Sansterre's Top 100 Teams, #17-18, 2012 MIA, 1999 SAS

[sansterre]

Glossary:

Spoiler:

Overall SRS: My combo-SRS from the regular season and playoffs as discussed in the master thread
Standard Deviations: Standard Deviations of Overall SRS from the league mean.

When I post the roster makeup of the team, I try and do it by playoff minutes. The numbers are age, regular season BPM and Playoff BPM (basketball-reference's BPM is being used here).

So if I say: "C: Vlade Divac (22), +2.3 / +4.3" I mean that Vlade Divac was their center, he was 22, he had a BPM of +2.3 in the regular season and a +4.3 in the playoffs. Yes, BPM misses out on a lot of subtle stuff but I thought it a good quick-hits indicator of the skills of the players.

I also list the playoff players (20+ MPG) in order of OLoad (which is usage that integrates assists) and it has everyone's per game average for minutes, points, rebounds, assists and stocks (steals plus blocks), but all of those (including minutes) are adjusted for pace.

I then cover the three highest players in scoring per 100 (with their true shooting relative to league average) and the three highest players in Assists per 100. I realize that these are arbitrary, but I wanted a quick-hits reference for how these teams' offenses ran.

I then talk about Heliocentrism, Wingmen and Depth. Basically I add up all of the team's VORP (again, basketball-reference) and then figure out what percentage of that VORP comes from the #1 player (Heliocentrism), from the #2 and 3 players combined (Wingmen) and Depth (everyone else). I include the ranking among the top 100 for reference. There are only 82 of these rankings, because 18 teams pre-date BPM/VORP, so I only have 82 to work with. I'm not saying that these are particularly meaningful, I just thought they were cool.

Playoff Offensive Rating: Amount by which your playoff offensive rating exceeds the offensive rating you'd expect given the regular season defensive rating of your playoff opponents. If you would be expected to post a 99 given your opponents but you post a 104, that's graded as +5. This way we can compare across eras.
Playoff Defensive Rating is the same as Offensive Rating, just the opposite.
Playoff SRS: Is SRS measured *only* in the playoffs. Overall SRS is a mix of both playoffs and regular season.
Total SRS Increase Through Playoffs: Basically their Overall SRS minus their Regular Season SRS. This is basically how much better a team did in the playoffs than you'd guess, relative to their regular season performance.
Average Playoff Opponent Offense: The average regular season offensive rating of your playoff opponents.
Average Playoff Opponent Defense: The average regular season defensive rating of your playoff opponents.

Rankings of any kind are out of my list. So if I say that the '91 Lakers had the 42nd best regular season offense, I don't mean "42nd best of All-Time", I mean "42nd best of my Top 100 Teams of All_Time". Which will be pretty comparable, but I want to be clear about this.

I also walk through the playoffs at each round, covering their opponent their SRS (at that time), how many games the series was, the margin of victory (and a "+" is always in the favor of the discussed team; losing a series by +2.0 means that you outscored the other team by two points a game on average despite losing) and for reference I put in an SRS equivalency (beat a +5 SRS team by 5 points a game, that's an equivalent +10 SRS series).

In later entries I also add the Offensive and Defensive Ratings for each playoff series. This is just how well the team did, adjusted by the opponent's regular season average (if you play a team with an average Defensive Rating of 102, and you play them with an offensive rating of 106, you get credited with a +4). Pace for teams below 1973 or so is estimated based on regular season numbers, so it could easily be wrong by some.

In writeups, if I ever say a player shot at "-8%" or something, that means "his true shooting was 8% lower than the league average that year". Any time I say "a player shot" and follow it by a percent, I am *always* using true shooting percentage unless otherwise indicated.

I also have a modern comps section for any teams pre-2011. It's basically me weighting each statistical characteristic and feeding each player's stats into the BackPicks database and choosing the best-rated comp from the list. I might list something like this:

PG: 2017 LeBron James (worse rebounding, better passing, way fewer shots)

What I mean is, "This team's point guard was basically 2017 LeBron James, but make his passing better, make his rebounding worse and make him take way fewer shots).

Anyhow. I don't know how clear any of this will be, so please let me know what does and doesn't work from these writeups. And thanks for reading!

#18. The 2012 Miami Heat

Spoiler:

Overall SRS: +10.89, Standard Deviations: +2.04, Won in the NBA Finals (Preseason 1st)

PG: Mario Chalmers, +0.4 / +1.3
SG: Dwyane Wade, +7.9 / +5.3
SF: Shane Battier, +0.9 / +1.0
PF: LeBron James, +10.9 / +10.5
C: Chris Bosh, +0.8 / +2.5
6th: Udonis Haslem, -2.4 / -1.6

Regular Season Metrics:

Regular Season Record: 46-20, Regular Season SRS: +5.72 (75th), Earned the 2 Seed
Regular Season Offensive Rating: +2.0 (77th), Regular Season Defensive Rating: -4.4 (32nd)
Shooting Advantage: +3.3%, Possession Advantage: +0.1 shooting possessions per game

LeBron James (SF, 27): 41 MPPG, 33% OLoad, 30 / 9 / 7 / 3 on +7.8%
Dwyane Wade (SG, 30): 36 MPPG, 32% OLoad, 24 / 5 / 5 / 3 on +3.2%
Chris Bosh (PF, 27): 39 MPPG, 23% OLoad, 20 / 9 / 2 / 2 on +2.4%
Mario Chalmers (PG, 25): 31 MPPG, 19% OLoad, 11 / 3 / 4 / 2 on +5.1%
Udonis Haslem (C, 31): 27 MPPG, 13% OLoad, 7 / 8 / 1 / 1 on -4.8%
Shane Battier (SF, 33): 25 MPPG, 11% OLoad, 5 / 3 / 1 / 2 on -2.3%

Scoring/100: LeBron James (38.1 / +7.8%), Dwyane Wade (35.0 / +3.2%), Chris Bosh (26.9 / +2.4%)
Assists/100: LeBron James (8.8), Dwyane Wade (7.3), Mario Chalmers (6.4)

Heliocentrism: 55.1% (3rd of 84 teams) - LeBron
Wingmen: 39.1% (36th) - Wade & Bosh
Depth: 5.8% (81st)

Playoff Metrics:

Playoff Offensive Rating: +8.43 (15th), Playoff Defensive Rating: -3.54 (70th)
Playoff SRS: +13.01 (26th), Total SRS Increase through Playoffs: +5.17 (6th)
Shooting Advantage: +3.9%, Possession Advantage: +0.3 shooting possessions per game
Average Playoff Opponent Offense: +0.54 (88th), Average Playoff Opponent Defense: -3.43 (19th)

LeBron James (PF, 27): 47 MPPG, 34% OLoad, 33 / 11 / 6 / 3 on +4.9%
Dwyane Wade (SG, 30): 43 MPPG, 30% OLoad, 25 / 6 / 4 / 3 on -0.1%
Chris Bosh (PF, 27): 34 MPPG, 19% OLoad, 15 / 9 / 1 / 2 on +4.7%
Mario Chalmers (PG, 25): 39 MPPG, 18% OLoad, 12 / 4 / 4 / 2 on +2.8%
Udonis Haslem (C, 31): 23 MPPG, 13% OLoad, 5 / 7 / 1 / 1 on -1.4%
Shane Battier (SF, 33): 37 MPPG, 10% OLoad, 8 / 4 / 1 / 2 on +2.0%

Scoring/100: LeBron James (38.7 / +4.9%), Dwyane Wade (31.6 / -0.1%), Chris Bosh (24.3 / +4.7%)
Assists/100: LeBron James (7.2), Dwyane Wade (6.0), Mario Chalmers (6.0)

Playoff Heliocentrism: 43.7% (16th of 84 teams) - LeBron
Playoff Wingmen: 33.8% (65th) - Wade & Chalmers
Playoff Depth: 22.5% (51st)

Round 1: New York Knicks (+2.4), won 4-1, by +14.0 points per game (+16.4 SRS eq)
Round 2: Indiana Pacers (+5.6), won 4-2, by +6.5 points per game (+12.1 SRS eq)
Round 3: Boston Celtics (+5.8), won 4-3, by +4.9 points per game (+10.7 SRS eq)
Round 4: Oklahoma City Thunder (+9.9), won 4-1, by +4.0 points per game (+13.9 SRS eq)

Offensive / Defensive Ratings from Opposition Regular Season Average:

New York Knicks: +11.9 / -7.8
Indiana Pacers: +3.5 / -7.5
Boston Celtics: +10.7 / +2.5
Oklahoma City Thunder: +11.9 / +0.8

Shooting Advantage / Possession Advantage per 100 (unadjusted):

New York Knicks: +6.6% / +3.1
Indiana Pacers: +3.3% / +0.7
Boston Celtics: +2.8% / -0.1
Oklahoma City Thunder: +3.6% / -2.4

Postseason Usage/Efficiency Change adjusted for Opposition:

Mario Chalmers: -1.3% / -0.7%
Dwyane Wade: -1.4% / -1.7%
LeBron James: +1.4% / -1.3%
Chris Bosh: -3.4% / +3.9%
Udonis Haslem: -0.4% / +5.0%
Shane Battier: -0.5% / +5.9%


The 2012 Miami Heat were angry.

