Using the well-known and highly respected  Sagarin Ratings (found at http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/bkt0910.htm)

I have “simulated” the NCAA Men’s tourney 5000 times. For each team, the table below gives the chance of the team winning 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 games.

For example, we see Kansas has a 31.9% chance of winning the tournment (winning 6 games ), a 44.6% chance of making the final game (winning 5 or 6 games) and a 60% Chance (winning 4, 5, or 6 games) of making the final 4. See below the table (or Chapter 43 of my book Mathletics) for how I ran the simulation. The table makes it clear that Kansas has by far the best chance of winning the tourney. There is around a 38% chance that a non 1 seed wins the tourney.

Team	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
Kansas	0.004	0.117	0.141	0.138	0.154	0.127	0.319
Duke	0.009	0.223	0.215	0.177	0.135	0.119	0.121
Syracuse	0.033	0.239	0.175	0.194	0.180	0.070	0.108
Kentucky	0.031	0.299	0.208	0.172	0.130	0.087	0.074
West Va.	0.044	0.304	0.192	0.202	0.114	0.079	0.067
Kan St	0.044	0.371	0.198	0.176	0.130	0.037	0.043
Villanova	0.029	0.310	0.259	0.211	0.094	0.060	0.037
Baylor	0.110	0.287	0.286	0.170	0.079	0.042	0.026
Georgetown	0.102	0.346	0.238	0.211	0.052	0.031	0.020
Ohio St	0.086	0.321	0.268	0.229	0.053	0.026	0.018
Purdue	0.267	0.297	0.261	0.083	0.050	0.027	0.015
Wisconsin	0.180	0.350	0.276	0.099	0.052	0.027	0.015
BYU	0.293	0.377	0.125	0.102	0.067	0.020	0.015
Temple	0.315	0.310	0.228	0.078	0.041	0.018	0.010
Maryland	0.142	0.335	0.397	0.059	0.041	0.016	0.010
Texas	0.339	0.410	0.118	0.066	0.038	0.021	0.009
Pitt	0.165	0.386	0.268	0.107	0.053	0.012	0.009
Texas A & M	0.389	0.299	0.194	0.063	0.033	0.013	0.008
Butler	0.443	0.239	0.203	0.065	0.033	0.009	0.008
New Mexico	0.174	0.386	0.269	0.107	0.040	0.017	0.007
Xavier	0.373	0.275	0.209	0.086	0.041	0.009	0.006
Marquette	0.421	0.262	0.195	0.076	0.027	0.014	0.005
Mich St	0.187	0.412	0.320	0.047	0.020	0.008	0.005
Tennesee	0.406	0.317	0.140	0.103	0.021	0.009	0.005
Vandy	0.333	0.325	0.223	0.070	0.035	0.008	0.005
Missouri	0.481	0.332	0.093	0.059	0.020	0.010	0.004
Georgia Tech	0.486	0.308	0.123	0.065	0.011	0.003	0.003
Clemson	0.519	0.324	0.073	0.052	0.019	0.010	0.003
Fla. St.	0.449	0.393	0.081	0.047	0.023	0.005	0.002
Saint Mary’s	0.469	0.349	0.108	0.052	0.016	0.005	0.002
Notre Dame	0.488	0.319	0.121	0.053	0.011	0.005	0.002
Cal	0.459	0.406	0.080	0.032	0.017	0.005	0.002
San Diego St	0.594	0.250	0.094	0.050	0.008	0.002	0.002
Okla St.	0.514	0.302	0.111	0.058	0.011	0.003	0.001
Richmond	0.531	0.315	0.094	0.041	0.014	0.004	0.001
UTEP	0.557	0.212	0.165	0.041	0.017	0.005	0.001
Utah  St	0.611	0.239	0.111	0.025	0.010	0.003	0.001
N Iowa	0.469	0.462	0.038	0.019	0.007	0.004	0.001
UNLV	0.531	0.418	0.031	0.013	0.005	0.002	0.001
Gonzaga	0.551	0.339	0.059	0.034	0.013	0.003	0.001
Louisville	0.541	0.362	0.058	0.025	0.009	0.004	0.001
Washington	0.579	0.215	0.142	0.042	0.015	0.005	0.001
Minn	0.627	0.207	0.119	0.034	0.011	0.002	0.001
Florida	0.707	0.211	0.048	0.024	0.007	0.002	0.001
Old Dominion	0.512	0.303	0.112	0.051	0.016	0.005	0.001
Wake	0.661	0.264	0.046	0.019	0.007	0.002	0.000
Murray St.	0.667	0.223	0.089	0.015	0.004	0.001	0.000
Cornell	0.685	0.203	0.082	0.021	0.006	0.003	0.000
Siena	0.733	0.165	0.081	0.015	0.005	0.002	0.000
New Mex St	0.813	0.146	0.039	0.001	0.001	0.000	0.000
Wofford	0.820	0.136	0.040	0.003	0.001	0.000	0.000
Montana	0.826	0.136	0.034	0.004	0.000	0.000	0.000
Oakland	0.835	0.131	0.029	0.004	0.001	0.000	0.000
Houston	0.858	0.107	0.033	0.001	0.001	0.000	0.000
Sam Houston	0.890	0.090	0.017	0.003	0.000	0.000	0.000
Ohio	0.898	0.087	0.012	0.002	0.000	0.000	0.000
UC Santa Barbara	0.914	0.070	0.014	0.002	0.000	0.000	0.000
Morgan St,	0.956	0.040	0.003	0.001	0.000	0.000	0.000
North Tex	0.956	0.040	0.004	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Vermont	0.967	0.029	0.004	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
East Tenn. St.	0.969	0.028	0.003	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Robert Morris	0.971	0.027	0.002	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Play In Game	0.991	0.009	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Lehigh	0.996	0.003	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000

We assumed that the outcome of each game follows a normal random variable with mean margin = Sagarin rating of higher rated team- Sagarin rating of lower rated team and standard deviation 10 points. Then we used the simulation add-in @RISK to play out the tournament 5000 times.

