On Sunday the LA Lakers lost at home to the Memphis Grizzlies. Actually the defending champions didn’t just lose. The Grizzlies – a below 0.500 team that has never won a playoff game – beat the Lakers by 19 points. And that clearly indicates that the defending champs have taken a step back. Maybe several steps back.
On the other hand (a phrase economists love)…
Well, one game does not a season make. And when we look at the entire 2010-11 season — and also look back at what we saw in 2009-10 — we see a somewhat different story.
Let’s start with what we saw last year. Our story begins with efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency). Last season the Lakers scored 105.6 points per 100 possessions while allowing 100.7 points. So the team’s efficiency differential was 4.9. Relative to what we saw in 2008-09 [differential of 7.8] and 2007-08 [differential of 7.3], the Lakers had declined. Nevertheless, the Lakers did win 57 games, and this mark was good enough to give this team the number one seed in the Western Conference.
Although the Lakers won 57 games last season, the team’s differential of 4.9 is actually consistent with a team that would win about 54 games (so this team was not the “best” team in regular season in the Western Conference last year). And when we move from efficiency differential to Wins Produced – detailed in the following table — we can see who was responsible for these victories.
Of the Lakers 53.6 Wins Produced, 47.2 could be traced to the production of Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, Kobe Bryant, and Andrew Bynum. Of the nine remaining players employed, only Sasha Vujacic – with a WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] of 0.109 – was above average (average WP48 is 0.100). So the sucess of this team was almost entirely traced to the play of Gasol, Odom, Bryant, and Bynum.
In the off-season the Lakers added Matt Barnes (0.201 WP48 with Orlando last season). So it looked like the Lakers would be improved. But with the loss to Memphis, it is clear this team isn’t better (at least, people might think this is clear). So what happened?
Again, we start with efficiency differential. After 34 games the Lakers have scored 107.2 points per 100 possessions while allowing 101.4. So the Lakers’ differential stands at 5.8. And that means, relative to last year, the Lakers are somewhat improved. Yes, despite what Memphis did to this team, it looks like the Lakers are a little bit better than they were in 2009-10.
When we turn to Wins Produced we can see who is producing wins for this team in 2010-11. Last year the Lakers had nine players who didn’t help much. And as the following table indicates, the Lakers have also employed nine players this season who haven’t done much. But there are six other players — Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, Kobe Bryant, Matt Barnes, Shannon Brown, and Andrew Bynum – who are posting above average numbers. And these six are on pace to produced 56.8 wins.
Of these six, Andrew Bynum – due to injury — has only played ten games. And has only played more than thirty minutes twice. If Bynum can stay healthy and continue to produce, one might expect the Lakers to be even better.
Unfortunately for the Lakers, the competition in the league has also gotten much better. Here were the top five teams in efficiency differential in 2009-10.
- Orlando Magic: 7.9
- Cleveland Cavaliers: 6.9
- Utah Jazz: 5.5
- San Antonio Spurs: 5.4
- Phoenix Suns and Atlanta Hawks: 5.0
And here are the top five in 2010-11.
- Miami Heat: 10.2
- San Antonio Spurs: 9.2
- Boston Celtics: 8.4
- LA Lakers: 5.8
- Chicago Bulls: 5.5
The Lakers mark this season would rank 3rd in the NBA in 2009-10. This year the Lakers ranks fourth, and the gap between where the Lakers currently stand and the top teams in the league is even larger than it was in 2009-10. So while the Lakers have improved, the competition this team faces for the 2011 title has gotten even better.
And that means the Lakers’ chances for a three-peat are not great. That is not to say it can’t happen. The playoffs are a small sample of games. And odd things can happen in small samples. But the odds are not with the Lakers.
If the Lakers fail to win a title in 2011, people will argue that this team got worse. But I think that is not entirely accurate. The Lakers –despite what happened Sunday night – are in an absolute sense a little bit better this year. But the competition this team faces is much better. So the Lakers have declined, but only in a relative sense.
In other words, whether or not we think the Lakers have declined depends on your perspective. And that is an answer that probably only an economist could love.
Update: Henry Abbott at TrueHoop offered a quick post today detailing some analysis of the last six games the Lakers have played (a post I just noticed). There is a temptation to read quite a bit into the latest performance of each team. It is best, though, to resist this temptation. The Lakers are probably going to lose more than twenty games this season. We probably could have guessed that before the season started, and it seems quite likely now. After each loss, or collection of losses, we might want to leap to some conclusion (after all, when a team loses they tend to play badly). But remember, they are probably going to start winning soon. When that happens, is everyone leaping to conclusions today just going to leap to another conclusion?
Okay, they probably will. This is not, though, the best way to do analysis.
– DJ
Wages of Wins Journal 
kevin
January 4, 2011
Maybe the Lakers look about the same on paper now, overall. But if you split the season in two, they were much better the first half than the second half. If recent trends continue, the Lakers won’t win 50 games.
dberri
January 4, 2011
Kevin… didn’t my update mean anything :)
Italian Stallion
January 4, 2011
The Lakers had one of the softest schedule in the NBA in the early part of the season (perhaps the softest) . That’s partly what accounted for their good start. Since then things have gotten a little tougher, but overall they’ve still had a very soft schedule (average opponent win % = .444). IMO, they haven’t been as good as their efficiency differential indicates.
All that said, I also believe they are a better team on paper this year so I think they will play better and ultimately start peaking later in the season as Bynum gets healthier, Kobe gets back to 100% physically, and the games start mattering. That will make them really tough coming out of the west.
entityabyss
January 5, 2011
Well, idk what 100% is for kobe, because statistically, he’s almost the exact same as last year, and he’s past his prime.
