tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post7465175116123126258..comments2007-12-21T11:51:14.283-05:00Brian Burkenoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-41168314023993490392007-12-21T11:51:00.000-05:002007-12-21T11:51:00.000-05:00

You just don't like it because the Packers look so lucky!But you're absolutely correct--the model's error can't be written off completely to randomness. But certainly some of it can. The question is how much. I think the answer is 'at least most of it.'All outcomes in sports are partially affected by random processes. If they didn't, we'd almost always have at least one undefeated team and one

Brian Burkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12371470711365236987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-84808014781428791072007-12-21T08:21:00.000-05:002007-12-21T08:21:00.000-05:00

"Luck is just my shorthand for a random process, and I admit using the word luck may be misleading."I think you should do away with this "stat" and report. This seems to be the difference between your predictions and the actual results. Writing this difference off as "luck" or unaccountable random events conveys the message that your model is perfect and any outcome that differs is because of

The other Briannoreply@blogger.com