LeBrick?

[IrishTim]

Re: LeBrick?

WtW, you can't calculate the EV of a shooter, but you can certainly calculate it of a given shot in basketball or pass in football. And it's far more predictive than saying "just get it to your best player" and that will do the most to help your team win.

The argument here isn't about which is the best way to gamble. There will always be some elements of subjectivity that you can use to obtain an edge (although I think they are far less important than have a strong quantitative foundation for what you think the number should be). The discussion here is on why you would want two far below average 3 point shooters taking the 3s at the most important juncture of the game. Just because it's the consensus at a given time doesn't mean it's correct. The consensus used to be that you wouldn't focus on defending the corner three because it would lead to fast breaks the other way (when an analysis suggests that corner threes actually yield fewer breakway points than threes from elsewhere on the court), but by now most every team/scout/coach would agree that other than an open layup, an open corner three has a higher EV than any other shot on the court. Coaches, players, GMs, teams subscribe to hundreds of theories and ideas that are just factually incorrect.

 

[WeinketoWarrick]

Re: LeBrick?

Of course Bosh and LeBron shouldn't be taking that shot. Or are those not the two players you're referring to? Because I can tell you that quicker than the math can...

 

[IrishTim]

Re: LeBrick?

Sorry for the confusion - the purpose of this thread was to contend that Wade (a 29% 3pt shooter) should be taking the threes in the most important situations. My argument is that the whole notion of having a far below avg shooter (either Bosh, Wade, or Lebron) taking the game-winning/tying 3s is ridiculous when you have several above average 3 point shooters on the roster. The logic that supports the idea of having the 30% shooters take the big shots over the 40% shooters of "they're 'big enough' for the moment" is flimsy at best, in my opinion.

 

[WeinketoWarrick]

Re: LeBrick?

On that team, if the 3 is wide open, I want:
-House
-Jones
-Miller
-Wade
-LeBron

In that order. But if its a short amount of time and the person shooting will also have to create their own open shot, I want Wade. The terminology for 'taking that shot' is dependant on whether someone assumes its an open look or not.

 

[Timely Hero]

Re: LeBrick?

Also Tim, you agree with me in my last post. All I was stating last night was that FG or 3pt FG % is not the only thing that matters when deciding who should take that shot - as you said, you could quantify it but then you'd have debates about what is contested and what isn't and etc... Strictly looking at FG or 3Pt FG % when deciding who should take a shot is irresponsible. Why wouldn't you just give the ball to a big guy every single time with the game on the line? They shoot a higher %, but that's because they get more dunks and open looks. Shooting %'s are misleading in basketball - too many outside influences. If there were stats that broke the game down similarly to what you were discussing (I'm talking widely available) I think they'd hold merit and I'd use them in my capping but they simply aren't available.

 

[Timely Hero]

Re: LeBrick?

On that team, if the 3 is wide open, I want:
-House
-Jones
-Miller
-Wade
-LeBron

In that order. But if its a short amount of time and the person shooting will also have to create their own open shot, I want Wade. The terminology for 'taking that shot' is dependant on whether someone assumes its an open look or not.

House has hit big shots, but James Jones is statistically one of the best wide open shooters in the league - I think something like 65% of his buckets have come of penetrations and dishes to him wide open. I read James Jones hasn't taken a shot from within 18 feet this entire season - that's amazing.

 

[Patrick McIrish]

Re: LeBrick?

Many reasons to give it to your best player with the game on the line, regardless of his shooting percentage. Usually they are good decision makers. If they don't get the shot they should draw a lot of attention and can feed it to who ever is open (sit down Kerr). Lot easier for them to get their shot or find someone open then it is a role player that shoots a higher percentage with his feet set. Another smaller reason (although still with merit) is your superstars get a lot more calls than others. Jordan goes to the rack he will usually make the bucket or get put on the stripe. To sum up with the game on the line I want Bird with the ball, I don't need any math to know that's my best option, we will live and die with what he does and do so happily. 'Nuff said.


PS - the mental side of sports is not only relevant, it's HUGE!

 

[Patrick McIrish]

Re: LeBrick?

