Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron
        (https://www.fantasyfootballer.com/cgi-bin/theGridiron/YaBB.cgi)
      

        Featured Leagues >> GBRFL >>  Lottery Analysis
        
(Message started by: DB on Aug 17th, 2009, 2:46pm)
Title: Lottery Analysis
Post by DB on Aug 17th, 2009, 2:46pm
What up, chumps.  As promised, I conducted my statistical analysis of the draft lottery.  Before I get to the numbers, let me say that going through the old standings and drafts was fun.  If you are ever bored at work, it is interesting go back in time, especially the old draft picks.

Also, some observations:

- My team ruled last year!!!  I had the highest number of wins and the largest points differential ever.  

- On the other hand, I was humbled by the 2003 standings.  That year every team had at least 13 wins except me.  I was 4-25, probably the worst record ever.

- Go check out Stegeman's team name from 2001.

- Doug Owens took Onterrio Smith with the first pick in the 2002 draft.  Who the heck is Onterrio Smith?

- I was confused by who was who in 2000.  Was Vic Fattone's team the original DD?  Was Mark Duce's Wild?

In any event, I crunched the numbers, but need to do some work before I post my findings, so I will try to do that tonight.
Title: Re: Lottery Analysis
Post by Flesh is Fantasy on Aug 17th, 2009, 8:17pm
DB...no offense intended, but I'm waiting on the official word from the draft in the PARSONS REPORT. It cost alot of money, but it gives insight from the genius that has managed to amass a staggering .423 winning % in the GBRFL. Stay tuned!  ?.?.?
Title: Re: Lottery Analysis
Post by StegRock on Aug 17th, 2009, 8:49pm

on 08/17/09 at 14:46:16, DB wrote:
Go check out Stegeman's team name from 2001.


I literally broke out in laughter... [smiley=joker.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=hellyeafunny.gif] [smiley=LMFAO.gif] [smiley=sinister.gif] [smiley=rollinwithlaughter.gif]


Quote:
I was confused by who was who in 2000.  Was Vic Fattone's team the original DD?


[smiley=yes.gif]


Quote:
Was Mark Duce's Wild?


[smiley=no.gif] First off, D, I think you meant to say "Matt", as in Matt Foster.  But, no, that was Rob Murtha's team.



Anyway, fun stuff!!! [smiley=thumbsup.gif]
Title: Re: Lottery Analysis
Post by DB on Aug 17th, 2009, 8:57pm
No I meant Mark.  Where was Mark's team?

Ok, here are the numbers, which may be slightly off based on my confusion with 2000.

The lottery went as follows in 2009:

7,8,9,10,6 (meaning the 7th place team won the lottery and so on....)

2008 - 9,10,8,6,7
2007 - 7,10,9,6,8
2006 - 6,9,8,10,7
2005 - 8,10,6,9,7
2004 - 9,10,8,6,7
2003 - 9,10,7,8,6
2002 - 6,9,7,10,8
2001 - 8,9,10,7,6
2000 - 10,7,6,9,8

So, the last time the last place team won the lottery was in 2000, 9 years ago.  The 6th and 7th place team have won the lottery 40% of the time.

To put this in perspective, I assigned points to each place, giving 5 points for winning the lottery and 1 for getting last in the lottery.  Here are the results:

10 (32)
9 (37)
8 (28)
7 (26)
6 (20)

This means the lottery has worked, except the 10 vs. 9.  The 9th place teams have done the best, scoring 37.  Statistically, the numbers should descend.

Here are the 4 options:

1.  NBA style.

The NBA has 13 lottery teams but they only picks 2 or 3 teams with a weighted lottery.  The first team has the best chance and the 13th team has the worst chance.  The thing is they only pick two or three and after that the other teams just fall into place.  

So, let's say the 2nd and 5th team win the lottery, it would go 2, 5, 1, 3, 4 --13.  The 13th team would have a shot at 1 or 2, but if not, they stay at 13th.  The worst team can do no worse than 3.

We could do the same.  Just take 2 names and so the worst team can do no worse than 3.

