Week #4 Recap and 49ers info

I was unable to watch the game but the aftermath is helpful. The 49ers cover the spread but lost the game on a last second play. Shaun Hill was 15-25 for 188 yards. He scored two touchdowns through the air and had a good game. So although I can't assume causality, I can definitely suppose that the factors I previously listed played a role in the 49ers performance.

Vis a vis college football, not much to report. I will do a prediction rundown.

Cal was blown out on the road, totally contrary to my pick. I believed the 'Hype" and Cal was blown out of the stadium. Terrible. That game led to my post earlier about the fallibility of pre-season rankings.

USC won 27-6, meaning this pick was a win! More importantly, it means that USC's offense is mediocre at best and the reason they will lose games. Their defense is very stout but they simply can't run up the score on opponents like they used to. Also, my analysis about them scoring somewhere in the fifties was flawed. They haven't played well offensively yet except against San Jose and have shown their offense is definitely lacking something this season.

And the Washington/Stanford pick was a success as well. Washington didn't perform well on the road against a team that they DIDN'T have the past offensive and defensive coordinators from. What a surprise!

This weeks record was 2-1-0

Total record of 4-5-0

Bringing the team to nearly .500!

Quick NFL Thoughts

The 49ers play at the Vikings today. And I was told that Shaun Hill, the San Francisco QB, was the back up at Minnesota for three or four years. That means he will be very, very familiar with the stadium and surroundings, plus a number of the players who are still with the team. Of course, the coaching staff will be somewhat familiar with him, as well as members of the D, but I think overall the balance favors the QB over the defense. Plus, there has been a coaching change in Minnesota since he left.

And I think the 49ers are truly better than they have been, in terms of physicality and desire to win. They've already beaten last years NFC Champion and the Seahawks. So I think the spread of 7 points is too high.

Lastly, Favre has only been on the team two weeks, and didn't even spend all of training camp with the team. He simply can't know everything about the team that well.

So an official prediction is the 49ers will cover the spread.

The concept of retrodiction

The term retrodiction is related to the word prediction in obvious ways. What does it mean to predict the past?

It usually refers to a model that is tested by applying it to the past. It is run with past data to see if it could correctly predict past events.

I think there is value in this concept of retrodiction. It is important to look at the past and see if the results make sense based on what we know. It typically is easy but that is handicapped by a cognitive bias where we think past events and conclusions seem obvious in retrospect. Take these last years in the NBA playoffs. The Lakers were the best of the West. Their series with the Rockets was unusual but was never very close. Just like the Celtics seven game series against the Hawks in 2008, the result was never really in question.

In the East though, it gets curious. The Cavs were the #1 seed but didn't match up physically with the Magics athletic shooters and center. The Cavs weren't made to beat the Celtics; they were made to beat the Pistons! Hell yeah! Awesome insight!! They were based on plodding bigmen, a slow wingman (Rasheed Wallace), etc. And the Magic came out with a super athletic Center and a wingman who could shoot and drive. And Varejao and Ilgauskas were abused!

Yes!

Lakers Magic Game 4

I was thinking about how well the Magic had to shoot (62.5 percent, an NBA Finals Record) to eke out a win in Game 3. I also thought about how a player who starts shooting well will struggle later in the game (and shoot more shots), and think that it will happen on a team wide level for this game.

Plus, the Lakers are a better team anyways.

And they just lost, so the onus is on them.

So thats my prediction: Magic have a bad night shooting, Lakers win handily.

Further Advice from Warren Buffet

I've spent the last thirty minutes reading articles about Warren Buffet, his investment philosophy, and some quotes from him.

This includes reading his Wikipedia page, and various articles about the man.  

To summarize he believes the main skills in picking a stock correctly are correctly valuing the company (either above or below current appraisals) and being detached from the opinions of others, which will influence your thinking.  

The following six paragraphs are all from the article cited above:

"[It] comes about from having an investment philosophy grounded in the idea that a stock is a piece of a business. If you look at it that way, there's no reason to get excited whether some analyst is recommending it or the company is splitting the shares two-for-one, or whatever. The only way to drive the extraneous thoughts out of your mind is to have a philosophy. And for us that philosophy comes from Benjamin Graham and The Intelligent Investor, especially chapters 8 and 20. It's not very complicated stuff."

"It doesn't make any difference what other people think of a stock. What matters is whether you know enough to evaluate the business," he opined.

You should be able to write down on a yellow sheet of paper, 'I'm buying General Motors at $22, and GM has [566] million shares for a total market value of $13 billion, and GM is worth a lot more than $13 billion because _______________." And if you can't finish that sentence, then you don't buy the stock.

