Margin of Victory... useless stat. [Archive]

Agloco

02-08-2009, 04:03 PM

Having a low margin of victory makes your team better when it matters. The team will know how to play under pressure and not crack like the Celtics did tonight.

Wrong......

If you lose by 20 then win by 22, guess what your average margin of victory is? :wow

It's a direct measure of offensive output vs defensive output. Taken as an average over time, it's a very telling stat.

ElNono

02-08-2009, 06:53 PM

Wrong......

If you lose by 20 then win by 22, guess what your average margin of victory is? :wow

It's a direct measure of offensive output vs defensive output. Taken as an average over time, it's a very telling stat.

It would be if the competition would be about the same for said period of time. The reality is that this league is all about 6 or 7 excellent/real good teams, and the average to bad teams trailing behind... It also doesn't take into account things like lineups changes due to injury/foul trouble.
The reality is that at end of games it all comes down to execution and defense. We've been pretty good at that this season. I would rather blow out teams more often, but if that can't be had, then I'll take the second best thing: just win the game.

Ghazi

02-08-2009, 06:56 PM

It's not a meaningless stat at all.

ElNono

02-08-2009, 06:57 PM

It's not a meaningless stat at all.

Especially since you love to bring it up all the time? :rolleyes

vander

02-08-2009, 06:59 PM

3 of the last 4 Championship teams lead the league in scoring margin, and the 4th was Miami so :rolleyes

ElNono

02-08-2009, 07:02 PM

3 of the last 4 Championship teams lead the league in scoring margin, and the 4th was Miami so :rolleyes

I don't believe the Spurs lead the league in margin of victory before the RRT in any of the years they won it... I'd like to be proven otherwise...

DrHouse

02-08-2009, 07:03 PM

Absolutely not.

More often than not the NBA champ has the best margin of victory stat.

ElNono

02-08-2009, 07:06 PM

Straight from Hollinger:

WINNING CLOSE GAMES

Graham (New Haven): Your formula has allowances only for strength of schedule and winning margin. However, one key component to being a good NBA team is the ability to win close games. Please include something useful in your formula (like winning percentage).

HOLLINGER: This is commonly thought to be true, but it isn't.

The real mark of a team is its record in games that aren't close -- like Phoenix's evisceration of Washington last night.

Teams' records in close games tends to vary wildly from year to year with no rhyme or reason, even when their personnel and talent level remain the same. Which suggests that it isn't much of an "ability" at all, but subject heavily to the whims of chance.

Galileo

02-08-2009, 07:08 PM

I don't believe the Spurs lead the league in margin of victory before the RRT in any of the years they won it... I'd like to be proven otherwise...

This is one of the worst Spurs teams ever in the Duncan era for scoring margin.

The stat is important. But unlike other sports, basketball is a game where real clutch performances occur. In othe sports, "clutch" performances are usually just luck or statistical flucuation.

Another factor is the age of a team.

A young team is more likely to rack up big margins of victories, while a veteran team like the Spurs will pace themselves for the playoffs.

Also, early season injuries hurt the scoring margin, but have nothing to do with how good the Spurs are now or will be come playoff time.

I would say that the Spurs reletively low scoring margin indicates three things:

1) they are not a dominant team, but good enough to win the NBA title.

2) they are a clutch team

3) they are pacing themselves for the playoffs

ElNono

02-08-2009, 07:09 PM

3) they are pacing themselves for the playoffs

exactly...

Obstructed_View

02-08-2009, 07:30 PM

Scoring margin means everything for the Spurs, because it reflects how well they are playing defense night in and night out.

ElNono

02-08-2009, 07:34 PM

Scoring margin means everything for the Spurs, because it reflects how well they are playing defense night in and night out.

What you just posted makes no sense whatsoever... try again please.

Raoul Duke

02-08-2009, 07:37 PM

ask golden state if margin of victory matters. they lost heart breakers at home by last possession shots. for them the inability to close out makes them mediocre and they will remain so until they can close it out. the moment the spurs made it a two possession game it was over. the spurs understand how to play out games calmly so they don't give the games away.

SenorSpur

02-08-2009, 07:56 PM

3 of the last 4 Championship teams lead the league in scoring margin, and the 4th was Miami so :rolleyes

Agree.

Point differential has proven to be a fairly solid indicator of potential championship success. While it's not 100% accurate, it does have at least a 50% accuracy rate.

http://armchairgm.wikia.com/NBA_Point_Differential_-_The_Most_Power_Stat

Most recently the 97-98 Bulls, 98-99 Spurs, 99-00 Lakers, 04-05 Spurs, and 06-07 Spurs all won the NBA title and the point differential crown in the same season.

boutons_

02-08-2009, 08:00 PM

Avg W margin is a good stat for me, IIRC the Spurs championship teams were pretty good there.

