Figures Lie, and Liars will Figure

This was originally a comment in reply to C-Lauff's comment on my commentary on the Iran elections. However, the response ran really long, and is now a post. He added a link to an article that suggests that the vote totals looked fishy. However, if you click on the comments, you'll see a number of comments that indicate that the analysis itself is fishy. I'm going to give my take on it in the reply to C-Lauff, below:


Yeah, I saw that article. The method seems OK. I'm about 99% sure that they used binomial distributions for this. However, I'm not sure about their interpretation. If you go to http://stattrek.com/Tables/Binomial.aspx you can fill in numbers yourself.

I'll walk through the calculations. Essentially, what they're saying is, "OK. We've got a list of 116 numbers. Each number (0-9) should show up roughly 11.6 times, or 10% of the time." And, deviations from this 10% should be relatively random (which becomes normally distributed).

The proof offered in the editorial (haven't looked at the raw analysis), suggests that having one digit show up 20 times is unlikely, and having a 2nd digit show up only 5 times is unlikely, and having both occur is akin to fraud.

We can separate this into 2 calculations. The first is the odds that with 116 trials, at a probability of 10%, how likely is it that we get a single digit 20 or more times. For one particular digit, the odds are against you - only 1.105%. However, for all 10 digits, the equation is a little different. The odds for having no digits show up 10 or more times is: (1-.01105)^10. Run the numbers, and you get the probability that at least one digit shows up 20 or more times as 10.52%.

Now, of the remaining 96 trials, how likely is it that you get a single digit 5 or fewer times? For a specific digit, the answer is 3.734%. However, for all of the 9 remaining digits, the calculation is (1-.03734)^9 = 1-p. The odds of this happening is about 29%.

Now, you multiply the results together to see how often both happen, and you get roughly 3.05% of the time, which is what they say (the less than 4 out of 100 times they say in the article).

They go on to say some stuff about sequential digits, and run the same calculation (the odds of 72 or fewer successes out of 116, given a 70% success rate), and get another value of 4.12% (the less than 4.2% they say in the article)

Now, what they're saying is that the odds of both the first condition (the 3.05%) and the 2nd condition (the 4.12%) occurring is slim (I get roughly 0.13%), a little lower than the 0.5% they say in the article. However, that doesn't really indicate fraud, in my opinion. Think about all the possibilities in life. Any single one happening is ultra-rare, right? We're biased to pull out things that support our assertions.

Look at our UPL fantasy baseball stats. Look at single-digits column of the total runs scored. As of today (6/26), we have 4 teams with 3, 2 teams each with 9,7,and 2 runs, and only 1 team with 1 and 8. No teams have 4, 5, or 6 runs.

What are the odds of having 4 or more teams with the same number of runs? The numbers suggest 22.87% of the time that will happen. Easy enough. Now, if I wanted to fish something out of thin air, and build a statistical argument around it, I can easily do it.

Look at the number of times that you get the same number in the tens and ones column... you see 09, 17, and 53 twice. What are the odds of seeing the exact same set of 2-digit numbers? 1 in 100. What are the odds of seeing it 3 or more times out of 12? 5 times out of a million. What are the odds that the sequence of numbers that we currently have in the UPL show up (given those two conditions)? About 1 in a million. Clearly there is fraud going on. And I'm certain that this is the case because I'm not in first place (which has happened 5 out of 8 seasons).

So, aside from reminding everyone how unlikely it is that I won't come back to win the baseball league, I'm sort of pointing out how in any data set, you can pretty much fish out whatever you want, if you keep looking hard enough. And once you fish out the conclusion you want, you can come up with stats to back it up, particularly if you just random numbers as your basis. However (and this is the key), smart people will look at the theoretical explanation for why the stats someone poses really matter.

Overall, I suppose my question is, do you still think that the article gives a strong case for fraud, or a weak case for fraud? In the original article, I'm just not seeing it.

-Chairman

Hail to the Chief

And I don't mean Illiniwek. I'm talking about my new favorite president. Ladies and Gentlemen... Tricky... Dick... Nixon!!!

