The LA Lakers won the 2009 NBA title and many consider this team to be a strong candidate to repeat. My review of Cleveland, though, suggested that LeBron and the Cavaliers should be the favorites in 2010. The choice of Cleveland was motivated by the following observations:
a. Cleveland was the best team in the regular season last season and the 5th best team since 1973-74, and
b. The moves Cleveland made this summer should make the Cavaliers even better.
To these two reasons I would add,
c. the Lakers were only the third best team in the NBA during the 2008-09 regular season, and
d. the Lakers may have taken a small step backwards.
Reviewing the Lakers
Last season the Lakers scored 109.4 points per possession while surrendering 101.5. Given these numbers, the team’s efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) was 7.8. Such a mark ranked behind both Cleveland and Boston. The Celtics chances to repeat, though, were significantly reduced when Kevin Garnett was injured. And Cleveland was upset by the Orlando Magic. Consequently, the Lakers got to face Orlando in the 2009 NBA Finals. In sum, although the Lakers won the title last year – and I picked them to do this both before the season started and before the NBA Finals — there is reason to think the Lakers were not the best team in the NBA in 2008-09.
That being said, LA was very good last year. And Table One reveals the players most responsible for that outcome.
Table One: The LA Lakers in 2008-09
The Lakers won 65 games last season, but the team’s efficiency differential – and consequently Wins Produced – suggests this team should have won about 61 games. And 54 of these wins can be traced to just five players: Pau Gasol, Kobe Bryant, Lamar Odom, Trevor Ariza, and Andrew Bynum. The Wins Produced of the remaining eleven players on this roster was only 7.1; and of these remaining players only Shannon Brown – who played just 136 minutes for the Lakers – was above average (average WP48 – or Wins Produced per 48 minutes – is 0.100).
Looking Ahead
This past summer the Lakers added Ron Artest in the free agent market and allowed Trevor Ariza to depart. Consequently, the Lakers depth chart is now as follows:
Potential First String
PG: Derek Fisher [2.6Wins Produced, 0.051 WP48]
SG: Kobe Bryant [15.0 Wins Produced, 0.244 WP48]
SF: Ron Artest [4.6 Wins Produced, 0.089 WP48]
PF: Pau Gasol [15.6 Wins Produced, 0.250 WP48]
C: Andrew Bynum [4.8 Wins Produced, 0.158 WP48]
Potential Second String
PG: Jordan Farmar [-0.9 Wins Produced, -0.035 WP48]
SG: Sasha Vujacic [2.7 Wins Produced, 0.099 WP48]
SF: Luke Walton [2.2 Wins Produced, 0.091 WP48]
PF: Lamar Odom [10.6 Wins Produced, 0.220 WP48]
C: D.J. Mbenga [-1.5 Wins Produced, -0.084 WP48 for career]
In addition to these ten players, the Lakers also have the following:
SG: Shannon Brown [0.6 Wins Produced, 0.060 WP48; for the entire season]
SF: Adam Morrison [-1.6 Wins Produced, -0.106 WP48, for the entire season]
PF: Josh Powell [-0.6 Wins Produced, -0.040 WP48]
As noted last July, Artest has simply never been as productive as Ariza. And that leads one to the following observations:
a. The Lakers were not the top team in the NBA last season.
b. If everyone the Lakers employ in 2009-10 does what he did in 2008-09, then the Lakers will be somewhat worse.
c. The other top teams in the NBA – and this is especially true of the Cavaliers – appear to have gotten better.
d. Therefore, the Lakers shouldn’t be the favorite to repeat in 2010.
What About Bynum?
All that being said… there is one giant wild card; and that card is Andrew Bynum. Here is what Bynum has done in his career:
2005-06: 46 games played, 340 minutes, -0.086 WP48
2006-07: 82 games played, 1,793 minutes, 0.115 WP48
2007-08: 35 games played, 1,008 minutes, 0.358 WP48
2008-09: 50 games played, 1,446 minutes, 0.158 WP48
Career: 213 games played, 4,587 minutes, 0.167 WP48
If we focus on 2008-09 and 2006-07 we would conclude that Bynum is a good, but not great, center. But for 1,008 minutes in 2007-08, Bynum was one of the best players in the game. What if that Bynum were to return?
