Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

23.7% chance to win the East, 10% to win it all

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    BallaBalla wrote: View Post
    The algorithm runs a simulation 100 or 1000 times and bases the results on the statistics (gleaned from this season's performance, which are based on players sitting out, not playing hard etc.)

    So what it's saying is that there EXISTS A SCENARIO where we can win.

    Now....what is that scenario.

    If the raps played the Heat 1000 times, I'm sure Lebron gets injured in one of those scenarios. And, if Lebron is injured, the Heat are only half as good. What if Wade gets injured too...then they're average at best.

    What the simulation doesn't account for is the fact that in the playoffs, Lebron will DEFINITELY play in enough games to beat us in a best of 7. So will Wade. Because that's just what happens.

    So is there a chance? Yes, but this simulation already knows what we know....that a 10% chance to win the championship is a 10% chance that Paul George, Lebron, and Durant/parker/ginobli/duncan/alrdige/CP3 etc. sit out enough games to even the playing field
    I don't know any more about algorithms than I do about making pasta, but wouldn't any odds of Heat injuries be offset by similar odds of Raptors injuries? The Raps and Heat have the same odds of key injuries - how would one team gain a 10% advantage?
    "We're playing in a building." -- Kawhi Leonard

    Comment


    • #17
      BallaBalla wrote: View Post
      The algorithm runs a simulation 100 or 1000 times and bases the results on the statistics (gleaned from this season's performance, which are based on players sitting out, not playing hard etc.)

      So what it's saying is that there EXISTS A SCENARIO where we can win.

      Now....what is that scenario.

      If the raps played the Heat 1000 times, I'm sure Lebron gets injured in one of those scenarios. And, if Lebron is injured, the Heat are only half as good. What if Wade gets injured too...then they're average at best.

      What the simulation doesn't account for is the fact that in the playoffs, Lebron will DEFINITELY play in enough games to beat us in a best of 7. So will Wade. Because that's just what happens.

      So is there a chance? Yes, but this simulation already knows what we know....that a 10% chance to win the championship is a 10% chance that Paul George, Lebron, and Durant/parker/ginobli/duncan/alrdige/CP3 etc. sit out enough games to even the playing field
      I'm not sure where you read the bit of Hollinger making up injuries for players within the simulations, but I've not read that anywhere.

      ADD From the OP Link:
      Hollingers Explanation
      It's once again time to unveil the Hollinger Playoff Odds.

      The idea is to predict what a team's odds are of making the playoffs, winning the division, making the Finals, etc., by simulating all the remaining games in the NBA season. We have a computer at ESPN headquarters in Bristol, Conn., that automatically plays out the rest of the season every night -- not once, but 5,000 times. And we can see from those 5,000 trials how many times a certain outcome resulted, then assign a probability from it. For example, if the Blazers make the playoffs in 2,500 of our trials, we say their odds of making the playoffs are 2,500 divided by 5,000, or 50 percent.

      This tool doesn't just play out the regular season, though -- it plays out the postseason with seedings and even runs the draft lottery. As a result, we can get an idea of the probability of all sorts of outcomes; the most prominent is the team's median record from the 5,000 trials. As a reminder, this tool is completely, 100 percent automated, so my obvious, long-standing bias against your favorite team is not a factor here.

      As always, the output of a product is only as good as its input, so let's explain a little about how this is derived. The computer starts with the day's Hollinger Power Rankings. Then, in each of the 5,000 times it replays the season, it makes a random adjustment up or down to allow for the possibility that a team will play better or worse than it has done thus far. (I call this the Anti-Dennis Green Postulate; i.e., maybe they aren't who we thought they were.)