Also, I use road record. eg, look here to see how all the top teams have solid road records.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/standings?season=2009&group=conference&seasontype=2&standType=standings

ime, a team with good overall record, but mediocre road record isn't to be feared in the playoffs.

Obstructed_View

02-08-2009, 08:00 PM

What you just posted makes no sense whatsoever... try again please.

It makes complete sense, you just need to work harder at reading the information. As the Hollinger quote you posted states, scoring margin doesn't have shit to do with close games because it's measured over a long period of time and the ability to win close games is flukey. Like someone else mentioned, if you play two games, win one by 20 and lose the next by 20 your scoring margin is zero. The Spurs' scoring margin goes up when they are playing good defense every game, because stopping someone from making a basket is just as good as making one yourself, and it's more important for a team that can go cold from the field.

ElNono

02-08-2009, 08:01 PM

Agree.

Point differential has proven to be a fairly solid indicator of potential championship success. While it's not 100% accurate, it does have at least a 50% accuracy rate.

That's an oxymoron. A 50% accuracy rate is a coin toss...

ElNono

02-08-2009, 08:04 PM

It makes complete sense, you just need to work harder at reading the information. As the Hollinger quote you posted states, scoring margin doesn't have shit to do with close games because it's measured over a long period of time and the ability to win close games is flukey. Like someone else mentioned, if you play two games, win one by 20 and lose the next by 20 your scoring margin is zero. The Spurs' scoring margin goes up when they are playing good defense every game, because stopping someone from making a basket is just as good as making one yourself, and it's more important for a team that can go cold from the field.

What you're referring to is called Opponent FG%. If the Spurs win a game 87-80 vs winning another game 120-110, guess which game did the Spurs play better defense in? But the scoring differential is better on the high scoring game... Scoring differential is a benchmark of both offense AND defense, but it does not take into account way too many factors to make it anywhere near a reliable stat...

Obstructed_View

02-08-2009, 08:22 PM

What you're referring to is called Opponent FG%. If the Spurs win a game 87-80 vs winning another game 120-110, guess which game did the Spurs play better defense in? But the scoring differential is better on the high scoring game... Scoring differential is a benchmark of both offense AND defense, but it does not take into account way too many factors to make it anywhere near a reliable stat...

No, what I'm referring to is called scoring margin, which is why I posted in the thread in the first place. You've made it painfully clear that you don't understand it, but if you need to rationalize about it to make yourself feel better about the Spurs, be my guest.

The Spurs' defense this year has NOT consistently created scoring opportunities on the other end, their sets have not consistently created scoring opportunities inside, and their defense has not been able to consistently limit inside scoring by the opponents. They have shown an unusual ability to win close games, which covers for a multitude of sins (and allows a top record despite being average in opponent FG%) but won't really mean anything when the playoffs roll around and they are playing good teams every night.

ElNono

02-08-2009, 08:30 PM

No, what I'm referring to is called scoring margin, which is why I posted in the thread in the first place. You've made it painfully clear that you don't understand it, but if you need to rationalize about it to make yourself feel better about the Spurs, be my guest.

What I don't understand? That you take a stat over 82 games with a certain lineup that resembles nothing at all the lineup used in the playoffs and pretend to make a reading in that flawed stat?

The Spurs' defense this year has NOT consistently created scoring opportunities on the other end, their sets have not consistently created scoring opportunities inside, and their defense has not been able to consistently limit inside scoring by the opponents. They have shown an unusual ability to win close games, which covers for a multitude of sins (and allows a top record despite being average in opponent FG%) but won't really mean anything when the playoffs roll around and they are playing good teams every night.

Bingo! We can measure our defense pretty well with opponent FG% and we can determine from that stat that we're not playing defense as well as years past. Margin of victory is meaningless to measure defensive play. I gave you a clear example that you decided to ignore, but that clearly demonstrates the silliness of your proposition.

ElNono

02-08-2009, 08:32 PM

Just to add to this, today's game will show that we beat the Celtics by 6 points, stat-wise, even though it was a much closer game up to 1 minute to go. There has been games we took 15-20 point leads and ended up winning by 6-8, but they were not close at all.
You have to be careful when looking at just numbers...

Obstructed_View

02-08-2009, 09:13 PM

You have to be careful when looking at just numbers...

