Grading the NBA Part II: Top Ten Players

Yesterday we covered name recognition factor in grading each of the 30 NBA teams. Today we take a different look at the power behind each of these teams in determining how many of their players are among the top ten at their position in the league.

The best teams in the league are going to have three top ten players on their roster. You hear phrases like "The Big Three" all the time, so it's safe to say that to be considered a great team, you should probably have three top ten caliber players on your roster. Part of the trick here, however, is determining who qualifies as a top ten player. For the most part, I used John Hollinger's PER to create top ten lists, though there were times that I moved away from that a bit to include established stars. You'll probably find areas where you disagree with my lists, and that's alright. As a rule of thumb, I decided to move a player up if I could find another player on the list that I would agree to a straight-up trade for. (Example: I included Rudy Gay on the SF list over Richard Jefferson and Ron Artest, because I'd be more than happy to send Ron Artest to your team if it meant I got Rudy Gay back. No contest.) There might be some controversy with a few players, but I think for the most part, these lists will stand. Here's what I came up with, in no particular order:

PG

Chris Paul, NOH
Tony Parker, SAS
Devin Harris, NJN
Deron Williams, UTH
Jameer Nelson, ORL
Steve Nash, PHX
Derrick Rose, CHI
Rajon Rondo, BOS
Chauncey Billups, DEN
Jason Kidd, DAL

SG

Kobe Bryant, LAL
Dwyane Wade, MIA
Brandon Roy, POR
Manu Ginobili, SAS
Vince Carter, NJN
Andre Iguodala, PHI
Joe Johnson, ATL
Michael Redd, MIL
Ray Allen, BOS
Ben Gordon, CHI

SF

LeBron James, CLE
Carmelo Anthony, DEN
Paul Pierce, BOS
Danny Granger, IND
Kevin Durant, OKC
Caron Butler, WAS
Gerald Wallace, CHA
Josh Howard, DAL
Rudy Gay, MEM
Trevor Ariza, LAL

PF

Dirk Nowitzki, DAL
Pau Gasol, LAL
Chris Bosh, TOR
Kevin Garnett, BOS
Antawn Jamison, WAS
Amare Stoudemire, PHX
David Lee, NYK
LaMarcus Aldridge, POR
David West, NOH
Carlos Boozer, UTH

C

Dwight Howard, ORL
Yao Ming, HOU
Tim Duncan, SAS
Al Jefferson, MIN
Shaquille O'Neal, PHX
Andrew Bynum, LAL
Andris Biedrins, GSW
Nene, DEN
Marcus Camby, LAC
Emeka Okafor, CHA

Which gives us the following totals:

BOS 4
LAL 4
SAS 3
PHX 3
DEN 3
DAL 3
NOH 2
NJN 2
UTH 2
ORL 2
CHI 2
POR 2
WAS 2
CHA 2
MIA 1
PHI 1
ATL 1
MIL 1
CLE 1
IND 1
OKC 1
MEM 1
TOR 1
NYK 1
HOU 1
MIN 1
GSW 1
LAC 1

Suddenly, you see a list of contenders at the top. Boston and LA should be no surprises. Nor should San Antonio. Phoenix might be a surprise, if only because one of their top ten players was out for half the season and the other two are marginal candidates at best (c'mon, they're both well over 30). You could make a case for Cleveland appearing higher on this list if you argued that Mo Williams and Zydrunas Ilgauskas are top ten at their position, but I think you might be hard pressed there. The only point guard I'd even consider giving up for Mo Williams is Jason Kidd, and that's only because his best days are clearly behind him. I don't think I like Z more than any of the centers on the list. Cleveland stays where it is.

Now that we have name recognition and top ten players taken care of, a hierarchy is starting to appear. On Monday, we move into more number-based territory as we consider Quality Win Factor.

Grading the NBA Part I: Name Recognition

I'm providing some NBA posts instead of the standard SPI-based baseball posts today. (How 'bout those Dodgers, huh?)

In keeping with the power metric theme of this blog, I wanted to come up with some number-based methods of ranking all the NBA teams. The only trouble is that the method I use to rate MLB teams is essentially a modified version of an already existing method for NBA teams. Using the method for the NBA and then claiming it as my own would be pretty scummy, so I took some time and thought of other possibilities. I came up with four metrics, which I'll be posting over the next few days, starting with the simplest and moving from there.

