Jonathan Chait takes down Nate Silver and others
Michigan alum and fan, Jonathan Chait, playfully takes down Nate Silver with better statistics--along with MSU, Tom Izzo and Barack Obama--and reinforces just who is the best college basketball coach.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/03/nate-silver-and-obamas-bra…
BOOM
Goes the dynamite!
This looks like a threat to the president! (/s)
Almost puked on my TV yesterday seeing all the fawning over Staee. SportScience even had something something blah blah blah on Izzo's "heart". Turned the TV off when the next two segments were President Barry and SportScience.
me likie
Well done, Chait.
I didn't realize Silver grew up in Michigan
East Lansing HS. Class of 1994 I believe.
March 20th, 2014 at 10:29 AM ^
as he unfailingly is about sports and Michigan sports. I agree completely with almost every Michigan and sports column he's written over the years, but on politics, not as often.
So tired of the MSU hype, some warranted, some (like this piece shows) unwarranted. Can someone please beat them first weekend so I don't have to hear about it past Sunday?
Go Blue Hens.
2nd round matchups will be tough for MSU. They either have a Cinci team that is every bit as tough as them, and has a scorer in Kilpatrick who can really score. OR Tommy Amaker and Harvard. I would love to see Amaker get a little bit of payback after struggling here vs MSU.
Prediction: Cincinnati beats MSU
The worst part about the new incarnate of fiverthirtyeight is that it's owned wholly by ESPN which is why all of the sudden his algorithm includes the ridiculous BPI.
That and using pre-season rankings under the assumption that it is a valuable and accurate predictor of "overall talent level" on a roster that is useful at this time of year....
MSU/Louisville were ranked #2/3 preseason btw.
He regression tests all his factors, obviously not bpi though.
...and if you follow the link at the end, you get a nice table of coaches who improve the most over the course of a season (using coaches at a major program in the last decade and with at least 4 years of data, per the site):
Coach |
Team |
Pyth Nov/Dec |
Pyth Later |
Diff |
Chris Mack |
Xavier |
0.7701 |
0.8387 |
0.0687 |
Mark Fox |
Georgia/Nevada |
0.6973 |
0.7601 |
0.0628 |
Mike Brey |
Notre Dame |
0.8273 |
0.8796 |
0.0523 |
John Beilein |
Michigan/West Virginia |
0.8046 |
0.8521 |
0.0475 |
Chris Mooney |
Richmond/Air Force |
0.5939 |
0.6393 |
0.0454 |
Shaka Smart |
VCU |
0.8001 |
0.8425 |
0.0425 |
Kevin Stallings |
Vanderbilt |
0.8166 |
0.8574 |
0.0408 |
Scott Drew |
Baylor |
0.6965 |
0.7371 |
0.0406 |
Fran Dunphy |
Temple |
0.7737 |
0.8088 |
0.0351 |
John Giannini |
La Salle |
0.5533 |
0.5833 |
0.0300 |
play in good conferences too, so Beilein and Scott are working on improving while playing more difficult teams....
Big east, then acc. Those are certainly good conferences.
however, to hell with notre dame....
How awesomely ironic would it be if Delaware beat Sparty considering that in football, they wear winged helmets?
Sick of the Sparty slobbering. They got up for our game and we shot like crap or else they'd be a 5-seed and whining about team chemistry.
Also sick of the Sparty obsession.
"Takes down" is a little headline baiting. He really doesn't do anything to discount Silver's methodology at all.
That said, All Hail Beilein.
March 19th, 2014 at 10:45 PM ^
It's not misleading. Silver praises Izzo for being the greatest tourney coach in the country, and Chait refutes that.
March 19th, 2014 at 11:52 PM ^
Both is data and Chait's agree that Izzo is quite successful in the tourney.
He says plenty more than that Izzo is "quite successful".
“The model does not account for coach Tom Izzo’s extraordinary postseason record."
"Incredible Izzo Again Defies Odds"
He doesn't explicitly say he's the best, but it doesn't take much reading between the lines to assume that's probably what he thinks. Other coaches have been more successful than Izzo and apparently Silver hasn't written odes to them.
Simple argument:
If a guy writes multiple articles praising the tourney coaching of one particular coach and no other, then he probably thinks that coach is the best tourney coach in the country.
