Okay, the season starts this week so I better post my forecast. Today I am going to give my forecast for the East. Tomorrow I will talk about the West and give my projections for the playoffs and the post-season awards.
Before I get to the forecast, let me start with a list of assumptions and qualifications.
Assumptions and Qualifications
If you know WP48 (Wins Produced per 48 minutes) and how many minutes a player plays, then you know Wins Produced. And as noted many times here, Wins Produced and actual wins are quite closely related (which is not surprising, since Wins Produced is based on the link between wins and offensive and defensive efficiency).
In looking at the past it’s easy to see a player’s Wins Produced (well, easy in the sense that it can be done). When we look towards the future, though, calculating Wins Produced becomes a challenge. First of all, we don’t know future productivity. Yes, there is a strong link between past and future per-minute performance. But it’s not a perfect link. In other words, players can get better (or worse).
Then there is minutes played. I have not modeled minutes played, so for these I have to make an educated guess (with the emphasis on “guess” not “educated”).
All that being said, I did go through each team’s roster and made an effort to forecast the 2007-08 season. This forecast assumes that past productivity equals future performance (although I did make an adjustment if I thought a player was going to change positions). And I am assuming that I have some idea how many minutes a player is going to play. No allowance is made for player performance improving or declining. And no effort was really made to account for injuries that haven’t happened yet. In sum, this forecast is designed to tell us where everyone is starting the season. If nothing changes on each team, this is where they will finish.
Okay, I think I stated all the assumptions and qualifiers. Here is the forecast. Again, today I discuss the Eastern Conference. Not only will I report how I think these teams rank before the season starts, I also offer a very brief discussion of how I reached this conclusion. For those who want more details on each team, please see the review of the 2006-07 NBA season.
1. Boston Celtics
The Celtics have added Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen. But these are not the only productive players on the roster. Paul Pierce has always been a very good player (as noted last week, as productive as Kobe Bryant). And beyond Pierce there is Rajon Rondo (most productive rookie in 2006-07), Tony Allen (a very good player before he got hurt last year), James Posey (another consistently productive player), Leon Powe (an above average player last year in limited minutes), and Scott Pollard (a player who has been productive in his career when he plays). In sum, although people characterize this team as the Big Three and nothing else, there is actually quite a bit on this roster. Hence I think this team – if it stays healthy — will be the top team in the Eastern Conference.
2. Chicago Bulls
This all depends on injuries and the potential Kobe trade. The other night the injury report told us that Ben Wallace, Tyrus Thomas, and Joakim Noah were each hurt in the same game. It’s currently reported that Wallace and Noah are out indefinitely. If indefinitely becomes “all season” then the Bulls have real problems. Plus there are rumors that this team is going to be gutted to acquire Kobe Bryant. If such a trade includes Luol Deng I can’t see the Bulls improving much (and if they give up too much the team actually gets worse with Kobe). Still, if we assume this trade is not going to happen and the injuries are not serious (though out indefinitely doesn’t sound good), then this team should win 50-55 wins. This is not good enough to catch the Celtics, but I think it’s good enough to win the Central.
3-4. Cleveland Cavaliers and Detroit Pistons
Both of these teams got to 50 wins last year. And both didn’t do much to improve. In fact, if Cleveland doesn’t sign Anderson Varejao they will be a bit worse. And as I noted last week, the same story can be told about the Pistons [who lost Carlos Delfino and (apparently) Chris Webber]. Certainly each of these teams could get back to where they were in 2007-08, but I think both have been passed by Boston and Chicago (again, assuming Chicago is healthy).
Okay, that’s the top four. Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit look to be playoff teams in 2007-08. After the top four in the Eastern Conference we have a large collection of teams that are likely to win between 35 and 45 games. Some may do a bit worse then this range, and perhaps someone could do a bit better. But in general, these teams are not contenders for the title and some will fall into the lottery. I have divided these teams into two groupings. The first grouping is a bit better than the second, although the difference is not that large.
5. Miami, Charlotte, New York, Atlanta, Toronto, and Orlando
Again I offer a few comments on each team.
