Wednesday, March 30, 2011

High-Tech Hoops Stats for the Casual Fan – VOL 5 – Team Stats

In the first 4 installments of this series, we dealt only with advanced individual player stats.  Now we’re going to move on to teams.

Some may say that the only important team statistic is winning percentage and I wouldn’t argue all that hard with this point of view.  Still, the advanced team stats can provide additional insight into why a team’s winning percentage is what it is, so we’ll take a look.

Beyond Wins and Losses…and Pythagoras, the Hoops Stats Geek

Most of us are fond of the saying “a win is a win.”  Stats guys aren’t.  It’s their nature to try to find extra meaning from things most folks see as simple.  Not only is this not a bad thing, if we’re honest with ourselves, most of us don’t really believe that a win is a win either.  If your favorite team beats a bad team by 20 points, you probably feel better about things than if they just eked the thing out.  When the latter happens, you probably start your assessment with , “Yeah, we won, but…”  The quality of the competition also matters to most of us.  If your team beats the Miami Heat or the LA Lakers it probably gives you a bigger buzz than if you beat a doormat.

What the stats gurus do here isn’t all that tricky.  They keep track of margin of victory (MOV) as well as strength of schedule (SOS) to come up with alternative team rankings. 

A team that outscores its opponents by an average of 7 points per game (+7 MOV) is presumably better than a team that only outscores its opponents by a single point (+1MOV).  A team with a MOV of -3 is presumably better than a team that has a -8 MOV.  SOS takes the MOVs of all the teams you’ve played and provides a number, positive (stronger than average schedule), negative (weaker than average schedule) or zero (a neutral/average schedule).  As the stats guys see it, if your team has a high positive MOV and a high positive SOS, you have yourself one damn fine team. 

In one of the least surprising developments in the history of sports statistics, the statisticians combined the MOV and SOS into a single stat.  Then they showed what I suspect was an inadvertent sense of humor by calling their new stat the “Simple Rating System (SRS)".  When I saw the word “simple” in the name, I started to laugh.  Then I followed the link below to an article that describes the methodology and I laughed so hard I hurt myself (you’ve been warned):


The top teams in the NBA by SRS?  Here ya go:

Chicago Bulls – 6.51
Heat – 6.45
Lakers – 6.32
San Antonio Spurs – 5.91
Boston Celtics – 5.13

I’d really love to argue with these, but must admit that they’re very damn close to what my eyeballs have been telling me, so they may be onto something here.  By the way, from time to time you may hear or read about a team’s “Power Rating.”  There are lots of different methods for these, but it’s a good bet that MOV and SOS are in the mix.

So about now (if you’re still awake), you may be thinking “Wait a minute!  What about Pythagoras?  What the heck does he have to do with this stuff”  From high school, you may remember that Pythagoras was a Greek philosopher who dabbled in math and came up with something called the Pythagorean Theorem (yeah, some say he didn’t, but who cares?) which dealt with triangles and stuff.  None of this matters, but some stats guys have used Pythagoras’s mathematical musings to come up something called “Pythagorean wins” and “Pythagorean losses.”  These essentially take a team’s MOV, massages these numbers with some Pythagorean ju-ju, and then predicts the number of wins and losses a team should have.  If you really want more specifics on the ju-ju, have at it:


The main advantage of the “Pythagorean standings” over the MOV ratings is that they’re, well, standings so you can easily compare what Pythagoras would predict to what has actually happen.  For instance, we all know that the Spurs have the best record in the NBA and it’s not really all that close.  Their 57-17 record is 3.5 games ahead of the second-best Bulls (53-20).  However, as Pythagoras sees things, the Spurs are no better than tied (with the Orlando Magic) for the 5th-best team in the NBA behind the Bulls (54-19 Pythagorean W-L), Heat (54-20), Lakers (52-21) and Celtics (51-22).  Pythagoras has the Spurs and Magic at 51-23.

Many stats geeks believe that Pythagorean win-loss records is a better indicator of the true quality of a team and therefore a superior predictor of playoff success.  Being a Bulls’ fan, I hope Pythagoras is right, but have to be honest and say that I don’t buy it (last season the World Champion Lakers were tied for the 5th-best Pythagorean regular season record).  However, one thing comparing teams Pythagorean versus actual records is good for is to get a quick sense of how well or poorly a team does in close games.  For example, since the Spurs have a much better actual record than their MOV-based Pythagorean record, it’s likely that they’ve won a lot of close games.  The Heat are the reverse situation so you would figure that they haven’t fared as well in the close ones.  In fact, in games decided by 3 points or less, the Spurs are the top team in the NBA with a 73.3% winning percentage and the Heat are third to last with a 31.6% winning percentage.

Offensive and Defensive Ratings and Pace

Traditionally, if you want to evaluate how good a team is on offense or defense, you simply look at how many points that team scores or gives up per game.  You might also take a look at the team’s shooting percentages to get a better handle on its offensive performance and its opponents’ shooting percentages for defensive performance. 

