|
What the Computers Knew About the Raptors Before We Did
So nobody believed in the Raptors. Or, no group of people did, anyway. The computers were comparatively enamored of Toronto’s chances. FiveThirtyEight favored Toronto. ESPN’s Basketball Power Index calculated the split at Golden State, 52 percent; Toronto, 48. Basketball-Reference’s formula spit out a result in the same range. A University of Toronto statistics professor’s model gave Toronto a slight edge.
But after Toronto more than held its own through two games of the Finals, split two games at home, and nearly took a 2-0 series lead, those computers look more prescient than they did a week ago—or at least more prescient than all the people who doubted them. That heuristic is a bit less useful in this series because the two teams ended up with nearly identical regular-season results. Toronto finished with a 58-24 record, one win ahead of Golden State, while the Warriors posted a better point differential by just 0.4 net points per game. The point here, however, isn’t to pick at those small differences to try to identify the better team, but rather to acknowledge that those numbers are darn close. We should have expected this series to be close, too. Some models don’t account for injuries and midseason transactions and instead just look at past team success, but for those that do, Durant’s uncertain health proved the final factor that balanced the two teams’ odds. FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver wrote that Golden State would have been roughly a 2-to-1 favorite by FiveThirtyEight’s calculation if both teams were fully healthy—a ratio more in line with the public perception.
TR
|
The Raptors starting line up only had 160 minutes of playing time together. The team jelled as they progressed through the playoffs. The Raptors team defense is much better than it was 6 weeks ago.
Raptors improvement in team play was very difficult to project. I knew the Raptors would get better ,but I didn't think they'd improve as much as they did.
|
On June 05 2019 07:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote: The Raptors starting line up only had 160 minutes of playing time together. The team jelled as they progressed through the playoffs. The Raptors team defense is much better than it was 6 weeks ago.
Raptors improvement in team play was very difficult to project. I knew the Raptors would get better ,but I didn't think they'd improve as much as they did. This post represents all the justifications for maths-based sports analytics over human analysis.
Let me explain. I won't go on the amount or absence of any meaningful content of the post since JJ's discussion style is pretty known here, but I will focus on the approach.
Circa 2013 when Harden was up and coming and Spurs was the hot shit with lactic acid level count, mileage, 3 and D and all those stuff, there was a media conference where people from 538 and MIT Sloan where invited to help us poor media people understand this emerging trend. There were heavy discussions on calculus and even sports espionage work (on which player broke up with his girl days before a game, etc. ITS A THING!!!), but my ultimate take home lesson is this:
the understanding and analysis of the game become data-driven, whether the conclusion is right or wrong. There is no room for coulda, shoula, woulda, didnt expect X to do Y, who thought Z was possible.
The being right or wrong aspect here can't be emphasized enough. When 10 people are looking at the same data and arrive at different conclusions, at least all of them can go back to the data and discuss why they differed. On the other hand, JJ's statement could be pretty much summarized as "I didnt know theyd do that, but they did that, hence results."
So 538 and all these math guys could be wrong, but there are SPECIFIC things we can talk about. In fact, here's a kicker, last week days before game 2 (if you know anyone who work in tv production, ask them about this, they can verify this), MIT released a cred sheet predicting the Warriors victory based on the following:
- warriors game 1 drtg was 1.7+ better than other series (which means they played great defense), only that SIAKAM WAS LUCKY AS FUCK/THEY DIDNT PREP FOR HIM (84% fg, 67% 3fg. 14/17)
- continued from 1, Kawhi's limited production
- Kawhi is injured
- Lowry is unreliable
- TOR support is not much of a threat vs. warriors support average performance
That's it. JJ, dont bother replying to me since my post is not specifically about you but about the kind of game observation that you and others post on the interwebz. But you may post in order to explain: 1. what numerically you mean by "jelled as they progressed" 2. objective measurement of "improve as much as they did" 3. why you didnt know these things
The points above are objective and measurable NBA points that people could have a normal and healthy conversation on. If you won't address these, which are the key points I raise here, but you really want talk about something, talk to JimmiC, you two still have an ongoing debate. I'm really not interested in bringing up data points only to be answered by your odd takes and wild self-styled analysis of the game.
|
The article's premise is offbase.
Nobody believed in the Raptors. In The Ringer’s NBA Finals preview, every writer picked the Warriors to win, and nobody thought the series would last seven games. Their definition of "nobody" is their group of experts. Lots of experts picked the Raptors to beat the Bucks.
Half of ESPN's analysts had the Bucks winning. Half had the Raptors winning. The Raptors were down 0-2 with game 3 going into double OT. The Raptors hung by a thread. As a group ESPN's batch of experts pretty much nailed the state of the Bucks//Raptors series.
As for teh Warriors//Raptors series. Its still going on. Regardless of the outcomes a single 7 game series is not a good test for whether or not a projection method is a success or a failure.
