As I think I have said before, I am working on a system that predicts NBA games against the spread. I am still waiting for a big enough sample size to be completely confident in my system, but I have had some limited success recently.
In its simplest form, my system tracks every possession of every team and measures how the team performs per possession against what the average NBA team does (on both offense and defense). I was unhappy with how the initial system worked, so I tweaked the system to have four different variations -- my original version, a recent performace (last 10 games) version, a weighted version (that weighs more heavily recent performance), and a version that is weighted and incorporates some regression to the mean.
Once I have reached my threshold sample size, I will begin posting picks for recording purposes. For right now, my best performing system is the weighted one with regression to the mean, which has gone 30-18-1 since I have started tracking it.
I have two concerns that I have yet to effectively address. I am trying to incorporate something that accounts for back-to-backs since it seems that teams play worse on the second half of them. Also, when I expect a team to win in a blowout, I have not found an effective way to account for garbage time.
I expect to begin posting picks early in the new year (once all teams have played 30 games).
12.21.2008
New Rankings
Here are the most updated rankings (through games played on 12/20)...
CLE...........214.24
BOS...........211.49
LAL...........207.36
NOH...........205.39
ORL...........205.16
POR...........205.11
DEN...........203.99
HOU...........203.33
ATL...........203.36
SAS...........202.88
DAL...........202.07
PHO...........201.89
UTA...........201.40
CHI...........199.87
IND...........199.31
DET...........199.06
MIA...........198.63
TOR...........198.12
CHA...........197.60
PHI...........197.59
MIL...........197.35
NJN...........197.33
NYK...........196.98
MEM...........195.50
LAC...........195.05
GSW...........194.37
WAS...........193.47
SAC...........191.85
MIN...........191.72
OKC...........190.36
Given their most recent performances, it is remarkable that the Nuggets are still 7th. This can probably be atrributed to the fact that there are only about five teams playing well so far (with Utah and San Antonio to join them soon). The bad news is that they play a really good Portland team twice next. They will be lucky to win one of those games.
Boston projects to be better than they were last year. The crazy thing is that it appears that Cleveland is significantly better than the defending champs. It looks like we are headed for one heck of an Eastern Conference Finals. I don't expect Cleveland's performance to continue, but if it does, they will be the best team in NBA history (numbers-wise). So, the Nuggets shouldn't be too embarassed by their home defeat the other night.
The Lakers have lost their defense. In their first few games, they were the best defensive team in the NBA, but in their last ten games they are playing at 97% of the level of an NBA average team. That is not the stuff of the juggernaut people (including myself) were making them out to be. The Lakers numbers for the last ten games give them a rating of 200.43, making them an NBA average team. Since they are immensely talented, I do not expect this to continue.
I was not the biggest AI or Camby fan when they were on the Nuggets. Camby because he brought nothing to the table offensively and AI because he was bad on defense and was incredibly inefficient on offense. Well, the Nuggets got rid of both of them and seem to be better, while both the Clippers and the Pistons (AI and Camby's new teams) are worse than expected.
I will post a wagering update later today...
CLE...........214.24
BOS...........211.49
LAL...........207.36
NOH...........205.39
ORL...........205.16
POR...........205.11
DEN...........203.99
HOU...........203.33
ATL...........203.36
SAS...........202.88
DAL...........202.07
PHO...........201.89
UTA...........201.40
CHI...........199.87
IND...........199.31
DET...........199.06
MIA...........198.63
TOR...........198.12
CHA...........197.60
PHI...........197.59
MIL...........197.35
NJN...........197.33
NYK...........196.98
MEM...........195.50
LAC...........195.05
GSW...........194.37
WAS...........193.47
SAC...........191.85
MIN...........191.72
OKC...........190.36
Given their most recent performances, it is remarkable that the Nuggets are still 7th. This can probably be atrributed to the fact that there are only about five teams playing well so far (with Utah and San Antonio to join them soon). The bad news is that they play a really good Portland team twice next. They will be lucky to win one of those games.
Boston projects to be better than they were last year. The crazy thing is that it appears that Cleveland is significantly better than the defending champs. It looks like we are headed for one heck of an Eastern Conference Finals. I don't expect Cleveland's performance to continue, but if it does, they will be the best team in NBA history (numbers-wise). So, the Nuggets shouldn't be too embarassed by their home defeat the other night.
The Lakers have lost their defense. In their first few games, they were the best defensive team in the NBA, but in their last ten games they are playing at 97% of the level of an NBA average team. That is not the stuff of the juggernaut people (including myself) were making them out to be. The Lakers numbers for the last ten games give them a rating of 200.43, making them an NBA average team. Since they are immensely talented, I do not expect this to continue.
I was not the biggest AI or Camby fan when they were on the Nuggets. Camby because he brought nothing to the table offensively and AI because he was bad on defense and was incredibly inefficient on offense. Well, the Nuggets got rid of both of them and seem to be better, while both the Clippers and the Pistons (AI and Camby's new teams) are worse than expected.
I will post a wagering update later today...
11.29.2008
Big Four?
Here are my rankings after most teams have now played 15 games. You will notice that there is one team unexpectantly making a run after the undisputed top three.
LA Lakers...........212.48
Cleveland Cavs......211.58
Boston Celtics......208.48
Portland Blazers....207.43
Orlando Magic.......204.93
Houston Rockets.....204.01
New Orleans.........203.32
Dallas Mavericks....202.76
Denver Nuggets......202.45
Atlanta Hawks.......201.84
Indiana Pacers......201.59
San Antonio Spurs...201.45
Toronto Raptors.....201.43
Miami Heat..........201.22
Phoenix Suns........201.22
Utah Jazz...........200.85
Detroit Pistons.....200.78
Chicago Bulls.......200.69
Milwaukee Bucks.....199.01
Philadelphia 76ers..197.86
Charlotte Bobcats...197.78
New Jersey Nets.....196.95
New York Knicks.....194.55
Golden State........194.50
Minnesota Twolves...194.47
Memphis Grizzlies...193.91
Sacramento Kings....193.24
Washington Wizards..193.03
LA Clippers.........191.36
OKC Thunder.........188.09
Now we have a big enough sample size to make some observations.
1. Portland might be really good.
I get the feeling this might be partially a fluke (they have had two really big blowouts and it is still early). They have the second best offense and a slightly above average defense. If Oden ever turns out to be the defensive stopper experts think he will become, it will be an ugly next couple of years for the Nuggets.
2. Cleveland is almost as good as the Lakers.
Cleveland has surprised everyone in the world with the best offense in the NBA. And it isn't even close. The Lakers, on the other hand, have the best defense in the NBA. We know from last year that they also have the ability to play the best offense in the NBA. It will be horrible for the NBA when they put it all together. I expect, in the long term that the Lakers will put some distance between themselves and everyone else because I get the feeling right now they are toying with teams during the first half and then killing them in the second. At this point, both of these teams project to win over 65 games.
3. Utah is coming. Watch out.
The Jazz have had every problem imaginable and are still an above average team. They will be trouble for the Nuggets (and everybody else) in the future.
4. The Nuggets are pretty good.
Thank God. The Billups trade changed everything. They have a barely above average offense and an above average defense. The problem for them is that they play in a nasty division. I expect them to get better on offense as George Karl starts to figure out how the pieces fit (and stops playing Dahntay Jones). The interesting thing is that they are better than the Pistons, who took away the *great* Allen Iverson. I would like to say that Detroit's fall is not all attributable to Allen Iverson, but...it is. And practice isn't going to help.
5. Oklahoma City's offense is historically bad.
No one really cares about the Thunder, but it is worth mentioning that supposed star Kevin Durant can't even get the Thunder offense within 10 points per hundred possessions of average.
LA Lakers...........212.48
Cleveland Cavs......211.58
Boston Celtics......208.48
Portland Blazers....207.43
Orlando Magic.......204.93
Houston Rockets.....204.01
New Orleans.........203.32
Dallas Mavericks....202.76
Denver Nuggets......202.45
Atlanta Hawks.......201.84
Indiana Pacers......201.59
San Antonio Spurs...201.45
Toronto Raptors.....201.43
Miami Heat..........201.22
Phoenix Suns........201.22
Utah Jazz...........200.85
Detroit Pistons.....200.78
Chicago Bulls.......200.69
Milwaukee Bucks.....199.01
Philadelphia 76ers..197.86
Charlotte Bobcats...197.78
New Jersey Nets.....196.95
New York Knicks.....194.55
Golden State........194.50
Minnesota Twolves...194.47
Memphis Grizzlies...193.91
Sacramento Kings....193.24
Washington Wizards..193.03
LA Clippers.........191.36
OKC Thunder.........188.09
Now we have a big enough sample size to make some observations.
1. Portland might be really good.
I get the feeling this might be partially a fluke (they have had two really big blowouts and it is still early). They have the second best offense and a slightly above average defense. If Oden ever turns out to be the defensive stopper experts think he will become, it will be an ugly next couple of years for the Nuggets.
2. Cleveland is almost as good as the Lakers.
Cleveland has surprised everyone in the world with the best offense in the NBA. And it isn't even close. The Lakers, on the other hand, have the best defense in the NBA. We know from last year that they also have the ability to play the best offense in the NBA. It will be horrible for the NBA when they put it all together. I expect, in the long term that the Lakers will put some distance between themselves and everyone else because I get the feeling right now they are toying with teams during the first half and then killing them in the second. At this point, both of these teams project to win over 65 games.
3. Utah is coming. Watch out.
The Jazz have had every problem imaginable and are still an above average team. They will be trouble for the Nuggets (and everybody else) in the future.
4. The Nuggets are pretty good.
Thank God. The Billups trade changed everything. They have a barely above average offense and an above average defense. The problem for them is that they play in a nasty division. I expect them to get better on offense as George Karl starts to figure out how the pieces fit (and stops playing Dahntay Jones). The interesting thing is that they are better than the Pistons, who took away the *great* Allen Iverson. I would like to say that Detroit's fall is not all attributable to Allen Iverson, but...it is. And practice isn't going to help.
5. Oklahoma City's offense is historically bad.
No one really cares about the Thunder, but it is worth mentioning that supposed star Kevin Durant can't even get the Thunder offense within 10 points per hundred possessions of average.
11.16.2008
Why Play a Bad Starting Lineup?
I am not a fan of George Karl's coaching. Mostly because he doesn't seem to know things that a paid professional should know. My biggest problem with him is that he tends to play lineups that are unproductive more than he plays lineups that are productive.
For instance, the current starting lineup for the Nuggets is Billups, Jones, Anthony, Martin, and Nene. This is also the Nuggets lineup that has seen the most minutes this season. Unfortunately for those of us who are fans of the Nuggets, this oft-used lineup has been outscored this season 98-95 (over the course of 80 possessions).
When I first heard about the Chauncey Billups trade, I assumed the starting lineup would be Billups, Smith, Anthony, Martin, and Nene. This lineup has outscored its opponents 37-30 this season, but has only played about 34 possessions.
To put these lineups in equal terms, the starting lineup has a -5.30 efficiency differential, and the lineup with Smith instead of Jones in it has an efficiency differential of +15.07. Obviously, this is a small sample size, but it appears that the lesser used lineup is better. However, it would probably take an act of God for George Karl to play the better lineup more.
The argument could be made that the starting lineup is playing against *better* competition, so the comparison is unfair. That would be a good point. However, the Nuggets' comeback tonight occurred with the Wolves' best lineup on the court and the lineup with J.R. Smith was on the floor for the Nuggets.
Another problem with our starting lineup is that it cannot rebound. This lineup only gets about 60% of the available defensive rebounds. Sixty percent! If your opponent gets an offensive rebound forty percent of the time, it will be nearly impossible to play good defense over a sustained period of time.
If these trends hold up over the course of the season, I would suggest reconsidering the starting lineup. However, given the fact that Karl did nearly the identical thing last year (overly played a poor starting lineup), I am not holding my breath.
