Adjusted Point Differential
Happy Thanksgiving everyone. Here’s a little something to chew on while you decide if there's room for some more of that pumpkin pie. Don’t worry, it’s not to heavy. More like a little whipped cream for that pie you're going to get.
Point Differential of course is a simple stat calculated by taking Points For (PF) minus the Points Against (PA) which yields the difference.
Don’t be deceived. Diff is simple, but highly correlated to number of wins and even NBA titles. A very good indicator of how a team is performing as a unit. Here's about 14 years of NBA data: Diff on the left and wins at the top.
Only 3 teams in the last 15 years had a scoring margin above 9.8 and all 3 were NBA Champs (Blazers were at 9.8 for the last 21 games of last year).
Here's 15 years of title winners and the runner up (last year not included).
7 times the NBA title winner was 1st in Diff.
11 of 15 times, the team with the best Diff won the title. 
The above charts and tables come from a couple posts I put up last year, and I have combined them and put them all in this post. Now a glance at this year.
A Look At This Year With Adjusted Point Differential
Stats really should always be adjusted for pace. I’m sure someone here convinced me of that with regard to the Blazers offense and rebound rates.
So here’s point differential adjusted (DIFFa) as if every team always had 100 points (PAa) scored against them, and also the corresponding Points For (PFa). The standard PF, PA, and DIFF are included, but this table is sorted by the adjusted DIFF, i.e. DIFFa. If you look closely you’ll see some teams rose/declined a few spots with adjusted Diff.
| Team | W | L | PCT | PF | PA | DIFF | PFa | PAa | DIFFa |
| Portland | 12 | 5 | 0.706 | 96.8 | 88.5 | 8.3 | 109.4 | 100.0 | 9.4 |
| Boston | 11 | 4 | 0.733 | 99.3 | 90.9 | 8.4 | 109.2 | 100.0 | 9.2 |
| Denver | 11 | 4 | 0.733 | 108.5 | 101.0 | 7.5 | 107.4 | 100.0 | 7.4 |
| Dallas | 11 | 4 | 0.733 | 103.3 | 96.5 | 6.8 | 107.0 | 100.0 | 7.0 |
| Atlanta | 11 | 3 | 0.786 | 105.5 | 98.9 | 6.6 | 106.7 | 100.0 | 6.7 |
| Orlando | 11 | 4 | 0.733 | 99.3 | 94.0 | 5.3 | 105.6 | 100.0 | 5.6 |
| LA Lakers | 11 | 3 | 0.786 | 101.8 | 96.5 | 5.3 | 105.5 | 100.0 | 5.5 |
| Phoenix | 12 | 3 | 0.800 | 111.4 | 105.9 | 5.5 | 105.2 | 100.0 | 5.2 |
| Cleveland | 11 | 4 | 0.733 | 99.1 | 94.6 | 4.5 | 104.8 | 100.0 | 4.8 |
| San Antonio | 7 | 6 | 0.538 | 102.2 | 98.0 | 4.2 | 104.3 | 100.0 | 4.3 |
| Milwaukee | 8 | 5 | 0.615 | 99.7 | 96.4 | 3.3 | 103.4 | 100.0 | 3.4 |
| Oklahoma City | 8 | 7 | 0.533 | 96.4 | 94.1 | 2.3 | 102.4 | 100.0 | 2.4 |
| Miami | 9 | 5 | 0.643 | 96.9 | 95.4 | 1.6 | 101.6 | 100.0 | 1.6 |
| Houston | 8 | 7 | 0.533 | 103.4 | 102.6 | 0.8 | 100.8 | 100.0 | 0.8 |
| Utah | 7 | 7 | 0.500 | 99.5 | 99.6 | -0.1 | 99.9 | 100.0 | -0.1 |
| Indiana | 6 | 7 | 0.462 | 98.8 | 99.8 | -1.1 | 99.0 | 100.0 | -1.0 |
| Charlotte | 5 | 9 | 0.357 | 87.5 | 88.9 | -1.4 | 98.4 | 100.0 | -1.6 |
| Sacramento | 6 | 8 | 0.429 | 103.7 | 105.4 | -1.7 | 98.4 | 100.0 | -1.6 |
| Golden State | 5 | 9 | 0.357 | 109.3 | 111.5 | -2.2 | 98.0 | 100.0 | -2.0 |
| Toronto | 7 | 9 | 0.438 | 105.8 | 108.6 | -2.9 | 97.4 | 100.0 | -2.6 |
| Detroit | 5 | 10 | 0.333 | 92.2 | 94.9 | -2.7 | 97.2 | 100.0 | -2.8 |
| New Orleans | 7 | 9 | 0.438 | 99.6 | 102.9 | -3.3 | 96.8 | 100.0 | -3.2 |
| LA Clippers | 6 | 10 | 0.375 | 95.1 | 98.9 | -3.8 | 96.2 | 100.0 | -3.8 |
| Philadelphia | 5 | 10 | 0.333 | 97.6 | 101.9 | -4.3 | 95.8 | 100.0 | -4.2 |
| Washington | 4 | 9 | 0.308 | 96.6 | 101.6 | -5 | 95.1 | 100.0 | -4.9 |
| Memphis | 5 | 10 | 0.333 | 101.9 | 107.3 | -5.3 | 95.0 | 100.0 | -5.0 |
| Chicago | 6 | 7 | 0.462 | 91.4 | 96.9 | -5.5 | 94.3 | 100.0 | -5.7 |
| New York | 3 | 12 | 0.200 | 100.3 | 107.6 | -7.3 | 93.2 | 100.0 | -6.8 |
| New Jersey | 0 | 15 | 0.000 | 84.9 | 95.3 | -10.4 | 89.1 | 100.0 | -10.9 |
| Minnesota | 1 | 14 | 0.067 | 90.1 | 104.1 | -14 | 86.6 | 100.0 | -13.4 |
