Welcome to the Most Dominant Playoff Tournament... Click here for more info!

Since WhatIfSports doesn't have a "neutral court" option for the NBA, I decided to make each matchup a 2-3-2 best-of-7 series to lessen the impact of HCA (home teams win 60% of the time in any 1 game, but only 53.2% in a 7-game series). Here are the opening-round series from Pool A (click on series links for game-by-game box scores):

#8 '69 Celtics vs. #9 '05 Spurs
Game 1: 69BOS 127, 05SAS 122
Game 2: 05SAS 110, 69BOS 89
Game 3: 05SAS 128, 69BOS 96
Game 4: 05SAS 117, 69BOS 90
Game 5: 05SAS 111, 69BOS 101
(2005 Spurs Win Series 4-1)

#5 '72 Lakers vs. #12 '00 Lakers
Game 1: 72LAL 122, 00LAL 103
Game 2: 00LAL 120, 72LAL 110
Game 3: 72LAL 113, 00LAL 109
Game 4: 00LAL 130, 72LAL 95
Game 5: 00LAL 119, 72LAL 116
Game 6: 72LAL 113, 00LAL 112
Game 7: 00LAL 133, 72LAL 127
(2000 Lakers Win Series 4-3)

#4 '83 76ers vs. #13 '53 Lakers
Game 1: 83PHI 111, 53MNL 85
Game 2: 83PHI 106, 53MNL 81
Game 3: 83PHI 106, 53MNL 89
Game 4: 53MNL 116, 83PHI 94
Game 5: 53MNL 100, 83PHI 93
Game 6: 83PHI 105, 53MNL 85
(1983 Sixers Win Series 4-2)

#3 '85 Lakers vs. #14 '52 Lakers
Game 1: 85LAL 118, 52MNL 102
Game 2: 85LAL 120, 52MNL 88
Game 3: 85LAL 125, 52MNL 92
Game 4: 52MNL 113, 85LAL 103
Game 5: 85LAL 101, 52MNL 89
(1985 Lakers Win Series 4-1)

#6 '03 Spurs vs. #11 '75 Warriors
Game 1: 75GSW 109, 03SAS 96
Game 2: 75GSW 112, 03SAS 101
Game 3: 03SAS 119, 75GSW 95
Game 4: 03SAS 99, 75GSW 87
Game 5: 03SAS 107, 75GSW 101
Game 6: 03SAS 116, 75GSW 105
(2003 Spurs Win Series 4-2)

#7 '90 Pistons vs. #10 '08 Celtics
Game 1: 90DET 103, 08BOS 90
Game 2: 90DET 105, 08BOS 95
Game 3: 90DET 130, 08BOS 120
Game 4: 08BOS 95, 90DET 84
Game 5: 08BOS 115, 90DET 92
Game 6: 90DET 106, 08BOS 98
(1990 Pistons Win Series 4-2)

#2 '67 Sixers vs. #15 '76 Celtics
Game 1: 76BOS 141, 67PHI 114
Game 2: 67PHI 134, 76BOS 130
Game 3: 67PHI 128, 76BOS 119
Game 4: 76BOS 149, 67PHI 142
Game 5: 67PHI 113, 76BOS 106
Game 6: 67PHI 132, 76BOS 110
(1967 Sixers Win Series 4-2)

Two weeks ago, I posted about the most dominant NBA teams of all time over the course of the entire season, and the results basically featured the usual suspects: the '96 Bulls, the '71 Bucks, the '86 Celtics, etc. However, I didn't have the 2001 Lakers on the list because they weren't dominant for the entire season -- because of some injuries (and because they felt they could "flip the switch" on when they really needed to), L.A. sleepwalked through the regular season, winning "just" 56 games after scorching the league to the tune of 67 in 2000 (they had to rattle off 8 straight at the end of the season to take the Pacific by a single game over Sacramento). They finished the regular season as the 2nd seed in the West behind San Antonio, and had the league's 6th-best SRS, hardly the stuff of a juggernaut... But in the playoffs, they were indeed able to flip the switch, unleashing a ridiculously dominant performance against Portland (#5 in SRS), Sacramento (#2), San Antonio (#1), and finally Philadelphia (#7), a run marred only by a single defeat in Game 1 of the Finals.