Skimming through I think Timely has most of this right. Shooting percentage means very little unless you understand how/where it came from. A great shooter (with a great %) is often the recipient of a guy that creates. Someone goes to the rack and commands respect will kick it out where this guy has his feet set and all he does it shoot wide open 3's. Sure it's effective but you don't start the offense through someone like this, you end it that way. If you give the ball to him and in all likelihood he can't get his shot he will also find it harder to create offense for anyone else, that's not what they do. In short it's much tougher to defend any NBA team when their creators have the basketball, not only are they dangerous they make the other guys much more dangerous as well.

 

[High Times]

Re: LeBrick?

Hilarious coming from you High Times. I've yet to see a poster so insistent on getting everyone to believe what a big winner he was and how many important people he knows. I've never claimed to be a math expert (I'm not), but a basic understanding of math allows you to test hypotheses. I've provided plenty of arguments with logical and mathematical principles, while you rarely have a coherent argument or God forbid any evidence to support your scattered argument. Would you guess Chalmer's shooting percentage in future 'clutch' situations will be over/under 15%?

It's not difficult to calculate the EV of a shot from any square foot on the court and the most successful basketball gamblers do this. If I were running a team, I would certainly want the player who makes the highest percentage of shots from a given spot on the floor than one who is taking the shot just because he's an All Star or whatever. Maybe you can explain the logic in having a far below 3 point shooter take the game tying shot when you have multiple guys who shoot better than 40% from the 3? I mean, why would you even bother bringing in a 3 point specialist like Miller if you're going to have a guy who shoots 29% take the shot?

O.K. little boy

I am a lifetime loser and know nobody in the business. Is that good enough for you. Why do you have to keep posting back to me and say the exact same thing over and over and over again. If you read most of my post you will realize that I do know a lot of the People in this business, but I ask you what am I supposed to do little boy? Pretend I don't know anything or anybody.

To post over and over that I can't stop building myself up is not only fucking wrong it's childish to be nice. You show your ignorance son.

And as far as 3 point shooting %'s

A lot of the reason bench guys or the shooting gaurds hit a higher % of their shots has a lot to do with the fact thay take a lot more OPEN 3 pointers where as Wade, LeBron, Kobe, and a lot more of the Stars don't because they don't get NEAR AS MANY of these OPEN 3 pointers. A lot of the time these guys will toss it to a House BECAUSE they are standing wide open and SHOULD hit a higher %....

Each and every shot is different and NO WAY IN HELL can you predict if a player is going to hit a shot. That is just fucking stupid.

Everyone knows the Lakers want Kobe to take the last shot, but what if Fisher is standing WIDE OPEN? At that point Fisher becomes the higher % shot.

Do you understand how basketball is even played son?

 

[KingRevolver]

Re: LeBrick?

Many reasons to give it to your best player with the game on the line, regardless of his shooting percentage. Usually they are good decision makers. If they don't get the shot they should draw a lot of attention and can feed it to who ever is open (sit down Kerr). Lot easier for them to get their shot or find someone open then it is a role player that shoots a higher percentage with his feet set. Another smaller reason (although still with merit) is your superstars get a lot more calls than others. Jordan goes to the rack he will usually make the bucket or get put on the stripe. To sum up with the game on the line I want Bird with the ball, I don't need any math to know that's my best option, we will live and die with what he does and do so happily. 'Nuff said.


PS - the mental side of sports is not only relevant, it's HUGE!

Bingo! Great post, Patty.

 

[IrishTim]

Re: LeBrick?

This is tough to argue because of how many variable and different scenarios there are. Say you are down 3, inbounding the ball from your sideline with 1.3 seconds on the clock and are going to run a double pick to get someone an open shot. Would you rather make the first option (off the pick) a 29% or a 43% shooter? Obviously if there are 25 seconds left, I'd rather have Lebron with the ball at the top of the key than Mike Miller because his versatility is valuable in this scenario but when you pretty much only have time for one three, or maybe a quick three and rebound (this was the Mia/Orl situation), I can't understand why you wouldn't run the play to get it to your best shooter - especially if they're expecting you to run it for Lebron or Wade.

BTW, I agree the mental component of sports is important (not as important as talent, athleticism, training, size, speed, etc. obviously), but I just think it's way overplayed. ESPN and 24 hours sports reporting is partly to blame because they need to feel the air with content, so it usually degenerates into hyper-analytical psychobabble that tries to justify what is going on. I remember Van Gundy after Lebron hit that three to win Game 2 of the Eastern Conference Finals two years ago in the press conference making fun of the reporters with how all their questions were about "ooooohhhh how are they going to respond to the 'shot'. It's always psychological with you guys." Same type of thing when the Phillies won the World Series, it was all about how "tough" they were in close games and down the stretch. They didn't win because they had the best staff and hit the most home runs, it was because of how mentally tough they were.