If that happens, then the Lakers close the gap with Cleveland and another title is very possible. But there’s no guarantee that the Bynum seen briefly in 2007-08 is coming back. Certainly the news that he is limiting his work with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is not a good sign.
Mathletics, Kobe, and Odom
Let me close with a brief comment on Mathletics, the new book by Wayne Winston. When I am finished reviewing every NBA team from last year (and I still have about half of these reviews to write), I will post a longer comment on Wayne’s book. For now I would like to offer two thoughts:
a. Everyone interested in sports and statistics should go get a copy. This book offers a large number of interesting stories on baseball, football, and basketball. I don’t agree with everything that’s said, but it’s all very interested and well worth reading.
b. In addition to the book, Wayne has also set up a blog (waynewinston.com). This blog provides additional analysis in the spirit of his book. I did want to comment briefly on something Wayne said this past weekend:
I believe that David Berri and his colleagues (see https://dberri.wordpress.com/) have found the best set of linear weights based on box scores stats. By any box score based metric, Kobe was much better than Odom last season.
Wayne is the creator of the adjusted plus-minus approach and I suspect his calculation of this measure is superior to the imitators. That being said, he is not entirely correct with respect to what the box score says about Kobe Bryant and Lamar Odom. If one looks at NBA Efficiency and Player Efficiency Ratings — two approaches Wayne and I are both very critical of — then he is correct; Kobe looks much better than Odom. But if we focus on Wins Produced, Kobe is only slightly better than Odom this year; and Odom was more productive than Kobe in 2007-08.
Again, I will offer more on Mathletics when these team reviews are finished. In the meantime, go pick up a copy. Certainly if everyone has a copy the discussion of this book in the future in this forum will be well-informed.
– DJ
The WoW Journal Comments Policy
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 
anonymous
October 5, 2009
If Wayne Winston thinks your metric is the best one, then why does he think Troy Murphy is at best an “average” NBA player? Your metric had him rated as one of the best players last season.
http://waynewinston.com/wordpress/?p=156
dberri
October 5, 2009
Wayne Winston thinks his measure is the best one. He think my measure is the best out of the box score based metrics.
D Fitzpatrick
October 5, 2009
Why do you think his view of BenGordon is so different. He has him worth the money Detroit paid him. Just curious
dberri
October 5, 2009
I will touch upon Ben Gordon when I write the complete review.
brgulker
October 5, 2009
Dr. Berri,
I’m trying to recall whether or not you’ve addressed Cleveland’s good and bad issues at Center.
I realize Shaq is productive, but there are still only 48 minutes at the C position, and neither Z or Shaq can play out of position.
It would make sense to me to just assume they will split time and extrapolate from there. If that does in fact happen, or something similar to that, how impactful will Shaq actually be?
VH
October 5, 2009
I ask this question in all honesty: What makes you think you can use regular season statistics to determine which team is the best? Isn’t that the entire reason you have a playoff? If this was the EPL the regular season would matter for something, in American sports it does not.
Rob O'Malley
October 5, 2009
VH,
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Are you saying that because the Lakers won the championship last year then it should be assumed that they will repeat? Every year experts make the claim, “They’re the world champions and are number one until someone knocks them off.” And you know what happens? Someone almost always does, because it’s so hard to repeat. Different teams = different results. Also it’d be a lame analysis if Berri just came out and said “The Lakers won it last year, so they will again this year. The end.” After all he is just trying to write an analysis and make a prediction.
Your teams quality of play in the regular season is the best predictor of how well they will do in the playoffs. Also the regular season provides a much larger sample size than the playoffs. In a seven games or less series there can be and usually are a few flukes. Also David Berri won the ESPN playoff picking challenge against several other basketball statisticians and analysts using his model. So he might know what he’s doing.