For instance, the current starting lineup for the Nuggets is Billups, Jones, Anthony, Martin, and Nene. This is also the Nuggets lineup that has seen the most minutes this season. Unfortunately for those of us who are fans of the Nuggets, this oft-used lineup has been outscored this season 98-95 (over the course of 80 possessions).
When I first heard about the Chauncey Billups trade, I assumed the starting lineup would be Billups, Smith, Anthony, Martin, and Nene. This lineup has outscored its opponents 37-30 this season, but has only played about 34 possessions.
To put these lineups in equal terms, the starting lineup has a -5.30 efficiency differential, and the lineup with Smith instead of Jones in it has an efficiency differential of +15.07. Obviously, this is a small sample size, but it appears that the lesser used lineup is better. However, it would probably take an act of God for George Karl to play the better lineup more.
The argument could be made that the starting lineup is playing against *better* competition, so the comparison is unfair. That would be a good point. However, the Nuggets' comeback tonight occurred with the Wolves' best lineup on the court and the lineup with J.R. Smith was on the floor for the Nuggets.
Another problem with our starting lineup is that it cannot rebound. This lineup only gets about 60% of the available defensive rebounds. Sixty percent! If your opponent gets an offensive rebound forty percent of the time, it will be nearly impossible to play good defense over a sustained period of time.
If these trends hold up over the course of the season, I would suggest reconsidering the starting lineup. However, given the fact that Karl did nearly the identical thing last year (overly played a poor starting lineup), I am not holding my breath.
11.08.2008
First Team Rankings
If I knew what was good for me, I wouldn't post these until about the end of December in order to get a better sample size, but here is a look at my rankings of each team. Without explaining in too much detail, the basic idea is that I measure each team on a per-possession basis against the strength of its competition. A score of 100 is exactly league average. I then add the offense and 1/defense scores together so that the average score is 200. Here they are...
Atlanta.........217.15
LA Lakers.......208.05
Cleveland.......207.95
Miami...........207.52
Boston..........207.48
New Orleans.....206.46
Orlando.........205.48
Chicago.........204.96
Indiana.........204.08
Toronto.........203.69
Philadelphia....202.32
Detroit.........201.66
Houston.........201.33
Utah............200.91
Charlotte.......200.83
Portland........200.43
Memphis.........200.20
Phoenix.........199.11
Denver..........199.10
Dallas..........197.46
Golden State....197.18
New York........195.58
Milwaukee.......195.38
New Jersey......195.30
San Antonio.....194.33
Oklahoma City...193.47
Washington......191.40
LA Clippers.....190.89
Sacremento......189.72
Minnesota.......186.64
Denver is in the middle of the pack, which is pretty much what you would expect. The biggest surprise is that Atlanta is on top, and it isn't even close. This is what happens when you beat New Orleans, Philly, Orlando and Toronto. I don't actually believe that Atlanta is the best team in the league (Like I said, this is a tiny sample size), but it is striking how well the Hawks have played, especially on defense.
Since these numbers are only based on a few games there is no sense in performing more analysis because a lot of fluky things can happen in so few games.
Also, as I said, I have a new predictor tool that I am testing against the spread this year. Although it is incredibly early to try this, here are my predictions for the games tonight.
Here are the picks (the number next to the pick is the difference between the Vegas line and my numbers):
IND...1
ORL...6
MIA...11.5
CHI...0
MIL...4.5
POR...1
Theoretically, the larger the number above, the better the chance you win the bet. Therefore, Orlando, Miami, and Milwaukee are the best bets. Again, I expect these predictions to be way off as it is WAY too early in the season.
Atlanta.........217.15
LA Lakers.......208.05
Cleveland.......207.95
Miami...........207.52
Boston..........207.48
New Orleans.....206.46
Orlando.........205.48
Chicago.........204.96
Indiana.........204.08
Toronto.........203.69
Philadelphia....202.32
Detroit.........201.66
Houston.........201.33
Utah............200.91
Charlotte.......200.83
Portland........200.43
Memphis.........200.20
Phoenix.........199.11
Denver..........199.10
Dallas..........197.46
Golden State....197.18
New York........195.58
Milwaukee.......195.38
New Jersey......195.30
San Antonio.....194.33
Oklahoma City...193.47
Washington......191.40
LA Clippers.....190.89
Sacremento......189.72
Minnesota.......186.64
Denver is in the middle of the pack, which is pretty much what you would expect. The biggest surprise is that Atlanta is on top, and it isn't even close. This is what happens when you beat New Orleans, Philly, Orlando and Toronto. I don't actually believe that Atlanta is the best team in the league (Like I said, this is a tiny sample size), but it is striking how well the Hawks have played, especially on defense.
Since these numbers are only based on a few games there is no sense in performing more analysis because a lot of fluky things can happen in so few games.
Also, as I said, I have a new predictor tool that I am testing against the spread this year. Although it is incredibly early to try this, here are my predictions for the games tonight.
Here are the picks (the number next to the pick is the difference between the Vegas line and my numbers):
IND...1
ORL...6
MIA...11.5
CHI...0
MIL...4.5
POR...1
Theoretically, the larger the number above, the better the chance you win the bet. Therefore, Orlando, Miami, and Milwaukee are the best bets. Again, I expect these predictions to be way off as it is WAY too early in the season.
11.04.2008
Coming Soon...
Now that the NBA season is back in full swing, I will be posting again. I have come up with some adjustments to the team ranking system along with a game predictor that should become useful somewhere around the 1/3 mark of the season. I am working on a feature that will implement consistency rankings in order to determine the odds of winning (or covering, if you are a gambler), but it is taking a while because I have to be a lawyer for most of the useful part of the day.
I should have some preliminary rankings up once each team plays about five games (with the warning that they are essentially useless with the small sample size). In the meantime check out 82games.com for an upgrade on their adjusted plus-minus ranking system. It doesn't speak well for Carmelo Anthony.
I should have some preliminary rankings up once each team plays about five games (with the warning that they are essentially useless with the small sample size). In the meantime check out 82games.com for an upgrade on their adjusted plus-minus ranking system. It doesn't speak well for Carmelo Anthony.
7.06.2008
Which Free Agent Point Guard is Best for the Nuggets
Barring any unforseen trades, the Nuggets one position of need for next year is point guard (although a center who can make a layup would be nice also). This year's free agent class has plenty of point guards who can be had for the mid-level exception or less. The question is which one would be best for the Nuggets (assuming they keep Chucky Atkins and kick Anthony Carter to the curb). Here is the list of possible future Nuggets backup (or starting) point guards with analysis:
Shaun Livingston
Upside: Livingston was once the fourth overall pick in the NBA draft. He is also six-foot seven, which would be huge for the Nuggets' undersized backcourt. In 2005-2006, his assist percentage was equivalent to what Chris Paul did this year. He has a great handle, court vision, he plays a little defense and is still only 22 years old.
Downside: His knee is broken in about 237 places and was just cleared to play one-on-one drills. He has shown no indication of an ability to shoot the ball. He weighs about 180 pounds.
Overall: He has a good chance of being a league-average point guard when he recovers from injury. Needless to say, this is a significant upgrade from Anthony Carter.
Carlos Arroyo
Upside: He was good a couple of years ago (of course that was when Jerry Sloan coached him). For the most part, he hits his free throws.
Downside: his numbers have trended down the past couple of years. Doesn't get too many assists, yet calls himself a point guard. Doesn't shoot the rock very well from long range. Has a tendency to turn the ball over.
Overall: He would be a good fit for the Nuggets if you put a Puerto Rico jersey on him and tell him it is 2004.
Chris Duhon
Upside: He plays pretty good defense. He isn't a terrible three point shooter. His assist percentage is pretty good.
Downside: His midrange jumpshot makes Anthony Carter look like Richard Hamilton. He is undersized if you want to pair him with Allen Iverson. He REALLY likes to hit the clubs (to the point where he misses team meetings). He wasn't very good to begin with and is possibly getting worse.
Overall: With a couple more years of experience he has a chance to be the next Eric Snow. Perfect for the Knicks.
Jason Williams
Upside: As far as we know, he has never killed anyone. If the Nuggets signed him they would obliterate the team record for tattoos they set last year. He can occasionally hit a three pointer.
Downside: His best season was his rookie year and his worst year was last year. In a related story, he turns 33 this year. He shoots the ball terribly from the field and doesn't do a great job of helping others score. Putting it nicely, he takes ill-advised shots. He gets hurt opening the mail.
Overall: Thanks, but no thanks.
Jannero Pargo
Upside: People think he is good, so the Nuggets may get good publicity for signing him. Not bad at shooting from distance or shooting free throws.
Downside: He is a terrible shooter from inside the arc. He never passes the ball and uses a high percentage of possessions in a very inefficient manner. He is too small to play any semblance of defense. He couldn't get a rebound if it hit him in both hands.
Overall: He is a shooting guard trapped in a small point guard's body. That is the last thing the Nuggets need.
Sam Cassell/Damon Stoudemire
These guys are still alive?
Sebastian Telfair
Upside: He is still only 23 years old. He no longer keeps his gun in a pillowcase.
Downside: His coach somehow allowed him to take 114 threes last year. He has never had a season where he approached being a league-average point guard. He is a scoring point guard who can neither finish at the rim nor shoot the ball particularly well. He is an unwilling passer most of the time. He is one of the worst defensive point guards in the league. Minnesota sucks and they didn't even give him a qualifying offer.
Overall: He fixes exactly none of the Nuggets' problems.
Keyon Dooling
Upside: He plays really good defense. He is getting better at shooting from long range.
Downside: Doesn't really distribulte the ball.
Overall: Could be a good backup point guard option if the Nuggets think his 3 point shooting will continue to improve.
Jose Calderon
Upside: Everything
Downside: Nothing, maybe defense.
Overall: He is the perfect point guard for the Nuggets -- high assist rate, doesn't need the ball to be effective, and shoots tremendously. Too bad Toronto already signed him.
Louis Williams
Upside: He has taken a big step in getting better every year. He is a pretty good defender. He is only 21 years old. Changed from an unwilling passer to a willing one in the span of one year (although he resgressed a little last year). He is fast as hell with the ball and stopped turning it over last year.
Downside: He may not be a true point guard.
Overall: If the Nuggets can get him for the mid-level, they will be set at the PG position for the next five years. Too bad the Sixers will probably do everything possible to keep him.
Mario Chalmers
Upside: He has huge balls (see: taking championship-deciding three with hands in his face). He can shoot, defend and is pretty quick with the ball. He kept taking the ball from Derrick Rose in the championship game. When CDR was going off in the NCAA Final, the Jayhawks played a box and one with Chalmers defending CDR despite a four inch height differential. He was tested and succeeded at the highest levels of NCAA basketball.
Downside: He is not a free agent, but the Nuggets traded away the chance to draft him. He may be a shooting guard trapped in a point guard's body.
Overall: We better hope that Jordan runs the Bobcats into the ground the same way he did with the Wizards, or the Nuggets will regret not taking Chalmers.
FINAL DECISION
Try and do everything to get Louis Williams. If not, take a time machine back a couple of weeks and draft Mario Chalmers. Either way, really.
Shaun Livingston
Upside: Livingston was once the fourth overall pick in the NBA draft. He is also six-foot seven, which would be huge for the Nuggets' undersized backcourt. In 2005-2006, his assist percentage was equivalent to what Chris Paul did this year. He has a great handle, court vision, he plays a little defense and is still only 22 years old.
Downside: His knee is broken in about 237 places and was just cleared to play one-on-one drills. He has shown no indication of an ability to shoot the ball. He weighs about 180 pounds.
Overall: He has a good chance of being a league-average point guard when he recovers from injury. Needless to say, this is a significant upgrade from Anthony Carter.
Carlos Arroyo
Upside: He was good a couple of years ago (of course that was when Jerry Sloan coached him). For the most part, he hits his free throws.
Downside: his numbers have trended down the past couple of years. Doesn't get too many assists, yet calls himself a point guard. Doesn't shoot the rock very well from long range. Has a tendency to turn the ball over.
