BBR Rankings: (Almost) Post-Round 1 Schedule-Adjusted Offensive and Defensive Ratings

Posted by Neil Paine on April 29, 2011

2010-11 NBA power rankings through the games played on April 28, 2011:

					Full-Season										Post-Deadline
Rk	Prv	Team	Cnf	Div	W	L	WPct	Off	Rk	Prv	Def	Rk	Prv	Ovr	Off	Def	Ovr
1	1	Miami Heat	E	SE	62	25	0.713	4.37	1	2	-3.05	5	6	7.42	5.25	-0.91	6.16
2	2	Chicago Bulls	E	C	66	21	0.759	0.93	13	13	-6.16	2	1	7.09	3.00	-5.70	8.70
3	3	Los Angeles Lakers	W	P	61	27	0.693	3.58	7	7	-3.05	6	5	6.63	1.35	-5.50	6.85
4	4	San Antonio Spurs	W	SW	63	24	0.724	3.79	4	3	-2.11	9	10	5.90	4.05	0.45	3.60
5	5	Boston Celtics	E	A	60	26	0.698	-1.06	21	21	-6.52	1	2	5.47	-3.65	-6.29	2.64
6	6	Orlando Magic	E	SE	54	34	0.614	0.25	15	15	-4.74	3	3	4.99	-1.51	-5.61	4.11
7	8	Dallas Mavericks	W	SW	61	27	0.693	2.26	9	9	-2.64	8	7	4.91	2.55	-4.33	6.88
8	7	Denver Nuggets	W	NW	51	36	0.586	4.21	2	1	-0.40	14	14	4.61	2.60	-5.98	8.58
9	9	Oklahoma City Thunder	W	NW	59	28	0.678	3.67	5	5	-0.51	13	15	4.18	5.10	-2.32	7.42
10	10	Memphis Grizzlies	W	SW	49	38	0.563	0.22	16	16	-2.79	7	8	3.01	1.32	-3.74	5.05
11	11	Houston Rockets	W	SW	43	39	0.524	4.02	3	4	1.58	20	20	2.44	3.76	-1.38	5.14
12	12	Portland Trail Blazers	W	NW	50	38	0.568	1.54	10	10	-0.24	15	13	1.78	3.41	-0.58	3.99
13	13	New Orleans Hornets	W	SW	48	40	0.545	-0.83	18	18	-1.97	10	9	1.14	1.12	2.51	-1.39
14	14	Philadelphia 76ers	E	A	42	45	0.483	-0.70	17	17	-1.60	11	11	0.90	-2.14	-1.88	-0.26
15	15	New York Knicks	E	A	42	44	0.488	3.63	6	6	3.43	27	27	0.20	5.12	5.94	-0.83
Rk	Prv	Team	Cnf	Div	W	L	WPct	Off	Rk	Prv	Def	Rk	Prv	Ovr	Off	Def	Ovr
16	16	Phoenix Suns	W	P	40	42	0.488	2.35	8	8	2.91	22	22	-0.56	1.16	2.15	-0.99
17	18	Atlanta Hawks	E	SE	48	40	0.545	-1.03	20	20	0.03	16	16	-1.07	-2.18	0.50	-2.68
18	17	Milwaukee Bucks	E	C	35	47	0.427	-5.79	30	30	-4.58	4	4	-1.21	-6.07	-4.43	-1.64
19	19	Indiana Pacers	E	C	38	49	0.437	-2.46	23	23	-0.91	12	12	-1.55	-4.01	-0.20	-3.81
20	20	Utah Jazz	W	NW	39	43	0.476	1.04	11	11	2.72	21	21	-1.68	0.65	4.86	-4.21
21	21	Golden State Warriors	W	P	36	46	0.439	0.98	12	12	3.17	25	25	-2.19	1.89	2.36	-0.46
22	22	Los Angeles Clippers	W	P	32	50	0.390	-1.83	22	22	1.22	19	19	-3.05	-2.65	-1.03	-1.61
23	23	Detroit Pistons	E	C	30	52	0.366	0.69	14	14	5.06	29	29	-4.37	3.55	8.39	-4.85
24	24	Charlotte Bobcats	E	SE	34	48	0.415	-3.69	25	25	1.00	17	17	-4.69	-4.26	3.73	-8.00
25	25	Sacramento Kings	W	P	24	58	0.293	-3.90	26	26	1.19	18	18	-5.09	-2.36	1.62	-3.99
26	26	Minnesota T-Wolves	W	NW	17	65	0.207	-3.12	24	24	3.15	24	24	-6.27	-4.08	3.40	-7.48
27	27	Toronto Raptors	E	A	22	60	0.268	-0.95	19	19	6.00	30	30	-6.95	-1.46	8.20	-9.66
28	28	New Jersey Nets	E	A	24	58	0.293	-4.00	27	27	3.00	23	23	-7.01	-3.55	4.70	-8.25
29	29	Washington Wizards	E	SE	23	59	0.280	-4.66	28	28	3.18	26	26	-7.85	-4.91	4.53	-9.44
30	30	Cleveland Cavaliers	E	C	19	63	0.232	-5.03	29	29	4.61	28	28	-9.64	-6.29	1.90	-8.19
		HCA												3.43			3.47
		LgRtg												108.00			108.30

