Hardest Starting Schedules to the 2016-2017 NBA Season

The 2016-2017 NBA season is the first season to be scheduled with a computer optimizing program. It promises record low back-to-back games and four games in a five day stretch, but what does this mean for the teams?

From the ladder, the stand out improvers have clearly been the Rockets, Grizzles and Lakers, all from the Western Conference, with the Easts Knicks also having a good start to the season. The Rockets are currently placed 11 positions higher than where they finished last season. However, this isn’t a complete picture. Teams, such as the Bulls, are actually doing much better than their position indicates having played very few home games, and the Thunder may be over-performing. There are several ways to look at the difficulty of the rosters, such as the NBA’s strength of schedule tables.

Firstly, we can see how many home games each team has played and how they have used this opportunity for their benefit. The Rockets have had few home games and they have the potential to rise even higher. The Cavaliers, Clippers and Spurs have had a near perfect record at home and the 76ers and Kings have struggled at home.

Based on the performance of the teams they had faced in the last season, we can see how tough the rosters have been. The picture becomes cloudier. Whilst Chicago has had very few home games, they have had less than challenging line-ups, coming up against a good proportion of teams which last season had not qualified for the playoffs. The future is a bit brighter for the Kings and Clippers who have so far come up against strong teams and will eventually hit a period of easier match-ups.

This season has been the downfall of teams such as the Mavericks and the Heat, who are playing worse at home and on the road. The Knicks have been playing great at home however, time will tell if they can improve their road game. Conversely, the Spurs appear to be struggling at home relative to last year. But once again, Lakers fans should be watching this season with joy as their team is playing better everywhere and in every way, despite losing Kobe Bryant.

Good Trade? – Most Improved and Worsened in the 2016-2017 NBA Season

Cover photo: Keith Allison

With the NBA in its fourth week, slowly the changes in players performance are beginning to be seen and the effects of the trades can be seen. With 58.4% of players seeing a decrease in their PPG since moving to a new team this year, a change of teams can be nervous for all. Overall, after a trade points per game seems to be the statistic most affected, with more minor changes in rebounds and assists.

Harrison Barnes seems to be the biggest success story of the year so far. The Mavs’ $94m deal for him was called the second worst deal in the offseason. However, the Olympian is quickly changing minds. He has altered his playing style, with an increase in; driving, isolation, and posting up.[1] Over time he is becoming more of a leader and with 21.2 PPG.

George Hill has found good form at the Jazz and despite missing some time this season with a thumb injury, appears to be a glue holding the Jazz together. The Pacers had struggled with pace last season which has not followed Hill to the Jazz so far.

Aside from the trades, DeMar DeRozan and Russell Westbrook are putting up historic figures[2] and Porzingis and Nick Young are turning heads this season.

There have not been any horror trades this season either. Michael Carter-Williams’ injury trouble is disappointing to the Bulls but time will tell the value of this trade.

The Kings and Omri Casspi rocky relationship keeps sliding. Casspi had rejected more lucrative offers in order to re-resign with his original club two seasons ago and remains a fan favourite. However, with an even more disappointing start to the 2016-2017 season, it may be time to let Casspi fly.[3]

Notes:

[1] – http://www.mavs.com/shock-us-maybe-not-mavs-harrison-barnes-evolved-role-player-go-guy/

[2] – http://www.basketballinsiders.com/demar-derozan-is-playing-like-a-superstar/

[3] – http://www.sacbee.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/ailene-voisin/article116583473.html

Which is Better? Picking a Better Fantasy NBA Team

Cover photo: Keith Allison

Consider the following scenario: you are required to pick either Jon Wall or Chris Paul for a fantasy team and are competing on categories. It is a challenge to evaluate which player presents a higher value. At first glance Chris Paul beats John Wall 7-6-1 in categories, however the picture quickly cloudy. Wall scores more points, makes more field goals and assists which are considered the most important categories for a point guard. However, he also will cost you in turnovers and while he leads in blocks, this may not be something you care about from a point guard.

There needs to be a way to assess these categories for how important they are. A way to separate how different players are in a given field is through the statistical measure of kurtosis. Kurtosis is the measure of how steep a distribution is. Consider steals last year in the NBA, steals are the category which most closely follows a normal distribution. The flatter the category by kurtosis, the more important the category / the easier it is to see the difference between players. Steals have a low kurtosis and are therefore an important category, giving Paul even more of a boost.

However, consider a category which has a high kurtosis; free throw percentage. As can be seen in the graph most players lie between 75% and 85% in FT% and there is not a lot that separates them. A variable, high kurtosis field such as FT% will not provide much of a boost to a team and Paul’s lead in this field is not as significant as his steal figures.

A list of the most important categories by kurtosis is listed below. In the top half of the categories Wall leads only in FGM and PTS. The comparison is far less close when the importance of the categories is taken into account and it becomes a landslide victory for Paul.

