Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1566Re: talent dilution

Expand Messages
  • Dean Oliver <deano@rawbw.com>
    Dec 13, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, bchaikin@a... wrote:
      > Obviously, the closer in time two teams are, the easier the
      > simulation. But you still want to check those simulations. Can
      > anyone simulate the strength of the 1995 Rockets? Most simulators
      > wouldn't have had them winning the title. So how do you even
      compare
      > them with teams in the same year.
      >
      > not quite sure how to interpret this statement - would you "expect"
      a
      > simulator to have the rockets win the title more often that season
      than, say,
      > any other team, simply because they indeed did win the title that
      year?....
      >

      This is actually my point. The Rockets did win the title that year,
      were not expected to, had a meak record, and a poor point
      difference. But they won. They beat everyone else when it
      mattered. You cannot take that title away from them. How would you
      trust any simulator that says that the Rockets lost in the first
      round of the playoff when they actually won it? Yes, I understand
      the probabilistic arguments. But, does being an underdog
      fundamentally take away from the achievement of winning a title?
      They actually had the hardest route to a title of just about anyone,
      playing on the road more, playing higher seeds. They did _something_
      to win a title. The numbers say it was all luck, but they did it.
      Those same numbers would almost never simulate their title. Those
      same numbers would have the Rockets losing to every title team since
      the inception of the NBA, probably. Does that mean that they are the
      worst NBA Champion ever?

      I honestly don't know. But I honestly don't know how I'd trust a
      cross-generational simulator because there are questions in
      implementation that are almost theoretically unanswerable.

      I guess I'm debating whether winning a title is so much luck. "Luck"
      is what we cannot explain. Sometimes, when you look closer, you can
      explain more, so "luck" becomes smaller. Maybe those Rockets matched
      up perfectly against all playoff teams, but were weak against
      nonplayoff teams. If we do research to show that is true, we all of
      a sudden say that it wasn't so much luck, but a crafty construction
      of the coach and maybe they could do that against some of the
      greatest teams of all time.

      It's my opinion, I guess. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do
      simulations. I'm saying that I would highly doubt them or not care
      about them.

      DeanO
    • Show all 53 messages in this topic