5th in NBA for Point Differential

[PapaG]

2nd in the West, and almost a full point ahead of 3rd place San Antonio.

It's happening.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/standings

 

[Minstrel]

Portland has actually been 5th in point differential most of the year. It's why they do so well in Hollinger's rankings, which heavily use point differential.

 

[PapaG]

Portland has actually been 5th in point differential most of the year. It's why they do so well in Hollinger's rankings, which heavily use point differential.

They haven't been almost a full point ahead of 6th all season.

Plus, Hollinger is full of crap, as his preseason prediction about this team has proved him to be.

 

[illmatic99]

So far this season, we've had wins by:

42 (Chicago)
38 (Miami)
35 (OKC)
29 (Clips)
25 (Clips)
21 (Utah)
21 (Sac)
20 (Phoenix)
20 (Mem)
20 (Min)

And on top of that, we've had a whole bunch of blowout wins by 15-19 points.

Kinda distorts that differential.

 

[PapaG]

So far this season, we've had wins by:

42 (Chicago)
38 (Miami)
35 (OKC)
29 (Clips)
25 (Clips)
21 (Utah)
21 (Sac)
20 (Phoenix)
20 (Mem)
20 (Min)

And on top of that, we've had a whole bunch of blowout wins by 15-19 points.

Kinda distorts that differential.

How does it distort the differential?

 

[illmatic99]

How does it distort the differential?

Ok. It doesn't really distort the differential, but the blowouts heavily influence that number. If one wanted to place a large weightage on that value while ranking the teams (Hollinger), the unusually high number of 20 point+ wins against weaker opponents could distort one's view on how good the team really is.

 

[Boob-No-More]

So far this season, we've had wins by:

42 (Chicago)
38 (Miami)
35 (OKC)
29 (Clips)
25 (Clips)
21 (Utah)
21 (Sac)
20 (Phoenix)
20 (Mem)
20 (Min)

And on top of that, we've had a whole bunch of blowout wins by 15-19 points.

Kinda distorts that differential.

It doesn't distort anything. That is the definition of point differential. Everybody else plays the crap teams, too. And, the Blazers two biggest wins are against playoff teams. Throw in the fact that they beat Utah by 21, the Spurs by 18 and the Lakers by 17 and the Blazers lofty point differential is "well deserved" and quite impressive.

BNM

 

[KingSpeed]

It doesn't distort anything. That is the definition of point differential. Everybody else plays the crap teams, too. And, the Blazers two biggest wins are against playoff teams. Throw in the fact that they beat Utah by 21, the Spurs by 18 and the Lakers by 17 and the Blazers lofty point differential is "well deserved" and quite impressive.

BNM

Exactly. Nothing is distorted. Those blowouts are WHY we HAVE the 5th best differential. That's how you do it. It makes up for our 27 losses and still leaves us ahead.

 

[Minstrel]

Plus, Hollinger is full of crap, as his preseason prediction about this team has proved him to be.

Pre-season projections are a different system of analysis than on-going evaluations of which teams are the best. I think his in-season rankings are the most useful ones among the freely available ones.

 

[PapaG]

Pre-season projections are a different system of analysis than on-going evaluations of which teams are the best. I think his in-season rankings are the most useful ones among the freely available ones.

In other words, he was full of crap on his projections, as I pointed out to much ridicule on BBF.
It's not hard to say that the Blazers may be the 5th best team in the NBA right now. Sign me uip for his job!

 

[Minstrel]

In other words, he was full of crap on his projections, as I pointed out to much ridicule on BBF.

No, I don't agree. You claimed he was on BBF, but I don't think you supported your claims well. And yes, he clearly got the Blazers' prediction wrong. How all his predictions tend to compare to other predictors is another question.

 

[PapaG]

No, I don't agree. You claimed he was on BBF, but I don't think you supported your claims well. And yes, he clearly got the Blazers' prediction wrong. How all his predictions tend to compare to other predictors is another question.

Did you go back and read that thread? I laughed about him using "luck" as a net negative. That, quite frankly, is stupid for any "statistician".

He's a fraud IMO.

 

[Minstrel]

Did you go back and read that thread? I laughed about him using "luck" as a net negative. That, quite frankly, is stupid for any "statistician".

Right. That was your claim. I didn't think you supported your claim well that his using "luck" (which wasn't a vague, observational idea, but basically the difference between actual wins and the number of wins that Portland's 2007-08 point differential would generally correspond to) was a stupid decision.

 

[PapaG]

Right. That was your claim. I didn't think you supported your claim well that his using "luck" (which wasn't a vague, observational idea, but basically the difference between actual wins and the number of wins that Portland's 2007-08 point differential would generally correspond to) was a stupid decision.

Well, I was right, Hollinger was wrong on gaining wins and also using "luck" as an objective statistic.

So my "claim" wins out.

 

[Minstrel]

Well, I was right

To show you were right, you'd have to show that Hollinger's prediction system tends to do worse than other people's system. One incorrect prediction doesn't make you right that his system is shit. I don't think a projection system has to be right 100% of the time to be non-crap.

 

[PapaG]

To show you were right, you'd have to show that Hollinger's prediction system tends to do worse than other people's system. One incorrect prediction doesn't make you right that his system is shit. I don't think a projection system has to be right 100% of the time to be non-crap.

I am a fan of the Portland Trail Blazers. I argued passionately that Hollinger predicting 42 wins was foolish for this team. I give a rat's ass about other teams or his method. I saw his prediction as stupid, called it as such, and was ridiculed for it.

Prove me wrong, Minstrel, or don't, but please stop changing the argument.

