The Hibbert Space Problem in Atlanta

The popular term now is "basketball analytics" -- it's all about numbers and statistics and advanced metrics. A word that's used far too often, however, is scientific. Scientific basketball is the ideal. It's about testable theories that are verifiable and reproducible. If you think that age matters in the playoffs, then prove it with real numbers with open methodology that can be tested by everyone else.

A few days ago, I wondered why Indiana didn't play Hibbert whenever Brand was on the floor. If Hibbert being stuck on the perimeter is the problem, then stick him on the one guy without three-point range. I was surprised by how infrequent this simple action was, but luckily Indiana played two games versus Atlanta in the regular season where Antic was unavailable and non three-point shooters Ayon and Brand played center (these were the only two regular season games Indiana won, and it seemed like a harbinger of things to come.)

The Hawks are a test lab of sorts for five-out basketball where everyone can shoot and the results were pretty terrifying for the Pacers despite the lack of star power on the other side of the court. For another site, I started a series on the power of spacing -- that outside shooting has a significant effect on defense even excluding the added benefit of efficiency. This is more pronounced with big men. Why is that? You're drawing out interior defenders far away from the basket, which they're supposed to protect. Hibbert, for instance, derives most of his value from guarding the basket. Think of this: besides his rim protection, what does Hibbert do? He is not above average in any other area with the exception of FT% for a center (for his career he's near league average in offensive rebounding compared to centers.) If you take away his rim protection and put his 7' 2" frame on the perimeter where his defense can be shaky, he is much less valuable.

Testing this, I collected all the play-by-play data for the Hawks and Pacers this season, and calculated the offensive efficiency of both teams given three situations: when every big man is a floor-spacer like Pero Antic, Paul Millsap, and Mike Scott; when there's at least one big man without three-point range like Elton Brand or Gustavo Ayon; and overall.

The defense is worse with Hibbert, which isn't surprising to anyone who saw the series, but that's true of every situation. This is a little alarming when you consider Hibbert is mostly aligned with his other starters and not the bench players, who are far worse defenders -- Scola, Turner, et al. Mahinmi was a better defender for the Pacers against Atlanta, but when looking at how the Pacers fare with the two centers in similar lineups this was true for the entire season.

Table 1: Atlanta’s offensive efficiency (points per 100 possessions)

	With Hibbert	Without Hibbert	Difference
Overall	103.3	100.4	+2.9
3PT center	104.8	102.5	+2.3
No 3PT center	100.0	97.5	+2.5

*Note: it's not an error that the overall difference is greater than the other two categories because the with and without Hibbert columns have a different number of possessions for each category. 

Yet Indiana still plays better with Hibbert when a non-3PT shooting threat is on the court. Why is this? Indiana's offense unexpectedly takes off, and it's better with Hibbert. However, when there are three-point shooters in the game, their offense is much worse when Hibbert is on the court. I'm not sure why this is, since Brand is still a good defender, but so is Antic. This is also a case of noise with raw +/- data washing out any useful information. Or maybe, Hibbert struggling against Antic or Millsap translates to frustration on the other end of the court.

Table 2: Indiana’s offensive efficiency (points per 100 possessions)

	With Hibbert	Without Hibbert	Difference
Overall	97.0	103.6	-6.6
3PT center	88.7	99.4	-10.7
No 3PT center	113.9	109.0	+4.9

It's still curious the Pacers didn't maximize the time coinciding with a non-3PT shooting threat for Atlanta and Hibbert -- that happened just 38.5% of the time, and excluding the two games Antic missed it's only 23.5%. They did play a bit better with him on the court guarding Brand or Ayon. The numbers state Indiana's defense with Hibbert isn't affected by the outside shooting, but it's hard to reconcile that with what happened on the court. As basketball becomes more scientific, we don't dump these results and hide the confusion; we embrace the surprises and try to find answers. Perhaps we need to adjust for something else, like Scola-Turner playing with Hibbert against Brand more often. Perhaps Hibbert isn't as bad defending the line as we thought, and the problem is that he's just flat-out worse overall. The struggle to answer this question, the journey for knowledge, is the path for enlightenment.

Whatever's happening to Hibbert, it's all-encompassing. And it's destroying Indiana's season.

