0.664% to win it all...Always fun to make the "experts" look stupid
How was that wrong? I love the chest pounding revisionist history.
How was that wrong? I love the chest pounding revisionist history.
I'm just criticizing the so-called experts. Like "oh no way, all the 1/2 seeds and the defending champions have the best chances to win it all, who would've guessed?!" How many commentators and analysts had the cojones to pick a 7/8 seed title game.
I'm just criticizing the so-called experts. Like "oh no way, all the 1/2 seeds and the defending champions have the best chances to win it all, who would've guessed?!" How many commentators and analysts had the cojones to pick a 7/8 seed title game.
You didn't criticize something nebulous. You criticized the very specific calculation given by a specific statistician.
My guess is you had a higher number in mind. But you didn't tell us what you thought it should be.
Let's do just a little bit of really rough math, and I'll explain why I think nitpicking about the number is stupid.
In the St. Joe's game, we were favorites, I'd say 75% chance of winning that game going into it. It ended up being pretty scary, but that doesn't factor into the initial odds.
Now, for the other 5 games, let's be generous and say UConn had a 50/50 chance in each of them. Remember, when you are saying this, you don't know who those games are against. I think only rabid UConn fans would have agreed to such generous odds for the remaining games.
Do all the multiplication and you get... 2.34%.
And that's being super generous. So what was the number you wanted him to say?
It looks stupid because it makes specific determinations based on Frequentist assumptions when a Bayesian approach is more appropriate. The very same factors he used to give Villanova a 21% chance (plush travel schedule, close to home) were apparently ignored for UConn. I am not saying it's "stupid" per se, I am saying attempting to justify those conclusions based on those data is unwise. Silver gets away with some really sloppy work that would never get published in any reputable journal because most of us don't understand the mechanisms at work. We remember when he right, but the reality is he's wrong more often than not, and well, when you consider the frequentist formula of 50/50 for being right or wrong, well, he should be right at least 50% of time just on chance alone.Did you forget what you wrote? It's still up there. You specifically pointed out Silver's calculation.
You'll have to explain to me how it looks stupid if you want me to agree.
I didn't say he was wrong. I said 'Always fun to make the "experts" look stupid.' Basically my point is who cares about the statistics? No one picked us even when we kept winning. I'm not looking for you to agree with me, I couldn't really care less.
It looks stupid because it makes specific determinations based on Frequentist assumptions when a Bayesian approach is more appropriate. The very same factors he used to give Villanova a 21% chance (plush travel schedule, close to home) were apparently ignored for UConn. I am not saying it's "stupid" per se, I am saying attempting to justify those conclusions based on those data is unwise. Silver gets away with some really sloppy work that would never get published in any reputable journal because most of us don't understand the mechanisms at work. We remember when he right, but the reality is he's wrong more often than not, and well, when you consider the frequentist formula of 50/50 for being right or wrong, well, he should be right at least 50% of time just on chance alone.
It looks stupid because it makes specific determinations based on Frequentist assumptions when a Bayesian approach is more appropriate. The very same factors he used to give Villanova a 21% chance (plush travel schedule, close to home) were apparently ignored for UConn. I am not saying it's "stupid" per se, I am saying attempting to justify those conclusions based on those data is unwise. Silver gets away with some really sloppy work that would never get published in any reputable journal because most of us don't understand the mechanisms at work. We remember when he right, but the reality is he's wrong more often than not, and well, when you consider the frequentist formula of 50/50 for being right or wrong, well, he should be right at least 50% of time just on chance alone.
it's like the pundits telling us 'the only schools worthy of a NC in football are from the P5'... if they keep saying it, it must be true.I'm just criticizing the so-called experts. Like "oh no way, all the 1/2 seeds and the defending champions have the best chances to win it all, who would've guessed?!" How many commentators and analysts had the cojones to pick a 7/8 seed title game.
