Shams: Spurs Trade for Reggie Bullock and Unprotected 2030 First Round Pick Swap

[Ariel]

It's not meaningless. It just represents various probable outcomes as opposed to a certain outcome. You can still assess risk reward given probabilites.

Sure, but I didn't dispute that (how would I when I'm trying to do that very same thing here).

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sure, but I didn't dispute that (how would I when I'm trying to do that very same thing here).

You said it was irrelevant. If you do not think so then great.

[Ariel]

However, a uniform record distribution doesn't imply a uniform pick distribution. The lottery distorts this. Using the average pick slot from Tankathon (3.7 for worst record, 3.9 for second worst etc), but still assuming a uniform distribution of records, the Spurs' expected pick slot in 2030 will be 10.436 and the Mavs 20.557. So the swap is still worth a bit more than 5 slots. I'm kind of surprised how little difference it made.

Being nitpicky even that isn't enough, because expected pick number from Tankathon doesn't reflect value. Say you have 50-50 chance at picks 1 and 9. You'd expect to get the 5th pick on average, yet the value is higher that the 5th pick outright. To get the most accurate results you have to use a model that quantifies pick value, like the one from Ashbrock that scott posted.

[Ariel]

You said it was irrelevant. If you do not think so then great.

What I said was in reference to the swap rules and how it works (that they're based on post-lottery order, not pre-lottery), nothing to do with evaluating risk under uncertainty. But anyways, we're getting off track here.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What I said was in reference to the swap rules and how it works (that they're based on post-lottery order, not pre-lottery), nothing to do with evaluating risk under uncertainty. But anyways, we're getting off track here.

And that is not mutually exclusive. In fact you were exclusionary as you said:

"the Spurs have a better or worse record than Dallas is irrelevant when it comes to a swap option, it's all about where you end up after the lottery"

That is not the case.

And the discussion is about how to evaluate a pick swap and that is what we are discussing.

[Seventyniner]

Being nitpicky even that isn't enough, because expected pick number from Tankathon doesn't reflect value. Say you have 50-50 chance at picks 1 and 9. You'd expect to get the 5th pick on average, yet the value is higher that the 5th pick outright. To get the most accurate results you have to use a model that quantifies pick value, like the one from Ashbrock that scott posted.

You're right, the value of the picks themselves is not uniform so even taking lottery odds into account isn't enough.

Using the Ashbrock values, I got this. Record = 1 means worst record in the league, 30 means best.

Record	Exp Slot	Exp Value
1	3.7	49.46
2	3.9	45.62
3	4.1	43.08
4	4.4	39.52
5	5	35.53
6	5.5	32.56
7	6.2	29.81
8	7	26.88
9	8	23.76
10	9.2	20.44
11	10.3	17.62
12	11.4	15.50
13	12.5	13.82
14	13.7	12.21
15	15	10.5
16	16	10
17	17	9.5
18	18	9
19	19	8.6
20	20	8.1
21	21	7.7
22	22	7.4
23	23	7
24	24	6.6
25	25	6.3
26	26	6
27	27	5.7
28	28	5.4
29	29	5.1
30	30	4.9

Average expected value for the uniform record distribution is 17.454 so that's the baseline.

The team with swap rights gets an expected value 24.854 and the team who gave away swap rights gets an expected value of 10.054. That's a difference of 7.4 pick value due to the swap, the equivalent of the #22 pick.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're right, the value of the picks themselves is not uniform so even taking lottery odds into account isn't enough.

Using the Ashbrock values, I got this. Record = 1 means worst record in the league, 30 means best.

Record	Exp Slot	Exp Value
1	3.7	49.46
2	3.9	45.62
3	4.1	43.08
4	4.4	39.52
5	5	35.53
6	5.5	32.56
7	6.2	29.81
8	7	26.88
9	8	23.76
10	9.2	20.44
11	10.3	17.62
12	11.4	15.50
13	12.5	13.82
14	13.7	12.21
15	15	10.5
16	16	10
17	17	9.5
18	18	9
19	19	8.6
20	20	8.1
21	21	7.7
22	22	7.4
23	23	7
24	24	6.6
25	25	6.3
26	26	6
27	27	5.7
28	28	5.4
29	29	5.1
30	30	4.9

Average expected value for the uniform record distribution is 17.454 so that's the baseline.

The team with swap rights gets an expected value 24.854 and the team who gave away swap rights gets an expected value of 10.054. That's a difference of 7.4 pick value due to the swap, the equivalent of the #22 pick.

Whether or not it's linear doesn't really matter. Having the worst record is still better than the second which is better than the third, etc.

[Ariel]

And that is not mutually exclusive. In fact you were exclusionary as you said:

"the Spurs have a better or worse record than Dallas is irrelevant when it comes to a swap option, [b]it's all about where you end up after the lottery/[b]"

That is not the case.

