FanPost

Small Sample Sizes and the Beauty of the Bucks

The NBA season is young, and full of hope. Bucks fans everywhere are swooning over Bud, Giannis, Khris, and the rest of the team. Just how good can this team be? In the past, I have look at three main stat categories for teams who achieved 60+ wins in a single season: Team Ortg, Team DRtg, and Player USG%. I like to do this to get a broad, high level idea with regards to how these teams were successful. Were they focused on offense? Defense? Balanced? Did their offense come thru one singularly dominant player, or was it shared responsibility? In the small sample size world the current season provides, how does the current iteration of the Bucks compare to great teams of the past?

Team Ratings

Since the 1993-1994 season, there have been 41 teams to secure at least 60 wins. These teams averaged a team ORtg of 111.2, which was good for fourth in the league. Their team DRtg averaged 102.8, or sixth in the league. And the differential between the two was 8.4, which can be roughly interpreted as +8 ppg better than their opponents.

The current Bucks sit at an ORtg of 113.5, which is sixth in the league. The team DRtg is 100.8, good for second in the league. And the differential is a whopping 12.7. We all knew this already, but the Bucks are playing really good basketball so far. If they can keep up the pace, historically good. The only team I looked at with a better team rating differential? The 1996 Chicago Bulls, a 72-win juggernaut built around the Jordan/Pippen/Rodman core that kicked off the second championship three-peat of Jordan’s career. That’s some pretty nice company to be in.

Player Usage Rates

When looking at player USG% for these 60 win teams, some clear patterns emerged. These teams tend to have a solid core of 5-6 players who are all playing 20 mpg or more. And these teams tend to have one or two very high USG players, offset by one or two very low USG players. When I first started looking at USG%, it was essentially flat for the Bucks. All the main players had about the same above average USG rates, and the low mpg role players filled in the low USG rates. This has changed over time, particularly due to Giannis growth. And look how the Bucks compare today:

Role

Average USG%

Bucks USG%

#1 Option

29.6

36.7 (Giannis)

#2 Option

24.5

23.6 (Khris)

#3 Option

21.4

19.8 (Bledsoe)

#4 Option

18.4

16.9 (Brogdon)

#5 Option

15.9

16.5 (Lopez)

The Bucks continue with Donte (16.1) and Ersan (14.4). Henson (18.5) and Snell (13.2) just miss out on that mpg threshold. It was also interesting, but not necessarily significant, that the Bucks don’t have any high USG bench players. Not even one in a low mpg role.

One last thing I found interesting with regards to USG rates… the current Bucks go against the "Big 3" roster building trend by putting so much focus on Giannis to carry the offense. There are really only two teams in that 41 team sample that were built in the same manner, to support one dominant superstar on offense:

· the aforementioned 1996 Chicago Bulls, with Michael Jordan (33.3), Scottie Pippen (24.4), Toni Kukoc (21.4), Luc Longley (17.8), Ron Harper (14.9), Steve Kerr (12.9), and Dennis Rodman (10.3).

· the 1996 Orlando Magic, with Shaquille O'Neal (32.8), Anfrenee "Penny" Hardaway (25.5), Dennis Scott (19.9), Nick Anderson (19.1), Brian Shaw (19.1), and Horace Grant (16.5).

Again, that is good company to be in.



FanPosts are user-generated blogs-within-the-blog. We require that members abide by our <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/community-guidelines" target="new">community guidelines</a> and keep things respectable.