Every NBA Finalists Playoffs SRS

[s0ciety]

Didn't really knew where to post this thing, I guess the Statistical Analysis board might be more appropriate, but there doesn't seems to have much traction over there, mods, feel free to move the post if this isn't the right place to post it.

This list has every BAA/NBA Finalists since 1947 on it, if you guys want teams that didn't make the Finals, just ask, I have done this thing for every playoffs teams since 1947, I have the full ABA Playoffs as well.

Methodology: Simply added the Playoffs MOV/G to the average opponent RS SRS (game-weighted) faced in the playoffs. This method obviously has flaws, such as a key player missing games not being reflected on the SRS, or destroying low-tier teams inflating the MOV, but hey, I thought it was the fairest way to do this thing.

Code: Select all

Rank   Season   Team  SRS     MOV      OPPSRS
1      2001     LAL   18.28   12.80    5.48
2      2017     GSW   16.91   13.50    3.41
3      1971     MIL   15.63   14.50    1.13
4      1996     CHI   15.13   10.60    4.53
5      1991     CHI   14.21   11.70    2.51
6      2016     CLE   14.07   8.70     5.37
7      1961     BOS   14.06   11.60    2.46
8      2018     GSW   13.89   10.00    3.89
9      2014     SAS   13.79   9.30     4.49
10     1950     MNL   13.39   9.10     4.29
11     1986     BOS   13.13   10.3     2.83
12     1985     LAL   13.05   10.10    2.95
13     1967     PHI   12.78   9.40     3.38
14     1987     LAL   12.71   11.40    1.31
15     2017     CLE   12.35   7.90     4.45
16     1998     CHI   11.57   7.00     4.57
17     1973     NYK   11.26   5.00     6.26
18     1997     CHI   11.21   5.50     5.71
19     1989     DET   11.14   7.70     3.44
20     2015     GSW   11.12   7.80     3.32
21     2009     LAL   11.06   7.20     3.86
22     1993     CHI   10.95   5.90     5.05
23     2013     SAS   10.82   7.00     3.82
24     1949     MNL   10.64   7.40     3.24
25     1964     BOS   10.62   6.20     4.42
26     1983     PHI   10.51   6.50     4.01
27     1972     LAL   10.35   3.20     7.15
28     2012     MIA   10.28   7.00     3.28
29     2011     DAL   10.21   5.70     4.51
30     1992     CHI   10.18   6.20     3.98
31     1982     LAL   9.84    6.00     3.84
32     2019     TOR   9.83    5.50     4.33
33     1981     BOS   9.78    6.10     3.68
34     1990     DET   9.75    7.00     2.75
35     1959     BOS   9.66    7.80     1.86
36     2003     SAS   9.65    5.50     4.15
37     1999     SAS   9.55    7.20     2.35
38     2002     LAL   9.44    3.70     5.74
39     1954     MNL   9.41    6.20     3.21
40     2004     DET   9.30    6.40     2.90
41     2021     PHO   9.29    4.50     4.79
42     1972     NYK   9.24    4.70     4.54
43     1974     BOS   9.17    5.60     3.57
44     2013     MIA   9.12    6.40     2.72
44     1989     LAL   9.12    4.80     4.32
46     1992     POR   9.08    3.40     5.68
47     2006     DAL   9.05    4.00     5.05
48     1984     LAL   9.03    6.90     2.13
49     2008     LAL   8.74    2.20     6.54
50     2020     LAL   8.70    6.80     1.90       
51     2015     CLE   8.64    4.00     4.64
52     1995     HOU   8.57    2.80     5.77
53     1948     PHW   8.54    5.70     2.84
54     2012     OKC   8.46    4.00     4.46
55     2021     MIL   8.42    5.10     3.32
56     2005     DET   8.41    4.70     3.71
57     1947     PHW   8.39    5.90     2.49
58     1988     DET   8.35    4.50     3.85
59     1951     ROC   8.33    7.10     1.23
60     2016     GSW   8.33    4.40     3.93
61     1973     LAL   8.32    4.20     4.12
62     1966     BOS   8.26    5.60     2.66
63     1997     UTA   8.18    3.30     4.88
64     1974     MIL   8.16    5.60     2.56
64     1980     LAL   8.16    4.30     3.86
