lessthanjake wrote:Cavsfansince84 wrote:lessthanjake wrote:
Yes, I agree, but the post of mine you responded to was specifically about the 1989 Bulls being significantly bigger underdogs compared to the 1989 Cavs than the 2018 Cavs were compared to the 2018 Raptors. Which was a point I made in response to someone basically arguing that 2018 LeBron was better than 1989 Jordan because the 1989 Bulls had more trouble with the 1989 Cavs than the 2018 Cavs did with the 2018 Raptors. That argument makes no sense if the 1989 Bulls were way bigger underdogs against the 1989 Cavs than the 2018 Cavs were against the 2018 Raptors—hence why I’ve pointed out that that is precisely the case. And, given the title odds I mentioned, my point is clearly correct even when accounting for the fact that the 2018 Cavs were in “complete disarray.” And this is because of some combination of the fact that the 1989 Bulls were an even worse team than the 2018 Cavs (even despite the Cavs’ disarray), and the 1989 Cavs were better than the 2018 Raptors. In other words, I basically agree with what you’re saying, but don’t think it is at all mutually exclusive with what I’m saying.
Again, I think you guys just went way off the deep end in this thread with the 89 Cavs v 18 Raptors stuff and it ruined your guys' ability to see the thread for what it is. Betting odds have almost everything to do with perception, that's what you don't seem to be fully getting here. Vegas is in the business of making money more than deciding which team is better which is why betting odds fluctuate based on which team gets more bets. So using who Vegas favored is not some infallible tool to bring up in a bb forum. I would think you are old enough to understand this stuff. LeBron's aura of invincibility vs the east in 2018 was on a completely different level than MJ's was back in 1989 when he hadn't even made it out of the 2nd rd yet. Re 89 Bulls roster vs 18 Cavs, it's not really clear which roster was better. If the Cavs was better it’s simply because of having some guys who could hit the 3 around that version of LeBron. The Bulls otoh were built on defense and letting MJ be the offense. At the very least the Bulls team had way more experience having played together which counts for something.
Yes, the fact that betting odds fluctuate based on which team gets more bets is actually precisely the reason they’re informative, because it means the betting odds end up substantially reflecting contemporaneous consensus views of the public regarding the teams (especially in a highly-bet-on betting market such as NBA title odds). It’s akin to a publicly-traded company’s stock market value (i.e. market cap) reflecting the public’s consensus view regarding a company’s value. Of course, the public’s consensus view can be wrong, but it is still a relevant data point here. Notably, though, my argument didn’t just rely on that anyways. For instance, I also presented data showing that the 1989 Bulls got completely destroyed by the Cavs when Jordan was off the court, while the 2018 Cavs outscored the 2018 Raptors with LeBron off the court. And I also presented data regarding the historical playoff SRS of the Daugherty-era Cavs against non-Bulls teams compared to the historical playoff SRS of the pre-Kawhi Raptors against non-Cavs teams. I and others presented data about random variance with regards to three-point shooting and FT shooting in those series. I presented a lot of information on this that all pretty clearly points to the fact that it is silly to draw a conclusion that 2018 LeBron > 1989 Jordan simply because the 1989 Bulls had a tougher time beating the 1989 Cavs than the 2018 Cavs did in beating the 2018 Raptors. A comparison of title odds is just one of those data points. I think the overall picture is pretty inarguable.
As for going “way off the deep end in this thread with the 89 Cavs v 18 Raptors stuff,” I completely agree with you. It was a silly point that someone else led with as a major argument, and my point from the beginning was that the comparison between the two series was being wildly overblown in its importance. Others have simply continued trying to assert that that’s not the case. I’d be happy to stop discussing it, since I think it’s manifestly silly and unimportant, but others seem to think it is a crucially important point in favor of 2018 LeBron, so I’ve continued to address it (albeit somewhat reluctantly and nearing the end of my patience with it).
Eh the stock market point is precisely why using Vegas betting odds doesn't work. Few understand this but what actually moves markets is inventory. People are told and believe that market movements are based on real time reflections of supply and demand when in reality it's more akin to exchanges moving lines to entice the most bets that they can offload inventory (people's orders that need to be matched with opposing orders; aka every buyer needs a seller) into. It's never real time and can never perfectly reflect fundamental value because exchanges themselves exist and need to make money scalping fees off of transactions which inherently introduces variance and erratic fluctuation which is then amplified by the psychological variance of participants in the market.
So in stock terms it seems you think that ultimately the closing price was the one most representative of fair value when in reality it was the mass of orders put in above or below the closing price that actually drove the market to where it ended up. What Cavsfan is trying to explain to you and you're failing to understand is that the lines moved more for LeBron because the market itself hit a psychological level where despite the Cavs being an inferior team there was enough volume betting on LeBron for exchanges to keep accumulating orders while guiding the lines upward and trapping everyone from lower numbers that "shorted the hole". There's absolutely no reason or evidence to believe that such a move is purely representative of the absolute qualitative change in the goodness of both teams. That doesn't even make sense if you understand markets. Influenced by it? Sure. A 1:1 near perfect measure of relative strength like you seem to believe? Hell to the nah
It's also an extreme logical fallacy to think that stocks are more an accurate representation of a company's fundamental worth than that they are simply a representation of what other people think a company is worth. Surely there must be something more systematically reliable than letting Vegas tell you what to think LOL. They're literally in the business of taking money from average chumps . This same deification of the all-knowing perfectly up to date eye of the market is why so many geniuses blew up these past 2 years thinking they were getting out ahead of everyone and shorting the upcoming recession. Markets may be influenced by fundamental value but they will never for as long as humans participate in them accurately reflect true intrinsic fundamental value in real time. But also I will say, in the long run markets and human psychology can never outrun fundamentals; much like there was nothing the Raptors could do to escape the massacre of LeBronto. Just don't think using betting lines informs you of what you think it does chief.