Miami has lost Eddie Jones and James Posey. Plus Dwyane Wade is out due to injury and Shaq is another year older. The Heat did manage to lose the persistently unproductive Antoine Walker (although it is hard to see Ricky Davis or Mark Blount really helping). The net effect of all this is a team that’s not as good as the title team that won 52 games in 2005-06.
Charlotte added Jason Richardson, which helps but then lost Sean May (which hurt). But then right before the season started the Bobcats lost Adam Morrison to a season ending injury. Morrison was the least productive player in the NBA last year, so his departure might be enough to vault this team into the playoffs.
New York, with the substitution of Zach Randolph for Channing Frye, looks like a team that could win 40 games this year. And that might get Isiah Thomas into the playoffs (and probably keep his job). Of course that assumes Renaldo Balkman gets healthy and plays.
Atlanta drafted Al Horford, the player who should be Rookie of the Year. He will not outscore Kevin Durant, so Horford probably won’t get the actual award. But he will probably be the most productive rookie. He certainly was in the pre-season (by a wide margin). With the addition of Horford, the Hawks might also contend for a playoff spot. Yes, Horford could be that good.
Toronto made the playoffs last year and then went out and signed Jason Kapono and took Carlos Delfino from the Pistons. Delfino is an above average shooting guard, but he joins a roster with a number of above average players at this position. So I am not sure how much Delfino plays or if he is going to add much to what the Raptors already had. Kapono, on the other hand, is a below average small forward. Hard to see how he is going to help much. Basically this team has to hope Andrea Bargnani plays better, which might happen (and might not).
Orlando added Rashard Lewis. The loss of Tony Battie, though, forces the Magic to put Lewis and/or Hedo Turkoglu at power forward. Neither is suited for the four spot, so that’s a problem (a point I made last summer). Consequently, the Magic are probably not going to be much better than what they were last year (which was good enough to barely make the playoffs).
11. New Jersey, Philadelphia, Indiana, and Washington
These four teams could be just as good as the six teams I just listed. Again, the difference between these teams is fairly small.
If Richard Jefferson returns to what we saw in 05-06, then New Jersey will be as good as the Cavs and Pistons. If not, the team might not make the playoffs. The Nets do have the most productive player in the game in Jason Kidd and a very good shooting guard in Vince Carter. But the remainder of the roster-as noted a few weeks ago — hasn’t been very productive in the past. Hence the key is the return of Jefferson.
Philadelphia took a major step forward when it traded Allen Iverson for Andre Miller. But this team is still being dragged down by Willie Green and Rodney Carney, two players who are very unproductive. And now they have added Thaddeus Young, another player who doesn’t look to be very productive in 2007-08. Yes, Reggie Evans helps, but the un-productive players on this roster tend to actually reduce the team’s ability to win (as opposed to just not helping).
Indiana, as I noted a few days ago, looked to be an above average team before Jermaine O’Neal got hurt last year. Supposedly he is now healthy, but clearly not happy. If this team struggles early, O’Neal will probably remain unhappy. Even if O’Neal stays happy, the Pacers are probably no better than a lower playoff seed.
Washington lost Etan Thomas, their most productive big man in 2006-07. So that’s going to hurt. They still have Gilbert Arenas, Caron Butler, Antawn Jamison, and Brendan Haywood. But the shooting guard position looks weak and there is simply a lack of depth on this roster.
15. Milwaukee Bucks
Okay, every team I have mentioned thus far could make the playoffs. And except for Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit, I would not be surprised if any team misses the playoffs. In other words, the playoffs in the Eastern Conference are hard to predict.
The lone exception is the Milwaukee Bucks. This team added Desmond Mason, who produce -2.3 wins for the Hornets last year. Then they drafted Yi Jianlian. Even if Jianlian was as productive as an average player, I don’t see this team getting to 30 wins. And given what he did in the pre-season, I am not sure we can expect an average season from Jianlian. The Bucks did get above average productivity last year from Andrew Bogut, Michael Redd, and Maurice Williams. But those were the only above average players on the roster, and none of these players surpassed 0.150 in WP48 (average is 0.100). In sum, this team lacks any really good players but does have several below average performers. Consequently, I see this team trailing the rest of the conference.
