The top three teams in the Eastern Conference – whether we look at won-loss record or efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) – are the Boston Celtics, Detroit Pistons, and Orlando Magic. But who is number four?
The top nine teams in the Western Conference – again, whether we look at won-loss record or efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) – would qualify for this spot. Yes, a team that will not make the playoffs in the West would host the opening playoff round in the East. Unfortunately, the NBA is not going to abolish the conference structure.
So let’s get back to the question, who is the fourth best team in the East (and 13th best in the league)? If we focus on won-loss record, it’s the Cleveland Cavaliers. The defending conference champs, though, actually have a negative efficiency differential. In other words, if we project wins from offensive and defensive efficiency, we would expect the Cavaliers to have a losing record.
After the Cavaliers we have three teams – Toronto Raptors, Washington Wizards, and Philadelphia 76ers – with very similar won-loss records (and positive efficiency differentials). Of these three, though, the Raptors – with a differential of 3.1 – are the top team. Such a mark is consistent with a team that wins 43 or 44 of its first 73 games. The Raptors, though, only had 37 victories entering Monday night’s game against the Bobcats. In sum, the Raptors appear to be a bit better than their record suggests.
Although the Raptors are better, they are still not on par with the Celtics, Pistons, or Magic. And they have three questions that we can think about in evaluating where this team is at and what steps it needs to take to close the gap.
1. Who is responsible for this team’s success?
2. Should the team have selected Andrea Bargnani?
3. Who is going to be the team’s point guard of the future?
Assigning Responsibility on the Raptors
Statistics are kept in sports so that we can connect the outcome we observe for the team to the individual players. So which players are responsible for the outcome we observe in Toronto?
The answer is reported in Table One.
Table One: The Toronto Raptors after 73 Games
Table One reports two projections of the Raptors. The first assumes the players continue to perform in 2007-08 as they did in 2006-07. The second looks at what these players have done this year.
With respect to either projection, the identity of the top (and bottom) players is the same. Of the nine players who have played at least 800 minutes this year and who also played in 2006-07, five were above average last season. This season, these same five players are again above average. And the four who were not above average last season remain below average. Again, as is often stated here, NBA performance is fairly consistent across time.
Looking at the top five we see the Raptors are led by Jose Calderon, Chris Bosh, Anthony Parker, Carlos Delfino, and T.J Ford. In other words, the Raptors are solid at the two guard spots and their starting center (or power forward) is very good. Unfortunately, heading into the season the Raptors didn’t have any returning veterans who provided much help at the two forward spots.
Luckily Jamario Moon – who should be voted to the All-Rookie team – has filled in nicely at forward. The remaining front court players (again, once you get past Bosh), though, have disappointed.
Should the Raptors have Picked Bargnani?
And perhaps the most disappointing is Andrea Bargnani. In 2006 the Raptors had the top spot in the NBA draft. With this selection they took Bargnani. In his first season, Bargnani posted a -0.037 WP48. In other words, he didn’t get off to a good start.
This year his WP48 has fallen to -0.151. How could a player who was so bad last season get worse?
Last year Bargnani could hit his shot, but his inability to do anything else besides block shots hurt his team. This year Bargnani still doesn’t do much besides shoot. But now he isn’t shooting efficiently either.
Critics might say that this performance proves the Raptors made a mistake on draft night. I would point out, though, that so far the pickings look pretty slim from this particular draft. Of the players taken in the top ten in 2006, here is the list of players who are currently above average in terms of WP48: Brandon Roy.
Let me amend that list. Patrick O’Bryant has been above average, but he has only played 95 minutes this season (spending most of it in Bakersfield with the NBDL).
So if you were the Raptors, who would you have taken with the number one pick? Brandon Roy, Ronnie Brewer, and Rajon Rondo are the top first round talents thus far, but the Raptors do not need more guards. When it comes to forwards and centers, many are doing a bit more than Bargnani. But above average talent is hard to find.
In sum, although Bargnani may never become a player you think of when you think of number one choices, I am not sure any other big man taken early in the 2006 draft is going to develop into a productive talent either.
The Point Guard Issue
It’s said that if a team has two quarterbacks, it really doesn’t have any. Of course in football, a quarterback tends to play the entire game. The quarterback in basketball – the point guard – can’t play all 48 minutes. So you definitely need two floor generals. Nevertheless, teams typically have a clearly defined starter.
In Toronto, though, the Raptors have two players who see themselves as a starter. Jose Calderon has started most of the games. But in the past week, Ford has been put in the starting lineup.
When we look at the data from this season (not just Monday night) – reported in Table Two – the choice seems pretty clear.
Table Two: Jose Calderon vs. T. J. Ford
While both players are above average, Calderon is clearly the more productive player. He is more efficient from the field and he limits his turnovers. That being said, I do think Ford is a capable starting point guard. The numbers seem to suggest, though, that he shouldn’t be the starting quarterback in Toronto.
