Editor’s Note: Nicholas Yee sent along this wonderful post in June, soon after the NBA Finals concluded. But the editor of this forum – who appears to be worthless – never got around to posting what Nicholas sent along. That error has now been rectified and the editor has promised to try harder in the future (of course, promises, promises…).
Nicholas Yee, is a Computer Science graduate of Ryerson Univerity, 2006. He was born in Kingston, Jamaica, and developed into a Celtics fan because of his family’s love for the team. He had a hard time being Celtics fan because he had to live through the death of Reggie Lewis, the “loss” of Tim Duncan, the Rick Pitino years, and the loss of the Oden/Durant sweepstakes. He’s currently living in the Toronto area, but is apathetic to the local Raptors.
Much has been said of the amazing run that the Boston Celtics had during the 2010 NBA Playoffs. Famous Celtics fan Bill Simmons himself predicted that the Celtics would lose in the first round to the Miami Heat. This was based predominately on the facts that he felt the Celtics were a disappointing regular season team, and that the team with the best player, always wins the series. While in theory, this makes some sense (if my best player is better than your best player, and all others are equal, then my team is better), it appears that this year, the Celtics became the exception (Wade: 0.291 vs. Rondo: 0.290). And then again (James: 0.401). And again (Howard: 0.376).
Looking back at each series, most of the Celtic victories can be explained very simply via Wins Produced. Boston was the better team than Miami in the regular season, Jermaine O’Neal had a terrible series, and Boston had home court.
Versus Cleveland, as has been discussed, Maurice Williams was terrible, and Rondo was amazing. LeBron underperformed a little, and Cleveland mismanaged their minutes.
Orlando was another regular-season upset, since again, the Celtics did not have home court advantage. However, a couple of Orlando’s main players underperformed, namely Dwight Howard, and Vince Carter.
Finally, the post season reverted back to the regular season, as the Lakers defeated the Celtics in 7 games.
As a Celtics fan, this run was unexpected. While the Celtics were a 60 win team the last two seasons, they fell to only a 50 win team this year. Typically 4-seeds, do not make the NBA finals. Some of the reasons for the Celtics defeating these 3 Eastern Conference teams have been noted, but also, the fact that each playoffs series is only 7 games, allows for some random “noise” to produce a string of results as above. Let’s take a look at the regular season numbers for this year’s team.
As you can see, the team who is known as the Big 3 (+1), is really the Big 2 (Star players are 0.2+). Also, if you compare the team to last year’s version…
You can see that even the Big 2, were not as good as they were last year when the team won 62 games. Last year, by Wins Produced, they were both Superstars. This year Rondo fell just short of that mark, while Garnett fell well short. Paul Pierce had a gentle decline, while Ray Allen had a significantbig drop. Leon Powe’s minutes went mainly to Sheldon Willams (good), and Rasheed Wallace (not so good), costing the team about 5 wins, or about half of the total difference between the seasons.
Rasheed came into this season with high expectations. He was previously the starting PF on the 2004 NBA Champion Detroit Pistons. Some experts had projected him having the biggest impact of all of the signings in the off-season. However, Rasheed Wallace is 35 years old and far removed from his NBA prime. So his poor season was not completely unexpected. Rasheed posted a WP/48 of 0.079 in 2008-09, which was a good number for a 34 year old. However, it seemed that year 35 was not as kind to Wallace, as his WP/48 dropped to -0.038. This mainly was because of a drop in rebound rate, and his poor 3pt shooting.
Beyond just aging an extra year, Ray Allen, 34, did not shoot as well as he did last year either. Now, it is important to note that it was not that Ray Allen didn’t shoot well relative to NBA standards, as he posted his 3rd highest TS% of his career. However this was a decline from last season in which he posted his highest TS% ever. Most of this decline stemmed from his drop in 3 point shooting percentage. Ray had a bit of an outlier season in 08-09, so this was more a regression to the normal than anything else. Ray Allen was able to stay very productive, despite most of his athletic marker rates (rebounds, steals, blocks, FTA) dropping the last few years. He has been in a steady decline over the last few years, but his great shooting season from last year made this decline smoother.
Garnett , 33, saw his rebounding numbers drop from his previously unworldly levels the day he came to Boston, and they saw further decline this year. While he has shot a higher percentage from the field as a Celtic than he did as a Timberwolf (I think the Maple Leafs have defied grammar for the sake of bad writers like me), he no longer gets to the line as often, and thus his TS% remains about the same. He also saw a big decline in blocks this season. Another issue, remains his inability to stay on the floor. Always a leader in minutes played with Minnesota, Boston have “saved his legs” during the regular season. The 10% bump he saw in MPG in the playoffs, would have added another 1.2 wins to his regular season projections, adding in the fact that it could take away minutes away from Rasheed and Big Baby. Plus, further wins could have been gained from his increased health. However, part of the reason aging is bad for NBA players, is because it results in an increased risk for injury.