And the discussion is about how to evaluate a pick swap and that is what we are discussing.

An example is best in these cases:
a) Pre-lottery order: 1) Spurs, 5) Dallas. Post-Lottery: 1) Spurs 5) Dallas. The Spurs had a higher pre-lottery order and higher post-lottery order: no swap
b) Pre-lottery order: 1) Spurs, 5) Dallas. Post-Lottery: 1) Dallas 5) Spurs. The Spurs had a higher pre-lottery order but lower post-lottery order: swap
c) Pre-lottery order: 1) Dallas 5) Spurs. Post-Lottery: 1) Spurs 5) Dallas. The Spurs had a lower pre-lottery order but higher post-lottery order: no swap
d) Pre-lottery order: 1) Dallas 5) Spurs. Post-Lottery: 1) Dallas 5) Spurs. The Spurs had a lower pre-lottery order and lower post-lottery order: swap
If you have a lower post-lottery (cases b and d) order you swap, whether you had a higher pre-lottery order (case b) or lower (case d)
If you have a higher post-lottery (cases a and c) order you don't swap, whether you had a higher pre-lottery order (case a) or lower (case c)
Conclusion: pre-lottery order doesn't matter, only post-lottery order does, which is what I said.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

An example is best in these cases:
a) Pre-lottery order: 1) Spurs, 5) Dallas. Post-Lottery: 1) Spurs 5) Dallas. The Spurs had a higher pre-lottery order and higher post-lottery order: no swap
b) Pre-lottery order: 1) Spurs, 5) Dallas. Post-Lottery: 1) Dallas 5) Spurs. The Spurs had a higher pre-lottery order but lower post-lottery order: swap
c) Pre-lottery order: 1) Dallas 5) Spurs. Post-Lottery: 1) Spurs 5) Dallas. The Spurs had a lower pre-lottery order and higher post-lottery order: no swap
d) Pre-lottery order: 1) Dallas 5) Spurs. Post-Lottery: 1) Dallas 5) Spurs. The Spurs had a lower pre-lottery order but lower post-lottery order: swap
If you have a lower post-lottery (cases b and d) order you swap, whether you had a higher pre-lottery order (case b) or lower (case d)
If you have a higher post-lottery (cases a and c) order you don't swap, whether you had a higher pre-lottery order (case a) or lower (case c)
Conclusion: pre-lottery order doesn't matter, only post-lottery order does, which is what I said.

You cherry picking anecdotal outcomes does not change the probable outcomes.

[Ariel]

You cherry picking anecdotal outcomes does not change the probable outcomes.

Huh? I just posted EVERY possible case (or every case can be reduced to one of these 4 and none other) to illustrate how a swap works and showed you that only post-lottery outcomes are relevant to determine whether a swap takes place or not. It isn't cherry picking, I just went ahead and picked every fruit in the forest and showed you it was a cherry, there's no probability involved, it's entirely deterministic. Anyway, I engage in discussion when there's a point in doing so, in this case I made my point already, so no point pursuing this further from me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Huh? I just posted EVERY possible case (or every case can be reduced to one of these 4 and none other) to illustrate how a swap works and showed you that only post-lottery outcomes are relevant to determine whether a swap takes place or not. It isn't cherry picking, I just went ahead and picked every fruit in the forest and showed you it was a cherry, there's no probability involved, it's entirely deterministic. Anyway, I engage in discussion when there's a point in doing so, in this case I made my point already, so no point pursuing this further from me.

The Spurs could have one of 30 different picks and the Mavericks the same. You were hardly exhaustive and instead handwaved at the dynamic of the first 7 picks outcomes being equalized to a degree.

At the end of the day and within what the Spurs can control, they are best served with a better record. It might not work out but in more probable outcomes it will.

[Ariel]

The Spurs could have one of 30 different picks and the Mavericks the same. You were hardly exhaustive and instead handwaved at the dynamic of the first 7 picks outcomes being equalized to a degree.

[K...]

The Spurs could have one of 30 different picks and the Mavericks the same. You were hardly exhaustive and instead handwaved at the dynamic of the first 7 picks outcomes being equalized to a degree.