 

[Timely Hero]

Re: LeBrick?

Tim, that's because everyone is very good at the Professional level and the difference between the best and second is so minimal that effort and the mental aspect of the game become very important.

 

[Patrick McIrish]

Re: LeBrick?

This is tough to argue because of how many variable and different scenarios there are. Say you are down 3, inbounding the ball from your sideline with 1.3 seconds on the clock and are going to run a double pick to get someone an open shot. Would you rather make the first option (off the pick) a 29% or a 43% shooter? Obviously if there are 25 seconds left, I'd rather have Lebron with the ball at the top of the key than Mike Miller because his versatility is valuable in this scenario but when you pretty much only have time for one three, or maybe a quick three and rebound (this was the Mia/Orl situation), I can't understand why you wouldn't run the play to get it to your best shooter - especially if they're expecting you to run it for Lebron or Wade.

Wording it this way I can see your position Tim, I was talking more about a situation where there is more time than a catch and shoot on the clock. BTW don't sell Miller short, maybe you missed the tourney where he took it to the rack and created a shot to lift the Gators to victory. They teach them well in Gainesville, since the turn of the century two titles in both football and hoops, can anyone else say that? Is anyone else even close? (Always is a good time to sneak a plug in on my Gators)

BTW, I agree the mental component of sports is important (not as important as talent, athleticism, training, size, speed, etc. obviously), but I just think it's way overplayed. ESPN and 24 hours sports reporting is partly to blame because they need to feel the air with content, so it usually degenerates into hyper-analytical psychobabble that tries to justify what is going on. I remember Van Gundy after Lebron hit that three to win Game 2 of the Eastern Conference Finals two years ago in the press conference making fun of the reporters with how all their questions were about "ooooohhhh how are they going to respond to the 'shot'. It's always psychological with you guys." Same type of thing when the Phillies won the World Series, it was all about how "tough" they were in close games and down the stretch. They didn't win because they had the best staff and hit the most home runs, it was because of how mentally tough they were.

LOL, yeah that's pretty close about the media, they always seem to find a way to get it wrong. Overall though once again I agree with Timely, at the top levels about the only thing that does differentiate between good and great is the mental aspect of the game. Be it bowling to powerlifting and all things inbetween, so much of this at the elite level is mental it's almost hard for us to comprehend. Good posts though, can relate to almost everything you had to say, props.

 

[John Kelly]

Re: LeBrick?

I enjoy reading this type of commentary. Nothing to add. It's already been written.

 

[IrishTim]

Re: LeBrick?

Consolidated from the other thread: I just saw them report this stat on ESPN. Gotta love the commentators saying it's "BY FAR THE WORST" in the league as they displayed the graphic of them going 1-16 (which should be 1-15 in my opinion, dubious to count one possession as two; do they factor full court heaves as "game tying" situations? What about multiple tip-in attempts at the buzzer?). The next three places? 1-8. So if the Lebron makes a layup today, they go from BY FAR THE WORST to in a pack with 5 other teams. Nothing like extreme data-mined bullshit. Drawing conclusions from this reminds me of those Thursday Night GOY WINNERZ where the reasoning is that Pac 10 road dogs are 10-1 ATS in Thursday night games in the central time zone with a humidity 10% above average.

I also saw the following this morning: "Final 10 seconds, trailing by 3 or fewer, 4th qtr/OT"

Lebron 1-7
Wade 0-5
All others 0-6

Naturally no league average to this extremely small sample datamined BS, but also don't see how this makes a case for giving Wade the ball at the end of the game.

 

[CostcoCousteau]

Re: LeBrick?

Heat need to sit down and analyse the multitude of scenarios,probabilities,chance,luck,skill,opponent,weather etc before they play again clearly.
Oh and reading this thread couldn't hurt either.

Thinking is underrated even in pro ball.

 

[High Times]

Re: LeBrick?

