Knicks · Per Bleacher Knicks a 38 win team. (page 5)

It's easy, I have already said that the statistical models are reasonable for making these predictions based on past performance data.

Of course you don't make predictions, you just waste time throwing poop on other people that do. As you wish.

meloshouldgo wrote:It's easy, I have already said that the statistical models are reasonable for making these predictions based on past performance data.

Of course you don't make predictions, you just waste time throwing poop on other people that do. As you wish.

Are you a sportswriter, do you write for bleachers report, if not, why are you taking it personally? lol

Cartman718 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:It's easy, I have already said that the statistical models are reasonable for making these predictions based on past performance data.

Of course you don't make predictions, you just waste time throwing poop on other people that do. As you wish.

Are you a sportswriter, do you write for bleachers report, if not, why are you taking it personally? lol

Nope not sportswriter, not taking it personally. I understand how these models work and I appreciate that someone has taken the time and effort to do it and present it for public consumption. I applaud them for doing that. They have presented a rational counterpoint to the emotional optimism that sometimes overwhelms message boards like this. I do work with data and analytics, just not in the sports sector. And while I am not a huge fan of predictive models, I do think they are better than just randomly throwing a number out.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:It's easy, I have already said that the statistical models are reasonable for making these predictions based on past performance data.

Of course you don't make predictions, you just waste time throwing poop on other people that do. As you wish.

Are you a sportswriter, do you write for bleachers report, if not, why are you taking it personally? lol

Nope not sportswriter, not taking it personally. I understand how these models work and I appreciate that someone has taken the time and effort to do it and present it for public consumption. I applaud them for doing that. They have presented a rational counterpoint to the emotional optimism that sometimes overwhelms message boards like this. I do work with data and analytics, just not in the sports sector. And while I am not a huge fan of predictive models, I do think they are better than just randomly throwing a number out.

Is this prediction based on analytics?

Outgoing Players: Arron Afflalo, Lou Amundson, Cleanthony Early, Langston Galloway, Kevin Seraphin, Derrick Williams
Incoming Players: Willy Hernangomez, Justin Holiday, Brandon Jennings, Mindaugas Kuzminskas, Courtney Lee, Maurice Ndour, Joakim Noah, Marshall Plumlee, Derrick Rose
Re-Signed Players: Lance Thomas, Sasha Vujacic
Projected Starting Five: Derrick Rose (PG), Courtney Lee (SG), Carmelo Anthony (SF), Kristaps Porzingis (PF), Joakim Noah (C)
"They're high," Derrick Rose told NBA.com's Lang Whitaker when asked about the New York Knicks' expectations for 2016-17. "I mean, with these teams right now, they're saying us and Golden State are the superteams, and they're trying not to build that many superteams, and Adam Silver came out with the statement and this and that. And the expectations I think of us, we just want to win."
Not to be too harsh... but that's delusional. No one—well, no one outside of brainwashed fans bragging on Twitter—has called the Knicks a superteam. Nor should they. They're still not even a lock to make the playoffs.
Did New York add talent to the roster? Absolutely. Rose, Joakim Noah, Brandon Jennings, Courtney Lee, Justin Holiday and Marshall Plumlee lend some level of legitimacy, even if none currently plays at a star level.
But this is an outfit composed of mismatched pieces and players who have struggled in recent years. Rose hasn't been the same since he started earning the injury-prone label, though he did look better down the stretch of 2015-16. Noah is coming off the worst year of his career. Jennings can't hit 40 percent of his shots from the field.
The Knicks have more star power on the roster, and they're earning some excitement in the Big Apple. The depth chart looks like it's filled with legitimate NBA players.
But they're not contenders. Not even in the Eastern Conference.
Grade: B-

CrushAlot wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:It's easy, I have already said that the statistical models are reasonable for making these predictions based on past performance data.

Of course you don't make predictions, you just waste time throwing poop on other people that do. As you wish.

