Post#328 » by Xatticus » Wed Oct 19, 2016 3:38 pm
The Other Ankle wrote:Xatticus wrote:I actually botched it. That would be the likelihood of making the playoffs for four years in succession. The likelihood of missing the playoffs for four years is less than five percent (.467^4). There are obviously a lot of variables that significantly alter the real distribution. The bigger point though, is that you have to be very poor to miss the playoffs repeatedly when the threshold for entry is so low.
Edit: There have actually been six teams in the NBA that have made the playoffs in each of the last four years, and six that have failed to reach the playoffs in each of the last four. Orlando and Philadelphia are the only two in the Eastern Conference that have accomplished the latter, while only Atlanta has made the playoffs in every season. Detroit and New York are the only other teams in the East that have failed to reach the playoffs in at least two of the last four seasons.
"Assuming nothing else..." So what exactly is the point of comparing any real outcomes to a random distribution of 50/50 outcomes?
Everything that can be known or said about basketball is being deliberately ignored in this exercise, which seems rather pointless.
Why not just say that the Magic have been bad for the last four years, and use real results from real teams for comparisons if you need to?
That's akin to asking what the point of statistics is at all. The purpose of statistical modeling is to provide context. There is nothing random about it and it has nothing to do with the flip of a coin. This simple model is based on nothing other than the number of teams in the league in relation to how many make the playoffs each year. Making the playoffs isn't difficult. Whatever other inferences you've drawn are your own.
"Xatticus has always been, in my humble opinion best poster here. Should write articles or something."
-pepe1991