Comments on: Championship Usage Patterns III: Regular-Season Teams Built For the Playoffs

By: mrparker

mrparker — Sat, 22 May 2010 16:08:13 +0000

Cavs have a championship front court and an average backcourt. How many teams have won championships without a true all star in the back court?

In the past 20 years only the 99 spurs and 94/95 rockets had a backcourt devoid of all-star caliber players.

By: hk

hk — Sat, 22 May 2010 09:29:19 +0000

Jared Ras, Mo Williams has between 13-12 PER in his last two post-season runs. That's a pretty good hint of why they lost.

By: Jared Ras

Jared Ras — Sat, 22 May 2010 06:46:56 +0000

2 of the top 3 teams sorted by MSA #1 are the 2009 and 2010 Cleveland Cavaliers. I know they fit the algorithm, but isn't it possible they are too "top heavy"? LeBron James is either the last or second-to-last person to touch the ball probably more than any other player in the league. However, this also means that they aren't feeding their roleplayers and trying to distribute scoring. Of course, the remainder of the top 7 "top heavy" teams were Michael Jordan teams, so I guess it works out for the better sometimes too.

By: SD

SD — Sat, 22 May 2010 02:41:15 +0000

Distribution of shot attempts is part of it but I'd like to see this taken further to distribution of scoring potency distribution. "Efficient points scored" above league average attempts for a player X average scoring efficiency. Do it for the #1-5 or 7 guy using the same league averages for everyone or the average for that "slot". I think that probably matters more but probably important to be aware of both parts of the combination of usage and potency.

By: jeremy

jeremy — Fri, 21 May 2010 18:02:47 +0000

To sum up a little, more due to my lack of sleep than any lack of explanation by the poster....

If you exclude the 2010 Magic, there are 95 teams that meet your criteria in NBA history. Of these teams, 30 won the NBA title, 16 more lost in the finals and 24 more were final four participants (regardless of what the round before the finals was called at the time). So roughly 74% of the teams did reasonably well.

If you look at the 18 teams that were the only team that fit your criteria for their year, 10 won the title, 2 were finalists and 5 more were in the final four. Leaving only the 2004 Spurs as underachievers. Truly dominant teams? or lack of competition in that year?

Lastly, of the 57 teams that failed to win the title and were NOT the only team in their year to meet the criteria, 36 of the 57 were eliminated by another team who met the criteria. So in total, 66 of the 95 teams (70%) went as far they possibly could given the playoff structure.

Conversely, The 94 Knicks (12.8%), 2010 Cavs (11.9%), 98 Lakers (11.5%), and 91 Suns (10.6%) were the biggest underachievers based on your algorithm and the fact that they didn't get beat by another one of the qualified 95 teams.

Love the #'s. Keep the posts coming.

By: Anon

Anon — Fri, 21 May 2010 16:41:44 +0000

With all of the calls for Lebron's head on a platter in the basketball world recently, I wonder if these same people realize that you have to be pretty lucky to win a title? It's not a given by any means. It also helps a bit to have reliable go-to guys outside your star and good coaching for your team in the playoffs -- two things that LeBron didn't have.