The following is from Andres (Dre) Alvarez.
I re-read Blink this weekend. This book has a special spot in my heart, as Gladwell mentioned The Wages of Wins and this is what drew me into the Wages of Wins Network. One of the key points of Blink is that we may make a decision on a first impression — and despite evidence to the contrary — we will stick with our initial impressions.
For example… at the start of the season many people thought the Miami Heat were the odds on favorites for the title. At the same time, some thought Dallas was old and banged up and its window had passed (me included). How accurate was this initial read?
| Rank | Team | MP | WP48 | WP |
| 1 | Miami Heat | 19780 | 0.148 | 61.1 |
| 2 | Chicago Bulls | 19830 | 0.146 | 60.5 |
| 3 | Los Angeles Lakers | 19830 | 0.139 | 57.5 |
| 4 | San Antonio Spurs | 19780 | 0.136 | 56.2 |
| 5 | Orlando Magic | 19830 | 0.135 | 55.7 |
| 6 | Boston Celtics | 19780 | 0.134 | 55.0 |
| 7 | Denver Nuggets | 19705 | 0.131 | 53.8 |
| 8 | Dallas Mavericks | 19705 | 0.126 | 51.9 |
| 9 | Oklahoma City Thunder | 20005 | 0.124 | 51.8 |
| 10 | Memphis Grizzlies | 19880 | 0.114 | 47.3 |
Table 1: Top 10 2011 NBA Teams Season Total Wins Produced
When the season ended on the surface a lot seemed very clear. The Heat and Bulls were the new contenders out East. The old guard of the Lakers and Spurs would be battling for the West. Dallas was certainly in the mix, but as the 8th best team in the playoffs and 4th best out West, they certainly shouldn’t have been considered a contender.
But let’s slice the data a little differently.
Who We Thought They Were
| Rank | Team | MP | WP48 | WP |
| 1 | Miami Heat | 13540 | 0.151 | 42.5 |
| 2 | San Antonio Spurs | 13515 | 0.146 | 41.1 |
| 3 | Boston Celtics | 13035 | 0.142 | 38.6 |
| 4 | Los Angeles Lakers | 13705 | 0.138 | 39.3 |
| 5 | Chicago Bulls | 13085 | 0.138 | 37.5 |
| 6 | Orlando Magic | 13730 | 0.137 | 39.2 |
| 7 | Dallas Mavericks | 13440 | 0.121 | 33.7 |
| 8 | Denver Nuggets | 13680 | 0.116 | 33.1 |
| 9 | Oklahoma City Thunder | 13185 | 0.115 | 31.5 |
| 10 | New Orleans Hornets | 14045 | 0.111 | 32.5 |
Table 2: Top 10 2011 NBA Teams Pre All-Star Game Wins Produced
If we had ended the season after the All-Star break, then our pre-season reads would have indeed been correct. Miami was playing at the highest level in the league. Dallas was still a good team, but was certainly not at the same level of the top teams in the league.
Things Change
| Rank | Team | MP | WP48 | WP |
| 1 | Denver Nuggets | 6025 | 0.165 | 20.8 |
| 2 | Chicago Bulls | 6745 | 0.164 | 23.0 |
| 3 | Oklahoma City Thunder | 6820 | 0.143 | 20.3 |
| 4 | Miami Heat | 6240 | 0.143 | 18.7 |
| 5 | Los Angeles Lakers | 6125 | 0.142 | 18.1 |
| 6 | Houston Rockets | 6050 | 0.142 | 17.9 |
| 7 | Dallas Mavericks | 6265 | 0.139 | 18.2 |
| 8 | Orlando Magic | 6100 | 0.130 | 16.5 |
| 9 | Memphis Grizzlies | 6000 | 0.125 | 15.6 |
| 10 | Portland Trail Blazers | 6290 | 0.120 | 15.7 |
Table 3: Top 10 2011 NBA Team Post All-Star Game Wins Produced
After the All-Star break, many interesting things happened. Some good trades turned Denver and Oklahoma into contenders. Health brought Chicago improvement. While Dallas’ rank hadn’t improved, their performance relative to other top teams had. In fact barring Denver and Chicago, Dallas was playing at the same level as several other title contenders.