Especially when you continue to try to use examples of a stat over the course of a game or less when it's been explained to you that it isn't used that way. :lol

ElNono

02-08-2009, 09:17 PM

Especially when you continue to try to use examples of a stat over the course of a game or less when it's been explained to you that it isn't used that way. :lol

When used over 10 years it proved to be accurate half the time. That is, any team leading that stat category has as much a chance to win the NBA championship as any team not leading that category...

/thread

Agloco

02-08-2009, 09:29 PM

It would be if the competition would be about the same for said period of time. The reality is that this league is all about 6 or 7 excellent/real good teams, and the average to bad teams trailing behind... It also doesn't take into account things like lineups changes due to injury/foul trouble.
The reality is that at end of games it all comes down to execution and defense. We've been pretty good at that this season. I would rather blow out teams more often, but if that can't be had, then I'll take the second best thing: just win the game.

Oh but it is, for each conference at least. Again, taken as an average over the entire season it's a very good indicator of who's on top and who's not.

ElNono

02-08-2009, 09:32 PM

Oh but it is, for each conference at least. Again, taken as an average over the entire season it's a very good indicator of who's on top and who's not.

Really? Do you expect Manu Ginobili to average under 30 minutes a game in the playoffs?... How about Bowen playing reduced minutes? How do we prevent the game we played with scrubs against Denver from going into that stat too? And can we take back the games TP and Manu didn't play?
You see what the problem is?

Agloco

02-08-2009, 09:35 PM

When used over 10 years it proved to be accurate half the time. That is, any team leading that stat category has as much a chance to win the NBA championship as any team not leading that category...

/thread

Which is quite excellent considering that there are 30 possibilities for the top spot during any given season.

Fact is, the higher the margin of victory the more likely that team is to win championship.

I wonder what the last 10 NBA champions have averaged on point diff? I'd bet none of them were less than 5th in the league.

Obstructed_View

02-08-2009, 09:36 PM

When used over 10 years it proved to be accurate half the time. That is, any team leading that stat category has as much a chance to win the NBA championship as any team not leading that category...

/thread

Wrong. Over ten years they actually picked the winner of the NBA championship correctly half the time. That's four times as accurate as win/loss totals in predicting the nba champ. As mentioned in the article (which you clearly didn't read), nothing else even comes close to that.

The failure in your math is that there are 30 teams in the NBA, not two. Using the coin-flip example, the percentage for a team winning the championship in a 30 team league, all else being equal, is 1 in 30 or 0.03 percent.

You are also neglecting the fact that all the league leaders in in margin are in the playoffs every year, and the ones with the highest margin routinely make the conference finals.

Agloco

02-08-2009, 09:38 PM

Really? Do you expect Manu Ginobili to average under 30 minutes a game in the playoffs?... How about Bowen playing reduced minutes? How do we prevent the game we played with scrubs against Denver from going into that stat too? And can we take back the games TP and Manu didn't play?
You see what the problem is?

I do, and it's the fact that you're arguing events that occurred over 8-10 games out of an 82 game season. I'll say it again: Taken as an average over the enitre season.........

And yes, injuries do play a relevant part in the calculation. You'd expect our point diff to be substantially lower with Manu and Tony out right?

Obstructed_View

02-08-2009, 09:39 PM

I wonder what the last 10 NBA champions have averaged on point diff? I'd bet none of them were less than 5th in the league.

Exactly. Teams in the bottom half of the league in margin don't make the playoffs, regardless of their offensive or defensive field goal percentage.

Obstructed_View

02-08-2009, 09:42 PM

Really? Do you expect Manu Ginobili to average under 30 minutes a game in the playoffs?... How about Bowen playing reduced minutes? How do we prevent the game we played with scrubs against Denver from going into that stat too? And can we take back the games TP and Manu didn't play?
You see what the problem is?

Yes, the problem is that you don't understand how statistical anomalies are insignificant when measured out over a long period of time. I've tried to tell you this several times.

timvp

02-08-2009, 09:45 PM

1990: +3.5 - Lost in the second round
1991: +4.5 - Lost in the first round
1992: +3.4 - Lost in the first round
1993: +2.7 - Lost in the second round
1994: +5.2 - Lost in the first round
1995: +6.0 - Lost in the WCF
1996: +6.3 - Lost in the second round
1997: -7.8 - Missed the playoffs
1998: +7.0 - Lost in the second round
1999: +7.1 - Championship
2000: +6.0 - Lost in the first round
2001: +7.8 - Lost in the WCF
2002: +6.2 - Lost in the second round
2003: +5.4 - Championship
2004: +7.2 - Lost in the second round
2005: +7.8 - Championship
2006: +6.8 - Lost in the second round
2007: +8.4 - Championship
2008: +4.8 - Lost in the WCF
2009: +3.2 - ???

