RealGM

Thought this deserved its own thread.
In an episode obviously inspired by the 2023 ECF, Ben Taylor ran the numbers and noted that when you take Miami's overperformance on wide open threes and the Celtics' underperformance on wide open threes, Miami gained 13.7 points per game in the 7 game series.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0OZwzuXNmH6JfqPMLQ35NW

In other words, if Miami shot at the level that was established for their 3 year sample, and the Celtics did the same, on wide open threes where defense doesn't play a role, Miami would've scored about 9 points fewer per game and the Celtics would've scored about 4 more points per game.

In more other words, the Celtics played a dominant series but were historically unlucky.

That’s some **** ain’t it?

They had like a historically bad shooting % in the finals too of course.

1st banana wrote:That’s some **** ain’t it?

They had like a historically bad shooting % in the finals too of course.

Really frustrating because we were probably the team best equipped to handle Denver.
But of course the finals would've come down to who's luckier on open threes anyway.

Is the same analysis available for the series with Atlanta and Philly? Everyone was crying bull those series, too.

Obviously Miami shot lights out but I definitely think there’s a large component of us enabling that by flat out disrespecting shooters and not making adjustments.

lon3lytoaster wrote:Is the same analysis available for the series with Atlanta and Philly? Everyone was crying bull those series, too.

Obviously Miami shot lights out but I definitely think there’s a large component of us enabling that by flat out disrespecting shooters and not making adjustments.

23 ECF had the biggest luck-based disparity ever by a mile. They didn't talk about the Atlanta series or the Philly series but probably because it wasn't notable.

Usually when a team is up +6 points per game on wide open threes that team wins the playoff series like 70% of the time, regardless of the seeding or the talent level. That tells me two things. One, the three point shot is too powerful and must be nerfed. Two, we were extremely good to take a series to 7 while giving up 13 points per game on shooting luck on wide open threes alone.

We had significantly more wide open three attempts so it wasn't really about the Celtics disrespecting shooters or playing poor defense. It was literally just luck.

Is it also luck when Duncan Robinson scores at least two layups a game on basic yet uncontested cuts?

BK_2020 wrote:

lon3lytoaster wrote:Is the same analysis available for the series with Atlanta and Philly? Everyone was crying bull those series, too.

Obviously Miami shot lights out but I definitely think there’s a large component of us enabling that by flat out disrespecting shooters and not making adjustments.

23 ECF had the biggest luck-based disparity ever by a mile. They didn't talk about the Atlanta series or the Philly series but probably because it wasn't notable.

Usually when a team is up +6 points per game on wide open threes that team wins the playoff series like 70% of the time, regardless of the seeding or the talent level. That tells me two things. One, the three point shot is too powerful and must be nerfed. Two, we were extremely good to take a series to 7 while giving up 13 points per game on shooting luck on wide open threes alone.

We had significantly more wide open three attempts so it wasn't really about the Celtics disrespecting shooters or playing poor defense. It was literally just luck.

Right I’ve seen it said multiple times that 3PA actually is one of the bigger stats. Ie, if a team can get them off they are in a big advantage already. I know this won’t please the Joe haters.

Haven’t followed the links but worth noting that Celtics were also one of the best teams in the league in the RS at limiting FG%, so even bigger swing from baseline.

Best part is you can find MIA fan posters expecting them to be even better next year lol.

BK_2020 wrote:

1st banana wrote:That’s some **** ain’t it?

They had like a historically bad shooting % in the finals too of course.

Really frustrating because we were probably the team best equipped to handle Denver.
But of course the finals would've come down to who's luckier on open threes anyway.

I feel like we match up well with Denver and who knows what could happen.

Mpj probably shoots 78% from 3, uncle Jeff averages 15 and Marcus takes 25 shots per game.

It is what it is. It's over.

BK_2020 wrote:Thought this deserved its own thread.
In an episode obviously inspired by the 2023 ECF, Ben Taylor ran the numbers and noted that when you take Miami's overperformance on wide open threes and the Celtics' underperformance on wide open threes, Miami gained 13.7 points per game in the 7 game series.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0OZwzuXNmH6JfqPMLQ35NW

In other words, if Miami shot at the level that was established for their 3 year sample, and the Celtics did the same, on wide open threes where defense doesn't play a role, Miami would've scored about 9 points fewer per game and the Celtics would've scored about 4 more points per game.

In more other words, the Celtics played a dominant series but were historically unlucky.