Herman
January 5, 2011
the problem with looking at just the differentials is that it undervalues the Lakers because the simply don’t try very hard. For example, the Lakers had a handful of games in which they scored nearly 100 pts thru 3 qtrs and then stopped trying in the 4th, making the results look closer than the game really was. One might argue all teams face such lapses in blowouts, but the Lakers do this a lot more than most, and seemed to have lost interest, whereas teh Celtics are motivated after a loss, and the Heat have something to prove.
kevin
January 5, 2011
There also seems to dissension in the clubhouse, with Phil Jackson calling out both Artest and Kobe in public. Maybe that will help but it could also backfire, if the players already think they are dancing as fast as they can.
Kobe is Kobe. He isn’t going to get any better than he is now, and may well get worse. When things go badly he tends to become a one-man band, which I think is what Jackson was referring to the other day.
brgulker
January 5, 2011
Kobe post! I’m surprised there are only 7 total comments so far!
Adam C. Morrison
January 5, 2011
“the problem with looking at just the differentials is that it undervalues the Lakers because the simply don’t try very hard.”
Or maybe they’re not a good team right NOW because [insert excuse]?
The why is less important than the what. And the what is that the Lakers are not who we thought they were.
Daniel
January 5, 2011
A few points.
Kobe’s efficiency is virtually the same as last year. Last year he was producing very well for half the year, relatively poorly for the 2nd half with injuries being a mitigating factor. Assuming that Kobe is as healthy now as he’ll be for the rest of the season, can we not expect his production to decline to a level below 09-10? He has been noticeably worse in the stretch since jamming his finger and that’s not going to go away given the state of his hands.
Second, can’t we make assumptions based on SOS and wear? The Lakers are a team that goes around how Gasol plays, someone who can definitely be worn down and has already shown signs of it. And also, can’t we also make assumptions based on the Lakers weakest-in-the-league schedule? If their efficiency differential is at this level vs. the weakest teams in the league, it only stands to reason that it’ll drop when they play teams that will make the playoffs, correct?
I think that given these factors, saying that the Lakers have declined has merit.
Italian Stallion
January 5, 2011
If you want to handicap the Lakers properly, you have to let go of the Kobe hate and debates about where he fits all time and focus on the fact that he hasn’t been 100% for over a year. He was injured virtually all of last year, is still not physically 100% coming off surgery, and is still struggling with his fingers.
His current and past stats are what they are, but they don’t tell you what they would be right now if he was healthy. For example, he’s clearly shooting worse from long range over the last year and a half than he was at his peak when most players sustain or improve from long range even as they get older.
Whether he and Bynum can get closer to 100% before the end of the season will determine how well they will play later in the season and in the playoffs. There’s little question they have a better team on paper than last year even though they clearly haven’t been playing as well despite the soft schedule so far.
mr obvious
January 5, 2011
Herma, the ‘the lakers just don’t feel like trying right’ argument wont work forever. I never believe that a cotender likes to be half a game ahead of the 5th seed and 6 games behind the 1 seed. Maybe its time to admit the lakers are what they are.
jbrett
January 5, 2011
On the one hand, I’m reluctant to offer, or go along with, arguments that are both highly plausible and virtually impossible to substantiate. On the other hand, it seems reasonable to think that some teams, or coaches, are inclined to call off the dogs earlier–or even throw in the towel earlier–and see a resultant decrease in differential; I just finished reading a post at TrueHoop on this very subject (with the interesting conclusion that maybe the season is too long).
On the gripping hand, the TrueHoop article was about the Spurs, who, even with their willingness to rest key players and occasionally damn the results, are demolishing my Lakers with regard to differential. So, even if the idea Herman is advancing is totally accurate, I’m not sure it’s cause for much optimism.
Italian Stallion
January 6, 2011
jbrett,
Part of the reason San Antonio “had” a very high efficiency differential is that they’ve played a lot more home games than away games so far. Home court advantage is not built into efficiency differential. That gave them a little bit of a tailwind in their results. Over the last two nights they lost to both the Knicks and Celtics on the road. I suspect that over time, their rating will decline a bit as they spend more time on the road.
Sam Cohen
January 6, 2011
jbrett- “on the gribbing hand…” It’s been awhile since I read it, but was that a reference to “The Mote in God’s Eye” (or the sequel)? (I’m blanking on the author’s name at the moment.)
Leroy Smith
January 6, 2011
So….the Lakers are letting their foot off the gas in december now? Wow. That’s a pretty good strategy to clinch the 8th seen in the west. Last year, they faded slightly with about a dozen games left in the regular season to let Kobe and crew to get a rest and still won the chip. This year they are getting a huge head start.
dberri
January 6, 2011
“The Mote in God’s Eye” is from Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. I read this a long time ago so I don’t remember the quote. Didn’t remember a sequel either. But I do remember enjoying the book.
Marc
January 6, 2011
I’m an avid reader and a seldom poster.
But as this is refering to some common topics, i thought the video might crack a smile or two.
Sam Cohen
January 6, 2011
Just looked it up. No wonder “the gripping hand” sounded familiar:
“A sequel to The Mote in God’s Eye, titled The Gripping Hand, was written by the same authors almost twenty years later.” (per wikipedia.)
jbrett
January 9, 2011
Sam,
I see you already found the answer to the reference. In the book, it stems from the fact that the ‘Moties’ had three arms, and an anatomically-based tendency to either see three sides to any situation, or to express two sides plus a conclusion. (Two smaller arms on one side did the delicate work, while the bigger, more muscular arm on the other did the heavy lifting. I’m reluctant to buy into any conclusions about the symbolism there; I just like the three-pronged arrangement.)