Will we make it out of the 1st round? ESPN says...........

[THE HCP]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=5-on-5-110412

 

[tlongII]

They say "only if we play Dallas."

 

[THE HCP]

I agree with them.

 

[Shooter]

These are the same "experts" who thought the Lakers would beat us Friday night.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Haberstroh says no (with conditions), but he's also been following the Heat around all year and thinks that Coach Popovich's first name is Kevin. (See Question One at the link)

 

[BrianFromWA]

I think it's funny that the KnickerBlogger uses full-season point differential to dismiss our chances, while not noting the fact that we added an All-Star midseason. Then again, he might see two Blazers games a year, so I guess I should give him some slack.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I think it's funny that the KnickerBlogger uses full-season point differential to dismiss our chances, while not noting the fact that we added an All-Star midseason. Then again, he might see two Blazers games a year, so I guess I should give him some slack.

Yeah, I get the whole point differential correlation to winning, but this isn't the Tour de France. Every game starts over at 0-0. If you lose game 1 by 20 and then win game 2 by 1, you have a point differential of -9.5 per game, but the series is tied 1-1. If you then win game 3 by 1 point, you have a -6.0 point differential, but are leading the series 2-1.

Someone should ask KnickerBlogger who had the better point differential in the 1960 World Series. For those not familiar with baseball history, the Yankees had a +4.0 point differential, but still lost the World Series 4-3 to the Pittsburgh Pirates.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

And BTW, here's the top 4 teams per conference in point differential from last season:

Eastern Conference:
ORL +7.5
CLE +6.5
ATL +4.7
BOS +3.7

Western Conference:
UTA +5.3
SAS +5.1
PHO +4.9
LAL +4.7

So, the team with the 4th best point differential in each conference made the finals. So much for regular season point differential as a predictor for post season success.

BNM

 

[BrianFromWA]

Yeah, I get the whole point differential correlation to winning, but this isn't the Tour de France. Every game starts over at 0-0. If you lose game 1 by 20 and then win game 2 by 1, you have a point differential of -9.5 per game, but the series is tied 1-1. If you then win game 3 by 1 point, you have a -6.0 point differential, but are leading the series 2-1.

Someone should ask KnickerBlogger who had the better point differential in the 1960 World Series. For those not familiar with baseball history, the Yankees had a +4.0 point differential, but still lost the World Series 4-3 to the Pittsburgh Pirates.

BNM

Yeah, but Bill Mazeroski isn't walking through that door.

 

[andalusian]

FWIW - Since Gerald Wallace was inserted to the starting lineup, the Blazer's point differential is +6.6, vs. +1.7 for the season. It looks even better wehn you recognize that the Blazers are slow, slow, slow.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Yeah, but Bill Mazeroski isn't walking through that door.

(green font noted).

However, in the NBA, the team with the best regular season point differential doesn't usually win the NBA championship. If they did, our last 9 NBA champions would be (actual champs shown in parentheses):

ORL (LAL)
CLE (LAL)
BOS (BOS)
SAS (SAS)
SAS (MIA)
SAS (SAS)
SAS (DET)
DAL (SAS)
SAC (LAL)

So, in the last nine seasons, the team with the best regular season point differential has won the NBA title three times.

It would also be interesting to see how often the team with the better regular season point differential loses in the first round of the playoffs. There are so many variables involved (late season trades, players getting injured, or coming back from injuries, teams or individual players getting hot, or cold, match-ups, coaching, including game planning and in game adjustments, officiating, etc.) that using regular season point differential as a predictor of post season success seems like a short sighted, dogmatic approach that totally ignores all other factors.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

FWIW - Since Gerald Wallace was inserted to the starting lineup, the Blazer's point differential is +6.6, vs. +1.7 for the season. It looks even better wehn you recognize that the Blazers are slow, slow, slow.

Good find.

Over the last 25% of the regular season, the Blazers have the 5th best point differential in the league at +6.05. Dallas is 10th at +3.71, the Spurs are 9th at +3.80 and the Lakers 7th at +5.40. The Thunder are 3rd at +8.05.

So, if recent point differential was an accurate predictor of post season success, we would be the favorite against any first round opponent, except OKC. Unfortunately, it's not. You still have to play the games and every game starts at 0-0.

BNM

 

[blazerboy30]

(green font noted).

However, in the NBA, the team with the best regular season point differential doesn't usually win the NBA championship. If they did, our last 9 NBA champions would be (actual champs shown in parentheses):

ORL (LAL)
CLE (LAL)
BOS (BOS)
SAS (SAS)
SAS (MIA)
SAS (SAS)
SAS (DET)
DAL (SAS)
SAC (LAL)

So, in the last nine seasons, the team with the best regular season point differential has won the NBA title three times.

It would also be interesting to see how often the team with the better regular season point differential loses in the first round of the playoffs. There are so many variables involved (late season trades, players getting injured, or coming back from injuries, teams or individual players getting hot, or cold, match-ups, coaching, including game planning and in game adjustments, officiating, etc.) that using regular season point differential as a predictor of post season success seems like a short sighted, dogmatic approach that totally ignores all other factors.