Paul Pierce, 32, on the other hand actually shot a better percentage this year, but faced a decline in his rebounding numbers. His overall productivity drop-off was slight, but it should be noted that he aged well this year all things considered.
Okay, let’s simply summarize. All of this discussion leads to one conclusion: The Boston Celtics are an old team.
Up until this point, I’ve stated some of the more obvious observations about the Celtics team from this year. But I’d like to point out a couple of other possible reasons that could explain their performance for 2009-10.
One unexpected reason for the Celtics 12-game drop-off, was Eddie House. I say unexpected because very few prognosticators mentioned Eddie House being a reason why the Celtics could or could not win 60 games. Last year House, 32, produced almost 5 wins, while posting a TS% of .592. This mark was a career high, eclipsing his previous high of .536. Eddie House had an amazing season last year shooting the basketball (especially for a guard who does not get to the free throw line). As he fell back down to earth — his .527 TS% with the C’s was just a little above his .506 career mark — so did his Wins Produced. Even after he was traded (basically) for Nate Robinson, Nate only produced about one win for the Celtics. These two players combined to equal a loss of about four wins for the Celtics at the backup PG position this year.
So while the Celtics are getting older, a big contributor to their decline in performance was the loss of Leon Powe (about 5 wins), and the decline/trade of Eddie House (about 4 wins).
I’ve also included the Celtics playoff numbers below. I’ll discuss where the Celtics can go from here based on these numbers, in a later post.
Finally, I just wanted to add a comment about the finals. Much commotion has been made of the rebounding numbers, or Rajon Rondo’s in ability to shoot, being the reason as to why the Celtics lost in 7 games to the Lakers. But I approach this a little bit differently.
My explanation is very similar to what I noted here; the Celtics did not have their shots fall in game 7. Via Wins Produced, the Lakers were the favourites, and they also had home court advantage; but in reality, if the Celtics had hit a couple shots down the stretch against the Lakers, they would be the NBA champions. Then very few would have written about the age of the Celtics, and instead people would be discussing their experience carrying them through their playoff push. What most teams attempt to do, is either build a team that is far superior to all others in the league – very difficult – or you can build a team comparable to the other top teams, and take your chances with luck. The Celtics were only able to build a team who when managed correctly, could compete with the other leading teams in the league. Essentially, their luck ran out in the Staples Centre.
– Nicholas Yee
some dude
July 13, 2010
“but in reality, if the Celtics had hit a couple shots down the stretch against the Lakers, they would be the NBA champions.”
had the Lakers shot their FTs at their average rate, this would have been negated.
And the Lakers shot very poorly too…
Anyway, the celtics in the post-season ramped up their defensive pressure quite a bit. They were clearly sandbagging the 2nd half of the season.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=6237
Boston was the 4th biggest defensive improvement team in NBA history from season to playoffs entering the Finals and 2nd most overall.
ilikeflowers
July 13, 2010
Ray Allen’s horrendous series was the reason the C’s lost the title – he was just missing good looks – and of course losing Perkins for game 7 led to Gasol’s extra-monstrous game.
Rockets fan
July 13, 2010
Don’t you do WS a disservice by claiming a player who had a .001 advantage over another player was, in fact, better? Surely we all concede that there is some margin of error to the system. The real debate is over how big it is, not whether it exist. I really like WS and think it is much better than everything else out there. But this fake precision is the one thing that really annoys me.
arturogalletti
July 13, 2010
ILS,
Perk and his knee changed all the defensive matchups and cost them the game. Dammit.
some dude
July 13, 2010
One could argue Bynum’s knee is the only reason Lakers needed 7 games to win.
And Sheed actually had a good game in game 7 where Perk’s offense had been horrible.
Alvy
July 13, 2010
Feels good man.
arturogalletti
July 13, 2010
Alvy,
I’m so doing a Kobe duckface at you right now.
Cynthia A
July 13, 2010
The Celtics did have a pretty amazing season. I’m not a super avid sports fan and just sort of happened to stumble upon this. I’ve never seen the stats broken down like that. It makes one have to think.
some dude
July 13, 2010
arturro, http://i26.tinypic.com/2yv3ryp.jpg
thought you’d appreciate that. :D
arturogalletti
July 13, 2010
SD,
:-)
Italian Stallion
July 13, 2010
I can’t see the Celtics coming out of the east next year. I think last year was their final serious run. The most interesting question about next year is seeing how the defense fairs without Tom Thibodeau. That’s what got them into the finals this year.