Looking at Divisions
This post has now surpassed the 1,700 word mark, so if you stuck with me this long you really need to get back to work. But for those who have a bit more time, here is the breakdown by division.
Atlantic: Boston, then New York, Toronto, New Jersey, and Philadelphia in any order you like.
Central: Chicago, then Cleveland-Detroit, then Indiana . Milwaukee takes last.
Southeast: This is anyone’s game. Three of the top four seeds in this conference will come from the Atlantic and Central. Someone from the Southeast gets to be the four seed and probably lose in the opening round. Other teams from this conference might also make the playoffs and lose in the opening round.
Tomorrow I will talk about the Western Conference, which is much more clear-cut. Quick preview: The West has more “really good” teams than the East. They also have more “really bad” teams. Consequently, who makes the playoffs in the West is much easier to figure out at the start of the season.
– DJ
For a discussion of other teams see NBA Team Reviews: 2006-07
Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.
The equation connecting wins to offensive/defensive efficiency is given HERE
Wins Produced and Win Score are discussed in the following posts
Simple Models of Player Performance
What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say
Wages of Wins Journal 
Gareth Lewin
October 28, 2007
Reading this article, I thought of a question.
Since teams play more against teams in their own division and conference, how do bad teams or bad opponents impact the WP48 of players from the other team?
Say I am playing against a bad team, they have a low scoring average, and they are not very good at rebounding. In general that will raise my rebounds per 48 minutes? The same for turnovers, say I was a turnover prone player, but I played against a team that weren’t very good at creating turnovers, wouldn’t my stats get ‘inflated’.
So in theory, if the East gets worse this year, someone is going to get better, even if they don’t change. Not sure that makes sense, so let me talk about the Cavs. Let’s assume they do sign Varejao, and everyone plays the exact same as they did last year. The same minutes, and the same abilities. If the rest of Cleveland’s opponents get worse, won’t they get better?
I am sure this is handled to some degree in the win score, especially with 1.00 being average. As one guy goes down, another goes up, but since players in the west face (in theory) harder teams, doesn’t this detract from their WP48?
Not sure I have a point, it was just something I was wondering about.
dberri
October 28, 2007
Gareth,
You are correct that quality of play matters. For example, players play worse in the playoffs because of this.
But looking at this year, the East overall is improved. The West still has more top teams (there are not three teams in the East that are as good as Dallas, San Antonio, and Phoenix). But the West has at least two awful teams (yes, even worse than Milwaukee).
By the way, I don’t adjust WP48 for conference (although I guess you could).
Ryan Schwan
October 29, 2007
Have to be honest, Dave. I’m used to coming away from your posts chuckling at your audacity and anticipating the blasting you were going to take in the comments section – or at least more informed than I was before. This one doesn’t really qualify for either. Tomorrow I expect you to say the Hornets are going to win the West though. Why? Because they are cool and I know you rely on subjective measures for your analysis.
dberri
October 29, 2007
Ryan,
Audacity? And who would blast me?
Okay, I guess that happens from time to time.
I will try be more audacious tomorrow. Quick preview… the Hornets are better than most people think (except for fans of the Hornets of course).
Tim
October 29, 2007
As a Bulls fan, your Celtics pick had me worried until I returned to the top of the article to read your assumptions. I think the Celtics are vulnerable to age, injury, lack of familiarity with each other, and bad coaching, none of which you seem to consider in your evaluation.
And although the Celtics’ bench is deeper than many people think, it still isn’t deep, especially compared to the Bulls’ bench. That’s especially important when attempting to prevent or deal with age and injuries. It also gives a bad coach an opportunity to give bad players important minutes, or alternatively to overwork the veterans.
On the other hand, I expect the young Bulls to improve, and I even think Wallace may improve in his second year with the team. The Bulls have much more continuity as a team and I have faith in their coach. Again, it seems as if you chose not to consider these factors in your evaluation, because you do not have a way to evaluate them statistically.
Although I do find the Bulls’ preseason injuries annoying, local reports say they are not serious, and may not even keep anyone out of opening night except for the rookie Noah. As far as trading for Kobe, neither Paxson nor Kobe himself would want a trade that guts the Bulls. So I only see the trade happening if the Lakers are desperate and give the Bulls a deal even you might like, either now or later in the season when Nocioni becomes tradeable.