We knew that this guy opened up China to the west...

Nixon (right) shakes hands with the "other" Chairman (left).

...and that he wasn't afraid to break a few rules...

Mark Felt is... Deep Throat: The Man that Brought Down Dick. This guys looks like a "Deep Throat."

But did we know that Nixon was awesome? Check out the quotes on this little piece.

Nixon on abortion: "It breaks the family... (however) There are times when an abortion is necessary... When you have a black and a white... or a rape."

Nixon on Jews: "It may be that they have a death wish. You know, that's been the problem with our Jewish friends for centuries."

At this point, I could just end the post, but I figure that a little digging would be cool...

According to Wikipedia, Tricky Dick grew up in a poor, Quaker family, got into Harvard and Yale, but couldn't afford either. He did end up at Duke, where he became the president of the Duke Bar Association. Interestingly, I'm the president of the TFS Bar Association, but I'm guessing that these two groups have different missions. In any case, he volunteered for military service when WWII rolled around, and made enough playing poker during the war, that he was able to finance a campaign to become a Congressman. How cool is that?

Apparently, Nixon was a pretty reasonable fellow, from a political standpoint. Believed in looking internationally, supported civil rights, and was actually enough of a patriot to stand aside in the 1960 election, when there were allegations of voter fraud in Illinois (which, given the state of Illinois politics, was probably a given - JFK won by 450,000 votes in Cook County, but won the state by less than 9,000 votes) and Texas (LBJ's home state, where some counties had more votes than voters, just like in Iran, 2009). JFK beat him by a mere 0.2% in the popular vote, and Illinois/Texas would have swung the election. Instead, Nixon loses the election, loses in the 1962 run for California governor, and then retires from politics.

And in 1968, he made a comeback that would make MJ envious, and became an almost-2-term president.

Nixon made great strides internationally by pushing detente w/ the Russians, and opening up a relationship with China. And he did a lot to push advances in civil rights here at home. I suppose that the question is do we judge people by their sound bites, or do we judge them by their actions? When it comes down to it, are we going to remember a quip about interracial abortions? Or the desegregation of schools? And of course, you have the whole Watergate thing, which may have been blown out of proportion, in terms of how if affected the election (though not in terms of character).

As I read through the history on Tricky Dick, I think that I like him, in terms of someone who gets things done. I don't think that I agree with all of his international moves, but that's done in hindsight (like strengthening the position of the countries in the Middle East, so as to reduce Russian influence). And you have to wonder if he wouldn't have been better served during Watergate, just by coming clean early on, and saying, "Hey, sorry. I screwed up, but this didn't really affect the landslide election. Can we all be friends again?" But I suppose that folks who are that smart and confident in their abilities tend toward pride and winning the debate, rather than humility and reconciliation.

In any case, it seems that Nixon is forgotten by us - we're generally OK with history, but not so great with semi-recent history. But, I have a suspicion that he'd be a great case study of both things to do, and things to not do as a leader. And you have to put some common threads with someone like Barack Obama. Neither of them grew up privileged, and both of them made their way through by being smart and skilled. Both of them are pragmatic. And both seem to show a bit of an arrogant streak at times. Of course, they're both wildly different in their political (particularly economic) views. Some folks have already pointed out some similarities between the two. We'll see how things play out.

-Chairman

Twittering Idiots

There's been a lot made of Twitter, particularly the role that it's played in this whole Iran scenario. Originally, my thought was that Twitter made us all dumber. And, I think that I still hold to that thought. Especially in the case of the Iran thing. We have no clue what's reliable and what isn't reliable. It's this information overload, where you're not sure if you're getting breaking news, or if you're getting a con job. And this is the sort of thing where you have no idea how useful all of this is. Quick aside - I'm guessing that the election in Iran was rigged and that Twitter has played a minor to moderate role in increasing global awareness, however, I'm fearful that the opposite scenario could be true: What if the elections in Iran were legit, the losers are using technology to get Western support for mob rule and an attempted revolution? From what I've seen, it could go either way, but we don't have much evidence, either way.

