197776ers*161551Trail Blazers162449✓ 1969Lakers*161458Celtics159842✓ YEARTEAMW-LPOINTS SCOREDPOINTS ALLOWEDSCORING MARGIN 1974Bucks*170980Celtics159220✓ 1954Nationals166661Lakers*160739✓ * Home-court advantage.Elo ratings are for each NBA Finals team as they entered the series. 1968Celtics*159456✓Lakers158644 YEAR▲▼FAVORITE▲▼ELO▲▼WIN PROB.▲▼WON▲▼UNDERDOG▲▼ELO▲▼WIN PROB.▲▼WON▲▼ 1987Lakers15-3120.6109.2+11.4 198276ers*169957Lakers168643✓ 1991Bulls*175067✓Lakers169733 1956Warriors*161775✓Pistons152925 1949Lakers*162584✓Capitols149016 2007Spurs*170570✓Cavaliers164130 2000Lakers*169968✓Pacers164332 1962Celtics*166980✓Lakers155720 2002Lakers*171780✓Nets160120 196776ers*174592%✓Warriors15418% 2004Lakers*169858Pistons168242✓ 2014Spurs*173076✓Heat163824 1996Bulls15-397.486.8+10.6 1984Celtics*170672✓Lakers163328 2005Spurs*171666✓Pistons167034 2015Warriors*180275✓Cavaliers171225 1963Celtics*167785✓Lakers153315 1971Bucks*170491✓Wizards15079 1986Celtics15-3114.4104.1+10.3 1997Bulls*179966✓Jazz175134 1989Pistons*176369✓Lakers170131 1986Celtics*180788✓Rockets164012 1961Celtics*166977✓Hawks157123 2001Lakers15-1103.490.6+12.8 1980Lakers*171262✓76ers168138 2001Lakers*176889✓76ers159211 1987Lakers*173872✓Celtics166128 1952Lakers*164667✓Knicks159433 1964Celtics*166970✓Warriors160230 198376ers*170771✓Lakers163829 2016Warriors*179070Cavaliers172530✓ 1959Celtics*164382✓Lakers151418 1955Nationals*163273✓Pistons155127 2008Lakers173759Celtics*168541✓ 1960Celtics*167678✓Hawks157522 1988Pistons169255Lakers*165845✓ The Cavaliers are great … but still a big underdog 1991Bulls15-2103.992.2+11.7 1951Royals*161574✓Knicks153126 1950Lakers172777✓76ers*159723 1985Lakers15-4126.3116.2+10.2 YEAR▲▼FAVORITE▲▼ELO▲▼WIN PROB.▲▼WON▲▼UNDERDOG▲▼ELO▲▼WIN PROB.▲▼WON▲▼ 1958Celtics*160365Hawks155935✓ There’s just one big problem for Cleveland: Golden State.Reason No. 3: Elo thinks the Warriors are insanely great — one of the two best teams ever, along with the 1995-96 Bulls.The Warriors’ current Elo rating is 1850. That’s the highest rating a team has held upon entering the NBA Finals. And it’s the second-highest rating a team has had at any point in the regular season or playoffs; the 1995-96 Chicago Bulls peaked at a rating of 1853 after sweeping the first three games of the finals.3The Bulls then lost Games 4 and 5 before recovering to win the title in Game 6, finishing with an Elo rating of 1823. It’s higher than the peak rating of last season’s 73-win Warriors, who topped out at 1839 after starting out the regular season 24-0.We’ll be publishing a deeper dive on the Warriors next week, but Elo’s affection for them isn’t hard to explain. They’re 27-1 over their last 28 games. That includes a 12-0 record in the playoffs and an average margin of victory of more than 16 points, which is the best playoff scoring margin of all time. And they’ve done all of this in the Western Conference, which is still a lot deeper than the East.4True, Golden State benefited from a playoff injury to the San Antonio Spurs’ Kawhi Leonard — although the Cavs were helped by injuries to the Toronto Raptors’ Kyle Lowry and the Celtics’ Isaiah Thomas. The Warriors are making it look so easy that they may even be underrated by the “eye test,” which tends to reward teams that triumph in the face of adversity. Other than in Game 1 of the Western Conference finals, the Warriors haven’t faced much adversity because they haven’t let their opponents get close. 1996Bulls*183284✓SuperSonics169516 1999Spurs*174580✓Knicks163120 1990Pistons*168860✓Trail Blazers166340 1981Celtics*166876✓Rockets157324 1985Lakers175260✓Celtics*169740 1978SuperSonics*161059Bullets159041✓ 1947Warriors*142352✓Stags143248 1998Jazz*176254Bulls176146✓ It’s become a rite of spring. Every year — or at least every year since LeBron James returned to the Cleveland Cavaliers — our NBA Elo ratings are skeptical of the Cavs when the playoffs begin. And every year, LeBron and Co. have smashed our poor algorithm to bits.In 2015, the Cavs entered the playoffs with a lukewarm 1631 Elo rating. That’s perfectly respectable, but the sort of rating you might associate with the Los Angeles Clippers or another 50-something-win team that you’d expect to lose in the second round or the conference finals. Instead, Cleveland reached the NBA Finals, losing to the Golden State Warriors in six competitive games even with a depleted roster.In 2016, the Cavs had a similarly good-but-not-great Elo rating — 1642 — when the playoffs began. But they blew through the Eastern Conference playoffs before beating the 73-win Warriors to win the NBA title, famously overcoming a 3-1 series deficit along the way. Their Elo rating finished at 1759, ranking them among the top 25 teams of all-time and implying that the system had massively underrated them initially.This year, Elo had the Cavs pegged lower still when the playoffs began last month. Although the Cavs were our preseason favorite to win the Eastern