franco12 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

franco12 wrote:I'm sure its quite intelligent - I only glanced through it.

But how on earth does he make such a big deal about Greg Oden signing in Miami? What has he done in the NBA statistically speaking to warrant anything more than a footnote?

San Antonio and Miami remain San Antonio and Miami. Greg Oden is the biggest X-Factor of the season. If he’s even 50% of his potential, Miami is a lock for a fourth finals appearance in a row.

Based on their model, he played very well in his limited minutes. It averages out to 15 points on 10 shots, 12 rbs, and 2.5 blocks per 36 min.

so they allow small samples without adjustment in their model? I'm sure then that you could find 12 bench players that played hardly any minutes that as a group would do better than Miami?

Question A: It's either use the small sample or no sample
B: I doubt it

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

VCoug wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

VCoug wrote:

IronWillGiroud wrote:the better question is, what did they predict last year?

http://wagesofwins.com/2012/10/31/nba-win-predictions-for-2012-13-volume-2-the-hand-crafted-edition/

Those are their predictions for last season and a couple of things stand out. They got 7 out of 8 playoff teams correct in the East, picking Philly over Brooklyn, and 6 out of 8 in the West, picking Minnesota and New Orleans over Houston and Golden State (the Minnesota pick is at least justifiable since you can't predict Love missing pretty much the entire season). They nailed a handful of teams going against the general consensus predicting NY to win 56, Denver to win 55, and LAL to win 47.

But how did they come to their prediction? would it matter that you got the prediction right but your reasoning for why a team should win those games wrong?

It's straight statistical analysis based on David Berri's Wins Produced.

I know but who did they predict to get the wins share to get to their predictions. (I'm on my phone so I can't check the link like I want to). I have an idea.

Are you implying that they predicted in advance the right win totals but gave the wrong weights to different players? They'd have to be off by precisely counterbalanced amounts to still come up with the right totals - like giving 4 more wins than they should have to player B for every time they gave 4 too few to player A.

Yes I am implying that they may have thought Ronnie Brewer and Marcus Camby was going to play major minutes which would lead to many wins. The WoW site hyped the signings before the season and gave us the edge against a hypothetical 7 game series against the Nets. Brewer was the perfect Landry replacement if I recall correctly. However, maybe that isn't the case and Brewer and Camby(WoW giants) were not behind their predictions.

The predictions were pretty good for the whole league though. They got 13 of the 16 playoff teams. You'd have to have very fortuitously counterbalanced mispredictions on each team for that to happen.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

VCoug wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

VCoug wrote:

IronWillGiroud wrote:the better question is, what did they predict last year?

http://wagesofwins.com/2012/10/31/nba-win-predictions-for-2012-13-volume-2-the-hand-crafted-edition/

Those are their predictions for last season and a couple of things stand out. They got 7 out of 8 playoff teams correct in the East, picking Philly over Brooklyn, and 6 out of 8 in the West, picking Minnesota and New Orleans over Houston and Golden State (the Minnesota pick is at least justifiable since you can't predict Love missing pretty much the entire season). They nailed a handful of teams going against the general consensus predicting NY to win 56, Denver to win 55, and LAL to win 47.

But how did they come to their prediction? would it matter that you got the prediction right but your reasoning for why a team should win those games wrong?

It's straight statistical analysis based on David Berri's Wins Produced.

I know but who did they predict to get the wins share to get to their predictions. (I'm on my phone so I can't check the link like I want to). I have an idea.

Are you implying that they predicted in advance the right win totals but gave the wrong weights to different players? They'd have to be off by precisely counterbalanced amounts to still come up with the right totals - like giving 4 more wins than they should have to player B for every time they gave 4 too few to player A.

Yes I am implying that they may have thought Ronnie Brewer and Marcus Camby was going to play major minutes which would lead to many wins. The WoW site hyped the signings before the season and gave us the edge against a hypothetical 7 game series against the Nets. Brewer was the perfect Landry replacement if I recall correctly. However, maybe that isn't the case and Brewer and Camby(WoW giants) were not behind their predictions.

The predictions were pretty good for the whole league though. They got 13 of the 16 playoff teams. You'd have to have very fortuitously counterbalanced mispredictions on each team for that to happen.

Just for comparison purposes:
If picking randomly, by chance you should get about 8 out of 16 playoff teams. The Vegas odds at the start of the season also got 13 out of 16.

