Power Rankings

Here's a question: What are things like Marc Stein's NBA Power Rankings supposed to be rankings of? I take it that the idea is to improve upon simply looking at the standings so that you can include things like strength of schedule or say take into account the fact that the Nuggets played most of the season so far without their current lineup. But still, what's it a ranking of? Looking at the current list, it's hard to say.

Is it a ranking of objective team quality? But surely not even Gilbert Arenas actually thinks the Wizards are better than the Rockets. Conversely maybe the idea is to say how far these teams are likely to go in the playoffs. The Wizards are worse than Houston, but stand a much better chance of playing in a Conference Championship game. But then again, the Bulls have a much better chance of playing in a Conference Championship game than do the Jazz. The whole thing seems arbitrary, not just in the sense that I disagree with Stein's ratings but I actually can't tell what the criteria are supposed to be.

Comments

I think the PRs are supposed to be a snapshot of a team's current level of play, and momentum and opponent strength seem to figure in prominently.

Posted by DJ Ninja | January 30, 2007 11:17 AM

"I actually can't tell what the criteria are supposed to be."

You're not alone.

It seems to be some weird combination of playoff potential and current mojo.

And it's entirely useless. I don't read 'em unless I'm really searching for material.

Posted by Petey | January 30, 2007 11:18 AM

I agree with Petey. I think there's some sort of Good Fairy thing going on. He's rewarding teams that are playing well with his approval, and the teams are ranked in order of the approval that they've earned. But I don't think that approval is anchored to anything as straightforward as team quality.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 30, 2007 11:21 AM

I take it as a ranking of the "strength" of each team right now. That is, on a general basis, the #4 team should be able to beat the #5 team, the #5 team should be able to beat the #6 team, and so on.

Posted by Al | January 30, 2007 11:41 AM

BTW, in case you didn't know it, Hollinger's got his own 'power ranking'. Nets #7 (after last night's 35-foot buzzer beater by Vince) and Wizards #9!

Posted by Al | January 30, 2007 11:43 AM

I agree with Ninja and Al -- they overweight recent play to estimate current level of performance. But yeah: mostly useless.

Posted by right | January 30, 2007 11:44 AM

It's a near perfect assessment of greatness.

I say "near" because the Bulls are 7 and not 1.

As long as the Bulls are 1, the rest of the rankings are perfect.

Posted by a | January 30, 2007 11:49 AM

But surely not even Gilbert Arenas actually thinks the Wizards are better than the Rockets.

Wait. I just realized. Matthew doesn't think that the Wizards are better than the Yao-less Rockets??? What kind of fan is he? Fans are supposed to overvalue their team, not undervalue it.

Posted by Al | January 30, 2007 11:50 AM

Wait. I just realized. Matthew doesn't think that the Wizards are better than the Yao-less Rockets??? What kind of fan is he? Fans are supposed to overvalue their team, not undervalue it.

I thought this was a weird position as well.

Why aren't the Wizards better than the Rockets right now?

Posted by a | January 30, 2007 11:53 AM

"after last night's 35-foot buzzer beater by Vince"

I caught the 4th quarter of that game, and Vince was unreal.

You gotta end up being happy about the road trip. After the triple tragedy, you get two quality wins in Denver and Salt Lake.

Posted by Petey | January 30, 2007 11:54 AM

"Matthew doesn't think that the Wizards are better than the Yao-less Rockets?"

The only thing that matters is playoff potential, and Matthew is correct to rank the 'zards below the Rockets.

Being a fan does not necessitate being a moron.

Posted by Petey | January 30, 2007 11:56 AM

I did catch the Nets/Nugs game (and, yes, I am pleased overall with our road trip). And I don't get the Nuggets.

First, they play horrible defense. You'd think that they could be better given they have Camby behind them to back them up when they gamble. But they just are bad. Shouldn't Karl be able to teach them defense?

Second, I really didn't pay much attention to Melo pre-suspension either, but I have the same opinion as Petey. Is it the layoff? He was bad. In fact, he was shut down by Antoine Wright - who hadn't played in like 19 straight games before starting opposite Melo. I was shocked that he could be shut down like that.

Third, I'm coming around to Matthew's opinion of Steve Blake.

Posted by Al | January 30, 2007 12:03 PM

Kind of off topic, but has anyone else seen McGrady's FT%?

67%? What the hell is going on there?

You're Jeff Van Gundy. It's a playoff game. You've got a 1 point lead with 6 seconds left. It's your ball out of bounds.

You think to yourself: Shit, I need to call a time out to get my all-star guard off the court and get my 7-6 center on the court so that we make these free throws and win the game.

Posted by a | January 30, 2007 12:08 PM

"Shouldn't Karl be able to teach them defense?"

Karl's been quite clear for weeks now that he thought it would take 10 - 15 games after Carmelo got back for the team to meld.

