Game 7 In The NBA Playoffs: Home-Court Advantage Is Overstated. (Filipino Version)

Tulad ng NBA playoffs ay puspusan, duda walang ikaw ay pagdinig dose-dosenang mga clichés hagis sa paligid sa pamamagitan ng mga commentators. Ang pinaka-nanggagalit klisey ay na ang mga bahay ng koponan ay nanalo Game 7 ng serye karamihan ng oras. Since 1991, ang tahanan ng koponan ay 36-10, isang .783 porsyento manalo. stat na ito ay palaging nagdala up nang hindi ilagay sa tamang konteksto; bilang kung sabihin sa pagkakaroon ng Game 7 sa bahay nagiging sanhi ng isang team na manalo. Gayunman, hindi ko na marinig ang isang komentarista sa banggitin na ang team na may bahay-hukuman kalamangan ay may isang mas mahusay na rekord at karaniwang ay ang mas mahusay na koponan anyway. Gusto One inaasahan sa kanila na manalo ng isang Game 7 sa bahay o sa kalye. Sa artikulong ito, ako ay subukan upang malaman kung gaano karaming mga Game 7s ay won sa pamamagitan ng mga koponan ng bahay higit sa lahat dahil sila ay sa bahay. 
Ang talahanayan sa ibaba sumusubok na makakuha ng mga sagot sa naunang tanong.Ang mga pangunahing saligan ng talahanayan ay na ang mga mas kalsada nanalo may mga sa isang serye, mas mababa ang bahay-hukuman bentahe bagay. hiwalay ko 1-4 Games Games mula sa 5-7 dahil ang huling tatlong laro ng isang serye ay karaniwang mas malubha kaysa sa unang apat at bahay-hukuman bagay bahagyang, ngunit pa rin mas malaki sa huling tatlong laro. Since 1991, sa Games 1-4 ang kalye team wins 32% ng oras habang sa Games 5-7 daan ang nanalo 25% ng oras. I rate, sa isang apat na point scale, ang probabilidad ng mga home team winning Game 7 higit sa lahat dahil ang mga ito sa bahay. Ang apat na kinalabasan ay: Oo, malamang mangyari, nagdududa, at Hindi. Ito ay scale malayo sa perpekto, ngunit ito ay lilitaw sapat na upang tapusin na Game 7 bahay-hukuman kalamangan ay overstated
Narito ang dalawang halimbawa ng kung paano table ang gumagana: Ang 2004 serye sa pagitan ng Miami at New Orleans ginawa kalye walang panalo, kaya ito ay magiging ligtas na sabihin na ang home team won Game 7 dahil sa mga bentahe home hukuman; Ang 2003 serye Detroit-Orlando ginawa ng dalawang nanalo kalye, Detroit winning na Game 7 ay mas malamang dahil sa kanila sa pagiging isang mas mahusay na team kaysa dahil sa bahay-hukuman bentahe. Ang talahanayan sa ibaba ay nagpapakita ng mga labing isang serye unang-round na napunta sa Game 7 dahil ang unang round pinalawak na sa 2003.


                                                                First Round:
Ang tahanan ng koponan won 9 ng 11 Game 7s, ngunit kung paano marami sa mga nanalo 9 ay higit sa lahat dahil sa bahay-hukuman bentahe? Ayon sa mesa, lamang 5 ng 9 nanalo ay hindi bababa sa maaaring dahil sa mga bahay-hukuman kalamangan lamang. Na nangangahulugan na ang 4 ng 9 wins bahay-team marahil ay walang kinalaman sa bahay-hukuman bentahe. Home-hukuman bentahe, hindi bababa sa unang round ng playoffs, tila lubos na overstated.


 

                                               Conference Semi-Finals:
                               
Ang tahanan ng koponan won 17 ng 23 Game 7s, ngunit kung paano marami sa mga 17 nanalo ay higit sa lahat dahil sa bahay-hukuman bentahe? Ayon sa mesa, lamang ng 11 ang 17 ay nanalo ng hindi bababa sa maaaring dahil sa mga bahay-hukuman kalamangan lamang. Iyon ay nangangahulugan na 6 ng 17 wins bahay-team marahil ay walang kinalaman sa bahay-hukuman bentahe. Home-hukuman bentahe sa Conference Semifinals ‘Game 7s, lumilitaw na overstated, tulad ng ito ay sa unang round ng playoffs.