64     1977     POR   8.16    4.70     3.46
67     2007     SAS   8.04    4.00     4.04
68     1960     BOS   8.03    5.80     2.23
69     1986     HOU   8.02    3.80     4.22
70     2005     SAS   8.01    4.30     3.71
70     2020     MIA   8.01    2.00     6.01
72     2010     BOS   7.93    2.80     5.13
73     2010     LAL   7.90    3.80     4.10
74     1994     HOU   7.84    3.10     4.74
75     2009     ORL   7.76    1.90     5.86
76     1969     BOS   7.75    3.10     4.65
77     2008     BOS   7.69    5.20     2.49
78     1965     BOS   7.63    7.00     0.63
79     1975     GSW   7.60    5.30     2.30
80     2006     MIA   7.36    3.80     3.56
81     2019     GSW   7.25    3.30     3.95
82     2000     LAL   7.22    2.40     4.82
83     1968     BOS   7.07    3.10     3.97
84     1962     BOS   7.02    4.80     2.22
85     2011     MIA   6.90    2.70     4.20
85     1991     LAL   6.90    1.00     5.90
87     1984     BOS   6.83    4.20     2.63
88     1999     NYK   6.78    2.00     4.78
89     1969     LAL   6.74    4.60     2.14
90     1953     MNL   6.72    5.20     1.52
91     1957     BOS   6.70    7.20     -0.50
92     1996     SEA   6.67    1.40     5.27
93     1970     LAL   6.60    3.90     2.70
94     1980     PHI   6.58    2.20     4.38
95     1956     PHW   6.51    6.20     0.31
96     1978     WSB   6.49    3.70     2.79
97     1947     CHS   6.44    0.10     6.34
98     1982     PHI   6.28    1.30     4.98
99     1979     SEA   6.23    2.50     3.73
100     1971     BLB   6.21    0.90     5.31
101     2004     LAL   6.21    0.90     5.31
102     1963     LAL   6.19    2.50     3.69
103     1970     NYK   6.18    3.70     2.48
104    1998     UTA   6.17    2.10     4.07
105    1958     BOS   6.14    5.60     0.54
106    1975     WSB   6.07    2.60     3.47
107    1950     SYR   5.88    1.10     4.78
108    1985     BOS   5.79    2.60     3.19
109    2000     IND   5.49    2.70     2.78
110    1988     LAL   5.48    2.60     2.88
111    2003     NJN   5.47    3.40     2.07
112    1964     SFW   4.90    1.20     3.70
113    1968     LAL   4.72    4.60     0.12
114    1983     LAL   4.70    0.60     4.10
115    1952     MNL   4.67    3.40     1.27
116    1962     LAL   4.65    1.00     3.65
117    1993     PHO   4.59    0.80     3.79
118    2007     CLE   4.42    2.10     2.32
119    1994     NYK   4.33    1.10     3.23
120    2014     MIA   4.32    1.80     2.52
121    1953     NYK   4.27    2.10     2.17
122    1976     BOS   4.26    3.00     1.26
123    1958     STL   4.18    2.50     1.68
124    1963     BOS   4.10    2.20     1.90
125    1967     SFW   4.09    1.20     2.89
126    1949     WSC   3.89    -0.20    4.09
127    1948     BLB   3.88    2.40     1.48
128    1995     ORL   3.73    1.30     2.43
129    1955     SYR   3.57    2.30     1.27
130    1954     SYR   3.54    1.50     2.04
131    1987     BOS   3.53    -1.10    4.63
132    1955     FTW   3.23    2.10     1.13
133    1952     NYK   2.94    -1.60    4.54
134    1978     SEA   2.85    0.40     2.45
135    1981     HOU   2.31    -0.50    2.81
136    1990     POR   2.27    -2.30    4.57
137    1966     LAL   2.22    0.30     1.92
138    2002     NJN   2.08    0.00     2.08
139    2001     PHI   2.05    -0.10    2.15
140    2018     CLE   1.98    -1.80    3.78
141    1979     WSB   1.95    -1.30    3.25
142    1976     PHO   1.86    -1.10    2.96
143    1956     FTW   1.80    0.60     1.20
144    1977     PHI   1.66    0.20     1.46
145    1957     STL   1.38    -1.70    3.08
146    1960     STL   0.24    -1.50    1.74
147    1951     NYK   -0.27   -1.70    1.43
148    1959     MNL   -2.38   -5.20    2.82
149    1965     LAL   -2.48   -4.80    2.32
150    1961     STL   -3.21   -5.20    1.99