The key is not to be seduced by crazy ideas, but instead just stick to the fundamentals year after year. Academia doesn't get too interested in us -- we're too simple. What would the professors do? A great many of the formulas [they use to analyze securities and markets] are dead wrong. They exist purely to give the intellectual class something to do. We don't do anything just exercise our intellectual proclivity for mathematical formulas.

Instead, if you are a true investor, you should shop for stocks the same way you shop for anything else: Look for sale prices, and never regard falling prices as inherently bad news. Instead, falling prices create the opportunity to buy even more of something that was already worth owning.

In that single sentence Buffett captured the difference between investing and speculating: An investor, like Buffett, wants the price of a stock to fall below the value of its underlying business so he can buy even more and hold for as long as possible.

********

So to summarize, one wants teams to perform poorly, to have their "stock drop" below their true levels. 

Smart man, a lot to learn from him.

What Can I Learn From Warren Buffet?

What can I learn from Warren Buffet?  Warren Buffet has been the world's most successful investor of the last half century.  But rather than simply list his biography, which can be found here, I want to focus on which of his teachings can be transferred to sports analysis.  

1)  Are the fundamentals of the company strong?

Warren Buffet emphasizes buying the stocks of companies that have had a run of bad luck but for whom the fundamentals are still strong.  They have assets, a market, and advantages, etc.  He tries to buy companies that have value but are struggling to work in the market.  

The transfer to sports analysis is to find teams that have good players, a good coach, a good system, but for whatever reason they have been playing poorly.  Maybe they have not had the energy.  Or they have had some bad bounces.  They've been the victim of the other teams extraordinary plays or catches.  

2)  Understand what you are investing in.

Warren Buffet only invests in companies, markets, and geographical regions that he understands.  He doesn't invest in things that confuse him.

The transfer here is that one should never invest in teams that one has not followed.  Foreign teams with their own struggles, competing interests, goals and expectations are difficult to gauge, track, and predict.  

3) Make accurate comparisons.

The transfer here is to compare the units of teams accurately.  In basketball, compare each team's players at each position and determine who has the "3 out of 5" advantage.  Then also check the coach's time management skills, and various bench players, whose sum is maybe only equal to one or two starting player's value.  

4)  Be a historian of the market.

Warren Buffet knows more about the future of the market because he knows so much about the past of the market.  He is a prolific reader.  He listens first, talks second.

The transfer here is to not only watch sports unfold, but go back and re-read sports analysis, observe team's seasons in the totality, with the knowledge of what happened but re-living the feelings of the moment.

Clippers Season Recap

I posted an article on Bleacher Report about the Clippers' remaining games and which games I thought they would be blown-out in.  A blow-out to me is losing by 15 or more points and definitely not covering even the largest NBA point spreads.

The article can be found here.

I made six picks about the Clippers.  

Clippers hosting Cleveland.  Lost 83-87.  DID cover spread.

Clippers playing at Detroit.  Lost 108-90.  DID NOT cover spread.

Clippers playing at Boston.  Lost 90-77.  DID NOT cover spread (was 8.5).

Clippers playing at Denver.  Lost 120-104.  Did not cover spread (was 14).

Clippers playing at Utah.  Lost 106-85.  Did not cover spread.

Clippers hosting Oklahoma City.  Lost 126-85.  Did not cover spread.

So for five of the six games they failed to surpass expectations and lost badly.  

They lost all four road games badly.

The first home game was very close, the last home game was against the fourth-worst team in the league.  

Anyways, I was 5-1 for that article.  The predictability of losers?  

I think that when teams that have quit play good, focused teams they really struggle and will give up, especially against the better defensive teams.  

Are there certain situations where a team always wins?

I was wondering if there were situations where a team always wins.  Essentially, I mean where a strong team is at home against a very weak team.  A team with a winning percentage of over .800?  Playing a cellar-dwelling team?  Celtics vs. Clippers at home? 

Certainly road games are any less than predictable wins for the visiting team.  Most major upsets occur on the road (in the NBA).  In football I'd assume that is likely as well, but there is a lot of difficulty in determining a team's true skill.  

but perhaps there are instances where a good team hosting a really bad team on the end of a road trip has virtually no chance to win.  This would require some research but is very interesting.  

Conversely, perhaps really bad teams have a better chance of upsetting or covering the spread against a *really* good team than just a good or above average team.  

Quick Update

Last night Denver hosted the Clippers.  In my Bleacher Report article on the Clippers, I predicted the Clippers would get blown out by the Nuggets.  They did, losing by sixteen points.  Also, the spread was fifteen points, so Denver covered despite a huge spread.  This prediction was made on the basis of the Clippers being a recent opponent of the Nuggets; the Clippers having no motivation for the game; and the Nuggets trying to maintain a high seed.  

