Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Orangezoo, post: 885040, member: 237"]
And thats not the eye test vs a model. The reality is numbers and the eye test are used together. It depends on the choice made by the individual. In a vacuum we all know nothing about sports and use a model vs knowing lots and using none. The models and analysis used are created or pre existent. Unless you can make a point that someone who uses a model by itself vs someone who uses some basic statistics to compare two teams has a significant delta then you have no argument that models are more effective and a good predictor.

The thing that makes sports what they are is unpredictability. There are hundreds of methodologies to predicting outcomes. Most are good and include using the same figures. Creating a formula that combines figures is an arbitrary way to try to make it a more exact science. It really does not do any such thing other than provide many the perception that it does. If modeling hit 90 pct you have a point. But since resides within a range any non modeler could hit there is just no argument its something revolutionary or better.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?