Future Power Rankings: ESPN Insider

Discussion in 'Portland Trail Blazers' started by The Other Guys, Mar 2, 2010.

Moderators: 6

Moderators

  1. BrianFromWA
  2. Chris Craig
  3. Darkwebs
  4. Ed O
  5. PtldPlatypus
  6. SlyPokerDog
Page 3 of 3
  1. andalusian

    andalusian Season - Restarted

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    15,253
    Likes Received:
    14,693
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    San Marcos, CA
    All future estimates have to use statistics and forecast models to try and estimate these, so it's not like there is no way to do it - but, to be honest - I really do not think this "future ranking" is worth the paper it is written on - it is nothing more than a couple of douche-bags with no real statistical / analysis background doing it.

    The idea, generally has merit. It's just this specific "ranking" which is putrid. There is no way in hell that Portland has gone from 1st to 6th to 5th in a 3 months period if the "study" had any real legs behind it. At this point it is nothing more than a couple of "bloggers" with ESPN credentials pontificating. Fun to read, maybe - but pretty absurd, overall.

    This is "Bleacher Report" grade piece of work, only backed by "ESPN".
     
    andalusian, Mar 3, 2010
    #41
  2. blazerboy30

    blazerboy30 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    5,465
    Likes Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Agreed. But my point was that there didn't seem to be any mention of a statistical model for injuries or future injuries. If they don't want to factor that in, that is their choice. But to then move OKC above the Blazers, when ignoring injuries or future injuries, is pretty silly.
     
    blazerboy30, Mar 3, 2010
    #42
  3. Ed O

    Ed O Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    10,701
    Likes Received:
    2,826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Good job keeping up with logic.

    Ed O.
     
    Ed O, Mar 3, 2010
    #43
  4. Ed O

    Ed O Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    10,701
    Likes Received:
    2,826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I was commenting on the concept. Not the execution.

    Companies do crappy job interviews that let them hire total morons pretty systematically, but that doesn't change the fact that job interviews TEND to help a company make better decisions on whom to hire.

    Ed O.
     
    Ed O, Mar 3, 2010
    #44
  5. OddEnormous

    OddEnormous I'M FLYING!! I'M FLYING!!

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,476
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Changing Rooms
    Location:
    South California
    I would have been able to had there been some.
     
    OddEnormous, Mar 3, 2010
    #45
  6. Ed O

    Ed O Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    10,701
    Likes Received:
    2,826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Check again. It's not my fault that you aren't seeing it, dude. Distorting what I said to restate it as "standardized testing is exactly like ESPN NBA power rankings" is not at all consistent with what I wrote or what my logic was.

    Ed O.
     
    Ed O, Mar 3, 2010
    #46
  7. OddEnormous

    OddEnormous I'M FLYING!! I'M FLYING!!

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,476
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Changing Rooms
    Location:
    South California
    So you're saying that ESPN's future power ranking are just like going through the Police Academy.

    Or playing a round of golf?
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2010
    OddEnormous, Mar 3, 2010
    #47
  8. OddEnormous

    OddEnormous I'M FLYING!! I'M FLYING!!

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,476
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Changing Rooms
    Location:
    South California
    It is what you said. then you compared ESPN's Future Power Rankings to hiring someone at a company.

    I agree with you. I'm having a tough time keeping up with this logic.
     
    OddEnormous, Mar 3, 2010
    #48
  9. Ed O

    Ed O Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    10,701
    Likes Received:
    2,826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    You're not speaking English very well. Or you're intentionally attempting to confuse me. Or you're high.

    Maybe all three.

    I did NOT say anything was "exactly like" anything. I did not say that this version of the ESPN Power poll was like anything else.

    Please re-read (and pay attention to) what I actually wrote if you're interested in making a useful comment about it. If you're confused by what I mean by "net present value", you can ask me or you can Google it...

    Ed O.
     
    Ed O, Mar 3, 2010
    #49
  10. OddEnormous

    OddEnormous I'M FLYING!! I'M FLYING!!

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,476
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Changing Rooms
    Location:
    South California
    So you're going with the message board classic "You're too stupid to get this!" when someone disagrees with you.

    I like it.

    It shifts the focus off of you.
     
    OddEnormous, Mar 3, 2010
    #50
  11. Rastapopoulos

    Rastapopoulos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    41,922
    Likes Received:
    26,259
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Ballin'
    Ed likes it because
    (a) He loves "potential", and
    (b) he thinks absolutely everything is quantifiable.

    How is this different from saying "the Thunder are good and they're young"? That's fine, but then how do you talk about teams like NY who have just cleared enormous cap room just before a big free agent summer? Surely they've got UNLIMITED potential!