Prediction Total:  10-6

Summary of All Predictions so Far

With this blog post I want to summarize and categorize all my predictions that I've made in this blog so far.  Its time to be honest and get a little bit of accountability.  I need an accountabilabuddy, if you will.  

In no particular order:

2/19/09, I wrote that Tyson Chandler was back on the Hornets.  They had previously exploded on Orlando for a 32 point win; but then they discovered the trade was cancelled and I predicted they would be flat the next game or two.  Next two games: 111-115 OT loss at LA and a 14 point loss at Utah (second night of back to back).  

Total:  1-1

Lakers Watch series (six games).  They struggled at home against New Orleans and at Minnesota, not covering the spread.  Then they won big at Pheonix and at OKC.  Then they got demolished by Denver and lost at Pheonix.  They went 2-4 against the spread during that period.  I'm not sure hot much of it though is me fitting a curve to the data or the data to the curve.  I sort of arbitrarily picked the starting time.  But its a good observation to make and realize that teams to "step up" their intensity for a while but they have to pay the piper eventually.

Total: I don't know how to score this, so I'll leave it out.

3/4/09. I boldly predicted Dallas would win at San Antonio after being called out by Mark Cuban. They were 2 point underdogs.  They won outright.

Total:  2-1  

March 7th, 2009, Clippers article published on Bleacher Report.  I predict games I thinkt he Clippers will get blown out in.  Predictions in the article:

Clippers hosting Cleveland:  fail

Clippers at Detroit: Lost by 18.  Success. 

Clippers at Celtics: Lost by 13.  Success.  

Total:  4-2

Superbowl: I predicted (and bet 500) that the Cards would cover the spread.  They did.

Total: 5-2

Conference round: Eagles at Cardinals: I thought Cardinals would lose to the Eagles.  Failure!

Total: 5-3.

Divisional round: Ravens at Titans.  Center Mawae was out for Titans.  I thought that would swing it in the Ravens favor.  Result: Ravens win.  

Total: 6-3

Wildcard round: 1/9/09 post.  I thought Ravens would beat Dolphins (they did) and Colts would blow out Chargers.  Success, and failure.  

Total: 7-4

1/1/09: Predicted USC would beat Penn State handily.  They did.

Total: 8-4.  

12/26/08: Three bowl games predicted.  Results: Cal failed to cover spread, CMU lost, FSU covered.  Results:  1-2

Total: 9-6

Thats all the ones off the top of my head.  If I include the results from Lakers watch I'm 13-8.  Otherwise 9-6. 

Its not bad.  I need to continue to refine my theories and get better at detecting certain games that are likely to be predictable.  

Clippers at Celtics

Clippers lost by thirteen. Spead was 8.5.   Not the blowout I predicted, but they nevertheless lost and failed to cover the spread.  rah.

The Clippers: Laziest Team Ever?

I just read the Daily Dime on ESPN and they had a scouts message saying the Clippers were the laziest team he had ever seen.  Now that is quite a statement.  The laziest team ever seen in the NBA?  What conspires to create the laziest team ever?

First off, I think it is that they play in the Laker's shadow.  There is usually very little attention and fanfare.  Unfortunately, little attention means little negative press when they suck.  Little attention paid, few fans demanding improvement.  So there is much less pressure to improve.  And the Lakers are doing so well that it has to affect the conscious of the whole organization.  They are the second fiddle, and the first fiddle has the best record in the NBA.

Not only is there little negativity when they lose, but there is little praise when they win?  They beat the Celtics?  Lakers did it twice already.  Everything they do is already surpassed.  It creates a very laissez-faire mentality.  

Of he who little is expected, little is received.  

Here are selected quotes from the Daily Dime's interview with anonymous scouts:

"I think a lot of people would say Toronto. Not me. The Clippers are the laziest team I've ever seen. I know they've had a lot of injuries, but they just don't play hard. Their good players don't play hard.

"They have enough talent to be relevant. But it looks to me like they're trying to become the Oakland Raiders, going out and getting all the guys who are on their last chance.

"So don't be surprised if they go after Iverson in the summer. If there's one place where [signing Iverson as a free agent] can sell tickets, it's there [in Clipperland]."

What does this mean for the rest of the season?  As the focus and attention is focused in on the Lakers and their playoff race for homecourt, people will care less about the Clippers.  

Teams in tight playoff races will most likely deliver the worst beatings to the Clippers.  Teams either clearly in or clearly out would seem to take the Clippers most seriously.  Younger teams will try harder than older teams (OKC).  

