Ball v.1.10

Over Toronto's last 27 games, they have lost by more than 10 points just once.

(Prediction of the day: This will be invalidated in one of the next two games)

Ball v.1.9

Two lists:

TORONTO RAPTORS
BEST HOME WINNING PERCENTAGE

2009-10 .769 (20-6)
2006-07 .732 (30-11) *
2000-01 .659 (27-14) *
1999-00 .634 (26-15) *
2007-08 .610 (25-16) *
2001-02 .585 (24-17) *
*made playoffs

W-L AFTER FIRST 20 GAMES OF THE SEASON

1. CLE 27-6
2. LAL 24-10
3. TOR 22-10
4. UTA 20-11
T5. DEN 20-12
T5. OKC 20-12

Other records of note:

CHI 18-12
BOS 16-14
PHX 16-17

DISCUSSION

• The Raptors were 9 games back of Boston after the first quarter of the season. They're now 4 games back
• Schedules matter... yes, the Raptors are beating good and bad teams of late, but playing bad teams helps build your confidence, as opposed to continually playing good teams (which hurts it)... for further evidence of this point, see the record of the Suns, who had a creampuff schedule early on, and have crashed back to earth

Ball v.1.8

In the past, I've talked about (and tried to quantify) how rare of a season Chris Bosh is having. A few people chuckled when I wrote some of the things I wrote because they said there was no way Bosh could keep up his level of production.

They were wrong. Bosh has been amazingly consistent all season, and he's even slightly improved his performance of late. But back to the "rare" comment, consider:

Since the turn of the decade, only four players have averaged at least 24 points and 11 rebounds in a season:

2003-04 Kevin Garnett * ^ (22) ---LCF---

2002-03 Shaquille O'Neal * (11) ---L2ND---

2001-02 Tim Duncan * ^ (7) ---L2ND---

2000-01 Shaquille O'Neal * (11) ---WON NBA TITLE

2000-01 Chris Webber * (72) ---L2ND---

* denotes 1st team all-NBA

^ denotes NBA MVP

( ) denotes rank in Bill Simmons' Book of Basketball NBA Hall of Fame pyramid

--- --- denotes how the player fared in the post-season

How's that for a confusing, unreadable list? There's a few points I'm trying to make here:

• Just four guys in an entire decade is pretty impressive
• It'll be even rarer if Bosh can have a season like this AND lose in the first round of the playoffs.... how rare you ask? I'm glad you asked!

STAT OF THE DAY

You have to go back 16 years to find a player that averaged at least 24 points and 11 rebounds in a season that didn't at least make it to the 2nd round of the playoffs (Shaquille O'Neal, 93-94). After that, there were 14 seasons (half of them belonging to Shaq) where a player had averaged a 24/11 and made it at least to the second round. ANYWAYS, back to the bullets

• Based on the list above, it seems that it would be impossible to justify not having Bosh on the all-NBA 1st team this season if he keeps up with these numbers

But I think I can justify it. Despite the fact that Bosh is having a season that rivals those of recent hall of famers, I don't think he's an all-NBA 1st teamer. Here's why:

If we assume that LeBron James' spot as one of the all-NBA forwards is etched in stone (a safe assumption), that leaves one spot open for another forward among those listed below.

C. Bosh - 24 pts, 11 reb, 2 ast, 26.1 PER

C. Anthony - 30 pts, 7 reb, 3 ast, 24.6 PER

K. Durant - 30 pts, 7 reb, 3 ast, 25.2 PER

D. Nowitzki - 25 pts, 8 reb, 2 ast, 23.0 PER

T. Duncan - 20 pts, 11 reb, 3 ast, 27.3 PER

Here's a question: Is it possible to leave off Anthony or Durant if one of them ends up winning the scoring title? Just twice in the past 15 years has the league's scoring leader not made 1st team all-NBA (TMac 03-04, Iverson 01-02).

Here's another question: What's more impressive? A 24-11 on a 45-win team or a 25-8 on a 55-win team? That's the question you'd have to answer if you were choosing between Bosh and Nowitzki.

And one last question: What if I told you the NBA's best player of the last decade was actually having a career season? There'd be no way you could keep him off, right? The answer I assume would be, "Kobe isn't on this list." (that would be your answer if you don't know basketball). The other answer I would expect is: "Tim Duncan isn't having a career year." But the numbers say otherwise (Duncan's career ranks in parantheses)

27.2 PER (1st)

58% TS% (t-1st)

12% Off Reb% (1st)

20% Tot Reb% (t-1st)

9% TO% (t-1st)

119 Off Rating (1st... prev. best - 114)

Colour me shocked. Who would have thought that one of the greatest players of all-time could be having his most efficient season at age 33? The only reason his counting numbers aren't that impressive is because his minutes have been monitored closely by Gregg Popovich this season. Listen, I don't expect stats like True Shooting Percentage and Offensive Rating to suddenly gain credence and push Duncan onto the 1st team. I'm just saying... it's pretty amazing stuff what he's doing this season (and I'd put him on the team if I had a vote).

