Comments on: Championship Usage Patterns II

By: EdG

EdG — Wed, 26 May 2010 21:23:22 +0000

Looking at the average post-merger, from '77 to present, the two top dogs split looks even more pronounced.
29.56 24.22 19.58 17.19 13.57

Not sure that making a split there (or somewhere else) is valid, but the game has changed since the days of Russell's Celtics so averaging over all champs would seem to flatten what's happening now.

By: David

David — Thu, 20 May 2010 21:13:40 +0000

Hmm, how about weighting things? I think the 2001 LAL squad had the most dominant playoff run ever. And they had 1a and 1b + "fluff". So the top tier playoff runs should maybe more inform the average? Also, by eyeball the "good" championships teams seems to have the a total of ~60 for the top 2...

By: Twiga

Twiga — Thu, 20 May 2010 20:53:12 +0000

I'm new to this advanced stat stuff, but do find it interesting (always thought the sexy stats really don't say much).. So who are the best players within their msa% and what would be the ultimate nba team and/or us national team based on this theory?

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 20 May 2010 01:57:56 +0000

Meh, Column three (#1 MSA%)

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 20 May 2010 01:57:24 +0000

Sort by column number one and you find the Alpha Dog being the Alpha Dog again.

By: Luke

Luke — Wed, 19 May 2010 21:20:49 +0000

This really doesn't have a whole lot to do with this post, but I thought of it after watching last night's game and wanted to mention it somewhere. Can we please stop referring to Pierce, Garnett, and Allen as "The Big 3"? I think the 2010 Celtics can much more adequately be described as "Rajon Rondo and the Medium 3"

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Wed, 19 May 2010 21:12:35 +0000

Remember, for every data point in that table, there are 10-15 that I didn't show (i.e., teams that didn't win the championship). The general trend is apparent from the regression on 700 teams -- between two teams with equal offensive skill levels, the one that's more balanced between its #2 & #3 options is less likely to win a championship.

By: JLK1

JLK1 — Wed, 19 May 2010 20:47:57 +0000

I'm not sure what to think here. Averages are ok but there is a lot of variance and the sample size is pretty small. Caveat: these are generic criticisms, and I'm not trying to say that statistical studies of NBA finalists are futile. In this case though, it might be good to compare these teams to NBA average, or teams with a losing record. Either way the variance makes me hesitant to draw conclusions from the averages. There are a good number of teams with the third guy at 15-16%, and a good number with the third guy over 20%. We sort of know intuitively that champions usually have a dominant player, a second all star, and beyond that it varies. These numbers confirm that idea but I don't see a lot else there.

By: downpuppy

downpuppy — Wed, 19 May 2010 18:57:36 +0000

The 1973 Knicks might never be beaten for flatness. The 1978 Bullets total under 100, which I suppose says you can win if you keep your mad bombers mostly on the bench.

The 2010 Celtics look a lot like the 1982 Lakers, only older.

By: izzy

izzy — Wed, 19 May 2010 17:06:41 +0000

Much better that part I, I'd say.