And that sounds reasonable to me, but it doesn't change the fact that they look horrible right now. Even in the two games they won after 'Melo's return, they didn't look very good. They won a game in Seattle where Ray Allen had 44 points, but Denver still couldn't find a way to keep a man on him late in the 4th quarter.

Posted by Petey | January 30, 2007 12:12 PM

Also off topic, but Petey, can you tell us again how much money would you pay for Jefferies?

Posted by ostap | January 30, 2007 12:48 PM

Did I miss something - Why all the basketball talk with only 5 days to the Super Bowl and not a word about Manning's chances to finally get a ring? or any of the millions of sub plots surrounding that game?

Posted by kw | January 30, 2007 1:03 PM

I haven't been following, but I was wondering if my Celts had recently gone on a hot streak?

Posted by theCoach | January 30, 2007 1:15 PM

kw -

I think you missed that while Matt has written posts about football before, he's written somewhere between 10x and 100x as many about basketball; presumably, he just finds the one much more interesting than the other. (And either none or nearly none on baseball, hockey, tennis, soccer, golf, shuffleboard...)

I'm with those who think Stein's Power Rankings - and maybe Hollinger's? - are meant to be something like "If the playoffs started today and the teams all played the way they've been playing recently, what would happen?" This is sort of made explicit by the way Stein jokingly talks about rewarding or punishing teams for their behavior - the Spurs have a stretch of uninspired play, and Stein drops them seven spots or whatever, they put together a few quality wins, and he says: "They learned their lesson" and raises them up again. I don't think he actually thinks that, in those two weeks or whatever, the Spurs drastically changed in quality. And their *real* function is just to generate chatter; people write in, he responds to them, content is created.

Posted by Quarterican | January 30, 2007 1:16 PM

theCoach -

a hot streak of losses. (Seriously weird season for your Celts and mine; I had reasonable hopes coming in, but the season is doomed after the first month as it becomes clear that the team's never going to be able to dress more than nine players at a time, culminating in Pierce going down and the Celts plummeting. On the one hand, Al Jefferson has emerged and Gerald Green is looking frisky, as Bill Simmons might say, and the team's record plunges further and further into the depths of lottery-winning territory. On the other hand, in my bones I can feel that either the Celtics will get [again] screwed in terms of lottery position OR they'll get the first or second pick and either Oden or Durant or both will just decide to stay in school.)

Posted by Quarterican | January 30, 2007 1:20 PM

"I haven't been following, but I was wondering if my Celts had recently gone on a hot streak?"

With Paul Pierce averaging 42 PPG over the past 9 games, how could they not be?

And, of course, Larry Bird's unbelievable return to the court has helped boost the Celts. He may be old, but he still put up 18pts, 11rbs, 8asts in his last game. And don't forget Theo Ratliff's shot blocking prowess, which has helped make Boston's defense among the best in association.

With the Celtics now looking set to have home court advantage through the Eastern Conference playoffs, I'd say hot streak is slightly understating it.

Posted by Petey | January 30, 2007 1:24 PM

Karl's been quite clear for weeks now that he thought it would take 10 - 15 games after Carmelo got back for the team to meld.

I guess that kind of means they've given up on the division? I can't see them catching Utah if they're only beginning to play well in mid-February. And if they don't win the division, they're on the road for the first round, which is kinda tough.

Posted by Al | January 30, 2007 1:25 PM

"And if they don't win the division, they're on the road for the first round, which is kinda tough."

Well, Utah is currently winning the division, and they'd begin the playoffs on the road were the playoffs to start today.

At the end of the day, the crucial thing in the West is to avoid the #7 and #8 seeds so you don't get run over by Phoenix or Dallas right off the bat.

Posted by Petey | January 30, 2007 1:32 PM

Off-topic, but I can't see how the Celts end up with Gasol, but it seems like a near-crime for them not to end up with Gasol.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 30, 2007 1:40 PM

"Off-topic, but I can't see how the Celts end up with Gasol, but it seems like a near-crime for them not to end up with Gasol."

On espn.com, it says the Celts are dangling Jefferson plus picks for Gasol, which I really don't get. Considering how well Al is playing, is it crazy to think he'll likely be better than Gasol 2-3 yrs. down the road? And won't that be when the Celts are contending? I say don't make the trade, in 3 yrs. the Celts will have a frontcourt of Jefferson, an aging but still effective Pierce, and potentially Oden or Durant, plus GERALD GREEN, who is starting to look pretty nice. Even if the C's don't have the good fortune to snag one of the big 2, this is a fantastic draft and they'll likely have a Top 6 pick. Why not just hold back and keep building on what they have?

Posted by b.schac | January 30, 2007 1:50 PM

With Paul Pierce averaging 42 PPG over the past 9 games, how could they not be?

