Strength of schedule/competition:
 

The top 4 in each Conference separated themselves and can be considered favourites vs the Clippers – who then lead a big group of teams fighting for a playoff spot (up until Chicago and Dallas).  I called this the ‘can-win/should-win-a-bit-more-than-half-the-games’-group of competition.

Then there’s a third tier of teams (should-wins) that weren’t easy to beat at some point during the season (Utah, Portland, Indiana, Washington). Orlando was a fringe team, I’ve included them in this group as they didn’t actively tank. Tier 4 are the tanking teams (basically must-wins).

Strength of schedule pre- and post-cut-off:
 

Tier 1: 14 of 58 games came vs top-tier competition pre-cut-off. This included almost all games vs the top4 in the East. 24.1% of games where Ls were likely. Record: 3-11. I expect a winning pace of .250 vs this group. 3-11 is .214, one win below expectations.

7 of the 21 games post-cut-off were vs this group, 33.3%. An additional difficulty stems from the fact that 5 of the first 8 games after the cut-off were vs elite competition, with 4 new rotation players to integrate. Zubac missing 3 of those 5, two of which vs the offensive hubs that Jokic and Sabonis are, was a major hindrance that turned those two games from a ‘likely to lose’ into ‘very likely to lose’. 1 of the 2 remaining is also vs Phoenix but it’s unclear whether Phoenix will be at full strength/compete hard so I ignored that one. Record: 3-4 (two losses in OT, one loss in regulation by a single point), a strong record vs elite competition, especially given how close the losses were and that Zu should have made a big difference in two of the games.

Tier 2, the tougher games vs teams fighting for the playoffs (expected record .550): 22 of 58 games until February 14, 37.9% of games. Record: a solid 11-11. Noteworthy: at one point, the Clippers were 4-10 vs tier 2 but then finished on a 7-1 run within the group, with 6 of those wins on the road. Furthermore, there are some shifts: New Orleans was stronger at the time (but missed Ingram vs the Clippers), Brooklyn was (but missed just about everyone in their home game due to the KD trade), Phoenix was weaker, Dallas was better.

Post-changes 12 of 21 games vs tier 2, 57.1% of games. Record: a very solid 7-5.

Tier 3, the should-wins: 10 of 58 early on, 17.2% of games. Record: 5-5. Seems underwhelming but context applies here: Utah and Portland were arguably still in group 2, possibly Indiana but at the lower end. Expecting a win pace of maybe .600 seems realistic here, only one win short.

2 of 21 games after February 14, 9.5% of games. Record: 1-1. A loss to Orlando and a win over Portland (who were still trying). Bad loss to Orlando.

Tier 4, the must-wins: 12 of 58 early on, 20.7%. Record: a flawless 12-0. I expect a winning pace of at least .850 here.

Post-cut-off: zero games vs tier 4…

Expected win totals relative to strength of schedule:

.250 over 14 games = 3.5 wins (3)

.550 over 22 games = 12.1 wins (11)

.600 over 10 games = 6 wins (5)

.850 over 12 games = 10.2 wins (12)

Expected win total first 58 games: 31.8 wins, rounded to 32-26. Team went 31-27. Had all 12 games vs the bottom-feeders as a massive advantage but also missed Kawhi some and played Utah, Portland and Indiana when they were still stronger. Grade: C to C-, slightly below expectations. 

After adding new pieces:

.250 over 7 games = 1.75 wins (3)

.550 over 12 games = 6.6 wins (7)

.600 over 2 games = 1.2 wins (1)

Expected win total after February 14: 9.55 wins. Team went 11-10 while pushing both Denver and Sacramento to the limit without Zubac and without having gelled yet (and with Morris still starting). Grade: B, overdelivered vs an extremely tough schedule and some injury absences (but having their best player available for more games and having added reinforcements).

Total win expectation at this point: 41.35 wins. The game I didn’t consider (Milwaukee without any kind of depth) is an expected L. Let’s round to 41.5. Actual wins: 42. Total grade: C.

I would have expected more going into the season. But we all expected Utah in tier 3-4, not 2-3, Sacramento at the lower end of tier 2, Indiana in tier 3-4, OKC in tier 3 and maybe 60 games each of PG and Kawhi, no?

What do you think? Fair or am I expecting too little?

Denver: owns tiebreaker over Memphis. Incentive to play hard: MVP race and rhythm. They play at Utah, then the Kings. Incentive not to: injury risk and a back-to-back with travel from Utah, the Lakers will have a detailed answer how devastating that can be.
Memphis: Kings own the tiebreaker over Memphis. Incentive to play hard: locking up the 2 seed and home court in the second round. They play at Milwaukee and at OKC. Bucks may rest players so this could help OKC and hurt Dallas’ odds.
Kings: they play the Warriors and at Denver. Incentive to play hard: chasing the 2 seed, maintaining rhythm, giving them even more confidence if they beat two strong opponents. Incentive not to: injury risk, especially as the Warriors may be desperate to avoid the play-in. Wouldn’t be shocked if they aren’t super-resilient vs Golden State. If they beat them though, they may have a real shot at 2nd and an active role in influencing their playoff matchup. Sacramento is one to pay close attention to.
Suns: Lakers and Clippers. Incentive to play hard: feud with everyone lol. Just kidding. The real incentive is to influence their playoff matchup. I assume they want to avoid the Warriors so IF the Warriors beat the Kings, they may want to lose both games, especially the Clippers game. Again, Warriors – Kings is a pivotal game (taking place 30 minutes earlier than Suns – Lakers).
Clippers: avoiding the play-in is the incentive, chance at 6th and avoiding the Suns another. That may change in the final game vs the Suns but they gotta go for the win vs Portland.
Warriors: same incentive as for Clippers. I highly doubt they want Memphis in the playoffs and Phoenix probably even less. Expect them to go all-out vs at least Sacramento.
Lakers: they want to avoid the play-in and get Bron and AD extra rest. Don’t think they fear Denver that much but playing possibly two play-in games would be awful. Kind of a feud with Phoenix, they’re gonna play hard – well, so far the theory, was off vs the Clippers as well lol. But again, scheduled loss and all…

From here it’s clearly all-out, except for Utah. I think Warriors is THE key game to watch, especially as it’s a road game for Golden State and a potential playoff preview.

