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

Re: East - West imbalance

Expand Messages
  • Mike G
    ... wrote: remember around December of this season when the East ... flurry of postings ... could be an artifact of ... the season things ... advantage.
    Message 1 of 9 , Jul 10, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada" <tamada@o...>
      wrote:
      remember around December of this season when the East
      > had a winning percentage against the West? There was a small
      flurry of postings
      > here about that, but my reaction at the time was that it
      could be an artifact of
      > small sample size. Which it turned out to be; by the end of
      the season things
      > were where we expected them to be, with a solid Western
      advantage.

      Perhaps it was hoping against hope, but it looked like a serious
      trend dating back a full year.

      The 2001-02 season started like the one before, with the West winning
      over 60% of interconference games. As the season wore on, the East
      slowly gained and finished at .448

      The sub-.500 difference had been cut in half, from the previous year.

      It wasn't unreasonable to suppose the 'pendulum' might bring the
      conferences back to parity by this (2002-03) season.

      The latest posting I (facetiously) made regarding the early East
      surge had them at 24-14, on Nov. 11. Coincidentally, I recall Shaq
      returning about that time, and the rest of the West picked up the
      pace.

      To have finished the year at 171-251, the East went 147-237 the rest
      of the way, or .380

      That is really bad.

      No team typified this season more than the Pacers, who actually
      drubbed the then-undefeated Mavericks, and then shortly thereafter
      foundered for the season. They could only beat the cellar-dwellers
      in the West, some of the time.


      > ... the 40% winning
      > percentages are pretty worrisome and bothersome,

      And one reason I hate it is that stats may have to be adjusted to
      account for the great imbalance in competition. Something for the
      future, I guess.
    • ankurvdesai
      How do you know that the worst west teams are the worst teams in the league? isn t it possible that their records are only worse than those of the east because
      Message 2 of 9 , Aug 7, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        How do you know that the worst west teams are the worst teams in the
        league? isn't it possible that their records are only worse than
        those of the east because they have to play the west juggernauts more
        often? i think you'd have to have more detailed team-by-team record
        data to make an assertion like the one in this post.


        --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
        <igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "Mike G" <msg_53@h...>
        > To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 1:11 AM
        > Subject: [APBR_analysis] East - West imbalance
        >
        >
        > > As recently as 1999, the East was winning 55% of inter-conference
        > > games. The West took over and beat the East down to 39% in 2001.
        > > The East rebounded to 45% in '02, and then dropped back to .405
        this
        > > last season.
        > >
        > > What kind of forces create this situation? It doesn't seem as
        though
        > > it can be good for the game. Does it naturally balance out? Or
        can
        > > free-agency cause a rush of stars to a 'major league' conference,
        > > worsening the disparity?
        > >
        >
        > One of the things that rarely gets mentioned is that the West, in
        addition
        > to having the team's with the best records, also has the teams with
        the
        > _worst_ records. In other words, the disparity between best and
        worst in the
        > West is greater than that in the East, where teams tend to cluster
        tightly
        > around the average. This has been the pattern for more than a
        decade. You
        > can kind of see it if you look at the standard deviations of winning
        > percentages from both conferences -- the higher the standard
        deviation, the
        > greater the disparity with the conference between best and worse.
        >
        > Decade Conference N Mean StDev
        > 1940 E 16 0.4706 0.1639
        > 1940 W 15 0.5311 0.1546
        >
        > 1950 C 5 0.6118 0.1516
        > 1950 E 47 0.5098 0.1324
        > 1950 W 45 0.4742 0.1236
        >
        > 1960 E 46 0.5524 0.1592
        > 1960 W 51 0.4527 0.1350
        >
        > 1970 E 90 0.4839 0.1384
        > 1970 W 94 0.5154 0.1209
        >
        > 1980 E 111 0.5134 0.1527
        > 1980 W 120 0.4876 0.1434
        >
        > 1990 E 143 0.5002 0.1533
        > 1990 W 135 0.4999 0.1827
        >
        > 2000 E 60 0.4740 0.1278
        > 2000 W 56 0.5279 0.1642
        >
        > I don't see that anything has to be done -- the disparity between
        > conferences looks greater than it actually is because people have a
        tendency
        > to look at the extremes (the best teams, the worst teams, the
        finalists,
        > etc.) and ignore the entire range of variation.
      • igor eduardo küpfer
        ... From: ankurvdesai To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 5:48 PM Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: East - West imbalance How do you
        Message 3 of 9 , Aug 7, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 5:48 PM
          Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: East - West imbalance

          How do you know that the worst west teams are the worst teams in the
          league? isn't it possible that their records are only worse than
          those of the east because they have to play the west juggernauts more
          often? i think you'd have to have more detailed team-by-team record
          data to make an assertion like the one in this post.