The Tipping Point
| Name | Pos | G | MP | WP48 | WP |
| Jason Kidd | 1.0 | 16 | 554 | 0.295 | 3.4 |
| Dirk Nowitzki | 4.0 | 16 | 623 | 0.212 | 2.8 |
| Tyson Chandler | 5.0 | 16 | 481 | 0.190 | 1.9 |
| Shawn Marion | 3.3 | 16 | 516 | 0.163 | 1.7 |
| Jason Terry | 1.9 | 16 | 519 | 0.120 | 1.3 |
| Jose Barea | 1.5 | 16 | 284 | 0.165 | 1.0 |
| Peja Stojakovic | 2.8 | 16 | 333 | 0.065 | 0.4 |
| Brendan Haywood | 5.0 | 16 | 265 | 0.043 | 0.2 |
| Brian Cardinal | 3.7 | 4 | 7 | 0.863 | 0.1 |
| Corey Brewer | 2.7 | 6 | 23 | -0.067 | 0.0 |
| Ian Mahinmi | 5.0 | 3 | 6 | -0.384 | 0.0 |
| DeShawn Stevenson | 2.5 | 16 | 254 | -0.225 | -1.2 |
| Grand Total | 3.0 | 157 | 3865 | 0.144 | 11.6 |
Table 4: 2011 Dallas Mavericks Playoff Wins Produced Entering the Finals
| Name | Pos | G | MP | WP48 | WP | |
| LeBron James | 3.2 | 16 | 709 | 0.324 | 4.8 | |
| Dwyane Wade | 1.9 | 16 | 635 | 0.264 | 3.5 | |
| Chris Bosh | 4.5 | 16 | 641 | 0.143 | 1.9 | |
| Mike Miller | 2.3 | 13 | 147 | 0.352 | 1.1 | |
| James Jones | 2.7 | 12 | 272 | 0.116 | 0.7 | |
| Mario Chalmers | 1.0 | 16 | 358 | 0.046 | 0.3 | |
| Joel Anthony | 4.5 | 16 | 481 | 0.016 | 0.2 | |
| Jamaal Magloire | 5.0 | 3 | 18 | 0.113 | 0.0 | |
| Zydrunas Ilgauskas | 5.0 | 9 | 104 | -0.015 | 0.0 | |
| Juwan Howard | 4.5 | 6 | 31 | -0.120 | -0.1 | |
| Udonis Haslem | 4.5 | 7 | 147 | -0.085 | -0.3 | |
| Eddie House | 1.6 | 5 | 23 | -0.596 | -0.3 | |
| Mike Bibby | 1.0 | 16 | 350 | -0.143 | -1.0 | |
| Grand Total | 3.0 | 151 | 3915 | 0.132 | 10.8 |
Table 5: 2011 Miami Heat Playoff Wins Produced Entering the Finals
Once the playoffs got underway things changed. The Mavericks started playing like a better team than the Heat. More specifically, Dallas got great production from some old favorites in Kidd, Dirk, Chandler and Marion. Additionally a magical tattoo and good timing helped Terry and Barea provide excellent support. Miami, on the flip side, did indeed get great play from LeBron and Wade, with good support from Bosh. Miller additionally played well, but with limited minutes. That said, heading into the Finals the Heat had a very top heavy team playing about as well as a slightly more rounded Mavericks. So what happened?