On June 05 2019 12:33 Twinkle Toes wrote: I'm really not interested in bringing up data points only to be answered by your odd takes and wild self-styled analysis of the game. Then don't reply to my comments. Do not bring me up several times in your post if you do not want a reply. Anyhow, my analysis is simple and straightforward. There is not much data to go on because the Raptors starting lineup has not played together very much.
On June 05 2019 12:33 Twinkle Toes wrote: So 538 and all these math guys could be wrong, but there are SPECIFIC things we can talk about. In fact, here's a kicker, last week days before game 2 .... The U of T math professor stated his model looks at what teams did in the regular season. Well, Jonas, Delon Wright, and CJ Miles left in February. Patrick Mccaw and Marc Gasol were acquired in February. OG Anunoby played in the regular season and has not played in the playoffs. So the "math guy" at U of T who spent 2 hours jamming together something to project a winner created something meaningless because its based on a Raptors team that no longer exists.
The U of T math prof's projection for the Warriors/Raptors series doesn't means much. Its entertaining. That's about it. https://www.thestar.com/sports/raptors/2019/05/30/raptors-have-slight-edge-to-win-nba-finals-toronto-statistician-predicts.html
|
On June 05 2019 12:33 Twinkle Toes wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 07:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote: The Raptors starting line up only had 160 minutes of playing time together. The team jelled as they progressed through the playoffs. The Raptors team defense is much better than it was 6 weeks ago.
Raptors improvement in team play was very difficult to project. I knew the Raptors would get better ,but I didn't think they'd improve as much as they did. This post represents all the justifications for maths-based sports analytics over human analysis. Let me explain. I won't go on the amount or absence of any meaningful content of the post since JJ's discussion style is pretty known here, but I will focus on the approach. Circa 2013 when Harden was up and coming and Spurs was the hot shit with lactic acid level count, mileage, 3 and D and all those stuff, there was a media conference where people from 538 and MIT Sloan where invited to help us poor media people understand this emerging trend. There were heavy discussions on calculus and even sports espionage work (on which player broke up with his girl days before a game, etc. ITS A THING!!!), but my ultimate take home lesson is this: the understanding and analysis of the game become data-driven, whether the conclusion is right or wrong. There is no room for coulda, shoula, woulda, didnt expect X to do Y, who thought Z was possible.The being right or wrong aspect here can't be emphasized enough. When 10 people are looking at the same data and arrive at different conclusions, at least all of them can go back to the data and discuss why they differed. On the other hand, JJ's statement could be pretty much summarized as "I didnt know theyd do that, but they did that, hence results."So 538 and all these math guys could be wrong, but there are SPECIFIC things we can talk about. In fact, here's a kicker, last week days before game 2 (if you know anyone who work in tv production, ask them about this, they can verify this), MIT released a cred sheet predicting the Warriors victory based on the following: - warriors game 1 drtg was 1.7+ better than other series (which means they played great defense), only that SIAKAM WAS LUCKY AS FUCK/THEY DIDNT PREP FOR HIM (84% fg, 67% 3fg. 14/17)
- continued from 1, Kawhi's limited production
- Kawhi is injured
- Lowry is unreliable
- TOR support is not much of a threat vs. warriors support average performance
That's it. JJ, dont bother replying to me since my post is not specifically about you but about the kind of game observation that you and others post on the interwebz. But you may post in order to explain: 1. what numerically you mean by "jelled as they progressed" 2. objective measurement of "improve as much as they did" 3. why you didnt know these things The points above are objective and measurable NBA points that people could have a normal and healthy conversation on. If you won't address these, which are the key points I raise here, but you really want talk about something, talk to JimmiC, you two still have an ongoing debate. I'm really not interested in bringing up data points only to be answered by your odd takes and wild self-styled analysis of the game.
I would say that I think this is also an appeal of the rise of gambling. It actually gives people real accountability. I don't have FS1, but they have Lock it In, and they show how much each of their people is up or down money for the week/month/year. Most people end up tracking their things, even Cowherd will say something like, "Bad week with my bets, went 1-4" and the like.
|
I wonder if we'll see the "Box And 1" defense again during this series?
|
On June 05 2019 13:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Then don't reply to my comments. Do not bring me up several times in your post if you do not want a reply. Anyhow, my analysis is simple and straightforward. There is not much data to go on because the Raptors starting lineup has not played together very much. - I replied to you explaining that your statement is a specific example of deteriorating sports fan discourse. - I bring you up a few times to cite a bad example.
My specific point was to illustrate how posts like yours exemplify this terrible practice among these wannabe analysts. All fluff and analysis based on resuls (as JVG would say), and no real content nor accountability. This is not about you at all, I made that clear as day. I only used your post as an example since yours is the most glaring and abundantly available here on tl.