In 2011 LeBron James had left the Cleveland Cavaliers to join Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh. This news took the NBA by storm, as the NBA had never seen three such stars unify on the same team (just kidding, it happened three years before both in Boston (Garnett, Pierce and Allen) and in LA (Kobe, Gasol and Odom) - that those were orchestrated by GMs instead of players seems like a distinction without difference). Nevertheless, LeBron’s narrative was comparable to Jordan’s in 1990: an incredibly talented player, but it wasn’t clear whether or not he could lead his team to a championship. Instead of imitating Michael and winning with the team that drafted him, LeBron jumped ship to Dwyane Wade and the Heat. Wade wasn’t at LeBron’s level as a player (though many considered Wade his superior as a winner) but Wade had finished in the Top 5 in MVP voting in the prior two years. LeBron became the villain for bailing on Cleveland and going to Wade for help. The Heat led the preseason odds, but they were far from beloved. In the NBA Finals against the Mavericks, LeBron imploded. It wasn’t that he played badly; it’s that he was incredibly passive. This isn’t a narrative; this is quite substantiated.

LeBron’s number of true shots taken per assist went from 3.21 in the regular season to 2.41 in the Finals

LeBron’s usage rate dropped from 31.5% in the regular season to 22.9% in the Finals

LeBron’s Free Throws per True Shot Attempt dropped from 16.4% to 8.9%.

For whatever reason (though I speculated about it at length in the ‘11 Heat article), LeBron seemed to have mentally checked out of the series. The Heat still nearly won; Wade had played excellently. But the Heat were defeated, and the Heat (and especially LeBron) were considered chokers.

And they were mad. LeBron went to Hakeem Olajuwon in the offseason, studying post moves so that he could begin to operate out of the low post. Shane Battier, a new addition to the ‘12 roster, recalled later that the entire training camp was tense. The roster, top to bottom, had a massive chip on its shoulder and was out for vengeance. I’d love to tell you that they ripped through the regular season, but they didn’t really. They went 46-20 (strike-shortened year) which was the fourth best record in the league and put up a +5.72 RSRS (again, fourth in the league). But, of course, the real test would be in the playoffs.

The ‘12 Heat were a very unusual team, or at least, quite different from how I would have guessed. First, given that this is a LeBron team, I assumed that the Heat’s offense would be fairly assist-heavy (and Wade was no slouch in the passing department). Instead, I was surprised to find that the Heat had one of the lowest assist rates in the league (the ‘12 Thunder were the lowest in that category). This probably shouldn’t have been a huge surprise. Both LeBron and Wade could create their own shots extremely well, and even Mario Chalmers was notable for having the lowest rate of his two-pointers being assisted on the team. The team certainly had passing, but its offense ran in isolation with some frequency.

The other misconception I had was that the Heat took a lot of threes. It’s an easy mistake to make, especially considering the last game of the playoffs. But the Heat were a very two-point centric team. On offense, while they made threes at a good rate, their offense was mostly inside the arc (and of that, mostly at the rim). They shot twos extremely efficiently, got to the line a lot, and didn’t take many threes. And on defense, they allowed a ton of threes (which were made at a high rate), but did a great job denying two point shots. Perhaps the high numbers of 3PA allowed were a byproduct of open looks created when their trap was exploited, but I’d be guessing. Either way, given that the roster was very athletic on the perimeter, them allowing so many threes was a surprise to me.

In the first round the Heat faced the Carmelo and post-Nash Amar’e Knicks (+2.4). The Heat ripped them apart (unsurprisingly). LeBron averaged a 28/6/6 on +7.7% with 2.2 steals a game, while Wade averaged a 21/3/4 on +0.8% (with 2.8 steals per game). The Heat’s offense ran well, and their defense held the Knicks to -2.8% as a team (and Carmelo at -3.8%). The Heat won by 14 points a game in five; it was a dominant win if against a middling team.

In the second round the Heat faced the Indiana Pacers (+5.6). The Heat won the first game by 9, but Chris Bosh went out for the series with an injury. The Pacers won the next two games by 3 and 19 points. But the Heat evolved, beginning to play Shane Battier as a stretch 4 and having LeBron and Wade shoulder increased loads. In the end the Heat prevailed in six, by 6.5 points per game. Their offense struggled some without Bosh; LeBron averaged a 30/11/6 on +3.0% shooting (2.7 steals a game) and Wade a 26/6/3 on +0.9% shooting but the team as a whole barely shot above league average. The Heat’s greatest success was on the defensive side of the ball, holding the Pacers to -3.0% shooting to 7.5 points per 100 below their regular season average. It was a challenge from a tough team, missing Bosh, but it was a challenge they had weathered. Their next opponent would be tougher still.

The Boston Celtics (+5.6) were a different beast. Historically, the Celtics had always played LeBron hard in Cleveland. They had the highest assist rate in the league; their offense was old and didn’t generate its own shots well, but it made up for it with excellent passing up and down the roster. And the Heat’s defense really struggled to contain them (perhaps an inefficiency of relying on traps against a strong passing team?) The series started gently enough, with the Heat winning by 14 on LeBron’s 32/13/3 on +8.9% and Wade’s 22/3/7 on +16.6%. Game 2 was a nail-biter, won in overtime by four; LeBron’s 34/10/7 on +2.9% carried the day. But when the series went to Boston the Heat began to struggle. LeBron put up a 34/8/5 on +7.6% (2 blocks and 2 steals) but the rest of the team struggled and playoff Rondo posted a 21/6/10 on +5%, defeating the Heat by 10. In Game 4 LeBron had his first bad game (29/6/3 on -1.9% with 7 turnovers) and the Celtics snuck it out in overtime by 2. Game 5 was back in Miami and LeBron went back to a 30/13/2 on -0.1% (2 steals) but the Heat overall struggled to score (shooting -4.3% as a team and the Celtics won by 4.

I don’t want to oversell like the Celtics were whipping the Heat; they weren’t. Despite being down 2-3, the Heat still had an average +0.4 MoV. But they were going back to Boston Gardens, one game away from elimination. And you couldn’t really pin it on LeBron playing badly; with the exception of Game 4 his performances had all been excellent. And he hadn’t been passive; his usage had been over 30% for every game and over 35% more than once. But it hadn’t been enough, and Bosh easing back into the lineup after injury wasn’t helping enough. Nobody was quite sure what would happen next.

LeBron came out of the gates in Game 6, channelling his inner Jordan. He scored 30 points in the first half, hitting 12 of 14 from the floor, giving the Heat a 13 point lead. He backed off in the second half, but the Heat pulled away, winning the game by 19. The damages? A 45/15/5 on +22.4%. The crazy part was that it wasn’t him scoring at the rim. For all of his 45 points, only 5 came at the line. Most of his shots that game were skill-shots; fadeaways, long twos and the like. The kind of shot that is always available because it’s generally fairly low percentage. Except that LeBron kept hitting them. It was a scary moment; if LeBron could start hitting Kobe shots then there was absolutely zero way he was going to be stopped. It wasn’t just LeBron that won the day; the Celtics were held to a -5.6% shooting night. Still. It was the first time that we got a taste of Elimination Game James. To that point James had gained the reputation of a player who could be great, unless it really counted. That Game 6 was the first time where his performance fit a new narrative, the narrative of a player who got better the longer the series went on. The Heat prevailed in Game 7 by 13, advancing to the Finals. Though the series had come near to a loss, the Heat ended up prevailing by 4.9 points a game. It was uncomfortably close, but it ended up being a solid win for the Heat.

