Nate Silver Comparison by shayne

Lovely

2013-04-09 12:39:03 UTC

Benay/

2013-04-09 12:40:10 UTC

Silver and Price seem to have the same strategy in their decision making. They reason with the possibilty of an upset and also carefully profile each teams ability. President Obama and The rest of The PHS Crew however, seemed to use a more heartfelt approach. I think those more inclined with the familiar aspect of how basketball is played have a better judgement of prediction.

Josh A.

2013-04-09 12:42:24 UTC

Unlike PHS staff members (or at least the majority of them) Nate Silver uses a strictly Reason basis for his way of knowing. One thing that Silver stresses upon is not necessarily deciding with emotional favorites or "TopDogTeams" such as Obama's tendency to pick with the Top 10. He promotes more of the overlooked teams than those who receive all of the hype and attention. His methods for choosing are more logical and number-related, such as using formulas and "power scores" to determine which teams will advance. He also breaks the teams down in regions, establishing if one team has a higher chance of getting through a certain division than another, and going on to compare the success of each division. Silver also provides percentage chances for teams' successes. The vas majority seem to have emotion somewhere incorporated in their choices; virtually none is apparent in Silver.

Nathaniel

2013-04-09 12:42:33 UTC

Nate Silver goes about the brackets according to more reason. He named many statistics that could either confirm rankings or pick sobriety defy them. One thing that stood out to me was when he talked about Florida and their ranking. He said though they played in a mediocre division and lost games, it was the margin of victories and losses. The games they lost they rarely lost by a lot of points and the games they won they won by more then 10 points. However, when looking at the teachers their wasn't a lot of that. They went off emotion more and also President Obama. Obama talked how he was bias toward teams in the Big East conference and teams with a specific coach. Also, the reason he gave for choosing Syracuse was because Vice president Biden wanted him too. Coach Flud chose Duke because that was his fav team while part of Ms.Pitts argument for choosing Louisville was they history of her and one of the players on the team.

William

2013-04-09 12:43:05 UTC

Originally I viewed Nate silver's idea without much thought. This was because his ideas had no credibility when he was talking. Later on I noticed his article which was supported with statistical evidence.

On the other hand, the PHS staff chose in a different way. Martin chose by heart rather than statistical data. Coach price chose with statistical evidence but he chose base on the previous winners more than the underdogs.

Finally when it came to Obama, it was apparent that he chose with a mixture of emotion and previous winners. He noticed the data of the players as well as the history of the team, and he even chose the under dog for some wins. My only question is though, was it really his choice or was someone assigned to tell him who is more likely to win.

Brittney

2013-04-09 12:44:00 UTC

Nate Silver bases the method for brackets purely on reason and he also advices against picking the favorites which President Obama does while choosing his bracket. Silver also takes in account the coaching behind the team like Obama who acknowledges the drive in the team and the coaching ability. Ms.Pitt also looks at the ability of the players and defense which Silver discusses in the article. Mr.Martin however does not follow the same methodology because he uses emotion instead of reason while choosing his bracket and doesn't take in account team ability.

JazzyAyee

2013-04-09 12:44:00 UTC

Nate silver thinks that you should do a risky bracket because it pays off more in the end especially if you're in a pool for money. Going with a popular team isn't always going to give you good results with your bracket. Phs staff are slightly going by what he's talking about but he uses more formulas and crunching numbers to complete his bracket. Personal bias doesn't help it just hurts your results

Jessica Nolasco

2013-04-09 12:44:01 UTC

Nate Silver has a systematic logical way of filling out the brackets. However there are moments in which he defies that by saying sometimes one should go with a team that is more overlooked.

