Saturday, August 29, 2015

Hey, WNBA, Time to Back Off the Back-to-Backs?


The WNBA’s schedule of games – indeed its overall annual calendar – invites debate on a variety of fronts, from summer play to post-season structure. (How would you feel about a straight-but seeded double elimination format to crown conference queens, followed by a best-of-seven final?)

This year’s 204 WNBA regular-season games are spread across 101 calendar days – 14 weeks plus a busy concluding weekend that will offer one more Parker-Griner clash and a Fever-Liberty wrangle likely to be meaningful. Typical of a non-Olympic year, the pre-All-Star month-and-a-half or so progressed at a rather leisurely pace, several teams enjoying/employing/enduring gaps of a week or more betwixt and between games. Including the five-day All-Star Break, WNBA 2015 comes to us with a whopping 29 open dates, one more than the 16-week 2013 season and eight more than last summer’s 13-week campaign.

Given in excess of three months in which to conduct 34 games per team, Commissioner Richie’s consortium do seem to compromise its most marketable commodity – the exceptional skill and athleticism of the players – by requiring them so frequently to compete on consecutive dates. In 2014, on 30 separate occasions, a team played the back end of a 2-fer against a team fresh off an open date. Six other tip-offs featured two weary-legged teams. (36 games – that’s one of every six!!)

The more sprawling 2013 season had offered just 14 “rest-advantage” games and four “null sets,” as I label games between two “second-nighters.” This season’s play contains 15 of the former (five yet-to-come entering this weekend’s action), but eight (only one remaining) of the latter.

Quality of Play, Competitive Balance, Wellness of Players?

Let’s take a look at some data from these games. In 2013’s four “null set” games, the average team performance “boasted” .380 shooting, a .427 rate of converting possessions and 67 points – vis-à-vis league averages of .423, .469 and 80 respectively. The rested team defeated its tired-legged opponent 12 of 14 times by an average of 11.7 points, outshot them by .465 - .392 and out-converted them by .531 - .444.

In 2014’s somewhat condensed circumstances, 21 of 30 rested squads cashed in on opportunity by an average of 13 points, with comparable advantages in shooting (.471 - .401) and efficiency (.532 - .449). Last summer’s six “null set” games were played to within a point of the league average, a bit less productively (.478 - .453) conversion-wise.

An anomaly or two seem to have arisen this time around, however. An over-taxed squad has upended a rested unit four times in the first ten tries this season by an average of seven points. That’s a point better than the average winning margin in the six victories for the invigorated.

Even more confounding – for this set of ten games, the tired players have shot better than the rested ones … from the field (.417 - .409), from the foul line (.821 - .810) as well as from the three-point stripe (.361 - .331). The weary have even committed two fewer turnovers per game.

Oh, and then there was the pleasant July evening when the convolutions of modern air travel prevented the Indiana Fever from being over-nighted along the Eastern seaboard, causing a postponement.

Sunday, August 23, 2015

Despite Upheaval, Griner & Mercury Intent on Defending WNBA Title


The WNBA’s defending champions were omitted from much of this year’s pre- and early-sesason title prognostications. Both halves of their towering, HOF-bound backcourt had opted for a summer sabbatical. Their Cornerstone of Contention in the post was facing both league-imposed discipline and certain distraction from an all-too-public personal life gone tumultuous.

The Mercury were slogging through an inconsistent, up (Home win over the Lynx) and down (road loss to the then-winless Stars) phase in the matter of team chemistry when the Big Girl returned from her exile – in a decisive, pay-back loss at Minnesota.

A stretch of less-than stout opposition along with a Glad-to-be-Back Griner has Phoenix shining  brightly again. They are continuing to have mixed results with the league’s elite, splitting a pair with last season’s Finals foe and again defending home turf against the West’s Best, while falling at home to both New York and surging Indiana.



But the Merc still too often seem to lose their rhythm. Three times, twice with BG in the line-up, have they not even broken the 60-point barrier. On five occasions have they not even registered 24 successful field goals, losing all but one of these games.

Yet, they own the third best record in the league.

One is inclined to assume that the very presence of the sport’s most prolific shot-blocker would most impact the defensive side of the ledger. Not so, however, in this instance – for the most part anyway.

With Griner on board, the opposition was making just one fewer field goal and converting but two fewer possessions per game. On top of that, the other guys were committing five fewer turnovers per game while cashing in twice as many long balls. (The Merc had topped the heap in three-point defense after four weeks of play, but now rest in the middle of the pack.)

A bigger difference reveals itself at the other end of the floor. Per game, Phoenix was converting two more field goals on six fewer attempts. Their points per 100 possessions  rose from 90 to 100 – points per field goal attempt leaped by nearly 25 percent (1.085 to 1.230).

Now, young Brittney burst upon the scene as a You Tube, high school dunking sensation, then stormed college hoops as a shot-blocking post presence, ala Patrick Ewing in his Georgetown days.

Throughout her career, however, the Big Girl’s rebounding numbers have been decidedly underwhelming. For instance, when she plays, the Mercury are averaging two fewer offensive rebounds per game (their OR% dips from a paltry .199 to an even paltrier .188).

While her long, lanky frame may account for the origins of this “flaw,” physical maturity and an obvious commitment to her craft has infused all that length with a fair bit of sturdiness and durability. In addition, Griner would seem to have discovered a basketball mentor in Coach Brondello, for whom she has been playing year-round for a couple of years.

And there is evidence to suggest growth and development in this phenomenal basketball specimen. Take the matter of defensive rebounding, for example. As a WNBA rookie, Brittney got about five a game; she pushed that number over six during last summer’s championship run; and she’s been flirting with seven this season.

Those numbers may seem trivial, but let’s look at this little component of the game from the other end – the opposition’s offensive rebounding (or lack thereof). In Griner’s first 17 games, opponents averaged nine offensive rebounds per game, down three from the squad’s BG-less stint. More strikingly, a league-worst opponent-OR% of .304 plummets to .216, a rate that would rank No. 4.

Here’s the key data of the average Mercury game – first without Griner, then with her.