A word of caution, kurtosis is not the solution to all fantasy NBA problems. Blocks are least important category by kurtosis, but when one takes a look at it on a graph and sees the skew, a problem can be seen. Most players either don’t get blocks or get fewer than an average of half a block a game. The categories is extremely skewed towards this end of the spectrum and so a good blocking player will well outperform the average.

Notes:

Data from stats.nba.com

Is Novak Djokovic the Greatest Ever?

Statistika – FM
24/05/2016
Cover photo: Corine06

“If Djokovic won the French Open, would you consider him to be the best of all time?” I had asked to friend who loves tennis but has an unexplainable dislike of Djokovic. Predictably this question triggers long and intense debates. It may be unsolvable, however it is a debate still worth having.

As 2016 progressed, Novak Djokovic continued to win, and win, and win. On the eve of the Roland Garros he is eclipsing the competition giving fuel to the Djokovic side of the debate:

Djokovic currently has more points than the world number 2 and 3 combined. He has won a staggering 93% of matches this year reaching the final of every Grand Slam and Masters tournament in the past 12 months, except the 2016 Monaco Masters after a shock upset by Jiří Veselý (ranked 55 at the time).

So what would Novak Djokovic need to do now to be considered the best of all time?

He would need to dominate the game like no player had done before in the Open Era. And there is evidence that this has already been happening.

Names which are frequently thrown into the hat of G.O.A.T are: Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and recently Djokovic. As we can see by the rankings of No. 1 vs. No. 2, at one time each of these players (except Nadal) has significantly been above the next best player. A player who for a short time dictated tennis, Lleyton Hewitt, is often undervalued and forgotten about during these conversations; however that is for another time. Since 2005, we can begin to see the era of the “big three” starting. However, this realistically grew from the “big 1” to the “big 2” and then the “big 3”. If Andy Murray continues his strong play, the era may very well be renamed to the “big 4”. After correcting for the rankings for changes in the way the ATP calculates rankings we can graph the absolute difference between the number 1 and 2 ranked players at every point in time, no matter who they be.

Andre Agassi lead on an older Pete Sampras was more than half the lead Djokovic has on Murary. The only comparable time in Open Era tennis history where someone has led the pack by as much as today was in late 2006 when Roger Federer pulled away from the competition with a 6800 (adjusted) ranking points lead over Nadal. What was going on at this time? Federer was playing in what is now considered his peak. He was at his most consistent and won 3 of the 4 Grand Slams, losing to Nadal in the finals of the Roland Garros. The 20 year old Nadal was finding his footing in tennis and had claimed his second French open, he would go on to win 7 of next 8 French Open trophies. Incidentally, it was the year Andre Agassi had retired and it was beginning to look like Nadal would be his replacement.

Today the scene is similar in some ways and wholly different in others. He’s facing two established champions often considered the best two in tennis, the likes of which we haven’t seen before. Federer approaching retirement and Nadal (at the same age as Djokovic) losing steam in contrast to his former dominance. Also a rising star in Andy Murray whose career achievements nearly perfectly mirror Nadal in 2006: 2 grand slam titles and a safe number two spot well behind the number 1. (However, Andy Murray is today 29 and Nadal was 20 in 2006)

An elite player leading the field is also a sign of the times with the recent class of elite players which hold disproportionate tennis ability to the rest of the tour:

The current top 8 has 67% more points than the top 8 would have had 26 years ago. Because of the differences in the environments at which the two reached their peaks (has Djokovic reached his peak yet?) I have formed a view of who has been the most dominant player at one time in history. Novak’s dominance in 2016 is more meaningful and extensive than Roger Federer’s in 2006.

But what makes Djokovic so dominant on the court?

Djokovic presents a challenge for sports statistics. He is good everywhere and bad nowhere but his averages are also less than less highly ranked players on the tour. Though it is expected for these averages to rise, depending on the length of his career.

When looking at the current top 7 players career stats, Djokovic doesn’t stand out in any category. So how can we explain Novak’s strength on the court? It may be the case that he is simply so good because he has no weaknesses. Djokovic may not be the best server, serve returner or most clutch player in history but in 2016 his game has been un-exploitable. An opponent can’t overpower, outspeed, outserve or outsmart him. They can’t play his backhand or forehand or swing him around the court to gain an advantage. It matters little if the opponent approaches the net frequently or sticks to the baseline. Novak Djokovic seems to come out to the court and play the same against Nadal and Ivo Karlovic, and win.

Right now Djokovic is dictating the game. He is currently the favourite to take home all of the Grand Slam trophies this year. The question is how high can he climb?

Notes:

Analysis on Jeff Sackmann’s Github database
Pre-2009 rankings adjusted by a factor due to changes in ATP ranking calculation