Ian Thomsen stated the following yesterday at SI.com:
I’m not going to say that the Cavaliers are incapable of upsetting the Spurs — not after watching them put down the supposedly unbeatable Pistons. If LeBron James turns out to be the best player on the floor, and if his teammates knock down shots like the Warriors did to Dallas, then the biggest Finals upset in 30 years (going back to the Trail Blazers’ 1977 win over Philadelphia) is possible.
The part of this quote I wish to focus on is the last two lines. According to Thomsen, the Cavs beating the Spurs will be the biggest upset since Bill Walton and the Trail Blazers defeated Dr. J and the Philadelphia 76ers.
Let me re-post the following table, which reports the efficiency differential of every Finals participant since 1974.
Table One: Efficiency Differential of the NBA Final Participants
From this table we see that the Spurs in 2006-07 posted a 9.1 efficiency differential. The Cavs only offered a 4.0 differential. In other words, when we look at efficiency differential we see that the Spurs were much better than the Cavs in the regular season.
Now let’s head back to 1977. When we look at the Philadelphia 76ers from that season we see a team that scored 98.5 points per 100 possessions while surrendering 94.9, which gives us a differential of 3.5. So the Sixers from 1977 – a team lead by Dr. J, George McGinnis, World B. Free, and Doug Collins – had a lower efficiency differential than the current edition of the Cleveland Cavaliers.
The 76ers that season – with a bevy of scorers – was considered a great offensive team. But Portland in 1977 scored 100.0 points per 100 possessions. Yes, Bill Walton’s team was the better offensive team. Furthermore, Walton’s team only allowed 95.0 points per possession, so it was virtually the same defensively. With an efficiency differential of 5.0, it looks to me like the Trail Blazers should have been favored thirty years ago.
The 1977 Finals seems quite similar to the 2004 series, which we discussed in The Wages of Wins. In 2004 the Western Conference was represented by the LA Lakers, who had a differential of 4.1. Their opponent was the Detroit Pistons, who had a mark of 6.4. Yet, despite these numbers, it was the Pistons who were the underdog.
When we look at 1977 and 2004 we see the same story. In both cases a team with a number of “stars” took on a team lacking in star power. Or put another way, a team with a collection of scorers took on a team without as much scoring power. For example, the 76ers in 1977 had four players average at least 15 points per game (Erving, McGinnis, Collins, and Free) while the Blazers only had two +15 scorers (Walton and Maurice Lucas). In 2004, the Pistons were led in scoring by Rip Hamilton who only averaged 17.6 points per game. The Lakers had Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O’Neal, Karl Malone, and Gary Payton. These four players each had several seasons in their careers when their scoring average topped twenty per game.
In each case, the media seemed to focus on the quantity of scorers available and simply concluded that the team with the most must be the favorite. Unfortunately, as is often stated in this forum, wins are about more than scoring. When we consider both offensive and defensive efficiency, we can see that that championships won by Portland in 1977 and Detroit in 2004 were not historic upsets. In fact if either lost, that should have been considered a mild upset.
Looking at Cleveland in 2007 we see that the Cavaliers have the most prolific scorer. And I think this has led some people to argue that Cleveland has a chance to pull an upset. Although it’s certainly possible that Cleveland could win this series, it would indeed be an historic upset if that happened.
Let me close by adding that Cleveland defeating the Pistons in the Eastern Conference Finals was also not an historic upset. Consider the following table, which reports the efficiency differential of every team in 2006-07.
Table Two: Efficiency Differential in 2006-07
As this table indicates, Detroit ranked 6th in the NBA this season with a differential of 4.6. Cleveland was ranked 7th with their mark of 4.0. Yes, Cleveland winning was an upset. But to call Detroit “unbeatable” seems like a bit of an exaggeration.
– DJ
Wages of Wins Journal 
Huey
June 7, 2007
Two surprises:
1. You correctly used the article “an” in your title.
2. The Pistons should’ve been favored in 2004 by your argument.
I’m curious what the Spurs’ efficiency differential was in ’04, since the Lakers managed to win four straight games off of them.
dberri
June 7, 2007
Huey,
In 2004 the Lakers beat the Spurs in 6 games. They lost the first two in San Antonio, won the next two in LA, then won game 5 in San Antonio by one point. In game 6 they closed it out in LA.