                                            Conference and NBA Finals:

Ang tahanan ng koponan won 10 ng 12 Game 7s, ngunit kung paano marami sa mga 10 nanalo ay higit sa lahat dahil sa bahay-hukuman bentahe? Ayon sa mesa, lamang 6 sa 10 wins ay hindi bababa sa maaaring dahil sa mga bahay-hukuman kalamangan lamang. Na nangangahulugan na ang 4 sa 10 wins bahay-team marahil ay walang kinalaman sa bahay-hukuman bentahe. Home-hukuman kalamangan sa mga Conference at NBA Finals ‘Game 7s, lumilitaw na overstated, tulad ng ito ay sa unang round at conference semifinals ng playoffs.


Related Posts:





Advertisements

Dallas-Miami Game 5: A Rare Offensive Show In The Finals.

In tonight’s Game 5, Dallas and Miami both shot at least 50% from the field; this feat has been accomplished only 4 other times since the 1991 Finals.  This was a beautiful game to watch; it was more about great shooting than about poor defense.  Oddly enough, every one of the other instances involved the Lakers; it’s probably just a product of them making the Finals seemingly every other year.
Related Posts:

The NBA Playoffs: Does Defense Really Improve? (Part 2 of 3)

Disregard this article; it needs to be corrected. Sorry for the bad link.


This is the second part of a three-part series on defense in the NBA Playoffs.  We often hear from NBA analysts that defense improves, or at least intensifies between game 82 of the regular season and Game 1 of the playoffs.  It seems intuitive enough, the playoffs start and there’s a lot to play for: pride, fame, and winning the ‘chip.  The table below compares and contrasts defensive performance in the regular season and the playoffs during the 1990s.  The two metrics used in this comparison are Pace (Possessions Per 48 Minutes) and Offensive Rating (Points Per 100 Possessions).

For the 1990’s as a whole, the pace of the game slowed down by 4.0% in the playoffs, and the Offensive Rating decreased by 1.7%.  This result shows that there were fewer points scored in the playoffs, mostly because of the slower pace being compounded by the decrease in offensive rating.

Notables Facts About The 1990s:

Unlike the 1980s, there was evidence of defense becoming better in the playoffs in the 1990s.  The pace in the playoffs slowed down by 4% in 1990s, more than the 3.5% in the 1980s.  While the 1980s’ playoff offensive efficiency was no different than the regular season, the playoff offensive efficiency during the 1990s decreased by a small, but significant 1.7%.

The regular season pace decreased in 9 of 10 years in the 1990s.  Anyone who watched the NBA in 1990s knows that when the Bad Boy Pistons came to prominence, the league became progressively slower and a great deal of physical play was allowed until the “Derek Harper rule was instituted.(Unofficially around ’97 or ’98 and than officially in 2001)

Only two years in the 1990s saw an increase in offensive rating during the playoffs; those increases were only .1% and .2%.  Part 1



Related Posts:





Dirk With A Ring: Better Than The Ringless Wonders, Ewing, Malone, and Barkley?


Does Dirk jump ahead of Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone, and Charles Barkley on the all-time greats list if he wins a ring this year? In other words, does winning a single championship necessarily make one superstar better than another superstar who hasn’t won?   
The Bulls, Lakers, and Spurs have dominated the last 20 years; as a result, some players have been denied rings that they may have won otherwise.  The table below is an attempt to distinguish between the guys who should have won a championship and just had some bad luck and the guy who just didn’t get it done in the playoffs.   I measure them using something called “Consolation Points”; the player who loses to the eventual champion in the first round gets 1 point, second round gets 2 points, conference finals gets 3 points, and NBA finals gets 4 points.  I had to make the “superstar cutoff” somewhere, so I only included guys who had met one of the following criteria:  20,000 career points, 8,000 career assists, a career average of 20 points per game, or a career average of 8 assists per game.  The cutoff could be made at many different milestones, but I don’t think they’re unreasonable.  Defensive stats are conspicuously absent from the criteria; that is because in the context of talking about great players and winning championships, almost all the talk is about offensive players, Bill Russell notwithstanding.

I don’t think Dirk moves ahead of Ewing and Malone if he wins a ring.  I do think he is already of Barkley just by virtue of making this year’s finals; Barkley has lost to the eventual champ only once in the Conf. Finals or later.  However; my eyes, heart, and those Right Guard commercials still say choose Barkley over Dirk.


  
Some Notables About The Table:

Jason Kidd is third on the list.  I’m rooting the most for him to win this year; he is a winning player.  Nobody was beating the Lakers and Spurs during early 2000s – except for the Lakers and Spurs.

The top seven guys on this list kept running into dynasties; they all lost to the Lakers, Spurs, or Bulls at least once.  Malone, Ewing, Kidd, and Stockton really got hit hard against those dynasties; each of these guys would have a ring if not for Jordan, Shaq/Kobe, or Duncan.