Note added 6/22 @ 1:35pm - It appears that the government in Iran has acknowledged that there were issues with the vote. Not exactly clear if the vote was rigged (more votes than voters in 50 cities), and the natural question is whether the outcome was changed. I will say this, in my Dictatorship 101 seminar, we were taught that when in doubt, deny everything and crush dissidents mercilessly. Of course, we were also taught to never hold elections for any sort of office, beyond, maybe, student council elections.

But one thing that I do sort of like is the ability to share your own inane thoughts to the world in 140-character sound bites. For someone who's as wordy as I am, this sort of forces you to get to the point. From time to time, I'm going to post some of my more interesting tweets (twits? twats? wait... probably not the last one). It's hard to get much out of any one tweet. But, over the long run, you see some trends. Cynicism, crude humor, and me reveling in my awesome lifestyle.

-Chairman


Basketball related tweets:

Hand down. Man down! I think that I'm liking that phrase more than I should. God bless Mark Jackson.9:15 PM Jun 14th from txt

Kobe gets #4. More importantly Adam Morrison got a ring. Karl Malone, Patrick Ewing, and Charles Barkley are rolling in their graves.10:11 PM Jun 14th from web

@Westy33 Don't hate, baby. Can't you just admire the greatness? I know that you're a T'Wolves guy, so the concept may be foreign...11:17 PM Jun 14th from web in reply to Westy33


Mundane day-to-day things (like buying a house):

Apparently, it'll be like 95 degrees all week in NOLA. Good times, if I don't spontaneously combust.3:12 PM Jun 16th from txt

Dude in 1st class traded seats w/ a WWII Normandy vet who's flying back from France. First class move in appreciation of the Greatest Generation. ...3:34 PM Jun 16th from txt

Just hit the ground. 50 minute delay because they put the fuel in the wrong tanks. I don't know if that's more annoying or scary.5:32 PM Jun 16th from txt

Incredibly beautiful houses and neighborhoods in NOLA. Of course, I'll probably live in an urban war zone.7:59 PM Jun 17th from web

Beers and darts with new friends. And when one's Irish, it quickly becomes too many beers.1:22 AM Jun 19th from txt

Offer+counteroffer+another counteroffer=? Closing in on being a landowner.1:23 PM Jun 20th from txt

Counter-counteroffer accepted! Step one of becoming a slumlord is complete.3:03 PM Jun 20th from txt

Just FYI: 1450 sq ft., 2 bed, 1.5 bath, 2nd floor balcony. Walking distance to drug dealers, pawn shops, liquor stores, and chicken shacks.6:48 PM Jun 20th from txt


Food related tweets:

Okay. Slight detour. I'm not the sort to be awake for the hotel breakfast. A roast beef po boy at Parasol's coming up.11:55 AM Jun 17th from txt

There's a joint called Ninja Sushi out here. We'll see how battling the Ninja works out.9:51 PM Jun 17th from txt

Uggh... I fought the Ninja, and the Ninja won...11:18 PM Jun 17th from web

Overslept the hotel breakfast. Again. And the checkout. Now, off to get some po' boys before the road home.12:05 PM Jun 20th from web

The Rise of the American Hoops Empire

So is the Pacific Northwest becoming a hoops haven? If so, I have to confess that I wouldn't have thunk it. Of course, with Kevin Durant leading the professional basketball resurgence with the Sonics... wait. Nevermind... Of course, with Greg Oden... dangit. One more time. Of course, with Brandon Roy leading the professional basketball resurgence in Portland, this shouldn't be that surprising. There. Much better.

A while back I wrote about the state of the American hoops scene. The discussion was about 13-year old phenom Allonzo Trier, a kid out of Seattle. And when I was reading TrueHoop, I recently came across the story of 14-year old Nigel Williams-Goss, a kid out of Oregon who has been described as the most-acclaimed junior-high basketball player in Oregon history. And the big deal is that he's going to Findlay Prep in Vegas, the mythical high-school national champion last year, a basketball factory, similar in flavor to the Bolletteri Tennis Academy, where kids live on site, have tutors for class, and play a lot of basketball.

