Looking at various power rankings there are arguably 6-8 teams separating from the pack. Only half that are playing stellar but the other half still seem credible and close enough to include given how early it is. Might be 20 teams that still feel at least ok with where they are. Maybe 1-3 of them join the top pack with time but I'll have a generally skeptical stance about that prospect til they show better play.
This is the latest version - some teams are starting to shift around. Memphis losing at home to the Nuggets was the big upset. Charlotte-Milwaukee was predicted to be almost a dead tie but microscopically in favor of the Bucks, but it fell to the Bobcats instead in a closely fought game. Dallas losing at home in OT was a milder upset.
The tough calls are always going to be a stronger team at an away game - is the stronger team that much better that it can overcome the home court advantage?
I would say that from the point of view of these power rankings that the Memphis loss was a big upset, but from using player ratings and minutes so far this season the Nuggets are a much better team than their record suggests, though not as good as Memphis. Anyway, nice work on these.
v-zero wrote:I would say that from the point of view of these power rankings that the Memphis loss was a big upset, but from using player ratings and minutes so far this season the Nuggets are a much better team than their record suggests, though not as good as Memphis. Anyway, nice work on these.
I wouldn't doubt that at all - these are (from a certain perspective) simple team-based power ratings. Estimating strength of team offense and strength of team defense from player talent estimates (combined with playing time estimates) would be both more accurate and more interesting.
v-zero wrote:I would say that from the point of view of these power rankings that the Memphis loss was a big upset, but from using player ratings and minutes so far this season the Nuggets are a much better team than their record suggests, though not as good as Memphis. Anyway, nice work on these.
I wouldn't doubt that at all - these are (from a certain perspective) simple team-based power ratings. Estimating strength of team offense and strength of team defense from player talent estimates (combined with playing time estimates) would be both more accurate and more interesting.
-Chris
Well I'd be happy to do that if anybody is interested?
Ok, these are from my smoothed game-by-game box-score metric, with player ratings from last season used as priors.
Lineups were predicted using minutes data from BBref and injury data from Don Best. The values are such that one team minus another gives the expected score difference in that game at a neutral ground.
San Antonio Spurs 5.99
Miami Heat 5.92
New York Knicks 5.75
Los Angeles Clippers 4.59
Oklahoma City Thunder 4.51
Memphis Grizzlies 4.37
Denver Nuggets 3.51
Chicago Bulls 3.12
Atlanta Hawks 2.91
Minnesota Timberwolves 1.91
Los Angeles Lakers 1.34
Utah Jazz 1.12
Milwaukee Bucks 0.84
Brooklyn Nets 0.8
Boston Celtics 0.45
Indiana Pacers 0.4
Houston Rockets 0.38
Dallas Mavericks 0.18
Philadelphia 76ers -1.29
Phoenix Suns -1.4
Orlando Magic -1.84
Toronto Raptors -1.96
Golden State Warriors -2.67
Washington Wizards -4.06
Detroit Pistons -4.95
Sacramento Kings -5.07
Portland Trail Blazers -5.62
Cleveland Cavaliers -6.06
New Orleans Hornets -6.56
Charlotte Bobcats -6.61
I've got my betting market rankings up and running here.
The usual suspects at the top (Spurs, Thunder, Heat). It is interesting to note how quickly the market reacted to Mike D'Antoni's hiring. Their Generic Over Under (GOU) shot up by about 9 points (from 191 to 200). The league average is 194. Generic Over Under is what you would expect the over/under to be set at when playing a league average team.
Celtics "fix" their offensive efficiency (after 3 straight seasons of decline down to 27th last season), to the tune of 13th best currently; but see their defensive efficiency fall to 23rd, worst since before the arrival of KG.
Spurs current defensive efficiency is at their best since last title and they maintained 5th best on offensive efficiency, only down a few spots from last season's 1st place ranking.
6 over 1.03, 11 over 1.02. Too early to say that 1.02 is too low to be a major playoff contender / longshot winner if team is hot or has good match-ups but it is unlikely. Lakers might get a mulligan til Nash gets back. Very very low chance any team below 1.00 rises to top or near-top without a major roster change. Boston 20th here, 16th on SRS. Dallas 18th /22nd respectively but with the no Dirk explanation. Minny in the lottery group on these ratings. Philly tetering on the dividing line. GSW slightly above it. Houston at 10th on both? not sure that lasts. Gives some perspective on what 10th place means. I guess it suggests they might get 8th playoff seed but I still think that will be a challenge or close race.
The top 6 look like the core strength in the NBA at this point in the season - New York Knicks, Memphis Grizzlies, San Antonio Spurs, Oklahoma City Thunder, Los Angeles Clippers, Miami Heat.
Those 6 teams are 35-20 against playoff level teams and so on average probably would be heavily favored to win playoff series. But Knicks and Thunder are only .500 respectively right now (while the other 4 are close to 70% win), something worth watching as the season progresses.
The 5 second tier teams on your ranking are 18-23 against currently playoff level teams. Not far off from the Knicks and Thunder right now but different than the better 4 teams on this measure and maybe meaningfully so (debated and not clearly strongly predictive of playoff results).
Crow wrote:Those 6 teams are 35-20 against playoff level teams and so on average probably would be heavily favored to win playoff series. But Knicks and Thunder are only .500 respectively right now (while the other 4 are close to 70% win), something worth watching as the season progresses.
I'd extend this by saying games against opponents of a similar caliber tend to be more informative. Crushing a weak opponent or getting crushed by a juggernaut doesn't tell you as much about relative ranks. But clearly teams that tend to crush weaker opponents are generally better than teams that merely beat them.
Is there a way to structure all of this into a hypothesis we can test? I have all the data we'd need, including plenty of NCAA data across all divisions if we wanted greater diversity in relative team strength.