Overall: He would be a good fit for the Nuggets if you put a Puerto Rico jersey on him and tell him it is 2004.
Chris Duhon
Upside: He plays pretty good defense. He isn't a terrible three point shooter. His assist percentage is pretty good.
Downside: His midrange jumpshot makes Anthony Carter look like Richard Hamilton. He is undersized if you want to pair him with Allen Iverson. He REALLY likes to hit the clubs (to the point where he misses team meetings). He wasn't very good to begin with and is possibly getting worse.
Overall: With a couple more years of experience he has a chance to be the next Eric Snow. Perfect for the Knicks.
Jason Williams
Upside: As far as we know, he has never killed anyone. If the Nuggets signed him they would obliterate the team record for tattoos they set last year. He can occasionally hit a three pointer.
Downside: His best season was his rookie year and his worst year was last year. In a related story, he turns 33 this year. He shoots the ball terribly from the field and doesn't do a great job of helping others score. Putting it nicely, he takes ill-advised shots. He gets hurt opening the mail.
Overall: Thanks, but no thanks.
Jannero Pargo
Upside: People think he is good, so the Nuggets may get good publicity for signing him. Not bad at shooting from distance or shooting free throws.
Downside: He is a terrible shooter from inside the arc. He never passes the ball and uses a high percentage of possessions in a very inefficient manner. He is too small to play any semblance of defense. He couldn't get a rebound if it hit him in both hands.
Overall: He is a shooting guard trapped in a small point guard's body. That is the last thing the Nuggets need.
Sam Cassell/Damon Stoudemire
These guys are still alive?
Sebastian Telfair
Upside: He is still only 23 years old. He no longer keeps his gun in a pillowcase.
Downside: His coach somehow allowed him to take 114 threes last year. He has never had a season where he approached being a league-average point guard. He is a scoring point guard who can neither finish at the rim nor shoot the ball particularly well. He is an unwilling passer most of the time. He is one of the worst defensive point guards in the league. Minnesota sucks and they didn't even give him a qualifying offer.
Overall: He fixes exactly none of the Nuggets' problems.
Keyon Dooling
Upside: He plays really good defense. He is getting better at shooting from long range.
Downside: Doesn't really distribulte the ball.
Overall: Could be a good backup point guard option if the Nuggets think his 3 point shooting will continue to improve.
Jose Calderon
Upside: Everything
Downside: Nothing, maybe defense.
Overall: He is the perfect point guard for the Nuggets -- high assist rate, doesn't need the ball to be effective, and shoots tremendously. Too bad Toronto already signed him.
Louis Williams
Upside: He has taken a big step in getting better every year. He is a pretty good defender. He is only 21 years old. Changed from an unwilling passer to a willing one in the span of one year (although he resgressed a little last year). He is fast as hell with the ball and stopped turning it over last year.
Downside: He may not be a true point guard.
Overall: If the Nuggets can get him for the mid-level, they will be set at the PG position for the next five years. Too bad the Sixers will probably do everything possible to keep him.
Mario Chalmers
Upside: He has huge balls (see: taking championship-deciding three with hands in his face). He can shoot, defend and is pretty quick with the ball. He kept taking the ball from Derrick Rose in the championship game. When CDR was going off in the NCAA Final, the Jayhawks played a box and one with Chalmers defending CDR despite a four inch height differential. He was tested and succeeded at the highest levels of NCAA basketball.
Downside: He is not a free agent, but the Nuggets traded away the chance to draft him. He may be a shooting guard trapped in a point guard's body.
Overall: We better hope that Jordan runs the Bobcats into the ground the same way he did with the Wizards, or the Nuggets will regret not taking Chalmers.
FINAL DECISION
Try and do everything to get Louis Williams. If not, take a time machine back a couple of weeks and draft Mario Chalmers. Either way, really.
6.22.2008
Best Starting Lineups
Since starting lineups generally offer a team's best configuration of players (unless you are San Antonio) and get to play against the opponent's best players (at least for the first part of any game), I thought it would be a good idea to examine each NBA team's starting lineup. These rankings are based on the difference between offensive and defensive efficiency while a team's starting lineups are in the game. Without further ado, a ranking of the best NBA starting lineups:
Boston Celtics.............19.47
Los Angeles Lakers.........15.84
Golden State Warriors......14.60
Phoenix Suns...............12.63
Detroit Pistons............11.94
New Orleans Hornets........11.02
Dallas Mavericks...........10.88
Toronto Raptors............10.45
Houston Rockets.............5.97
San Antonio Spurs...........5.31
Chicago Bulls...............5.29
Sacramento Kings............4.85
Utah Jazz...................4.60
Cleveland Cavaliers.........3.38
Denver Nuggets..............2.68
LEAGUE AVERAGE..............2.65
Orlando Magic...............2.40
Washington Wizards..........2.07
Portland Trailblazers.......2.00
Atlanta Hawks...............0.46
Philadelphia 76ers.........-0.27
Minnesota Timberwolves.....-0.99
Indiana Pacers.............-1.90
New Jersey Nets............-2.08
Los Angeles Clippers.......-3.00
Charlotte Bobcats..........-3.93
Milwaukee Bucks............-4.82
Miami Heat.................-5.50
Seattle Supersonics........-9.16
Memphis Grizzlies.........-13.34
New Yorks Knicks..........-21.20
There are some interesting things to note about these numbers.
The two best starting lineups in the league also were the two teams that made it into the NBA finals. There was, however, a difference in how the two top teams used their starting lineups -- Boston's starting five played together for 2043 offensive possessions over the course of the season while the Lakers starting lineup (both the lineup used before and after the Gasol Heist) only played together for 1320 possessions.
The Nuggets have a league average starting lineup. There is nothing wrong with a league average starting lineup if your desire is to finish 41-41. A league average starting lineup does not hurt you (if you purport to be a "championship level" team) if you do not use that lineup for very long and you have a tremendous bench. The Nuggets use their starting lineup way too often for how poorly it performed. Their starting lineup played together for 1919 possessions, 23% of the Nuggets total possessions. The Nuggets other lineup formulations had a rating of +3.65, almost a full point better than their starting lineup. This suggests that the Nuggets had better lineup formulations on which to use such a high percentage of their possessions.
For instance, if the Nuggets had switched Eduardo Najera and J.R. Smith in for K-Mart and AC, that lineup's rating is +18.29 (remember, though, that this was probably achieved against lesser lineups). If you give this new starting lineup (Melo, AI, Camby, JR and Eddie Energy) the 1919 possessions used by the actual starting lineup and give the actual starting lineup the minutes used by what we are now calling our starting lineup, the Nuggets have a point differential of +6.77 per game. This is equivalent to that of a 57-58 win team (enough to win the Western Conference this year). Obviously, this is a little over-simplified, but it does demonstrate that use of a high percentage of possessions on a worthless lineup is a bad idea and can cost a team essential wins.
For those who supported eiher the Jason Kidd trade or the Shaq trade, I can only let you know that the trades were horrible for the Suns and the Mavericks (although you probably didn't need me to tell you that). The Mavericks' pre-Kidd starting lineup rating was +14.63 and after the trade it was +7.82. For the Suns, the pre Shaq rating was a whopping +16.71 and after the trade it was +6.70. As a Nuggets fans, this is encouraging because both of these teams figure to be significantly worse next year (and the Nuggets, presumably, won't waste 4100 possessions on AC at point guard).
Boston Celtics.............19.47
Los Angeles Lakers.........15.84
Golden State Warriors......14.60
Phoenix Suns...............12.63
Detroit Pistons............11.94
New Orleans Hornets........11.02
Dallas Mavericks...........10.88
Toronto Raptors............10.45
Houston Rockets.............5.97
San Antonio Spurs...........5.31
Chicago Bulls...............5.29
Sacramento Kings............4.85
Utah Jazz...................4.60
Cleveland Cavaliers.........3.38
Denver Nuggets..............2.68
LEAGUE AVERAGE..............2.65
Orlando Magic...............2.40
Washington Wizards..........2.07
Portland Trailblazers.......2.00
Atlanta Hawks...............0.46
Philadelphia 76ers.........-0.27
Minnesota Timberwolves.....-0.99
Indiana Pacers.............-1.90
New Jersey Nets............-2.08
Los Angeles Clippers.......-3.00
Charlotte Bobcats..........-3.93
Milwaukee Bucks............-4.82
Miami Heat.................-5.50
Seattle Supersonics........-9.16
Memphis Grizzlies.........-13.34
New Yorks Knicks..........-21.20
There are some interesting things to note about these numbers.
The two best starting lineups in the league also were the two teams that made it into the NBA finals. There was, however, a difference in how the two top teams used their starting lineups -- Boston's starting five played together for 2043 offensive possessions over the course of the season while the Lakers starting lineup (both the lineup used before and after the Gasol Heist) only played together for 1320 possessions.
The Nuggets have a league average starting lineup. There is nothing wrong with a league average starting lineup if your desire is to finish 41-41. A league average starting lineup does not hurt you (if you purport to be a "championship level" team) if you do not use that lineup for very long and you have a tremendous bench. The Nuggets use their starting lineup way too often for how poorly it performed. Their starting lineup played together for 1919 possessions, 23% of the Nuggets total possessions. The Nuggets other lineup formulations had a rating of +3.65, almost a full point better than their starting lineup. This suggests that the Nuggets had better lineup formulations on which to use such a high percentage of their possessions.
For instance, if the Nuggets had switched Eduardo Najera and J.R. Smith in for K-Mart and AC, that lineup's rating is +18.29 (remember, though, that this was probably achieved against lesser lineups). If you give this new starting lineup (Melo, AI, Camby, JR and Eddie Energy) the 1919 possessions used by the actual starting lineup and give the actual starting lineup the minutes used by what we are now calling our starting lineup, the Nuggets have a point differential of +6.77 per game. This is equivalent to that of a 57-58 win team (enough to win the Western Conference this year). Obviously, this is a little over-simplified, but it does demonstrate that use of a high percentage of possessions on a worthless lineup is a bad idea and can cost a team essential wins.
For those who supported eiher the Jason Kidd trade or the Shaq trade, I can only let you know that the trades were horrible for the Suns and the Mavericks (although you probably didn't need me to tell you that). The Mavericks' pre-Kidd starting lineup rating was +14.63 and after the trade it was +7.82. For the Suns, the pre Shaq rating was a whopping +16.71 and after the trade it was +6.70. As a Nuggets fans, this is encouraging because both of these teams figure to be significantly worse next year (and the Nuggets, presumably, won't waste 4100 possessions on AC at point guard).
6.21.2008
Best Defensive Starting Lineups
And here are the rankings of the defensive starting lineups in the NBA based on Defensive Efficiency:
Boston Celtics.............93.40
Los Angeles Clippers.......97.49
Houston Rockets............98.07
Dallas Mavericks...........98.29
Golden State Warriors.....100.19
Detroit Pistons...........101.09
Chicago Bulls.............102.35
Phoenix Suns..............103.30
Cleveland Cavaliers.......103.66
San Antonio Spurs.........103.71
Philadelphia 76ers........104.50
Los Angeles Lakers........104.54
New Orleans Hornets.......104.76
Orlando Magic.............105.04
Portland Trailblazers.....105.55
Atlanta Hawks.............105.64
Toronto Raptors...........105.97
New Jersey Nets...........108.02
Utah Jazz.................108.19
Miami Heat................108.73
Denver Nuggets............108.94
Sacramento Kings..........109.36
Charlotte Bobcats.........109.65
Seattle Supersonics.......110.36
Washington Wizards........110.41
Milwaukee Bucks...........110.97
Minnesota Timberwolves....111.67
Indiana Pacers............113.01
Memphis Grizzlies.........114.97
New York Knicks...........117.32
In this case, only nine teams are worse than the Nuggets on defense in their starting lineups. I can think of three things that would cause this: (1) Carmelo Anthony is playing, (2) Anthony Carter is playing, and (3)Eduardo Najera is not playing.
