Statistically Speaking: '10 Miami Heat are a top team in the NBA

[BballTim]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=8159

  Is this what you were looking at?

  "In the NBA, dominating good teams is clearly the best indicator of postseason success."

Soap pointed it out.

In general, Final Four (postseason) success is best predicted by:
1. Blowing out Good teams
2. Blowing out Bad teams
3. Winning close vs. Good teams
4. Winning close vs. bad teams

'losing close vs. good teams' not really having much bearing compared to the above 4.

  Does the article say anything at all about how records vs good or bad teams affects your ability to win the title?

Well, considering that in the course of an NBA season every team plays the same amount of games and overall ends up playing similar amounts of good vs. bad teams, # of wins vs. good or bad teams, which is what this is measuring, is a surrogate for record vs. good or bad teams.

Essentially the article is saying that the best predictor for playoff success is winning more games by a large margin against good teams. This makes sense; if you are winning big vs. good teams, then you're a good team and will have playoff success.

The crux of the article is the 2nd best predictor. Most people would assume winning small vs. good teams indicates future success. But not to the extent that winning big vs. bad teams does. Essentially, through the years, teams that win big vs. bad teams have more success than teams that win small vs. good teams.


I guess the point of the article is record vs. good or bad teams doesn't matter as much as winning big vs. anybody predicts conference finals/nba finals victories as compared to winning close vs. good teams.



But again, these are population trends. There are exceptions all the time. But what these do say, is that if you put money on every playoff game, and ignored everything (scouting, "clutchness," matchups, etc.) and just bet the team that had the most blowout victories (or largest average margin of victory), you'd end up with more money than you started.

One problem I have with the Guts and stomps article is the conclusion drawn in the summary sentences "But the second-most predictive attribute of "final four" success was having more stomps -- that is, destroying the league's weaker teams. And having more stomps was actually a better indicator of success than having more guts (close wins against good teams), just like Schatz found in football. As Schatz writes in the intro of every Football Outsiders Almanac: "Championship teams are generally defined by their ability to dominate inferior opponents, not their ability to win close games."


True as far as it goes - which is the following when the math is done:
Stomps: 55.5%
Guts: 52.2%

The lack of a statistically significant difference (< 6%) between the 2 categories indicates that first, basketball isn't football, and second, other variables (noise, officiating, injuries) are more telling about which teams prevail at the end of the season.

You're very right that it does not appear to be a very significant difference.

However, the reason this thread was written is that by and large, conventional wisdom has screamed that clutch victories vs. good opponents is far and away the single best thing to prepare teams for success in competitive playoff games. This article is really just pointing out that that conventional wisdom is just wrong.

  I think "conventional wisdom has screamed that clutch victories vs. good opponents is far and away the single best thing to prepare teams for success in competitive playoff games" should probably read "conventional wisdom says that being able to beat good opponents is a much better indicator of playoff success than big wins vs bad teams. The Heat will likely improve over time but they're 3-7 vs winning teams. I doubt that many (if any) teams that win fewer than half of those games ever reach the conference finals.

[Fan from VT]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=8159

  Is this what you were looking at?

  "In the NBA, dominating good teams is clearly the best indicator of postseason success."

Soap pointed it out.

In general, Final Four (postseason) success is best predicted by:
1. Blowing out Good teams
2. Blowing out Bad teams
3. Winning close vs. Good teams
4. Winning close vs. bad teams

'losing close vs. good teams' not really having much bearing compared to the above 4.

  Does the article say anything at all about how records vs good or bad teams affects your ability to win the title?

Well, considering that in the course of an NBA season every team plays the same amount of games and overall ends up playing similar amounts of good vs. bad teams, # of wins vs. good or bad teams, which is what this is measuring, is a surrogate for record vs. good or bad teams.

Essentially the article is saying that the best predictor for playoff success is winning more games by a large margin against good teams. This makes sense; if you are winning big vs. good teams, then you're a good team and will have playoff success.

The crux of the article is the 2nd best predictor. Most people would assume winning small vs. good teams indicates future success. But not to the extent that winning big vs. bad teams does. Essentially, through the years, teams that win big vs. bad teams have more success than teams that win small vs. good teams.


I guess the point of the article is record vs. good or bad teams doesn't matter as much as winning big vs. anybody predicts conference finals/nba finals victories as compared to winning close vs. good teams.