So there you have – as requested by Gareth Lewin (a regular WoW Journal reader) – 1,000 words on the Raptors.
For my next post I think I am going to address the following statement I saw on TrueHoop. In a story on the resurgence in Philadelphia is the following statement (made to Henry Abbott):
A veteran Philadelphia beat writer just said to me that “if anyone tells you they saw this coming, they’re lying.”
Look for my next column – “If I’m Lying, I’m Dying” – to be posted soon.
- DJ
Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.
The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score
Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:
Simple Models of Player Performance
What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say
Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics
Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.
23 responses so far ↓
OpinionatedCyborg // April 1, 2008 at 12:47 am
The Cavaliers are 8 games above .500 while the Toronto Raptors are a mere 2. I recall you writing that 93%/95% of wins can be attributed to efficiency differential : looking at these two teams, does anything stand out that could attribute the last 7%/5% to something besides luck? Coaching? Star power? Injuries at particularly inopportune times? Interesting blog.
antonio // April 1, 2008 at 5:28 am
calderon also volunteered to come off the bench – his minutes are not diminished but he said it was for the better of the team. i think he means maybe tj ford is more productive as a starter, while he does not really care if he is a starter or not. don’t know whether there is any truth to that
andrew // April 1, 2008 at 7:11 am
Lebron missed 7 games, and the Cavs got drilled in all 7. That should explain most of it.
Graham // April 1, 2008 at 11:10 am
Andrew hit the nail on the head. I’ll also add the Cavs have been ravaged by injuries this year (Z, Gibson, Varejao, Pavlovic, and now Wallace).
Cavs aren’t playing close to great basketball, but they’re decidedly better than Toronto. If I was a betting man, I’d give them no more than 6 games to beat the Raps in the playoffs.
RaptorsHQ.com // April 1, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Great post – one of our readers commented on it today in our recap of last night’s game. Going to discuss it a bit further tomorrow on the site…
Assigning Responsibility on the Raptors « Khandor’s Sports Blog // April 1, 2008 at 12:41 pm
[...] Responsibility on the Raptors * David Berri, The Fourth Best Team in the Eastern Conference After the Cavaliers we have three teams – Toronto Raptors, Washington Wizards, and Philadelphia [...]
khandor // April 1, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Graham,
The fact that Cleveland has sucked when playing without LBJ is counter-balanced by the recent struggles of the Raptors which saw them go winless (0-for-something?) for a stretch of games without Bosh in the line-up.
khandor // April 1, 2008 at 2:59 pm
David,
FYI …
http://khandorssportsblog.wordpress.com/what-it-takes-to-win-the-nba-championship/
Sam Cohen // April 1, 2008 at 7:41 pm
I noticed that comment about the Sixers on TrueHoop the other day and posted about it (http://sixerpride.blogspot.com/2008/03/no-one-saw-this-comingbut-we-did.html).
Can’t wait to see your take on it.
dberri // April 1, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Sam,
I noticed your post as well. I will link to you when I get my column written. That might happen tonight (or maybe tomorrow).
Joe // April 1, 2008 at 10:03 pm
You seem to ignore the “What have you done for me lately?” and also injuries that have affected records. I would have at least liked to see a comment about that.
And that Philly journalist was ummm wrong. Anyone who knows the NBA and didn’t have their head up their ass had to have had this team winning at least 35 games. I predicted 41-41 and was willing to predict 48 wins before they lost Joe Smith. It was obvious.
khandor // April 1, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Joe,
Agreed.
The way the 76ers began to rebound the basketball last season after trading Iverson and continued that practice into this season … i.e. with a positive Rebound Differential … during the first half of the year … it was plain to see that this team was only 1 or 2 decent offensive players away from being a solid team. Since they began to use Thaddeus Young & Louis Williams regularly, the 76ers have stepped up to a different level of consistency.
Shame on anyone who did not see this turn around coming for Philly… once they hired Mo Cheeks, traded A.I. and then fired Billy King.
Linkage - April 2 — The AltRaps Blog // April 2, 2008 at 4:49 am
[...] – The Wages of Wins [...]
Chris // April 2, 2008 at 8:53 am
“In sum, although Bargnani may never become a player you think of when you think of number one choices, I am not sure any other big man taken early in the 2006 draft is going to develop into a productive talent either.”
Umm…LaMarcus Aldridge? He may not be one of the most productive power forwards right now, but if you’ve seen him play recently, you should be able to tell how efficient and dominant he could be. The kid’s got good shooting range and has shown nice development on his post skills. But of course, there would be no point on Toronto taking him, considering they already have Bosh…
khandor // April 2, 2008 at 9:52 am
Chris,
There would be every point in Toronto drafting Aldridge even though they had Bosh already, if the Raptors were intent on getting full value for their investment by drafting in the No. 1 Overall Postion instead of trading down that year.
