Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
Skip to search.
 

Re: Team Consistency

Expand Messages
  • monepeterson <mone@sigma.net>
    ... That makes intuitive sense. Bad teams want to steal wins, good teams want to prevent wins from being stolen. Something like that? Moné
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 2, 2003
      > DeanO has or at least had an article on his website that addresses
      > this. Consistency is not by itself either a good thing or a bad
      > thing. To perhaps oversimplify, here's a two sentence summary:
      > Consistency is a good thing for a good team to have. INconsistency
      > is a good thing for a bad team to have.

      That makes intuitive sense. Bad teams want to steal wins, good teams
      want to prevent wins from being stolen. Something like that?

      Moné
    • igorkupfer@rogers.com
      ... From: To: Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 1:07 PM Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Team Consistency ... IIRC,
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 2, 2003
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: <mone@...>
        To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 1:07 PM
        Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Team Consistency

        [MTK]:
        > > DeanO has or at least had an article on his website that addresses
        > > this. Consistency is not by itself either a good thing or a bad
        > > thing. To perhaps oversimplify, here's a two sentence summary:
        > > Consistency is a good thing for a good team to have. INconsistency
        > > is a good thing for a bad team to have.

        > That makes intuitive sense. Bad teams want to steal wins, good teams
        > want to prevent wins from being stolen. Something like that?
        >
        > Moné

        IIRC, Dean was using the variance of (offense minus defense) -- margin of victory -- to
        calculate expected winning percentages.

        By separating offense from defense, I think I'm doing something a little different. I
        ask the question: are better teams more consistent on offense than the worst teams? Are
        they more consistent on defense? My answer seems to be that there's no relationship
        between any kind of consistency and amount of wins.

        The following shows teams ranked by wins, with their Offensive and Defensive
        consistency rank.

        2001-02

        Wins team OffCs DefCs

        1 SAC 22 27
        2 SAN 16 6
        3 LAK 9 19
        4 DAL 20 21
        5 NJ 11 10
        ...
        25 HOU 28 13
        26 DEN 4 3
        27 MEM 21 24
        28 CHI 15 20
        29 GS 1 18


        2000-01

        Wins team OffCs DefCs

        1 SAN 16 17
        2 LAK 5 9
        3 PHI 24 8
        4 SAC 20 11
        5 DAL 11 14
        ...
        25 ATL 27 20
        26 VAN 7 12
        27 WAZ 25 1
        28 GS 8 21
        29 CHI 14 7
      • harlanzo <harlanzo@yahoo.com>
        ... addresses ... INconsistency ... teams ... To take that point further, teams with players who can create their own shot easily (iversons, boston) are more
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 2, 2003
          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "monepeterson <mone@s...>"
          <mone@s...> wrote:
          > > DeanO has or at least had an article on his website that
          addresses
          > > this. Consistency is not by itself either a good thing or a bad
          > > thing. To perhaps oversimplify, here's a two sentence summary:
          > > Consistency is a good thing for a good team to have.
          INconsistency
          > > is a good thing for a bad team to have.
          >
          > That makes intuitive sense. Bad teams want to steal wins, good
          teams
          > want to prevent wins from being stolen. Something like that?
          >
          > Moné

          To take that point further, teams with players who can create their
          own shot easily (iversons, boston) are more affected by odds than by
          defense. Iverson is usually hot or cold by luck (or some other
          unquantifiable reason) and not by defense. remember Boston's big
          comeback against nj in the playoffs. they shoot a lot of threes and
          when they are hot they are great and when not they will lose to
          toronto.
        • John Hollinger <alleyoop2@yahoo.com>
          Ironically, they made that comeback by NOT shooting threes. In that fourth quarter they made one three but 17 foul shots. ... and
          Message 4 of 6 , Mar 3, 2003
            Ironically, they made that comeback by NOT shooting threes. In that
            fourth quarter they made one three but 17 foul shots.


            >>>remember Boston's big
            > comeback against nj in the playoffs. they shoot a lot of threes
            and
            > when they are hot they are great and when not they will lose to
            > toronto.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.