After the 9th game of the Cavaliers’ season - an embarrassing loss to the Indiana Pacers that I watched in person - I posted a few notable statistics that you wouldn’t read in your morning paper. Because the Indians didn’t sign Cliff Lee and the Browns are in treadmill mode, I figured I would revisit those same stats, to see just how far the Cavs have fallen now that 24 games have been played.
Thanks, as always, to Hoopdata.com for the assist.
Offensive Efficiency (Points Scored Per 100 Possessions): 97.7 (29th) *Negative 8 spots and minus 4.4 points per 100 possessions
Defensive Efficiency (Points Given Up Per 100 Possessions): 108.5 (26th) *Negative 18 spots and minus 2.7 points per 100 possessions
Efficiency Differential: -10.8 (30th) *Negative 7 spots and minus 7.1 points per loss
Pace: 95.4 (20th) *Positive 5 spots and plus .2 possessions per game
Field Goal Percentage at the Rim: 59.3% (28th) *Negative 4 spots with a plus 1.6%
3P Field Goal Percentage: 54.4% (21st) *Negative 8 spots and minus 2.5%
Opponents Field Goal Attempts at the Rim Per Game: 21.1 (13th) *Same rank, 1.5 attempts less per game
Opponents 3P Field Goal Attempts: 20.0 (5th) *Negative 6 spots, plus 2.6 attempts per game
Total Rebound Rate (Percentage of Total Available Rebounds Grabbed): 47.96 (27th) *Negative 2 spots, minus .2%
Defensive Rebound Rate: 76.35 (6th) *Positive 15 spots, plus 4.09%
Offensive Rebound Rate: 21.95 (28th) *Same rank, minus 1.18%
True Shooting % (Shooting Efficiency, Adjusted for 2P, 3P, and FT): 50.9% (28th) *Negative 9 spots, minus 2.8%
Assist Rate (Percentage of Possessions Ending in an Assist): 19.28 (20th) *Negative 6 spots, minus .46%
Turnover Rate (Percentage of Possessions Ending in a Turnover): 12.72 (3rd) *Plus 5 spots, plus .56%
By my count, this means the Cavs have improved in three areas since we last checked: defensive rebounding, pace and turnovers. Their field goal percentage at the rim has increased, as well, although overall NBA rank in that department is down. The defensive rebounding improvement - plus 15 spots in the rankings - is dramatic, and I would like to commend the Cavaliers for their performance in this department. The small rate at which they turn the ball over is excellent, too.
However, in pretty much every other area, the Cavs are terrible. This is disconcerting because - aside from offensive rebounding and steals (27th) - the Cavs are winning the possession battle. Okay, so maybe the fact that they’re only winning half of the possession battle is crucial, particularly when they aren’t making any shots (28th in the league in TS%) - or preventing anyone from making any shots either (Opponents’ TS% is 56.6% for 26th in the league, behind only Toronto, Golden State, and Phoenix … not exactly great company).
What does all of these numbers tell us, ultimately? That there is a very real correlation between certain statistics and wins and losses. Like, you know, if you don’t make shots, you get barely any second shots, and your opponent loads up on 3’s and shots at the rim, you are probably going to end up losing by a whole lot, like, say an average of 9.7 points per game.
A lot of talk about the Cavs being bad lately. I went to the Q on Saturday night - and indeed the team looked terrible. All four quarters felt like slightly a more polished version of the games I used to go and watch at the Cage on West 4th Street, while I was in college at NYU. In other words, this was pick up quality basketball without the shenanigans (or the highlight plays).
With that in mind, here are a few notable stats on the Cavaliers - via Hoopdata - which you won’t read in your morning newspaper.
Offensive Efficiency (Points Scored Per 100 Possessions): 102.1 (21st) Defensive Efficiency (Points Given Up Per 100 Possessions): 105.8 (8th) Efficiency Differential: -3.7 (23rd) Pace: 95.2 (20th) Field Goal Percentage at the Rim: 57.7% (24th) 3P Field Goal Percentage: 54.4% (13th) Opponents Field Goal Attempts at the Rim Per Game: 22.6 (13th) Opponents 3P Field Goal Attempts: 17.4 (11th) Total Rebound Rate (Percentage of Total Available Rebounds Grabbed): 47.99 (25th) Defensive Rebound Rate: 72.26 (21st) Offensive Rebound Rate: 23.13 (28th) True Shooting % (Shooting Efficiency, Adjusted for 2P, 3P, and FT): 53.7% (19th) Assist Rate (Percentage of Possessions Ending in an Assist): 19.74 (14th) Turnover Rate (Percentage of Possessions Ending in a Turnover): 13.28 (8th)
Ok then, briefly, what does this small sample of small sample statistics tell us?
The Cavs are playing very good, top ten defense, despite not rebounding well at all (as the 21st ranked Defensive Rebounding Rate explains). At the same time, the offense is in the bottom third, even though they aren’t turning the ball over much. This is a product of poor offensive rebounding and terrible finishing at the rim. Assists are average. Pace remains slow. And 3P FG% is nowhere near what it was last year, which is a good stat to throw out at anyone who claims it doesn’t matter how players on a team fit together.
Here’s a WP48-driven preview of the Cavaliers. The writer of the piece, Arturo Galleti (I thought Mesa reader Holland was supposed to be writing for Dave Berri’s Wages of Wins Journal), figures the Cavs to win 36 games.
We’ll see how close the projection turns out. I suspect it won’t be that close since WP48 doesn’t account for defense when utilized as a predictor of future success. The handy “team adjustment” doesn’t come into play until the games get going.
I think you can sense that I have a lot of reservations about WP48 as a statistical model for selecting players - although I do fundamentally agree with the attributes it places the most emphasis on (scoring efficiently, not turning the ball over, and rebounding). At the same time, the model drastically undervalues shot creation, which is something this season’s Cavaliers may be particularly challenged by.
And finally Arturo - who I’m betting has never been to Cleveland - should have his spreadsheet taken away for saying that Cleveland was “unsurprisingly” labeled the most miserable city in the US by Forbes.