If you insist on replying, reply to these: 1. what numerically you mean by "jelled as they progressed" 2. objective measurement of "improve as much as they did" 3. why you didnt know these things
If you reply but not to the three points above, which are actual NBA discussion topics in contrast to you having a heart attack and being defensive about your posts, then its clear you fail hard at understanding what a normal and healthy conversation is like.
tldr: JJ dont be emotional and defensive, lets be mentally focused and mature and stick to NBA talk. explain: 1. what numerically you mean by "jelled as they progressed" 2. objective measurement of "improve as much as they did" 3. why you didnt know these things
|
On June 05 2019 13:32 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 12:33 Twinkle Toes wrote:On June 05 2019 07:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote: The Raptors starting line up only had 160 minutes of playing time together. The team jelled as they progressed through the playoffs. The Raptors team defense is much better than it was 6 weeks ago.
Raptors improvement in team play was very difficult to project. I knew the Raptors would get better ,but I didn't think they'd improve as much as they did. This post represents all the justifications for maths-based sports analytics over human analysis. Let me explain. I won't go on the amount or absence of any meaningful content of the post since JJ's discussion style is pretty known here, but I will focus on the approach. Circa 2013 when Harden was up and coming and Spurs was the hot shit with lactic acid level count, mileage, 3 and D and all those stuff, there was a media conference where people from 538 and MIT Sloan where invited to help us poor media people understand this emerging trend. There were heavy discussions on calculus and even sports espionage work (on which player broke up with his girl days before a game, etc. ITS A THING!!!), but my ultimate take home lesson is this: the understanding and analysis of the game become data-driven, whether the conclusion is right or wrong. There is no room for coulda, shoula, woulda, didnt expect X to do Y, who thought Z was possible.The being right or wrong aspect here can't be emphasized enough. When 10 people are looking at the same data and arrive at different conclusions, at least all of them can go back to the data and discuss why they differed. On the other hand, JJ's statement could be pretty much summarized as "I didnt know theyd do that, but they did that, hence results."So 538 and all these math guys could be wrong, but there are SPECIFIC things we can talk about. In fact, here's a kicker, last week days before game 2 (if you know anyone who work in tv production, ask them about this, they can verify this), MIT released a cred sheet predicting the Warriors victory based on the following: - warriors game 1 drtg was 1.7+ better than other series (which means they played great defense), only that SIAKAM WAS LUCKY AS FUCK/THEY DIDNT PREP FOR HIM (84% fg, 67% 3fg. 14/17)
- continued from 1, Kawhi's limited production
- Kawhi is injured
- Lowry is unreliable
- TOR support is not much of a threat vs. warriors support average performance
That's it. JJ, dont bother replying to me since my post is not specifically about you but about the kind of game observation that you and others post on the interwebz. But you may post in order to explain: 1. what numerically you mean by "jelled as they progressed" 2. objective measurement of "improve as much as they did" 3. why you didnt know these things The points above are objective and measurable NBA points that people could have a normal and healthy conversation on. If you won't address these, which are the key points I raise here, but you really want talk about something, talk to JimmiC, you two still have an ongoing debate. I'm really not interested in bringing up data points only to be answered by your odd takes and wild self-styled analysis of the game. I would say that I think this is also an appeal of the rise of gambling. It actually gives people real accountability. I don't have FS1, but they have Lock it In, and they show how much each of their people is up or down money for the week/month/year. Most people end up tracking their things, even Cowherd will say something like, "Bad week with my bets, went 1-4" and the like. Great point. semi-related, but isnt it that odds makers tend to also sway betting trends one way or the other for reasons other than stats, like say to manipulate wins? I dont bet, and dont understand the mechanics, but I gotta say it seems shady to me. Or maybe thats me just being opposed to gambling in general, idk.
|
its going to be interesting to see how Lowry can manage to be more aggressive and at the same time stay out of foul trouble. https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/26898017/lowry-vows-more-aggressive-game-3
On June 05 2019 14:15 Twinkle Toes wrote: n[b][big]tldr: JJ dont be emotional and defensive, lets be mentally focused and mature and stick to NBA talk. don't attempt to assess my emotional state based on a forum post. as you've stated.. stick to the NBA
|
On June 05 2019 14:19 Twinkle Toes wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 13:32 cLutZ wrote:On June 05 2019 12:33 Twinkle Toes wrote:On June 05 2019 07:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote: The Raptors starting line up only had 160 minutes of playing time together. The team jelled as they progressed through the playoffs. The Raptors team defense is much better than it was 6 weeks ago.