2014 Playoff Preview: Round 2

It was a good time to pick home-team dominance in the first round where a chaotic few days saw road teams steal everything, but by the end the real champion, regression to the mean, triumphed, and almost every favorite advanced.

East

Miami Heat (2) vs. Brooklyn Nets (6)
-The Brooklyn Nets are the story of the new NBA, where they become more powerful after losing the "best" offensive center in basketball -- they went with smallball and skill.
-This is a Don Nelson superteam without the fatal flaw: his elimination of the center position. Nelson wanted a team where every player is the same height, including the center, but you can't replace what you'd lose there: rebounding and rim protection will always be important.
-Switch-heavy Brooklyn should fare well versus the Heat offense. Their power forwards won't be thrown by defending the perimeter, and their point guards are big enough to switch and not get killed.
-Last series, prognosticators were divided on the Nets -- do you believe their full-season results or their post Jan. 1 results? Obviously, they were a stronger team than their point differential suggested. People who cited their negative point differential needed to realize that was because of a horrid first couple months with a basically different team.
-I was afraid the Heat weren't coasting but had lost a gear too. However, they beat a -0.9 SRS point (basically average) by 10 points a game.
-Wade didn't play in every game in the close season series, but neither did Garnett.
-It's difficult doing lineup analysis for the Heat because their best lineups barely played. In other words, it's hard saying what full-strength Miami will do against them. I can say for sure Brooklyn will put up a fight, but how tough of one?

Prediction: the Heat in five games.

Indiana Pacers (1) vs. Washington Wizards (5)
-The series already started, but I soured on Indiana. I do believe that sometimes it's better to use half-season results to predict future games when there's a major change. They traded for Evan Turner, a bad defender and an inefficient gunner on an awful team, and team cancer Andrew Bynum.
-I worked for a long time on a piece on Hibbert and Atlanta. (Error-finding is critical.)
-Why don't people bring up the fact that Hibbert was terrible in the first half of the '13 season and great after that? It's a weird pattern.
-The healthy Wizards are like the healthy Warriors. They're stronger than you think.
-Full season results state that the defense is better with Mahinmi in the middle over Hibbert. And at least with Mahinmi you don't have to force feed him post-ups.

Prediction: the Wizards in six games.

West

Oklahoma City Thunder (2) vs. Los Angeles Clippers (3)
-I realize I'm setting these predictions after the series started, but other things in life happened over the weekend. That said, I'm going all in with my metric from before the playoffs -- I think these Clippers are the best in the west by a hair.
-It'll be an amazing series. I'll post a longer piece on them after two or three games have gone by to reflect on their stars and their teams.

Prediction: the Clippers in six games.

San Antonio Spurs (1) vs. Portland Trail Blazers (5)
-There's a lot of criticism for the Rockets right now, but I don't understand why. It's a four-seed losing to a five-seed; both teams had the same number of wins in the regular season. Before Lillard's crazy shot, Houston make a huge basket and would have gone home with the series tied.
-It'll be interesting to see where they put Tony Parker -- guarding Lillard? Matthews? Matthews is aggressive enough to take advantage of that.
-Zach Lowe said that people who say Aldridge is hoisting midrange shots to "beat analytics" should be shut up because Portland is one of the heaviest analytics teams in the league, and Aldridge rates very well by advanced +/-. Zach's boss Bill Simmons, however, has already said that Aldridge is draining midrange shots to beat analytics. He should be better informed.
-Critics said the Blazers would falter in the playoffs because their style wouldn't translate. Aldridge's post game and jumpers are useful because he can get them off at whatever time even versus elite defenders, and you don't want to double him because of their shooters. Then there's Lillard as Curry-lite, making three-pointers off the dribble. These two can score against the best of them.
-If Portland had been in the west, they would have arguably been the best team in their conference (in the regular season, as Miami was resting and coasting.)
-This series hearkens back to the opening game in Portland, where San Antonio lost.
-As a team that combines three-point shooting with offensive rebounding with Aldridge and a high-scoring clutch guard, they're reminiscent of the 2009 Blazers.
-But the Spurs are too strong. The benches are like a well-coached college team versus a high school one. It's not fair.

Prediction: San Antonio in seven games.

2014 Playoff Preview: Round 1, Part 2

Here's the second set of predictions for the first round of the playoffs. My regular season predictions were great despite my simplistic method, beating out professionals from ESPN and other sites, so let's see if it carries over into the playoffs.