Nick
July 13, 2010
@Rockets Fan:
It’s not fake precision. I really was just debunking that silly theory. By WS you would conclude that Wade & Rondo were essentially equal. But there is that crazy myth, that the BEST player always wins. See arguments as to how Kobe is better than LeBron. Trust me, I know that one rebound over the course of a season, doesn’t make one player better than another.
@some dude:
Yes, IF the Lakers had hit their free throws. But the fact of the matter is that they didn’t. And the Celtics didn’t hit their jump shots. I’m really opposed to the idea that one 7 game series is absolute in distinguishing teams. My point there was that, the difference between the media saying one team is too old, and saying one team had veteran experience, sometimes comes down to something as simple, as 5 or 6 jump shots. Which even to the best player, still has a great amount of randomness. This is why I love sports, not even the people involved know the outcome. But sometimes I hate when sportswriting provides an unnatural “summary” of said events, and says silly things like the Lakers won cause Kobe has more heart. Basketball isn’t a well-scripted movie. There is some randomness involved.
ilikeflowers
July 13, 2010
some dude,
Bynum’s always injured though, that’s pretty much a part of his game at this point. He’ll be injured next year as well – not that it matters with the Three Kings in Miami. Bynum being injured looks about the same as Ray Allen going cold from a wow perspective, so it was probably a wash. In the end Perkins was the crux, since each team had randomly awesome performances from scrubs save the day.
Alvy,
Enjoy the title. I’m a UF alum from Tampa so I have six non-bandwagon titles under my belt over the last 15 years, it does feel good.
// What’s the exchange rate on NFL titles vs NBA titles, college vs pro? Someone from Boston should have the proper perspective for the pros.
arturogalletti
July 13, 2010
ILS,
For me it was 2 SB = 1NBA. But with the Celts you had the Len Bias and Reggie Lewis thing as multipliers. I’m Pretty sure Miami would be :
Dolphins> The U> Heat >>>>>>>>>Marlins
Where Boston is:
Red Sox>Celtics>Pats
robbieomalley
July 13, 2010
Hey guys I made an example sheet for what something would look like if we did a statgeek throw down for the season. I threw this together quickly and is rather arbitrary. Throw ideas at me for how we can improve this.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_l5j6q4biaq1qbeqfqo1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1279169514&Signature=tfHTwPnxzzR8hQeHa3zs6FwC0Fg%3D
arturogalletti
July 13, 2010
Rob,
Looks good but I’d argue for losing points for however many wins you miss by.
robbieomalley
July 13, 2010
Arturo,
My point system couldn’t have been more arbitrary. I’m sure there are far better ways to do it.
How about -1 point for every win away from the real total you are?
robbieomalley
July 13, 2010
Or how about if you predict the correct number of wins you get 10 points, within 3 games = 5 points, within 5 games = 3 points, within 5 games = 1 point.
And you get -1 for each game off outside of five games. Just brain storming here.
robbieomalley
July 13, 2010
Scratch the last within 5 games = 1 point thing.
some dude
July 13, 2010
“Yes, IF the Lakers had hit their free throws. But the fact of the matter is that they didn’t. And the Celtics didn’t hit their jump shots. I’m really opposed to the idea that one 7 game series is absolute in distinguishing teams. My point there was that, the difference between the media saying one team is too old, and saying one team had veteran experience, sometimes comes down to something as simple, as 5 or 6 jump shots. Which even to the best player, still has a great amount of randomness. This is why I love sports, not even the people involved know the outcome. But sometimes I hate when sportswriting provides an unnatural “summary” of said events, and says silly things like the Lakers won cause Kobe has more heart. Basketball isn’t a well-scripted movie. There is some randomness involved.”
I agree 100%. I was just debunking the thought of “if they hit their shots.”
As for the media angle, I couldn’t agree more. But hey, they are the media and they need something to sell. These two teams were the last 2 champions and played like em, but one team has to prevail. Scoring was low, but I thought it was overall great to watch.
As a Laker fan, I hate hate hate Boston, but I respect what they did out there. They left everything they had out there on the court and that’s all you can ask of a team.
some dude
July 13, 2010
“Bynum’s always injured though, that’s pretty much a part of his game at this point. He’ll be injured next year as well – not that it matters with the Three Kings in Miami. Bynum being injured looks about the same as Ray Allen going cold from a wow perspective, so it was probably a wash. In the end Perkins was the crux, since each team had randomly awesome performances from scrubs save the day.”
hey, big Z used to always be injured then somehow figured how to not be hurt.
I think it’s a bit much pinning this on Perkins. The lakers were going to win game 6 regardless, and in the end their scoring differential would have been at least slightly higher.
It’s impossible to say a role player like Perkins would have altered the outcome. You can’t plug in these things like we’re in a vaccuum. Perhaps Perk gets into early foul trouble, perhaps he has a lot of TOs (ala illegal screens), perhaps he misses defensive rotations.