Are you a sportswriter, do you write for bleachers report, if not, why are you taking it personally? lol

Nope not sportswriter, not taking it personally. I understand how these models work and I appreciate that someone has taken the time and effort to do it and present it for public consumption. I applaud them for doing that. They have presented a rational counterpoint to the emotional optimism that sometimes overwhelms message boards like this. I do work with data and analytics, just not in the sports sector. And while I am not a huge fan of predictive models, I do think they are better than just randomly throwing a number out.

Is this prediction based on analytics?

Outgoing Players: Arron Afflalo, Lou Amundson, Cleanthony Early, Langston Galloway, Kevin Seraphin, Derrick Williams
Incoming Players: Willy Hernangomez, Justin Holiday, Brandon Jennings, Mindaugas Kuzminskas, Courtney Lee, Maurice Ndour, Joakim Noah, Marshall Plumlee, Derrick Rose
Re-Signed Players: Lance Thomas, Sasha Vujacic
Projected Starting Five: Derrick Rose (PG), Courtney Lee (SG), Carmelo Anthony (SF), Kristaps Porzingis (PF), Joakim Noah (C)
"They're high," Derrick Rose told NBA.com's Lang Whitaker when asked about the New York Knicks' expectations for 2016-17. "I mean, with these teams right now, they're saying us and Golden State are the superteams, and they're trying not to build that many superteams, and Adam Silver came out with the statement and this and that. And the expectations I think of us, we just want to win."
Not to be too harsh... but that's delusional. No one—well, no one outside of brainwashed fans bragging on Twitter—has called the Knicks a superteam. Nor should they. They're still not even a lock to make the playoffs.
Did New York add talent to the roster? Absolutely. Rose, Joakim Noah, Brandon Jennings, Courtney Lee, Justin Holiday and Marshall Plumlee lend some level of legitimacy, even if none currently plays at a star level.
But this is an outfit composed of mismatched pieces and players who have struggled in recent years. Rose hasn't been the same since he started earning the injury-prone label, though he did look better down the stretch of 2015-16. Noah is coming off the worst year of his career. Jennings can't hit 40 percent of his shots from the field.
The Knicks have more star power on the roster, and they're earning some excitement in the Big Apple. The depth chart looks like it's filled with legitimate NBA players.
But they're not contenders. Not even in the Eastern Conference.
Grade: B-

Nope it's throwing out a number - it was whole thread inviting people to do the same

meloshouldgo wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:It's easy, I have already said that the statistical models are reasonable for making these predictions based on past performance data.

Of course you don't make predictions, you just waste time throwing poop on other people that do. As you wish.

Are you a sportswriter, do you write for bleachers report, if not, why are you taking it personally? lol

Nope not sportswriter, not taking it personally. I understand how these models work and I appreciate that someone has taken the time and effort to do it and present it for public consumption. I applaud them for doing that. They have presented a rational counterpoint to the emotional optimism that sometimes overwhelms message boards like this. I do work with data and analytics, just not in the sports sector. And while I am not a huge fan of predictive models, I do think they are better than just randomly throwing a number out.

Is this prediction based on analytics?

Outgoing Players: Arron Afflalo, Lou Amundson, Cleanthony Early, Langston Galloway, Kevin Seraphin, Derrick Williams
Incoming Players: Willy Hernangomez, Justin Holiday, Brandon Jennings, Mindaugas Kuzminskas, Courtney Lee, Maurice Ndour, Joakim Noah, Marshall Plumlee, Derrick Rose
Re-Signed Players: Lance Thomas, Sasha Vujacic
Projected Starting Five: Derrick Rose (PG), Courtney Lee (SG), Carmelo Anthony (SF), Kristaps Porzingis (PF), Joakim Noah (C)
"They're high," Derrick Rose told NBA.com's Lang Whitaker when asked about the New York Knicks' expectations for 2016-17. "I mean, with these teams right now, they're saying us and Golden State are the superteams, and they're trying not to build that many superteams, and Adam Silver came out with the statement and this and that. And the expectations I think of us, we just want to win."
Not to be too harsh... but that's delusional. No one—well, no one outside of brainwashed fans bragging on Twitter—has called the Knicks a superteam. Nor should they. They're still not even a lock to make the playoffs.
Did New York add talent to the roster? Absolutely. Rose, Joakim Noah, Brandon Jennings, Courtney Lee, Justin Holiday and Marshall Plumlee lend some level of legitimacy, even if none currently plays at a star level.
But this is an outfit composed of mismatched pieces and players who have struggled in recent years. Rose hasn't been the same since he started earning the injury-prone label, though he did look better down the stretch of 2015-16. Noah is coming off the worst year of his career. Jennings can't hit 40 percent of his shots from the field.
The Knicks have more star power on the roster, and they're earning some excitement in the Big Apple. The depth chart looks like it's filled with legitimate NBA players.
But they're not contenders. Not even in the Eastern Conference.
Grade: B-