Still not convinced? Well, how about a bonus stat of the day:

27+ PER

33 YEARS OLD OR OVER

Karl Malone (3x)

Michael Jordan

Tim Duncan

Now THAT is an impressive list.

Ball v.1.7

This edition of T.Jose Caldeford coming at you live from Vancouver... I'll be out here for the Olympics but I'll still get my Raptors fix as much as possible (9 a.m. local gametime tomorrow!).

Anyways, the other day, Mr. Grange wrote about Andrea Bargnani's struggles in back-to-back games. This is a useful stat. Useful in that it confirms some qualitative analysis (Bargnani is not in as good of shape as he could be)... Even better, Mr. Grange wrote about those struggles BEFORE Bargnani played the second half of a back-to-back, and Bargnani followed the script almost perfectly (6-for-17 shooting from the field).

Quick Stat of the Day: I say "almost perfectly" because Il Mago still swatted away four New Jersey shot attempts. It was only the 11th time in his career he's had at least four blocked shots in a game (and just the second time this season). Most encouraging: In both instances this season, Bargnani had his "block party" so to speak in games when he wasn't shooting very well. In other words, perhaps he was looking to impact the game or help the team win in any way possible... not just the way he usually does it (making shots).

Anyways, Mr. Grange's post led me to a question: Do any other Raptors have statistical trends that show they struggle with or without rest between games? Let's check it out:

• Chris Bosh shoots in the high 50s with 2 or more days rest, he shoots at around 48% on the second night of a back-to-back (48% is still good... high 50s is crazy)
• Hedo Turkoglu's points, rebounds, and assists averages are all lower on 0 days rest compared to his seasonal average
• Jarrett Jack shoots 40% from the field with no rest, and around 50% with 1 or more days rest
• DeMar DeRozan shoots 42% from the field with no rest, and around 50% with 1 or more days rest
• Antoine Wright's best games have come with no rest
• Weird trend of the day: Jose Calderon shoots 94% from the line on 0 days rest, 80% on 1 day, 67% on 2+ days .... Amir Johnson shoots 82% from the line with no rest, and about 50% on 1+ days rest .... why are these guys better from the line with no rest?... (this is when you call chime in: small sample size)

Anyways, is there an underlying trend, a point I'm trying to make? Well, I don't think anyone would say Chris Bosh or Jarrett Jack or DeMar DeRozan is "out of shape," despite their shooting variances. I guess my point is, sometimes it's easy to find a stat that confirms an opinion you hold of someone (i.e. Andrea Bargnani is out of shape)... but does that stat always tell the whole story?

Ball v.1.6

Have to say really quickly that I'm really loving the comments I'm getting from readers. Even when people are disagreeing with what I'm writing, the level of discourse is really encouraging ("the level of discourse is really encouraging" might be one of the geekier things I've written in the past few years but I digress). People are using statistics to strengthen their points, they're citing small sample sizes, they're talking about unaccounted factors... I've said this before, but my economics professors would be proud.

ANYWAYS, got this email from a reader named Stephen (more on him later), but here is the post (somewhat edited for length):

Chris,

First off, I love your blog. Always interesting and informative. Analysis supported by facts as well as opinion. Excellent.

I generally agree with you about Calderon being the better of the two but I also wonder if Calderon benefits from the fact that he plays most (not all) of his minutes against bench players while the opposite is true for Jarrett Jack. My totally non-stats based opinion is that they both have different things to offer. Calderon seems to be a better floor general, better shooter and a better ball handler. Jack is a little bigger and stronger, a better defender, tends to penetrate and get to the rim more consistently and also seems to co-exist a little more effectively with Turkoglu.

I think that last point has to do with Calderon being a more natural point guard and needing the ball more of the time. Jack seems to be OK with deferring to Turkoglu more often.

One last point. Even though Calderon is arguably the better point guard I wonder if coming off the bench is a better option for this team. The starting five tend to be somewhat defensively challenged and Calderon's defence would exacerbate that problem. The second unit has more of an ability to compensate for Calderon's defensive deficiencies while benefiting in a big way from his offensive skills. I especially think of the way Amir Johnson seems to have benefited from having Calderon on the floor. Johnson may not have been especially blessed with offensive skills but he and Calderon seem to have really developed some chemistry on the court.

First off, again, these are the types of things I'm getting to read every day, and it's great stuff (see, I'm calling stuff great even when it doesn't necessarily reiterate what I've been saying).

