Net Rating

Net Rating is a basketball statistic that measures the point differential per 100 possessions between a team's offensive and defensive performance. The formula is: Net Rating = Offensive Rating - Defensive Rating. This metric combines offensive and defensive efficiency into a single number representing overall team quality, with positive Net Rating indicating a team outscores opponents per 100 possessions, and negative Net Rating indicating opponents outscore the team. Net Rating typically ranges from -10 to +10 for NBA teams, with elite teams exceeding +6, average teams near 0, and poor teams below -4. Developed as part of Dean Oliver's basketball analytics framework, Net Rating has become the single most predictive statistic for team success, correlating extremely strongly with winning percentage and serving as the primary metric for evaluating overall team quality. The metric's comprehensive nature and pace independence make it essential for team evaluation, strategic planning, and understanding basketball success. The mathematical foundation of Net Rating combines the two fundamental aspects of basketball performance: scoring efficiently and preventing opponent scoring. By subtracting Defensive Rating from Offensive Rating, Net Rating quantifies net efficiency per 100 possessions. A team with 115 Offensive Rating and 108 Defensive Rating posts +7 Net Rating, meaning they outscore opponents by 7 points per 100 possessions on average. Over a typical 100-possession game, this team would be expected to win by approximately 7 points. This simple but powerful metric encapsulates overall team quality in a single number, making it invaluable for quick team evaluation and comparison. The relationship between Net Rating and winning percentage shows remarkably strong correlation, typically exceeding 0.90 in statistical terms. Teams with positive Net Rating win more games than they lose, while teams with negative Net Rating lose more than they win. The correlation is nearly linear: each point of Net Rating corresponds to approximately 3.3 wins over an 82-game season. A team with +6 Net Rating would be expected to win roughly 20 more games than a team with 0 Net Rating, illustrating the metric's predictive power. This strong relationship makes Net Rating the most reliable single statistic for evaluating and predicting team performance. Historical Net Rating leaders include the greatest teams in NBA history. The 2016-17 Golden State Warriors posted +11.6 Net Rating, among the highest in NBA history, and won the championship with a 16-1 playoff record. The 1995-96 Chicago Bulls posted +11.8 Net Rating during their record-setting 72-10 season. The 2007-08 Boston Celtics posted +10.3 Net Rating en route to the championship. These elite Net Ratings reflect comprehensive excellence on both ends of the court, demonstrating the two-way dominance required for historically great seasons. Championship teams almost universally post Net Ratings above +5, with most exceeding +6, illustrating that title contention requires significant net efficiency advantages. The decomposition of Net Rating into offensive and defensive components provides insights into different paths to success. Some championship teams have won primarily through elite offense combined with good defense, while others have emphasized elite defense with good offense. The 2016-17 Warriors epitomized offensive dominance with historically great Offensive Rating and merely good Defensive Rating. The 2003-04 Pistons won the championship with elite defense and average offense. Both approaches can succeed if the combined Net Rating reaches championship levels. This flexibility demonstrates that teams can build around available talent and strengths rather than requiring specific offensive or defensive profiles. Regular season versus playoff Net Rating often shows important differences, as playoff basketball features increased defensive intensity, tighter officiating, and opponents specifically game-planning against teams. Most teams experience declining Net Rating in playoffs compared to regular season, with the magnitude depending on opponent quality and home court advantage. Elite teams maintain strong Net Rating despite playoff difficulty increases, demonstrating their ability to perform under heightened competition. Analysts often adjust playoff Net Rating expectations, recognizing that maintaining regular season efficiency against elite competition represents significant achievement. Individual player Net Rating (or plus-minus) attempts to measure a player's impact on team point differential while on court. However, individual Net Rating faces significant challenges in isolating personal impact from teammate quality and opponent strength. A bench player performing against opponent reserves might post excellent Net Rating without indicating individual ability comparable to starters facing tougher competition. More sophisticated plus-minus metrics like Real Plus-Minus and Regularized Adjusted Plus-Minus attempt to address these limitations through statistical adjustments. Despite imperfections, tracking individual Net Rating provides