Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

predicting W-L record based on team point differential

Expand Messages
  • bchaikin@aol.com
    This is pretty radical. Does anyone know what team ppg differential typically produces in terms of W-L record? My guess is 6.3 ppg and 57-25 is closer to
    Message 1 of 9 , Oct 9, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      This is pretty radical.  Does anyone know what team ppg differential
      typically produces in terms of W-L record?  My guess is 6.3 ppg and
      57-25 is closer to normal, like Bob says, than 3.1 ppg and 55-27 is.

      yes.....using just the two variables of "wins" and "point differential", you can do a least squares fit (curve fitting) assuming a linear regression (that's a mouthful, huh?). sounds complicated but its really not....

      remember the old algebra equation y = ax + b for determining the slope of a straight line? if you plot on a graph "Wins" versus "Point Differential", you can calculate, assuming a linear distribution, a formula to predict one paramater if you have the other, based on a mound of data supporting it (technically this is not a linear distribution, as not each team plays every other team an equal amount of times each season, but for our purposes here i think its close)....

      we have the "mound of data", all the historical nba team stats. for this example, looking at the nba team data only for seasons where teams played 82 games (all years back to 67-68 except the strike year of 98-99, and 82 games because to calculate this properly you need all events to be similar), you get the equation:

      Y = aX + b where a = 2.61 and b = 41

      or

      Y = (2.61 times X) + 41

      or

      Wins = 2.61 times (point diff) + 41

      41 is the b parameter because, you guessed it, if your point differential is zero, you should be a .500 ball club (W-L of 41-41)...

      so for the 92-93 bulls with a pt diff of 6.3, historical data (actually includes the test data) predicts 57.4 wins, and they won 57 games. for the 93-94 bulls with a pt diff of 3.1, historical data predicts 49.1 wins, and they won 55 games. so you could say the 93-94 bulls were lucky in winning six more games than they "should have" based on their stats, or simply put won a few more close games than the odds would have suggested......

      over the time period of 1967-68 to 2001-02 (not including 1998-99), two thirds of the teams were within plus or minus 3 wins or losses of their predicted W-L record based on the above equation, 80% were within plus or minus 4 games, and 90% within plus or minus 5 games, so again for our purposes i think the above formula gives you a good indication of what a team's W-L record should be based on point differential....

      an analogy would be flipping a coin 82 times - how often would you get 41 heads and 41 tails, which is what you would expect? you know you "should" get 41 heads, so if 90% of the time you were within 5 (36 heads to 46 heads), i'm guessing that's pretty good, because 82 is really not that large of a sample population size...

      bob chaikin
      bchaikin@...







    • Dean Oliver
      ... 82 games ... similar), you ... differential is ... (actually ... for the ... wins, and ... winning six ... put won a ... two ... their ... plus or ... our
      Message 2 of 9 , Oct 9, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., bchaikin@a... wrote:
        > games (all years back to 67-68 except the strike year of 98-99, and
        82 games
        > because to calculate this properly you need all events to be
        similar), you
        > get the equation:
        >
        > Y = aX + b where a = 2.61 and b = 41
        >
        > or
        >
        > Y = (2.61 times X) + 41
        >
        > or
        >
        > Wins = 2.61 times (point diff) + 41
        >
        > 41 is the b parameter because, you guessed it, if your point
        differential is
        > zero, you should be a .500 ball club (W-L of 41-41)...
        >
        > so for the 92-93 bulls with a pt diff of 6.3, historical data
        (actually
        > includes the test data) predicts 57.4 wins, and they won 57 games.
        for the
        > 93-94 bulls with a pt diff of 3.1, historical data predicts 49.1
        wins, and
        > they won 55 games. so you could say the 93-94 bulls were lucky in
        winning six
        > more games than they "should have" based on their stats, or simply
        put won a
        > few more close games than the odds would have suggested......
        >
        > over the time period of 1967-68 to 2001-02 (not including 1998-99),
        two
        > thirds of the teams were within plus or minus 3 wins or losses of
        their
        > predicted W-L record based on the above equation, 80% were within
        plus or
        > minus 4 games, and 90% within plus or minus 5 games, so again for
        our
        > purposes i think the above formula gives you a good indication of
        what a
        > team's W-L record should be based on point differential....
        >

        Yup, lots of ways to do this. But all of them show that the '94
        Bulls record was a little lucky given their point differential.

