So little time today, but I want to get the numbers up and address one topic: the (apparently) Official Wizards Fan Talking Point that the the Wizards are a “good” team going through a tough stretch.
While there’s a certain appeal to that position, and its supporters could point to the team’s record as evidence, the numbers simply don’t agree. The key stat to understand relative team strength is scoring differential — even more than record. The guys at Basketball-Reference created a robust team strength measure they call Simple Rating System (SRS), which combines scoring differential and strength of schedule.
In SRS, the WIzards have bounced around a bit this season, climbing into the top 10 for a week early on, but steadily sliding since then. Now emerging from the toughest part of their schedule, Washington ranks 16th in SRS — now behind Milwaukee. Consider that the Bucks and Wizards have played schedules of identical difficulty (0.63 points per game worse than average), but the Bucks have outscored their opponents by 1.96 points per game — the Wizards 1.66. A small difference to be sure, but it’s meaningful over the course of the marathon NBA season.
The data says that Washington isn’t a bad team, but it’s not good either. It’s a little better than average with a record made superficially better by the woeful state of the Eastern Conference. Because of the weak conference, the Wizards still have a decent shot at a top three seed, and a reasonable chance of advancing past the first round.
But, the problem isn’t that they’ve “just gotten out of sync” or that they’re not playing hard enough. It’s that they’re just not that good. Their margin for success each night is slender, and on nights when they’re not playing at something close to their best, they’re vulnerable.
Weekly Player Production Average Update
Player Production Average (PPA) is an overall rating stat I developed that credits players for things they do that help a team win and debits them for things that hurt the cause. PPA is pace neutral, accounts for defense, and includes a “degree of difficulty” factor based on the level of competition a player faces while on the floor. In PPA, 100 = average, higher is better and replacement level is 45.
The numbers under each date represent the player’s PPA for the entire season to that date. The number in the far right column (labeled PPA) is the player’s current PPA through games played last night. For a look at how players on other teams rate, visit here.
No big surprises here. As would be expected for a team in a four-game losing streak, production has dipped for several players. Biggest decliners: the old guys — Gortat, Nenê, and Butler. The only real “improver” was Humphries. For the Seraphin watchers, the big fella stabilized right around replacement level since the last update.