East

Miami Heat (2) vs. Charlotte Bobcats (7)
-Since no one expected Charlotte to be good, they're overrated now. It's a team with a negative point differential in a poor conference. Their adjusted offensive efficiency was ranked 25th in the league behind the Indiana Pacers and barely ahead of the lowly Bucks (and there were no good scorers on the Bucks.)
-Likewise, Al Jefferson is overrated. As stated above, they had a terrible offense -- what "lift" was he giving? Relative to the league averages in both respective seasons, Charlotte improved by 1 point on offense. Jefferson's also more useful for bad offensive teams since he can take a lot of shots but he's not a passer or an efficient scorer, so a mere 1 point increase is disappointing.
-The lack of outside shooting from Charlotte will be a bit of a disaster if Miami's defense is running well.
-Miami spent the season babying Wade and Oden, while LeBron was nicknamed LeCoast for his effort on defense, so the time is now -- will we see title-worthy Miami?
-Oden's defense, in particular, should be noted against Al Jefferson (if he plays.) Miami's weakness is post defense, and if Oden can muster any sort of resistance they'll have another weapon. As it stands, they have to rely on the veteran Haslem for this.
-Charlotte went from the league's worst defense in 2013 to the league's 7th best (adjusted for the schedule.) That's remarkable.
-According to my variable team rating system, Charlotte did worse as the opponent got better, so I think there's a decent chance they could be embarrassed, at least for a couple games. That said, the safest best is five games, especially since Miami has looked mortal this season.

Prediction: the Heat in five games.

Chicago Bulls (4) vs. Washington Wizards (5)
-This is one of those 4-5 matchups where two non-contenders could take the series either way, and it's difficult assessing who's actually better.
-The Wizards are more of a defensive team than offensive, and I'm not sure what affect Chicago will have on them -- Wall's athletic and the good parts of their offense mainly have to do with shooting from Beal and Ariza outside the arc and the large but nimble Nene and Gortat inside. The best Chicago could do is goad them into more long two-pointers, which Washington loves all to much -- it's possible Chicago contains them. It's why Beal remains an inefficient scorer despite the accurate three-point shooting.
-The Bulls on offense are being held together with duct tape and string.
-Washington won the season series 2-1, but both teams had one blowout win and the other game was close. However, they were missing their secret weapon: Nene. They are much better with him in the lineup.
-Since the Deng trade, the Bulls have had the 7th best point differential in the league. Washington actually isn't far behind though. This should be an even series.
-The smaller improvements are often ignored. Andre Miller was an important signing because they had no one to run the non-Wall lineups, and the offense was dreadful without him. After bringing on Miller, the Wizards have had a +3.8 point differential.
-Since Chicago beat the Nets last season, I think people expect the Bulls to run through the first round again. But I don't think it'll be easy. Homecourt advantage and the superior coach give Chicago the narrow advantage here.

Prediction: the Bulls in seven games.

West

San Antonio Spurs (1) vs. Dallas Mavericks (8)
-I was critical of the Mavericks going after Ellis, and while he's had a good season fundamentally there's a defensive issue the team can't hide: Calderon and Ellis can be exploited defensively. They cannot guard Tony Parker, and any alternate to guarding Parker will be limiting Dallas' offense.
-The Mavericks player pair +/- page is really interesting. Dirk is involved in every single pair in the top seven, and nowhere else out of the 20 listed player pairs.
-Diaw will be used a lot on Dirk, and I think most people will continue to comment on why Popovich uses him on great players. I don't think people will ever accept that Diaw is a good defensive player.
-The Elias Sports Bureau stated that the Spurs are the only team in league history with no player over 30 minutes per game. Since they led the league in wins, I found this to be incredible.
-Fifteen years ago, Duncan won his first title with Robinson -- that's a huge span of time people are understating. Fifteen years before that, Bird won his second title against the Kareem and Magic Lakers. And fifteen years before that, Russell won his last title with the Celtics. (And fifteen before that, we were in the no-shot clock era.)
-As good as Dirk is, his team's defense will be shredded by the Spurs. By the way, people continue to insist that Dirk is a liability on defense, and even that he's been one his whole career, but I have no idea how they're coming to those conclusions. There are absolutely no numbers to assert that, as even his defensive rebounding numbers are either above average or average. It's the reputation you get for being a jump-shooting European. However, his team's defense is not his fault -- that's what you get for relying on guys like Calderon and Blair and depending on Dalembert's defense.
-If you go strictly by numbers and adjust heavily for teams that didn't use their best players much in the regular season, San Antonio feels nigh unbeatable. But that feels wrong -- they got away with resting their starters constantly because their bench is fantastic and, as I've shown, they do play a bit worse against better competition. It will be really interesting to see how they do this year versus elite teams like the Thunder or Clippers.

