- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Anyone want to chime in on the mathematical soundness of my NBA simulating model
Posted on 1/20/17 at 1:53 pm
Posted on 1/20/17 at 1:53 pm

My NBA simulator model has been doing well, enough to turn me a profit using it to bet, but I was still unnerved by the fact that at least on totals, it was skewing too heavily toward the under, by an aggregate of about 1.25 points.
So what I did is that in my stat calculations, I switched over to the basketball-reference.com style of calculating possessions(have been using the stats.nba.com/ESPN's style of calculating possessions, which is FGA + (FTA * .44) - ORB + TO). Basketball Reference is a bit different, 0.5 * ((Tm FGA + 0.4 * Tm FTA - 1.07 * (Tm ORB / (Tm ORB + Opp DRB)) * (Tm FGA - Tm FG) + Tm TOV) + (Opp FGA + 0.4 * Opp FTA - 1.07 * (Opp ORB / (Opp ORB + Tm DRB)) * (Opp FGA - Opp FG) + Opp TOV)).
So while this made game possession calculations more accurate, it also means my simulator needs to take into consideration a couple of things. One, this style of calculating possessions tries to factor in the team offensive rebound(something that doesn't show up on a box score). It uses 1.07 * ORB to calculate the team rebound. Second, it changes FTA to 0.4 for a possession usage, down from 0.44 on the previous method.
So I changed it up and was still getting too low totals, and I realized two things, my simulator was still using FTA as a full possession usage, and was not factoring in the team rebound. So in my simulator I decreased the running possession count(the simulated "game" ends when the running possession count is greater than the estimated possession count for the game) for free throws from 1 to 0.8(0.4 per free throw times 2). This helped some but was still short.
Then I realized that FGA attempts were the culprit of the low totals, as they were too low based on expectancy. So for every offensive rebound that occured in the simulation, I reduced the running possession counter by .07(to factor in the team offensive rebound). This also helped, but the total was still just a bit too low for my liking.
What I finally did was realize that box score turnovers and season team stat turnovers are not equal because of the rare "team turnover". For example if you add up the Hawks total turnovers individually from the box scores for all their games this year, you get 628, but their season turnover total is 647, meaning they have 19 team turnovers that didn't show up in box scores. So what I did was multiply their game turnovers by the percentage increase of team turnovers (3.025%). This was necessary because my possession and tempo calculations use turnovers in the equation, so naturally being short on turnover totals was causing tempo numbers to also be a bit too low. This seemed to do the trick and now the simulated totals in a macro sense are more in line with the posted totals.
Is there anything else I need to be factoring in here? I factor in back-to-backs, use both dynamic home advantages and static home advantages, but nothing with injuries.
Posted on 1/20/17 at 1:56 pm to goldennugget
grilled chicken wrap
water
water
Posted on 1/20/17 at 1:59 pm to goldennugget
quote:
Is there anything else I need to be factoring in here?
dukke v's prediction would be a valid variable to track when available.
Posted on 1/20/17 at 2:04 pm to goldennugget
Did not read
How was the script factored in
How was the script factored in
This post was edited on 1/20/17 at 2:05 pm
Posted on 1/20/17 at 2:06 pm to goldennugget
Posted on 1/20/17 at 2:11 pm to goldennugget
quote:
Is there anything else I need to be factoring in here?
Linking your spreadsheet for us to download.
Posted on 1/20/17 at 2:12 pm to saintsfan1977
I'm permanently banned from SBR
Otherwise id have posted there
I think my model is fine and that oddsmakers use the .44 method. Hence why my totals seem to go lower
Tonight we have 2 teams on the extreme
Dallas and Utah play who are the 2 slowest paced teams in the league. Both teams tempos are about 5 possessions per 48 minutes slower than the league average. Plus Dallas is on a back to back and teams coming off a back to back tend to play slower. Expectency says since both teams are 5 possessions slower than the league average than the game tempo will be 10 possessions slower than the league average, or about 85(league average is 96, plus a possession for the back to back decrease). But a tempo of 85 is awfully low... at what point is too low, too low.
Rockets and Warriors other extreme. GSW is #1 in pace and Rockets are #4. So fast tempo game right. Model puts game tempo at 104, 8 possessions faster than the league average. Even then - simulated total is 235 which is really high - but still 4.5 points short of the posted total of 239.5. I'm guessing the discrepency is based on how the odds makers (and the market) calculate possessions. The .44 method overestimates possessions.
Otherwise id have posted there
I think my model is fine and that oddsmakers use the .44 method. Hence why my totals seem to go lower
Tonight we have 2 teams on the extreme
Dallas and Utah play who are the 2 slowest paced teams in the league. Both teams tempos are about 5 possessions per 48 minutes slower than the league average. Plus Dallas is on a back to back and teams coming off a back to back tend to play slower. Expectency says since both teams are 5 possessions slower than the league average than the game tempo will be 10 possessions slower than the league average, or about 85(league average is 96, plus a possession for the back to back decrease). But a tempo of 85 is awfully low... at what point is too low, too low.
Rockets and Warriors other extreme. GSW is #1 in pace and Rockets are #4. So fast tempo game right. Model puts game tempo at 104, 8 possessions faster than the league average. Even then - simulated total is 235 which is really high - but still 4.5 points short of the posted total of 239.5. I'm guessing the discrepency is based on how the odds makers (and the market) calculate possessions. The .44 method overestimates possessions.
Posted on 1/20/17 at 2:15 pm to goldennugget
Didn't read, went straight for the downvote
Posted on 1/20/17 at 2:16 pm to goldennugget
You've basically said you think there's a script and the league is fixed, so why did you even bother doing all of this work?
Posted on 1/20/17 at 2:18 pm to LL012697
quote:
You've basically said you think there's a script and the league is fixed, so why did you even bother doing all of this work?
The playoffs are fixed
Posted on 1/20/17 at 2:21 pm to LL012697
Because he doesnt get the inside information? Some guys use stats, some only watch line moves, some actually know where the money is on a game. Some use a combination of all 3 and some people dont use any of it. If it works stick with it.
Posted on 1/20/17 at 2:31 pm to goldennugget
quote:
The playoffs are fixed
I wish your post count was fixed
Posted on 1/20/17 at 2:33 pm to knight_ryder
quote:
The playoffs are fixed
I wish your post count was fixed
Brutal

Posted on 1/20/17 at 2:35 pm to goldennugget
Oh? What's this years script
Posted on 1/20/17 at 2:35 pm to goldennugget
quote:
I'm permanently banned from SBR

Posted on 1/20/17 at 2:40 pm to goldennugget
quote:C'mon now, what'd you do?
I'm permanently banned from SBR
Posted on 1/20/17 at 2:48 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
C'mon now, what'd you do?
The mod shari91 banned me for insulting someone by saying they were gay
No lie
I was a well respected member of that board for years and all of a sudden get banned. Never knew when they implemented that rule because for years posters would joke about other users being a homo
Back to top
