Balanced Perspective: Spurs/Suns/Mavs

[Mavs<Spurs]

Obviously, right now, it's easy to get giddy prematurely right now as a Spurs fan. However, I think that it is anybody's (in the West that is) trophy to win between Spurs, Mavs and Suns.

The Spurs are currently on a 13 game win streak. However, we all know that we will have a down part where we lose a couple before the end. And even though Dallas has lost their last 2, Dallas did win 17 in a row prior to that, this last loss was against the team with the second best record in the NBA and it took them double overtime before being vanquished.

Some also have pointed out that our last 13 wins have not been against very good teams. On the other hand, our previous schedule (earlier in the year) must, then, have been harder. So, that knife cuts both ways. In addition, our defense, which was very suspect (too many layups that we gave up and poor defensive rebounding), has picked up to the point where we do have the best defense in the NBA and our offense is third by percentage.

The Suns have an outstanding record. They are a poor defensive rebounding team. Nevertheless, they still found a way to beat Dallas. So, that weakness is not so severe that it leaves them out of contention. Moreover, they also had a 17 game winning streak earlier. And it is also true that four of the five wins in the 05 playoffs were extremely close. Further, Suns found a way to win a close game against a good team on the road. With this impressive win, the Suns must be considered to have about as good a shot as any of the other two to win it all.

Again, no team, even as good a team as Dallas is, could win every game. These two losses do not diminish in my eyes their chance to win it all. They have so far clearly played the best basketball of any team in the NBA.
Moreover, they are a top 3 defensive team, with an unstoppable player in Dirk and a great rebounding team. The loss of confidence that Dirk said he found in his teammates is surprising. I would say that Dallas while having as good a chance as the other two to win it all should not be considered a prohibitive favorite to win it all or even a 7 game series against the other two.
Remember, people were saying all the same things about Detroit last year and Detroit had the best record in the league last year. Yet, Miami with a mediocre record won it all. The Suns in 05 had the best record in the league; yet, the Spurs won it all. The Pistons in 04 didn't have a very good record with a win total in the 50's, but they won it all. This is the consistent picture over the last 15 or so years that we see.

Bottom line:
Any of the 3 could win it. We will stumble at some point soon.
Dallas will pick it up and this was not a major stumble on their part, either.
I still hate Dallas and I still have my personal opinion that the Spurs are the best, but good arguments for the other two teams could be easily made.
So, as Kori says, it is good to have confidence, but let's come back to earth of our own choice.

[Bruno]

Moreover, they are a top 3 defensive team.

No, they aren't. Rockets, Bulls and Spurs are the 3 best defensive teams in the league.

[Mavs<Spurs]

No, they aren't. Rockets, Bulls and Spurs are the 3 best defensive teams in the league.

At least prior to the last two games, they were allowing the third fewest points per game. I am not sure what the field goal percentage defense is, but I would bet that it is pretty good as well.

I agree with the Rockets and Spurs in the top 3.
How many points per game does Chicago allow and what is their field goal percentage defense compared to Dallas?

[SRJ]

Remember, people were saying all the same things about Detroit last year and Detroit had the best record in the league last year. Yet, Miami with a mediocre record won it all. The Suns in 05 had the best record in the league; yet, the Spurs won it all. The Pistons in 04 didn't have a very good record with a win total in the 50's, but they won it all. This is the consistent picture over the last 15 or so years that we see.

Not so. In the last fifteen seasons, the champion held or tied the best record in the league seven times. On four occasions, the champion held or tied the second best record. Chicago in 1993 had the third-best record in the NBA that season. Miami in '06, Detroit in 2004, Houston in 1995 were the only champions in the past fifteen years to win it finishing worse than third. So out of the last fifteen seasons, top three wins the title 80% of the time.

This is almost exactly equal with the whole of NBA history: In 60 seasons, the champion has finished in the top three 51 times - 85% of the time.

The good news is that it seems likely that the Spurs will finish in third, possibly second this season, keeping them in the championship picture.

[bdictjames]

Chicago once hold Atlanta to a field-goal less third quarter. That has to be some defense there.

