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

[BballTim]

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.

  Just to illustrate this a few ways, in our two games vs the Heat we've outscored them in the paint 76-54. Also, from 82games, we score about 12 more "close" points a game than the Heat.

[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.

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.

I am saying, in general, our 2 star wings shouldn't be expected to out play the Heat's 2 star wings.

And it's not like Wade or Lebron have always had bad games against us.

[LB3533]

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.

  Just to illustrate this a few ways, in our two games vs the Heat we've outscored them in the paint 76-54. Also, from 82games, we score about 12 more "close" points a game than the Heat.

Yeah, the Heat have a huge weakness on the inside.

But also in those 2 Celtic wins, Paul & Ray combined for 39 points in the 1st matchup and 60 points in the 2nd matchup.

Wade has only scored 21 points total in those 2 Heat losses.

Not only did the Heat get beat on the inside, they got beat by our perimeter stars.

Now, I do recall Ray stinking against Cleveland in the playoffs one series and also Paul stinking against Cleveland in another playoff series.

So it's not like both Ray and Paul will always outplay the Heat's dynamic duo. Lebron has been known to shut down either Ray or Paul.

[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.

  Just to illustrate this a few ways, in our two games vs the Heat we've outscored them in the paint 76-54. Also, from 82games, we score about 12 more "close" points a game than the Heat.

Yeah, the Heat have a huge weakness on the inside.

But also in those 2 Celtic wins, Paul & Ray combined for 39 points in the 1st matchup and 60 points in the 2nd matchup.

Wade has only scored 21 points total in those 2 Heat losses.

Not only did the Heat get beat on the inside, they got beat by our perimeter stars.

Now, I do recall Ray stinking against Cleveland in the playoffs one series and also Paul stinking against Cleveland in another playoff series.

So it's not like both Ray and Paul will always outplay the Heat's dynamic duo. Lebron has been known to shut down either Ray or Paul.

Again though, you discount the other side of the coin.

Alot of those wide open looks for ray and paul came because rondo was absolutely uncontested getting into the paint, and because they had to double on shaq and KG leading to kick out passes.

Much the same way ORlando beat them the other night.

[Bahku]

I don't put a lot of faith in statistics, and this is a perfect example. There have been many games where the Celtics were statistically getting killed, and yet because of defense, handily won the games. We had no trouble with Miami, and despite their recent wins, they are not one of the teams that I'm apprehensive about this year.

[snively]

Miami looks to be a bully team.  15 of their 17 wins are double-digit wins and the other 2 were by 8 and 9 points.  Basically, once you trip up, they gang up on you and beat you into the ground.

All those statistical bloodbaths are covering up for the tougher, heavyweight slugfests where they've gotten their butts handed to them. 

[Celtics4ever]

Yep, they are a bully team.  Still they are playing better but a lot of people here and the pundits are still pulling for them because they annoited them preseason and got blown out of the water.

I think are vastly over-rated.  I still think those stats in many cases are more indicative of their schedule than their ability.

[dark_lord]

this isnt fantasy sports....stats mean nothing, only a team's record does.

[Birdbrain]

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

Yes now our Pt diff is going to go through the roof. YAY...

[Birdbrain]

Miami looks to be a bully team.  15 of their 17 wins are double-digit wins and the other 2 were by 8 and 9 points.  Basically, once you trip up, they gang up on you and beat you into the ground.

All those statistical bloodbaths are covering up for the tougher, heavyweight slugfests where they've gotten their butts handed to them. 

Agreed LJ teams in general have played this way throughout his career.  If you punch them in mouth ( and Boston has oodles of these types of players ) they normally fold.  I suspect it's something in his makeup.  And I don't expect it to be much different with this team.  Miami really won't be a threat until KG retires. 

[BballTim]

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.

  Just to illustrate this a few ways, in our two games vs the Heat we've outscored them in the paint 76-54. Also, from 82games, we score about 12 more "close" points a game than the Heat.

Yeah, the Heat have a huge weakness on the inside.

But also in those 2 Celtic wins, Paul & Ray combined for 39 points in the 1st matchup and 60 points in the 2nd matchup.

Wade has only scored 21 points total in those 2 Heat losses.

Not only did the Heat get beat on the inside, they got beat by our perimeter stars.

