This is our old blog. It hasn't been active since 2011. Please see the link above for our current blog or click the logo above to see all of the great data and content on this site.
«
»

BBR Rankings: Schedule-Adjusted Offensive and Defensive Ratings (February 4, 2011)

Posted by Neil Paine on February 4, 2011

2010-11 NBA power rankings through the games played on February 3, 2011:

Rank Prev Team Cnf Div W L WPct Offense Rk Prv Defense Rk Prv Overall
1 1 Miami Heat E SE 35 14 0.714 3.95 3 4 -3.86 5 5 7.81
2 2 San Antonio Spurs W SW 41 8 0.837 3.65 4 3 -3.60 6 7 7.25
3 3 Boston Celtics E A 37 11 0.771 1.11 12 11 -5.89 2 3 7.00
4 4 Los Angeles Lakers W P 34 16 0.680 4.70 2 2 -1.58 11 11 6.27
5 6 Chicago Bulls E C 34 14 0.708 -1.29 21 23 -7.04 1 1 5.75
6 5 Orlando Magic E SE 31 19 0.620 2.00 9 10 -3.40 7 6 5.39
7 7 New Orleans Hornets W SW 32 19 0.627 -1.52 22 21 -5.10 3 2 3.58
8 9 Dallas Mavericks W SW 33 15 0.688 1.16 11 13 -2.37 9 10 3.53
9 8 Denver Nuggets W NW 29 20 0.592 5.39 1 1 2.36 22 20 3.03
10 10 Oklahoma City Thunder W NW 31 17 0.646 3.43 6 7 1.34 17 17 2.09
11 12 Memphis Grizzlies W SW 26 24 0.520 -0.95 20 22 -2.63 8 8 1.68
12 11 Atlanta Hawks E SE 31 18 0.633 0.82 14 14 -0.69 14 14 1.51
13 13 Houston Rockets W SW 23 28 0.451 3.57 5 6 2.63 24 24 0.94
14 16 Portland Trail Blazers W NW 26 23 0.531 -0.35 16 16 -0.88 12 13 0.52
15 17 Philadelphia 76ers E A 22 26 0.458 -0.44 17 18 -0.82 13 12 0.38
Rank Prev Team Cnf Div W L WPct Offense Rk Prv Defense Rk Prv Overall
16 15 New York Knickerbockers E A 25 23 0.521 2.64 8 9 2.32 20 19 0.32
17 14 Utah Jazz W NW 29 21 0.580 1.76 10 8 1.64 18 23 0.12
18 18 Milwaukee Bucks E C 19 29 0.396 -4.90 29 28 -4.16 4 4 -0.74
19 20 Phoenix Suns W P 23 24 0.489 3.17 7 5 4.25 28 30 -1.08
20 19 Indiana Pacers E C 19 27 0.413 -3.02 24 24 -1.87 10 9 -1.15
21 21 Los Angeles Clippers W P 19 29 0.396 -0.28 15 17 2.59 23 22 -2.86
22 22 Golden State Warriors W P 21 27 0.438 1.06 13 12 4.04 27 27 -2.99
23 23 Charlotte Bobcats E SE 21 27 0.438 -4.01 26 25 -0.35 15 15 -3.65
24 24 Detroit Pistons E C 17 32 0.347 -0.94 19 19 3.55 26 25 -4.48
25 25 Minnesota Timberwolves W NW 11 37 0.229 -2.16 23 20 3.14 25 26 -5.29
26 28 Sacramento Kings W P 12 34 0.261 -4.81 28 29 0.76 16 16 -5.57
27 26 Toronto Raptors E A 13 37 0.260 -0.68 18 15 5.11 30 29 -5.79
28 29 Washington Wizards E SE 13 35 0.271 -4.02 27 27 2.17 19 21 -6.20
29 27 New Jersey Nets E A 15 35 0.300 -3.88 25 26 2.34 21 18 -6.21
30 30 Cleveland Cavaliers E C 8 41 0.163 -6.20 30 30 4.87 29 28 -11.06
HCA 3.65
LgRtg 107.66

To read more about the methodology and what these numbers mean, click here.

