Editors Note: Today’s guest column is authored by Jason Eshleman. For regular readers of the WoW Journal, this is the “Jason” who offers so many wonderful comments and who authored a guest column last December. In addition to posting frequently at the WoW Journal, Jason is a research associate in Anthropology at UC Davis. Jason co-founded Trace Genetics, which is described on their website as “specialists in genetic identity DNA analysis with expertise in DNA ancestry, forensics, ancient DNA analysis, molecular diagnostics, and population genetics.” When Jason is not doing stuff that is far more complicated than discussing the intricacies of the NBA, he’s living life as a long suffering fan of the Golden State Warriors.
A season comes to an end
A 122 to 116 loss sealed the deal. Despite 48 wins (with a chance for 49 remaining) the Warriors would miss the playoffs. Warriors out, Denver in. Though it was still possible that Golden State could finish the season with a record identical to the Nuggets, Denver — by virtue of established tiebreakers –had sealed the 8th spot. The key tiebreaker: Denver has won 3 of 4 matches between the two clubs.
This fact suggests the obvious: Denver held their advantage in the standings by virtue of their head to head record. The corollary? Against the rest of the league, the Warriors had the superior winning percentage.
To read Warrior message boards and blogs, there is presently no bigger tragedy in the world than Cleveland, Washington, Toronto, Philadelphia and Atlanta all seeing their seasons continue while all finishing with records inferior to the Oakland team’s winning percentage. The Hawks (and possibly the 76ers) will even finish with a losing record. Rising unemployment, home foreclosures, a faltering economy and $4/gallon gas have nothing on this injustice. “The playoff format must be revised! It should be the best 16 teams, no matter what. This just isn’t fair!”
No, it isn’t fair. Life, as many have noted for many a year, is not fair. (Foul poles are fair, though baseball is a peculiar sport.) Inferior teams will have an opportunity to play basketball while the Warriors go on an early vacation. It is all an accident of having to play against better teams simply because of geography.
Not. Fair.
East vs. West
While many have regarded the Eastern Conference of the NBA to be the weaker conference for several years now, this year the relative strength of the two conferences has seemed especially disparate. Teams in the east have been less successful (at least as assessed by wins and losses) than teams in the west. All totaled, western conference teams have a winning record while the eastern conference as a whole has a losing record. Not even the strength of the Celtics and Pistons, who will finish with the league’s best records, changes this.
This fact suggests the obvious: since intra-conference games produce as many wins as losses for that conference, the Western conference teams must have this winning record by virtue of victories in head-to-head match-ups with Eastern conference teams.
The disparity in conference strength is not new, nor has the league ignored it in formulating various rules for post-season play. To guard against teams beating up on weaker non-conference rivals, following head-to-head record, intra-conference records break ties when teams finish with identical records. Going into their head-to-head contest in Oakland on the 10th of April, Denver had already secured any possible tiebreakers over the Warriors. In the event of a tie, they would hold the key “better conference record.” Against teams in the West, Denver has been the more successful ball club.
The corollary: At the risk of sounding like the bitter bloggers-and allow me this late disclaimer: I am a Warriors fan and have been for many, many bitter years- this of course means that against the Eastern Conference, against supposedly weaker opponents, Denver could not match the Warriors’ record! Prior to their head to head match up, David Stern was prepared to crown Denver as playoff worthy even though they hadn’t been able to beat those weaker foes in the East as often as the Warriors had! How could he possibly favor one team over another when that team could not keep pace with their rival against the lesser clubs? We have got to end this! It is not fair that teams should be rewarded simply for beating up on inferior opponents!
This is, of course, absurd. These methods, placing rigid guidelines that are inevitably rather arbitrary in their logic, are, in fact, absurd. So is concluding incontrovertible superiority on the basis of a one-game advantage, the difference in inter-and intra conference records between the Nuggets and Warriors.