Nope it's throwing out a number - it was whole thread inviting people to do the same

Isn't there already a hang your @ss out thread for this?

Yes dear, there is a thread and I made it.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:It's easy, I have already said that the statistical models are reasonable for making these predictions based on past performance data.

Of course you don't make predictions, you just waste time throwing poop on other people that do. As you wish.

Are you a sportswriter, do you write for bleachers report, if not, why are you taking it personally? lol

Nope not sportswriter, not taking it personally. I understand how these models work and I appreciate that someone has taken the time and effort to do it and present it for public consumption. I applaud them for doing that. They have presented a rational counterpoint to the emotional optimism that sometimes overwhelms message boards like this. I do work with data and analytics, just not in the sports sector. And while I am not a huge fan of predictive models, I do think they are better than just randomly throwing a number out.

so less than 27% accuracy is better than random to you when it comes to predicting these wins/losses. good to know. i appreciate the insight

Having analyzed data and made a reasonable attempt to use it based on realistic assumptions is better than throwing out a number. Because at least in that case you tried to be rational about it. I have no idea how bleacher report comes up with theirs.

meloshouldgo wrote:Having analyzed data and made a reasonable attempt to use it based on realistic assumptions is better than throwing out a number. Because at least in that car you tried to be rational about it. I have no idea how bleacher report comes up with theirs

i can see how someone who's never played basketball would think that. please keep the insight coming.

In total over a period of multiple years thexperience predictive models will beat out random predictions over and over again. And they weren't 27% accurate, that was your somewhat arbitraty calculation. If you want to measure accuracy then calculate standard deviation of their predictions vs.the results over multiple years. But you won't do that. You will keep harping on one year without providing any evidence that random guesses are actually better.

meloshouldgo wrote:In total over a period of multiple years thexperience predictive models will beat out random predictions over and over again. And they weren't 27% accurate, that was your somewhat arbitraty calculation. If you want to measure accuracy then calculate standard deviation of their predictions vs.the results over multiple years. But you won't do that. You will keep harping on one year without providing any evidence that random guesses are actually better.

why don't you do it since you obviously appreciate their efforts way more than i do? it's easy to say, oh they are more accurate than not. and its easy for me to say no they are terrible. but i at least provided data from 1 year. what did you provide? anything besides magical belief?

Cartman718 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:In total over a period of multiple years thexperience predictive models will beat out random predictions over and over again. And they weren't 27% accurate, that was your somewhat arbitraty calculation. If you want to measure accuracy then calculate standard deviation of their predictions vs.the results over multiple years. But you won't do that. You will keep harping on one year without providing any evidence that random guesses are actually better.

why don't you do it since you obviously appreciate their efforts way more than i do? it's easy to say, oh they are more accurate than not. and its easy for me to say no they are terrible. but i at least provided data from 1 year. what did you provide? anything besides magical belief?

Because I don't have the time or the patience required to do the analysis, it's precisely why I appreciate people who do that and provide it for my consumption. All you have done is criticized their work in a vacuum without providing anything to substantiate your claims that you can actually do as good a job in your sleep.

meloshouldgo wrote:Yes dear, there is a thread and I made it.

Congratulations.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:In total over a period of multiple years thexperience predictive models will beat out random predictions over and over again. And they weren't 27% accurate, that was your somewhat arbitraty calculation. If you want to measure accuracy then calculate standard deviation of their predictions vs.the results over multiple years. But you won't do that. You will keep harping on one year without providing any evidence that random guesses are actually better.

why don't you do it since you obviously appreciate their efforts way more than i do? it's easy to say, oh they are more accurate than not. and its easy for me to say no they are terrible. but i at least provided data from 1 year. what did you provide? anything besides magical belief?

