Why I don’t pay for NBA insider.

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Re: Silver (who started in the baseball progostication business with PECOTA, his version of SCHOENE, and about as accurate in team predictions), his projections on Tuesday morning of the election were wildly different than his weekly updates starting in June. In June he had (iirc) a 61% probability that Obama would win, vs. 90% in November. He predicted 291 electoral votes in July, v. the 332 that the President actually ended up with. His methods (assumingly close to the same system?) got crushed in the 2010 midterms.

Well done to him for tweaking variables better than competitors in 2012 and predicting better than anyone on Monday night what the next 24 hours would hold. But if you took the "preseason" (June) predictions of Silver and applied your same analysis, it would be seemingly hypocritical to not be as scathing to Silver as you are to Pelton and the like.

On a side note: You don't seem to take seriously anyone who disagrees with your gut feelings and non-quantifiable positions, and it seems as if the "I can't take seriously anyone who..." is your default when argument arises.
 
Blazer Fanatic said:
Talking about me instead of my opinion means you've got nothing to offer. :( A moment of silence please while we mourn the loss of thought.
Click to expand...

I really should post in green font until rookies learn the posters here better.

EDIT: Just read Mags' post. Amended to read "I really should post in green font until rookies learn the posters here better and mags pulls his head out". ;)
 
BrianFromWA said:
I really should post in green font until rookies learn the posters here better.

EDIT: Just read Mags' post. Amended to read "I really should post in green font until rookies learn the posters here better and mags pulls his head out". ;)
Click to expand...

So you hate people like me or you don't? lol

And, I stand by my statement about Nate not being analogous. No one gives a crap about what Pelton has to say when 70+ games have been played. It's clear fans can tell how teams will finish for themselves.
 
BrianFromWA said:
I really should post in green font until rookies learn the posters here better.

EDIT: Just read Mags' post. Amended to read "I really should post in green font until rookies learn the posters here better and mags pulls his head out". ;)
Click to expand...

Dude I just did a round trip to Sacramento and lagged out. I apologize I didn't catch your sarcasm!
 
BrianFromWA said:
On a side note: You don't seem to take seriously anyone who disagrees with your gut feelings and non-quantifiable positions, and it seems as if the "I can't take seriously anyone who..." is your default when argument arises.
Click to expand...

I don't take anyone seriously who makes a living as an "expert", speaks in the 3rd person to deflect fault, and has a higher chance of being wrong than someone throwing darts at a wall of predictions written on fortune cookie papers.
 
I am the person I described.

My only point with the Pelton v. Silver analogy (and I agree with you on projections in general) is that the analogy for Pelton's 41-win preseason guess is analogous to Silver's 291 in June, not the 332 (and calling each state) in November. I'm relatively sure that if you let Pelton do whatever black magic he does to his projections through the course of the 82 games, he'll correctly predict the 16 playoff teams and probably tell you which series will be close. That doesn't mean I think he's a genius (or not), or that his projections should be taken as gospel until that point.
 
Blazer Fanatic said:
I don't take anyone seriously who makes a living as an "expert", speaks in the 3rd person to deflect fault, and has a higher chance of being wrong than someone throwing darts at a wall of predictions written on fortune cookie papers.
Click to expand...

Well, that makes sense.
 
magnifier661 said:
Dude I just did a round trip to Sacramento and lagged out. I apologize I didn't catch your sarcasm!
Click to expand...

I just looked up round trip to Sacramento on the Urban dictionary to see if it was some sort of teh ghey sex thing. I never can tell with you.
 
BrianFromWA said:
I am the person I described.

My only point with the Pelton v. Silver analogy (and I agree with you on projections in general) is that the analogy for Pelton's 41-win preseason guess is analogous to Silver's 291 in June, not the 332 (and calling each state) in November. I'm relatively sure that if you let Pelton do whatever black magic he does to his projections through the course of the 82 games, he'll correctly predict the 16 playoff teams and probably tell you which series will be close. That doesn't mean I think he's a genius (or not), or that his projections should be taken as gospel until that point.
Click to expand...

And, I'm sure I could be as accurate as Pelton having an orca whale spit a mouth full of sea water at various team banners to pick winners and losers. Again, Pelton made the comparison to Silver. And I'm saying he's no Nate Silver in any universe.