If you want to see the chance a team wins at least a certain number of games look below. So 6 column is chance team wins tourney, 5 column is chance team makes it to final game, 4 column is chance team makes it to Final4, 3 Column is chance team makes it to Regional Final or beyond, 2 Column is chance team makes it to Sweet Sixteen or beyond, and 1 column is chance team wins their opening game.

 

Team	1	2	3	4	5	6
Kansas	0.996	0.879	0.738	0.600	0.446	0.319
Duke	0.991	0.767	0.552	0.375	0.240	0.121
Syracuse	0.967	0.728	0.552	0.358	0.178	0.108
Kentucky	0.969	0.671	0.463	0.291	0.161	0.074
West Va.	0.956	0.653	0.461	0.259	0.146	0.067
Kan St	0.956	0.585	0.387	0.211	0.081	0.043
Villanova	0.971	0.662	0.402	0.191	0.097	0.037
Baylor	0.890	0.603	0.317	0.147	0.068	0.026
Georgetown	0.898	0.552	0.314	0.103	0.051	0.020
Ohio St	0.914	0.594	0.325	0.096	0.043	0.018
Purdue	0.733	0.436	0.176	0.092	0.042	0.015
Wisconsin	0.820	0.470	0.194	0.094	0.042	0.015
BYU	0.707	0.329	0.204	0.102	0.035	0.015
Temple	0.685	0.374	0.147	0.069	0.028	0.010
Maryland	0.858	0.523	0.126	0.067	0.026	0.010
Texas	0.661	0.251	0.134	0.068	0.030	0.009
Pitt	0.835	0.448	0.180	0.073	0.021	0.009
Texas A & M	0.611	0.312	0.118	0.054	0.021	0.008
Butler	0.557	0.318	0.115	0.050	0.017	0.008
New Mexico	0.826	0.440	0.171	0.064	0.024	0.007
Xavier	0.627	0.352	0.143	0.057	0.016	0.006
Marquette	0.579	0.318	0.123	0.047	0.019	0.005
Mich St	0.813	0.401	0.080	0.033	0.013	0.005
Tennesee	0.594	0.277	0.137	0.035	0.013	0.005
Vandy	0.667	0.342	0.118	0.048	0.013	0.005
Missouri	0.519	0.187	0.094	0.034	0.014	0.004
Georgia Tech	0.514	0.206	0.083	0.018	0.007	0.003
Clemson	0.481	0.157	0.084	0.033	0.013	0.003
Fla. St.	0.551	0.158	0.077	0.030	0.007	0.002
Saint Mary’s	0.531	0.183	0.075	0.023	0.007	0.002
Notre Dame	0.512	0.192	0.071	0.019	0.007	0.002
San Diego St	0.406	0.156	0.063	0.012	0.004	0.002
Cal	0.541	0.135	0.055	0.024	0.007	0.002
Okla St.	0.486	0.185	0.073	0.015	0.004	0.001
UTEP	0.443	0.230	0.065	0.024	0.007	0.001
Utah  St	0.389	0.151	0.039	0.015	0.004	0.001
Richmond	0.469	0.154	0.060	0.019	0.005	0.001
UNLV	0.469	0.051	0.021	0.007	0.003	0.001
N Iowa	0.531	0.069	0.031	0.012	0.005	0.001
Gonzaga	0.449	0.110	0.051	0.017	0.004	0.001
Minn	0.373	0.166	0.047	0.014	0.003	0.001
Florida	0.293	0.082	0.034	0.010	0.003	0.001
Washington	0.421	0.205	0.063	0.021	0.006	0.001
Lousiville	0.459	0.097	0.039	0.014	0.005	0.001
Old Dominion	0.488	0.185	0.073	0.021	0.006	0.001
Murray St.	0.333	0.110	0.020	0.006	0.001	0.000
Wake	0.339	0.075	0.029	0.010	0.003	0.000
Cornell	0.315	0.112	0.030	0.009	0.003	0.000
Lehigh	0.004	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
New Mex St	0.187	0.041	0.002	0.001	0.000	0.000
Houston	0.142	0.035	0.002	0.001	0.000	0.000
Ohio	0.102	0.015	0.002	0.000	0.000	0.000
UC Santa Barbara	0.086	0.016	0.002	0.000	0.000	0.000
Vermont	0.033	0.004	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Oakland	0.165	0.034	0.004	0.001	0.000	0.000
North Tex	0.044	0.004	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
East Tenn. St.	0.031	0.003	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Wofford	0.180	0.044	0.004	0.001	0.000	0.000
Montana	0.174	0.037	0.004	0.000	0.000	0.000
Morgan St,	0.044	0.003	0.001	0.000	0.000	0.000
Winthrop	0.009	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Siena	0.267	0.102	0.021	0.006	0.002	0.000
Robert Morris	0.029	0.002	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Sam Houston	0.110	0.020	0.003	0.000	0.000	0.000

The Toronto Raptors have gone 1-8 in their last 9 games and have lost 4 in a row. If the Bulls start winning, the Raptors may be out of the playoffs.  As we will see, the Raptors could be so much better!

    For the season the Raptors have played 2 points worse than average. The players who have hurt the Raptors are Nesterovich (-10 Adjusted +/-), De Rozan (-7 Adjusted +/-), Banks (-9) and Weems (-3). DeRozan’s -7Adjusted +/- means, for example, that if DeRozan played a whole game instead of an average NBA player, we estimate the Raptors would play 7 points worse. Also DeRozan (-26 points 4th quarter Adjusted +/-) and Weems (-18 points 4th quarter Adjusted +/-) have killed the Raptors in the 4th quarter.