These remain important team statistics, but they ignore the team’s relative pace of play.  Does the team fast break at every opportunity, often getting up a shot in the first 10 seconds of a possession, or are they a halfcourt team that uses just about all of the 24-second clock?  Are they an exceptional offensive rebounding team that often creates multiple possessions on offense?

To quantify pace of play, basketball statisticians created the “Pace Factor” statistic that is an estimate of a team’s offensive possessions per 48 minutes.  Currently, the fastest-paced team in the NBA is the Minnesota Timberwolves with a 96.4 Pace Factor.  The slowest paced team is the Portland Trailblazers at 88.2.  Interestingly, the Bulls, Lakers, Celtics, Mavericks and Heat, 5 of the top 6 teams in the league, have very similar team Pace factors (between 90.4 and 91.0).

If a team plays at a very fast pace, they can to some extent, afford to have a lower shooting percentage than slower-paced teams.  However, fast-paced teams also tend to give their opponents to have additional possessions.  The Timberwolves score a very respectable 101.1 points per game, 10th-best in the NBA.  However, the T-Wolves’ opponents score 106.8 points per game…worst in the league and the key reason why they are 17-57.

I’ve occasionally given the stats guys a hard time in this series, but I have to tip my hat to them for creating the team Offensive Rating (ORtg) and Defensive Rating (DRtg) statistics.  These are both easy to understand and as I see it, are clearly superior to the simple points scored and points allowed per game stats.

ORtg is the number of points a team scores per 100 possessions.  As you probably guessed, DRtg is the number of points allowed per 100 possessions.  You’ve also probably figured out that the reason these stats are better is that, since the basis is 100 possessions rather than per game, they adjust for pace of play.  They also adjust for teams that happen to play an unusually high number of overtime games.

The top 5 teams in the NBA in terms of ORtg are:

Denver Nuggets – 112.6
Lakers – 111.8
Houston Rockets – 111.6
Spurs – 111.5
Heat – 111.2

Obviously, all are extremely potent offensive teams.

The top-5 for DRtg are:

Bulls – 100.0
Celtics – 100.1
Magic – 102.0
Milwaukee Bucks – 102.6
Heat 103.7

Unlike the top-5 in ORtg which were close bunched, in terms of DRtg, the Bulls and Celtics are clearly the defensive standouts.  The Heat stand out in terms of offensive-defensive balance, though the Lakers (7th in DRtg at 104.6) and Spurs (9th in DRtg at 105.2) are also strong on both ends.  Of the teams making these top-5s, only the Bucks have a sub-.500 record (they’re next-to-last in ORtg) proof that you can succeed in the NBA by being exceptional on either side of the ball (as long as you’re not godawful on the other side).


For all of the team statistics featured in this article, as well as most of the individual stats used in the earlier installments of this series, go to:


This concludes the stats series.  Hope you found it interesting, informative or at least not excessively painful.

Saturday, March 26, 2011

Luol Deng – As Good as Ever





They say that perception is reality and on the Chicago sports scene, there may not be a better example of this than Bulls’ small forward Luol Deng.

Deng is currently the second-leading scorer (behind MVP front-runner Derrick Rose) on a Bulls team that improbably is leading the NBA Eastern Conference by 2 games.  He leads the team in minutes played (3rd in the NBA).  Bulls’ Head Coach Tom Thibodeau speaking of Deng says, “He's our glue. He keeps us together.”  Thibodeau, an acknowledged defensive savant, also praises Deng as “an all-league defender.” 

The media and fans have happily joined in on the Deng Lovefest.  An angle that many NBA writers and analysts have taken to help explain the surprising success of the Bulls is Deng’s sudden emergence as one of the better all-around players in the league.  Fans are heaping praise on Deng’s “new game” that (finally) features solid 3-point range and are touting him for NBA All-Defensive Team honors.

It hasn’t always been so good to be Luol Deng.  After signing a 6-year $80million contract during the summer of 2008, Deng has probably been the team’s least popular player.  He’s been labeled as overpaid, soft, unathletic, injury-prone and weak-willed.  Fans and media complained about his lack of range, inability to create his own shot and that he “disappears at crunch time.”  Some of the cruder Bulls’ fans began referring to him as “Dung” (delighted no doubt by their rapier-like wit).  Nearly everyone in Bulls’ Nation wanted to see him traded and a bag of balls was often mentioned as all they wanted in return.  This continued into this season when fans/media lamented that the Bulls couldn’t swing a deal with the Denver Nuggets for superstar small forward Carmelo Anthony principally because the Nuggets had no interest in Deng and his “horrible” contract. 

While he’s never been my favorite Bulls’ player, I’ve always been a Deng fan probably because I weigh defensive performance more heavily than most and appreciate the completeness of Deng’s game.  The big contract he signed didn’t bother me like it did others since 23 year old (at the time he signed his current contract) players of his caliber aren’t very easy to acquire.  As a “Deng Defender,” I have to tell you that it’s been a long and lonely past couple years.

So why all the sudden affection?  Well, there are a couple good reasons and one pretty misguided one.