Points; FG – FGA, Pct.; (3FG – 3FGA, Pct.; FT – FTA; OR [OR%] – TR; Conv – Poss, Rate

PHOENIX [3-4] :
74.4 points; 26–68.6,.379; (5.4–16.4,.330); 17–21.3; 8.3[.195]–32.6; 36.1–82,.441
OPPONENTS:
74.3 points; 28.6–69,.414; (2.9–12.7,.225); 14.3–18; 12.3[.304]–41.4; 37.1–81,.459

PHOENIX [12-5] :
77.1 points; 28.3–62.7,.451; (4.6–13.6,.341); 15.9–18.9; 6.5[.188]–34; 37.2–76.5,.487
OPPONENTS:
72.7 points; 27.1–69.4,.391; (5.9–16.5,.361); 12.5–15.5; 9.1[.216]–34.2; 34.5–78.4,.440

A precocious talent and free spirit have kept BG in the public eye – indeed the target of far too much vicious vitriol. That’s inevitable in our 21st Century world. Even a simple married co-existence would have involved adjustment and distraction for both Brittney and Glory Johnson. About a century ago HOF baseball manager John “Muggsy” McGraw of the New York Giants espoused the notion that a ballplayer’s on-field performance was never as good the year he got married as it was the years  before and after.

Griner’s season is serving to validate this idea. Initially, her return to the court and competition seemed a sanctuary. In her first nine games the team shot a blistering .475 from the field. Brittney had a spring in her step, if not always a good rhythm to her game.

More recently, though, focus seems to come and go. In four of their next nine games, the Merc misfired their way to sub-40 percent shooting, losing all but one.

With a couple of face-offs remaining with the Minnesota Wrecking Crew, the West’s top playoff see is not beyond the Merc’s reach. Nor is a successful defense of their title. All the contenders – except perhaps for the Liberty – have shown some vulnerability.

That door is wide open …

… but have you seen Candace Parker play yet? (And she seems to have that home and family thing down pat!)

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Liberty Leading the Way as WNBA Heats Up the Summer


Bill Laimbeer and his now-top-ranked New York Liberty are the Memphis Grizzlies of the WNBA – they play as if there’s no three-point line. They both make and attempt the fewest shots from distance; they sport the league’s poorest shooting percentage from behind the arc; their opponents are No. 1 in makes and No. 2 in takes; they don’t even defend the shot well, ranking third from the bottom (.342) – despite ranking first in overall FG defense (.389).

Now, in spite of the 2.17 point per game disadvantage Tina Charles and Company face each game because of that doggone line, there is one way in which the long ball works to their advantage. The opposition misses 11.13 treys each game, the Libs but 8.13. Long shots tend to create long rebounds, some of which lead to easy opportunities in transition – valuable commodities for a contender wallowing in the bottom third of the league when it comes to shooting and point production.

Curiously, New York is one of only two squads not to be averaging at least four treys a game – most curious because the other is the league’s highest scoring team. 


[NOTE: All data reflects play through Sunday, Aug. 16.]

Shooting and Scoring: The Grading Scale

To rank the teams, we’ll consider Points per game, Points per shot (i.e. field goal attempt), Points per possession and S(H)UM. (That last category is simply the sum of a team’s FG%, 3FG% and FT%.)

We’ll rank the teams from 1 to 12 in all criteria and simply add up the rankings.

No. 1 Chicago Sky [8]
[ASB rating: 1
6-week rating: 1
4-week rating: 1
2-week rating: 1]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM
83.0 [1st] – 1.172 [3rd] –1.016 [1st] – 1598 [3rd]

No. 2 Indiana Fever [12]
[ASB rating: 4
6-week rating: 2
4-week rating: 3
2-week rating: 5]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM
78.3 [2nd] – 1.196 [1st] –0.985 [3rd] – 1567 [6th]

No. 2 Minnesota Lynx [12]
[ASB rating: 2
6-week rating: 2
4-week rating: 2
2-week rating: 2]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM
77.3 [4th] – 1.168 [5th] –0.994 [2nd] – 1612 [1st]

No. 4 Phoenix Mercury [19]
[ASB rating: 3
6-week rating: 4
4-week rating: 6
2-week rating: 6]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM
76.3 [7th] – 1.185 [2nd] –0.977 [6th] – 1594 [4th]

No. 5 Washington Mystics [24]
[ASB rating: 6
6-week rating: 9
4-week rating: 5
2-week rating: 8]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM
74.0 [9th] – 1.169 [4th] –0.982 [4th] – 1559 [7th]

No. 6 Los Angeles Sparks [25]
[ASB rating: 7
6-week rating: 6
4-week rating: 9
2-week rating: 12]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM
72.9 [10th] – 1.159 [6th] –0.968 [7th] – 1603 [2nd]

No. 7 Tulsa Shock [27]
[ASB rating: 5
6-week rating: 5
4-week rating: 4
2-week rating: 3]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM
77.5 [3rd] – 1.126 [9th] –0.977 [5th] – 1502 [10th]

No. 8 Connecticut Sun [34]
[ASB rating: 8
6-week rating: 7
4-week rating: 7
2-week rating: 4]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM
76.4 [6th] – 1.120 [12th] –0.958 [8th] – 1528 [8th]

No. 9 Seattle Storm [35]
[ASB rating: 9
6-week rating: 10
4-week rating: 10
2-week rating: 10]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM
70.9 [12th] – 1.152 [8th] –0.922 [10th] – 1570 [5th]

No. 10 New York Liberty [36]
[ASB rating: 10
6-week rating: 7
4-week rating: 8
2-week rating: 7]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM
74.7 [8th] – 1.158 [7th] –0.941 [9th] – 1494 [12th]

No. 11 Atlanta Dream [37]
[ASB rating: 12
6-week rating: 11
4-week rating: 12
2-week rating: 9]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM
76.7 [5th] – 1.125 [10th] –0.920 [11th] – 1501 [11th]

No. 12 San Antonio Stars [43]
[ASB rating: 11
6-week rating: 12
4-week rating: 11
2-week rating: 11]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM
71.2 [11th] – 1.122 [11th] –0.907 [12th] – 1519 [9th]

The Elite Decide to Compete

The 3-4 Phoenix Mercury have gone 12-5 since the late June return of Britney Griner.

The 3-13 Sparks are a .600 team and genuine playoff darkhorse with Candace Parker on board. (The calls for Brian Agler’s head have lessened, as well.)

Grizzled vet Tamika Catchings is gearing up for another run at the brass ring alongside a crew with plenty of “Been There, Done That.”

Oh, and Minnesota has added a fifth Olympian to its roster.

Here are the ratings with four weeks remaining.

Power Rankings --The Measurement Instrument

Our team-ranking tool utilizes four elements. Two scales are based solely on team wins and losses; the others are measures of the efficiency of team performance in comparison with the competition. First, we’ll simply use win-loss record irrespective of conference.

The second criterion will be the difference between a team’s road wins and its home losses. Since this cute little metric is said to be a personal favorite of current Sacramento Kings coach George Karl, let’s call this the Karl Kount (KK).