Final(ly)
| Name | Pos | G | MP | WP48 | WP |
| Jason Kidd | 1.0 | 6 | 225 | 0.174 | 0.8 |
| Tyson Chandler | 5.0 | 6 | 224 | 0.166 | 0.8 |
| Jason Terry | 2.0 | 6 | 195 | 0.190 | 0.8 |
| DeShawn Stevenson | 2.8 | 6 | 103 | 0.262 | 0.6 |
| Dirk Nowitzki | 4.0 | 6 | 242 | 0.102 | 0.5 |
| Shawn Marion | 3.2 | 6 | 215 | 0.100 | 0.4 |
| Brendan Haywood | 5.0 | 3 | 25 | 0.041 | 0.0 |
| Jose Barea | 1.6 | 6 | 128 | -0.012 | 0.0 |
| Ian Mahinmi | 5.0 | 3 | 27 | -0.214 | -0.1 |
| Peja Stojakovic | 2.8 | 4 | 26 | -0.261 | -0.1 |
| Brian Cardinal | 3.5 | 5 | 30 | -0.262 | -0.2 |
| Grand Total | 3.0 | 57 | 1440 | 0.115 | 3.4 |
Table 6: 2011 Dallas Mavericks Finals
| Name | Pos | G | MP | WP48 | WP |
| Dwyane Wade | 2.0 | 6 | 234 | 0.428 | 2.1 |
| LeBron James | 3.0 | 6 | 262 | 0.161 | 0.9 |
| Mario Chalmers | 1.0 | 6 | 174 | 0.163 | 0.6 |
| Mike Miller | 2.3 | 6 | 94 | 0.067 | 0.1 |
| Mike Bibby | 1.0 | 5 | 87 | 0.021 | 0.0 |
| Eddie House | 1.5 | 2 | 25 | 0.040 | 0.0 |
| Juwan Howard | 4.5 | 5 | 29 | -0.044 | 0.0 |
| Joel Anthony | 4.5 | 6 | 123 | -0.108 | -0.3 |
| Udonis Haslem | 4.5 | 6 | 176 | -0.109 | -0.4 |
| Chris Bosh | 4.5 | 6 | 237 | -0.108 | -0.5 |
| Grand Total | 3.0 | 54 | 1440 | 0.084 | 2.5 |
Table 7: 2011 Miami Heat Finals
There’s a ton of stories to tell about the finals. My favorite for the record is that Tyson Chandler deserved Finals MVP. With just six games (a very small sample), it’s almost virtually impossible to prove any particular story. But I do have a few observations to make.
Both Teams’ Stars Showed Up:
This series had two of the top teams in the league playing. It’s easy to point out that top players’ regular season numbers dropped. The point, though, is night in and night out most teams don’t have to play a top team in the league. LeBron and Wade still combined for 3.0 wins for Miami and Kidd, Chandler,Nowitzki and Marion combined for 2.6 wins. They didn’t play spectacularly (with the exception of Wade), but they did play above average and help contribute to their team winning.
Dallas had more support than Miami
The biggest surprise for me was the play of Terry. I have blasted him for quite a while for costing Dirk a title in 06’ in game 6. He has redeemed himself in arguably winning a title for Dirk in 11’ in game 6. Most of the players outside of Dallas’ top 4 played great. No player with more than 48 minutes, other than Barea (can we say overrated yet?), had a poor performance. Miami, on the other hand, had 5 players who played more than 48 minutes and played poorly. LeBron (who got most of the attention from the media) did not live up to his regular season standards, but his drop off was about as bad as Dirk’s. Bosh and Miller playing poorly was a bigger reason for Miami falling than LeBron’s “collapse”.
Summing Up
The key to the Finals is that it defied our expectations. We expected Miami to be good and they were. Dallas was not expected to be a contender (again, their window was supposed to be closed). While Miami was arguably the favorites the whole way through, the truth is their margin of being the favorite lowered and lowered to the point where this Finals should not be classified as an upset. Small things definitely impacted the winner of the Finals and that’s key. When small things can influence the winner, it means that the teams are close in skill.
This also means the fans and management in Miami shouldn’t overreact. For the most part things went as expected. Miami finished the regular season playing some of the best ball in the league. The made it to the Finals. In the Finals everything didn’t go according to plan. Two normally mediocre players in Terry and Stevenson played very well, while two good players in Bosh and LeBron played well below their normal levels. That said, it was a surprise because it defied our expectations not because it defied the numbers. In fact a few analysts were able to predict it or safely bet on it. There will be many stories about what happened in this series. The most boring — and most accurate — will be that two teams very close in skill played some very close games, and in the end one of them won*.
