MAVS 108, PELS 92

[mavsluvr]

This is a great question! I won't answer because then I'd have to admit to being Mark Followill. 

Here's a question back to you: If ALL you know is that a team got outscored for 48 minutes, do you konw anything about their performance?

And @"mavsluvr" , if you have your ears on, if a team got outscored for 48 X 82 minutes, would that say anything about their performance, even if the thing it says is very general?

Are you talking about losing every game, or accumulating a negative point differential over a season? 

If we are talking about losing every game, sure. I would think they were either tanking, which involves intentionally performing badly, or just performing badly enough as a group to lose every game. 

If we are talking about having a negative point differential over a season, that wouldn't necessarily make me think they are a bad team. You can have a positive win-loss record with a negative point differential. (Look at the Mavs' ten-game stats, for example.) Teams with a negative point differential have made the playoffs. Or, for example, they could be a well-oiled machine that had two of their stars incur season-ending injuries fifteen games before the season ends. 

Also, performance, in its usual sense, takes account of expectations. A team that came up from last in the league to having a -1 total point differential over the season might be considered to have performed very well, and vice versa.  

However, in either case I would not at all think that a losing record or a negative point differential meant that every player on the team played badly. It is pretty common for young bad teams to have outstanding young players, and no one dismisses them because of their team's season-long point differential or record.

Sports inherently involve an element of randomness, which means that the better team, or even the team that plays better that night, doesn't always win the game. It's part of what makes sports exciting. If we wanted to see a competition where randomness isn't a factor, we could watch a chess game. 

I have never taken the position that +/- is a worthless statistical tool. In fact, I think it is a very valuable tool when it is used properly. I also think it can be misleading, and it is easy for a fan to think it proves more than it does. I think it can be related to performance, but doesn't tell you anything specific about performance, unless you simply define performance to mean having a good +/-.