Criterion No. 3, Conversion Quotient (CQ), involves the rate at which a team converts its possessions into a successful field goals or free throw attempts. Like the KK, the computation is simple subtraction—a team’s rate of offensive efficiency minus that of the opponent.

Lastly, please allow Abacus to introduce the “SPOR-t” score. SPOR-t stands for “Shooting Plus Offensive Rebounds minus turnovers.” Add a team’s FG percentage and its offensive rebounding percentage (o. boards divided by missed FG’s). Then subtract the percentage of a team’s possessions lost to turnovers. For example, a team shoots field goals at a .488 clip, its offensive rebounds account for .199 of its missed field goals, and .143 of its possessions result in a turnover. So its SPOR-t is (488+199-143) or 544. Once again, our measurement will be the difference between the SPOR-t scores of a team and its opposition.

We’ll rank the teams from 1 to 12 in all criteria and simply add up the rankings. Low score wins, naturally.

No. 1 Minnesota Lynx (6)
[ASB Abacus rating: 1
6-week Abacus rating: 1
4-week Abacus rating: 1
2-week Abacus rating: 2]

18-7, .720; 1st seed West / 1st overall                                            
KK:  +6; (8 Road Wins – 2 Home Loss) / No. 1 overall
CQ:  +45; (.483 [2nd] - .438 [2nd]) / No. 2 overall
SPOR-t:  +75; (529 [2nd] – 454 [2nd]) / No. 2 overall
Abacus Revelation: Little things mean a lot. The Lynx are NO. 2 in the league in limiting opponent second shots.

No. 1 New York Liberty (6)
[ASB Abacus rating: 2
6-week Abacus rating: 4
4-week Abacus rating: 4
2-week Abacus rating: 6]

16-7, .696; 1st seed East / 2nd overall
KK:  +5; (8 Road Wins – 3 Home Losses) / No. 2 overall
CQ:  +47; (.473 [4th] - .426 [1st]) / No. 1 overall
SPOR-t:  +109; (507 [5th] – 398 [1st]) / No. 1 overall
Abacus Revelation: The Liberty have improved their FG shooting to 46% (from 41%) in their six post-ASB games.

No. 3 Chicago Sky (17.5)
[ASB Abacus rating: 3
6-week Abacus rating: 2
4-week Abacus rating: 5
2-week Abacus rating: 3]

15-11, .577; 4th seed East / 6th overall
KK:  +2; (5 Road Wins – 3 Home Loss) / No. 3 overall (tied)**
CQ:  +20; (.496 [1st] - .476 [6th]) / No. 4 overall
SPOR-t:  +48; (550 [1st] – 502 [6th]) / No. 3 overall
Abacus Revelation: The Sky have not beaten a contending team on the road in six weeks.

No. 4 Phoenix Mercury (18.5)
[ASB Abacus rating: 6
6-week Abacus rating: 5
4-week Abacus rating: 7
2-week Abacus rating: 7]

15-9, .625; 2nd seed West / 3rd overall
KK:  +2; (5 Road Wins – 3 Home Losses) / No. 3 overall (tied)**
CQ:  +28; (.473 [6th] - .445 [3rd]) / No. 3 overall
SPOR-t:  -11; (473 [10th] – 484 [3th]) / No. 8 overall
Abacus Revelation: Here’s a head-scratcher. In their first nine games with their 6’9” rim protector, the Merc’s defensive numbers improved only marginally while their FG% (.379 to .475) and conversion rate (.441 to .496) took big jumps.

No. 5 Indiana Fever (20)
[ASB Abacus rating: 9
6-week Abacus rating: 7
4-week Abacus rating: 8
2-week Abacus rating: 10]

14-9, .609; 2nd seed East / 4th overall (tied)
KK:  +2; (6 Road Win – 4 Home Losses) / No. 3 overall (tied)**
CQ:  +1; (.481 [3rd] - .480 [7th]) / No. 6 overall
SPOR-t:  -+7 (513 [4th] – 506 [7th]) / No. 5 overall                
Abacus Revelation: With Tulsa’s Glory Johnson on the shelf, Shavonte Zellous might be the W’s most joyous player. I particularly enjoy watching her compete.

No. 6 Washington Mystics (23)
[ASB Abacus rating: 5
6-week Abacus rating: 8
4-week Abacus rating: 6
2-week Abacus rating: 5]

14-9, .609; 2nd seed East / 4th overall (tied)
KK:  +2; (5 Road Wins – 3 Home Losses) / No. 3 overall (tied)**
CQ:  +19; (.470 [7th] - .451 [4th]) / No. 5 overall
SPOR-t:  -40; (490 [7th] – 511 [10th]) / No. 9 overall
Abacus Revelation: At the All-Star break, Washington was holding opponents to 29% shooting behind the arc. In the subsequent eight games, they’ve allowed 38 makes in 99 tries.

No. 7 Tulsa Shock (27)
[ASB Abacus rating: 4
6-week Abacus rating: 3
4-week Abacus rating: 2
2-week Abacus rating 1]

11-14, .444; 3rd seed West / 8th overall
KK:  0; (5 Road Wins – 5 Home Losses) / No. 7 overall
CQ:  -13; (.473 [5th] - .486 [10th]) / No. 8 overall
SPOR-t:  +13; (523 [3rd] – 510 [9th]) / No. 4 overall
Abacus Revelation: The Shock have shot three-pointers at a 30% clip in their last ten games after posting a league best 36% in the first 15.

No. 8 Connecticut Sun (28)
[ASB Abacus rating: 7
6-week Abacus rating: 6
4-week Abacus rating: 3
2-week Abacus rating: 3]

12-12, .500; 5th seed East / 7th overall
KK:  -1; (5 Road Wins – 6 Home Losses) / No. 8 overall
CQ:  -7; (.459 [9th] - .466 [5th]) / No. 7 overall
SPOR-t:  +2; (493 [6th] – 491 [5th]) / No. 6 overall
Abacus Revelation: The Sun have topped the league in forcing turnovers all season.

No. 9 Atlanta Dream (35)
[ASB Abacus rating: 8
6-week Abacus rating: 9
4-week Abacus rating: 9
2-week Abacus rating: 8]

9-15, .375; 6th seed East / 9th overall
KK:  -3; (3 Road Wins – 6 Home Losses) / No. 9 overall
CQ:  -230 (.453 [10th] - .483 [9th]) / No. 10 overall
SPOR-t:  -2; (484 [8th] – 486 [4th]) / No. 7 overall
Abacus Revelation: The Dream have been surrendering 29 free throw attempts per game since the All-Star break.