The first factor is also the least objective: name recognition. Simply put, the better your team is, the more of your players I'll have heard of. I consider myself to be a little more invested than the average casual basketball fan, so if I haven't heard of one of your starters, chances are they don't merit any media attention, and so they probably aren't good. (If I can't think of your team's name, that doesn't bode well for you, either.) Let's run through the list and see how many starters I can come up with for each team.

LA Clippers. 3/5 (PG Davis, SG Gordon, PF Randolph) I thought Chris Kaman was the center instead of Marcus Camby and completely blanked on Al Thornton. Still, 3/5 isn't bad for a team like the Clippers.
LA Lakers. 5/5 (PG Fisher, SG Bryant, SF Ariza, PF Gasol, C Bynum) Easy one. Moving on.
Golden State Warriors. 1/5 (SG Ellis) Hard to fault me for forgetting that Ronny Turiaf and Kelenna Azubuike started for this team. Yikes.
Phoenix Suns. 4/5 (PG Nash, SG Richardson, PF Stoudemire, C O'Neal) For whatever reason, I thought Grant Hill was a PF, but there's no way I would have thought of Matt Barnes.
Sacramento Kings. 2/5 (PG Udrih, C Hawes) This is even worse when you consider that the only reason I know these two players is because they're known for being among the worst in the league at their position.
Denver Nuggets. 3/5 (PG Billups, SF Anthony, C Nene) Not sure how I whiffed on Kenyon Martin at PF. Stupid.
Minnesota Timberwolves. 2/5 (PF Love, C Jefferson) You're telling me Randy Foye doesn't start anymore? Things are not looking good for this team.
Oklahoma City "Thunder". 4/5 (PG Westbrook, SG Sefolosha, SF Durant, PF Green) Hard to fault me for forgetting about Nenad Krstic, really.
Portland Trail Blazers. 5/5 (PG Blake, SG Roy, SF Batum, PF Aldridge, C Przybilla) Admittedly, I'm a huge Blazers fan. If I weren't, I probably would have had 3 here (Roy, Aldridge, and either Batum or Oden instead of Przybilla).
Utah Jazz. 4/5 (PG Williams, SG Brewer, PF Boozer, C Okur) Not sure how I missed Kirilenko, but there you have it.
Dallas Mavericks. 3/5 (PG Kidd, PF Nowitzki, C Dampier) Again, not sure how I forgot about Josh Howard. Good grief.
Houston Rockets. 5/5 (PG Brooks, SG Artest, SF Battier, PF Scola, C Yao) The Rockets just got done toasting my Blazers, which is probably why I know all of their players. Without that advantage, I probably miss Brooks and Scola.
Memphis Grizzlies. 4/5 (PG Conley, SG Mayo, SF Gay, C Gasol) I think that's pretty good. No way you can expect me to know Darrell Arthur at PF.
New Orleans Hornets. 4/5 (PG Paul, SG Butler, PF West, C Chandler) Seriously?? I got Rasual Butler and forgot about Peja Stojakovic???
San Antonio Spurs. 3/5 (PG Parker, SG Ginobili, "PF" Duncan) I'm giving myself credit for Ginobili despite his injury removing him from starter status (even though he's technically a backup, he plays 36 minutes a game).
Atlanta Hawks. 4/5 (PG Bibby, SG Johnson, PF Smith, C Horford) Thought Marvin Williams still started. Oh well.
Charlotte Bobcats. 3/5 (SG Bell, SF Wallace, C Okafor) Didn't think Boris Diaw started, and completely forgot about Ray Felton.
Miami Heat. 4/5 (PG Chalmers, SG Wade, PF Haslem, C O'Neal) I don't think anyone outside of Miami or Toronto could have named Jamario Moon for that SF spot.
Orlando Magic. 5/5 (PG Alston, SG Lee, SF Turkoglu, PF Lewis, C Howard) Most of this is because they're still in the playoffs. Minus that, I bet I miss Lee. (Yes, I know J.J. Redick technically starts over Lee right now, but I'm still counting him.)
Washington Wizards. 4/5 (PG Arenas, SF Butler, PF Jamison, C Hayward) I know Arenas isn't starting now because of his knee, but he totally counts here.
Chicago Bulls. 3/5 (PG Rose, SG Gordon, C Noah) I guess I just assumed that Luol Deng would start over John Salmons. The fact that I blanked on Ty Thomas doesn't bode well for this team.
Cleveland Cavaliers. 5/5 (PG Williams, SG West, SF James, PF Varejao, C Ilgauskas) Obviously.
Detroit Pistons. 5/5 (PG Stuckey, SG Hamilton, SF Prince, PF McDyess, C Wallace) I nearly forgot about Tayshaun Prince?
Indiana Pacers. 2/5 (SG Ford, SF Granger) I think I'm going to give myself credit for Danny Granger, but wow, what a team of nobodies here. Just wow.
Milwaukee Bucks. 4/5 (PG Sessions, SG Redd, PF Villanueva, C Bogut) Probably should have had Richard Jefferson, too. Ah well.
Boston Celtics. 5/5 (PG Rondo, SG Allen, SF Pierce, PF Garnett, C Perkins) I'm counting Garnett because I know Big Baby Davis backs him up.
New Jersey Nets. 2/5 (PG Harris, C Lopez) The fact that I remembered Brook Lopez but forgot about VINCE CARTER (?!?!?) sums up everything you need to know about this team.
New York Knicks. 1/5 (C Lee) Uh-oh, guys.
Philadelphia 76ers. 4/5 (PG Miller, SF Iguodala, PF Young, C Dalembert) I think I can be excused for forgetting about Willie Green.
Toronto Raptors. 4/5 (PG Calderon, SF Marion, PF Bosh, C Bargnani) Not bad, but it took me forever to come up with Bosh. Not a good sign, my Canadian friends.