I didn't set out to make a point; just wanted to put it on paper.

It's somewhat distressing that the point differential is at the lowest point in the Robinson/Duncan Era. But the Spurs usually finish strongly in this category, so it should rise as the season progresses - as long as they remain healthy.

If I had to compare this team to a previous Spurs team it'd be the 2003 team. Started slow due in part to working in new parts into the system and they are in a little bit of a rebuilding phase. The 2005 and 2007 teams were set going into the seasons. You could probably say the same for 1999.

But anyways, just to be statistically safe, it'd be nice if the point differential ends up being greater than +5.

The Truth #6

02-08-2009, 09:45 PM

When used over 10 years it proved to be accurate half the time. That is, any team leading that stat category has as much a chance to win the NBA championship as any team not leading that category...

/thread

Just because a team isn't ranked #1 in differential doesn't mean they have a 50% chance of winning the title. The stat is very useful and even predicted several Spurs titles. I am confident that title winners rank very highly in this statistic, even if they aren't #1 exactly.

Yeah, it would be great if our team this year was better in this stat but so far we are not.

I think OV is correct on this one.

ElNono

02-08-2009, 09:48 PM

Which is quite excellent considering that there are 30 possibilities for the top spot during any given season.

Fact is, the higher the margin of victory the more likely that team is to win championship.

I wonder what the last 10 NBA champions have averaged on point diff? I'd bet none of them were less than 5th in the league.

Completely untrue. Taking the last 10 years as example, 5 of the teams with the highest margin of victory won the championship and 5 of the teams with the highest margin of victory failed to do so.
Among the teams leading in this stat category for the past few years were the D'Antoni Phoenix Suns and the 67 win Dallas Mavericks. Good teams? Sure. Championship caliber teams? Obviously not.

ElNono

02-08-2009, 09:52 PM

Wrong. Over ten years they actually picked the winner of the NBA championship correctly half the time. That's four times as accurate as win/loss totals in predicting the nba champ. As mentioned in the article (which you clearly didn't read), nothing else even comes close to that.

The failure in your mathh is that there are 30 teams in the NBA, not two. Using the coin-flip example, the percentage for a team winning the championship in a 30 team league, all else being equal, is 1 in 30 or 0.03 percent.

You are also neglecting the fact that all the league leaders in in margin are in the playoffs every year, and the ones with the highest margin routinely make the conference finals.

You are also neglecting that you stated that this stat measures defensive ability, which clearly does not. That's a fact. And again, as 'great' this stat is, it's no more accurate than a coin toss to determine which team will win an NBA Finals...

ElNono

02-08-2009, 09:53 PM

Just because a team isn't ranked #1 in differential doesn't mean they have a 50% chance of winning the title. The stat is very useful and even predicted several Spurs titles. I am confident that title winners rank very highly in this statistic, even if they aren't #1 exactly.

Yeah, it would be great if our team this year was better in this stat but so far we are not.

I think OV is correct on this one.

I'm sorry. I probably phrased that wrong. I was talking about using that stat to gauge who would win an NBA Finals... It's no better than a coin toss...

Obstructed_View

02-08-2009, 09:54 PM

Taking the last 10 years as example, 5 of the 10 teams with the highest margin of victory won the championship and 5 of the 290 teams without the highest margin of victory won the championship.

There were 300 teams competing for the last ten championships, hence the fix to your math.

Agloco

02-08-2009, 09:55 PM

Completely untrue. Taking the last 10 years as example, 5 of the teams with the highest margin of victory won the championship and 5 of the teams with the highest margin of victory failed to do so.
Among the teams leading in this stat category for the past few years were the D'Antoni Phoenix Suns and the 67 win Dallas Mavericks. Good teams? Sure. Championship caliber teams? Obviously not.

Again, you're trying to liken this to a coin toss when it isn't (unless you've come across a 30-sided coin of some sort....).

There are 30 teams and that means 30 possibilities, not the all or nothing armageddon scenario you keep bringing up. It means that places other than first on the chart matter as well. 290 teams over ten years did not lead the chart.......

Until that sinks in, there's really nothing to discuss.

ElNono

02-08-2009, 09:55 PM

Yes, the problem is that you don't understand how statistical anomalies are insignificant when measured out over a long period of time. I've tried to tell you this several times.