Secondly, I think the points he brings up about Jack co-existing with Turkoglu better than Calderon, and Calderon meshing well with Johnson are both valid. I think we will be able to get a better sense of this type of stuff when 82games.com releases their "player pairs." The "pairs" are pretty much just what they sound like -- a plus/minus for each pair of teammates when they're on the floor together. I'm not sure when 82games will release this stuff, but hopefully it will come soon (more content!).

Finally, I could be wrong and even if I'm right, he might not want me to write this, but didn't that letter sound like Stephen Brunt? The elegant yet simple style... the sound logic... I'm convinced! He must confirm or deny this hypothesis. Stephen, become the second celebrity-friend of T.Jose Caldeford! (Michael Grange is the first)

Ball v.1.5

Oh, crushing, crushing symbolism.

Jose Calderon rolls his ankle after stepping on the foot of.... Jarrett Jack.

Clearly, Jay Triano is not reading T.Jose Caldeford on a regular basis.

To those of you who don't follow this blog religiously (I can only assume that's about 1% of the world population), let me explain:

Years ago, in a world far far away, I presumed that since Jose Calderon and T.J. Ford were 2 of the Toronto Raptors' five best players, success would follow if they played together.

Sound (but tragically flawed) logic. Whenever they were on the court together, it was (close to) an (unmitigated) disaster. The numbers were bad. And I quickly abandoned the idea that it could work.

Flash forward to this season, and again, Jay Triano was seduced by the same seemingly simple logic: If Player X and Player Y are two of your best five players, then we should be able to play them together.

Clearly, I did not jump aboard this runaway train, and from the get-go, tried to say as often as possible that the two point guards should never play together.

The numbers (as dependable as always) backed me up.

The two most used lineups with Jack & Calderon as the backcourt featured frontcourts of Turkoglu-Bosh-Bargnani, and Wright-Bosh-Bargnani. Those are pretty good lineups (featuring Toronto's top 4 players this season---arguably). But, consider:

• Those two lineups have been on the floor for 128 minutes this season (the equivalent of 2.7 full games)
• They've been outscored by 30 points
• They've been outscored 18 of the 25 different times they've been on the court together

As you can see, I think the numbers show that Jack and Calderon should almost never be on the court together. And if Mr. Triano read this blog, perhaps Jose Calderon wouldn't be icing his ankle as we speak!

THE POINT GUARD "DEBATE" CONTINUES, I GUESS...

Calderon had a better plus/minus than Jack again last night. Calderon is now a +84 since returning from injury, while Jack is a -47.

If you want to look at numbers from the entire season, Calderon averages more points per 36 minutes, more assists, fewer turnovers, and shoots a better percentage from the field and from three-point range.

Again, as I said in the heading, I "guess" we can say there's still a debate, but I don't think there is.

BIZARRO WORLD

Here's my biggest issue with the whole Jarrett Jack as the starting point guard thing: Toronto's current starting lineup has been outscored by 52 points this season. That's the worst mark among Toronto's 10 most used lineups. Shouldn't your starting lineup be one of your more effective lineups? If you can't say yes to that question, let me revise: Should your least effective lineup be your most-used lineup? Seriously, (warning: Zoolander reference) I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

So anyways, here's what I've done, I've looked at the 19 teams in the NBA with a record at or above .500. I've picked out their worst lineup performance-wise out of their 10 most used lineups, and sorted them by how often that lineup plays (in terms of minutes). Check it out:

HOU: 656 *

CLE: 365 *

CHI: 307

TOR: 275 *

CHA: 220

POR: 102

MIA: 91

LAL: 80

DEN: 75

DAL: 62

ATL: 60

BOS: 57

OKC: 57

NO: 54

PHX: 50

ORL: 43

MEM: 37

SA: 36

UTA: 35

*denotes current starting lineup

So Toronto is one of 3 teams with a winning record whose current starting lineup is their worst performing lineup.

Quick analysis:

• Shocking to see the numbers-driven Rockets atop the list. It's still confusing to me that Carl Landry comes off the bench, however Houston must know something we don't, right?

• I'm giving the Cavs a free pass here because they know they have to start Shaq even though the team would be best served with him on the bench. Seriously, that is depressing. Shaq, please retire, immediately.

• I have to tell you, I'm not the least bit surprised to see Jerry Sloan and Gregg Popovich coached teams at the bottom of the list. Don't they just seem like the two most practical, black-and-white coaches in the NBA? Wouldn't they just forget all the B.S. about personalities or matchups or dealing with the media, and just say to themselves, "Hey, if this lineup isn't working, I'm not going to use it." It takes a certain amount of confidence and courage to do that, two things I'm not sure every NBA front office is oozing with.

