Playoff Status

by EternalWarriorsOptimist on Apr 10, 2007 8:09 PM PDT Comment 10 comments

I know, I know, no one wants to see yet another, "here's what has to happen" diary. So I won't post one. But everyone should check out this awesome site: www.playoffstatus.com. Maybe other people have seen it and I'm just the last one to find out about it...

They break down the playoff picture by remaining games and strength of schedule. I don't think they even account for home/away. Still, this info + Sleepy's diary on the possible playoff permutations gives you a good idea of what's going on. Before the Hornet's win tonight, this site gave the Warriors a 57% chance of getting the 8th spot and the clippers a 39% chance of getting it:

They have other cool features too, like Warrior's Most Important Games.

This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!

0 recs | Comment 10 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

interesting site

thanks for the link man. that hornet win was exciting. Go lakers vs the clips next.

by Bayareaballa86 on Apr 10, 2007 8:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

thanks

I like it. It'd be nice if we can get to be green numbered

More Hardware Coming!

by gsw4life on Apr 10, 2007 8:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Strange coincidence

How all five teams' percentages add up to 100.

I mean, what are the chances?

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 10, 2007 8:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

lol

we could've just used this one link to prove our point but then we would've missed out on some high comedy

More Hardware Coming!

by gsw4life on Apr 11, 2007 1:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

I'm not sure which he'd find more convincing, the fact that those charts support our argument, or the fact that our friend Trav chimed in to support his. ;-) Probably a little of both.

Either way, it seems like he's finally conceded the point. Well, that, or, as I mentioned, he's furiously slicing up pies and trying to figure out why, when he's only eating small pieces, the pies keep disappearing...

OK, yes, I'm being an ass. I guess rather than total silence I would have preferred some kind of concession -- not of "defeat" but just of better understanding the problem. Ah well. If nothing else, that diary seems to have lit a fire under our Ws to improve those odds...

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 11, 2007 1:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry for being nit picky...

Just went back and reviewed your whole arguments...which I might say are very funny and intelligently argued on both sides. Im not trying to put anybody down or whatever, just saw what I believe is a mistake in reasoning in this particular example:

UC Berkeley: 10%
UCLA: 30%
UC Santa Cruz: 50%
Rejected from the UC system: 10%

Now: think hard, Dubbadown -- dig deep -- and answer this question: what are your overall odds of getting into the UC system? If you said "90%" ... you're correct!!!

The problem with this assumption is that it uses different rules than other statistical facts shown becuase these events are independant of one another.

Take the coin for example. The probability on both heads and tails is 50%. But the coin is dependant becuase if you flip heads, it must be tails, and vice versa. Thus you can rightly add up 50% and 50% to deduce that you have a 100% of getting either.

Now say you have a 50% chance of getting into Berkley and a 50% of getting into UCLA. The difference is that these two events are independant. If you dont get into UCLA, that doesnt mean you do get into Berkley. It is possible that you could get into both...and is also possible you could get into neither. Thus ading up these percents would not be mathematically correct, as you do not have a 100% of getting either, like you have with the coin. You then would use the rule of multiplication of joint probability. I am honestly not totally sure about what the actual numbers for this scenario come out to...but I believe they are 75% that you get into either, and 25% that you get into both.

I think what sparked that argument is a confilct between examples, as someone would offer independant probablities while another would offer dependant examples.

Again, sorry for being nitpicky. Just saw an example and thought I could clear something up. The only reason I am aware of this is probably because I am currently taking a statistics class. Probability is a very confusing thing, depending on how it is being used.

by Da City1 on Apr 11, 2007 2:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Argh.

DaCity, your grasp of statistics is fab, but seriously, your reading comprehension leaves a little to be desired. The whole point of the case you're citing -- which I stated about as explicitly as humanly possible -- was that it was an example of dependent variables. I'm not sure how closely it actually relates to the UC system, but that's neither here nor there. It was a hypothetical used expressly to contrast with the system of independent variables (MIT-Harvard-Yale) that Dubbadown had cited.

Quoting from the thread:

1. Independent variable system

...Admissions into MIT, Yale, and Harvard are three independent events. As far as I know, their admissions offices don't get together and say, "OK, one of us needs to admit this student." They are all acting independently of each other. So you might get into all three of them, or two of them, or one of them, or (most likely) none of them.

2. Dependent variable system

The UC schools, unlike the Ivy league schools, do work together; and, if they admit you, will admit you to one and only one of the three schools you applied to.

Got it? Good.

But yeah, everything you say is right on. And if you want to learn how to calculate the actual numbers, you can go back and find that in the thread too. It might help if this time you read through the whole thing (or at least a couple of entire posts) rather than "reviewing" and pulling random sentences out of context.

Sorry if I sound grumpy, but I hope you can understand that it's a little frustrating to explain a point a half dozen times (when you really have better things to do) and then have the exact same point explained back at you.

But as a stand-alone post: well said.

Best,
Grumpy Freud

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 11, 2007 3:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Question 4 U

I sort of hate posting in this thread, because that graphic at the top (lovely as it is) is stretching the page into long lines that I have to scroll across. But I gotta ask you about this line, DC:

The only reason I am aware of this is probably because I am currently taking a statistics class

Is this true, or just were you just being polite? 'Cos to me it seems like everything you said, eloquent as it was, is just basic common sense. I mean, I never took a statistics class. I was pretty good at math when I was young, and took a year of calculus at Cal before I picked a major, but even if I had never taken math after 6th grade I think I would grasp the basics of this problem. It just seems like stuff that if you've ever played poker, or rolled dice, or spun a game spinner, or flipped coins, or bet on horses, or cut up a pie, you would understand intuitively.

But I guess it's human nature for emotion to cloud logical understanding. There's the classic example of the coin-flipper, who after flipping six heads in a row, says "ah, now this one's gotta have a better chance of being tails!" I've actually met a ton of smart people who think this way. It's no wonder Las Vegas makes so much money.

Overall, I have to say I agree with gsw4life's point that in the case of my diary, having taken a statistics class is more likely to confuse the problem than anything else. Of course there are lots of probability problems that are totally trippy and counterintuitive -- one in particular that still wigs me out when I think of it (maybe when the season's over I'll write a random diary about it). But, as I said before, this just isn't one of them. It really is as simple as ... pie.

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 11, 2007 5:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry Sleepy.

In no way was I trying to pull random sentences and argue. I was simply trying to work a problem out. And forgive me for not reading the whole discussion... If I had I would have never posted, as you are correct that you had already said that.

And in fact, yes, I am currently a senior in high school and taking a stats class. Unlike alot of people, I am absolutely horrible at math. I think part of the reason for posting was to prove to myself I knew something. Ha ha.

Again... apologies for the misunderstanding.

by Da City1 on Apr 11, 2007 2:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

It's all good

And I have to say, in addition to the clear way you laid out the problem, I really appreciated the politeness of your tone. It's something all the people who got involved in the melee -- me included -- could learn from. As I said in the thread, debates, on the internet or elsewhere, should be about getting at the truth, not just choosing a "side" or "winning."

Anyway, being good at math is one thing, but it's not nearly as important as being a good guy (or gal). You seem to have the important part down pat. Props.

by Sleepy Freud on Apr 11, 2007 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs