--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com
, "schtevie2003" <schtevie@h...>
> It is hard to keep an eye on the forest for all the trees in these
> strings, so let me restate the larger "pace" argument:
> Except for milking the clock when ahead at the end of the game and
> possibly the "shoot slow if you suck and hope you are lucky", I see
> no way, theoretically, for a team to try and control game pace
> without costing itself points and the likelihood of victory.
Forest is about the same. I think we may have different senses of
the magnitude of "cost". Cost of 1% vs value of 8% would need to be
weighed. In some cases, the cost will be greater than the benefit,
> Can you give a graphical argument as to why the gain is greatest
> the expected loss is greatest. If I suppose a bell shaped curve
It's in the book. But here's a try. Basically the bell curve
describes the point difference between the 2 teams. Centered at +5
for the favorite, spreading the distribution (which is all that
taking a high risk/slow pace strategy does) causes the tail of the
distribution go more across that 0 line (when the underdog wins). If
it's centered at +1 (small favorite), a fair amount of the curve is
already across the 0 line, so spreading the curve doesn't make much
Is that clear?
> Yeah sure it depends on assumptions, but that is the game...Just
> trying to establish a hypothetical tradeoff to anchor our
I can add it to the list.