Here I go again. This piece is uninformative in the end due to failure to begin with a base-rate anchor. A base rate is a simple extrapolation of the past that you update with the kind of specifics contained in this piece. It's essential so you know which part of the distribution to analyze.
With a 15% base rate for a Knicks championship you look for low-probability upside--Wemby foul trouble, Castle's inexperience, San Antonio's half-court offense in a grind-it-out series--you don't waste time regressing your own team's shooting luck. With a 45% base rate you don't need reassurance that "the archetypes people have in their heads are too rigid." The piece is quoting arguments all over the map from those useful for updating 5% base rates and those useful for updating 95% base rates.
One easy base rate is prediction markets (36% Polymarket, 37% Kalshi) and betting (36% FanDuel adjusted for vig). Another is to use the two major statistics cited--regular season wins (higher total wins 77% of the time since 1984) and pre-finals playoff scoring margin (higher total wins 64%). In the 18 finals where the measures conflicted the low-win/high-margin team won 6 times, a 33% base rate.
If you take a harder look, it's even worse for the Knicks. Low margins hurt high-win teams, but high margins don't help low-win teams. High-win/high-margin finalists win 87% of the time, high-win/low-margin only 45% (Fisher p = 0.005). Low-win/high-margin finalists win 40% of the time, versus 21% for low-win/low-margin but the p is only 0.30 so this could easily be noise.
The one caveat is the Knicks' margin is off-the-charts high, the bookies and prediction markets are rewarding handsomely from the 3-22 record suggested historically for a 53-win versus 62-win team, or the 1-9 (2016 Cavs the only success) adjusting for the higher pre-finals scoring margin. So the size of the Knicks' margin is giving them something like a 25% bonus, with no historical data either way to calibrate.
My impression from reading the piece is it starts out rhetorically with something like a 15% prior--about what the Knicks were before the playoffs began. It reads as bullish because it starts from there, but it actually finishes with what I would call a range of 30% to 45%--a much wider range than any reasonable statistical analysis should provide, and centered on the consensus, and all in qualitative terms.
I asked Claude to read the piece and try to put numbers on the qualitative arguments. I armed him with the actual Polymarket price history and the analysis I did on previous NBA championships. I did not supply him with previous Silver Bulletin writings to judge style. His verdict:
Piece opening prior - 15%
"+19.4 margin," "elite company" - 34%, basically Knicks playoff success to date
"weight recent heavily" - 38%
"Spurs also dominant" - 33%
"Knicks playoff experience" - 36%
"Defense leap, 14th to 7th" - 40%
"Regress shooting luck" - 35%
"Offense good to great" - 39%
"More than sum of parts" - 41%
"I wouldn't bet on them at even money, especially with Game 7 scheduled for San Antonio." - this is the closest to a quantitative prediction saying it's under 50%, but might be close to 50% with home court advantage - 43%
closing paragraph with the 0-4 sweep mentioned - anywhere from 30% to 45%
I am not a Knicks fan although a was a season-ticket holder for over a quarter century starting in the early 1980s, and you cannot avoid some affection from that. I have been betting on the Knicks all season, and would be indifferent on taking them at even money in the championship--but for reasons entirely unrelated to those in the piece. I could well be wrong, I lose a lot of bets, but I am a consistent Bayesian in my analysis, and put numbers--and money--on the conclusions.
The Knicks have beaten this iteration of the Spurs, though. It will be interesting to see if Brown thinks Tyler Kolek has something that’s kryptonite to the Spurs, as he was in the NBA Cup final.
The Spurs are so young that 3 months since that game of playoffs makes a real difference. They shot the ball poorly that night and committed a season high in turnovers.
We will see. If we’re name dropping…Stephon Castle a playoff basketball player.
I’m interested to see how Little Luka does against the Spurs platoon of guys they send at him with Wemby back there to clean it all up.