In the 940 minutes when DeRozan, Weems, Banks, and Rasho are out the Raptors have been excellent: 5 points better than average. So reducing the minutes for the aforementioned players should help the team.  There are many other ways, however to improve the Raptors choices of lineups. All numbers below are per 48 minutes and adjusted for strength of opponent’s players on the court:

• When the core (Bargnani, Bosh and Hedo) is in, the Raptors play much better with Calderon at the point (9 points better than average) than with Jack (4 points worse than average).
• When Chris Bosh is out and  Amir Johnson is out the Raptors get killed (16 points worse than average). But when Amir replaces Bosh the Raptors are only 1  point worse than average. Breaking it down further we find that with Johnson, Bargnani and Jack in and the other two players chosen from Wright, DeRozan, Calderon , Bellinelli and Weems the Raptors are 19 points better than average in 143 minutes!
• Bargnani, Bosh and Belinelli in is great (218 minutes, Raptors play 15 points better than average). With Wright also in the Raptors are awesome (60 min, 33 points better than average per 48 minutes!).

Here is a summary of how well the most used lineups have performed for the Raptors. The key numbers for each lineup are the first number and minutes played. For example, lineup 1A has played 354 minutes and played 11 points worse than average per 48 minutes. Note 2A simply replaces Jack by Calderon and plays 15 points better than 1A. So why does lineup 1A play more often? Below we have boldfaced many of the Raptors excellent lineups that have been underutilized. For example, 8C has played 50 points better than average.       

TOR     -10.80 (   -3.33    2.09    5.42    0.44   -0.32    4.09)  354.39 minutes   99 appearances     1 A    -12.60      -93 $
Bargnani      Bosh          DeRozan       Jack          Turkoglu      25.46 years       4394_TOR_2010

TOR       5.48 (    0.37    5.16    4.79   14.05    0.25    4.28)  264.22 minutes   75 appearances     2 A      0.91        5 $
Bargnani      Bosh          Calderon      DeRozan       Turkoglu      25.88 years       4154_TOR_2010

TOR      -0.57 (    5.83   11.10    5.26   39.50    1.24    2.37)  120.57 minutes   71 appearances     3 A     -2.79       -7 $
Bargnani      Bosh          Calderon      Jack          Turkoglu      27.03 years       4378_TOR_2010

TOR       4.77 (    0.40    9.15    8.75   -3.63   -0.16    2.86)   85.13 minutes   37 appearances     4 A      2.82        5 $
Bargnani      Bosh          Jack          Turkoglu      Weems         26.08 years      12554_TOR_2010

TOR      -5.59 (  -16.76    3.47   20.23  -37.78   -2.45    4.72)   72.80 minutes   18 appearances     5 A    -12.53      -19 $
Bargnani      DeRozan       Jack          Nesterovic    Turkoglu      27.03 years       5410_TOR_2010

TOR       2.95 (   -5.00    5.41   10.41   -4.80   -0.61    4.23)   70.70 minutes   31 appearances     6 A      5.43        8 $
Bargnani      Bosh          DeRozan       Jack          Weems         24.00 years       8490_TOR_2010

 TOR      15.31 (    5.36    7.85    2.49   -1.03    0.23    2.50)   54.60 minutes   36 appearances     1 B     12.31       14 $
Bargnani      Bosh          Calderon      Turkoglu      Wright        26.98 years      20506_TOR_2010TOR      -4.99 (   -3.75    1.03    4.78  -15.82   -0.79    4.11)   54.50 minutes   25 appearances     2 B     -4.40       -5 $
Bargnani      Bosh          DeRozan       Jack          Wright        24.49 years      16682_TOR_2010

 

TOR      15.94 (   -0.01    8.10    8.11  -19.88   -0.63    2.91)   54.06 minutes   23 appearances     3 B     22.20       25 $
Bargnani      Bosh          Jack          Weems         Wright        25.10 years      24842_TOR_2010

TOR      23.37 (    6.37   15.36    8.99   33.20    1.19    2.24)   53.77 minutes   34 appearances     4 B     18.75       21 $
Bargnani      Belinelli     Bosh          Calderon      Turkoglu      26.55 years       4126_TOR_2010

TOR      10.90 (    3.08    5.25    2.16   10.56    0.47    2.53)   46.77 minutes   35 appearances     5 B     12.31       12 $
Bargnani      Belinelli     Jack          Johnson       Turkoglu      25.52 years       4870_TOR_2010

TOR       7.81 (    4.74    4.20   -0.53   14.84    0.70    2.87)   43.56 minutes   35 appearances     6 B     13.22       12 $
Belinelli     Bosh          Jack          Johnson       Turkoglu      25.83 years       4876_TOR_2010

TOR      24.45 (    2.67   12.28    9.61   19.58    0.62    2.38)   41.89 minutes   31 appearances     7 B     25.21       22 $
Bargnani      Belinelli     Bosh          Jack          Turkoglu      26.14 years       4366_TOR_2010

TOR       1.53 (    2.67    4.19    1.53   -5.70    0.00    2.61)   40.49 minutes   31 appearances     8 B      8.30        7 $
Bargnani      Belinelli     Jack          Johnson       Wright        24.54 years      17158_TOR_2010

TOR     -10.83 (   -2.92   -4.95   -2.03   -8.59   -0.48    4.21)   40.12 minutes   25 appearances     9 B    -16.75      -14 $
Bargnani      DeRozan       Jack          Johnson       Turkoglu      24.84 years       4898_TOR_2010

        TOR       8.38 (    8.03    6.23   -1.80   12.21    0.80    2.74)   37.95 minutes   29 appearances     1 C      8.85        7 $
Belinelli     Bosh          Calderon      Johnson       Wright        25.27 years      16924_TOR_2010

TOR       5.14 (    8.44    7.28   -1.16   28.46    1.27    2.62)   37.46 minutes   27 appearances     2 C      3.84        3 $
Belinelli     Bosh          Calderon      Johnson       Turkoglu      26.25 years       4636_TOR_2010

TOR      22.23 (    5.76    3.10   -2.67  -11.00    0.01    3.35)   36.73 minutes   26 appearances     3 C     31.36       24 $
Bosh          Calderon      Johnson       Weems         Wright        25.22 years      25112_TOR_2010