The most obvious good reason lies in the team’s unexpected success.  The NBA East was supposed to be owned this season by the Lebron-Wade-Bosh led Miami Heat, with many predicting that they would seriously challenge the ’95-’96 Bulls record 72 wins.  The Celtics and Orlando Magic would be the only two teams in the conference with a chance of seriously competing with the Heat.  The Bulls were picked 5th or 6th by most.  Yet with only a few weeks remaining in the season, there sit the Bulls atop the Eastern Conference standings by 2 full games over Boston and 2.5 ahead of the unbeatable Heat (who the Bulls swept this season, 3-0).  Taking nothing away from Derrick Rose’s rise to superstardom this season, the chief reason the Bulls are where they are is because of their defense.  Depending on the team statistics you use, the Bulls defense has been #1 or #2 in the league for most of the season and Deng is universally acknowledged as their best defensive player.

A rising tide lifts all boats and Deng and his teammates are all riding high right now.

The other sound reason for Deng’s resurrection is that he’s been healthy.  In fact, he’s the only Bull to start all 71 games this season.  The media/fan criticism that he is “soft” and won’t play hurt is a particularly sore point with Deng.  The truth is that he has a pretty remarkable history of playing with pain, including a stress fracture in 2009 (this was the first season of his new contract and though he tried to play through this injury, he had his worst statistical season and missed nearly half the team’s games and the playoffs), a broken thumb last season and a painful thigh injury a couple weeks ago.  Still, his 71 games so far this season is the 3rd-highest in his 7-year NBA career.

However, the reason given by most of the reformed Deng-haters is Deng is simply playing much, much better than he ever has…he was bad enough to hate and now he’s good enough to love (or at least like).  As I see it, this is pretty much a simple matter of justifying what I always felt was mostly misguided and misplaced criticism of Deng.  While it’s true that Deng has added the 3-point shot to his offensive arsenal this season, statistically at least, he’s pretty much performing as he always has.  In fact, if the Bulls weren’t doing so well, I have little doubt that all those oh so clever “Dungsters” would say he was having another down season and dragging the team down with him.  

In any case, let’s take a look at Deng’s “breakthrough” current season versus his career numbers (career numbers in parentheses) on a per 36-minute basis:

Points – 16.4 (16.6)
Rebounds – 5.3 (6.6)
Assists – 2.5 (2.3)
Blocks – 0.5 (0.6)
Steals – 0.9 (1.0)
Turnovers – 1.8 (1.8)
Field Goal % - 45.9% (47.1%)
3-point % - 34.6% (32.6%)
True Shooting - 55.0% (53.2%)
Player Efficiency Rating – 15.8 (16.3)

See what I mean?  And it’s not as if Deng has suddenly become a good defensive player.  Pretty much all of his head coaches have consistently praised him for his work on that end of the floor. 

In the end, Luol Deng is very good at the game of basketball.  He’s smart, works hard and is a great teammate.  Players who have played on his teams and coaches who have coached him have known this all along.  Still, if the former haters want to claim that Deng has suddenly morphed into a very good player, I’m OK with it…I’ve always celebrated when perception catches up with reality.  This said, I hope you’ll understand why, when someone in the bar claims that Deng ought to win the “Most Improved Player” award this season, it’s all I can do not to laugh out loud.

Sunday, March 20, 2011

High-Tech Hoops Stats for the Casual Fan – VOL 4 – “Percentage-izing”







You gotta love percentages…they’re just so versatile.  You start with perfection (100%) and work from there.  In basketball, we’re all familiar with the basic percentage-based stats like field goal percentage and in earlier installments of this series I covered some trickier ones like effective field goal percentage and true shooting percentage.  However, there are a whole series of other percentage-based basketball stats that are used to evaluate individual performance on the court.  All but one (usage%) are simply a different way to evaluate specific aspects of basketball performance that already have familiar measurement stats.  None are particularly revolutionary, but since they’re increasingly being used by the hoops media, we’ll take a quick look at them.

Usage Percentage

Usage% is the one percentage-based statistic that isn’t simply a percentage-ized version of a familiar stat.  I could give show the formula, but I’ll try describing it in plain English and give the masochists a link:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/glossary.html

Usage percentage takes an individual player’s total number of shots, free throw attempts and turnovers and compares this to the total number of shots, free throw attempts and turnovers of the team during the minutes the player is on the floor.  Since every offensive possession ends with either a shot, free throw attempt or turnover, one way of looking at usage% is, relative to minutes played, how often does a player have the ball when a possession ends. 

On a perfectly-balanced team, each player would have a 20% usage% (100% divided among the 5 players on the floor).  The current Celtics team comes about as close to this as any NBA team, with no player having a usage% over 25%.  Not surprisingly, when you look at the league leaders in usage, you’ll find most of the league’s scoring leaders:

Kobe Bryant (Lakers) – 34.5%
Carmelo Anthony (Knicks) – 32.5%
Derrick Rose (Bulls) – 32.2%
Dwayne Wade (Heat) – 32.0%
Russell Westbrook (Thunder) – 31.7%

It’s interesting that the league’s leading scorer, Kevin Durant of the Thunder (28.1 points per game – usage 30.7%) not only isn’t among the league leaders in usage, but isn’t even the highest usage player on his own team.  It’s then not surprising that Durant is one of the most efficient high-volume scorers in the league with a 59.2% True Shooting Percentage.