 

[Ed O]

Did you go back and read that thread? I laughed about him using "luck" as a net negative. That, quite frankly, is stupid for any "statistician".

He's a fraud IMO.

You lack a basic understanding of what "luck" is in a quantitative analysis of sports. That's not Minstrel's fault nor Hollinger's.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

You lack a basic understanding of what "luck" is in a quantitative analysis of sports. That's not Minstrel's fault nor Hollinger's.

Ed O.

Actually Ed, Hollinger and you lack a basic understanding of "luck" and how it applies to projections, and my argument wins out this year over Hollinger's and yours.

LOL

 

[Minstrel]

Prove me wrong, Minstrel, or don't, but please stop changing the argument.

This is the claim of yours that I was arguing:

In other words, he was full of crap on his projections, as I pointed out to much ridicule on BBF.

Since you said "projections" (plural) and talked about the "luck" issue (which he uses for all teams, it wasn't just a Blazer thing), I assumed you referred to his system of prediction. So, I wasn't changing the argument as I saw it.

If all you meant was that you thought Hollinger was wrong about the Blazers, then sure, you were right. I was one of the people arguing with you about the "luck" thing, but I also thought Hollinger was off on the Blazers (I predicted 52 wins). I just think the system concept makes sense. It can, of course, get some predictions wrong even if it is good.

 

[PapaG]

If all you meant was that you thought Hollinger was wrong about the Blazers, then sure, you were right.

\

Yep. I was right, since that was my argument ABOUT THE BLAZERS on the 10-page thread on BBF where your fellow mod tried to convince me that I was wrong. I said nothing else about his method other than luck. Read the thread. Or don't. It's your choice, but continuing to challenge me seems a bit foolish at this point.

 

[Minstrel]

Yep. I was right, since that was my argument ABOUT THE BLAZERS on the 10-page thread on BBF where your fellow mod tried to convince me that I was wrong. I said nothing else about his method other than luck. Read the thread.

I don't need to go back and read it. I was one of the principle participants in it. When you attack the "luck" issue, you're attacking the system itself.

Since you can't back up your claim that it's bad to consider the difference between actual wins and expected wins from point differential (when making a prediction for the next season), you can retreat back to "Well, he got THIS single prediction wrong!" That's fine.

 

[PapaG]

I don't need to go back and read it. I was one of the principle participants in it. When you attack the "luck" issue, you're attacking the system itself.

Since you can't back up your claim that it's bad to consider the difference between actual wins and expected wins from point differential (when making a prediction for the next season), you can retreat back to "Well, he got THIS single prediction wrong!" That's fine.

Actually, I argued that he got the only prediction that mattered to me wrong. I didn't argue about any other team, and how "luck" affected their Hollinger prediction.

AND I WAS CORRECT. Deal with it.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Actually, I argued that he got the only prediction that mattered to me wrong. I didn't argue about any other team, and how "luck" affected their Hollinger prediction.

AND I WAS CORRECT. Deal with it.

That's it? That's your big victory?

Enjoy your cupcake, dude. Someone on the internet was wrong, and boy did you get 'im!

 

[PapaG]

That's it? That's your big victory?

Enjoy your cupcake, dude. Someone on the internet was wrong, and boy did you get 'im!

Huh? What's your point? Who are you?

 

[Minstrel]

Actually, I argued that he got the only prediction that mattered to me wrong.

And that "luck" was a stupid thing to factor in. You never supported that well.

The luck part is the part I argued with and don't think you've proven to be right on it. I never argued with you about whether Hollinger was right about the Blazer prediction, so it's pretty irrelevant to me whether you were "right" about that. Both of us were right on that, because both of us thought Hollinger predicted the Blazers too low. What we argued about was the luck issue, and that hasn't been proven one way or the other.

 

[PapaG]

And that "luck" was a stupid thing to factor in. You never supported that well.

The luck part is the part I argued with and don't think you've proven to be right on it. I never argued with you about whether Hollinger was right about the Blazer prediction, so it's pretty irrelevant to me whether you were "right" about that. Both of us were, because both of us thought Hollinger predicted the Blazers too low. What we argued about was the luck issue, and that hasn't been proven one way or the other.

Oh, but I did. Pull up the BBF thread and let's go at it again. Net/net, though, I was correct in regarding the Blazers.

 

[Ed O]

Actually Ed, Hollinger and you lack a basic understanding of "luck" and how it applies to projections, and my argument wins out this year over Hollinger's and yours.

LOL

Nope. Sorry. A single failure doesn't mean a system-wide failure.

I predicted 48 wins, and that is significantly higher than Hollinger's prediction. I didn't find his method crazy, though, and that's why we argued on BBF. You clearly didn't understand what "luck" means in this context and you continue to be ignorant.

Ed O.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Huh? What's your point? Who are you?

That you are acting like a petty attention whore.

My name is Matthew Johnston. Who are you?

 

[PapaG]

Nope. Sorry. A single failure doesn't mean a system-wide failure.

I predicted 48 wins, and that is significantly higher than Hollinger's prediction. I didn't find his method crazy, though, and that's why we argued on BBF. You clearly didn't understand what "luck" means in this context and you continue to be ignorant.

Ed O.

Um, no. You argued that luck was subjective and that it inflated the Blazers of 07-08. I said "luck" was foolish, and that a young team adding Greg Oden and Rudy Fernandez would surpass Hollinger's 42-win prediction.

You were wrong.

 

[PapaG]

That you are acting like a petty attention whore.

My name is Matthew Johnston. Who are you?

Huh? PM me your stats, if that is what gives you your jollies.