FWIW, luck is an "intangible", and for Hollinger to use it as any justification on a prediction devalues his own statistical work. I'm actually a bit surprised a guy so committed to statistics would make such an admission.
I don't think it's reasonable to write off the wins during the streak as a "fluke". Sure, the team was healthy, played well during that stretch, and got a few breaks that resulted in wins that might otherwise have been losses, but that happens to every team in the NBA at some points in the season. It's also true that the schedule was favorable during that period, but that averages out over the year. Look at it this way, if those streak wins had been broken up into three smaller stretches, would anyone call it luck that the Blazers had won them? If anything, I think it's more reasonable to chalk up some of the losses in the second half of the season to bad luck due to injuries and a few unfortunate breaks. The Blazers were a good team last year. They lost nothing of consequence in the offseason and they're adding Oden, Fernandez and Bayless. That should translate into more than two additional wins over last year.
If it's irrelevant, please label it that. I certainly won't take offense. Your point was irrelevant because your point was speicifically addressed by Hollinger and then you used it as a reason that Hollinger (and my agreeing point) was incorrect. Ed O.
Luck influences expected wins and losses. Nobody in their right mind thinks that intangibles don't exist, and few sane fans of statistics believe that any statistical analysis covers all that can happen on the basketball court and/or explains why wins and losses occur like they do. Ed O.
Jones was pretty damn good in the games that we won. He's gone. Will someone be better than Jones over the long haul? I have NO DOUBT that we have three or four guys who are superior prospects and have a chance to be much better than Jones has been in his career... but he had some games where he was a very, very good player and I don't know if we'll stumble into that kind of lucky streak again this season. Ed O.
I don't feel it was addressed by Hollinger other than in a cursory manner, and him using "luck" as a part of his statistical analysis pretty much supports my view. He devalued his own job by using luck as any sort of parameter. Sloppy stuff...
Hehe. That's 5 more wins than Hollinger is being crucified for predicting... does anyone really think that he expects his predictions/projections to have THAT much accuracy? Ed O.
Do you have any concept of what "expected wins" means? Here's an article about it and how it relates to the NBA. Have you studied statistics or quantitative analysis in baseball or basketball at any level? Luck is INHERENT in sports and in statistical analysis. Calling it "sloppy" is showing your ignorance of how things like that are done. Ed O.
Luck is inherent and an unknown. Hollinger can't quantify luck, so trying to make a supporting argument out of luck is ridiculous. Luck is an unknown; Hollinger may think the Blazers were "lucky" to win 41 games last year; I think they were unlucky to only win 41 games considering the season as a whole and the entire injury problem, Oden included. If it makes you feel better to call me "ignorant", so be it, but show me a model that effectively predicts luck, and then show me the model that makes luck an absolute with a universal definition. It's an easy way out for Hollinger to throw "luck" into the mix; he does not dive deep enough into it for me to do anything other than mock him for his ridiculous inclusion of it. Actually, the more I read the article, the dumber it seems on the opinion side. Of course LMA had a career year; he hadn't started an entire season prior to it. The statistics are top-notch, however. Too bad Hollinger didn't stick to them and instead soiled his entire column.
I'm not crucifying him. Even of the drama; I disagree with him and am disappointed he would use luck as a parameter.
Uh. OK. Maybe all of statistical analysis of baseball and basketball done to date is wrong, and you're right. Maybe. Ed O.
Hollinger has no idea what he's talking about. We have great three point shooting. And we had injuries last year. Roy, LMA, and Jones all had injuries. But of course, you all know this.
Please expand on this. Any model that uses "luck" needs to affix the same value to "luck" across the board and for all parties. If not, the model is useless, since luck is an unknown and is subjective in nature. Luck is an emotional reaction. You say "all of statistical analysis". Let's take baseball. A batting average is a batting average. One can say, well, X amount of balls should not have been hits based on data, but the fact remains that they do end up hits, and the fact remains that no one can predict which soft line drives will fall and which lasers will be caught. Hence, forward thinking statistical analysis needs to have the same limitations as historical data, and then Hollinger takes it one ridiculous step further by subjectively attributing "luck" to a historical known, i.e. the Blazers 41 wins from last season.
Dude. I gave you a link to read about Expected Wins, and there is some explanation of how luck plays a role there. I don't have the time or inclination to give you more links when there are so many sabermetric and other sources online to explain the role that luck can play in statistical analysis. Ed O.
I am well aware of these analyses, but they all use historical data to attach a value to "luck". Unless Hollinger gives us which wins or statistics were based on "luck", he looks foolish. Bill James is rolling over in his grave (that's a joke). You are comparing the work of an undergrad (Hollinger, in this instance) to the work of the professor (James, for one).
I think you're misunderstanding the use of the word "luck" in statistical analysis. Luck refers to variance. All performance has variance up and down. The difference between "expected performance" and actual performance is luck, if you believe in the model that provides the expected performance. It's unknown whether a team will have good or bad luck (or any luck), but for any team that greatly under-performs or over-performs its expected performance, it is rational to expect a regression to the mean. He's counting Oden as a new player this year, so his injury last year isn't related to his contention that the Blazers were lucky. The Blazers, as they were comprised without Oden, had a lucky season by Hollinger's model. So, if you are looking at last season's record as the baseline for what to expect this season, some of the gains from gaining Oden, Bayless and Fernandez will be lost in regression to the mean. Unless they again over-perform Hollinger's expected performance. Which could happen. I am not speaking to whether Hollinger's numbers are accurate or the best, but if you believe in his model (as, of course, Hollinger does), that use of "luck" is perfectly reasonable, in my opinion.
I think this is an odd nit-pick. He's not using other people's judgments instead of his own. He's saying that since many informed people believe that Oden has Robinson-like potential, he can't discount the possibility that Oden will have a Robinson-like rookie season. It's being open-minded and saying that something he doesn't think will happen does exist as something possibly could happen.
According to "pythagorean" analysis, our record last year should have been 37-45. That is a "luck neutral" estimate. Studies in both basketball and baseball have shown that winning close games is not a "skill" that is retained from season to season. The pythagorean analysis indicates that we won an unusually high number of close games last season. Call it "luck", or an anomaly, or divine intervention - it is not a trend you can rely on.
he says "since I've heard scouts make that comparison I'm not going to dismiss the possibility" which to me is an incredibly stupid comment to make.
He's not a scout. He's not a professional talent evaluator. He works with statistics and models and projections and analysis. He relies on people who get paid to scout players to provide the qualitative input. It's like a scout who's writing a column saying that Hollinger points out that a player's PER was higher than the average for a guy at his position. Why is that an incredibly stupid approach? Ed O.