2. Joe Parson's suggestion

Drop the lottery to 4 teams.  The 10th place team can have a 40% chance, the 9th would have 30%, 8th would have 20% and 7th would have 10%.

We would then have 3 plaques, 3 middle teams, and 4 lottery teams.

3.   Keep it the same.

10th - 33.33%
9th - 26.6.67%
8th - 20%
7th - 13.33%
6th - 6.67%

It prevents tanking because there is little incentive to finish in last place.

One could analyze the numbers and make a good argument either way.  The numbers are not as bad as I thought, but obviously the 10th place team has gotten consistently screwed in our small sample.
Title: Re: Lottery Analysis
Post by StegRock on Aug 17th, 2009, 9:10pm

on 08/17/09 at 20:57:07, DB wrote:
No I meant Mark.  Where was Mark's team?


Team 6.
Title: Re: Lottery Analysis
Post by StegRock on Aug 17th, 2009, 9:32pm

on 08/17/09 at 20:57:07, DB wrote:
Ok, here are the numbers, which may be slightly off based on my confusion with 2000.


Actually, the 10th place team didn't get the 1st pick in 2000.  First off, we only played with 9 teams.  Second of all, Joe, who placed 7th (out of 9 teams) in 1999 picked first in 2000. [smiley=shrug.gif] That presumably means the last place team NEVER got the first pick according to DB's findings, which I am ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN is NOT the case.  Moreover, I think we need to double-check [smiley=checkin.gif] when we even instituted the draft lottery.  I'm going to do another round of research,... but I'll leave the number-crunching to whomever.  All that said, also, trades took place that affected who PICKED where.  How well did you take that into consideration, D?


Quote:
The lottery went as follows in 2009:

7,8,9,10,6 (meaning the 7th place team won the lottery and so on....)


Also, a quick correction,... this year it actually went:  7,9,8,10,6.
Title: Re: Lottery Analysis
Post by DB on Aug 17th, 2009, 10:13pm
I used 10th pick meaning last place.  Since we've always had 5 teams in the lottery, it doesn't matter.

I believe I am correct that Pak did indeed have the #1 pick in 2000.  He traded the pick to Vic for Kevin Dyson and Vic traded it to Joe for Duce Staley.

Pak picked first in just about every subsequent round, so I think that is right.  
Title: Re: Lottery Analysis
Post by StegRock on Aug 17th, 2009, 11:07pm
Good, Dave!  It looks like you've got most of the bases covered.

Incidentally, I did figure out that the first year we implemented the draft lottery was 1997.  It's going to be hard to analyze the years from 1997 up until 2000 as the resources are not on-line at the league site (though I do have all those records in hard copy in files here in Jersey, but, suffice it to say, I don't have the time to delve into that before heading back to Illinois).  That said, for Dave's purposes the key years are the ones in which we had 10 teams, which we expanded to in 2002.  Thus, the first time with 10 teams was the 2003 Draft Lottery.
Title: Re: Lottery Analysis
Post by StegRock on Aug 18th, 2009, 12:44am

on 08/17/09 at 20:57:07, DB wrote:
2004 - 9,10,8,6,7


In terms of from 2003 (when, as I mentioned above, we started drafting with 10 teams) on, there is one other small correction (due to "funky" trading between DB and Pak which made it seem like their picks might have been opposite of what they were for a couple rounds), which actually goes to support DB's position:

2004 - 9,8,10,6,7
Title: Re: Lottery Analysis
Post by StegRock on Aug 18th, 2009, 2:23am
Uhh...  Duhhhhh... ::) It just dawned on me that it's not the number of teams in the league that's the key here.  It's the number of teams in the lottery, and that has never changed.  It has always been five.  Whether it's nine or ten teams in the league is irrelevant in relation to DB's analysis. [smiley=doh.gif] It does kind of peripherally matter in relation to, say, Frank's comment on Sunday about tanking games to get into the lottery.  But, ultimately, it matters not with respect to the math of the lottery itself, which is DB's point here.  (In my defense real quick, I was kind of going back-and-forth in my mind that, when we had nine teams, four were in the lottery... even though I kind of knew in the back of my head it was always five.)  In any event, sorry for the confusion, guys... :-[