No. 10 Los Angeles Sparks (40.5)
[ASB Abacus rating: 12
6-week Abacus rating: 12
4-week Abacus rating: 11
2-week Abacus rating: 12]

8-16, .333; 4th seed West / 10th overall
KK:  -5; (2 Road Wins – 7 Home Losses) / No. 11 overall (tied)
CQ:  -23; (.465 [8th] - .488 [11th]) / No. 9 overall
SPOR-t:  -23; (483 [9th] – 506 [7th]) / No. 10 overall
Abacus Revelation: Candace Parker has posted a near 3-to-1 assist-to-turnover ratio (54:19) in her first eight games back.

No. 11 Seattle Storm (44)
[ASB Abacus rating: 11
6-week Abacus rating: 11
4-week Abacus rating: 10
2-week Abacus rating: 9]

7-19, .269; 6th seed West / 12th overall
KK:  -4; (2 Road Wins – 6 Home Losses) / No. 10 overall
CQ:  -39; (.443 [12th] - .482 [8th]) / No. 11 overall
SPOR-t:  -105; (411 [12th] – 516 [11th]) / No. 11 overall
Abacus Revelation: The Storm have tracked down five or fewer offensive rebounds in over two-thirds of their games.

No. 12 San Antonio Stars (46.5)
[ASB Abacus rating: 10
6-week Abacus rating: 10
4-week Abacus rating: 11
2-week Abacus rating: 11]

7-18, .250; 5th seed West / 11th overall
KK:  -3; (0 Road Wins – 5 Home Losses) / No. 11 overall (tied)
CQ:  -44; (.447 [11th] - .491 [12th]) / No. 12 overall
SPOR-t:  -110; (439 [11th] – 549 [12th]) / No. 12 overall
Abacus Revelation: As players seem to grow bigger, faster and stronger by the day, the limited athleticism of the frontcourt (Appel and Adams) has gotten costly.




Three-ficiency

For the NBA’s 2014-15 season, seven teams finished in the Top Ten in both shooting and defending the three-point shot – all qualified for the playoffs, including three of the four conference finalists.

The 12-team WNBA’s proportional equivalent (upper third) is a Top Four finish. The Fever (tops on both scales) and Mystics currently reside in this neighborhood.

We’ll rank the teams by the difference between their own three-point shooting and that of the opposition. (Attempts and makes are presented “per-game” for ease of comparison.)

No. 1 Indiana Fever   [+44]
[ASB rating: 1
6-week rating: 1
4-week rating: 3
2-week rating: 7]

.357 [1st] – 5.35 [4th] out of 15.0 [6th]
.313 [1st] – 4.57 [5th] out of 14.61 [6th]

No. 2 Washington Mystics   [+32]
[ASB rating: 2
6-week rating: 3
4-week rating: 4
2-week rating: 4]

.352 [3rd] – 6.13 [3rd] out of 17.43 [3rd]
.320 [3rd] – 4.26 [2nd] out of 13.3 [3rd]

No. 3 Connecticut Sun   [+22]
[ASB rating: 7
6-week rating: 5
4-week rating: 6
2-week rating: 1]

.354 [2nd] – 6.42 [1st] out of 18.13 [2nd]
.332 [9th] – 4.42 [3rd] out of 13.29 [2nd]

No. 4 Minnesota Lynx   [+19]
[ASB rating: 2
6-week rating: 4
4-week rating: 5
2-week rating: 5]

.333 [5th] – 4.16 [9th] out of 12.48 [10th]
.314 [2nd] – 5.48 [10th] out of 17.48 [12th]

No. 5 Phoenix Mercury   [+9]
[ASB rating: 5
6-week rating: 6
4-week rating: 1
2-week rating: 3]

.337 [4th] – 4.88 [6th] out of 14.46 [7th]
.328 [6th] – 5.04 [7th] out of 15.38 [8th]

No. 6 Seattle Storm   [-1]
[ASB rating: 6
6-week rating: 7
4-week rating: 7
2-week rating: 6]

.331 [7th] – 5.04 [5th] out of 15.23 [4th]
.332 [8th] – 5.38 [9th] out of 16.23 [10th]

No. 7 San Antonio Stars   [-4]
[ASB rating: 10
6-week rating: 12
4-week rating: 10
2-week rating: 8]

.317 [8th] – 4.0 [10th] out of 12.6 [10th]
.321 [4th] – 3.92 [1st] out of 12.2 [1st]

No. 8 Los Angeles Sparks   [-10]
[ASB rating: 9
6-week rating: 9
4-week rating: 8
2-week rating: 12]

.311 [11th] – 4.38 [8th] out of 14.08 [8th]
.321 [5th] – 4.46 [4th] out of 13.88 [4th]

No. 9 Tulsa Shock   [-13]
[ASB rating: 4
6-week rating: 2
4-week rating: 2
2-week rating: 2]

.333 [5th] – 6.36 [2nd] out of 19.08 [1st]
.346 [2nd] – 4.88 [6th] out of 14.12 [5th]

No. 10 Atlanta Dream   [-14]
[ASB rating: 8
6-week rating: 8
4-week rating: 12
2-week rating: 9]

.316 [9th] – 4.79 [7th] out of 15.17 [5th]
.330 [7th] – 5.08 [8th] out of 15.42 [9th]

No. 11 New York Liberty   [-35]
[ASB rating: 11
6-week rating: 11
4-week rating: 9
2-week rating: 11]

.307 [12th] – 3.61 [12th] out of 11.74 [12th]
.342 [10th] – 5.78 [12th] out of 16.19 [11th]

No. 12 Chicago Sky   [-61]
[ASB rating: 12
6-week rating: 10
4-week rating: 11
2-week rating: 10]

.311 [10th] – 3.96 [11th] out of 12.73 [9th]
.372 [12th] – 5.62 [11th] out of 15.08 [7th]


Prior Ratings and Data are available through Week 2, Week 4, Week 6 and the All-Star break.

Friday, August 14, 2015

MLB’s Most Durable and Dependable Starting Pitchers


“Iron Man” Joe McGinnity would be proud of each and every one of them – even Corey Kluber.

Currently, there are seven Foremen of Baseball’s Foundry – the kind of a place where ol’ Joe would procure off-season employment a century or so ago, hence the “handle” – starting pitchers who have answered every call to duty and have the habit of staying late.

Through the games of last Sunday (Aug. 9), of the 279 guys who’ve started a big league game this season, 47 have delivered a Complete Game performance, 77 have provided full-time work (21 starts in 105 or so games), a mere 24 have lasted through the seventh inning in at least half their outings – only eight reach 60% in Long Starts, and one of them on just 10 tries.