Whereas my initial reaction to hearing about Allonzo Trier was a "expect the worst, but hope for the best," sort of thing, my reaction to Nigel Williams-Goss is a much higher level of comfort. There are some distinct differences between the two. Trier became a star on the AAU scene, mainly because he hadn't hit junior-high, yet. He was 13, but only in 6th grade - probably had a birthday just after the cut-off point (which would probably raise the collective Freakonomics eyebrow), and was held back a year in school. The kid was diagnosed as being dyslexic. And he's being raised by only his mother (never met his dad) and the host of AAU coaches/power-brokers. Though, in fairness, the Times Magazine article did portray her as a very devoted mother, who was willing to help him hone his craft. And perhaps most importantly, Trier is only 5'5", 110 points, which means that he's small, though apparently his father was 6'3", so he may grow... but there's no guarantee.

On the flip side, Williams-Goss is a straight-A student who speaks 2 languages. And the kid's already 6'2" and 165 pounds. This probably means that instead of saying that he has a "high basketball IQ," you can just say that he has a high IQ. Mom and Dad are together, and they're intent on raising him well, to the point that they're moving to Las Vegas so that they will stay together as a family. He's also dominating the AAU scene, holding his own playing with elite college-bound 17-year olds last year, and dominating the competition on an under-16 team this year. Money quote from the article from the director of a national invite-only all-star camp:

“Nigel is one of the kids who struck us as a unique player and person. We felt he was special in terms of being coachable and wanting to be good. He was a refreshing change from a lot of kids you see these days who have an entitlement mentality. We noticed he’s well-rounded, with interests other than basketball. For instance, he is fluent in Chinese. And we were really impressed with his ability..."

What's interesting to me was that the description was about his personality and demeanor. It was only then that the discussion of his basketball talent began. This alone suggests that this kid's a little different. Coachable. Not "entitled." And when he describes himself, Williams-Goss says,

“Most young basketball players want to get to the NBA. I want to star in the NBA. I’ve always been one to want to be above the competition, to be the best every time I step onto the floor. When I’m in the NBA, I want to be the best, too... Ever since I started playing, I’ve played against older kids. When I was in second grade, I was playing against fourth- and fifth-graders. I play up to get better. I never want to stay at my level. It’s helped my game a lot.

This suggests that there's a desire and a drive to improve. So how will Findlay Prep work out? Somewhat surprisingly, even to myself, I think that it will work out well. When you're a part of this sort of machine (like Oak Hill Academy), you are surrounded with hoops, and from all accounts, it's done right. It's not like the wild west version that you see from the AAU folks. These kids are going to get their high school education, and odds are that they'll have better diets, training, and coaching (not to mention better competition in practice and in games) than kids in normal school. Kids going to school in a normal setting will have structured hoops in high school for 3-4 months, and then be left to roam in AAU/summer league settings. On the other hand, I have a suspicion that over at Findlay prep, there will be more structure yeah-round, though it sounds like AAU and summer camps are still in the picture. But I'm guessing that the Monday-Friday structure will be helpful.

Instinctively, I think that folks balk when they hear about the Findlay Prep/Oak Hill Academy sort of basketball factories. But, is this really much different than a school for the arts? Or any other magnet school? I'm assuming that the academics will be there, and I'm sure that these prep schools will dial in on getting these kids qualified for college (meeting coursework requirements, SAT/ACT test preps, etc.), and these kids will probably get more freedom as ball players in college than they did in high school, which makes them even more coveted on the recruiting trails.

And in fact, I'm sort of hoping that we see more of these legit, well-run prep schools emerge - not the sham academies where they give kids course credit, in return for a check, but true academies that help the elite improve, while providing them with adequate education and life training. This stands in contrast to kids in mediocre schools, not giving a crap about classes, and living in a world where they are celebrities and go through adolescence unchecked. And even if you keep the focus strictly on basketball, I think that this model results in better skill development, which leads to a better product on the floor, which is what we really look for as fans.

