ESPN Finals Expert Picks

[fairweatherfan]

If we defeat the lakers we will have literally gone through the best teams in the nba: cavs, magic, lakers. No one will be able to doubt us then.

You seriously underestimate the Internet and teenagers everywhere.

[celtics2]

Barkley says Lakers in 5.

Barkley hasn't said anything intelligent in a long time. Too bloated. His mind is affected. His golf swing Haney tried to figure out was a failure. The problem lies in his brain. If the Celtics play the defense no one else plays it will be tough for LA to win 4.

[kfdodgerfan]

If the experts want to pick the Celtics, fine. But I don't get some experts picking them to win in 6 or 7. The Lakers haven't lost at home the entire playoffs and to think that the Celtics will go to Staples and clinch is somewhat ludicrous. Especially a game 7. Not going to happen.

[GreenFaith1819]

If the experts want to pick the Celtics, fine. But I don't get some experts picking them to win in 6 or 7. The Lakers haven't lost at home the entire playoffs and to think that the Celtics will go to Staples and clinch is somewhat ludicrous. Especially a game 7. Not going to happen.

Well..it could happen. We went into ORL and took two games from them..those two games decided our series with ORL. Boston is a much tougher Road Team this time around.

[bdm860]

If the experts want to pick the Celtics, fine. But I don't get some experts picking them to win in 6 or 7. The Lakers haven't lost at home the entire playoffs and to think that the Celtics will go to Staples and clinch is somewhat ludicrous. Especially a game 7. Not going to happen.

Huh?

So you're ok with the experts picking the Celtics to win, just not in 6 or 7?  So this means the only way the Celtics can win is in 4 or 5?  Lol hah works for me.

[BballTim]

If the experts want to pick the Celtics, fine. But I don't get some experts picking them to win in 6 or 7. The Lakers haven't lost at home the entire playoffs and to think that the Celtics will go to Staples and clinch is somewhat ludicrous. Especially a game 7. Not going to happen.

  If we can win multiple games in Cleveland and Orlando then there's no reason to think we can't do it to LA. I doubt you're more confident than Orlando fans after they swept the Hawks with, I think, the largest average margin of victory in playoff history.

[kfdodgerfan]

Well..it could happen. We went into ORL and took two games from them..those two games decided our series with ORL. Boston is a much tougher Road Team this time around.

But the Celtics also lost at home to them and the Cavs. As much as you think that the Celtics can win in LA, the Lakers can just as easily win 2 or 3 in Boston. The Lakers have clinched every series on the road while losing no games at home.

[kfdodgerfan]

Huh?

So you're ok with the experts picking the Celtics to win, just not in 6 or 7?  So this means the only way the Celtics can win is in 4 or 5?  Lol hah works for me.

Well yeah, if you're an "expert" and pick the Celtics win, you would think the Celtics would steal one in LA then sweep at home. Like the 2004 Pistons.

But to come back to LA and then clinch? That's less of a possibility.

[kfdodgerfan]

If we can win multiple games in Cleveland and Orlando then there's no reason to think we can't do it to LA. I doubt you're more confident than Orlando fans after they swept the Hawks with, I think, the largest average margin of victory in playoff history.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the Lakers can also win multiple games on the road. Winning two games in one of the toughest arenas in Utah.

And Orlando was phony to start with. Beating up a weak Atlanta team that barely got by the bucks is nothing to be proud of.

[GreenFaith1819]

Well..it could happen. We went into ORL and took two games from them..those two games decided our series with ORL. Boston is a much tougher Road Team this time around.

But the Celtics also lost at home to them and the Cavs. As much as you think that the Celtics can win in LA, the Lakers can just as easily win 2 or 3 in Boston. The Lakers have clinched every series on the road while losing no games at home.

Well, Boston is a Team of Firsts...first team to beat ORL at home in the Playoffs..did it twice. LA is just the next challenge.

We all know that in order for Boston to stop Heavily Favored LA is for us to go in there and take one (or Two).

And LA - while certainly an improved team from 08 and a Great team, still have to prove they can hold serve at home, just likek us, you're right.

I like Boston's Opportunity.