Looking specifically at their schedule, they have a six game trip.  I predict that two early wins would mean the would lose the rest of their games.  They also play at Boston.  Two factors here:  revenge game for Boston (they lost at LA a few weeks ago) at home, and a tight playoff race.  Boston doesn't let up and their bench is big, strong, and plays extremely hard.  This could be a thirty to forty point loss.  

They also host Cleveland and play at Denver twice.  These two games will probably be one bad loss and one close game.  If first game is close, second will be very bad, likely.  Also, if the Clippers win the first one, they would almost certainly lose the second one.  

They also host Portland and play at Utah.  Those two games could be ugly.  Portland is young and in a playoff race, but it is away.  So that will hurt. However, it is at the end of the season so I don't know how full the stadium will be.  The game at Utah will likely feature Utah in a very tight race for the highest playoff seeding possible.  They are fresh (because of injuries and players finally returning) so they could give a pounding to LA.

I'll have to watch the Clippers as the season finishes to see if these predictions are right.

Last night's game and win streaks

A couple of thoughts today.  One is the game last night.  The Mavericks were at home and beat the Spurs 107-102.  They were two point underdogs and the Spurs are a good team.  

A few factors in their favor I knew about:

They had lost to the Spurs at San Antonio a few games before.

Mark Cuban had called out the team publicly and was demanding greater effort.

Effort trumps talent in the NBA.

One I didn't know about:

Joey Crawford was one of the referees. He has feuded with Duncan several times before and that would surely get in Duncans head.  It may have focused him more or less, I don't know, but he responded poorly this game.  

Selected quotes:

"I put it on my shoulders," Duncan said. "I really played an awful game on both ends. I've got to clean that up. ... They were real physical and I felt I got fouled on a couple things. But everybody feels like they get fouled sometimes. I tried to play through it, then started compounding by missing layups and missing shots. Frustrating night."

Critical phrase:  "they were real physical". that is the sign of a team that is playing hard, with sustained superior effort for the duration of the game.  Thats all one needs to know.  In fact, at the NBA level, it seems like one just needs to know who is going to play harder.  

Another thought:

I talked with my Dad last night and we talked about win streaks.  And I thought about how tough it would be to test win streaks for significance.  Essentially, if a team is winning games, are they more probable to continue winning games?  Are they on a "roll".  

And more critically, when do teams let up?  After how many games in a row will a team "ease off" or have a bad night with increasing probability?  How do I even go about testing these things?

Game Prediction: Dallas over San Antonio

I read that Mark Cuban called out his players publicly after their last game against OKC.  Although negative press isn't the best motivator, I think it will be a deciding factor.  That and Dallas lost recently at San Antonio.  

An away loss is easily followed up by a home win.

rah

Warriors lose to Magic: Get Used to It

The Warriors recently lost to the Orlando Magic.  And last night they lost to the Heat.  And they are going to do a lot more losing.  

Everyone on the team knows what Don Nelson knows: they aren't making the playoffs.  They are making any noise.  They aren't getting hyped.  

And Don Nelson doesn't rebuild.  He doesn't energize.  He doesn't berate like Pat Riley.  He won't discipline and focus like Greg Popovich.  He simply unleashes.  

And if you unleash mediocre players, they will give you below-mediocre level of play.  Mediocre players with good, hard coaching can get you mediocre results.  Why?  Because in the NBA there are lots of good players.  And lots of great players.  Lots of 40 inch vertical leaps, enormous centers, and teams put together to win lots of games. 

And then there are the warriors.  With a collection of talent that was able to get to the playoffs one year on the last game of the season.  And thats it.  They were never even a good team.  Good enough to compete, but not good enough to win.  No fourth seeds, no home court advantage, no ten game winning streak.  Nothing.  

And Don Nelson just signed a fat contract.  So he isn't going to be pouring in effort at midnight, talking with players, figuring out the perfect inbounds play, analyzing each teams defenses for weaknesses.  He's too experienced, too old, too fat.  

The Warriors will plummet to the bottom of the NBA.  And along the way they are going to get blown out a lot.  

I think the following factors will contribute most to their defeats:

Games on the road.

Games against teams that are "rising" rather than "established".  A rising team right now would be the Orlando, Atlanta, Miami, New York, Cleveland, Portland, Houston, and New Orleans.  

A few maybe cases are Denver, Milwaukee, Utah, and of course Boston.

The younger and better the team, the more likely they are to blow us out. 

And at start of a road trip the Warriors are more likely to mail in a game.  After a bad loss or two they will try harder to try to salvage a road trip.  But at the end they are less likely to get blown out if the trip has gone badly.  If it has gone well, then they might mail in a game.  

And at the end of the season as the playoff race heats up and we are putting in a lot of "next year's" players.