So I will go off further into the prediction business. My prediction of no Govt. shutdown.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/09/my-prediction-we-avoid-government.html
Of course, we know that Neoclassical economists have a perfect answer to why they didn't predict the crisis-the EMH says it's impossible.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/09/mirowski-on-emh-resistance-is-futile.html
My prediction for a Giants win tomorrow is partly based on another concept of economics: reversion to the mean. While there is momentum in say baseball-when a player gets a hit he feels like he can get another and another there is also the fact that the principle of mean reversion means that if he got a hit last time at bat he's less likely to get one this time.
http://economics-files.pomona.edu/GarySmith/BBregress/baseball.html
On the other hand it's possible to go too far: like it has been predicted that over time business tends towards mediocrity-as the mean. However, this is not true.
"Many phenomena tend to be attributed to the wrong causes when regression to the mean is not taken into account."
"An extreme example is Horace Secrist’s 1933 book The Triumph of Mediocrity in Business, in which the statistics professor collected mountains of data to prove that the profit rates of competitive businesses tend toward the average over time. In fact, there is no such effect; the variability of profit rates is almost constant over time. Secrist had only described the common regression toward the mean. One exasperated reviewer, Harold Hotelling, likened the book to “proving the multiplication table by arranging elephants in rows and columns, and then doing the same for numerous other kinds of animals”.[7]"
"The calculation and interpretation of “improvement scores” on standardized educational tests in Massachusetts probably provides another example of the regression fallacy.[citation needed] In 1999, schools were given improvement goals. For each school, the Department of Education tabulated the difference in the average score achieved by students in 1999 and in 2000. It was quickly noted that most of the worst-performing schools had met their goals, which the Department of Education took as confirmation of the soundness of their policies. However, it was also noted that many of the supposedly best schools in the Commonwealth, such as Brookline High School (with 18 National Merit Scholarship finalists) were declared to have failed. As in many cases involving statistics and public policy, the issue is debated, but “improvement scores” were not announced in subsequent years and the findings appear to be a case of regression to the mean."
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/09/my-prediction-we-avoid-government.html
Of course, we know that Neoclassical economists have a perfect answer to why they didn't predict the crisis-the EMH says it's impossible.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/09/mirowski-on-emh-resistance-is-futile.html
My prediction for a Giants win tomorrow is partly based on another concept of economics: reversion to the mean. While there is momentum in say baseball-when a player gets a hit he feels like he can get another and another there is also the fact that the principle of mean reversion means that if he got a hit last time at bat he's less likely to get one this time.
http://economics-files.pomona.edu/GarySmith/BBregress/baseball.html
On the other hand it's possible to go too far: like it has been predicted that over time business tends towards mediocrity-as the mean. However, this is not true.
"Many phenomena tend to be attributed to the wrong causes when regression to the mean is not taken into account."
"An extreme example is Horace Secrist’s 1933 book The Triumph of Mediocrity in Business, in which the statistics professor collected mountains of data to prove that the profit rates of competitive businesses tend toward the average over time. In fact, there is no such effect; the variability of profit rates is almost constant over time. Secrist had only described the common regression toward the mean. One exasperated reviewer, Harold Hotelling, likened the book to “proving the multiplication table by arranging elephants in rows and columns, and then doing the same for numerous other kinds of animals”.[7]"
"The calculation and interpretation of “improvement scores” on standardized educational tests in Massachusetts probably provides another example of the regression fallacy.[citation needed] In 1999, schools were given improvement goals. For each school, the Department of Education tabulated the difference in the average score achieved by students in 1999 and in 2000. It was quickly noted that most of the worst-performing schools had met their goals, which the Department of Education took as confirmation of the soundness of their policies. However, it was also noted that many of the supposedly best schools in the Commonwealth, such as Brookline High School (with 18 National Merit Scholarship finalists) were declared to have failed. As in many cases involving statistics and public policy, the issue is debated, but “improvement scores” were not announced in subsequent years and the findings appear to be a case of regression to the mean."
In any case on the elements the Giants would seem to be in a bad spot. They've lost all three games so far and looked worse each week while the Chiefs have shaken the NFL going from 2-14 to 3-0 to start this year-already more wins than the entire 2012 season. Still there's very little chance that the Chiefs are really this good or the Giants are this bad. Unless you think the Chiefs will go 16-0 and the Jints 0-16.
My prediction is also predicated that the Giants:
1. Still have some heart. I have no question that at least their coach and QB still do.
2. They have not become a bad team. It's possible though that they have and if so they may well lose tomorrow.
No question this team has holes, most glaringly at running back so far. Wilson has not yet realized his promise-though in fairness his body of work is very small. It's gotten so bad that the Giants have brought Jacobs back who was very good in the past but does he still have it? If so he didn't show it last week.
I disagree though with those who blame this on Eli. I would say that he's really the team's only hope. Yes he has been a horror show with the ints and turnovers and one reason you can't totally kill the defense is that the offense has turned the ball over so much and the lack of a running game keeps them on the filed too long as do the turnovers.
However, part of Eli's trouble is no running game to take the pressure off him. If they can get more production-or any-from the running game they'll look a lot better.
Let's just hope last Sunday's performance by the offensive line was an aberration as Eli was sacked 6 times in the first half-which I believe is a record number of sacks of Eli. One his many great strengths is his durability-he simply doesn't get injured. Too many more Sundays like against Carolina and that may change.
No comments:
Post a Comment