So there you have it. You can chalk some of those omissions up to pure forgetfulness on my part, but if I'm not coming up with your superstar, that doesn't bode well for your team. I won't order these up today, but you can get an idea of where your team stands based on how well I know them here. A rough idea, anyway. We'll get a little more specific tomorrow with Top Ten Players.

Brief discussion on college football

Maybe it's just me, but I'm really not all that impressed with most of the "elite" teams in college football this year. We hear a lot about high-flying offenses like those of Missouri and Oklahoma, and tend to accept them as being solid teams without really questioning them. But is it really that impressive if you're pounding on #221 Alcorn State? Let's examine the highest scoring offenses so far this year, limiting ourselves to the teams with an average scoring differential over 30 points:

1. (#24) Florida State, 54
2. (#2) Oklahoma, 40.7
3. Troy, 39.5
4. (#1) USC, 38.5
5. (#5) Missouri, 37
6. (#7) Texas, 35.5
7. (#4) Florida, 34.5
8. TCU, 33.3
9. (#6) LSU, 33
10. Iowa, 31
11. Indiana, 30

With the exception of a few surprises, that's pretty much the AP top ten list. But what happens if you calculate each team's strength of schedule? Just for laughs, I calculated each of these 11 teams' opponents' average RPI ranking (essentially a composite ranking of every NCAA team, taken from realtimerpi.com) and came up with the following:

1. USC, 39.5
2. Florida, 81
3. Oklahoma, 109.3
4. Missouri, 111.3
5. Iowa, 113.7
6. Texas, 116.5
7. LSU, 121.5
8. TCU, 123
9. Troy, 142
10. Indiana, 148.5
11. Florida State, 187

Through two or three games for ten of these teams, they haven't even been remotely tested. It's really easy to put up gaudy numbers against teams rated below #100. Florida State's case is particularly reprehensible, feasting on #192 Western Carolina and #182 Chattanooga. Not too hard to average wins by 54 points against competition like that. Now that conference play is starting, and these teams will be required to play against their peers, I predict some of those ridiculous scoring margins will decrease, and we'll see a different lineup of scoring leaders in a few weeks.

The Times They Are A-Changing

Don't look now, but the teams that looked like complete locks to make the playoffs are nearly all mired in losing streaks. The way I figure it, only four teams are playing well enough to even merit consideration as contenders. Without looking, can you guess which they are?

The two obvious ones, of course, are the Cubs and the Red Sox, but the only other two teams on the short list are surprises - the Mets and the Brewers. (The Rays just barely missed the cut.)

What's going on here? It seems like all of the playoff teams have been falling apart lately, while some of the also-rans and cellar dwellers (like the Indians, the Astros, and of all teams, the Nationals) are on hot streaks. It may be that everyone is just regressing toward the mean this week.