Next up are the +/- numbers for the starting lineups.
Boston Celtics.............93.40
Los Angeles Clippers.......97.49
Houston Rockets............98.07
Dallas Mavericks...........98.29
Golden State Warriors.....100.19
Detroit Pistons...........101.09
Chicago Bulls.............102.35
Phoenix Suns..............103.30
Cleveland Cavaliers.......103.66
San Antonio Spurs.........103.71
Philadelphia 76ers........104.50
Los Angeles Lakers........104.54
New Orleans Hornets.......104.76
Orlando Magic.............105.04
Portland Trailblazers.....105.55
Atlanta Hawks.............105.64
Toronto Raptors...........105.97
New Jersey Nets...........108.02
Utah Jazz.................108.19
Miami Heat................108.73
Denver Nuggets............108.94
Sacramento Kings..........109.36
Charlotte Bobcats.........109.65
Seattle Supersonics.......110.36
Washington Wizards........110.41
Milwaukee Bucks...........110.97
Minnesota Timberwolves....111.67
Indiana Pacers............113.01
Memphis Grizzlies.........114.97
New York Knicks...........117.32
In this case, only nine teams are worse than the Nuggets on defense in their starting lineups. I can think of three things that would cause this: (1) Carmelo Anthony is playing, (2) Anthony Carter is playing, and (3)Eduardo Najera is not playing.
Next up are the +/- numbers for the starting lineups.
Best Offensive Starting Lineups
The Nuggets are known by most as a team with a great offense. One would think that they would also have a great offensive starting lineup. Here are the Offensive Efficiencies of all NBA starting lineups (some lineups are adjusted for trades that occurred during the season):
Los Angeles Lakers.......120.38
Toronto Raptors..........116.42
Phoenix Suns.............115.93
New Orleans Hornets......115.78
Golden State Warriors....114.79
Sacramento Kings.........114.20
Detroit Pistons..........113.03
Boston Celtics...........112.87
Utah Jazz................112.79
Washington Wizards.......112.48
Denver Nuggets...........111.62
Indiana Pacers...........111.11
Minnesota Timberwolves...110.68
Dallas Mavericks.........109.17
San Antonio Spurs........108.02
Chicago Bulls............107.64
Portland Trailblazers....107.55
Orlando Magic............107.44
Cleveland Cavaliers......107.04
Milwaukee Bucks..........106.15
Atlanta Hawks............106.10
New Jersey Nets..........105.94
Charlotte Bobcats........105.72
Philadelphia 76ers.......104.23
Houston Rockets..........104.04
Miami Heat...............103.23
Memphis Grizzlies........101.63
Seattle Supersonics......101.20
New York Knicks...........96.12
Los Angeles Clippers......94.49
The Nuggets have the 11th best starting lineup in the league for offense. For a team with two superior offensive players, this does not speak well for the remaining players. But we knew that. What is probably more telling is what the efficiency differential is for each team's starting lineup. This will be forthcoming.
Los Angeles Lakers.......120.38
Toronto Raptors..........116.42
Phoenix Suns.............115.93
New Orleans Hornets......115.78
Golden State Warriors....114.79
Sacramento Kings.........114.20
Detroit Pistons..........113.03
Boston Celtics...........112.87
Utah Jazz................112.79
Washington Wizards.......112.48
Denver Nuggets...........111.62
Indiana Pacers...........111.11
Minnesota Timberwolves...110.68
Dallas Mavericks.........109.17
San Antonio Spurs........108.02
Chicago Bulls............107.64
Portland Trailblazers....107.55
Orlando Magic............107.44
Cleveland Cavaliers......107.04
Milwaukee Bucks..........106.15
Atlanta Hawks............106.10
New Jersey Nets..........105.94
Charlotte Bobcats........105.72
Philadelphia 76ers.......104.23
Houston Rockets..........104.04
Miami Heat...............103.23
Memphis Grizzlies........101.63
Seattle Supersonics......101.20
New York Knicks...........96.12
Los Angeles Clippers......94.49
The Nuggets have the 11th best starting lineup in the league for offense. For a team with two superior offensive players, this does not speak well for the remaining players. But we knew that. What is probably more telling is what the efficiency differential is for each team's starting lineup. This will be forthcoming.
6.07.2008
Lakers-Celtics From a Couple of Different Angles
Leading up to the NBA Finals, the consensus was that the Lakers were by far the best team in the League and that they would easily dispatch the Celtics. This was probably based on the Lakers' domination of the Western Conference Playoffs by sweeping a decent Nuggets team, beating the second best team in the regular season 4-2 in the second round, and destroying the defending champs in the WCFs.
Boston, on the other hand, was unimpressive en route to joining the Lakers in the NBA Finals. It took them seven games to squeak by the Hawks (however, that may have been the most lopsided seven game series ever, with Boston holding a +72 scoring margin in the series). They beat in the defending EC champs in seven, although it is uncear whether Cleveland has more than one player who is a threat on the offensive side of the ball. Boston finished on the upswing, though, by beating an underrated Detroit team in six (it feels wierd calling the Pistons underrated but that was what they had become after posting a 59-win season that no one seemed to really talk about).
So, the Lakers are going to be NBA champs, right?
Well, that depends on which numbers you believe.
Here are the playoff numbers for each team now that we have a decent sample size to consult:
DEFENSIVE QUOTIENT
LA Lakers..........4.87
Boston Celtics.....5.45
OFFENSIVE QUOTIENT
LA Lakers..........6.69
Boston Celtics.....1.84
ADJUSTED SCORING MARGIN
LA Lakers.........11.56
Boston Celtics.....7.29
Everyone's eyes were not deceiving them, the Lakers have been awesome during the playoffs. Their adjusted scoring margin of 11.56 would have easily lead the league this year (Boston led the league with 10.41 in the regular season). However, despite their maligned playoff performance, Boston has a better adjusted scoring margin in the playoffs than LA had in the regular season (7.29-7.18), a performance that should have resulted in an expected W/L record of 62-20. So, Boston's playoff performance is nothing to scoff at.
In case you were wondering, based on these playoff numbers alone, the Lakers have about a 68% chance of winning the series (not taking into account home court advantage because of the small sample size).
The regular season numbers tell a different story.
Defensive Quotient
Boston Celtics........7.96
LA Lakers.............1.71
Offensive Quotient
Boston Celtics........2.45
LA Lakers.............5.47
The Pau Gasol addition did little to change the overall numbers; after his addition, the Lakers had an OQ of 7.43 and a DQ of 0.28 (Therefore the ASM was only increased from 7.18 to 7.71 -- an increase that is only worth about 2 wins over the course of an entire season).
Based on the regular season numbers, the Celtics should win their home games 69% of the time and the Lakers should win their home games only 55% of the time. This means that based on the the regular season numbers, Boston should be favored to win just about as heavily as the Lakers are favored to win based on the playoff numbers. So, this series should be as even as they come (provided that Paul Pierce plays). When this is the case, I say you have to go with the team with homecourt advantage.
Celtics in seven.
UPDATE: I screwed up one of the calculations and just discovered that based on the regular season numbers, the Celtics should win their home games against the Lakers 81% of the time. This would appear to give Boston the advantage necessary to win the series in six. Because Boston won the series in six games, in the future, it may be proper to rely on regular season numbers over playoff numbers (this makes sense as it is a significantly larger sample size).
Boston, on the other hand, was unimpressive en route to joining the Lakers in the NBA Finals. It took them seven games to squeak by the Hawks (however, that may have been the most lopsided seven game series ever, with Boston holding a +72 scoring margin in the series). They beat in the defending EC champs in seven, although it is uncear whether Cleveland has more than one player who is a threat on the offensive side of the ball. Boston finished on the upswing, though, by beating an underrated Detroit team in six (it feels wierd calling the Pistons underrated but that was what they had become after posting a 59-win season that no one seemed to really talk about).
So, the Lakers are going to be NBA champs, right?
Well, that depends on which numbers you believe.
Here are the playoff numbers for each team now that we have a decent sample size to consult:
DEFENSIVE QUOTIENT
LA Lakers..........4.87
Boston Celtics.....5.45
OFFENSIVE QUOTIENT
LA Lakers..........6.69
Boston Celtics.....1.84
ADJUSTED SCORING MARGIN
LA Lakers.........11.56
Boston Celtics.....7.29
Everyone's eyes were not deceiving them, the Lakers have been awesome during the playoffs. Their adjusted scoring margin of 11.56 would have easily lead the league this year (Boston led the league with 10.41 in the regular season). However, despite their maligned playoff performance, Boston has a better adjusted scoring margin in the playoffs than LA had in the regular season (7.29-7.18), a performance that should have resulted in an expected W/L record of 62-20. So, Boston's playoff performance is nothing to scoff at.
In case you were wondering, based on these playoff numbers alone, the Lakers have about a 68% chance of winning the series (not taking into account home court advantage because of the small sample size).
The regular season numbers tell a different story.
Defensive Quotient
Boston Celtics........7.96
LA Lakers.............1.71
Offensive Quotient
Boston Celtics........2.45
LA Lakers.............5.47
The Pau Gasol addition did little to change the overall numbers; after his addition, the Lakers had an OQ of 7.43 and a DQ of 0.28 (Therefore the ASM was only increased from 7.18 to 7.71 -- an increase that is only worth about 2 wins over the course of an entire season).
Based on the regular season numbers, the Celtics should win their home games 69% of the time and the Lakers should win their home games only 55% of the time. This means that based on the the regular season numbers, Boston should be favored to win just about as heavily as the Lakers are favored to win based on the playoff numbers. So, this series should be as even as they come (provided that Paul Pierce plays). When this is the case, I say you have to go with the team with homecourt advantage.
Celtics in seven.
UPDATE: I screwed up one of the calculations and just discovered that based on the regular season numbers, the Celtics should win their home games against the Lakers 81% of the time. This would appear to give Boston the advantage necessary to win the series in six. Because Boston won the series in six games, in the future, it may be proper to rely on regular season numbers over playoff numbers (this makes sense as it is a significantly larger sample size).
5.28.2008
Ball Hogs?
It's easy to tell how many possessions a team has in a given game or given season (just ask Basketball Value). A more interesting question is how many possessions each individual player on the floor is responsible for and what percentage of team possessions is taken up by each player (in other words, who hogs the ball).
The way I see it, a possession ends in one of four ways: (1) a made FG, (2) a missed FG that is rebounded by the opponent, (3) some made FTs, (4) some missed FTs that are rebounded by the opponent, and (5) a turnover. A player gets individual credit for taking a possession when he causes any of these events. I came up with a formula that approximates possessions based on this (the formula also splits credit for a possession when an assist is involved).
The Nuggets had 8279 possessions on offense over the course of this past season. Based on my formula, here is how they were allocated individually:
Allen Iverson...........1977
Carmelo Anthony.........1687
Marcus Camby.............787
J.R. Smith...............734
Kenyon Martin............726
Linas Kleiza.............698
Anthony Carter...........697
Eduardo Najera...........408
Yakouba Diawara..........144
Chucky Atkins............126
Nene Hilario..............99
Bobby Jones...............77
Von Wafer.................44
Steven Hunter.............35
Taureen Green.............12
This only tells part of the story. One can also calculate a usage rate, which is the percentage of possessions a player uses while he is on the court. Obviously, a "normal" usage rate is 20% (if the team split its possessions exactly equally among all five players on the court). No team works this way in the real world, especially if the team has two superstars who use a large percentage of possessions.
Here are the usage rates for the Nuggets last season:
Carmelo Anthony...........28.9
Allen Iverson.............27.7
J.R. Smith................24.5
Nene Hilario..............18.3
Linas Kleiza..............17.7
Anthony Carter............17.0
Chucky Atkins.............17.0
Kenyon Martin.............16.2
Steven Hunter.............14.4
Marcus Camby..............13.6
Yakouba Diawara...........12.7
Eduardo Najera............11.8
Again, these numbers represent the percentage of possessions a player uses while he is on the court. That is why Steven Hunter can have a higher number than Marcus Camby, who obviously plays significantly more.