Looking for a high usage player who doesn’t deliver?  Well, Mo Williams (now on the Clippers but who played mostly for the Cavaliers this season) has a fairly high 25.9% usage% but has only managed to score 14ppg this season…not good.

Traditional Stats “Percentage-ized”

Statisticians have been keeping track of rebounds (offensive, defensive and total), assists, blocks, steals and turnovers for a long time, the newest being turnovers which came into the stats world for the 1977-78 NBA season.  You take the basic stat, divide by the number of games and get the familiar per game statistics we use to compare players. 

Most of us know that 10 rebounds per game (rpg) sort of defines an excellent rebounder.  Nearly all who approach this standard either play center of power forward.  A small forward who grabs 7 rpg is very good as are shooting guards who pull down 5rpg and point guards who snatch 4rpg.  For assists, 7+ per game (apg) is good for a point guard…4 apg is very good for other positions.  Blocks pretty much are only meaningful for “bigs” (centers and power forwards)…unless your name is Lebron James.  If you average 2+ blocks per game (bpg), you’re among the league leaders.  Steals are sort of the balance to blocks, since little guys tend to dominate this stat, and like blocks, 2+ steals per game (spg) defines elite status.  Turnovers are the only “bad stat” that’s kept on a per game basis.  You’d think that point guards who handle and pass the ball the most would routinely lead in turnovers per game (topg), but it’s actually a fairly democratic stat.  In general, players with high usage percentages and play a lot of minutes, are among the league leaders (3+ topg). 

So why create percentage versions of these traditional stats?  A couple reasons.  First and foremost, using only a per game basis gives you no insight into the relative performance of players who don’t play big minutes.  For example, the Bulls backup center, rookie Omer Asik, is averaging 4.0 rpg…not very impressive for a 7-footer.  However, he only averages 12 minutes played per game (mpg) so his 4 boards begins to sound a little better.  There are two ways to level the playing field for low-minutes players.  One is to use percentages and the other is to use some sort of per-minute basis.  The most common of the latter are to convert the stats to a “per 36,” “per 40” or “per 48” (full regulation game) minute basis.  Personally, I like the “per 36” stats since that’s a fairly normal number of minutes for a starter.  On a per-36 minutes basis, Asik’s 4.0 rpg translates into a pretty stellar 11.9 rebounds per 36.

The “percentage-ized” traditional stats not only adjust for minutes played, but for everything else as well.  For example, if a team makes an unusually high percentage of their shots, there are fewer offensive rebounds to be had.  A horrible defensive team doesn’t have that many defensive rebounding opportunities because their opponents make everything they look at.  All things being equal, a team that plays at a fast pace provides more opportunities for every stat because there are more possessions per game.  Percentages remove all that noise.

So yeah, it may seem like taking the traditional stats and turning them into percentages is a case of the stats guys playing with themselves, there is actually a method to their madness.  We’ll take a look at these, but since they all use the same basic methodology, we’ll only go through the math for total rebounding percentage (TRB%).

The formula for TRB% is:

100 * (TRB * (Team Minutes Played / 5)) / (Minutes Played * (Team TRB + Opponent TRB))

OK, stay with me now.  The 100 is in there to make the end result a percentage, so let’s not worry about that right now.  Team Minutes Played / 5 is simply the total number of minutes played by any one of the 5 positions on a team.  TRB is the total rebounds for the player we’re measuring.  Minutes Played is the total number of minutes played by the player we’re measuring.  When you add Team TRB and Opponent TRB you get all the rebounds that have been grabbed in your games.

Let’s do an example that also performs the perfection test.  To do this, we need to use the completely unrealistic situation where in 10 regulation games (no overtimes) a player played all of the 480 minutes possible and while he was in there, he snatched all of his team’s 500 rebounds.  Since we’re dealing with perfection, his opponents’ had no rebounds:

 500 * 480 / 480 * 500 = 1.00 or when multiplied by the 100 in the formula, 100%

It’s not surprising that the leaders in rebounding percentage also are near the top in terms of rebounds per game.  This is because true rebounding studs tend to play a lot.  Here are the current rebounding leaders:

Kevin Love (Timberwolves) – 1st in rebounds per game (15.6) and third in TRB% (23.7%)
Dwight Howard (Magic) – 2nd in rebounds per game (14.2) and tied for 4th in TRB% (21.9%)
Zach Randolph (Grizzlies) – 3rd in rebounds per game (12.6) and 7th  in TRB% (20.5%)

Blake Griffin (Clippers) and Pau Gasol (Lakers) round out the top-5 in terms of rebounds per game, but neither cracks the top-10 for TRB%.  Reggie Evans of the Raptors leads the NBA with a TRB% of 26.6% and the Trailblazers’ veteran Marcus Camby is second at 24.2%.

So when it comes to TRB% anything in the high teens is very good and 20%+ is truly elite.