Notes:

Best SRS Champion - 2001 Lakers / 18.28
Best SRS Finalist - 2017 Cavaliers / 12.35
Worst SRS Champion - 1955 Nationals / 3.57
Worst SRS Finalist - 1961 Hawks / -3.21

Best MOV Champion - 1971 Bucks / 14.50
Best MOV Finalist - 2017 Cavaliers / 7.90
Worst MOV Champion - 1963 Celtics / 2.20
Worst MOV Finalist - 1959 Lakers & 1961 Hawks / -5.20

Best OPPSRS Champion - 1972 Lakers / 7.15
Best OPPSRS Finalist - 2008 Lakers / 6.54
Worst OPPSRS Champion - 1957 Celtics / -0.50
Worst OPPSRS Finalist - 1968 Lakers / 0.12

[RCM88x]

Just to remind everyone, the 2016/2017 Cavs ARE NOT a historically notable team, smh. lol

[70sFan]

It's not a surprise that the lowest numbers are from times when the league was smaller. I said it many times that it's harder to be notably different than league average when you are such a big part of this average.

In short -Nationals having small SRS doesn't make them the worst champions ever.

[OverAndOut]

The 2016-2017 Cavs that lost 4-1 were a better team than the one that won a year before.

[Joao Saraiva]

The 2016-2017 Cavs that lost 4-1 were a better team than the one that won a year before.

Well, GSW was a better team than the year before too. Barnes for KD is the sort of move that will make go from a 4-3 defeat to an easy win.

[limbo]

So, LeBron has faced:

#2 - GSW 2017 (w/ #15 - CLE 2017)
#8 - GSW 2018 (w/ #136 - CLE 2018, lmao, most lopsided Finals ever)
#9 - SAS 2014 (w/ #116 - MIA 2014, 2nd most lopsided Finals ever)
#20 - GSW 2015 (w/ #49 - CLE 2015, with key injuries)
#23 - SAS 2013 (w/ #43 MIA 2013, arguably won as underdog)
#29 - DAL 2011(w/ #81 MIA 2011, people thought Dallas was the underdog at the time, lol)
#52 - OKC 2012 (w/ #28 MIA 2012, won easily as favorite)
#56 - GSW 2016 (w/ #6 CLE 2016, hehe)
#64 - SAS 2007 w/ #114 CLE 2007, 3rd most lopsided Finals ever)
#68 - BOS 2010
#73 - BOS 2008

Ok, let's look at MJ:

#11 - BOS 1986
#19 - DET 1989
#34 - DET 1990
#45 - POR 1992 (w/ #30 - CHI 1992)
#55 - DET 1988
#60 - UTA 1997 (w/ #18 - CHI 1997)
#81 - LAL 1991 (w/ #5 - CHI 1991)
#88 - SEA 1996 (w/ #4 - CHI 1996)
#100 - UTA 1998 (w/ #16 - CHI 1998)
#113 - PHX 1993 (w/ #22 - CHI 1993)
#127 - BOS 1987

[Ken D]

I feel like we should note that SRS does not control for pace or league size. It therefore may not be the best metric to use for cross era comparisons.

For example, the margin of victory difference between 1974 Boston and 2004 Detroit was 0.8, but the net rating difference was 1.9. That's the difference between a two spot separation in the rankings, and a 15 spot separation in the rankings.

So the results are pretty dramatically skewed without adjusting for pace. You could use net rating in place of SRS to account for the pace variable, but then there is still the issue of the difference in league size across eras affecting the average rating of the opponent.

[Odinn21]

I feel like we should note that SRS does not control for pace or league size. It therefore may not be the best metric to use for cross era comparisons.