[ejk3489]

If we can win multiple games in Cleveland and Orlando then there's no reason to think we can't do it to LA. I doubt you're more confident than Orlando fans after they swept the Hawks with, I think, the largest average margin of victory in playoff history.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the Lakers can also win multiple games on the road. Winning two games in one of the toughest arenas in Utah.

And Orlando was phony to start with. Beating up a weak Atlanta team that barely got by the bucks is nothing to be proud of.

And what about beating the Cavs twice on their homecourt? The same Cavs who had the best home record in the league? It sounds like you're just trying to downlplay what the Celtics have accomplished.

Oh my bad, the Cavs are probably phony too...

[FallGuy]

Mike Gorman thinks the series will go five games. His pick is Celtics in 5. But his secondary pick is Lakers in 5. Logic being that the whistles will shape how the series is played and to whose advantage.

Check the CNNSI picks. More Celtics than Lakers there. Some smart guys at that site.

[action781]

Looking at the playoff statistics (http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/_/stat/team-comparison-per-game/sort/avgPointsDifference) completely objectively, I feel like the Celtics have to be the clear favorite in this series.  Here's why:

Can we agree that Boston has defeated tougher competition?  Are Cleveland, Orlando, Miami collectively harder than Phoenix, Utah, and OKC?  I'd say so and my argument isn't clear if that's not true.

In the playoffs, against tougher competition, the stats shape up like this:

Point differential:
Boston: +5.2
LA: +4.0

FG Pct:
Boston:  Own: 46.1%  Opp: 43.8%
LA:         Own: 47.7%  Opp:  43.7%

3pt %:
Boston:  Own:  38.4%  Opp:  32.9%
LA:         Own:  34.8%  Opp:  32.5%

TO Diff:
Boston:  +2.1
LA:  -0.2

FT %:  Essentially even

Rebound %:
Boston:  50.7%
LA:  51.3%

I think these are the most important stats most often considered and discussed in basketball analysis.  I'd say the Celtics have a clear apparent advantage in 3 of them (ppg differential, 3pt %, TO diff).  1 was a tie.  LA has a significant advantage in fg% and a very small advantage in rebound %.

I've preached often as a mathematician how "important" stats can be very deceiving.  They do not always have high correlations with winnings.  Example:  I posted fairly recently that the Timberwolves had the 3rd highest TO differential in the NBA toward the end of the reg season.  Memphis ranked 5th in rebounds (2nd in differential).  Toronto was 5th in fg%. 

One stat that DOES have a high correlation with winning is ppg differential.  The top 9 regular season teams were: Orlando, Cleveland, Utah, SA, Phx, LA, Atl, Den, Bos.  It should be pretty clear why also.  This is the only stat (outscoring opponents) that actually translates directly to wins.  Rebounds don't equal wins.  High fg% doesn't win games if you turn the ball over too frequently.  Few turnovers don't win games if you can't make shots.  But if you outscore your opponents, you are undoubtedly going to win.

So, I say that ppg differential is the most important stat to look at.  I argue that it still doesn't even give a completely accurate look.  What if Team A has a +10 ppg differential and Team B has a +11 ppg differential.  Who is the better team?  Well, you'd think Team B.  But what if Team A does it while averaging only 80 possessions per game and Team B does it while averaging 110 possessions per game?  When these 2 teams play eachother, one team won't have 80 possessions while the other has 110, they'll likely meet in the middle somewhere.  Then it comes down to proportions and the wonderful stat of points per 100 possessions.  I know you all have heard of it before.  My reasoning for this post is to maybe exemplify why this stat is so important and such an indicator of success.  So, lets compare the 2 teams points per 100 possessions in the playoffs:

Celtics:  OFF:  106.2  DEF:  100.2  Differential:  +6.0
Lakers:  OFF:  116.0  DEF:  111.6  Differential:  +4.4

You can say that LA has homecourt, but they have the entire postseason and still posted those numbers.  You can say Boston is the visiting team, but they have been for 2/3 series this postseason and posted those numbers.  You can't say Boston is going up against any relatively tougher opposition than LA.

For this reason, I objectively feel that Boston has to be the favorite in the series.

