Before the season started I wrote an NBA Preview with the following title: Previewing the Year of the Super Teams. The column made two observations.
- There had never been an NBA season where three or more teams won more than 75% of their games.
- In 2009-10 we will see this happen.
Hence, 2009-10 was going to be the year of the Super Teams!!!
About 20% of the 2009-10 season has now been played. And when we look at efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency), here is the list of teams on pace to win more than 62 games this season.
1. Boston Celtics (9.7 differential, 66.0 projected wins)
Yes, the list currently is occupied by one team. The LA Lakers have a differential of 8.1 and are projected to win 61.7 games. Now that projection ignores the fact that Pau Gasol is now going to be playing all the Lakers games (assuming he stays healthy). So I think the Lakers can surpass the 62 win mark. But after the Lakers, the next best team is the Denver Nuggets (7.7 differential, 60.7 projected wins); and after the Nuggets, no team is currently projected to win more than 60 games.
The primary issue has been injuries (and suspensions). At least, I think that’s primarily the story in Cleveland and Orlando (two of my leading “Super Team” candidates).
But what about the San Antonio Spurs? The Spurs have won five straight games. Across the entire season, though, the Spurs have a 5.0 differential and are projected to win only 53.7 games. This is hardly the mark of a Super Team (although a fantastic mark for many NBA teams).
When we look closely at the Spurs we see that injuries are mostly the story in San Antonio as well. Manu Ginobili has already missed six games. If Ginobili averages 30 minutes per game – and maintains his current Wins Produced per 48 minutes [WP48] of 0.222 – the Spurs would be on pace to win 57.9 games. And if Ginobili returns to the WP48 we saw last year (0.335), the Spurs would be on pace to win 62.6 wins (assuming Ginobili can average 30 minutes per game).
Ginobili is not the only player to suffer an injury. Last year, Tony Parker posted a 0.166 WP48. This year Parker has missed four games and his WP48 is only 0.090. If Parker can average 30 minutes per game – and return to what we saw last year – we can add 4.3 wins to the Spurs’ projection.
While Ginobili and Parker have struggled, Tim Duncan and Matt Bonner are posting the best numbers of their respective careers. Back in 2002-03, Duncan posted a 0.375 WP48. Last year – at the age of 32 – his mark was only 0.265. This year, though, Duncan’s WP48 has soared to 0.413. Like Duncan, Bonner is also soaring. His WP48 has risen from 0.158 last year to 0.223 this season. And if Duncan and Bonner revert to what we saw last year, the Spurs’ projection will decline by 7.6.
If somehow Duncan and Bonner don’t completely return to what we saw last year – and Ginobili and Parker do return to what we saw last year – the Spurs will surpass the 60 win mark. Those are quite a few ifs, though. Still, it’s possible the Spurs will be one of these “Super Teams” I mentioned back in October.
Even if that happens, though, it looks like there was a serious flaw with what I said in October. It appears I seriously under-estimated the importance of injuries. Essentially I looked at what each team would achieve if everyone stayed healthy. But of course injuries are going to happen. Hence, 2009-10 may not be the year of the Super Team. Yes, I think – after just 20% of the season has been played — I was wrong.
Let me close with two observations that seem correct (see, I can’t keep with the “I was wrong” theme). First, it looks like DeJuan Blair will be a productive NBA player. After 15 games his WP48 is currently 0.287. Such a mark (and I haven’t checked everyone yet) might lead the 2009-10 rookie class. So just as was thought last summer, it looks like teams shouldn’t have passed on Blair in the 2009 draft.
And there is the case of Richard Jefferson. RJ’s WP48 mark is currently 0.078. Jefferson has not been above average since 2005-06, and it looks like he might not be above average again. In other words, it looks like Jefferson is going to continue to be ranked among the NBA’s most overrated talents.
Then again, I thought this was the year of the Super Teams. So maybe there is hope for Jefferson after all.
– 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 
Lior
December 2, 2009
It’s important to note that last year’s production numbers also reflect injuries — those that occurred last year. In other words, unless you expect the rate of injuries this year to be greater than last year’s, there should be no bias in your predictions on average across the league. I assume here that the projections depended on last year’s number of minutes played, which reflects injuries. Just like you over-estimated production due to injuries, you must have also under-estimated the production of players who were injured last year, for example.