Raptors improvement in team play was very difficult to project. I knew the Raptors would get better ,but I didn't think they'd improve as much as they did. This post represents all the justifications for maths-based sports analytics over human analysis. Let me explain. I won't go on the amount or absence of any meaningful content of the post since JJ's discussion style is pretty known here, but I will focus on the approach. Circa 2013 when Harden was up and coming and Spurs was the hot shit with lactic acid level count, mileage, 3 and D and all those stuff, there was a media conference where people from 538 and MIT Sloan where invited to help us poor media people understand this emerging trend. There were heavy discussions on calculus and even sports espionage work (on which player broke up with his girl days before a game, etc. ITS A THING!!!), but my ultimate take home lesson is this: the understanding and analysis of the game become data-driven, whether the conclusion is right or wrong. There is no room for coulda, shoula, woulda, didnt expect X to do Y, who thought Z was possible.The being right or wrong aspect here can't be emphasized enough. When 10 people are looking at the same data and arrive at different conclusions, at least all of them can go back to the data and discuss why they differed. On the other hand, JJ's statement could be pretty much summarized as "I didnt know theyd do that, but they did that, hence results."So 538 and all these math guys could be wrong, but there are SPECIFIC things we can talk about. In fact, here's a kicker, last week days before game 2 (if you know anyone who work in tv production, ask them about this, they can verify this), MIT released a cred sheet predicting the Warriors victory based on the following: - warriors game 1 drtg was 1.7+ better than other series (which means they played great defense), only that SIAKAM WAS LUCKY AS FUCK/THEY DIDNT PREP FOR HIM (84% fg, 67% 3fg. 14/17)
- continued from 1, Kawhi's limited production
- Kawhi is injured
- Lowry is unreliable
- TOR support is not much of a threat vs. warriors support average performance
That's it. JJ, dont bother replying to me since my post is not specifically about you but about the kind of game observation that you and others post on the interwebz. But you may post in order to explain: 1. what numerically you mean by "jelled as they progressed" 2. objective measurement of "improve as much as they did" 3. why you didnt know these things The points above are objective and measurable NBA points that people could have a normal and healthy conversation on. If you won't address these, which are the key points I raise here, but you really want talk about something, talk to JimmiC, you two still have an ongoing debate. I'm really not interested in bringing up data points only to be answered by your odd takes and wild self-styled analysis of the game. I would say that I think this is also an appeal of the rise of gambling. It actually gives people real accountability. I don't have FS1, but they have Lock it In, and they show how much each of their people is up or down money for the week/month/year. Most people end up tracking their things, even Cowherd will say something like, "Bad week with my bets, went 1-4" and the like. Great point. semi-related, but isnt it that odds makers tend to also sway betting trends one way or the other for reasons other than stats, like say to manipulate wins? I dont bet, and dont understand the mechanics, but I gotta say it seems shady to me. Or maybe thats me just being opposed to gambling in general, idk.
The goal of an oddsmaker (usually) is to get people to bet 50% on each side. This is because they make money on the VIG, not on people losing. They are not perfect.
Game 1: The line was Toronto -2, both teams were -110 to start (bet $110 to win $100) Warriors received 65% of the betting tickets, so most books moved them to -120 at some point. Game 2: Line Toronto -1.5 Warriors received 70% of bets. Line moved in most places to -2 and or -125. Game 3: Golden State is -5 in most places and getting ~ 40% of bets.
So, yea, casinos aren't perfect, but they dont try to pick games, they try to predict people's pre-game inclinations. Professional bettors try to pick games, and those people have to win something like 57% of the time to beat the casino, and that is apparently very hard.
|
On June 05 2019 15:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote:its going to be interesting to see how Lowry can manage to be more aggressive and at the same time stay out of foul trouble. https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/26898017/lowry-vows-more-aggressive-game-3Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 14:15 Twinkle Toes wrote: ntldr: JJ dont be emotional and defensive, lets be mentally focused and mature and stick to NBA talk. don't attempt to assess my emotional state based on a forum post. as you've stated.. stick to the NBA But you always get upset and uncomfortable when called out, like you are now. This is why you always have chaotic discussions with JimmiC and everyone here since you easily get emotional and mentally fazed. But I get you JJ, I understand you completely. All I want is for us to have an objective and mature NBA conversation. Nothing less or more. If thats impossible for you, then let us continue to ignore each other. Starting now.
[B]On June 05 2019 15:11 cLutZ wrote: Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 14:19 Twinkle Toes wrote:On June 05 2019 13:32 cLutZ wrote:On June 05 2019 12:33 Twinkle Toes wrote:On June 05 2019 07:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote: The Raptors starting line up only had 160 minutes of playing time together. The team jelled as they progressed through the playoffs. The Raptors team defense is much better than it was 6 weeks ago.