For example, the margin of victory difference between 1974 Boston and 2004 Detroit was 0.8, but the net rating difference was 1.9. That's the difference between a two spot separation in the rankings, and a 15 spot separation in the rankings.

So the results are pretty dramatically skewed without adjusting for pace. You could use net rating in place of SRS to account for the pace variable, but then there is still the issue of the difference in league size across eras affecting the average rating of the opponent.

Your points reminded me of my reservations about SRS, even though it didn't get any traction.
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1886988

SRS doesn't take into account pace, value of a single possession, scoring distributions, margins in percentages and some more.

---

Also what I don't like about postseason MOV derivative numbers;
They usually fail to show overachievers. I mean were 2001 Spurs or 2009 Magic/Cavs a tougher opponent than 2005 Pistons?
The other things is; in a full 7 game series between two comparable teams, the team that got outscored on overall won the series like 45-48% of the time. I ran the numbers a while back, don't remember exact results.

Postseason MOV numbers are just too noisy and the sample size isn't big enough to adjust / regularize them.

[trex_8063]

So, LeBron has faced:

#29 - DAL 2011(w/ #81 MIA 2011, people thought Dallas was the underdog at the time, lol)

Highlighting this one to illustrate that you may be misusing this information. The above chart isn't necessarily saying the '01 Lakers were the greatest team ever, for example.
Part of the reason the Mavericks out-performed expectation was because Dirk was remarkable in that playoff run, while Lebron under-performed specifically in the finals (and in effect, lowering the playoff SRS the Heat would otherwise have had).
If looking at the larger sample (the rs), the '11 Heat were the better team according to SRS (+6.76 to Dallas's +4.41).

[eminence]

So, LeBron has faced:

#29 - DAL 2011(w/ #81 MIA 2011, people thought Dallas was the underdog at the time, lol)

Highlighting this one to illustrate that you may be misusing this information. The above chart isn't necessarily saying the '01 Lakers were the greatest team ever, for example.
Part of the reason the Mavericks out-performed expectation was because Dirk was remarkable in that playoff run, while Lebron under-performed specifically in the finals (and in effect, lowering the playoff SRS the Heat would otherwise have had).
If looking at the larger sample (the rs), the '11 Heat were the better team according to SRS (+6.76 to Dallas's +4.41).

Just as a note, I want to say they were about even when healthy, Mavs were pretty bad without Dirk (2-7, like -6 MOV or something)

[G35]

Just to remind everyone, the 2016/2017 Cavs ARE NOT a historically notable team, smh. lol

I think both the 2016 and 2017 Cavaliers are cautionary tales about the disparity in conferences.....


Looking at it the list can anyone explain why the 2008 Lakers are 48th and the 2008 Celtics are 73rd.....

[s0ciety]

Just to remind everyone, the 2016/2017 Cavs ARE NOT a historically notable team, smh. lol

I think both the 2016 and 2017 Cavaliers are cautionary tales about the disparity in conferences.....


Looking at it the list can anyone explain why the 2008 Lakers are 48th and the 2008 Celtics are 73rd.....

Well it's simply because Celtics were pushed to 7 by below average Hawks and Cavs, while the Lakers played elite competition from the first round.

What it really tells us is that 2008 Celtics played up to their opponent, they finished 6+ Pistons and Lakers quicker than subpar Hawks and Cavs.

[limbo]

So, LeBron has faced:

#29 - DAL 2011(w/ #81 MIA 2011, people thought Dallas was the underdog at the time, lol)

Highlighting this one to illustrate that you may be misusing this information. The above chart isn't necessarily saying the '01 Lakers were the greatest team ever, for example.
Part of the reason the Mavericks out-performed expectation was because Dirk was remarkable in that playoff run, while Lebron under-performed specifically in the finals (and in effect, lowering the playoff SRS the Heat would otherwise have had).
If looking at the larger sample (the rs), the '11 Heat were the better team according to SRS (+6.76 to Dallas's +4.41).

Of course not. Same as the 2016 Warriors Playoffs SRS/MOV isn't representative of their actual power level, as they played garbage teams in the first two rounds while also having to deal with key injuries.