With that said, in terms of this discussion, when it comes to deciding things as regards the Draft Lottery, the league's being comprised of nine or ten teams does have bearing in a small indirect, but not insignificant way, which, after thinking this through a bit more, [smiley=thinking.gif] I will tease out in my eventual "bigger picture" response to this.
Title: Re: Lottery Analysis
Post by DOLFAN on Aug 18th, 2009, 7:31pm
Indeed in 2000 I did trade Duce Staley for the first pick in the draft.
I took Daunte Culpepper. That was my first year in the league.

Either Way, when you guys are done with your "statistics" I will give you a much more accurate picture of the draft picks. So Dave if you are 100% certain with your stats of 32,37,28,26, and 20, let me know. Then I will give you my input based on Dave's correct numbers.
Title: Re: Lottery Analysis
Post by StegRock on Aug 18th, 2009, 8:15pm

on 08/18/09 at 19:31:24, DOLFAN wrote:
So Dave if you are 100% certain with your stats of 32,37,28,26, and 20, let me know. Then I will give you my input based on Dave's correct numbers.


According to my post two above, obviously Dave's numbers are not totally correct.  2003 is off.  Also, as previously mentioned, his 2009 is off.  Otherwise, from 2003 through 2008, his numbers are good to go.  I'm not going to bother checking 2000 through 2002.  I don't have the time.
Title: Re: Lottery Analysis
Post by DB on Aug 19th, 2009, 10:05am
I don't feel like double checking, it already took me a hour to look this stuff up and then thirty minutes to do the post.  If Steg is correct about 2009 and 2003, then the correct number only slightly change and would be as follows:

10 - 31
9- 38
8- 28
7- 26
6- 20

Doesn't seem so bad, especially for a small sample size.  Obviously, the 9th team has been lucky, but it's not as though the 6,7, or 8 are doing better than the 10th.  If we do this long enough, I am confident that the numbers will right themselves.  

So, I am not so sure we need to make a change, especially if there is no public outcry.  On the other hand, I'd be willing to try the NBA stlye for fun if you guys want.
Title: Re: Lottery Analysis
Post by DOLFAN on Aug 19th, 2009, 12:50pm

on 08/19/09 at 10:05:26, DB wrote:
I don't feel like double checking, it already took me a hour to look this stuff up and then thirty minutes to do the post.  If Steg is correct about 2009 and 2003, then the correct number only slightly change and would be as follows:

10 - 31
9- 38
8- 28
7- 26
6- 20

Doesn't seem so bad, especially for a small sample size.  Obviously, the 9th team has been lucky, but it's not as though the 6,7, or 8 are doing better than the 10th.  If we do this long enough, I am confident that the numbers will right themselves.  

So, I am not so sure we need to make a change, especially if there is no public outcry.  On the other hand, I'd be willing to try the NBA stlye for fun if you guys want.


Dave thanks for all the hard work on this.
OK, here is my analysis of these numbers. No disrespect Dave, but i feel that your interpretation of the numbers is incorrect:
when you look at the above numbers, in order to get a true meaning of them you need to use the numbers the team got divided by the total points(in the overall lotteries) 143 possible points...ie:

ACTUAL %                                    CURRENT LOTTERY
team #10   31/143  = 22%                10th - 33.33%
team # 9    38/143  = 26%                  9th - 26.6.67%
team # 8    28/143  = 20%                  8th - 20%
team # 7    26/143  = 18%                  7th - 13.33%  
team # 6    20/143  = 14%                  6th - 6.67%

This equation gives you the actual % of points that eash team has acccumualted over the years based on total points.
This clearly shows that the current lottery system is not doing what we had hoped it would do. 10th place team is not doing very well.
I like Dave's idea of 4 lottery teams and the after 2 picks it goes in order.
I am open to either way to change it.
Title: Re: Lottery Analysis
Post by DB on Aug 19th, 2009, 3:19pm
Yes, the % does put it in perspective, which is easier than doing it in your head (which I was pretty much doing).   ;)

But I'm not following you Joe about what analysis you think is incorrect?