Raptors improvement in team play was very difficult to project. I knew the Raptors would get better ,but I didn't think they'd improve as much as they did. This post represents all the justifications for maths-based sports analytics over human analysis. Let me explain. I won't go on the amount or absence of any meaningful content of the post since JJ's discussion style is pretty known here, but I will focus on the approach. Circa 2013 when Harden was up and coming and Spurs was the hot shit with lactic acid level count, mileage, 3 and D and all those stuff, there was a media conference where people from 538 and MIT Sloan where invited to help us poor media people understand this emerging trend. There were heavy discussions on calculus and even sports espionage work (on which player broke up with his girl days before a game, etc. ITS A THING!!!), but my ultimate take home lesson is this: [BIG]the understanding and analysis of the game become data-driven, whether the conclusion is right or wrong. There is no room for coulda, shoula, woulda, didnt expect X to do Y, who thought Z was possible.The being right or wrong aspect here can't be emphasized enough. When 10 people are looking at the same data and arrive at different conclusions, at least all of them can go back to the data and discuss why they differed. On the other hand, JJ's statement could be pretty much summarized as "I didnt know theyd do that, but they did that, hence results."So 538 and all these math guys could be wrong, but there are SPECIFIC things we can talk about. In fact, here's a kicker, last week days before game 2 (if you know anyone who work in tv production, ask them about this, they can verify this), MIT released a cred sheet predicting the Warriors victory based on the following: - warriors game 1 drtg was 1.7+ better than other series (which means they played great defense), only that SIAKAM WAS LUCKY AS FUCK/THEY DIDNT PREP FOR HIM (84% fg, 67% 3fg. 14/17)
- continued from 1, Kawhi's limited production
- Kawhi is injured
- Lowry is unreliable
- TOR support is not much of a threat vs. warriors support average performance
That's it. JJ, dont bother replying to me since my post is not specifically about you but about the kind of game observation that you and others post on the interwebz. But you may post in order to explain: 1. what numerically you mean by "jelled as they progressed" 2. objective measurement of "improve as much as they did" 3. why you didnt know these things The points above are objective and measurable NBA points that people could have a normal and healthy conversation on. If you won't address these, which are the key points I raise here, but you really want talk about something, talk to JimmiC, you two still have an ongoing debate. I'm really not interested in bringing up data points only to be answered by your odd takes and wild self-styled analysis of the game. I would say that I think this is also an appeal of the rise of gambling. It actually gives people real accountability. I don't have FS1, but they have Lock it In, and they show how much each of their people is up or down money for the week/month/year. Most people end up tracking their things, even Cowherd will say something like, "Bad week with my bets, went 1-4" and the like. Great point. semi-related, but isnt it that odds makers tend to also sway betting trends one way or the other for reasons other than stats, like say to manipulate wins? I dont bet, and dont understand the mechanics, but I gotta say it seems shady to me. Or maybe thats me just being opposed to gambling in general, idk. The goal of an oddsmaker (usually) is to get people to bet 50% on each side. This is because they make money on the VIG, not on people losing. They are not perfect. Game 1: The line was Toronto -2, both teams were -110 to start (bet $110 to win $100) Warriors received 65% of the betting tickets, so most books moved them to -120 at some point. Game 2: Line Toronto -1.5 Warriors received 70% of bets. Line moved in most places to -2 and or -125. Game 3: Golden State is -5 in most places and getting ~ 40% of bets. So, yea, casinos aren't perfect, but they dont try to pick games, they try to predict people's pre-game inclinations. Professional bettors try to pick games, and those people have to win something like 57% of the time to beat the casino, and that is apparently very hard. Thanks for explaining. VIG and stuff seems to heavy for me. Question, professional bettors are separate from casinos? How are betting lines decided?
|
On June 05 2019 15:46 Twinkle Toes wrote: But you always get upset and uncomfortable when called out, like you are now. no i don't. i explained the flaws in the article you sourced. you have not addressed them.
|
On June 05 2019 15:46 Twinkle Toes wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 15:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote:its going to be interesting to see how Lowry can manage to be more aggressive and at the same time stay out of foul trouble. https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/26898017/lowry-vows-more-aggressive-game-3On June 05 2019 14:15 Twinkle Toes wrote: ntldr: JJ dont be emotional and defensive, lets be mentally focused and mature and stick to NBA talk. don't attempt to assess my emotional state based on a forum post. as you've stated.. stick to the NBA But you always get upset and uncomfortable when called out, like you are now. This is why you always have chaotic discussions with JimmiC and everyone here since you easily get emotional and mentally fazed. But I get you JJ, I understand you completely. All I want is for us to have an objective and mature NBA conversation. Nothing less or more. If thats impossible for you, then let us continue to ignore each other. Starting now. Show nested quote +[B]On June 05 2019 15:11 cLutZ wrote: On June 05 2019 14:19 Twinkle Toes wrote:On June 05 2019 13:32 cLutZ wrote:On June 05 2019 12:33 Twinkle Toes wrote:On June 05 2019 07:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote: The Raptors starting line up only had 160 minutes of playing time together. The team jelled as they progressed through the playoffs. The Raptors team defense is much better than it was 6 weeks ago.
