After the Finals ended last night I sat down to write my thoughts on Game Four. Too many story lines came to mind, though, and rather than write these all out I just went to bed.
Today I am a bit short on time, so all I can do is offer thoughts on something I heard repeated throughout the Finals: The 2006-07 version of the Cleveland Cavaliers was the best team in franchise history.
Not the Best
Before the Finals began I posted the Wins Produced for the Cavaliers the past two seasons.
Table One: The Cleveland Cavaliers in 2005-06 and 2006-07
Cleveland’s Wins Produced in 2005-06 summed to 47.0. This past season the player’s Wins Produced summed to 51.3. So the Cavaliers did improve, but not by much. The only real difference between each version of this team was that Anderson Varejao produced 3.1 wins in 763 minutes in 2005-06 and 7.3 wins in 1,932 minutes this past season. The increased output from Varejao, which came about because he simply played more minutes, produced the small improvement we observed.
So how did the Cavaliers go from a second round exit in 2006 to the NBA Finals in 2007? One could simply reference the element of chance inherent in a seven game series. Certainly the Cavaliers defeating the Pistons in double overtime in Game Five of the Eastern Conference Finals reflected a fair amount of chance (a double overtime game can go either way).
Beyond chance, though, one has to note the Cavaliers apparent strategy entering the 2006-07 season. Rather than improve the team’s roster – which is the path teams typically follow when trying to getting better – the Cavaliers focused on making their competition in the East a bit worse. So LeBron talked Ben Wallace into leaving the Pistons for the Bulls. And the rest of the Cavs poked needles in dolls of Shaq and Flash, which resulted in the injuries that derailed the Heat’s effort to repeat. With the competition sufficiently weakened, the Cavaliers were able to give us the illusion that their team actually had improved substantially.
The numbers, though, tell us that this team did not improve very much at all. The team in 2006-07 was not much better than this team in 2005-06. And neither of these teams were the best in franchise history. The following table reports the top ten Cleveland teams – in terms of efficiency differential.
Table Two: The Best Cleveland Teams
The last two editions of the Cavaliers do rank in the top ten in team history. But the teams from the late 1980s and early 1990s – led by Brad Daugherty, Mark Price, and Larry Nance – were better teams. Unfortunately these teams played at the same time as Michael Jordan’s Bulls and the “Bad Boys” from Detroit. So the Cavs from that time period could never make it to the Finals.
The Best from Each Team
The examination of the best in Cleveland’s history led me to wonder which team was the best in each franchise’s history. The following table reports the best efficiency differential – in the regular season (playoffs are ignored) – for each franchise.
Table Three: The Best Team for Each Team
Although the 2006-07 edition of the Cavaliers was not Cleveland’s best team, this year’s edition of the Spurs was the best team in San Antonio’s history. San Antonio, though, was not the only franchise to offer their best in 2006-07. The Houston Rockets and Phoenix Suns also had their best team this past season (the Bobcats did also, but not sure that means much). Yes, two teams that could not even get to the conference finals were the best teams – in terms of efficiency differential – in their franchise’s history.
A few other items of interest from this list:
– the only franchise to have a positive efficiency in double digits is the Chicago Bulls. And the Bulls did it three times: 1991-92, 1995-96, 1996-97. Thirteen times a team has had a negative efficiency differential in double digits. Perhaps I should comment on that sometime in the future.
– only three of these teams won the NBA title. It’s important to remember that these are the best teams in each franchise’s history, not necessarily the best team in that particular year. For example, Utah’s best team in 1996-97 faced a Bulls team in the Finals that was even better.
– other than the Bobcats, the Clippers best team is the worst on this list. The best efficiency differential for a Clippers team is 1.7. Since 1974 there have been 316 teams to post a better mark than 1.7.
– the Nuggets and Wizards had their best team in the 1970s. Not sure what this means, but it’s something I noticed.
Okay, I best get to my work today. I hope to write more on the Finals this weekend.
– DJ
Vinny
June 17, 2007
Wages of Wins to the rescue! The beauty of the WoW model DJ is that it is rarely (dare I say never) at a lost for insight. Who would have thought that this year’s Cavaliers team was NOT the best?