It's not an anomaly if it's constant over the sampling period.

Obstructed_View

02-08-2009, 09:55 PM

You are also neglecting that you stated that this stat measures defensive ability, which clearly does not. That's a fact. And again, as 'great' this stat is, it's no more accurate than a coin toss to determine which team will win an NBA Finals...

:bang

There are 30 teams in the NBA, not two. Fifty percent of the time, that stat predicts which of those 30 teams will actually win sixteen games in the playoffs before the others do.

ElNono

02-08-2009, 09:57 PM

ElNono

02-08-2009, 09:57 PM

:bang

There are 30 teams in the NBA, not two. Fifty percent of the time, that stat predicts which of those 30 teams will actually win sixteen games in the playoffs before the others do.

Really, there's 30 teams in the NBA finals? Wow, you must be watching a different league... that's probably the problem here.

ElNono

02-08-2009, 09:59 PM

There were 300 teams competing for the last ten championships, hence the fix to your math.

The stat quoted talked winner of the NBA Final vs loser of the NBA Final... There's only 2 teams in the Finals last I checked...

Agloco

02-08-2009, 10:00 PM

Again, you're trying to liken this to a coin toss when it isn't (unless you've come across a 30-sided coin of some sort....).

There are 30 teams and that means 30 possibilities, not the all or nothing armageddon scenario you keep bringing up. It means that places other than first on the chart matter as well. 290 teams over ten years did not lead the chart.......

Until that sinks in, there's really nothing to discuss.

I'm sorry. I probably phrased that wrong. I was talking about using that stat to gauge who would win an NBA Finals... It's no better than a coin toss...

There you go again........ why is that a bad thing though? You're not considering the start point, in our case 300 teams lined up for their shot at a ring. 50% of the time this stat gives us the winner. What's the problem with that?

Obstructed_View

02-08-2009, 10:03 PM

The stat quoted talked winner of the NBA Final vs loser of the NBA Final... There's only 2 teams in the Finals last I checked...

No. This is DIRECTLY FROM THE ARTICLE:

I took the difference between the two values for every single team over the last 10 years (The Bobcats only have existed for 3 years and I adjusted the 98-99 season to 82 games because of the lockout) and mapped out their point differential against their wins in the season.

ElNono

02-08-2009, 10:04 PM

There you go again........ why is that a bad thing though? You're not considering the start point, in our case 300 teams lined up for their shot at a ring. 50% of the time this stat gives us the winner. What's the problem with that?

That's a useless stat... As far as winning a championship, it tells you absolutely nothing. As far as measuring defensive prowess, it tells you absolutely nothing.
Thus, it's a useless stat, even if it's 200% better than any other...

Obstructed_View

02-08-2009, 10:05 PM

Elnono, flip a coin and tell me who is going to win the NBA title this year. Right now, before you even know who's going to make the playoffs.

ElNono

02-08-2009, 10:07 PM

Elnono, flip a coin and tell me who is going to win the NBA title this year. Right now, before you even know who's going to make the playoffs.

The San Antonio Spurs, obviously... :hat

Agloco

02-08-2009, 10:08 PM

That's a useless stat... As far as winning a championship, it tells you absolutely nothing. As far as measuring defensive prowess, it tells you absolutely nothing.
Thus, it's a useless stat, even if it's 200% better than any other...

If it wasn't a significant stat it would have a 3.3% chance of predicting the winner EACH SEASON........

Over ten seasons that would be ".033 to the tenth power" percent chance of predicting the winners correctly every time. Do the math. Its a small number.......

Yet it gives us the champ 50% of the time. So how is that not telling us anything?

ElNono

02-08-2009, 10:10 PM

No. This is DIRECTLY FROM THE ARTICLE:

I actually read the article... in closing he mentions:

In conclusion, these point differential numbers are extremely useful, I am willing to bet that using these alone with enough comparison work (looking at who won vs. who in the NBA playoff series in the past based on differential and how many games the series went) it would be possible to out predict all the NBA "experts" who give 30 second blurbs of information concerning who they believe will win the title and certain series without watching a single minute of game action. This is something I look forward to testing further in the future during the coming years to see how well it holds up in predicting power. If anyone else plays with the numbers and comes up with another interesting observation (there are so many possibilities still remaining I haven't even tried looking at yet) don't hesitate to contact me about it. I would love to share everything the data has to offer to the readers of this site. For now though, just ponder how true it is when someone jokingly replies to the question, "How are we gonna win?", with the answer, "Score more points than the other team".