It's still strange to look at the SPI standings and see someone other than the Cubs on top, though. My guess is that the Cubs will get things turned around soon and be back to their winning ways, but really, anything could happen with a month to go.

The Playoff Push

A couple of months ago, I listed my playoff predictions, with the caveat that things might change between then and October. Boy, did they ever change. I had the Oakland A's winning the AL West over the L.A. Angels, who now are leading the A's by 20 1/2 games. Oakland currently holds the 23 spot in the SPI standings. Pretty embarassing.

So do I dare issue another set of playoff predictions? Of course I will, but once again, I'll issue some caveats. First: anything could happen between now and October. The Rockies, despite being ranked 19th, could conceivably make another miracle run. They have the schedule and talent to do it. Still, I'm not about to plan on them winning the NL West with the data I have right now. Second: I'm not using the adjusted SPI standings that I post in the sidebar every day. It doesn't make sense to predict a month into the future with data that more heavily weights recent performance. Just because Milwaukee is on a hot streak right now doesn't mean that will continue through September.

That said, here are the picks, with their expected win-loss records:

AL East: Boston Red Sox (99-63)
AL Central: Chicago White Sox (93-69)
AL West: Los Angeles Angels (89-73)
AL wild card: Tampa Bay Rays (94-68)

NL East: Philadelphia Phillies (92-70)
NL Central: Chicago Cubs (105-57)
NL West: Arizona Diamondbacks (85-77)
NL wild card: Milwaukee Brewers (92-70)

Red Sox def. Angels
Rays def. White Sox
Cubs def. D-backs
Brewers def. Phillies

Red Sox def. Rays
Cubs def. Brewers

Cubs def. Red Sox

The Cubs currently have a 64% chance of victory in the World Series over the Red Sox, even with the recent losing streak they've had. Also, congratulations are in order to the Washington Nationals, who finally got out of the basement with a seven-game winning streak. The Pittsburgh Pirates have replaced them, though the category is still named for the Nationals. Such futility must not go unrecognized and unhonored.

Division comparisons

I decided to compare each of the six divisions to see which of them was the strongest. I expected the AL East to be the strongest, since it has the Rays, the Red Sox, and the Yankees, and I wasn't disappointed. The rest of the standings were a little surprising, however. Here's the graph I came up with:


As you can see, the AL East leads by a comfortable margin, but a couple of surprises come out. First, what is the NL East doing so far down? The Phillies and the Mets have been in the top ten for the last couple of months. Of course, the Nationals do a lot to bring the average down, but aren't the other teams enough to hold things up? Turns out they aren't - the Braves are currently in 21st while the Marlins are in 17th.

The other surprise, I thought, was that the NL West is only barely in last place. We've known for a long time that the NL West is a weak division (Arizona leads it with an anemic record of 68-65), but shouldn't the AL West be better than it is? Aren't the Angels one of the league's best teams? They have 81 wins! While that's all true, they're only ranked 12th in the SPI standings. (Not good for your division if your first place team is only in 12th.) The other three teams, Oakland, Texas, and Seattle, are ranked 20th, 23rd, and 27th respectively. That does a lot to drag down one really good team. Meanwhile, the recent success of the Colorado Rockies (woo!) has brought the NL West up, though it has come at the expense of some of the other teams in the division.

Long story short, sometimes looking at the numbers in a slightly different way changes the picture.

Blind test answer

Time's up! Here are the answers to yesterday's graph question:

Team A was the Tampa Bay Rays, who haven't seen their SPI score drop below 6.500 since early June. Team B was the Milwaukee Brewers, who didn't see their SPI consistently above 6.000 until late July. Both teams have the same number of playoff appearances in the last 10 years (zero). Both teams are looking like they're headed to the playoffs. And yet, everyone seems convinced that the Rays will fold, while everyone seems sold on the Brewers. I don't know about you, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Sure, the Brewers are on the rise lately, but even when their SPI score was hovering around 5.5, people still talked about them like a playoff club. If I have to pick one of these two teams to go to the postseason, it's definitely the Rays. Some people may trust their gut instincts on things like this, but as for me, I'd prefer to stick with the numbers.

Side note: I changed the SPI standings to adjusted SPI standings, which weights the last ten games slightly more to account for recent performance. It changed the standings around a bit, but not nearly as much as I expected it to.