The odds of either Trier or Williams-Goss making an NBA All-Star game are long (at least 500-1, I'd imagine. And I still hope that Allonzo Trier succeeds and makes the big-time. But if I was a betting man (and I am), I'd be more likely to put a buck on Nigel Williams-Goss (though I don't know if there are bookmakers who run this sort of action).

-Chairman

Freedom Isn't Free

The good folks at the New York Times tell me that my main man, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is apparently in the middle of an election. Now, I don't know what sort of crazy talk this is, but this can't be good for business. First Mugabe, now now Ahmadinejad. Very sad to see you heroes fade. All I know is that when I become supreme ruler for life of some backwater nation (tentative name - The People's Republic of Chairman-istan), there won't be elections. At least not for my job.

One thing that's very important for any election - cool looking banners.

There is some good news. First, my guy totally won the election. But even that was with some problems. It was pretty tight - the good guys only got 62.9% of the vote! I mean, this is a lot better than Obama did. But the problem is that historically, when dictators win elections, it's generally 100%, with a few abstains. So only getting 62.9% is a little disconcerting. But in any case, I'm sure that all of the college kids who worked so hard on the reelection campaign are still partying in the streets.

"Rock-Till-You-Drop" After-Election StreetFest. Starts outside the Union. Refreshments will be served.


There will be a rock throwing contest, beginning at 8pm. Only students with ID are eligible for prizes.


The bonfire starts at 10pm. S'Mores will be available.

Another noteworthy aspect of this election is the turnout. Apparently only 85% of the eligible voters in Iran came out to be a part of the coronation. Once again, these numbers are a little off from historical trends in elections for dictator. Anything short of 99% is pretty much unacceptable. You can't get to 100% - a few of the dissidents tend to "disappear" right around election day. But anyone who is able to vote should be voting...

Now who wants to be the next to vote for me? Okay, you ma'am with the burka. No, the other one.

Of course, what's more disturbing is that apparently they let women vote. And non-land owners. This is a huge mistake. When I start running things in Chairman-istan, I will take my cue from the American founding fathers. The only people who vote are male land-owners who look and think like me. That keeps the numbers down, and makes counting the votes easier. I fully expect to win most elections 43 to 0.

But I guess that you can't get everything to fall your way. And let's not dwell on the bad things. There were definitely some good things. For example, this idea of a secret ballot was quashed. Transparency in the voting process is crucial for a society that is built on integrity.

Psst... who are you voting for? Really?

What's nice is that if you have an open, transparent voting process, it's so much easier to make sure the election results turn out the way they should.

Another satisfied voter, though it took him a couple tries to get it right. Over 42 voters served nation-wide.

All in all, we'll call this a draw for my guy Ahmadinejad. But at the very least, I've got a little better playbook for when The People's Republic of Chairman-istan is up and running.

-Chairman

Heroes and GOATS

Wow. What a day of sports. We got to watch three of the all-time greats pull off victories and demonstrate their greatness. And this certainly isn't the first time that I've written about Federer, Tiger, and Kobe.

The day started in Paris, with Fed doing what Fed does. Roger Federer cemented his status as one of the top-3 players of all time (Federer's tied w/ Sampras at 14; Rod Laver won 11 grand slam titles, but played his prime in an era where pros didn't play in the grand slams - Laver won the grand slam in 1962 as an amateur, turned pro in 1963, won another 11 "majors" at the professional level between 1963 and 1967, and then won a few more slams after the majors started allowing professionals again, and capped things off with a grand slam in 1969. You could argue that Laver has 22 major singles titles). Federer got a little bit of help when his finals opponent, Soderling, took out Rafael Nadal earlier in the tourney. Federer had lost 4 consecutive French Open finals to Nadal, and was looking shaky earlier in the season. But he put together a nice tourney win on the clay in Madrid (taking out Nadal in the finals), and then put together a run in Paris, where he won in 5 sets (he was down 2-0 and 2-1 in those matches). And Fed put together a solid match against an overmatched opponent (he's beaten Soderling all 10 times they have met).