-Dre (@nerdnumbers)
*I have to make sure I give props to Ben Gulker of Pistons by the Numbers, who pointed this out in the Twitterverse to me long before I ran the numbers.
Wages of Wins Journal 
pflo
June 15, 2011
Hey, I enjoyed the podcast and this post, but I am a little disconcerted by your citing of Malcolm Gladwell. I understand your historical affinity for him, but I feel like I am the lone person in the world who is baffled by his popularity. While he has a reputation as being an extreme rationalist, his main form of argument, albeit entertaining, is to use the anecdote (that is sample size of 1) to prove his contrarian rule. I am now going to fall victim to the same logic, but I remember him arguing in some Bill Simmons article that the only thing any GM needs to know about drafting players is that players from Duke are always good. Therefore, one should only draft Duke players. In a recent New Yorker article about the use the full court press being the optimal strategy for the underdog, his illustrative example is that of the 1996 Kentucky Wildcats (a team with 9 future NBA players, far from an underdog) defeating LSU. I will stop ranting, but you have to admit that Gladwell’s reasoning, no matter how appealing, is often a bit suspect beneath the surface.
Anyways, as I cringed a little bit as you referenced Blink in the podcast, I thought that the point was interesting about experience being associated with a lower heart rate which is then associated with “coolness under fire.” Shouldn’t this be testable with NBA data? In the WAGES OF WIN book, it is noted that players in general play a little bit worse in the playoffs (.03 WP48, relatively insignificant, I think). Do players with less playoff experience suffer from a larger playoff productivity decline than playoff veterans? One could maybe argue that the results will be noisy because these “playoff nerves” could be a function of personality type (Bosh being introverted, for instance) rather than experience. In that case, one might think that a drop in performance by an individual player in one post-season would be strongly correlated with a drop in performance in the next year’s post-season. While obviously any association found for an individual player would be anecdotal, the data as a whole could be pretty impressive. Someone could run the numbers and find the connections, then Malcolm Gladwell can write an article on the topic using the ever-nervous Lebron James vs. the cool-as-a-cucumber Jason Terry as the sole examples.
Thomas
June 15, 2011
These numbers are hilarious. According to WP, Lebron actually outperformed Dirk and Jason Kidd was the Mavs best player.
I just have one question. Do the people who read this site actually believe this? Do you people really believe that Kidd was the best Mav and that Dirk’s play was just barely contributing to winning basketball (as just a tick over 0.100 would say)???
Chicago Tim
June 15, 2011
This series made me question the axiom that coaching doesn’t matter. Spoelstra is not a bad coach and should not be fired, but he was outcoached by Carlisle, and in a close series that helped swing the series to the Mavs. Carlisle made wise line-up changes and Spoelstra did not; Carlisle ran set plays in crunch time that confused the Heat, Spoelstra did not. Sebastian Pruiti at NBA Playbook has a detailed analysis. Can we say that coaching usually doesn’t matter, except when an exceptional coach is involved in a close seven-game series between two excellent teams with roughly equal talent?
Dre
June 15, 2011
Pflo,
Thanks for listening! I will say Gladwell is definitely anecdotal and at his best is when he cites well done studies (which he did in Dave’s case). I do fall into this XKCD group(http://xkcd.com/397/) Gladwell encourages science. Now your point is valid that at the end of Blink rather than say “Case closed” we should do more studies (and rest assured our plates are full and clutch is on there) I will say as a fan I do enjoy stories as much as the next fan I just won’t hold them as the end all be all. So it’s fun to say maybe Bosh crashed but without more study it’s just a guy having fun on a podcast.
Thomas,
Thanks for reading! I apologize for not including a legend. MP stands for Minutes Played and WP48 is a player’s per 48 minute performance. With that in mind LeBron was not a great performer in terms of per-minute performance but an increase in minutes helped up his numbers.