Read the rest of this entry »

Note: This post was originally published at College Basketball Reference, S-R's brand-new College Hoops site, so when you're done reading, go over and check it out!

As much fun as the next few weeks will be, I think we can all acknowledge that the NCAA Tournament field does not represent the 64 best D-I basketball teams in the country (nor does it represent the 64 most "accomplished" teams in the land, however you want to define that). Automatic bids to teams from small conferences give the tourney a feeling of equality and tiny schools a chance to shine on a big stage, but the most talented team in the NIT field would still be favored by a wide margin against many of the NCAA Tourney's lower seeds. I'm not complaining about this reality, mind you, and I certainly don't begrudge the NCAA for giving an opportunity to small-conference and mid-major teams. But do you ever wonder what the NCAA field would look like if it did only include the 64 "best" or "most accomplished" teams in the nation?

Read the rest of this entry »

My colleague Doug Drinen of Pro-Football-Reference runs one of these things every year, and this time he's offered to keep track of scoring updates for a pool of our own here at BBR, which is awesome. First prize is I will do a post on the NBA player or team/season of your choice. Oh, and also honor and glory. What follows are Doug's rules:

Each team has a price, listed below. Pick as many teams as you want, as long as the total price stays at 100 or less. The winner will be the entry with the most total wins by all teams in the entry. First tiebreaker is greatest number of 16 seeds, second tiebreaker is greatest number of 15 seeds, etc. No point will be awarded for winning the play-in game.

Enter by putting a comma-delimited string of team numbers in the comments, like this:

3,8,12,14,...

which would correspond to Baylor, Duke, Georgetown, Gonzaga, etc. It doesn't matter what order you put the teams in. I will try to check all the entries to make sure they're legal, but I make no guarantees. It's your responsibility to make sure your entry is legal. Deadline is tipoff of Thursday's first game.

1 = (16) Ark.-Pine Bluff 1
2 = ( 7) BYU 7
3 = ( 3) Baylor 11
4 = ( 5) Butler 5
5 = ( 8) California 4
6 = ( 7) Clemson 4
7 = (12) Cornell 2
8 = ( 1) Duke 15
9 = (16) East Tenn State 1
10 = (10) Florida 2
11 = ( 9) Florida State 4
12 = ( 3) Georgetown 10
13 = (10) Georgia Tech 4
14 = ( 8) Gonzaga 3
15 = (13) Houston 1
16 = ( 1) Kansas 20
17 = ( 2) Kansas State 12
18 = ( 1) Kentucky 14
19 = (16) Lehigh 1
20 = ( 9) Louisville 3
21 = ( 6) Marquette 6
22 = ( 4) Maryland 8
23 = ( 5) Michigan State 7
24 = (11) Minnesota 3
25 = (10) Missouri 4
26 = (14) Montana 1
27 = (15) Morgan State 1
28 = (13) Murray State 2
29 = ( 3) New Mexico 8
30 = (12) New Mexico State 1
31 = (15) North Texas 1
32 = ( 9) Northern Iowa 3
33 = ( 6) Notre Dame 4
34 = (14) Oakland-Mich. 1
35 = ( 2) Ohio State 10
36 = (14) Ohio University 1
37 = ( 7) Oklahoma State 4
38 = (11) Old Dominion 4
39 = ( 3) Pittsburgh 8
40 = ( 4) Purdue 8
41 = ( 7) Richmond 3
42 = (15) Robert Morris 1
43 = (10) Saint Mary's 4
44 = (14) Sam Houston St. 1
45 = (11) San Diego State 3
46 = (13) Siena 2
47 = ( 1) Syracuse 15
48 = ( 5) Temple 7
49 = ( 6) Tennessee 5
50 = ( 8) Texas 6
51 = ( 5) Texas A&M 6
52 = (15) UC Santa Barbara 1
53 = ( 8) UNLV 3
54 = (12) UTEP 4
55 = (12) Utah State 3
56 = ( 4) Vanderbilt 6
57 = (16) Vermont 1
58 = ( 2) Villanova 12
59 = ( 9) Wake Forest 2
60 = (11) Washington 3
61 = ( 2) West Virginia 13
62 = (17) Winthrop 1
63 = ( 4) Wisconsin 8
64 = (13) Wofford 1
65 = ( 6) Xavier-Ohio 6

Sponsoring a page is fun, fast, and easy way to support what we're doing here at Basketball-Reference. With a sponsorship, you can:

• Show your support for your favorite player or team.
• Drum up traffic for your own site & draw in fans with a common interest.
• Get some well-deserved recognition for your support of BBR.
• Make your voice heard by the tens of thousands of people who visit Basketball-Reference every day.