And in the Finals were the 2012 Thunder (+9.9). The Thunder combined three young stars in Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook and James Harden. Regardless of the Heat’s desire for redemption, the Thunder would not make it easy. And they proved it in Game 1. Kevin Durant could not be stopped (36/8/4 on +22.4%) and the Thunder as a team shot at +6.4%. Miami’s offense played well enough, but the Thunder pretty much scored at will, winning by 11. In Game 2 the Heat switched over to their smallball lineup, with Bosh at the center, Battier at the 4 and Haslem coming off the bench. Durant had another dominant game (32/3/1 on +12.2% with 2 steals) but the Heat’s quicker defense held the Thunder overall to a much better +0.4%. And the Heat’s offense took advantage, with LeBron posting a 32/8/5 while Shane Battier hit 5 of 7 from downtown. The Heat took Game 2 by four points, sending the series to Miami tied.

Game 3 was a more defensive battle. The Thunder were held to shooting only -4.2% (Durant with a 25/6/0 on +7.5%) but the Heat struggled to do much better, shooting at -1.8% (LeBron had a 29/14/3 on +2.0%). But the Heat gained an offensive edge with unusually strong offensive rebounding (LeBron and Bosh combined for 9 offensive boards) and it gained the Heat a rare possession advantage. It was close but the Heat pulled it out by 6. In Game 4 the Heat were only able to slow the Thunder offense (+2.3% as a team) but LeBron had a 26/9/12 on +2.8% with 2 steals. The Heat shot +5.1%, LeBron and Bosh combined for seven offensive boards and the Heat again edged out the Thunder by 6. So they went into Game 5 with a 3-1 lead, to play the last game in Miami. This one wasn’t close; LeBron dished 13 assists, the Heat shot 14 of 26 from beyond the arc and won the game by 15. LeBron had won his first championship.

It wasn’t as dominant as the 4-1 record made it look. Three of those games were decided by 6 or less points; those could easily have gone the other way. The Heat’s MoV, four points per game, was solid but not as good as the 4-1 made it look. But it was an excellent win against an excellent team. And there are a few trends that I think are interesting through the five games:

Usage: 34.9%, 33.2%, 33.0%, 29.0%, 30.1%
Points: 30, 32, 29, 26, 26
Assists: 4, 5, 3, 12, 13

Those assists in Game 4 and 5 really jump out. I remember watching those last few games. I remember (possibly inaccurately) LeBron just settling into the post and waiting for the double. If it didn’t come he’d take the shot (with some accuracy) but if it did the ball would *always* find the open man, who would hit the shot more often than not. It just got to a point where it seemed like the Thunder defense was moving in slow motion, that the Heat were going to get a good look no matter what. Then again, I remember the Thunder botching a number of rotations, so it’s possible that I’m giving LeBron too much credit.


10 | Heat
9 | Thunder, Spurs
8 |
7 |
6 |
5 | Celtics, Bulls
4 | 76ers, Pacers
3 |
2 | Nuggets, Grizzlies
1 | Lakers, Clippers, Mavericks
0 | Hawks, Suns, Rockets
-0 | Bucks, Blazers
-1 | Knicks, Jazz, TWolves
-2 | Magic, Warriors
-3 | Raptors, Hornets
-4 | Kings
-5 | Pistons, Wizards
-6 | Nets
-7 | Cavs
-8 |
-9 |
-10|
-11|
-12|
-13| Bobcats

2012 is accounted a fairly non-competitive year. On the face of it the distribution seems reasonable; 87% of the teams between +6 and -8. But those outliers . . . three teams north of +9 is pretty unusual, and the Charlotte Bobcats are the ‘96 Bulls of sucking. So it’s not horrifically lopsided, but it’s still fairly unbalanced.

What to make of this season? Well, their regular season was pretty weak for this list (+5.72 is in the 25th percentile). But they played in a strike-shortened year, so the formula doesn’t actually weight it as heavily as it might in other years. And their playoffs are pretty unimpeachable. They played a modest team in the first round and blew them out; solid. And then they played two straight teams in the +5 range (nothing amazing, but solid matchups) and came out strong in both of them. And then they faced the ‘12 Thunder, who are certainly one of the better teams to lose an NBA Finals in history. The Heat didn’t crush them, but it was a fairly decisive victory over a very strong team.

So I guess where they get ranked is a question of how much you care about regular season performance. If I am comparing the Heat’s playoffs to those of the ‘72 Lakers, I think they’re reasonably similar (once you take into account how inflated the ratings of those teams was). Do I like the ‘12 Heat over the ‘72 Lakers? I’m not really comfortable with it; the Lakers’ regular season was way better, and they really suffer from not getting that first round. If we suddenly ignored the Heat whipping the Knicks in the first round they’d drop to 31st. So I don’t think we’re talking about a team better than the ‘72 Lakers.

But I do think they’re quite excellent. It was a very strong playoffs, and their win against the Thunder was unimpeachable. It was a great year, from a great team and a great player.

#17. The 1999 San Antonio Spurs

Spoiler:

Overall SRS: +10.37, Standard Deviations: +2.22, Won NBA Finals (Preseason 3rd)

PG: Avery Johnson, +0.1 / +1.0
SG: Mario Elie, +2.3 / +1.3
SF: Sean Elliott, -0.2 / +2.6
PF: Tim Duncan, +4.5 / +6.6
C: David Robinson, +6.7 / +7.1
6th: Jaren Jackson, +1.0 / +0.5

Regular Season Metrics:

Regular Season Record: 37-13, Regular Season SRS: +7.12 (40th), Earned the 1 Seed
Regular Season Offensive Rating: +1.8 (79th), Regular Season Defensive Rating: -7.2 (9th)
Shooting Advantage: +5.9%, Possession Advantage: -2.6 shooting possessions per game

Tim Duncan (PF, 22): 44 MPPG, 26% OLoad, 25 / 13 / 3 / 4 on +3.0%
David Robinson (C, 33): 36 MPPG, 23% OLoad, 18 / 11 / 2 / 4 on +5.3%
Avery Johnson (PG, 33): 38 MPPG, 20% OLoad, 11 / 3 / 8 / 1 on -2.4%
Sean Elliott (SF, 30): 34 MPPG, 20% OLoad, 13 / 5 / 3 / 1 on -1.8%
Jaren Jackson (SG, 31): 21 MPPG, 18% OLoad, 7 / 2 / 1 / 1 on -1.1%
Mario Elie (SG, 35): 31 MPPG, 16% OLoad, 11 / 3 / 2 / 1 on +8.2%

Scoring/100: Tim Duncan (29.9 / +3.0%), David Robinson (27.0 / +5.3%), Sean Elliott (20.1 / -1.8%)
Assists/100: Avery Johnson (12.0), Sean Elliott (4.2), Mario Elie (3.7)

Heliocentrism: 29.3% (54th of 84 teams) - Robinson
Wingmen: 39.7% (33rd) - Duncan & Elie
Depth: 31.0% (30th)

Playoff Metrics:

Playoff Offensive Rating: +3.51 (68th), Playoff Defensive Rating: -7.85 (20th)
Playoff SRS: +11.73 (36th), Total SRS Increase through Playoffs: +3.25 (35th)
Shooting Advantage: +7.2%, Possession Advantage: -4.9 shooting possessions per game
Average Playoff Opponent Offense: +0.75 (86th), Average Playoff Opponent Defense: -2.11 (49th)

Tim Duncan (PF, 22): 49 MPPG, 25% OLoad, 26 / 13 / 3 / 4 on +6.2%
David Robinson (C, 33): 43 MPPG, 22% OLoad, 18 / 11 / 3 / 5 on +5.2%
Avery Johnson (PG, 33): 43 MPPG, 22% OLoad, 14 / 3 / 8 / 1 on +0.7%
Jaren Jackson (SG, 31): 23 MPPG, 21% OLoad, 9 / 3 / 1 / 1 on +0.1%
Sean Elliott (SF, 30): 38 MPPG, 17% OLoad, 14 / 4 / 3 / 1 on +5.6%
Mario Elie (SG, 35): 35 MPPG, 16% OLoad, 9 / 4 / 3 / 2 on -0.6%

Scoring/100: Tim Duncan (30.3 / +6.2%), David Robinson (24.8 / +5.2%), Jaren Jackson (22.8 / +0.1%)
Assists/100: Avery Johnson (10.9), Mario Elie (5.3), Sean Elliott (4.4)