Because I don't have the time or the patience required to do the analysis, it's precisely why I appreciate people who do that and provide it for my consumption. All you have done is criticized their work in a vacuum without providing anything to substantiate your claims that you can actually do as good a job in your sleep.

i actually think you do have the time and the patience, since you are so worried about my opinions.

Cartman718 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:In total over a period of multiple years thexperience predictive models will beat out random predictions over and over again. And they weren't 27% accurate, that was your somewhat arbitraty calculation. If you want to measure accuracy then calculate standard deviation of their predictions vs.the results over multiple years. But you won't do that. You will keep harping on one year without providing any evidence that random guesses are actually better.

why don't you do it since you obviously appreciate their efforts way more than i do? it's easy to say, oh they are more accurate than not. and its easy for me to say no they are terrible. but i at least provided data from 1 year. what did you provide? anything besides magical belief?

Because I don't have the time or the patience required to do the analysis, it's precisely why I appreciate people who do that and provide it for my consumption. All you have done is criticized their work in a vacuum without providing anything to substantiate your claims that you can actually do as good a job in your sleep.

i actually think you do have the time and the patience, since you are so worried about my opinions.

ha ha that is LAME.

Cartman718 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Lottery numbers cannot be predicted using statistical models. Each lottery is a new event, the past outcomes have no impact on it. On the other hand, human performance around team sports can be better analyzed using statistical models. How a player played in the last few years is s good predictor of how he will play next year.

Exactly but I don't think you'll convince him at this point. There's a huge difference between purely random events and events that can be predicted pretty well but imperfectly.

Bleacher Report 2015-16
= within 5 wins/losses of prediction
= more than 5 wins/losses of prediction

Hawks prediction 50-32, Actual 48-34
Celtics 43-39, Actual 48-34
Nets 29-53, Actual 21-61
Hornets 30-52, Actual 48-34
Bulls 51-31, Actual 42-40
Cavs 54-28, Actual 57-25
Mavs 32-50, Actual 42-40
Nuggets 24-58, Actual 33-49
Pistons 37-45, Actual 44-38
Warriors 60-22, Actual 73-9
Rockets 56-26, Actual 41-41
Pacers 39-43, Actual 45-37
Clips 57-25, Actual 53-29
Lakers 25-57, Actual 17-65
Grizz 52-30, Actual 42-40
Heat 46-36, Actual 48-34
Bucks 42-40, Actual 33-49
Timberwolves 22-60, Actual 29-53
Pelicans 46-36, Actual 30-52
Knicks 28-54, Actual 32-50
Thunder 59-23, Actual 55-27
Magic 27-55, Actual 35-47
76ers 20-62, Actual 10-72
Suns 37-45, Actual 23-59
Blazers 25-57, Actual 44-38
Kings 35-47, Actual 33-49
Spurs 55-27, Actual 67-15
Raptors 48-34, Actual 56-26

Total somewhat accurate predictions - 8
Total not even close predictions - 22
Percentage of accuracy = 8*100/30 < 27%
Average margin by which predictions were off = Add all margins / 30 = 240 / 30 = 8 wins/losses
Knicks 2016-17 prediction 38 wins. This means we should not be surprised if we win 30 to 46 games. Oh wow great. I could have predicted that in my sleep.
Is this your definition of imperfect prediction, but "predicted well"??? GTFOH.

Interesting. Go right ahead and predict the win loss record for every team this year and let's see you beat whatever this year's win shares based predictions is on accuracy. It's s simple enough position to put to test.

The rest of us can take bets on how good or bad you are. This can be a fun season long activity.

Um...I am not the one claiming that predictions of win/loss records before the season even begins is a worthwhile exercise, my whole post was to refute exactly that. The so called "experts" in NBA predictions that you and Bonn and maybe mreinman are touting as almost gospel in this thread... they don't know $h|t.... So perhaps you and Bonn and mreinman should go ahead and make the predictions? I can bet you that your predictions will have the same level of accuracy as the folks you are agreeing with. In other words, they don't know any better or worse than you before the season begins.