Why not make the argument, there are simply too many variables that cannot be accounted for statistically to accurately predict wins from pre-season, to end-of-season? Ah, because then people wouldn't buy the ESPN snake oil.
 
Last edited:
Blazer Fanatic said:
Again, Pelton made the comparison to Silver. And I'm saying he's no Nate Silver in any universe.
Why not make the argument, there are simply too many variables that cannot be accounted for statistically to accurately predict wins from pre-season, to end-of-season? Ah, because then people wouldn't buy the ESPN snake oil.
Click to expand...

Can't let you off the hook that easily.
Blazer Fanatic said:
Nate Silver, article after article (who actually used statistics correctly, and accurately predicted the presidential election results in 49 of the 50 states before a single ballot was cast).
Click to expand...

Nate Silver also was the architect of Baseball Prospectus' PECOTA, which, like SCHOENE, is a statistics-driven projection model for baseball. And just like Insider, BP charges for their data. Silver may be 5 years ahead of Pelton, evolutionarily (by branching out to politics instead of just sports), but you can't say that Silver "uses stats correctly and accurately predicted" anything, and then say Pelton doesn't use stats correctly and is as accurate as orca spittle. It's one or the other.

Personally, I don't pay attention to either, other than to comment from time to time if they become relevant topics (as Pelton was in the preseason, as my prediction was quite different than his, or as Silver was in the lead-up to the election). But to the OP, there's waaay more to Insider than prognostications.
 
Last edited:
SlyPokerDog said:
I just looked up round trip to Sacramento on the Urban dictionary to see if it was some sort of teh ghey sex thing. I never can tell with you.
Click to expand...

Nah man... Actually the trip is about business. Talking with the lead researcher for a major disease for citrus groves in Florida. Our product has been the only cure for the bacterial infection and they needed me to explain it to their research team. I used way too many brain functions for one day!
 
Blazer Fanatic said:
Pelton has been working on his SHOENES system for 5 years or so. I didn’t even know who he was until, your least favorite Gomer Pyle, Ben Golliver ripped his Blazer projection this season for Homer’s Edge (known by Blazer’s Edge via search engines).
Click to expand...

Pelton's been prominent online doing what he's been doing for a while--he worked with Dean Oliver and others on pieces about statistical analysis of the NBA, wrote for the Sonics, and worked as a consultant for the Pacers recently, I believe, and he's been writing about the NBA online for almost fifteen years.

I am not saying he's perfect, but given (a) you don't read his stuff on ESPN Insider (right?) and (b) you just recently learned who he is, I don't know why you'd feel qualified to dissect his credentials or capabilities.

Your criticism of his reference to the system in the third person doesn't have merit in my opinion (and understanding of what he's trying to accomplish). He has a system that is tweaked based on data and, presumably, based on past results. It exists, though, independent of his personal "gut" projections. If he plugs in the numbers and sees a projection that seems wrong, he doesn't change the system until it matches what he thinks it should be.

Further, he is wrong a lot but that's not a valid criticism, either--is he wrong more than other similar models, or more than people who do not use models at all? I don't know the answers to those questions for sure, but presumably he's more accurate than most alternative approaches or else he'd just steal those other approaches, make some cosmetic changes, and call it his own.

In any case, very few people pay for ESPN Insider just because of him, or because of Hollinger, or because of Keith Law, or because of Eric Karabell, or because of a large number of other individual writers. I wouldn't pay much of anything for any given one of them. Fortunately I don't have to because I get them all for one price, and I can take those I like and leave those I do not.

Ed O.
 
Ed O said:
Further, he is wrong a lot but that's not a valid criticism, either--is he wrong more than other similar models, or more than people who do not use models at all?
Click to expand...

If he, or anyone, can predict sports 55% of the time they could make a fortune in Vegas. Predict 11 of 20 games right and you'll be rich, predict only 10 of 20 games right and you'll go broke.
 
The logic behind his system is fairly sound. Based on expected statistical outputs both offensively and defensively Pelton's system projected the team would win 44 games. The projections are made based on expected offensive and defensive production excluding luck.