Playoff Heliocentrism: 36.4% (38th of 84 teams) - Duncan
Playoff Wingmen: 47.8% (12th) - Robinson & Elliott
Playoff Depth: 15.8% (67th)

Round 1: Minnesota Timberwolves (-0.2), won 3-1, by +6.3 points per game (+6.1 SRS eq)
Round 2: Los Angeles Lakers (+3.0), won 4-0, by +8.0 points per game (+11.0 SRS eq)
Round 3: Portland Trail Blazers (+6.9), won 4-0, by +10.3 points per game (+17.2 SRS eq)
Round 4: New York Knicks (+7.4), won 4-1, by +5.0 points per game (+12.4 SRS eq)

Offensive / Defensive Ratings from Opposition Regular Season Average:

Minnesota Timberwolves: +1.1 / -6.7
Los Angeles Lakers: +2.3 / -9.8
Portland Trail Blazers: +10.0 / -9.9
New York Knicks: +1.4 / -5.5

Shooting Advantage / Possession Advantage per 100 (unadjusted):

Minnesota Timberwolves: +5.9% / -4.0
Los Angeles Lakers: +8.6% / -6.9
Portland Trail Blazers: +6.4% / -0.2
New York Knicks: +7.7% / -8.0

Postseason Usage/Efficiency Change adjusted for Opposition:

Avery Johnson: +2.6% / +4.0%
Mario Elie: -1.1% / -7.9%
Sean Elliott: -2.4% / +8.3%
Tim Duncan: -0.4% / +4.1%
David Robinson: -1.1% / +0.8%
Jaren Jackson: +4.2% / +2.1%

1999 was a year in transition for the league. The Bulls had imploded under the weight of internal drama and Jordan’s fatigue. The Bulls were blown up, hard. The power that had ruled the league for the past eight years had fallen. And as at the fall of the Roman Empire, there were powers, barbarians at the gates, waiting to fill the vacuum. Some were old, like the Utah Jazz, their veteran roster construction not stopping them from winning the West the past two years and giving the Bulls a serious challenge one of those times. Some were new, like the Los Angeles Lakers who saw Shaq entering his prime just as young phenom Kobe Bryant was beginning to get his legs under him. And some . . . well, let’s talk about the Spurs.

The Spurs had always sucked. I mean, not really, but since joining the NBA they had never been particularly good. With George Gervin they had achieved some success, making it to the Conference Finals three years out of five from ‘79 to ‘83, but they had never seriously threatened a championship. By 1987 the team was terrible, winning 28 games and winning the lottery to get the #1 overall pick. And boy were they lucky. In the 1987 draft was perhaps the best draft prospect since Hakeem Olajuwon (granted that wasn’t long), in David Robinson. Robinson was considered a can’t-miss prospect, but he would need to serve two years in the Navy before he could join the Spurs. They took the risk, drafting him and waiting two years for him to join them. And in those two years they worked hard to build a competitive roster for when he arrived (just kidding, they won 21 and 31 games with SRSs of -5.02 and -7.45; they did build a lot of draft capital though).

Robinson arrived and changed all that. His very first year they won 56 games. The roster wasn’t the same, but the players they acquired were not particularly good. Robinson was a one-man wrecking crew. His rookie year he led his team in: Blocks, Steals, Offensive Rebounds, Defensive Rebounds, Points and efficiency. Robinson was a defensive monster in the vein of Hakeem Olajuwon (if perhaps not quite as good), blending length, athleticism and quickness to rack up both blocks and steals in considerable quantities. When looking at players who consistently averaged more than 2% steals and 5% blocks, the list is pretty much Hakeem (way out in front), Anthony Davis, Andrei Kirilenko and David Robinson. It’s a pretty great list to be on. Robinson was also an excellent rebounder, not an all-time great, but he posted six seasons with both 10%+ Oreb and 23%+ Dreb (Barkley, Gobert, Kemp, Oakley, Hakeem and Valanciunas are the others with six). He was never a great passer, but for a big he was decent and didn’t turn the ball over too much. And he was actually pretty solid as a scorer. He posted five seasons above 26% usage and 58% True Shooting, which is pretty respectable (he’s tied for the 11th most). Now those are obviously all cherry-picked criteria. But my point is, Robinson was really, really good. He broke +8 BPM six times; only LeBron, Jordan and John Stockton did so more. But the hard part was that he really didn’t have much in the way of teammates; he carried the crap out of his teams. Here are his seasons leading up to 1997 with team performance, with VORP-Heliocentrism ratings for regular season and playoffs:

1990: 56 wins, +3.58 RSRS (47.2%) | Made Semifinals (33.3%)
1991: 55 wins, +4.30 RSRS (55.8%) | Made First Round (57.1%)
1992: 47 wins, +2.81 RSRS (56.1%) | Made First Round (Injured)
1993: 49 wins, +2.21 RSRS (54.4%) | Made Semifinals (50.0%)
1994: 55 wins, +5.05 RSRS (69.5%) | Made First Round (50.0%)
1995: 62 wins, +5.90 RSRS (50.3%) | Made Conference Finals (35.1%)
1996: 59 wins, +5.98 RSRS (47.4%) | Made Semifinals (42.1%)

So first off, it’s clear that in the regular season the guy had the Spurs on his back in a serious way. 50% Heliocentrism is crazy high; only three players on this list posted such a score (Jordan and LeBron several times, and Bird in ‘85). And it wasn’t like these were crappy teams (posting a 50% Helio score on mediocre teams is obviously much easier than doing it on a contender). We’re talking multiple 50+ win teams and one 60+ win team. And given that, without him, the team seemed to be around 30 wins worse, it’s clear how dependent they were on him.

But at the same time, there’s a reason that none of his teams made this list. Robinson, for a variety of reasons, couldn’t maintain the same scoring load in the playoffs as he could in the regular season. The rest of his game was still outstanding, but he simply couldn't drive the offense against tough postseason defenses and it showed in both the team’s lack of success and the dropped Helio scores in the playoffs (some drop is normal, as teams play a shorter bench in the playoffs -> fewer bad minutes -> overall teammate VORP improvement -> the star’s share of VORP dropping, but Robinson’s drop is unusually large). And I’m not saying this to blame him. Some players can be surrounded with fairly modest talent and turn them into a contender. Robinson could not. Some players can’t. But it was clear; as long as the Spurs kept running back Robinson with mediocre role-players, they shouldn’t expect to go too far in the playoffs. But then, the most amazing thing happened.

Robinson got knocked out for the year in 1997.

What was bad for the Spurs in the regular season was good for them overall. Because the Spurs won the lottery (again!) and a sure-thing all-time great player was sitting in the draft (again!). Let’s take a moment for how freaking lucky the Spurs were. From 1980 to 2000 I see the Top 4 #1 picks as Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq and Duncan (not in that order). So in those 20 years, you had a 20% chance of landing one of those guys if you had the #1 pick in the draft. The odds that the Spurs had two #1s, and *both* of them were in that Top 4 list . . . there’s about a 4% chance of it happening. And that's simply the chance of their two #1s turning into ATG studs. Add in the odds of them having won the lottery twice? Crazy luck.

Here’s something that wasn’t so lucky. They had big-man David Robinson, an ATG defender who could carry a strong offense (if not in the playoffs), rebounded really well, passed well enough and had only limited range. Tim Duncan was a can’t miss big-man, who forecast to be . . . an ATG defender who could carry a strong offense (playoffs yet to be determined), rebounded really well and passed well enough with only limited range. Obviously they were different players, but it’s nuts how similar they were. Instead of getting an ATG wing to pair with Robinson, fate laughed by giving them an almost duplicate of their current star. The Spurs, not being idiots, took Duncan anyways and figured that it would work itself out.

In 1998, their first year together Duncan hit the ground running. He posted 5 VORP in his rookie season (the other three players to ever do this were Chris Paul, Michael Jordan and David Robinson). But the team, surprisingly, kind of struggled. Sure they won 56 games and posted a +3.3 RSRS (knocked out in the second round) but for a team adding a rookie as good as Duncan, it was disappointing to get more of the same. They simply didn’t seem to perform as well as their roster suggested; their defense was quite good but their offense was below average. Sean Elliott was injured most of the year and pretty much nobody besides Duncan and Robinson could shoot more than a percent above league average. But the team was still adjusting to itself; there was reason to think that 1999 would be better. And to try and improve the roster they acquired Mario Elie, a ranged gunner who’d had success with the mid-90s Rockets. They went into 1999 as the #3 team in the league, behind the Jazz and Lakers.