For individual teams it may be possible to do better — perhaps the forecast for the Spurs and Cavs (whose rosters are older relative to last year) should have been for them to be more injury-prone this season. But until you can do that we should be happy with an unbiased estimator even if it has variance we don’t yet understand.
dberri
December 2, 2009
Lior,
No, for minutes I just assumed they would be healthy. So I assumed Ginobili could play more than 11o0 minutes this year.
Rockets
December 2, 2009
Any chance you could post on the Rockets? They seem to be a “surprise” this year to most, but they seem to be playing worse than you expected.
dberri
December 2, 2009
The Rockets have a winning record and they have out scored their opponents. Not sure I expected much better than this. I didn’t say the team was going to win a title.
Jeff Siegel
December 2, 2009
I dunno, seemed a touch ironic to immediately follow an admission of having under-estimated injuries with a “see I told you so” on Blair. It seems likely most of the League medically red-flagged the kid due to an absence of knees. It might have been prudent to delay the Elmo Shuffle until a bit more of the season has played out.
Italian Stallion
December 2, 2009
I have to agree with Jeff that it’s WAY too early to sing the praises of Blair. He looked like such an obvious talent that it seems likely that everyone passed on him because of the risk of an injury that would shorten his career . However, I doubt anyone passed because they thought his career would be over in the first few weeks of his rookie season.
I have zero idea what the probabilities of a serious injury were given his condition, but I think it’s going to take a couple of years for this to play out. In fact, I don’t know that we will ever know. Regardless of whether he gets injured or not that still doesn’t tell us what the probabilities were. It is possible to be wrong and get a good result or vice versa.
Man of Steele
December 3, 2009
Well, I’ll have to disagree a bit with Blair. If he plays 2-5 years at his current level of productivity and then suffers a major injury, I’d think that is still more than a team would typically get out out of a non-lottery 1st round pick, or an early second round pick (where Blair was selected). What percentage of players selected in those ranges even have one successful year? It seems like at least half of those types of guys never even become average. If you have a chance to have a player who is not only average, but way above average, for a few years, wouldn’t you rather have that guy than some below-average guy for a few more years?
On a related note, it seems like the Spurs could be a bit better if they put Theo Ratliff on IR and Antonio McDyess on the bench and gave their minutes to Blair. With those two taking up significant minutes and with Duncan and Bonner playing so well, Blair is having a hard time getting off the bench.
brgulker
December 3, 2009
I haven’t been able to watch the Spurs much, and I don’t know how McDyess has played thus far.
But I did watch Dyess for years in Detroit, and he was a notoriously slow starter … he always seemed to start reaching his peak around mid-season. I noticed that Dyess wasn’t mentioned above. Has he helped the Spurs much this season?
If not, it might be fascinating to analyze his previous seasons, to see how he has played in his first 30 or so games compared to his last 50 or so.
Greg
December 3, 2009
I’d like to see a Rockets post as well. They’ve managed to outplay the Lakers and Blazers, and seem to be close at the end of every game. The exception is Dallas. Why is that? How is the play of Brooks and Budinger affecting the Rockets overall chances for the playoffs?
khandor
December 3, 2009
David,
1. There was always going to be considerable parity across the league this season, as soooooo many teams at the bottom end had actually managed to improve themselves and, rightfully, should have been perceived by other analysts as being in the category of a middle-of-the-pack team along a whole swack of others.
2. Since Dallas can readily “go small” they match-up very well with the Rockets and, therefore, eliminate one of Houston’s major advantages vs other opponents.
3. RJ is the type of player that needs to have other elite level performers on the court beside him. If the Spurs can get healthy for the playoffs, they will still be a tough out, provided that Gregg can clarify his “Big Man” rotation behind Duncan and McDyess. If he can’t do this properly, which is something that he’s actually struggled with at different times in the past, the Spurs will NOT reach the WC Finals this season.
4. Unless Ron Artest [i.e. “Henny” Youngman] or Lamar Odom [i.e. “Kaptain Kloe”] implode the Lakers from within … the eventual outcome of this season is almost written in stone.
Cheers
Rockets
December 3, 2009
Well, before the Rockets big win over the clippers last night (they won by about 15), their +- was about even. My sense is that the Rockets are much better when Landry and Lowry are playing instad of Hayes and Brooks, but I’d be interested to see the number crunching.