Now, I do recall Ray stinking against Cleveland in the playoffs one series and also Paul stinking against Cleveland in another playoff series.

So it's not like both Ray and Paul will always outplay the Heat's dynamic duo. Lebron has been known to shut down either Ray or Paul.

  I don't think I've seen LeBron cover Ray much in his career, at least not the last few years. And I don't think that Wade's best skill is fighting through screens to cover people. When he has a bad game vs the Heat it will likely be due to missing open shots.

  But the bigger problem that you're not seeing is the other matchups for the Heat. Rondo's killing them and they have no answer for him, and they aren't winning matchups at the four or the 5.

  Also, to top it off, when James and Wade are on the floor it's easier for the Celts to defend the one with the ball because the other isn't a great outside shooting threat.

[nba is the worst]

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.

One problem I have with the Guts and stomps article is the conclusion drawn in the summary sentences "But the second-most predictive attribute of "final four" success was having more stomps -- that is, destroying the league's weaker teams. And having more stomps was actually a better indicator of success than having more guts (close wins against good teams), just like Schatz found in football. As Schatz writes in the intro of every Football Outsiders Almanac: "Championship teams are generally defined by their ability to dominate inferior opponents, not their ability to win close games."


True as far as it goes - which is the following when the math is done:
Stomps: 55.5%
Guts: 52.2%

The lack of a statistically significant difference (< 6%) between the 2 categories indicates that first, basketball isn't football, and second, other variables (noise, officiating, injuries) are more telling about which teams prevail at the end of the season.

[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.

One problem I have with the Guts and stomps article is the conclusion drawn in the summary sentences "But the second-most predictive attribute of "final four" success was having more stomps -- that is, destroying the league's weaker teams. And having more stomps was actually a better indicator of success than having more guts (close wins against good teams), just like Schatz found in football. As Schatz writes in the intro of every Football Outsiders Almanac: "Championship teams are generally defined by their ability to dominate inferior opponents, not their ability to win close games."


True as far as it goes - which is the following when the math is done:
Stomps: 55.5%
Guts: 52.2%

The lack of a statistically significant difference (< 6%) between the 2 categories indicates that first, basketball isn't football, and second, other variables (noise, officiating, injuries) are more telling about which teams prevail at the end of the season.

You're very right that it does not appear to be a very significant difference.

However, the reason this thread was written is that by and large, conventional wisdom has screamed that clutch victories vs. good opponents is far and away the single best thing to prepare teams for success in competitive playoff games. This article is really just pointing out that that conventional wisdom is just wrong.

[nba is the worst]

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.

One problem I have with the Guts and stomps article is the conclusion drawn in the summary sentences "But the second-most predictive attribute of "final four" success was having more stomps -- that is, destroying the league's weaker teams. And having more stomps was actually a better indicator of success than having more guts (close wins against good teams), just like Schatz found in football. As Schatz writes in the intro of every Football Outsiders Almanac: "Championship teams are generally defined by their ability to dominate inferior opponents, not their ability to win close games."


True as far as it goes - which is the following when the math is done:
Stomps: 55.5%
Guts: 52.2%

The lack of a statistically significant difference (< 6%) between the 2 categories indicates that first, basketball isn't football, and second, other variables (noise, officiating, injuries) are more telling about which teams prevail at the end of the season.

You're very right that it does not appear to be a very significant difference.

However, the reason this thread was written is that by and large, conventional wisdom has screamed that clutch victories vs. good opponents is far and away the single best thing to prepare teams for success in competitive playoff games. This article is really just pointing out that that conventional wisdom is just wrong.

Hmmm - I thought "conventional wisdom" supported the more statistically proven Dominations "beatdowns vs good opponents" (64.8%)

[Fan from VT]

Hmmm - I thought "conventional wisdom" supported the more statistically proven Dominations "beatdowns vs good opponents" (64.8%)

True, I don't know if anyone is arguing that.

However, I will absolutely claim that the overriding common theme among announcers, some posters, etc. is that victories against bad teams don't really count, while gutting out clutch wins against good teams, according to the vast majority of announcers, is what you need to prepare for playoff victories.

However, all the research i've read has shown that blowing out bad teams is at worst slightly more significant than clutch wins vs. good teams.