Raptors improvement in team play was very difficult to project. I knew the Raptors would get better ,but I didn't think they'd improve as much as they did. This post represents all the justifications for maths-based sports analytics over human analysis. Let me explain. I won't go on the amount or absence of any meaningful content of the post since JJ's discussion style is pretty known here, but I will focus on the approach. Circa 2013 when Harden was up and coming and Spurs was the hot shit with lactic acid level count, mileage, 3 and D and all those stuff, there was a media conference where people from 538 and MIT Sloan where invited to help us poor media people understand this emerging trend. There were heavy discussions on calculus and even sports espionage work (on which player broke up with his girl days before a game, etc. ITS A THING!!!), but my ultimate take home lesson is this: [BIG]the understanding and analysis of the game become data-driven, whether the conclusion is right or wrong. There is no room for coulda, shoula, woulda, didnt expect X to do Y, who thought Z was possible.The being right or wrong aspect here can't be emphasized enough. When 10 people are looking at the same data and arrive at different conclusions, at least all of them can go back to the data and discuss why they differed. On the other hand, JJ's statement could be pretty much summarized as "I didnt know theyd do that, but they did that, hence results."So 538 and all these math guys could be wrong, but there are SPECIFIC things we can talk about. In fact, here's a kicker, last week days before game 2 (if you know anyone who work in tv production, ask them about this, they can verify this), MIT released a cred sheet predicting the Warriors victory based on the following: - warriors game 1 drtg was 1.7+ better than other series (which means they played great defense), only that SIAKAM WAS LUCKY AS FUCK/THEY DIDNT PREP FOR HIM (84% fg, 67% 3fg. 14/17)
- continued from 1, Kawhi's limited production
- Kawhi is injured
- Lowry is unreliable
- TOR support is not much of a threat vs. warriors support average performance
That's it. JJ, dont bother replying to me since my post is not specifically about you but about the kind of game observation that you and others post on the interwebz. But you may post in order to explain: 1. what numerically you mean by "jelled as they progressed" 2. objective measurement of "improve as much as they did" 3. why you didnt know these things The points above are objective and measurable NBA points that people could have a normal and healthy conversation on. If you won't address these, which are the key points I raise here, but you really want talk about something, talk to JimmiC, you two still have an ongoing debate. I'm really not interested in bringing up data points only to be answered by your odd takes and wild self-styled analysis of the game. I would say that I think this is also an appeal of the rise of gambling. It actually gives people real accountability. I don't have FS1, but they have Lock it In, and they show how much each of their people is up or down money for the week/month/year. Most people end up tracking their things, even Cowherd will say something like, "Bad week with my bets, went 1-4" and the like. Great point. semi-related, but isnt it that odds makers tend to also sway betting trends one way or the other for reasons other than stats, like say to manipulate wins? I dont bet, and dont understand the mechanics, but I gotta say it seems shady to me. Or maybe thats me just being opposed to gambling in general, idk. The goal of an oddsmaker (usually) is to get people to bet 50% on each side. This is because they make money on the VIG, not on people losing. They are not perfect. Game 1: The line was Toronto -2, both teams were -110 to start (bet $110 to win $100) Warriors received 65% of the betting tickets, so most books moved them to -120 at some point. Game 2: Line Toronto -1.5 Warriors received 70% of bets. Line moved in most places to -2 and or -125. Game 3: Golden State is -5 in most places and getting ~ 40% of bets. So, yea, casinos aren't perfect, but they dont try to pick games, they try to predict people's pre-game inclinations. Professional bettors try to pick games, and those people have to win something like 57% of the time to beat the casino, and that is apparently very hard. Thanks for explaining. VIG and stuff seems to heavy for me. Question, professional bettors are separate from casinos? How are betting lines decided?
Betting lines are made by in-house experts and they shift based on betting. Professional bettors are a separate thing.
Lines don't intend to predict the result of a game. They predict bets.
Professional bettors use that and bet against the"rubes", so like if Duke is a 49 point favorite against a good mid major, they bet against Duke, while the people blic bets Duke.
|
On June 05 2019 18:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 15:46 Twinkle Toes wrote: But you always get upset and uncomfortable when called out, like you are now. no i don't. i explained the flaws in the article you sourced. you have not addressed them. See. again your being emotional when you are challenged is preventing you from being rational in this conversation.
I posted the article as I have done hundreds of other relevant ones for discussion purposes. In ALL of those times, NOT one challenged me to address the article, because that would be an abnormal thing to do. Everyone knows that I did not write them nor stand by them with strong personal conviction, so EVERYONE, except you, know better than to challenge me to address them. If a person disagrees with them, while another agrees with them, then they will naturally debate those points. You childishly asking me to address your points is like a gradeschool bully agitating his classmate. Its cute, but very odd behaviour.
I will explain it with fewer words. We were not having a debate about the Ringer article. You disagree with it, I dont care. Someone who disagrees with you will debate you on it. We, however, are having a debate on your statement regarding you not expecting Raptors to be this good, and you not knowing things.
Now, if you want to be rational and continue the actual debate you do either of these:
1. Concede and keep quiet on the topic because obviously you dont have the facts to refute my criticism of your statement + Show Spoiler [(see my full post here] +On June 05 2019 07:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote: The Raptors starting line up only had 160 minutes of playing time together. The team jelled as they progressed through the playoffs. The Raptors team defense is much better than it was 6 weeks ago.
