mysticbb wrote:Yeah, you can play out the method the op presents, but it actually doesn't give you useful information. The weighted average SRS of the opponents on the other hand gives the value needed to adjust the scoring margin in order to learn how good the team really was. Anything else is just playing with numbers without a real purpose. Or other: What does it matter that the 1991 Bulls played a weaker schedule? They actually killed their opponents in 1991 by an average scoring margin of 11.7 in the playoffs. The 1991 Bulls would have also likely won the title, if the average opponents would have been much stronger (like +5 in average). The numbers in the op don't give you that kind of information. It is not important in the end what kind of opponents a team plays, but rather how good they played, and for that I want the weighted average SRS as well as the average scoring margin.
I never said I was answering the question: Who played the best in the post-season since 1990? If I did your criticism of my method would be correct. To answer that question you would have to factor in games played, point differential along with opponent strength. That wasn't my question.
I was quite surprised to see how brutal of a potential road to the finals the Clippers faced with getting GSW in the first round potential matchups with OKC and SAS. My impression was that a historically difficult road to the finals. I they were extremely unlucky when you factor in that they won 57 games and came into the post-season as a 3rd seed rather than a 7th seed.
I ran the numbers to see if I was correct. After running the numbers my interest shifted to average competition rather than the quality of the competition relative to seed. I may at some point return to my original interest. The NBA only requires in the relevant sample that you win 3 rounds to get to the finals so games played aren't of interest to my question*. I posted the numbers and created a few lists because I figured other people would be curious about that information.
The idea that the only question to ask is "who played the best" is extremely myopic. Most people who are interested in basketball also are curious about other things surrounding the sport. There are threads on this website about where would Shaq rank if he shot 90% from the free throw line or who has the best cross-over. I really don't care about it and don't post in those threads. Now I may chime in if people go from stating who had the best cross-over to listing that as the deciding factor who was the best offensive player.
That wasn't the case here. Nobody posted something similar to the 95 Rockets played far better teams than the 91 Bulls and as a result 95 Rockets > 91 Bulls. So I'm not sure what your complaint is Mystic. People have interests about basketball beyond your own interests. This is a forum to facilitate conversation. Not all conversations will be of interest to you.
*pre 2003 1st round may be a different story
That is not even remotely close to the same. In fact, it entirely misses the point lorak makes. And lorak is correct here.
Lorak is wrong. His disagreement with my OP isn't that I was asking the wrong question and that my topic is pointless which is your objection but rather that my method was wrong. As others have explained, GP isn't relevant for my question.