Finally, the Bulls have a number of assets they could trade for someone other than Kobe, while the Celtics do not. I’m not just talking about stars, but also a number of expiring contracts that other teams covet. Again, the potential for a favorable trade is not a part of your evaluation.
So despite my faith in your statistical analysis, I see several reasons to hope that the Bulls will still have the best record in the East. Unfortunately, even I don’t see them beating the top teams in the West.
dberri
October 29, 2007
Tim,
What you say is plausible. I would add that although Doc Rivers is considered a “bad coach” I have no evidence he makes people play bad. I don’t have evidence he makes anyone better, but he doesn’t seem to make people worse.
Hopefully what you hear is correct about the injuries to the Bulls. They will not win the Central without Ben Wallace being healthy and playing well.
Tim
October 29, 2007
Here’s an old article from Bill Simmons listing the reasons he thinks Doc Rivers is a bad coach:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/060112
I would be interested in your response, or any article analyzing whether NBA coaches make a difference.
At the very least I would think NBA coaches make a difference because they control which players play and which do not. For example, what if Rivers decides to play all 12 players even though only eight of them are productive? Alternatively, what if he plays the “big three” 40 minutes a night, despite the risk of injury over a long season and the availability of adequate back-ups?
Of course you are correct about Ben Wallace. But Wallace “swears his ankle injury is a minor one and won’t be a problem.” http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=5828
Ryan Schwan
October 29, 2007
I think it could be fairly simple to use analysis to evaluate a coaches ability to set rotations. If two players play the same position and the worse one(based on WP48) gets significantly more minutes for a reason other than injury/foul trouble, then the coach is a fool. But it would need to be a positional analysis.
Chirstopher
October 29, 2007
Thanks for the post. I think your rankings are quite useful and will prove to be quite good once the regular season is over too. I’d love to see some rank correspondence come April 2008. My little stab at this looks a lot like yours. The big difference is the at the top. I have Boston > Detroit > Chicago > Cleveland. I’ll be curious where you have the Rockets in the West.
Sam Cohen
October 29, 2007
I actually tried my hand at a prediction for the Sixers based on on WP48 which you can check out at http://sixerpride.blogspot.com/2007/10/my-sixers-prediction-wp48-version.html. I’m fairly optimistic about the Sixers this year (relative to most others, at least), but my WP48-based prediction was even more optimistic than what I was feeling. I’d be curious to know how much my assumptions differed from yours (especially since I used your numbers!).
dberri
October 29, 2007
Sam,
I saw your projections.
One thing to remember is that you are looking at a team without any injuries (or goofy rotations, or other issues that diminish wins production). I find that the league projections are a few wins higher than what is possible. So take your forecast and knock off a few wins and you probably are on target (assuming injuries aren’t worse than normal or happen to the wrong players).
David Shin
October 29, 2007
Hi Dave,
I believe there is a flaw in the concept of Win Score, which I’ll both illustrate and propose a fix for. The flaw regards a lack of distinction between assisted and unassisted field goals.
Suppose the league consists of two teams: the 95′ Jazz and the 05′ Cavs. The 95′ Jazz run a pick-and-roll play every possession. This play begins with a pass from Stockton to Malone and ends with Malone attempting a 2-point field goal with a FG% of 48%. The 05′ Cavs, on the other hand, begins and ends with the ball in the hands of Lebron James. He attempts a 2-point field goal with a FG% of 50% every possession.
The 05′ Cavs will win almost every game in this season, and so the sum of their Cavs players’ Win Scores should exceed the sum of the Jazz players’ Win Scores. However, this is not the case. Ignoring all aspects of Win Score except PTS, FGA, and AST, the 95′ Jazz average a Win Score of 0.2 per possession (PTS + 0.5*AST – FGA), while the 05′ Cavs average a Win Score of 0.0.
Hopefully, the problem is clear: unassisted field goals contribute less to the total team Win Score than assisted field goals do. To test my hypothesis, may I ask this question: Is there a correlation between (1) the bias of total-team Wins Produced as a predictor of actual wins, and (2) average total-team assists?