useful information about lineup effectiveness and player combinations. Lineup Net Rating measures point differential per 100 possessions for specific player combinations, providing insights into which lineups perform effectively together. Teams extensively analyze lineup Net Rating to optimize rotations and identify effective combinations. A starting lineup posting +15 Net Rating indicates exceptional performance, while one posting -5 Net Rating suggests serious issues requiring adjustment. Lineup analysis using Net Rating has become fundamental to coaching strategy, helping determine optimal player combinations and substitution patterns. However, sample size considerations are crucial, as small samples can produce misleading Net Rating values. The impact of strength of schedule on Net Rating requires careful consideration. Teams facing easier schedules may post inflated Net Ratings by dominating weak opponents, while teams facing difficult schedules may show depressed Net Ratings despite quality performance. Adjusted Net Rating metrics attempt to account for opponent quality, providing more accurate team quality estimates. Playoff performance often reveals whether regular season Net Rating reflected true team quality or schedule strength effects, as playoff opponents are universally strong. Net Rating's relationship to point differential shows near-perfect correlation, as both essentially measure the same concept in different units. Net Rating expresses differential in per-100-possession terms, while point differential uses raw per-game values. The possession-based approach of Net Rating provides better comparison across different pace environments and eras, making it superior for analytical purposes despite point differential's intuitive accessibility. Teams track both metrics but prioritize Net Rating for pace-independent evaluation. The use of Net Rating for in-season team evaluation helps identify overperforming and underperforming teams relative to their efficiency. Teams with winning percentages exceeding expectations based on Net Rating may be experiencing unsustainable luck in close games, while teams with records worse than Net Rating suggests may improve as close game luck regresses to average. This analytical approach helps distinguish between genuinely good teams and lucky teams, informing decisions about playoff probability and potential trade deadline moves. Roster construction increasingly emphasizes Net Rating impact when evaluating player acquisitions. Players who consistently post positive Net Rating across various lineup contexts demonstrate genuine impact on team success. Advanced front offices use sophisticated Net Rating analysis, examining player performance with different teammates and against various opponents, to identify players who will genuinely improve team efficiency. This analytical approach has influenced the player market, with teams willing to pay premium prices for players with demonstrated positive Net Rating impact. Coaching strategies explicitly focus on maximizing Net Rating through balanced emphasis on offensive and defensive efficiency. While coaches may temporarily emphasize one end based on personnel or situation, sustained success requires competence on both ends. The modern NBA increasingly features two-way excellence, with teams building rosters capable of elite performance on both ends rather than accepting major weaknesses. This trend reflects understanding that Net Rating, not offensive or defensive rating alone, ultimately determines success. The international basketball community uses Net Rating for team evaluation across leagues and competitions, though different competition levels and rules create different typical values. FIBA competitions and international leagues show similar principles, with Net Rating predicting success regardless of specific competitive context. International teams with positive Net Rating against comparable competition generally perform well, validating the metric's universal applicability across basketball ecosystems. The academic study of Net Rating has validated its predictive power and examined factors influencing its stability and variation. Research confirms Net Rating as the single most predictive team statistic, superior to win-loss record for evaluating true team quality. Studies examining Net Rating stability show that it becomes reasonably stable after 20-30 games, making it useful for mid-season evaluation and prediction. This research has strengthened Net Rating's credibility and informed how analysts interpret and apply the metric. The future of Net Rating in basketball analytics appears secure as the primary comprehensive team quality metric. While more sophisticated metrics provide additional nuances, Net Rating's combination of simplicity, comprehensiveness, and strong predictive power ensures continued centrality. The metric will remain fundamental to team evaluation, championship probability assessment, and understanding basketball success. As basketball evolves, Net Rating will continue serving as the single best number for answering the fundamental question: how good is this team?