If Perk plays game 7, everything about game 7 changes. It’s the butterfly effect. You can’t add him in and say his rebounding means they win. Everything about how that game plays out changes and seeing as how the teams were 4-4 with Perkins playing with a very equal point differential, I just can’t endorse anything that says Perk would have made the difference.
We simply don’t have the ability to make such a statement. If someone like Kobe, Rondo, Pierce, Gasol got hurt, sure go ahead, but not a struggling role player in a single game.
some dude
July 13, 2010
Robbie,
how would Most improved team be? # of wins or % of wins or win differential?
And would MIP be the media vote or WP48?
And surely you don’t really think AK47 will be DPOY, do you? :P
some dude
July 13, 2010
and also is there a major injury or major trade opt out?
If you had Miami winning it all and Lebron and Wade run into each other, shattering their legs, would be a tough pill to swallow to not be able to opt out. :P
robbieomalley
July 13, 2010
SD,
A) Whoever improved the most in terms of wins from the previous season. The Celtics would have won that award in 08. Say a team won 23 games in 09/10 and then 50 next year they would probably win with +27 wins.
B) All the awards are who you think the media will vote for.
C) I dont know if AK will win. I just put down the first thing that came to my head for everything on there. What I put at the end of October will be different enough.
D) Major Injury/Trade – If Wade and James ran into eachother tearing ACLs, everyone is screwed. You have to try to factor injuries in the best you can. But chances are injuries will effect most people the same.
some dude
July 14, 2010
sounds fair enough.
Al Harrington for the full MLE to Denver. Yeah, Denver is going to regret that one by training camp.
Chicago Tim
July 14, 2010
Yay!!
“Hearing in Vegas teams are pressuring Mike Miller to reconsider deal with Heat. Miller insists Miami deal not done yet.”
wallacesports
about 11 hours ago via web
Boo!!
Mike Miller camp says he still intends to sign w/Heat. Hold-up only a formality dealing w/completion of physicals and other paperwork.
wallacesports
about 7 hours ago via API
pbmassari
July 14, 2010
I love this. Can someone tell me what TS% is?
marparker
July 14, 2010
TS% =PTS / (2 * (FGA + 0.44 * FTA)).
Nick
July 14, 2010
From Basketball-Reference.com:
TS%
True Shooting Percentage; the formula is PTS / (2 * (FGA + 0.44 * FTA)). True shooting percentage is a measure of shooting efficiency that takes into account field goals, 3-point field goals, and free throws.
Overall I like it as a basic summary of how effective a player is shooting the ball. There’s a bit of a fudge factor with the 0.44 multiplier. But it still gives you an idea of how effective a shooter someone is.
League leader last year was Nene with .635. Nash was leader a couple years ago with .654.
Last year, the NBA average was .543%.
As far as the references, Allen’s TS% was .624 last year, and in 2010 it was .601. Both years are high averages, but, two years ago he was 2nd in the league in TS%.
Italian Stallion
July 14, 2010
I like TS% as a quick way of summarizing a player’s efficiency, but I’m old fashioned and still like to break it out into 3p%, 2p%, FT% and even break out the 2p% into what kinds of shots he’s taking (dunks, inside, mid range etc..) .
I think a team needs a decent mix of inside and outside scoring to be successful and you learn more about players by digging deeper into how they actually score.
ilikeflowers
July 14, 2010
some dude,
the Lakers (specifically Gasol and Kobe) dominated the boards in game 7 and Perkins would have alleviated some of that – no mildly complex stat analysis needed. Rebounding leads to extra possessions which leads to wins. The Celtics are more likely to beat the Lakers with Perkins in the lineup – to say otherwise is akin to saying that the Lakers had just as good a chance of beating the Celtics with Bynum uninjured as without (only true if it leads to more minutes/touches for Gasol, but he was already having his minutes maxed out). The marginal value of Perkins is even greater to the C’s than the marginal value of Bynum to the Lakers since he was the vanguard limiting the minutes of the C’s supercrap backup bigs.
The Butterfly Effect is an aspect of chaos theory and just because it’s very difficult to predict the exact outcomes there are definite boundaries that are in play and basketball is nowhere near as dynamic as the weather, which can be reliably predicted within small time frames and certainly within the few hours that a basketball game lasts.
ilikeflowers
July 14, 2010
Also, the Butterfly Effect is a perfect moniker for the theories of the likes of Khandor. Between the Butterfly Effect and Yay Points! I think we have two great soundbites for the anti-smart stat crowd.
some dude
July 14, 2010
“the Lakers (specifically Gasol and Kobe) dominated the boards in game 7 and Perkins would have alleviated some of that – no mildly complex stat analysis needed. Rebounding leads to extra possessions which leads to wins. The Celtics are more likely to beat the Lakers with Perkins in the lineup – to say otherwise is akin to saying that the Lakers had just as good a chance of beating the Celtics with Bynum uninjured as without (only true if it leads to more minutes/touches for Gasol, but he was already having his minutes maxed out). The marginal value of Perkins is even greater to the C’s than the marginal value of Bynum to the Lakers since he was the vanguard limiting the minutes of the C’s supercrap backup bigs.”