Ball v.1.4

Quick question from Anonymous: What about Raptor Defensive rating AFTER the Atlanta meeting? Good enough to advance to the ECF?

Answer: Toronto's defensive rating since the Atlanta blowout is 107.3... which would sit 10th in the Eastern Conference if maintained over the full season. In other words, Toronto's defence is bad, even if you don't count their worst effort of the season.

Ball v.1.3

Love the Caldeford readers. Why? 'Cause they bring it!

Alex wrote: "Not titled Ball v1.2? A little disappointed."

Bones wrote: "What happened to naming every entry "Ball" version so and so?"

In just a few hours since posting, these guys are calling me on my mistakes. It's like having dozens of girlfriends pointing out all the empty promises I make!

Add in some great statistical breakdowns in the comment sections... and you guys are really bringing it! I've corrected the previous title

Ball v.1.2

All I'm saying is:


Without DeRozan, the Raptors are:

• 3-0
• averaging 111 points per game
• shooting 56% from the floor
• dishing out 25 assists per game

They're averaging seven more points per game, shooting 9% better, and averaging four more assists per game.

I said I thought with DeRozan out, it would allow the Raptors to have better ball-movement, better spacing, and they'd just be a more difficult team to defend (because the team would actually have to account for that fifth person on the floor). Here's the best way of showing how much it's helped the Raptors:


25 / 16 / 4 ... 49% FG ... Eastern Conference Player of the Week


That was Chris Bosh's week without DeMar DeRozan.


LOOKING BACK


I've done some good work at T. Jose Caldeford over the years. I was in the "Calderon is better than Ford" camp before it was cool to be in that camp. I warned everyone that Jermaine O'Neal would be a stiff. I've cut slices so thin, you can't even see them (sorry, Seinfeld reference).


ANYWAYS, one thing I remembered writing and thought it would be worth updating were some notes I pulled about looking back at former Eastern Conference champions to see if there were any underlying trends (and there were). Here's what I wrote at the time:


- Only 7 of the past 20 (35%) East champs were either the best, or second-best offensive team in the conference


- 15 of the champs (75%) were either the best, or second-best defensive team in the conference


- 8 champs (40%) were not among the top 5 offensive teams in the conference, yet still reached the NBA finals.


- Only 2 champs (10%) were not among the top 5 defensive teams in the conference.


Just based on what I wrote, you can tell why I brought it up as it relates to the Raptors. Essentially those numbers seemed to back up the old cliche, "Defence wins championships."


Bonus points for me at the time because I said that information suggested the only two teams with a realistic shot at winning the East were the Celts & Pistons (they both made the ECF).


So, I thought I would update the past two seasons to see what happened in the East:


2007-08: BOS (4th in Off, 1st in Def) def. DET (1st in Off, 2nd in Def) in Eastern Conference final


2008-09: ORL (4th in Off, 1st in Def) def. CLE (1st in Off, 3rd in Def) in Eastern Conference final


In 07-08, either the team would have added to the argument that I had built. Last season, Cleveland would have bucked the trend (not in the top 2 in def. efficiency), but Orlando came through for my theory! Let's update those notes:

- Only 7 of the past 22 (32%) East champs were either the best, or second-best offensive team in the conference

- 17 of the champs (77%) were either the best, or second-best defensive team in the conference

- 8 champs (36%) were not among the top 5 offensive teams in the conference, yet still reached the NBA finals.

- Only 2 champs (9%) were not among the top 5 defensive teams in the conference.

Interesting to note that both the '08 Celts and '09 Magic nearly added to that third note as well (as they were both ranked 4th in the conference offensively).

So what do these numbers tell us about this season (other than the Raptors have no shot to go deep in the playoffs), well, here are the top 4 defensive teams in the East (points allowed per 100 possessions):

1. Bos (101.6)

2. Cha (102.3)

3. Cle (102.7)

4. Orl (103.0)

Ya, for those of you who didn't know... Larry Brown has got those Bobcats playing some serious "D." Granted, the numbers for the teams are so close that Charlotte could fall out of the top 2 quite easily, but I'm not so sure that will happen. The Bobcats just closed out a 12-4 month of January that included road wins against Cleveland, Miami, Phoenix and Sacramento. Listen, I'm not predicting anything with this team, I'm just saying I'm not quite sure they're going away.

One other interesting note: For all those fantasy geeks who love the Hawks and think they're the most unstoppable team ever: Atlanta ranks 7th in defensive efficiency. They would have to buck that serious final trend (Only 2 of the past 22 champs have not been among the top 5 defensive teams of the conference). Just a thought when you're thinking about how much you love those high-flying Hawks.