TOR       4.22 (    1.66    4.77    3.12  -14.65   -0.34    2.55)   35.55 minutes   33 appearances     4 C      5.40        4 $
Bargnani      Bosh          Jack          Turkoglu      Wright        26.56 years      20746_TOR_2010

TOR      24.35 (    2.25   11.23    8.98    3.32    0.15    2.47)   29.58 minutes   29 appearances     5 C     19.47       12 $
Bargnani      Belinelli     Bosh          Jack          Wright        25.16 years      16654_TOR_2010

TOR     -53.21 (    6.37    7.27    0.90    7.92    0.56    2.49)   29.55 minutes   24 appearances     6 C    -53.61      -33 $
Bargnani      Belinelli     Calderon      Johnson       Wright        24.96 years      16918_TOR_2010

TOR      -8.67 (    1.00   15.61   14.61   14.34    0.33    2.79)   29.02 minutes   14 appearances     7 C     -9.92       -6 $
Bargnani      Belinelli     Bosh          Jack          Weems         24.68 years       8462_TOR_2010

TOR      49.87 (    5.96   14.31    8.35   16.94    0.72    2.36)   25.09 minutes   16 appearances     8 C     47.82       25 $
Bargnani      Belinelli     Bosh          Calderon      Wright        25.58 years      16414_

The Clippers are in turmoil and have announced they “want to win now.” Is this possible? Since trading away Marcus Camby the Clippers have played around 8 points worse than an average NBA team. Surprisinly, most of thie poor play has occurred when Steve Blake is in. Blake had played great for Portland this year, but if you look at all minutes since the Camby trade the Clippers performance breaks down as follows:

• Blake or Novak in (mostly Blake) the Clippers in 342 minutes have played 14 points worse than average.
• Rest of time the Clippers have played 2 points better than average,

It may be that Blake is having trouble learning the offense, I do not know, but he has clearly been hurting the Clippers. Some other amazing stats:

• In the 94 minutes Outlaw and Baron are in together the Clippers play 11 points better than average.
• Butler, Baron Davis, Gordon,  Kaman and Gooden has been solid, playing 4 points better than average in 128 minutes.
• Butler  ,   Baron Davis ,  Gordon,   Kaman and  Smith     has been great: In    53 min this lineup plays 18 points better than average.
• In 55 min with Outlaw and Gooden in and Kaman out the Clippers play 11 points better than average.

Building around the things that work should enable the Clippers to win some games. Perhaps then LeBron can be convinced that  a nucleus of Kaman, Gordon, Outlaw, and Baron  and a coach of his choosing is where he wants to land in 2010.

 

Based on the ratings we posted earlier today here are projected final NBA standings.

Team	wins	losses	conf
Cleveland Cavaliers	62	20	e
Orlando Magic	57	25	e
Boston Celtics	52	30	e
Atlanta Hawks	52	30	e
Milwaukee Bucks	45	37	e
Miami Heat	44	38	e
Charlotte Bobcats	43	39	e
Toronto Raptors	41	41	e
Chicago Bulls	39	43	e
Philadelphia 76ers	31	51	e
Washington Wizards	28	54	e
Indiana Pacers	28	54	e
Detroit Pistons	28	54	e
New York Knickerbockers	28	54	e
New Jersey Nets	11	71	e
Los Angeles Lakers	58	24	w
Utah Jazz	54	28	w
Denver Nuggets	54	28	w
Dallas Mavericks	54	28	w
Phoenix Suns	51	31	w
Oklahoma City Thunder	50	32	w
San Antonio Spurs	48	34	w
Portland Trail Blazers	47	35	w
Houston Rockets	42	40	w
Memphis Grizzlies	41	41	w
New Orleans Hornets	40	42	w
Los Angeles Clippers	31	51	w
Sacramento Kings	28	54	w
Golden State Warriors	25	57	w
Minnesota Timberwolves	18	64	w

Note the torrid race in the West for spots 2-4.

In the West it looks like there is only a 9% chance that one of Houston, New Orleans or Memphis sneaks in the playoffs.

In the East here are the playoff chances for the 5 teams fighting for spots 5-9:

• Bucks 98%
• Heat 94%
• Bobcats 91%
• Raptors 80%
• Bulls 37%.

In the three weeks since the all star break here is a summary of how well each NBA team has played.  For example, the Magic have played 10.65 points better than average. The Magic have played 2.38 points better than average on offense and 8.26 points better than average on defense. Note the Nets have really improved and the Knicks are now the league’s worst team. Kudos to the unsung Bucks, who have played great. These numbers are adjusted for strength of schedule.  Makes you think that  a Lakers-Cavs final series is not inevitable!

team	rat	off	def
Orlando Magic	10.6503	2.381671	-8.26863
Utah Jazz	8.534538	5.673864	-2.86067
Phoenix Suns	6.973403	5.906533	-1.06687
Milwaukee Bucks	6.770501	-2.64105	-9.41155
Cleveland Cavaliers	6.498408	5.683036	-0.81537
Denver Nuggets	5.865543	9.346381	3.480838
Dallas Mavericks	5.587516	3.740591	-1.84693
Portland Trail Blazers	3.872738	-3.21054	-7.08327
Atlanta Hawks	3.719502	1.407598	-2.3119
San Antonio Spurs	2.893506	-1.85892	-4.75243
Los Angeles Lakers	2.393355	-0.93158	-3.32494
Boston Celtics	2.210877	-3.47062	-5.6815
Oklahoma City Thunder	1.253714	2.15831	0.904596
Charlotte Bobcats	1.026796	-7.07207	-8.09887
Miami Heat	0.823129	-6.51539	-7.33852
Houston Rockets	0.603989	4.417139	3.81315
Memphis Grizzlies	-1.30881	-0.12277	1.186037
New Orleans Hornets	-1.73608	0.955302	2.691385
Chicago Bulls	-2.00675	4.21517	6.221923
Indiana Pacers	-2.70551	1.201415	3.906922
Golden State Warriors	-2.94401	7.159773	10.10378
Detroit Pistons	-2.96042	-2.95703	0.003389
New Jersey Nets	-4.12119	-4.29861	-0.17742
Washington Wizards	-4.81088	-6.99989	-2.18901
Sacramento Kings	-6.05672	-7.00022	-0.9435
Los Angeles Clippers	-7.76527	-2.70256	5.062709
Toronto Raptors	-7.77774	0.595046	8.372786
Philadelphia 76ers	-7.80783	-3.4387	4.369131
Minnesota Timberwolves	-8.51557	-2.29555	6.220011
New York Knickerbockers	-9.16104	0.673688	9.834725

