clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

How bad is bad?

Below the fold is a handy-dandy chart comparing this year's squad to some of the lesser outfits of Wolves seasons past.  I hope you enjoy. 

In terms of overall suckitude, there are two golden standards for Wolvesdom: the 94/95 team led by Isaiah Rider and the 92/93 team led by Doug West and coached by Jimmy Rodgers and Sidney Lowe.  Unfortunately for current fans of the team, this year's squad is making a strong claim to the 2nd worst Wolves roster of all time and it may even have a chance to end the season as the lowest of low in Wolves history. 

What makes this year's team so historically bad is its efficiency score relation to the rest of the league.  Were it not for the New Jersey Nets, the Wolves would have a legitimate shot at having the league's worst offensive and defensive ratings along with a league-low SRS and Pythagorean W-L record.  They are also pushing the 94/95 squad for the worst efficiency differential in team history, which is primarily aided by a franchise low in eFG% differential.  

The driving force in this year's low results is the team's awful offense.  It is the worst offense in team history.  That's not exactly a resounding endorsement of Kurt Rambis' new system and no matter how long it may take for the players to adjust to a new way of playing ball, there simply isn't much in the way of saying that whatever they are doing on that end of the court, they aren't doing it well and it is a significant drop-off from last year's campaign (101.4 from 106.1).  Did I mention that this year's team has a franchise record eFG% differential? 

Compounding the all-time franchise worst offense is the fact that the team's defense is only marginally improved from last season's 111.4 defensive rating.  This year's team gives up an average of 110.4 points/100 possessions; hardly enough to make up for the nearly 5 point loss in offensive efficiency over a similar span of possessions.  

Taking a look at the chart, I have inserted a few additional scores to give you a sense of just how poorly this year's team has performed.  The Hoopus Suck Score is a combination of offensive efficiency, defensive efficiency, and SRS rankings for the entire league.  The best a team could do is a combined score of 3/90.  This year's squad posts an 85/90 and is pushing the 94/95 and 92/93 teams for Hoopus Suck Score percentage supremacy with a .944 average (compared to .975 for the Rider team and .95 for the Rodgers/Lowe mess).  

To give you an idea of how this stacks up to the class of the league, Cleveland has a Hoopus Suck Score of 12 out of 90, or a .137 percentage.  

The other score I put in the chart is a combined league ranking of the team's Four Factor success.  On this front, this year's team is doing a bit better compared to awful seasons past; coming in 4th place instead of 2nd to the 94/95 team.  

Of course the hope for this season is that the team is able to build on some of its player development (see Corey Brewer, Wayne Ellington, and Kevin Love) and that its historically awful performance leads to some success in the lottery/draft.  Will one of the 2 or 3 worst seasons in team history be worth it if they land the number 1 pick in the draft?  Is John Wall or Evan Turner worth 82 games of relatively awful performance?  We'll just have to wait and see.  

What say you?