From the looks of it, Federer will be the favorite at Wimbelon, and if he ends up winning 3 slams this year, he'll be at 16, and have clearly passed Sampras, with maybe 2 more legit years left. Everyone forgets about Rod Laver when they talk about the best player ever, and there's no guarantee that Laver would have won 11 slams had he stayed an amateur, though there's a real shot that he may have won 15 out of the 20 slams in those 5 years from 1963 to 1967. I don't know if an honest, clear view of tennis history puts Federer at #1 quite yet, though the folks at ESPN are ready to crown him. But if Federer gets up to 19 or 20 slams, I think that you have to crown him as the GOAT (Greatest Of All Time, if you're confused).

Similar to Fed, Tiger's chasing another legend, Jack Nicklaus. Tiger came from 4 strokes back to win Jack's tourney, The Memorial. Tiger did what Tiger does. Holing out chips, sticking the ball when mortals would have it fly by the hole, and getting it to within 2 feet, when most folks would be happy with getting it on the green. Moving forward, I think that Tiger will the favorite at the U.S. Open this weekend, held at Bethpage Black. The other time the U.S. Open was held at Bethpage was in 2002, and it was won by Tiger in a rout, as he beat Phil Mickelson by 3 strokes, despite playing a 2-over 72 on the final round.

The Memorial wasn't a major, but it was one more important non-major tourneys, since it was Jack's tourney on Jack's course. Right now Tiger is tied with Fed at 14 majors, and he's chasing Jack Nicklaus' 18. Most folks think that it's a given that Tiger will get to 18, and well beyond. Tiger is 33 this season. When Jack was being interviewed by the commentators on TV, he mentioned that he was in his prime when he was from 33 to 36. Plus, Jack won 7 out of his 18 majors after the age of 33 (including the Masters in 1986 at the age of 46). Given the improvements in medicine and fitness, plus the dominance of Tiger, it's not unreasonable to say that Tiger could win 8 more majors by the time he's 40. That would be 1 major per year, including this year. And if Tiger can get hot like he did in 2000, the notion of 25 majors isn't out of the question. If Tiger were to quit right now, there would be a lot of discussion as to whether or not he was the GOAT. But in a few years, it will be moot, unlike Fed's place in history, which you can't really adequately place, given the different landscapes in which he and Laver played.

And finally, we're on to Kobe. Kobe did what Kobe does. Just his usual 29 points, 8 assists, which followed his Game 1, 40 points, 8 assists, 8 boards. The Lakers shot poorly from the field early in the game, and didn't really assert themselves. But Kobe didn't really force the issue, only shooting 6 shots in the first half, and tried to get everyone else involved. It wasn't until the Magic made a run in the 3rd when Kobe tried to take control on offense, and kept the Lakers in the game. And then the Lakers got the game into OT, and then took control, and are up 2-0. Who here thinks that the Magic are going to go 3-0 in the next 3 games? And if the Magic don't, they're done. The aren't winning 2 games in a row in LA, barring a Kobe injury.

I've always been a Kobe guy. Always thought that he was going to go down as being better than MJ. Now MJ has 6 rings. He won 3 when he was 27, 28, and 29, the left for a couple years, and then won 3 more at the ages of 33, 34, and 35. Right now, Kobe's 30. He's got 3 rings, and looks pretty good for #4 this year. Now, what if, the Lakers re-sign Odom, and put together a 3-peat? That would put Kobe at 6 titles, at the age of 32. He'd definitely have some milage on him, but seems to be dedicated enough to stay in top condition. You figure that LeBron will get his ring at some point. But what if Kobe came back for one more legit run, and actually won a 7th title at 34 or 35? Or, heaven forbid, an 8th, if the Lakers luck into another star to put next to Kobe? The numbers say MJ. And they should. MJ played in an era with much higher scoring, and no defense, until you got late into the playoffs. MJ's #2 was another wing player who took pressure off of him by handling the ball, and he never had a legit post option clogging up his lane. And right now, it's not a discussion, even with Kobe getting #4. Now, if Kobe gets to #5 and #6, the discussion heats up. And if Kobe can get to #7 somehow, then I think that you really have to re-evaluate who is the GOAT.

-Chairman