Pelton uses a form of the Pythagorean expectation so for example there is no way one would expect a team like last years Colts to go 11-5 despite being outscored by 30 points those stats more typically represent an 8-8 or 7-9 football team.

It also struggles to account for injuries properly or tanking.

Overall his system needs some work but no one and I mean no one had this team at 18-4 so to be overly critical for him projecting us as a .500 team is weak.
 
Ed O said:
Pelton's been prominent online doing what he's been doing for a while--he worked with Dean Oliver and others on pieces about statistical analysis of the NBA, wrote for the Sonics, and worked as a consultant for the Pacers recently, I believe, and he's been writing about the NBA online for almost fifteen years.
Click to expand...

First, I just wanted to say this is a good response. And, I’m qualified to say so because I know what I think is good. ;) I don’t agree with it, but I’d be hard pressed to say you didn’t put any thought into it. I think it’s important, for the sake of interesting discourse, that people know what constitutes a good take; a reasoned argument. I’m no expert, but you gave me something interesting to consider and respond to, and that has value in my book. So, for what it’s worth, thanks.

And to your point: Pelton's prominence...

All the more reason to be critical when his “expert analysis” isn’t worth the virtual paper it’s written on. His “formula” [SHOENES] has been around for 5 years (according to him), so, take it up with him if I was inaccurate in my OP. I never called him stupid, and clearly he can string a coherent sentence together, but that’s not my issue with Pelton. My issue with him is how horrible his projections are - and more so, his explanations as to why a certain outcome is either an outlier, or simply did not account for particular variables. Mamma always told me, if you're not good at it, do something else.

The thing that makes me laugh most is that Felton and Crawford were TERRIBLE (with a capital T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E) with the Blazers, but they are doing OK with NY and LAC respectively. That’s chemistry, and that’s something Pelton can’t or has not of yet, accounted for. There are simply too many variables that he does not account for, which is why his formula and algorithms don’t amount to jack squat.
Pelton’s projections don’t answer “why” a given player is successful, only that they “are” or “are not” in the confines of his definition. So when Lopez comes to Portland, his cardboard computer tells everyone that Robin isn’t the answer and the Blazers are screwed. Given his take on Portland, I CAN say with confidence that I know MORE about the Blazers than Pelton does. I also played ball in college, and I can tell by Pelton’s physic he’s living the dream behind a computer. He has little to no concept of leadership or team chemistry, and it doesn’t surprise me that he can't account for it. To him, All-Stars win games. And to some degree, he’s correct. The problem is, his imaginary friend (SHOENES) doesn’t and cannot account for why the Lakers FAILED miserably last season, why the Knicks were #2 in the East, why GS and Houston made the play-offs… the examples are never ending. He looks at players and teams in a vacuum, devoid of what makes one player or team successful versus another that goes about winning games with a completely different strategy or personnel.

My entire point was that he spends all his time explaining away why he (and his crap formula) is not wrong. And to say I can’t be critical of someone who presents himself at the next “Nate Silver”, yet is wrong a super majority of the time, is boarder-line retarded. I know that’s probably hurtful and unnecessary for me to say, but I’m just being emphatic. I can respect that tries hard, and at the same time call his analysis absolute crap. It’s pretty cool how that works.

If Pelton's analysis is not accurate, it’s GD useless. You want me to give him extra credit because he spent year talking about basketball? Am I supposed to give him brownie points for typing a lot? Does he get a pass for melting down a bunch of stats into projected wins – even when it doesn’t mean anything? I have no problem doing so were it not for the fact that he has failed to accurately predict anything after 5 years of trying – and every Homer with an audience talks down to fans like they are stupid when they point out why Pelton’s projections are off the reservation (See Homer's Edge).

Take Dave Decker from Homer’s Edge. That guy was so hard up for Pelton’s projection he completely disregarded the Blazers rebounding pre-season as a fluke, and simultaneously asserted that they would struggle because of turnovers. It wasn’t a reasoned argument, it was that Dave was going to make excuses for whatever it took to assure that his logic lined up with Pelton’s projection of 41 wins.

Does it bother me a skoash that a basketball rube has such a large audience of sheep? Maybe. I’ll be sure to bring that up at my next “session”. Homer’s Edge could definitely take a lesson from RC2 in how not to solicit and retain a passionate fan base starved for Blazer news.