But absurd lines of reasoning (and disregard for statistical reality) have not prevented some from suggesting that Lebron James is not worthy of the MVP award merely because of the record of his opponents. Despite statistical performances that suggest he should at the least be a leading candidate, some have suggested that his stats are at least in part a result of playing an unbalanced schedule against weaker foes (and of course Kobe Bryant suggests himself that he would look better if he played 52 games against eastern conference squads though actual results do not reflect this bias);
But is this real? Do players in the East have inflated stats simply by being the best of a bad lot? And do teams in the West sport the records they do because they’ve faced stronger conference foes? Has this imbalance determined who was in and who was out of the playoffs? Are some teams better at picking on the weak? Here, numbers do provide an answer.
Winning teams win, losing teams lose
Over an 82 game season, teams play 52 contests against the 14 other teams in their conference and another 30 games against teams from the other conference. It’s hypothetically possible that a team could finish with a superior record by merely holding their own against their own conference and piling up non-conference victories. Split in conference but pound the lesser squads and you can finish with a winning record. It could happen.
But it didn’t. It’s a strategy employed with successful results by exactly zero teams in the NBA. When we look at the records of all 30 clubs – noted in Table One — and compare their overall winning percentages to their conference winning percentage, there was not a single club that had an overall winning record that did not also have a winning record in their own conference. Losing clubs almost invariably (Sacramento being the lone exception) have to date had losing records out of conference as well.
Table One: NBA Records with One Day Left
Not a single team had a statistically significant difference in their in-conference and overall record.
It’s important to note that whenever we look at numbers in such a manner, some variation is to be expected simply due to the sample. 52 games is not necessarily enough to conclude that a 0.600 winning percentage really means a club was better than a 0.650 winning percentage over 32 games. But we can control for this by estimating the probability that both represent subsets of the same sample to see if there is any significance to the difference. And there wasn’t. Differences between overall record and conference records were but a matter of the noise associated with sample size, and in these cases, the differences were quite small indeed.
To summarize: Winning teams are winning teams. Losing teams are losing teams, and the conference schedules seem to provide little influence on who was good and who was bad. In general, Boston was good regardless of geography and Seattle stunk no matter the opponent. A team’s record is a good, perhaps not perfect, but still very good gauge of the team’s quality.
All of this of course suggests that it is indeed unfair that the Warriors will once again watch the playoffs on TV.
– Jason Eshleman
Wages of Wins Journal 
Tommy_Grand
April 16, 2008
Good article. I agree with all…. except I’d give the MVP to CP3. Lebron certainly deserves to be on the short list (as does Baron Davis IMO) plus Kobe and KG.
The playoffs would be better if the Warriors were in and the Hawks were out. Can you imagine GS v. Boston in round 1? That would be a great series! I’d take Boston , but it could go the distance.
Cedric
April 16, 2008
q:D)
William
April 16, 2008
@Tommy_Grand
I doubt it would be GSW vs Boston in the first round, since it would be unlikely that GS just got slotted in to the 8th spot in the East because they’re 9th in the West.
In fact, it would probably be another Western Conf. team that would have the pleasure of being in Boston’s way to the championship. Portland has the 16th best record in the league not including tonight’s games, and would also make the playoff field in a “best 16” format.
The 8 first round matchups in a “best 16” format would be (again, not including changes due to tonight’s results):
BOS vs. POR (more compelling with G. Oden…)
DET vs. TOR (almost happened anyway!)
LAL vs. WAS (LA gets to see future Clipper Arenas)
NOR vs. CLE (matchup of MVP candidates)
SAS vs. GSW (Order vs. Chaos?)
UTA vs. DEN (Divison Rivals, good storyline)
HOU vs. DAL (Civil War, good storyline)
ORL vs. PHX (Shaq vs. Dwight Howard, back to Orlando, good storyline)
Animal
April 16, 2008
Jason, congratulations on getting to write a guest column! Well deserved.