It is amazing that only three Nuggets have usage rate higher than 20. This is because such a large percentage of plays are used by 'Melo and AI. When both of them are on the court, they use a combined 56.5 percent of the available possessions. This does not leave much for everyone else.
Now that we know how many possessions each player accounts for individually, we can calculate how efficiently each player uses his allocated possessions. I do that by calculating how many points a player accounts for and divide it by how many possessions he uses.
Here are the individual offensive efficiencies for the Nuggets players last season (points produced per 100 possessions):
Linas Kleiza.............116.87
J.R. Smith...............115.93
Allen Iverson............114.19
Carmelo Anthony..........111.23
Eduardo Najera...........110.93
Kenyon Martin............110.62
NUGGETS AVERAGE..........109.60
LEAGUE AVERAGE...........106.96
Yakouba Diawara..........106.34
Bobby Jones..............104.43
Anthony Carter............99.92
Marcus Camby..............98.89
Chucky Atkins.............97.70
Steven Hunter.............96.61
Taureen Green.............91.58
Nene Hilario..............84.94
Von Wafer.................59.81
It is mildly surprising that Linas Kleiza is the most efficient Nuggets player on offense. Three point shooters often look really good under this system because they have many possessions where they generate three points (a 300.00 rating). Also, he uses a relatively low percentage of possessions (17.7). It is not necessarily the case that Kleiza would maintain this efficiency if he used a higher percentage of possessions, because in that case, it would be likely that the defense would focus on him.
AI's numbers are remarkable. Defenses prepare for him, he uses a large percentage of possessions, and he averages over 7 points per 100 possessions better than the average NBA player. Needless to say, he is very valuable for this exact reason.
It is interesting to note that two of the Nuggets starters are well below average on offense (Camby and Carter). This probably helps explain why it is easier to defend the AI-Melo duo. Defenses can basically ignore two players and focus on the superstars. This is why the Nuggets lineups with shooters (Smith, Najera, and Kleiza) are significantly better on offense.
The way I see it, a possession ends in one of four ways: (1) a made FG, (2) a missed FG that is rebounded by the opponent, (3) some made FTs, (4) some missed FTs that are rebounded by the opponent, and (5) a turnover. A player gets individual credit for taking a possession when he causes any of these events. I came up with a formula that approximates possessions based on this (the formula also splits credit for a possession when an assist is involved).
The Nuggets had 8279 possessions on offense over the course of this past season. Based on my formula, here is how they were allocated individually:
Allen Iverson...........1977
Carmelo Anthony.........1687
Marcus Camby.............787
J.R. Smith...............734
Kenyon Martin............726
Linas Kleiza.............698
Anthony Carter...........697
Eduardo Najera...........408
Yakouba Diawara..........144
Chucky Atkins............126
Nene Hilario..............99
Bobby Jones...............77
Von Wafer.................44
Steven Hunter.............35
Taureen Green.............12
This only tells part of the story. One can also calculate a usage rate, which is the percentage of possessions a player uses while he is on the court. Obviously, a "normal" usage rate is 20% (if the team split its possessions exactly equally among all five players on the court). No team works this way in the real world, especially if the team has two superstars who use a large percentage of possessions.
Here are the usage rates for the Nuggets last season:
Carmelo Anthony...........28.9
Allen Iverson.............27.7
J.R. Smith................24.5
Nene Hilario..............18.3
Linas Kleiza..............17.7
Anthony Carter............17.0
Chucky Atkins.............17.0
Kenyon Martin.............16.2
Steven Hunter.............14.4
Marcus Camby..............13.6
Yakouba Diawara...........12.7
Eduardo Najera............11.8
Again, these numbers represent the percentage of possessions a player uses while he is on the court. That is why Steven Hunter can have a higher number than Marcus Camby, who obviously plays significantly more.
It is amazing that only three Nuggets have usage rate higher than 20. This is because such a large percentage of plays are used by 'Melo and AI. When both of them are on the court, they use a combined 56.5 percent of the available possessions. This does not leave much for everyone else.
Now that we know how many possessions each player accounts for individually, we can calculate how efficiently each player uses his allocated possessions. I do that by calculating how many points a player accounts for and divide it by how many possessions he uses.
Here are the individual offensive efficiencies for the Nuggets players last season (points produced per 100 possessions):
Linas Kleiza.............116.87
J.R. Smith...............115.93
Allen Iverson............114.19
Carmelo Anthony..........111.23
Eduardo Najera...........110.93
Kenyon Martin............110.62
NUGGETS AVERAGE..........109.60
LEAGUE AVERAGE...........106.96
Yakouba Diawara..........106.34
Bobby Jones..............104.43
Anthony Carter............99.92
Marcus Camby..............98.89
Chucky Atkins.............97.70
Steven Hunter.............96.61
Taureen Green.............91.58
Nene Hilario..............84.94
Von Wafer.................59.81
It is mildly surprising that Linas Kleiza is the most efficient Nuggets player on offense. Three point shooters often look really good under this system because they have many possessions where they generate three points (a 300.00 rating). Also, he uses a relatively low percentage of possessions (17.7). It is not necessarily the case that Kleiza would maintain this efficiency if he used a higher percentage of possessions, because in that case, it would be likely that the defense would focus on him.
AI's numbers are remarkable. Defenses prepare for him, he uses a large percentage of possessions, and he averages over 7 points per 100 possessions better than the average NBA player. Needless to say, he is very valuable for this exact reason.
It is interesting to note that two of the Nuggets starters are well below average on offense (Camby and Carter). This probably helps explain why it is easier to defend the AI-Melo duo. Defenses can basically ignore two players and focus on the superstars. This is why the Nuggets lineups with shooters (Smith, Najera, and Kleiza) are significantly better on offense.
5.27.2008
Lakers-Spurs preview/review
Three games into the Western Conference Finals, we have a decent idea of how the Spurs and the Lakers match up. Here are how the season numbers play out for the teams in this series.
OFFENSIVE QUOTIENT:
Los Angeles Lakers.....5.47
San Antonio Spurs.....-0.20
DEFENSIVE QUOTIENT:
Los Angeles Lakers.....1.71
San Antonio Spurs......5.69
The Spurs are significantly better on defense and the Lakers are significantly better on offense. This is not a surprise. However, I had no idea that the Spurs were below average on offense. With Duncan, Parker and Ginobili, this is a serious indictment of the Spurs' supporting cast. Also, while the Lakers' offensive numbers are impressive, they are even more impressive after Gasol joined the team (+7.44), while still remaining above average on defense (+0.28).
Since the home/road splits have been more accurate this year, here are those full season numbers for each team:
OFFENSE
Lakers Home
Los Angeles Lakers........6.29
San Antonio Spurs........-2.67
Spurs Home
Los Angeles Lakers........4.63
San Antonio Spurs.........2.25
DEFENSE
Lakers Home
Los Angeles Lakers........3.24
San Antonio Spurs.........2.82
Spurs Home
Los Angeles Lakers........0.15
San Antonio Spurs.........8.53
These numbers lead to another series with a wide disparity between home and road performances for each team. So it is not a surprise that the road team has won each game.
A look backwards...
Each team has had approximately 282 possessions in this series. Based on the home raod splits from the numbers above, we would expect the Lakers to have outscored the Spurs by approximately 12.36 points over the course of the series. The actual difference between the two teams is 16 points. This shows that the numbers are fairly accurate and the fact that there has been a significant amount of garbage time in the last two games easily explains the difference between the two figures (although the difference amounts to an error of approximately one percent).
A look forward...
A safe bet would be to assume that each team will win their remaining home games. However, the Lakers have approximately a 48.8% chance of taking one of the remaining two games in San Antonio and the Spurs have a 32.9% chance of taking one of the two final games in LA. Because both of these percentages are below fifty, I would expect this to be a seven game series.
OFFENSIVE QUOTIENT:
Los Angeles Lakers.....5.47
San Antonio Spurs.....-0.20
DEFENSIVE QUOTIENT:
Los Angeles Lakers.....1.71
San Antonio Spurs......5.69
The Spurs are significantly better on defense and the Lakers are significantly better on offense. This is not a surprise. However, I had no idea that the Spurs were below average on offense. With Duncan, Parker and Ginobili, this is a serious indictment of the Spurs' supporting cast. Also, while the Lakers' offensive numbers are impressive, they are even more impressive after Gasol joined the team (+7.44), while still remaining above average on defense (+0.28).
Since the home/road splits have been more accurate this year, here are those full season numbers for each team:
OFFENSE
Lakers Home
Los Angeles Lakers........6.29
San Antonio Spurs........-2.67
Spurs Home
Los Angeles Lakers........4.63
San Antonio Spurs.........2.25
DEFENSE
Lakers Home
Los Angeles Lakers........3.24
San Antonio Spurs.........2.82
Spurs Home
Los Angeles Lakers........0.15
San Antonio Spurs.........8.53
These numbers lead to another series with a wide disparity between home and road performances for each team. So it is not a surprise that the road team has won each game.
A look backwards...
Each team has had approximately 282 possessions in this series. Based on the home raod splits from the numbers above, we would expect the Lakers to have outscored the Spurs by approximately 12.36 points over the course of the series. The actual difference between the two teams is 16 points. This shows that the numbers are fairly accurate and the fact that there has been a significant amount of garbage time in the last two games easily explains the difference between the two figures (although the difference amounts to an error of approximately one percent).
A look forward...
A safe bet would be to assume that each team will win their remaining home games. However, the Lakers have approximately a 48.8% chance of taking one of the remaining two games in San Antonio and the Spurs have a 32.9% chance of taking one of the two final games in LA. Because both of these percentages are below fifty, I would expect this to be a seven game series.
5.20.2008
Eastern Conference Finals Preview
It is probably wrong to do an analysis of a series after the first game, but the numbers I use are not affected by me watching a game, so here are the numbers for the Detroit-Boston matchup.
Again, I have calculated the offensive and defensive quotients for each teams and predicted the results accordingly.
Offensive Numbers:
Boston Celtics......2.45
Detroit Pistons.....3.01
The numbers demonstrate that both teams are above-average offenses and that Detroit is approximately a half a point better per 100 possessions than Boston.
Defensive Numbers:
Boston Celtics......7.96
Detroit Pistons.....4.23
Both teams have superior defenses, however, Boston's defense (as we knew) was unbelievable this year. Boston's defense was almost 8 points per 100 possessions better than the average NBA team. To put this in perspective, their defense was worth about 24-25 wins more than the average team. Although the Pistons are a good defensive team, the Celtics have a clear advantage in this series.
Based on these overall numbers, we can expect the Celtics to prevail in 63.16% of the games played between the teams. This means that the Celtics should win the series 76.87% of the time.
However, we have learned throughout the playoffs that the home-road split numbers are more accurate in determining an outcome than the overall numbers.
BOSTON HOME
Offense:
Boston Celtics.......2.84
Detroit Pistons......0.41
Defense:
Boston Celtics.......10.40
Detroit Pistons......1.74
DETROIT HOME
Offense:
Boston Celtics.......2.06
Detroit Pistons......5.62
Defense:
Boston Celtics.......5.53
Detroit Pistons......6.70
Obviously both teams have the advantage at home, however, Boston's advantage is striking. They are over 10 points better than the average NBA defense at home. Based on these numbers, Boston would be expected to win 86.65% of its home games in this series and Detroit would be expected to win 68.11% of its games at home.
Based on these numbers, the safest prediction is that Boston wins in 7 (although, Boston has a 68.4% chance to take one of the three games in Detroit -- I say "safest" pick because, in case you haven't heard, Boston hasn't played too well on the road recently).
Now that I have seen Game 1, we can take a look at how the numbers played out. My models predicted that Boston would win the first home game by a score of about 97-87. The actual score was 88-79. My prediction could have been off because of an incorrect calculation of the pace of the game or because each defense played better than the calculations bore out (or offenses played worse, whichever you prefer). I had to look deeper to see why the numbers were off.
