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

[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.

  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?

Efficiency differentials are more accurate about just how good/bad a team is. Thus while whether or not a team is good or bad would be the same, but just how good is different. By normalizing for pace you get a better picture of the true quality of a team.

For example in 2006-2007:

Record:
Mavs 67-15
Suns 61-21
Spurs 58-24

Point Differential:
Spurs      8.4
Suns       7.3
Mavs       7.2

Efficiency Differential:
Spurs      9.3
Mavs       8.1
Suns       7.5

[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?

Efficiency differentials are more accurate about just how good/bad a team is. Thus while whether or not a team is good or bad would be the same, but just how good is different. By normalizing for pace you get a better picture of the true quality of a team.

For example in 2006-2007:

Record:
Mavs 67-15
Suns 61-21
Spurs 58-24

Point Differential:
Spurs      8.4
Suns       7.3
Mavs       7.2

Efficiency Differential:
Spurs      9.3
Mavs       8.1
Suns       7.5

  Again, I agree with this. While I don't think that the predictor is precise enough that small variations in margin will greatly change your chances of success, and while Ithink it only enhances a team's chances by the same amount playing at a below average pace does, I'll agree that the difference could slightly change your chances.

[KCattheStripe]

They're 3-7 against teams with at least a .500 record.