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

Re: Predict regular season winning percentage here....

Expand Messages
  • thedawgsareout
    ... I did something similar to John s method and posted it today: http://www.nba.com/sonics/news/nbapreview04.html
    Message 1 of 19 , Nov 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      > I'm interested to see what the different approaches are to
      > predicting regular season winning percentage. Anyone care to
      > predict a team or all the teams, and share their methodology?

      I did something similar to John's method and posted it today:

      http://www.nba.com/sonics/news/nbapreview04.html
    • Coach McCormick
      Wow, looks like I should jump on the washington bandwagon and impress all my friends... Toronto as the #3 seed? Again, very interesting. Thanks for sharing.
      Message 2 of 19 , Nov 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Wow, looks like I should jump on the washington bandwagon and impress all my friends...
         
        Toronto as the #3 seed?
         
        Again, very interesting. Thanks for sharing. I'll look forwar to reading tomorrow for the analysis.
         
        B

        thedawgsareout <kpelton08@...> wrote:

        > I'm interested to see what the different approaches are to
        > predicting regular season winning percentage. Anyone care to
        > predict a team or all the teams, and share their methodology?

        I did something similar to John's method and posted it today:

        http://www.nba.com/sonics/news/nbapreview04.html





        Do you Yahoo!?
        Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com

      • Mike G
        ... ^^ Another prediction system that doesn t expect any team to win fewer than 22 games. Even the Warriors are projected to 32 wins. And the Clipps 41 ! I
        Message 3 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "thedawgsareout"
          <kpelton08@h...> wrote:
          > ... posted it today:
          >
          > http://www.nba.com/sonics/news/nbapreview04.html


          ^^ Another prediction system that doesn't expect any team to win
          fewer than 22 games.

          Even the Warriors are projected to 32 wins. And the Clipps 41 !

          I doubt I can do any better, though. One thing I do believe in, is
          getting rid of "leading zeroes" in your decimal fractions:
          i.e., .488 instead of 0.488

          Who needs that Zero? I know statisticians are fond of them. It
          looks like clutter to me; like any other insignificant digit.

          "Ted Williams batted four-hundred" sounds better than "Ted Williams
          batted oh-four-hundred".

          In Excel: Cell Format/ Number/ at the bottom of the list is Custom.
          Just enter ".000" (no parentheses), and your columns come up that
          way.

          What's the Real reason you didn't include the Sonics ?
        • Mike G
          OK, for the curious: I ve tabulated John s and Kevin s predictions and ranked them by the size of the teams difference in the two lists. John H gives the
          Message 4 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            OK, for the curious: I've tabulated John's and Kevin's predictions
            and ranked them by the size of the teams' difference in the two
            lists.

            John H gives the Bulls 8 more wins than Kevin P does, so they head
            the list. Kevin gives the Clippers and Magics 8 more wins than John
            does, and they're at the bottom.

            [I guess some people just have to believe in Magic.]

            Sonics' "wins" by Kevin are inserted by deduction.

            KP Tm. JH
            22 Chi 30
            49 Dal 56
            45 Den 50
            32 GSW 37
            43 Was 47
            55 SAS 59
            49 Det 52
            37 Cle 40
            36 NO 39
            42 Mia 44
            46 Min 48
            49 Mem 51
            47 Hou 48
            37 Phl 38
            41 LAL 41
            41 NYK 41
            27 NJN 27
            56 Ind 55
            44 Mil 43
            36 Sea 35
            24 Atl 22
            38 Por 35
            40 Phe 37
            51 Uta 47
            42 Tor 38
            41 Bos 37
            30 Cha 25
            51 Sac 45
            38 Orl 30
            41 LAC 33

            I don't suppose there are common factors shared by teams at the top
            or bottom of this listing. If there are, they might indicate what
            factors play heavily in these 2 guys' systems.

            The "subjective" factor is the most daunting to myself. I don't
            read much background or watch them play very often.



            --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "John Hollinger"
            <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
            > ..I took the PER of each player from the previous season
            > and made adjustments for his individual defense until the sum of
            (PER
            > x minute) for each team approximated their expected wins for the
            > season. Then I put the players on their new teams, rated the top
            nine
            > guys on each roster (making subjective adjustments for second-year
            > improvement, age, flukes, injuries, etc.), estimated the
            > effectiveness of the rookies, and summed up the results for each
            team.
          • thedawgsareout
            ... I think that s to be expected -- fundamentally, projections have to be pretty conservative to be accurate and place teams relatively closer to .500 than
            Message 5 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              > ^^ Another prediction system that doesn't expect any team to win
              > fewer than 22 games.