I'm sure he tested it further and holds no water whatsoever, because Hollinger is the one that's been using this crap to predict Suns wins over the Spurs year in and year out. Then he used the same crap to predict a NOH win over the Spurs. Then he used it to predict a Lakers win over Boston...
And the story gets old real quick...

Please, do take a look at the table timvp posted. Did the 2003 Spurs were a statistic anomaly? I say they won fair and square, beating the three-peat Lakers in the way.

ElNono

02-08-2009, 10:13 PM

If it wasn't a significant stat it would have a 3.3% chance of predicting the winner EACH SEASON........

Over ten seasons that would be ".033 to the tenth power" percent chance of predicting the winners correctly every time. Do the math. Its a small number.......

Yet it gives us the champ 50% of the time. So how is that not telling us anything?

Let's put it in betting terms... if you have waged on the leader of that stat category every year, you would still be even right now, after 10 years...

ElNono

02-08-2009, 10:17 PM

Anyways, I'm on the East coast and I gotta get some rest. Plus I'm going to the game on Tuesday, so I want to be well rested... :hat

Y'all have a good night and enjoy today's win... :toast

Agloco

02-08-2009, 10:19 PM

I think where you and I and OV disconnect is when you call the stat useless. You're not seeing the percent of winners it SHOULD be predicting if it were in fact useless. I did the math for you, scroll up.

I don't think either of us is trying to say this is a perfect stat, we are trying to say that it's not useless though.

vander

02-08-2009, 10:19 PM

Let's put it in betting terms... if you have waged on the leader of that stat category every year, you would still be even right now, after 10 years...

:rollin

those odds are never 1:1

if you could pick the champ out of the 16 playoff teams every other year you would be SWIMMING in money
:lmao

Agloco

02-08-2009, 10:20 PM

Let's put it in betting terms... if you have waged on the leader of that stat category every year, you would still be even right now, after 10 years...

Sigh.......not necessarily. Again, I'd have to pick from 30 teams. This is where you disconnect.......

ElNono

02-08-2009, 10:22 PM

:rollin

those odds are never 1:1

if you could pick the champ out of the 16 playoff teams every other year you would be SWIMMING in money
:lmao

Makes you wonder why Hollinger is still working for ESPN, doesn't it?

ElNono

02-08-2009, 10:23 PM

Sigh.......not necessarily. Again, I'd have to pick from 30 teams. This is where you disconnect.......

No, you would pick between 2, in the NBA Finals... Would that stat tell you something about who's going to win?

Look what a nice guy I am, I increase your odds of winning to 50%...

Agloco

02-08-2009, 10:25 PM

No, you would pick between 2, in the NBA Finals... Would that stat tell you something about who's going to win?

Look what a nice guy I am, I increase your odds of winning to 50%...

Your scenario is all wrong man. In order to properly pick the potential leader I'd have to consider all 30 teams......

ElNono

02-08-2009, 10:27 PM

Your scenario is all wrong man. In order to properly pick the potential leader I'd have to consider all 30 teams......

Why? I'm allowed to wager just on the NBA Finals, and so are you...
Heck, you get a 50-50 chance of getting it right...
Now, let's read that stat and see what it tells me...

Obstructed_View

02-08-2009, 10:29 PM

Let's put it in betting terms... if you have waged on the leader of that stat category every year, you would still be even right now, after 10 years...

Vegas preseason betting odds run anywhere from 5/2 to 3000/1. Picking right half the time puts you WAY ahead of even.

Obstructed_View

02-08-2009, 10:31 PM

Why? I'm allowed to wager just on the NBA Finals, and so are you...
Heck, you get a 50-50 chance of getting it right...
Now, let's read that stat and see what it tells me...

Well, you're either unable to grasp the concept, or you just refuse to listen. Either way it makes you stupid. I'm done.

ElNono

02-08-2009, 10:36 PM

Well, you're either unable to grasp the concept, or you just refuse to listen. Either way it makes you stupid. I'm done.

You were done when you said that stat measured a team's defensive prowess.
Then you clinged to Agloco's argument to save face...

Again, if you're going to bring something to the table here, like timvp did, you can start by explaining why the 2003 Spurs were a statistical anomaly, and why the stat is still viable under those circumstances...

vander

02-08-2009, 10:43 PM

Obstructed_View

02-08-2009, 10:44 PM

You were done when you said that stat measured a team's defensive prowess.
I said that for a defensive team like the Spurs it's a great indication of how consistent their defense is, and I haven't backed away from that at all.

Again, if you're going to bring something to the table here, like timvp did, you can start by explaining why the 2003 Spurs were a statistical anomaly, and why the stat is still viable under those circumstances...