But again, these are population trends. There are exceptions all the time. But what these do say, is that if you put money on every playoff game, and ignored everything (scouting, "clutchness," matchups, etc.) and just bet the team that had the most blowout victories (or largest average margin of victory), you'd end up with more money than you started.

One problem I have with the Guts and stomps article is the conclusion drawn in the summary sentences "But the second-most predictive attribute of "final four" success was having more stomps -- that is, destroying the league's weaker teams. And having more stomps was actually a better indicator of success than having more guts (close wins against good teams), just like Schatz found in football. As Schatz writes in the intro of every Football Outsiders Almanac: "Championship teams are generally defined by their ability to dominate inferior opponents, not their ability to win close games."


True as far as it goes - which is the following when the math is done:
Stomps: 55.5%
Guts: 52.2%

The lack of a statistically significant difference (< 6%) between the 2 categories indicates that first, basketball isn't football, and second, other variables (noise, officiating, injuries) are more telling about which teams prevail at the end of the season.

You're very right that it does not appear to be a very significant difference.

However, the reason this thread was written is that by and large, conventional wisdom has screamed that clutch victories vs. good opponents is far and away the single best thing to prepare teams for success in competitive playoff games. This article is really just pointing out that that conventional wisdom is just wrong.

  I think "conventional wisdom has screamed that clutch victories vs. good opponents is far and away the single best thing to prepare teams for success in competitive playoff games" should probably read "conventional wisdom says that being able to beat good opponents is a much better indicator of playoff success than big wins vs bad teams. The Heat will likely improve over time but they're 3-7 vs winning teams. I doubt that many (if any) teams that win fewer than half of those games ever reach the conference finals.

well, the heat won the title and was 2-8 against it's opponents through the playoffs or something like that.

[Fan from VT]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=8159

  Is this what you were looking at?

  "In the NBA, dominating good teams is clearly the best indicator of postseason success."

Soap pointed it out.

In general, Final Four (postseason) success is best predicted by:
1. Blowing out Good teams
2. Blowing out Bad teams
3. Winning close vs. Good teams
4. Winning close vs. bad teams

'losing close vs. good teams' not really having much bearing compared to the above 4.

  Does the article say anything at all about how records vs good or bad teams affects your ability to win the title?

Well, considering that in the course of an NBA season every team plays the same amount of games and overall ends up playing similar amounts of good vs. bad teams, # of wins vs. good or bad teams, which is what this is measuring, is a surrogate for record vs. good or bad teams.

Essentially the article is saying that the best predictor for playoff success is winning more games by a large margin against good teams. This makes sense; if you are winning big vs. good teams, then you're a good team and will have playoff success.

The crux of the article is the 2nd best predictor. Most people would assume winning small vs. good teams indicates future success. But not to the extent that winning big vs. bad teams does. Essentially, through the years, teams that win big vs. bad teams have more success than teams that win small vs. good teams.


I guess the point of the article is record vs. good or bad teams doesn't matter as much as winning big vs. anybody predicts conference finals/nba finals victories as compared to winning close vs. good teams.



But again, these are population trends. There are exceptions all the time. But what these do say, is that if you put money on every playoff game, and ignored everything (scouting, "clutchness," matchups, etc.) and just bet the team that had the most blowout victories (or largest average margin of victory), you'd end up with more money than you started.

One problem I have with the Guts and stomps article is the conclusion drawn in the summary sentences "But the second-most predictive attribute of "final four" success was having more stomps -- that is, destroying the league's weaker teams. And having more stomps was actually a better indicator of success than having more guts (close wins against good teams), just like Schatz found in football. As Schatz writes in the intro of every Football Outsiders Almanac: "Championship teams are generally defined by their ability to dominate inferior opponents, not their ability to win close games."


True as far as it goes - which is the following when the math is done:
Stomps: 55.5%
Guts: 52.2%

The lack of a statistically significant difference (< 6%) between the 2 categories indicates that first, basketball isn't football, and second, other variables (noise, officiating, injuries) are more telling about which teams prevail at the end of the season.

You're very right that it does not appear to be a very significant difference.

However, the reason this thread was written is that by and large, conventional wisdom has screamed that clutch victories vs. good opponents is far and away the single best thing to prepare teams for success in competitive playoff games. This article is really just pointing out that that conventional wisdom is just wrong.