The Blazers arguably have one of the best defenses in the league this year. It’s interesting that with the brush stroke of adjusted point diff, we now have the best offense in the league. Of course we’re tied with 29 teams for defense.
In fact, if we had been a little more ready for the start of the season and had 2 more wins, we’d be leading the league with a whopping .824 win%. Considering that our actual PF (points for) is 22nd in the league, adjusting so all teams can be compared equally truly shows how well the Blazers are doing, and brings out the aspect of our slow pace.
We can complain all we want about this player, that player, coach, etc.
The truth is, we all know this team is just barely beginning to gel as an offense.
So me, I’m giving thanks today.
So Where Are We
Pythagorean Wins (a formula based on DIFF that projects number of wins for the year) had us at 44 wins after the first 5 games. After 17 games it currently places us at 63.8 wins.
I wouldn’t put to much stock into this stat until at least 25 games or so, if not more. It does not consider strength of schedule.
The current win% of our opponent in these first 17 games is .407
If New Jersey (0.000) was a .500 team this would bring our opponents average up to .437
Last year our opponents win% for the year was .493. So really, all we need is for the poor teams we’ve played, New Jersey (.000), 3x Minnesota (.067), Memphis (.333), Charlotte (.357), Detroit (.333), Golden State (.357) to step it up a little just a little and bingo, our easy early schedule becomes a tough schedule.
Ok, that was a little bit in jest. But there is also some truth to it. Is New Jersey going 0 & 82, I doubt it. And they certainly didn’t look like a 0 & 14 team out there last night.
Another thing to consider with this weak early schedule is the amount of games we’ve played. After Saturday it will be 19 games in 33 days, the most rigorous schedule in the league. Nobody has played more games.
What does all this boil down to: it’s a little difficult to judge just how good we’re doing at the moment.
Probably doing about what we should be doing at this time. Take into consideration the slow start, where we were clearly out of sync, and we couldn’t ask for a better start.
58 comments
|
15 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
77 & 5 is not a bad year.
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
and also.. REC
...and that's a good thing
by In Walks Rudy on Nov 26, 2009 6:45 PM PST up reply actions
Strongest possible REC
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
Thanks timbo, a rec from you is always the strongest possible.
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
Here’s an interesting tidbit. The 54 games we won last year brought our combined opponents win% down from .503 to .493.
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
Can you explain how you get to .503?
Here’s what I did:
Blazers played 82 games last year (of course).
Counting each game as a separate “team,” each team we played also played 82 games.
So, in total, the teams we played, played 6724 games.
Since the teams we played against won 49.3% of those games and lost 50.7%, we can say that teams we played against won 3,315 (6724 * .493) games and lost 3,409 (6724 * .507).
Taking out our 54 wins and 28 losses from our opponents records, I get 3287 wins and 3355 losses for our opponents.
Taking 3287 / (3287 + 3355), I get .49488 (or .495).
What did you do differently? What am I missing?
I go to law school. Therefore, I have no life.
by andrewgolfsalot on Nov 26, 2009 8:45 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah I had a math fail there, I was in the process of recalculating.
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
Okay, so our opponents "true" winning percentage, with our games stripped out is actually .495?
I go to law school. Therefore, I have no life.
by andrewgolfsalot on Nov 26, 2009 8:48 PM PST up reply actions
6724 games? shouldn't that be 2378? 29 teams played 82 games.