Consolidated from the other thread: I just saw them report this stat on ESPN. Gotta love the commentators saying it's "BY FAR THE WORST" in the league as they displayed the graphic of them going 1-16 (which should be 1-15 in my opinion, dubious to count one possession as two; do they factor full court heaves as "game tying" situations? What about multiple tip-in attempts at the buzzer?). The next three places? 1-8. So if the Lebron makes a layup today, they go from BY FAR THE WORST to in a pack with 5 other teams. Nothing like extreme data-mined bullshit. Drawing conclusions from this reminds me of those Thursday Night GOY WINNERZ where the reasoning is that Pac 10 road dogs are 10-1 ATS in Thursday night games in the central time zone with a humidity 10% above average.

I also saw the following this morning: "Final 10 seconds, trailing by 3 or fewer, 4th qtr/OT"

Lebron 1-7
Wade 0-5
All others 0-6

Naturally no league average to this extremely small sample datamined BS, but also don't see how this makes a case for giving Wade the ball at the end of the game.

If you watched the Heat (Wade) beat the Dallas Mavericks a couple of years ago you would understand why Wade should get the ball EVERYTIME at the end of any game. Results are the best math. Wade has done it before and can/will do it again. Letting anyone else on that team take the last shot is just plain stupid.

Math is never going to beat RESULTS in any world.

 

[KingRevolver]

Re: LeBrick?

Heat need to sit down and analyse the multitude of scenarios,probabilities,chance,luck,skill,opponent,weather etc before they play again clearly.
Oh and reading this thread couldn't hurt either.

Thinking is underrated even in pro ball.

We have Beanie for NBA Weather updates.

 

[IrishTim]

Re: LeBrick?

If you watched the Heat (Wade) beat the Dallas Mavericks a couple of years ago you would understand why Wade should get the ball EVERYTIME at the end of any game. Results are the best math. Wade has done it before and can/will do it again. Letting anyone else on that team take the last shot is just plain stupid.

Math is never going to beat RESULTS in any world.

Lebron has made plenty of big shots and single handedly won plenty of big games before too. He was a one man team with some of the worst talent and probably the worst coach to ever make the NBA finals and the Eastern Conference finals multiple times. That's why all the hysterics about such a baby sample size are painful to watch. They'll be fine.

 

[High Times]

Re: LeBrick?

Lebron has made plenty of big shots and single handedly won plenty of big games before too. He was a one man team with some of the worst talent and probably the worst coach to ever make the NBA finals and the Eastern Conference finals multiple times. That's why all the hysterics about such a baby sample size are painful to watch. They'll be fine.

LeBron has yet to win a "big game".

If you actually believe LeBron had no help last year then you can't be helped.

No 1 man team has even even had a winning record in the NBA. That's just insane to think anybody is that good and not reality in any way.

 

[IrishTim]

Re: LeBrick?

Lebron has won plenty of big playoff games, you don't take a team to the NBA Finals without doing so. I think he scored 40 points in 3 of the 5 games last year when the Cavs rolled the Bulls in the first round of the playoffs. Game 3 at Boston, before he basically quit for whatever the rumor with his mom and Delonte was, was an unbelievable individual performance by Lebron which led to them taking a 2-1 lead in the series. If you would kindly point out where all this supposed "help" Lebron had in taking his team to the NBA's best record in the 09-10, it would be quite enlightening. I'll save you the time of looking up the forgotton players he had by his side. Here was the starting lineup for the Cavs last year during the playoffs with their 2009-2010 player efficiency ratings vs. 2010-2011 current season.

Antawn Jamison (#49) vs. (#66)
Lebron (#1) vs. (#3)
Shaq (#112) vs. (#141)
Mo Williams (#72) vs. (#108)
Anthony Parker (#218) vs. (#165)

Two bench players from Cavs 09-10 season vs. 2010-2011 season:
Anderson Varejao (#88) vs. (#58)
Delonte West (#170) vs. (#226)

You love talking about results. How can you explain the fact that they can go from 61-21 last year with Lebron, and without him they are currently sitting at 12-50?

 

[John Kelly]

Re: LeBrick?

op:

 

[WeinketoWarrick]

Re: LeBrick?

You gotta be kidding me, Tim. Pull your head out of an algorithm and use your sports knowledge common sense a bit more, bud.

2011 Cavs had injuries to their two most critical players.
The team was built around LeBron to begin with and in his absence have no creators.
Attitude: team played harder when they were winning ('10) than when they were in the middle of the longest losing streak ever ('11). Their innate ability to produce certain statistics didn't change; their willingness to do so did.