Conference, they slumped at the end of the regular season — losing 13 of their final 22 games, including their last four — and their Elo rating fell all the way to 1545. That isn’t good; it’s the sort of rating you’d normally associate with a No. 6 seed or some other team you’d expect to lose in the first or second round. Accordingly, the Cavs’ chances of winning the title drifted around in the low-to-mid single digits — variously at 2 percent to 5 percent according to our simulations — as the regular season wound down and the playoffs began.But the Cavs have gone 12-1 in the playoffs and won by an average score of 117-103. Their Elo rating has climbed by almost 150 points, to 1691. They clinched a return to the finals by beating the Boston Celtics by 33 points on Thursday. It’s been dominating stuff.So has Elo learned its lesson? Well, maybe not. Cleveland’s chances of winning the finals are just 10 percent according to the more advanced, “Carm-ELO” version of our ratings — and 13 percent according to the simpler, original Elo algorithm. Bookmakers also have the Cavs as underdogs, but not as heavily, implying that they have about a 30 percent chance to beat the Warriors again and repeat as champions.Giving Cleveland only a 10 percent chance is not the hill I want to die on. Our NBA projections are pretty simple, and sports betting markets are pretty sophisticated. While there are occasional exceptions, I’d usually defer to Vegas in the event of a major disagreement.1I wouldn’t say that of political betting markets, which aren’t as sophisticated and have a bad track record in recent years compared with simple polling averages. Still, we’ve gotten a lot of questions throughout the playoffs about why Elo hasn’t given the Cavs a better chance. There are basically three reasons — but the one that matters the most right now has nothing to do with the Cavs and everything to do with the Warriors.Reason No. 1: Elo doesn’t account for teams such as Cleveland finding a higher “gear” in the playoffs. We covered this point extensively before the playoffs began, so I won’t go into too much detail here. Our Elo projections — and most other projection systems — essentially treat regular-season basketball as equivalent to playoff basketball. But LeBron’s teams have a long history of performing at a much higher caliber in the playoffs than in the regular season.Maybe this is because James and his teammates conserve their energy; there aren’t a lot of high-leverage regular-season games in the Eastern Conference, as evidenced by the fact that the Cavs could play so crappily down the stretch run and still stumble into the No. 2 seed. Maybe it’s because LeBron is a terrific half-court player, and there’s a premium on the half-court game in the playoffs as defenses tighten up. In any event, the assumption that playoff basketball equals regular-season basketball seems to be pretty wrong in the case of the Cavs. This is something we plan on re-evaluating as we retune our NBA models this summer.Reason No. 2: Elo ratings heavily weight recent performance. That hurt Cleveland before, although it’s starting to help them now. Elo ratings were originally devised for chess, which doesn’t have any such thing as a “season.” Instead, performance continuously fluctuates up and down over time. Our Elo-based sports ratings mostly work the same way.2With some exceptions: Regular Elo ratings revert each team’s rating partway toward the league average at the start of each regular season. And the Carm-ELO version of our ratings start each team out with an initial rating each season based on our player projections. The more recent the game, the more heavily it gets weighted.I’d defend this as being the right assumption to make, in general. The degree to which Elo ratings fluctuate from game to game — which is governed by something called the K-factor — has been tested based on tens of thousands of NBA games. Other things held equal, a game played a week ago ought to tell you more than one played six months ago. Elo can be “smart” about catching cases like the 2014-15 Atlanta Hawks, who started out 40-8 but went 20-14 for the rest of the regular season before being swept by Cleveland in the conference finals.But for a team whose regular-season performance doesn’t tell you much about how they’re going to fare in the playoffs (like the Cavaliers), there isn’t much benefit to doubling down on recent play. Cleveland played pretty well in the first half of the regular season, but middlingly — sometimes even poorly — in the second half. Elo put a lot of emphasis on that late-season slump as the playoffs approached, and that made it more skeptical of the Cavs.Elo’s philosophy of rapidly adjusting its ratings is benefiting the Cavaliers now, however. Because of their dominance in the playoffs, the Cavs’ current Elo rating has rebounded. Their 1691 is the highest Elo rating they’ve had since Dec. 25, when they were at 1692 and had a 23-6 record after beating the Warriors.That’s a very good Elo rating. Since the ABA-NBA merger in the 1976-77 season, the average NBA Finals participant has entered the finals with a rating of 1695. So Elo is saying that despite their regular-season struggles, the Cavs are every bit as strong as the typical conference champion. 