3 ms·

Anytime you open up anything like this, you force the "experts" to prove they're actually experts... and that's often difficult.

glanch 14y ago
Very true. I am a die-hard NFL fan, and I can honestly say that there is very little useful 'expert analysis' presented to the public, at least in terms of predicting future results (which is the holy grail of analysis, at least from my perspective, as a fan and something interested in gambling). Before every season, all the 'experts' come to a general consensus on which teams should be good, and which should not. They are always nearly identical to the results of the previous season. Yet statistics from the past decade have shown us that there is a nearly 50% annual turnover among the teams who qualify for the playoffs (the top 12 out of 32 teams). Only recently have some experts begun to at least attempt to follow this trend, but for the most part, pre-season predictions are laughably conservative. They tend to just remember who was good last year, and assume they'll be good this year, even though it's been proven year after year that just doesn't happen. I like to follow sports because it's one of the arenas in which you can clearly measure so many statistics and the accuracy of predictions. Of course the nature of random events (injuries mostly) is the cause for much of this chaos, but I felt like the NFL was a great example of experts being overwhelmingly.. well.. underwhelming, and observably so.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Retric 14y ago
It's not always easy to judge. If a local weather man says 30% chance of rain in DC, does that account mean rain on in some part of DC, 30% of DC will get rain, the average chance of rain for the area is 30% with some parts of it having above 30% and others lower, or some combination of all 3.

3 ms·

Anytime you open up anything like this, you force the "experts" to prove they're actually experts... and that's often difficult.

by wangarific 14y ago

glanch 14y ago
Very true. I am a die-hard NFL fan, and I can honestly say that there is very little useful 'expert analysis' presented to the public, at least in terms of predicting future results (which is the holy grail of analysis, at least from my perspective, as a fan and something interested in gambling). Before every season, all the 'experts' come to a general consensus on which teams should be good, and which should not. They are always nearly identical to the results of the previous season. Yet statistics from the past decade have shown us that there is a nearly 50% annual turnover among the teams who qualify for the playoffs (the top 12 out of 32 teams). Only recently have some experts begun to at least attempt to follow this trend, but for the most part, pre-season predictions are laughably conservative. They tend to just remember who was good last year, and assume they'll be good this year, even though it's been proven year after year that just doesn't happen. I like to follow sports because it's one of the arenas in which you can clearly measure so many statistics and the accuracy of predictions. Of course the nature of random events (injuries mostly) is the cause for much of this chaos, but I felt like the NFL was a great example of experts being overwhelmingly.. well.. underwhelming, and observably so.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Retric 14y ago
It's not always easy to judge. If a local weather man says 30% chance of rain in DC, does that account mean rain on in some part of DC, 30% of DC will get rain, the average chance of rain for the area is 30% with some parts of it having above 30% and others lower, or some combination of all 3.