Lebron is a front-runner. A regular season all-star and a first 3-quarters-of-the-game freak like no other. But that's it.

 

[IrishTim]

Re: LeBrick?

Oh of course, it's purely psychological that the team experienced a 35 win swing - it has nothing to do with taking the best player in the league off the team.

See this is my main problem with justifying anything that happens with psychoanalysis ("their willingness to play hard changed"). You can come up with a psychological imperative for either side of the argument in most cases. Why would a team be more inclined to play hard when they have an all-world superstar who can win most games by himself than when they are in the midst of a horrible losing streak with the whole city still supporting them and begging for a win?

If I didn't have so many side bets with friends and locals that the Heat would not win the title, I would definitely start rooting for them just to quiet all the Heat/Lebron haters - a group which I was near the top all summer.

 

[Timely Hero]

Re: LeBrick?

You gotta be kidding me, Tim. Pull your head out of an algorithm and use your sports knowledge common sense a bit more, bud.

2011 Cavs had injuries to their two most critical players.
The team was built around LeBron to begin with and in his absence have no creators.
Attitude: team played harder when they were winning ('10) than when they were in the middle of the longest losing streak ever ('11). Their innate ability to produce certain statistics didn't change; their willingness to do so did.

Lebron is a front-runner. A regular season all-star and a first 3-quarters-of-the-game freak like no other. But that's it.

I agree with you 100% on the Cavs breakdown and have said so myself. Team was built around one guy...

Take Howard off the Magic next year, and then have an injury to Meer and Jason Richardson and let me know what their record is.

 

[Timely Hero]

Re: LeBrick?

Oh of course, it's purely psychological that the team experienced a 35 win swing - it has nothing to do with taking the best player in the league off the team.

See this is my main problem with justifying anything that happens with psychoanalysis ("their willingness to play hard changed"). You can come up with a psychological imperative for either side of the argument in most cases. Why would a team be more inclined to play hard when they have an all-world superstar who can win most games by himself than when they are in the midst of a horrible losing streak with the whole city still supporting them and begging for a win?

If I didn't have so many side bets with friends and locals that the Heat would not win the title, I would definitely start rooting for them just to quiet all the Heat/Lebron haters - a group which I was near the top all summer.

Here's my problem with comparing last years Cavs team to this years.

They turned over half their roster and lost their two best players and you want to compare the two teams. If you took Lebron off the Heat they're still a playoff team.

If you took Rose of the Bulls they're not a playoff team.

If you took Howard off the Magic they're not a playoff team.

Lebron is very good, and I am past my stage of underrating him. He's a top 3 player in the league, but the people that think he's a superior figure in the sport compared to all other players are laughable. He's a productive player who lacks all the intangibles - I know you don't believe in those Tim, but guys like Joe Montana, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, and Bill Russell would disagree with you and so would everyone who came in contact with them as players.

 

[IrishTim]

Re: LeBrick?

I see what you're saying. Arguing over who the best player in the league is ultimately a stupid enterprise because you have no idea. Unless you could control the variables (i.e. coach and teammates), we have no idea who the best is. Intangibles like leadership matter, but give me the .330 hitter who may be 2-11 in "clutch" playoff situations over the .280 hitter who is 6-9 in those same situations.

 

[Timely Hero]

Re: LeBrick?

I see what you're saying. Arguing over who the best player in the league is ultimately a stupid enterprise because you have no idea. Unless you could control the variables (i.e. coach and teammates), we have no idea who the best is. Intangibles like leadership matter, but give me the .330 hitter who may be 2-11 in "clutch" playoff situations over the .280 hitter who is 6-9 in those same situations.

Obviously. I'd never argue against that. A-Rod was considered to be anti-clutch, because of his play with the Yankees but I would have started my team with him for 10 years. Clutch performance is just a bonus IMO, and usually it is lucky but there are players in league history that have done it consistently. I'll always take regular season statistics Tim, I think that may have gotten lost in translation in our debates over the last couple of months, so don't get me wrong on that. Frank Thomas was a poor playoff hitter, but he's easily the greatest White Sox hitter of all-time. Playoff performance is a bonus, and in very rare cases some guys #'s actually improve in over their career #'s in the playoffs - you call them outliers, I call them All-Time Greats.

 

[WeinketoWarrick]

Re: LeBrick?

Oh of course, it's purely psychological that the team experienced a 35 win swing - it has nothing to do with taking the best player in the league off the team.

