An award winning stat geek as the Spurs tops to win conf and le

[Rummpd]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ayoff_prob.cgi


Per the author:

"The playoff probability reports will be generated on a daily basis until the end of the regular season. The probabilties are empirical estimates based on simulating the remainder of the season 1000 times. Although I am not going to give complete details at this time, the method has been tried and tested: it was used to win the TrueHoop Stat Geek Smackdown in both 2007 and 2008." (What do they get for that an antique golden slide rule?)



Kubatko's model has Spurs at 48% to win WCF and 28% to win le - tops in NBA.

Contrast this to Hollinger of ESPN which currently has LA and Heat both over the Spurs primarily due to point differential (I guess, and he is factoring in a lot the blowout loss to NOH which hurts SAS last 10 game differential a lot) despite a significantly softer schedule to date by LAL in particular:

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/playoffodds (Spurs about 16% to win le)

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerrankings

Will have to see which "geek" is more accurate going forward as in the end it has to play out on the court.

[TampaDude]

TampaDude's model has Spurs at 100% to win WCF and 100% to win le.

[pookenstein]

TampaDude's model has Spurs at 100% to win WCF and 100% to win le.

I like that model.

[FromWayDowntown]

There's way too much concern in this forum over what analysts are predicting of the Spurs this season. It's a known quan y that a significant number of those analysts bring biases to the table; even a metrics guy like Hollinger admits that talking Spurs is bad for business if readership is your goal.

The great thing about the NBA is that we don't have to depend on polls or rankings to determine a champion. If the Spurs are good enough, healthy enough, and otherwise lucky enough, they will win a le no matter what the metrics and analysts choose to say; if they aren't good enough, healthy enough, or otherwise lucky enough, they won't and it doesn't matter what anyone said in January about it.

In the end, power rankings, playoff odds, point differentials, and strengths of schedule have nothing to do with what will be decided in June.

[/Grumpy Old Poster]

[Rummpd]

At least this guy and Hollinger try to base their predictions on something - models do not always work but at least they are better than the naysayers who give still give the Spurs no shot despite the intangibles, past championship core, great coach, great additions, talent/depth and metrics all pointing to the Spurs as serious contenders.

[easjer]

There's way too much concern in this forum over what analysts are predicting of the Spurs this season. It's a known quan y that a significant number of those analysts bring biases to the table; even a metrics guy like Hollinger admits that talking Spurs is bad for business if readership is your goal.

The great thing about the NBA is that we don't have to depend on polls or rankings to determine a champion. If the Spurs are good enough, healthy enough, and otherwise lucky enough, they will win a le no matter what the metrics and analysts choose to say; if they aren't good enough, healthy enough, or otherwise lucky enough, they won't and it doesn't matter what anyone said in January about it.

In the end, power rankings, playoff odds, point differentials, and strengths of schedule have nothing to do with what will be decided in June.

[/Grumpy Old Poster]

Oh, FWD. I sort of adore you.

You do see the problem though? Much like the Spurs getting bored during games, posters have little to complain about or nitpick. Bonner's not playing, Pop is playing the rookies (save Splitter, but even diehard Splitter enthusiasts have to admit he's not showing much during his stinits), the defense has made improvements, and they are winning.

What is there to discuss?

[greyforest]

The great thing about the NBA is that we don't have to depend on polls or rankings to determine a champion.

but ratings determined the champions last year :confused:

[FromWayDowntown]

but ratings determined the champions last year :confused:

Ratings <> rankings

[FromWayDowntown]

Oh, FWD. I sort of adore you.

Only sort of?

[easjer]

Only sort of?

No, I absolutely and unequivocally adore you, but my husband is around here somewhere. :P

[Cry Havoc]

There's way too much concern in this forum over what analysts are predicting of the Spurs this season. It's a known quan y that a significant number of those analysts bring biases to the table; even a metrics guy like Hollinger admits that talking Spurs is bad for business if readership is your goal.

The great thing about the NBA is that we don't have to depend on polls or rankings to determine a champion. If the Spurs are good enough, healthy enough, and otherwise lucky enough, they will win a le no matter what the metrics and analysts choose to say; if they aren't good enough, healthy enough, or otherwise lucky enough, they won't and it doesn't matter what anyone said in January about it.

In the end, power rankings, playoff odds, point differentials, and strengths of schedule have nothing to do with what will be decided in June.

[/Grumpy Old Poster]

I think, partially, this is a lot of backlash from Spurs fans who are annoyed at the fact that we could probably be 43-2 right now and many analysts still wouldn't favor us over the more glamorous franchises. Bias is infuriating, because it displays a lack of objectivity, something analysts should subscribe to, and because they are getting paid to voice their opinion, which at times seems to have almost no basis in reality.

[cheguevara]

because stat geeks have never been wrong before