Assist percentage (AST%) is an estimate of the percentage of teammate field goals a player assisted while he was on on the floor. The current leaders in AST% are the Celtics’ Rajon Rondo (45.5%),  the Mavericks’ Jason Kidd (45.1%), the Raptors’ Jose Calderon (43.5%), the Suns’ Steve Nash (40.9%) and Earl Watson of the Jazz (39.2%).  All but Watson are also among the NBA leaders in assists per game.  Watson only averages 3.3 assists per game in 17.5 minutes per game, so he clearly benefits from the percentage version of the assist stat.

Block percentage (BLK%) is an estimate of the percentage of opponent two-point field goal attempts blocked by the player while he was on the floor. The current leaders in block percentage are the Wizards’ JaVale McGee (6.8%), the Timberwolves’ Darko Milicic (6.7%), the Thunder’s Serge Ibaka (6.4%), the Bucks’ Andrew Bogut (6.0%) and Joel Anthony of the Heat (5.5%).  These 5 players are also the top 5 in terms of blocks per game, ranging from Milicic’s 2.16 blocks per game to Bogut’s league-leading 2.87 blocks per game.

Steal Percentage (STL%) is an estimate of the percentage of opponent possessions that end with a steal by the player while he was on the floor. The current leaders in steal percentage are the Grizzlies’ Tony Allen (4.8%), the Hornets’ Chris Paul (3.7%), Rondo (3.3%), the Warriors’ Monta Ellis (2.8%) and Manu Ginobili of the Spurs (2.7%).  Allen, Paul, Rondo and Ellis are also in the top 6 for steals per game, ranging from Allen’s 1.74 steals per game to Paul’s NBA-best 2.46 steals per game.  Ginobili ranks 13th in the league with 1.61 steals per game, so the percentage-ized stat gives the clearer indication of his prowess at defensive thievery.

Turnover percentage (TO%) is an estimate of turnovers per 100 plays. The current “leaders” in this negative stat are the Bobcats’ Joel Przybilla (29.6%), the Hawk’s Hilton Armstrong (21.9%), the Bulls’ Asik (21.3%), the Magic’s Chris Duhon (21.2%) and the Raptor’s Joey Dorsey (21.0).  Przybilla and Asik are centers.  Armstrong is a forward-center, Duhon is a point guard and Dorsey a wing-forward…like I said, turnovers are a pretty democratic stat.  Another unusual thing about the TO% stat is that none of the leaders in TO% are among the league leaders in turnovers per game.  There’s a simple reason for this…if you commit turnovers at an exceptionally high rate, coaches aren’t going to play you very much.  None of the top-5 in TO% are regular starters.

The best and easiest place I know of to get these “percentage-ized” stats is basketball-reference.com.  It’s a great site if you want to go past the basic stuff and get a little geeky.  Another good source is stats Guru John Hollinger’s Insider site at espn.com. 

Next up: advanced team stats.

Saturday, March 12, 2011

The Bulls Unique SG Situation

The more I watch this team, the more I see Thibodeau as something of a mad genius and I'm not completely sure whether the accent should be on the "mad" or the "genius."  Although how he's handled the shooting guard position has probably drawn the most criticism from fans, I'm beginning to wonder if it's not Thibs' signature "mad genius" maneuver.

I mean how many NBA teams have ever employed Thibs' "shooting guard by committee" strategy?  What other extremely successful NBA team has had 3 players at one position where you could make an argument that any of the 3 is #1?

None that I can think of and I've been watching NBA basketball since the mid-60s.

Keith Bogans is the starter (and just about every Bulls' fan hates this).  The starter at a position is #1, right?

Ronnie Brewer plays the most minutes of any Bulls shooting guard (22.8mpg vs Bogans' 17.5mpg).  Back in the day when Ben Gordon came off the bench, but got the lion's share of the shooting guard minutes, we considered Gordon as our #1 shooting guard, didn't we?

Kyle Korver plays 20.4mpg, but nearly 2/3 of those are at SF (as determined by who you are defending...when Korver and Brewer are in the game together, Thibs almost always has Korver defending the opposing SF to minimize the quickness mismatch).  So Korver only plays about 7mpg at shooting guard.  How can he be #1?  By the age-old dictum that "it doesn't matter who starts the game, it matters who finishes."  At the end of games, more often than not, it's Rose, Korver, Deng, Boozer and Noah (or Thomas when Noah was injured).  Korver is the Bulls' shooting guard "closer."

I've never heard anyone interview Thibodeau about his "3-headed monster" shooting guard madness so we can only speculate about what might be going on inside that semi-bald head of his.  So let's speculate...I'll go first.

We all know that Korver is both the best shooter and worst athlete of the 3, and it's not close on either score.  Though Korver is a weak defender due to his athletic limitations, he plays defense with good energy.  A tired Korver is a looming defensive disaster.  If you want him to be something close to adequate on the defensive end, you can't use him as a starter and a finisher.  In addition to this, the Bulls second unit absolutely must have Korver in there as an offensive threat when Deng comes out.

