Comments on: Blowing Teams Out vs. Avoiding Being Blown Out

By: dsong

dsong — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:01:56 +0000

Actually the betting odds is the best indicator of future success, but I digress.

Thank goodness the season is long; the Lakers have plenty of time to get things back together. Those losses to Utah and Indiana were awful.

When it comes to predictive value,

Blowing teams out > Close wins > Close losses > Being blown out. That is my story and I'm sticking to it.

By: Greyberger

Greyberger — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:57:58 +0000

Lebron has such long fingernails.

By: Gil Meriken

Gil Meriken — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 22:49:02 +0000

"Past performance is the best predictor" ... I'll have to chew on that for a while, I don't necessarily disagree, but I'll have to let that marinate in my soup for a little bit.

By: Anon x 2

Anon x 2 — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:38:49 +0000

nice work. Now the question becomes: "what about teams that blow out poor teams but struggle against good teams?" We need to separate teams not by "more blowouts" but by big disparities in whom is blown out. Or better yet, what is the general Point differential threshold for "contenders" against winning teams? A team with a point differential of +6 might be +1.5 against winning teams and be a contender. But perhaps a team with the same point differential overall but -1.5 against winning teams isn't.

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:17:26 +0000

Nothing guarantees future results. Past performance is the best predictor, though.

By: Gil Meriken

Gil Meriken — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:06:13 +0000

Thanks for the work, Neil. But, in the end, this sounds like a cop-out but it really isn't, doesn't it just depend on a team-by-team basis? Meaning, we're looking at historical patterns, but as the mutual fund advisory always warns "past performance does not guarantee future results". And, in the same manner as the stock market, that doesn't mean all quantitative analysis is out the window, it simply means that retro-fitting doesn't always give you the best insight into the future.

By: P Middy

P Middy — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:58:17 +0000

Great Post. Interesting results and analysis.

By: AHL

AHL — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:44:06 +0000

Ah, thanks for the table

By: AHL

AHL — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:42:54 +0000

I suppose this opens a whole 'nother barrel of comparing to Finals records (7 games? 4 games?), and pitting that against expected wins based on the blowouts gained in the regular season... ugh my head hurts now.

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:40:00 +0000

Ah, I see. So you're thinking more like this:

	Average per Team, per Season
Team	blowout	blowout-good	blowout-bad	blown_out	blown_out-good	blown_out-bad
Final 4 Winner	29.8	12.4	17.5	7.5	5.8	1.6
Final 4 Loser	27.1	10.6	16.5	8.5	6.7	1.8
Conf Finals Winner	29.2	12.0	17.2	7.8	6.1	1.7
Conf Finals Loser	26.9	10.4	16.5	8.4	6.6	1.8
Finals Winner	31.1	13.1	18.0	6.8	5.3	1.6
Finals Loser	27.4	10.9	16.5	8.8	7.0	1.8