There are positions where Spurs have a slight advantage, but in areas where Warriors have the advantage, the margin is HUGE. Just my opinion.
Printable View
There are positions where Spurs have a slight advantage, but in areas where Warriors have the advantage, the margin is HUGE. Just my opinion.
No. The Gambler's Fallacy is believing that events are not independent when they in fact are. Like thinking that a roulette wheel is "due" to come up red after 5 consecutive black spins. Future games in the NBA are dependent on past results, at least within a season, because it's the same teams playing the future games as the past games.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
Well no shit. Thanks for that Wiki lesson.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seventyniner
How it's being used here is the same thing. If you go back 10 years and look at every champion, half the time at least they did not have the highest pt differential.
Since the game has to be played on the court, there's no stat that guarantees anything, but point spread is something that can be fattened or thinned based on the coach's whims. What is apparent is that GS blew the doors of the Spurs when they met. When they meet again, that could be SA's first home loss. We'll see. Either way, the point differential prior to that meeting has absolutely no bearing on it and the difference between GS and SA in that regard is negligible.
Because it's been said a dozen times every year. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. Because " distribution of a team’s total points scored and allowed within a season is largely random" is expected to be accepted prima facie, and I don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uriel
If a coach can alter the spread by 3 points simply by keeping guys out there and pushing them to score, he basically nullifies the concept of point spread in measuring team strength. The reverse is also true then. We've seen 30pt blowouts that end up being 9 point wins because the turd crew takes the floor in the 4th.
You're the one that misused the term. /chumpQuote:
Originally Posted by DMC
True, 6 years in the past 10 the #1 SRS team didn't win the title. 10 in the last 20. That's still a much higher percentage than any other spot.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
SRS of past 20 champs: 1, 1, 2, 4, 8, 5, 3, 1, 1, 6, 1, 7, 3, 2, 6, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1
Of course no stat guarantees anything. But if one stat has 65% accuracy as a predictor and another has 55%, the one with 65% is better even though it isn't 100% accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
You really think that Pop runs up the score? Or that Walton/Kerr sandbag at the end of blowouts on purpose? There is no reason to believe that either team's strategy at the end of blowouts is different than the other's.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
You can argue that the point differential doesn't mean anything. You can't argue that it means less than the W/L record. The whole point of the article is that if you look at only the W/L record of each team coming into a game and use only that to predict the outcome, then do the same with only point differential, then point differential is the better predictor. Neither takes into account injuries, strength of schedule, or anything else. I would imagine that SRS would do even better because it does include strength of schedule.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
You won't be missed, BYE!:sleepQuote:
Originally Posted by polandprzem
No I didn't. Do you think anyone here does any deep level analytics? Of course not. They use Gambler's fallacy. We see it every day "Last time they blew us out we won a championship... ergo..". The same is true for point spread. Something that doesn't work all the time doesn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seventyniner
Meaning it's unreliable.Quote:
True, 6 years in the past 10 the #1 SRS team didn't win the title. 10 in the last 20. That's still a much higher percentage than any other spot.
Which of those also had the best record?Quote:
SRS of past 20 champs: 1, 1, 2, 4, 8, 5, 3, 1, 1, 6, 1, 7, 3, 2, 6, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1
Wins guarantee everything.Quote:
Of course no stat guarantees anything. But if one stat has 65% accuracy as a predictor and another has 55%, the one with 65% is better even though it isn't 100% accurate.
Since it only gave 50% indication of the eventual champion, it's a 50/50 call which a game is anyhow.Quote:
You really think that Pop runs up the score? Or that Walton/Kerr sandbag at the end of blowouts on purpose? There is no reason to believe that either team's strategy at the end of blowouts is different than the other's.
You do realize this was pointed out like 10 years ago, right? Teams with more wins will have more + in the differential department. This reminds me of Hollinger's tool that predicts power rankings based on metrics. At the end of the season it could tell you who the best team was. Of course, it always agreed with the W/L record.Quote:
You can argue that the point differential doesn't mean anything. You can't argue that it means less than the W/L record. The whole point of the article is that if you look at only the W/L record of each team coming into a game and use only that to predict the outcome, then do the same with only point differential, then point differential is the better predictor. Neither takes into account injuries, strength of schedule, or anything else. I would imagine that SRS would do even better because it does include strength of schedule.
Just because a team shits the bed after having a monster regular season doesn't mean they weren't the best team during the season. They just have a matchup issue. Also, injuries play a part in the outcome during the playoffs.
So do you think teams with half the SRS as teams they beat in the playoffs/Finals were twice as good as them or half as good?
I won't I don't care noobie :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kawhitstorm
You're still alive, old geezer:sleepQuote:
Originally Posted by polandprzem
there is no way this year Spurs are better than the Warriors. This is probably the worst Spurs team ive seen since RJ. As to be expected when you introduce an All-star and have to reset the team chemistry along with aging stars.
Huge decline on TP, Duncan, Diaw, Green this year has offset any improvements by Kawhi.
The point differential is purely based off our bench being better than our opponents.
These are the facts:
1. The Spurs are #1 in the NBA in FiveThirtyEight's CARMELO Projections.
2. The Spurs are #1 in the NBA in ESPN's Basketball Power Index.
3. The Spurs are #1 in the NBA in Basketball Reference's Simple Rating System.
4. The Spurs are #1 in the NBA in both NBA.com and Basketball Reference's Net Rating.
In other words, the Spurs are #1 in the NBA by almost all major advanced statistical formulas that measure team quality.
:lobt2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Uriel