  I think "conventional wisdom has screamed that clutch victories vs. good opponents is far and away the single best thing to prepare teams for success in competitive playoff games" should probably read "conventional wisdom says that being able to beat good opponents is a much better indicator of playoff success than big wins vs bad teams. The Heat will likely improve over time but they're 3-7 vs winning teams. I doubt that many (if any) teams that win fewer than half of those games ever reach the conference finals.

Well the real point is that in terms of future success, regardless of what "seems" to make sense, the most accurate thing to do is stratify all wins based on blowout or close; blowouts vs. any team predict better success than close wins vs. good teams.

How you win matters more than if you win. So if you have a poor overall record vs. good teams but that record includes some blowout victories and lots of close losses, that really has no bearing on the likelihood of your playoff success.

If you have a really good overall record vs. good teams, but that record is based on a bunch of clutch wins and a couple big losses, you probably won't do as well in the playoffs (think Mavs the last few years).

[BballTim]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=8159

  Is this what you were looking at?

  "In the NBA, dominating good teams is clearly the best indicator of postseason success."

Soap pointed it out.

In general, Final Four (postseason) success is best predicted by:
1. Blowing out Good teams
2. Blowing out Bad teams
3. Winning close vs. Good teams
4. Winning close vs. bad teams

'losing close vs. good teams' not really having much bearing compared to the above 4.

  Does the article say anything at all about how records vs good or bad teams affects your ability to win the title?

Well, considering that in the course of an NBA season every team plays the same amount of games and overall ends up playing similar amounts of good vs. bad teams, # of wins vs. good or bad teams, which is what this is measuring, is a surrogate for record vs. good or bad teams.

Essentially the article is saying that the best predictor for playoff success is winning more games by a large margin against good teams. This makes sense; if you are winning big vs. good teams, then you're a good team and will have playoff success.

The crux of the article is the 2nd best predictor. Most people would assume winning small vs. good teams indicates future success. But not to the extent that winning big vs. bad teams does. Essentially, through the years, teams that win big vs. bad teams have more success than teams that win small vs. good teams.


I guess the point of the article is record vs. good or bad teams doesn't matter as much as winning big vs. anybody predicts conference finals/nba finals victories as compared to winning close vs. good teams.



But again, these are population trends. There are exceptions all the time. But what these do say, is that if you put money on every playoff game, and ignored everything (scouting, "clutchness," matchups, etc.) and just bet the team that had the most blowout victories (or largest average margin of victory), you'd end up with more money than you started.

One problem I have with the Guts and stomps article is the conclusion drawn in the summary sentences "But the second-most predictive attribute of "final four" success was having more stomps -- that is, destroying the league's weaker teams. And having more stomps was actually a better indicator of success than having more guts (close wins against good teams), just like Schatz found in football. As Schatz writes in the intro of every Football Outsiders Almanac: "Championship teams are generally defined by their ability to dominate inferior opponents, not their ability to win close games."


True as far as it goes - which is the following when the math is done:
Stomps: 55.5%
Guts: 52.2%

The lack of a statistically significant difference (< 6%) between the 2 categories indicates that first, basketball isn't football, and second, other variables (noise, officiating, injuries) are more telling about which teams prevail at the end of the season.

You're very right that it does not appear to be a very significant difference.

However, the reason this thread was written is that by and large, conventional wisdom has screamed that clutch victories vs. good opponents is far and away the single best thing to prepare teams for success in competitive playoff games. This article is really just pointing out that that conventional wisdom is just wrong.

  I think "conventional wisdom has screamed that clutch victories vs. good opponents is far and away the single best thing to prepare teams for success in competitive playoff games" should probably read "conventional wisdom says that being able to beat good opponents is a much better indicator of playoff success than big wins vs bad teams. The Heat will likely improve over time but they're 3-7 vs winning teams. I doubt that many (if any) teams that win fewer than half of those games ever reach the conference finals.

well, the heat won the title and was 2-8 against it's opponents through the playoffs or something like that.

  And the Rockets made it to the Finals with a losing record. Does that mean that regular season wins isn't indicative of postseason success?

[BballTim]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=8159

  Is this what you were looking at?

  "In the NBA, dominating good teams is clearly the best indicator of postseason success."

Soap pointed it out.