          I was looking only at interconference records. The worst teams in the West had worse records against East teams than the worst East teams had against Western teams.
           
          ed
        • wimpds
          In any event, the biggest problem is that all the best teams are in the West. The NBA finals have become completely anticlimactic. We already know that the
          Message 4 of 9 , Aug 7, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            In any event, the biggest problem is that all the best teams are in
            the West. The NBA finals have become completely anticlimactic. We
            already know that the top 5 teams will be from the West next year.


            --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "ankurvdesai"
            <ankurvdesai@y...> wrote:
            > How do you know that the worst west teams are the worst teams in
            the
            > league? isn't it possible that their records are only worse than
            > those of the east because they have to play the west juggernauts
            more
            > often? i think you'd have to have more detailed team-by-team
            record
            > data to make an assertion like the one in this post.
            >
            >
            > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
            > <igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
            > >
            > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > From: "Mike G" <msg_53@h...>
            > > To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
            > > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 1:11 AM
            > > Subject: [APBR_analysis] East - West imbalance
            > >
            > >
            > > > As recently as 1999, the East was winning 55% of inter-
            conference
            > > > games. The West took over and beat the East down to 39% in
            2001.
            > > > The East rebounded to 45% in '02, and then dropped back
            to .405
            > this
            > > > last season.
            > > >
            > > > What kind of forces create this situation? It doesn't seem as
            > though
            > > > it can be good for the game. Does it naturally balance out?
            Or
            > can
            > > > free-agency cause a rush of stars to a 'major league'
            conference,
            > > > worsening the disparity?
            > > >
            > >
            > > One of the things that rarely gets mentioned is that the West,
            in
            > addition
            > > to having the team's with the best records, also has the teams
            with
            > the
            > > _worst_ records. In other words, the disparity between best and
            > worst in the
            > > West is greater than that in the East, where teams tend to
            cluster
            > tightly
            > > around the average. This has been the pattern for more than a
            > decade. You
            > > can kind of see it if you look at the standard deviations of
            winning
            > > percentages from both conferences -- the higher the standard
            > deviation, the
            > > greater the disparity with the conference between best and worse.
            > >
            > > Decade Conference N Mean StDev
            > > 1940 E 16 0.4706 0.1639
            > > 1940 W 15 0.5311 0.1546
            > >
            > > 1950 C 5 0.6118 0.1516
            > > 1950 E 47 0.5098 0.1324
            > > 1950 W 45 0.4742 0.1236
            > >
            > > 1960 E 46 0.5524 0.1592
            > > 1960 W 51 0.4527 0.1350
            > >
            > > 1970 E 90 0.4839 0.1384
            > > 1970 W 94 0.5154 0.1209
            > >
            > > 1980 E 111 0.5134 0.1527
            > > 1980 W 120 0.4876 0.1434
            > >
            > > 1990 E 143 0.5002 0.1533
            > > 1990 W 135 0.4999 0.1827
            > >
            > > 2000 E 60 0.4740 0.1278
            > > 2000 W 56 0.5279 0.1642
            > >
            > > I don't see that anything has to be done -- the disparity between
            > > conferences looks greater than it actually is because people
            have a
            > tendency
            > > to look at the extremes (the best teams, the worst teams, the
            > finalists,
            > > etc.) and ignore the entire range of variation.
          • Dean Oliver
            ... the ... more ... record ... the West had worse records against East teams than the worst East teams had against Western teams. Note that Sagarin and Massey
            Message 5 of 9 , Aug 7, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
              <igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: ankurvdesai
              > To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 5:48 PM
              > Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: East - West imbalance
              >
              >
              > How do you know that the worst west teams are the worst teams in
              the
              > league? isn't it possible that their records are only worse than
              > those of the east because they have to play the west juggernauts
              more
              > often? i think you'd have to have more detailed team-by-team
              record
              > data to make an assertion like the one in this post.
              >
              >
              > I was looking only at interconference records. The worst teams in
              the West had worse records against East teams than the worst East
              teams had against Western teams.