Tim,
On coaching Dave’s original study and point was that a coach won’t change a player’s performance. I can for the most part agree with this. What they have tremendous ability to do is choose who plays and in this regard they are very important. I think a follow up needs to be done to see which coaches actually do the best minute allocation. Coaches may not be able to make a player good (you can’t teach tall) but they should in theory be good talent evaluaters and be able to play the right players. I think both Karl and Thibs failed in that regard, which helps explain how Denver and Chicago could plummet from expectations.
Thomas
June 15, 2011
That much is evident. However according to these numbers Kidd outperformed Dirk on a per minute basis and on an absolute basis. As did Lebron. What I’m asking you and the other people who think this stat has actual merit is this. Do you honestly believe that Kidd and Lebron outplayed and outproduced Dirk in this series? Was Kidd the most productive Maverick and more of a reason for them winning the series than Dirk?
arturogalletti
June 15, 2011
Thomas,
Dirk had a knack for stinking it up early and killing it late in this series (he was doubled up, banged up and sick) . Kidd played well the last three games.
Dirk also did a bang up job on D (Bosh was truly horrific). All in all, I don’t think any of us is upset at him being the MVP.
Dre,
You really should run ADJP8 for these. Dallas skews taller for the most part than a lot of the other teams.
Adam C. Madison
June 15, 2011
@arturo: You sidestepped that like a politician.
Gil Meriken
June 15, 2011
Thomas – next, ask who you would take on your team as your first pick, Lebron James or Kevin Love?
Dre
June 16, 2011
Thomas,
I’m actually curious of your opinion. You have yet to make a point and have only asked questions. Try this handy template to reword your thoughts so I know what you would like to discuss
“I think Dirk played based on . As such I with your article.”
Arturo,
And give you the satisfaction of agreeing that a champion needs a top big to win? Come on man you already called 3 upsets and crushed me in the Smackdown :)
Nicholas Yee
June 16, 2011
@Thomas:
Yes. I can believe that Kidd had a better series than Dirk.
Dirk shot under 40% in 3 of the 6 games in the series. Never shot over 52.4% in any one game. While taking at least 18 shots in every game.
Kidd also did not shoot well, but took a high percentage of 3-pt shots. Which tends to increase your efficiency. Kidd also rebounded well for his position, and had quite a number of assists.
I personally didn’t think Kidd would have such high numbers, but I am not the least bit surprised about Dirk’s. Dirk really struggled shooting the ball the entire series.
One random note I would like to mention is that while it has been a very popular topic as to if Dirk is now one of the top 10 players of all-time, or how he compares to Bird, I’m surprised that Jason Kidd, who is no doubt still a solid NBA point guard @ 38, hasn’t been talked about as an all-time great PG. Especially when you consider his evolution as a player. He’s radically changed his play style as he’s gotten older, and yet remains effective.
ilikeflowers
June 16, 2011
@Thomas,
I’m not sure why anyone would have a problem with Kidd outproducing Dirk over a 6 game period. And what model do you espouse? You can’t possibly expect anyone anywhere to take some random internet dude’s eyeball model evaluation of the relative importance of a PG vs a PF seriously.
David
June 16, 2011
“What I’m asking you and the other people who think this stat has actual merit is this.”
Well, look at Basketball Ref and the ORtg and DRtg for the same 3 people:
James
147/101
99 /101
104/108
75/104
98/131
97/115
Kidd
93/116
72/106
100/109
20/97
139/115
143/108
Nowitzki
113/112
97/106
128/99
91/97
125/119
78/98
You want ORtg minus DRtg to be a positive number (creating more points than allowing, roughly speaking). Let’s keep it simple and just average up both ratings’ difference over the 6-game series.
Nowitzki: +0.2 (not a typo!)
James: -6.7
Kidd: -14
So, you tell me? Note that Kidd gets hammered for his 20 epic fail in game 4. The point I’m looking at here is that Nowitzki was not that stellar. He had 2 good games. Kidd had 2 good games. James had but 1. Good here is ORtg > DRtg. Actually, the Finals MVP should be Wade.
