Again, just insanely ignorant. Define, "concrete analysis" in a manner that includes no subjective analysis AND can be used in the real world.
I'll give you an easy test case. "Give me a concrete analysis of how much each team's current injuries affect its probabilities of postseason success which takes all injuries into account, and produce a number telling me how likely incurring that degree of injury was, without including subjective analysis."
of course you can do it. it will require a lot of work instead of just 'spewing verbal diarrhea' like you yourself said. you can't make 'simple qualitative analysis' there.
it will include not dismissing teams chances because 'omg they're 8th seed' (8th seeds do have a non-zero chance to win, both historically and statistically). it means going through averages chances of each team to win their relative matchups, it means going through each players impact on the team when they were injured, again, historically. it means seeing how many games each player has been absent, and how the teams did without them historically.
its complex work, and it wont be the end of it all, and it will not have sample size to prove anything; however, it will always be miles better than a 'qualitative analysis' pulled out of your ass with a 3 point scale
And I was about to clown on you for thinking that there's an undergrad engineering program in the Bay Area better than MIT (or CalTech, or Harvey Mudd), but you already know that.
Click to expand...
at the time I graduated Cal EECS (2010) it was #1
Except I didn't, at any point. Was there a single meaningful series (with "meaningful" meaning "either team had some non-zero chance to win") in which the Warriors were NOT more healthy than their opponents?
Click to expand...
all teams have a non-zero chance to win in any game in the world. here you are again foregoing statistical analysis. you are specifically dismissing and subjectively defining what a 'meaningful' series is according to you
to answer your questions, pels, rockets last year and this year
What do you mean "does not show the magnitude at all"? You want to assign a particular number to the magnitude? Do that if you want, but it's a waste of time.
Click to expand...
make up your mind- are you a scientist or a populist . you using a 3-point scale is hilarious, and the fact you do not understand my point, shows me all I needed to know
I made an easy qualitative analysis - the Warriors were healthier than their expected opponents in each of those series. Do you want to dispute that? If you can, challenge it.
Click to expand...
I did challenge it. the rockets are not right now in any way, and were not last season 'significantly healthier' than warriors. the pels weren't. oh and there is no such thing as 'expected opponent'. each team has a probability to face off against another team. go from there if you want to have a complete scientific analyis
No it's not, moron. Where did I ever saying that losing Curry is the same impact as losing Tony Allen? You're bringing up pure bullshyt.
Click to expand...
calling me names
when you're supposedly a scientist, failing to understand a simple point I make. my point is your simple scale is 'pure bullshyt' because it uses 3 points to measure impact (-1, 0, +1). under your scale, losing two bum players means the same (+1) if you're losing a superstar...
I mean, you can't even understand this
I suggest taking an introductory class in statistics
Where did I claim ANYTHING like your bullshyt example? Where did I EVER say that losing Steph Curry is the same as losing any other random player?
Click to expand...
see, you cant even comprehend what I wrote. let me spell it out again.assign weighs to each injury individually. if you simply extend your dumb -1/0+1 scale into a 10 point scale, tony allen being out is a 1/10 impact.
steph curry being out is a 10/10 impact. bron being out is 10/10 impact/ todays blake griffin being out is a6/10 impact. mike conley being out is a 4/10 impact, and so forth. this is just rough approximation without me taking any statistical data into consideration. and already this scale is more fair and accurate than yours.
That was my criteria. Those two 8-seeds were the two teams that never had a chance of winning the series even at full health.
Click to expand...
those teams had non-zero chance to win the series. you saying they had zero chance is you again, foregoing statistical analysis, and relying on subjective bullshyt again because it fits your point. which was my whole point- you only using statistical analysis when it benefits your point
maybe you should research what a non-zero chance is.
here Ill do some work for you:
the best of 7 series started in 2003
since then (not counting this year) NBA had 13*8=104 first round series
there were 3 #8 seed upsets out of 104 series.
which amounts to a ~2.8% chance (rounding down) for a #8 seed to defeat #1 seed, statistically. clearly, it's nowhere close to a zero chance and certainly not a zero chance. again, I advise you to take a simple course in probability theory.