Good thing Senhor doesn't listen to the 'experts'.0.664% to win it all...Always fun to make the "experts" look stupid
it's like the pundits telling us 'the only schools worthy of a NC in football are from the P5'... if they keep saying it, it must be true.
Lots of crazy in this thread.
There are 68 teams in the NCAA tourney. In modern college basketball any team at best has a 10-15% of winning. It's 6 single elimination games with an incredible amount of variance.
That UConn has gone on two incredible runs in recent years doesn't invalidate statistical models. UConn was one trip away from being eliminated by St Joe's. Would someone be posting about how bad the model was if Brimah doesn't make that shot?
Silver's NCAA model might be good, and it might not be good. That UConn won the 2014 tournament doesn't validate or invalidate the model in any way.
Yes the model gave Villanova a 21% chance to make the Final Four. So only 4 times out of
5 they don't? Why would the fact they lost in the second round be notable?
The model really liked Kentucky relative to their seed even being bracketed with Louisville... does that mean it's really good?
In fairness to the OP, he was just trying to remind us that we came out of nowhere to win the National Championship 3 months ago. I like being reminded of that. In fairness to Trumbull, he was just chest-thumping because we won the National Championship 3 months ago. I like chest-thumping about that, I'm not sure why it's caused such consternation.
The thread had a chance to turn very interesting once it got into Silver and the value/lack thereof of his NCAA analysis but so far it hasn't. I'm not a statistician and obviously some here know a lot more about the field than I do, so I'd be interested in reading boba/Bruce/leebo/whoever going back and forth about it a bit. The initial back and forth got me to go back and read some of the 538 articles on this year's tourney. I get that Silver is not 'predicting' results per se, that he's trying to analyze probabilities but...it strikes me as kind of a useless exercise. He seems to use most of the same criteria as the seeding committee and he seems to end up with most all of the higher seeds advancing. If you based your pool on his analysis you'd be that guy in the office pool who picks almost no upsets, does well for the first weekend, and flames out badly thereafter.
So...what is the value of what Silver's doing? Is there any? I'm not trying to argue here, I'm interested in reading the thoughts of people who know more about where Silver's coming from than I do.
In fairness to the OP, he was just trying to remind us that we came out of nowhere to win the National Championship 3 months ago. I like being reminded of that. In fairness to Trumbull, he was just chest-thumping because we won the National Championship 3 months ago. I like chest-thumping about that, I'm not sure why it's caused such consternation.
The thread had a chance to turn very interesting once it got into Silver and the value/lack thereof of his NCAA analysis but so far it hasn't. I'm not a statistician and obviously some here know a lot more about the field than I do, so I'd be interested in reading boba/Bruce/leebo/whoever going back and forth about it a bit. The initial back and forth got me to go back and read some of the 538 articles on this year's tourney. I get that Silver is not 'predicting' results per se, that he's trying to analyze probabilities but...it strikes me as kind of a useless exercise. He seems to use most of the same criteria as the seeding committee and he seems to end up with most all of the higher seeds advancing. If you based your pool on his analysis you'd be that guy in the office pool who picks almost no upsets, does well for the first weekend, and flames out badly thereafter.
So...what is the value of what Silver's doing? Is there any? I'm not trying to argue here, I'm interested in reading the thoughts of people who know more about where Silver's coming from than I do.
I am more likely to be selected in the first round of the next NBA draft then acquire any understanding of statisical anaysis - but Silver's models seem to me as a layperson to work well in political races but simply cannot in a sports setting. There are so many variables that affect the outcome of any sporting event that any predictions are wishes at best.
For example we are down 16-4 to Florida - how many of us would have bet the house at that moment that we would prevail. Same against Kensucky - we blew them out of the arena 30-15 but outcome was not decided until a**hole concluded that we would make our free throws in the last 90 seconds, folded his arms and told his players to figure it out on their own.
Taking these two examples and expanding into the entire NCAA tournament I think demonstrates why any level of sport outcome predictions, including Silver's, are great fodder for discussion but in the real world are worth squat.