RealGM

I am curious on the OFFensive Rating for the Chicago Bulls in
1995-1996. At first it was listed at 115.8 which was the highest ever and now it is listed as 115.2. What new calculation has been added? And who has the highest Offensive Rating Ever now?


They Wrote:
I changed the way I estimate possessions for the team. Instead of
just using the team's stats, I average the possession estimates for
the team and their opponents. This gives a more stable estimate.
Here's the top ten:

+---------+---------+---------+
| year_id | team_id | off_rtg |
+---------+---------+---------+
| 1987 | LAL | 115.6 |
| 1992 | CHI | 115.5 |
| 1988 | BOS | 115.4 |
| 1996 | CHI | 115.2 |
| 1995 | ORL | 115.1 |
| 1987 | DAL | 114.9 |
| 1995 | SEA | 114.8 |
| 1991 | CHI | 114.6 |
| 1995 | PHO | 114.5 |
| 2005 | PHO | 114.5 |
+---------+---------+---------+

Bgil wrote:So where's the Denver team that used to put up 125+ every night?

Bgil wrote:So where's the Denver team that used to put up 125+ every night?

JordansBulls wrote:Not sure many of you know this but the team offensive ratings have been changed on Basketball-Reference. The highest rating before was listed at 115.8 and two teams had 115.7, but now the new ratings look a little different on basketball-reference.

Here is what I asked them.

I am curious on the OFFensive Rating for the Chicago Bulls in
1995-1996. At first it was listed at 115.8 which was the highest ever and now it is listed as 115.2. What new calculation has been added? And who has the highest Offensive Rating Ever now?


They Wrote:
I changed the way I estimate possessions for the team. Instead of
just using the team's stats, I average the possession estimates for
the team and their opponents. This gives a more stable estimate.
Here's the top ten:

+---------+---------+---------+
| year_id | team_id | off_rtg |
+---------+---------+---------+
| 1987 | LAL | 115.6 |
| 1992 | CHI | 115.5 |
| 1988 | BOS | 115.4 |
| 1996 | CHI | 115.2 |
| 1995 | ORL | 115.1 |
| 1987 | DAL | 114.9 |
| 1995 | SEA | 114.8 |
| 1991 | CHI | 114.6 |
| 1995 | PHO | 114.5 |
| 2005 | PHO | 114.5 |
+---------+---------+---------+

So this seems to be a bit more accurate.

Doctor MJ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



It is indeed far more accurate than PPG, but there's still room for debate. Notice how everyone in the top 9 played in basically the same era. In fact in that era, offenses on the whole reached their all time peak in effectiveness. But consider: This means that defenses reached their all time worst in that era. So this effect could have been caused by: offenses doing well, defenses doing badly, or some combo of the two, not to mention that its possible offenses did so well in that era because of outside factors (enforcement of rules at the time). All this comes down to: The best measurement for how good an offense is might be its deviation over contemporaries rather than literal offensive efficiency.