Nevertheless, Dallas improved significantly over the course of the RS once everybody was finally healthy and starting to build chemistry with each other. Then they took it up another level in the PS, where they dispatched everyone with relative ease.

I'm not going to say the Mavs were favorites, but i'm not going to say they weren't either. The fact that LeBron left a lot to be desired in that series kind of overshadowed how good the Mavs were and how well they were playing throughout the Playoffs.

[No-more-rings]

The Heat got done running through the east beating both the Celtics(56 wins, 2nd in drtg), and Bulls(62 wins, 1st drtg) in 5 games. The Heat were heavy favorites going into the finals and rightfully so, saying differently is attempting to rewrite history/reality. Lebron wasn't doing well and they still should've been up 3-1. It was a fluke, let's just call it for what it was and move on already.

[Homer38]

The Heat got done running through the east beating both the Celtics(56 wins, 2nd in drtg), and Bulls(62 wins, 1st drtg) in 5 games. The Heat were heavy favorites going into the finals and rightfully so, saying differently is attempting to rewrite history/reality. Lebron wasn't doing well and they still should've been up 3-1. It was a fluke, let's just call it for what it was and move on already.

Maybe but the Mavs were also great against the Back-to-back champions Lakers(57 wins) and a very good young thunder team...8-1 against his 2 teams.And for the heat,many games against the celtics and the bulls were also very close.

[RCM88x]

Just to remind everyone, the 2016/2017 Cavs ARE NOT a historically notable team, smh. lol

I think both the 2016 and 2017 Cavaliers are cautionary tales about the disparity in conferences.....


Looking at it the list can anyone explain why the 2008 Lakers are 48th and the 2008 Celtics are 73rd.....

The opponent SRS's aren't even bad for the Cavs though, actually they're above average for the teams included here. I mean the 2016 Cavs have the 2nd highest oppsrs of any team in the top 16, it's not like they got through the playoffs bashing relatively poor opponents like the 87 Lakers or 04 Pistons did.

[homecourtloss]

Just to remind everyone, the 2016/2017 Cavs ARE NOT a historically notable team, smh. lol

Add 2015 to that. That team finished the season and the series vs. Boston 33-3 when James, Love, and Kyrie all played with an SRS over 12-13 if I recall. Swept Boston, swept a 60 win Hawks team with no Love and a hobbled Kyrie, and then led 2-1 vs. the GSW with the Warriors not having a lead after any of the first 12 quarters in regulation.

2016 Cavs, 6th all-time playoff SRS, 14.07
2017 Cavs, 15th all-time playoff SRS, 12.35
2015 Cavs, 49th all-time playoff SRS, 8.64

Looking at the list provided, only the Bulls, 1996–1998 and Warriors 2015-2017 or 2016–2018 have a better three year run and only the Bulls, 96-97 and Warriors 2017-2018 have a better two year run. 2013-2014 Spurs come really close.

Spurs 2013 were highly underrated. Their key players sat a whole bunch of games and nobody played more 30-32mpg or that team would easily win 63+ games and run close to a 8+ regular season SRS.

[homecourtloss]

Just to remind everyone, the 2016/2017 Cavs ARE NOT a historically notable team, smh. lol

I think both the 2016 and 2017 Cavaliers are cautionary tales about the disparity in conferences.....

There’s too much data here for the Cavs to be a “cautionary tale”; other teams have had those opportunities and they never blew out teams like that. Disparities have always existed between conferences and of course between teams, but teams don’t usually obliterate their opponents the way the Cavs did in the playoffs and certainly for two, even three years straight, 60+ games. It just doesn’t happen. Basketball games in the playoffs simply don’t allow for one big beating one after another as evidenced by all data that we have available in all types of eras showing that they don’t. The fact that the Cavs DID win like that points to them being an exceptional team that was stopped only by arguably the best team ever.

[limbo]

Just to remind everyone, the 2016/2017 Cavs ARE NOT a historically notable team, smh. lol

I think both the 2016 and 2017 Cavaliers are cautionary tales about the disparity in conferences.....