My models predicted that the games in Boston would be played at about 91-92 possessions/game. Both teams played incredibly slow in the regular season (for example, about 11 possessions/game slower than the Nuggets) and there was no reason to expect that this would change. However, after looking at the game stat sheet, I realized that the game had about 84 possessions. This seems be due to Detroit's conscious effort to slow down the game to a snail's pace. This is a GREAT strategy when you are an underdog (as Detroit is in the games played in Boston). When I recalculate the outcome of Game 1 based on 84 possessions instead of 91-92, I get a final score of (no joke!) 88.49-79.00.
Although this evidence is admittedly a TINY sample size, it appears that I may be on to something.
Again, I have calculated the offensive and defensive quotients for each teams and predicted the results accordingly.
Offensive Numbers:
Boston Celtics......2.45
Detroit Pistons.....3.01
The numbers demonstrate that both teams are above-average offenses and that Detroit is approximately a half a point better per 100 possessions than Boston.
Defensive Numbers:
Boston Celtics......7.96
Detroit Pistons.....4.23
Both teams have superior defenses, however, Boston's defense (as we knew) was unbelievable this year. Boston's defense was almost 8 points per 100 possessions better than the average NBA team. To put this in perspective, their defense was worth about 24-25 wins more than the average team. Although the Pistons are a good defensive team, the Celtics have a clear advantage in this series.
Based on these overall numbers, we can expect the Celtics to prevail in 63.16% of the games played between the teams. This means that the Celtics should win the series 76.87% of the time.
However, we have learned throughout the playoffs that the home-road split numbers are more accurate in determining an outcome than the overall numbers.
BOSTON HOME
Offense:
Boston Celtics.......2.84
Detroit Pistons......0.41
Defense:
Boston Celtics.......10.40
Detroit Pistons......1.74
DETROIT HOME
Offense:
Boston Celtics.......2.06
Detroit Pistons......5.62
Defense:
Boston Celtics.......5.53
Detroit Pistons......6.70
Obviously both teams have the advantage at home, however, Boston's advantage is striking. They are over 10 points better than the average NBA defense at home. Based on these numbers, Boston would be expected to win 86.65% of its home games in this series and Detroit would be expected to win 68.11% of its games at home.
Based on these numbers, the safest prediction is that Boston wins in 7 (although, Boston has a 68.4% chance to take one of the three games in Detroit -- I say "safest" pick because, in case you haven't heard, Boston hasn't played too well on the road recently).
Now that I have seen Game 1, we can take a look at how the numbers played out. My models predicted that Boston would win the first home game by a score of about 97-87. The actual score was 88-79. My prediction could have been off because of an incorrect calculation of the pace of the game or because each defense played better than the calculations bore out (or offenses played worse, whichever you prefer). I had to look deeper to see why the numbers were off.
My models predicted that the games in Boston would be played at about 91-92 possessions/game. Both teams played incredibly slow in the regular season (for example, about 11 possessions/game slower than the Nuggets) and there was no reason to expect that this would change. However, after looking at the game stat sheet, I realized that the game had about 84 possessions. This seems be due to Detroit's conscious effort to slow down the game to a snail's pace. This is a GREAT strategy when you are an underdog (as Detroit is in the games played in Boston). When I recalculate the outcome of Game 1 based on 84 possessions instead of 91-92, I get a final score of (no joke!) 88.49-79.00.
Although this evidence is admittedly a TINY sample size, it appears that I may be on to something.
5.16.2008
Do the best teams really win the close games?
It seems to be a popular theory that the best teams in the NBA are those who execute down the stretch and win close games. Therefore, it would stand to reason that the best teams would have the best records in close games. However, this is not the case.
Here are the records of teams in games decided by three points or fewer in 2007-2008:
Portland Trailblazers...10-2
Golden State Wariors.....9-2
Houston Rockets..........9-3
New Jersey Nets..........7-3
New Orleans Hornets......8-4
Detroit Pistons..........5-3
San Antonio Spurs........8-6
Charlotte Bobcats........8-6
Utah Jazz................4-3
Indiana Pacers...........4-3
Chicago Bulls............4-3
Sacremento Kings........10-8
Cleveland Cavaliers.....10-8
Atlanta Hawks............6-5
Boston Celtics...........7-6
Denver Nuggets...........6-6
Orlando Magic............6-6
Torono Raptors...........3-3
Dallas Mavericks.........5-6
New York Knicks..........4-5
Seattle Supersonics......5-7
Milwaukee Bucks..........6-9
Los Angeles Lakers.......5-8
Washington Wizards.......5-9
Phoenix Suns.............3-5
Philadelphia 76ers.......4-8
Minnesota Timberwolves..4-8
LA Clippers..............2-5
Miami Heat..............3-11
Memphis Grizzlies.......2-11
This certainly does not look as though the best teams had the best record in close games. Unless, of course, you believe that the New Jersey Nets, Golden State Warriors, and Portland Trailblazers are three of the top five teams in the NBA. Also, the Lakers (who are considered to be one of the best teams in the NBA), fared among the worst in these close games. An argument could be made that these are small sample sizes and therefore statistically insignificant. This is not necessarily the case. For instance the Lakers record of 5-8 in close games would only happen by random chance 1.5% of the time. Therefore, it seems clear that in many cases, a team's record in close games has nothing to do with how good the team is.
On the contrary, a team's record in blowouts seems to be a much better indicator of how good a team is. Here are the records of teams in games decided by 10 or more points:
Boston Celtics............45-3
Los Angeles Lakers........37-9
Detroit Pistons..........37-10
Phoenix Suns..............31-9
Orlando Magic............34-12
San Antonio Spurs........31-11
Houston Rockets..........31-11
Utah Jazz................37-14
Dallas Mavericks.........29-11
New Orleans Hornets......37-15
Toronto Raptors..........26-16
Denver Nuggets...........29-18
Golden State Warriors....22-14
Washington Wizards.......26-19
Philadeplphia 76ers......18-20
Sacremento Kings.........17-23
Portland Trailblazers....15-22
Chicago Bulls............19-29
Indiana Pacers...........14-22
Cleveland Cavaliers......10-17
Charlotte Bobcats........12-24
Atlanta Hawks............11-24
Los Angeles Clippers.....10-35
Memphis Grizzlies........10-37
New Jersey Nets...........8-31
Minnesota Timberwolves...8-35
New York Knicks...........6-33
Milwaukee Bucks...........5-29
Seattle Supersonics.......5-37
Miami Heat................4-34
This looks a lot more like a ranking of the best teams. The top twelve teams all made the playoffs. It appears as though the teams that win blowouts are much likely to be better teams than those who win close games.
John Hollinger stated it well in a recent chat on ESPN.com:
Here are the records of teams in games decided by three points or fewer in 2007-2008:
Portland Trailblazers...10-2
Golden State Wariors.....9-2
Houston Rockets..........9-3
New Jersey Nets..........7-3
New Orleans Hornets......8-4
Detroit Pistons..........5-3
San Antonio Spurs........8-6
Charlotte Bobcats........8-6
Utah Jazz................4-3
Indiana Pacers...........4-3
Chicago Bulls............4-3
Sacremento Kings........10-8
Cleveland Cavaliers.....10-8
Atlanta Hawks............6-5
Boston Celtics...........7-6
Denver Nuggets...........6-6
Orlando Magic............6-6
Torono Raptors...........3-3
Dallas Mavericks.........5-6
New York Knicks..........4-5
Seattle Supersonics......5-7
Milwaukee Bucks..........6-9
Los Angeles Lakers.......5-8
Washington Wizards.......5-9
Phoenix Suns.............3-5
Philadelphia 76ers.......4-8
Minnesota Timberwolves..4-8
LA Clippers..............2-5
Miami Heat..............3-11
Memphis Grizzlies.......2-11
This certainly does not look as though the best teams had the best record in close games. Unless, of course, you believe that the New Jersey Nets, Golden State Warriors, and Portland Trailblazers are three of the top five teams in the NBA. Also, the Lakers (who are considered to be one of the best teams in the NBA), fared among the worst in these close games. An argument could be made that these are small sample sizes and therefore statistically insignificant. This is not necessarily the case. For instance the Lakers record of 5-8 in close games would only happen by random chance 1.5% of the time. Therefore, it seems clear that in many cases, a team's record in close games has nothing to do with how good the team is.
On the contrary, a team's record in blowouts seems to be a much better indicator of how good a team is. Here are the records of teams in games decided by 10 or more points:
Boston Celtics............45-3
Los Angeles Lakers........37-9
Detroit Pistons..........37-10
Phoenix Suns..............31-9
Orlando Magic............34-12
San Antonio Spurs........31-11
Houston Rockets..........31-11
Utah Jazz................37-14
Dallas Mavericks.........29-11
New Orleans Hornets......37-15
Toronto Raptors..........26-16
Denver Nuggets...........29-18
Golden State Warriors....22-14
Washington Wizards.......26-19
Philadeplphia 76ers......18-20
Sacremento Kings.........17-23
Portland Trailblazers....15-22
Chicago Bulls............19-29
Indiana Pacers...........14-22
Cleveland Cavaliers......10-17
Charlotte Bobcats........12-24
Atlanta Hawks............11-24
Los Angeles Clippers.....10-35
Memphis Grizzlies........10-37
New Jersey Nets...........8-31
Minnesota Timberwolves...8-35
New York Knicks...........6-33
Milwaukee Bucks...........5-29
Seattle Supersonics.......5-37
Miami Heat................4-34
This looks a lot more like a ranking of the best teams. The top twelve teams all made the playoffs. It appears as though the teams that win blowouts are much likely to be better teams than those who win close games.
John Hollinger stated it well in a recent chat on ESPN.com:
Will (NYC): I agree that some close games are 50/50 but those are in the minority. A big part of being a great team is the ability to show heart and win the close games. It's called performing under pressure and that is something that Boston showed they may be lacking greatly. That is why people are less confident in their chances.
John Hollinger: A lot of people believe that, but the evidence it isn't true is just overwhelming. Look at any team that was together for a number of years, even the great ones -- Jordan's Bulls, for instance -- and you'll find that the closer the score, the closer they are to .500. In other words, in games decided by two points or less they'd be almost exactly .500, even a team like the Bulls; in games decided by 15 points or more they'd be nearly 1.000. It's a fallacy that the good teams win the close games; the good teams win by 20. The lucky teams win the close games. There is no team in history that's been able to defy the correlation between scoring margin and wins over an extended period.
5.14.2008
So What is Going to Happen in the Utah-Los Angeles Series?
Here is a quick analysis of the Jazz-Lakers series and what I believe will occur in the remaining three games...
I calculate something called an Offensive Quotient and Defensive Quotient, which is a measurement of how each team performs in comparison with the average team over the course of 100 possessions. The resulting number represents the amount of points a given team is better (or worse) than the "average" NBA team. I use these numbers to calculate the outcome of any given game.
In the Jazz-Lakers series, it is clear that the teams are pretty close to equal.
Offensive Quotient:
Utah.........6.01
LA Lakers....5.46
Defensive Quotient:
Utah.........0.65
LA Lakers....1.71
These numbers demonstrate that the Jazz are about a half a point per game better than the Lakers on offense and about a full point worse than the Lakers on defense. However, both teams made major acquisitions during the season. Here are the numbers for the Jazz after acquiring Kyle Korver and the Lakers after acquiring Pau Gasol.
Offensive Quotient:
Utah..........7.85
LA Lakers.....7.43
Defensive Quotient:
Utah..........0.60
LA Lakers.....0.27
Both teams were absolutely ridiculous on offense after their trades and still slightly better than average on defense.
In the previous four games of the series the home team won. The question then is how the numbers play out if we use home-road splits (using numbers from the entire season):
HOME
LA Lakers
Offensive Quotient.......6.29
Defensive Quotient.......3.24
Utah Jazz
Offensive Quotient.......10.43
Defensive Quotient.......5.03
ROAD
LA Lakers
Offensive Quotient......4.63
Defensive Quotient......0.15
Utah Jazz
Offensive Quotient.......1.70
Defensive Quotient......-3.68
Obviously, each team is considerably better at home, especially the Jazz. This is nothing new. So how does this play out for the series?