1994Rockets*166356✓Knicks165544 The Warriors have dominated the playoffs like no one before them 2010Lakers*168657✓Celtics167443 1966Celtics*165076✓Lakers155824 1973Lakers*166759Knicks164941✓ 1961Celtics8-2120.7109.1+11.6 1979SuperSonics162057✓Bullets*157743 1957Celtics*163075✓Hawks154125 1975Bullets*165975Warriors157125✓ 2012Thunder*173767Heat168633✓ 1948Warriors*149152Bullets150048✓ 2017Warriors*185087Cavaliers169113 1965Celtics*165375✓Lakers156525 1953Lakers*163251✓Knicks164149 1992Bulls*174264✓Trail Blazers170236 1971Bucks12-2109.194.6+14.5 PER GAME PLAYOFF AVERAGES 2003Spurs*174681✓Nets162419 1976Celtics*155857✓Suns154443 2009Lakers*176068✓Magic170332 2017Cavaliers12-1116.8103.2+13.6 1972Lakers*173890✓Knicks155510 1970Knicks*159566✓Lakers154934 2006Mavericks*171773Heat163727✓ Minimum 8 playoff games played.Source: Basketball-reference.com 1995Magic*162852Rockets163548✓ 2017Warriors12-0118.3102.0+16.3 2013Heat*175565✓Spurs171135 2011Heat*172155Mavericks171745✓ 1993Bulls174173✓Suns*163427 To put this in perspective, suppose you took an indisputably great team like the 1986-87 Los Angeles Lakers, who went 65-17 in the regular season and entered the NBA Finals with an Elo rating of 1738. Elo would have given the Lakers only a 20 percent chance to win a seven-game series over the Warriors, assuming that the Warriors had home-court advantage (as they will against the Cavs). Compared with that, the Cavaliers’ 10 percent or 13 percent chance doesn’t seem so bad. Still, I’d put a few dimes down on LeBron at Elo’s odds.CORRECTION (May 30, 4:05 p.m.): An earlier version of a table in this story gave an incorrect winner for the 1951 NBA Finals. It was the Rochester Royals, not the New York Knicks.
Online shoppers are more likely to use mobile apps as a way of researching and organising goods, but less as a buying tool, leading to the abandonment of purchases, finds a study. Although mobile apps are rapidly becoming a popular option to shop online these days, the phenomenon of shopping cart abandonment – customers leave without completing the transaction – is much higher than for desktop-based online shopping, the researchers said. Also Read – Add new books to your shelfThe share of e-commerce traffic from mobile devices increased to 46 per cent in 2016, however, only 27 per cent of purchases were finalised. It is because consumers are often unable to see the full picture on a mobile app or that they could be missing out on special offers or overlooking hidden costs.”The smaller screen size and uncertainty about missing important details about the purchase make you much more ambivalent about completing the transaction than when you are looking at a big screen,” Asaid Nikolaos Korfiatis, professor at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK. Also Read – Over 2 hours screen time daily will make your kids impulsiveIn addition, concerns related to privacy and security issues on the mobile phones also motivates people to put items into their shopping baskets but then quit without paying.This makes it challenging for the online retailers, who invest heavily in mobile shopping, but are unable to find successful sales.”Mobile shopping is supposed to make the process easier, and yet concerns about making the right choice, or about whether the site is secure enough leads to an ’emotional ambivalence’ about the transaction – and that means customers are much more likely to simply abandon their shopping carts without completing a purchase,” Korfiatis added.
During the first presidential debate, both candidates were quick to express their opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, the 12-nation free trade agreement which the Obama administration negotiated (but which still needs approval from Congress).Related: Worried About ‘Free Trade’? Let’s Strive For ‘Ethical Trade’ Instead.And that opposition may emerge yet again during the second Hillary Clinton-Donald Trump debate this Sunday. That would be unfortunate because, while it’s understandable why the TPP has generated heated debate — as the U.S. economic recovery struggles to gain speed — some of that criticism is valid, but most of it is not.When you add up those opposition arguments and filter out the baseless criticism, in fact, it’s clear that the TPP will support exactly the future trade and innovation needed to drive U.S. economic growth.So, what’s the reason for all the noise and disinformation? Well, for one thing, these outbursts make it difficult for policymakers and the public to weigh the legitimate pros and cons of the deal. For