      Additionally, the results regress to the mean. This is more important early in the season, and what it essentially means is that even though a team might start 10-0, it's not necessarily bound to go 82-0. 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.
      Nothing about Assumed Injuries.
      Last edited by Joey; Wed Jan 15, 2014, 03:29 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Another nice podcast extolling the virtues of the Toronto Raptors (featuring Eric Koreen)...

        http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/1/1...sis-kyle-lowry

        Comment


        • #19
          As always, the output of a product is only as good as its input
          For me this is the key statement from Hollinger. His predictions are good, but I'm fairly confident that predictions associated with the Heat and the raptors are deflated in the case of the former and inflated in the case of the latter. I imagine that by the end of the year these predictions will be more in line with what we imagine to be reasonable.
          "They're going to have to rename the whole conference after us: Toronto Raptors 2014-2015 Northern Conference Champions" ~ ezzbee Dec. 2014

          "I guess I got a little carried away there" ~ ezzbee Apr. 2015

          "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

          Comment


          • #20
            S.R. wrote: View Post
            I don't know any more about algorithms than I do about making pasta, but wouldn't any odds of Heat injuries be offset by similar odds of Raptors injuries? The Raps and Heat have the same odds of key injuries - how would one team gain a 10% advantage?
            I would say that the Heat have far more of their teams success invested in their top three players. The Raps have less of a drop off if DeRozan, Amir or JV or Ross come out and someone from the bench is subbed in, relatively speaking, over a seven game series. I think for the Raps Lowry is the biggest difference maker.

            So Raps minus DD and JV probably have a better chance over 7 than Miami minus Wade and Bosh. At least one time out of four.

            Comment


            • #21
              can we stop posting a new thread every time hollinger stats gets updated?

              Comment


              • #22
                ezz_bee wrote: View Post
                For me this is the key statement from Hollinger. His predictions are good, but I'm fairly confident that predictions associated with the Heat and the raptors are deflated in the case of the former and inflated in the case of the latter. I imagine that by the end of the year these predictions will be more in line with what we imagine to be reasonable.
                First I was curious about why its tested "5000 times"

                Odds are just that - odds. Testing them doesn't change the odds.

                A fair coin flip is 50%. If I flip it 5000 times, the outcome of those 5000 flips doesn't change what the odds were.

                it makes a random adjustment up or down to allow for the possibility that a team will play better or worse
                well that explains why it would need to be tested - but now I question why one would need to make 'random' adjustments.

                At this point aren't we just admitting our initial 'odds' (ie. power ranking) aren't much better than a pure guess, so lets add a bunch of stuff to it 5000 times, average the results, and now call it a fair prediction?

                I get that the equation itself is unbias, but adding 'random' variables can just as easily create a bias that otherwise didn't exist.

                Comment


                • #23
                  joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
                  I'm not sure where you read the bit of Hollinger making up injuries for players within the simulations, but I've not read that anywhere.

                  ADD From the OP Link:


                  Nothing about Assumed Injuries.
                  The statistics which the simulations are based on factor in this year's performance by the team. Meaning, if dwade sat out 10 games this year, we don't have a sample of Miami if they played at full health for 35+ games.

                  I guess I'm making this more complicated. Basically, if Miami was healthy the whole year, they would be better, so our percentage would go down because the simulation would have us playing a healthy Miami 1000 times instead of one who sits bosh and wade all the time.

                  I didn't mean to say that it simulates injuries

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Craiger wrote: View Post
                    First I was curious about why its tested "5000 times"

                    Odds are just that - odds. Testing them doesn't change the odds.

                    A fair coin flip is 50%. If I flip it 5000 times, the outcome of those 5000 flips doesn't change what the odds were.

                    well that explains why it would need to be tested - but now I question why one would need to make 'random' adjustments.

                    At this point aren't we just admitting our initial 'odds' (ie. power ranking) aren't much better than a pure guess, so lets add a bunch of stuff to it 5000 times, average the results, and now call it a fair prediction?
                    The "odds" that he's using are based on those 5000 simulations. I.e. if he runs his simulation 5000 times and the raptors win the championship 500 times, the "odds" of them winning are 500/5000 or 10%.

                    The algorithm that simulates the season is bases the strength of teams off his power rankings. So taking that number of his power rankings into account, they simulate the season more efficiently- it's how he measures performance, etc.

                    I agree though, that there are certain things missing from his algorithm and that the raptors chance of winning the championship should be (and in reality is) less than the heat's but the "odds" he's using are based on his simulations.