Brewer is an absolute defensive force of nature.  However, he's a poor choice to start games since he does his best work along the baseline, a place he can't hang out with the starting unit because the shooting guard needs to be the defensive safety.  Also, Brewer's by far the weakest 3-point shooter of the three Bulls shooting guards and that's pretty much all the starting unit needs from the position.

Bogans is a solid and physical defender and a competent 3-point shooter.  If this doesn't sound like high praise, it's not meant to be. Bogans isn't a lockdown defender, but he makes opposing shooting guards work hard for their offense.  On offense, he has 2 jobs - hit open 3-pointers and play defensive safety so DRose can feel free to penetrate.  That's it...and he does at least OK on both counts.

In the offseason, the Bulls may try to acquire a shooting guard who can effectively play Bogans' 16-18 starting minutes, Korver's 7 finishing minutes and 8 or so of the combined minutes of Korver/Brewer in the middle.  Until then, Thibodeau will need to continue to play the creative genius/madman.

Friday, March 11, 2011

The “Football Judge” Changes the Game







A few weeks ago, the NFL owners stood across the line looking at the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) like a premier pass rusher looks at a way-past-his-prime offensive tackle…they couldn’t wait for the play to begin.  The owners seem to have overestimated their advantage primarily because that long-toothed tackle isn’t a player at all.  He’s a federal judge named David S. Doty and he’s the owners’ worst nightmare.

Coming into these negotiations, it appeared that the owners had all the advantages.  Virtually all NFL teams are profitable because of their gargantuan TV contracts and unique “all for one and one for all” revenue-sharing practices. 

In contrast, the NFL players are a group just waiting to be divided and conquered.  The NFLPA has more members than any other players association in major professional sports.  Most make under $1million per year and the average NFL career is under 4 years.  During the last work NFL stoppage, the owners hired replacement players and probably could have broken the union if they had wanted to…but they didn’t want to…they just wanted their concessions and they got them.

If the basic dynamics weren’t one-sided enough, the owners had an ace up their sleeves.  In their national TV contracts they had negotiated a truly unique provision…even if there were no gamesdue to a work stoppage, their TV partners would continue to send them their rights fees (up to $4Billion…yeah, with a “B”).  The owners would have to repay these monies over the remaining length of their TV deals, but it would ensure that the owners had something the players wouldn’t have…a continued cash flow to meet their fixed financial obligations.

I suppose this is as good a time as any to acknowledge that I viewed the NFL vs. NFLPA collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiations as an unfair fight and one that would see the players folding like a newly WD40-ed lawn chair.  I hadn’t counted on Judge Doty.  Shame on me…I forgot my history.

On March 1 with the current CBA about to expire, Judge Doty reached up the owners’ sleeve, pulled out their ace and tore it up before their eyes.  Essentially, he ruled that the deal the owners made with their TV partners was unfair to the players since, in order to get this concession from the TV folks, the NFL left potential incremental revenue “on the table.”  Since players’ salaries and benefits are based on a percentage of total league revenue, as Judge Doty saw it, by leaving money on the table in return for the “cash flow loan” from their TV partners, the owners were using monies that were partially due the players to beat hell out of them at the negotiating table.

Naturally, the owners vehemently deny this charge insisting that the $4Billion was simply a loan and that they acted in a responsible business manner and in the best interests of the game. 

I didn’t see any report that Judge Doty laughed when he heard the league’s explanation, but my guess is that he was at least stifling a chuckle.

A word or two about Judge Doty.

Doty presided over the landmark antitrust case between the players and the NFL in 1992. When the players de-certified the NFLPA, Doty ruled that the league’s rules regarding free agency violated federal anti-trust law.  This led to the eventual 1992 CBA between the re-certified NFLPA and the NFL.  While the owners clearly “won” the ’92 negotiations, Doty was named in that CBA as the ultimate arbiter of grievances or issues between the NFLPA and the NFL Management Council.  Every few years since the ’92 agreement, the owners and players have agreed to extend the ’92 CBA.  As a result, Doty remains the sole arbiter of disputes between the parties.  This is why he was able to swipe the owners’ ace.

Over the last 18 years, Doty has been described as a pro-labor judge and for good reason.  He has heard many NFL vs. NFLPA disputes and the next time he rules in favor of the league will be the first.  Michael Vick got to keep his Atlanta signing bonus because of Doty.  Local Minnesota Vikings’ linemen, Pat and Kevin Williams avoided their anti-doping suspensions because of Judge Doty.  When a new owner joins the NFL fraternity, he’s given a Judge Doty doll and a lifetime supply of pins as an initiation gift (OK, I made that last part up). 

One last thing about Judge Doty and the NFL.  The NFL always appeals his decisions and all of his decisions have been upheld.

Today the NFLPA has de-certified.  This opens up the world of anti-trust lawsuits to the players.  This will effectively keep the NFL from doing any business (signing draftees or free agents), but it won’t help get a deal done.

Even without their TV money ace, I still like the owners’ chances in this one.  They still have most of the leverage.  Unfortunately, this latest NFLPA move will probably send each side to their bunkers.  The owners have assessed their situation without their TV revenue ace and decided that they can live with it.  Their pockets are still deeper than the players.  The owners will now be more careful in making certain that anything they do will not be subject to judicial review…because they’re convinced that Judge Doty will be unsympathetic.

