From the Courts

Numbers on the Court: How ‘Negative’ Stats Affect Win-Loss Records

Photo by Jeff Wheeler/Zuma Press/Icon Sportswire

Most of the time, we focus on positive stats when it comes to dissecting the numbers in the NBA. Points per game, rebounds, assists, wins, etc., those are the predominant factors we pay attention to. But some “negative” numbers can draw a picture about a player or team that clearly shows why they are not having success. This week’s column will look at a few negative stats and how they may show why some teams are winning and others are losing.

The stats I chose to focus on are personal fouls, technical fouls, flagrant fouls, ejections and disqualifications… pretty negative stuff in a game when you think about it. I started with the following premise: Teams that have more personal fouls, technical fouls, flagrant fouls, ejections and disqualifications will be the teams with the worst records. And conversely, those that are lower on these lists will be the teams that are sitting near the top of the standings.

What I discovered was that there are some numbers to confirm that premise; but it was not the blanket correlation that I had expected. Let’s break it down by three categories (the stats and records reflect games through February 7).

Personal fouls: This was the one stat that clearly followed the pattern that I expected. Teams that ranked highest in the most personal fouls per game were lowest in winning percentage while those that ranked lowest in personal fouls per game were those teams that had the higher win/loss percentages. Here are the stats:

  • Teams that ranked #1-#10 in most personal fouls per game had a .445 winning percentage
  • Teams that ranked #11-#20 on the list had a .505 winning percentage
  • Teams that ranked #21-#30 on the list had a .550 winning percentage.

Boston and Phoenix topped the list with an average of 22.2 personal fouls per game; Miami was 30th on the list with 17.5. Of the 10 teams that had 30 or more wins this season (Cleveland, Toronto, Boston, Miami, Atlanta, Golden State, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, L.A. Clippers and Memphis), Boston, the Clippers and Memphis were the only three to appear in the Top 10 in this category.

Technical fouls: This category was the one that did not follow my premise. Here are the stats:

  • Teams that ranked #1-#10 in most technical fouls had a .530 winning percentage
  • Teams that ranked #11-#20 on the list had a .546 winning percentage
  • Teams that ranked #21-#30 on the list had a .424 winning percentage.

You could almost come to the conclusion that winning teams find a way to get more “T’s” than those teams that are in the bottom one-third in the league in wins. Is that possible? Are their players and coaches more adept at knowing when to get a technical and how it can change the flow of the game in their favor?

The Clippers topped this list with 57 technicals. Houston (51) and Milwaukee (50) followed. The Cleveland Cavaliers were last on the list with only 17 “T’s” this season. Of the 10 teams with 30-plus wins, only Golden State, the Clippers and Toronto are in the Top 10 in this category.

Flagrant fouls, ejections and disqualifications: Because the numbers were much smaller in these categories, I combined them into one stat. The Celtics topped the list with 18 (they have had 14 disqualifications) and they are the only team with 30 or more wins this season in the Top 10 in this list. Here are the stats:

  • Teams that ranked #1-#10 in most flagrant fouls, ejections and disqualifications had a .464 winning percentage
  • Teams that ranked #11-#20 on this list had a .444 winning percentage
  • Teams that ranked #21-#30 on this list had a .593 winning percentage.

It certainly appears that winning teams find a way to keep their players in the game. One great example is the San Antonio Spurs. The Spurs, who have the league’s second-best record, have not had a flagrant foul, ejection or disqualification this season.

Do these “negative” stats play a role in whether or not a team is successful? You be the judge!

Click to comment
To Top