In general, Final Four (postseason) success is best predicted by:
1. Blowing out Good teams
2. Blowing out Bad teams
3. Winning close vs. Good teams
4. Winning close vs. bad teams

'losing close vs. good teams' not really having much bearing compared to the above 4.

  Does the article say anything at all about how records vs good or bad teams affects your ability to win the title?

Well, considering that in the course of an NBA season every team plays the same amount of games and overall ends up playing similar amounts of good vs. bad teams, # of wins vs. good or bad teams, which is what this is measuring, is a surrogate for record vs. good or bad teams.

Essentially the article is saying that the best predictor for playoff success is winning more games by a large margin against good teams. This makes sense; if you are winning big vs. good teams, then you're a good team and will have playoff success.

The crux of the article is the 2nd best predictor. Most people would assume winning small vs. good teams indicates future success. But not to the extent that winning big vs. bad teams does. Essentially, through the years, teams that win big vs. bad teams have more success than teams that win small vs. good teams.


I guess the point of the article is record vs. good or bad teams doesn't matter as much as winning big vs. anybody predicts conference finals/nba finals victories as compared to winning close vs. good teams.



But again, these are population trends. There are exceptions all the time. But what these do say, is that if you put money on every playoff game, and ignored everything (scouting, "clutchness," matchups, etc.) and just bet the team that had the most blowout victories (or largest average margin of victory), you'd end up with more money than you started.

One problem I have with the Guts and stomps article is the conclusion drawn in the summary sentences "But the second-most predictive attribute of "final four" success was having more stomps -- that is, destroying the league's weaker teams. And having more stomps was actually a better indicator of success than having more guts (close wins against good teams), just like Schatz found in football. As Schatz writes in the intro of every Football Outsiders Almanac: "Championship teams are generally defined by their ability to dominate inferior opponents, not their ability to win close games."


True as far as it goes - which is the following when the math is done:
Stomps: 55.5%
Guts: 52.2%

The lack of a statistically significant difference (< 6%) between the 2 categories indicates that first, basketball isn't football, and second, other variables (noise, officiating, injuries) are more telling about which teams prevail at the end of the season.

You're very right that it does not appear to be a very significant difference.

However, the reason this thread was written is that by and large, conventional wisdom has screamed that clutch victories vs. good opponents is far and away the single best thing to prepare teams for success in competitive playoff games. This article is really just pointing out that that conventional wisdom is just wrong.

  I think "conventional wisdom has screamed that clutch victories vs. good opponents is far and away the single best thing to prepare teams for success in competitive playoff games" should probably read "conventional wisdom says that being able to beat good opponents is a much better indicator of playoff success than big wins vs bad teams. The Heat will likely improve over time but they're 3-7 vs winning teams. I doubt that many (if any) teams that win fewer than half of those games ever reach the conference finals.

Well the real point is that in terms of future success, regardless of what "seems" to make sense, the most accurate thing to do is stratify all wins based on blowout or close; blowouts vs. any team predict better success than close wins vs. good teams.

How you win matters more than if you win. So if you have a poor overall record vs. good teams but that record includes some blowout victories and lots of close losses, that really has no bearing on the likelihood of your playoff success.

  You're making leaps that aren't supported by that smallish study. For starters, stating that having more blowout wins vs bad opponents is a slightly better indicator than close wins vs good teams is completely different than stating that having more blowout wins vs bad opponents is a slightly better indicator than overall record vs good teams. One doesn't mean the other is true. Also, they're only looking at teams that have already won multiple playoff series, so it's possible (or even likely) that teams which win big vs bad teams and can't beat good teams are weeded out by then.

[Fan from VT]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=8159

  Is this what you were looking at?

  "In the NBA, dominating good teams is clearly the best indicator of postseason success."

Soap pointed it out.

In general, Final Four (postseason) success is best predicted by:
1. Blowing out Good teams
2. Blowing out Bad teams
3. Winning close vs. Good teams
4. Winning close vs. bad teams

'losing close vs. good teams' not really having much bearing compared to the above 4.

  Does the article say anything at all about how records vs good or bad teams affects your ability to win the title?

Well, considering that in the course of an NBA season every team plays the same amount of games and overall ends up playing similar amounts of good vs. bad teams, # of wins vs. good or bad teams, which is what this is measuring, is a surrogate for record vs. good or bad teams.

Essentially the article is saying that the best predictor for playoff success is winning more games by a large margin against good teams. This makes sense; if you are winning big vs. good teams, then you're a good team and will have playoff success.

