Utah Jazz 2018-19 Championship Bus CHOO CHOO

[One Brow]

Crazy That a team with zero all stars led by a 2 year late lottery pick and 27th pick were expected to win 54 games. And they were expected to win 53 last year? After losing Hayward? That can't be right. Why the **** would anyone think the jazz would win 53 games last season?

The Pythagorean is how games you should have won based on point differential. If you tend to win close games, you do better than your Pythagorean. If you tend to lose close games, you do worse. No predictions are involved.

As a young teams still on the rise, I am OK with our record vs. the Pythagorean. It means we'll get even better.

 

[dipship31]

Crazy That a team with zero all stars led by a 2 year late lottery pick and 27th pick were expected to win 54 games. And they were expected to win 53 last year? After losing Hayward? That can't be right. Why the **** would anyone think the jazz would win 53 games last season?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Pretty sure those numbers were just calculated using our victory total for the year and then incorporating margin of victory. Based on how large our margin of victory was we SHOULD be winning more games.

 

[JimLes]

The Jazz are 2-8 this year in games decided by 4 points or fewer. And this doesn't include the Clippers game, for example, where the Jazz had a chance to win it in at death, but lost in OT by more than 4.

And again, this has been happening for 4-5 seasons now and is a legitimate issue. Just going 5-5 in those games would've led to a much better playoff matchup.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

The problem is that the Jazz have underperformed compared to all the other teams in the West. It's not simply that "every victory is well deserved and expected, but losses are mostly inexcusable."

50 wins, whereas our pythagorean win projection was 54. It was 57 versus 56 projected for GSW. 54 vs 51 for Denver, 53 vs 51 for Blazers, and 53 vs 53 for the Rockets.

And it's not an outlier. Last year, it was 48 wins instead of 53. The year before 51 instead of 52. 40 instead of 46 in 2016. 38 instead of 42 Quin's first year.

I mean, I've warmed to Quin the last couple of years, but I still wish he could just figure out how to consistently win close games so we don't finish with the second best point differential in the West, but without homecourt advantage. It just keeps happening to the Jazz.

I think the Jazz's defense keeps them in games, keeps them from getting blown out and helps boost the point differential overall.

The Jazz probably aren't a top-tier team. We have trouble scoring against elite defenses. The first half of the season the Jazz had a tough schedule with several schedule losses. When the schedule turned favorable, the Jazz went 30-11. The Jazz's record against playoff-caliber teams isn't great. We were 8-8 against Northwest Division opponents.

 

[Stoked]

 

[fishonjazz]

The Pythagorean is how games you should have won based on point differential. If you tend to win close games, you do better than your Pythagorean. If you tend to lose close games, you do worse. No predictions are involved.

As a young teams still on the rise, I am OK with our record vs. the Pythagorean. It means we'll get even better.

That makes sense. So it's an after the fact kinda prediction

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

Pretty sure those numbers were just calculated using our victory total for the year and then incorporating margin of victory. Based on how large our margin of victory was we SHOULD be winning more games.

OR we shouldn't be beating teams by so many points in our wins (and staying so close in our losses)

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

So I guess you could say that due to our point differential we should have more wins (like Jim is saying) and we underachieved.
Or you could go the other way and say due to our record we should have a worse point differential and we over achieved.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

You could also say that stat could show 3 other things.
1.We are unlucky. In close games a lucky bounce can determine the winner or loser.
2. We don't have any superstar players that get the benefit of the whistle
3. Much like 2, we play in a small market and the team doesn't get favorable calls at the end of games. (For the conspiracy theorists out there)

When you beat teams by a lot of points, like the jazz often do, then those things don't come into play and you end up with a high point differential.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Ron Mexico]

I dont think there is a ton of skill in games that come down to a final shot or two. It seems to be luck. Players still shoot their averages on shots at the end of games more or less. Some go in some dont. Most teams that are really good at winning close games wont be the next year and visa versa. We have been more on the unlucky end of those, except in the playoffs the last few years.

 

[yamers]

Ok wow great

 

[colton]

The Pythagorean is how games you should have won based on point differential. If you tend to win close games, you do better than your Pythagorean. If you tend to lose close games, you do worse. No predictions are involved.

As a young teams still on the rise, I am OK with our record vs. the Pythagorean. It means we'll get even better.

Exactly. It doesn't really mean anything except we tend to lose close games and/or when we win, we tend to win by blowouts more frequently than most teams.