## Re: predicting W-L record based on team point differential

Expand Messages
• ... 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 1 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.

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
• ... 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 2 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.
>
>
• ... 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 3 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.
> >
> >
• ... [...] ... 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 4 of 9 , Oct 15, 2002
• 0 Attachment
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Dean Oliver 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
• ... Not ... approach ... points ... little ... any ... Pythagorean ... to ... make more ... mean ... takes ... Yup. The covariance is actually quite
Message 5 of 9 , Oct 15, 2002
• 0 Attachment
> [...]
>
> > 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
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.