ESPN Rankings - Full League Analysis - Featuring MEGASTAT

Jayne Kamin-Oncea-US PRESSWIRE - Presswire

As you may know, ESPN has finalized their rankings, and so it seemed appropriate to compile these rankings into a database, and to try and use these rankings to review each team in the league (and to see where the Clippers stand in all of this). Naturally, I cross-referenced this database with my MEGASTAT value (http://www.clipsnation.com/2012/3/19/2885365/megastat), which I have since updated for the full 2011-12 season statistics, via www.basketball-reference.com and www.thenbageek.com.

I began by creating my database, compiling all of the rankings from ESPN and accompanying them with each players' PER, WS/48, WP48 and MEGASTAT (2010, 2011, 2012 weighted average). Easy enough.

First problem: rookies.

I had to assign some kind of value to the rookies if I was going to properly evaluate each team. I sorted by ESPN's ranking---because honestly, I have no idea where to put 90% of these kids---and then to calculated the value I'd use for each rookie's minute's played, PER, WS/48, WP48, and MEGASTAT, I took the average of the 5 players ESPN-ranked above them and the 5 players ESPN-ranked below them. This is probably the least accurate part of this analysis, so I have also analyzed the teams without counting rookies.

Second problem: weighting the rankings/stats for each player.

If I weighted everything equally, then the deep teams like the Clippers would be ranked too high, and the shallow teams like the Lakers would be ranked too low. It's extremely likely that the Lakers are probably going to play their starting 5 (Nash, Bryant, World Peace, Gasol, Howard) more minutes than the Clippers will play their starting 5 (Paul, Billups, Butler, Griffin, Jordan). The Clippers will likely use their depth, going 10-12 deep, while the Lakers will likely use their star power, going 8-10 deep. Therefore, we can't just take the average of the rankings for each teams. No, we have to weight those rankings depending on the player.

Using 2012 minutes played (or in the case where a player didn't play in 2012, their most recent minutes played multiplied by 66/82), I gave each player a weight for their team based on their minutes as a percentage of the team's total minutes. Now, even though only 15,840 minutes were played by each team last year (5 players, 48 minutes, 66 games in 2011-12), I figured that proportionally, the minutes distributions would be mostly the same. For example, the Heats' minutes look extra high because they added Ray Allen off the bench, but I figured he would still get plenty of playing time on his new team, and everyone else would take a minor hit. The total minutes are well above 15,840 for Miami, but Ray Allen's weight being similar to Udonis Haslem's weight seems appropriate. Besides, the differences in weight are extremely minor. LeBron has the highest weight with 13%, while Allen is at 9%. Maybe LeBron's weight should be 13.2% and Allen's should be 8.8%? It's not going to change the outcome much.

So, where do the Clippers stack up?

With rookies:

Weighted Average
Team ESPN Rank PER WS/48 WP/48 MEGASTAT
OKC 98.26 16.46 0.134 0.139 128%
MIA 118.23 16.37 0.142 0.150 134%
LAC 118.96 16.87 0.127 0.141 127%
BOS 120.02 15.11 0.115 0.111 109%
BKN 127.88 15.97 0.098 0.126 110%
NYK 130.07 15.77 0.125 0.146 126%
DEN 130.61 16.20 0.111 0.135 118%
PHI 130.95 14.89 0.099 0.101 100%
MEM 132.71 15.18 0.104 0.094 100%
LAL 136.70 16.86 0.125 0.129 122%
SAS 136.89 16.57 0.133 0.139 128%
DAL 141.30 15.99 0.106 0.096 103%
CHI 146.61 15.55 0.121 0.116 114%
IND 147.44 15.57 0.109 0.090 101%
MIN 148.70 15.79 0.112 0.136 118%
UTA 157.41 14.91 0.097 0.098 98%
MIL 163.32 14.86 0.095 0.098 97%
ATL 164.43 15.35 0.111 0.108 107%
PHX 172.95 14.47 0.094 0.072 87%
GSW 178.84 14.55 0.085 0.078 87%
DET 184.93 14.58 0.079 0.083 86%
SAC 185.82 14.91 0.078 0.071 83%
TOR 191.29 14.05 0.091 0.109 98%
ORL 191.45 13.44 0.103 0.089 94%
POR 192.61 13.89 0.089 0.081 88%
NOH 201.67 14.15 0.098 0.094 95%
CHA 215.45 13.68 0.052 0.058 67%
WAS 215.91 13.72 0.074 0.085 84%
HOU 225.47 12.95 0.079 0.069 78%
CLE 250.53 13.09 0.064 0.069 73%

If you sort this data, you'll find that the Clippers have the 3rd highest ESPN-ranked team, the highest PER in the league, the 4th highest WS/48, the 3rd highest WP48, and the 4th highest MEGASTAT (all weighted-average of course).