I believe thus that assisted points (aPTS) and unassisted points (uPTS) should be treated as distinct variables in the regression model.
That a player should be rewarded more for uPTS than aPTS may seem counterintuitive, as we all know that a team offense with good passing results in easier baskets than does a stale offense where the ball sits in one player’s hands the entire time. However, this fact should naturally be accounted for through the higher FG% that results from passing.
I predict that with this revision to the Win Score formula, one-on-one players like Kobe Bryant, Allen Iverson, and Gilbert Arenas will have greater scores. Coincidently, casual fans that first encounter your Win Score formula often feel that these players are more valuable than their Win Scores may indicate.
dberri
October 29, 2007
David,
Thanks for the thoughts.
You need to remember that Win Score is a simplified version of a more complicated model. Assists are not part of the wins regression that gives us much of Wins Produced. Assists are from a separate regression.
To put it quickly, I think what you are talking about is accounted for in the Wins Produced model. At least, that’s my initial reaction.
And about casual fans… such fans tend to focus on scoring without taking into account shooting efficiency and everything else a player does on the floor.
Again, thanks for the feedback.
Jason
October 29, 2007
As I understand it, assists are a rough measure for how much a player helps the FG% of his teammates. It’s part of individual player evaluation, as this helps to more accurately describe the affect a particular player has as an independent variable, but at the level of the team, the assists are irrelevant. Consequently, the simplification of the Lebrons vs. the StocktonMalones is specious as it is using a statistical measure designed to measure differences between players and projecting them as a measure of the team in entirety. These measures may have a high degree of correlation in practice, but they are not the same measures.
Pat
October 30, 2007
Dave-
Is there a way to look at a box score, stat sheet, ect (for just casual analysis) and determine if a player is a good player according to WP?
Like looking at assist, points, FG%, 3fg%, rebounds, turnovers etc. A well balanced player is more likely to produce more wins in your formula correct?
Which brings me to the question of Rajon Rondo. Rondo oddly was productive according to your model, yet he only shot 41.8% from the floor, didn’t shoot threes at all, and shot free throws pretty badly. His rebounding and assist numbers project out to be ok if they are taken per 48 minutes, but he doesn’t seem all that productive according to what goes into WP. Yet he still produced 7.2 wins with a WP48 of .189.
He doesn’t turn the ball over a lot I guess, but what makes him so productive?
Jason
October 30, 2007
Rondo didn’t shoot well. His shooting held him back in WP48, but he didn’t shoot *much* so this didn’t hurt him as much as if he was a high volume shooter. Looking at his numbers, it looks like his big contribution was from rebounding, where he was very, very good for a pointguard.
David Shin
October 30, 2007
Dave, it seems that my confusion is resulting from a lack of understanding of the difference between Win Score and Wins Produced. I assumed, it seems incorrectly, that assists contribute similarly to a player’s Win Score and Wins Produced.
Just to make sure I understand correctly: if we computed WP for all the players in my hypothetical 95′ Jazz and 05′ Cavs teams, will the total WP of the Cavs be greater than the total WP of the Jazz? As I demonstrated, this is not the case for WS.
As a side note, is the Wins Produced computation really so complicated that you cannot post a formula somewhere on this blog? The “Wins Produced vs. Win Score” entry doesn’t really shed much light.
dberri
October 30, 2007
David,
In answer to your first question… in your hypothetical answer the WP of each team would be equal. Assists are just a transfer of credit between two teammates. They do not explain wins independently.
As for your second question… it is fairly complicated. The article explaining it all took a few months to write. The article will be out early next year, if that helps.
Jason
October 30, 2007
As I understand it, in the extreme “no assist” Cavs vs. the extreme “always an assist” Jazz, the difference would come out in the team adjustment. Since the Cavs would be ridiculously under the league average in assists and Jazz ridiculously over, you’d see a level of adjustment unlike the otherwise rather insignificant adjustment that occurs for differences in team variance in assists. The same would be true of blocks.