Jeff Samardzija  23 starts (16 long, 70%), 1 CG, 8 No-Decisions, 1.478 (No. 18)*
Corey Kluber  24 starts (16 long, 67%), 3 CG’s, 5 No-Decisions, 1.042 (No. 38)*
Johnny Cueto  21 starts (14 long, 67%), 1 CG, 7 No-Decisions, 1.476 (No. 19)*
Max Scherzer  23 starts (15 long, 65%), 3 CG’s, 4 No-Decisions, 1.826 (No. 8)*
Sonny Gray  23 starts (14 long, 61%), 3 CG’s, 7 No-Decisions, 2.130 (No. 1)*
Dallas Keuchel  23 starts (14 long, 61%), 3 CG’s, 4 No-Decisions, 2.087 (No. 2)*
John Lackey  23 starts (14 long, 61%), 1 CG, 7 No-Decisions, 1.435 (No. 22)*

The rating and ranking on the right represents a measurement designed to hold pitchers accountable for the outcome of their games while rewarding them for the durability and efficiency to work deep into games. (The origins of the concept, still a work under construction, are discussed HERE.) The current leaders are:
Gray  --  2.130
Keuchel – 2.087
Mark Buehrle – 2.045
Zack Greinke – 2.045
David Price – 2.000
Felix Hernandez – 1.956
Gerrit Cole – 1.864
Jake Arrieta – 1.826
Scherzer – 1.826
Carlos Martinez – 1.800

Finally, in the matter of accountability…

After a premature end to his 2014 season, Ivan Nova returned to the Yankee rotation on June 24 and has earned a decision in all eight of his assignments. In another part of the Naked City, the Mets’ Bartolo Colon has 21 pitching decisions in 22 starts. On the Left Coast, Garrett Richards of the Angels is 20 for 21.

Monday, August 10, 2015

MLB Starting Pitching: “Full-Timers” Thru 100 Games


Hats off to the 55 MLB pitchers who’ve notched 20 or more starts in their teams’ first 100 games of the 2015 season. (All 30 teams had reached the century mark by July 30.) This achievement constitutes Perfect Attendance (assuming a standard five-man rotation).

There are 26 guys who have qualified as “Full-Timers” since Opening Day 2014, eleven of whom have recorded no absences on a “work” day since the start of the 2013 campaign. Toronto’s Mark Buehrle, KC’s Jeremy Guthrie, Boston’s Wade Miley, Baltimore’s Chris Tillman, and Jose Quintana & Jeff Samardzija of the White Sox own streaks originating in 2013. The Cubs’ Jon Lester and Nats’ Jordan Zimmerman date a season longer, R. A. Dickey of the Jays and Washington’s Max Scherzer since 2011.

But Gold medal for long-term steady work goes to James Shields, currently toiling in San Diego, who last recorded fewer than 32 starts back in the 2007 season – and he missed the cut by one lousy start in that rookie year.

Five of the Elite Eleven – Buehrle, Lester, Samardzija, Scherzer and Zimmerman – are among the 19 members of this season’s Gang of 55 who have worked through the seventh inning in at least half their games.

All but one team has a representative on this list.

Seven teams – representing six cities, all of which lie east of the Mississippi – have enjoyed the services of three full-timers. One of them has acquired a fourth at the trade deadline; two of these pitchers were traded away at the same time.


MLB 2015: Full-time Starting Pitchers

55 players with 20+ starts (and 21 others with a “worthy” 19)

AL

Balt: Tillman, Jimenez (Chen)
Bos:  Miley (Porcello)
NY: Eovaldi (Sabathia, Pineda)
TB: Archer (Karns)
Tor: Hutchison , Dickey, Buehrle
Chi: Samardzija, Quintana, Sale (Danks)
Cleve: Kluber, Carrasco, Bauer
Det:, Price, Sanchez (Simon)
KC: Volquez, Guthrie
Minn: Hughes, Gibson (Pelfrey)
Hou:  Keuchel, McHugh
LA: Wilson (Santiago, Richards)
Oak: Gray
Sea: Hernandez, Walker (Happ)
Tex: Gallardo, Lewis

NL

Atl: Teheran, Wood, Miller
Mia: Haren
NY: (Colon, deGrom, Harvey, Niese)
Phil: Hamels
Wash: Scherzer, Zimmerman
Chi: Lester, Arrieta, Hendricks (Hammel)
Cin: Leake, DeSclafani (Cueto)
Mil: Lohse, Fiers, Nelson
Pitt:  Liriano, Cole, Burnett (Locke)
StL: Lackey
Ariz: DeLaRosa (Hellickson)
Col: Kendrick
LA: Greinke, Kershaw (Anderson)
SD: Shields, Ross (Cashner)
SF: Bumgarner, Heston


A listing of 2014’s “Full-Timers” is available here.

Thursday, August 6, 2015

“Quite Frankly,” Have the “Takes” of Skip & Stephen A. Grown Stale?


“You’re right, Skip, because you’re always right when you speak about golf.”

So proclaimed Stephen A. Smith during a segment of ESPN’s First Take recently.

A serving of goose with your late breakfast, perhaps … some Poppa-gander? (Sorry, very bad pun – though the Stooges did utilize it in one of their film classics.)

Propaganda – now there’s a word one seldom hears nowadays. More’s the pity … the initial consonant sounds (punctuated with a guttural hard “g”) just pleads to be spit out in disdain, whether offered in high-society parlance or back-alley patter.

The very word itself is a self-contained vocabulary lesson in Connotation.

The techniques and tendencies of the propagandist, categorized and concisely defined, used to be readily available to language or social studies teachers with class time to fill and young minds to challenge.

From Testimonial – it worked for me it’ll work for you …

To Bandwagonning – everybody’s doing it so don’t get left out …

To Endorsement – four out of five dentists recommend artificial chewing tobacco …

The latter is Mr. Smith’s forensic tactic of choice in this instance – essentially deference to an accepted standard of authorization, in this instance his debate partner’s encyclopedic knowledge of everything “golf,” the sort of distinction Brother Smith claims for himself in certain other areas.

Clever wordsmith (nyuk, nyuk, nyuk) that he is, Stephen A. even supplies us with an implied syllogism in which to frame his acquiescence:  Skip Bayless is infallible when he speaks of golf; Skip is pontificating on golf; ergo, best believe what he says.

Of course, such compositionally clever and unconditional endorsement typically is a prelude to debate, the fuel that drives First Take.

No wonder Smith is so prone to dub another panelist’s viewpoint “incredibly valid.”