Without rookies:

Weighted Average
Team ESPN Rank PER WS/48 WP/48 MEGASTAT
OKC 86.01 16.73 0.138 15% 132%
BOS 100.25 15.43 0.120 12% 114%
DEN 111.34 16.68 0.117 15% 125%
BKN 112.40 16.29 0.102 13% 114%
MIA 118.23 16.37 0.142 15% 134%
LAC 118.96 16.87 0.127 14% 127%
NYK 119.41 15.96 0.128 15% 128%
PHI 119.86 15.08 0.102 10% 103%
DAL 123.45 16.32 0.110 10% 106%
MEM 125.13 15.35 0.107 10% 102%
LAL 130.15 16.99 0.126 13% 123%
IND 134.94 15.83 0.112 9% 103%
CHI 135.84 15.83 0.125 12% 117%
SAS 136.89 16.57 0.133 14% 128%
MIN 138.86 16.10 0.115 14% 122%
MIL 149.93 15.19 0.097 10% 100%
UTA 151.67 15.00 0.098 10% 99%
DET 162.36 14.99 0.082 9% 90%
POR 164.45 14.31 0.094 8% 91%
GSW 164.96 14.99 0.088 8% 89%
ATL 165.69 15.09 0.108 10% 104%
PHX 165.87 14.58 0.094 7% 87%
ORL 171.60 13.74 0.107 9% 97%
TOR 175.67 14.31 0.093 11% 101%
SAC 184.12 14.94 0.077 7% 81%
HOU 204.91 13.35 0.084 7% 82%
NOH 211.31 13.81 0.095 9% 93%
WAS 220.69 13.68 0.072 9% 83%
CHA 221.61 13.56 0.047 5% 63%
CLE 243.68 13.23 0.061 7% 72%

This changes things a bit, since the rookies were bringing down a lot of other teams' ranks, and the Clippers have no rookies at all. Now the Clippers have the 6th highest ESPN-rank, the 2nd highest PER, the 5th highest WS/48, the 6th highest WP48, and the 5th highest MEGASTAT (all weighted average, again).

Why are the Clippers ranked so high?

Depth, depth, depth. The Clippers have 9 players ranked 130 or higher. Boston has 7, which is the closest anyone comes (then again, Boston ranks pretty darn high as well). Still, the teams that best the Clippers, whether including or excluding rookies, are the teams with more star power combined with some measure of depth. The Lakers have the star power, but with only 6 players ranked above 200 and the other 9 below (2 rookies, though), lack of depth hurts them enough to pull down their team ranking. But the Thunder have more star power than the Clippers, combined with enough depth to make them truly in a class of their own. The Heat and Celtics also have more star power than the Clippers, and have some depth that puts them in the top group as well. Of course, if you remove rookies from the equation, then you get teams like the Nuggets, Nets, Knicks and Sixers all in the mix as well.

What conclusions can we draw from this?

The Clippers are good. They will probably be very good during the regular season because of this depth. They will be able to withstand the usual injuries better than any other team, and they will be well-rested going into the playoffs. But does this mean that the Clippers should be one of the favorites to come out of the west, even more so than the hyped-up Lakers? Not necessarily. During the playoffs, rotations get tightened and star players tend to play more minutes. Teams go 8 deep when they'd normally go 10 deep. Whether this is a good strategy or not is beside the point---it's just something that happens, and it happens for pretty much every team. This is where star power starts to tip the scales. As great as it is to have a guy like Matt Barnes as probably our 9th guy off the bench (when he'd be 7th or 8th on most teams), that doesn't mean much in the playoffs. Barnes is never going to be able to match his production up against the other team's 9th player, and providing an extra 15 minutes of rest for the starters probably won't have an effect over a 7 game series.

I encourage you to take this data, copy it into MS Excel, and then sort the data by different columns. It may be interesting to see which teams are above and below the Clippers in the various categories. Also, keep in mind that my weighting methods are all based on actual minutes played in 2012 (or 2011, adjusted), which may be causing some problems in terms of placement for teams with major moves that caused former starters to play bench roles, or former bench players to start (e.g. Heat, Lakers, Magic, Nets, Clippers, etc.). It's not perfect, but it's not too far from the truth.

Enjoy!

In This Article

Teams
X
Log In Sign Up

forgot?
Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.

Join Clips Nation

You must be a member of Clips Nation to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Clips Nation. You should read them.

Join Clips Nation

You must be a member of Clips Nation to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Clips Nation. You should read them.

Spinner.vc97ec6e

Authenticating

Great!

Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.

tracking_pixel_9347_tracker