Expected Championships Won and Titles Over Expected

[tpols]

Preseason odds = Retarded

Why would you use more incomplete information by looking at preseason odds versus looking at title odds at the start of the Finals

Preseason odds indicate the level of talent on the team. Its up to the players and coaches to make it fit. Its like giving two companies differing amounts of capital to start off with. If one of the companies turns a higher profit and makes more with less that... counts. Perfectly logically sound way of setting expectations. Can look at context to see if there was anybody out with injury in some cases and that's about it.

[DJmicah]

I like this idea on seeing who overachieved vs underperformed i really do, however using preseason odds usually isn't as accurate as right before the finals or going into the playoffs at least.
ALOT happens during the regular season such as trades (could make a team much better or worse)
Injury (also could completely change a teams title hopes)
Or even a player that's assumed to play a certain way falls off or just switches their play style altogether.
Also a team that in the preseason might not be looked at as a contender come playoff time could be a contender (15 curry or 2011 Dirk/Rose)

All of these teams for example would look great in preseason but by the playoffs/finals they were completely different teams.

Warriors 2019
Celtics 2019
Spurs 2017
Cavs 2015
Chicago (Pick a D Rose injury year)
Lakers 2013
Celtics 09

[guy]

Even if you do this exercise before the playoffs instead of preseason, Jordan's at ~3.5 and Lebron's at ~3.7 expected titles, which means Jordan still overachieved much more.

And if you do it before the finals, Jordan's at ~4.4 and Lebron's at ~4.3. So while Jordan should have more, he still overachieved here while Lebron is actually underachieving.

So the excuses about the preseason don't really help. Basically every stage where you can assess expectations doesn't help Lebron in this argument.

[Airupthere]

Even if you do this exercise before the playoffs instead of preseason, Jordan's at ~3.5 and Lebron's at ~3.7 expected titles, which means Jordan still overachieved much more.

And if you do it before the finals, Jordan's at ~4.4 and Lebron's at ~4.3. So while Jordan should have more, he still overachieved here while Lebron is actually underachieving.

So the excuses about the preseason don't really help. Basically every stage where you can assess expectations doesn't help Lebron in this argument.

[AlternativeAcc.]

Preseason odds = Retarded

Why would you use more incomplete information by looking at preseason odds versus looking at title odds at the start of the Finals

Exactly

Doesn't take into consideration injuries, trades, or any amount of important context

Preseason odds are completely irrelevant. Lebron is a victim of his own greatness as well because people expect him to win no matter what.. lebron bias.. hence preseason fave status

The grasping at straws is alarming

[dankok8]

Why are Kobe & Wade getting full credit when they were sidekicks for most of their titles? Ditto Robinson who was a legit role player for one of his.

I simply posted career metrics but yes you make a good point that sidekick rings carry much less weight. Only 1st option years:

Kobe 2005-2016: 1.583 Expected Titles, 2 Actual Titles, +0.417 Titles Over Expected
Wade 2004-2010: 0.553 Expected Titles, 1 Actual Titles, +0.447 Titles Over Expected
Robinson 1990-1997: 0.729 Expected Titles, 0 Actual Titles, -0.729 Titles Over Expected

Maybe only prime years could be looked at as well. I don't think rookie Wade and Kobe post 2013 were capable of leading a team to a title as a 1st option. Then again if we start atomizing the data it gets more and more subjective because we are including certain years, excluding others etc. I think the data in the OP gives us a good idea of things. Of course context matters.

[aj1987]

Preseason odds indicate the level of talent on the team. Its up to the players and coaches to make it fit. Its like giving two companies differing amounts of capital to start off with. If one of the companies turns a higher profit and makes more with less that... counts. Perfectly logically sound way of setting expectations. Can look at context to see if there was anybody out with injury in some cases and that's about it.

What were the preseason odds for the '11 Lakers or the '13 Lakers and why did they underachieve?

[dankok8]

I like this idea on seeing who overachieved vs underperformed i really do, however using preseason odds usually isn't as accurate as right before the finals or going into the playoffs at least.
ALOT happens during the regular season such as trades (could make a team much better or worse)
Injury (also could completely change a teams title hopes)
Or even a player that's assumed to play a certain way falls off or just switches their play style altogether.
Also a team that in the preseason might not be looked at as a contender come playoff time could be a contender (15 curry or 2011 Dirk/Rose)

All of these teams for example would look great in preseason but by the playoffs/finals they were completely different teams.

Warriors 2019
Celtics 2019
Spurs 2017
Cavs 2015
Chicago (Pick a D Rose injury year)
Lakers 2013
Celtics 09

Of course context like injuries, trades, form etc. matter. However over a player's career these factors typically cancel out some benefiting the player's team and some the opponent's team.

There are also teams of those same players that looked a lot better by the time the playoffs/finals rolled around compared to preseason.