Who is to say that with Perkins in the game that the Lakers wouldn’t force more turnovers, force more misses, and get easier baskets?
Maybe you’re unaware, but Rasheed Wallace played better in game 7, especially offensively, than Perkins had all game. The Lakers D had been ignoring Perk, largely, but couldn’t do that with Perkins.
I believe John Hollinger even argued Boston would be better off without Perk in game 7. I didn’t necessarily agree, but he made a compelling argument.
All I’m saying is to claim “if perkins played, Boston wins” is full of fallacies. There is no historical statistical evidence to demonstrate hi impact being the difference.
Furthermore, my point about the “butterfly effect” is that Perkins being in the game means the game isn’t the same. Maybe Lakers don’t miss as many shots so the rebounding becomes less of a factor.
some dude
July 14, 2010
“Also, the Butterfly Effect is a perfect moniker for the theories of the likes of Khandor. Between the Butterfly Effect and Yay Points! I think we have two great soundbites for the anti-smart stat crowd.”
I’m in the pro-smart stat crowd, though.
You cannot tell with a straight face that if Perkins played, Boston was guaranteed victory or even favored to win game 7.
You guys are ignoring flaws in the claim. Yeah, Perkins helps the rebounding, but he also hurts the offense, especially given how much pressure Sheed put on the Laker D in that 1 game.
ilikeflowers
July 14, 2010
sd,
One could certainly rationally claim them as having a greater than 50/50 chance with Perkins based upon past results. I’m not sure why you introduced the crazy guaranteed part though. Ultimately, neither point is relevant since my claim for game 7 was that the C’s would have been more likely to win with him than without – the same is true for any game they played.
And of course, I could use your own Butterfly Logic to claim additional positive anecdotes of having Perkins in the game. It’s a useless – as in non-predictive – philosophy.
The player’s values are measured and stable. Perkins’ specific wp48 for the series was about 0.100 greater than Wallace’s. Having him as the starter and Wallace as the backup was better than having Wallace as the starter and some other backup – or just playing old man Wallace too many minutes.
ilikeflowers
July 14, 2010
That’s measured and stable with respect to wp48 in general from season to season, of course the values are less stable for a seven game span.
ilikeflowers
July 14, 2010
Also Wallace’s wp48 for game 7 was 0.061, Perkin’s average for the series was o.068.
link
Anon
July 14, 2010
ilikeflowers,
Shut up and stop crying. Ultimately the Lakers won the series and are defending champs. That is the truth. No need to keep boring everyone with your million hypotheticals and sour grapes attitude.
It’s hilarious the hatred that berri and his disciples have for the Lakers.
nerdnumbers
July 14, 2010
Ilikeflowers,
Stop being a sports fan analyzing sports! What do you think this is? Do you think this is some kind of sports web site where people gather to analyze sports. Also using numbers in theoretical situations? Clearly you don’t get your audience!
J/K As I am now posting once a week I kinda need you to keep saying cool stuff. You’ve inspired several really good articles outta DJ and Arturo, and at some point I’ll probably “borrow” a comment you make and elaborate a post outta it. :)
ilikeflowers
July 14, 2010
Dear Anonymous-Kobefan-who-can’t-count-yet-is-capable-of-recognizing-the-truth-that-4-is-greater-than-3-and-is-bored-by-statistical-analysis-and-conversations-about-the-most-important-game-of-the-season,
I’m crying because I realize now that Kobe is better than Michael Jordan and worse, that I am boring. I first realized these truths while watching Kobe motivate Gasol and Fisher during game seven of the recently concluded NBA finals by taking a step back and challenging them to win one for the Lakers. As I reflected over the million ways in which the series could have gone differently, I had an epiphany of defending champ hatred, so I ate some grapes with my fellow disciples to shut out this sour realization. Attitude.
ilikeflowers
July 14, 2010
nerdnumbers,
It’s no good fellow disciple of ultimate hatred. Save yourself, I can’t stop the tears.
some dude
July 14, 2010
“One could certainly rationally claim them as having a greater than 50/50 chance with Perkins based upon past results.”
Uh, which results? The lakers had a higher point differential in the 8 games played with Perk and had home court.
The Lakers were the favorites in game 7 with or without Perkins by any objective statistical measure.