There’s too much data here for the Cavs to be a “cautionary tale”; other teams have had those opportunities and they never blew out teams like that. Disparities have always existed between conferences and of course between teams, but teams don’t usually obliterate their opponents the way the Cavs did in the playoffs and certainly for two, even three years straight, 60+ games. It just doesn’t happen. Basketball games in the playoffs simply don’t allow for one big beating one after another as evidenced by all data that we have available in all types of eras showing that they don’t. The fact that the Cavs DID win like that points to them being an exceptional team that was stopped only by arguably the best team ever.

How much do you think the increase of 3pt shooting in the last decade has contributed to the likelihood of teams being blown out and vice versa? Usually these absurd scoring margins are the result of teams shooting lights out from three.

[Doctor MJ]

Very cool s0ciety. Thank you.

And yes it's not a perfect assessment of how good teams were, but it's an excellent vanilla ingredient.

Just breaking it down by salient attributes from the distinct cores:

1. Shaq-Kobe Lakers (2001)
2. Curry-Durant Warriors (2017)
3. Alcindor-Robertson Bucks (1971)
4. 2nd 3-peat Jordan Bulls (1996)
5. 1st 3-peat Jordan Bulls (1991)
6. 2nd LeBron Cavs (2016)
7. Russell-Cousy Celtics (1961)
8. Beautiful Game Spurs (2014)
9. Mikan Lakers (1950)
10. Bird Celtics (1986)
11. Showtime Lakers (1985)
12. Wilt-Hannum 76ers (1967)
Durant-Westbrook Thunder (2016)
13. Holzman Knicks (1973)
14. Bad Boy Pistons (1989)
15. Joyful Curry Warriors (2015)
16. Kobe-Pau Lakers (2009)
17. Peak Russell Celtics (1964)
18. Fo' Fi' Fo' 76ers (1983)
19. West-Wilt Lakers (1972)
20. The Heatles (2012)
21. Dirk Mavericks (2011)
SSOL Suns (2005)
22. Kawhi Raptors (2019)
23. Peak Duncan Spurs (2003)
24. Twin Towers Spurs (1999)
25. Big Ben Pistons (2004)

Various thoughts:

Shaq-Kobe Lakers. Yup. When they were at their best, I think they were better than any that had come before.

I'd pick the Curry-Durant Warriors over all in a head to head. I just think the 3-point shift makes the comparison a bit unfair.

I do think there's an argument to be made that the 2nd 3-peat Jordan Bulls core had the capacity to be something close to optimal for the current era if they trained for it.

It's really significant I think that LeBron's best playoff teams really seem to be from his 2nd stint in Cleveland over his Heatle teams. I think people who are looking to knock LeBron tend to look at that Miami Dream Team and say "That's the best LeBron could do", which was certainly the intention, and superficially 2 chips are better than 1. Nobody really wants to believe that LeBron's best team was with that dysfunctional Comic Sans outfit, but it really feels to me like LeBron just knew exactly what to do by that point in his career. Not that LeBron (or anyone else) has ever figured out how to be a flawless player, but LeBron in this point in his career figured out how to get to his A+ game every time he needed it (and I think you could argue Jordan had that from day one).

(I'll note that while the '15-16 Cavs are probably overrated by this metric because the Warriors weren't playing up to their RS levels, the '16-17 Cavs still rank ahead of the best Heatles.)

I'm surprised the West-Wilt Lakers aren't higher.

The fact the Holzman Knicks get represented by the '73 team instead of the '70 doesn't make me think the '73 team was actually stronger.

Interesting that the top Russell Celtics year comes with Cousy.

Beautiful Game Spurs represent!

Fitting the Celtics & Lakers are right next to each other.

Impressive that the Kobe-Pau Lakers are so high on the list.

I think this metric undersells the Fo' Fi' Fo' 76ers.

How about the Dirk Mavs nearly matching the best of the Heatles?

I originally was going to go up to 10, but when the Showtime Lakers were 11 I decided to go to 25. Was pleased when it turned out the Big Ben Pistons ended up making the cut. I have a lot of respect for that core.

Curious about the following teams:

'17-18 Rockets
'15-16 Thunder
'09-10, '06-07, '05-06 & '04-05 Suns
'01-02 Kings
'97-98 Pacers