Silver has written...blah blah blah.
Therefore, he probably thinks Izzo is the best tourney coach.
Anyway, this article is obviously supposed to be light-hearted and poking fun at Silver's love for Izzo, so big deal if the article doesn't exactly "take down" Silver. Any other article putting Michigan over State would be met with applause and now people are splitting hairs because someone criticized Silver in jest.
March 20th, 2014 at 10:16 AM ^
I said playfully takes down. The article was more tongue-in-cheek by a Michigan grad than a genuine shot at the methodology of an East Lansing stats guru.
Beilein has fucked up a lot of people's brackets over the years. It's still called getting Pittsnogled I think
I for one don't bet against the man any more.
Yes we call the bracket bust exactly that!
Basically it is about how March is actually Beilein's month and not Izzo's.
Credit where credit is due: Izzo is 4th in the "out-performing seed" metric.
Plus, he has the ring. At the end of the day, that's what's remembered.
Which makes me want to win a title in the next five years sooooooooo badly. If there was ever a coach that deserved it, it is John Beilein.
EDIT: Usually I don't do this, but what the hell is neg-worthy in this post? That I point out that Izzo is also great at outperforming seed? That I point out that people remember an NCAA title more than the "out-performing seed" metric leader? That I say nobody deserves a title more than John Beilein?
Just trying to figure it out since nobody bothered to reply.
Anything else will draw negs from those who still can't get over the fact that State is spelled with two "t"s.
Never helps to complain about mgopoints, but yeah, it seems anyone who mentions Izzo or State without heaping scorn on them gets downvoted. Pretty sad frankly. The purge helped a little with getting rid of completely moronic people poisoning the board, but the level of homerism here is getting unreal.
in a pool and got my ass kicked. . .
do your own work.
with betting Bill O'reilly or some neocon $1000 that his model was right and Obama would get reelected. . .
But the tourney is a different animal than predicting an election. Not sure why he has so much cred in this area.
Granted focusing on baseball, but I think the fact that he's been highly successful at doing projections and statistical analysis for topics as baseball and politics might earn him the benefit of the doubt on being more qualified than most.
March 20th, 2014 at 10:23 AM ^
Silver was added to a 75 person pool I was in last year. He came in tied for 4th. Not the winner, but not an ass-kicking either. Data like that provided by Silver should be a tool not a religion--as, by its very nature, his methodology doesn't really account for meaningful upsets--and you can't win a large pool without a couple of them.
What does KenPom say? That is the only metric that means anything to me.
Before the tournament?
John Chait > Nate Silver
March 19th, 2014 at 11:01 PM ^
Razor Ramon toothpick flings and Mr. Perfect gum swats are always +1 worthy.
March 19th, 2014 at 11:39 PM ^
By what standard?
I've enjoyed him since he wrote a column in the Daily in the early 90s (still remember a hilarious piece about a summer internship at Elias Bros). I love how he uses Silver's own techniques against him.
March 19th, 2014 at 10:06 PM ^
Silver gave MSU a 6 percent chance of winning the tournament and his model doesn't have an Izzo factor. How did Chait take Silver down?
lol crazy rant? How many words are in that article? 100? It's just some rivalry teasing.
March 19th, 2014 at 10:12 PM ^
but I find all the uproar here over recent MSU hype to be pretty petty.
The last time the two played, I don't think it went well for Michigan... but if Michigan State is over rated right now (almost definitely) then let the teams prove it on the court; don't get panties all up in a bunch complaining about every person picking MSU and trying to discredit it all over.
Personally I like "experts" all over picking them just so it's that much better when they fall short.
March 19th, 2014 at 11:41 PM ^
Obama watches ESPN's selection show, remembers a few talking points swiped from Bilas, Digger and Vitale, and then does "his" picks using their logic. It's so mind-numbingly stupid.
So he's like 96% of us?
unless the President spends days watching college basketball and doing his own analysis. There should also be a cabinet member devoted to it in case silly things come up.
March 20th, 2014 at 10:26 AM ^
I trust no one takes tips from Dick.
If Chait posted this as a thread here I would downvote it. It is dumb.
Lighten up