Raptors improvement in team play was very difficult to project. I knew the Raptors would get better ,but I didn't think they'd improve as much as they did. This post represents all the justifications for maths-based sports analytics over human analysis. Let me explain. I won't go on the amount or absence of any meaningful content of the post since JJ's discussion style is pretty known here, but I will focus on the approach. Circa 2013 when Harden was up and coming and Spurs was the hot shit with lactic acid level count, mileage, 3 and D and all those stuff, there was a media conference where people from 538 and MIT Sloan where invited to help us poor media people understand this emerging trend. There were heavy discussions on calculus and even sports espionage work (on which player broke up with his girl days before a game, etc. ITS A THING!!!), but my ultimate take home lesson is this: the understanding and analysis of the game become data-driven, whether the conclusion is right or wrong. There is no room for coulda, shoula, woulda, didnt expect X to do Y, who thought Z was possible.The being right or wrong aspect here can't be emphasized enough. When 10 people are looking at the same data and arrive at different conclusions, at least all of them can go back to the data and discuss why they differed. On the other hand, JJ's statement could be pretty much summarized as "I didnt know theyd do that, but they did that, hence results."So 538 and all these math guys could be wrong, but there are SPECIFIC things we can talk about. In fact, here's a kicker, last week days before game 2 (if you know anyone who work in tv production, ask them about this, they can verify this), MIT released a cred sheet predicting the Warriors victory based on the following: - warriors game 1 drtg was 1.7+ better than other series (which means they played great defense), only that SIAKAM WAS LUCKY AS FUCK/THEY DIDNT PREP FOR HIM (84% fg, 67% 3fg. 14/17)
- continued from 1, Kawhi's limited production
- Kawhi is injured
- Lowry is unreliable
- TOR support is not much of a threat vs. warriors support average performance
That's it. JJ, dont bother replying to me since my post is not specifically about you but about the kind of game observation that you and others post on the interwebz. But you may post in order to explain: 1. what numerically you mean by "jelled as they progressed" 2. objective measurement of "improve as much as they did" 3. why you didnt know these things The points above are objective and measurable NBA points that people could have a normal and healthy conversation on. If you won't address these, which are the key points I raise here, but you really want talk about something, talk to JimmiC, you two still have an ongoing debate. I'm really not interested in bringing up data points only to be answered by your odd takes and wild self-styled analysis of the game. )
or, 2 address my criticism against the statement that you made and believed as true, but explaining: >> 1. what numerically you mean by "jelled as they progressed" >> 2. objective measurement of "improve as much as they did" >> 3. why you didnt know these things
I have a feeling you will just double down and refuse to reply with valid and coherent points, and yet pretend like you are winning, like you always do, so consider this as my farewell to this little conversation of ours. Bye JJ.
|
On June 05 2019 18:34 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2019 15:46 Twinkle Toes wrote:On June 05 2019 15:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote:its going to be interesting to see how Lowry can manage to be more aggressive and at the same time stay out of foul trouble. https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/26898017/lowry-vows-more-aggressive-game-3On June 05 2019 14:15 Twinkle Toes wrote: ntldr: JJ dont be emotional and defensive, lets be mentally focused and mature and stick to NBA talk. don't attempt to assess my emotional state based on a forum post. as you've stated.. stick to the NBA But you always get upset and uncomfortable when called out, like you are now. This is why you always have chaotic discussions with JimmiC and everyone here since you easily get emotional and mentally fazed. But I get you JJ, I understand you completely. All I want is for us to have an objective and mature NBA conversation. Nothing less or more. If thats impossible for you, then let us continue to ignore each other. Starting now. [B]On June 05 2019 15:11 cLutZ wrote: On June 05 2019 14:19 Twinkle Toes wrote:On June 05 2019 13:32 cLutZ wrote:On June 05 2019 12:33 Twinkle Toes wrote:On June 05 2019 07:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote: The Raptors starting line up only had 160 minutes of playing time together. The team jelled as they progressed through the playoffs. The Raptors team defense is much better than it was 6 weeks ago.
