Margin of Victory... useless stat.

[Agloco]

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]

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 le 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]

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]

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...

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

[Agloco]

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]

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...

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

[Agloco]

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]

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

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

[ElNono]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 cir stances...

[vander]

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
that average could just as easily be 1.5

[Obstructed_View]

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 cir stances...

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]

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 le.

[mystargtr34]

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 les 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]

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]

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 cir stances...

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]

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
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]

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 en led to your opinion, as re ed 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]

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 le.

06 - MIA - 5th

[Ghazi]

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

[ElNono]

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...