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
I tried it both ways.
Here’s why:
82*82 — we didn’t play Cleveland the same number of times we played Minnesota. So, taking 29*82 doesn’t really adjust for the times we played each team, and their respective record. I believe that Opponents winning percentage takes into account the fact that we play some teams three times, some four, and some only two. If it didn’t, wouldn’t everyone’s Opponents winning percentage be exactly the same?
29*82 — just in case I was wrong, and that each individual game and the record of that team isn’t taken into account. This way, I got an unadjusted record of 1172-1206 and an adjusted record of 1144-1152 … an adjusted winning percentage of .498.
I go to law school. Therefore, I have no life.
by andrewgolfsalot on Nov 26, 2009 8:57 PM PST up reply actions
Not sure of the comment, "wouldn’t everyone’s Opponents winning percentage be exactly the same."
Those 54 games affects the percentage exactly the same, doesn’t matter who we played.
So if we lost those 54 games (0-82) we added 54 wins to the sum total in the win column of what all the other teams played.
If we lost every game last year our opponents win% would have been .516
If we were a .500 team our opponents win% would have been .498 (very close to .500)
I could be wrong but I don’t think you need to adjust so that we play all teams the same amount of times.
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
But, I don't think that's what I'm doing...
I could be wrong but I don’t think you need to adjust so that we play all teams the same amount of times.
I believe what I’m doing is making sure that the fact that we played some teams 4 times instead of 2 is taken into account (with the 82*82 thing).
Saying 29*82 assumes that we played all teams equally.
Can you look up quickly what Denver’s OW% was last year?
I go to law school. Therefore, I have no life.
by andrewgolfsalot on Nov 26, 2009 9:21 PM PST up reply actions
.659
But it doesn’t matter if we lost a game to Denver or Detroit, the overall win% moves the same.
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
No way was Denver's opponent winning percentage .659.
I go to law school. Therefore, I have no life.
by andrewgolfsalot on Nov 26, 2009 9:24 PM PST up reply actions
By chance do you have aim/gmail and we could discuss this there?
I go to law school. Therefore, I have no life.
by andrewgolfsalot on Nov 26, 2009 9:25 PM PST up reply actions
yes, click my profile.
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
Invite sent.
I go to law school. Therefore, I have no life.
by andrewgolfsalot on Nov 26, 2009 9:29 PM PST up reply actions
may need to try again, I’m not getting anything.
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
Email sent.
I go to law school. Therefore, I have no life.
by andrewgolfsalot on Nov 26, 2009 9:43 PM PST up reply actions
You were looking for last year
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/standings?season=2009
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
Yea, that was Den's winning percentage, not the winning percentage of their opponents.
I go to law school. Therefore, I have no life.
by andrewgolfsalot on Nov 26, 2009 9:28 PM PST up reply actions
Oh, I see. I always have trouble finding the kind of stats I need.
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
Arbitrary number, any could have been chosen.
Just a way to put all teams on equal footing in an attempt to better compare teams to each other. Kind of adjusting pace to make every team have the same pace.
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
Would you get the same results if you adjusted the pace to the team's offense? i.e. set PFa at 100?
Isn’t it true that the pace of offense is more easily controlled (or should be more easily controlled) rather than having the pace of defense dictated to you?
I go to law school. Therefore, I have no life.
by andrewgolfsalot on Nov 26, 2009 8:47 PM PST up reply actions
Sure, and the order of how the teams will then be listed will also be the same.
So either way will work to put the teams at equality.
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
Cool. I assumed this was the case.
I go to law school. Therefore, I have no life.
by andrewgolfsalot on Nov 26, 2009 8:58 PM PST up reply actions
but, then that's misleading because it's not adjust points allowed
nor is is pfa points scored adjusted.
Oh sorry, I did adjust PFa, PAa, and DIFFa
I set PAa to 100, and then a ratio was establish for each team based on how far/close/above/below to 100. Then PFa and DIFF was set accordingly.
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
that should be "DIFFa was set accordingly."
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
My assumption is
if your diff is +10 and you’re scoring 85 per night and your opponent 75. You are beating the opponent by more than someone who has a +10 diff and is scoring 120 per night verse their opponent at 110. It’s just an assumption, but seems in line with other pace adjusted stats.
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
you didn't need to do that.. and it makes PFa and PAa meaningless
Just divide each teams pf and pa by their average number of possessions and then multiply each by 100. That will give you an adjusted point differential and meaningful numbers for PFa and PAa.
I hate to say anything because without question you are the Master and I am the grasshopper – I always enjoy your posts.
