Game Thread Mar 25, 2024 07:00PM MT: Jazz vs. Mavericks

[MTS]

Again, you can easily make millions if you're right.

The betting market is extremely aware that the Jazz are tanking.

 

[Tanktastic]

Dear lord... you are giving me all teh Maffs theories but you can't see Lauri is questionable again... JC already declared out. They are trying to lose tomorrow. They didn't need to try as hard to lose yesterday.

Reality is my proof. Jazz may end up going 1-1 but they are giving themselves a chance to seem competitive while going 2-0.

No, I'm not giving you theories, I'm giving you the actual facts.

The discussion never was were the Jazz trying to tank. Because that's obvious and there's nothing to discuss.

You continue to claim to holding Lauri out of close games and playing him in big underdog games produces more losses. Against a market of billions of dollars. Either you have your own reality or you've just decided you're gonna argue me, whatever the issue, and look bad doing it.

JC playing or not does nothing for the Jazz odds. (Which might not be a good sign for front office competence considering his salary.)

And both times Lauri was held out, at this point he was listed as OUT (maintenance) so him being listed as questionable (as he was yesterday) is a sign that he's playing - not that he's not.

The betting market is extremely aware that the Jazz are tanking.

Yes. And that affects the base odds, but whether Lauri plays or not moves the money line by the exact same amount whether the Jazz are playing the Mavs or the Spurs.

(And the point spread moves differently, because games have pretty much a normal distribution around the average margin of victory. So a 7 % change in win probability moves the spread much less in a tight game than one where the spread starts at 10+.)

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

No, I'm not giving you theories, I'm giving you the actual facts.

The discussion never was were the Jazz trying to tank. Because that's obvious and there's nothing to discuss.

You continue to claim to holding Lauri out of close games and playing him in big underdog games produces more losses. Against a market of billions of dollars. Either you have your own reality or you've just decided you're gonna argue me, whatever the issue, and look bad doing it.

JC playing or not does nothing for the Jazz odds. (Which might not be a good sign for front office competence considering his salary.)

And both times Lauri was held out, at this point he was listed as OUT (maintenance) so him being listed as questionable (as he was yesterday) is a sign that he's playing - not that he's not.


Yes. And that affects the base odds, but whether Lauri plays or not moves the money line by the exact same amount whether the Jazz are playing the Mavs or the Spurs.

(And the point spread moves differently, because games have pretty much a normal distribution around the average margin of victory. So a 7 % change in win probability moves the spread much less in a tight game than one where the spread starts at 10+.)

I don't really care about the money line. Its also not a fact that its the exact same no matter the opponent because many factors go into these lines and some have nothing to do with what is happening on the basketball court. Its not going to be perfectly consistent. I'm not going to be able to make billions in a 2 game sample and over an 82 game season the math plays out... in a 2 game sample with external factors and motivations I think there will absolutely be some manipulation tomorrow. I suppose I live in an alternate reality where math always rules and I should be able to take the house to the cleaners.

 

[HermanG]

This math argument is silly if we at the same time assume Will Hardy is in on the tank. If Hardy is in then the point of game day roster management is not to lose the game by chance, but to ensure we are in a position to lose at the end.

There was nearly zero chance we ran away from the Mavs, but there is a legitimate chance we may do that to the Spurs. So @Handlogten's Heros is 100% correct on this if we assume Hardy isnt trying to win. If he is though, then its just a game of odds and chances.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Facts. Proof. Please.

Again, you can easily make millions if you're right.

And doing what? Sitting Clarkson? Him playing or sitting doesn't really affect the Jazz win probability at all, in either direction.

Look at Clarkson's averages when he plays at home
He .makes a difference

 

[kcgar]

I don't think you do. Or rather you value your "feeling" above the actual math. You think you want to affect the result of a "close game", but that's not how probabilities work.

The game is exactly as likely to "land" in the 7 % where it changes the outcome whether it was 57/43 or 37/63.

Being clear underdogs does not mean a sure loss, as you feel. It means the Jazz might have a 30 (or 37) % chance at a win.

For you to call me wrong, you're going to have to prove - against all evidence - that Lauri playing swings the close game 10 % (or whatever) and the heavy dog game 0 % (or whatever much smaller number).

(And thinking that if there's a game that's close at the end, Hardy is making decisions to intentionally lose that one at that point... now you've just lost the plot. #1 he's liable to completely lose the team right that second. #2 if a player says anything to the media about what happened, both Hardy and the FO are likely to lose their jobs.)

<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/TlK63ERYSGQsdqG04uc" width="480" height="360" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="
View: https://giphy.com/gifs/michael-keaton-jerk-off-multiplicity-TlK63ERYSGQsdqG04uc
">via GIPHY</a></p>

 

[Tanktastic]

The only missing are the screams of NEEERRRRDDDDD!!!

"I don't understand math" ===> "well, well, well... ... you're stupid!"

 

[HermanG]

The only missing are the screams of NEEERRRRDDDDD!!!

"I don't understand math" ===> "well, well, well... ... you're stupid!"

Before you go down this route I want to point out that your own logic was mathematically inadequate.

The chances of going 2-0, 1-1 or 0-2 are not the same if you add 7% to one vs the other. There is this thing called variance in probability maths, and variance is not equal in those cases. So extreme outcome is more common in one (by 1.4% for both 2-0 and 0-2) while middling outcome (1-1) is 2.8% more common in the other.

So pot calling kettle black.

 

[Tanktastic]

Except whatever happens in two games picked out of a hat has no meaning to anyone. The Jazz tanking they're not trying to go 1-1 or 0-2. The final tank covers ~18 games.