Here's all you have to do to get involved:

1. Create a membership account.
2. Find the page(s) you'd like to support, and click "sponsor" (available pages).
3. If the page you want is already sponsored, click "Alert Me!" to be informed when the current sponsorship expires.
4. Follow the instructions to create your message and make your payment.
5. Your message and links will be visible on the page after we approve them (usually in less than 24 hours).

And who knows, if you're clever enough, your message might end up on lists like these.

Note: This post was originally published at College Basketball Reference, S-R's brand-new College Hoops site, so when you're done reading, go over and check it out!

Some random thoughts on the 2010 bracket...

• San Diego State over Tennessee looks like a tempting 11-over-6 upset pick. Tennessee ranked just 35th in Ken Pomeroy's ratings (our personal faves here at BBR, since they're based on offensive/defensive efficiency and the work of Dean Oliver), while SDSU was 40th. ESPN's play-by-play sim gave the slightest possible edge to Tennessee (51% to 49%), but this is close enough to be a great value pick because a 6-11 matchup shouldn't be this close.
• Another 11-over-6 I like? Washington vs. Marquette. Pomeroy had Washington 29th, and Marquette 28th; ESPN's sim actually sees UW as a pretty solid favorite. The only thing working against an upset is the pace matchup -- underdogs will typically play a slower pace than the favorite prefers, but Washington is a significantly faster-paced team than MU.
• ESPN's play-by-play simulation really likes Washington. If they make it past Marquette, it sees them as strong favorites against New Mexico as well. Then again, NM was overseeded by a pretty large amount; they ranked just 47th in Kenpom's ratings. Washington could be the 11 seed most likely to advance to the Sweet 16.
• Of course, there's always Minnesota: the Gophers (Kenpom #25) are facing Xavier (#22) in the first round, and ESPN's analysis of similar past matchups and simulation results favor Minnesota pretty solidly. Potential 2nd-round opponent Pitt ranked 30th in Kenpom and 32nd in Sagarin's Predictor (MIN was 21st), so don't be surprised if Minnesota is another 11-seed in the 3rd round.
• Super Cinderella of the 2010 tourney: ex-bubble team Utah State. Despite anxiety about getting into the field, they ranked 20th in Kenpom's rankings and will face Texas A&M (#23) in a 1st-round matchup they should be favored in (ESPN's sim has them at nearly 60% win probability). Round 2 would bring either an overmatched Siena team (Kenpom #58) or a depleted Purdue squad that's missing their best offensive player, Robbie Hummel. 12-seeded Utah St. actually looks somewhat likely to make the round of 16.
• BYU over K-State, anyone? KSU was 9th in Pomeroy's ratings... but BYU was 7th. BYU and their strong offense won 60% of ESPN's simulated matchups. K-State looks overvalued despite strong play in the B12 tourney.
• Other 1st-round "upset" specials: St. Mary's over Richmond, No. Iowa over UNLV, Georgia Tech over Oklahoma State (no bias here -- Tech is 27th in Kenpom, OSU is 44th), and Florida St. over Gonzaga
• Do I dare take Wisconsin over Kentucky in the Sweet 16? Everyone loves UK but the 32-2 Cats aren't as much better than the 23-8 Badgers as you'd think (if they're better at all). UK was one of the nation's luckiest teams in outperforming Pythagoras (20th biggest difference in the country), while Wisconsin was one of the unluckiest (235th biggest differential). Kenpom has Wisconsin 3rd in the nation, Kentucky 6th, and ESPN's sim had Wisconsin winning 54% of the time. I'm wary of Wisconsin after a similar pick burned me in 2008, but if you're feeling ballsy, the Badgers could help separate you from your pool opponents, all of whom likely took UK.
• BYU to the Final Four! Syracuse is 5th in Kenpom and BYU 7th, but 'Cuse could still be dealing with an injured Arinze Onuaku when this matchup comes around. ESPN's sim likes Brigham Young over the Orange to the tune of 58%. It's the darkest-horse Final Four pick that's still fairly reasonable.
• What to do about Duke? They've looked really good this year. They're #1 in the country by Pomeroy's ratings, #2 by Sagarin's predictor. In a hardly-threatening bracket, they should be one of the first teams you pencil in for the Final Four. But they're still Duke, ousted in Round 1 in 2007, Round 2 in 2008, and Round 3 in 2009, 2006, & 2005. I always get burned by these guys, but I can't help myself from picking them. They're a Final Four pick for me again, even though it goes against my better judgment.
• For all the marbles, I like Kansas. KU was first in Sagarin's predictor, and 2nd in Kenpom behind unreliable postseason performer Duke. They've only lost twice all year, and unlike Kentucky they weren't inordinately lucky in close games. I put my faith in Kansas in 2003 and was foiled in the championship game, but they rewarded me for picking them in '08, and it's time to go with the Jayhawks again. Rock Chalk!

