Winners get the glory and are remembered forever (at least by sports fans).
Losers are derided for a brief period time, and then tend to be forgotten.
Today, though, I want to focus on the losers. Specifically, I wish to ask which edition of each team was the worst in the history of the franchise.
As I noted yesterday, we can measure offensive and defensive efficiency back to 1973-74. And from this we can determine efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency).
It’s been argued that efficiency differential is the best way to measure the quality of an NBA team. When it comes to the NBA’s best, this argument is disputed. People often argue that the playoffs determine the top teams. Of course the problem with the playoff argument is that the post-season sample -relative to the regular season – is too small.
Regardless of where you fall in this debate (although I still can’t see why this is a debate), for the worst teams we don’t have a playoff system. All we can look at for these teams is efficiency differential.
And what is the efficiency differential story? To answer that question, we turn to Table One.
Table One: The Worst NBA Teams from 1973-74 to 2006-07
Table One lists the worst NBA teams – for each franchise — from 1973-74 to 2006-07.
Five of these worst – the Jazz, Heat, Hornets, Magic, and Bobcats – were expansion teams. The Raptors and Grizzlies offered their worst marks within three years of entering the league. Beyond these seven, every other team was established in the league before offering their worst performance.
It’s interesting to note that none of these worst performances occurred in 2006-07. The most recent (before this year, which I will get to in a moment), were the performances offered by the Knicks and Blazers in 2005-06. In 2004-05 we see two more worst editions (Atlanta and the aforementioned Bobcats) and in 2002-03 the Cavaliers achieved historic badness. Other than these teams, every other franchise offered their worst in the 20th century.
The Almost All-Time Worst
At least, that would be the story before this year. In 2007-08, three teams reached historic lows. Before I get to those, let me comment on a few teams that came close.
The Heat offered a -9.26 differential in 2007-08. This mark is not quite as bad as what Miami posted their first two years in the league. But such a mark is quite below the worst Miami offered since these first editions.
The Clippers – with a differential of -7.63 – were also quite bad in 2007-08. But that’s n0where near the worst in franchise history. Seven times – yes, seven times – the Clippers have actually done less; with the -11.89 mark of the 1999-00 Clippers still leading the way (or following the furthest behind).
Minnesota is not quite as bad as the Clippers, but the T-Wolves still have problems. In 2007-08 the T-wolves had a mark of -7.12. This was the fifth time in franchise history that Minnesota was below the -7 mark. What do all of these teams have in common? None of them employed Kevin Garnett. With KG the T-Wolves had a positive differential in eight of twelve seasons. Without KG the T-Wolves never had a positive differential.
What’s interesting about Minnesota is that of all the expansion teams over the past three decades, Minnesota was easily the best. In its expansion year the T-Wolves had a differential of -4.43. The next year Minnesota got better. But then in 1991-92 the T-Wolves got very bad. And they stayed very bad until Garnett came to town. After twelve years the T-Wolves saw KG leave, and as noted, the badness returned.
Three Historic Bad Teams
Okay enough on the almost bad. Which three teams were historically bad in 2007-08?
Forgetting the Plot in Seattle
The first of the worst is the Seattle SuperSonics. Over the past three decades the Sonics only posted a mark below -4 in one season, and this occurred in 1984-85 (-5.30). This year – perhaps the last year in Seattle Sonics history – obliterated the previous low. Led by Kevin Durant (have I mentioned that he really wasn’t the best rookie?), the Sonics offered a -8.74 differential. Such a performance brings to mind the movie Major League. But unlike that movie, no one told the Sonics players about the plot midway through the season.
Not Boring in Milwaukee
Before the season started I argued that Milwaukee was most boring franchise in the NBA. In essence, the Bucks in recent years have never been that good and never that bad.
In 2007-08 the Bucks shed the boring label. With a differential of -7.25, the Bucks reached historic lows. Now if I were petty, I would note that I predicted this outcome before the season started. But since I am not, I won’t (although you can click on the link and see that I did).
Isiah’s Farewell
Previously I noted that the Knicks posted their franchise worst performance in 2005-06. Actually this was incorrect. In 2007-08, the Knicks posted a mark of -6.90. In defense of Isiah, there have been 63 teams that offered even less than the latest edition of the Knicks. Of course, none of these teams were in New York and none of these teams spent as much money as Isiah.
So there you have it: The worst of the worst. The three teams that have reached historic lows are each making major changes. Both New York and Milwaukee have fired their coach and general manager. Seattle, at the moment, is keeping the leadership together. Seattle, though, is trying to change cities.