And, of course, Larry Bird's unbelievable return to the court has helped boost the Celts. He may be old, but he still put up 18pts, 11rbs, 8asts in his last game. And don't forget Theo Ratliff's shot blocking prowess, which has helped make Boston's defense among the best in association.

And, hell, Petey, you didn't even mention Brandon Roy tearing it up as a Rookie of the Year candidate for the Celtics.

(Ooops, did Portland end up with Roy and Boston ended up with Sebastian Telfair? Woops. Nice trade, Danny!)

Posted by Al | January 30, 2007 2:16 PM

Larry Bird's not walking through that door.

Posted by Pitino | January 30, 2007 2:48 PM

Al -

Yeah, in hindsight the trade isn't so great, but I'm a fan of trying to remember what a reasonable state of mind at the time was. (In other words: I'm the guy who'll defend the Darko pick, forever and always, but think that everything after the pick was grossly mishandled.) Ainge thought the Celtics needed more at point guard, and decided to try throwing a bunch of options at the problem - Rondo and Telfair, and they also signed Allan Ray. Plus while Roy does point guard stuff for Portland, he's a wing, and the Celtics obviously weren't anticipating losing both of their starting wings for long periods of the season. Or that Tony Allen would end his season on a horrific, meaningless, dime-a-dozen bit of showoff that went really wrong. So they assume: limited minutes at the wing spots, and we've got Gerald Green to develop. You can't simply always say: "We take the best talent," (or always say, "We take the best fit,") you need to be flexible. Roy didn't make a whole lot of sense unless the Celtics were planning on dealing out some of their wings - and for whom? A point guard? Who would've been available? And we're back where we started.

Posted by Quarterican | January 30, 2007 2:51 PM

I think the 4-9 spots are pretty much a crap shoot for anyone's rankings at this point.

As for the question of Washington being better than Houston, it seems clear to me this is obviously true, at least while Yao is out. My money would definitely be leaning towards the Wizards in any matchup, depending on the location, and I'd give the Wizards at least +3 on a neutral floor.

Posted by Jimm | January 30, 2007 3:32 PM

I'd say the rankings are intended to be both predictive and retrodictive, that is, mostly reflecting past performance. Stein has to put at least one Eastern conference team up near the upper echelon (and what better team than Gilbert's?), otherwise people get bored with the Western Conference dominance (156-105 vs. the East!). It's a lot like the NFC dominance of the Superbowl during the 80s and most of the 90s. His ratings compare rather favorably with most computer models e.g. Sagarin or Massey.
But don't worry, come playoff time, the West will take home the O'Brien trophy.

Posted by Roger | January 30, 2007 3:36 PM

On espn.com, it says the Celts are dangling Jefferson plus picks for Gasol, which I really don't get. Considering how well Al is playing, is it crazy to think he'll likely be better than Gasol 2-3 yrs. down the road? And won't that be when the Celts are contending? I say don't make the trade, in 3 yrs. the Celts will have a frontcourt of Jefferson, an aging but still effective Pierce, and potentially Oden or Durant, plus GERALD GREEN, who is starting to look pretty nice. Even if the C's don't have the good fortune to snag one of the big 2, this is a fantastic draft and they'll likely have a Top 6 pick. Why not just hold back and keep building on what they have?

I feel like I've heard this argument before . . .

Posted by DJ Ninja | January 30, 2007 4:04 PM

Sorry Quarter but even at the time the Telfair trade was stupid. Remmeber he couldn't beat out Blake at PG, he sucks, he was a stupid pick by the Blazers and they were lucky that Aigne came along to bail them out and actually give them value for him.

Posted by Eric | January 30, 2007 4:23 PM

Power Rankings of this kind exist solely to infuriate people who believe their favorite teams are underrated and to gratify those who believe their favorite teams are fairly (or over-)rated. Thereby guaranteeing reader interest (and e-mail traffic) one way or the other. It always amazes me that anyone pays any attention to these things, but for some reason fans get bent completely out of shape whenever some "expert" on a website disrespects their team by ranking it, say, 6th instead of 3rd. I like Paul Zimmerman's football rankings because he often has interesting things to say about individual teams (and I've been a fan since the original Thinking Man's Guide to Pro Football), but the fact that he plops My Beloved Rams behind (or ahead of) the Loathsome 49ers in any given week is subtrivial. I suspect that very few general managers consult Stein's column to see how their teams compare with the competition.