Using post-Korver and post-Gasol numbers, you find that in a series of games with even home-road splits (like a 6 game series with 3 home game for each team), Utah would be expected to win 51.30% of the games with an average score of 108.05-107.71. However, as we know, this is a seven game series with the Lakers holding home court advantage. This significantly favors the Lakers (especially with the small sample size of only three games remaining).
The numbers show that in the average home game for the Lakers, they should beat the Jazz 83.23% of the time (Yikes!!). The average score should be 110.48-100.26 (obviously favoring the Lakers). Almost the exact opposite is true for Jazz home games. The Jazz should win home games against the Lakers 84.82% of the time by an average score of 112.39-101.25.
Since the Lakers have two home games to win two games and the Jazz have one home game and two more games to win, the significant advantage goes to the Lakers. Based on these numbers, the Lakers should win the series 74.83% of the time. This is probably consistent with popular opinion. However, if Utah wins tonight, their odds to win the series improve from 25.17% to 87.37%. Needless to say, whoever wins tonight, wins the series.
I calculate something called an Offensive Quotient and Defensive Quotient, which is a measurement of how each team performs in comparison with the average team over the course of 100 possessions. The resulting number represents the amount of points a given team is better (or worse) than the "average" NBA team. I use these numbers to calculate the outcome of any given game.
In the Jazz-Lakers series, it is clear that the teams are pretty close to equal.
Offensive Quotient:
Utah.........6.01
LA Lakers....5.46
Defensive Quotient:
Utah.........0.65
LA Lakers....1.71
These numbers demonstrate that the Jazz are about a half a point per game better than the Lakers on offense and about a full point worse than the Lakers on defense. However, both teams made major acquisitions during the season. Here are the numbers for the Jazz after acquiring Kyle Korver and the Lakers after acquiring Pau Gasol.
Offensive Quotient:
Utah..........7.85
LA Lakers.....7.43
Defensive Quotient:
Utah..........0.60
LA Lakers.....0.27
Both teams were absolutely ridiculous on offense after their trades and still slightly better than average on defense.
In the previous four games of the series the home team won. The question then is how the numbers play out if we use home-road splits (using numbers from the entire season):
HOME
LA Lakers
Offensive Quotient.......6.29
Defensive Quotient.......3.24
Utah Jazz
Offensive Quotient.......10.43
Defensive Quotient.......5.03
ROAD
LA Lakers
Offensive Quotient......4.63
Defensive Quotient......0.15
Utah Jazz
Offensive Quotient.......1.70
Defensive Quotient......-3.68
Obviously, each team is considerably better at home, especially the Jazz. This is nothing new. So how does this play out for the series?
Using post-Korver and post-Gasol numbers, you find that in a series of games with even home-road splits (like a 6 game series with 3 home game for each team), Utah would be expected to win 51.30% of the games with an average score of 108.05-107.71. However, as we know, this is a seven game series with the Lakers holding home court advantage. This significantly favors the Lakers (especially with the small sample size of only three games remaining).
The numbers show that in the average home game for the Lakers, they should beat the Jazz 83.23% of the time (Yikes!!). The average score should be 110.48-100.26 (obviously favoring the Lakers). Almost the exact opposite is true for Jazz home games. The Jazz should win home games against the Lakers 84.82% of the time by an average score of 112.39-101.25.
Since the Lakers have two home games to win two games and the Jazz have one home game and two more games to win, the significant advantage goes to the Lakers. Based on these numbers, the Lakers should win the series 74.83% of the time. This is probably consistent with popular opinion. However, if Utah wins tonight, their odds to win the series improve from 25.17% to 87.37%. Needless to say, whoever wins tonight, wins the series.
Introduction to Adjusted Scoring Margin
This year as I was preparing to fill out an NCAA bracket, I wanted to use something beyond the typical, "I saw North Carolina play, and they look pretty good." As most people who follow sports statistics know, scoring margin is the best predictor of future success. However, with the college game there is so much of a variance in the strength of schedule that pure scoring margin seems like a silly way to evaluate teams.
I decided to use a formula to determine how well teams performed against a given team based on how the other teams performed against that team. For example, let's take a situation where Team A beats Team B 80-70. Let's also say that Team B typically scores 65 points a game and gives up 85 points per game. Team A scored 80 points, but since Team B typically gives up 85 points, Team A actually performed 5 points worse than the "average" college offense (Offensive Quotient). On defense, Team A gave up 70 points, but since Team B typically only scores 65 points, Team A again performed 5 points worse than the average college defense (Defensive Quotient). By just looking at the game, Team A would get a +10 scoring margin, but with the adjusted scoring margin, Team A gets a -10 rating (the offensive quotient plus the defensive quotient). If you add a team's adjusted scoring margin ("ASM") for each game and divide by the number of games you can rate the teams accordingly. Obviously, a team with a zero ASM is average (negative is bad and positive is good).
So I threw the numbers together and found that Kansas was the best team followed by Memphis, *cough* Duke *cough*, North Carolina, and UCLA. So it seemed that a Final Four with the four number one seeds was likely (not a surprise that the numbers would bear this out). Once the Final Four came around and there were four number one seeds left, I calculated the outcomes of the games for one of my buddies who has a hypothetical gambling problem (to quote the Sports Guy, "if gambling were legal"). I told my buddy that the hypothetical lines were off and to take a Memphis-Kansas final. He made a lot of hypothetical money. Then he had me look at the final and I discovered that Kansas should have been a one point favorite. At the time Memphis was at -2 (hypothetically). So I told him to take Kansas. Shortly thereafter Rose disclosed that he was hurt and the line changed to favor Kansas. My buddy hypothetically took Kansas anyways because I said that they were better. One Mario Chalmers shot later (it was a close game as the numbers demonstrated) and a good overtime for Kansas and my buddy made a lot more hypothetical money.
My eventual design was to translate this to the NBA because it would be more effective since each team plays every other team at least twice. So I use the same system only I calculate how many points an average team would score or give up based on offensive and defensive efficiency. This method is particularly helpful early in the season when strength of schedule varies much more. Using offensive and defensive efficiency to determine strength of schedule is better than W/L record because records are often based on flukes (I will tackle this topic independently some day). The NBA ASM allows me to tell who has played the most difficult schedules (both on offense and defense), the best offensive teams, the best defensive teams and an expected outcome of any game.
I will begin doing a team-by-team assesment of the 2007-2008 season based on these numbers very soon.
I decided to use a formula to determine how well teams performed against a given team based on how the other teams performed against that team. For example, let's take a situation where Team A beats Team B 80-70. Let's also say that Team B typically scores 65 points a game and gives up 85 points per game. Team A scored 80 points, but since Team B typically gives up 85 points, Team A actually performed 5 points worse than the "average" college offense (Offensive Quotient). On defense, Team A gave up 70 points, but since Team B typically only scores 65 points, Team A again performed 5 points worse than the average college defense (Defensive Quotient). By just looking at the game, Team A would get a +10 scoring margin, but with the adjusted scoring margin, Team A gets a -10 rating (the offensive quotient plus the defensive quotient). If you add a team's adjusted scoring margin ("ASM") for each game and divide by the number of games you can rate the teams accordingly. Obviously, a team with a zero ASM is average (negative is bad and positive is good).
So I threw the numbers together and found that Kansas was the best team followed by Memphis, *cough* Duke *cough*, North Carolina, and UCLA. So it seemed that a Final Four with the four number one seeds was likely (not a surprise that the numbers would bear this out). Once the Final Four came around and there were four number one seeds left, I calculated the outcomes of the games for one of my buddies who has a hypothetical gambling problem (to quote the Sports Guy, "if gambling were legal"). I told my buddy that the hypothetical lines were off and to take a Memphis-Kansas final. He made a lot of hypothetical money. Then he had me look at the final and I discovered that Kansas should have been a one point favorite. At the time Memphis was at -2 (hypothetically). So I told him to take Kansas. Shortly thereafter Rose disclosed that he was hurt and the line changed to favor Kansas. My buddy hypothetically took Kansas anyways because I said that they were better. One Mario Chalmers shot later (it was a close game as the numbers demonstrated) and a good overtime for Kansas and my buddy made a lot more hypothetical money.
My eventual design was to translate this to the NBA because it would be more effective since each team plays every other team at least twice. So I use the same system only I calculate how many points an average team would score or give up based on offensive and defensive efficiency. This method is particularly helpful early in the season when strength of schedule varies much more. Using offensive and defensive efficiency to determine strength of schedule is better than W/L record because records are often based on flukes (I will tackle this topic independently some day). The NBA ASM allows me to tell who has played the most difficult schedules (both on offense and defense), the best offensive teams, the best defensive teams and an expected outcome of any game.
I will begin doing a team-by-team assesment of the 2007-2008 season based on these numbers very soon.
Points Saved
Dan Rosenbaum of 82games.com sums up the difficulties of quanitfying defense with traditional statistics nicely:
In order to make an attempt to better measure defense, I have developed a relatively uncomplicated statistic called "points saved." This differs from John Hollinger's points saved statistics because I measure it based on a per-possession number and quantify it over the course of the season. I do this because a guy who plays great defense for 80 possessions per game over the course of a season is more valuable than a guy who defends equally as well, but only plays for 20 possessions a game.
Points saved is calculated by comparing the defensive efficiency of a team when a player is in with the defensive efficiency of a team when the player is sitting on the bench. The number represents the amount of points a team saved (or lost, if the defender is poor) by playing a particular player instead of the other lineups that do not include the particular player. The second number is the amount of points saved per 100 possessions. This represents the amount of points saved by playing the player for an average NBA game instead of other lineups without the player.
There are a couple of major flaws with this system and for these reasons, this stat (like any other) should be taken as an incomplete measure of defensive prowess. First, if a player is on a bad defensive team, and he is a good defensive player, his numbers will be skewed to make him look like the greatest defender of all time (we'll call this the Raja Bell syndrome). Conversely, if the player is a good defender on a good defensive team, this stat will make him look worse than he actually is (Kevin Garnett syndrome). Also, this stat is heavily influenced by a player's backup -- if a player's backup is good, he is replacing the player with good defense which will skew the stat (Dwight Howard syndrome). So, it is important to keep in mind the context from which the stat is derived. Also, small sample sizes will mess things up. For instance, AI is on the floor virtually all the time and therefore there is a small sample size of Nuggets defenses without him.
Without further ado, here are the points saved totals for the 2007-2008 Denver Nuggets (only players playing 1000 possessions or more this season):
Eduardo Najera.................186.53
Allen Iverson..................144.82
Yakouba Diawara.................47.64
J.R. Smith......................38.87
Marcus Camby.....................7.68
Kenyon Martin..................-44.75
Linas Kleiza...................-58.89
Anthony Carter................-140.66
Carmelo Anthony...............-299.84
Points Saved/100 Possessions
Eduardo Najera..................5.42
Yakouba Diawara.................4.20
Allen Iverson...................2.04
J.R. Smith......................1.31
Marcus Camby....................0.13
Kenyon Martin..................-1.00
Linas Kleiza...................-1.51
Anthony Carter.................-3.42
Carmelo Anthony................-5.14
Here are the defensive efficiencies of the Nuggets when these players are in the game:
Yakouba Diawara................102.56
Eduardo Najera.................103.02
J.R. Smith.....................105.35
Allen Iverson..................105.91
Marcus Camby...................106.15
Kenyon Martin..................106.64
Linas Kleiza...................106.99
Carmelo Anthony................107.70
Anthony Carter.................107.91
Surprisingly, Eduardo Najera seems to be the best defensive player on the Nuggets. Also, there are none of the warning indicators that are discussed above: his backups are not particularly good or bad, he played about 40% of Nuggets possessions, and the Nuggets are neither a really good nor really bad defensive team. So there is a chance that he is a really good defender. This is probably because he is quick for a big guy and tries his tail off.