        DeanO
      • Richard Scott
        Have also seen that Bill James pythagorean method applied to the NBA to, to do this. The exponent, of course, is radically different. ... From:
        Message 3 of 9 , Oct 9, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Have also seen that Bill James pythagorean method applied to the NBA to, to do this.  The exponent, of course, is radically different.
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 3:17 AM
          Subject: [APBR_analysis] predicting W-L record based on team point differential

          This is pretty radical.  Does anyone know what team ppg differential
          typically produces in terms of W-L record?  My guess is 6.3 ppg and
          57-25 is closer to normal, like Bob says, than 3.1 ppg and 55-27 is.
        • Michael K. Tamada
          ... And then there s DeanO s normal probability model approach. All of them I m sure lead to similar results, I wonder if some of them are more accurate than
          Message 4 of 9 , Oct 10, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Richard Scott wrote:

            > Have also seen that Bill James pythagorean method applied to the NBA to, to do this. The exponent, of course, is radically different.

            And then there's DeanO's normal probability model approach. All of them
            I'm sure lead to similar results, I wonder if some of them are more
            accurate than others? Or if some are more accurate at the extremes,
            others more accurate at predicting teams with "average" stats. There's
            different functional forms one can use in the linear regressions too:
            ratio vs difference, logarithms or straight points, etc.


            --MKT
          • Dean Oliver
            ... NBA to, to do this. The exponent, of course, is radically different. ... them ... There s ... I once compared the normal probability approach to different
            Message 5 of 9 , Oct 10, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Richard Scott wrote:
              >
              > > Have also seen that Bill James pythagorean method applied to the
              NBA to, to do this. The exponent, of course, is radically different.
              >
              > And then there's DeanO's normal probability model approach. All of
              them
              > I'm sure lead to similar results, I wonder if some of them are more
              > accurate than others? Or if some are more accurate at the extremes,
              > others more accurate at predicting teams with "average" stats.
              There's
              > different functional forms one can use in the linear regressions
              too:
              > ratio vs difference, logarithms or straight points, etc.

              I once compared the normal probability approach to different
              pythagorean exponents and the normal approach is always better. Not
              by enough to worry about, though. I'd expect any linear form or
              ratio to be similar to the pythagorean. Since the normal approach
              takes into account a little more than just points scored and points
              allowed (how variable they were in doing so), it should be a little
              more accurate. It also allows it to work without modification in any
              league, whereas you need to change the exponent on the Pythagorean
              approach from the WNBA to the NBA to college men to college women to
              HS, etc.

              DeanO
            • john wallace craven
              ... I found that an exponent somewhere around 13 (unfortunately, I don t have my notes with me; I m at school and they re at home) works really well.
              Message 6 of 9 , Oct 10, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Richard Scott wrote:

                > Have also seen that Bill James pythagorean method applied to the NBA to, to do this. The exponent, of course, is radically different.

                I found that an exponent somewhere around 13 (unfortunately, I don't have
                my notes with me; I'm at school and they're at home) works really well.
                Obviously, it's not perfect; just like baseball, factors other than point
                differential (like luck) impact won-lost records.

                John Craven

                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: bchaikin@...
                > To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 3:17 AM
                > Subject: [APBR_analysis] predicting W-L record based on team point differential
                >
                >
                > This is pretty radical. Does anyone know what team ppg differential
                > typically produces in terms of W-L record? My guess is 6.3 ppg and
                > 57-25 is closer to normal, like Bob says, than 3.1 ppg and 55-27 is.
                >
                >
              • Dean Oliver
                ... NBA to, to do this. The exponent, of course, is radically different. ... don t have ... well. ... point ... 13 works well for the current slow pace.
                Message 7 of 9 , Oct 10, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In APBR_analysis@y..., john wallace craven <john1974@u...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Richard Scott wrote:
                  >
                  > > Have also seen that Bill James pythagorean method applied to the
                  NBA to, to do this. The exponent, of course, is radically different.
                  >
                  > I found that an exponent somewhere around 13 (unfortunately, I
                  don't have
                  > my notes with me; I'm at school and they're at home) works really
                  well.
                  > Obviously, it's not perfect; just like baseball, factors other than
                  point
                  > differential (like luck) impact won-lost records.