              I think that's to be expected -- fundamentally, projections have to
              be pretty conservative to be accurate and place teams relatively
              closer to .500 than they actually are. Injuries are usually the
              reason that doesn't turn out.

              > Who needs that Zero? I know statisticians are fond of them. It
              > looks like clutter to me; like any other insignificant digit.

              I just put it there because it's in the NBA's actual standings and I
              copied over them for the HTML.

              > What's the Real reason you didn't include the Sonics ?

              I think you explained that in the second post.
            • Michael Tamada
              ... From: thedawgsareout [mailto:kpelton08@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 8:09 AM ... Yup, it is often a good idea to shrink or regress
              Message 6 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                -----Original Message-----
                From: thedawgsareout [mailto:kpelton08@...]
                Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 8:09 AM

                >> ^^ Another prediction system that doesn't expect any team to win
                >> fewer than 22 games.
                >
                >I think that's to be expected -- fundamentally, projections have to
                >be pretty conservative to be accurate and place teams relatively
                >closer to .500 than they actually are. Injuries are usually the
                >reason that doesn't turn out.

                Yup, it is often a good idea to "shrink" or "regress" forecasts
                and estimates towards the mean. Even if this results in biased
                estimates, they may nonetheless have lower expected error. A
                canonical example is batting averages early in the season; after
                a week or two, the leaderboard will have some guy hitting .456.
                Standard simple statistics would say that that represents a sample
                of his hitting and we should estimate his eventual batting average
                by using his sample mean, i.e. .456. Common sense, as well as
                more sophisticated "shrinkage to the mean" statistics, tell us that
                by the end of the season, he'll be batting something well under
                .456.

                The best easy-to-read article that I've seen explaining this phenomenon
                is by the statistician Bradley Efron, in a 1977 _Scientific
                American_ article, "Stein's Paradox in Statistics".

                >> Who needs that Zero? I know statisticians are fond of them. It
                >> looks like clutter to me; like any other insignificant digit.
                >
                >I just put it there because it's in the NBA's actual standings and I
                >copied over them for the HTML.

                Depends on the circumstance. Leading 0s can be highly valuable
                at improving readability, and also reducing reader error. If you're
                looking at a column of numbers such as

                56
                .81
                4.2

                it may not be instantly obvious that one of those numbers is much
                smaller than the others. There are some circumstance where the
                extra 0 is unnecessary or unhelpful, but there are other circumstances
                where, just like adding commas (e.g. try reading 1648756 vs 1,648,756),
                they vastly improve readability.



                --MKT
              • Mike G
                ... What have these teams done to rate as highly (or better) than the seemingly-unbeatable Pistons of last year ? John Hollinger and Kevin Pelton seem to have
                Message 7 of 19 , Nov 10, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
                  > KP Tm. JH
                  > 49 Dal 56
                  > 55 SAS 59
                  > 49 Det 52
                  > 49 Mem 51
                  > 56 Ind 55
                  > 51 Uta 47
                  > 51 Sac 45

                  What have these teams done to rate as highly (or better) than the
                  seemingly-unbeatable Pistons of last year ?

                  John Hollinger and Kevin Pelton seem to have spent some time looking
                  over the rosters, grinding the data, and tweaking the results with
                  rookie forcasts and age-discrimination. And one or both guys likes
                  these other teams' chances as much or more than Detroit's.

                  The Pistons aren't an aging group of players (except Rasheed);
                  they've added McDyess (who has a nonzero chance of playing);
                  basically a bunch of guys with perfect chemistry and in their primes.

