Statician says Hawks are the 3rd most underachieving team

[coachx]

http://www.nba.com/2010/news/features/john_schuhmann/01/14/numbers.game/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt1 Edited January 14, 2010 by coachx

[00Blink]

http://www.nba.com/2010/news/features/john_schuhmann/01/14/numbers.game/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt1

I think this is an appropriate time for Diesel to call out stats as false and misleading. There is no way in he** that the Hawks are underachieving. That is a stupid measure of stats. Some teams you blow out, some teams will blow you out, some games will be nail-biters....but this is no way to measure a teams achievements. As Dominique said that other day in an article, when asked about the futuristic use of stats to evaluate players and talent...throw stats out the window. I watch a team or player to see and know if they can play. BOTTOM LINE!!

[lethalweapon3]

Chicago is overachieving, while Oklahoma City is not. I think I can speak on Buckwheat's behalf when I declare, "O-tay!"

Numbers seem to be based on plus-minus, and most Hawks starters are high in that area. Thus the "discrepancy."

~lw3

[spotatl]

You guys aren't understanding what the author means. Underachieving means "better than their record indicates". When you analyze the numbers, point differential is a better predictor of success than team record is. So this just means that its likely that the Hawks are better than you think if you only look at their record.

Edited January 14, 2010 by spotatl

[00Blink]

Chicago is overachieving, while Oklahoma City is not. I think I can speak on Buckwheat's behalf when I declare, "O-tay!"

Numbers seem to be based on plus-minus, and most Hawks starters are high in that area. Thus the "discrepancy."

~lw3

:laughing5: LMAOx10000

[00Blink]

You guys aren't understanding what the author means. Underachieving means "better than their record indicates". When you analyze the numbers, point differential is a better predictor of success than team record is. So this just means that its likely that the Hawks are better than you think if you only look at their record.

I disagree...I look at games as every game is an individual game while these stats compile games by the numbers...it's good for somethings but not on this one...if we blow out every team we win against and lose in nail biters to every team we lose against, are we over or under achievers...I think the saying is..."we are who we thought we were" a top 4 team in the East....by this same token/formula, if we win the close games and we are sitting at 31-7, we would still be underachieving, I COMPLETELY DISAGREE with that

[spotatl]

Absolutely I'll take the team that absolutely CRUSHES teams and plays the rest of them close even if they lose the coinflips. As fans we put far too much stock in losing a game by 1 points. Thats pretty much a random victory that could have gone either way. You can think that teams just have more "skill" winning close games but when you look at them in the playoffs that skill doesn't hold up.

Put it this way- Varejao nailing that 3 pointer against the Hawks doesn't make the Cavs a better team and the Hawks a worse team. It means those teams on that day were basically even and it could have easily gone either way. If Varejao misses it it doesn't change who these teams are.

Over and over again we have seen that point differential is a far better predictor of success than the actual win loss record. Thats fine if you don't believe it- but I bet quite a bit of money on basketball and this is something that casual fans always tend to miss. I LOVE betting against a team that has just won a series of coinflip type games.

Edited January 14, 2010 by spotatl

[mrhonline]

Avg. margin over the last ten games is good for 17th in the league.

[ahlthe3rd]

You guys aren't understanding what the author means. Underachieving means "better than their record indicates". When you analyze the numbers, point differential is a better predictor of success than team record is. So this just means that its likely that the Hawks are better than you think if you only look at their record.

Yeah, I had to read the explanation a few times to understand but I agreee. The Hawks get overshadowed by the "big 3" in the East but we are better than our record and current #4 seed indicates.

[00Blink]

Absolutely I'll take the team that absolutely CRUSHES teams and plays the rest of them close even if they lose the coinflips. As fans we put far too much stock in losing a game by 1 points. Thats pretty much a random victory that could have gone either way. You can think that teams just have more "skill" winning close games but when you look at them in the playoffs that skill doesn't hold up.

Put it this way- Varejao nailing that 3 pointer against the Hawks doesn't make the Cavs a better team and the Hawks a worse team. It means those teams on that day were basically even and it could have easily gone either way. If Varejao misses it it doesn't change who these teams are.

Over and over again we have seen that point differential is a far better predictor of success than the actual win loss record. Thats fine if you don't believe it- but I bet quite a bit of money on basketball and this is something that casual fans always tend to miss. I LOVE betting against a team that has just won a series of coinflip type games.

So do I. Especially college football. I gambel whenever I go to Vegas. It's the only thing that I really gamble on besides blackjack and slots.

I also used to be a member of this gambling site overseas because it was illegal in the U.S.

[coachx]

Chicago is overachieving, while Oklahoma City is not. I think I can speak on Buckwheat's behalf when I declare, "O-tay!"

Numbers seem to be based on plus-minus, and most Hawks starters are high in that area. Thus the "discrepancy."

~lw3

You think Oklahoma City is not under-achieving ?

They are stacked with talent..........if anything they should have a better record then they really do. That is just part of being such a young team. The point is, they can improve much easier then most teams. They, like the Hawks, just are not winning enough of the close games.

All the blow out wins show how good we could be if the Hawks were just more consistent. The problem is that we win on energy and defense, rather then out executing teams like the Spurs.............its hard to have to rely on beating teams every night by basically giving more effort then the opponent does.

The point of the thread is saying that the over - achieving teams may see their win % take a dip in the 2nd half while the underachieving teams have better chance of seeing their win % go up.

Edited January 14, 2010 by coachx

[Atlantaholic]

Only great teams blow out teams consistantly... How many teams did we crush during our last 9 seasons?

In Baseball and Basketball, where teams play a ton of games a season point differential is usually a better predicter of future performance than win loss record. All you have to do is look at past standings.