Incredibly valid? Incredibly valid?

Properly reasoned and presented to the point of DIS-belief?

Oops … looks like we’ve back-tracked to propaganda.

Bloviate, boys, bloviate.

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

NBA 2015: Fourth Quarter Ratings

The Rating represent play from March 5 through the end of the regular season.

The "Grading Scale" is explained below

 "Report Cards" for the First Quarter, Second Quarter and Third Quarter are also available.


No. 1 Golden State Warriors (10)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 3
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 1
First Quarter Abacus rating: 1]

20-3, .870; 1st in Pacific Division / 1st West / 1st overall
KK:  +6; (6 Road Wins – 0 Home Losses) / No. 2 overall (tied)*
CQ:  +31; (.510 [6th] - .479 [5th]) / No. 3 overall
SPOR-t:  +64; (584 [4th] – 520 [5th]) / No. 3 overall
Abacus Revelation: The Warriors’ turnover numbers slipped, both offensively (7th to 13th) and defensively (3rd to 12th), for the season’s fourth session.

No. 2 San Antonio Spurs (10.5)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 7
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 18
First Quarter Abacus rating: 14]

18-4, .818; 1st in Southwest Division / 2nd West / 2nd overall
KK:  +5; (6 Road Wins – 1 Home Loss) / No. 5 overall (tied)
CQ:  +53; (.537 [1st] - .484 [10th]) / No. 1 overall
SPOR-t:  +69; (608 [2nd] – 539 [10th]) / No. 2 overall
Abacus Revelation: During the final six-weeks, the Spurs produced the league’s only above-50% FG shooting for a quarter-season for ’14-’15.

No. 3 Los Angeles Clippers (12)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 5
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 13
First Quarter Abacus rating: 8]

16-4, .800; 2nd in Pacific Division / 3rd West / 3rd overall
KK:  +7; (9 Road Wins – 2 Home Losses) / No. 1 overall
CQ:  +35; (.525 [2nd] - .490 [12th]) / No. 2 overall
SPOR-t:  +42; (579 [5th] – 537 [9th]) / No.  6 overall
Abacus Revelation: During the first 12 weeks, Clipper opponents shot .455 from the field; over the subsequent 12 weeks, the opposition shot .429.

No. 4 Utah Jazz (22.5)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 9
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 17
First Quarter Abacus rating: 25]

14-8, .636; 1st in Northwest Division / 5th West / 7th overall
KK:  +2; (6 Road Wins – 4 Home Losses) / No. 9 overall (tied)**
CQ:  +28; (.499 [14th] - .471 [2nd]) / No. 4 overall
SPOR-t:  +74; (568 [13th] – 494 [1st]) / No. 1 overall
Abacus Revelation: For the first six weeks, Utah ranked No. 28 in opponents’ Conversion Rate (.522); for the final six weeks, Utah ranked No. 2 in opponents’ Conversion Rate (.471).

No. 5 Boston Celtics (27)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 16
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 26
First Quarter Abacus rating: 18]

16-7, .696; 1st in Atlantic Division / 2nd East / 6th overall
KK:  +6; (10 Road Wins – 4 Home Losses) / No. 2 overall (tied)*
CQ:  +10; (.494 [21st] - .484 [9th]) / No. 10 overall
SPOR-t:  +29; (558 [16th] – 529 [6th]) / No. 8 overall
Abacus Revelation: After 39 games, the Celtics were yielding three-point shots at a rate of .368, No. 26 overall; for the final six weeks, the C’s .311 was No. 1.

No. 6 Washington Wizards (36.5)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 21
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 4
First Quarter Abacus rating: 5]

12-9, .571; 1st in Southeast Division / 3rd East / 8th overall (tied)*
KK:  +2; (4 Road Wins – 2 Home Losses) / No. 9 overall (tied)**
CQ:  +16; (.489 [24th] - .473 [3rd]) / No. 8 overall
SPOR-t:  +27; (545 [20th] – 518 [4th]) / No. 9 overall
Abacus Revelation: Even during a quarter disaster, the Wizards’ bigs paid due deference to the defensive backboard, Top Ten throughout, No. 4 (.227) overall.

No. 7 Houston Rockets (38)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 16
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 10
First Quarter Abacus rating: 9]

15-6, .714; 2nd in Southwest Division / 4th West / 5th overall
KK:  +6; (8 Road Wins – 2 Home Losses) / No. 2 overall (tied)*
CQ:  +18; (.511 [5th] - .493 [13th]) / No. 6 overall (tied)
SPOR-t:  -29; (544 [22nd] – 573 [20th]) / No. 23 overall (tied)
Abacus Revelation: The Rockets slipped to the Bottom Ten (No. 21, .344) in 3FG shooting during the final six-weeks.

No. 8 Memphis Grizzlies (38.5)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 2
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 6
First Quarter Abacus rating: 2]

12-10, .545; 4th in Southwest Division / 7th West / 12th overall (tied)*
KK:  +1; (4 Road Wins – 3 Home Losses) / No. 13 overall (tied)
CQ:  +23; (.494 [18th] - .471 [1st]) / No. 5 overall
SPOR-t:  +36; (552 [17th] – 516 [3rd]) / No. 7 overall
Abacus Revelation: On average for the season, the Grizzlies attempt two fewer three-pointers than their opponents every quarter.

No. 9 Chicago Bulls (41.5)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 12
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 11
First Quarter Abacus rating: 11]

12-9, .571; 2nd in Central Division / 3rd East / 8th overall (tied)*
KK:  +3; (4 Road Wins – 1 Home Loss) / No. 7 overall (tied)
CQ:  +14; (.494 [20th] - .480 [6th]) / No. 9 overall
SPOR-t:  -3; (543 [23rd] – 546 [11th]) / No. 15 overall (tied)*
Abacus Revelation: The Bulls were No. 1 in FG defense (.419) during the season’s fourth session.

No. 10 Cleveland Cavaliers (44)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 1
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 22
First Quarter Abacus rating: 10]

14-5, .737; 1st in Central Division / 1st East / 4th overall
KK:  +5; (6 Road Wins – 1 Home Loss) / No. 5 overall (tied)
CQ:  -4; (.498 [15th] - .502 [18th]) / No. 18 overall (tied)
SPOR-t:  -3; (561 [15th] – 564 [16th]) / No.15 overall (tied)*
Abacus Revelation: For the second half of the season, the Cavs took nine more three-point shots per game than their opponents; they were just +1 for the first half.

