We survived the NBA’s worst day with a 4-4 record and did win the game I singled out as liking the most, so can’t complain too much. Just two games on the schedule, so we’ll get those, as well as a little bit on the adjustments we’ll make during the break.
Washington at Indiana: The Wizards are favored by 2 and the total is 216.5. Our mathematical projections are in the 207 to 210 range, but the number is higher in part due to Washington’s recent scoring surge, which has seen them average 117.2 points over the last five games. But four of five of those games were at home, where the Wizards score more and the lone road game was at Brooklyn.
Our Points Per Possession method calls for 211.7 points to be scored before we make the 6.5-point adjustment, which will bring it down to 205.2 points, while the PPP method that doesn’t make any adjustments to team figures compared to the league average calls for 214.6 points to be scored before the 6.5-point adjustment. Moving forward, we’ll take unders before the point adjustment is made. If the total on a game is 208 and our PPP gives a 210, which will become a 203.5 after the adjustment, it will become a pass. Likewise, we’ll take overs after the adjustment is made, which in this case our 203.5 is less than 208, so it also will become a pass.
So the Pacers becomes an under play, meeting all the requirements of the mathematical systems and still calling for an under before our PPP point adjustment is factored in.
Boston at Chicago: The total here is at 212 and the mathematical systems are calling for an under, but our non-adjusted PPP methods are calling for an over, so it will become a pass on the basis of the PPP method that factors in adjustments based on where a team stands compared to the league average.
So looking ahead, we’ll be armed with one mathematical system and two PPP methods, one using raw numbers and one adjusted to factor in difference from league average. I may incorporate Bob McCune’s Deviation Factor into the equation or at the least, keep separate tabs on it and see how it does when in agreement with our other methods. There are two different avenues to go with the Deviation Factor, the first using the numbers he originally created and the second using a multiplier of 1.5. I’ll do a little back-testing during the break and see how much of a difference there is between the two methods.