Margin of Victory and You
Niall poses an interesting question over at the 247: what "is" a blowout? 15 points? 20 points? 10 points against a really good team? 40 against a really bad one? In my mind, it's a terribly subjective thing, a you say tomato, I say tomato sort of deal. But the whole "margin of victory" issue makes me think of something I saw a while ago.
Football Outsiders, a football analysis website, once came up with a sort of classification of games. Here are the 4 ways they categorize wins:
- GUTS: A win by 1-8 points over a winning team
- STOMPS: A win by 14+ points over a losing team
- SKATES: A win by 1-8 points over a losing team
- DOMINATIONS: A win by 14+ points over a winning team
Now, obviously those are football numbers. 1-8 points would qualify as a point total that could be made up in a single possession, etc. I don't think a straight possession translation from NFL to NBA makes much sense in this case. I'd hardly call a 6+ point victory over a winning team a "domination" even though a 2 possession win might warrant that title in the NFL. Nor would I call a 6+ win over a team like the Grizzlies a "stomp." That's not why I bring up Football Outsiders' method though. The interesting part is the conclusions FO drew from their categories. In essence, they discovered that huge wins over poor opponents ("stomps" from above) are far better at predicting future success than are close wins over good opponents ("guts"). A team that consistently destroys bad opponents is likely to be better than a team that "guts" out wins over good teams. Roll that over in your brain a few times, and see if it makes sense intuitively. What's that? It doesn't? Well, too bad, the numbers prove it.
Last year, the Hornets' had some serious beat downs on the low life scum of the league. We started off with some crazy record like 18-3 against teams with losing records, almost all of them of the "stomp" variety. The thing that strikes me about this year is how few (relatively) games we've played against the NBA's dirt slugs. We lost to both Charlotte and Sacramento. However, I think most of you would agree with me that the Hornets were in a "will Peja play? how about Chandler? wait, you mean I have to guard somebody?" style funk that they've since emerged from. We beat OKC a couple times. Other than that, we've had close-ish losses versus the Lakers (7), Rockets (9), and Hawks (8), all great teams. What's my point here? This is yet another positive way to view the first 16 games. We've played somewhat poorly, but we've played poorly the "good" way, if that makes any sense.
1 recs |
6 comments
|
Comments
More positive ways to view the Hornets
This came from Elias Sports Bureau, by way of the ESPN Daily Dime http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dime-081205
"The only teams with a winning mark against opponents above .500 are the Lakers (9-1), Celtics (6-1), Hornets (6-4), Cavaliers (5-3), Trail Blazers (7-5) and Nets (5-4). "
Obviously, the Lakers and Celtics are the two best teams in the league right now. But with so much being made about how the Blazers and the Cavs are having stellar seasons and the Hornets are a disappointment, it’s surprising that the Hornets have just as good a record against above-500 teams, and are essentially tied for the 3rd best record in the NBA against good competition. And the Cavs have had a ridiculously easy schedule. (10 games against <500, compared to the Hornets 6).
I have no idea how this stat fits in with a blog post about how beating bottom-dwellers is the best evidence of greatness. Should we be optimistic that while we don’t crush bottom-dwellers, we’re 3rd best at beating quality opponents?
by thekourt on Dec 5, 2008 11:09 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
blowouts come in different circumstances.
the most common blowout to me is when the winning teams starters don’t play the 4th quarter or very limited minutes of the 4th.
by Ace Boogie on Dec 5, 2008 11:15 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Hmm, that's actually a really neat definition
If the starters don’t play the last 10 minutes of a game, or something like that.
by atthehive on Dec 5, 2008 12:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not about points
It’s when the not-so-bright cheerleaders start looking disinterested.
Yours in hoops,
Peter Robert Casey
Basketball Columnist
www.peterrobertcasey.com
www.linkedin.com/in/peterrobertcasey
by peterrobertcasey on Dec 6, 2008 12:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Not cool and unnecessary
Seriously, what did that have to do with anything?
by atthehive on Dec 6, 2008 1:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

by 













