Statistically Speaking: '10 Miami Heat are a top team in the NBA

[crownsy]

I was just about to post that, Fan from VT - thanks for beating me to it. Point differential is far more indicative of how the Heat will perform down the road. I should note - both Bosh/Z have above average PER numbers. All this talk about the bad Heat front court is very much exaggerated.

PER doesn't account for defense, that's where the problem with Miami's bigs is. Other than Bosh they are all very slow.

I posted in another thread...

Some interesting notes: Z's opponent's PER: 14.5, Bosh's - about 13 between the C/PF position, Joel Anthony - 13.3, Dampier's - 11.2...

Basically, the Heat's inside defense has actually been pretty good...above average at the very least.

Yet reality still disagrees with you, as does there 3-7 record vs teams with good interior presence. They have a ton of trouble with elite front courts.

Heck they had alot of trouble with zach randolph and marc gasol in that memphis loss. They had to start doubling to help and mayo/gay just slaughtered them.
Just goes to show that stats dont show everything.

[BballTim]

The Heat aren't much better than their record. Claiming that they were still in the games against us in the final minutes is extremely generous. We were firmly in control of both games from early on with double digit halftime leads that we never relinquished.

Are you kidding? With 1:09 left in  the season opener, the Heat had the game within 3 points. It is generous to say that they were still in the game in the final minutes? Man, how early do you usually give up when the Celtics are down? In the second game, with 13 seconds left, the Celtics led by 3 points - 110 - 107.  It is generous to say that being down one possession late in the game means you're still in the game? Revisionist history here.


http://espn.go.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=301026002

http://espn.go.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=301111014&period=4

  We were in control of those games from start to finish.

[BballTim]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=8159

  Is this what you were looking at?

  "In the NBA, dominating good teams is clearly the best indicator of postseason success."

Soap pointed it out.

In general, Final Four (postseason) success is best predicted by:
1. Blowing out Good teams
2. Blowing out Bad teams
3. Winning close vs. Good teams
4. Winning close vs. bad teams

'losing close vs. good teams' not really having much bearing compared to the above 4.

  Does the article say anything at all about how records vs good or bad teams affects your ability to win the title?

[Fan from VT]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=8159

  Is this what you were looking at?

  "In the NBA, dominating good teams is clearly the best indicator of postseason success."

Soap pointed it out.

In general, Final Four (postseason) success is best predicted by:
1. Blowing out Good teams
2. Blowing out Bad teams
3. Winning close vs. Good teams
4. Winning close vs. bad teams

'losing close vs. good teams' not really having much bearing compared to the above 4.

  Does the article say anything at all about how records vs good or bad teams affects your ability to win the title?

Well, considering that in the course of an NBA season every team plays the same amount of games and overall ends up playing similar amounts of good vs. bad teams, # of wins vs. good or bad teams, which is what this is measuring, is a surrogate for record vs. good or bad teams.

Essentially the article is saying that the best predictor for playoff success is winning more games by a large margin against good teams. This makes sense; if you are winning big vs. good teams, then you're a good team and will have playoff success.

The crux of the article is the 2nd best predictor. Most people would assume winning small vs. good teams indicates future success. But not to the extent that winning big vs. bad teams does. Essentially, through the years, teams that win big vs. bad teams have more success than teams that win small vs. good teams.


I guess the point of the article is record vs. good or bad teams doesn't matter as much as winning big vs. anybody predicts conference finals/nba finals victories as compared to winning close vs. good teams.



But again, these are population trends. There are exceptions all the time. But what these do say, is that if you put money on every playoff game, and ignored everything (scouting, "clutchness," matchups, etc.) and just bet the team that had the most blowout victories (or largest average margin of victory), you'd end up with more money than you started.

[barefacedmonk]

So...do we get some credit for "stomping" a bad team tonight?

[BballTim]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=8159

  Is this what you were looking at?

  "In the NBA, dominating good teams is clearly the best indicator of postseason success."

Soap pointed it out.

In general, Final Four (postseason) success is best predicted by:
1. Blowing out Good teams
2. Blowing out Bad teams
3. Winning close vs. Good teams
4. Winning close vs. bad teams

'losing close vs. good teams' not really having much bearing compared to the above 4.

  Does the article say anything at all about how records vs good or bad teams affects your ability to win the title?

Well, considering that in the course of an NBA season every team plays the same amount of games and overall ends up playing similar amounts of good vs. bad teams, # of wins vs. good or bad teams, which is what this is measuring, is a surrogate for record vs. good or bad teams.

Essentially the article is saying that the best predictor for playoff success is winning more games by a large margin against good teams. This makes sense; if you are winning big vs. good teams, then you're a good team and will have playoff success.

  I think you're reading more into that article than is there. The sample group is teams that make it to the conference finals, and they're only looking at relative amount of wins in certain margins between teams that play each other. It's possible that teams that don't fare well against good teams don't generally make it as far as the conference finals. It also doesn't really say or imply that blowout wins vs weak teams is more important than overall record vs good teams.