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

VCoug wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

VCoug wrote:

IronWillGiroud wrote:the better question is, what did they predict last year?

http://wagesofwins.com/2012/10/31/nba-win-predictions-for-2012-13-volume-2-the-hand-crafted-edition/

Those are their predictions for last season and a couple of things stand out. They got 7 out of 8 playoff teams correct in the East, picking Philly over Brooklyn, and 6 out of 8 in the West, picking Minnesota and New Orleans over Houston and Golden State (the Minnesota pick is at least justifiable since you can't predict Love missing pretty much the entire season). They nailed a handful of teams going against the general consensus predicting NY to win 56, Denver to win 55, and LAL to win 47.

But how did they come to their prediction? would it matter that you got the prediction right but your reasoning for why a team should win those games wrong?

It's straight statistical analysis based on David Berri's Wins Produced.

I know but who did they predict to get the wins share to get to their predictions. (I'm on my phone so I can't check the link like I want to). I have an idea.

Are you implying that they predicted in advance the right win totals but gave the wrong weights to different players? They'd have to be off by precisely counterbalanced amounts to still come up with the right totals - like giving 4 more wins than they should have to player B for every time they gave 4 too few to player A.

Yes I am implying that they may have thought Ronnie Brewer and Marcus Camby was going to play major minutes which would lead to many wins. The WoW site hyped the signings before the season and gave us the edge against a hypothetical 7 game series against the Nets. Brewer was the perfect Landry replacement if I recall correctly. However, maybe that isn't the case and Brewer and Camby(WoW giants) were not behind their predictions.

The predictions were pretty good for the whole league though. They got 13 of the 16 playoff teams. You'd have to have very fortuitously counterbalanced mispredictions on each team for that to happen.

Just for comparison purposes:
If picking randomly, by chance you should get about 8 out of 16 playoff teams. The Vegas odds at the start of the season also got 13 out of 16.

I think you get 8/16 if you know only a little about the nba (i.e. you watch the last 1 minutes of the sunday national game and listen to talk radio). I think a knowledgeable fan gets at least 12/16 playoff teams in October.

Please, who couldn't have guessed last years playoff teams?! Who honestly surprised you?

What next, horoscopes based on complex sums?

knickscity wrote:I honestly dont see the debate, they were fairly accurate in their picks regardless of the formula.

Some of you guys are acting like one of hs school teacher decades ago....

She didnt care if i had the answer right unless i showed here the work as well.

smackeddog wrote:It's amazing how Wages of Wins also can foresee all the injuries each team will have, and the injury status of the teams you play against. Oh that's right, it doesn't- IT JUST MAKES THIS S*** UP and adds some mathematics to make it look like some sort of fact rather than a guess!

Please, who couldn't have guessed last years playoff teams?! Who honestly surprised you?

What next, horoscopes based on complex sums?

So because they can't perfectly predict injury status that means it's worthless?

smackeddog wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:I honestly dont see the debate, they were fairly accurate in their picks regardless of the formula.

Some of you guys are acting like one of hs school teacher decades ago....

She didnt care if i had the answer right unless i showed here the work as well.

People who think they're experts and take a lot of pride in it, don't like it when a formula does better than they do.

Because the formula is a guess, trying to pass itself off as more than a guess. It's subjective, but tries to make out it's an objective fact.

knickscity wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:I honestly dont see the debate, they were fairly accurate in their picks regardless of the formula.

Some of you guys are acting like one of hs school teacher decades ago....

She didnt care if i had the answer right unless i showed here the work as well.

People who think they're experts and take a lot of pride in it, don't like it when a formula does better than they do.

Because the formula is a guess, trying to pass itself off as more than a guess. It's subjective, but tries to make out it's an objective fact.

isnt anything predicted before it happens "a guess"?

Exactly, but it tries to make out it's not a guess because it's based on sums. That's my issue with it. I think people see the complex sums, don't understand them and then just assume these people are 'experts' and must know more than they do.

smackeddog wrote:

knickscity wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:I honestly dont see the debate, they were fairly accurate in their picks regardless of the formula.

Some of you guys are acting like one of hs school teacher decades ago....

She didnt care if i had the answer right unless i showed here the work as well.

People who think they're experts and take a lot of pride in it, don't like it when a formula does better than they do.

Because the formula is a guess, trying to pass itself off as more than a guess. It's subjective, but tries to make out it's an objective fact.

isnt anything predicted before it happens "a guess"?

Exactly, but it tries to make out it's not a guess because it's based on sums. That's my issue with it. I think people see the complex sums, don't understand them and then just assume these people are 'experts' and must know more than they do.