the doors, you obtain that you have 37,5% of chance of not ending up in the hole while having 3 issues out of 4 that lead to avoid it.

  10. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Blattman View Post
    With you're way, in the example of the doors, you obtain that you have 37,5% of chance of not ending up in the hole while having 3 issues out of 4 that lead to avoid it.
    Yeah, but it doesn't tell you what's really the odds of you getting through that door on each run. It tells you have 7 chances, but never entelling what your hit rate is to go through it.

    I just don't like like the idea of cumulative odds, because it put up this false notion that you can't go 0%. You can go 0%. Houston 0%. Is the 5th pick. Our is the 11th pick. I don't think the 12 pick is mathematically attainable. Each pull is it's own control simulation and you really live or die in the odds at that pull.

    I get the whole... Your options is 26% of this and 60% and if miss on everything... It's this. It's like somebody saying to me you can't bust in blackjack ten times in a row. Well, you can. I rather use the true odds of that pick.

    63% over pick 8 and 9... 26% over 4 picks. The rest 7% over pick 10th, 11th, 12th.

    You break that down over per pick. It makes more sense on what's truly attainable over each control simulation. Which is why I read the graph vertically rather horizontally.

    I think I have just a weird preference for hit rate and odds.
    Last edited by Taker597; 04-29-2022 at 11:47 AM.

  11. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Sovereign View Post
    Really don't understand why people are obsessed with trading this Lakers pick.
    People don't realise that with Zion about to get a max extension, BI being paid $30m, CJ being paid $35m, and JV being paid $15m, plus the potential of having to extend Jax (not a max extension, but still), we're basically capped out for the future and we're going to have to improve the team through the draft if we want any chance of talent at a reasonable price.
    Basketball.

  12. #62
    Wow, came here for the off-season thread and stumbled into a math board. Weird!

    Taker is right folks. The odds are not cumulative. You don't get to add them for each pick. Thats not how this works.

    It's kind of like flipping a coin. Each individual flip has a 50% chance. But you don't get to add those odds for different flips. Also, each flip has no bearing on the odds of another flip. So, if you get heads 10 times in a row it doesn't change the odds of the next flip. It's still 50%. The human brain makes you think that after 10 on the same side would alter the odds. Like what are the odds of 11 in a row? But that is a different calculation based on the number of flips. Not on a single flip. Each individual flip has its own odds of 50%.
    Last edited by P_B_&_G; 04-29-2022 at 12:20 PM.

  13. #63
    Now that I've muddied the waters more ill see my way out

  14. #64
    The real question in terms of the roster is, "how far can what we have, right now, take us?" Given good health I think we need to see how far these guys can go. Sure, we can definitely use more consistent outside shooting. But your starters are set. 6th 7th and 8th are pretty set as well being Jose, Nance and Trey. What we really need is a better defensive backup big and as always more shooting.

    Honestly, its a breath of fresh air thinking about retooling the bottom of the roster and role players rather than trying to plug holes in the starting unit.

  15. #65

  16. #66

  17. #67
    No doubt! Zion sees how much fun and how much potential this team has, he aint going NOWHERE.

  18. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by P_B_&_G View Post
    The real question in terms of the roster is, "how far can what we have, right now, take us?" Given good health I think we need to see how far these guys can go. Sure, we can definitely use more consistent outside shooting. But your starters are set. 6th 7th and 8th are pretty set as well being Jose, Nance and Trey. What we really need is a better defensive backup big and as always more shooting.

    Honestly, its a breath of fresh air thinking about retooling the bottom of the roster and role players rather than trying to plug holes in the starting unit.
    The Pels played the Suns pretty tight, even with Booker but especially without.

    Booker this year: +4.1 BPM, 3.6 VORP, 7.6 WS

    Zion last year: +5.8 BPM, 4.0 VORP, 8.7 WS

    I think if Trey gets an extra 10mpg, that helps the shooting a bunch. The future looks bright!

  19. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Eyquem View Post
    The Pels played the Suns pretty tight, even with Booker but especially without.

    Booker this year: +4.1 BPM, 3.6 VORP, 7.6 WS

    Zion last year: +5.8 BPM, 4.0 VORP, 8.7 WS

    I think if Trey gets an extra 10mpg, that helps the shooting a bunch. The future looks bright!
    Trey got develop them handles and shot creation over the Summer. Can't rely on other to create offense for you. Shame, because he's an insanely good shooter.

  20. #70
    Listening to David Griffin today, I don't think many players coming off this roster. I honestly could see Snell, Jax, Kira and Devonte getting traded for upgrades but that's it and even that's a maybe. Temple may be gone too and/or he may return has a coach.
    Last edited by PELSGIRL; 04-29-2022 at 03:18 PM.

  21. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by PELSGIRL View Post
    Listening to David Griffin today, I don't think many players coming off this roster. I honestly could see Snell, Jax, Kira and Devonte getting traded for upgrades but that's it and even that's a maybe. Temple may be gone too and/or he may return has a coach.
    We got Zion coming back.
    Drafting a rookie
    Then, you clear out the bottom of roster for one impact player.

    You barely got minutes for anyone else.

  22. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Taker597 View Post
    We got Zion coming back.
    Drafting a rookie
    Then, you clear out the bottom of roster for one impact player.

    You barely got minutes for anyone else.
    Yeah, I can see us getting Kevin Huerter and maybe another defensive minded player (people keep talking about Myles Turner but I don't know if Griff likes him).
    I think we should draft a PG. We need a facilitator.
    Unless we do pt Zion. Wonder if that's the approach Willie will take.

  23. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Taker597 View Post
    Trey got develop them handles and shot creation over the Summer. Can't rely on other to create offense for you. Shame, because he's an insanely good shooter.
    I feel the opposite. Trey has a long way to go to even be a below average shot creator and handler in the NBA. Teams will be happy to see him put it on the floor for multiple dribbles no matter how much he improves.

    He should be leaning in to what he’s good at. Make an effort to add some movement shooting or one dribble pull ups to his game. Let the threat of his shot do the work for him.

  24. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by PELSGIRL View Post
    Yeah, I can see us getting Kevin Huerter and maybe another defensive minded player (people keep talking about Myles Turner but I don't know if Griff likes him).
    I think we should draft a PG. We need a facilitator.
    Unless we do pt Zion. Wonder if that's the approach Willie will take.
    I think you need another big so you don't run Jonas into the ground. Myles an injury prone big that would probably be best serve in that running mate role. Pacers are in a rebuild and probably selling really low on him.

    But his pick and roll defense is just as bad and outside of his shot blocking. He would get bodied by elite centers. Granted.. that's only 3 guys.

    He's only 26. He definitely give you real sustainable long term option at 5 if can get beyond his injuries in a more reduced role.
    Last edited by Taker597; 04-29-2022 at 04:18 PM.

  25. #75


    This is cool.

    Zion mentioned that the team has already talked about meeting up in the offseason during his availability also, so it's good to see it's a real topic

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •