Record vs Point Differential

[PtldPlatypus]

I'll probably update this periodically throughout the year, but right now, the Blazers' 7-5 record is good for a tie for 5th in the West and 10th league-wide, whereas their overall point differential of -4.2 ppg is 11th in the West, 22nd overall (behind even the Heat, Kings, Nuggets, and Wizards, who are a combined 11-29), and the only negative differential value for any team above .500. Three 20+ point losses, and no wins by more than 10.

On the other end of the spectrum are the Minnesota Timberwolves who are 3-7 on the year (23rd in the league), but are +1.8 ppg, which is 13th in the league.

 

[illmatic99]

In the long run, with sufficient sample size and correcting for outliers (blowouts due to scheduling or injuries, etc), the point differential is a great indicator.

 

[TBpup]

I'd gauge it more on strength of schedule so far. They are barely beating bad teams (who are often on the 2nd of a b-2-b) and getting beaten soundly by the good teams.

 

[Denny Crane]

Minny is only going to get a lot better as they apply Thibs' defensive system.

 

[blue9]

I've always argued that W/L record is misleading, and not indicative of HOW a team plays. I haven't really looked at point differential, other than in the standings the good teams almost always have higher point differentials, so I think it's probably a better indicator. Clearly it's more reflective of reality right now, being that we're the only Top 8 team with a horrible point differential.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Both give good insight. But I would go with W/L. Point differential can be just as misleading due to a team's depth. But if you have 8 quality players who can flat out win you games, that bodes pretty well come playoff time. Even if the wins are by a few points.

 

[illmatic99]

Good teams don't go down by nearly 50. Ever.

Regardless of injuries/back to back/etc

 

[Wizard Mentor]

I'll probably update this periodically throughout the year, but right now, the Blazers' 7-5 record is good for a tie for 5th in the West and 10th league-wide, whereas their overall point differential of -4.2 ppg is 11th in the West, 22nd overall (behind even the Heat, Kings, Nuggets, and Wizards, who are a combined 11-29), and the only negative differential value for any team above .500. Three 20+ point losses, and no wins by more than 10.

On the other end of the spectrum are the Minnesota Timberwolves who are 3-7 on the year (23rd in the league), but are +1.8 ppg, which is 13th in the league.

Honestly, I think the Olympics have it right. Throw out the bottom 10% of games and the top 10% of the games, and THEN look at +/-. Against the Clips (2nd time), we looked and played like we were exhausted, and in fact we were on the 2nd of a b2b - this is not indicative of how we'll play in the playoffs. Likewise, the same, on average, will happen to our opponents.

Throw out top and bottom 10-15% seems about right. People don't do this because it's slightly harder to calculate, but it's the right thing to do.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Good teams don't go down by nearly 50. Ever.

Regardless of injuries/back to back/etc

Ever? The Celtics over the Lakers and the Bulls over the Jazz in the NBA finals both were over 40 at one point in their games.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Both give good insight. But I would go with W/L. Point differential can be just as misleading due to a team's depth. But if you have 8 quality players who can flat out win you games, that bodes pretty well come playoff time. Even if the wins are by a few points.

I voted point differential, thinking that was obvious, but then @Pinwheel1 got me to thinking that sometimes teams will blow a team out for three quarters, but in their scrubs and win by 10. Not advocating any such thought for the Blazers, we all know we have issues regardless of record, but point differential may not be as an obvious indicator as I first thought. I think its still probably a better indicator, but there are flaws in it as well.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Good teams don't go down by nearly 50. Ever.

Regardless of injuries/back to back/etc

Maybe not exactly 50 and maybe not all the time, but yes they do. It has happened. Its not a never.

 

[BonesJones]

Some teams are good at winning close game and point differential doesn't reflect that.

 

[craigehlo]

Neither. It's quality of teams you beat. Our resume for winning isn't all that great right now. The only quality win was against the Grizz (beating Utah without 2 starters doesn't count).

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Neither. It's quality of teams you beat. Our resume for winning isn't all that great right now. The only quality win was against the Grizz (beating Utah without 2 starters doesn't count).

The question wasn't "the best indicator" but "a more reliable indicator". One is more reliable than the other.