Minny announcers baffled on our success

[magnifier661]

I remembered watching the telecast during the game and the Minny announcers questioned how in the hell are we 2 games over .500. They talked about our lackluster bench and low ranks in most the major categories. After they said that, I was trying to think on what the difference was? I mean they really had a point.

So I looked up some of the statistical numbers so far this season.

http://hoopdata.com/teamadvancedstats.aspx

We are 25th on pace, 14th on offensive efficiency, 7th worst on defensive efficiency, 23rd on difference, 16th on TS%, 22nd on effeciency, and 17th on PER.

Looking at these numbers, we have no real business being were we are, except I watched the games and realized something quite interesting. We aren't blowing out teams. We win by low margins... But when we lose, we lose by large margins. The numbers are skew'd because the win/loss ratio aren't measured by the performance of all games. It's measured on a "Per Win/ Per loss" ratio.

We are 9-2 on games decided by 6 or less. The games over 6, we are 9-14. That puts a huge hit on the statistical numbers. 9 of our wins were by 6 or less. The 9 other games won by larger than 6. We have only 1 loss when decided by 6 or less; but have 14 losses by more than 6.

In summary, we need to close out teams and win by larger margins. I think our defense needs to step up, but more importantly, the bench d needs to improve. I think as the season progresses, our statistical numbers will average out and explain our record easier.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I was pretty impressed with their announcers to be honest.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I wasn't. Then again, their color guy (Jim, I think?) probably has the same job as Rice...be a homer, make outrageous comments, get the fanbase fired up.

 

[magnifier661]

I was pretty impressed with their announcers to be honest.

I actually liked their announcers. They weren't hard to watch at all. They were honest and to the point. They had some homer moments, but nothing that was annoying. I may watch them again when we play them. It was fun listening to their perspective.

 

[crandc]

They kept expressing amazement about Nic Batum, which made me laugh.

 

[magnifier661]

They kept expressing amazement about Nic Batum, which made me laugh.

This reminds me of that scene in Zoolander.

[video=youtube;CV_hDyfmEw4]

 

[KingSpeed]

Great post. But we only have 15 losses so your win-loss stat is off. Are we then 9-13 in games decide by more than 6?

 

[magnifier661]

Great post. But we only have 15 losses so your win-loss stat is off. Are we then 9-13 in games decide by more than 6?

No it's right I believe. 9-14 on games decided by more than 6 and 9-1 on games decided by 6 or less.

 

[mook]

Without a bench, if Portland's starters aren't all firing on all cylinders your gonna have a bad time. I mean really, really bad blowout losses. But Stotts is reluctant to throw in the bench (because it's a surefire admission of defeat). Coach would rather take a 25% chance on a comeback with our starters than a 2% chance of a comeback with our bench.

But if our starters are doing well, their cumulative production outstrips the opponent's starters and their bench to win a squeaker.

So Portland wins a lot of close ones and loses a lot of blowouts.

 

[blue9]

And as the season wears on those numbers will even out - we're not going to always be on the winning end of those squeakers.

 

[magnifier661]

Without a bench, if Portland's starters aren't all firing on all cylinders your gonna have a bad time. I mean really, really bad blowout losses. But Stotts is reluctant to throw in the bench (because it's a surefire admission of defeat). Coach would rather take a 25% chance on a comeback with our starters than a 2% chance of a comeback with our bench.

But if our starters are doing well, their cumulative production outstrips the opponent's starters and their bench to win a squeaker.

So Portland wins a lot of close ones and loses a lot of blowouts.

You sound smart and your definition makes a ton of sense. I'm curious to see the production of our starters against the opposition. I have a feeling that the numbers are staggering.

 

[fumanchu]

The strength of schedule has a lot to do with it. We've played (and beaten) mostly average to below average teams. This month will be the real test.

 

[magnifier661]

The strength of schedule has a lot to do with it. We've played (and beaten) mostly average to below average teams. This month will be the real test.

I beg to differ. We have 18 wins. Out of those 18 wins, 10 of those wins are on teams with .500 or above record.

 

[mook]

You sound smart and your definition makes a ton of sense. I'm curious to see the production of our starters against the opposition. I have a feeling that the numbers are staggering.

Thanks! It's just my guess. It would also explain why our team doesn't rank well in many stats. The coach leaves the starters in when they are sucking because even a sucking Hickson is still better than Jeffries. So the nights where Hickson only grabs 6 boards drags down his PER/etc.

There's nowhere to hide if you're a starter and you feel sick or tired or just not shooting well or you've got a tough matchup for your skill set. Suck it up and play.

 

[fumanchu]

I stand corrected. I didn't look into it, it just seems like our early schedule was loaded with cupcakes.

