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

Re: [APBR_analysis] Re: Clutchness and a game state matrix

Expand Messages
  • igor eduardo küpfer
    From: Dean Oliver To: Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2:32 PM Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Clutchness and a
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 30, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      From: "Dean Oliver" <deano@...>
      To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2:32 PM
      Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Clutchness and a game state matrix

      >--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
      ><edkupfer@r...> wrote:
      >> Okay, using your fomat I've updated my matrix to include 186 games now.
      >> Here's a section of the matrix, focusing on the last 5 minutes:
      >> http://members.rogers.com/brothered/junk/GameStateMatrix.prn
      >Format isn't quite the same, since we have time/score along different

      Er, I uploaded the wrong one. Never mind, you get the picture.

      >> You can see how much noise there is, even with that many games
      >included in
      >> the sample. I get the feeling that some smoothing is in order, but I
      >have no
      >> idea how to go about doing that.
      >That's where the theory is helpful. No time now, but we can talk
      >about later.

      Will do.

      >Does your matrix really have full population? Specifically, do you
      >have games where the home team is up 7 with 4:40 to go and they've
      >lost them all or do you just have no games like this? (I'm guessing
      >the blanks are for when you have no games.)

      Yeah, I have a spreadsheet with the full population. I have one game in the
      situation above, which the home team lost (LAC @ MIL). You're right, the
      blanks are no games. This is beginning to bug me -- I have a pretty large
      sample of games, about 5 weeks worth, and there are still many situations
      not covered. I think that even with a full season's worth of games, we'd
      still have to do some smoothing.

      >Let's take your example, tie game 6
      >seconds left, man at the line for 2 shots. Let's say he's a road
      >player. Unfortunately, who has possession is key here, so the table I
      >sent only tells part of the tale.
      >Making those two shots changes the nominal odds from 0.49 to 0.75.
      >Missing those two shots changes the odds to approximately .25.
      >The "clutchness" of this situation is the difference between where
      >your odds could be at the high and low ends, or about 0.5. That's a
      >huge situation. A more clutch situation is making a field goal at the
      >buzzer when down by 1 -- the range there is 1.00 (definitely win) to
      >0.00 (definitely lose) or 1.
      >So it is defined prior to outcome.

      I see -- you are defining the clutchness at time t by the difference in win
      probabilities at t + 1. You are, in effect, referring to possible future
      events. Makes sense to me, but I can't help but think there's another,
      easier way. Or maybe I'm just stubborn.

      >> >But even this isn't right. You
      >> >need ANOTHER matrix for who has possession in the last minute or two.
      >> >I have only built part of that.
      >> >
      >> Working on it.
      >I'm gone for a month beginning in a few days. I expect progress by
      >the time I'm back!

      Yes sir!

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.