Prediction: the Spurs in five games.

Houston Rockets (4) vs. Portland Trail Blazers (5)
-If you want to see how Howard would do in the 90's, this is the series for you. Portland defends him straight up with a seven-footer, and so he averages 25.5 and 13.5 with a 66 TS%. Not that I'm stating he'd average a shooting efficiency like that in the 90's, but if you don't aggressively help on Howard without an elite post defender he can destroy your team.
-Portland's defense is not that bad anymore. They're 17th in the league in defensive efficiency, above the Nets and Mavs. But their schedule was difficult -- adjusted for strength of schedule, their defense is ranked 15th, a hair behind the Heat.
-Harden's lack of defense will be in full display here. He definitely shouldn't guard Lillard, and the other two perimeter players are just skilled enough offensively to take advantage of him. Zach Lowe argued Wes will try to post him up, but that's one of Harden's few virtues on defense; he's a very good post defender. Instead, watch for Wes on back cuts and open shots behind the arc while Harden's head is turned.
-Portland's starting frontline is a little too big for Houston -- Aldridge can shoot over Jones, but if they switch Howard onto him Robin Lopez will have a field day on the offensive glass.
-We're going to have games with like 400 three-pointers. It will be great.
-Playoff-mode Lillard could be an interesting beast.
-Houston appeared to get the better of Portland in the regular season, although the series was 1-3 including an overtime win. Portland's conservative defense doesn't work too well against Houston, but they won't get outclassed here. They legitimately have a chance.
-Some may argue Portland's seeding is partly due to their great health, but the bench is still weak and a shorter leash on the reserves -- their top bench guys are Mo Williams and Joel Freeland, which is a joke for a playoff team -- means Portland will be significantly better in the playoffs.
-Most of the signs point to Houston having a slightly better team, and coupled with homecourt advantage it's hard to argue for Portland, unless it's out of loyalty. I believe in Portland as a fan, but as an objective observer I have to say Houston.

Prediction: Houston in seven games.

2014 Playoff Preview: Round 1, Part 1

As the internet is flooded with previews for the playoffs, I thought I'd keep my predictions concise and include whatever information I found to be unique.

East

Indiana Pacers (1) versus the Atlanta Hawks (8)
-While much has been written about team chemistry during their second-half implosion, CJ Watson was injured for most of the last third of the season, and the results were pretty drastic: before 3/5/14, they had a point differential of +7.7 as the best in the league, and after that -4.7, which includes four games he played in where they won three. At the beginning of the season I highlighted how a competent backup point guard would help their woeful bench, and it's proven true here, as without him the offense falls apart when they go to the reserves. They also need his outside shooting.
-The Evan Turner trade was a couple weeks before that, but they faced a weak schedule before losing Watson and had single digit wins against teams like Boston. The stat geeks were derided for not believing in Turner's potential, with all that silly talk about pace inflating stats and inefficient shooting. But we've seen who's been more accurate long-term.
-Remember, Indiana did beat OKC recently (and yes, CJ Watson played.)
-Despite Indiana's strength and Atlanta's lukewarm season, this is a poor matchup for the Pacers. Every major rotation player besides Elton Brand can shoot a three, and they'll force Hibbert out to the perimeter where he's not quick enough to contain pick and roll's and step-back three's -- or simply not used to it.
-The Hawks were treading water above 0.500 for a while, but Millsap's injury was too much to handle, as losing Horford for the season destroyed their effective depth. With Millsap, it's a good team.
-This is a test of faith of sorts for NBA fans -- do you believe in full season results or momentum? Who are the Pacers now? If these Pacers are what their numbers suggest over a full season, they should have few problems extinguishing the Hawks; however, if they have truly slipped this could be a hard-fought battle with an opponent who will put their big men into uncomfortable positions on defense.