Here I go again. This piece is uninformative in the end due to failure to begin with a base-rate anchor. A base rate is a simple extrapolation of the past that you update with the kind of specifics contained in this piece. It's essential so you know which part of the distribution to analyze.
With a 15% base rate for a Knicks championship you look for low-probability upside--Wemby foul trouble, Castle's inexperience, San Antonio's half-court offense in a grind-it-out series--you don't waste time regressing your own team's shooting luck. With a 45% base rate you don't need reassurance that "the archetypes people have in their heads are too rigid." The piece is quoting arguments all over the map from those useful for updating 5% base rates and those useful for updating 95% base rates.
One easy base rate is prediction markets (36% Polymarket, 37% Kalshi) and betting (36% FanDuel adjusted for vig). Another is to use the two major statistics cited--regular season wins (higher total wins 77% of the time since 1984) and pre-finals playoff scoring margin (higher total wins 64%). In the 18 finals where the measures conflicted the low-win/high-margin team won 6 times, a 33% base rate.
If you take a harder look, it's even worse for the Knicks. Low margins hurt high-win teams, but high margins don't help low-win teams. High-win/high-margin finalists win 87% of the time, high-win/low-margin only 45% (Fisher p = 0.005). Low-win/high-margin finalists win 40% of the time, versus 21% for low-win/low-margin but the p is only 0.30 so this could easily be noise.
The one caveat is the Knicks' margin is off-the-charts high, the bookies and prediction markets are rewarding handsomely from the 3-22 record suggested historically for a 53-win versus 62-win team, or the 1-9 (2016 Cavs the only success) adjusting for the higher pre-finals scoring margin. So the size of the Knicks' margin is giving them something like a 25% bonus, with no historical data either way to calibrate.
My impression from reading the piece is it starts out rhetorically with something like a 15% prior--about what the Knicks were before the playoffs began. It reads as bullish because it starts from there, but it actually finishes with what I would call a range of 30% to 45%--a much wider range than any reasonable statistical analysis should provide, and centered on the consensus, and all in qualitative terms.
I asked Claude to read the piece and try to put numbers on the qualitative arguments. I armed him with the actual Polymarket price history and the analysis I did on previous NBA championships. I did not supply him with previous Silver Bulletin writings to judge style. His verdict:
Piece opening prior - 15%
"+19.4 margin," "elite company" - 34%, basically Knicks playoff success to date
"weight recent heavily" - 38%
"Spurs also dominant" - 33%
"Knicks playoff experience" - 36%
"Defense leap, 14th to 7th" - 40%
"Regress shooting luck" - 35%
"Offense good to great" - 39%
"More than sum of parts" - 41%
"I wouldn't bet on them at even money, especially with Game 7 scheduled for San Antonio." - this is the closest to a quantitative prediction saying it's under 50%, but might be close to 50% with home court advantage - 43%
closing paragraph with the 0-4 sweep mentioned - anywhere from 30% to 45%
I am not a Knicks fan although a was a season-ticket holder for over a quarter century starting in the early 1980s, and you cannot avoid some affection from that. I have been betting on the Knicks all season, and would be indifferent on taking them at even money in the championship--but for reasons entirely unrelated to those in the piece. I could well be wrong, I lose a lot of bets, but I am a consistent Bayesian in my analysis, and put numbers--and money--on the conclusions.
I’m trying to make “Joker KAT” a thing :-)
The obvious criticism of this post is it made no contact with the Spurs. However I do give the Knicks more of a chance than I did before reading it.
The Knicks have beaten this iteration of the Spurs, though. It will be interesting to see if Brown thinks Tyler Kolek has something that’s kryptonite to the Spurs, as he was in the NBA Cup final.
The Spurs are so young that 3 months since that game of playoffs makes a real difference. They shot the ball poorly that night and committed a season high in turnovers.
We will see. If we’re name dropping…Stephon Castle a playoff basketball player.
I’m interested to see how Little Luka does against the Spurs platoon of guys they send at him with Wemby back there to clean it all up.