[Mavs<Spurs]

Not so. In the last fifteen seasons, the champion held or tied the best record in the league seven times. On four occasions, the champion held or tied the second best record. Chicago in 1993 had the third-best record in the NBA that season. Miami in '06, Detroit in 2004, Houston in 1995 were the only champions in the past fifteen years to win it finishing worse than third. So out of the last fifteen seasons, top three wins the title 80% of the time.

This is almost exactly equal with the whole of NBA history: In 60 seasons, the champion has finished in the top three 51 times - 85% of the time.

The good news is that it seems likely that the Spurs will finish in third, possibly second this season, keeping them in the championship picture.


Exactly. That is my whole point.

The team with the best record does not normally win it all. They win it all about half of the time.

So, by no means, is it a foregone conclusion that simply because a team has the best record in the regular season will they win it all.

I said nothing at all about whether teams who finish outside of the top 4 or 5 in the standings being likely to win it all. So, it is not germane to the argument (or rather fact) that I just pointed out.

Moreover, what happened more than 15-20 years ago is not quite as relevant as what has happened more recently.

[Bruno]

At least prior to the last two games, they were allowing the third fewest points per game. I am not sure what the field goal percentage defense is, but I would bet that it is pretty good as well.

I agree with the Rockets and Spurs in the top 3.
How many points per game does Chicago allow and what is their field goal percentage defense compared to Dallas?

Spurs, Rockets and Pistons are the three teams that allowed the less PPG (Mavs are 4th). However, PPG allowed isn't a good stat to judge a defense because it penalized teams that plays fast.
Dallas is 10th on field goal percentage allowed (6th in eFG% allowed).

To me the best defensive stat is point allowed per 100 possesions : http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2007/d_de.htm

[Mavs<Spurs]

Spurs, Rockets and Pistons are the three teams that allowed the less PPG (Mavs are 4th). However, PPG allowed isn't a good stat to judge a defense because it penalized teams that plays fast.
Dallas is 10th on field goal percentage allowed (6th in eFG% allowed).

To me the best defensive stat is point allowed per 100 possesions : http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2007/d_de.htm


Didn't know that they were 10th in field goal percentage. They were better earlier in the season and that is surprising.
Thanks for the information.

I will agree that points per game is not as important (in my view) as field goal percentage defense.

[Big Shot Rob]

The best record does not always win the title.

I still think the Mavs are favored.

And I like the Spurs attitude towards the streak--its nice but takes a backseat to improving with eacn and every game.

[SRJ]

Exactly. That is my whole point.

The team with the best record does not normally win it all. They win it all about half of the time.

So, by no means, is it a foregone conclusion that simply because a team has the best record in the regular season will they win it all.

I said nothing at all about whether teams who finish outside of the top 4 or 5 in the standings being likely to win it all. So, it is not germane to the argument (or rather fact) that I just pointed out.

The average championship team averages a 58-24 record. San Antonio in 2005 posted a 59-23 record while Miami in 2006 won 52 games. One team was a typical championship team, the other one beat the odds. Anyone who picked the Heat to win the 2006 championship either had the last name O'Neal or wrote for the Miami Herald.

Of course the best record only wins half the time - but you're pitting first place against all the others. This is how it breaks down:

1st place - 30 titles out of 60, 50%
2nd place - 17/60, 28.3%
3rd place - 4/60, 6.7%
4th place - 4/60, 6.7%
5th place - 2/60, 3.3%
others - 3/60, 5%

To restate your fact, 1st place has the same chance of winning the championship as all the other places combined. So by comparing something specific to something general, you are correct but that is misleading.

[Mavs<Spurs]

The average championship team averages a 58-24 record. San Antonio in 2005 posted a 59-23 record while Miami in 2006 won 52 games. One team was a typical championship team, the other one beat the odds. Anyone who picked the Heat to win the 2006 championship either had the last name O'Neal or wrote for the Miami Herald.

Of course the best record only wins half the time - but you're pitting first place against all the others. This is how it breaks down:

1st place - 30 titles out of 60, 50%
2nd place - 17/60, 28.3%
3rd place - 4/60, 6.7%
4th place - 4/60, 6.7%
5th place - 2/60, 3.3%
others - 3/60, 5%

To restate your fact, 1st place has the same chance of winning the championship as all the other places combined. So by comparing something specific to something general, you are correct but that is misleading.

The implication Proposition P (team a has the best regular season record in the NBA in the year y) implies Proposition Q (team a will win the trophy in the year y) is formally false.