Prediction: Indiana in five games.

Toronto Raptors (3) versus the Brooklyn Nets (6)
-After the Rudy Gay trade, the Raptors have been a +4.4 team, fifth in the league.
-Once Kirilenko came back from injury, the Nets were +1.4 in point differential the rest of the season, much better than their total season results. However, during the same time span the Raptors, naturally, were significantly better.
-Note that Brook Lopez went down for the season just a few days before Kirilenko came back. Once he was removed from the team and the Nets had more versatile weapons, their odd lineups with all 6' 7" guys plus a center were very effective. It's also more evidence that center scoring is overrated, at least when the center is not a good passer/distributor.
-Toronto has been a deceptively strong team with only one all-star, especially since that all-star is probably only the third best player on the team after Lowry and Amir Johnson.
-Most full season team ranking systems are harsh on the Nets due to their early struggles and their incessant resting, including that last game of the season where Jason Collins played 23% of his total season minutes.
-Weighing by projected starter minutes and ESPN's real plus/minus, the Nets are actually a stronger team, but this all depends on how much they'll use their lowly rated young guys, Plumlee and Teletovic.
-An injury to a key Brooklyn player is not a remote possibility.
-You have to really distort the numbers to make Brooklyn look significantly better. If it's close, Toronto's homecourt advantage is the trump card.

Prediction: Toronto in seven games.

West

Oklahoma City Thunder (2) versus the Memphis Grizzlies (7)
-Along with the Clippers, I found that OKC played a lot better as its competition increased.
-An ESPN video had some new metric about "synergy" that found Durant and Westbrook had negative synergy, which runs counters to previous two-man teams with titles like LeBron-Wade and Kobe-Pau. I'm not exactly sure what this metric is, but it's probably close to going to the player pair plus/minus page here and comparing a pair to what the team's overall plus/minus is. For example, Durant/Westbrook rated a +7 there, which is nearly identical to the team's adjusted rating on basketball-reference. LeBron/Wade were a +7 too (though LeBron/Bosh were +9), but the team's adjusted overall rating was only +4.7, suggesting a positive "synergy."
-After Marc Gasol came back, the team posted a +3.5 point differential. This is a pretty scary 7-seed.
-The Grizzlies will swarm Durant well, but I don't expect it will be effective during these playoffs with Westbrook back to draw attention and help set up their role players, and with a better Durant.
-Prince is going to see major minutes, and in theory his length is useful against Durant ... but he's long in the tooth and hurts their already anemic offense. This is a team that needs a major punch in its offensive attack.

Prediction: Oklahoma City in five games.

Los Angeles Clippers (3) versus the Golden State Warriors (6)
-Bogut going down with an injury reduces their chances, but if they play Draymond Green heavy minutes they can still be an effective team.
-The Warriors, in fact, are an elite team if they don't let the bench get in the way, as Marreese Speights and Harrison Barnes are two of the worst rotation pieces for good playoff teams. Fortunately, they have Steve Blake to replace Jordan Crawford and, before him, the general void of not having a real backup point guard.
-Mark Jackson's strange insistence on playing bench units separately and not staggering key ball-handlers Curry and Iguodala, or even David Lee, limited their firepower in the regular season, but in the playoffs this is less of an issue. They could be better in the playoffs.
-Chris Paul is a fantastic playoff player and deserves a better reputation.
-Going back to the synergy metric, Paul/Griffin were +11 versus a +7.3 rating, for what it's worth.
-With Redick back and Glen Davis replacing some of the awful big man bench minutes, the Clippers are fully rounded and are much better than most think.
-Using my new variable team strength metric, I found the Clippers rated best in the entire league versus playoff quality competition. Meaning, their regular season point differential underrated how good they were against better opponents (or, conversely, how much they let off the throttle versus inferior competition.)
-With Bogut out, Jermaine O'Neal and Draymond Green are the best options for Griffin. But O'Neal is old and will probably get in foul trouble, and Green is too small -- Griffin underwhelms against bigger defenders. Griffin may destroy poor David Lee.

Prediction: Los Angeles in five games.