The crux of the article is the 2nd best predictor. Most people would assume winning small vs. good teams indicates future success. But not to the extent that winning big vs. bad teams does. Essentially, through the years, teams that win big vs. bad teams have more success than teams that win small vs. good teams.


I guess the point of the article is record vs. good or bad teams doesn't matter as much as winning big vs. anybody predicts conference finals/nba finals victories as compared to winning close vs. good teams.



But again, these are population trends. There are exceptions all the time. But what these do say, is that if you put money on every playoff game, and ignored everything (scouting, "clutchness," matchups, etc.) and just bet the team that had the most blowout victories (or largest average margin of victory), you'd end up with more money than you started.

One problem I have with the Guts and stomps article is the conclusion drawn in the summary sentences "But the second-most predictive attribute of "final four" success was having more stomps -- that is, destroying the league's weaker teams. And having more stomps was actually a better indicator of success than having more guts (close wins against good teams), just like Schatz found in football. As Schatz writes in the intro of every Football Outsiders Almanac: "Championship teams are generally defined by their ability to dominate inferior opponents, not their ability to win close games."


True as far as it goes - which is the following when the math is done:
Stomps: 55.5%
Guts: 52.2%

The lack of a statistically significant difference (< 6%) between the 2 categories indicates that first, basketball isn't football, and second, other variables (noise, officiating, injuries) are more telling about which teams prevail at the end of the season.

You're very right that it does not appear to be a very significant difference.

However, the reason this thread was written is that by and large, conventional wisdom has screamed that clutch victories vs. good opponents is far and away the single best thing to prepare teams for success in competitive playoff games. This article is really just pointing out that that conventional wisdom is just wrong.

  I think "conventional wisdom has screamed that clutch victories vs. good opponents is far and away the single best thing to prepare teams for success in competitive playoff games" should probably read "conventional wisdom says that being able to beat good opponents is a much better indicator of playoff success than big wins vs bad teams. The Heat will likely improve over time but they're 3-7 vs winning teams. I doubt that many (if any) teams that win fewer than half of those games ever reach the conference finals.

well, the heat won the title and was 2-8 against it's opponents through the playoffs or something like that.

  And the Rockets made it to the Finals with a losing record. Does that mean that regular season wins isn't indicative of postseason success?

I think we're getting lost. What are you arguing at this point?

My point is this:

Scoring Margin of Victory, whether against good or bad teams, is shown to be a more accurate predictor of future success than any measure of simple wins/losses, whether it's wins/losses overall or against some other sub group (conference, over .500, head to head, etc.). 

[angryguy77]

Ok we're done. Heat beat a few scrubs and now they have found their way. Never mind our recent play. DA blow up this team. Its obvious we were lucky to beat miami twice, our d had nothing top do with miami's poor play.

Well it was a fun 1/4 of the season guys, see you on draft night(hope one of those little white balls go our way)

[BballTim]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=8159

  Is this what you were looking at?

  "In the NBA, dominating good teams is clearly the best indicator of postseason success."

Soap pointed it out.

In general, Final Four (postseason) success is best predicted by:
1. Blowing out Good teams
2. Blowing out Bad teams
3. Winning close vs. Good teams
4. Winning close vs. bad teams

'losing close vs. good teams' not really having much bearing compared to the above 4.

  Does the article say anything at all about how records vs good or bad teams affects your ability to win the title?

Well, considering that in the course of an NBA season every team plays the same amount of games and overall ends up playing similar amounts of good vs. bad teams, # of wins vs. good or bad teams, which is what this is measuring, is a surrogate for record vs. good or bad teams.

Essentially the article is saying that the best predictor for playoff success is winning more games by a large margin against good teams. This makes sense; if you are winning big vs. good teams, then you're a good team and will have playoff success.

The crux of the article is the 2nd best predictor. Most people would assume winning small vs. good teams indicates future success. But not to the extent that winning big vs. bad teams does. Essentially, through the years, teams that win big vs. bad teams have more success than teams that win small vs. good teams.


I guess the point of the article is record vs. good or bad teams doesn't matter as much as winning big vs. anybody predicts conference finals/nba finals victories as compared to winning close vs. good teams.