Why should I waste my time with that...you guys think it's a worthwhile exercise...so YOU do it.

No one said anything about predictions being gospel. Instead I called you out to back up your very real statement that you can make predctiona matching statistical models in your sleep. Appears you are not man enough to accept the challenge so you need to hide behind this level of double talk. SHOCKING.

I am confused...are you agreeing with Bonn that these predictions are a worthwhile exercise or not? That's where we started. Answer this.
As far as being man enough to accept the challenge, I don't accept challenges that would be a waste of my time. No double talk.

I predicted 33 last year and 45 this year. Whats yours?

mreinman wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Lottery numbers cannot be predicted using statistical models. Each lottery is a new event, the past outcomes have no impact on it. On the other hand, human performance around team sports can be better analyzed using statistical models. How a player played in the last few years is s good predictor of how he will play next year.

Exactly but I don't think you'll convince him at this point. There's a huge difference between purely random events and events that can be predicted pretty well but imperfectly.

Bleacher Report 2015-16
= within 5 wins/losses of prediction
= more than 5 wins/losses of prediction

Hawks prediction 50-32, Actual 48-34
Celtics 43-39, Actual 48-34
Nets 29-53, Actual 21-61
Hornets 30-52, Actual 48-34
Bulls 51-31, Actual 42-40
Cavs 54-28, Actual 57-25
Mavs 32-50, Actual 42-40
Nuggets 24-58, Actual 33-49
Pistons 37-45, Actual 44-38
Warriors 60-22, Actual 73-9
Rockets 56-26, Actual 41-41
Pacers 39-43, Actual 45-37
Clips 57-25, Actual 53-29
Lakers 25-57, Actual 17-65
Grizz 52-30, Actual 42-40
Heat 46-36, Actual 48-34
Bucks 42-40, Actual 33-49
Timberwolves 22-60, Actual 29-53
Pelicans 46-36, Actual 30-52
Knicks 28-54, Actual 32-50
Thunder 59-23, Actual 55-27
Magic 27-55, Actual 35-47
76ers 20-62, Actual 10-72
Suns 37-45, Actual 23-59
Blazers 25-57, Actual 44-38
Kings 35-47, Actual 33-49
Spurs 55-27, Actual 67-15
Raptors 48-34, Actual 56-26

Total somewhat accurate predictions - 8
Total not even close predictions - 22
Percentage of accuracy = 8*100/30 < 27%
Average margin by which predictions were off = Add all margins / 30 = 240 / 30 = 8 wins/losses
Knicks 2016-17 prediction 38 wins. This means we should not be surprised if we win 30 to 46 games. Oh wow great. I could have predicted that in my sleep.
Is this your definition of imperfect prediction, but "predicted well"??? GTFOH.

Interesting. Go right ahead and predict the win loss record for every team this year and let's see you beat whatever this year's win shares based predictions is on accuracy. It's s simple enough position to put to test.

The rest of us can take bets on how good or bad you are. This can be a fun season long activity.

Um...I am not the one claiming that predictions of win/loss records before the season even begins is a worthwhile exercise, my whole post was to refute exactly that. The so called "experts" in NBA predictions that you and Bonn and maybe mreinman are touting as almost gospel in this thread... they don't know $h|t.... So perhaps you and Bonn and mreinman should go ahead and make the predictions? I can bet you that your predictions will have the same level of accuracy as the folks you are agreeing with. In other words, they don't know any better or worse than you before the season begins.

Why should I waste my time with that...you guys think it's a worthwhile exercise...so YOU do it.

No one said anything about predictions being gospel. Instead I called you out to back up your very real statement that you can make predctiona matching statistical models in your sleep. Appears you are not man enough to accept the challenge so you need to hide behind this level of double talk. SHOCKING.

I am confused...are you agreeing with Bonn that these predictions are a worthwhile exercise or not? That's where we started. Answer this.
As far as being man enough to accept the challenge, I don't accept challenges that would be a waste of my time. No double talk.