Schermeister
June 16, 2011
I thought chandler had an amazing serious. He really killed it inside and got them a ton of extra positions, especially in crunch time. His defense and hard was the key for them this year. To bad no one will ever recognize him cause he is “just a rebounder”
On that I wanted to bring up the idea that you hear all over the game. That of “role player”. It is such a negative name meaning they are unskilled and barely can play basketball. But isnt every player a role player(like football). Dwayne Wades Role is to score from the wing. Tyson chandlers is to rebound and play post. PG are supposed to facilitate. Etc But for some reason if your role is to score you are a star. Where as if your role is to rebound, you are a 2nd fiddle role player. I find this odd. In football we easily make the distinction that the blockers are not getting TD’s nor are the Defensive ends getting interceptions often.
Glad Mark Jackson will be off the air next year!
Miley Cyrax
June 16, 2011
@Schermeister
I thought chandler had an amazing serious. He really killed it inside and got them a ton of extra positions, especially in crunch time. His defense and hard was the key for them this year. To bad no one will ever recognize him cause he is “just a rebounder”
Chandler as the most key player on the Mavericks… seriesly dude?
But for real I agree. It’s very frustrating trying to convince your friends Chandler’s the most productive player for the Mavs on a per minute basis. Or that Marion isn’t a bad player and was the most productive player on the Suns in the Nash/Amare era… so on and so forth.
Power Overwhelming
June 16, 2011
Schermeister – a player like Al Harrington who does little else but score (and score inefficiently) is seen as a role player at best and a horrible player at worst. Kevin Martin is widely seen as a one-dimensional scorer (although an exceptional scorer). Stars are players who can play both ends of the court or players whose scoring and playmaking is elite.
Also, Chandler is receiving a lot of recognition from the fans, from Dallas management, Dallas players, and from the media. He’s widely considered to be the second or third best player on the Mavericks. Several commentators somewhat inappropriately compared him to KG for supposedly bringing a defensive “culture” to the Mavericks like KG brought to the Celtics — I think that’s mostly nonsense, but it shows you the respect Chandler’s earned.
In conclusion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhIIPbO_6xg#t=30
todd2
June 17, 2011
Just adding some grist to the coaching debate. NBA teams employ several; Dallas has had as many as ten on their staff at the same time. It’s difficult to pin a team’s success on one person who may essentially be a figure-head. Phil Jackson has been very successful and he’s also had coaches like Tex Winter, John Bach and Jim Cleamons sitting next to him forever.
todd2
June 17, 2011
I was also happy to see Carlisle win a title. He was very successful at Detroit and was given the bum’s rush to bring in Larry Brown. There’s probably a story there somewhere.
Yack
June 17, 2011
That’s a lot of writing while somehow failing to come up with the conclusion that Miami shouldn’t have played point guards but instead should have played James Jones. Or that they should have had Joel Anthony in the game and defending Dirk at the end of game 4, as there’s no way Dirk gets an uncontested lay-up if that’s the case. Miami still might not have won, but Rick Carlisle is a far superior and far more creative coach than Spoelstra, and really his willingness to do what other NBA teams do not, install a zone and actually use it during the season (so that they were prepared to use it when it counts) is what won the series. With straight up defense, those games are Miami’s.
Schermeister
June 17, 2011
Power Overwhelming
While you do bring up some valid players, I can bring up more “stars”
Amare (Scorer) ie STAR, Carmelo, Michael Redd, Granger, Allen Iverson. I would say that all of these players are fairly one dimensional. But maybe also the players you said are in smaller markets and or are for losing teams. It seems you also have to win. KG never got his due till he won
And I think you are confusing star with super star. I am just saying what the media tells us : that the top scoring role is the star role and all other roles are “role players”. I dont disagree of you assement of star player but just I dont see the common perception as that.
Also
If you are very eff. at your role you are a star in your role to me. Just like Football stars
And sploestra too me is a bad coach or at least in comparison to Carlisle. The heat never seem to run an offensive sets. They seemed at a loss to deal with the Zone as yack said.