They're not winning a series w/o HCA, and they'll be a to beat if they have it.Utah Jazz: 11.52 points better at home than on the road
Sagarin's ranking is actually a mix of point differential ranking (PURE POINTS) and w/l based ranking (ELO CHESS). It obviously takes into account SOS, SOO, etc.
As explained in the actual preface text of those rankings, ELO CHESS is the most politically correct method, while PURE POINTS is the better predictor of future games.
The reason why they use Point differential and not "record against +.500 teams" or "point differential against +.500 teams" or "point differential against teams that are going to be in the playoffs adjusted to HCA" is not because nobody ever thought those could be better predictors.
Thinking that "what playoff teams do against the Knicks and Nets is irrelevant" isn't exactly innovative. But this isn't a subjective issue. To calculate predictive power one uses maths, doesn't pick what looks better just because.
Why is point differential league-wide considered a better predictive tool than when you reduce the sample size to just winning teams or playoff teams?
You're not going to see the Knicks or the Nets in the playoffs, you're not going to get caught napping against a bad team in the playoffs when you have to take your opponent seriously, and you're not going to be playing b2bs and four games in five nights. I don't know what sort of adjustment you come up with in regards to point differential as it pertains to the regular season when Team A was at home and had the previous two nights off, whereas Team B was on the 2nd night of a b2b and playing their fifth game in seven nights. It seems like there's all sorts of extraneous factors to account for.
Huh? Because it is? Why is 2+2=4?
This doesn't come from any philosophical or speculative process: just estimate the correlation between playoff success and various predictors - record, PD, record and PD in different samples, ulative age, FT%, blowouts, etc. etc.
Then you'll see which one is a better predictor.
The fact that something is counter-intuitive doesn't make it wrong.
Maybe PD from games with playoff teams would be more politically correct. But it isn't the better predictor.As explained in the actual preface text of those rankings, ELO CHESS is the most politically correct method, while PURE POINTS is the better predictor of future games.
It just seems counter-intuitive that games against lottery teams would be relevant. I know the data says otherwise.
If there's any hope for my Mavs (and personally I don't think there really is), the 2001 Lakers, 2006 Heat, 1995 Rockets and 1979 Sonics all won a 'chip with less than imposing PDs. I disregarded the 78 Bullets because of Walton's injury. Looking through the list of past championships, generally speaking you have to have a PD of 5 or up to be a le-worthy team.
It seems. It increases the sample size, reducing the noise. Plus I've always heard that the mark of a good team is the ability to destroy bad teams. The data isn't static anyway; it changes every season, so maybe the better predictor today won't be the one for the future? It'd imply some kind of change in the way teams approach games. Never thought much about this.
I would scoop the nuts the out of my scrotum if the Mavs made the century-miracle by winning the championship this season.
Different ways to overcome a relatively small Pythagorean record:
1995 Rockets - would never win without Clyde who they only acquired at the trade deadline.
2001 Lakers - Fisher barely played in the reg. season; stepped up their defense big time for the playoffs
2006 Heat - much improved team after Pat Riley took over; carried the momentum to the playoffs
1979 Sonics - can't remember them; they were DJ's team, excellent defensive team - that probably explains part of it
Anyway, PD is just the better predictor, not a perfect one. I can perfectly see the Mavs winning it.
That makes sense.
I would theorize that a less than gaudy PD for a veteran team with a bunch of 30+ guys is less worrisome for your le chances than a young team going all out that can't overwhelm teams. A team like San Antonio or Dallas has to manage minutes very carefully over the course of an 82-game season than a team like the Zombie Sonics trying to establish themselves.
You're missing the point. What's being said there is that PD has statistically been a better predictor of future games than W/L record.
Most of all of these rankings adjust for strength of schedule, strength of opponent, etc.
This is correct, and affect statistics in more than one way. Duncan and Ginobili always had their minutes increased in the playoffs.
Also somewhat explains the 2006 Heat, with a Shaq that sleepwalks in the regular season, and stood out in the playoffs.
How am I missing the point? Have you read my posts?
look at his name
LMAO at the le of this thread
Regarding the '06 Heat, point differential couldn't anticipate D-Whistle getting gifted 97 free throws. Even in defeat the Mavs appeared to be a better team. Mavs and Spurs were the best teams in the league that year.
Yes, I was responding to this:
The text asserts that PD is normally a better predictor than W/L (nothing less, nothing more). We don't really know wether PD adjusted for SOO is not a better predictor than PD not adjusted for SOO. As a matter of fact, most of these rankings do adjust for SOO, which would point to it being a better predictor.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