                    Sure, the odds of getting heads is 50% when you flip a coin, but if you flip a coin 5000 times, you might get heads 4500 times. I think he's just using odds because it's better than saying "percentage of times my algorithm predicted these events would happen"
                    A key that opens many locks is a master key, but a lock that gets open by many keys is just a shitty lock

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      e_wheazhy_ wrote: View Post
                      The "odds" that he's using are based on those 5000 simulations. I.e. if he runs his simulation 5000 times and the raptors win the championship 500 times, the "odds" of them winning are 500/5000 or 10%.

                      The algorithm that simulates the season is bases the strength of teams off his power rankings. So taking that number of his power rankings into account, they simulate the season more efficiently- it's how he measures performance, etc.

                      I agree though, that there are certain things missing from his algorithm and that the raptors chance of winning the championship should be (and in reality is) less than the heat's but the "odds" he's using are based on his simulations.

                      Sure, the odds of getting heads is 50% when you flip a coin, but if you flip a coin 5000 times, you might get heads 4500 times. I think he's just using odds because it's better than saying "percentage of times my algorithm predicted these events would happen"
                      Well, there's something called LLN (Law of Large Numbers) that shows that even if it's theoretically possible to get heads 4500 times, it does not happen. You could get 8 heads out of 10 flips but never ever would you get 4000 heads out of 5000 flips.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Fanchie wrote: View Post
                        Well, there's something called LLN (Law of Large Numbers) that shows that even if it's theoretically possible to get heads 4500 times, it does not happen. You could get 8 heads out of 10 flips but never ever would you get 4000 heads out of 5000 flips.

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
                        Well then my entire world is a lie. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go ask my mother if I'm adopted.
                        A key that opens many locks is a master key, but a lock that gets open by many keys is just a shitty lock

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Fanchie wrote: View Post
                          Well, there's something called LLN (Law of Large Numbers) that shows that even if it's theoretically possible to get heads 4500 times, it does not happen. You could get 8 heads out of 10 flips but never ever would you get 4000 heads out of 5000 flips.

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
                          thats not what the theory of large numbers is saying.

                          Its saying the larger the # of samples the more likely the result will trend towards the expected odds. As such the chances of getting 4500 heads out of 5000 is very slim BUT if one does get (possible, but not very probable), as the sample size increases (to 10k or 50k or 100k) the expected results will normalize closer to 50%, until infinity when it will be 50%.

                          A simple but maybe poor explanation is: the odds matter, not the result of the test. If the test doesn't give us the expected odds, its because the test just isn't big enough yet.

                          Which is ofcourse is a bit of a paradox.

                          The "odds" that he's using are based on those 5000 simulations. I.e. if he runs his simulation 5000 times and the raptors win the championship 500 times, the "odds" of them winning are 500/5000 or 10%
                          I get that, but that doesn't make sense under probabilities. The odds are X, the expected result should also be X, if its not X there is a problem with our odds to start with OR large # theory (see above )

                          Ofcourse you throw additional variables into that (ie. a team plays better or worse in the future) that will change the expected odds, but if we don't know what those variables are or will be, then we are just guessing at them and their impact. And ofcourse random is random, we shouldn't plan for/expect random. If we know what they are or can reasonably expect them to be, why not just put them in the initial equation?
                          Last edited by Craiger; Thu Jan 16, 2014, 07:18 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            It's like I'm taking advanced stats all over again... I'd rather not

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              wallz wrote: View Post
                              It's like I'm taking advanced stats all over again... I'd rather not
                              worse... theory of stats

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Craiger wrote: View Post
                                I get that, but that doesn't make sense under probabilities. The odds are X, the expected result should also be X, if its not X there is a problem with our odds to start with OR large # theory (see above )
                                Disagree. The expected result sure, but not necessarily the actual result.
                                For arguments sake, definitions of Odds:
                                1.A certain number of points given beforehand to a weaker side in a contest to equalize the chances of all participants.

                                2.The ratio of the probability of an event's occurring to the probability of its not occurring.


                                3.The likelihood of the occurrence of one thing rather than the occurrence of another thing, as in a contest.
                                and Definition of Probability:
                                1.The quality or condition of being probable; likelihood.


                                2.A probable situation, condition, or event.


                                3.The likelihood that a given event will occur.
                                Probabilities don't say something WILL happen. They say something SHOULD, or COULD happen.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X