Well, this year’s NBA finals got me to thinking as well, and my pondering was on position pairing. Specifically, I wondered whether the point guard and center position pairings account for a team’s WoW index
moreso than any other position —
or pairing/grouping? What led me to this question was the noticable advantage of winning teams such as the Spurs’ Duncan & Parker, the Heat (’06) Shaq & D. Wade, the team formerly known as Lakers — Shaq & Kobi, Magic & Jabbar, West & Wilt, the Pistons — Billups & Wallace, Isiah & Lambeer, the Celtics — Cousy & Russel, etc.
In fact, this pondering on position pairing got me to thinking about the two recent teams whose winning dominance did not seem to depend on the point guard and center pairing — Jordan’s Bulls & Bird’s Celtics.
After you rest up from the NBA Finals post traumatic sweep syndome … let me know if thes position pairing thoughts measure up in terms of WINS.
Vinny
June 20, 2007
Many Thanks DJ for the NBA Finals analysis, and for later delving into matters of the heart … when it comes to winning teams we love (aka the team formerly known as Lakers and the “Bad Boys” Pistons).
I want to make a couple of brief comments to follow up on the “position pairing” post made earlier. First, I was able to learn several relevant insights regarding positions and position pairing from the Spurs team examination and the walk down NBA Finals “memory lane” (Pistons and Lakers). The Spurs WINS are clearly led by a center/guard pairing of Duncan and Parker. The “Bab Boy” Pistons, it appears were in gact led in WINS by the center/guard pairing of Isiah and Lambeer. Yet, your analysis reveals just how significant Rodman was to the “back-to-back” Championship seasons (hair color aside). The “Showtime” screening not only affirmed the center/guard pairing as a dominant WINS factor, but also showed how much of a void in WP48 there really is between “true Lakers” and the team formerly known as Lakers.
Given these indications of a tendency towards center/guard “position pairings” to dominate in the player WP48 on the teams with the highest number of WINS (e.g., champions), can some general truism be found that the game of basketball is design patterned to favor teams with strong center/guard “position pairings.” Would, for instance and analysis of the top WINS teams show that the center/guard “position pairing” lead the WP48 for ay more than 75% of those teams? [NOTE: I am not requesting you to do such an analysis … just to speculate].
In other words, if we looked at the game of basketball like a software design, it is patterned to process WINS most efficiently when teams have a strong center/guard “position pairing” … the way say Football could favor a strong QB/RB “position pairing”? What I am getting at here, is whether (A) the teams with high WINS that did NOT have center/guard “position pairings” dominating their team’s WP48 ranking were led by players who were truly exceptional because they literally remade the game (e.g., Jordan and Bird — by speculation), and (B) teams with a strong guard without a strong center “pairing” (measured by WP48) — or strong center without a strong guard “pairing” are destined
to tread water without adding the other half of the “position pairing” that may be patterned into the game of basketball? This would suggest, for instance, that the lakers should look to make a deal for KG (Garnett).
Lastly, I omitted one essential center/guard “position pairing” from my selective memory that MUST be included to confer “street cool cred” — Willis Reed & Walt ‘Clyde’ (the essence of cool) Frazier!!! (what about that team for WINS that defied the NBA Finals odds, huh?)
As we say farewell to NBA basketball season, I’ll sign off as well.
Vinny
June 22, 2007
OK DJ … one last tid bit to add to my WINS “position pairing” posts regarding NBA championship teams. The Parker/Duncan pairing is included as
guard/center positions because in truth everyone knows they really are. The Duncan as a power forward is technically accurate but functionally incorrect since the exit of David Robinson. Duncan’s position may be power forward but he clearly performs as a center in terms of WINS “position pairings.”
Also, I believe that Labron James will eventually be
among the players like Jordan and Bird, whose
teams achieved championships or high WINS without guard/center “position pairings” for the top WP48 score … in other words players who literally change the game by winning outside of basketball’s design pattern.
Now, perhaps this “positions pairing” design could also guide the selection of a top WINS Team USA???