4 ms·

An alternative explanation is simply that a lead of 11 points tends to dwindle because the good players relax at less than maximum effort while on the court whe

by T-hawk 13y ago

An alternative explanation is simply that a lead of 11 points tends to dwindle because the good players relax at less than maximum effort while on the court when the win is in hand. That would be statistically indistinguishable from intentional point shaving. (In fact, it IS emergent point shaving, just without any sinister motive.) This also explains the postseason discrepancy, that players wouldn't let up in a tournament game. The correct resolution would be for the pregame betting line to account for that tendency, taking into account the favorite's likelihood to coast during garbage time.

dhimes 13y ago
Definitely good points. Down by 11 points with little time left a losing team takes risks- such as fouling in shooting situations- that the winning team doesn't take. The winning team tends to stall. Of course, it may also just be hard to pick an 11 point spread. I wonder how many won by more than the spread?
jonnathanson 13y ago
It's certainly plausible, but in theory, the point spread is supposed to account for that effect (among all other natural factors involved in play). As you suggest in your second paragraph. Intellectually, of course, I tend to assume the Occam's Razor solution (i.e., natural variance and other effects over deliberate fixing) in most cases. I'm not one for conspiracy theories as a first line of thinking. And I think a bigger sample size is needed to begin with. Another thing to keep in mind is that -- at least in theory -- players aren't supposed to be cognizant of a point spread when playing. If we wanted to detect deliberate point shaving, we'd need to look at instances where the player behaved as if he was very aware of the spread and was actively trying to manage it. For example, he actively takes possession of the ball and runs out the clock, misses easy shots, passes into heavy coverage, and then reverses course to correct when/if he goes too far. Basically, the behavior of someone who's trying hard in either direction, as opposed to someone who just tries hard to secure the win and then lets up.

by T-hawk 13y ago

dhimes 13y ago

Definitely good points. Down by 11 points with little time left a losing team takes risks- such as fouling in shooting situations- that the winning team doesn't take. The winning team tends to stall. Of course, it may also just be hard to pick an 11 point spread. I wonder how many won by more than the spread?

jonnathanson 13y ago

It's certainly plausible, but in theory, the point spread is supposed to account for that effect (among all other natural factors involved in play). As you suggest in your second paragraph. Intellectually, of course, I tend to assume the Occam's Razor solution (i.e., natural variance and other effects over deliberate fixing) in most cases. I'm not one for conspiracy theories as a first line of thinking. And I think a bigger sample size is needed to begin with. Another thing to keep in mind is that -- at least in theory -- players aren't supposed to be cognizant of a point spread when playing. If we wanted to detect deliberate point shaving, we'd need to look at instances where the player behaved as if he was very aware of the spread and was actively trying to manage it. For example, he actively takes possession of the ball and runs out the clock, misses easy shots, passes into heavy coverage, and then reverses course to correct when/if he goes too far. Basically, the behavior of someone who's trying hard in either direction, as opposed to someone who just tries hard to secure the win and then lets up.