              Note that Sagarin and Massey both put out ratings of NBA teams, too,
              accounting for strength of schedule. The below have playoffs also
              factored in.

              http://www.masseyratings.com/rate/nba-m.htm

              Rank Team Power
              1 San Antonio 1.9
              2 Sacramento 1.671
              3 Dallas 1.407
              4 LA Lakers 1.141
              5 Minnesota 0.867
              6 New Jersey 0.85
              7 Portland 0.79
              8 Utah 0.507
              9 Philadelphia 0.479
              10 Detroit 0.387
              11 New Orleans 0.359
              12 Phoenix 0.329
              13 Houston 0.281
              14 Indiana 0.153
              15 Seattle 0.084
              16 Milwaukee 0.042
              17 Boston 0.014
              18 Orlando -0.006
              19 Golden State -0.105
              20 New York -0.241
              21 Washington -0.475
              22 Atlanta -0.504
              23 Memphis -0.849
              24 Chicago -0.945
              25 LA Clippers -1.031
              26 Miami -1.43
              27 Toronto -1.514
              28 Denver -2.047
              29 Cleveland -2.116



              http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nba0203.htm
              (This is Sagarin's combined rating, which he actually doesn't like as
              much as his Predictor, which ranks Dallas at the top. He had a fit a
              couple years ago when the BCS said you can't consider point
              difference in ranking teams if you want to be part of the rating
              system. Frankly, neither side did it right. Point difference is
              relevant up to a certain theoretical cutoff, but Sagarin's work can't
              deal with it and the BCS just had political motivations. Sagarin's
              work still is good...)

              Rank Team Power
              1 San Antonio Spurs 97.95
              2 Sacramento Kings 97.17
              3 Dallas Mavericks 96.99
              4 Los Angeles Lakers 94.58
              5 Portland Trail Blazers 93.93
              6 New Jersey Nets 93.92
              7 Minnesota Timberwolves 93.43
              8 Utah Jazz 92.54
              9 Detroit Pistons 92.04
              10 Philadelphia 76ers 91.95
              11 Phoenix Suns 91.57
              12 Houston Rockets 91.51
              13 New Orleans Hornets 91.35
              14 Indiana Pacers 91.2
              15 Seattle SuperSonics 90.56
              16 Boston Celtics 90.21
              17 Milwaukee Bucks 89.78
              18 Orlando Magic 89.72
              19 Golden State Warriors 89.55
              20 New York Knicks 88.52
              21 Washington Wizards 87.84
              22 Atlanta Hawks 86.96
              23 Memphis Grizzlies 86.71
              24 Los Angeles Clippers 85.82
              25 Chicago Bulls 85.45
              26 Miami Heat 83.71
              27 Toronto Raptors 83.24
              28 Denver Nuggets 81.63
              29 Cleveland Cavaliers 80.19

              DeanO
            • John Hollinger
              I studied this very topic each of the past two years. In 2001-02 playing in the East was worth about a game in the standings for most teams, in 2002-03 it was
              Message 6 of 9 , Aug 8, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                I studied this very topic each of the past two years. In 2001-02
                playing in the East was worth about a game in the standings for most
                teams, in 2002-03 it was worth closer to two games. This might be
                smaller than people imagine, but the reason is that regardless of
                which league a team plays in, 56 of the games will be exactly the
                same.



                --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
                <igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: ankurvdesai
                > To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 5:48 PM
                > Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: East - West imbalance
                >
                >
                > How do you know that the worst west teams are the worst teams in
                the
                > league? isn't it possible that their records are only worse than
                > those of the east because they have to play the west juggernauts
                more
                > often? i think you'd have to have more detailed team-by-team
                record
                > data to make an assertion like the one in this post.
                >
                >
                > I was looking only at interconference records. The worst teams in
                the West had worse records against East teams than the worst East
                teams had against Western teams.
                >
                > ed
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.