Bracketology 2016-17 Style

[Jim Hyla]

Do statistical probabilities factor in variables such as player conditioning, team discipline on and off the ice, desire, dedication, coaching skills, game plans and adaptability - interesting stuff like that? I hope so.

OK everyone let me handle this one.

Hooking, shut up already.

I sincerely hope you've got "the right stuff".

[Beeeej]

Do statistical probabilities factor in variables such as player conditioning, team discipline on and off the ice, desire, dedication, coaching skills, game plans and adaptability - interesting stuff like that? I hope so.

OK everyone let me handle this one.

Hooking, shut up already.

I sincerely hope you've got "the right stuff".

I'm happy to answer the actual question, since I'm sure he's not expecting a serious one:

Yes, the statistical probabilities factor in every variable you mention, because the prior game results on which the statistical probabilities are based resulted from those variables, among many others.

But again, we play the actual games, because there is no telling what might happen on any given night. If you get all your chips in on the turn in a huge poker hand, and the other player has only one out in the deck remaining to beat you, you have a roughly 98% chance of winning the hand. If you lose the hand because that one card comes out on the river, it doesn't mean the statistical probabilities were wrong.

(Disclaimer: An example based purely on luck is not intended to imply that the outcome of a hockey game is based purely on luck, but luck is certainly one factor.)

[Jim Hyla]

Do statistical probabilities factor in variables such as player conditioning, team discipline on and off the ice, desire, dedication, coaching skills, game plans and adaptability - interesting stuff like that? I hope so.

OK everyone let me handle this one.

Hooking, shut up already.

I sincerely hope you've got "the right stuff".

I'm happy to answer the actual question, since I'm sure he's not expecting a serious one:

Yes, the statistical probabilities factor in every variable you mention, because the prior game results on which the statistical probabilities are based resulted from those variables, among many others.

But again, we play the actual games, because there is no telling what might happen on any given night. If you get all your chips in on the turn in a huge poker hand, and the other player has only one out in the deck remaining to beat you, you have a roughly 98% chance of winning the hand. If you lose the hand because that one card comes out on the river, it doesn't mean the statistical probabilities were wrong.

(Disclaimer: An example based purely on luck is not intended to imply that the outcome of a hockey game is based purely on luck, but luck is certainly one factor.)

1+

[Trotsky]

Do statistical probabilities factor in variables such as player conditioning, team discipline on and off the ice, desire, dedication, coaching skills, game plans and adaptability - interesting stuff like that? I hope so.

OK everyone let me handle this one.

Hooking, shut up already.

How about a big hand for Oscar Wilde, ladies and gentlemen?

[ugarte]

Do statistical probabilities factor in variables such as player conditioning, team discipline on and off the ice, desire, dedication, coaching skills, game plans and adaptability - interesting stuff like that? I hope so.

OK everyone let me handle this one.

Hooking, shut up already.

I sincerely hope you've got "the right stuff".

I'm happy to answer the actual question, since I'm sure he's not expecting a serious one:

Yes, the statistical probabilities factor in every variable you mention, because the prior game results on which the statistical probabilities are based resulted from those variables, among many others.

But again, we play the actual games, because there is no telling what might happen on any given night. If you get all your chips in on the turn in a huge poker hand, and the other player has only one out in the deck remaining to beat you, you have a roughly 98% chance of winning the hand. If you lose the hand because that one card comes out on the river, it doesn't mean the statistical probabilities were wrong.

(Disclaimer: An example based purely on luck is not intended to imply that the outcome of a hockey game is based purely on luck, but luck is certainly one factor.)

Okay everyone let me handle this one...

[Hooking]

If you can't or refuse to quantify key variables you have no business making statistical predictions, particularly predictions expressed in fractions of a percent. Are all you statistical savants hotel administration majors?

[Jim Hyla]

Do statistical probabilities factor in variables such as player conditioning, team discipline on and off the ice, desire, dedication, coaching skills, game plans and adaptability - interesting stuff like that? I hope so.

OK everyone let me handle this one.

Hooking, shut up already.

I sincerely hope you've got "the right stuff".