Disclaimer: very long post, don’t bother if you don’t like those
 
Trying myself at a comprehensive evaluation of what fundamentally changed for the Clippers with the departures of John Wall, Reggie Jackson, Luke Kennard and Moses Brown and the additions of Eric Gordon, Russell Westbrook, Mason Plumlee and Nah’Shon Hyland. The purpose is to dive into team stats later after providing the necessary context  (this should pretty much be a forum post but that’s gone as I found out, therefore this way).

I’m undecided on the cut-off yet, whether it’s the 10th of February when traded players were missed, the 14th when Gordon, Hyland and Plumlee played their first game or the 24th when Westbrook did. Tending to the 14th here and that’s what I used for the health part of the equation. I excluded the Milwaukee game from either group as it pretty much fell victim to the trade deadline (former guys were out, new players not available yet, neither was Kawhi).

Health and played games:
 
To put things into perspective, I gotta start with relative health and relative strength of schedule/competition. Health first.

Kawhi: played only 32 of the first 58 games, a mere 55%.
             played 18 of the 21 games after that – 85.7% availability
PG13: 41/58 = 70.6%, 14/21 since = 66.7%
Zubac: 56/58 = 96.6%, 17/21 since = 81%
Mann: 57/58, then all games since, same availability but I assume his role has changed some which is noteworthy.
Morris: 50/58 = 86.2%, 14/21 since = 66.7%. Most deem it a positive that he’s out or at least not starting as his performance has dropped off significantly.
Batum: 55/58, all games since, very much no significant change here
Covington: 35/58 = 60.3%, 10/21 since = 47.6%
Powell: 48/58 = 82.8% while shooting 42% from deep, 9/21 = 42.9% since, while shooting 35.6% from 3, a very significant factor

Now how have the replacements performed?

Gordon: 20/21 games played, 44.9% from 3 on 5 attempts a game, arguably a better defender
Kennard: 35/58 games played, 44.7% from 3 on 3.8 attempts a game; safe to say that Gordon has been a significant upgrade (over a good role-player) who fills a bigger role as a scorer and a two-way player and has been more available
Plumlee: has played every single game; replaced a fringe rotation player in Brown with a solid vet who’s been a net neutral (vs tough competition, more see below) and has helped solidify lineups  big upgrade

People love to compare Westbrook to Wall. With regards to skillset and playmaking role, that’s the correct comparison. With regards to overall role (playmaking/scoring/leadership/minutes/games played) it’s Reggie Jackson imo so that’s where I’m going.

Westbrook: Russ has played 19/19, Jackson 52/58. In about 17% more minutes per game Westbrook has given the Clippers 40% more scoring, twice as many rebounds, more than twice as many assists, 3 times as many free throws, a better assist-to-turnover ratio and a significantly better field goal percentage while the difference in 3-point shooting and volume so far has been rather marginal (Reggie 35% to Westbrook 33.3%). I assume Reggie has been quite versatile whereas Westbrook has been extremely versatile in his role, whether it’s taking over and providing volume as a scorer or playmaker, filling in as a number 1 or 2 option, playing as a roll-man, setting screens, playing in the dunker’s spot, defending 1-4 – or being a glorified cheerleader down the stretch. That’s not to say Russ has succeeded at everything he tried, it’s to say he has been accepting of a lot of different roles on both ends and overall he’s been a significant upgrade, especially when the task is to fill a lead role offensively and provide the necessary volume.

Hyland: has played 12/21 = 57.1% of games with the Clippers. Wall has played 34/44 = 77.3% but as he was shut down after that, it’s technically correct and the fairer comparison to state he played 34/58 = 58.6%. Wall played slightly more minutes and probably had a slightly bigger role I reckon. Same field goal percentage, about the same scoring punch, Wall provided more assists and got to the line more, comparable defense at below-average. Wall had a solid to good assist-to-turnover ratio, Hyland has a very good assist-to-turnover ratio. Overall, Hyland still outplays Wall is the difference in volume from 3, percentages from 3, value as a floor-spacer and providing efficient offense is more important in Hyland’s role than what Wall could provide in his role. Imho and cautiously said as I didn’t watch a lot of Clippers games early in the season.

In conclusion I’d argue that the Clippers are better off post-deadline as I would prefer better health of Kawhi and upgrades across the board that provide better depth over better health for Zu and slightly more games from PG13 combined with better play from Morris and Powell. That’s also a factor which puts something like plusminus or net rating in perspective, the new acquisitions have it (a little) easier there. That being said, they have also done their own part and outplayed the guys they replaced.

I get you only play them like twice year, and probably at least one of those games one of the teams will be missing guys which makes it hard to get those kind of all out heavyweight wins. Maybe all teams have the same feeling and just don’t see teams go all out during the regular season anymore. But I just can’t think of many for the Clippers which has always worried me.