Let’s talk about this roster:

Modern Comps:

PG: 2019 Fred VanVleet
SG: 2013 Danny Green
SF: 2017 Victor Oladipo (a little better on offense)
PF: 2013 Blake Griffin (worse on offense, better on defense)
C: 2010 Pau Gasol (but much better on defense)
6th: 2018 Wesley Matthews

Obviously this is imperfect. Avery Johnson as VanVleet is a little weird, but I suppose I get it. Johnson was kind of like a pre-Tony Parker, creating a lot of his own offense, passing decently but not scoring very efficiently. Elie as Danny Green is kind of a gimme (the ‘13 edition’s defense isn’t rated highly, so Elie’s more of a 3 and less of a D). Jaren Jackson as ‘18 Wesley Matthews is pretty much just a mediocre floor-spacer. And Elliott as ‘17 Oladipo (that’s the OKC edition, before he took off) is interesting. It basically suggests that Elliott has a reasonably diverse array of skills, but wasn’t particularly good at anything. In short, none of those four players really jumps off the page. The Duncan / Robinson comps . . . take them with a grain of salt. Robinson and Gasol actually have similar statistical offensive footprints, so taking ‘10 Gasol’s defense and making it better makes a pretty strong player. And ‘13 Griffin . . . well, you’re basically talking high usage, solid scoring and strong rebounding. Griffin was a better passer (at least at this point), but Duncan was obviously a better defender. Either way, it’s not a roster that screams “contender”.

Their offense was decent. You’d guess that they were good at offensive rebounding, but they really weren’t. Both Duncan and Robinson were excellent in that area (11th and 16th in the league, respectively), but neither were amazing. Great offensive rebounding teams usually have one of two things: either a fantastic offensive rebounder (Moses/Rodman/Barkley) or a wing that is unusually athletic and crashes the boards (Drexler/Kersey). These Spurs had neither. What they had was a lot of free throw attempts (their two bigs running the offense probably had something to do with that) and solid shooting, mostly led by Robinson and Duncan but also by Mario Elie, who put together an extremely efficient (if low usage) season. Predictably, it was their defense that was fantastic. And it wasn’t on the possession-side. Guess who led the ‘99 Spurs in steals? David Robinson. This is both impressive on his part, but making clear that their smalls weren’t doing much turnover-forcing. And you’d guess that defensive rebounding would be a strength, but it wasn’t. Duncan and Robinson were both great there, but the rest of that roster was extremely low in that area. Their strength was in shot defense, and they were absolutely amazing at it. The ‘99 Spurs appear to have run a defensive system not unlike that of the ‘09 Magic, where the wings played the perimeter very aggressively to try and force penetration. The ‘99 Spurs had the lowest three pointers allowed (both made and attempted) and the second lowest percentage allowed. In contrast, they allowed the 2nd most 2 pointer attempts in the league, but opponents made those 2s at the 2nd lowest rate in the league. So they shut down the perimeter, and nobody could score inside on them. It was the 9th best regular season defense on this list.

But we’re getting a little ahead of ourselves.

1999 was delayed by a strike, so the regular season only had 50 games. The training camp was short and a lot of teams struggled by showing up a little out of shape and a little out of sync. The Spurs couldn’t find their stride out of the gate. In spite of the high preseason expectations they went 6-8 for their first 14. There were rumors circulating everywhere that the third-year head coach (some guy named Greg Papa-something) was about to get fired. The players were anxious, not wanting to lose a season to a coaching change mid-stream (and many were fond of Popovich). And true to form, Popovich ignored the rumors and never mentioned anything except, “let’s focus on the next practice, let’s focus on the next game.” The next game the Spurs smoked the Rockets in Houston by 17 and went on a nine-game winning streak. In fact, they finished the season going 31-4 (!!). And when the dust had settled they had posted the best record in the league (tied with the Jazz) and the highest SRS. But everyone held their breath. Doing well in the regular season was old-hat to the Spurs. Could they win in the playoffs?

The Spurs’ first-round matchup was against the Timberwolves (-0.2) and Kevin Garnett. And it wasn’t a particularly strong series for the Spurs. Despite being (on paper) far superior, the Spurs took four games to win (3-1) and only did so by 6.3 points a game. I would imagine that part of it was Garnett’s defense; Tim Duncan struggled with a 19/11/3 on +0.5% shooting (3 blocks a game). The Spurs as a whole were held to only +0.1% shooting, prevailing mostly because they completely shut down the Wolves’ offense (-5.8% shooting). They won. But it was a weak series, and certainly didn’t bode well for the team’s title chances.

In the second round was the preseason darling Lakers (+3.0). But the Lakers were having something of a lost season, suffering from the midseason coaching carousel that the Spurs had narrowly avoided. I’d love to say that the Twin Towers stopped Shaq, but they really didn’t. Shaq rolled to 24/13/1 on -0.5% (6.5 offensive rebounds a game); they dropped his efficiency but they couldn’t stop him from getting boards or shots. And young Kobe did well enough on 21/7/4 with -0.7% shooting. However, the Spurs’ shooters absolutely ripped through the Lakers. Duncan averaged a dominant 29/11/3 on +8.9% shooting, the Spurs shot 40% from beyond the arc and even Robinson scored at +7.2% on much lower usage. The Spurs shot +8.6% better than the Lakers and, unsurprisingly, swept them by 8 points a game.

In the Conference Finals were the extremely solid +6.9 Portland Trail Blazers, who had just defeated the Jazz. This is most of the same team that would come back and be so dominant in the 2000 playoffs. And they boasted their own twin towers, in Arvydas Sabonis and Rasheed Wallace. This would be the real test that the Spurs would need to face. The Spurs won the first game narrowly, by 4. But in the second game the Blazers fought back. They led by as much as 18 in the third quarter, and ended up leading by 9 going into the fourth. By five minutes to go the Blazers were up by 4. Here are the last five minutes (Spurs start with 27.4% chance of winning):

4:40 - The Spurs move it up, the entry to Duncan on the block who is immediately doubled, Duncan flips a nice pass to Avery Johnson who doesn’t have a look, who passes it out to Mario Elie who’s run off the line, Elie passes to Kersey who takes a long two and misses (great defense by the Blazers all possession), Blazers get the board (20.4%)
4:29 - The Blazers push the pace, getting the ball to Jim Jackson on the block before the Spurs’ bigs were back, Jackson spins around Elie and scores, Blazers by 6 (15.7%)
4:15 - Avery Johnson attacks, Duncan comes free above the free throw line, he gets the pass and takes the jumper, missing badly, Blazers’ ball (10.6%)
4:00 - The Blazers get the ball to Brian Grant on the block, defended by Duncan. Grant takes the well-defended shot, he misses, the Spurs get the rebound (14.1%)
3:45 - Avery Johnson throws an awful pass to Mario Elie across the court, it’s easily intercepted, Blazers ball, up by 6 (9.1%)
3:25 - Damon Stoudamire attacks, gets some advantage, Robinson cuts him off and Stoudamire passes to the now-open Rasheed Wallace who cans the midrange jumper, Blazers by 8 (5.4%)
3:00 - Avery Johnson passes to Duncan on the block who is immediately doubled, Duncan passes right back out and Johnson takes the two point jumper and sinks it, Blazers by 6 (7.2%)
2:45 - Stoudamire gets a pick from Wallace, attacks into space, Robinson cuts him off, Stoudamire passes back to Wallace who takes the long two and hits it, Blazers by 8 (3.5%)
2:30 - Mario Elie passes in to Duncan on the block who is immediately doubled, Duncan passes back out, Elie attacks while his man is coming back and puts up a floater, Rasheed Wallace deflects it but is called for goaltending, Blazers by 6 (4.5%).
2:10 - Duncan is called for a foul tangling up with Brian Grant, Blazers get a new clock (3.2%)
1:55 - Stoudamire gets another pick, he attacks but Avery Johnson closes, Stoudamire takes the shot without much room, canning it, Blazers by 8 (1.5%)
1:45 - The ball gets in to Duncan (again), he’s double-teamed immediately (again) he passes out to Avery Johnson who moves in to 18 feet and takes the shot, hitting it, Blazers by 6 (2.0%)
1:30 - Stoudamire gets another pick, Johnson gets around it well and Stoudamire, clearly feeling it, takes a well-defended long two, missing it and the Spurs get the rebound (3.4%)
1:20 - Avery Johnson gets the ball into David Robinson who is immediately doubled, he kicks back out to Johnson who attacks and then takes a long two, missing, Blazers’ ball up by 6 (1.2%)
1:05 - Stoudamire gets great penetration, goes up to pass and then loses it, Spurs ball (he had a ton of space, I’m surprised he didn’t take a shot) (2.2%)
0:57 - Johnson passes to Sean Elliott who was behind the arc on the wing, Elliott shoots (without much room) and nails the three, Blazers by 3 (7.3%)
0:40 - Rasheed Wallace gets the ball at the top of the key with Robinson all over him, the Blazers don’t give him much help, Wallace tries to pass but Robinson deflects it and grabs it for the steal (11.7%)
0:33 - Mario Elie streaks down the floor and Robinson hits him perfectly with the outlet, Elie is fouled while shooting and gets free throws and makes both, Blazers by 1 (21.6%)
0:25 - Stoudamire gets another pick but Avery Johnson gets around it well and when Stoudamire takes the long two it’s well-defended, he misses, but the Blazers get the rebound, up by 1 (20.2%)
0:13 - The Spurs intentionally foul Jim Jackson. The Blazers inbound and Stoudamire gets it, and is fouled. He misses the first (23.9%) and makes the second (18.5%).
0:10 - The ball gets passed to Sean Elliott. Stacey Augmon dives for it and just barely misses. Rasheed Wallace closes fast and Elliott turns and throws up the shot with Wallace all over him. Swish. Spurs by 1 (63.3%).
0:08 - The Blazers inbound to Jim Jackson who spins around his man only to run right into Robinson (who read it perfectly), Jackson throws up the shot and Robinson blocks it, Williams gets the stray ball and launches an awkward fadeaway and misses, Spurs win the game.