Junior "The Great"

2013-04-09 12:44:16 UTC

Mr. Silver incorporates both, however , he values reason alot more. He tends to agree more with coach price and disagree with the president. The president has a BIG TEN obsession, which clouds his judgement. However Silver disagree, he has a logical and gamble type attitude. Mr, Silver method just like everyone else's is flawed, there's is no right method to bracket picking because they would always be the too logical thinkers, the overemotional pickers and they is never anyone with the right balance of both

Ihunanya

2013-04-09 12:44:20 UTC

Nate Silver has a way that he's come up with to determine how to fill out the brackets which greatly relies on reason. President Obama in a sense relied on reason when deciding which teams would win each conference and the overall NCAA championship but didn't have an intricate plan like that of Nate Silver. But with President Obama, emotion became a factor when he got closer and closer to determining the overall winner. His reasoning went out of the window because at that point teams were too close to call so he had to rely on his emotions to make those final decisions. At the end, he chose Indiana. Mr. Martin on the other hand had no logical plan or reasoning to his decisions in the bracket. He relied solely on emotions and a hope for teams like Duke and Syracuse to pull through and win every year. Coach Fludd relied on emotions as well but his style of completing brackets was in a way strategic where he makes 10 different brackets in order to convey different gameplay situations.

Elijah

2013-04-09 12:44:32 UTC

Nate silver uses reason as the basis for his picks. He uses many mathematical processes to assess what teams are going to win. Obama used a mixture of emotion and logic. He went with teams that he felt had good players and coaches. He also looked at the team records

Paige

2013-04-09 12:45:02 UTC

For Obama when he did his brackets he choose his teams from bias. He choose by the players he really liked and by the coaches he really liked. But he also follows the teams season so he had a pretty good idea of why he choose the teams he did. He used his head and his heart when choosing the teams.

Nate Silver used statics when he was doing the brackets using preseason and following the teams. All his picks were strategical and were not bias. He wasn't picking by the players or coaches he liked. He also looks at past seasons to get a better look at the team.

From the two Obama choose like Mr.Martin and Coach Fludd in picking and how most people would pick in choosing teams. Unlike Nate Silver most people do not use all the statics he did when doing brackets.

Lovely

2013-04-09 12:45:24 UTC

For the most part Nate Silver uses reason more than perception because he used mostly statistics to make his decisions who is suppose to be the champion for this season. He neither used the methodology of Obama nor had any similar viewpoints with PHS teachers. Rather, he is more logical. Maybe because he has more access to using statistics of the games. In addition, he pretty much used default statistical methods to analyze the games and especially the teams. Barely did he used his own experiences (perception) to make his decisions, which was what PHS teachers used.

Linda

2013-04-09 12:46:00 UTC

Nate Silver's methodology for the brackets are much more statistical than the PHS and Obama's methodology. There are many factors that play into Nate Silver's method which include preseason scores, losses, and wins; it also utilized many formulas in order to create these ratings of the basketball teams. The PHS staff and Obama used their preferences in order to make their decisions which is more biased. Although Silver, Obama, and PHS staff are in agreement when analyzing the teams past performances, which is important in creating their perception of each team.

Selena

2013-04-09 12:46:56 UTC

Nate Silver thinks that the computers can not totally predict the champions even though they have been correct for the past two years. The thing that I noticed was that no one can predict the correct upsets. For example in the case of Georgetown nobody expected them to be defeated by Florida Gulf Coast but they were. He also said that people should not believe the hype surrounding teams. I though that this was partially correct because many did not expect Michigan to make it but they made it to the championship game.

Aaliyah

2013-04-09 12:47:31 UTC

Nate Silver is a but more reasonable about the brackets as opposed to emotion. Louisville in the year of 2013 has become the number one seed because of the publicity and sympathy towards Kevin Ware and his gory injury. All three perceptions of these brackets between Silver, Obama, and the PHS staff are different. The PHS staff has more of an emotional basis, although they do not always go with the majority, they use factors such as colleges they went to or schools that they just happen to like. Obama went off of his perception of how he thought each team was playing and their skill level, which is not exactly official statistics. Silver went with complete statistics and was aware that statistics should not be the complete basis, as he brings us teams that took the tournament unexpectedly when all of the U.S. thought it would be another team. He suggests reasoning with statistics as well as skill levels.

Stella Bella

2013-04-09 12:47:59 UTC

Nate Silver's way of breaking down his process for doing his bracket is solely reason based. In reference in his justification and explanation one can see that he studies and monitors these conferences and has come up with certain formulas that can create a steady bracket. What I've noticed with Silver is that even with his expertise he know that these conferences can be unpredictable. One thing he believes in when filling out his bracket is "do not believe the hype" which is what other people often do. Silver has more of a statistical analysis, taking in the performance of the teams during pre season, the regular season, the style of the coaching, the fluidity of the teams as a whole and the individual players. Even with these considerations he had Louisville winning at a 1/5 chance (which was the highest). Silver's process is more complex while Obama and Mrs.Pitt were ones to "believe the hype" and intertwine personal beliefs and connections, leaving Coach Price in the middle. In my opinion although the results may be similar (in accordance to whom the winner may be) the processes differ vastly.