Posted by wolfstar | January 30, 2007 4:54 PM

Eric -

He's been in the league for two and a half years now. His second season looked like an improvement over the first. With young players especially I don't buy into the "he couldn't win the starting job over [X]" - after all, Tayshaun Prince couldn't secure the starting job over Corliss Williamson, among other examples. There's no denying that Telfair's been a disappointment this season, that the things he does very well are at this point in time more than balanced out by the things he does very badly, but trading him was a gamble. Drafting is also a gamble. The Celtics wanted to try options at point guards. They had no guarantee that Roy would be available at #7. (Or even #6, assuming Ainge and McHale could've worked out a deal similar to the one the TWolves had with Houston that Portland awesomely stole for itself.) I'm not giving up on Telfair yet as a player, even if I'm not thrilled he's in Boston. (Meaningless comparison for shits and giggles: Telfair's first three years, at a glance, are in the ballpark numbers-wise with Nash's first three years.)

Posted by Quarterican | January 30, 2007 5:46 PM

Tefair's too small. It was a bad pick by Portland; remember that, at the time of the draft, everyone speculated that Nike had made promises that were made good by the Blazers. Ainge made a mistake. If he doesn't get Gasol, even at the cost of Jefferson, someone else young and good, and the lottery pick (protected for maybe #1, or #1 and #2, if possible), he'll be making another mistake. If Jefferson turned into Gasol, the Celts would be ecstatic. Gasol plus Pierce make the Celts leading contenders in the East for the length of Pierce's contract.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 30, 2007 6:06 PM

Two issues with Gasol that have nothing to do with how good a player Gasol is:

the only team I'm aware of that's in a potentially better position to get Gasol is the Bulls. The Bulls are also one of the few teams in a better position to get Garnett. Ainge might think (and he might be right, wrong, vindicated, or embarrassed, depending on what happens and why) that if he lets the Bulls take Gasol as a sure thing (i.e., Gasol is actually definitely available) then he'll be the only real player on the market for Garnett when the time comes (which is less of a sure thing).

also, unless Gasol has made a Duncan-esque proclamation that he's done with international play (and I don't know, maybe he has) it's rational for teams to value him at less than he's really worth.

SCMT, I just looked at the 2004 draft and was surprised; I hadn't realized how many players after Telfair I'd rather have *at this juncture* - five or six in the first round, and another one or two in the second. OTOH, Portland seemed committed to the idea of a point guard, right? So they took Telfair over Nelson, which looks bad right now but seemed defensible at the time. (Well, they were also interested in Jefferson, which had they done it would've looked like the wrong move to most people up until a third of the way through this season, when Big Al realized that all the people who thought he should be a double double machine were right.) But I really think the odds are roughly equal that in six years we'll think "Sebastian Telfair was an overhyped bust" vs. "Telfair's an All Star." All that said - in hindsight, I wish Ainge hadn't made the trade.

Posted by Quarterican | January 30, 2007 7:59 PM

"can you tell us again how much money would you pay for Jefferies?"

Based on tonight's boxscore only, I'd say he's worth a bit more than Zeke is paying him.

Posted by Petey | January 30, 2007 10:19 PM

Stein's rankings oscillate between 'how good they are now' and 'how good they'll be in the playoffs.' He's a strange cat, this Stein, a Manchester City fan (the soccer team, that is). Not a great team to be a fan of, and certain to leave you with hurt pride every single year. I put all his oddness down to that misbegotten support for the Blues.

If I could have anyone's athletic ability, I'd take Gerald Green in the top twenty of all NBA players. If I could have anyone's mind, he'd be bottom quadrant. He just doesn't get how the game is played--yet. I wonder if he'll ever be much better than Ricky Davis as another major talent with a flippant take and questionable competitive spirit, in a league below the great underachievers like Big Dog Robinson, Antoine Walker, Tracy McGrady (if he's really retiring), Eddie Curry...

Posted by djangone | January 31, 2007 1:56 AM

gee, the rockets just won the last two at san antonio, they go something lik 12-5 without Yao, and still McGrady gets no love. He bricked a lot of free throws early in the season when the back was bothering him. It's bothered him all his life, and will continue to (but it's been better since going to Andy Roddick's back guy). clearly "one of the teams you don't want to meet in the playoffs," primarily because of the addition of Battier, and Wells getting comfortable with Van Gundy.

Posted by paperpusher | January 31, 2007 10:12 AM

is tracy retiring?

Posted by dj superflat | January 31, 2007 12:41 PM

Tim,

The speculation was it was Adidas, not Nike. Telfair was one of their guys, and they are also based in Portland.

Remember too the Blazers had two picks, the low teens one they used on Telfair and one in the low 20s where everyone expected Telfair to go. So not only did they make a bad pick, they wasted a relatively high 1st rounder.

Quarter,

No matter how you spin it not keeping the pick and taking Roy was insanely stupid on the Cs part (if the Blazers could make that trade no reason the Cs couldn't). The whole drafting for need instead of simply taking the best player is how a lot of teams stay perennial losers. Of course as a resident of Portland I am particularly attentive to this phenomena:-)

Posted by Eric | February 1, 2007 6:10 PM