What is the purpose of my blog?

I just read a great passage in War and Peace. It was about Pierre Bolkonsky, a Prince in Russia. Here is the quote in full:

"How horrified he wuold have been if, seven years ago, when he had just come from abroad, someone had told him that there was no need to seek or invent anything, that his rut had long been carved out for him and determined from all eternity, and that, however he twisted and turned, he would be that which everybody was in his position".

Pierre is sad with his life. He is no longer trying to achieve anything, invent anything, or do anything. He just drinks, talks, discusses, etc. But he doesn't do anything.

That part really resonated with me. I don't feel like a failure or a wash-out. But maybe thats why I blog and write articles for Bleacher Report. I have a need to feel like I'm contributing or working towards something. I don't like to feel like I'm doing nothing.

Do all young men feel a need to contribute? Its an interesting topic. I want to discover or create something.

General Research Goals

My preliminary investigation for the Martingale Expectation system didn't reveal much good data.  Although it is still a small sample size (only the Eastern Conference in the 2008-2009 season) I already have seen streaks of length 9, 10, 11.  

Here is a graph of 1 game streaks.  The data is arranged with the team with the highest record on the left (the Cavaliers) and the worst record on the right (the Wizards).  This is the only interesting graph I've produced so far.  

Writing and Research Notes

I've crossed the 4,000 article reads on Bleacher Report and set a personal record with over 1,000 reads on a single article in Bleacher Report.  I've written nine articles overall.  

Also I'm almost at 100 comments received.  My most popular article was about how the Cavaliers wouldn't win the title and what a debacle it was!  So many people wrote negative things about it.  But it was good to read them and learn about how to write a more informative article.  I was a bit rushed because I wanted to go to sleep when I wrote it.  

I also think that no amount of data or theories can really change the minds of most people, especially ardent fans.  I'm not a big Cavs basher or anything or an ardent Lakers supporter, although I do follow both teams.  I just don't think that Cavs are that good this year, but I also haven't watched many of their games.  So who knows?

Also my data research is going well.  I've been analyzing point spreads and looking for trends.  And I've found a few but nothing spectacular.  

Note on Injuries

In the NBA, knee ligament injuries are much harder to come back from than broken bones.  Bones can fracture and heal very quickly and the player returns without concern.

Knee and ligament injuries take a long time to heal, and the player is more tentative to say the least.  I don't have statistical data on it but that is definitely what I've seen from a small sample size.  Players can break their hand and return fine, or break a leg and be back in action.  The more worrisome injury is the ligament injury.  

Cognitive Bias potentially discovered

I was thinking about the concept of upsets.  Of teams being either better or worse than their record.  Essentially, teams taking days off and giving up a game.  

As far as I know only really good or really bad teams take games off.  Everyone else is scrabbling for everything they can.

But I've never studied the playoffs and seeding to see how many lower-seed upsetting higher-seed situations there are.  The NBA is uniquely suited among the major sports to see how match-ups effect playoff results because of the linearity of scoring, and the seven game series format.  This allows for a LOT of basketball to be played between two teams in an effort to sort out who is the best.  

One of the problems with analyzing it is the seeding.  The NBA uses a 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3vs 6, and 4 vs 5 seeding.  An alternative seeding could be 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, 5 vs 6, and 7 vs 8 format.  This would let the 1 and 2 seeds duke it out right away, without risk of players getting injured while getting the scrubs out of the way.  The winner would likely face a moderate test in the 3 vs 4 winner, and then celebrate the title early as they beat the winner of the 5 vs 6 vs 7 vs 8 scrum.  

The last series would be akin to a victory lap.  

If we used that seeding, we'd have lots of instances of teams with very close records playing seven games series and we'd see what sort of strength there is to a W-L record, i.e. how accurately it predicts the outcome.  

Just a random thought I had about seeding.  

Also, when I research seeding upsets, check to see the expected wins and losses because of the disparity in homecourt advantage for the higher seeded team.  What I mean is that if two identical teams played, and one had home court advantage in a seven game series in the current format, what percentage of the time would they win.  And what percentage of the time does that actually happen.  

Darling Du Jour

The "darling du jour" is a play on the term soup du jour, meaning the soup of the day.

The darling du jour is whichever player on whichever team is being hyped and promoted at the moment.  