Yes, what you have proposed does have more meaning in most contexts. But perhaps not in the context I was looking for. I do believe PAa and PFa have meaning in the context I was needing.
First let me say, I agree 100% that factoring in possessions adds a great deal more meaning and I like the idea, but I believe it would also add that same meaning to the crude PFa, PAa, DIFFa.
Here’s a small sample of what you have suggested. The poli stat, PF, PA, and DIFF based on 100 possessions (and I do like it). But how do I compare Minnesota to Portland. My thought was how do these 2 teams compare if their opponents always scored 100 on them.
Team—-Posssions———-PFpoli———-PApoli———-DIFFpoli
Portland——-91.0—————106.4—————97.3—————9.1
Boston———-94.4—————105.2—————96.3—————8.9
Denver———-99.8—————108.7—————101.2—————7.5
Dallas————97.7—————105.7—————98.8—————7.0
Atlanta———-95.9—————110.0—————103.1—————6.9
Orlando———94.0—————105.6—————100.0—————5.6
Chicago———94.7—————96.5—————102.3—————(-5.8)
New York——102.1—————98.2—————105.4———— (-7.1)
New Jersey—94.1—————90.2—————101.3—————(-11.1)
Minnesota——97.3—————92.6—————107.0—————(-14.4)
I was looking for a quick and dirty way to easily visualize the numbers, and the visual effect is really one thing I was going for, (maybe it wasn’t that great of an idea but I’m still liking it at this time). But if you have a bunch of sticks in your hand it can be difficult to compare lengths. You can butt them on top of a tabletop and the length becomes easier to compare. Sort of like getting a spread sheet where numbers have various lengths to the right of the decimal point. First thing I always do is correct it so it’s easier to view. Anyway, I like the poli sat, hope you don’t mind if I keep it.
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
Did I drool enough, only said I liked it 3 times.
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
okay, i see what you were getting at
note that the PApoli and PFpoli are just the efficiency ratings (or very close to them), which can be found in a few different places (espn.com and basketball-reference.com).
Absolutely, but so does the frequency of how many games you play in x amount of days.
And that’s the point in the conclusion of the post. It’s tough to tell how well we’re playing right now.
But I feel a whole lot better being #1 in DIFF with a weak strength of schedule, then say, #10
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
i like point differential stats always
even this early on in the season. even more when we look good after you adjust. =) rec.
Top 5 songs near and dear to my ears:
The Mars Volta - L'via L'viaquez
Regina Spektor - Back of a Truck
Death Cab for Cutie - Little Bribes
Joanna Newsom - Monkey & Bear
Devendra Banhart - Long Haired Child
My oh my.
The 2000-02 L*kers were 8th? I wonder why they stand out so much on this list of champions? cough rigged refs cough
My team went to the playoffs in my first year.
by pxilpooshr on Nov 27, 2009 2:47 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
For what it's worth, projected wins
I don’t feel like making a fanpost, but this seems like the appropriate place to put it. Below is the projected number of wins for each team in the nba this season using a “Hollinger-like” playoff predictor model.
Technically, it is different than Hollinger’s method and more similiar to the one used at basketball-reference.com. It is composed of three parts
1) It assess the “power rating” of each team, taking into account 1) point differential in each game, 2) opponent in each game, 3) home court advantage, and 4) whether or not teams played on a back-to-back.
2) It sums up the wins and losses of games already played and then predicts the score for all remaining games, taking into account home court advantage, opponent, and whether or not teams are playing on a back-to-back.
3) It then calculates the probability of winning, given the predicted margin of victory.
Projected Wins Team
62.1 Dallas Mavericks
60.2 Boston Celtics
58.7 Atlanta Hawks
58.7 Denver Nuggets
58.6 Orlando Magic
58.3 Phoenix Suns
58.0 Portland Trail Blazers
54.9 Los Angeles Lakers
52.1 Cleveland Cavaliers
51.2 Oklahoma City Thunder
50.4 San Antonio Spurs
47.7 Houston Rockets
46.7 Utah Jazz
44.5 Miami Heat
43.8 Milwaukee Bucks
42.0 Detroit Pistons
38.6 Toronto Raptors
38.1 Charlotte Bobcats
37.6 New Orleans Hornets
35.4 Sacramento Kings
33.5 Golden State Warriors
32.5 Chicago Bulls
30.8 Indiana Pacers
29.3 Washington Wizards
27.2 Philadelphia 76ers
24.1 Los Angeles Clippers
23.2 Memphis Grizzlies
18.6 New York Knickerbockers
12.3 New Jersey Nets
7.9 Minnesota Timberwolves
Note that the results will move around a lot early in the season. Atlanta’s big loss to Orlando last night knocked down its win projection considerably. Similarly, Dallas’ blow-out win over Houston vaulted it to the top of the “projected” standings. Also, it does not take into account injuries, which will have a major impact on the final standings.