That year San Antonio had an efficiency differential of 7.9, so they were the better regular season team.
By the way, is it “an historical” or “a historical”? Spelling and grammar ain’t my strong points.
Pacifist Viking
June 7, 2007
“In each case, the media seemed to focus on the quantity of scorers available and simply concluded that the team with the most must be the favorite.”
In 2004, I don’t think it’s that the media “simply” concluded more scorers meant a better team. The context of the Western Conference’s domination and the Lakers’ three championships in recent years made the Lakers “look” like the favorite.
Of course, as your statistics find, that wasn’t the case: the ’04 Lakers had lost a lot of their good role players from the ’00-’02 teams, but a lot of people didn’t really notice that. I know I thought the Lakers would win simply because the Eastern Conference had appeared so inferior in previous years.
By the way, did anybody call this year’s Detroit team “unbeatable”? That certainly wasn’t a consensus opinion, if anybody was saying that. I’d agree it would be an exaggeration to call them “unbeatable,” but I’m not sure many people were calling them that!
dberri
June 7, 2007
Pacifist Viking,
The “unbeatable” statement came from Ian Thomsen (quoted at the top of the post). Not sure anyone besides Thomsen thought the Pistons were unbeatable. But he said it, so I thought I should note that the Pistons really were not much better than the Cavs.
Pacifist Viking
June 7, 2007
That’s fair, though he was referring to “the supposedly unbeatable” Pistons–meaning he was the one referring to some vague entity that apparently thought the Pistons were unbeatable.
Pacifist Viking
June 7, 2007
Forgive me: I’m bonkers about syntax (I’m an English teacher, and by the way, as far as I know “an historical” is correct). But it was Ian Thomsen’s syntax that should have struck me first. It’s a lot easier to call a team “supposedly unbeatable” after it is defeated; I wonder if Thomsen can cite anybody who actually called the Pistons were “unbeatable” prior to the series.
Pacifist Viking
June 7, 2007
OK, I looked at Thomsen’s archives. Here are some things he said about Detroit in a previous article:
“No team with a better chance of winning the championship is more ignored or less appreciated than the Pistons.”
“Now his Pistons are being written off for their failure to pummel Orlando in their current first-round series. […] Such is the evidence that Detroit is headed down the same ambivalent alley as last year. Speculation has it that Chicago, Miami, Cleveland or New Jersey will be able to exploit the Pistons’ telltale failure to finish games early and often.”
“A year ago they were everybody’s favorite; now they’re an afterthought.”
So a few weeks after writing about how everybody was writing off/underestimating the Pistons, he then calls them “supposedly unbeatable” after they are defeated. Which is it? Were they underrated/overlooked, or were they thought to be unbeatable? That’s why his vague claim of perceived unbeatability (which I first attributed to you–sorry) struck me as so odd–after the fact, he acts like people thought the Pistons were great, whereas beforehand, he wrote about how everybody underrated the Pistons.
It’s one of the things writers do that bothers me: presenting a supposedly widely held idea without actually attributing it to anybody (often through the use of passive sentences). Thomsen does it when claiming Detroit is being written off, and he does it again in calling them supposedly unbeatable.
He also wrote a column about how the Cavs would be tough to beat, and then after game one of the Detroit-Cleveland series, wrote a column analyzing what the teams would have to do to win the series and predicted Detroit in 6.
I know this is a stats site: sorry for getting analytical of the language. I just wanted to explain why I found that “unbeatable” line so odd–but that’s Thomsen’s fault, not yours.
dberri
June 7, 2007
PV,
Your comment reminds me of an idea I had some time ago. Someone should go through the coverage of the playoffs and see how often the story from the same writer changes. For example, when the Pistons were up it was clear they had LeBron’s number. Then LeBron’s team won, and LeBron was the next Jordan. I haven’t read the coverage from tonight, but now I bet someone will say how much LeBron still has to learn. When he wins, LeBron is unstoppable. And he stays “unstoppable” until he is stopped. Which leads us to the conclusion that LeBron can only be stopped when he is stopped.
MT
June 11, 2007
Very interesting. But, boy, Golden State beating
Dallas was quite an upset!