What position a player plays is irrelevant to the value of that pick in later years when it comes time to move either of the duplicates a team has at the same position on its roster.
What is relevant, however, is the quality of the player picked at the spot he’s selected in that draft year.
There is no sound reason to believe that Aldridge and Bosh could not co-exist on the floor together at the same time … either now, during the initial years of their careers, or down the road as they continue to mature as people and players (e.g. in a similar way to how Rasheed Wallace & Antonio McDyess co-exist very nicely with the Pistons).
The key to drafting well in the NBA … especially in the No. 1 Overall position … is never ever trying to fulfil a specific position need your team has but selecting the player who you think is going to be (or become) the BEST basketball player from amongst the list of names still available on the board, at the time.
Do this and be right about it … and you will always be able to move this player at a later date, should you decide that duplication at one spot on your team’s roster isn’t going to develop your team the way it needs to go at that specific point in time.
What the Raptors did … in terms of drafting, first, Araujo (#8, by Rob Backcock) and, then, Bargnani (#1, by Bryan Colangelo) is simply non-sensical … if your goal is to build the type of team it takes to win the NBA championship down-the-road.
khandor // April 2, 2008 at 9:58 am
In addition …
re: “In sum, although Bargnani may never become a player you think of when you think of number one choices, I am not sure any other big man taken early in the 2006 draft is going to develop into a productive talent either.”
time will tell that that observation, right there, is completely false about at least one other big taken at the top end of the 2006 NBA Draft … as eventually, and before too much more time has passed – as long as he can get away from his current head coach – Tyrus Thomas is going to emerge as a 1st Class #4-man in the NBA, to join with LaMarcus Aldridge, as solid Bigs at the top of the 2006 Draft Lottery.
Mark my words.
Harold Almonte // April 3, 2008 at 9:00 am
Khandor. You were talking about Reb. differential, and you even have a team quality metric which includes and put emphasis on this rate. What’s the weight you put on the a, b, and c of your quality metric? What’s your opinion on Reb. differential at the player individual level?
Brad // April 3, 2008 at 11:32 am
Khandor’s model overrates rebounds.
khandor // April 3, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Harold,
A, B and C are weighted equally in this specific metric.
For me, Rebound Differential is a team productivity measure, not a device for evaluating individual players against one another.
Brad,
Before I can critique your specific observation, you will need to complete that sentence for me …
e.g. “Khandor’s model overrates rebounds” … in comparison to what?
Points Differential Rank (PDR), Points Allowed Rank (PAR) and Rebounds Differential Rank (RDR) are integral components of championship NBA teams.
Harold Almonte // April 4, 2008 at 9:40 am
“A, B and C are weighted equally in this specific metric.”
Well, but I suppose you have heard about four factors.
“For me, Rebound Differential is a team productivity measure, not a device for evaluating individual players against one another.”
Why? Because rebounding zero sum ” shouldn’t” be intrapolated at the player level; because the boxscore “couldn’t” allow you to do that; or because it “wouldn’t” be easy to develop a formula to do that?
khandor // April 4, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Harold,
1) Yes, I’m familiar with the Four Factors concept.
http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/articles/20040601_roboscout.htm#box1
Dean’s concept which distributes different weights to Shooting (10), Turnovers (5-6), Rebounding (4-5) and Getting to the Free Throw Line (2-3) as contributors to ‘winning games in the NBA’ … is separate and distinct (inferior/superior?) from an approach which weights Points Differential Rank (PDR), Points Allowed Rank (PAR) and Rebounding Differential Rank (RDR) equally, as 3 key components for a championship NBA team.
2) Because the way the NBA currently keeps its stats, re: Rebounding, is inadequate to develop a clear and thorough understanding of how Rebounding actually works (on an individual player basis), when comparing one player’s value/ability to another’s.
Wages of Wins : Contenders and Pretenders - Detroit Pistons Fan Community - PistonsForum.com // May 31, 2008 at 3:50 pm
[...] The Data Aint Lying → The Fourth Best Team in the Eastern Conference March 31, 2008 21 Comments The top three teams in the Eastern Conference – whether we look at won-loss record or efficiency [...]
The Other Side of the Indiana-Toronto Trade « The Wages of Wins Journal // July 1, 2008 at 9:32 pm
[...] Table One offers two projections of the Raptors. The first is based on the player’s performance in 2006-07. The second looks at how many wins the team should have seen based on the 2007-08 performance. Both forecasts indicate that the Raptors were better than a 41 win team. And this can also be seen in the team’s efficiency differential (no surprise, since Wins Produced is based on efficiency differential). The Raptors efficiency differential of 3.1 was the fourth best mark in the Eastern Conference (something I noted last March). [...]