I predicted 33 last year and 45 this year. Whats yours?

You suck. Did you really predict 33 last year?

CrushAlot wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Lottery numbers cannot be predicted using statistical models. Each lottery is a new event, the past outcomes have no impact on it. On the other hand, human performance around team sports can be better analyzed using statistical models. How a player played in the last few years is s good predictor of how he will play next year.

Exactly but I don't think you'll convince him at this point. There's a huge difference between purely random events and events that can be predicted pretty well but imperfectly.

Bleacher Report 2015-16
= within 5 wins/losses of prediction
= more than 5 wins/losses of prediction

Hawks prediction 50-32, Actual 48-34
Celtics 43-39, Actual 48-34
Nets 29-53, Actual 21-61
Hornets 30-52, Actual 48-34
Bulls 51-31, Actual 42-40
Cavs 54-28, Actual 57-25
Mavs 32-50, Actual 42-40
Nuggets 24-58, Actual 33-49
Pistons 37-45, Actual 44-38
Warriors 60-22, Actual 73-9
Rockets 56-26, Actual 41-41
Pacers 39-43, Actual 45-37
Clips 57-25, Actual 53-29
Lakers 25-57, Actual 17-65
Grizz 52-30, Actual 42-40
Heat 46-36, Actual 48-34
Bucks 42-40, Actual 33-49
Timberwolves 22-60, Actual 29-53
Pelicans 46-36, Actual 30-52
Knicks 28-54, Actual 32-50
Thunder 59-23, Actual 55-27
Magic 27-55, Actual 35-47
76ers 20-62, Actual 10-72
Suns 37-45, Actual 23-59
Blazers 25-57, Actual 44-38
Kings 35-47, Actual 33-49
Spurs 55-27, Actual 67-15
Raptors 48-34, Actual 56-26

Total somewhat accurate predictions - 8
Total not even close predictions - 22
Percentage of accuracy = 8*100/30 < 27%
Average margin by which predictions were off = Add all margins / 30 = 240 / 30 = 8 wins/losses
Knicks 2016-17 prediction 38 wins. This means we should not be surprised if we win 30 to 46 games. Oh wow great. I could have predicted that in my sleep.
Is this your definition of imperfect prediction, but "predicted well"??? GTFOH.

Interesting. Go right ahead and predict the win loss record for every team this year and let's see you beat whatever this year's win shares based predictions is on accuracy. It's s simple enough position to put to test.

The rest of us can take bets on how good or bad you are. This can be a fun season long activity.

Um...I am not the one claiming that predictions of win/loss records before the season even begins is a worthwhile exercise, my whole post was to refute exactly that. The so called "experts" in NBA predictions that you and Bonn and maybe mreinman are touting as almost gospel in this thread... they don't know $h|t.... So perhaps you and Bonn and mreinman should go ahead and make the predictions? I can bet you that your predictions will have the same level of accuracy as the folks you are agreeing with. In other words, they don't know any better or worse than you before the season begins.

Why should I waste my time with that...you guys think it's a worthwhile exercise...so YOU do it.

No one said anything about predictions being gospel. Instead I called you out to back up your very real statement that you can make predctiona matching statistical models in your sleep. Appears you are not man enough to accept the challenge so you need to hide behind this level of double talk. SHOCKING.

I am confused...are you agreeing with Bonn that these predictions are a worthwhile exercise or not? That's where we started. Answer this.
As far as being man enough to accept the challenge, I don't accept challenges that would be a waste of my time. No double talk.

I predicted 33 last year and 45 this year. Whats yours?

You suck. Did you really predict 33 last year?

yup ... and you can check last years prediction thread for proof, mr police man

Edit: and add that to my Rolo will be good and Afflalo will be bad predictions. And that most were way too high on grant. And that THJ during his rookie year was fooling people.

I was wrong about Derrick Williams. He really surprised me.

mreinman wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:[quote="mreinman"

Cartman718 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:Lottery numbers cannot be predicted using statistical models. Each lottery is a new event, the past outcomes have no impact on it. On the other hand, human performance around team sports can be better analyzed using statistical models. How a player played in the last few years is s good predictor of how he will play next year.