another, the source of this opposition is a small, but vocal, group of opponents who oppose not just the TPP, but what it more broadly represents: the sensible next step toward a more globally integrated and prosperous economy.These “anti-globalists” — with dramatic names like Expose the TPP and Rock Against the TPP — see the agreement as an abhorrent symbol of globalization. They are not picky in the targets of their TPP opposition, either.They’re against the agreement’s rules-based trading system at the center of globalization and against multinational corporations and many sensible ecommerce and intellectual property rules in the TPP.Related: How Two New Trade Agreements Can Propel Your GrowthHowever, a closer — and calmer — examination shows that these criticisms do not stand up to scrutiny. Quite to the contrary, deeper, rule-based global integration will bring benefits to the global economy and U.S. consumers and workers alike. Unfortunately, many TPP opponents prefer a radically different economy that is local (not global), small (not corporate), protected (not competitive), and static (not innovative, nor disrupted). Here are two of the opposition’s biggest arguments and a response to each.The TPP’s rules for ecommerce and intellectual propertyGlobal trade is increasingly dealing in data and ideas, and the United States leads in both, so it is hardly surprising that people in this country want to protect both.First, the agreement establishes new rules to protect the ability of data to move across borders. Critics claim this is an attack on privacy — distrusting the way modern digital companies use data. They misguidedly think that where data is stored is important to its security. In fact, what matters are the measures used to protect the data.The TPP would protect the data flows that are the lifeblood of the digital economy. The TPP prohibits a growing practice called “data localization,” whereby countries (such as China) force companies to build or use local data centers. This gives local firms an unfair advantage over U.S. companies, as it makes business costlier and more complex for these firms.But by no means does the TPP ignore privacy issues. Negotiators realize privacy is important for consumer confidence; hence, that is why the agreement requires TPP member countries to have a privacy protection framework in place.The TPP’s aim to get other countries to implement intellectual property rulesDespite the clear success of the U.S. approach to using intellectual property to spur innovation, many critics oppose the TPP’s aim to get other countries to implement similar rules. These critics, who prefer an ”information-should-be-free” approach, believe it’s wrong to charge for content like movies, music, and software, and ludicrously call the rules in the TPP an attack on free speech and privacy.What should be kept in mind, though, is that many of these critics, such as the public advocacy groups Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, oppose not only the U.S. approach to intellectual property in the digital economy — which the TPP reflects — but also the idea that we should extend a whole range of common-sense policies that exist in the offline world to the online one.Intellectual property is critical to modern trade because, while technology makes it easier for U.S. companies to sell digital goods and services overseas, it also makes intellectual property theft much easier, directly harming U.S. workers in intellectual property-based industries.It is therefore important that the TPP create a common set of rules to make it easier for U.S. innovators and creators to capitalize and protect their ideas — through patents, copyrights, and trademarks — in member economies. Despite the agreement’s obvious benefits, opponents want the TPP to fail, as their end game is support for weak-to-non-existent intellectual property protections, especially online.As policymakers in the United States and elsewhere consider the TPP, they should filter out the baseless claims of this vocal minority who do not like globalization or intellectual property.The TPP is the best chance the United States has had in 20 years to address modern barriers to trade; indeed, many current rules for intellectual property and ecommerce were set down in international agreements signed in the mid-1990s, when the internet as we know it barely existed.Related: U.S. Tech Firms Urge Presidential Candidates to Embrace Trade, High-Tech VisasThe TPP represents a much-improved framework for global innovation and trade in the Asia-Pacific region and should be supported to ensure U.S. companies are better able to compete in some of the world’s fastest-growing markets Free Webinar | Sept. 9: The Entrepreneur’s Playbook for Going Global Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. October 7, 2016 5 min read Growing a business sometimes requires thinking outside the box. Register Now »