Fwd: [personal] [Husker] NU Basketball Big 12 second half

[Steve Reichenbach]

> I saw your earlier post re: Sagerin's ratings.  His ratings when
> determining point spreads/favorites for basketball games are
> meaningless.   He wouldn't put his own money behind those numbers, I
> guarantee you.  Vegas  odds, if the games were played tomorrow, would
> fluctuate from 8-to-12  points from Sagarin's numbers, depending on
> the game.

You are factually incorrect to state that Sagarin's ratings are
meaningless.  Can you point to one demonstration of a superior method
for predicting outcomes?  No, you can't.  They are as meaningful in
terms of prediction as one can find.  That they are imperfect does
not render them "meaningless".  (And, the fact that he would or wouldn't
bet his own money has nothing to do with their quality.)  Similarly,
the Vegas line is a good predictor of outcomes, although I believe
that it is pretty well established that good computer programs can
outperform the Vegas line (because the Vegas line aims not to be a
good predictor, but to even money on both sides of the line).  If you
were merely trying to use hyperbole to say every game might not turn
out just as Sagarin predicted, no one will disagree that computer
ratings are imperfect, but to say that computer ratings are meaningless
is ridiculous.

> Whereas it can be fun to look at blocks of games on the schedule (and
> say things like "need to win two out of these next four"), it really
> does no good  to look even a week down the road and speculate how a
> typical NCAA "bubble team" in a balanced league will play.  Things
> change every week.  Teams may play well for a few consecutive games
> and start admiring their own press clippings -- becoming just
> complacent enough to be susceptible to upset.

Well, I wasn't trying to do "good" ;-). I was attempting idle
speculation at the midpoint of the conference season. :-)