One could argue that a larger market could give a team more revenue, and this revenue could be used to purchase better talent. This link – as the payroll-wins relationship suggests – is not that strong. Still, location can matter some.
The Sonics, though, are not moving to a larger market. They are just moving to a different market. And I really can’t see how that is going to help this team play better. I sense that Oklahoma City fans are not going to be too excited about getting an NBA team when they finally see the sorry team they have acquired.
– 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.
Wages of Wins Journal 
mrparker
April 23, 2008
Ok Berri, time to get down to the business. Since you’ve proven that more than any other resource a franchise needs to bring good players in. When are we going to start talking about the upcoming free agent and rookie classes? There has to be a way to predict future success from the information that is already at hand.
This is coming from someone who already has their draft boards together and is looking for people to debate with. This is where you come in. Someone has to stir the pot.
andrew g
April 23, 2008
Loved that Cavs team. It got us LBJ.
Owen
April 23, 2008
Derrick Rose is incredibly overrated.
Does that stir the pot?
Marc
April 23, 2008
I completely understand the point regarding the importance of sample size in inferring the “greatness” of teams. According to your argument, since the regular season has more games relative to the playoffs, we should put more weight in regular season performance. However, this is only true if we think a regular season game of basketball is observationally equivalent to a playoff game (specifically, we are comparing “apples to apples”). I would argue, that this is not in fact the case. As you highlight, the incentives that guide player performance are different in the playoffs relative to the regular season. As such, we would expect this to change the nature of the game. In addition, the sequencing of games is entirely different between the regular season and the post season. In particular, in the post season each team faces the same opponent in at least four consecutive games (which doesn’t happen in the post-season). As a result, match ups and game planning for a particular opponent is a lot more critical for post-season success relative to the regular season where teams play different opponents every night. Therefore, I would say that comparing regular season and post-season success is more like comparing “apples and oranges.” It’s a matter of preferences which one you think better gauges team “greatness,” not simply a matter of sample size.
Marc
April 23, 2008
Woops. Each team faces the same opponent in at least four consecutive games (which doesn’t happen in the REGULAR season). Sorry.
Nate
April 23, 2008
I’d agree with you on Derrick Rose, Owen. Chris Douglas-Roberts seemed like the more important piece there, and I suspect he’ll be a better pro. But really, whichever team gets the top pick would be downright foolhardy to take anyone but Michael Beasley. He’ll be ready to contribute right away, and he’ll become an absolute force of nature by his third year.
Andrew
April 23, 2008
How is the 72-73 76ers team not the worst Philadelphia team of all time? They won nine games! NINE! That is an all-time historic low! I am baffled.
mjoe
April 23, 2008
Andrew, 73-74 is the first year he analyzes. Before that, not enough statistics were being measured.
JTapp
April 23, 2008
Isn’t it better to look at how many standard deviations above the mean a particular team was in its efficiency in a given season? Wouldn’t that tend to describe dominance better?
Didn’t Dean Oliver already do this analysis in his book Basketball on Paper?
Josh
April 23, 2008
Has anyone done a study of the differential versus what a team’s payroll was like? For instance the Knicks differential wasn’t as bad as the Sonics but their payroll is way bigger. I know it’s not necessarily statistical, but I would be curious to see where teams fall in terms of payroll and historical ineptitude.
Humil
April 23, 2008
Narcissa! You managed to be self-aggrandizing while attempting to advance your “not petty, not here, not me” schtick in the same stroke.
How about taking into consideration of the second-rate or worse benchwarmers these historically “bad” teams tend to encounter over their miserable seasons? Does that not count towards the counterforce of stat inflation? How can you not look at the misery that was the 2008 Heat team, replete with D-leaguers? You are telling me because of some not-so-well control set of derivative numbers, Milwaukee is actually worse than the heat this season? You are a prime example of sciencist gone wayward with methodology, and your methodology is not even so pristine as you like to anoint yourself.
Another Pete
April 23, 2008
Humil wrote:
You are telling me because of some not-so-well control set of derivative numbers, Milwaukee is actually worse than the heat this season?
If you read the article a bit more carefully, you’d see that, according to his “derivitive numbers”, the Heat were worse than Milwaukee this season.
His point re: Milwaukee is that this season’s Milwaukee team is the worst team in Milwaukee team history (over the time analyzed), not the worst team in the league or the worse team in league history.
antonio
April 23, 2008
this is off topic, but dberri recently you have been mentioning position adjustments and how some players play multiple positions so they are ranked higher or lower. can you give an explanation (maybe a post) on what type of poistion adjustment you use for players who play multi-positions, and which players you tab as multi-position players?