By the way here are the ratings based on the entire season.

team	rat	off	def
Cleveland Cavaliers	6.890813	2.655367	-4.23545
Orlando Magic	6.392323	1.974841	-4.41748
Utah Jazz	6.229256	3.812548	-2.41671
Los Angeles Lakers	5.923267	2.042491	-3.88078
Denver Nuggets	4.911445	7.274634	2.363189
San Antonio Spurs	4.104837	0.203764	-3.90107
Atlanta Hawks	3.95019	1.475472	-2.47472
Phoenix Suns	3.585063	9.106114	5.521051
Boston Celtics	3.502954	-2.13078	-5.63373
Oklahoma City Thunder	3.468842	-0.6062	-4.07504
Dallas Mavericks	2.699547	1.597587	-1.10196
Portland Trail Blazers	2.68712	-2.24068	-4.9278
Milwaukee Bucks	1.794867	-2.05389	-3.84876
Miami Heat	1.389825	-4.16243	-5.55226
Charlotte Bobcats	1.169847	-5.05737	-6.22721
Houston Rockets	0.338153	0.989018	0.650865
Memphis Grizzlies	-0.74185	1.539117	2.280968
Toronto Raptors	-1.46119	4.703916	6.165102
New Orleans Hornets	-1.55549	-0.10483	1.450654
Chicago Bulls	-1.89855	-1.78745	0.111107
Philadelphia 76ers	-3.36791	-2.60134	0.766574
Golden State Warriors	-3.39594	7.576899	10.97284
Sacramento Kings	-4.04191	-0.34554	3.696374
New York Knickerbockers	-4.63478	1.702795	6.337579
Washington Wizards	-4.72684	-3.20742	1.519428
Indiana Pacers	-4.85179	-0.12825	4.723536
Detroit Pistons	-5.0039	-7.11889	-2.11499
Los Angeles Clippers	-5.54965	-4.76218	0.78747
Minnesota Timberwolves	-8.21322	-1.53784	6.67538
New Jersey Nets	-9.59532	-8.80949	0.785828

The Lakers have clearly struggled on their recent 0-3 road trip. What are the problems and how can they be solved? Of course, Kobe is below par due to several injuries. Rest would probably help here. But there are other more pressing problems. 

Looking at the last two weeks our Adjusted +/- data reveals the following:

• Artest and Bynum have been playing much worse on offense.
• Brown, Farmar, and Gasol have been playing much worse on defense.

Like most teams, the Lakers often play suboptimal lineups. Here are the Lakers best lineups.

• Note that 6A and 9A rest Kobe well. For example, 6A with Brown and Odom replacing Bynum and Bryant has played an amazing 33 points per game better than average (we do adjust for strength of opponents).
•     1C , 3C and 8C do a great job of resting  Artest.
• 2B and 3C, 8C and 9C  do a great job of resting Gasol

     LAL      11.06 (    8.31    4.20   -4.11   22.78    1.42    3.55)  584.36 minutes  165 appearances     1 A      9.28      113 $
Artest        Bryant        Bynum         Fisher        Gasol         29.71 years        109_LAL_2010

LAL       8.91 (   12.79    3.78   -9.01   31.92    2.02    4.31)  380.36 minutes  144 appearances     2 A      5.17       41 $
Artest        Bryant        Bynum         Fisher        Odom          29.84 years        557_LAL_2010

LAL      11.32 (   18.44    9.37   -9.07   56.24    3.12    3.00)  233.64 minutes  146 appearances     3 A      6.78       33 $
Artest        Bryant        Fisher        Gasol         Odom          31.30 years        613_LAL_2010

LAL       9.24 (   12.13    4.08   -8.06   27.04    1.77    4.38)  138.07 minutes   85 appearances     4 A     11.47       33 $
Brown         Bryant        Farmar        Gasol         Odom          27.63 years        598_LAL_2010

LAL      32.56 (    9.20   -0.35   -9.55   27.69    1.51    3.68)   85.04 minutes   38 appearances     6 A     25.97       46 $
Artest        Brown         Fisher        Gasol         Odom          29.85 years        611_LAL_2010

LAL       8.85 (   -0.11   -9.76   -9.64  -18.67   -0.51    4.13)   74.14 minutes   35 appearances     9 A     11.65       18 $
Artest        Brown         Bynum         Farmar        Odom          25.93 years        539_LAL_2010

       LAL      19.55 (   14.77    5.55   -9.22   34.20    2.20    3.69)   59.13 minutes   56 appearances     1 B     19.48       24 $
Artest        Bryant        Farmar        Gasol         Odom          28.84 years        597_LAL_2010

LAL      23.12 (    9.12   -0.04   -9.16    9.89    1.11    4.60)   55.56 minutes   39 appearances     2 B     24.19       28 $
Artest        Bryant        Bynum         Farmar        Odom          27.38 years        541_LAL_2010

   LAL      36.14 (   15.80    7.90   -7.91   49.08    2.69    3.94)   36.05 minutes   22 appearances     1 C     30.63       23 $
Brown         Bryant        Fisher        Gasol         Odom          30.10 years        614_LAL_2010

LAL      37.71 (   10.16    2.31   -7.85   24.76    1.59    4.86)   34.84 minutes   18 appearances     3 C     37.20       27 $
Brown         Bryant        Bynum         Fisher        Odom          28.63 years        558_LAL_2010