Because some player, on some team, is going to be hyped at some time today.  Somewhere an interview is taking place, an editor is reviewing some article, and someone will be hyped.  

There is no minimum criteria for being hyped.  Someone could hype the best player in a pick-up game.  They could write a glowing article about him.  

So the next time I read a glowing article about some player, stick to the numbers and the truth, don't just accept that he is the greatest around and a dominant force.  

LeBron and the Cavs: How Good Are They?

I was reading an article about the Cavs today.  It was obviously designed to hype the Cavaliers and LeBron.  He is the media's darling du jour.  Speaking of which, that is a great term.  

Anyways, the article spoke about their focus and commitment to defense.  

Focus and commitment are great things.  They help one maximize one's potential.  Always a good thing.  

I also think long-term focus and commitment can improve a teams cohesiveness.  They can learn and practice more defensive schemes and perhaps  impove their offensive schemes. 

Basketball is also a game of one-on-one situations.  One-on-one defense and one-on-one offense.  In a seven game series what happens?  Well I think in a seven game series (if it is evenly matched) it comes down to role players contributing more.  

In the playoffs teams can scheme and practice consistently to stop one player or one method of attack.  In an 82 game season teams can get blindsided or be unfocused.  

So I think in an evenly matched seven games series bench and role players come up bigger.  For example, in the Houston/Portland series, Yao Ming beat the Blazers so badly (9-9 from the field) that they had to resort to double teaming him the rest of the series.  

The result now is that Luis Scola is shooting a lot of outside shots (and making them) because his defender is rotating off of him.  

But that fact is that Luis Scola is not even close to the best player in the series.  Its funny how a series can hinge (they've had three very close games) on the skills of someone who didn't even make the Spurs (he was cut by San Antonio).

And when I think of some of the San Antonio Spurs vs Phoenix Suns series' that I've seen, I keep thinking about Bruce Bowen.  He wasn't nearly the best player on his own team (maybe fourth best?) but it was his ability to add that extra bit of performance that brought them over the top.  He was always there when Duncan was covered, Tony Parker couldn't get in the lane, and Manu was immediately covered.  Waiting in the corner, patiently preparing to take his one shot.

Reflecting on this, it shows that the Suns could cover up to three really good players.  Three great players, all potential hall of fame players, and that was good enough.  If Bruce Bowen were worse than he was they wouldn't have won.  

So my point is who wins the one-on-one matchups at all five positions?

That was quite a tangent.  My reaction to reading the article on ESPN, found here, was that focus and commitment don't make you better.  They make you play harder, which gets you more wins, but it doesn't make you better.  

Does that make sense?

If I play harder, and really sprint around and play till I'm out of breath, I'll win more pickup basketball games.  But it doesn't mean I'm better.  I can't shoot more accurately, I can't jump higher, I don't have more basketball IQ.  

So the article brags about how good the Cavs are.  They have a superb record against bad teams.  They had an incredible record at home.  The quote they use is "they beat the teams they were supposed to beat".  

This is the same group of guys who won only forty five games last year.  FORTY FIVE games!  

And this year, against the Lakers, Celtics, and Magic (the other good teams in the league) they were three and six.  Three and six?  They aren't the best team in the league.  And one of those wins was against a Celtics team in disarray and without Garnett.  

Garnett won't be back this season.  But Orlando should really worry Cleveland.  And so should one other team.

Consider this thought experiment:  which of the following teams is better?  And by that I mean, when the chips are down and they had to play, who would win?  Who would win a playoff matchup?  

Team A has .750 winning percentage for the season.  They occasionally take nights off, losing to bad teams.  They have a winning record against the other division leaders in the league, and have won on the road at Team B's arena.

Team B has a .795 winning percentage.  They have the higher +/- differential.  They play tough, tenacious D, never take a game or opponent for granted.  They lost close games both at home and on the road to other division leaders.  There home record is great but their road record is mediocre for such a good team.  

I think it is Team A.  Team A looks like a good team that is slacking off.  Team B looks like a good team that is dialed in.  

Team B may be more fatigued for the playoffs.  Also, Team A will not be slacking off during a playoff meeting.  They'll be coming full-force.  However their defense sets may not be as good as needed.  

