The NBA is one of the most successful in the world, but there are also plenty of reasons why the league is not without its problems.

The analytics community has been calling for better metrics for years, and it’s not just the players.

For every great coach, there are plenty of others who have struggled.

In the NBA, the most important metrics are wins, losses, and wins by five or fewer points.

It’s a simple, straightforward formula, but it’s hard to understand how it’s possible to have a perfect correlation.

There are a lot of reasons the numbers are so skewed, but the big one is that a lot more of the games are played on smaller and slower courts than the NBA has historically.

That has a lot to do with the way the NBA is built.

The NBA uses its league offices to play games on smaller courts.

If a team is playing a game on a larger court, they need to get all their players together on the same court.

It takes a lot longer to play on a smaller court, which makes the NBA feel more competitive.

The results are clear: teams that win on smaller court games tend to win more games.

The only problem is that the NBA doesn’t always use the best technology to measure that competitiveness.

Teams that play smaller games tend not to win those games either.

That means that while the stats are a very important metric, the data isn’t that useful in predicting wins.

As a result, some of the NBA’s best teams have struggled to win on larger courts.

The Warriors have won a lot on smaller teams, but they haven’t won many games on the smaller courts either.

The Thunder have struggled on a few smaller teams over the years, but in recent years they’ve won a large majority of their games on a large court.

The Lakers have had a good run on smaller, but a very poor run on large, court-size games.

When it comes to the data that the analytics community is looking for, it’s clear that there’s a problem with how the NBA uses the data.

There’s a lot that the statistics don’t tell us about how teams are playing.

The numbers aren’t as good as they could be for a variety of reasons.

But there are a few key trends that the stats tell us: The average score for games on small courts is about a point higher than it would be on larger ones.

That’s because smaller courts have fewer defenders, and smaller players tend to get fouled more.

The number of points per game on small-court games is also higher than on large ones.

Smaller teams tend to shoot better from 3-point range.

It seems like the statistics are telling us that teams are shooting better from the floor, but we’re not seeing the same results in the court-floor data.

When we look at the data, it looks like the bigger the court, the more effective a team’s shot is.

That seems to be the result of some combination of players’ size, defensive assignments, and the fact that smaller courts are often smaller.

This is a simple idea, but sometimes it’s harder to follow than you might think.

The stats aren’t perfect.

Teams on small court teams are often playing more defensively than they should be.

The league has been experimenting with defensive metrics for quite some time, and there have been some good results.

The new defensive ratings look to take the existing statistics and adjust them to more accurately capture how teams play on the court.

This makes the stat a better indicator of the effectiveness of a team, and thus a better predictor of how good teams will be.

In general, these adjustments don’t affect every team’s overall shot differential, but that doesn’t mean that a team with a lower defensive rating will score more.

For instance, the Warriors are ranked fifth in defensive rating, but their defensive rating is the third-highest of all teams.

That is, they have a lower percentage of their points allowed on the offensive end of the court than most teams.

The same is true for teams that are ranked first, second, and third.

But that’s not the case for teams ranked eighth, tenth, and eleventh.

The teams that have the best shot differential are those that are among the bottom 10 percent of defensive rating.

That makes sense: a team that has a high defensive rating on a small court, but is also playing more than a decent defensive team on a big one, is likely to have worse shooting percentages on both the offensive and defensive ends of the floor.

This helps explain why teams ranked third, eighth, ninth, and tenth have the lowest defensive ratings.

But teams that rank first, fifth, and sixth have the highest defensive ratings, and teams that ranked tenth, twentieth, and twenty-fifth have the third and fourth highest defensive rating scores.

This shows us that there are several things that can change the shot differential on a team.

First, a team might have a defensive rating that is lower than what it should be on a given court. If