LAL      12.31 (    5.53   -5.27  -10.80   32.25    1.30    7.05)   30.45 minutes   15 appearances     4 C     14.19        9 $
Artest        Bryant        Fisher        Mbenga        Odom          31.21 years        677_LAL_2010

LAL      12.53 (   -6.97   -7.23   -0.26  -33.42   -1.46    4.77)   29.87 minutes   16 appearances     5 C     24.11       15 $
Brown         Bryant        Bynum         Farmar        Powell        25.53 years       1054_LAL_2010

LAL      17.74 (   12.95    1.06  -11.89   36.01    2.09    4.23)   24.64 minutes   15 appearances     7 C     15.59        8 $
Artest        Brown         Bryant        Gasol         Odom          29.04 years        583_LAL_2010

LAL      34.75 (  -10.31  -11.96   -1.64  -55.64   -2.44    6.23)   23.97 minutes   12 appearances     8 C     34.05       17 $
Brown         Bynum         Farmar        Odom          Walton        25.85 years       4634_LAL_2010

LAL      19.69 (    7.31   -4.53  -11.83   11.69    0.99    4.94)   23.59 minutes   15 appearances     9 C     16.28        8 $
Artest        Brown         Bryant        Bynum         Odom          27.58 years        527_LAL_2010

Note that the lineups shown below play fairly often and have not done well.  For example, there is a 95% chance that 5A ’s true ability level is 5 points better than average or worse. Why keep using it when there are better alternatives? For example. 3C with Fisher for Farmar (and other 4 guys same as 5A) has played an amazing 38 points better than average and is used less often than 5A. This certainly does not help the Lakers.

LAL      -9.29 (    6.49   -1.51   -8.00    2.72    0.67    5.02)  126.78 minutes   72 appearances     5 A     -9.46      -25 $
Brown         Bryant        Bynum         Farmar        Odom          26.17 years        542_LAL_2010

LAL       2.57 (   15.55   11.90   -3.65   21.29    1.98    4.04)   75.86 minutes   25 appearances     7 A      6.33       10 $
Bryant        Bynum         Fisher        Gasol         Odom          29.71 years        620_LAL_2010

LAL     -16.49 (   -0.93   -5.52   -4.59   -5.77   -0.19    2.78)   35.52 minutes   12 appearances     2 C    -17.57      -13 $
Artest        Brown         Bynum         Fisher        Gasol         28.26 years        107_LAL_2010

LAL     -30.21 (  -32.60  -25.76    6.84  -69.30   -4.55    4.69)   26.00 minutes   13 appearances     6 C    -12.92       -7 $
Brown         Farmar        Mbenga        Morrison      Powell        25.71 years       1426_LAL_2010

The Bobcats are in a desperate struggle for the Eastern Conference’s last playoff spot.  They should note that when they play Gerald Wallace at the 5 they play 8 points (per 48 minutes and after adjusting for opponent’s strength) better than average. During other times Wallace is in, the Bobcats play 3 points worse than average. So going small more often makes sense for the Bobcats. So far when Wallace is in, the Bobcats go small only around 1/3 of the time!

Another tip for the Bobcats: When Henderson is in with Jackson and or Felton (around 100 minutes) the Bobcats are great: they play 17 points betterthan average. In Henderson’s other minutes the Bobcats play 16 points worse than average.

Rookie of the Year?

So who should be Rookie of the Year? In the media the buzz seems to be for Curry, Evans and Jennings and we agree. For players averaging over 23 minutes per game here are our rankings:

Rank	Player	Team	Points	Impact
57	JENNINGS	MIL	1	19
58	CURRY	GS	5	5
64	EVANS	SAC	2	13
66	THORNTON	NOH	4	1
89	HARDEN	OKC	1	3
97	CASSPI	SAC	-1	10
134	GIBSON	CHI	-1	-6
146	LAWSON	DEN	-3	-3
154	DEROZAN	TOR	-6	0
176	COLLISON	NOH	-4	-17
179	JEREBKO	DET	-4	-20
186	FLYNN	MIN	-8	-17

For example, after adjusting for who he played with Jennings has played 1 point better than an NBA player (per 48 minutes) and Curry has played 5 points better.

        Impact rating gives more weight to how the team does when the game is on the line. Jenning’s impact of +19, for example means that if Jennings were on the court with 9 average NBA players, we estimate his team would win 69% of the games. This high impact means that in close games Jennings is really helping the Bucks win. Our overall ranking here gives equal weight to Impact and Points Rating. So as you can see,  Curry, Evans and Jennings are neck and neck. The Hornets’ Marcus Thorton has played well, but he plays many fewer minutes than Curry, Evans and  Jennings. My guess is Evans will win the award, because the media believes Jennings has tailed off after his early 55 point game. In terms of impact, Jennings has been pretty solid all season and the Bucks are playing great, so I believe he deserves more consideration than he is getting.

It’s been two weeks since the all star break ended.  That’s time enough to check out which teams’ trades helped and which hurt (at least so far). First, let’s look at how well each NBA team has played since the break. Based on games since the break here is how the teams have performed (adjusted for schedule difficulty).