I’m all for trying. Keep plugging away KP; trial and error. But if you are suggesting I should take Pelton’s projections seriously, let alone pay to read it, your head is farther up your rear end than Kevin's SHOENES system is up his.

Ed O said:
I am not saying he's perfect, but given (a) you don't read his stuff on ESPN Insider (right?) and (b) you just recently learned who he is, I don't know why you'd feel qualified to dissect his credentials or capabilities.
Click to expand...
Not having ESPN Insider is not a dis-qualifier to speak intelligently about what a contributor says about a given topic. The internet is a beautiful thing. It’s called homework. Just because you don’t understand why I am informed does not mean I’m uninformed.
Ed O said:
Your criticism of his reference to the system in the third person doesn't have merit in my opinion (and understanding of what he's trying to accomplish). He has a system that is tweaked based on data and, presumably, based on past results. It exists, though, independent of his personal "gut" projections. If he plugs in the numbers and sees a projection that seems wrong, he doesn't change the system until it matches what he thinks it should be.
Click to expand...
Well, agree to disagree. Bob Dole doesn’t agree and that something Bob Dole doesn’t do, or maybe Bob Dole does – but at least Bob Dole doesn’t pretend that Bob Dole isn’t Bob Dole, or that what Bob Dole says isn’t something Bob Dole said.

SHOENES produces crap, therefor it is crap.

A presumption is based on an assumption. Are you suggesting I can’t be critical of wildly inaccurate results, and while faulting me on merit based on assumptions? It [SHOENES] exists because Kevin Pelton threw a bunch of stats together to try and project something it is wholly unqualified to project.
Ed O said:
Further, he is wrong a lot but that's not a valid criticism, either--is he wrong more than other similar models, or more than people who do not use models at all? I don't know the answers to those questions for sure, but presumably he's more accurate than most alternative approaches or else he'd just steal those other approaches, make some cosmetic changes, and call it his own.
Click to expand...
You must have been surrounded by a LOT of positive support growing up. Where I come from, being wrong a majority of the time is a valid criticism, especially when you are an ESPN Insider; as is losing, failing, blowing donkeys, or generally being an ass. Who cares if his model is more accurate than what I wrote on a Burgerville napkin, it’s still ridiculous. Lots of people write horoscopes, and people read those horoscopes, and some people even pay to read those horoscopes. What’s that point? “Hey, TV evangelists and palm readers need to make a living too!!!” Point taken… I digress.
Ed O said:
In any case, very few people pay for ESPN Insider just because of him, or because of Hollinger, or because of Keith Law, or because of Eric Karabell, or because of a large number of other individual writers. I wouldn't pay much of anything for any given one of them. Fortunately I don't have to because I get them all for one price, and I can take those I like and leave those I do not.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I’m a Blazer fan. I don’t fault anyone with ESPN Insider, I just stated my opinion and singled out Pelton because he’s one of the few that I have a familiarity with his writing, and who contributes to the NBA fodder. If people don’t appreciate my jokes, overt sarcasm, or cutting logic, that’s OK. I do – almost as much as I appreciate the cookie crumb center of a Twix.
 
BrianFromWA said:
She seems like a very nice, yet overly verbose poster with a penchant for tl;dr posts arguing a take that is reasoned, researched and likely unpopular--and then defending said post/take against all comers.

I hate people like that. ;)
Click to expand...

There is a stark difference, Brian, between your posts and others in a similar vein. Humility.
 
The thing that makes me laugh most is that Felton and Crawford were TERRIBLE (with a capital T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E) with the Blazers, but they are doing OK with NY and LAC respectively. That’s chemistry, and that’s something Pelton can’t or has not of yet, accounted for. There are simply too many variables that he does not account for, which is why his formula and algorithms don’t amount to jack squat.
Click to expand...

