Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Explaining Jeremy Lin's Early, Surprising Success

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.

3516900025_b89bc4b183_medium_medium

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).

3817440570_a91a8d0732_medium 


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.
3518014392_253acfffb4_medium

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.


 

Comment 58 comments  |  15 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

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."

by Blazer1342 on Nov 26, 2009 6:37 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

by timbo on Nov 26, 2009 6:37 PM PST reply actions  

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."

by Blazer1342 on Nov 26, 2009 6:38 PM PST up reply actions  

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."

by Blazer1342 on Nov 26, 2009 7:10 PM PST reply actions  

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."

by Blazer1342 on Nov 26, 2009 8:47 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."

by Blazer1342 on Nov 26, 2009 8:53 PM PST up reply actions  

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."

by Blazer1342 on Nov 26, 2009 9:12 PM PST up reply actions  

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."

by Blazer1342 on Nov 26, 2009 9:23 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."

by Blazer1342 on Nov 26, 2009 9:28 PM PST up reply actions  

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."

by Blazer1342 on Nov 26, 2009 9:41 PM PST up reply actions  

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."

by Blazer1342 on Nov 26, 2009 9:26 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."

by Blazer1342 on Nov 26, 2009 9:32 PM PST up reply actions  

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."

by Blazer1342 on Nov 26, 2009 8:42 PM PST up reply actions  

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."

by Blazer1342 on Nov 26, 2009 8:57 PM PST up reply actions  

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  

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."

by Blazer1342 on Nov 26, 2009 9:58 PM PST up reply actions  

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."

by Blazer1342 on Nov 26, 2009 10:15 PM PST up reply actions  

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."

by Blazer1342 on Nov 26, 2009 10:51 PM PST up reply actions  

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.

by PoliSam on Nov 27, 2009 6:25 AM PST up reply actions  

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."

by Blazer1342 on Nov 27, 2009 8:25 AM PST up reply actions  

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."

by Blazer1342 on Nov 27, 2009 8:40 AM PST up reply actions  

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).

by PoliSam on Nov 27, 2009 2:39 PM PST up reply actions  

SOS matters

Talk to me about the diff when we’ve played good teams on the road.

by baduk on Nov 26, 2009 9:05 PM PST reply actions  

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."

by Blazer1342 on Nov 26, 2009 9:20 PM PST up reply actions  

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

by Marmaduke on Nov 26, 2009 9:27 PM PST reply actions  

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.

by PoliSam on Nov 27, 2009 7:43 AM PST reply actions  

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

by hobobob on Nov 27, 2009 11:20 AM PST up reply actions  

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

by hobobob on Nov 27, 2009 11:20 AM PST reply actions  

meant as a reply to polisam

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 27, 2009 11:21 AM PST up reply actions  

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.

by jksnake99 on Nov 27, 2009 11:23 AM PST reply actions  

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."

by Blazer1342 on Nov 27, 2009 4:43 PM PST up reply actions  

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.

by pualo on Nov 27, 2009 11:37 AM PST reply actions  

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."

by Blazer1342 on Nov 27, 2009 5:01 PM PST up reply actions  

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."

by Blazer1342 on Nov 27, 2009 5:10 PM PST up reply actions  

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.

by pualo on Nov 27, 2009 5:38 PM PST up reply actions  

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."

by Blazer1342 on Nov 27, 2009 5:50 PM PST up reply actions  

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

by 22baylor on Nov 27, 2009 12:22 PM PST reply actions  

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.

by jksnake99 on Nov 27, 2009 12:29 PM PST up reply actions  

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."

by Blazer1342 on Nov 27, 2009 5:18 PM PST up reply actions  

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."

by Blazer1342 on Nov 27, 2009 5:39 PM PST up reply actions  

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.

by xedubx on Nov 27, 2009 2:26 PM PST reply actions  

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

by LACK on Nov 27, 2009 4:41 PM PST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The ultimate coverage and analysis of the Portland Trail Blazers.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
The Blazers Future Regarding Free Agent Signings
Small
Thunderous Manboobies
Img_0878_1__small
Why do we hate LaMarcus Aldridge?
Small
Oregonlive "journalists" 2 new posts...same old drivel
2474796688_7cdc78828f_o_small
Greg Oden Suffers Life-Ending Injury; Gets 3-Year Extension

Recent FanPosts

Small
The Blazers' Future Regarding Trades
Small
WHAT TO DO WITH NIC BATUM BECAUSE WE WILL LOSE HIM IF NOT TRADED.
Small
Trade that helps us out now and the future
Small
How can the All-Star game be more fun and competitive?
Small
Earl Boykins!
Small
LaMarcus Aldridge about to become the 10th highest scorer in Blazers franchise  history
Small
New trade that gets us a new point and a three point shooter
Small
Portland getting.....
Small
The Sun Behind the Clouds: Blazers still on track.

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recommended FanShots

It's pretty clear that the season is over already ;)
Double rainbow of sadness:

1) JBay is getting shorter
2) We never got to see him with a mustache

I miss you tiny raptor man.

via The Basketball Jones http://blogs.thescore.com/tbj/2012/02/09/things-of-note-for-february-9-2012/#more-34561
Blazers Broadcasters Mike Barrett and Mike Rice re-enacted NBA referee Scott Foster's controversial goaltending call on Portland Trail Blazers forward LaMarcus Aldridge, who was defending Oklahoma City Thunder All-Star forward Kevin Durant, during this week's edition of Blazers Courtside. Remarkably, no one was injured during the taping of this segment.

Original video of the play here. 
Quotes from the players and coaches here. 
The NBA admitting it got the call wrong here. 
Dave's  extended thoughts here. 
BlazersMakr's FanShot: Major Vegas action on OKC prior to tip here. 
Audio of Chad Doing of 750 AM The Game going HAM on Foster here.

OK, that should just about wrap up the goaltending discussion.

Courtside video via Blazers Broadcasting cameraman John Curry.

-- Ben Golliver | benjamin.golliver@gmail.com | Twitter
In 2008 Tim Donaghy indicated that Scott Foster was a ref that also fixed games
Blazers Owner Paul Allen Ranked No. 3 American Philanthropist In 2011

Recent FanShots

"You Must Be Known For Your Defense, Because You Definitely Stole My Heart"
Bill Simmons: Deron Williams To Dallas 'Is A Lock'
LaMarcus Aldridge Needs Support Around Him
LaMarcus Aldridge Finds Out He's An All-Star With His Teammates
Congratulations to Portland Trail Blazers forward LaMarcus Aldridge, on his first All Star selection.

As seen on www.trailblazers.com
AWoj: Aldridge an All Star
CRAZY stat from Houston game
NBA MVP Rankings... LMA @ #10

+ New FanShot All FanShots >


Editors

Kitten_small Dave

Headshotsmall_small Ben Golliver

Lead Moderators

Getfuzzy-satchel_small Timmay!

Bucky3_small Cablinasian

Authors

Plainlc_small Storyteller

Moderators

Lamb_small T Darkstar

Small douglast

Terryporter_small prezofdeath

Small usmcr3049

Lrg_magpie_small Corvid

Wallpaper_small geoffm