Jordan’s Bulls almost single-handedly prevented 3 all-time greats from winning a ring, that’s greatness.

The guys in this year’s finals; Kidd, James, Nowitzki, and Bosh, each get 4 points for this year.  Obviously 2 of these 4 guys won’t be on this list anymore.

Of the top 10, three of the players really squandered golden opportunities: Malone, Ewing, Nowitzki lost to teams they probably should have beaten, the 2004 Pistons, the 1994 Rockets, and the 2006 Miami Heat, respectively.  In this just-ended 20-year era of dynasties, a player has to take advantage of every opportunity.

Only 38 players met the criteria to make this list; the table lists the top 20 players.  Four of the remaining 18 players have no “consolation points”:  Walt Bellamy, I don’t know enough about him to form a opinion; Gilbert Arenas, not a winner; Tracy McGrady, not a winner; and Chris Paul, it’s too early in his career.
 
Dominique Wilkins, Vince Carter, and Tim Hardaway have less than 4 “consolation points”:  I was surprised by Tim Hardaway; I saw him as a winning player, but his Miami days were only a small portion of his career.  Vince Carter has never really been thought of as a winning player, no surprise there.  Dominique was never seen as a winning player either and he had many chances to play to the NBA Champ; the Sixers, Pistons, and Celtics won 5 championships in seasons beginning in the 80s.  I have to cut him some slack though; the East was tough in the 80s. In addition to those 5 championship teams, he had to deal with the early to mid 80s’ Bucks and the mid to late 80s’ Bulls.

Other Posts:

http://theresastatforthat.blogspot.com/2011/03/nfls-new-kickoff-rules-are-they.html

http://theresastatforthat.blogspot.com/2011/03/duke-vs-north-carolina-their-last-5-acc.html

http://theresastatforthat.blogspot.com/2011/03/carmelo-what-has-he-done-to-knicks.html

http://theresastatforthat.blogspot.com/2011/03/kobe-bryants-shot-selection-driving.html

Heat-Bulls: The Biggest Turnaround Of The Past 30 Years


With the Game 5 win in Chicago, the Heat completed the biggest turnaround for an Eastern Conference Champion in at least 30 years; they have had the best regular season to playoff improvement against their CF and CSF opponents.  Their regular season record against their conference semifinals and conference finals opponents, the Celtics and Bulls, was a combined 1-6.  Winning in 5 gives them a .658 improvement in win percentage, from .142 to .800.  The table below ranks the improvements of the last 30 Eastern Conference Champions.

Table Notables:
Ten of these teams had losing regular season records against their CSF and CF opponents.
Five teams had worse records in the playoffs than the regular season.



Other Posts:


The NBA Playoffs: Does Defense Really Improve? (Part 3 of 3)

Disregard this article; it needs to be corrected.  Sorry for the bad link.

This is the third part of a three-part series on defense in the NBA Playoffs.  We often hear from NBA analysts that defense improves, or at least intensifies between game 82 of the regular season and Game 1 of the playoffs.  It seems intuitive enough, the playoffs start and there’s a lot to play for: pride, fame, and winning the ‘chip.  The table below compares and contrasts defensive performance in the regular season and the playoffs during the 2000s.  The two metrics used in this comparison are Pace (Possessions Per 48 Minutes) and Offensive 

Rating (Points Per 100 Possessions).
For the 2000s as a whole, the pace of the game slowed down by 2.3% in the playoffs, and the Offensive Rating decreased by 2.7%.  This result shows that there were fewer points scored in the playoffs, mostly because of the slower pace being compounded by the decrease in offensive rating.


Notables Facts About The 2000s:

The drop-off in offensive production from the regular season and playoffs was greater than the 1980s and 1990s.  

There were no years in the 2000s where the offensive rating or pace increased in the playoffs.

The last 5 years, 2007-2011, have been an era of increasingly stingy playoff defense.

The playoff pace decreased the least in the 2000s even as the playoff offensive rating decreased the most.

The conclusion that should be reached based on the tables is that playoff defense is better relative the regular season and has been becoming increasingly better from the 1980s to the present.  I originally thought it was analysts not looking deep enough into the stats. Why has playoff defense improved more as time progressed? I can’t really explain it.  Any ideas?


Related Posts:





The NBA Playoffs: Does Defense Really Improve? (Part 1 of 3)

Disregard this article; it needs to be corrected. Sorry for the bad link.