Variable Team Strength Ratings

At the beginning of the season when previewing teams I introduced something I titled "V-SRS," which was a tweak of basketball-reference's team rating metric, SRS, that adjusted a team's SRS based on how strong their opponent was. Basically, it tests the idea that some teams run up the score on weak teams or others are stronger versus the best teams in the league. With the playoffs coming, I thought this was the perfect time to try for an entire set of rankings based on "V-strength."

Quick description: the team rating (point diff.) column is just a basic team strength metric adjusted for the schedule, including back-to-back games. It's very similar to SRS. Strength variance is the degree to which a team's strength rating varies based on how good the opponent is. I've provided two columns to illustrate this: a team's rating versus a +3 team, which is a typical playoff team and one near 50 wins, and what a team's rating would be versus a +6 team, which is a strong contender as most title-winners are near +6 or over. Since the metric needs to be tested over multiple years still, I sorted teams by their strength versus +3 teams because it's a more conservative estimate of how good they are against competitive playoff teams.

Team	Team rating (point diff.)	Strength variance	Team rating versus +3 team	Team rating versus +6 team
Los Angeles Clippers	7.27	0.15	7.90	8.53
Oklahoma City Thunder	6.60	0.31	7.68	8.76
San Antonio Spurs	8.01	-0.44	6.87	5.72
Houston Rockets	5.08	-0.02	5.20	5.31
Golden State Warriors	5.11	-0.17	4.78	4.45
Portland Trail Blazers	4.37	-0.24	3.83	3.28
Miami Heat	4.14	-0.18	3.77	3.41
Dallas Mavericks	2.93	0.13	3.49	4.05
Indiana Pacers	3.66	-0.15	3.37	3.09
Phoenix Suns	3.05	-0.04	3.11	3.16
Toronto Raptors	2.53	0.09	2.95	3.37
Minnesota Timberwolves	3.03	-0.19	2.62	2.21
Memphis Grizzlies	2.15	-0.09	2.05	1.95
Chicago Bulls	1.13	0.08	1.53	1.92
New York Knicks	-1.37	0.47	0.22	1.81
Washington Wizards	0.49	-0.45	-0.70	-1.88
Brooklyn Nets	-1.57	0.09	-1.13	-0.70
Atlanta Hawks	-0.84	-0.31	-1.62	-2.40
Denver Nuggets	-1.43	-0.15	-1.71	-1.98
New Orleans Pelicans	-2.03	-0.05	-2.00	-1.97
Detroit Pistons	-4.11	0.57	-2.23	-0.36
Sacramento Kings	-2.09	-0.10	-2.23	-2.38
Charlotte Bobcats	-0.92	-0.63	-2.67	-4.41
Cleveland Cavaliers	-3.83	-0.10	-3.97	-4.12
Boston Celtics	-4.90	0.03	-4.66	-4.42
Orlando Magic	-5.86	0.24	-4.97	-4.08
Los Angeles Lakers	-5.30	-0.43	-6.43	-7.56
Utah Jazz	-6.23	-0.38	-7.20	-8.17
Milwaukee Bucks	-8.42	0.31	-7.34	-6.26
Philadelphia 76ers	-10.66	-0.37	-11.62	-12.57

*Note: a positive strength variance means your team's rating increases as the opponent gets better, and negative means your team rating's gets worse as the opponent gets better

When the media cite records of, say, the Spurs versus playoff teams, they're essentially doing a weak version of variable team strength. However, they do not adjust for schedule or the point differential of those games. Thus, the variable team strength metric, something I'm calling "V-strength" for now, more accurately reflects how good these teams are versus the top competition without completely disregarding all the other games and with an objective statistical adjustment. 

One point here is that, yes, the Spurs were better against weak teams, though they rested their top guys so heavily that once the starters play more minutes the effect could be washed out. Also, I believe people are sleeping on the Clippers. They appear to play well against top competition, they're healthy at the right time, and they're being underrated because they're a new team on the big stage. The Mavericks and Bulls are two I would have thought of before crunching the numbers, as Dirk plays well in all situations and the Bulls have a top-notch defense and coaching to grind out wins versus better teams. The Heat, however, look worse, but perhaps with more playing time for Wade they'll punch at a higher weight class than their numbers indicate.

It's a new, untested metric, but it's good to quantify a natural question that's constantly arising -- how good are you against the best teams?