Earlier in the week I noted that the Clippers were the worst team in the NBA. Perhaps surprisingly, though, this team has a very good collection of rookies.
Since posting this observation the Clippers have been on fire. Okay, they only won two games in a row. But one of these victories was over the Hornets.
What is interesting (at least to me), is that the minutes played by the players has changed a bit over the last two games.
The first table below reports what the Clippers have offered – with respect to Wins Produced – after 16 games. As noted, the team is currently on pace to win 22 games (a seven game improvement since earlier in the week).
The second table, though, indicates the Clippers could be better. If we consider how minutes have been allocated during this amazing winning streak (of two games!), we see a team that could be on pace to win 35 games.
What’s the difference? The promising young players are getting more minutes. And the veterans who are producing in the negative range are spending more time on the bench.
Now part of this is due to injury. But it does suggest that the Clippers could be a bit better – than their 3-13 record indicates – if the team simply allocated minutes a bit differently. And maybe when those veterans depart – or if those veterans started to produce – the Clippers could become “dominant” (or “good”, or “not really bad”).
– DJ
Wages of Wins Journal 
EntityAbyss
November 26, 2010
Yea, they could, but I don’t think that’s gonna happen, and also, I don’t think Baron Davis will stay in the negative range, or Chris Kaman will stay that bad.
Onto something else though.
IF YOU’RE WONDERING WHY MIAMI HAS A BAD RECORD SO FAR, YOU SHOULD READ THIS.
I saw a comment a few days ago suggesting that WP is wrong because Miami has a bad record and their star players have lower WP numbers than in years past.
First of all, to understand why teams win in the NBA, you should look at efficiency differential rather than a team’s record. After less than 20 games, the correlation won’t be so high, but as the season progresses, it tends to even out. Miami has had bad luck. With the Clippers (small winning streak after starting 1-13), Detroit (small winning streak after starting 0-5), Atlanta (small losing streak after starting 6-0) and Utah (small winning streak after starting 0-5), it evened out sooner rather than later. Miami is another team. Looking at efficiency differential suggests that they’re on pace to win close to 70 games, if not more, so they’re playing better than it appears.
As for the big 3. It’s pretty ridiculous to say it’s bad after, once again, less than 20 games. It has nothing to do with gelling. They’ve just started the year off slowly. So has Kevin Durant, but you’re not hearing anything about his team having gelling issues. Don’t jump to conclusions. It’s a LOOOONNNNGGGGG season, and the heat have (contrary to popular belief) played very good basketball and better than would have been expected (thanks to players outside the big 3). They’re good for a big winning streak, and with the addition of Erick Dampier, will probably end up dominating ridiculously by the time the playoffs come near (having haslem back with miller).
I had to get that off my chest.
d
November 28, 2010
it must suck having to argue a position equivalent to saying the sky is not blue. Players do need to gel. Players play better when they feel better, and play worse when they feel worse. Coaching decisions affect team wins.
Matt
November 29, 2010
Wouldn’t all those young guys fall apart if they were relied on so heavily for an entire season? Completely benching Kaman and Baron Davis to make room for rookies, or to give DeAndre Jordan 31 mpg is drastic.