This is the first part of a three-part series on defense in the NBA Playoffs.  We often hear from NBA analysts that defense improves, or at least intensifies between game 82 of the regular season and Game 1 of the playoffs.  It seems intuitive enough, the playoffs start and there’s a lot to play for: pride, fame, and winning the ‘chip.  The table below compares and contrasts defensive performance in the regular season and the playoffs during the 1980s.  The two metrics used in this comparison are Pace (Possessions Per 48 Minutes) and Offensive Rating (Points Per 100 Possessions).


For the 1980’s as a whole, the pace of the game slowed down by 3.5% in the playoffs, but the Offensive Rating remained the same.  This result shows that there were fewer points scored in the playoffs, but the sole reason was that the pace of the game slowed down; playoff offense operated with the same efficiency as that of regular season. 




















Some Notable Facts About The 1980s:

At least in the 1980s, there was little evidence of correlation between the change in pace during the playoffs and the change in offensive efficiency.

In 1981, the playoffs were played at a 7% slower the pace than the regular season; the largest drop-off in the 80s.

In 1985, both the pace of the game increased and offensive efficiency improved, by 1.2% and .8%, respectively. 

In 1987, playoff pace decreased by 2.6%, but was almost made up for with the 2.1% increase in offensive efficiency.





Related Posts:








Game 4: The Lakers Showed Their True Colors.

This edition of the Lakers has shown what they’re really made of; no closeouts on Dallas’ three-point shooters, and no defensive intensity led to their record-setting 36-point defeat.  Additionally, I don’t think Odom’s and Bynum’s behavior are reflective of the Lakers organization, but it sums up what’s been going on with the Lakers all season.    
In the above table, a strong defending NBA champ is defined as one that is a 1 or 2 seed in the playoffs.  Dallas’ win over the Lakers today puts them in position to reach the NBA Finals.  Since 1981, there have been 9 “strong” defending NBA champs beaten in the playoffs the next season, and they lost their final game by an average margin of 9.9 points.






Related Posts:

Is Boston Really In Trouble? Ok, Maybe They Are.

Boston has a tough task ahead of them in Game 3 and for the rest of the series.  Being down 2-0 in a series, even when you have games 3 and 4 at home, leaves a team with a slim chance to win the series.  NBA analysts have been saying that Boston shouldn’t worry, since a series doesn’t really start until someone loses at home.  I tend to believe that too, but the stats don’t bear that out.  In the 40 2-3 matchups in the playoffs since 1991, only eleven have seen the higher seed/home team win the first two games of the series.  Therefore, an analyst can’t really say that higher seed is supposed to win the first two games at home; as it has only happened 28% of the time in 2-3 matchups.  But there is hope for Celtics fans and Heat haters:  in 2 of those 11 instances, the team down 2-0 has won the series, and in 6 of the 11 the series has gone to at least a game 6.  If the Celts can get it to a game 6, you can throw all these stats away; because then anything can happen.


Related Posts:

http://theresastatforthat.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-to-beat-miami-heat-click-image-to.html

http://theresastatforthat.blogspot.com/2011/02/where-will-troy-murphy-end-up-whoever.html

http://theresastatforthat.blogspot.com/2011/03/kobes-shot-selection-driving-ability.html

http://theresastatforthat.blogspot.com/2011/03/blog-post_15.html

http://theresastatforthat.blogspot.com/2011/03/carmelo-what-has-he-done-to-knicks.html

Lakers-Mavericks: Why Haven’t They Played More In The Playoffs.

An interesting stat came to mind as the Lakers/Mavs series is set to start.  Kobe and Dirk have never played each other in the playoffs.  The table below tries to find out if this quirky stat is because they just missed playing each other in some years or because they weren’t on track to play each other.  The table assumes that the Western Conference Playoffs go chalk, or all the higher seeds win their series.  An example of how the chart works is:  If the playoffs went according to the seeding, the Lakers should have played Denver 3 times, but only played them twice.   

I think the real interesting stat is not that the Lakers and Mavs haven’t played each other in the playoffs during the Kobe-Dirk era, but that they were only expected to play once in the 9 times that they have been in the playoffs together.  No other Western Conference team had as many common playoff appearances with Lakers, with as few expected matchups with the Lakers.

Related Posts:

http://theresastatforthat.blogspot.com/2011/05/youth-vs-experience-in-nba-playoffs-who.html

http://theresastatforthat.blogspot.com/2011/04/growing-from-cubs-to-grizzlies-memphis.html

http://theresastatforthat.blogspot.com/2011/04/sweep-revenge-how-teams-bounce-back.html

http://theresastatforthat.blogspot.com/2011/04/playoff-sweeps-some-are-worse-than.html

http://theresastatforthat.blogspot.com/2011/04/game-7-in-nba-playoffs-home-court_17.html