Here's what I said...


Quote:
Doesn't seem so bad, especially for a small sample size.  Obviously, the 9th team has been lucky, but it's not as though the 6,7, or 8 are doing better than the 10th.  If we do this long enough, I am confident that the numbers will right themselves.  


and...


Quote:
One could analyze the numbers and make a good argument either way.  The numbers are not as bad as I thought, but obviously the 10th place team has gotten consistently screwed in our small sample.


Are you saying that the numbers, even in this small sample size, are so unfair to the lower teams that we need to make a change even if that means risking someone tanking and possibly skewing the ultimate winner(s) of the league?  I'll let others chime in if they want, but I don't think you can say that from these numbers.
Title: Re: Lottery Analysis
Post by Art Vandalay on Aug 19th, 2009, 6:02pm

Quote:
It does kind of peripherally matter in relation to, say, Frank's comment on Sunday about tanking games to get into the lottery.


Actually in retrospect i tried to tank a few games to get a better position in the draft, it wasn't to get in. And it wasn't very good because in the process I still managed to beat Pak.

I guess my point is that there is a real benefit to being lower in the standings. If the last place team hasn't completely benefited from that is purely by dumb luck. To DBs point, the rules of probability will take over eventually and the numbers will right themselves.

I don't believe we need to change anything.
Title: Re: Lottery Analysis
Post by DOLFAN on Aug 19th, 2009, 10:08pm
All I am saying is that ...based on the data...

Team #10 is WAY below the average that we had hoped for,
Team #9 is right on target
Team #8 is right on target
Team #7 HUGE benefit
Team #6 HUGE benefit

That is all I am saying.

I was saying at the end is that I think that dropping to 4 lottery teams or the NBA WAY should show better results for the #10 team.
Title: Re: Lottery Analysis
Post by T-Rave on Aug 19th, 2009, 11:21pm
A couple observations . . .

First of all, the #6 team can't possible do worse than its odds: it'll always be, at WORST, the fifth pick.  But it can jump up to 1-4 if lucky.

Second, I'm not sure the numbers will even out over time.  It's not a mathematical certainty that numbers even out over time; probabilities indicate only that -- probabilities -- so that over a given, even long, period of time, the numbers may not even out.  And, in fact, they seem not to have, at this point . . .

Third, and more substantively, I would support a motion along the lines laid out above, according to which the lottery would be more like the NBA insofar as the first two picks are selected at random and the rest are slotted in in ascending order, from lowest rank to highest rank.  But I'm not attached to this motion -- if there's a lot of division about this, the status quo is fine with me.
Title: Re: Lottery Analysis
Post by StegRock on Aug 20th, 2009, 12:31am
Just a real fast reply (I've got my "dissertative" response in my hip pocket, but unfortunately do not have the time to whip it out now)...  Since when have we become such advocates for the 10-place loser???  The more the numbers are laid out for me, the more I am convinced that the system is in fine working order! ;) Actually, per my eventual "dissertative" response, I don't bring this up merely in jest.  In very short, advocacy for the "plight" of the 10th-place loser (cry me a river [smiley=bawling.gif]) to some degree belies the very reason for our choosing to implement the draft lottery to begin with, namely the deterrence of teams that are already bottom feeders (which, if you think it through, is sort of the counterpoint to Frank's original objection at the meeting, which he's already backed off of, mind you) from detrimentally affecting the standings by tanking games (not so much with other bottom feeders, but) with contenders, moreover, toward the end of a season when it really counts for the contenders!!!  So, in some sense, all these numbers that are being taken as evidence against the current system could just as easily be seen as evidence FOR the current system!!! [smiley=shrug.gif] It's not the reality that the problem.  It's just a matter of perspective.  Bleeding hearts now just mean that we've lost sight of the original wisdom (as I see it) we had back in 1996.  Of course, many "eyes" in the "here and now" were not in the "there and then" (a not insignificant point to consider in and of itself, actually). :-/


Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.1!
YaBB © 2000-2002, Xnull. All Rights Reserved.