fishmike wrote:last year's Knicks O/U for vegas was 48.5 wins. This year its 49.5. The 2012 (54 win season) the vegas line was 45.5

I would say thats about right... Knicks are percieved as 'good' but clearly not elite. Last year underachieved, the year before over achieved.

I would put the Vegas predictions before metric any day of the week. You know why? Its accountable by money.

fishmike wrote:clearly Vegas believes in Phil, Fisher and more things will go right with the Knicks than wrong.

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:clearly Vegas believes in Phil, Fisher and more things will go right with the Knicks than wrong.

Vegas's beliefs and a quarter will get you a gumball.

then show me an article where one of these brainiacs puts his money where is mouth is. I read about a hedge fund program trader who came up with a formula to win huge money betting on tenis.

Lets see one of these metrics braniacs do the same. I mean if that system is half as solid as you think it is show me the money. Its legal and literally there for the taking. Until that happens the vegas lines hold a lot more merit then the metrics.

Metrics have very little place in basketball. Even the big pro metrics GMs have admitted they are most useful when quantifying a player's salary to an owner when perhaps some of the traditional stats dont add up. Also the pro metrics guys have shown they are willing dump their metrics stars for nothing to chase or retain expensive talent.

When you can show me a moneyball team in the NBA I will start to give it some merit. As of now its mostly internet fodder. No matter how you spin it bigtime scorers, rebounders and assist guys are getting paid. When that stops Ill start looking at the #s.

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:Bonn... I mention Vegas lines because there is accountability and transparency there. If those guys pick wrong they cost their shops a ton of money. Then you have the metrics crowd. Most of the time they are pumping a stat that tells everyone what we already know or using #s to prove some arguement. You get these websites run out of garages and they tend to pump the couple they get right and gloss over the massive misses. But the average looks good because some teams are very deep, very good and barring massive injuries to star players can be counted on to win 55ish games.

Metrics have very little place in basketball. Even the big pro metrics GMs have admitted they are most useful when quantifying a player's salary to an owner when perhaps some of the traditional stats dont add up. Also the pro metrics guys have shown they are willing dump their metrics stars for nothing to chase or retain expensive talent.

When you can show me a moneyball team in the NBA I will start to give it some merit. As of now its mostly internet fodder. No matter how you spin it bigtime scorers, rebounders and assist guys are getting paid. When that stops Ill start looking at the #s.

Sure, you could wait 'til after the next book is written if you want to be behind the game.
I doubt the top teams are any easier to predict than the middle or bottom teams. A reasonable person could have easily been off by 10 with Miami or San Antonio last year. It was much easier to see that the Knicks were a 35 to 40 win team than to predict those two.
Vegas has an easy job - they just have to be less bad at what they do than the average gambling fan.
Regarding your last comment, it's actually mostly PPG that gets you paid - not the other stuff.

Go get me the vegas gig and you can tell me how easy it is.

Bonn1997 wrote:No interest in that kind of job, sorry. I have a comfortable salary and great hours.

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:No interest in that kind of job, sorry. I have a comfortable salary and great hours.

why not be rich? I thought you said it was easy?

I'm rich with job security and free play time.

Knixkik wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Last year there metrics predicted 37 wins

We won 37 games

How about the year before? The predicted far less than 54 wins.

No, they didn't. The metrics that predicted 37 wins last season predicted something like 57 wins two years ago.

dk7th wrote:

VCoug wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Last year there metrics predicted 37 wins

We won 37 games

How about the year before? The predicted far less than 54 wins.

No, they didn't. The metrics that predicted 37 wins last season predicted something like 57 wins two years ago.

nope. 45.5 wins. i provided the link earlier but here it is again:

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2433

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

VCoug wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Last year there metrics predicted 37 wins

We won 37 games

How about the year before? The predicted far less than 54 wins.

No, they didn't. The metrics that predicted 37 wins last season predicted something like 57 wins two years ago.

nope. 45.5 wins. i provided the link earlier but here it is again:

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2433

Well he just said "the metrics" - not anything more specific. I think you're right that he's referring to the SCHOENE system but the metrics overall had the team generally around 50 wins that year.

hmmm.... do you think this could be due to the jason kidd + rasheed effect they may have considered, ie their metrics were able to value what jason kidd brings to the game over other aspects of the game that schoene devalues?

djsunyc wrote:not sure if you guys think this is a hate metric or not but...

Carmelo Anthony (Age 24 - 6th season):
19.0 PER
105 oRTG
107 dRTG
.105 WS/48
31.5 USG%
22.8 PPG
18.3 FGA
7.1 FTA
53.2 TS%
18.1 AST%
12.3 TOV%
11.5 REB%

DeMar DeRozan (Age 24 - 5th season):
18.4 PER
110 oRTG
107 dRTG
.141 WS/48
28.0 USG%
22.7 PPG
17.8 FGA
8.0 FTA
53.2 TS%
18.9 AST%
9.5 TOV%
6.6 REB%

similar #'s.

they are similar players although you can see that derozan has been working on being a better ball sharer and with better team results as a consequence, something you wish you had seen with anthony. pretty sure rudy gay can be thrown in here too so far as an unevolving player with similar numbers.