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

This entry was posted on Friday, April 29th, 2011 at 10:46 am and is filed under BBR Rankings, Playoffs, SRS, Statgeekery. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

11 Responses to “BBR Rankings: (Almost) Post-Round 1 Schedule-Adjusted Offensive and Defensive Ratings”

Neil Paine Says:
April 29th, 2011 at 10:54 am

Ken Pomeroy-ized version:

		Full-Season			Post-Deadline
Rk	Team	Off	Def	Pyth	Off	Def	Pyth
1	MIA	112.37	104.95	0.722	113.55	107.39	0.686
2	CHI	108.93	101.84	0.720	111.29	102.59	0.758
3	LAL	111.59	104.96	0.702	109.65	102.80	0.712
4	SAS	111.80	105.89	0.681	112.35	108.74	0.612
5	BOS	106.95	101.48	0.676	104.65	102.01	0.589
6	ORL	108.26	103.27	0.659	106.79	102.69	0.634
7	DAL	110.27	105.36	0.654	110.84	103.96	0.710
8	DEN	112.22	107.61	0.643	110.90	102.32	0.755
9	OKC	111.68	107.49	0.631	113.40	105.98	0.721
10	MEM	108.22	105.21	0.598	109.62	104.56	0.659
11	HOU	112.02	109.58	0.576	112.06	106.92	0.659
12	POR	109.54	107.76	0.557	111.71	107.72	0.625
13	NOH	107.17	106.03	0.537	109.42	110.80	0.456
14	PHI	107.30	106.41	0.529	106.16	106.42	0.491
15	NYK	111.63	111.43	0.506	113.41	114.24	0.475
Rk	Team	Off	Def	Pyth	Off	Def	Pyth
16	PHO	110.36	110.91	0.482	109.46	110.45	0.468
17	ATL	106.97	108.04	0.465	106.12	108.80	0.414
18	MIL	102.21	103.42	0.459	102.23	103.87	0.445
19	IND	105.54	107.09	0.449	104.29	108.10	0.377
20	UTA	109.05	110.72	0.447	108.95	113.16	0.370
21	GSW	108.98	111.17	0.431	110.19	110.65	0.485
22	LAC	106.17	109.22	0.402	105.65	107.27	0.447
23	DET	108.69	113.07	0.365	111.84	116.69	0.356
24	CHA	104.32	109.00	0.351	104.04	112.03	0.262
25	SAC	104.10	109.19	0.339	105.94	109.92	0.373
26	MIN	104.89	111.16	0.307	104.22	111.69	0.275
27	TOR	107.06	114.01	0.293	106.84	116.50	0.229
28	NJN	104.00	111.01	0.286	104.75	113.00	0.257
29	WAS	103.34	111.19	0.264	103.39	112.83	0.227
30	CLE	102.97	112.61	0.222	102.01	110.19	0.253
	HCA			0.609			0.610

Dan Says:
April 29th, 2011 at 11:35 am
I find it very interesting how the Hawks rate in the bottom half of the league, but managed to take down Orlando in 6.
Neil Paine Says:
April 29th, 2011 at 11:58 am
The short explanation: sh*t happens sometimes.
Owen Says:
April 29th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
How often has the top team by efficiency differential won the title in the past 30 years? It's some absurdly high number right?
Jason J Says:
April 29th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
@ 2 & 3 - Matchups. When you don't have to double Dwight Howard, and you don't abandon the dribbler on the Howard pick and rolls (see the Celtics last year), Dwight's teammates become fairly useless. Nelson may be the only other player on the team capable of getting his own. The pundits kept saying, "Well this good a three point shooting team can't keep missing so many." The problem with that analysis is that it ignores the fact that the Magic were a good 3 points shooting team because they had open three point shooters all season. No double on Howard, no open shooters. Ta-da! Bad shooting.

The reason this sort of strategy didn't work against other bigs is that they had better creative scorers around them (Manu, Parker, Kobe, Wade, Penny, Drexler, Magic, Oscar, West, etc.), or in the case of the 1994 Finals, the other team couldn't create any offense either so it was a wash.

On the other side, the Magic have a decent team defense because they funnel to Dwight, and he changes everything. But Atlanta was able to score in isolation because the Orlando perimeter defenders aren't great and Johnson and Crawford are streaky unguardable. They didn't do a great job creating points, but it was enough.
Neil Paine Says:
April 29th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
And that was the long explanation.
Jason J Says:
April 29th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
I get paid by the word. Or I will once Justin hires me.
Neil Paine Says:
April 29th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
That day could be soon, given the state of my incredibly lucrative baseball writing career. (Not.)
Jason J Says:
April 29th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Well, lucrative or not, it's still pretty awesome to be writing articles for the Times.
Neil Paine Says:
April 29th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Oh, for sure -- I was just kidding about how I'm probably not going to be moving on from this gig quite yet. Although I would give you a hearty recommendation if I did. Platoon you with a pure stat guy, and we'd have a championship team.
Matt, Colombia Says:
April 29th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
What about just for the playoffs so far?

« Layups: Trade Histories for Playoff Stars

Playoff Preview: #1 Chicago vs. #5 Atlanta »