 

[magnifier661]

I stand corrected. I didn't look into it, it just seems like our early schedule was loaded with cupcakes.

Yeah it's a little crazy until I actually looked it up.

We have wins against: NY, Houston X2, Chicago, Minny x2, SAS, Denver, Philly, and Memphis.

 

[blue9]

But even still, some of those "above .500" teams are fairly average. Opening night against LAL was a big win because everyone expected LAL to be a contender and for us to be among the worst, and they don't even factor in as an above .500 team. OT wins against HOU were solid, but HOU didn't have a reputation as a great team - I see them as a fairly average winning team. Win over Rose-less CHI - good win, but still there's really only one great team in the East and it's not CHI. Solid win over the Spurs. Good win over DEN, but again...kinda an average winning team like HOU. And then great wins over NYK and MEM missing key players...and I think NYK is fools gold.

This isn't to belittle what we've achieved - they've exceeded my expectations. But there are a lot of teams that are floundering this year. I guess any win with this roster is impressive, but I'm not buying into the idea that we're feasting on wins against great teams. When we beat MIA, OKC, LAC, GSW and maybe win against full-strength MEM and NYK, or add another against a full-strength SAS then maybe I'll believe it. But the way I see it we're exceeding expectations while much of the league isn't living up to their own expectations. And at some point the ball is going to bounce the other way in those close games.

 

[blazerboy30]

I stand corrected. I didn't look into it, it just seems like our early schedule was loaded with cupcakes.

How does that explain the original question of our record being out of line with point differential? If we were just playing cupcakes, we should have a great point differential along with the winning record.

 

[magnifier661]

But even still, some of those "above .500" teams are fairly average. Opening night against LAL was a big win because everyone expected LAL to be a contender and for us to be among the worst, and they don't even factor in as an above .500 team. OT wins against HOU were solid, but HOU didn't have a reputation as a great team - I see them as a fairly average winning team. Win over Rose-less CHI - good win, but still there's really only one great team in the East and it's not CHI. Solid win over the Spurs. Good win over DEN, but again...kinda an average winning team like HOU. And then great wins over NYK and MEM missing key players...and I think NYK is fools gold.

This isn't to belittle what we've achieved - they've exceeded my expectations. But there are a lot of teams that are floundering this year. I guess any win with this roster is impressive, but I'm not buying into the idea that we're feasting on wins against great teams. When we beat MIA, OKC, LAC, GSW and maybe win against full-strength MEM and NYK, or add another against a full-strength SAS then maybe I'll believe it. But the way I see it we're exceeding expectations while much of the league isn't living up to their own expectations. And at some point the ball is going to bounce the other way in those close games.

I don't know if you don't remember but out of those wins; we missed some key players too. Injuries are part of the game. A winning team is still a winning team. I didn't even factor the lakers in my 10 game wins since they aren't a .500 team either. And we beat sas when they were at full strength.

 

[blue9]

Yeah yeah, I know. I just think there's a lot of mediocrity in the NBA right now - we're much better than expected (but still mediocre) and many teams are much worse than expected. Maybe this is what parity looks like?
Still, I think that even though right now we're doing well in close games we can't bank on that being the case all season long.

 

[handiman]

I was a proponent of Lillard leading up to the draft because you need a primary ballhandler than can shoot from deep or drive to the hoop to win in today's NBA. That's the intangible than the stats overlook. Close games go your way more often than not when you've got that guy on the roster.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Without a bench, if Portland's starters aren't all firing on all cylinders your gonna have a bad time. I mean really, really bad blowout losses. But Stotts is reluctant to throw in the bench (because it's a surefire admission of defeat). Coach would rather take a 25% chance on a comeback with our starters than a 2% chance of a comeback with our bench.

But if our starters are doing well, their cumulative production outstrips the opponent's starters and their bench to win a squeaker.

So Portland wins a lot of close ones and loses a lot of blowouts.

Mook, FTW again!

Good News: I think we have a very, very good team.
Bad News: 4 or 5 guys is apparently my definition of a team.

 

[PapaG]

We are 25th on pace, 14th on offensive efficiency

Team would be 29th in pace and top 10 in efficiency with Nate as coach. Probably would be worth 2 more wins at this point. :MARIS61:

Really though, the answer is that the Blazers have 4 players who could arguably be in All-Star consideration so far this season. Hickson/LMA/Lills/Batum

Only LMA will make it, but the other 3 are playing at a very high level, and mostly doing it consistently. When you can count on 4 players most nights to play well, you're going to win some games.