I never made the statement that the 2003 Spurs were a statistical anomaly. You were the one that posted that. The 2003 Spurs were third in the league in margin of victory and the 2003 Nets were first in the east in that category. An example of a statistical anomaly would be a team that was 20th in the league in margin just making the playoffs.

Obstructed_View

02-08-2009, 10:47 PM

01 - LAL - 8th (SAS #1)

So basically it took Tim Duncan blowing out his knee and a historic Dallas Mavericks choke job for a team lower than third in point margin to win a title.

mystargtr34

02-08-2009, 10:48 PM

When used over 10 years it proved to be accurate half the time. That is, any team leading that stat category has as much a chance to win the NBA championship as any team not leading that category...

/thread

Not if the 5 other teams who won titles who werent leading that statistical category were near the top, say 2nd or 3rd. You cant just lump the other 29 teams which didnt lead the league together.

Agloco

02-08-2009, 10:49 PM

Why? I'm allowed to wager just on the NBA Finals, and so are you...
Heck, you get a 50-50 chance of getting it right...
Now, let's read that stat and see what it tells me...

And 30 teams are allowed to compete for those two spots........

30 teams = 30 margins of victory.......

When it sinks in let me know......

Agloco

02-08-2009, 10:52 PM

You were done when you said that stat measured a team's defensive prowess.
Then you clinged to Agloco's argument to save face...

Again, if you're going to bring something to the table here, like timvp did, you can start by explaining why the 2003 Spurs were a statistical anomaly, and why the stat is still viable under those circumstances...

Significance........ you have to understand the concept first. You have a tendency to pick out one or two events out of a long timeline and use them to demonstrate significance.

I don't have the inclination to give a typed lesson on the subject, so you're SOL unfortunately.

mystargtr34

02-08-2009, 10:53 PM

08 - Bos - 1st
07 - SAS - 1st
06 - Mia - 5th (SAS #1) and we blew that one
05 - SAS - 1st
04 - Det - 2nd (SAS #1) also could easily have been us
03 - SAS - 3rd
02 - LAL - 2nd (SAC #1) and they outplayed LAL, couldn't overcome refs
01 - LAL - 8th (SAS #1)
00 - LAL - 1st
99 - SAS - 1st
98 - Chi - 3rd
97 - Chi - 1st
96 - Chi - 1st

so the average championship team was ranked 2.3 in scoring differential, try matching that up against any other stat, best record, best D, best scoring player, nothing is going to touch that, and that's in spite of the spurs blowing championship runs that they should have won :bang
that average could just as easily be 1.5

Good post. I think the Spurs pace themselves more than any other team, in terms of limiting the big 3's PT - so i think this stat does sell the Spurs short more than any other team.

But theres no denying, health permitting, LA, Boston and Orlando are, or have been the 3 best teams in the league this year. Like i said, the fact that the Spurs limit the Big 3's minutes more than most, plus injuries to Manu and Parker, have no doubt skewed that number for the Spurs - so im not that worried.

ElNono

02-08-2009, 10:58 PM

I said that for a defensive team like the Spurs it's a great indication of how consistent their defense is, and I haven't backed away from that at all.

Makes no sense whatsoever. But you're entitled to your opinion, as retarded it might be.

I never made the statement that the 2003 Spurs were a statistical anomaly. You were the one that posted that. The 2003 Spurs were third in the league in margin of victory and the 2003 Nets were first in the east in that category. An example of a statistical anomaly would be a team that was 20th in the league in margin just making the playoffs.

But that happens almost every year, especially the last few with the disparity between the East and the West. I would have to go find the numbers, but I'm fairly certain that the 7th or 8th seed in the East had below or just around .500 record and did have a worst margin of victory than number 9 in the West.

ElNono

02-08-2009, 11:00 PM

So basically it took Tim Duncan blowing out his knee and a historic Dallas Mavericks choke job for a team lower than third in point margin to win a title.

06 - MIA - 5th

Ghazi

02-08-2009, 11:01 PM

Miami's title is a fluke that should be disregarded.

ElNono

02-08-2009, 11:04 PM

Good post. I think the Spurs pace themselves more than any other team, in terms of limiting the big 3's PT - so i think this stat does sell the Spurs short more than any other team.

But theres no denying, health permitting, LA, Boston and Orlando are, or have been the 3 best teams in the league this year. Like i said, the fact that the Spurs limit the Big 3's minutes more than most, plus injuries to Manu and Parker, have no doubt skewed that number for the Spurs - so im not that worried.