Tony Cohen
October 6, 2009
I think the playoffs are a very obvious and significant factor in depterming ‘best’ moves. For example, lets look at the Artest trade. As stated above, this ISN’T the EPL, so regular season isn’t the whole picture.
What I hope (note hope, not assume) is that the powers that be on the Lakers looked at what would happen at SF when they had Ariza against Lebron, Pierce, Carter, and saw that against that narrow sub-stratum, Artest would produce better outcomes.
Of course, this move might show up in fewer wins during the regular season, which would be enough to nix the move…if this was the EPL.
brgulker
October 6, 2009
VH,
The objection you raised is something that I’ve wondered about as well. Here’s the conclusion I’ve come to.
The “best” team of regular season can be determined through efficiency differentials, something Dr. Berri and others talk about frequently. We have a sample size of 82 games from which to draw a conclusion, which is a relatively large sample size.
In the Playoffs, however, the sample size (i.e., a best of seven) is so small that the underdog has a relatively high chance of beating the “better/best” team (i.e., randomness can affect outcomes). So the eventual outcome of the NBA Playoffs — the NBA Champion — is not always the “best” team.
Take, for example, the Cleveland vs. Orlando series from last season. Over the course of the 82-game regular season, Cleveland was fantastic; they posted a wonderful efficiency differential (iirc, one of the best of all time?).
By contrast, over the course of that series, Orlando played magnificent basketball — arguably the very best basketball that Orlando was capable of playing. Orlando shot the lights out (especially from 3), and as a result, they won the series. Were they the “better” team? Well, for that particular small sample size, they did outplay Cleveland. But were they better? No, Cleveland was the better team.
In the next series, we saw how good Orlando actually played against Cleveland (they failed to connect from 3 at a high rate, and they lost to a much better LA team). The series against Cleveland was the exception, not the rule, and their exceptional play simply could not be sustained indefinitely. Eventually, the randomness stopped, and the better team won.
For Cleveland, it happened one series too late. (You could also look at the GS vs. Dallas series from a few years ago)
All that said, randomness is what makes sports so exciting! As a fan, I wouldn’t have the Playoffs (or NFL Playoffs, or NCAA Tournament) structured any differently. A best of seven gives the underdog a chance to perform at their highest level, and in turn, makes upsets possible.
Some of the most enjoyable basketball I’ve ever watched (other than my beloved Pistons!) was when GS upset Dallas. For that handful of games, GS could do no wrong — even though Dallas was their superior in every way. Watching the white outs, the crowd going crazy, and the Warriors exploding on offense will be one of my fondest memories of NBA basketball for a lifetime.
I hope that wall of text makes some basic sense :)
TRad
October 6, 2009
brgulker
I agree completely with your analysis of Orlanod-Cleveland series. Lucky bound here, unlucky there – and Orlando has won. But it was close: +1. -1, +10, +2, -10, +13. In 6 games Magic have scored 15 points more.
But Dallas- GSW, in my opinion, was a different story. Warriors have won all three games in regular season. And they did it quite decisively: +3, +17, +19.
Playoffs games weren’t close either: Warriors have won by 12, 18, 4 and 15. IMHO it doesn’t look like a pure luck. Dallas had a huge advantage in efficiency differential – 7.3 to 0.0.
I think EffDiff is a great prediction tool, but sometimes, very rarely, matchups could beat EffDiff. It’s unlikely – since introduction best-of-7 in the 1st round of p-o only one team has beaten the opponent with EffDiff advantage > 3, but it happens. It seems to me that for some reason Warriors were kryptonite for Mavericks in 2007.
Tball
October 6, 2009
brgulker,
Cleveland was addressed yesterday. To the extent their center issue was discussed, it is in the previous post.
VH,
Isn’t there some offsetting logic in your question? Challenging why the regular season is so important and then saying it isn’t important enough. I’ll try to answer both.