                  Using last year's stats, we don't see the team that rolled over
                  everyone after Rasheed came. Using the last 1/3 of the season and
                  playoffs we see That team.
                • Carlos
                  ... Well, I don t know what they see or don t see in Detroit, but one thing that I see is that their bench seems a lot weaker than last year. Their starters
                  Message 8 of 19 , Nov 10, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
                    >
                    > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
                    > > KP Tm. JH
                    > > 49 Dal 56
                    > > 55 SAS 59
                    > > 49 Det 52
                    > > 49 Mem 51
                    > > 56 Ind 55
                    > > 51 Uta 47
                    > > 51 Sac 45
                    >
                    > What have these teams done to rate as highly (or better) than the
                    > seemingly-unbeatable Pistons of last year ?
                    >
                    > John Hollinger and Kevin Pelton seem to have spent some time looking
                    > over the rosters, grinding the data, and tweaking the results with
                    > rookie forcasts and age-discrimination. And one or both guys likes
                    > these other teams' chances as much or more than Detroit's.
                    >
                    > The Pistons aren't an aging group of players (except Rasheed);
                    > they've added McDyess (who has a nonzero chance of playing);
                    > basically a bunch of guys with perfect chemistry and in their primes.
                    >
                    > Using last year's stats, we don't see the team that rolled over
                    > everyone after Rasheed came. Using the last 1/3 of the season and
                    > playoffs we see That team.


                    Well, I don't know what they see or don't see in Detroit, but one
                    thing that I see is that their bench seems a lot weaker than last
                    year. Their starters are playing 35+ minutes a game and their best
                    reserve seems to be McDyess (which by the way seems a downgrade
                    compared to Okur).
                  • jimmy_purnell
                    Good points. If Detroit was projected based on how they played once they got Rasheed, I assume they would fare much better (they went 20-6 in the regular
                    Message 9 of 19 , Nov 10, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Good points. If Detroit was projected based on how they played once
                      they got Rasheed, I assume they would fare much better (they went 20-6
                      in the regular season once they got him).

                      And so far, Detroit's bench does look weaker. However, it's definitely
                      too soon to say that for sure as the new players will need time to
                      adjust. That adjustment period could cost them some early season wins,
                      and if the bench remains inferior to last year's Detroit's overall win
                      total might not be as high. But in the playoffs, the bench won't
                      matter much because they will get fewer minutes. Last year, the
                      Pistons won it all despite very poor play from their bench in the
                      playoffs (Williamson and Okur basically disappeared).

                      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Carlos" <carlosmanuel@b...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...>
                      wrote:
                      > > > KP Tm. JH
                      > > > 49 Dal 56
                      > > > 55 SAS 59
                      > > > 49 Det 52
                      > > > 49 Mem 51
                      > > > 56 Ind 55
                      > > > 51 Uta 47
                      > > > 51 Sac 45
                      > >
                      > > What have these teams done to rate as highly (or better) than the
                      > > seemingly-unbeatable Pistons of last year ?
                      > >
                      > > John Hollinger and Kevin Pelton seem to have spent some time
                      looking
                      > > over the rosters, grinding the data, and tweaking the results with
                      > > rookie forcasts and age-discrimination. And one or both guys
                      likes
                      > > these other teams' chances as much or more than Detroit's.
                      > >
                      > > The Pistons aren't an aging group of players (except Rasheed);
                      > > they've added McDyess (who has a nonzero chance of playing);
                      > > basically a bunch of guys with perfect chemistry and in their
                      primes.
                      > >
                      > > Using last year's stats, we don't see the team that rolled over
                      > > everyone after Rasheed came. Using the last 1/3 of the season and
                      > > playoffs we see That team.
                      >
                      >
                      > Well, I don't know what they see or don't see in Detroit, but one
                      > thing that I see is that their bench seems a lot weaker than last
                      > year. Their starters are playing 35+ minutes a game and their best
                      > reserve seems to be McDyess (which by the way seems a downgrade
                      > compared to Okur).
                    • thedawgsareout
                      ... I don t think that s the issue. I rate Detroit s end-of-season roster at 59 wins last year because they added so much value by trading spare parts for
                      Message 10 of 19 , Nov 11, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > Using last year's stats, we don't see the team that rolled over
                        > everyone after Rasheed came. Using the last 1/3 of the season and
                        > playoffs we see That team.

                        I don't think that's the issue. I rate Detroit's end-of-season
                        roster at 59 wins last year because they added so much value by
                        trading spare parts for Rasheed and Mike James.

                        By comparison, I have Minnesota at 55, Indiana at 51, the Lakers at
                        48, Sacramento at 56 and San Antonio at 54. So I don't think I'm
                        underrating the 03-04 Pistons.

                        > The Pistons aren't an aging group of players (except Rasheed);
                        > they've added McDyess (who has a nonzero chance of playing);
                        > basically a bunch of guys with perfect chemistry and in their
                        > primes.