Anthony Carter is a bad defender. This may come as a surprise to George Karl, who played him all season because of his defense. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Carter as a player (for his heart and determination), but he is not a very good professional basketball player. I don't know if I will be able to take it when I calculate his offensive numbers.
Carmelo is a VERY bad defender. This should surprise no one. The strange thing, is that I am not entirely sure he is that efficient on offense either. Maybe we should trade him before someone figures this out.
I believe that AI's numbers are skewed because the Nuggets rarely played without him. He is typically considered a poor defender. The numbers look a little more normal when calculated per 100 possessions, but I bet that this season was a fluke (at some point I will compare these numbers to previous seasons).
The 2007 Defensive Player of the Year is an average defender. This could be because he cannot guard big players by himself and because he only cares about blocks and rebounds instead of "defense." Or it could be because he has played the entire year with a fork sticking out of his back. At least he took the entire year off on offense in order to make the All-Defense 1st team again. That should look nice on his resume. Too bad it doesn't help his team. He is another trade candidate.
J.R. Smith is not bad considering he was benched for half the season because George Karl did not think he played any defense. Oh well.
Yakouba Diawara plays really good defense. This shouldn't surprise Nuggets fans. This could be the perimeter defender the Nuggets are looking for, however, I believe his offensive numbers may be poor. Surprisingly, the lineup the Nuggets used the second most often this season included Diawara (remember he played a lot early in the season) and it outscored their opponents by 60 points in only 169 minutes.
Please feel free to leave any comments or criticisms.
UPDATE: I am working on a formula to take into consideration the overall effectiveness of the team on which a player plays. This will make cross-team comparisons possible.
Defense is all about keeping the other team from scoring. A player can be a good defender by getting a steal, a block, or a defensive rebound, but those stats offer only a snapshot of how effective a player is on defense. A player can also be an effective defender by denying the ball to an efficient scorer or by letting an inefficient scorer shoot more. Or by providing help defense in a way that does not expose other good scoring opportunities.
In order to make an attempt to better measure defense, I have developed a relatively uncomplicated statistic called "points saved." This differs from John Hollinger's points saved statistics because I measure it based on a per-possession number and quantify it over the course of the season. I do this because a guy who plays great defense for 80 possessions per game over the course of a season is more valuable than a guy who defends equally as well, but only plays for 20 possessions a game.
Points saved is calculated by comparing the defensive efficiency of a team when a player is in with the defensive efficiency of a team when the player is sitting on the bench. The number represents the amount of points a team saved (or lost, if the defender is poor) by playing a particular player instead of the other lineups that do not include the particular player. The second number is the amount of points saved per 100 possessions. This represents the amount of points saved by playing the player for an average NBA game instead of other lineups without the player.
There are a couple of major flaws with this system and for these reasons, this stat (like any other) should be taken as an incomplete measure of defensive prowess. First, if a player is on a bad defensive team, and he is a good defensive player, his numbers will be skewed to make him look like the greatest defender of all time (we'll call this the Raja Bell syndrome). Conversely, if the player is a good defender on a good defensive team, this stat will make him look worse than he actually is (Kevin Garnett syndrome). Also, this stat is heavily influenced by a player's backup -- if a player's backup is good, he is replacing the player with good defense which will skew the stat (Dwight Howard syndrome). So, it is important to keep in mind the context from which the stat is derived. Also, small sample sizes will mess things up. For instance, AI is on the floor virtually all the time and therefore there is a small sample size of Nuggets defenses without him.
Without further ado, here are the points saved totals for the 2007-2008 Denver Nuggets (only players playing 1000 possessions or more this season):
Eduardo Najera.................186.53
Allen Iverson..................144.82
Yakouba Diawara.................47.64
J.R. Smith......................38.87
Marcus Camby.....................7.68
Kenyon Martin..................-44.75
Linas Kleiza...................-58.89
Anthony Carter................-140.66
Carmelo Anthony...............-299.84
Points Saved/100 Possessions
Eduardo Najera..................5.42
Yakouba Diawara.................4.20
Allen Iverson...................2.04
J.R. Smith......................1.31
Marcus Camby....................0.13
Kenyon Martin..................-1.00
Linas Kleiza...................-1.51
Anthony Carter.................-3.42
Carmelo Anthony................-5.14
Here are the defensive efficiencies of the Nuggets when these players are in the game:
Yakouba Diawara................102.56
Eduardo Najera.................103.02
J.R. Smith.....................105.35
Allen Iverson..................105.91
Marcus Camby...................106.15
Kenyon Martin..................106.64
Linas Kleiza...................106.99
Carmelo Anthony................107.70
Anthony Carter.................107.91
Surprisingly, Eduardo Najera seems to be the best defensive player on the Nuggets. Also, there are none of the warning indicators that are discussed above: his backups are not particularly good or bad, he played about 40% of Nuggets possessions, and the Nuggets are neither a really good nor really bad defensive team. So there is a chance that he is a really good defender. This is probably because he is quick for a big guy and tries his tail off.
Anthony Carter is a bad defender. This may come as a surprise to George Karl, who played him all season because of his defense. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Carter as a player (for his heart and determination), but he is not a very good professional basketball player. I don't know if I will be able to take it when I calculate his offensive numbers.
Carmelo is a VERY bad defender. This should surprise no one. The strange thing, is that I am not entirely sure he is that efficient on offense either. Maybe we should trade him before someone figures this out.
I believe that AI's numbers are skewed because the Nuggets rarely played without him. He is typically considered a poor defender. The numbers look a little more normal when calculated per 100 possessions, but I bet that this season was a fluke (at some point I will compare these numbers to previous seasons).
The 2007 Defensive Player of the Year is an average defender. This could be because he cannot guard big players by himself and because he only cares about blocks and rebounds instead of "defense." Or it could be because he has played the entire year with a fork sticking out of his back. At least he took the entire year off on offense in order to make the All-Defense 1st team again. That should look nice on his resume. Too bad it doesn't help his team. He is another trade candidate.
J.R. Smith is not bad considering he was benched for half the season because George Karl did not think he played any defense. Oh well.
Yakouba Diawara plays really good defense. This shouldn't surprise Nuggets fans. This could be the perimeter defender the Nuggets are looking for, however, I believe his offensive numbers may be poor. Surprisingly, the lineup the Nuggets used the second most often this season included Diawara (remember he played a lot early in the season) and it outscored their opponents by 60 points in only 169 minutes.
Please feel free to leave any comments or criticisms.
UPDATE: I am working on a formula to take into consideration the overall effectiveness of the team on which a player plays. This will make cross-team comparisons possible.
5.13.2008
2007-2008 Defensive Efficiency
The following is a ranking of teams according to their defensive efficiency in the 2007-2008 NBA season. Defensive efficiency measures the average amount of points a team gives up per 100 possessions (an average NBA game). This is a significantly better way to measure the defensive prowess than simple points per game because it is not affected by how fast a team plays (for instance, the Nuggets play faster than every team in the NBA, so their defensive ppg is skewed to make their defense look worse than it actually is and their offensive ppg is skewed to make their offense look better than it actually is).
Boston Celtics.......................98.54
Houston Rockets.....................101.02
San Antonio Spurs...................101.27
Detroit Pistons.....................102.26
New Orleans Hornets.................105.01
Los Angeles Lakers..................105.03
Orlando Magic.......................105.39
Dallas Mavericks....................105.46
Philadelphia 76ers..................105.57
Utah Jazz...........................105.74
Cleveland Cavaliers.................105.92
Denver Nuggets......................106.19
Toronto Raptors.....................106.43
Chicago Bulls.......................106.47
LEAGUE AVERAGE......................106.96
Indiana Pacers......................107.09
Phoenix Suns........................107.42
Portland Trailblazers...............107.78
Atlanta Hawks.......................108.15
New Jersey Nets.....................108.57
Washington Wizards..................108.63
Los Angeles Clippers................108.68
Golden State Warriors...............109.12
Charlotte Bobcats...................109.16
Sacramento Kings....................109.33
Seattle Supersonics.................109.41
Miami Heat..........................109.58
Minnesota Timberwolves..............110.91
Memphis Grizzlies...................111.13
New York Knicks.....................111.45
Milwaukee Bucks.....................112.06
There are a couple of interesting things to note about this list.
First of all, the Boston Celtics are the best defensive team in the NBA. And it isn't even close. John Hollinger of ESPN has stated that this Celtics team is the 3rd best defensivev team of all time.
The Milwaukee Bucks are the worst defensive team in the league. This is not surprising given that Michael Redd is known for being one of the worst defensive players in the league.
The top 13 teams in defense made the playoffs. I believe that I will find that the same is NOT true for offense. Therefore, it would benefit teams to put together teams around defense first. That is, if they wish to make the playoffs.
The Nuggets finished 12th in defensive efficiency. This may come as a surprise to those who believe that the Nuggets play terrible defense and blame defense for their eventual downfall. However, this is not a surprise to those who have noted that the Nuggets were 14th in defensive field goal persentage, 2nd in forcing turnovers, 1st in steals, and 1st in blocked shots. Really, only their horrible defensive rebounding (22nd in the league in defensive rebounding rate) kept them from being a pretty good defensive team. However, since the Nuggets play at a blistering pace, they give up a high amount of points per game. This gives the impression that they are bad at defense when they are really slightly above average.
I guess Kenny "The Jet" Smith can choose a different team about which to make "bad defense" jokes.
Boston Celtics.......................98.54
Houston Rockets.....................101.02
San Antonio Spurs...................101.27
Detroit Pistons.....................102.26
New Orleans Hornets.................105.01
Los Angeles Lakers..................105.03
Orlando Magic.......................105.39
Dallas Mavericks....................105.46
Philadelphia 76ers..................105.57
Utah Jazz...........................105.74
Cleveland Cavaliers.................105.92
Denver Nuggets......................106.19
Toronto Raptors.....................106.43
Chicago Bulls.......................106.47
LEAGUE AVERAGE......................106.96
Indiana Pacers......................107.09
Phoenix Suns........................107.42
Portland Trailblazers...............107.78
Atlanta Hawks.......................108.15
New Jersey Nets.....................108.57
Washington Wizards..................108.63
Los Angeles Clippers................108.68
Golden State Warriors...............109.12
Charlotte Bobcats...................109.16
Sacramento Kings....................109.33
Seattle Supersonics.................109.41
Miami Heat..........................109.58
Minnesota Timberwolves..............110.91
Memphis Grizzlies...................111.13
New York Knicks.....................111.45
Milwaukee Bucks.....................112.06
There are a couple of interesting things to note about this list.
First of all, the Boston Celtics are the best defensive team in the NBA. And it isn't even close. John Hollinger of ESPN has stated that this Celtics team is the 3rd best defensivev team of all time.
The Milwaukee Bucks are the worst defensive team in the league. This is not surprising given that Michael Redd is known for being one of the worst defensive players in the league.
The top 13 teams in defense made the playoffs. I believe that I will find that the same is NOT true for offense. Therefore, it would benefit teams to put together teams around defense first. That is, if they wish to make the playoffs.
The Nuggets finished 12th in defensive efficiency. This may come as a surprise to those who believe that the Nuggets play terrible defense and blame defense for their eventual downfall. However, this is not a surprise to those who have noted that the Nuggets were 14th in defensive field goal persentage, 2nd in forcing turnovers, 1st in steals, and 1st in blocked shots. Really, only their horrible defensive rebounding (22nd in the league in defensive rebounding rate) kept them from being a pretty good defensive team. However, since the Nuggets play at a blistering pace, they give up a high amount of points per game. This gives the impression that they are bad at defense when they are really slightly above average.
I guess Kenny "The Jet" Smith can choose a different team about which to make "bad defense" jokes.
Launch of Nuggets Central
Welcome to Nuggets Central! This site is designed to provide two things: (1) my own statistical analysis of the NBA and (2) Denver Nuggets news and analysis. Any and all comments are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
