1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Projecting Wins using #NBARank

Discussion in 'Houston Rockets: Game Action & Roster Moves' started by durvasa, Oct 24, 2013.

Tags:
Page 1 of 2
  1. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    37,984
    Likes Received:
    15,450
    I thought it might be interesting to gauge our team's prospects this season relative to the competition using ESPN's #NBARank player rankings. The rankings were based on expert's projections on how much the player would contribute in the upcoming season. Other factors which aren't strictly about contribution to winning were no doubt considered in these rankings, but the potential advantage is that they can incorporate a subjective feel for how players are trending in their respective careers. So, I gathered all of these rankings for all teams.

    The next step for me was to translate these rankings into something resembling win shares. To do this, I took a couple seasons from the recent past (09/10 and 10/11), and I plotted the distribution of win shares for all players in each season, ordered by their win share total (I used the WS metric at basketball-reference.com). It turns out that this distribution of win shares for 09/10 and 10/11 was almost identical, leading me to think that this is fairly stable across seasons. The plot looked like this:

    [​IMG]

    So, I used the above curve to translate #NBARank to projected win shares for each player in the upcoming NBA season. The results are summarized in the following table:

    TEAM     CNT  Top12 Wins   6 through 12  3 through 5  Top 2
    ----     ---  ----------   ------------  -----------  -----

    MIA      16     56.9         12.6          18.2       26.0
    BRK      15     54.5         16.5          20.3       17.8
    LAC      14     53.8         13.8          15.6       24.4
    GSW      14     52.8         13.0          19.2       20.7
    <font style="background:yellow;color:black">HOU&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;19&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;52.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;17.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;25.0</font>
    CHI&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;13&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;52.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;12.8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;19.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.4
    IND&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;12&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;51.7&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;13.6&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;18.5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;19.7
    SAS&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;51.7&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;13.7&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;17.5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.5
    MEM&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;15&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;50.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;17.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;18.9
    OKC&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;16&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;48.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;13.8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;28.2
    NYK&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;47.6&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;16.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;13.8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;17.6
    MIN&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;15&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;47.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;15.6&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;17.4
    DEN&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;15&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;47.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;17.7&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;15.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14.2
    CLE&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;13&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;46.8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;15.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14.0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;17.6
    POR&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;16&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;43.8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;12.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;13.9&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;17.8
    NOP&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;15&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;40.9&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7.9&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;18.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14.9
    DET&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;39.5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;15.5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14.8
    BOS&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;15&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;39.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;13.9&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;13.8
    WAS&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;15&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;38.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10.5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;12.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;15.4
    MIL&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;16&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;38.0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11.9&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;12.0
    SAC&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;37.9&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;15.8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10.8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11.3
    ATL&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;37.8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;16.4
    DAL&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;16&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;36.7&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10.8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11.8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14.1
    TOR&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;36.0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10.7&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;13.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;12.2
    LAL&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;32.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10.0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;17.0
    ORL&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;15&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;31.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11.7&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9.2
    CHA&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;13&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;30.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10.9&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;12.1
    UTA&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;26.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5.8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11.3
    PHX&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;16&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;23.7&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4.8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11.5
    PHI&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;18.6&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2.7&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8.7


    You can see that I've highlighted the numbers for the Rockets in the table. The CNT column says how many players on our roster were ranked by #NBARank. Interestingly, we lead in this category by a wide margin -- 19 of our players were ranked, and no other team has more than 16. Of course, several of these players will be cut before the regular season.

    Since I'm only interested in players that are likely to play, I tabulated the wins for the top 12 players on each roster, shown in Top12 Wins column. This is roughly a projected win total for the team, based on ESPN's #NBARank player results. I've also ordered each player on every team, and gave the total win shares for players ranked 6 through 12, ranked 3 through 5, and the top 2. This gives an idea of how much a team depends on stars versus depth. These numbers show that only Miami is projected to garner more win shares from their top 5 players than us. To further illustrate this, here's a chart:

    [​IMG]

    The final standings predicted by these projections were:

    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Conf&nbsp;TEAM&nbsp;Top12-WS&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Conf&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;TEAM&nbsp;&nbsp;Top12-WS
    1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;E&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;MIA&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;56.9&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;W&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;LAC&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;53.8
    2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;E&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;BRK&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;54.5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;W&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;GSW&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;52.8
    3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;E&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;CHI&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;52.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<font style="background:yellow;color:black">W&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HOU&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;52.4</font>
    4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;E&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;IND&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;51.7&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;W&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;SAS&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;51.7
    5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;E&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NYK&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;47.6&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;W&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;MEM&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;50.4
    6&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;E&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;CLE&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;46.8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;W&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;OKC&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;48.2
    7&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;E&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DET&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;39.5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;W&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;MIN&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;47.3
    8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;E&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;BOS&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;39.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;W&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DEN&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;47.3
    9&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;E&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;WAS&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;38.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;W&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;POR&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;43.8
    10&nbsp;&nbsp;E&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;MIL&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;38.0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;W&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NOP&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;40.9
    11&nbsp;&nbsp;E&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;ATL&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;37.8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;W&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;SAC&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;37.9
    12&nbsp;&nbsp;E&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;TOR&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;36.0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;W&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DAL&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;36.7
    13&nbsp;&nbsp;E&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;ORL&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;31.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;W&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;LAL&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;32.4
    14&nbsp;&nbsp;E&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;CHA&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;30.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;W&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;UTA&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;26.3
    15&nbsp;&nbsp;E&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;PHI&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;18.6&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;W&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;PHX&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;23.7

    OKC was surprisingly low, and it would have been even lower (an 8th seed) if I had used Westbrook's updated ranking (downgraded to #23 instead of #5 due to recent injury set-back). You can see from the chart above that this is due to a projected lack of depth for them. There's little contribution after the first 3 players or so. Still, I don't expect OKC to be this bad, but we'll see.
     
    #1 durvasa, Oct 24, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2013
    2 people like this.
  2. Voice of Aus

    Voice of Aus Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2013
    Messages:
    5,157
    Likes Received:
    410
    This is cool interesting to me besides okc is how well Boston seems to be ranked compared to a team like the hawks
     
    #2 Voice of Aus, Oct 24, 2013
  3. DaDakota

    DaDakota If you want to know, just ask!

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 1999
    Messages:
    124,076
    Likes Received:
    32,969
    Is it weighted by playing time? Or is that factored in already?

    Because, i would weight it for top 5 at 75% of total wins due to their greater impact on the floor.

    DD
     
    #3 DaDakota, Oct 24, 2013
  4. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    37,984
    Likes Received:
    15,450
    No extra weighting was applied by me. I think that's already taken care of by the player raking combined with the use of the win share distribution.
     
    #4 durvasa, Oct 24, 2013
  5. DaDakota

    DaDakota If you want to know, just ask!

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 1999
    Messages:
    124,076
    Likes Received:
    32,969
    Gotcha, figured that might be the case.

    DD
     
    #5 DaDakota, Oct 24, 2013
  6. Joe Joe

    Joe Joe Go Stros!
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 1999
    Messages:
    23,930
    Likes Received:
    14,001
    It appears to be factored in, but not perfectly. WSs are a cumulative stat so it is factored in assuming that the current No. X guy gets as many minutes as guys previously ranked No. X so they accumulate the same WS total. A deep team may get a little extra bump as their first man out of rotation may actually be ranked high enough that previous guys at his ranking were rotation players. The starters may get a little less WSs than predicted, but the bench would get more.

    However as can be seen with OKC, WS typically are concentrated with the best players so I would doubt this type of error would have a huge impact. Without looking at the data, I would expect a team like Milwaukee may be inflated as they have at least a couple of non-rotation guys almost as good as their starters.
     
    #6 Joe Joe, Oct 24, 2013
  7. haoafu

    haoafu Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    56
    This is interesting. Can we just add player winshares to get team win share, or do we need some tweaks to adjust for system/fit/roles?
     
    #7 haoafu, Oct 24, 2013
  8. Rasselas

    Rasselas Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    120
    Look out, Nate Silver.

    (Nice work.)
     
    #8 Rasselas, Oct 24, 2013
  9. deshen

    deshen Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,252
    Likes Received:
    159
    Clippers is projected on the top? Hmmm... Interesting.
     
    #9 deshen, Oct 24, 2013
  10. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    37,984
    Likes Received:
    15,450
    In theory, player win shares adds up to total team wins. The assumption made in the OP is that #NBARank player rankings is a close approximation of what the player rankings by total Win Shares will be this season.
     
    #10 durvasa, Oct 24, 2013
  11. MadMax

    MadMax Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    73,501
    Likes Received:
    19,677
    My formula has us at 82 wins.
     
    #11 MadMax, Oct 24, 2013
  12. Joe Joe

    Joe Joe Go Stros!
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 1999
    Messages:
    23,930
    Likes Received:
    14,001
    Using Durvasa's graph and doing a rough correlation...

    Rondo predicted to have more WSs than he has had in each of the last 3 years even if you assume he is healthy.

    Green, it has been two years since he has been that good according to WS..a.k.a when he played in OKC.

    Bradley, his WSs are practically double his best season.

    Wallace is about right...may be a tad low actually in WS.