Matthew
April 23, 2008
Shouldn’t you be using offensive efficiency divided by defensive efficiency? If you were going to estimate a team’s offensive efficiency for a game, you would do: offensiveefficiency/leagueoffensiveefficiency*opponentdeffensiveefficiency
You would use difference of ratings if your system to estimate was:
offensiveefficiency-leagueoffensiveefficiency+opponentdeffensiveefficiency
mrparker
April 24, 2008
owen,
Wow! He is my no. 2 prospect behind Kevin Love.
Nate,
I don’t have Beasely anywhere near the top 10. His game is not going to translate to the NBA. We have already seen this happen with Durant, and Carmelo(according to Wow stats) and he is the next super frosh to be drafted really high, have a pretty good scoring average, and not help his team win.
antonio
April 24, 2008
Isnt it a bit quick to proclaim Durant as a failure? As far as I know, you don’t judge a rookie after one year. Also, in his last two months he showed signs of improvement. Once he gets bigger there is no reason to think he won’t improve in other categories such as rebounds, less turnovers and blocks and steals. And while Carmelo is not a superstar according to WoW stats, I am pretty sure he had a pretty good year this year. I don’t know the site that has the WoW stats, but I would guess he is somewhere close to .2. Combine that with the fact that Beasley is a different type of player than both of them (much stronger than Durant, quicker than Anthony, a much better defensive player than both), I don’t see what you are talking about. He already has a highly-skilled post game, and I don’t see why that would not translate
antonio
April 24, 2008
My estimation on Carmelo was high. Through 69 games, his WP48 was .135. I don’t know what he finished with, but either way thats above average. So even by WoW standards, his game still “translates” to the NBA
Tim
April 25, 2008
his game would improve immensely if he stopped shooting threes. He played much better with the Olympic team than with Denver. As with Durant, this may be an area where coaching really does matter, if one can coach these type of players. I think one reason Phil Jackson is a great coach is that, because of all those rings and the praise of Michael Jordan, superstars will actually listen to him.
So I’m not sure it has anything to do with anyone’s game translating to the NBA. But there certainly is a danger surrounding anyone known primarily as a scorer, or anyone given the green light to shoot at will on a bad team.
Michael Beasley, though, is more than a scorer. He’s an amazing rebounder. He seems more willing to be an inside player than Durant, although again, Durant may also suffer from poor coaching. I would still take Beasley high in the draft. I would still take Durant high in the draft as well — and then coach him very differently, and stop playing him out of position.
Tim
April 25, 2008
That’s odd. My post above should begin “Regarding Carmelo, as I recall …”
Christopher
April 25, 2008
Re: Durant
The coach has got to go. He’s a 3/4 hybrid, not an SG.
mrparker
April 25, 2008
Tim,
I don’t want my no. 3 pick to be an average player according to wow. I need that player to above a .2wp48. He’s a great scorer, but scoring is not a rare commodity in the NBA. Scorers are a finishing piece. A team’s foundation needs to built around players like Chris Paul and Tyson Chandler. These players consistently play great without wasting shots. That allows shooters to go through their peaks and valleys without the team depending on their “production”. If your team needs a volume shooter to shoot well for 82 straight games, then your team is headed for the lottery year in and year out.
Here’s are how Durant, Carmelo, and Beasly finished their freshman season.
Carmelo 22pts 10reb 2assists
Durant 25pts 11reb 1.3assists
Beasely 26pts 12reb 1.2assist
All pretty comparable. One could argue that Carmelo shined the most against tournament competition and therefore had the best numbers against serious competition. Durant and Beasely both experienced early exits. Both did so while having at least one teammate who projects as a future first rounder. I can’t see how that translates for any NBA gm into the thought that Beasely is a can’t miss prospect.
If the guy didn’t do the dirty work in college, he’ll never do it in the pros. Dirty work = wins. Points scored = accolades. Team success is measured by wins. Therefore giving me the guy that loves the dirty work.
This is why Kevin Love should be everyone’s consensus number 1 pick. He is going to change a franchise. Derrick Rose is also this same kind of player though not on the level of Love.
College stats do not translate for gunners. You must bring more than ability to jack as many shots as your coach will let you to the nba.