See this is my main problem with justifying anything that happens with psychoanalysis ("their willingness to play hard changed"). You can come up with a psychological imperative for either side of the argument in most cases. Why would a team be more inclined to play hard when they have an all-world superstar who can win most games by himself than when they are in the midst of a horrible losing streak with the whole city still supporting them and begging for a win?

If I didn't have so many side bets with friends and locals that the Heat would not win the title, I would definitely start rooting for them just to quiet all the Heat/Lebron haters - a group which I was near the top all summer.

You're stumbling backwards, Timmy.

Where did I say it was "purely psychological" that the team experienced a 35 win swing? The psychological side was my 3rd reason, and it DEFINITELY has merit. Your numbers may not tell you that, but WATCH the games and you'll see the effort was not the same. Most notable difference was on defense. Just because you question the reasons for a team going in the tank and claim that their reasons for doing so are poor, it doesn't mean it didn't still happen!

Basketball is a game of confidence. When you're winning, you have Superman leading you, and you're on a winning streak, you tend to play harder and better. When your All-Star leaves, your two best players get hurt, and you start losing and realizing you've been left behind in Cleveland, we saw that they tended to play poorer. I'm not a psychologist, and you may not care for that kind of analysis, but to ignore something so obvious and say it's all conjured up by the media and all of our eyes deceive us is completely ignorant. You want to be a more well-rounded bettor; don't ignore these observable truths because they're not quantifiable and/or can't be reduced to a simple variable in an algebra problem.

The 35-win swing can be attributed to a number of things, and to claim it's simply "LeBron's PER is the bomb!!!1" is far too narrow a scope. He just isn't THAT good.

 

[Timely Hero]

Re: LeBrick?

Tim has brought in very valid points, IMO and I appreciate the insight as mathematics hold value as much as science. I have always had an issue with saber-metric type numbers in basketball because there are way more variables (to keep it in math terms) that go into every shot and every miss. #'s fit baseball perfectly because you can break every batter down by #'s per AB, and #'s per pitch thrown to him. Baseball's #'s are much more cherished for that reason - a lot more sport fans can give you the # hits Pete Rose has, and the # of HR's Bonds has because those numbers are treasured, which is why steroids were so hated (same goes for Ted Williams average and Ted Williams hit streak). In basketball # records are held by guys like Kevin Love and they aren't as valuable because there are so many more variables. Obviously they are valuable in the gambling aspect but there's a reason you can be great at fantasy basketball/football and not be a great player in general.

 

[IrishTim]

Re: LeBrick?

There are a few different things there Weinke. First, towards the betting piece which is what should concern us more, I don't really care for that kind of psychological handicapping because it's obvious (as in 10 out 10 ESPN commentators bring it up) and if it has merit, is likely already factored in to the price. In fact, I tend to bet against teams that seem to have the "psychological edge" because I think it causes an inflated number. Case in point, weeks 16 and 17 in NFL I'm almost always betting against teams that "need" to win in order to get in. It's just as easy to say that when you're winning and have Lebron getting triple doubles every night, it's easy to get complacent and not play hard which led to their demise in the playoffs.

Lastly, if they were "observable truths" then by definition they would be quantifiable (that's what "data" is after all). If making 4 three pointers in a row made the 5th one more likely to go in then your average, it would manifest itself in the data. It doesn't. I don't care what I thought when I was playing 3rd grade CYO or what Dick Vitale or Ray Allen says, it's simply a faulty assumption. There are countless assumptions we generally make that are incorrect when you look at it objectively.

We've strayed so far from the topic, not even sure what the debate is anymore. Do I think Lebron is worth 35 wins? Of course not. I do think that if you were theoretically able to control every variable and objectively measure a player's current value, he would be #1. And I've been a hater since he left Cleveland. If Lebron were to go off and have an unbelievable Eastern Conf Finals or NBA Finals including 2 or 3 big shots in the closing seconds of the game, would he all the sudden be a "closer"?

Timely, I agree with you in essence. There is really no conceivable scenario where I wouldn't just want the 9 best hitters in a lineup, because one's hits doesn't take away from another; same for top 5 pitchers in MLB on my staff. Whereas in basketball, you wouldn't want the 5 players with the top PPG because it would be an inefficient style of play; they have to mesh (which Chicago or LA does much better than Miami for example).