Obviously that Elliott shot was huge. It was crazy, he nearly fell out of bounds and had to catch himself even as he caught the pass. But let the record show that Robinson came up with some key plays (the steal of Wallace, the perfect outlet to Elie and the read and block of Jackson with the clock winding down). Robinson was plenty capable of making a difference even without scoring.

So anyhow. The Spurs pulled it off. And it was around that moment, some recalled, that they started to believe that they could do it. They won the next two games by 22 and 14, sweeping a very good Blazers team by 10.3 points a game. Robinson averaged an 18/9/3 on +10.9% (2.3 steals and 3.3 blocks a game) and the Spurs held the Blazers’ offense to -4.4% shooting. It was a dominant win. Beating a team that good by 10+ points in a clean sweep in the Conference Finals . . . it’s impressive.

In the Finals they had a curious matchup against the +7.4 Knicks. The Knicks were an eight-seed, who had been hobbled by losing star center Patrick Ewing late in the season. Yet the rest of their roster was actually quite solid (Marcus Camby, Allan Houston, Latrell Sprewell and Larry Johnson). The Knicks were a +1.45 RSRS team. But against all odds they put up the following run:

Round 1: Miami Heat (+5.1), won 4-1 by +4.0 points per game (+9.1 SRS eq)
Round 2: Atlanta Hawks (+4.5), won 4-0 by +10.0 points per game (+14.5 SRS eq)
Round 3: Indiana Pacers (+7.4), won 4-2 by +0.8 points per game (+8.2 SRS eq)

This is one of the occasions where I really like OSRS. It’s not perfect, but it saves us from treating the ‘99 Knicks as a +1.5 SRS team. Those are three strong performances. And the media was swept up by the cinderella team, dubbing them “the team of destiny”. The Spurs may have been great, but the Knicks had momentum.

The thing about momentum is that it’s only good as long as you have it (it’s a ridiculous concept, pretty much akin to “it’s hard to beat teams that win, but once they start losing it’s easier"). And the Spurs were what Aristotle would have characterized as “the way, way better team”.

The Knicks gave them an actual tussle, but the Spurs still won in five by 5 points a game. They strangled the Knicks’ shooting (of course they did) to -5.7% and Duncan averaged a 27/14/2 on +8.8%. It wasn’t against an ATG team or anything. But it was a decisive win. And most of all. It was a freaking win. The Spurs had done it. They’d finally won a championship.

It had been a team effort. Duncan had stepped it up in the playoffs (a 4.1% shooting efficiency increase, despite similar volume) but Robinson had improved as well (and ratcheted up his defense). The only sad part was the inevitable decline of the team. Duncan may have been a monstrosity at 22, but Elie was 35, Avery Johnson was 33, Robinson was 33 (and not in great health) and Sean Elliott was 30 with kidney problems. The rest of the team was going to get worse faster than Duncan got better. But even as the Spurs faded gracefully into the sunset, at least they got one championship out of it. They’d have to be content with it; it would likely be their last for a while.

. . . or would it?


10 | Spurs
9 |
8 |
7 | Pacers
6 | Knicks
5 | Jazz, Blazers
4 |
3 | 76ers
2 | Hawks, Pistons
1 | Heat, Rockets, Lakers
0 | Magic, Wolves, Suns, Hornets
-0 | Bucks, Kings, Cavs
-1 | Celtics, Wizards, Raptors, Sonics
-2 | Mavs, Warriors
-3 | Nets
-4 |
-5 |
-6 | Nuggets
-7 |
-8 | Bulls, Grizzlies, Clippers
-9 |
-10|

1999 was reasonably competitive. On the downside was having 10% of the league in the -8 range. Counterpoint, 69% of the league was between +4 and -4, which is a big concentration around the middle. And the Spurs stand as far and away the best team from this year.

So what to make of them? Their regular season was strong (40th) and their playoffs were equally good (36th). And they did both in a fairly competitive year. And don’t look now, but they only lost two games all postseason (the formula doesn’t care, but I do). They absolutely owned their year, nobody else was close.

At the same time, with the exception of not losing many games in the playoffs, there’s actually not a ton about them that screams “dominance”. Their RSRS and PSRSs are both very good (especially when adjusted for era) but not historically dominant by a long shot. And their competition was fairly light; a 0 team, a +3 team and two 7s. Unlike the ‘12 Heat, or literally anyone in 2016, the ‘99 Spurs never had to tangle with anything close to an ATG team; they were the only one that year. I don’t really have a problem with them being here.

It’s amazing to think of how differently things could have gone. Like if the Spurs hadn’t won the lottery both of the years that Duncan and Robinson were available. Or if the Spurs had lost the next few games at the beginning of the season and Popovich had been fired? Which makes you wonder: how many ATG coaches/dynasties were derailed by impatient ownership? And how would we know? How lucky for the Spurs’ fans that they got to finally experience a championship. The first of many . . .

Back to the Main Thread

[kayess]

Instead of imitating Michael and winning with the team that drafted him

And with that, you just lost all credibility in the eyes of the paragon of all player evaluators, JordanBulls

The 2011-2012 seasons are still just absolutely baffling to me. As inexplicable as LeBron's choking in 2011 was, the 2012 run was like a goddamned hollywood movie (an unrealistic one at that) with all the adversity at every round. If you extend the arc to 2013, the Bosh injury seems almost fortuitous because it forced Spo to think about things in a new light and unleashed the Heat's true potential.

Not much to add, just a bit more flavor:
- This was when people truly started thinking: There is no way you can stop Durant from getting his
- In the Thunder series, LeBron basically had no jumper after being red hot towards the end of the Boston series. He was visibly hobbled/cramping/whatever.
- G4 was noteworthy for 2 things: the Russell Westbrook show ("that boy competed!"), and the game of Mario Chalmers' life

Really surprised they're this high; one feels as if they're not even in the top 50, tbh. If say they only won by 10 in that last game or had the same MOV but against an "average" finals loser (say, +7ish), would they even make it still?

[sansterre]

Instead of imitating Michael and winning with the team that drafted him

And with that, you just lost all credibility in the eyes of the paragon of all player evaluators, JordanBulls

The 2011-2012 seasons are still just absolutely baffling to me. As inexplicable as LeBron's choking in 2011 was, the 2012 run was like a goddamned hollywood movie (an unrealistic one at that) with all the adversity at every round. If you extend the arc to 2013, the Bosh injury seems almost fortuitous because it forced Spo to think about things in a new light and unleashed the Heat's true potential.

