Thunder, Celtics, Grizzlies Finish Preseason Top-3 In Efficiency Differential

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/239656/Thunder-Celtics-Grizzlies-Finish-Preseason-Top-3-In-Efficiency-Differential




Thunder, Celtics, Grizzlies Finish Preseason Top-3 In Efficiency Differential


OCT 26, 2015 1:02 PM


The Oklahoma City Thunder led the NBA in efficiency differential during the preseason with a mark of +12.5.

During the 14-15 preseason, the Golden State Warriors had the league's best mark with +11.0, which became a first indicator of their jump as title contenders.

Here's the full rankings from the 15-16 preseason:

1. Thunder: 12.5
2. Celtics: 11.6
3. Grizzlies: 11.5
4. Wizards: 10.4
5. Hornets: 10.0
6. Pistons: 7.1
7. Raptors: 5.6
8. Pacers: 4.7
9. Knicks: 4.0
10. Suns: 3.9
11. Nuggets: 3.5
12. Kings: 3.3
13. Magic: 2.8
14. Blazers: 1.8
15. Jazz: 0.4
16. Heat: 0.0
17. Hawks: -0.7
18. Rockets: -0.7
19. Nets: -1.0
20. Warriors: -1.3
21. Spurs: -1.9
22. Lakers: -2.1
23. Bucks: -3.4
24. Bulls: -3.6
25. Pelicans: -3.6
26. Clippers: -4.2
27. Cavaliers: -6.5
28. 76ers: -8.6
29. Mavericks: -10.7
30. Wolves: -11.0

REALGM STAFF REPORT



bob
MY NOTE: Calm down, this is for the pre-season only. LOL. Still, I'd rather have us looking good than like crap. What this list tells me is that are depth matters. Other teams were playing bubble players and benchers and saving their starters/stars, so I'm not surprised they were weaker, but over the course of an 82 game season those benchers will play either because of injuries and/or the stars are being rested. This suggests that we can win a high percentage of the games we go into vs depleted teams. Injuries are part of the game. Remember when Perk went down in Game 6? That was part of the game too. Love and Irving went down in the playoffs last year. Part of the game. Put us up against the Cleveland Cavaliers in a playoff series with Love AND Irving out and maybe things might have been different. In a 7 game series you only need to be good, and they only need to be bad or discombobulated or out-of-sync, for 4 games. Depth counts. It counts because you don't have to play a LBJ 36mpg and it counts because when he's sitting his replacement is good enough to hold the fort.


.

swish wrote:bob

 I couldn't figure out what his figures mean or how he arrived at them. But then the bulb in my head is switched off most of the time. How ever, I flagged your below comment to offer a thought on.
"This suggests that we can win a high percentage of the games we go into vs depleted teams."
While I agree that their chances of winning are enhanced under those conditions, I'm not  too thrilled about their real chance of winning it all, if we need all those teams that are considered to be better teams to need to have a rash of crippling injuries going into the playoffs. I don't known exactly how much importance the author placed on depth but if there is a significant difference between talent and depth I'll take talent over depth all the time.

swish

swish

swish,

Sure, who wouldn't take talent over depth? But it is unusual to have both, and if you're hanging your hat on a player or two, even if they are/were all-league and they are sub-par due to injuries and/or fatigue, then then the difference between talent and depth becomes less, because the talent isn't being fully brought to bear; as opposed to depth which, almost by definition, means there are ample and adequate, albeit non-stellar, replacements.


bob


.

swish wrote:bob

To have a reasonable discussion on the relative merit of talent and depth we must first define depth in a team  basketball sense. How do you define depth? bob. I realize that 10 different people would probably give 10 different answers.

swish

swish,

Depth, to me, refers to having players who can play a specific position or role.  Having 'quality depth' refers to how well the players down on the depth chart can step in for the player ahead of them when they sit/are out.  In 2012-2013 we had depth at center but not quality depth.  We had KG, Chris Wilcox (an undersized C) and Jason Collins (who was limited, at best).  In other words, when KG sat down or sat out (he played only 68 games) we really had nobody to replace him.  In 2013-2014, it was worse.  We had rookie Kelly Olynyk, who was drafted to be a PF, starting at center at times and PF Jared Sullinger starting at center other times.  Behind those two miscast players, on the depth chart, we had Vitor Faverani, who never got off the bench and  Joel Anthony (who also didn't play much and was traded in and then out).  I suppose you could say we had depth, we had bodies, but the bodies weren't able to compete vs their NBA opponents.  Rookie Kelly Olynyk's baptism by fire aside, when Brad put in Vitor or Joel against their subs we backslid (which is why they didn't play much.  The lack of quality depth at center forced Brad to do things he didn't want to do, like starting Sully at center and playing so much small ball.

'Quality Depth' means just that.  It means you've got good players coming in off the bench.  It's MJ's 3-headed monster.  It's Longley sitting down and Wennington or Joe Kleine coming in for him.  Not much of a drop off in talent or effectiveness there.  You could argue that Longley wasn't anything to write home about, but he got the job done and fit that team, and his depth did too.

Lack of Quality Depth means just that.  The Lakers in 2013-2014 are a great example.  They had the immortal Robert Sacre at center with PF Jordan Hill playing back up center.  I happen to like Hill a lot, one of the reasons I do is because he played his heart out that year despite being put into a no-win position, but he's no center anymore than Sully is.  That is lack of depth (only 2 players at that position) and lack of quality depth as well (Jordan Hill should be playing PF exclusively.  And he'd be a very good one too)

Now, let's look at the Cleveland Cavaliers' depth chart.  Who is behind LeBron?  James Jones?  He's 3-and-D and doesn't provide the Cavs the breadth of skills that LBJ does, even in diluted measure.  35 year old Richard Jefferson?  Take away LBJ and you get a completely different Cavalier team.  Of course they're not as good, he's the best player on the planet, but they cannot even play the same way, the same style of play.  What happened to the Cavaliers when they sat LBJ out against us in the final games of the season?  We creamed them.  Why?  Because they looked choppy and not smooth on offense and defense.  Uncoordinated.  What happened when Kevin Love went down in the playoffs.  Not much, since Tristan Thompson came in and did a helluva job.  Now that's quality depth.  If you lose a superstar you had better have quality depth behind him or, at least someone who can play a similar style so there is continuity of style.  The Cavs had it at PF but didn't at SF.
 
Brad defines positions differently.  He doesn't see the traditional PGs, SGs, SFs, PFs and C positions.  He sees ball handlers, wings, swings and bigs.  That makes the definition of depth different since it is an unorthodox way of viewing the court.  He sees Evan Turner as a ball handler AND as a wing.  Take Turner out and you can put in Crowder at wing and that's ok as long as IT or Rozier or another ball handler is out there too.  Brad defines positions by skill sets and not so much by size.

Is the definition of 'depth' really so mysterious?  Anybody who has followed any sport knows what a depth chart looks like.  Even if you've never thought of 'depth' the way Brad does, even if you don't agree with his way of looking at it, once it is explained can you not understand it?  I can.  The mystery, to me, is whether it will work, not what it is.



bob



.