Aside from your eye test, why do you believe the bolded?
Felton (POR-11/12) v. Felton (NYK-13/14)

Team winning %: 0.424 (28-38) v. 0.250 (5-15)
PER: 13.4 v. 11.7
MPG: 31.8 v. 32.4
PPG: 11.4 v. 10.3
FG%: 40.7% v. 39.4%
3pt%: 30.5% v. 27.9%
TS%: 49.1% v. 36.4%
FT/g: 2.1 v. 1.1
AST/g: 6.5 v. 5.2
TO/g: 2.8 v. 2.0
R/g: 2.5 v. 2.4
PF: 2.0 v. 2.5
ORtg: 99 v. 98
DRtg: 109 v. 112

The only remotely measurable stat that Felton is better in (including team performance) this year is turnovers. My point is not to argue about Ray Felton, but that advanced statistics (though not even really needed in this case) allow one to back up an opinion in a currency that most others in the conversation can understand. By what conceivable measure is Felton any less (capital) T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E than in 2011-12? And if you do somehow think he's better, how can you think that the Knicks' "below-average-at-best" chemistry is the cause?

[BTW: Crawford isn't nearly as cut-and-dried (he's up and down across the board), but his PER in T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E 2011-12 (15.7) is the exact same as his "OK" 2013-14 (15.7) in just about as many minutes and in the similar role. You can check his bbref stats here.]

I'm interested to hear examples of where "chemistry" is shown in something results-oriented like wins, stats, etc. Do people like playing with their friends more than not? Of course. But LeBron didn't win a ring b/c he has better chemistry in MIA than in CLE, it's because he had Wade and Bosh are better players (playing better) than Wally Szczerbiak and Boobie Gibson were. The C's didn't beat the L*kers because of "Ubuntu", but because Pierce, Garnett and Allen are HoFers and K*be went 6-24 in Game 7. The L*kers didn't win the 2000 WCF because they had better chemistry than Portland.

For another thing, how do you reconcile Portland's resurgence this year to "chemistry", instead of other unmeasurables like "system", or "knowing roles", or "having 9 legitimate NBA players in your rotation" (let's not even get into things like "increased shooting, more 3's, less turnovers, etc). Or do you lump all of those into the "chemistry" bin?

As I've said, I don't buy into preseason projections, and NBA Insiders (not just on the pay-for-MotherShip-content, either) for the most part looked at our record as 33-49 last year. In reality, projections should've (as some, ahem, did ;) ) looked at our team as either the 21-18 team before Batum and Wes got hurt and the 2nd-worst bench in NBA history started playing a lot, or as the 33-36 team before LMA went down and it got tank-tastic in order to save our draft pick, and quickly. Swap out last year's bench for even an average one, put a legit C next to LMA and adopt the style that ORL used to get to the Finals, and it seemed very odd that insiders were only looking at the final record from last year and projecting 41 wins (or so).
 
I like BF, but damn her posts are just too long sometimes!
 
BrianFromWA said:
Aside from your eye test, why do you believe the bolded?
Felton (POR-11/12) v. Felton (NYK-13/14)

Team winning %: 0.424 (28-38) v. 0.250 (5-15)
PER: 13.4 v. 11.7
MPG: 31.8 v. 32.4
PPG: 11.4 v. 10.3
FG%: 40.7% v. 39.4%
3pt%: 30.5% v. 27.9%
TS%: 49.1% v. 36.4%
FT/g: 2.1 v. 1.1
AST/g: 6.5 v. 5.2
TO/g: 2.8 v. 2.0
R/g: 2.5 v. 2.4
PF: 2.0 v. 2.5
ORtg: 99 v. 98
DRtg: 109 v. 112

The only remotely measurable stat that Felton is better in (including team performance) this year is turnovers. My point is not to argue about Ray Felton, but that advanced statistics (though not even really needed in this case) allow one to back up an opinion in a currency that most others in the conversation can understand. By what conceivable measure is Felton any less (capital) T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E than in 2011-12? And if you do somehow think he's better, how can you think that the Knicks' "below-average-at-best" chemistry is the cause?

[BTW: Crawford isn't nearly as cut-and-dried (he's up and down across the board), but his PER in T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E 2011-12 (15.7) is the exact same as his "OK" 2013-14 (15.7) in just about as many minutes and in the similar role. You can check his bbref stats here.]