                        It's the bench, mostly. I have James and Okur rated as worth a
                        combined nine wins last year (James had a heck of a year, let's not
                        forget), Williamson another win and a half.

                        *Combined*, I have this year's reserves worth 2.3 wins. Now might
                        they be better than that? Certainly. I think Hunter may be
                        underrated by his individual traditional stats, while Delfino's
                        rating is a SWAG and that Antonio McDyess was coming off a knee
                        injury last year isn't factored in.

                        Also, only Rasheed amongst Detroit's starters missed more than four
                        games last year. I conservatively project at most 75 games played,
                        so that lessens their value a little bit.

                        > What have these teams done to rate as highly (or better) than the
                        > seemingly-unbeatable Pistons of last year ?

                        If I might answer that question in just two words, they would be
                        Brent. And Barry.
                      • Coach McCormick
                        For less analytical takes on basketball, please chck out my blog: http://highfivehoopschool.blogspot.com ... Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front
                        Message 11 of 19 , Nov 13, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment

                          For less analytical takes on basketball, please chck out my blog:

                          http://highfivehoopschool.blogspot.com

                           


                          Do you Yahoo!?
                          Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
                        • John Hollinger
                          Just to agree with everyone else here -- it s the bench. You can see it already now that they ve had an injury or two -- they ve got NOBODY to fill in, whereas
                          Message 12 of 19 , Nov 15, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Just to agree with everyone else here -- it's the bench. You can see
                            it already now that they've had an injury or two -- they've got
                            NOBODY to fill in, whereas last year they had a ton of guys.

                            McDyess, IMHO, will be exposed as a bust, although I must admit he's
                            played better than I expected so far. If you look at his stats at the
                            end of last year in Phoenix, they were nothing, but because people
                            get all goofy about per game stats the Pistons looked at his last 10
                            games and talked about him as a double-double guy. Ain't happening.
                            And he definitely won't replace the production of Okur.

                            They gave away Williamson and James and replaced them with
                            replacement-level Ronald Dupree and Delfino, who based on my Euro
                            conversions looks way over his head offensively.

                            That leaves:
                            -- 38-year old Elden Campbell. Useful at times, but a poor man's
                            McDyess.
                            -- Kneeless Derrick Coleman. No value.
                            -- Lindsey Hunter, who is 35, can't play point but forced to be the
                            backup point guard, and due for a fall after coming off his best year
                            since leaving Milwaukee
                            -- Darvin Ham, a locker room guy with the worst jumper in the league.

                            So instead of James-Williamson-Okur as the three bench guys who see
                            the most action, the Pistons have Hunter-Delfino-McDyess. That is a
                            MAJOR downgrade, enough to make Indiana and San Antonio better
                            choices as the favorite this year.



                            --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "thedawgsareout"
                            <kpelton08@h...> wrote:
                            >
                            > > Using last year's stats, we don't see the team that rolled over
                            > > everyone after Rasheed came. Using the last 1/3 of the season
                            and
                            > > playoffs we see That team.
                            >
                            > I don't think that's the issue. I rate Detroit's end-of-season
                            > roster at 59 wins last year because they added so much value by
                            > trading spare parts for Rasheed and Mike James.
                            >
                            > By comparison, I have Minnesota at 55, Indiana at 51, the Lakers at
                            > 48, Sacramento at 56 and San Antonio at 54. So I don't think I'm
                            > underrating the 03-04 Pistons.
                            >
                            > > The Pistons aren't an aging group of players (except Rasheed);
                            > > they've added McDyess (who has a nonzero chance of playing);
                            > > basically a bunch of guys with perfect chemistry and in their
                            > > primes.
                            >
                            > It's the bench, mostly. I have James and Okur rated as worth a
                            > combined nine wins last year (James had a heck of a year, let's not
                            > forget), Williamson another win and a half.
                            >
                            > *Combined*, I have this year's reserves worth 2.3 wins. Now might
                            > they be better than that? Certainly. I think Hunter may be
                            > underrated by his individual traditional stats, while Delfino's
                            > rating is a SWAG and that Antonio McDyess was coming off a knee
                            > injury last year isn't factored in.
                            >
                            > Also, only Rasheed amongst Detroit's starters missed more than four
                            > games last year. I conservatively project at most 75 games played,
                            > so that lessens their value a little bit.
                            >
                            > > What have these teams done to rate as highly (or better) than the
                            > > seemingly-unbeatable Pistons of last year ?
                            >
                            > If I might answer that question in just two words, they would be
                            > Brent. And Barry.
                          • jimmy_purnell
                            I was wondering about your comments on Delfino. How do you make these Euro conversions? How accurate have they been in the past? From watching a few Pistons
                            Message 13 of 19 , Nov 15, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I was wondering about your comments on Delfino. How do you make these
                              Euro conversions? How accurate have they been in the past? From
                              watching a few Pistons games so far, he has impressed me on offense.
                              Obviously his game is still a work in progress, and his jumper has
                              been poor, but he's been very active and is fearless going to the
                              hoop. He's had some spectacular drive and dunks. Defense has been his
                              main problem from what I've seen.