     For example, the Mavs have been the league’s 2nd  best team playing 9 points better than average: 3.93 points better than average on offense and 5.06 points better than average on defense. We predicted (see our February 13th post) that Haywood’s great defense would really help the Mavs, and so far we have been right. Traditional box score metrics miss Haywood’s great defensive value, so  many other commentators concentrated on Butler as the major piece in the trade. The Nets have not been so bad, while the Knicks have played very poorly.

team	rating	off	def
Orlando Magic	8.99	3.93	-5.06
Dallas Mavericks	8.79	2.40	-6.40
Phoenix Suns	6.99	3.60	-3.40
Atlanta Hawks	6.71	3.20	-3.51
Cleveland Cavaliers	6.30	9.68	3.38
Milwaukee Bucks	5.19	-0.65	-5.83
Oklahoma City Thunder	4.39	4.82	0.42
San Antonio Spurs	4.07	0.38	-3.69
Los Angeles Lakers	4.00	-5.53	-9.53
Utah Jazz	3.79	1.19	-2.61
Portland Trail Blazers	3.21	-1.71	-4.92
Chicago Bulls	2.26	4.22	1.96
Indiana Pacers	2.14	2.95	0.81
Houston Rockets	0.83	8.71	7.89
Charlotte Bobcats	0.24	-5.94	-6.18
New Orleans Hornets	-0.30	-1.17	-0.87
Miami Heat	-0.51	-10.67	-10.16
Denver Nuggets	-0.56	5.06	5.63
Detroit Pistons	-1.21	-4.13	-2.92
Golden State Warriors	-2.26	3.98	6.24
Memphis Grizzlies	-2.57	0.95	3.52
Washington Wizards	-2.91	-2.42	0.49
Boston Celtics	-3.26	-4.60	-1.34
Los Angeles Clippers	-4.58	0.22	4.80
New Jersey Nets	-6.16	-5.50	0.66
Toronto Raptors	-6.29	-0.51	5.78
Minnesota Timberwolves	-7.39	-3.69	3.69
Philadelphia 76ers	-8.70	-1.60	7.10
Sacramento Kings	-9.92	-7.22	2.70
New York Knickerbockers	-11.27	0.05	11.33

 

Now let’s break down some key points about each team. A +5 rating, for example, means that since All Star Break our best guess is the player has played 5 points better per 48 minutes than average. These numbers are adjusted based on who you play with and against.

Atlanta

Crawford (+2 rating vs. +10 season rating) has played much worse since hurting his shoulder. Teague (-21 ) and Pachulia (-21) have played poorly off the bench.

Boston

The starters have played about at their regular season level.. The good news is that Daniels(+3), Tony Allen (+4) and Davis (+2) have been solid off the bench. The bad news is that Nate Robinson (-39) has played very badly.

Charlotte

Augustine (-9) has been in a slump while the newly acquired Tyrus Thomas (+7) has played great.

Chicago

Gibson (+6) and Noah(+5 in the games he has played) have stepped up their play.

Cleveland

  The King has continued to play at near MVP level.  When Big Z returns he can fills the Shaq void during the regular season (both have -1 ratings) but against Orlando, Shaq is probably needed. Jamison (+3) has been solid but not spectacular. West (-10) and Gibson (-14) have played poorly.

Dallas

Dirk continues to play at near MVP level. Butler (-5) has so far not lived up to expectations.  Haywood (+12 rating due entirely to a -12 defense rating) has been the key to  the Mavs resurgence. Najera (-1 rating vs. -8 whole season rating) has also stepped up his play.

Detroit

Stuckey (+18) and Wallace (+16) have played like all stars. Daye (-24) and Bynum (-16) have killed the Pistons.

Denver

Birdman (+24) and Nene (+15) have continued their great, unsung play. Lawson (-9) has played worse and Carter (-25) and Allen (-21) have killed the Nuggets coming off the bench.

Golden State

Watson (+13) has played like an all-star while Maggete (-19), Ellis (-21), Turiaf and Biedrins (-14) have played poorly.

Houston

Battier (+11) and Hayes (+17) have been heroic. Kevin Martin has played at an average level while Jeffries (-30 rating) has not yet found his place.

Indiana

Granger (+14), Ford (+7) and Head (+13)  have all stepped up their play. Solomon Jones (-17) has killed the Pacers all season.

Clippers

  Outlaw (+15) has been great while Craig Smith (-9) has been in decline. Blake (-3) has not played as well as we would have thought.

Lakers

Odom (+13) has carried the Lakers.  Bryant (+5) is clearly fighting injuries. Fisher (+7) has stepped up his play. Bynum and Farmar (-8) have caused problems.

Miami

Wade’s injury should in the long run help the Heat. Wade has still been playing at near MVP level, but Richardson (+13), Beasley (+11) and Cook (+10) have really stepped it up. Haslem (-9) has played poorly.

Memphis

Thabeet (-23) was playing poorly before his demotion to D League. Haddadi (+20) has been great, but Young  (-11) and Arthur (-19) have killed the Griz.

Milwaukee

Ridnour (-16) and Delfino (-9) have struggled. John Salmons (+12) has really keyed the Bucks improved play!

Minnesota

  Gomes (-9) and Flynn (-11) have played poorly. Even before his DUI Jefferson (-17) was really playing poorly. Wilkins (+5) has played his best ball of the season.

Hornets

   Most guys are playing at their typical levels. Gray (+35) has stepped it up in his limited minutes while Songaila  (-7) has had problems.

New Jersey

Lopez has played like an all star (+11), keying their recent improvement. Terrence Williams (-13) has played poorly.

New York

TMac (-2) has been ok.  House (+5) and Bender (+10) have played well. So why have the Knicks been the league’s worst team? Douglas (-14), Duhon (-15), and Rodriguez (-16) have killed them.

Orlando

Good news all around for the Magic. Carter (+11), Nelson (+10), Redick (+7), and Pietrus (+9) have all stepped it up.  Gortat (+22) has been amazing off the bench.

OKC

KD continues to play at near MVP level. Ibaka (-19) has played veyr poorly.

Philadelphia

No noticable trends here. Young really keys their success.

Phoenix

The Suns have been great. Amare (+13) has played his best ball of the season as have Lopez (+15) and Hill (+6). Nash continues to be great and Dragic (+9) is now a super sub for Nash.

Portland

Roy (+3) has played at his whole season level since returning from injury. Fernandez (+11) and Miller (+14) have carried the Blazers. Camby (+2) has been near average, but this is a big improement over Howard and Pendergraph.

Sacramento

   Green (-14), Thompson (-23) and Nocioni (-14) have played poorly. Despite being in the doghouse, Hawes (+7) has played well.