“I’m not sure why you introduced the crazy guaranteed part though.”
You called him the crux. I disagree.
“ltimately, neither point is relevant since my claim for game 7 was that the C’s would have been more likely to win with him than without – the same is true for any game they played.”
This I agree with – more likely to win. But not everyone agreed.
“And of course, I could use your own Butterfly Logic to claim additional positive anecdotes of having Perkins in the game. It’s a useless – as in non-predictive – philosophy.”
That’s my whole point. It’s a useless exercise. Fact is he wasn’t there and he’s not a star or superstar player and based on how the previous 8 games went, we can’t claim Perkins would have really changed the outcome. Possible? Sure. Likely, not.
“The player’s values are measured and stable. Perkins’ specific wp48 for the series was about 0.100 greater than Wallace’s. Having him as the starter and Wallace as the backup was better than having Wallace as the starter and some other backup – or just playing old man Wallace too many minutes.”
Agree, but game 7 Wallace was better than Perkins had been in any game prior.
“Also Wallace’s wp48 for game 7 was 0.061, Perkin’s average for the series was o.068.”
Doesn’t account for Sheed’s superb 1 on 1 D and his ability to score in the post and stretch the D. Perkins was completely ignored on offense in the series and it hurt Boston. You are also not accounting for the intensity of the game. Perk would have never pulled out a WS48 in that game higher than Sheed. Well, never is going to far, but highly unlikely.
ilikeflowers
July 14, 2010
sd,
Uh, which results? The lakers had a higher point differential in the 8 games played with Perk and had home court.
Can’t include the regular season based upon your own ‘intensity’ speculation plus the minute allocations were different for both teams, Bynum had his (typical) injury etc., etc…
The Lakers were the favorites in game 7 with or without Perkins by any objective statistical measure.
This is an empirical statement and I’m not sure that wow would agree, given the minutes played.
Crux neither means nor implies guaranteed. He was the key difference (the crux) between the C’s being probable winners and probable losers of game 7.
…we can’t claim Perkins would have really changed the outcome. Possible? Sure. Likely, not.
If it’s possible then why can’t we make the claim? Why is it unreasonable to claim that it would have likely changed the outcome?
Agree, but game 7 Wallace was better than Perkins had been in any game prior.
If we’re using wow as the measure, and hey we’re in Rome, then this is simply impossible given that Perkins’ avg across the series is greater than Wallace’s game 7.
The rest of your points are just anecdotal. I can supply equally reasonable sounding arguments in favor of Perkins and his effect on the Celtics. The front line had to play more minutes causing them to fade defensively in the fourth, they had to be more concerned with fouls, the C’s road vs home efficiency differential differential meant they were fav’s with Perkins, yadda, yadda.
In the end, the crux of the matter is that we disagree over the extent of Perkins’ likely effect on game 7. No problem. But, you are claiming that my opinion that the loss of Perkins changed the C’s from likely game 7 winners to likely game 7 losers is unreasonable because of your anecdotes, not because of any real evidence. I claim that that view in itself is unreasonable.
some dude
July 14, 2010
“Can’t include the regular season based upon your own ‘intensity’ speculation plus the minute allocations were different for both teams, Bynum had his (typical) injury etc., etc…”
The regular season ended up being a 0 PD anyway. each team won by 1, so it couldn’t be more equal (though Kobe missed one game).
“This is an empirical statement and I’m not sure that wow would agree, given the minutes played.”
As I said, Lakers had a larger PD. game 7s are won at home like 80% of the time.
Now do a WoW analysis retroactively going into game 7, including a HCA adjustment, and tell me what you get with and without Perkins.
“Crux neither means nor implies guaranteed. He was the key difference (the crux) between the C’s being probable winners and probable losers of game 7.”
Again, I disagree completely. I think he was the difference between losing by 3 and losing by 4, but whatever. As I mentioned earlier, the “crux” was Rondo’s ability to shoot from the perimeter coupled with his FT%.
“If we’re using wow as the measure, and hey we’re in Rome, then this is simply impossible given that Perkins’ avg across the series is greater than Wallace’s game 7.”
Which admittedly understates defense and ignores that the Lakers had to pay attention to sheed.
WoW cannot pick up the fact that Bynum/Gasol/Odom would ignore Perkins on defense to help defend on Rondo, Pierce, and Allen in its measurement where against Sheed he had to pay attention (which sometimes took Drew out of the paint).
WP48 says Bynum was a non-factor in the last few games of the series, but I wholeheartedly disagree. His presence in the paint for 20 minutes completely changed Boston’s attack. He was vital to the Lakers’ wins or keeping them in the game.
