Here's a preliminary list (not including cuts and IR):
PG
Muggsy Bogues, Billy Donovan, Franklin Edwards, Winston Garland, Mark Jackson, Michael Jackson, Kevin Johnson, Kenny Smith, Clinton Wheeler, Tony White, Ricky Wilson
SG
Vincent Askew, Steve Burtt, David Henderson, Dennis Hopsen, Bart Kofoed, Ralph Lewis, Reggie Lewis, Reggie Miller, Pete Myers, Otis Smith, Milt Wagner
SF
Norris Coleman, Winston Crite, Derrick McKey, Ken Norman, Scottie Pippen, Scott Roth, Ray Tolbert, Eric White, Reggie Williams
PF
Cadilac Anderson, Dallas Comegys, Jeff Cook, Tellis Frank, Armon Gilliam, Horace Grant, Claude Gregory, Brad Lohaus
C
Mark Acres, Uwe Blab, Chris Dudley, Chris Engler, Stuart Gray, Petur Gudmundsson, Dave Hoppen, Mark McNamara, Martin Nessley, Olden Polynice, Joe Wolf

Tuesday's 880 keeps cdew8 at #2 in the Draft.

how many draft slots are determined by the lottery? 9?

1st three picks - then the remaining picks in order of record - worst to best

Michael Cage and/or Mark Price both available. These guys are both good into the mid 90s.

So I missed out on winning the lottery because I was outscored by 3 points in 2 games against Virginia?

I didn't realize all the tiebreaker stuff until now because it affected me, but if 4 teams have the same record, shouldn't those 4 slots be divided up as equally as possible, and then tiebreakers used if their is a few remaining numbers? Isn't that how the NBA does it?

If 3 teams tie for spots 9, 10 and 11, then you don't use a tiebreaker to determine who is 9, who is 10 and who is 11, you divide up all the percentages chances equally and then use tiebreakers from there, correct?

Based on my previous post, Cullen ended up with 40 chances compared to Steev only getting 10 chances, even though they had the same record. Shouldn't the 4 teams that tied, record wise, have simply gotten 25 chances since they all had the same record? Tiebreakers could've been used to determine that Golden State would've gotten the best pick and Steev wouldn't gotten the worst pick if no one landed in the top 3, and so on. Am I crazy for thinking this?

Golden State (cullen) - 8-5 (40 chances)
Virginia (wandm) - 4-4 (30 chance)
Da Memphis (cea) - 3-3 (20 chances)
St. Louis (steev) - 5-8 (10 chances)

Quote: Originally Posted By cea8010 on 12/23/2009
Based on my previous post, Cullen ended up with 40 chances compared to Steev only getting 10 chances, even though they had the same record. Shouldn't the 4 teams that tied, record wise, have simply gotten 25 chances since they all had the same record? Tiebreakers could've been used to determine that Golden State would've gotten the best pick and Steev wouldn't gotten the worst pick if no one landed in the top 3, and so on. Am I crazy for thinking this?

Golden State (cullen) - 8-5 (40 chances)
Virginia (wandm) - 4-4 (30 chance)
Da Memphis (cea) - 3-3 (20 chances)
St. Louis (steev) - 5-8 (10 chances)

I see the thinking, but it's never been done that way. Ties are broken the same for all spots in the Draft / Lottery the same way. Keeping chances even for Lottery ties would also require moving numbers around, which I know creigel's too lazy to do, and I have no desire to do, but will, if enough owners want it.

I realize that it's never been done that way before and that it won't change what happened at this time but I think it should be addressed in the future. The tiebreaker is used in the real NBA to determine the order AFTER the lottery takes place. Both teams should get the same chances to win the lottery given they had the same record. I don't think a team with the same record should get 4x as many chances as another one thanks to a tiebreaker. Think about that. 4 times as many chances to win the lottery even though they have the same record. That seems criminally unfair. If I had known that 1 more loss during the regular season could've given me 40 chances to win the lottery instead of 10, I would've tanked 1 game.

That's the beauty of the Lottery, 1 more loss could just as easily ruin your Lottery as make it better. What happened with wandm is a great example of that. I don't recall anyone else ever commenting on this, but like I said, if enough owners want to change it, I will go along with that, for as long as I have a hand in helping run things.

That said, tonight's 396 keeps me 3rd.

Since I know creigel's not planning to start the Draft "officially" until after the New Year (probably Tuesday, 1/5), I'm not sure when he'll get the thread going. If owners want, they may start / continue at their own pace in this thread.

Here is the order for the 1st 12 picks:


wandmtribe -
cdew8 -
all3 -
cjok1051 -
creigel -
Poddy -
sjstapleton -
cullen2K1 -
cea8010 -
steev -
JGreene -
wetz64 -

I agree wholeheartedly with cea8010's post from above-tie breakers should not make such a huge difference in lottery chances

I agree as well but on a more limited basis. I agree with the concept that ties should be broken in favor of the better head to head record. This encourages bad teams to stay as competitive as possible. That being said the existing "penalty" for being the loser of the tiebreaker is too extreme. I would rather see maybe a 10 or 20 % maximum differential not a 4 to 1 difference. Worked out well for me this go round but I can assure you that I have had my share of lottery heartbreaks in other leagues.

All that being said. I am not in love with the 1st pick this draft. Would trade it in a heartbeat for a good player and another lottery pick.

I have no problem with the team with the better record winning the tiebreaker, as I've always played my best players, even with crappy teams. I just think this situation should be re-evaluated for big ties like this that have such an impact. A winning tiebreaker shouldn't get more than 5-10% more chances.