                  13 works well for the current slow pace. Higher numbers work better
                  with older higher scoring games (16 worked better in the '80's).
                  WNBA exponent is around 9.

                  >
                  > John Craven
                  >
                  > > ----- Original Message -----
                  > > From: bchaikin@a...
                  > > To: APBR_analysis@y...
                  > > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 3:17 AM
                  > > Subject: [APBR_analysis] predicting W-L record based on team
                  point differential
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > This is pretty radical. Does anyone know what team ppg
                  differential
                  > > typically produces in terms of W-L record? My guess is 6.3 ppg
                  and
                  > > 57-25 is closer to normal, like Bob says, than 3.1 ppg and 55-
                  27 is.
                  > >
                  > >
                • Michael K. Tamada
                  ... [...] ... Good points. What is both a strength and weakness of the normal probability approach is: it uses more information and thus can make more
                  Message 8 of 9 , Oct 15, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Dean Oliver wrote:

                    > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:

                    [...]

                    > I once compared the normal probability approach to different
                    > pythagorean exponents and the normal approach is always better. Not
                    > by enough to worry about, though. I'd expect any linear form or
                    > ratio to be similar to the pythagorean. Since the normal approach
                    > takes into account a little more than just points scored and points
                    > allowed (how variable they were in doing so), it should be a little
                    > more accurate. It also allows it to work without modification in any
                    > league, whereas you need to change the exponent on the Pythagorean
                    > approach from the WNBA to the NBA to college men to college women to
                    > HS, etc.

                    Good points. What is both a strength and weakness of the normal
                    probability approach is: it uses more information and thus can make more
                    accurate predictions. But one needs to have data on, not just the mean
                    points, but also the variance of points (and I think your formula takes
                    covariance into account too?). These are very easy calculations, but the
                    data are a bit less easy to get. Available, but a little more hunting and
                    a little more work to do, compared to just looking at points scored and
                    allowed.

                    As usual, there's a choice of the quick-and-dirty vs the more-accurate-
                    but-more-work calculations.


                    --MKT
                  • Dean Oliver
                    ... Not ... approach ... points ... little ... any ... Pythagorean ... to ... make more ... mean ... takes ... Yup. The covariance is actually quite
                    Message 9 of 9 , Oct 15, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
                      > [...]
                      >
                      > > I once compared the normal probability approach to different
                      > > pythagorean exponents and the normal approach is always better.
                      Not
                      > > by enough to worry about, though. I'd expect any linear form or
                      > > ratio to be similar to the pythagorean. Since the normal
                      approach
                      > > takes into account a little more than just points scored and
                      points
                      > > allowed (how variable they were in doing so), it should be a
                      little
                      > > more accurate. It also allows it to work without modification in
                      any
                      > > league, whereas you need to change the exponent on the
                      Pythagorean
                      > > approach from the WNBA to the NBA to college men to college women
                      to
                      > > HS, etc.
                      >
                      > Good points. What is both a strength and weakness of the normal
                      > probability approach is: it uses more information and thus can
                      make more
                      > accurate predictions. But one needs to have data on, not just the
                      mean
                      > points, but also the variance of points (and I think your formula
                      takes
                      > covariance into account too?). These are very easy calculations,

                      Yup. The covariance is actually quite important. It shows how much
                      teams play up or down to opponents. Teams definitely play up or down
                      to opponents in the NBA. Not as clear in other leagues (or other
                      sports). Basically there is no reason to blow a team out by 45 when
                      you can win by 10 safely. That's also why you can't do a correlation
                      of Jordan's minutes to how well his team performed. If he's injured
                      and plays 20 minutes, the team could do poorly. But if he plays so
                      well that the team is up by 35 after 20 minutes and he doesn't play
                      again, the team can do well. I tried correlating playing time to
                      team success (by game, not by season) and found this to be an
                      impossible barrier to overcome. So, the correlation definitely
                      matters.

                      DeanO

                      > data are a bit less easy to get. Available, but a little more
                      hunting and
                      > a little more work to do, compared to just looking at points scored
                      and
                      > allowed.
                      >
                      > As usual, there's a choice of the quick-and-dirty vs the more-
                      accurate-
                      > but-more-work calculations.
                      >
                      >
                      > --MKT
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.