Some appear not to realize that this is a false implication.
Obviously, not everybody is happy with this state of affairs.


Truth Table
Value

Proposition P T Proposition Q T P implies Q T
Proposition P T Proposition Q F P implies Q F
Proposition P F Proposition Q T P implies Q T
Proposition P F Proposition Q F P implies Q T


So, the last column tells us that that the implication P implies Q is not always true if we find a counterexample where Proposition P is true and Proposition Q is false. We find this last year when Proposition P was the Detroit Pistons had the best record in the NBA during the regular season in 2006 and Proposition Q was the Detroit Pistons will win the championship in 2006.

[YoMamaIsCallin]

The thing that struck me watching the Dallas-Phoenix game was that the Mavs seemed to come quite unglued. They did not handle things professionally. They got caught up in emotions, barking at the refs, being showy and demonstrative, and kind of forgot about taking care of business. Their defense, especially, suffered a lot, I think. The tech to Nowitski, I think, was a big turning point.

Is it because they are not really a championship team at heart? Is it because their coach is so new? I don't know. But I sense a weakness here.

[SRJ]

The implication Proposition P (team a has the best regular season record in the NBA in the year y) implies Proposition Q (team a will win the trophy in the year y) is formally false.

Some appear not to realize that this is a false implication.
Obviously, not everybody is happy with this state of affairs.

I implied nothing - I merely presented the historical breakdown.

[TDMVPDPOY]

spurs=>ponies>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"sons"=overated

[SilverPlayer]

The funny thing when you say of the last 15 champions the best regular season team only won 7 times; how many of those 8 teams that didn't win it all with the best record were the Spurs? We may have contributed significantly to that statistic.

[SRJ]

The funny thing when you say of the last 15 champions the best regular season team only won 7 times; how many of those 8 teams that didn't win it all with the best record were the Spurs? We may have contributed significantly to that statistic.

In 1999, the Spurs were tied for the best record in the NBA with Utah's 37-13.

In 2003, the Spurs were tied for the best record in the NBA with Dallas' 60-22.

In 2005, the Spurs had the second best record in the NBA at 59-23 behind Phoenix's 62-20.

[SilverPlayer]

In 1999, the Spurs were tied for the best record in the NBA with Utah's 37-13.

In 2003, the Spurs were tied for the best record in the NBA with Dallas' 60-22.

In 2005, the Spurs had the second best record in the NBA at 59-23 behind Phoenix's 62-20.


I was talking about the losses. 1995 etc but yeah the wins (without the best record) contributed just as much as the losses.

[SRJ]

I was talking about the losses. 1995 etc but yeah the wins (without the best record) contributed just as much as the losses.

Well to answer the losses part...

The Spurs had the best record in 1995 (62-20) and lost in the WCF to the Rockets (47-35), who had the 10th best record that season.

The Spurs had the best record in 2001 (58-24) and lost in the WCF to the Lakers (56-26) who tied for the second best record that season.

So the Spurs are 2-2 when holding the NBA's best record - and all of the teams who have held the best record are 30-30. You could say the Spurs are typical in that sense.

[DarrinS]

The Suns looked pretty damn good last night. Amare is playing great. Steve Nash is probably the smartest PG in the NBA. Marion seems to defend Dirk well. And they've also got Raja, Diaw, and Barbosa. They are a pretty deep team.


Can the Mavs meet up with the Suns in the playoffs? Let's hope so.

[Don Quixote]

I like bringing up statistics and probability, and wish we did it more. In fact, about 10 years ago I wrote a paper, using the 1996 NBA season, applying t-square analysis to FT%, FG%, defensive & rebounding totals to winning percentage. I think I determined, for instance, that FT% actually has no bearing to how good a team is (to wit, the Lakers and Spurs have each won 3 titles since then, all with below-average FT shooting). Defensive FG% allowed and rebounding have much more impact.

I wonder if I still have the paper.

Anyhoo, this is all interesting, but the past 10 seasons have no bearing on this season.

I remember a few years back, when Kenny the Jet Smith was saying some typical sports-drivel like, "The Pacers have never won a second round series when they were down 2-1." Immediately Charles Barkley glared at Kenny and said, "How do those series have anything to do with this one!?"

Classic Chuck.