Let’s cut to the chase. San Antonio is a better team than Cleveland.
We can see this clearly in the regular season numbers. In 2006-07 the Spurs scored 106.4 points per 100 possessions. The Cavs, meanwhile, scored 102.3. From this we see the Spurs are better offensively.
On defense the Spurs allowed 97.3 points per 100 possessions. The Cavs allowed 98.2. So the Spurs are also better on defense.
Wins in the NBA are determined by how well each team does on offense and defense. The regular season record tells us that Spurs are better at both ends, so it’s hard to see how the Cavs can be picked to win this series.
When we look at efficiency differential (offensive efficiency – defensive efficiency) this becomes even clearer. The following table ranks the 68 teams to reach the NBA Finals since 1974.
Table One: Efficiency Differential of the NBA Final Participants
On this list the Spurs rank 6th. Of the five teams that ranked higher, only the Jazz lost in the Finals. And that was because the Jazz played the second ranked team on the list, the 1996-97 Chicago Bulls.
The Cavs rank 53rd on the list. Yes, it’s possible to be ranked this low and win a title. But in this case, it seems unlikely. The Spurs have an efficiency differential of 9.1. Cleveland’s differential is 4.0. Since 1974, no team that is five or more off its opponent has managed to win the title.
Let me add that efficiency differential, by my count, seems to matter a bit more than won-loss record or home-court advantage. Since 1974, the team with the better efficiency differential has won 70% of the time. The team with the home-court advantage, again by my count, has only won 64% of the time.
There is much more I wish to say about this, but I am out of time today. Tomorrow I hope to comment on a few historic upsets that were really not upsets. I also wish to go through each team’s Wins Produced and note which players got the Spurs and Cavs to this point. In the process I hope to throw a bit of water on the drive to immortalize LeBron James. But again, all that will have to wait until tomorrow.
– DJ
Wages of Wins Journal 
Jason
June 6, 2007
No doubt that the Spurs are the better team.
The interesting thing about the Cavs is that they got there at all. I think their success is rather indicative of the importance of efficiency and how little differences can be important, far more important that simply scoring points.
The Cavs shot about the same percentage from the floor as their opponents (better on 3’s but not so good on 2’s), were poorer from the FT line (slightly more attempts, but slightly fewer made) and consequently, scored fewer points per FG attempt. They were less efficient offensively than their opponents once they got control of the ball. Normally, I’d expect this sort of result to be a middle-pack team. But Cleveland did two things that stand out: they won on the boards (3rd best offensive rebounding percentage, 2nd best defensive rebounding percentage) and they turned the ball over less often than they caused turnovers. Essentially, though they were marginally less efficient when they put up shots, they limited the number of shots their opponents took, either by getting the ball before a shot was taken or by making sure that their opponents only got one look while they were marginally more likely to get a second chance themselves.
It’s curious further that the Cavs almost NEVER either ‘played big’ going with all three of their big men (Varejo, Gooden and Ilgauskas) or went small, since all three of those guys were in the top 5 for minutes played for the Cavs. Lebron seems to have logged all of his minutes as a SF with two guards in the game smaller than him and two guys bigger than him in the front court, though watching him play, he’s wherever he’s needed most. I wonder if Lebron’s versatility helped stabilize this to some degree, making sure that their effective big men were almost always on the floor and well rested. But that’s just speculation. He’s fun to watch, more fun than the Spurs, even if the Spurs are the better team.
Brian
June 6, 2007
I think it owuld be interesting to look at Lebron James’ WP48 for the 17 minutes of Game 5, with the 4th quarter and OT. I would imagine it would exceed a full win. Lebron’s immortalization really stems from those 17 minutes, so it would be unfair to take him off his pedestal without directly addressing that period of time…And, as from an economics perspective, I can only imagine the positive impact having a megastar like James in the finals will have on ratings and general interest.
Okapi
June 7, 2007
Cavs won both head-to-head games this year. Spurs did better than Cavs in other 80 games apparently. Is head-to-head predictive at all? Yes, small sample (and Lucas Critique concerns, see http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/06/lebron_vs_san_a.html) but maybe there’s still some informational content to it. This is just anecdotal but there was w/ Warriors – Mavs series this playoff season.
disappointmentzone
June 7, 2007
Let this be the time when statistics and reason bump headfirst into fate. Go Cavs!
dberri
June 7, 2007
disappointmentzone,
Changing the name of your blog is going to be very costly. So you need to balance that cost with the happiness a title will bring you. Having seen the Pistons win three titles in my life I can tell you that in my experience, the happiness is somewhat fleeting. Of course, the utility derived from these events varies from person to person.
disappointmentzone
June 7, 2007
At this point I would gladly take one for all of Cleveland, even if it means the troubling possibility of coming up with a new blog name.
42 years is a terribly long time to go without winning anything (especially after coming oh so close so many times before; especially after the fairly illustrious teams of the first half of last century).