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).
6.22.2008
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