[action781]

Wow!  So I did a statistical analysis on how much reg. season win % is dependent on reg. season PPG differential.  I got an incredible correlation.  r = .9745 and r² = .9497 .  For those of you who don't know stats (I'm a math major), my teacher summed it up as "Your r² value basically grades how good your regression model is and would say that a .9497 is as good as a student getting a grade of 94.97% on a test or for a semester."  That's really good!  1.000 is the highest possible and means DIRECT correlation.  But, I stated before that I think points per 100 possessions should be more accurate.

I did some searching online to find the points per 100 possessions differential and I actually found that somebody already did the analysis!  http://armchairgm.wikia.com/NBA_Point_Differential_-_The_Most_Power_Stat

Over the last 10 years it has an r² value =.9402.  Impressive.

But we all know that the regular season doesn't matter come playoff time.  So I did a regression analysis on how playoff points per 100 possessions affects win %.  I got an r=.8754 and r²=.7664.  Essentially, that is "not bad, but not great" in terms of showing true correlation between the two statistics.  It's hard to expect a great result here though because the sample is really small.  Portland's 20-30 point losses didn't balance well with their 2 wins.  Interestingly enough, if I just take Portland out of my dataset, I get an r²=.8283.  Significantly better, but still the result really shows that there appears to be some correlation between the 2, but I think the sample size is still too small to get a result that says with certainty that there is a really strong correlation.

[studstar]

read this posted somewhere, the guy is no expert but this writer does make sense:

East Regular Season PPG:
Heat 96.5
Cavs 102.1
Magic 102.8
Boston 99.2

Playoffs Series PPG vs Celts:
Heat 87.6 (-8.9 ppg vs regular season), Bos 95.8, 8.2 differential
Cavs 95.2 (-6.9ppg), Bos 100.5, 5.3 differential
Magic 90.7 (-10.1ppg), Bos 93.5, 2.8 differential

Boston consistently won by doing better on the defensive end. Lowering opponents PPG by an average of 8.6 ppg. Will look for the FG% drops and such some other time. But what this says is Boston has consistently beaten their playoff victims by limiting their ability to score, quicker rotations, help defense, denials, deflections, you name it, they defend like it.


West Regular Season PPG:
OKC 101.5
Jazz 104.2
Suns 110.2
Lakers 101.7

Playoffs Series PPG vs Lakers:
OKC 93.8 (-7.7 vs reg season), LAL 95.5, 1.7 differential
Jazz 102.0 (-2.2), LAL 109.2, 7.2 differential
Suns 109.3 (-0.9), LAL 113.5, 4.2 differential

The most competitive series for LA was around, and why not? OKC made LA play a more defensive series, resulting to a surprise 2-2 tie after 4 games, when most everyone expected a sweep. LA had to dig deep and to win vs OKC, which allowed them to play better, and more in their element, in the other matchups that followed. Here was a young OKC team playing scrambling team D, and gave the defending champs all they could handle.

Playing more to their liking, LA dispatched both the Jazz and the Suns.

Here's an even more telling stat: when LA won last year, they won by turning on the D on the Magic, lowering the Magic PPG from to 91.2 in the finals, a -9.8 drop vs Magic regular season, about the same decline Boston gave Magic in the last ECF (Magic 90.7 (-10.1ppg)). This means, at least if we compare both Boston this year, and LA last year, that both are pretty good defensive teams. But these playoffs have shown how much more edge Boston has in the defensive end. Like Kobe mentioned 9 times in the post game interview after the Game 4 loss vs Phoenix, they didn't have trouble scoring, so it wasn't the Suns zone defense that lost the game for LA, it was LA's own team defense. And while LA did win the last two game, oh, in awesome Kobe G.O.A.T/I am still light years ahead of LBJ style, it showed what the Lakers need to work on, and where Boston is already at-- great team defense.

Barring injuries and suspensions, I think, and despite Artest, Bynum, a scary-better Kobe, Boston will bring the hurt again to El-Ay, in six games. They BETTER close it in six, because no way Boston wins a game seven in Staples, not while Kobe still walks and is able to shoot even with his left hand.