Warriors 2015 (+2800, 8th)
Spurs 2014 (+1200, 6th)
Lakers 2008 (+3000, 16th)
Celtics 2008 (+1000, 5th)
Cavaliers 2009 (+1000, 6th)

I don't think using series odds is better. For example using finals odds completely diminishes the achievement of reaching the finals in the first place. It can tell us who overachieved or underachieved in those finals but it doesn't tell the whole story. Maybe one of those players faced the gauntlet just to get there (ex. 2007 Lebron). Sometimes the hardest series come before the finals as well. The series odds are dependent on the matchup whereas preseason odds grade the team relative to the entire league. Matchups play a way bigger role than people realize. Many teams in NBA history might have won or not won championships if they simply made the finals in different seasons. For instance the 1998 Jazz almost certainly win an easy title against the 1999 Knicks. The 1995 Rockets almost certainly lose the finals against the 1996 Bulls. Those are just examples but team quality should be judged relative to the entire league not a specific matchup IMO. That gives us better data then looks at odds and results of single series.

EDIT: I also think title odds going into the playoffs are worse because what about teams that miss the playoffs? A lot of players in the OP have been parts of teams that missed the playoffs... It's certainly better than series odds though.

[TheCorporation]

Preseason odds indicate the level of talent on the team. Its up to the players and coaches to make it fit. Its like giving two companies differing amounts of capital to start off with. If one of the companies turns a higher profit and makes more with less that... counts. Perfectly logically sound way of setting expectations. Can look at context to see if there was anybody out with injury in some cases and that's about it.

So you're saying you have MORE data and MORE analysis at your disposal by comparing title odds at the start of the actual Finals but instead you think using the pre seaaon odds, which contains tons of incomplete infomation, is the more accurate measure of the two?

Why not use 2-year forecasts?
Or 3-year forecast odds? No? Because it's less accurate and would be dumb to ignore the more recent data starting point? Exactly.

[Ne 1]

Why are Kobe & Wade getting full credit when they were sidekicks for most of their titles? Ditto Robinson who was a legit role player for one of his.

Because “sidekick titles” are a faux category. It's not even a real category, yet for some reason people throw it out as if it's a true, statistical category. Nobody outside of this and similar websites comprised of a tiny fraction of elitist fans put a qualifier on titles. Championships are championships. Walk into a local sports bar tonight and ask people how many rings any all-time great player has: Jordan, Kareem, LeBron, Russell, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan etc. 6, 6, 4, 11, 5, 3, 5, 4, 2 and 5. It's hilarious how elitist fans obsess over a fictional category that is based on subjective factors and is irrelevant.

[AlternativeAcc.]

Because “sidekick titles” are a faux category. It's not even a real category, yet for some reason people throw it out as if it's a true, statistical category. Nobody outside of this and similar websites comprised of a tiny fraction of elitist fans put a qualifier on titles. Championships are championships. Walk into a local sports bar tonight and ask people how many rings any all-time great player has: Jordan, Kareem, LeBron, Russell, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan etc. 6, 6, 4, 11, 5, 3, 5, 2 and 5. It's hilarious how elitist fans obsess over a fictional category that is based on subjective factors and is irrelevant.

You mean people who pay closer attention to sports and understand that some rings are more impressive than others based on roles are somehow not to be taken seriously, but its those people who don't pay attention and might only know ring totals in a vacuum who are to be guided by. Especially when discussing the greatness of certain players.


You make a great point

[Johnny32]

Preseason odds indicate the level of talent on the team. Its up to the players and coaches to make it fit. Its like giving two companies differing amounts of capital to start off with. If one of the companies turns a higher profit and makes more with less that... counts. Perfectly logically sound way of setting expectations. Can look at context to see if there was anybody out with injury in some cases and that's about it.

lol clueless.

[Akeem34TheDream]

Even if you do this exercise before the playoffs instead of preseason, Jordan's at ~3.5 and Lebron's at ~3.7 expected titles, which means Jordan still overachieved much more.

And if you do it before the finals, Jordan's at ~4.4 and Lebron's at ~4.3. So while Jordan should have more, he still overachieved here while Lebron is actually underachieving.

So the excuses about the preseason don't really help. Basically every stage where you can assess expectations doesn't help Lebron in this argument.

Damn

[TheCorporation]

Exactly

Doesn't take into consideration injuries, trades, or any amount of important context

Preseason odds are completely irrelevant. Lebron is a victim of his own greatness as well because people expect him to win no matter what.. lebron bias.. hence preseason fave status

The grasping at straws is alarming

We gottem on skates

[SouBeachTalents]

Because “sidekick titles” are a faux category. It's not even a real category, yet for some reason people throw it out as if it's a true, statistical category. Nobody outside of this and similar websites comprised of a tiny fraction of elitist fans put a qualifier on titles. Championships are championships. Walk into a local sports bar tonight and ask people how many rings any all-time great player has: Jordan, Kareem, LeBron, Russell, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan etc. 6, 6, 4, 11, 5, 3, 5, 4, 2 and 5. It's hilarious how elitist fans obsess over a fictional category that is based on subjective factors and is irrelevant.

It’s crazy to me anyone can think this way. There are absolutely different levels to winning championships, otherwise I could argue Robinson’s 2 titles were as equally impressive as Hakeem’s.