Rising: Bobcats (W-LAL, W-GSW, W-MIA, W-@PHI), Bucks (W-@WAS, W-CLE, W-BOS), Thunder (W-@LAC, W-@SAC, W-NOH)
Falling: Raptors (W-NYK, L-PHI, L-@LAL, L-@SAC), Bulls (L-DAL, L-UTA, L-@ORL), Celtics (W-@PHI, W-WAS, L-@MIL, L-MEM)

(Want to know how the BBR Rankings are calculated? Read this first... "MLE" = Maximum Likelihood Estimate.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Note: This post was originally published at College Basketball Reference, S-R's brand-new College Hoops site. All of the data used here can be found at S-R/CBB, so when you're done reading, go over and check it out!

On Tuesday, I kicked off our CBB/BBR cross-posting series by looking at coaches who "changed the culture" of a program, guys whose winning percentages at a school far exceeded its mark before they arrived. The usual suspects were at the top of the list (John Wooden, Jim Calhoun, etc.), and so was John Calipari for his performance at UMass during the 90s. Trouble is, did Coach Cal really change the Minutemen forever? Or, as BBR reader "Downpuppy" put it:

"UMass is on the list twice, but both times the culture snapped back to mediocrity pretty quick."

OK, so maybe a "culture change" has to extend beyond the coach's actual tenure with the school, and also into the tenures of later coaches, who build on their successor's changes to take the school to new heights. After all, it's not really a true culture change if the program only loses the stench of mediocrity for 5 years while a coach uses the school as a stepping stone to his next gig.

Read the rest of this entry »

This is another stab at something I've worked on for years -- the idea is to take the performance for each team in the Four Factors, and find teams with similar profiles in the past to determine how teams of that ilk eventually do in the playoffs. Here's the methodology:

1. Calculate the Four Factors for each team on offense and defense (technically, I guess that would make it Eight Factors, but whatever).
2. Calculate the Z-score for each team's factors by subtracting the league average and dividing by the league's standard deviation.
3. Compute the difference between the two teams' z-scores and square it... Do this for all 8 factors.
4. Add the squared differences together, weighted by the following: Offensive & defensive eFG% --> 0.2 each; offensive & defensive TOV% --> 0.125 each; offensive & defensive ORB% --> 0.1 each; offensive & defensive FT rate --> 0.075 each.

Read the rest of this entry »

Note: This post was originally published at College Basketball Reference, S-R's brand-new College Hoops site. All of the data used here can be found at S-R/CBB, so when you're done reading, go over and check it out!

In the media, you often hear about certain players or coaches "changing the culture" of a program, ostensibly meaning they fostered a new atmosphere in the locker room, installed a new playing style, or gave their players newfound confidence in themselves. But has anyone measured which coaches "changed the culture" of a school's hoops program the most?

Read the rest of this entry »