Isn't the most important statistic wins?

Any internet savvy Maverick fan is clearly aware that they have been ultimately trolled by the admittedly great John Hollinger and his basically awesome Hollinger Power Rankings, which are published nightly by Hollinger's pet monkey named Pebbles on ESPN's internet sports website.


Seen above: Pebbles, John Hollinger's pet monkey who posts the nightly power rankings along with Mr. Hollinger, who claims (dubiously) that he brought home Pebbles from a recent NBA Cares mission in East Africa.


In order to pay homage and demonstrate Hollinger's greatness, I have been knowingly lured into writing this blog post despite the fact I know that I am clearly getting trolled. So lets get to it.

I'll start off by saying that I am basically a basketball expert with a strong statistical background. I attended an accredited University and was technically enrolled in a class entitled Statistics. Further, I play basketball at the YMCA and sometimes even with other people.

I got to thinking about Point Differential, Win shares, outliers, efficiency, Pythagorean won/loss, pace factor, and other small numbers with decimals and I realized that I did not care very much about them. It seemed like surely there was a stat out there that actually meant something. This leads me to the under utilized number that is often overlooked by many of the top analysts: Wins.

The funny thing about Wins is that they really don't measure anything except whether you scored more points than your opponent on a given night when a basketball game is played. Oddly, wins have been used to determine "seeding" (with one NBA exception which has since been corrected). "Seeding" can be found by looking at the "standings," which are published in many places from the newspaper to the internet.

The Last 10 years in the NBA:

'08-'09: Western Conference 1st seed defeated Eastern Conference 3rd seed
'07-'08: Eastern Conference 1st seed defeated Western Conference 1st seed
'06-'07: Western Conference 3rd seed defeated Eastern Conference 2nd seed
'05-'06: Eastern Conference 2nd seed defeated Western Conference 4 seed
'04-'05: Western Conference 2nd seed defeated Eastern Conference 2 seed
'03-'04: Eastern Conference 3rd seed defeated Western Conference 2 seed
'02-'03: Western Conference 1st seed defeated Eastern Conference 2 seed
'01-'02: Western Conference 1st seed defeated Eastern Conference 1 seed
'00-'01: Western Conference 2nd seed defeated Eastern Conference 1 seed
'99-'00: Western Conference 1st seed defeated Eastern Conference 1st seed



# of wins by championship team:
'08-'09: 65
'07-'08: 66
'06-'07: 58
'05-'06: 52
'04-'05: 59
'03-'04: 54
'02-'03: 60
'01-'02: 58
'00-'01: 56
'99-'00: 67

Championships by seeding in the last 10 years:
1st seed: 5
2nd seed: 3
3rd seed: 2

-In 10 years, only one 4 seed has ever made it to an NBA finals (the 60-22 Dallas Mavericks in 2006).

-Only twice has a team with less than 55 wins won an NBA championship, the 52 win Miami Heat in the most controversial NBA finals ever and the 54 win Detroit Pistons, who finished the year on a 19-4 run.)

-No 5 seed in 10 years has ever made it to a Conference finals.

-In fact, the only 4 seed that has ever made it to a Conference Finals is the 60-22 Mavs who lost in the NBA finals.

My intensive statistical study of the last 10 years of raw NBA win data has led me to one conclusion. The Dallas Mavericks are better without Dirk Nowitkzi. Haha just kidding. Who would ever think that a contender 50+ win team would be better without their generally recognized top player: Oh yeah, noted statistician, Hollinger colleague, and former Maverick consultant Wayne Winston who believes Kevin Durant made the Thunder worst last year. Winston can be seen here trying to look like an eccentric Yale graduate who doesn't have time to pose for your simple minded picture:

Above: Wayne Winston, Yale graduate and statistical expert, thinks that Kevin Durant makes the Oklahoma City Thunder worse and thinks that smiling is beneath him.

Seriously though, from injuries, to schedules, sleep patterns, talent, matchups, choice of pregame meal, coach, hundreds, if not thousands of variables go into every single NBA game. It is beyond me how Mr. Hollinger and others numerically account for Josh Howard's marijuana smoking in their analysis.

As every critic has always pointed out, statistical analysis can be used in a beneficial way by fans and teams alike as long as those statistics are done by someone who knows what they are doing and conform with common sense. You can tell me all you want that Bucks are better than the Mavericks and point to your silly little numbers, and I'll ask you if they will be the first 5 seed to make it to the conference finals in 10 years, because anyone who has functioning eyes can tell you that they won't. (and even if they do, I'll just scream "statistical outlier" and run in the other direction.)

All you have to do people is check out the standings. Right now the Mavs should win between 53-57 games and be a #2 or a #3 seed going into the playoffs. For all of those other taems who are oh so much more impressive than the Mavs (but reside on the bottom half of the playoff bracket), they will need to buck 10 years worth of history to even make it to the conference finals, regardless of their point differential. And doesn't Matt Bonner play for the Spurs anyway? We'll be alright.