                              --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "John Hollinger" <alleyoop2@y...
                              > wrote:
                              >
                              > Just to agree with everyone else here -- it's the bench. You can see
                              > it already now that they've had an injury or two -- they've got
                              > NOBODY to fill in, whereas last year they had a ton of guys.
                              >
                              > McDyess, IMHO, will be exposed as a bust, although I must admit he's
                              > played better than I expected so far. If you look at his stats at
                              the
                              > end of last year in Phoenix, they were nothing, but because people
                              > get all goofy about per game stats the Pistons looked at his last 10
                              > games and talked about him as a double-double guy. Ain't happening.
                              > And he definitely won't replace the production of Okur.
                              >
                              > They gave away Williamson and James and replaced them with
                              > replacement-level Ronald Dupree and Delfino, who based on my Euro
                              > conversions looks way over his head offensively.
                              >
                              > That leaves:
                              > -- 38-year old Elden Campbell. Useful at times, but a poor man's
                              > McDyess.
                              > -- Kneeless Derrick Coleman. No value.
                              > -- Lindsey Hunter, who is 35, can't play point but forced to be the
                              > backup point guard, and due for a fall after coming off his best
                              year
                              > since leaving Milwaukee
                              > -- Darvin Ham, a locker room guy with the worst jumper in the
                              league.
                              >
                              > So instead of James-Williamson-Okur as the three bench guys who see
                              > the most action, the Pistons have Hunter-Delfino-McDyess. That is a
                              > MAJOR downgrade, enough to make Indiana and San Antonio better
                              > choices as the favorite this year.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "thedawgsareout"
                              > <kpelton08@h...> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > > Using last year's stats, we don't see the team that rolled over
                              > > > everyone after Rasheed came. Using the last 1/3 of the season
                              > and
                              > > > playoffs we see That team.
                              > >
                              > > I don't think that's the issue. I rate Detroit's end-of-season
                              > > roster at 59 wins last year because they added so much value by
                              > > trading spare parts for Rasheed and Mike James.
                              > >
                              > > By comparison, I have Minnesota at 55, Indiana at 51, the Lakers
                              at
                              > > 48, Sacramento at 56 and San Antonio at 54. So I don't think I'm
                              > > underrating the 03-04 Pistons.
                              > >
                              > > > The Pistons aren't an aging group of players (except Rasheed);
                              > > > they've added McDyess (who has a nonzero chance of playing);
                              > > > basically a bunch of guys with perfect chemistry and in their
                              > > > primes.
                              > >
                              > > It's the bench, mostly. I have James and Okur rated as worth a
                              > > combined nine wins last year (James had a heck of a year, let's
                              not
                              > > forget), Williamson another win and a half.
                              > >
                              > > *Combined*, I have this year's reserves worth 2.3 wins. Now might
                              > > they be better than that? Certainly. I think Hunter may be
                              > > underrated by his individual traditional stats, while Delfino's
                              > > rating is a SWAG and that Antonio McDyess was coming off a knee
                              > > injury last year isn't factored in.
                              > >
                              > > Also, only Rasheed amongst Detroit's starters missed more than
                              four
                              > > games last year. I conservatively project at most 75 games played,
                              > > so that lessens their value a little bit.
                              > >
                              > > > What have these teams done to rate as highly (or better) than
                              the
                              > > > seemingly-unbeatable Pistons of last year ?
                              > >
                              > > If I might answer that question in just two words, they would be
                              > > Brent. And Barry.
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.