Re: [APBR_analysis] Minnesota statistical domination?
- On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Dean Oliver wrote:
>Well that's one area where statistical analysis is easier in basketball
> People kept saying last night that Minnesota dominated the first game of
> their series in terms of statistics. I am guessing that all they were
> looking at was rebounding. Sure, Minnesota dominated the boards, winning
> 58 to 39. But that was it. Everything else, Minnesota pretty much lost
> in. Weird that they were commenting that way.
than in baseball: if a team truly is dominating a game statistically in
basketball, meaning that we're looking at all the relevant stats such as
rebounding, FG%, TO, FT% & FTA, etc. then we can be darned sure that that
same team is also dominating on the scoreboard.
In contrast, most baseball stats are not about runs per se, but the events
which tend to lead to runs: hits, walks, double plays, stolen bases,
extra base hits, etc. A team can dominate in those, but if it leaves
those guys left on base, it can still lose 2-0 to a team which managed to
bunch together a walk and two singles in one inning, and a walk, stolen
base, passed ball, and sacrifice fly in another.
But yes, if Minnesota dominated the boards, but not in the other stats,
and as a result lost the game, then it really is not correct to say that
they dominated statistically.
> 5. Only 6 games did the winning team lose the board battle by as many asLooks like the commentators should've said that Minnesota dominated the
> 19, as the Mavs did. 40 times the winning team won the boards by 19 or
> more. Maybe in that last perspective, it looks a little odd.
boards, rather than the stats.