So, what is the value of "expected preformance" if luck has some "value"? So in his "expected preformance" is lower than mine ----?????????? Luck affects both up and down seems to me? g
I wouldn't take too much offense about Hollinger's prediction, it's not like he's just randomly throwing numbers out there, he does have a formula (or formulae) and I tend to think that this team overachieved last year, and our .500 mark also came with a negative points differential. Hollinger's a bit conservative, but I've thought for awhile that this team is probably going to win about 46 games next season and if that happens and they get an 8th or 7th seed out of the deal I think we should all consider ourselves fortunate, because that will also mean almost everyone on the team stayed healthy and nobody had a big fall off from the year before. Viva la Blazers!
True, but objective variance has a plus and a minus value. Hollinger attributing a minus solely to the "luck" value is subjective data. Even with that, he pegs Portland at 38 wins, which is a -3 game difference out of 82, and which therefore has a P-value that isn't statistically significant if the standard of .05 is followed. So basically, we are arguing about nothing.
Why? I explained why I didn't think so...that he was allowing that the possibility exists, due to other informed opinions. Why is it stupid to admit the possibility, due to what scouts think?
Over single season samples, we are always talking about too little data to make concrete conclusions for whole teams...but since teams change too much over multiple seasons and we can't run the same season over and over, we're forced to go by that if we want any statistical analysis at all. If you feel any team-level projections are useless due to lack of sample size, that's a reasonable position. But, in that case, I don't see a reason to blast Hollinger. For those who are interested in it, he's doing what he feels is the best possible with the data available. I don't think that approach is flawed or silly.
because it doesn't belong anywhere in hollinger's analysis. to say "oh i think oden will be this but i've heard scouts say he could be this so i'm going to throw that possibility out there even though i'm actually going to disregard it in my projections" is stupid.
"Expected performance" can be generally done a couple of ways: -the individual performances the players of the last X seasons (different models use different amount of the past). Based on how different types of production (scoring, rebounding, scoring efficiency, etc) correlate with wins, the types of production are given weights. That creates the statistical model for placing value on players. Such models either put the values in "wins" or have translations for turning the values into "wins" (the expected amount of minutes each player plays are a factor here). Sum up the wins of all the players, and you have an expectation of wins for the team. This is predictive, you do this before the season happens. -How the team level numbers turned into wins. There is a strong historical correlation between the amount of points a team scores/allows and the number of wins they record. That correlation has been turned into an equation. So if the amount of wins and losses predicted by this equation (using the points the team actually scored and allowed over the course of the season) is greater or less than the number of wins the team actually got, you have evidence (not proof) of luck. Good luck if the team won more games than expected, bad luck if the team won less games than expected. These differences are usually ascribed to good or bad luck in close games. This is reactive, you do it after the season is over, looking back. Over a large enough sample. Over just one season, luck doesn't always even out.
That's not part of his analysis. That's an aside. His analysis is that it won't happen. He's simply saying it's not impossible...call it a piece of "FYI" trivia.
I am not even sure there is "luck" in a game. Was it luck that Outlaw put in that last shot at Menphis (?) I don't think it was. It was the result of coaching, practice, decision, and many other factors. I can see that his formula for "expected performance" is valid but just ain't so that luck can have some kind of value. Not in my mind. It is the result of the above factors and many others. Expectations were too low, because of poor data. g
Sure there's luck. The things that you list can influence percentages but can't influence luck. He can increase his rate of success through hard work and other factors, but he can NEVER get it to 100%. Luck influences whether a shot rattles in or out, and in close games (such as Outlaw's gamewinner in Memphis) luck is particularly important. Ed O.
Don't see it ED. That shot goes in because of the physics. Right spin on the ball, hitting just the right spot, whatever. In my mind, Outlaw put himself in the position and the defense did not stop him from putting it in the hole. We call it luck, but it is just doing and being in the right place at the right time.