 

[Nikolokolus]

2013 is one seriously tough schedule for the Blazers. So while it's nice to think that the Blazers might keep up their current pace and continue to win close, odds are the teeth of the schedule is going to take a bite.

 

[blazerboy30]

2013 is one seriously tough schedule for the Blazers. So while it's nice to think that the Blazers might keep up their current pace and continue to win close, odds are the teeth of the schedule is going to take a bite.

Considering our bench can't get any worse and was young / inexperienced to begin with, they are likely to improve at least a little bit. Maybe some improvement from them will help offset a portion of an increased schedule difficulty.

 

[PapaG]

Considering our bench can't get any worse and was young / inexperienced to begin with, they are likely to improve at least a little bit. Maybe some improvement from them will help offset a portion of an increased schedule difficulty.

I have some hope for Babbitt, Freeland, and Price being at least semi-competent, and Leonard too if he can get healthy.

Not an ideal bench, but Babbitt can at least score a little bit, Freeland is getting good looks and even has some post moves, Leonard is an energy guy, and Price is well, Price, but he's not screwing up too bad in recent games.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Considering our bench can't get any worse and was young / inexperienced to begin with, they are likely to improve at least a little bit. Maybe some improvement from them will help offset a portion of an increased schedule difficulty.

Maybe the bench gets marginally better, but I think there are a couple of factors that give me pause. The Blazers' starters have been remarkably healthy. Aside from some missed games from Matthews, the starting five have enjoyed a pretty good run of luck when it comes to availability. Can we count on that in the second half of the season? Secondly, I think Lillard may hit a bit of a rookie wall; he's playing so many minutes and being asked to carry such a burden. Maybe he can keep it up, but I worry about him wearing down.

In any case, I'm not guaranteeing a cratering, but I think some fall-off is inevitable as the degree of difficulty ramps up and the law of averages catches up a little bit.

 

[Rhal]

Maybe the bench gets marginally better, but I think there are a couple of factors that give me pause. The Blazers' starters have been remarkably healthy. Aside from some missed games from Matthews, the starting five have enjoyed a pretty good run of luck when it comes to availability. Can we count on that in the second half of the season? Secondly, I think Lillard may hit a bit of a rookie wall; he's playing so many minutes and being asked to carry such a burden. Maybe he can keep it up, but I worry about him wearing down.

In any case, I'm not guaranteeing a cratering, but I think some fall-off is inevitable as the degree of difficulty ramps up and the law of averages catches up a little bit.

This sentence just goes to show how snake bitten we've been the last few years. LA came into the season pretty obviously not in game shape due to surgery and has been banged up and missed 2 games while dealing with a few lingering issues, Mathews has missed 5 games and played less then 10m in 2 others and its not just missing a few games for Mathews he has been playing pretty banged up for quiet a few games. Batum has missed a game and came out early in another and had a handful of games were he played with (what was it an injured back?). We'v been remarkably healthy compared to the Blazers of the last few years but its not like were OKC Healthy here.
Actually after looking at most of the other "playoff" teams/contenders I take it back, we have been remarkably healthy with our starting 5 compared to a lot of other teams.
I do also think were going to run into more injuries from LA/Mathews/Batum/Lillard due to how many minutes played

 

[Boob-No-More]

When it comes to win-loss record, this team is seriously overachieving. Basketball-reference calculates expected won-loss record based on a number of key team stats.

Here's what they say about the Blazers:

PTS/G: 96.5 (15th of 30) ▪ Opp PTS/G: 98.6 (19th of 30)
SRS: -2.33 (20th of 30) ▪ Pace: 90.6 (23rd of 30)
Off Rtg: 104.8 (14th of 30) ▪ Def Rtg: 107.2 (24th of 30)
Expected W-L: 14-19 (20th of 30)
Actual W-L: 18-15

Compare that to the underchieving Lakers:

PTS/G: 102.9 (5th of 30) ▪ Opp PTS/G: 100.8 (26th of 30)
SRS: 2.38 (9th of 30) ▪ Pace: 94.3 (3rd of 30)
Off Rtg: 108.7 (6th of 30) ▪ Def Rtg: 106.6 (21st of 30)
Expected W-L: 19-14 (10th of 30)
Actual W-L: 15-18

So, why are the Blazers winning more games than the stats predict? My theory is outstanding late game execution in close games by our above average starters. If you look at our starters, they are all above league average (PER = 15.00)

J.J. Hickson, PER = 20.5
LaMarcus Aldridge, PER = 19.5
Nicolas Batum, PER = 18.0
Damian Lillard, PER = 16.6
Wesley Matthews, PER = 15.3

These are the guys playing the closing minutes of close games. And, I like the way Stotts is using them. Instead of predictable ISOs where everyone in the gym knows who is going to take the last shot, the Blazers have multiple options. Batum has hit a couple big game winning/game tying shots, as has Lillard, and Aldridge has at least one as well. This makes it much harder for our opponents to defend the Blazers with the game on the line. They can't simply key on one player. The Blazers may not have one superstar go to guy, but they have multiple guys who can take and make the big shots. I like this versatility, and Stotts play calling takes advantage of it.