    And it's a bit disingenuous to say that the concept is good, just that this particular realisation of it is bad unless you suggest ways that the obvious difficulties can be fixed. How do you compare teams like NY with teams like OKC? What do you say about teams like the Suns where it's been rumored for ages that they would trade Stoudemire? Did they have more potential when it looked like they had a great trade set up with Golden State?

    Face it, it just isn't quantifiable. Stick to saying the Thunder have good young players, the Knicks have a lot of caproom and a big ad market, etc., etc., and stop pretending that you can compare them.
     
    Rastapopoulos, Mar 3, 2010
    #51
  12. hasoos

    hasoos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    9,418
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    48
    My guess is that they only have Wade for this year. Chicago has cleared space for one max free agent. They have a much better team than Miami, and Chicago is Wade's home town. So Miami better enjoy it for now. It's over after this year.
     
    hasoos, Mar 3, 2010
    #52
  13. Ed O

    Ed O Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    10,701
    Likes Received:
    2,826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Everything is. It's just a matter of how confident you can be in putting a number to something.

    Not at all. The Knicks can only add certain players, even under the best of circumstances. They have a chance at getting LeBron or Wade or Bosh as a UFA, but the percentage chance is what matters.

    The Knicks are certainly better off with the cap space than a team with their same roster which will have no cap space... right? So why not rank the real Knicks ahead of the hypothetical no-space Knicks?

    That's not disingenuous in the least. There's simply no reason to throw out the baby (the idea) with the bathwater (the execution) any more than there is to throw out the content of a book based on the typeface that's used.

    The rankings are, as I see them, a snapshot at any given point. OKC is 100% set with a player the likes of which the Knicks only have, say, a 10% chance of getting. If/when the Knicks sign LeBron, then that ranking would change. It doesn't make the current rankings worthless or the idea a bad one.

    You can stick to that, because you seem to discount the notion of probabilities, but I find it entirely reasonable to compare futures of different teams based on past and present situations, even as I admit that not all future permutations and occurrences can be accounted for.

    Ed O.
     
    Ed O, Mar 3, 2010
    #53
  14. Ed O

    Ed O Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    10,701
    Likes Received:
    2,826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    You were either lazy, ignorant, or stupid. I'm not sure which.

    But you're not tracking with a comparison not equaling "exactly the same as", and you're not understanding that I'm distinguishing a concept from an execution of the concept. Are you saying that it's my fault that you can't read so good?

    It's not about me. It's about what I posted and how horrifically you mangled it.

    Ed O.
     
    Ed O, Mar 3, 2010
    #54
  15. OddEnormous

    OddEnormous I'M FLYING!! I'M FLYING!!

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,476
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Changing Rooms
    Location:
    South California

    Like I said. "YOU'RE STUPID!!!!!!" :rolleyes:

    Something is either a good comparison or it's not. Correct?

    If it's not exactly like standardized testing (which you are now saying) why make the comparison?

    If you're using that as an example (a measurement of skill) ESPN's power rankings are like the company picnic sack race no?
     
    OddEnormous, Mar 3, 2010
    #55
  16. e_blazer

    e_blazer Rip City Fan

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    24,217
    Likes Received:
    30,362
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Consultant
    Location:
    Oregon City, OR
    This board needs some trolls from other teams' fans to spar with so we don't have to have so much infighting for entertainment.
     
    e_blazer, Mar 3, 2010
    #56
  17. jlprk

    jlprk The ESPN mod is insane.

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    30,672
    Likes Received:
    8,852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired, while you work!
    Ornery speaks Stomp-Your-Face, a transnational language. I like what the study is attempting, but it won't get credibility until it spells out its method for all to see. Then people can debate the method (how much to weigh each factor), instead of just whether it's worth doing at all.
     
    jlprk, Mar 3, 2010
    #57
  18. Ed O

    Ed O Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    10,701
    Likes Received:
    2,826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    A plane flies like an eagle. But it doesn't flap its wings.

    A person eats like a pig but it's capable of sweating when it does.

    Things can be a good comparison without being EXACTLY alike.

    Standardized testing is a good concept to forecast a student's ability to think and learn in another educational environment. A "future power poll" is a good concept to rank the net present value of winning of each team.

    BUT... standardized tests can be flawed. Even a "flawless" test can misevaluate a person (for the better or worse for that person). Similarly, future power polls can be altogether wrong or poorly thought out...

    But it doesn't mean that a future power poll is a bad idea.

    I don't understand this question. I'm sorry.

    Ed O.
     
    Ed O, Mar 3, 2010
    #58
Page 3 of 3

Share This Page