Guyvin

2013-04-09 12:49:02 UTC

According to Nate Silver the best way to get your bracket set up is to look at the power ratings and the rankings of the time. He said you can't be so sure on picking the highest rank teams because they have low percentage out of the field of winning. But Silver did say that to pick upsets than you have to go with a team that has beat a couple of hard teams and okay teams. Comparing his method to President Obama is that Obama used Reasoning in his judgement because he went a little bit with looking at rankings and looking at teams schedule in which they won difficult games. Comparing the PHS staff they used more emotion than what Obama and Silver did because there were no statistics looked at but there was methods in which they looked at top teams and upsets knowing that there are many upsets each year.

Romance

2013-04-09 12:49:19 UTC

Michael

2013-04-09 12:49:26 UTC

Silver also uses reason (in the form of his power formulas) to predict winners in the tournament, as do Ms. Pitt and President Obama. He says that "hype teams" don't always win all the games and that, today, there is no longer such a thing as a "dominant team" anymore.

Trajé

2013-04-09 12:49:34 UTC

Nate silver taks more about reason when selecting the teams for the bracket. He goes in to talking about strategic ways in choosing teams. He suggest that people goes back to the preseason and really see the percentage of chance they have to actually win. He also spoke on pass years when basically the underdog ended up wining. He also uses logic by calculating points to see how many points each team would win by or how any games they won. Hate silver defiantly uses more reasoning than emotion unlike the Phs staff who mostly does it for fun and goes with there teams. They don't do the research like Nate silver did.

Jayeon

2013-04-09 12:50:57 UTC

Nate silver bases his rankings more statistically than president Obama and the psh staff. He looks into the teams previous performances, the injuries the had, the travel time of the teams. His method is more looking into the numbers and all aspects of the game: he focuses on the reasoning part of it. President Obama however, bases his rankings based on the coaches and the players performances and also on his personal favorites his is more emotion based but he also reasons it out.

Jasmine BW

2013-04-09 12:51:05 UTC

Nate Silver has a more statistically analysis of the teams based on previous tournaments and how well the teams have done during the season. One important factor Silver included in the creation of the. Brackets is how far a team has to travel to play their game. A team that has to travel for an extended amount of time have the possibility of being more tired or not completely prepared in comparison to the team that plays at home.

The PHS Staff and Obama created their brackets based on personal preference and a general understanding of the rankings of the teams and how far they are expected to go in the tournament.

Kayla

2013-04-09 12:52:33 UTC

Nate Silver chose his bracket on more logical terms. Like the President, and the PHS staff, Nate Silver also factored in the teams performance, which is an important factor in picking the bracket. What the others had, that Nate did not was emotion. The teachers and the President used their emotions in picking teams, when Mr. Silver used more reasoning. Also he was used knowledge of winners from obvious years, to pick the outcome of his bracket.

Selena

2013-04-09 12:55:05 UTC

In comparison to Obama Silver had more detailed information about the way the formula decided the winners. Obama however had more analysis of the teams and how they played. There fore they based their decisions on two different factors of March Madness.

Togoe

2013-04-09 12:56:31 UTC

With what the president had to say was all over the place, with Nate he had a plan and stuck with that plan. He felt as though his statistical background had a better effect then anything. He used numbers and outcome, percentages and all those things to determine the outcome of the brackets. President Obama just used personal favors and how the others played. He had a more personal emotional relationship to the bracket. Choosing based on what he really like and what he saw as a way of winning. Nate way of showing his knowledge is based on numbers and honestly numbers can never do you wrong.

Trajé continued

2013-04-09 12:57:45 UTC

Belleh

2013-04-09 12:58:56 UTC

Nate silver's mythology is based discreetly on statistics. He incorporates in his brackets a great amount of statistical information about each team. Though his methods are centered around reason and logic some of his predictions seemed to contradict that ideology. Obama,a for the most part follows mot of what mr. Silver 's method suggest.

2013-04-09 13:00:46 UTC