San Antonio

Hairston (+23) has been great in limited minutes while Bogans (-11) and Bonner (-4) have struggled.

Toronto

The absence of Bosh has clearly hurt. Bargnani and Turkoglu (-5) have seen their performance decline. DeRozan (-15) has really struggled. On the bright side, Amir Johnson (+4) and Wright (+7) have been super subs.

Utah

AK47 (-3) and Okur (-10) have struggled. Korver (+16) has been amazing off the bench.

Washington

Josh Howard (+27) was playing like an MVP before he sadly tore his ACL. Miller (+11) has also played well. Foye (-16) and Ross (-17) have played poorly.

Note:My earlier results had an error. Thanks to Albert Cross for alerting me to this (I had a column wrong in a vlookup).

Through the games of February 27, 2010 I rated all NBA teams, giving more weight to more recent games (I gave, for example ,game 1 half the weight of the most recent games). Then I used the great Excel simulation add-in @RISK to play out the rest of the season. Here are projected final standings and each team’s playoff chances.  Some key points.

• Note the race in the East looks like it will go down to the last day, while the West is not quite so close.  
• Also note that the race in the West for 2nd and 3rd  is very close.
•    I found the home edge this season to be around 2.7 points per game.
• By the way there is an 79% chance that the Nets win at least 10 games, avoiding a date with infamy.

 

Team	wins	losses	Playoff Chance
Cleveland Cavaliers	62	20	1
Orlando Magic	55	27	1
Atlanta Hawks	52	30	1
Boston Celtics	51	31	1
Miami Heat	43	39	0.84
Toronto Raptors	43	39	0.85
Milwaukee Bucks	43	39	0.83
Charlotte Bobcats	42	40	0.76
Chicago Bulls	42	40	0.72
Philadelphia 76ers	32	50	0
Washington Wizards	29	53	0
Detroit Pistons	29	53	0
Indiana Pacers	28	54	0
New York Knickerbockers	28	54	0
New Jersey Nets	11	71	0
Los Angeles Lakers	59	23	1
Utah Jazz	54	28	1
Denver Nuggets	54	28	1
Dallas Mavericks	52	30	1
Phoenix Suns	50	32	1
Oklahoma City Thunder	49	33	0.98
San Antonio Spurs	47	35	0.88
Portland Trail Blazers	47	35	0.88
Houston Rockets	42	40	0.11
New Orleans Hornets	41	41	0.08
Memphis Grizzlies	41	41	0.07
Los Angeles Clippers	32	50	0
Sacramento Kings	28	54	0
Golden State Warriors	26	56	0
Minnesota Timberwolves	19	63	0

The Bucks, Bobcats, Raptors, Heat and Bulls are engaged in a game of musical chairs for the last 4 Eastern Conference Playoff spots. Starting next week I will  be posting playoff odds, but because of the John Salmons trade I think the Bucks have a great shot. The Bulls gained cap room in this trade, but they may have sacrificed a playoff spot.

   Salmons has been great for the Bucks. With the Bucks his adjusted +/- Rating so far is 13 points better per 48 minutes than an average player. Even when Bogut or Jennings are out (the Bucks two other key players), the Bucks are better than average when Salmons is in. Here are some other key observations about the Bucks:

• Bogut with a +6.5 point Adjusted +/- Rating ranks 36th in the NBA. His solid play is due to great defense (-6 Defense Rating). This means when Bogut is in the game Bucks give up 6 less points per game than they would if Bogut were replaced by an average NBA defender.
• Jennings has an average points rating but ranks 36th in league in Impact, which measures how you change the chance of a team winning a game. Thus Jennings plays very well with the game on the line.
• The Bucks are horrible when both Bogut and Ilyasova are out: 10 points worse than average.
• When resting and Bogut, Ilyasova and Gadzuric in is good: Bucks play 10 points better than average.
• With Jennings out, Ridnour, Bogut, Ilyasova and Ridnour in is great: 17 points better than average.

Using this information to create lineups should really help the Bucks.

Let’s close by looking at the Bucks best lineups (among those that play often).

Note 1B is great for resting Bogut. Also note that the new lineup 7A with Salmons is great. Also unbelievably the only difference between 1A and 2A is Ilyasova in for Moute. Yet 2A appears to be 20 points per game better and plays less. Why? Playing 2A 189 minutes and 1A 108 minutes would surely have won the Bucks a few games and those games might be the difference between a playoff birth and sitting at home in May.

MIL       5.24 (    6.67   -4.71  -11.38   17.56    0.99    3.57)  189.08 minutes   57 appearances     1 A      4.82       19 $
Bell          Bogut         Delfino       Jennings      Mbah a Moute  25.36 years        398_MIL_2010

MIL      25.98 (   10.20    3.19   -7.01   27.19    1.55    2.54)  117.93 minutes   48 appearances     2 A     25.24       62 $
Bell          Bogut         Delfino       Ilyasova      Jennings      25.23 years        206_MIL_2010

MIL       6.65 (    5.61    0.46   -5.15   22.11    1.02    3.95)  101.89 minutes   60 appearances     3 A      5.18       11 $
Bell          Bogut         Delfino       Jennings      Warrick       26.20 years      16526_MIL_2010

MIL       8.03 (    3.67   -3.69   -7.35   20.37    0.80    3.49)   97.93 minutes   27 appearances     4 A      7.35       15 $
Bogut         Delfino       Ilyasova      Jennings      Mbah a Moute  23.73 years        460_MIL_2010

MIL      27.81 (   15.98   -1.79  -17.77   40.81    2.25    6.11)   63.09 minutes   23 appearances     7 A     23.58       31 $
Bogut         Delfino       Jennings      Mbah a Moute  Salmons       25.21 years     262540_MIL_2010

MIL      10.28 (    8.32    2.18   -6.15   19.42    1.19    1.86)   47.93 minutes   15 appearances     1 B      5.01        5 $
Bell          Delfino       Gadzuric      Ilyasova      Jennings      26.59 years        234_MIL_2010