Raptors improvement in team play was very difficult to project. I knew the Raptors would get better ,but I didn't think they'd improve as much as they did. This post represents all the justifications for maths-based sports analytics over human analysis. Let me explain. I won't go on the amount or absence of any meaningful content of the post since JJ's discussion style is pretty known here, but I will focus on the approach. Circa 2013 when Harden was up and coming and Spurs was the hot shit with lactic acid level count, mileage, 3 and D and all those stuff, there was a media conference where people from 538 and MIT Sloan where invited to help us poor media people understand this emerging trend. There were heavy discussions on calculus and even sports espionage work (on which player broke up with his girl days before a game, etc. ITS A THING!!!), but my ultimate take home lesson is this: [BIG]the understanding and analysis of the game become data-driven, whether the conclusion is right or wrong. There is no room for coulda, shoula, woulda, didnt expect X to do Y, who thought Z was possible.The being right or wrong aspect here can't be emphasized enough. When 10 people are looking at the same data and arrive at different conclusions, at least all of them can go back to the data and discuss why they differed. On the other hand, JJ's statement could be pretty much summarized as "I didnt know theyd do that, but they did that, hence results."So 538 and all these math guys could be wrong, but there are SPECIFIC things we can talk about. In fact, here's a kicker, last week days before game 2 (if you know anyone who work in tv production, ask them about this, they can verify this), MIT released a cred sheet predicting the Warriors victory based on the following: - warriors game 1 drtg was 1.7+ better than other series (which means they played great defense), only that SIAKAM WAS LUCKY AS FUCK/THEY DIDNT PREP FOR HIM (84% fg, 67% 3fg. 14/17)
- continued from 1, Kawhi's limited production
- Kawhi is injured
- Lowry is unreliable
- TOR support is not much of a threat vs. warriors support average performance
That's it. JJ, dont bother replying to me since my post is not specifically about you but about the kind of game observation that you and others post on the interwebz. But you may post in order to explain: 1. what numerically you mean by "jelled as they progressed" 2. objective measurement of "improve as much as they did" 3. why you didnt know these things The points above are objective and measurable NBA points that people could have a normal and healthy conversation on. If you won't address these, which are the key points I raise here, but you really want talk about something, talk to JimmiC, you two still have an ongoing debate. I'm really not interested in bringing up data points only to be answered by your odd takes and wild self-styled analysis of the game. I would say that I think this is also an appeal of the rise of gambling. It actually gives people real accountability. I don't have FS1, but they have Lock it In, and they show how much each of their people is up or down money for the week/month/year. Most people end up tracking their things, even Cowherd will say something like, "Bad week with my bets, went 1-4" and the like. Great point. semi-related, but isnt it that odds makers tend to also sway betting trends one way or the other for reasons other than stats, like say to manipulate wins? I dont bet, and dont understand the mechanics, but I gotta say it seems shady to me. Or maybe thats me just being opposed to gambling in general, idk. The goal of an oddsmaker (usually) is to get people to bet 50% on each side. This is because they make money on the VIG, not on people losing. They are not perfect. Game 1: The line was Toronto -2, both teams were -110 to start (bet $110 to win $100) Warriors received 65% of the betting tickets, so most books moved them to -120 at some point. Game 2: Line Toronto -1.5 Warriors received 70% of bets. Line moved in most places to -2 and or -125. Game 3: Golden State is -5 in most places and getting ~ 40% of bets. So, yea, casinos aren't perfect, but they dont try to pick games, they try to predict people's pre-game inclinations. Professional bettors try to pick games, and those people have to win something like 57% of the time to beat the casino, and that is apparently very hard. Thanks for explaining. VIG and stuff seems to heavy for me. Question, professional bettors are separate from casinos? How are betting lines decided? Betting lines are made by in-house experts and they shift based on betting. Professional bettors are a separate thing. Lines don't intend to predict the result of a game. They predict bets. Professional bettors use that and bet against the"rubes", so like if Duke is a 49 point favorite against a good mid major, they bet against Duke, while the people blic bets Duke. Interesting, you are making me want to know about this. So essentially betting is a meta game to balance the perceived fairness of bets being placed in relation to how the teams compare to each other... would that be a correct assessment? That is more complex and sophisticated that I thought, wow!
|
Casinos (and other places that accept bets) also move the line with the betting to keep 50% on each side. Many pro gamblers attempt to take advantage of this by ending up with betting on both teams at different scores or rates.It is easier to see in long bets, for example if someone bet on toronto to win at the start of the season 100$ at 10-1 (all made up numbers for ez maths) then when GS and TO make the final they bet 500 on gs 1-1. So if TO wins they make 500 (1000 win on 100 bet on TO 500 loss on GS) or if GS wins they make 400 (500 win on gs and 100 loss on GS). So instead of only having a chance to win 1000 they made it so they can win either way.
|
VC will retire after next season. He is the only player to have played for 4 decades - 90s, 00s, 10s, 20s (writing 10s and 20s was trippy. in my mind, 2000 was just 5 or 10 years ago, but it was actually 20 years ago!!!)
https://streamable.com/89fgg
|
On June 05 2019 23:31 JimmiC wrote: Casinos (and other places that accept bets) also move the line with the betting to keep 50% on each side. Many pro gamblers attempt to take advantage of this by ending up with betting on both teams at different scores or rates.It is easier to see in long bets, for example if someone bet on toronto to win at the start of the season 100$ at 10-1 (all made up numbers for ez maths) then when GS and TO make the final they bet 500 on gs 1-1. So if TO wins they make 500 (1000 win on 100 bet on TO 500 loss on GS) or if GS wins they make 400 (500 win on gs and 100 loss on GS). So instead of only having a chance to win 1000 they made it so they can win either way. Oh i see. I saw a CSI episode on this a long time ago. Is this common knowledge? If so, this would make the betting industry unreliable or unstable.
|
New Derrick Rose book sheds light on Butler, Wolves' woes
“Look, it wasn’t his fault,” Rose wrote of Butler’s situation and trade request. “It’s the league’s fault. Nothing against Karl-Anthony Towns, he’s cool — and he’s good. But you get these kids and you spoil them before they achieve something.”
One page later, Rose adds: “Jimmy was feeling, ‘Why’d y’all pay them first and I was the one that got you to the playoffs?’ That’s all it was. Jimmy wasn’t doing it right, though he was right.”
Source
|
|
|
|
|