William
April 16, 2008
I’m not sure why that was a emoticon, I think it misinterpreted my punctuation.
Animal
April 16, 2008
Absolutely hilarious video parody of the principles of economics, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IchvAAswTlE
Jason
April 16, 2008
I tend to agree that Paul is a more valuable player this year than James on the purely subjective basis of watching them both play. Paul can make other players look foolish like no one I’ve seen in a while.
I’m not actually in favor of a best 16 playoff format, even it if might be more “equitable”. Sports are institutionalized physical competitions with an element of chance. Taking out the chance detracts from it. This year, chance was that more teams in the west were good. We live with it and in return, we’re surprised.
Christopher
April 17, 2008
I’m still not buying. But then I’m not sure what is being sold. Good teams are good, bad teams are bad. That was never in debate. And that the Least is full of bad teams was also never in debate. Personally, I favor guaranteed seeds for all division winners combined with the best 16 teams. Also, my soapbox argument: WOW, PER, etc. need to adjust for quality of opponent. It’s just very different to drop a triple double against Seattle at home than against the Lakers on the road (assuming both are wins). One last bit on the MVP: It’s a beauty contest. There are 4 MVPs in my book. (1) best player on best team: Kobe Bryant. I know there are two East teams (the only two who do NOT get the Leastern moniker) with better records but the East will butter you up enough to push the Lakers as the best team imho. And I know WOW does not “like” Kobe. But he played through the full year unlike Gasol and Bynum. (2) best individual player: Lebron James and Chris Paul (co-MVPs). James with his 30-7-7 is incredible. High WP48, PER, and clutch stats. Chris Paul has similar performance metrics (but is not quite as clutch) and has a line for the ages: 21.1 PPG 4 PRG 11.6 APG 2.7 SPG with good %’s and only 2.5 TO. And this in the Western Conf! (FWIW, I’ve always thought the NBA should pull an MLB and do these awards by conference). (3) most important player, i.e., team whose record would nosedive the most if player X was replaced by an average player. Lebron. CAVS – Lebron + average SF = lottery. (4) the player you’ll remember. What we’re looking for here is something like Kobe’s 81-pt performance. That will stick. So what player did something like that this year? What player had his moment that will transcend a season? Nobody, really. I’ve not witnessed any amazing individual performances this year that will stand the test of time. I’ll cop out here and give it to the Rockets for there 22-0 streak.
Tommy_Grand
April 17, 2008
That is a good point. You are clearly right that Boston would not play GS if the teams were seeded according to record. The only way it could be boston v. GS would be a rule providing that: if one conference did not have 8 teams above .500 (and the other did) then the #9 team from the “superior” conf. takes the place of the #8 team from the “inferior.”
I was actually thinking of this kind of solution when I posted, but forgot to say. I’m not sure it’s the best idea, but it would maintain most of the current system’s advantages while addressing the occasional gross disparity. I mean, YO, the Hawks are 8 games under!
Christopher
April 17, 2008
I’m still not buying. But then I’m not sure what is being sold. Good teams are good, bad teams are bad. That was never in debate. And that the Least is full of bad teams was also never in debate. Personally, I favor guaranteed seeds for all division winners combined with the best 16 teams. Also, my soapbox argument: WOW, PER, etc. need to adjust for quality of opponent. It’s just very different to drop a triple double against Seattle at home than against the Lakers on the road (assuming both are wins).
Tball
April 17, 2008
Tommy,
The problem with that ‘West 9 replaces East 8′ plan is that Detroit gets rewarded with an easier 1st round opponent.
I agree with Jason Eshleman’s article (keep it up), the issue is not which teams you have to play against. The team with the easiest schedule in the East only had a SOS that was less than 3% harder than the toughest road in the West (.484 to .511) (according Hollinger’s Rankings on ESPN.com). The problem is, as he put it, winning teams win and losing teams lose and this year losing teams keep playing while winning teams go home.