 

[KingRevolver]

Re: LeBrick?

Tim has brought in very valid points, IMO and I appreciate the insight as mathematics hold value as much as science. I have always had an issue with saber-metric type numbers in basketball because there are way more variables (to keep it in math terms) that go into every shot and every miss. #'s fit baseball perfectly because you can break every batter down by #'s per AB, and #'s per pitch thrown to him. Baseball's #'s are much more cherished for that reason - a lot more sport fans can give you the # hits Pete Rose has, and the # of HR's Bonds has because those numbers are treasured, which is why steroids were so hated (same goes for Ted Williams average and Ted Williams hit streak). In basketball # records are held by guys like Kevin Love and they aren't as valuable because there are so many more variables. Obviously they are valuable in the gambling aspect but there's a reason you can be great at fantasy basketball/football and not be a great player in general.

Agreed. This is a great conversation, fellas. Timmy, Weinker and Timely are top notch posters. Very much enjoyed reading the last few posts.

 

[WeinketoWarrick]

Re: LeBrick?

It may or may not be factored into the price.

If all the math guys like you with their fancy algorithms making the big bets choose to ignore any psychological edge one might think they have then there might still be an edge to play on it.

Do you think there was any kind of psychological factor factored into the line last Friday night of Chicago at Orlando? I think the line closed at 1.5, opened at 2 I believe. I thought the Bulls were a great play because the Magic were coming off such an emotional comeback the night before as the Bulls relaxed in their hotel.

In a playoff scenario, do you think the Magic would only be favored by 1.5 at home vs. the Bulls? If the Magic had won handily the night before against the Wizards, do you think the line would only be 1.5? I don't. I think it would be more like 3.

 

[WeinketoWarrick]

Re: LeBrick?

And for the record, even thought I think that in a Game 1 playoff scenario the Magic would be -3 vs. the Bulls, I still thought the Bulls were a great play Friday night all the way up to Bulls -1.5. The Magic just weren't going to have it that night vs. such a solid team, but the math would NEVER make this Magic team a 1.5 point dog at home to this Bulls team.

Random prediction that turned out to be true (luck?), or a legitimate psychological "edge" that the marketplace failed to give enough weight to?

 

[IrishTim]

Re: LeBrick?

I'm sure a half or full point were given for the "bounce-back" or whatever factor you want to call it. How many points would you argue it was worth?

 

[Timely Hero]

Re: LeBrick?

I'm sure a half or full point were given for the "bounce-back" or whatever factor you want to call it. How many points would you argue it was worth?

I told you, and the board, before the game that there was no chance the Bulls would lose the game and it was my biggest play of the year so I would have made the Bulls favorites.

Winning!

 

[IrishTim]

Re: LeBrick?

I told you, and the board, before the game that there was no chance the Bulls would lose the game and it was my biggest play of the year so I would have made the Bulls favorites.

Winning!

Marquette vs. Seton Hall

Winning. :finger004

Just messing around, about to head out for the night. Good discussion fellas.

 

[WeinketoWarrick]

Re: LeBrick?

It was worth however many points it took to make the game a pick 'em...couldn't make the Bulls a favorite because that gives away who the winner is, but a pick 'em still gets you some Orlando money while preventing you from having to play plus money on the winner...

 

[Timely Hero]

Re: LeBrick?

Marquette vs. Seton Hall

Winning. :finger004

Just messing around, about to head out for the night. Good discussion fellas.

Low blow Timmy. jaja

Bulls was my biggest play of the year so I'm OK with the Quette loss. Now that Lunardi says we're in the tournament for sure I don't care.

 

[High Times]

Re: LeBrick?

It may or may not be factored into the price.

If all the math guys like you with their fancy algorithms making the big bets choose to ignore any psychological edge one might think they have then there might still be an edge to play on it.

Do you think there was any kind of psychological factor factored into the line last Friday night of Chicago at Orlando? I think the line closed at 1.5, opened at 2 I believe. I thought the Bulls were a great play because the Magic were coming off such an emotional comeback the night before as the Bulls relaxed in their hotel.

In a playoff scenario, do you think the Magic would only be favored by 1.5 at home vs. the Bulls? If the Magic had won handily the night before against the Wizards, do you think the line would only be 1.5? I don't. I think it would be more like 3.

This is why math can only be a STARTING POINT when making the lines/odds.

Math is only half the battle... FACT!