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.