Ray
December 3, 2009
khandor, that analysis of RJ doesn’t make much sense. He’s playing with the best teammates of his career. Duncan is having a career year, by the way. RJ played with Kidd and Bogut, and then pretty much nobody near elite (or good). I think it just comes down to RJ isn’t very good.
Also, people keep asking about the Rockets, but I’m not hearing anything about Ariza. He’s been great in low usage roles in L.A. and now he’s their go-to-guy of sorts, and his eFG% has plummeted. What does WP48 say about his current season compared to the last? This is an ilikeflowers question.
Italian Stallion
December 3, 2009
Man of Steel,
I don’t disagree with what you are saying, but Blair hasn’t been a productive regular for 2-5 years yet.
IMO, it’s pretty clear that where San Antonio selected him he was bargain. There wasn’t much downside.
It’s much less clear at what point in the draft he went from “bad risk” to “OK value” to “bargain”. I suspect that a lot of GMs had a tough time with that assessment also and decided to insist on a large margin of safety before blowing their careers on a dead horse.
Bill
December 3, 2009
Again, one of the problems with statistical analysis is that it hides in its aggregates the actual facts underlying the phenomenon being studied. Knowing some of the facts about how the Spurs run their organization, I find it doubtful that the Spurs win 62 games this year, whether they have the ability to do so or not.
The Spurs have a philosophy that the important season is the second season, the playoffs. They use the regular season to get their players ready, and to get a good seed in the playoffs. But they are also concerned with the cost of wins in physical wear and tear on their players. They consciously do not try to maximize wins but instead try to balance the values of wins to the playoff effort against their cost. If, towards the end of the regular season, the Spurs project that they will finish with more than 55 wins they will probably dial back the minutes of their finishers (if this was any other team than the Spurs I would have said “starters” here, they have a different philosophy on that subject). They would consider altering this if the seed that 55 wins would get them was considered inadequate or if they could get a higher seed through just a few more wins.
I think only an extraordinary situation would persuade the Spurs to even try for 62 wins, irrespective of whether they able to do it or not.
Other teams are also likely to pursue this policy. Boston might because of the age of their team, but it will depend on their evaluation of how valuable the higher seeds are to them in the playoffs.
Man of Steele
December 3, 2009
IS,
Right. I guess I’m wondering what the likelihood is that not having a non-lottery first round pick pan out would ruin a GM’s career. If low first-rounders are not all that valuable anyway, how could you not take a chance on a player who could be great (especially if the “safe” pick is fairly likely to be a bust anyway)?
ilikeflowers
December 3, 2009
Bill, you’re just talking about allocation of minutes. Why is that a statistical analysis problem?
mrparker
December 3, 2009
re Blair,
I find it funny that anyone would think this league passed on Blair solely because of his knees. With Boozer as one concrete example its possible that the league passed on Blair because he is only 6 feet 6 inches tall.
Phil
December 3, 2009
mrparker,
Boozer went pretty late in the draft too because of height and injury worries, despite being dominant in college. Blair was also quite heavy, like 310. I don’t know how many awesome but undersized PFs are going to have to succeed until it becomes common knowledge that being 6’6 is a hindrance, but not a complete barrier.
GMs love measureable physical traits when it comes to drafting college players. I’d say it’s more of a “cover your ass” mechanism than anything else. If a player has all the physical tools but doesn’t put it together on the floor, the GM is rarely blamed. Which is the main concern for a lot of them, after all.
Italian Stallion
December 3, 2009
Speaking of Blair, he just had a great game against the Celtics in a losing effort.
todd2
December 4, 2009
GM’s look for height and/or speed and Blair has neither. He is strong, mentally tough, has great hands and fell into a great situation. I agree with Phil, it’s unfortunate that we frequently see lists of draft “busts” that place the majority of the blame on the players. We need to see lists of GM busts—and successes too. There are some teams that are competitive without depending on lottery picks and free agent signings; the Spurs, Jazz and Rockets come to mind.
todd2
December 4, 2009
I think Bill makes a valid point. We’re seeing something similar in Boston. Garnett’s role has changed. He’s spending more time away from the basket screening for his teamates. That will probably change the further they advance into the playoffs. They also have the benefit of playing in an abysmal division. Kendrick Perkins deserves more ink, too. He’s having a good season.