Hollinger's 2010 Playoff Odds

[Kwhit10]

Holy cow, check the playoff odds now! Looks like they definitely got the kinks out.

    Wow that totally changes things.  The league isn't as balanced for odds to win title.  I thought that was a little weird.  However, I think they overcompensated in the other direction maybe a little too much 

[fairweatherfan]

Holy cow, check the playoff odds now! Looks like they definitely got the kinks out.

    Wow that totally changes things.  The league isn't as balanced for odds to win title.  I thought that was a little weird.  However, I think they overcompensated in the other direction maybe a little too much 

This is how the odds have looked in seasons past if I remember.  In 07-08 when we were tearing up the league early on it gave us something ridiculous like a 60% chance at the title in December.  I've never seen it give deeply divided odds like it was giving before. 

We have a pretty strong lead in the Power Rankings, so we have a strong lead in the championship odds.  At least the two fit now. 

[nickagneta]

So.....ummmmm.....ahhaaaa.....about that paranoid comment.   

[4THQTR]

Well this looks very different... 

[Fafnir]

So.....ummmmm.....ahhaaaa.....about that paranoid comment.   

You accused him of deliberately tanking the C's in favor of his two preseason picks Nick, and of lying about what the inputs of his model.

You were being paranoid.

[Roy Hobbs]

So.....ummmmm.....ahhaaaa.....about that paranoid comment.   

You accused him of deliberately tanking the C's in favor of his two preseason picks Nick, and of lying about what the inputs of his model.

You were being paranoid.

Is it fair to say that there was a flaw -- either in methodology, or technologically -- that was giving very skewed results, that has since been corrected?  I think that's the only thing that accounts for a huge statistical correction like that literally overnight.

[Ersatz]

I'm guessing that is the team's age is has their Title chances so low.

Hollinger says he doesn't use factors like age, injuires, etc. as factors. It's all about performance.

But like others here, I'm perplexed how we can have the highest Power Ranking but be seventh most likely to win it all.

FWIW, Hollinger says the Magic will beat the Cs in the playoffs.

[Fafnir]

So.....ummmmm.....ahhaaaa.....about that paranoid comment.   

You accused him of deliberately tanking the C's in favor of his two preseason picks Nick, and of lying about what the inputs of his model.

You were being paranoid.

Is it fair to say that there was a flaw -- either in methodology, or technologically -- that was giving very skewed results, that has since been corrected?  I think that's the only thing that accounts for a huge statistical correction like that literally overnight.

Yes, Hollinger has said as much:

Update from Hollinger's Twitter (posted on ESPN.com):

"Quick update -- looks like we have issues with the hamster that generates odds for making and winning the Finals. We're working on it."

Sounds like I wasn't the only one to email.  So it is some error in the model - it didn't make much sense why it kept turning out that way. 

It looks like whatever program was playing out the playoff matchups was broken. The projected records don't seem to have been affected.

[Ersatz]

Holy cow, check the playoff odds now! Looks like they definitely got the kinks out.

    Wow that totally changes things.  The league isn't as balanced for odds to win title.  I thought that was a little weird.  However, I think they overcompensated in the other direction maybe a little too much 

I don't think so. Giving the Buck and Knicks a two or four percent chance to win the title, as the odds had done before today, is wrong. Those teams, and at least 15 others, literally have no chance to win the title.

[nickagneta]

So.....ummmmm.....ahhaaaa.....about that paranoid comment.   

You accused him of deliberately tanking the C's in favor of his two preseason picks Nick, and of lying about what the inputs of his model.

You were being paranoid.

I was right about his numbers being wrong.

I was right that in a normal random methodology it would be impossible for his numbers to look the way they did.

I was right that a normal regression to the mean could in no way consistently come up with Boston's poor numbers.

He comes out after probably getting a flood of e-mails telling him his numbers can't be correct and then says there's something wrong with his machine. He then produces numbers that are nowhere near the numbers he had been publishing, which was my original and over riding point to begin with. Here's my first post in this thread:

Someone needs to explain to me how a computer that runs 5000 season scenarios has Boston winning the most games, having the highest percentage chance of making the Finals in the East, the second highest chance of making the Finals in the league but be tied for 6th with Atlanta for chances to win the Championship if, as Hollinger claims, the only information it is given is the Hollinger Daily Power Ranking's numbers?

How can a computer mathematically and randomly come up with the team that is second most likely to get to the championship game come up with that team having only tied for 6th best chance of winning it all unless there is definite matchup tendencies or other info being plugged in?

This is why I hate Hollinger's stats. They make no sense logically.

You can believe his explanation. You can believe him to be a good, honest statistician. I don't. I think given ESPN's contractual obligation and financial stakes involved in broadcasting NBA games and promoting the NBA, that they could easily have their writer's write favorable articles about certain teams and certain players. That Hollinger continually was showing teams with media darlings like Kobe, Lebron and Howard doing well and not Boston, a team without clear cut marketable stars, I think is telling.

Call me paranoid. Call me a non-mathematician. Call into question my abilities all you want. So far, I've been right about Hollinger's math in regards to his playoff odds.
 
You can believe all you want that it was a coincidence that LA, Cleveland and Orlando, his preseason favorites for greatness this season and the three teams with the three most marketed NBA stars, had great numbers when his "machine" was broken, I don't. You can continue to call me names now.

[BballTim]

So.....ummmmm.....ahhaaaa.....about that paranoid comment.   

You accused him of deliberately tanking the C's in favor of his two preseason picks Nick, and of lying about what the inputs of his model.

You were being paranoid.

Is it fair to say that there was a flaw -- either in methodology, or technologically -- that was giving very skewed results, that has since been corrected?  I think that's the only thing that accounts for a huge statistical correction like that literally overnight.

Yes, Hollinger has said as much:

Update from Hollinger's Twitter (posted on ESPN.com):

"Quick update -- looks like we have issues with the hamster that generates odds for making and winning the Finals. We're working on it."

Sounds like I wasn't the only one to email.  So it is some error in the model - it didn't make much sense why it kept turning out that way. 

It looks like whatever program was playing out the playoff matchups was broken. The projected records don't seem to have been affected.

  What a jerk, blaming the hamster...

[Hoops]

I love how ulterior motives and conspiracy theories are a quintessential part of just about everything related to Hollinger, the NBA, ESPN, world politics, everything. Technology allows everyone to be an armchair quarterback. No one in the world makes innocent mistakes anymore...

[Fafnir]

I was right about his numbers being wrong.

Yes they were wrong for what his model was supposed to be.

I was right that in a normal random methodology it would be impossible for his numbers to look the way they did.

I was right that a normal regression to the mean could in no way consistently come up with Boston's poor numbers.

This isn't true. It depends entirely on how much randomness and how he regressed. We don't know those factors.

That's just it. If he's running that then you might figure another team might just as well be off. But what appears are numbers that shows his preseason picks of LA and Cleveland being the most likely winners. Coincidence?

Again, I don't think Hollinger is the most honest of mathematicians or statisticians. But you already knew that, Faf.

Your first response to me accused him of goosing his model for his own personal picks.

You were right the numbers were off, we can all rejoice the Knicks aren't 2.4% title contenders!

[scoop]

I don't think it was a methodological flaw - the current odds are more similar to the ones in past seasons.

[Fafnir]

I don't think it was a methodological flaw - the current odds are more similar to the ones in past seasons.

I think we're all agreeing on that.

The only thing left is how much Nick wants to gloat and how much I want to hedge.