Generally, the top teams in the league do not get knocked off in the first round. It happens, but it is very unusual. GS over Dallas is one of the bigger upsets. But the extra round of playoffs doubles the number of playoff series, doubles the number of playoff games, expands post-season interest to more markets, and earns the league significant money. For a round of playoffs that doesn’t generally threaten the best teams, there is little competitive harm for this gain.
The teams that play the best in the regular season play the best in the playoffs. Injuries can upset the balance, but otherwise the cream rises to the top. And if you checked, I’d bet the team with the best record wins more often in the NBA than in baseball or football, despite a higher standard for admittance into the playoffs. Anything can happen in a 7-game series, but the expected happens with great frequency.
VH
October 6, 2009
Let me preface the following comments in a couple ways. One, I have very little knowledge of advanced statistics. Two, I am a huge Laker fan and am admittedly biased (although I try not to be).
My comment about the regular season stemmed from watching every Laker game I saw that they clearly played harder in more important games, they also had a very good record against the top teams in the league.
Rob, I am not saying Berri should not do his analysis, but isn’t the point to critique the analysis if you think it is not correct?
Tball, I never said the regular season should be more important. I just think the players do not treat the regular season the same way the do the playoffs.
Let me give some more reasoning as to why I think Cleveland was not the best team last year. I think they were built for the regular season. In a long playoff series, coaches can do a better job game planning for Lebron. I never felt their supporting cast was strong enough to push them. The Lakers on the other hand were much deeper and therefore could play their stars less minutes during the regular season, win or lose. Then come playoff time they would be able to play better. This was talked about extensively during the Laker season. It was fully acknowledged by most fans that although they were playing for the best record, being healthy in the playoffs was far more important.
So to say that they are not as good of a team because their point differential was lower during the regular season does not make sense to me. I just don’t think you can use the regular season to determine the best team.
Italian Stallion
October 6, 2009
I think everyone is making good points.
The regular season obviously gives you a good indication of who the best teams are, but the playoffs are sometimes a little unique:
1. Some teams do not match up with others very well. So a slightly inferior team could have an advantage over a specific slightly superior team.
It’s the old if A > B and B > C is A always > C?
I say NOT ALWAYS!
2. In the playoffs, many teams shorten their rotation. So the team that has the best starting 5 plus a few bench players might beat a team that was better in the regular season where 1o-12 players might be more relevant.
3. IMO, playoff experience carries weight.
Italian Stallion
October 6, 2009
I follow the Lakers but not closely enough to remember all the details.
Didn’t Bynum’s highly productive period occur before Gasol came to the team?
I recall early last year Jackson suggesting that there were some issues with them playing together that needed to be resolved during the season. Obviously, they worked it out well enough to win a championship, but I wonder if some of Gasol’s excellent productivity is coming out of Bynum.
romalley
October 6, 2009
VH,
It is important to critique something if you do not think it is correct. I don’t think you were very clear in what your dissenting opinion was. It seemed to me like you were saying that the analysis wasn’t worth doing because regular season means nothing… I guess? That’s something I disagree with and I was critiquing your critique in a way.
GiveMePi
October 8, 2009
I have performed some statistical analisis on last year’s performance for the top teams (LAL, CLE, ORL, BOS).
And regarding the Lakers I found a couple interesting facts:
a)While other top teams saw most of their players over-achieve with respect to the last couple seasons, several of the Lakers were under-achievers, with the exception of Ariza. If the Lakers’ players return to the level of play shown in previous seasons, they will be better. And I am not just talking Bynum here. (additionally, one would expect Ariza to revert to his old form this season, making him less valuable)
b)I have been looking at the scoring flow charts of the games for the Top teams, and one interesting feature is that the Lakers often let down their intensity once they were up by a large number of points much more than any other team. This behavior was somewhat reduced during the playoffs, indicating that we may have an anomalous 7.8 pt differential. The adjusted pt differential, taking into consideration the apparent let-downs, goes up to 11.2.
So, while this data is speculative (heck all the other data is just as much), I would not be tempted to mark down the Lakers. They could very well be a better team this season, and they could very well have been the best team, hands down, last season.