This is exactly my point. People that take these numbers religiously are bound to make mistakes. Even when the Spurs lead this category season in and season out it didn't lead them straight to a championship...

ElNono

02-08-2009, 11:07 PM

Significance........ you have to understand the concept first. You have a tendency to pick out one or two events out of a long timeline and use them to demonstrate significance.

I don't have the inclination to give a typed lesson on the subject, so you're SOL unfortunately.

You can write me back when Margin of Victory nets you millions of dollars year after year in Vegas... Holy shit, this stat is out there for everyone to see and nobody picked up on it... You go champ...

Obstructed_View

02-08-2009, 11:07 PM

06 - MIA - 5th

You really can't read can you?

ElNono

02-08-2009, 11:10 PM

You really can't read can you?

My bad... Dallas choked enough times these last few years....

Agloco

02-08-2009, 11:13 PM

You can write me back when Margin of Victory nets you millions of dollars year after year in Vegas... Holy shit, this stat is out there for everyone to see and nobody picked up on it... You go champ...

Reductio ad absurdum......

It need not net me million of dollars to be a useful stat. Fact remains that there is no other single stat which predicts the Finals winner with as much accuracy as this one.

Case closed.

Just as a sidenote: Had I been betting on it over the past 12 years, I would indeed be a millionaire.

Ghazi

02-08-2009, 11:15 PM

timvp

02-08-2009, 11:16 PM

I backed ElNono in that continents debate ... but he got hammered in this one. OV and Agloco took him behind the woodshed.

ElNono

02-08-2009, 11:18 PM

Reductio ad absurdum......

It need not net me million of dollars to be a useful stat. Fact remains that there is no other single stat which predicts the Finals winner with as much accuracy as this one.

Case closed.

Argumentum ad nauseam...

It's the most useful of the useless stats... gotcha!

Agloco

02-08-2009, 11:19 PM

I backed ElNono in that continents debate ... but he got hammered in this one. OV and Agloco took him behind the woodshed.

What debate was that?

Just so happens I work in a field where stats is an integral part of what I do. It's not easy to properly apply the concepts. I find it tricky at times as well.

Agloco

02-08-2009, 11:20 PM

Argumentum ad nauseam...

It's the most useful of the useless stats... gotcha!

Agree to disagree.... I'm cool with that.:hat

ElNono

02-08-2009, 11:20 PM

I backed ElNono in that continents debate ... but he got hammered in this one. OV and Agloco took him behind the woodshed.

I'll take that... I still think the Spurs are going all the way, regardless of what Hollinger ranking says...

ElNono

02-08-2009, 11:24 PM

I'll say that it's a lot easier to debate with OV and Agloco than the unnamed one. Even if we don't agree, it stayed mostly on topic. Thanks for that, and sorry if I touched a nerve here or there.
And YES! I could be wrong!

timvp

02-08-2009, 11:26 PM

I'll take that... I still think the Spurs are going all the way, regardless of what Hollinger ranking says...Debunking Hollinger is always fun but this specific trend is undeniable. However, the Spurs are different in that they have so much success under their belt, they don't try as hard in the regular season as other teams. No team gives less regular season effort, which obviously affects the point differential. That tells me that if any team is going to escape the trend, it'd be the Spurs.

What debate was that?
Forgot specifics but whottt was, IIRC, saying England isn't considered part of the European continent. ElNono argued otherwise.

ElNono

02-08-2009, 11:27 PM

If the spurs had a good margin of victory but still had same record, some Spurs fans would say it is a relevant stat.

But since their margin of victory is unspectacular, some of those same fans will say it is an irrelevant stat.

If there's something you learn quick being a Spurs fan, is that stats generally don't really matter much. That's why we have things like SPAM, and the proverbial RRT...

ElNono

02-08-2009, 11:33 PM

Debunking Hollinger is always fun but this specific trend is undeniable. However, the Spurs are different in that they have so much success under their belt, they don't try as hard in the regular season as other teams. No team gives less regular season effort, which obviously affects the point differential. That tells me that if any team is going to escape the trend, it'd be the Spurs.

I think this year has specific significance, not just because of the injuries at the beggining of the season (you could argue those smooth out over 82 games), but the fact that Pop is barely playing Bowen right now, and he's going to play a lot more come playoff time. Pop used to mostly rein in Manu minutes and sometimes TD and Finley, but this year he's trying to sit everybody as the standings permit, including TP. And if the Hornets and Mavs and Rockets keep losing I expect more rest for the big 4 like Denver last week.