The purpose of the Ads

The purpose of the ads really isn't to make money.  It takes thousands of views and people clicking on the ads to get me even a dollar.  And I simply don't have thousands of readers.

The real reason is it gives me a small amount of data about whether or not anyone is viewing my website.

And on Thursday and Friday of last week, I wasn't near the internet and couldn't go to my blog; however, nine other people (at most) viewed it.  So there is hope!

And its been viewed a total of fifty times in the last week (at least half by myself).

And my BR articles have a total of 3,200 reads.

So my  message is reaching a few people at least.

Bubbles

Predicting sports outcomes and the weather have many similarities.  Both have lots and lots of previous data; both are frequently wrong; are they both craft?

Predicting sports outcomes, or more plainly, investing in sports, is a craft.  

Wikipedia describes craft as meaning "A craft is a skill, especially involving practical arts. It may refer to a trade or particular art".  Craft shall be the focus of my further studies.  Essentially, what I am doing is trying to create a craft.

Knowledge of the history of the craft is important.  To know whats going to happen, it really helps to know what has happened before.  Because of the amnesia of crowds, one can outwit a crowd by knowing history well and being able to converse about the many aspects of history.

The Black Swan taught me that not only is it important to know history; it is important to know past events as they occured to people during that time.  What people of any given time expected to happen, what actually happened, and how they reacted to what happened.  

This distinction is what makes sports investing a craft.

I also read in the papers about the stock market crash a report on the stock of the company which makes "Crocs".  Its stocks were selling at as high as seventy two dollars a share.  Apparently they continued to expand their production facilities by taking on loans.  

Predictably, crocs aren't that cool and the market is super-saturated.  Nobody wants to buy more pairs and their stock has plummeted to two dollars a share.  

That bubble has burst.

So maybe this new niche I am investigating of "bubbles" emerging in sports betting behavior is related closely to the concept of "bubbles" and mania in general.  

Essentially, find something trendy and bet on its bubble to burst.  Not all stocks go up; but every stock will go down.  The reason the dow jones goes up is because it constantly drops stocks that suck and includes stocks that are "on the rise".  So the DJIA increases while individual stocks drop.  

It seems the best strategy is to sell high first; then buy low.  

I don't know when Crocs will go out of fashion.  But I only had to take one look at them to know they were gay and I would never wear one.  I also knew they were a fad.  They aren't the a new mainstay of footwear where EVERYONE has at least one pair and goes through them quickly, requiring the purchase of more pairs.  

I was taking the red-eye flight from West Coast to East Coast and it really hit me hard.  Investing in a company that I knew nothing about and hoping it would go up was foolish.  But selling the stocks of companies that I know will crash is not.  Bubbles constantly emerge as fads spread and experience enormous growth before burning out shortly thereafter. 

 The list goes on and on:  hush puppies, beanie babies, magic cards, baseball cards, crocs, just to name a few.  And it stretches back throughout history.  I know because I've read books about it.  The Dutch tulip mania, the South Sea company, etc., etc., etc.  This is a repeatable event.  

I get so pumped up thinking about this new investment strategy.  I want to FIND bubbles and take advantage of them.    Bet against them and just hold until it drops.  Every bubble, by definition, must burst.  A bubble is an overinflation and over-evaluation.  It will be corrected sooner or later, and when it happens it happens fast.  

This seems to me like a great idea.  It takes balls to do it.  To sell all my stocks and start investing the money on my own, selling the stocks of companies that are rocketing to the sky, betting on fads to flop, of companies and fortunes to crash and burn.  

If you want what everyone else has, just do what everyone else is doing.  

Is that all I want?  

Marcus Aurelius

The purpose of this blog is similar to the purpose of Meditations was for Marcus Aurelius.  

Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor from 161 to 180 of this era.  He wrote Meditations while on campaign as a source for his own guidance and self-improvement.  The purpose of this blog is my own guidance and improvement in the areas of sports analysis, prediction, investing, etc.   

As sports investing is a craft, anything can come into play.  I value the scientific method and want to create rules and observations based on real data.  I want my conclusions and predictions to be based on reality and be verifiable when possible.  I always want existing data to support my methods and conclusions.  

I read parts of Meditations in high school and have read further portions of it in college.  He preached stoicism, rationality and clear-mindedness.