Also, the Blazers most likely to have the ball in their hands late in the game are all good free throw shooters. And, that helps win close games.

Nicolas Batum, FT% = .872
Damian Lillard, FT% = .848
LaMarcus Aldridge, FT% = .805

Compare these same metrics to the underachieving Lakers.

Lakers Starters ranked by PER:

Kobe Bryant, PER = 25.6
Dwight Howard, PER = 20.1
Steve Nash, PER = 16.9
Pau Gasol, PER = 14.7
Metta World Peace, PER = 13.7

That's two below average starters, and Nash has only played in 9 games. In his place the Lakers tried starting Steve Blake (PER = 8.9) and Chris Duhon (PER = 9.6) before finally settling on Darius Morris (PER = 7.7)

And when it comes to FTs, Nash is a great FT shooter. He hasn't missed yet this season, but he's only he's only attempted 9 FTs all season. With the ball in Kobe's hands late in the game, Nash is only averaging 1 FTA/G and simply doesn't get the opportunity to get fouled. So, that leaves Kobe and Dwight as the Lakers most likely to get fouled late in the game.

Kobe Bryant, FT% = .847
Dwight Howard, FT% = .508

Kobe is a good FT shooter, but not as good as Batum and on par with Lillard. But, Dwight is an absolute disaster. His poor FT shooting makes him a liability late in close games. So, they don't even look to get him the ball.

Before Nash came back, the Lakers were essentially playing 3-on-5 on offense in close games (with a single digit PER PG and Dwight a liability), and 2 of those 3 are having below average seasons (Pau, PER = 14.7 and Meta, PER = 13.7). Even with Nash back, he doesn't have the ball in his hands enough to make a difference. Nash is great at making average players better. He can create for those who can't create for themselves. But Kobe doesn't need that. He creates for himself and needs the ball in his hands to be effective - which is why Nash is a bad match for Kobe. As good as Kobe is, at the age of 33, he's essentially playing 1-on-5 ISO ball with the game on the line. And, if you look at Kobe's clutch time stats at 82games.com, you'll see he's not getting the job done. He's settling for jump shots and not making them. Check out some of his clutch time stats:

Net Pts: -25
Off: 94.5
Def: 118.4
Net48: -23.9
W: 5
L: 11
Win%: 31.3%

FG%: .359
eFG%: .410

Now, compare that to the Blazers Big 3 when the game is on the line:

Damian Lillard:
Net Pts: +54
Off: 111.1
Def: 78.2
Net48: +33.0
W: 13
L: 4
Win%: 76.5%

FG%: .459
eFG%: 568

Nicolas Batum:
Net Pts: +56
Off: 113.0
Def: 78.2
Net48: +34.8
W: 13
L: 3
Win%: 81.3%

FG%: .423
eFG%: 577

LaMarcus Aldridge:
Net Pts: +46
Off: 107.9
Def: 78.9
Net48: +29.0
W: 11
L: 5
Win%:68.8%

FG%: .459
eFG%: .459

And, that's pretty much why the Blazers are overachieving and the Lakers are underachieving. With the game on the line, the Blazers are a 3-headed monster that is very difficult to stop. With the game on the line, the Lakers are playing 1-on-5 and relying too heavily on an aging superstar who can no longer get it done. I'd hate to be Mike D'Antoni. He's pretty much fucked either way. If he keeps deferring to Kobe with the game on the line, the results won't improve and he'll get fired. If he takes the ball out of Kobe's hands, he'll piss him off and get fired. And, even if he does, he really only has 38-year old Nash to turn to. Nash can create for others, but do you want the ball in the hand's of Dwight Howard (.508 FT%) or Metta World Peace (100% head case) with the game on the line. So, that leaves Nash creating for himself and Pau (whose confidence is shot). So much for the idea of assembling a dynasty by combining 4 future Hall-of-Famers on one roster.

Executive Summary:

With the game on the line, our young guys have been dominant and their old guys have sucked.

BNM

 

[Rhal]

I'm not gonna quote you BNM because that is one long ass post, but i'd wonder how Lillard/Batum/LA compared to Parker/Ginobli/Duncan in there championship years, they kind of remind me of them. Three very different players all unafraid to take the last shot and unafraid to give it up to someone with a better shot.