Figure out how to get the suns out of the top 4
and Dallas out of the number one slot. That’s an order!!!!!!!
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
meant as a reply to polisam
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
Pace adjusted point differential is the same as offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency
O-rating and D-rating can be found on many sites, including basketball reference.
Scroll down to misc. statistics.
'Cuse 88-Cornell 73. My Big Red failed to beat the spread by 2 points. Hence the new avatar.
Interesting that Portland is at the top of that list - thanks for the link.
I would still like to see the Blazers play a little stiffer competition before I feel good about the numbers
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
I've always wondered about this:
What’s a better predictor, point differential, or pace-adjusted point differential? For most things I’ll definitely take pace adjusted, but for this I’m not sure. Anyone know?
Disclaimer: everything I know about basketball I learned on Blazersedge.
I’m still a little new to the stat world, but I like the raw numbers.
My gut feel is Diff already has pace somewhat (or even mostly) built into it.
If 2 teams both have a +10 Diff and one averages 80 point a game and the other 110, pace is really already there.
My thought when I adjusted the point diff was that the magnitude was more evident. i.e. +10 Diff at an average of 80 points per game is a larger win than +10 at 110 points per game.
(I was also surprised that was enough to put the Blazers in 1st. In a reply to poli sam above converting Diff to 100 possessions also put the blazers in 1st.)
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
Any stat that moves the Blazers up is always more accurate. j/k
The chart at the top is Diff verses Wins. It would be interesting if that same chart were done with pace or per 100 possessions.
Here’s what I don’t like about pace adjusted numbers. It’s like pressing fast forward on the remote but "time" stays in real time. The Blazers get 91 possession per game, what do their numbers look like at 100 possessions per game. Well – they don’t play that fast.
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
I think pace adjusted is absolutely right for measuring offense alone or defense alone.
Or most things. Who cares if you score 120 points, but do it in 150 possessions? You are giving that same number of possessions to your opponent, and they are likely going to score a lot more than 120. Your offense sucks, regardless of the points.
But point differential seems (maybe) a little different. The question is, does a 10 point lead by the Blazers mean more than a 10 point lead by a fast-paced team? Are the Blazers actually “further ahead” than that other team would be, since the points are counted differently?
I think it comes down to how comfortably you win the game, and that means how close you are to teams being able to come back in the final minute or two. But the key point there is that in the final minute of a close games, all teams play at the same pace. If they’re ahead, even the Warriors will slow it down at the end, or get fouled. If they need points fast, even the Blazers or Pistons are going to run. So at the end of the game, maybe pace isn’t relevant anymore.
Disclaimer: everything I know about basketball I learned on Blazersedge.
Good thoughts.
Take San Antonio, it may not be true this year, but I can remember looking at their numbers and their win total would be outperforming what their Diff would suggest.
I think this was in large part due to the ability they have/had to clamp down on a team near the end and put them away. Something the Blazers did a little better last year, but was horrible at the year before that.
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
Adjusting for pace was an excellent move
Adjusting for the Blazers’ schedule packed with weak teams up to this point is also advisable. – Elgin
Travis Outlaw, the Funnel Cake of the Blazers
your best bet is to look at the Hollinger or Sagarin ratings.
'Cuse 88-Cornell 73. My Big Red failed to beat the spread by 2 points. Hence the new avatar.
I still think it’s a little hard to adjust for the weak schedule.
How much of the Golden State loss was due to we just don’t know how to play GS, or was it due to a faced paced schedule? I think we were fairly tired for that game.
So yes, it’s been a weak schedule, but maybe not as weak as it looks. I really have my fingers crossed on this one.
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
I’m not sure what a "faced paced schedule" is, faced = fast
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
That's why I like Hollinger's rating
Of course, we don’t know how much weight SoS gets under his system as I’d probably weigh this pretty heavy compared to other factors.
Great article, and rec'd
PD isn’t always the case, but it makes sense that the better your PD, the more wins you get.
That being said, the Mavericks are not a Top 4 Western Conference team (the four are these, in no particular order: Blazers, Nuggets, Lakers, um…Suns? Spurs?).
""Left hand, right hand, it doesn't matter. I'm amphibious."-Charles Shackleford of the NCSU basketball team" - Basketbawful





















