2012 NBA Playoffs: Evaluating the Efficiency of the Western Conference Entries

ESPN and its assorted array of analysts inform us on a regular basis that “Numbers Never Lie.”  Of course, if predicting the outcome of sporting events—like the NBA playoffs—were a simple matter of numerical analysis, the word “bookie” would be a synonym for “nerd” and Las Vegas might still be a desert wasteland.

Nonetheless, measurements of offensive and defensive efficiency, far more often than not, properly account for the level of a team’s success.  Thus Abacus offers a look at the seasons of the eight Western Conference playoff entries through the lens of efficient play—on both ends of the floor.

Offensive efficiency can be thought of as the percentage of a team’s possessions that result in either a converted field goal or two (and sometimes even three) free-throw attempts.  Here’s how they rank in this regard:

OFFENSIVE EFFICIENCY

	Possessions	Conversions	Percentage
Denver	6,517	3,408	.523
Utah	6,398	3,315	.5181
San Antonio	6,353	3,289	.5177
LA Clippers	6,176	3,170	.51327
Oklahoma City	6,410	3,290	.51326
LA Lakers	6,272	3,184	.508
Memphis	6,260	3,139	.501
Dallas	6,307	3,024	.479

Similarly, defensive efficiency would be the percentage of the opponent’s possessions that do not result in a field goal or free-throw attempts—either a missed field goal not offensive rebounded or a turnover.  Those rankings are as follows:

DEFENSIVE EFFICIENCY

	Possessions	Stops	Percentage
Memphis	6,256	3,255	.5203
Dallas	6,327	3,288	.5197
Oklahoma City	6,453	3,326	.515
San Antonio	6,372	3,274	.514
Denver	6,511	3,326	.511
LA Lakers	6,267	3,198	.510
LA Clippers	6,149	3,073	.500
Utah	6,370	3,147	.494

Let’s consider one more standard of measurement—one to which Google is not likely to lead you.

Calculate a team’s field-goal percentage.  Add to this the percentage of the team’s missed field goals which can be balanced by an offensive rebound. (E.g. a team misses 40 field goal attempts, but hustles its way to 10 offensive rebounds—that’s a 25 percent.) 

Finally, we’ll determine the percentage of a team’s possessions which are lost to a turnover; naturally, this figure will be subtracted.  In this manner, we create a numerical offensive rating.

OFFENSIVE RATING

	Field Goals	Off. Rebounds	Turnovers	Rating
Utah	.456	.286	.146	596
LA Clippers	.455	.273	.142	586
Denver	.476	.261	.156	581
San Antonio	.478	.239	.141	576
LA Lakers	.457	.276	.159	574
Memphis	.447	.277	.153	571
Oklahoma City	.471	.262	.168	565
Dallas	.443	.221	.147	517

Finally, we’ll crunch those same numbers for the opponent and create a numerical defensive rating.

OPPONENTS' OFFENSIVE RATING

	Field Goals	Off. Rebounds	Turnovers	Rating
Memphis	.444	.255	.181	518
Dallas	.435	.239	.153	521
San Antonio	.452	.223	.142	533
Denver	.456	.241	.158	539
Oklahoma City	.427	.259	.145	541
LA Clippers	.447	.253	.157	543
Utah	.453	.250	.152	551
LA Lakers	.437	.236	.119	554

An average of each team’s standing in these four categories will create this ranking.

	Off. Eff.	Def. Eff.	Off. Rtg.	Def. Rtg.	Overall
Denver	1	5	3	4	3.25
San Antonio	3	4	4	3	3.5
Memphis	7	1	6	1	3.75
Utah	2	8	1	7	4.5
LA Clippers	4	7	2	6	4.75
Dallas	8	2	8	2	5.0
Oklahoma City	5	3	7	5	5.0
LA Lakers	6	6	5	8	6.25

If ESPN is correct about the veracity of numbers, then we should all be calling our friendly neighborhood bookie—no, not at the public library—and betting on Mr. Karl’s Denver Nuggets to make the NBA Finals.  Betcha can get some attractive odds on that one, huh?