Youre trolling . Math is symbols and the logic of the swap is boolean

[exstatic]

An example is best in these cases:
a) Pre-lottery order: 1) Spurs, 5) Dallas. Post-Lottery: 1) Spurs 5) Dallas. The Spurs had a higher pre-lottery order and higher post-lottery order: no swap
b) Pre-lottery order: 1) Spurs, 5) Dallas. Post-Lottery: 1) Dallas 5) Spurs. The Spurs had a higher pre-lottery order but lower post-lottery order: swap
c) Pre-lottery order: 1) Dallas 5) Spurs. Post-Lottery: 1) Spurs 5) Dallas. The Spurs had a lower pre-lottery order but higher post-lottery order: no swap
d) Pre-lottery order: 1) Dallas 5) Spurs. Post-Lottery: 1) Dallas 5) Spurs. The Spurs had a lower pre-lottery order and lower post-lottery order: swap
If you have a lower post-lottery (cases b and d) order you swap, whether you had a higher pre-lottery order (case b) or lower (case d)
If you have a higher post-lottery (cases a and c) order you don't swap, whether you had a higher pre-lottery order (case a) or lower (case c)
Conclusion: pre-lottery order doesn't matter, only post-lottery order does, which is what I said.

Yeah, no one understood this one last year either, incessantly screeching at the Spurs to catch Detroit in the tank race.

[scott]

The uniform distribution for the pick slot is meant as an easy way out to reflect how little information we have about standings 7 years away, and the huge variability of the results. But yes, results are hugely contingent on your assumptions, and if you factor in that the Spurs should be good with Wemby (say 5th best record on average) and Dallas might lose Luka (say 20th best record on average) then results are different. But the point is making it "worthwhile" is a very subjective exercise, in time reality invariably diverges from expectations and behavior is chaotic (small deviations ac ulate and produce large differences). Perhaps a more reasonable approach would be assuming a middle of the pack mean with some variance, but not uniform. Also there needs to be a distinction between the standings and draft ordering, which are not the same because of the lottery. In short, too many factors to expect me to fully contemplate at 1 AM on a weekday, but with a bit more time I'll try a few different scenarios to try to paint a broader picture of where it may end up, including picks and swaps, unprotected and different levels of protections throughout the years, etc. It's not that difficult, but you have to be careful if you don't want to get garbage for results.

I don't think that any of this is worth the effort, but we could put together any number of predictive models for future team performance (which is an endeavor in its own right, and would be quite valuable for gamblers) that we then use for the swap model. I'd probably start with model that is some weighting of overall historical win % (as a measure of overall quality of the franchise), perhaps the rolling average of the last 2 seasons (as a measure of the quality of the current team as constructed), and then some metric to rate the quality of the current roster (even if this was just the average 2K rating of the roster ). Would be fun to backcast that and see how it compared to actual results.

And... like I said, this is all way more trouble than it's worth

[Seventyniner]

7 years is far enough out that I don't see a reason to use anything other than a uniform distribution. The Spurs went from 67-15 to 22-60 in a seven year span. While that's extreme it demonstrates the possibility.

The Mavs are unlikely to end up with a really bad record in 2029-2030 now because there will be no reason to tank. That's another skew to the model, that they are unlikely to end up with a bottom 5 record at all (unless they suffer a ton of injuries) because some other teams will be tanking.

[exstatic]

7 years is far enough out that I don't see a reason to use anything other than a uniform distribution. The Spurs went from 67-15 to 22-60 in a seven year span. While that's extreme it demonstrates the possibility.

The Mavs are unlikely to end up with a really bad record in 2029-2030 now because there will be no reason to tank. That's another skew to the model, that they are unlikely to end up with a bottom 5 record at all (unless they suffer a ton of injuries) because some other teams will be tanking.

Newsflash: not only tanking teams end up in the lottery.

[scott]

Newsflash: not only tanking teams end up in the lottery.

But, at least recently, only tanking teams end up in the bottom 3... which skews the lotto odds and the EV of a Mavs pick...

[spurraider21]

But, at least recently, only tanking teams end up in the bottom 3... which skews the lotto odds and the EV of a Mavs pick...

yeah with how narrowed down the %'s are, thats not as big a deal as it used to be

[exstatic]

But, at least recently, only tanking teams end up in the bottom 3... which skews the lotto odds and the EV of a Mavs pick...

We actually don't need them to win the lottery, although it would be nice. If we're at 25 and they're at 13, post lottery drawing, that's a huge win.

[Seventyniner]

Newsflash: not only tanking teams end up in the lottery.

You're right.

But so much of the value of draft picks is at the very top that the Mavs having only a 14-32% chance of jumping into the top 4 (7th to 10th worst record) as opposed to a 52.1% chance (bottom 3 record) makes a decent difference in the overall value of the swap. I didn't take that into account in my calcs, I just assumed an equal chance of each pre-lottery slot.

[Darkwaters]

So did we ever confirm which picks we were giving up? For sure?

[spurraider21]

So did we ever confirm which picks we were giving up? For sure?

nope, nothing official yet

[kobyz]

With Mavericks not getting the Portland player and now can sign Grant Williams straight forward with the MLE, could it be they void the trade?

[spurraider21]

With Mavericks not getting the Portland player and now can sign Grant Williams straight forward with the MLE, could it be they void the trade?

the amount grant williams agreed to is more than the MLE