I'm happy to answer the actual question, since I'm sure he's not expecting a serious one:

Yes, the statistical probabilities factor in every variable you mention, because the prior game results on which the statistical probabilities are based resulted from those variables, among many others.

But again, we play the actual games, because there is no telling what might happen on any given night. If you get all your chips in on the turn in a huge poker hand, and the other player has only one out in the deck remaining to beat you, you have a roughly 98% chance of winning the hand. If you lose the hand because that one card comes out on the river, it doesn't mean the statistical probabilities were wrong.

(Disclaimer: An example based purely on luck is not intended to imply that the outcome of a hockey game is based purely on luck, but luck is certainly one factor.)

Okay everyone let me handle this one...

I'm willing, but it doesn't look like it worked the first time, so try harder, will you please. Pretty please.

[Swampy]

If you can't or refuse to quantify key variables you have no business making statistical predictions, particularly predictions expressed in fractions of a percent. Are all you statistical savants hotel administration majors?

OK. Let me try this time.

Look, you don't have to include every individual contributing factor separately in order to have a viable model. There are such things as interaction effects, synergies, and emergent properties so that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. You just have to have a model that incorporates effects that result from all the underlying factors and their interactions.

On top of this, many of the contributing factors are themselves correlated or, more precisely, different aspects of the same thing. So including them individually contributes nothing, and in some ways may even make the model weaker.

Finally, let's not forget that the world does not consist of "variables." For the most part, these are just measurements of the underlying reality. The reality itself is interconnected in a single whole. The measurements treated as "variables" may help us understand the reality, unless we make the mistake of treating this pragmatic, epistemic practice as if it had ontological status outside and independent of that practice.

Since someone mentioned hotel administration majors, I'll recapitulate these points through a more pedestrian example. No doubt, the quality of a great meal depends on the genetic makeup of the ingredients, how the farmers grew them, how fresh and local the ingredients are, the skills of the cooks, the quality of the kitchen appliances and utensils, the imagination of the menu planner, the knowledge and skill of the chef who invents various unique dishes, and so on. But for the most part, one does not have to know all these details to be confident of having a great meal. Usually the general reputation of the restaurant is sufficient for, say, 75% confidence. Past experience eating there might add 20%. Recommendation from a trusted friend, another 15%. And a positive review by a reliable food critic, 10 - 15% more. As you can see from the probabilities, even some of these may be redundant.

[ugarte]

I can't believe you are still responding to him in good faith.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

I can't believe you are still responding to him in good faith.

+1

[Hooking]

No offense to hotel school majors. The captain of the first Cornell Men's Hockey Team to play in Lynah, Roger ("the beast") Eastman, was a hotel major. Sorry, I don't have the statistics on Roger.

[Beeeej]

No offense to hotel school majors. The captain of the first Cornell Men's Hockey Team to play in Lynah, Roger ("the beast") Eastman, was a hotel major. Sorry, I don't have the statistics on Roger.

Looks like nobody does:

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=175337

Or maybe they just decided not to publish his stats because they wouldn't accurately reflect what he ate for lunch on game days.

[Trotsky]

The captain of the first Cornell Men's Hockey Team to play in Lynah, Roger ("the beast") Eastman, was a hotel major. Sorry, I don't have the statistics on Roger.

http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rptPlayer_Scoring/rptPlayer_Scoring_Eastman_Roger.pdf

[Hooking]

Thanks. Those statistics explain why we lost to the Susquehanna Club Team and we didn't make it to the NCAA finals. Wait! the statistical fact that the '58 Cornell hockey team was not in Division I means there was a 100% chance Cornell could not win the NCAA D-1 championship - just as certain as the statistical fact that if today's Cornell team doesn't keep winning they won't be 2017 D-1 NCAA men's hockey champions, all other statistics notwithstanding.

[andyw2100]

just as certain as the statistical fact that if today's Cornell team doesn't keep winning they won't be 2017 D-1 NCAA men's hockey champions, all other statistics notwithstanding.

Actually Cornell can definitely lose one, and perhaps even two more games and still wind up as 2017 D-1 NCAA Men's Hockey Champions.