RealGM

Now that we are at mid-season, it is timely to investigate how teams are performing in relation to the pre-season expectations. I subtracted the the SI.com current (Jan 15) rankings from the SI.com pre-season rankings. This creates an index in which the higher the positive number, the more a team has exceeded expectations. The lower the negative number, the more a team has failed to live up to expectations.

1 Por +19
2 NO +14
3 LAL +10
4 GS +7
5 Bos +6
5 Ind +6
5 Phi +6
8 Atl +5
8 Orl +5
8 Sac +5
11 Det +3
11 Tor +3
11 Was +3
14 Sea +1
15 Cle 0
15 Dal 0
15 Min 0
18 Den -1
19 LAC -2
20 Cha -3
21 Pho -4
22 Mem -5
22 Mil -5
22 SA -5
25 NJ -6
25 Uta -6
27 Hou -8
27 NY -8
29 Chi -12
30 Mia -14

Portland (+19) is tops, followed by New Orleans (+14) and the Lakers (+10). The worst are Miami (-14) and Chicago (-12), followed by Houston (-8) and New York (-8).

Among the pre-season top 10, only two teams (Boston [+6] and Detriot [+3]) are exceeding expectations, while Dallas (0) and Denver (-1) are close to expectations. The rest are somewhat below expectations. Here's the pre-season top 10 in order:
22 SA -5
15 Dal 0
21 Pho -4
27 Hou -8
25 Uta -6
11 Det +3
5 Bos +6
29 Chi -12
18 Den -1
25 NJ -6

Nice job man. Once again we see why preseason rankings aint worth s*** in ANY sport.

The Blazers probably also lead or are near the top of the league in difference between Pythagorian winning percentage (based on point differential) and actual winning percentage. That's good and bad. Good, because it means the team is capable of overachieving and might be well coached. Bad, because historically Pythagorian winning percentage is usually a good predictor of subsequent games within the same season, and deviation from a team's expected winning percentage is often largely a product of luck.

Tim Lehrbach wrote:The Blazers probably also lead or are near the top of the league in difference between Pythagorian winning percentage (based on point differential) and actual winning percentage. That's good and bad. Good, because it means the team is capable of overachieving and might be well coached. Bad, because historically Pythagorian winning percentage is usually a good predictor of subsequent games within the same season, and deviation from a team's expected winning percentage is often largely a product of luck.

Explain...you mean that basically a greater pt differential directly translates to a greater win percentage? I've never heard of this method.