But again, these are population trends. There are exceptions all the time. But what these do say, is that if you put money on every playoff game, and ignored everything (scouting, "clutchness," matchups, etc.) and just bet the team that had the most blowout victories (or largest average margin of victory), you'd end up with more money than you started.

One problem I have with the Guts and stomps article is the conclusion drawn in the summary sentences "But the second-most predictive attribute of "final four" success was having more stomps -- that is, destroying the league's weaker teams. And having more stomps was actually a better indicator of success than having more guts (close wins against good teams), just like Schatz found in football. As Schatz writes in the intro of every Football Outsiders Almanac: "Championship teams are generally defined by their ability to dominate inferior opponents, not their ability to win close games."


True as far as it goes - which is the following when the math is done:
Stomps: 55.5%
Guts: 52.2%

The lack of a statistically significant difference (< 6%) between the 2 categories indicates that first, basketball isn't football, and second, other variables (noise, officiating, injuries) are more telling about which teams prevail at the end of the season.

You're very right that it does not appear to be a very significant difference.

However, the reason this thread was written is that by and large, conventional wisdom has screamed that clutch victories vs. good opponents is far and away the single best thing to prepare teams for success in competitive playoff games. This article is really just pointing out that that conventional wisdom is just wrong.

  I think "conventional wisdom has screamed that clutch victories vs. good opponents is far and away the single best thing to prepare teams for success in competitive playoff games" should probably read "conventional wisdom says that being able to beat good opponents is a much better indicator of playoff success than big wins vs bad teams. The Heat will likely improve over time but they're 3-7 vs winning teams. I doubt that many (if any) teams that win fewer than half of those games ever reach the conference finals.

well, the heat won the title and was 2-8 against it's opponents through the playoffs or something like that.

  And the Rockets made it to the Finals with a losing record. Does that mean that regular season wins isn't indicative of postseason success?

I think we're getting lost. What are you arguing at this point?

My point is this:

Scoring Margin of Victory, whether against good or bad teams, is shown to be a more accurate predictor of future success than any measure of simple wins/losses, whether it's wins/losses overall or against some other sub group (conference, over .500, head to head, etc.). 

  I don't think that's a true statement unless I misread the article. Big wins against bad teams is a slightly more accurate predictor of future success than close wins against good teams, but that study doesn't show anything beyond that.

[Fan from VT]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=8159

  Is this what you were looking at?

  "In the NBA, dominating good teams is clearly the best indicator of postseason success."

Soap pointed it out.

In general, Final Four (postseason) success is best predicted by:
1. Blowing out Good teams
2. Blowing out Bad teams
3. Winning close vs. Good teams
4. Winning close vs. bad teams

'losing close vs. good teams' not really having much bearing compared to the above 4.

  Does the article say anything at all about how records vs good or bad teams affects your ability to win the title?

Well, considering that in the course of an NBA season every team plays the same amount of games and overall ends up playing similar amounts of good vs. bad teams, # of wins vs. good or bad teams, which is what this is measuring, is a surrogate for record vs. good or bad teams.

Essentially the article is saying that the best predictor for playoff success is winning more games by a large margin against good teams. This makes sense; if you are winning big vs. good teams, then you're a good team and will have playoff success.

The crux of the article is the 2nd best predictor. Most people would assume winning small vs. good teams indicates future success. But not to the extent that winning big vs. bad teams does. Essentially, through the years, teams that win big vs. bad teams have more success than teams that win small vs. good teams.


I guess the point of the article is record vs. good or bad teams doesn't matter as much as winning big vs. anybody predicts conference finals/nba finals victories as compared to winning close vs. good teams.



But again, these are population trends. There are exceptions all the time. But what these do say, is that if you put money on every playoff game, and ignored everything (scouting, "clutchness," matchups, etc.) and just bet the team that had the most blowout victories (or largest average margin of victory), you'd end up with more money than you started.

One problem I have with the Guts and stomps article is the conclusion drawn in the summary sentences "But the second-most predictive attribute of "final four" success was having more stomps -- that is, destroying the league's weaker teams. And having more stomps was actually a better indicator of success than having more guts (close wins against good teams), just like Schatz found in football. As Schatz writes in the intro of every Football Outsiders Almanac: "Championship teams are generally defined by their ability to dominate inferior opponents, not their ability to win close games."