Guess how many teams with a point differential over 5 won less than 50 games in the last 12 years?. One. The 2002 New Jersey Nets who made it to the finals. (won 49 games).

If you look at the records of teams with point differentials of over 6 and 7 points you are talking about teams that consistantly win 57-66 games a year.

Also, there has only been three instances in the last 11 years where a team that was not in the top two in point differential has won a championship. (Miami, San Antonio, and Los Angeles)

Edited January 14, 2010 by Atlantaholic

[Atlantaholic]

You think Oklahoma City is not under-achieving ?

They are stacked with talent..........if anything they should have a better record then they really do. That is just part of being such a young team. The point is, they can improve much easier then most teams. They, like the Hawks, just are not winning enough of the close games.

All the blow out wins show how good we could be if the Hawks were just more consistent. The problem is that we win on energy and defense, rather then out executing teams like the Spurs.............its hard to have to rely on beating teams every night by basically giving more effort then the opponent does.

The point of the thread is saying that the over - achieving teams may see their win % take a dip in the 2nd half while the underachieving teams have better chance of seeing their win % go up.

The article didn't even claim that they were under achieving by much. According to them Oklahoma should have 1 more win then they currently do.

[coachx]

Avg. margin over the last ten games is good for 17th in the league.

We also probably have the toughest strength of schedule over the last 10 games considering we played the Cavs and Celtics in 40% of our last 10 games.

[coachx]

The article didn't even claim that they were under achieving by much. According to them Oklahoma should have 1 more win then they currently do.

True but do your eyes say Durant is ready to be a top 5 star in this league ? Mine do and I love the nucleus around him that gets better each and every game. I have to say Durant is my favorite player to watch play right now, so I'm a bit partial.

I love that beautiful shooting stroke Durant has to go with freakish athletic ability. He is like a 6'9'' Ray Allen with the long arms of Mutombo. I could see them moving up to the #6 or #7 seed in the West and scarying the crap out of the Spurs, Mavs, or Nuggets in the first round. Much like we did to the Celtics 2 years ago. They pass the Blazers as the best "young team" in the West by next year......the same team that passed on Durant for Oden.

Edited January 14, 2010 by coachx

[RedDawg#8]

I agree with the article for the mere fact that the chart said we should have 27 wins, and I can definately think of 2 games we lost that we should have won. Its that simple, I dont take offense to it, I personally think we should won 5 more games than we have, so though not by much, we have underachieved.

Ppl keep comparing records to the big 3 saying that were top 4 and all that, but if we finsh just a few games behind the big 3 with the number 4 seed and have only 48-50 wins, we have underachieved. If we stop looking at their records, and win the games we are supposed to, when the dust clears we could the 1 seed in the East, but because we continue to base our worth off them, we are ok with being 4th as long as we're "close" or in the mix.

[Diesel]

http://www.nba.com/2010/news/features/john_schuhmann/01/14/numbers.game/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt1

Can I say that this is why most stats are FOS??

Seriously though, we are a very good team. We do blow people out. As we entered the season, the thing I said about this team is that we will blow out the teams that we are supposed to beat and we will play those teams that used to beat us more solidly. Finally, we will have some teams that we just don't match up well against... that will make us scratch our heads. All of this has been true.

Teams that we are supposed to beat, we blow out. Teams that we have historically had problems with, we play to either a close win or a close loss. Then we have those bad matchups.. usually teams with good rebounding and athletic wings. I hate seeing Charlotte. I hate seeing NY. I hate seeing Orlando. It's not that we can't beat them.. put us in a 7 game series with anybody and we can win. However, the problem is that we can't solve them. NY usually gets us into an up and down game (which is our speciality) but they lose us because they also rebound well. Charlotte have everything working against us. And Orlando has Howard and shooters. It's a possibility that any of those teams can beat us and even blow us out. However, that doesn't mean we're "underacheiving". That means that just like every other basketball game, the game is determined by matchups.

[lethalweapon3]

You think Oklahoma City is not under-achieving ?

They are stacked with talent..........if anything they should have a better record then they really do. That is just part of being such a young team. The point is, they can improve much easier then most teams. They, like the Hawks, just are not winning enough of the close games.

All the blow out wins show how good we could be if the Hawks were just more consistent. The problem is that we win on energy and defense, rather then out executing teams like the Spurs.............its hard to have to rely on beating teams every night by basically giving more effort then the opponent does.

The point of the thread is saying that the over - achieving teams may see their win % take a dip in the 2nd half while the underachieving teams have better chance of seeing their win % go up.

In my opinion, with apologies to Denny Green, the Thunder are who I thought they were (a 7-10 seed in the West). Hopefully on Monday the Hawks don't let 'em off the hook...

KD is indeed superb and with Westbrook, Harden, and Green, OKC has a bright future ahead.

Coming around toward your point-of-view, though, the problem is not with the "expected wins" numbers but Schuhmann's interpretive labeling of these values to determine who's "achieving" (particularly when it's a matter of 2 to 4 games out of 35). The more appropriate label one can apply to these stats is "potential for improvement by season's end", which fits the young upstarts like ATL & OKC (and perhaps more seasoned teams rebounding from early setbacks) on one end, and the hopelessly stuck-in-neutral teams (CHI, TOR, NOH) on the other. Or maybe "most inconsistent," given the sizable number of "easy wins" balanced by a palpable number of WTF?-style losses.

"Overachieving" gives the sense that a team is likely to perform above the talent level they typically trot out (HOU for example?), based on 82-game projections back when all teams started at 0-0, a qualitative sense that contrasts with the quantitative analysis Schuhmann's presenting here. By his measure, the Lake Show could be 20-19 by now and still "overachieve," despite all sensibilities to the contrary, merely because their L's were mostly "tight losses" instead of blowouts.

~lw3