BNM

3 out of 9 seems like a pretty decent indicator. Can you find a stat / indicator that has higher than 33% success rate?

Do things change if you take the teams' point differential / avg_points_scored?

 

[Boob-No-More]

3 out of 9 seems like a pretty decent indicator. Can you find a stat / indicator that has higher than 33% success rate?

First team to win 4 games == 100% correlation.

I know that seems flippant, but so does dismissively using regular season point differential as a predictor of post season success.

BNM

 

[blazerboy30]

First team to win 4 games == 100% correlation.

I know that seems flippant, but so does dismissively using regular season point differential as a predictor of post season success.

BNM

Actually, that doesn't at all address the question, since the results of 4 games isn't predictive. I don't think anybody claimed it was a 100% accurate model. I don't think you'll find a predictive stat that will be 100% accurate. But is there something better than the 33% accuracy of pt differential prediction? You're dismissing it as if it is a terrible predictive indicator without putting forth anything better.

 

[magnifier661]

Can't wait to prove all these people wrong. First time in years I have a lot of confidence with this team's chances. If the Blazers can play like they can, then I don't see any team able to match up with them.

 

[Draco]

Well point differnetial may not be a perfect indicator but it is some sort of indicator. Is it a better indicator than the best regular season record? How does the team with a superior season record fair in any playoff series compared to a team with the superior point differential. I'm not sure but it'd be interesting to see the two compared.

 

[Eastoff]

since acquiring Wallace, and bear in mind we've had a tough late schedule, the Blazers have gone 14-8 and have a 4.4+ Point differential

 

[EGame]

I still say we could upset San Antonio. Yes they are currently the best team in the league record wise and are very good, but we just have had there number recently these last couple of years. Of course, like everyone else I prefer Dallas, but would be fine with the Spurs as well. I don't give us to much hope against the Lakers or Thunder.

 

[magnifier661]

Regular season means shit in the playoffs. Remember that Portland had HCA against Houston, beat them handledly in the regular season and failed in the post season. It's a whole new ball game in the post season. I would much rather face a half court team then a jump shooting one in the first round. I really don't want to see Dallas honestly.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Actually, that doesn't at all address the question, since the results of 4 games isn't predictive. I don't think anybody claimed it was a 100% accurate model. I don't think you'll find a predictive stat that will be 100% accurate. But is there something better than the 33% accuracy of pt differential prediction? You're dismissing it as if it is a terrible predictive indicator without putting forth anything better.

Did you read the article?

My original comments were directed at KnickerBloggers prediction that the Mavs would beat the Blazers - based solely on regular season point differential. He twice mentioned that the Blazers were only 13th in point differential and will, therefore, lose to the Mavs who are 8th in point differential - that was his sole basis for the Mavs beating the Blazers in a first round series. He ignored recent performance (Blazers +6.05, 5th best and Mavs +3.71, 10th best, over the last 25% of the schedule, recent head-to-head match-ups, late season acquisition of Gerald Wallace, etc.) and based his entire prediction on the fact that the Mavs have the higher regular season point differential, and would therefore win the season.

33% correlation isn't that great, and considering a single variable as a accurate predictor in a multivariate problem is fraught with problems. If he's going to use point differential, he should at least weight it toward recent performance. The way teams are performing in April should carry more weight than the way they performed in November - especially when roster changes are involved. I'd also consider recent performance against quality opponents (other playoff teams), ability to win close games (fewer blowouts in the play-offs), etc.

Is there any single predictor of playoff success? No, there isn't. That was my point and why I disagreed with KnickerBlogger's prediction based on a single variable (especially one that considers November's data every bit as important to post season success as April's).

BNM

 

[blazerboy30]

Did you read the article?

My original comments were directed at KnickerBloggers prediction that the Mavs would beat the Blazers - based solely on regular season point differential. He twice mentioned that the Blazers were only 13th in point differential and will, therefore, lose to the Mavs who are 8th in point differential - that was his sole basis for the Mavs beating the Blazers in a first round series. He ignored recent performance (Blazers +6.05, 5th best and Mavs +3.71, 10th best, over the last 25% of the schedule, recent head-to-head match-ups, late season acquisition of Gerald Wallace, etc.) and based his entire prediction on the fact that the Mavs have the higher regular season point differential, and would therefore win the season.

33% correlation isn't that great, and considering a single variable as a accurate predictor in a multivariate problem is fraught with problems. If he's going to use point differential, he should at least weight it toward recent performance. The way teams are performing in April should carry more weight than the way they performed in November - especially when roster changes are involved. I'd also consider recent performance against quality opponents (other playoff teams), ability to win close games (fewer blowouts in the play-offs), etc.

Is there any single predictor of playoff success? No, there isn't. That was my point and why I disagreed with KnickerBlogger's prediction based on a single variable (especially one that considers November's data every bit as important to post season success as April's).

BNM

Thanks for expanding on your post. I agree with what you're saying here. I was just making the point that dismissing an indicator that, by itself, has a 33% accuracy, probably isn't a wise thing to do if one can't put forth a more accurate model. It would be interesting to see how things change when an EMA is applied to the pt differential instead of a straight average.