It’s just down to old-school country hardball negotiating from here on out.

High-Tech Hoops Stats for the Casual Fan – VOL 3 – Plus/Minus


You watch the games.  You can see what’s going on out there.  You may not know (or care) about what your favorite player’s True Shooting Percentage (TS%), Player Efficiency Rating (PER) or any of those other newfangled numbers say, you just know that when he is on the floor, the team plays better than when he isn’t.

I think you may just like the plus/minus (+/-) statistic.

Basic (Single Game) +/-

The basic mechanics of +/- are even easy to understand.  Here’s a one-game example.  “Your guy” starts the game and plays until the midway point of the 2nd quarter.  When he leaves, your team is up by 5 points.  He’s at +5 (told ya it was easy).  He comes back in to start the 2nd half with the score tied and he plays the full 3rd quarter.  Your team regained the lead and is up by 3 points.  Your guy is now at +8.  He re-enters the game with 5 minutes left and your team up by 1.  He plays the rest of the game and your team ends up winning by 2 points.  You grab a beer and a cigar and toast your team’s victory and your guy’s +9 performance.

If you don’t feel like keeping track of +/- in a game, you can just go to nba.com.  A couple years ago they began including the stat in their box scores.

The obvious problem with the +/- stat is that a player doesn’t necessarily have to do anything good on the court to end up on the positive side or bad to end up on the negative side.  The +/- stat is only a reflection of what happened when you were out there, and when you compare it to the final score, what happened when you weren’t out there.  In a single game, there are often players who record what look to be significant +/- numbers who were nothing more than innocent bystanders.  However, when you begin to look at +/- over many games, like say a full season, the results become more credible.

Basic Unadjusted (On-court/Off-court) +/-


To get at +/- over longer periods, the stats guys keep track of how many points a team scored and allowed per 100 possessions when each player was on the court and how many that team scored and allowed per 100 possessions when the player was on the bench.  There’s going to be a little math coming up here, but hang in there…it’s only going to be addition and subtraction.

Example: the Celtics’ Paul Pierce 2010-11 Season thru 3/9/11
When Pierce has been on the court this season, the Celts have scored 112.24 points per 100 possessions.  When he’s been on the bench, the team has only scored 96.37 per 100.  This gives him an offensive net +/- rating of +15.88.  On defense, with Pierce on the court Boston has given up 99.90 points per 100 versus 102.99 when he’s on the bench for a net defensive +/- rating of -3.09 (on defense, negative is good).  To get Pierce’s overall net +/-, you subtract the net defensive rating from the offensive rating (15.88 less -3.09 equals +18.97).

If Pierce’s +18.97 sounds very good, it’s because it is.  He currently leads the league in overall +/-.  Rounding out the current top 5 are the Mavs’ Dirk Nowitzki (+17.74), the Suns’ Steve Nash (+17.58), the Trailblazers’ LaMarcus Aldridge (+17.43) and the Celtics’ Kevin Garnett (+15.33).  One of the tests of any overall-type performance statistic is to look at the league leaders and ask “Are these guys great players?”  As I see it, the overall +/- stat passes the test…all of the top-5 are great players having great seasons.  Other notable +/- leaders include the Hornets’ Chris Paul (+12.42), the Heat’s Lebron James (+9.69) and the Magic’s Dwight Howard (+6.23). 

About now you may be saying, “Hey! you missed some totally stud players!  Where’s Kobe?  Wade?  Amare?  What about Kevin Durant, Derrick Rose and Carmelo Anthony?”  Well, up ‘til now I had only been talking about the top +/- guys.  None of these players make the top-50. 

For Kobe, Wade, Amare and Rose, all have modest, but overall positive +/- ratings for this season and it’s clear from the +/- numbers that all are outstanding offensive players.  Their teams score between 7.29 (Wade) to 10.30 (Rose) more points per 100 possessions when they’re on the court than when they’re not.  The problem is that their teams hold opponents to fewer points per 100 possessions when these players are on the bench than when they’re in the game, dragging down their overall ratings.  Does this mean that they’re bad defensive players?  That’d be a tough sell for Bryant or Wade since both have made multiple NBA All-Defensive teams.  Amare has never been known as a plus defender and the fact that the Knicks give up a whopping 110.42 points per 100 possessions (yes, that’s a lot) when he’s in the game is further evidence of his relative defensive shortcomings. 

Rose is the most interesting case of this group.  His Bulls currently lead the NBA in most defensive categories.  Their second unit is particularly effective and features the NBA’s #1 defensive +/- performer in guard Ronnie Brewer (-8.50…and remember, for defense, negative numbers are good).  Their second unit’s center, Rookie Omer Asik has an ungodly defensive +/- rating of -10.73, but doesn’t quite have enough minutes played to qualify for the league lead.  When Rose is on the court, opponents have scored 101.95 points per 100 possessions.  This is not only respectable, it’s the 23rd lowest on-court defensive point total in the NBA.  However, when Rose is on the bench, Bulls’ opponents score an absolutely microscopic 92.35 points per 100, giving Rose a positive (bad) net defensive rating of 9.60.  As a result, when you subtract the 9.60 defensive rating from his 10.30 offensive rating, he ends up with a very pedestrian +0.70 overall +/-.