Not much to add, just a bit more flavor:
- This was when people truly started thinking: There is no way you can stop Durant from getting his
- In the Thunder series, LeBron basically had no jumper after being red hot towards the end of the Boston series. He was visibly hobbled/cramping/whatever.
- G4 was noteworthy for 2 things: the Russell Westbrook show ("that boy competed!"), and the game of Mario Chalmers' life

Really surprised they're this high; one feels as if they're not even in the top 50, tbh. If say they only won by 10 in that last game or had the same MOV but against an "average" finals loser (say, +7ish), would they even make it still?

Yeah, Chalmers' game 4 was nuts! And great point about how hollywood-ish the 2012 playoffs were.

If the Thunder had only been +7 the '12 Heat would drop to 28/29th. If they had only beaten the Thunder (+10 version) by 2.75 (winning Game 5 by only ten) it would drop them to 25th. This reflects the basic fact that these teams are all fairly close together; it really would take very little for a minor formula adjustment to drop a team a long way. One thing that helps the '12 Heat is that the formula pays less attention to their regular season because of the strike, and almost every team's playoff rating is higher than its regular season rating, so this is actually an edge for the Heat, when it probably shouldn't be. If we tell the formula that they played an 82-game regular season they drop to #27.

I don't know that the '12 Heat are Top 20. But I definitely think that they're Top 50. That is a legitimately good playoff run. The Thunder and Pacers were unusually tough matchups for that round, and the Heat made it by both fairly easily. That they blew out the Knicks doesn't mean a ton, but the Knicks were a better than normal first round opponent. The Celtics are their weak series, but I still think that that's a better playoff run than most other teams. Don't get me wrong; if after v2 the '12 Heat suddenly dropped to #37 or something, I wouldn't be hugely surprised. It doesn't take much for these teams to move a lot. But even if we're taking the traditional reductionist angle "who did they beat in the Finals?" the Heat come out looking pretty good.

The thing I have to remind myself of is that, at the end of the day, this is mostly an excuse to tell stories and get the chance to really think about these teams and where they stand. It won't be until v2 that I feel like the ranking can seriously be defended. I think that the '12 Heat are ranked fairly reasonably compared to other teams of the modern era. I think that v1 is undervaluing pre-modern teams by somewhere between "some" and "way too much".

[KTM_2813]

I'm coming around to the idea that 2012 James > 2013 James. The former was just such an absolute monster in the playoffs. This is a crude way of looking at it, but I feel as though 2012 James had an "A" regular season and "A+" postseason whereas 2013 James was an "A+" regular season and "A-" postseason.

[homecourtloss]

I might have missed one, but is the 2012 Heat the first team on the lost with four +10 or greater SRS eq playoffs series played?

[sansterre]

I might have missed one, but is the 2012 Heat the first team on the lost with four +10 or greater SRS eq playoffs series played?

Hmmm . . . Teams so far:

Teams with all four series at 10+ SRS eq: '12 Heat

Teams with three straight 10+ SRS eq series but not the Finals: '08 Lakers, '10 Celtics, '89 Lakers, '92 Blazers, '05 Spurs, '16 Thunder

Teams with three straight 10+ SRS eq *after* the first Round: '10 Lakers, '03 Spurs, '98 Bulls

Teams with all series 10+ SRS eq but less than 4 series: '73 Knicks, '96 Jazz, '61 Celtics, '72 Bucks

Teams stupid close: '89 Pistons (one series at +9.3), '98 Bulls (one series at +9.6)

[homecourtloss]

I might have missed one, but is the 2012 Heat the first team on the lost with four +10 or greater SRS eq playoffs series played?

Hmmm . . . Teams so far:

Teams with all four series at 10+ SRS eq: '12 Heat

Teams with three straight 10+ SRS eq series but not the Finals: '08 Lakers, '10 Celtics, '89 Lakers, '92 Blazers, '05 Spurs, '16 Thunder

Teams with three straight 10+ SRS eq *after* the first Round: '10 Lakers, '03 Spurs, '98 Bulls

Teams with all series 10+ SRS eq but less than 4 series: '73 Knicks, '96 Jazz, '61 Celtics, '72 Bucks

Teams stupid close: '89 Pistons (one series at +9.3), '98 Bulls (one series at +9.6)

Love it I was going to delineate the question this way, but I knew you’d have it covered.

[sansterre]

I might have missed one, but is the 2012 Heat the first team on the lost with four +10 or greater SRS eq playoffs series played?

Hmmm . . . Teams so far:

Teams with all four series at 10+ SRS eq: '12 Heat

Teams with three straight 10+ SRS eq series but not the Finals: '08 Lakers, '10 Celtics, '89 Lakers, '92 Blazers, '05 Spurs, '16 Thunder

Teams with three straight 10+ SRS eq *after* the first Round: '10 Lakers, '03 Spurs, '98 Bulls

Teams with all series 10+ SRS eq but less than 4 series: '73 Knicks, '96 Jazz, '61 Celtics, '72 Bucks

Teams stupid close: '89 Pistons (one series at +9.3), '98 Bulls (one series at +9.6)

Love it I was going to delineate the question this way, but I knew you’d have it covered.

While the '12 Heat are the only team so far to do so, of the remaining 17 teams, 8 have achieved this mark (and the two pre-1980s teams certainly did it with all their matchups, albeit in three rounds and not four). So it's a rare achievement, but going forward it's more common than not.

[homecourtloss]

Hmmm . . . Teams so far:

Teams with all four series at 10+ SRS eq: '12 Heat

Teams with three straight 10+ SRS eq series but not the Finals: '08 Lakers, '10 Celtics, '89 Lakers, '92 Blazers, '05 Spurs, '16 Thunder

Teams with three straight 10+ SRS eq *after* the first Round: '10 Lakers, '03 Spurs, '98 Bulls

Teams with all series 10+ SRS eq but less than 4 series: '73 Knicks, '96 Jazz, '61 Celtics, '72 Bucks

Teams stupid close: '89 Pistons (one series at +9.3), '98 Bulls (one series at +9.6)

Love it I was going to delineate the question this way, but I knew you’d have it covered.

While the '12 Heat are the only team so far to do so, of the remaining 17 teams, 8 have achieved this mark (and the two pre-1980s teams certainly did it with all their matchups, albeit in three rounds and not four). So it's a rare achievement, but going forward it's more common than not.

It’s relative rarity lends credence to your current weighting of these series though of course from a purely evaluative perspective, the difference between +9.6 or +10.2 is probably just nominal in nature.

[JOVA]

From what I can tell, and perhaps not that it matters, but so far, of the 17 teams remaining only one of them has beaten two of the other teams that are currently shown on this list.

That could change of course.

We all have our favourite teammates and players so perhaps I've only seen what I wanted to see, but I can't seem to see any others on the surface that have beaten more than one on the list.

There aren't any on the list so far that have done so.

[JOVA]

Nope. I'm wrong. I just found another one. That's at least 2. One of which already appears on the list ranked ahead of the two teams it beat.

[Odinn21]

I might have missed one, but is the 2012 Heat the first team on the lost with four +10 or greater SRS eq playoffs series played?

Hmmm . . . Teams so far:

Teams with all four series at 10+ SRS eq: '12 Heat

Teams with three straight 10+ SRS eq *after* the first Round: '03 Spurs

Man, this is a great testament to James and Duncan about how big of a one-army they could be. Massive.

[Vladimir777]

I liked reading your write-up for this, because, as someone who wasn't watching the NBA closely at that time period, I got a sense of narrative, like how "Elimination Game James" developed. I kinda started watching the NBA more seriously right around the last year or two of LeBron's stay in Miami, but I definitely wasn't reading online about basketball or digging more into it, so your writing here helped me get a sense of things.

As I mentioned in another one of these threads, I favorited your main page for this project, and I definitely need to read into how you're calculating these. It's interesting that we are getting fairly high up by now in this project, but it seems like this team wasn't even THAT successful. I can't wait to read about some of the teams in the top 10.

