Another Improbable Pistons Win

Last night the Detroit Pistons beat their former point guard's new team, the Denver Nuggets, 100-95. It was their third straight win, and their third straight win against a much better team.

Before Allen Iverson (who I'm sure I've picked on too much here - as I noted yesterday, I actually like him a great deal, and love watching him play) went down with a back injury, they were in the throes of an 8 game losing streak, and, according to John Hollinger, had a less than 50% chance of even making the playoffs. That's pretty low for a team coming off an incredible run of 6 straight trips to the Eastern Conference finals.

Now, without Iverson, they've beaten Orlando, Boston, and now Denver in succession. To see how just incredible that three game run is (though let's not get too carried away, it is just three games. We're up to anyone can beat anyone on any given night, times three. Better than times two, but it could still as easily be an fluke.) let's look at the performance of these four teams (Detroit, plus the three teams they've beaten) thus far this year.

My favorite measure for team performance is efficiency differential. That is simply offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency. It is a slight adjustment to point differential. The theory behind it is roughly this: Point differential is a better measure of team performance and a better predictor of future results than won-loss record. To non-stat-geeks, that may seem weird. Isn't it obvious, say, that a team that is 3-0 is better (or, at least, has performed better) than a team that is 2-1?

Maybe. But (and we'll assume that both teams have played the same schedule, because adding strength of schedule to this would get unnecessarily complicated) what if Team A, the 3-0 team, won their first game by 1 point on a buzzer beater, won their second game by, say, 3 points, and then won their third game, again, by 1 point on another buzzer beater. That team could, with worse luck, easily be 2-1 (if one of the buzzer beaters missed) 1-2 (if both missed), or even 0-3 (if, in addition to both buzzer beaters missing, they'd also, say, missed a few free throws down the stretch). They are 3-0, and should be credited for that. The actual outcome of their three games were wins. But they owe that outcome almost as much to chance as to on-court performance.

Let's say Team B, on the other hand, lost one of those buzzer beater games. But, in addition to that, they blew out their other opponents by 25 and 30 points, respectively. Who played better over the three game stretch? The team that went 3-0 with a total point differential of +5 (or an average point differential of +1.67) or the team that went 2-1, with a total point differential of +54 (or an average point differential of +18)? It seems pretty clear to me that, in this case, the team that went 2-1 actually played better over this three game stretch than the team that went 3-0.

Efficiency differential takes this theory one step farther. It notes that not every team plays at the same pace. A team that plays at a faster pace will have more possessions, and thus probably score more points (and allow more points) than a team that plays at a slower pace. In a game with more possessions there are more points, and thus, potentially, a larger point differential. Efficiency differential thus adjusts for pace. It measures the offensive efficiency (points scored per 100 possessions) and defensive efficiency of a team (points allowed per 100 possessions), and then subtracts the later from the former.

The Detroit Pistons have been a bad team this year. Their offensive efficiency is 103.8, ranking 21st in the NBA. Their defensive efficiency is 104.8, ranking 16th in the NBA. They are, in other words, a below average offensive team and an average defensive team who actually gives up more points per 100 possessions than they score. Their efficiency differential is -1.0, projecting them to be just slightly below .500. Their record of 30-29 is just slightly above what we might expect based on their efficiency differential.

In the last three games they've played two very good teams (Orlando and Boston), and one good team (Denver). Their first opponent in this three game winning streak was the Orlando Magic. Orlando's offensive efficiency is 108.1, good for 6th in the NBA. Their defensive efficiency is even better, 3rd in the league, at 99.5. They are one of only three teams to give up fewer than one point per possession. Their efficiency differential is thus +8.6, 3rd in the league, behind only Cleveland and Boston, and ahead of the LA Lakers. They are a very good team, though they have been less good with Rafer Alston filling in for the injured Jameer Nelson. The Iverson-less Pistons beat them 93-85.

The Pistons' next opponent was the defending-champion Celtics (my favorite NBA team, by the way). While their record is one game off where it was at this time last year, their performance has been almost exactly the same. Their offensive efficiency is 108.3, 5th in the league, just ahead of the Magic. Their defensive efficiency is even better, a league-best 98.1 (just ahead of Cleveland). That gives them an efficiency differential of +10.2, second only to the Cavs. Like Orlando, Boston was playing without a key player, Kevin Garnett. But they've played surprisingly well without Garnett over the past two seasons. The Iverson-less Pistons beat them 105-95.

On to Denver. Despite their reputation as a great offensive team who has defensive problems, a look at their respective offensive and defensive efficiencies reveals how much of media narratives are driven by pace. The Nuggets have long played at one of the fastest paces in the NBA, and this year is no different. They rank 6th in pace factor, which means only 5 teams (Golden State, New York, Indiana, Phoenix, and the LA Lakers) play faster than them. Their fast pace leads to more possessions per game, which leads to more scoring opportunities, both for the Nuggets and their opponents. This masks the performance of both their offense (not as good as advertised) and their defense (not as bad as advertised).

The Nuggets surprisingly rank only 13th in offensive efficiency, scoring 106 points per every 100 possessions. This is certainly above average, but by no means great. Their defense, however, cracks the top 10, ranking 9th. They give up only 103.1 points per 100 possessions, much better than the Pistons. That gives them an efficiency differential of +2.9. That isn't great, but it is quite good, and in keeping with their 39-22 record.

Like the Pistons' previous improbable victims, however, Denver was also missing a key player, having suspend Carmelo Anthony for the game. That may not have been as big a factor as it seems, though, because Anthony is having a relatively bad year. While he leads the Nuggets in scoring, his PER is the lowest it's been since his second year in the league. The last three years he has played well enough to deserve a spot in the All Star game, a spot denied him principally because of his reputation for character issues and the glut of good forwards in the Western Conference. This year, however, it was his reputation as an outstanding player that kept him in the All Star conversation, not his play on the court. He has been above average, but by no means exceptional.

The good news for Carmelo's fans is that his drop off in production has been mostly due to missing shots. His other numbers - especially rebound-rate and assist-rate - are up slightly. He's just been missing shots. Given that he is historically a very good shooter and an efficient scorer, this may be a fluke.

Anyway, the Iverson-less Pistons beat the Carmelo Anthony-less Nuggets 100-95, despite a great game by former Piston point guard Chauncey Billups, who reminded his former team what they've been missing by scoring efficiently and not turning the ball over. Empty possessions are the enemy of any offense, and Billups, with his knack for hitting jump shots and taking care of the ball, doesn't create many of those. For the game he scored 34 points, shooting 11-19, 4-8 for three pointers and 8-8 from the free throw line.

But the Pistons, without Allen Iverson, a player who despite his many skills creates far too many empty offensive possessions, beat a superior team for the third game in a row. What does it mean? Maybe nothing. It is just three games, and each victim was without a key contributor. But it is once again undeniable that the Pistons play better without Iverson than they do with him.