Since Anthony was just recently traded to the Knicks, most of his +/- data relates to his time with the Denver Nuggets.  Among superstars, Anthony’s +/- numbers this season are unusual in that on both offense and defense, his presence or absence hasn’t seemed to make much difference.  His offensive net +/- is 1.76 and his defensive net is -0.25 for an overall +/- of +2.01.

The Oklahoma City Thunder’s Kevin Durant is the most surprising +/- case I’ve come across, though when you break it down, it’s similar to what we saw with Rose.  Durant, only 22 but in his 4th NBA season, is an undisputed uber-star.  He was named All-NBA first team last season and led the league in points scored.  This season, he again leads the NBA in scoring.  While fans and the media just love Durant, the +/- stat decidedly does not.  His net offensive +/- is a very good +6.61.  On defense, it’s another story.  When Durant is in the game, the Thunder’s opponents score 109.37 points per 100 possessions…not quite Amare territory, but close.  When Durant’s on the bench, opponents only score 101.69 per 100 making his net defensive +/- +7.68.  This gives him an overall +/-  rating of -1.07. 

In fairness to Durant, he is consistently among the league leaders in minutes played, so the off-court numbers lose some of their meaning (there just aren’t that many of them).  His +/- rating notwithstanding, the Thunder would have no interest in life without Kevin Durant. 

Durant and Rose are good examples of one way the +/-  stat can lead you astray.  The Celtics provide another.  Earlier we saw that the Celtics’ Paul Pierce is the current NBA unadjusted +/- leader.  His teammate Kevin Garnett is #5.  Their point guard Rajon Rondo is #19 and shooting guard Ray Allen just missed making the top-50 by 0.02.  These guys are an ensemble and they’re an ensemble that’s consistently better than the competition they play.  Their second unit isn’t nearly as strong.  They’re bound to have positive +/- ratings and it’s difficult to isolate the individual’s relative contribution to the group’s achievement.  For better or worse, the stats wizards have taken a shot at addressing this issue.

Adjusted +/-

I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this, but I suppose you ought to know this beast is out there.  So how do the statisticians level the +/- playing field to attempt to better isolate individual excellence?  Here’s their explanation of the adjusted +/- stat:

“Adjusted +/- ratings indicate how many additional points are contributed to a team’s scoring margin by a given player in comparison to the league-average player over the span of a typical game (100 offensive and defensive possessions). These ratings are considered “adjusted” since they start with the simple +/- rating and apply a regression model as outlined by Dan Rosenbaum to adjust for the impact of all other players on the court.”

Don’t worry if that description made you go “Huh?”…it’s a perfectly natural reaction.  Statisticians can’t be expected to be both brilliant and intelligible…it’s just unreasonable.  Essentially, what they do is statistically make a given player’s teammates and opponents more like average players and then see how that player comes out.

The current NBA top-5 for adjusted +/- this season?  They’re Aldridge (16.84), Nash (14.01), Paul (13.17), Nowitzki (13.12) and Howard (12.98).  As you’ll recall, Aldridge, Nash and Paul were also in the top-5 for unadjusted _/- (Paul was 6th).  Like its unadjusted parent, the adjusted +/- stat also passes the top-5 “eye test.”  Garnett dropped to #7 and Pierce to #9, showing the leveling effect (Rondo is not in the adjusted top-50).  Lebron is at #13, Rose #15, Durant #45 and Anthony #50 (4.32).  Wade and Amare didn’t make the top-50, but both have a positive adjusted +/-.

The Lakers Kobe Bryant is the Durant of adjusted +/-, coming in with a -6.99.  This isn’t merely bad, it’s 27th worst in the league!   It’s at this point that the statisticians would quickly explain to you that in order for the results of their +/- adjustment to be accurate, very large sample sizes are needed.  Obviously, in Kobe’s case, ¾ of a NBA season is way too small. 

In fact, the statisticians feel that a minimum of 2 full seasons of data is needed for adjusted +/- to be valid.  This is a problem for me and a key reason why I’m only giving it a brief mention.  In sports, each season is unique.  Players change teams and new coaches bring in new systems.  Last season’s darlings can be this season’s dogs (and vice versa).  Sports is a “what have you done for me lately” environment.  Sports simply doesn’t have the kind of patience necessary to appreciate the technical elegance of a statistic that requires two years to properly develop its bouquet.  With apologies to the propeller-heads, somebody had to say this.

As I’ve said before, there’s no perfect basketball stat.  This said, I’m a fan of the plus/minus stat.  Used as a supplement to the other individual statistics, it can help confirm excellence.  It can also help identify those players who may not put up gaudy individual numbers, but do the little things that help a team succeed…and as long as you stick to the unadjusted version, it probably won’t make your head hurt.