Comments on: Championship Probability Added I

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:32:20 +0000

You could, but then you'd have to go through and work it out on a team-by-team basis. It's something that's probably not worth doing at this stage, but if I develop this method more, it could be a valuable addition.

By: Raj

Raj — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:28:47 +0000

Is there any way to account for the relative strength of each conference? I understand the basic premise of having to count the 19th win the same as the 39th, but is there some way to take into account the relative increase in difficulty of making the West playoffs this last decade versus the east?

By: DSMok1

DSMok1 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:48:38 +0000

Two sides of the same coin, there... the numbers cancel out and you end up with the same thing.

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:15:31 +0000

On second thought, I don't think that mistake impacts the championship probability calculation, though -- because after you make the leap from playoff prob. to championship prob., the 1/30 number is actually correct as the initial expectation for the avg. team.

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:45:23 +0000

Actually, you're right. So when you make the playoffs, it moves your playoff prob from 16/30 to 1. I'll update the numbers to fix that.

By: Lig Lury

Lig Lury — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:18:51 +0000

Seems to me at the beginning of the season, each team has a 16/30 chance of getting to the playoffs, not 1/30 (in a 30-team league and 16-team playoffs). This should be adjusted to league size and playoff size changes over the years.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:12:46 +0000

No.

I specifically didn't mention that as you've already addressed the issues of historical context, as have others. I was merely pointing out what the metric was propagating in regards to the modern era - and more specifically - an era that I witnessed.

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 01:29:59 +0000

You have more of a problem with Hakeem's placement than Cliff Hagan over MJ and Dan Issel over Bird & Shaq?

Like I said, he results are very rough -- I'm just trying to get some feedback about where the process can be improved at this point.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 01:27:11 +0000

I have an incredibly hard time believing that Hakeem didn't peak far higher, particularly given those who surrounded him at the time of the first ring in '94. I understand metrics remove preference and bias by weighing undeniable facts... But is there anybody here, amongst us, who doesn't see something wrong with this? Of course, almost every metric turns the odd superstar into an ugly duckling.

By: Jason J

Jason J — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:29:51 +0000

This is interesting. I'm sort of ignoring the pre-merger numbers because they don't fit with my understanding of the NBA today - I just didn't witness that game - but what I'm seeing is otherwise pretty solid. Michael #1, Magic #2, Bird #3 (higher peak years than Magic but not as good overall career), Shaquille #4... of course those efficient but non-explosive producers on great teams like Grant and Horry wind up ranked really high which is pretty typical of this sort of thing. Looking at peak years works a little better actually. Jordan - Bird - Duncan - Shaq - Moses - Magic - Charles - Hakeem - Dirk - Gumby - Kobe ... that pretty much fits with my memory of playoffs past (though of course the point of a metric is to NOT need to rely on memories of playoffs past). I'd like to see peak year averages - say top 5 or 6 - just to see if that gives a better range of players and weeds out some of the consistent but not exceptional players who are the list now. I look forward to round 2.