Joe Soriano
O.J. LewisAnalysis vs. Correctness
June 13th 2011 14:26
I was having an argument with one of my friends today that started after he was gloating about how he predicted the NBA Finals correctly. He was talking about how wrong John Hollinger, the Truehoop experts, my other friend, and I were. I then went on to explain that analysis is more important on correctly predicting an outcome.
Anybody can guess the outcome of a series or game just by randomly picking. What takes skill is being able to properly analyze two teams and giving legit reasons why you think this team will win and how you think the series will shape up. The experts over at ESPN use complex statistical analysis and look at team strategies when predicting what will happen.
People that picked the Heat in this series, like myself, could never have accounted for the fact that the best player in the NBA would be so poor in the fourth quarter of several very close games. LeBron didn't take charge of the game, and that in itself was a factor that screwed us over. Like, how are we supposed to know that a guy who came up so big against the Bulls in crunch time would suddenly turn into the NBA's version of Mr. Irrelevant when the game mattered the most.
I know one guy who picked the Mavericks for the sole reason that he hates LeBron and the Heat. He was also gloating over his prediction, but his reason had nothing to do with the game itself. A lot of people against my argument would point to the fact that LeBron is a "choker". I don't believe that a player with the second highest shooting percentage in crunch time during the playoffs (out of current players with at least four shots made) is a "choker". He had a bad series that we can chalk up to as simply baffling.
Being correct is good, but the key thing is being able to properly analyze. Anybody can say something and be right, but what is truly impressive is being able to talk about and see things that others miss. A lot of the guys that got the overall prediction wrong were able to get small predictions right such as Wade taking charge, Marion being immense, and the fact that Peja Stojakovic sucks and Corey Brewer needs playing time.
Anybody can guess the outcome of a series or game just by randomly picking. What takes skill is being able to properly analyze two teams and giving legit reasons why you think this team will win and how you think the series will shape up. The experts over at ESPN use complex statistical analysis and look at team strategies when predicting what will happen.
People that picked the Heat in this series, like myself, could never have accounted for the fact that the best player in the NBA would be so poor in the fourth quarter of several very close games. LeBron didn't take charge of the game, and that in itself was a factor that screwed us over. Like, how are we supposed to know that a guy who came up so big against the Bulls in crunch time would suddenly turn into the NBA's version of Mr. Irrelevant when the game mattered the most.
I know one guy who picked the Mavericks for the sole reason that he hates LeBron and the Heat. He was also gloating over his prediction, but his reason had nothing to do with the game itself. A lot of people against my argument would point to the fact that LeBron is a "choker". I don't believe that a player with the second highest shooting percentage in crunch time during the playoffs (out of current players with at least four shots made) is a "choker". He had a bad series that we can chalk up to as simply baffling.
Being correct is good, but the key thing is being able to properly analyze. Anybody can say something and be right, but what is truly impressive is being able to talk about and see things that others miss. A lot of the guys that got the overall prediction wrong were able to get small predictions right such as Wade taking charge, Marion being immense, and the fact that Peja Stojakovic sucks and Corey Brewer needs playing time.
Finals MVP
| 31 |
| Vote |
Comments (2)
Add Comments
Read More