Related posts:

    2010-11 Projected NBA Standings
    BBR Rankings: Schedule-Adjusted Offensive and Defensive Ratings (November 12, 2010)
    BBR Rankings: Schedule-Adjusted Offensive and Defensive Ratings (November 19, 2010)
    BBR Rankings: Schedule-Adjusted Offensive and Defensive Ratings (January 7, 2011)
    BBR Rankings: Pre-Finals Schedule-Adjusted NBA Offensive and Defensive Power Ratings

This entry was posted on Friday, February 4th, 2011 at 10:28 am and is filed under BBR Rankings, SRS, Statgeekery. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

14 Responses to “BBR Rankings: Schedule-Adjusted Offensive and Defensive Ratings (February 4, 2011)”

  1. AHL Says:
    February 4th, 2011 at 11:14 am

    The Cavs have breached -11!

  2. Neil Paine Says:
    February 4th, 2011 at 11:52 am

    Ha, well they were actually -11.16 two weeks ago:

    http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=8662

    So their current -11.06 is actually an improvement.

  3. DSMok1 Says:
    February 4th, 2011 at 1:03 pm

    They're sort of bad.

    Have the top 6 separated from the field permanently?

  4. Jason J Says:
    February 4th, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    I realize we're not measuring win/loss here, but for a 29-21 team, the Jazz rank awfully low.

  5. Neil Paine Says:
    February 4th, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    #3 - It depends, I wonder how difficult it would be to move +/- 1.8 points in the ratings over the final 30 games of the season.

    #4 - Utah's been pretty fortunate to be 29-21. They've played more like a 25-25 team.

  6. Greyberger Says:
    February 5th, 2011 at 12:29 am

    I knew Chicago's defense was good, but I'm surprised they're better at defense than the Lakers or anybody is on offense.

    Also interesting to see the Spurs and Heat as such balanced teams, my perception was the Spurs were better on offense and the Heat on D.

  7. WC Says:
    February 5th, 2011 at 5:16 pm

    Why are these ratings slightly different than the ratings filed under LEAGUE?

    http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2011.html

  8. P Middy Says:
    February 5th, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    Is this right? Love is the only 20 and 15 guy to have made a three?

    http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&type=per_game&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=1947&year_max=2011&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=99&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos=&qual=&c1stat=pts_per_g&c1comp=gt&c1val=20&c2stat=trb_per_g&c2comp=gt&c2val=15&c3stat=fg3_pct&c3comp=gt&c3val=0&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=pts_per_g

  9. Neil Paine Says:
    February 5th, 2011 at 8:16 pm

    #8 - It's true... In fact, he and Moses are the only guys to average 20 & 15 in the 3-point era, period. It was so much easier to put up those kinds of numbers in earlier seasons because the pace was so fast and FG% was so low. Love plays in an extremely fast-paced environment by 2011 standards, but the T-Wolves' league-leading 86.1 FGA/G would rank last in the league in 1961 -- by 18.7 FGA/G! Let that sink in for a second: the slowest team in 1961 took almost 20 more shots per game than the fastest team in 2011.

    #7 - Because these are based on points scored/allowed per 100 possessions, and those are based on points scored/allowed per game. These are pace-neutral and therefore more accurate, but we can't calculate them for seasons prior to 1987, so using per-game averages is more useful for all of pro basketball history.

  10. WC Says:
    February 6th, 2011 at 1:21 am

    If two teams with very different average paces play, wouldn't the per game stats also be useful because the teams would tend to drag each into an average of each other's pace.

  11. Jay Says:
    February 6th, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    Just wanted to let you guys know that your feedback system isn't working (at least for me it isn't). I've been getting an internal server error for about a week now. I'll post my suggestion here for the time being:

    I noticed that you have Landry Fields listed as a forward only. He's started nearly every game for the knicks at SG this year, and is routinely listed as a G or G-F on other sites. See here:

    http://www.nba.com/playerfile/landry_fields/

    http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/4770

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=4274

    http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=31764

    I thought it'd make sense to make the change as he's routinely touted as leading all guards in rebounding. Thanks.

  12. Neil Paine Says:
    February 7th, 2011 at 10:42 am

    I think we might actually add some detailed positional info soon (i.e., PG/SG/SF/PF/C). Stay tuned.

    Also, I'll look into the feedback system issue.

  13. Jason J Says:
    February 7th, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    PG/SG/SF/PF/C would be boss!

  14. DSMok1 Says:
    February 7th, 2011 at 3:40 pm

    I just updated my rest-adjusted team ratings; I also moved to using an exponent of 2 after doing research on that. (Basically, these ratings should now match Neil's above, except for the rest adjustment). I also added all data points back to December 1st for margin, offensive rating, defensive rating, and pace, and put them in a spreadsheet. The associated Google Motion Chart helps us see... that Utah's defense has fallen off a cliff.

«
»