ESPN has an article exploring a new metric...there are some interesting "points" about individual player ratings/what is an actual good game (it uses an Embiid triple double that score a -# on the net rating to illustrate this) but I there are a few easy to grasp thoughts in the team breakdown, essentially what is the best indicator of a win:
How -- and why -- teams win (OKC Thunder and Cleveland Cavaliers edition
Net Points primarily quantifies players' performances, which directly affect team success. And, because it incorporates a lot of play-by-play, it can also explain why teams are successful.
The Oklahoma City Thunder are the league's best team in forcing turnovers and not committing them. They're outscoring opponents by plus-12.6 points per game. What Net Points tells us is how much of that plus-12.6 scoring margin is associated with their turnover advantage. It looks at all the Net Points created from every turnover event and adds them to get plus-5.9 Net Points per game. Essentially, half of their average scoring margin comes from half-court turnovers.
That is not normal.
What is more normal is how the Cleveland Cavaliers are winning so many games -- by shooting well and stopping opponents from doing the same. The Cavs' offense gets a league-leading plus-6.4 Net Points per game from shooting 3s, and a league-leading plus-5.7 Net Points per game from shooting 2s. On defense, the Cavs give up minus-3.5 Net Points per game on 3s (bottom 10), but allow the league's second-best mark at minus-0.5 Net Points per game on 2s. So, they're getting plus-8.2 Net Points by shooting better than their opponents from the field.
That is more like championship-level production. That doesn't mean Cleveland is more likely to win a title than Oklahoma City. We have the Basketball Power Index to address that better.
What this breakdown illustrates is that winning the 3-point battle -- having more Net Points on offense than allowed on defense -- is very strong in predicting who will win the game. Across the NBA, if a team "wins" the 3-point battle, it wins the game 72% of the time. That is higher than the 65% for winning the 2-point battle.
It is much higher than the 53% for winning the rebounding battle. Oklahoma City and Cleveland share that characteristic: OKC is the 27th-best rebounding team in the league by Net Points and Cleveland is 17th, going against the old saying that rebounding wins games.
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id...ints-latest-nba-metric-amazing-early-findings
How -- and why -- teams win (OKC Thunder and Cleveland Cavaliers edition
Net Points primarily quantifies players' performances, which directly affect team success. And, because it incorporates a lot of play-by-play, it can also explain why teams are successful.
The Oklahoma City Thunder are the league's best team in forcing turnovers and not committing them. They're outscoring opponents by plus-12.6 points per game. What Net Points tells us is how much of that plus-12.6 scoring margin is associated with their turnover advantage. It looks at all the Net Points created from every turnover event and adds them to get plus-5.9 Net Points per game. Essentially, half of their average scoring margin comes from half-court turnovers.
| Team | 2-pt | 3-pt | TO | Reb | FT | Fast Break | Put back | Misc | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OKC | +2.7 | +3.3 | +6.0 | -1.4 | +0.2 | +1.6 | -0.3 | +0.5 | +12.7 |
| CLE | +5.2 | +3.0 | +1.4 | -0.3 | +0.5 | +0.8 | +0.7 | +0.1 | +11.4 |
| BOS | +2.3 | +3.2 | +0.9 | +0.8 | +1.1 | -0.1 | -0.1 | +0.4 | +8.6 |
| MEM | +3.8 | +0.6 | -1.5 | +1.5 | +0.0 | +0.7 | +0.8 | +0.4 | +6.4 |
| DEN | +3.7 | +1.0 | -1.1 | +0.4 | +0.0 | +0.5 | +1.0 | -0.3 | +5.2 |
| NYK | +2.1 | -2.2 | +1.3 | +1.0 | +0.7 | +1.4 | +0.7 | -0.3 | +4.7 |
| HOU | -1.0 | -1.0 | +0.9 | +3.9 | -0.5 | +1.7 | -0.6 | +0.4 | +3.8 |
| MIN | -1.4 | +3.6 | -0.1 | -0.2 | +0.5 | -0.3 | +0.8 | +0.0 | +3.0 |
| LAC | +0.7 | -0.3 | +0.8 | +0.1 | +0.5 | +0.4 | +0.4 | -0.7 | +2.0 |
| MIL | +1.9 | +2.7 | -0.3 | -1.7 | -0.3 | -0.8 | +0.7 | -0.4 | +1.9 |
What is more normal is how the Cleveland Cavaliers are winning so many games -- by shooting well and stopping opponents from doing the same. The Cavs' offense gets a league-leading plus-6.4 Net Points per game from shooting 3s, and a league-leading plus-5.7 Net Points per game from shooting 2s. On defense, the Cavs give up minus-3.5 Net Points per game on 3s (bottom 10), but allow the league's second-best mark at minus-0.5 Net Points per game on 2s. So, they're getting plus-8.2 Net Points by shooting better than their opponents from the field.
That is more like championship-level production. That doesn't mean Cleveland is more likely to win a title than Oklahoma City. We have the Basketball Power Index to address that better.
What this breakdown illustrates is that winning the 3-point battle -- having more Net Points on offense than allowed on defense -- is very strong in predicting who will win the game. Across the NBA, if a team "wins" the 3-point battle, it wins the game 72% of the time. That is higher than the 65% for winning the 2-point battle.
It is much higher than the 53% for winning the rebounding battle. Oklahoma City and Cleveland share that characteristic: OKC is the 27th-best rebounding team in the league by Net Points and Cleveland is 17th, going against the old saying that rebounding wins games.
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id...ints-latest-nba-metric-amazing-early-findings