    Bass appears to be underated by about a WS.

    Humphries is a little higher than last years performance, but lower than previous years.

    Sullinger appears a tad low of what he did last year.

    Olynyk...tough to say what his WS will be.

    Lee, Crawford, Brooks, and Bogans all appear to have higher WSs than they will get from a sheer minute standpoint.

    As ESPN seems to be predicting a career year from Bradley, Rondo playing like he did when Pierce and Garnett were tearing it up, and Green "playing" as well as he did in OKC, as well as Lee, Crawford, Brooks, and Bogans not likely playing enough minutes to accumulate the WS needed for their ranking's correlated WS, I think ESPN rankings may be too favorable for the Celtics.

    I do expect Green to put up a good WS as WS accounts for the things he does well. I expect Rondo will likely be healthier, but without Garnett and Pierce taking attention away from him....his Thomas Robinsonian scoring efficiency may get lower. Bradley...without Garnett making his defense look even better and having to share PG minutes with Rondo, I am not expecting a career year in WS.

    WS, imo, does a decent job on offense, but is not the best on defense. According to WS, Rondo is about 60% better than Asik defensively on a per minute basis. This does not make sense to me unless Rondo's defense is being severely overrated based on playing with Garnett. Rondo's defensive WSs is the most overrated that I have seen when comparing it to RAPM.

    P.S. I tend to value Rondo a lot less than most people who don't value adjusted +/- stats. I tend to value Asik a lot more than people who don't value adjusted +/- stats.

    P.S. Take Two. I think if ESPN had done what Durvasa did, they would have downgraded some of the Celtics Rankings (but not Rondo's as he is a "star") a bit to get them below Atlanta's ranking.
     
    #12 Joe Joe, Oct 24, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2013
  13. Joe Joe

    Joe Joe Go Stros!
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 1999
    Messages:
    23,930
    Likes Received:
    14,001
    I thought your formula came out to 98 wins.
     
    #13 Joe Joe, Oct 24, 2013
  14. MadMax

    MadMax Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    73,501
    Likes Received:
    19,677
    It did..but the Rule of Sixteen, brought it back to 82. I forgot to include the Rule of Sixteen in the original parameters of my formula, but a night of hard drinking provided an epiphany. So we're stuck with only 82 wins.
     
    #14 MadMax, Oct 24, 2013
  15. Easy

    Easy Boban Only Fan
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    35,191
    Likes Received:
    24,219
    I am surprised GSW is this high.
     
    #15 Easy, Oct 24, 2013
  16. dobro1229

    dobro1229 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    23,979
    Likes Received:
    19,871
    Very interesting... Thanks Durvasa.

    Based on player quality alone, this looks very accurate. I love the breakdown of the best W/S's when looking at your 1-2 punch's. Three teams really stand out here in Miami, OKC, and Houston.

    Also looks like some teams like the Clippers, Houston, and OKC have some major week links in their best 3 through 5 man lineup.

    The one factor that I still have to consider though is system and coaching that has to have a minor impact in wins at least in the regular season. Chicago and San Antonio seem like teams that could skew this ranking a little bit.

    I'm also watching Minnesota as well. With Adelman at the helm, factoring in player quality, and most importantly health, they could win 2 or 3 games they shouldn't win in the regular season based on how good of a coach they have and their system punishing teams.
     
    #16 dobro1229, Oct 24, 2013
  17. BowlingBaller

    BowlingBaller Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    279
    Good thorough analysis, however a graph may have better helped us to visualize your research.
     
    #17 BowlingBaller, Oct 24, 2013
  18. dobro1229

    dobro1229 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    23,979
    Likes Received:
    19,871
    It looks like there is just very little lack of weakness in their best 3 to 5 players that is making them overall jump up. Other than Brooklyn (on paper), no other team has as much quality with all 5 of their starters. Every other contending team has some type of weakness in their starting unit.
     
    #18 dobro1229, Oct 24, 2013
  19. JustAGuy

    JustAGuy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1,464
    Likes Received:
    70
    This is kinda cool.

    Am I right that it doesn't account for overlapping roles of players resulting in reduced win share (e.g. Asik/Howard)?

    Also doesn't account for any synergy between star players (e.g. C/SG combination ought to be a pretty strong plus).
     
    #19 JustAGuy, Oct 24, 2013
  20. flamingdts

    flamingdts Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2008
    Messages:
    11,558
    Likes Received:
    4,502
    The rankings seem to reflect the general opinion quite a bit. Wolves are a lot higher than I would imagine though.
     
    #20 flamingdts, Oct 24, 2013
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page

Toggle Width
Style
ClutchFans Original

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Rockets Content

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now