“If it’s possible then why can’t we make the claim? Why is it unreasonable to claim that it would have likely changed the outcome?”
because he likely wouldn’t Show me the statistical evidence to back this claim up. Perk’s WS48 in the playoffs was pitiful, as well.
Of course, on this very site the model predicted LA to win the series going into it, though it was ignored. https://dberri.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/thoughts-on-the-nba-finals/
And Gasol’s numbers when Wallace was in the game in the series were far worse than with Perkins in.
ilikeflowers
July 15, 2010
sd,
I’m just using wow, PD, and the minutes distribution from the playoffs. Your points aren’t testable and aren’t of any use.
The regular season ended up being a 0 PD anyway. each team won by 1, so it couldn’t be more equal (though Kobe missed one game).
Don’t use the regular season, you’re arguing against yourself via your own Intensity Theory.
As I said, Lakers had a larger PD. game 7s are won at home like 80% of the time.
And most teams have better home diffs than away diffs, and most teams don’t drastically change their minute allocations as much as the C’s, and most teams wear silk boxers, and most teams like the color blue.
Again, I disagree completely. I think he was the difference between losing by 3 and losing by 4, but whatever. As I mentioned earlier, the “crux” was Rondo’s ability to shoot from the perimeter coupled with his FT%.
That’s a nice opinion, how does that make my opinion unreasonable, i.e. something that is so outlandish that one can’t say it with a straight face? I also agree that Rondo not being CP3 should count against him. Curse you Rondo!
Which admittedly understates defense and ignores that the Lakers had to pay attention to sheed.
Maybe, maybe not. From the work presented here it looks like the vast majority of defensive impact is a team level issue (i.e. any way you measure it, it’s very inconsistent at the player level). And since we’re just guessing on the impact, who’s to say that it’s not adequately (90%) captured by the defensive stats already in use?
WoW cannot pick up the fact that Bynum/Gasol/Odom would ignore Perkins on defense to help defend on Rondo, Pierce, and Allen in its measurement where against Sheed he had to pay attention (which sometimes took Drew out of the paint).
Irrelevant cherry-picked anecdotes. I can make similar useless arguments in favor of Perkins.
WP48 says Bynum was a non-factor in the last few games of the series, but I wholeheartedly disagree. His presence in the paint for 20 minutes completely changed Boston’s attack. He was vital to the Lakers’ wins or keeping them in the game.
No, wow says that he outplayed KG in game 7 even while injured (marginally or straight up), if that’s what you think non-factor means then fine.
…we can’t claim Perkins would have really changed the outcome. Possible? Sure. Likely, not.
Here, I’m pointing out that you have contradicted yourself. Saying that something can’t be claimed and then say that it’s possible is a contradiction.
because he likely wouldn’t Show me the statistical evidence to back this claim up. Perk’s WS48 in the playoffs was pitiful, as well.
I posted the link showing Perk’s stats vs Wallace’s. Perk was definitively more productive. If you don’t like wow stats then fine, there’s no reason for us to continue this discussion since we’ll be comparing apples, oranges, and eyeball models. You can claim I’m being silly and I’ll claim that you’re being silly.
Of course, on this very site the model predicted LA to win the series going into it, though it was ignored. https://dberri.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/thoughts-on-the-nba-finals/
So, again, now it’s about the regular season, right? When exactly does the Intensity Theory kick in? And the C’s from the last half of the season are clearly the same as the C’s from the first half and the playoffs, right? Given that my thinking that Perkin’s was the crux of game 7 doesn’t pass the straight face test then I guess the prof’s opinion is equally hilarious, correct?
And Gasol’s numbers when Wallace was in the game in the series were far worse than with Perkins in.
And if Perkin’s was in Wallace wouldn’t have faded in the fourth and KG would’ve played better, the rotations would’ve been different, the team defense would’ve improved, and the arena temperature woulda been 1 degree higher.
Again, my claim is that Perkins’ absence was the crux between the C’s being likely to win game 7 and unlikely to win. Your claim is that You cannot tell with a straight face that if Perkins played, Boston was guaranteed victory or even favored to win game 7. You’ve done nothing to establish the ridiculousness of my position. You’re jumping from anecdote, to the regular season, to the series, to what most teams do, to Intensity Theory, to claims that there’s no point in trying to predict (Butterfly Logic), to the opinions of Hollinger. I’m happy to hop around with you on this Easter egg hunt. But, my position is simple. Given the minutes played, the players’ playoff or regular season production (wp48), and the Bynum Injury Saga (to be continued…), that it is reasonable to have the opinion that the C’s were likely to win game 7 with Perkins and unlikely to win game 7 without.
// sorry to continue boring the one other sad soul still reading this nerd-fest.
some dude
July 15, 2010
“Don’t use the regular season, you’re arguing against yourself via your own Intensity Theory.”