No. 11 Atlanta Hawks (51.5)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 8
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 2
First Quarter Abacus rating: 13]

12-10, .545; 2nd in Southeast Division / 5th East / 12th overall (tied)*
KK:  +3; (5 Road Wins – 2 Home Losses) / No. 7 overall (tied)
CQ:  +7; (.491 [23rd] - .484 [7th]) / No. 11 overall
SPOR-t:  -14; (540 [24th] – 554 [13th]) / No. 20 overall  
Abacus Revelation: Offensive rebounding remains the Hawks’ Achilles’ heel – 29th (.216) at getting them, 27th (.275) in preventing them during Quarter 4.

No. 12 New Orleans Pelicans (52)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 10
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 15
First Quarter Abacus rating: 14]

12-9, .571; 3rd in Southwest Division / 6th West / 8th overall (tied)*
KK:  +2; (5 Road Wins – 3 Home Losses) / No. 9 overall (tied)**
CQ:  -1; (.504 [10th] - .505 [21st]) / No. 16 overall (tied)
SPOR-t:  -3; (569 [12th] – 572 [18th]) / No. 15 overall (tied)*
Abacus Revelation: The Pelicans ranked No. 2 in both shooting (a whopping .412) and defending (.319) the 3-point shot during their final six-week dash to the playoffs.

No. 13 Indiana Pacers (54)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 6
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 20
First Quarter Abacus rating: 23]

12-10, .545; 3rd in Central Division / 5th East / 12th overall (tied)*
KK:  0; (4 Road Wins – 4 Home Losses) / No. 15 overall (tied)*
CQ:  +5; (.498 [16th] - .493 [14th]) / No. 14 overall
SPOR-t:  +14; (546 [19th] – 532 [7th]) / No. 11 overall
Abacus Revelation: The Pacers FG shooting and Rate of Conversion improved by 20+ during the second half of the season.

No. 14 Milwaukee Bucks (54.5)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 11
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 12
First Quarter Abacus rating: 16]

9-12, .429; 4th in Central Division / 6th East / 20th overall
KK:  -4; (3 Road Wins – 7 Home Losses) / No. 23 overall (tied)*
CQ:  +18; (.494 [19th] - .476 [4th]) / No. 6 overall (tied)
SPOR-t: +53; (566 [14th] – 513 [2nd]) / No. 4 overall
Abacus Revelation: In the season’s final quarter, the Bucks were expert in creating turnovers – both their own (.168, No. 30) and the other guys’ (.178, No. 1).

No. 15 Brooklyn Nets (61)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 22
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 23
First Quarter Abacus rating: 19]

13-10, .565; 2nd in Atlantic Division / 15th East / 11th overall
KK:  -1; (5 Road Wins – 6 Home Losses) / No. 18 overall (tied)
CQ:  +6; (.510 [7th] - .504 [20th]) / No. 12 overall (tied)
SPOR-t:  -12; (574 [8th] – 586 [26th]) / No. 19 overall
Abacus Revelation: During the final six weeks, the Nets improved their Conversion Rate to 51%, seventh best in the league.

No. 16 Oklahoma City Thunder (63)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 4
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 3
First Quarter Abacus rating: 22]

11-10, .524; 2nd in Northwest Division / 8th West / 15th overall (tied)
KK:  -2; (2 Road Wins – 4 Home Losses) / No. 20 overall (tied)*
CQ:  -9; (.522 [3rd] - .531 [29th]) / No. 21 overall (tied)
SPOR-t:  +52; (633 [1st] – 581 [25th]) / No. 5 overall
Abacus Revelation: The Thunder were second best in the league in FG defense (.427) after 18 weeks; during the last six weeks, they were second worst (.479).

No. 17 Detroit Pistons (63.5)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 20
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 5
First Quarter Abacus rating: 29]

9-13, .409; 5th in Central Division / 7th East / 21st overall
KK:  0; (3 Road Wins – 3 Home Losses) / No. 15 overall (tied)*
CQ:  -1; (.500 [13th] - .501 [17th]) / No. 16 overall (tied)
SPOR-t:  +18; (593 [3rd] – 575 [23rd]) / No. 10 overall
Abacus Revelation: The Pistons were No. 2 in the league in taking care of the ball (.128) during the fourth quarter of the season.

No. 18 Portland Trail Blazers (65.5)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 18
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 14
First Quarter Abacus rating: 5]

11-12, .478; 3rd in Northwest Division / 10th West / 18th overall
KK:  +1; (4 Road Wins – 3 Home Losses) / No. 13 overall (tied)
CQ:  -8; (.501 [11th] - .509 [24th]) / No. 20 overall
SPOR-t:  +1; (573 [10th] – 572 [18th]) / No. 14 overall
Abacus Revelation: During the first 12 weeks, the Blazers were No.1 (.298) in defending the three-point shot; over the subsequent 12 weeks, the opposition shot .375.

No. 19 Toronto Raptors (66.5)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 15
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 16
First Quarter Abacus rating: 7]

11-10, .524; 3rd in Atlantic Division / 8th East / 15th overall (tied)
KK:  +2; (5 Road Wins – 3 Home Losses) / No. 9 overall (tied)**
CQ:  -4; (.509 [8th] - .513 [26th]) / No. 18 overall (tied)
SPOR-t:  -26; (573 [10th] – 599 [27th]) / No. 22 overall
Abacus Revelation: After their scorching start, the Raptors are a mere five games over .500 since the end of the season’s first quarter.

No. 20 Dallas Mavericks (71.5)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 14
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 8
First Quarter Abacus rating: 3]

10-10, .500; 5th in Southwest Division / 9th West / 17th overall
KK:  0; (4 Road Wins – 4 Home Losses) / No. 15 overall (tied)*
CQ:  +1; (.506 [9th] - .505 [22nd]) / No. 15 overall
SPOR-t:  -29; (545 [20th] – 574 [22nd]) / No. 23 overall (tied)
Abacus Revelation: The Mavs ranked 23rd and 25th in FG defense (.464) and opponent offensive rebounding (.270) respectively for the season’s fourth quarter.

No.21 Sacramento Kings (76)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 28
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 25
First Quarter Abacus rating: 12]

8-15, .348; 4th in Pacific Division / 13th West / 24th overall
KK:  -1; (3 Road Wins – 4 Home Losses) / No. 18 overall (tied)
CQ:  +6; (.519 [4th] - .513 [25th]) / No. 12 overall (tied)
SPOR-t:  -25; (574 [8th] – 599 [27th]) / No. 21 overall
Abacus Revelation: The Kings were fifth best in FG shooting (.467) during the season’s fourth quarter.