This is actually a rather helpful example come to think of it, in explaining what that adjustment actually is. In the extreme in a two team league, one team will be over the average by the same margin that the other team is under the average and as such, the absolute difference from average should be the same for both teams. Regardless of magnitude, such a situation removes assists from the equation since in such a case, it’s clear that they do not have an impact on the team. When totals for the team are computed, the assists “vanish” since it doesn’t matter how the basket was scored.
However, at the level of the individual, the WP for the StocktonMalones gets split with some credit going to Stockton, and some of Malone’s individual stats discounted to an equal degree. No adjustment would be needed for Lebron who existed on a completely assist-less team.
Dave, is this an accurate understanding?
David Shin
October 30, 2007
Dave and Jason, thanks for your replies.
So, the 95′ Jazz and 05′ Cavs will have the same total WP in my hypothetical example. When you say “equal”, I assume you overlooked that I put the Jazz FG% at 48% while I put the Cavs FG% at 50%, but I understand what you mean. To simplify matters, I’ll revise my hypothetical example from here on out to have both teams shoot 50% from the field.
Still, I must press the issue. Are assists accounted for at all in the WP computation?
If so, then I do not understand how both teams in my example can have the same total WP unless Malone’s assisted points contribute less towards WP than Lebron’s unassisted points do. As Jason puts it in the preceding comment, if some credit goes to Stockton, then Malone must get discredited to an equal degree to compensate. But, I’ll add, that same discrediting must not be applied to Lebron.
This is the reason I felt that aPTS (assisted points) and uPTS (unassisted points) should be treated differently. I don’t see how the WP computation can discredit Malone but not Lebron without making such a distinction. Hope that makes sense.
don
October 30, 2007
I think a team like the Bucks or anyother with high time lost through injury of top players, the better projection period would be when they were healthy. For the Bucks, November and December would be the games to figure the respective WinsProduced, as after December it was an Abbot and Costello routine (whose at guard? Correct).
Also the problem of severe injuries is not only the time missed, but the level of performance when a player gets back on court. For instance, the difference between Charlie Villenuava befor his injuries and the return period are enormous. The same might be said with Redd.
I think even within the no improvement assumption, the Bucks, when last season’s injuries are controlled, I think 34 wins is the minimum for the Bucks. But I also think their chances for player improvement is as high as any team’s–particular Villenuava and Bogut (who did this offseason what he failed to do the previous offseason–work on his deficiencies, including weight distribution).
matt
October 30, 2007
I want to see your blog when the Bucks make the playoffs. So easy to read ESPN and dog Milwaukee each year like the consensus of those big market minded sports writers. Milwaukee will surprise as this year progresses. The Bucks have better talent than your big market mentality gives them credit for. Maybe get league pass this year and watch a few games before you make assumptions of how there is no way Milwaukee has the capacity to make the playoffs. No, they are not a title contending dynasty, but they are not a bottom feeder either with a healthy team. A championship maybe a reach, but if healthy, this group will be in the thick of the playoffs this year, and in the coming years.
dberri
October 30, 2007
Matt and Don,
The problem for Milwaukee is the addition of Desmond Mason. He simply has not been a good player recently. When such an unproductive player is added to a roster than lacks any truly great player, it is hard seeing the playoffs in their future.
Still, these are not robots. So maybe Milwaukee’s players can improve and surprise me. And if that happens, it will certainly be something I will write about.
dingle
October 31, 2007
the bucks the worst in the east? good god man, whatever theories you put to practice need to be thought through if this type of result comes up.
don
October 31, 2007
Dave,
I think you meant without a truly great player going deep in the playoffs is unforeseeable. I would think, however, that just withseven or eight contributors with little variation averaging about .125 WinProduce/48, a team would be in the playoffs rather handily.
You are so correct about Mason, a drag on productivity, particularly when receiving many minutes. It is humorous that some writers and fans of the Bucks see him (or Simmons, for that matter) as adequate replacement for Patterson’s production last season.
Keep up the thought-provoking work. It is much appreciated by those of us who wish to break the chains of screaming tv commentators and drink-hazed basketball beat writers.
Ryan
April 24, 2008
Aside from putting the bulls in the playoff picture(who did’nt) you were right on about everything. I’m from Milwaukee and would never have predicted such a terrible season. You, however, called everything better than the most famous of sports writers.