Reply With Quote
At this time last season, those odds said the Spurs wouldn't make the playoffs.
You guys like this thing.
Spurs are number #1 favs. I dont know the accuracy of the projects, fun talking piece.
http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/playoffodds
At this time last season, those odds said the Spurs wouldn't make the playoffs.
Well, to be fair, they didn't make it by too terribly much. They came in as the 7 seed and just narrowly missed being the 8th. Not exactly dominating out West last regular season.
Last season?! More like six weeks ago.
bOOYA LETS START THESE PLAYOFFS TOMORROW ES
lmao this is just insane. can't believe the turnaround this team has made from last year.
Spurs go 77-5! Bust record!!
I tried to tell everyone
Only memory I have of you this off season is your love fest for Roger Mason and how disappointed you were that he left.
Touche.Only memory I have of you this off season is your love fest for Roger Mason and how disappointed you were that he left.
Also wrote this though: http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161882
lol 77-5 what a silly guy
well out of 5000 run through's the of the rest of the season, it is not hard to believe that one of them would come up like that. the average of our "best" win, and our Worst wins is 60. I am ok with that.
There's 5 minutes of my life I'll never get back. If the computer "plays out" the remaining season 5,000 times, it means he is randomizing something. (Otherwise, the simulation would come out the same every time.)
He's way out on a limb there. The Spurs have the best record of any team in any major sport over the last decade. They're off to the best start in franchise history. They are 20% through with the season, and already so far ahead of the record curve that they would have to have a collapse of Biblical proportions to miss the playoffs.
So Hollinger has decided that the two teams with the best records in the East and West will make the playoffs. I'm sure the Vegas bookies are trembling at this revelation.
GSH, I just (as in 3 mins ago) finished a pretty large statistical analysis project, and while I am absolutely no expert on stats and I haven't looked at his model (and I won't right now), but I would assume there is some play, like (completely off the top of my head) "offensive efficiency = .47-.57" or something like that. I would assume that these high/low assumptions are based on the games already played and this is where the record variance comes from. Plus its not as if he just has the two best teams in the L pegged for spots. I mean, look at the Lakers/Mavs. The mavs have a better record, but the Lakers have a greater chance.
Edit: the line about me just finishing the project, was not to introduce myself as an authority, it was to explain why I have no desire to look at his model. Sorry if there was confusion.
Last edited by Drachen; 12-01-2010 at 07:29 PM.
Last line in his brief description of what the model does (not the model itself)
From John Hollinger:
LOL!The effect of this will reduce sharply after the first quarter of the season or so, but in the early going of most seasons, it's necessary to prevent us from projecting 77-win seasons and the like.
You're probably as much of an authority as a lot people who do it for a living, or at least close. You understand, though, that his simulation would come out the same way ever time, unless he was randomizing something.
If you're doing this in a class, here's something to consider: I agree that he didn't just predict the two best teams to make the playoffs. But... suppose some other team (besides the Spurs or Celtics) had the best records in their respective conferences. Would the other factors in his simulation outweight the raw record? In other words, if Minnesota or New Jersey had somehow squirelled out a 15-2 record so far, would he still rank them as a 100% lock to make the playoffs? I would be willing to bet a weeks pay that he would. So, basically, all the other crap is a waste of time. The prediction could just as easily be made on the basis of record alone.
If Hollinger ever knew anything about Bayesian (or any other) inference, he decided to ditch it long ago. He favors the SWAG Method (Scientific Wild Assed Guess) for most of his predictions. That being said, if I was any better, I'd be making a fortune in Vegas myself.
Hollinger basically preys on people who don't otherwise deal with statistics.
His stuff isn't perfect, Shoog. It is difficult to apply these things to sports. I still enjoy what he is doing to a degree, but I understand it has it's limitations.
I don't get all the hate, but yeah, if you deal a lot with statistics, you will certainly question numerous things.
Statistics is primary an analytical tool (i.e., what happened and why), and only in very well-defined cir stances can it be a predictive tool (what is going to happen), and even then it usually isn't very good.
Before you can use it for prediction, you have to demonstrate that you understand your model. I've never seen Hollinger give any kind of an explanation that demonstrates that he understands any of these concepts.
His models (although a lot of it is based on largely assumption) have predicted reasonably well numerous things.
Obviously, just because you get a seemingly right outcome doesn't mean the process was correct.
Like I said, I applaud the effort because I think it can lead to something useful and I hope as the sport grows, so does the interest in using analytical information.
You're so clueless it's funny.
The hate? He gets paid for peddling poop, and I don't. That and the fact that his stuff is like horoscopes. A lot of people tend to remember the times his predictions come true, and forget about the majority of the time when they don't. I rail on horoscope people, too. It does just about as much good.
But mostly it's because he gets paid for peddling poop, and I don't.
Well, you sure showed me on that one all right.
Not sure I agree here ONLY because a few weeks ago when we were tied for first he still had us behind the rockets. I am sure, though, that you are at least mostly correct in that current win percentage may be weighted heavily in his predictive model. The little bit that I did read about how it works is that part of data for the playoff predictor is pulled from his daily power rankings. We all know that the spurs havent been on top there (or even top 5) for very long. It seems that there is some sort of randomization (or ranges) or randomized use within said ranges are added for the lack of 5000 similar answers.
Actually, this was basically the conclusion of my project. It was on if draft position was a statistically significant variable when regressed against changes in win percentage. I wanted to do this to see if tanking is even an advisable option. I included other variables for comparison in my model (HOFers, All-Stars, Team Payroll, etc.) My model only explained about 45% of the change in win percentage, which is fine, it wasn't about being a perfect model, more about creating a stats project and understanding what I was doing. My conclusion/recommendations section basically said that future models would require a certain amount of trial and error regarding addition of quan ative variables, but maybe just as importantly, it would need to seek a way to measure qualitative variables like team chemistry or coaching strength.
Also I basically said that this is the reason that the statistical analysis which prevails in sports that are team sports in name only like baseball can't make it (at least at the moment) as well in sports like basketball, or football where each person's performance is largely responsible for the next person's ability to perform.
No big revelation or anything, just kinda fun to do.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