Nah. I never said players play more intense in the playoffs than every game of the season, only that on average they do.
Lakers vs Boston regular season is just as intense.
“And most teams have better home diffs than away diffs, and most teams don’t drastically change their minute allocations as much as the C’s, and most teams wear silk boxers, and most teams like the color blue.”
In other words, no counter-argument.
“That’s a nice opinion, how does that make my opinion unreasonable, i.e. something that is so outlandish that one can’t say it with a straight face? I also agree that Rondo not being CP3 should count against him. Curse you Rondo!”
Because it being the “crux” is not reasonable. It’s a cop-out.
And no one says rondo has to be CP3. If he could just shoot like pretty much near any other backup PG in the league…
“Maybe, maybe not. From the work presented here it looks like the vast majority of defensive impact is a team level issue (i.e. any way you measure it, it’s very inconsistent at the player level). And since we’re just guessing on the impact, who’s to say that it’s not adequately (90%) captured by the defensive stats already in use?”
because we can’t figure out how to connect the dots of individual defense to the team level doesn’t mean it should be ignored. We just have work cut out. And you ignored the part about Sheed’s offensive threat.
“Irrelevant cherry-picked anecdotes. I can make similar useless arguments in favor of Perkins.”
They are not irrelevant. And the fact that you can make arguments in favor only continues to prove my point..
Good lord, man. Look above your head.
“Here, I’m pointing out that you have contradicted yourself. Saying that something can’t be claimed and then say that it’s possible is a contradiction.”
you only think that because my entire point seems to be elusive to you.
“No, wow says that he outplayed KG in game 7 even while injured (marginally or straight up), if that’s what you think non-factor means then fine.”
Because Bynum did slightly more than another “non-factor” doesn’t mean he was a “factor.” here are Berri’s own words:
Andrew Bynum, though, didn’t do much.
“I posted the link showing Perk’s stats vs Wallace’s. Perk was definitively more productive. If you don’t like wow stats then fine, there’s no reason for us to continue this discussion since we’ll be comparing apples, oranges, and eyeball models. You can claim I’m being silly and I’ll claim that you’re being silly.”
They’re good, but like most of the stats aren’t useful for a single game, yet. Large data sets, yes. The other issue it doesn’t understand how Perk’s play lowered the production of his teammates. Silly anecdote, I know. Guess I’m wrong to bring information about how the game is actually played.
“So, again, now it’s about the regular season, right? When exactly does the Intensity Theory kick in? And the C’s from the last half of the season are clearly the same as the C’s from the first half and the playoffs, right? Given that my thinking that Perkin’s was the crux of game 7 doesn’t pass the straight face test then I guess the prof’s opinion is equally hilarious, correct?”
The intensity thing was in relation to certain style’s of play, man. Boston and LA wouldn’t matter (plus their general dislike of each other means they play hard against one another all the time). All I’m saying is LA wouldn’t be predicted to win.
I’m still waiting for you to run the analysis and show me who was predicted to win.
“And if Perkin’s was in Wallace wouldn’t have faded in the fourth and KG would’ve played better, the rotations would’ve been different, the team defense would’ve improved, and the arena temperature woulda been 1 degree higher.”
Defense would have improved? I think it was pretty much at its peak that night. I don’t know about temperature, but there would have been another sourpuss face on the court. :P
Also, Wallace didn’t fade in the 4th, KG did.
“Again, my claim is that Perkins’ absence was the crux between the C’s being likely to win game 7 and unlikely to win. Your claim is that You cannot tell with a straight face that if Perkins played, Boston was guaranteed victory or even favored to win game 7. You’ve done nothing to establish the ridiculousness of my position. ”
Actually, I don’t have to do so. Your claim, you back it up. Fallacy of asking to prove a negative is your issue, not mine.
Run the data, then get back to me.
Nick
July 16, 2010
Interesting the turn this conversation has taken.
I mainly just wanted to get the point across that I really don’t think that one victory in game 7, really proves that “The Lakers were always the better team” or “The Celtics were too old”. Because, sometimes, players just don’t hit jumpshots. Everything can be seemingly good, but the muscle memory doesn’t work 100%, and the shot misses.
Perkins, typically is a good rebounder, defender, and somewhat efficient if not proficient scorer. I personally think his absence did not help the Celtics, the C’s had a lead in the 4th, and they couldn’t keep it.
I enjoyed watching game 7. It was a tight game, not the most amazing scoring exhibition, but it was close, and there was tension. I wanted to get away from BOLD after the fact claims made on a team, or player, after what I really see as small differences. The Celtics were good enough to have a reasonable chance to win a championship this year, but they didn’t. The Lakers were good enough, and they did.
I look forward to seeing which teams are good enough to have a chance next year, and which team is good enough to win it.