No. 22 Denver Nuggets (81)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 30
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 21
First Quarter Abacus rating: 17]

8-13, .381; 4th in Northwest Division / 11th West / 22nd overall
KK:  -2; (2 Road Wins – 4 Home Losses) / No. 20 overall (tied)*
CQ:  -18; (.500 [12th] - .518 [27th]) / No. 25 overall
SPOR-t:  +6; (579 [5th] – 573 [20th]) / No. 13 overall
Abacus Revelation: The Nuggets increased their per-game scoring by 12 points (94.9 to 107.2) from Quarter 3 to Quarter 4.

No. 23 Orlando Magic (87)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 23
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 28
First Quarter Abacus rating: 20]

6-14, .300; 5th in Southeast Division / 13th East / 26th overall
KK:  -5; (2 Road Wins – 7 Home Losses) / No. 26 overall
CQ:  -11; (.488 [25th] - .499 [16th]) / No. 23 overall
SPOR-t:  +8; (578 [7th] – 570 [17th]) / No. 12 overall
Abacus Revelation: The Magic had the third-best offensive rebounding percentage (.281) for the final segment of the season.

No. 24 Miami Heat (89.5)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 19
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 19
First Quarter Abacus rating: 21]

10-12, .455; 3rd in Southeast Division / 9th East / 19th overall
KK:  -2; (2 Road Wins – 4 Home Losses) / No. 20 overall (tied)*
CQ:  -9; (.493 [22nd] - .502 [19th]) / No. 21 overall (tied)
SPOR-t:  -71; (538 [25th] – 609 [29th]) / No. 28 overall
Abacus Revelation: Rebounding number for the Heat sank to Bottom Five during the final quarter-season.

No. 25 Phoenix Suns (96)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 25
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 9
First Quarter Abacus rating: 15]

7-13, .350; 3rd in Pacific Division / 12th West / 23rd overall
KK:  -4; (2 Road Wins – 6 Home Losses) / No. 23 overall (tied)*
CQ:  -15; (.469 [27th] - .484 [8th]) / No. 24 overall
SPOR-t:  -31; (515 [28th] – 546 [11th]) / No. 25 overall
Abacus Revelation: The Suns cracked the Top Ten in FG defense (.444)and opponent Conversion Rate (.484) during the final quarter of the season, No. 8 in both categories.

No. 26 Charlotte Hornets (102)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 13
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 7
First Quarter Abacus rating: 24]

7-16, .304; 4th in Southeast Division / 12th East / 25th overall
KK:  -4; (2 Road Wins – 6 Home Losses) / No. 23 overall (tied)*
CQ:  -26; (.461 [28th] - .487 [11th]) / No. 26 overall
SPOR-t:  -35; (497 [29th] – 532 [7th]) / No. 27 overall
Abacus Revelation: The Hornets took care of the ball better than anyone else (TO rate, .122) but couldn’t shoot straight (FG%, .405, No. 29) in their final 23 games.

No. 27 Los Angeles Lakers (105)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 26
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 23
First Quarter Abacus rating: 26]

5-17, .227; 5th in Pacific Division / 14th West / 28th overall (tied)
KK:  -7; (2 Road Wins – 9 Home Losses) / No. 29 overall (tied)
CQ:  -38; (.487 [26th] - .525 [28th]) / No. 29 overall
SPOR-t:  -4; (551 [18th] – 555 [14th]) / No. 18 overall
Abacus Revelation: The scrappy Lakers were No. 1 in protecting the defensive backboard (.201) during the season’s last six-weeks.

No. 28 Philadelphia 76ers (110)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 29
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 27
First Quarter Abacus rating: 30]

5-16, .238; 4th in Atlantic Division / 14th East / 27th overall
KK:  -7; (1 Road Win – 8 Home Losses) / No. 29 overall (tied)
CQ:  -36; (.459 [29th] - .495 [15th]) / No. 27 overall (tied)
SPOR-t:  -34; (521 [27th] – 555 [14th]) / No. 26 overall
Abacus Revelation: For the season, the Sixers were second best (.168) in forcing turnovers.

No. 29 Minnesota Timberwolves (115)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 26
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 29
First Quarter Abacus rating: 27]

3-19, .136; 5th in Northwest Division / 15th West / 30th overall
KK:  -6; (2 Road Wins – 8 Home Losses) / No. 27 overall (tied)
CQ:  -36; (.496 [17th] - .532 [30th]) / No. 27 overall (tied)
SPOR-t:  -118; (534 [26th] – 652 [30th]) / No. 30 overall
Abacus Revelation: The T’wolves quit fighting on the offensive glass at the three-quarter pole – a No. 6 ranking (.276) plummeted to No. 25 (.236) for the final 22 games.

No. 29 New York Knicks (115)
[Third Quarter Abacus rating: 24
[Second Quarter Abacus rating: 30
First Quarter Abacus rating: 28]

5-17, .227; 5th in Atlantic Division / 15th East / 28th overall (tied)
KK:  -6; (3 Road Wins – 9 Home Losses) / No. 27 overall (tied)
CQ:  -53; (.454 [29th] - .507 [27th]) / No. 30 overall
SPOR-t:  -95; (485 [30th] – 580 [24th]) / No. 29 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Knicks averaged fewer than 90 points per game (89.8) during the season’s final segment. 

Power Ratings --The Measurement Instrument

Our team-ranking tool utilizes four elements. Two scales are based solely on team wins and losses; the others are measures of the efficiency of team performance in comparison with the competition. First, we’ll simply use win-loss record irrespective of conference.

The second criterion will be the difference between a team’s road wins and its home losses. Since this cute little metric is said to be a personal favorite of veteran NBA coach George Karl, let’s call this the Karl Kount (KK).

Criterion No. 3, Conversion Quotient (CQ), involves the rate at which a team converts its possessions into a successful field goals or free throw attempts. Like the KK, the computation is simple subtraction—a team’s rate of offensive efficiency minus that of the opponent.

Lastly, please allow Abacus to introduce the “SPOR-t” score. SPOR-t stands for “Shooting Plus Offensive Rebounds minus turnovers.” Add a team’s FG percentage and its offensive rebounding percentage (o. boards divided by the sum of those o. boards and the opposition's d. boards). Then subtract the percentage of a team’s possessions lost to turnovers. For example, a team shoots field goals at a .488 clip, offensive rebounds at a rate of .199, and commits a turnover on .143 of its possessions. So its SPOR-t is (488+199-143) or 544. Once again, our measurement will be the difference between the SPOR-t scores of a team and its opposition.

We’ll rank the teams from 1 to 30 in all criteria and simply add up the rankings. Low score wins, naturally.