Nate
April 25, 2008
You can’t compare Durant and Beasley just based on their college numbers. Durant’s shocking lack of upper-body strength (dude couldn’t even get the bar up once during workouts) is turning out to be a huge hindrance in the NBA, and that’s decidedly a problem that Beasley doesn’t have. And Beasley’s maturing into a solid young man, which takes care of the only real concern about him.
As for Kevin Love, I think he’ll be a good pro, but he’s pretty much glued to the floor. That’s OK in college when you’re as skilled as he is, and he has compensating abilities, but it’s limiting to play below the rim all the time in the NBA. Again, that’s a problem Beasley doesn’t have.
Tim
April 25, 2008
mrparker
Did something change in the last half of the season? Here is the link to Erich Doerr’s early look at the draft:
https://dberri.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/an-early-look-at-the-2008-nba-draft/
Beasley was number one on Doerr’s list. Love was number two, and underrated in the conventional draft speculation. I understand your concern about Beasley, and can understand picking Love first, but who else would you pick ahead of Beasley?
mrparker
April 25, 2008
Durant was number 1 by far in win score last year. He’s only a rookie but 2 rebounds a game is not suddenly going to transform into 5 or 6 or even 4. The same with assists.
The numbers don’t always translate. I don’t believe Beasley’s will either. He may put up “big”
numbers but he wont turn a franchise into a winner by himself.
I don’t know where those Rose numbers come from but I have him ranked higher than I did D. Williams but below C. Paul. I think Jason Kidd is a very fair comparison. He’ll score more efficiently but assist less. Everything else is comparable.
antonio
April 26, 2008
you can’t just compare numbers and say they are the same player. it has been stated in this post the numerous differences between beasley and anthony. and if you want to get into specifics about the players, beasley was a much better rebounder than both. while anthony and durant were great rebounders in college, neither of them were great at boxing out and had good technique. Neither were expected to get 10+ boards a game. Beasley on the other hand is great at boxing out and has great upper body strength. There is no reason to think he can’t rebound on the next level (dirty work). He is built much differently than Durant or Melo. Mainly, he is much more muscular and defined. Also, Beasley has an unbelievable shooting stroke AND post game. Just because you score a lot of points, that does not make you a bad player. You can’t just compare numbers to two other players and say their careers will turn out the same.
And with regards to Kevin Durant, you might want to try looking at his numbers before you make a claim about him.
“He’s only a rookie but 2 rebounds a game is not suddenly going to transform into 5 or 6 or even 4.”
How bout as a rookie he average 4.4 rebounds a game. At shooting guard. And the fact is shooting guard is not his natural position. Most likely he will end up at small forward. And just by moving to small forward his rebounds will naturally go up becuase he will be spending more time defending close to the basket. And if Durant adds on to his frame (which he probably will), there is no reason to think he won’t start rebounding much better. Melo made a big improvement in rebounding this year, and it is his fourth. A lot of what you are saying does not have much basis.
mrparker
April 28, 2008
antonio,
Don’t know where I got the number 2 rebounds a game from. I screwed that up.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I believe that Beasely shoots too much for his rebounding “prowess” too matter. If he spent less time shooting he could get more rebounds and help his team more. His game is based too much on being a volume shooter to be a true difference maker in the NBA. Thats the basis of my contention.
antonio
April 28, 2008
my point would be look at Amare Stoudamire. His WP is .291, and I don’t see much difference between the two. Yes, Amare is more powerful and stronger, but both are athletic freaks who can score at will, and Beasley has the better stroke and a more committed rebounder. I don’t see why Beasley cant put up Amare Stoudamire like-numbers
mrparker
May 2, 2008
I don’t think wow is going to like Beasely as much as it likes Amare. The numbers tell me that he needs the ball in his hands to be successful and not one guy with similar stats to Beasely has had a wp48 above .2 and most end up being below average.
I think he will be Carmelo-ish if thats a word. Someone considered great by alot of pundits and fans but someone who ultimatley isn’t regarded as highly by wow.
antonio
May 4, 2008
what do you think amare’s stats would have been in college?
you have two player comparisons for Beasley- NOT A LOT. One has one played one year in the league, so judging him now would be ridiculous. The other has not lived up to expectations, but is still a completely different player. I think you are relying way too much on unreliable information
antonio
May 4, 2008
My guess for Amare’s stats – Something like 25, 12, 2 if he stayed one year. He would be considered one of those players you don’t like, but he turned out alright. Maybe you disagree with what his stats would be, but he definitely would have been a devastating scorer in college, just like beasley, durant or carmelo as well as a great rebounder just because of his sheer athleticism