I like Williams’ “best 16” bracketing – it doesn’t need to be tricky.
Jason
April 17, 2008
Thanks for the kind words.
Despite being a fan of the most worthy team to miss the playoffs ever, I’m still comfortable with it. Maybe I’m just getting used to disappointment this month. I’m a UNC alum, so I had to watch the debacle turned comeback turned debacle against KU a few weeks ago and I’m an SF Giants fan, and don’t expect that to bring things up. So perhaps it’s easier to let go and just find other escapes rather than have the Warriors tease me for a playoff series or two.
Tommy_Grand
April 17, 2008
“The problem with that ‘West 9 replaces East 8′ plan is that Detroit gets rewarded with an easier 1st round opponent.”
Good point.
Harold Almonte
April 17, 2008
There is some illusion in these arguments. Individual team W-L records doesn’t tell us the conferences are even, neither does it the 3% SOS difference between conferences (Hollinger’ SOS are based on w%, but SOS is not strenght of conference as a whole).
The West is +63 at inter-conferences games from 453 games (that’s “supposedly” a 25% stronger, but that’s not efficiency rating). Only four eastern teams had possitive win loss records over western teams, eleven teams from West had possitive records against estern teams. The conference as a whole is stronger and more competitive, and if that split was not existent, no more than three or four eastern teams would be in playoffs.
The problem with the 50 and 32, or 82 if it was one only conference, is that never will be the team’s squedules designed fairly, not even to be as different as only a 3% between the easiest and the toughest in the end of season, there will be allways a little lottery there, but yes winning teams will keep winning, although some of them with two or three less won games than in this format.
Greg DeJong
April 17, 2008
I calculate the aggregate cross-conference record for Western teams as 258-192, a .573 winning percentage. If you assume that each cross-conference game is a 50/50 coin flip, the odds of such a lopsided record in favour of the West is a mere 0.11%. On an aggregate basis, conference disparity is statistically significant.
On the other hand, people tend to overestimate the effect of this discrepancy on won-loss record. Take a typical Western team with a .500 record against conference opponents and a .573 record against the East. This team would win 43.2 games under the current split (52 versus West and 30 versus East). Assuming that everyone was one big conference, this team would play 39.6 games versus the West and 42.4 versus the East. Assuming the same winning percentages, this team would now win 44.1 games. So, even with a discrepancy in conference strength, you could correct the standings by adding one win to each Western team and subtracting one from each Eastern team. This would put 10 Western teams in the top 16 and 6 Eastern teams. Unbalanced, yes – but not to the degree suggested by Harold Almonte (“more than three or four eastern teams would be in playoffs”).
Greg DeJong
April 17, 2008
should read, “no more than three or four eastern teams would be in playoffs”
Greg DeJong
April 17, 2008
Regarding playoff re-seeding, you could move the #9 team to the East, replacing Atlanta.
But instead of automatically placing Golden State in the #8 seed, teams could make a series of decisions.
Ask Boston if they would rather play Philly or Golden State. Presumably they’d pick Philly. If they did pick GS, then they’d play GS and the rest of the matchups would play out as before.
Then ask Detroit if they’d rather Toronto or GS. They pick Toronto.
Then ask Orlando if they’d rather GS or Washington. They pick Washington.
Then Cleveland gets home court in a series against Golden State, and Golden State become the #5 seed in the East rather than #8.
Harold Almonte
April 17, 2008
Good point Gregg, but given that the best 9 western teams are very above this 0.573 whole conference performance (the worse is 0.600), it’s possible this group improve more than one only game. Outside Bost., Det, and whatever one or two other teams, woundn’t be more eastern teams in playoffs.
Harold Almonte
April 17, 2008
Although it’s hard to think the Clippers could have any chance. Sacramento over Toronto? maybe.
Tyson
June 16, 2008
good article. Chris Paul should have een MVP