I'm interested to hear examples of where "chemistry" is shown in something results-oriented like wins, stats, etc. Do people like playing with their friends more than not? Of course. But LeBron didn't win a ring b/c he has better chemistry in MIA than in CLE, it's because he had Wade and Bosh are better players (playing better) than Wally Szczerbiak and Boobie Gibson were. The C's didn't beat the L*kers because of "Ubuntu", but because Pierce, Garnett and Allen are HoFers and K*be went 6-24 in Game 7. The L*kers didn't win the 2000 WCF because they had better chemistry than Portland.

For another thing, how do you reconcile Portland's resurgence this year to "chemistry", instead of other unmeasurables like "system", or "knowing roles", or "having 9 legitimate NBA players in your rotation" (let's not even get into things like "increased shooting, more 3's, less turnovers, etc). Or do you lump all of those into the "chemistry" bin?

As I've said, I don't buy into preseason projections, and NBA Insiders (not just on the pay-for-MotherShip-content, either) for the most part looked at our record as 33-49 last year. In reality, projections should've (as some, ahem, did ;) ) looked at our team as either the 21-18 team before Batum and Wes got hurt and the 2nd-worst bench in NBA history started playing a lot, or as the 33-36 team before LMA went down and it got tank-tastic in order to save our draft pick, and quickly. Swap out last year's bench for even an average one, put a legit C next to LMA and adopt the style that ORL used to get to the Finals, and it seemed very odd that insiders were only looking at the final record from last year and projecting 41 wins (or so).
Click to expand...

You're making a good, well reasoned argument. Unfortunately, you went to PER to support it. The Felton/Camby thing was just terrible. Veterans tearing the locker room down. Nate McMillan had a near mutiny on his hands. How does PER account for that? I doesn't. Crawford's was expected to play PG, and that's not his game. So while his PER may be the same or better, the team struggled with him because basketball isn't an individual sport.

You also make a good point in being curious about putting a number/stat to an intangible asset. It's that really any stat guy's wet dream? To be the guy who solved the insolvable. To create the next new "box" to label and put players in. There is absolutely a correlation to good players leading to team success, and it is extremely strong, but it's not the only factor. And the factors that are near impossible to account for, if not entirely impossible, are things like intangibles and chemistry and unselfishness. For instance, a team may rebound at the same rate when two players are interchanged (Hickson for Lopez), but their individual rebounds differ. Granted this isn't a good example because Lopez in fact increases team rebounding, but in principle it is a situation that we can relate to because it actually can be accounted for statistically, to a degree. What may not be accounted for is that the Blazer offense is better, perhaps, because they are getting into their offensive sets more quickly because teammates aren't fighting over rebounds that are Blazer rebounds regardless.

Portland's resurgence is not a product of only chemistry. It's not talent OR chemistry, it's talent AND chemistry. Even the Homer projection bumped up the Blazers win total this season, but the pieces are working together extremely well because of a lot of variables that the stat geeks either cannot or did not account for. And rather than saying, "my system sucks because I didn't account for this or, there isn't a stat to represent this variable," they say dumb shit like "Portland will come back down to earth, they will regress, they are an outlier" - deflecting their failure on mythical anomalies. The Blazers differential is only +6 points per game. Three or even 2 baskets. At the least, we could be talking about the variables like chemistry only accounting for 2-3 buckets. But that just so happens to be the difference between a loss and a win. It's significant in that respect.

As to what the "Insiders" based their pre-season predictions on? Who the heck knows. Whatever they based it on was complete horse poop. If someone can't be critical of that kind of piss poor analysis, then why even put any value on any statistic? I'm of the opinion statistics are valuable when use correctly or, on the other hand, garbage in - garbage out.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RipCityDSCPL
16-17 Western Conference Playoff Teams
2
Replies
59
Views
3K
BigGameDamian
BigGameDamian
SharpesTriumph
Bubble Teams Last 10 game records
Replies
1
Views
159
KSF-ERIC
KSF-ERIC
C
Projecting the playoffs
Replies
2
Views
541
Mediocre Man
Mediocre Man
¹²³
Merged: Portland Misses and Misses and… Wins?
Replies
17
Views
2K
oldmangrouch
O
Bosco
First 1/4 of the season... and...
Replies
3
Views
561
alex42083
alex42083

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top