Exactly but I don't think you'll convince him at this point. There's a huge difference between purely random events and events that can be predicted pretty well but imperfectly.

Bleacher Report 2015-16
= within 5 wins/losses of prediction
= more than 5 wins/losses of prediction

Hawks prediction 50-32, Actual 48-34
Celtics 43-39, Actual 48-34
Nets 29-53, Actual 21-61
Hornets 30-52, Actual 48-34
Bulls 51-31, Actual 42-40
Cavs 54-28, Actual 57-25
Mavs 32-50, Actual 42-40
Nuggets 24-58, Actual 33-49
Pistons 37-45, Actual 44-38
Warriors 60-22, Actual 73-9
Rockets 56-26, Actual 41-41
Pacers 39-43, Actual 45-37
Clips 57-25, Actual 53-29
Lakers 25-57, Actual 17-65
Grizz 52-30, Actual 42-40
Heat 46-36, Actual 48-34
Bucks 42-40, Actual 33-49
Timberwolves 22-60, Actual 29-53
Pelicans 46-36, Actual 30-52
Knicks 28-54, Actual 32-50
Thunder 59-23, Actual 55-27
Magic 27-55, Actual 35-47
76ers 20-62, Actual 10-72
Suns 37-45, Actual 23-59
Blazers 25-57, Actual 44-38
Kings 35-47, Actual 33-49
Spurs 55-27, Actual 67-15
Raptors 48-34, Actual 56-26

Total somewhat accurate predictions - 8
Total not even close predictions - 22
Percentage of accuracy = 8*100/30 < 27%
Average margin by which predictions were off = Add all margins / 30 = 240 / 30 = 8 wins/losses
Knicks 2016-17 prediction 38 wins. This means we should not be surprised if we win 30 to 46 games. Oh wow great. I could have predicted that in my sleep.
Is this your definition of imperfect prediction, but "predicted well"??? GTFOH.

Interesting. Go right ahead and predict the win loss record for every team this year and let's see you beat whatever this year's win shares based predictions is on accuracy. It's s simple enough position to put to test.

The rest of us can take bets on how good or bad you are. This can be a fun season long activity.

Um...I am not the one claiming that predictions of win/loss records before the season even begins is a worthwhile exercise, my whole post was to refute exactly that. The so called "experts" in NBA predictions that you and Bonn and maybe mreinman are touting as almost gospel in this thread... they don't know $h|t.... So perhaps you and Bonn and mreinman should go ahead and make the predictions? I can bet you that your predictions will have the same level of accuracy as the folks you are agreeing with. In other words, they don't know any better or worse than you before the season begins.

Why should I waste my time with that...you guys think it's a worthwhile exercise...so YOU do it.

No one said anything about predictions being gospel. Instead I called you out to back up your very real statement that you can make predctiona matching statistical models in your sleep. Appears you are not man enough to accept the challenge so you need to hide behind this level of double talk. SHOCKING.

I am confused...are you agreeing with Bonn that these predictions are a worthwhile exercise or not? That's where we started. Answer this.
As far as being man enough to accept the challenge, I don't accept challenges that would be a waste of my time. No double talk.

I predicted 33 last year and 45 this year. Whats yours?

You suck. Did you really predict 33 last year?

yup ... and you can check last years prediction thread for proof, mr police man no need. I am going with 44 for this year

38-41 wins is fine based on last year's production from Noah, Porzingis, Rose, and Jennings.

But what if KP is better, Noah or Rose or both are more healthy and Jennings returns to full confidence as well? If all those things happen I think we can compete with anyone but Golden State. I am not saying that with being blind to the team's potential downside.

I think worse case is 38 wins. If KP shows no improvement from year 1, Rose and Noah are the same as last year and Jennings is the same player as last year as well. If that is the case, yes this team is not better than 38-41 wins. However if they get a few players in better condition, I would be surprised if they missed the playoffs. This looks like a solid playoff team unless everyone new added to the team has a season filled with injuries (which historically is only more likely with Rose).