[LB3533]

So...do we get some credit for "stomping" a bad team tonight?

Any time a team wins convincingly, against good or bad teams...it will build confidence (sometimes over confidence).

The Heat are currently gaining a ton of confidence right now.

The Heat will probably start winning against good teams from here on out.

I would not sleep on the Heat even though we are 2-0 against them, and to me, those two wins were not that convincing.

In the 2 wins against the Heat, both Ray Allen and Paul Pierce out played the Wade/Lebron combo.

I'd like to see us win against the Heat when the Wade/Lebron combo have a good game together.

[NoraG1]

Really hard at the moment to argue that Heat are not a top team. Impossible to argue at the moment that they are an all-time great team.

The problem I see is that many people want the Heat to be a laughingstock, and they definitely are not at the moment. And as most of us have said all along, they seem to be improving with time.

I agree. It's the extremist language we use now. The Heat must either Suck or be Dominant.
Why can't they be about the 3rd-5th best team in the league? Very good with noticeable flaws?

The problem is the way they acted before the season started. They brought this on themselves.

[crownsy]

So...do we get some credit for "stomping" a bad team tonight?

Any time a team wins convincingly, against good or bad teams...it will build confidence (sometimes over confidence).

The Heat are currently gaining a ton of confidence right now.

The Heat will probably start winning against good teams from here on out.

I would not sleep on the Heat even though we are 2-0 against them, and to me, those two wins were not that convincing.

In the 2 wins against the Heat, both Ray Allen and Paul Pierce out played the Wade/Lebron combo.

I'd like to see us win against the Heat when the Wade/Lebron combo have a good game together.

Thats a circular argument. You could argue that stuffing the paint and making them shoot over the top was the cause of the bad game for them.

Instead you seek to discredit our strategy by dismissing it as bad games on there part.

[NoraG1]

So...do we get some credit for "stomping" a bad team tonight?

Any time a team wins convincingly, against good or bad teams...it will build confidence (sometimes over confidence).

The Heat are currently gaining a ton of confidence right now.

The Heat will probably start winning against good teams from here on out.

I would not sleep on the Heat even though we are 2-0 against them, and to me, those two wins were not that convincing.

In the 2 wins against the Heat, both Ray Allen and Paul Pierce out played the Wade/Lebron combo.

I'd like to see us win against the Heat when the Wade/Lebron combo have a good game together.

Too me the problem is Heat were overconfident in the beginning...Not sure not enough confidence was ever a problem

[NoraG1]

The Heat will have to prove they are elite they have not done it as of yet

[barefacedmonk]

The Heat will have to prove they are elite they have not done it as of yet

They will tonight...when they stomp all over the Kings

..I can imagine the headlines on nba.com already.

[barefacedmonk]

Has anybody here seen any sign from this Miami team that makes you believe they will be able to overcome our defense, half court playing style and our combo of Shaq, Perk, KG and JO? I see LBJ and Wade doing all the heavy lifting. How long do you think those 2 guys can do-it-all in the playoffs?

They won't even beat Orlando in a playoff series...and the Magic have only one superstar vs the 2 and a half men that Miami's roster boasts of...and if the Magic are able to make that Iggy-Carter trade, then it will only make it harder for the Heat. They can stomp the weaker opponents all they want...but I don't think we need to worry about them yet.

[LilRip]

the Heat are doing one thing right: they are winning the games they are supposed to. in their 7-game win streak, they've beaten:

1) the Wizards playing without John Wall
2) Detroit... :|
3) Cleveland... :| :|
4) the lazy Atlanta Hawks playing without Joe Johnson
5) Milwaukee (who is 9-13)
6) a good Utah team
7) the sub-500 warriors playing without Steph Curry

winning margins aside, they're supposed to win 6 out of those 7 games because it's either a bad team (Cle, Det) or teams playing without their main guy. good on them to win that Jazz game.

but beating up on easy teams is something that homecourt-in-the-playoffs-bound teams are supposed to do. Not all playoff-bound teams do that but to the Heat's credit, they're doing it.  i think they're 4th best in the East (behind Bos, Orl and Chi who are beginning to get used to Boozer) and that the Heat stand no chance at all against LA come Christmas day.

[BballTim]

So...do we get some credit for "stomping" a bad team tonight?

Any time a team wins convincingly, against good or bad teams...it will build confidence (sometimes over confidence).

The Heat are currently gaining a ton of confidence right now.

The Heat will probably start winning against good teams from here on out.

I would not sleep on the Heat even though we are 2-0 against them, and to me, those two wins were not that convincing.

In the 2 wins against the Heat, both Ray Allen and Paul Pierce out played the Wade/Lebron combo.

I'd like to see us win against the Heat when the Wade/Lebron combo have a good game together.

  So you're claiming that the Heat losses came from a lack of confidence? Never heard that one before.

  And I wouldn't expect LeBron and Wade to have many good games together against the Celts. It might happen, but it won't happen much.