[kayess]

Instead of imitating Michael and winning with the team that drafted him

And with that, you just lost all credibility in the eyes of the paragon of all player evaluators, JordanBulls

The 2011-2012 seasons are still just absolutely baffling to me. As inexplicable as LeBron's choking in 2011 was, the 2012 run was like a goddamned hollywood movie (an unrealistic one at that) with all the adversity at every round. If you extend the arc to 2013, the Bosh injury seems almost fortuitous because it forced Spo to think about things in a new light and unleashed the Heat's true potential.

Not much to add, just a bit more flavor:
- This was when people truly started thinking: There is no way you can stop Durant from getting his
- In the Thunder series, LeBron basically had no jumper after being red hot towards the end of the Boston series. He was visibly hobbled/cramping/whatever.
- G4 was noteworthy for 2 things: the Russell Westbrook show ("that boy competed!"), and the game of Mario Chalmers' life

Really surprised they're this high; one feels as if they're not even in the top 50, tbh. If say they only won by 10 in that last game or had the same MOV but against an "average" finals loser (say, +7ish), would they even make it still?

Yeah, Chalmers' game 4 was nuts! And great point about how hollywood-ish the 2012 playoffs were.

If the Thunder had only been +7 the '12 Heat would drop to 28/29th. If they had only beaten the Thunder (+10 version) by 2.75 (winning Game 5 by only ten) it would drop them to 25th. This reflects the basic fact that these teams are all fairly close together; it really would take very little for a minor formula adjustment to drop a team a long way. One thing that helps the '12 Heat is that the formula pays less attention to their regular season because of the strike, and almost every team's playoff rating is higher than its regular season rating, so this is actually an edge for the Heat, when it probably shouldn't be. If we tell the formula that they played an 82-game regular season they drop to #27.

I don't know that the '12 Heat are Top 20. But I definitely think that they're Top 50. That is a legitimately good playoff run. The Thunder and Pacers were unusually tough matchups for that round, and the Heat made it by both fairly easily. That they blew out the Knicks doesn't mean a ton, but the Knicks were a better than normal first round opponent. The Celtics are their weak series, but I still think that that's a better playoff run than most other teams. Don't get me wrong; if after v2 the '12 Heat suddenly dropped to #37 or something, I wouldn't be hugely surprised. It doesn't take much for these teams to move a lot. But even if we're taking the traditional reductionist angle "who did they beat in the Finals?" the Heat come out looking pretty good.

The thing I have to remind myself of is that, at the end of the day, this is mostly an excuse to tell stories and get the chance to really think about these teams and where they stand. It won't be until v2 that I feel like the ranking can seriously be defended. I think that the '12 Heat are ranked fairly reasonably compared to other teams of the modern era. I think that v1 is undervaluing pre-modern teams by somewhere between "some" and "way too much".

Yeah, really that's what I look forward to the most here, the telling of stories. Obviously the formula's going to be imperfect, when I say "I don't even think they're top 50" that's more a feel thing rather than an indictment of your formula or whatnot. I may also be overcorrecting for my bias, too.

[colts18]

I liked reading your write-up for this, because, as someone who wasn't watching the NBA closely at that time period, I got a sense of narrative, like how "Elimination Game James" developed. I kinda started watching the NBA more seriously right around the last year or two of LeBron's stay in Miami, but I definitely wasn't reading online about basketball or digging more into it, so your writing here helped me get a sense of things.

As I mentioned in another one of these threads, I favorited your main page for this project, and I definitely need to read into how you're calculating these. It's interesting that we are getting fairly high up by now in this project, but it seems like this team wasn't even THAT successful. I can't wait to read about some of the teams in the top 10.

I believe the roots of the elimination Game LeBron Narrative taking ahold until after 2013 when he destroyed the Pacers in Game 7 and had amazing Games 6 and 7s vs the Spurs. After the 2016 finals vs the Warriors, the Elimination Game LeBron was 100% mentioned during all of his subsequent Elimination Games.

[freethedevil]

Instead of imitating Michael and winning with the team that drafted him

And with that, you just lost all credibility in the eyes of the paragon of all player evaluators, JordanBulls

The 2011-2012 seasons are still just absolutely baffling to me. As inexplicable as LeBron's choking in 2011 was, the 2012 run was like a goddamned hollywood movie (an unrealistic one at that) with all the adversity at every round. If you extend the arc to 2013, the Bosh injury seems almost fortuitous because it forced Spo to think about things in a new light and unleashed the Heat's true potential.

Not much to add, just a bit more flavor:
- This was when people truly started thinking: There is no way you can stop Durant from getting his
- In the Thunder series, LeBron basically had no jumper after being red hot towards the end of the Boston series. He was visibly hobbled/cramping/whatever.
- G4 was noteworthy for 2 things: the Russell Westbrook show ("that boy competed!"), and the game of Mario Chalmers' life

Really surprised they're this high; one feels as if they're not even in the top 50, tbh. If say they only won by 10 in that last game or had the same MOV but against an "average" finals loser (say, +7ish), would they even make it still?

Yeah, Chalmers' game 4 was nuts! And great point about how hollywood-ish the 2012 playoffs were.

If the Thunder had only been +7 the '12 Heat would drop to 28/29th. If they had only beaten the Thunder (+10 version) by 2.75 (winning Game 5 by only ten) it would drop them to 25th. This reflects the basic fact that these teams are all fairly close together; it really would take very little for a minor formula adjustment to drop a team a long way. One thing that helps the '12 Heat is that the formula pays less attention to their regular season because of the strike, and almost every team's playoff rating is higher than its regular season rating, so this is actually an edge for the Heat, when it probably shouldn't be. If we tell the formula that they played an 82-game regular season they drop to #27.

I don't know that the '12 Heat are Top 20. But I definitely think that they're Top 50. That is a legitimately good playoff run. The Thunder and Pacers were unusually tough matchups for that round, and the Heat made it by both fairly easily. That they blew out the Knicks doesn't mean a ton, but the Knicks were a better than normal first round opponent. The Celtics are their weak series, but I still think that that's a better playoff run than most other teams. Don't get me wrong; if after v2 the '12 Heat suddenly dropped to #37 or something, I wouldn't be hugely surprised. It doesn't take much for these teams to move a lot. But even if we're taking the traditional reductionist angle "who did they beat in the Finals?" the Heat come out looking pretty good.

The thing I have to remind myself of is that, at the end of the day, this is mostly an excuse to tell stories and get the chance to really think about these teams and where they stand. It won't be until v2 that I feel like the ranking can seriously be defended. I think that the '12 Heat are ranked fairly reasonably compared to other teams of the modern era. I think that v1 is undervaluing pre-modern teams by somewhere between "some" and "way too much".

Tbf, it evens out with the heat being injured throughout. Don't know if the celtics for example are really pushing them to 7 if you have a full healthy wade-bosh and lebron. The pacers and celtics series probably understate how good that team was at full strength.

[JordansBulls]

Instead of imitating Michael and winning with the team that drafted him, LeBron jumped ship to Dwyane Wade and the Heat.

Yes, these are the only legit titles the ones you win with the franchise that drafted you. Need to turn the franchise that drafted you into a dynasty.

[colts18]

Instead of imitating Michael and winning with the team that drafted him, LeBron jumped ship to Dwyane Wade and the Heat.

Yes, these are the only legit titles the ones you win with the franchise that drafted you. Need to turn the franchise that drafted you into a dynasty.

True. That's why I believe MJ failed for the Wizards despite playing with 3 all-star players and a Dream Teamer.

[JordansBulls]

Instead of imitating Michael and winning with the team that drafted him, LeBron jumped ship to Dwyane Wade and the Heat.

Yes, these are the only legit titles the ones you win with the franchise that drafted you. Need to turn the franchise that drafted you into a dynasty.

True. That's why I believe MJ failed for the Wizards despite playing with 3 all-star players and a Dream Teamer.

MJ wasn't drafted by the Wizards but turned the franchise that drafted him into a dynasty. Lebron was drafted by the Cavs and was in his prime and peak.

[sansterre]

Instead of imitating Michael and winning with the team that drafted him, LeBron jumped ship to Dwyane Wade and the Heat.

Yes, these are the only legit titles the ones you win with the franchise that drafted you. Need to turn the franchise that drafted you into a dynasty.

That sure puts an awful lot of weight on the front office. Imagine if the Bulls hadn't drafted Pippen or Grant, and we had to watch Jordan put up insane seasons every year with a weak supporting cast. I'd hate a world where we looked down on a player of Jordan's caliber simply because his front office was weak, or he got unlucky.