True as far as it goes - which is the following when the math is done:
Stomps: 55.5%
Guts: 52.2%

The lack of a statistically significant difference (< 6%) between the 2 categories indicates that first, basketball isn't football, and second, other variables (noise, officiating, injuries) are more telling about which teams prevail at the end of the season.

You're very right that it does not appear to be a very significant difference.

However, the reason this thread was written is that by and large, conventional wisdom has screamed that clutch victories vs. good opponents is far and away the single best thing to prepare teams for success in competitive playoff games. This article is really just pointing out that that conventional wisdom is just wrong.

  I think "conventional wisdom has screamed that clutch victories vs. good opponents is far and away the single best thing to prepare teams for success in competitive playoff games" should probably read "conventional wisdom says that being able to beat good opponents is a much better indicator of playoff success than big wins vs bad teams. The Heat will likely improve over time but they're 3-7 vs winning teams. I doubt that many (if any) teams that win fewer than half of those games ever reach the conference finals.

well, the heat won the title and was 2-8 against it's opponents through the playoffs or something like that.

  And the Rockets made it to the Finals with a losing record. Does that mean that regular season wins isn't indicative of postseason success?

I think we're getting lost. What are you arguing at this point?

My point is this:

Scoring Margin of Victory, whether against good or bad teams, is shown to be a more accurate predictor of future success than any measure of simple wins/losses, whether it's wins/losses overall or against some other sub group (conference, over .500, head to head, etc.). 

  I don't think that's a true statement unless I misread the article. Big wins against bad teams is a slightly more accurate predictor of future success than close wins against good teams, but that study doesn't show anything beyond that.

You're right. I was conflating the referenced study with some others to form my overall general conclusion I've reached based on general reading of trends. This study in particular reaches the conclusion you stated.

[Fafnir]

Fan from VT is correct however, other studies have shown that scoring margin is a better predictor than won loss record.

I believe efficiency differential is slightly better than scoring margin as well.

[LB3533]

Basketball-reference.com has the Heat expected win/loss record at 20-5, yet their record in reality is merely 17-8 and that is with their recent 8 game winning streak.

There is no question the Heat have had early season struggles when facing very good to great teams.

But right now the Heat have the best balance on both offense and defense than any other team in the NBA.

The Heat are the only team to rank in the top 5 in both Points per 100 possessions (4th) and Points allowed per 100 possessions (2nd). 

It is kinda scary how good the Heat's offense is right now considering they are one of the worst "pace" teams in the NBA currently ranked 25th out of 30 teams.

Imagine if the Heat start to actually run the ball?

[guava_wrench]

I'm not sure talking about blowouts versus bad teams, etc makes as much sense now as it would at the end of the season since the way Miami is playing against good teams would eventually mean a mediocre record and low margin of victory.

Actually playing the games is the only thing that will settle this debate.

[BballTim]

Fan from VT is correct however, other studies have shown that scoring margin is a better predictor than won loss record.

I believe efficiency differential is slightly better than scoring margin as well.

  I would expect that, especially as the season progresses, scoring margins and records vs good teams generally converge. And I don't think there's much of a difference between efficiency differential and scoring margin other than pace adjustment.

[Fafnir]

Fan from VT is correct however, other studies have shown that scoring margin is a better predictor than won loss record.

I believe efficiency differential is slightly better than scoring margin as well.

  I would expect that, especially as the season progresses, scoring margins and records vs good teams generally converge. And I don't think there's much of a difference between efficiency differential and scoring margin other than pace adjustment.

Of course there isn't much difference between scoring margin and efficiency other than pace, that is by definition the difference.

The pace correct makes it noticeably more accurate, especially when you're dealing with a high paced team.

[BballTim]

Fan from VT is correct however, other studies have shown that scoring margin is a better predictor than won loss record.

I believe efficiency differential is slightly better than scoring margin as well.

  I would expect that, especially as the season progresses, scoring margins and records vs good teams generally converge. And I don't think there's much of a difference between efficiency differential and scoring margin other than pace adjustment.

Of course there isn't much difference between scoring margin and efficiency other than pace, that is by definition the difference.

The pace correct makes it noticeably more accurate, especially when you're dealing with a high paced team.

  Clearly, but "I believe efficiency differential is slightly better than scoring margin as well" seems to imply that you don't understand this. Teams with good efficiency differentials have good scoring margins. Teams with worse efficiency differentials wave worse scoring margins. How could one be a better indicator than the other if they always track each other?