Miami are a jerk team for jerks, but we also didnt defend like we should. Simply stating they shot well isnt the whole story

Sour grapes

We finished the season against Miami 3-1. Unfortunately, if you go down 0-3 there is no margin for error, for hot/cold shooting or poorly timed ankle sprains. Coaching mistakes in game 1 and 2 didn’t help either.

We finished the season against Miami 3-1. Unfortunately, if you go down 0-3 there is no margin for error, for hot/cold shooting or poorly timed ankle sprains. Coaching mistakes in game 1 and 2 didn’t help either. In the end, Miami just beat us.

Darthlukey wrote:

BK_2020 wrote:Thought this deserved its own thread.
In an episode obviously inspired by the 2023 ECF, Ben Taylor ran the numbers and noted that when you take Miami's overperformance on wide open threes and the Celtics' underperformance on wide open threes, Miami gained 13.7 points per game in the 7 game series.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0OZwzuXNmH6JfqPMLQ35NW

In other words, if Miami shot at the level that was established for their 3 year sample, and the Celtics did the same, on wide open threes where defense doesn't play a role, Miami would've scored about 9 points fewer per game and the Celtics would've scored about 4 more points per game.

In more other words, the Celtics played a dominant series but were historically unlucky.

Miami are a jerk team for jerks, but we also didnt defend like we should. Simply stating they shot well isnt the whole story

If they shot normally from wide open threes they would've scored 10 points less per game and their offensive rating would've dropped to 107 which would be absolutely horrific. So I don't think you can say we didn't defend like we should. It may not be something we want to admit but NBA has become pretty much an RNG-based game.

Just listened to the pod. Two notes here:

1. It's wide-open-3 disparity related to expected outcome from the regular season. Which equated to a +13 ppg swing in the series in the Heat's favor (-5 for Cs, +8 for Heat)
2. Number of wide open 3 *takes* have zero correlation to expected outcomes (ie, whether the data swings positive or negative) in his data, meaning it's all variance & as close to a pure luck metric as he has

He noted that a +6 ppg variance in this stat leads to a team winning 84% of series (31 series). Only one team won against a 7.5 ppg luck differential - the 2021 Bucks (against the Heat).

The fact that the Celtics took it to 7 games in this variant statistical context is sorta pretty impressive

steefP2 wrote:Just listened to the pod. Two notes here:

1. It's wide-open-3 disparity related to expected outcome from the regular season. Which equated to a +13 ppg swing in the series in the Heat's favor (-5 for Cs, +8 for Heat)
2. Number of wide open 3 *takes* have zero correlation to expected outcomes (ie, whether the data swings positive or negative) in his data, meaning it's all variance & as close to a pure luck metric as he has

He noted that a +6 ppg variance in this stat leads to a team winning 84% of series (31 series). Only one team won against a 7.5 ppg luck differential - the 2021 Bucks (against the Heat).

The fact that the Celtics took it to 7 games in this variant statistical context is sorta pretty impressive

So the Heat had the best luck ever in a series, and also had a series 2 years ago in which they were very lucky?

BK_2020 wrote:

1st banana wrote:That’s some **** ain’t it?

They had like a historically bad shooting % in the finals too of course.

Really frustrating because we were probably the team best equipped to handle Denver.
But of course the finals would've come down to who's luckier on open threes anyway.

Same banana in the bubble. We were both the better team, but really choked it all away playing **** scared, and getting punked by Butler and role players. I really thought Tatum’s game and mindset would have matured already. He clearly has the best skills/talent in the game. Better than Jokic and Giannis, but those guys have a different mentality and consistency. Especially Jokic. We won’t get over the hump unless Tatum take that next step. The will and mentality to dominate and win at all cost.

It all equals Joe's fault.

Hypothetical: You defend a certain player poorly for his first two and three shots and he makes them all. He then gains confidence and rhythm with his shot, starts taking more contested, difficult shots and keeps making them. Is that still attributed to luck? What if your entire defensive scheme and effort are very poor to start games/series that not only one player goes off early but at least three scrubs do. Then you try to tighten up coverage but at that point "they can't seem to miss." Is that still luck?

zoyathedestroya wrote:Hypothetical: You defend a certain player poorly for his first two and three shots and he makes them all. He then gains confidence and rhythm with his shot, starts taking more contested, difficult shots and keeps making them. Is that still attributed to luck? What if your entire defensive scheme and effort are very poor to start games/series that not only one player goes off early but at least three scrubs do. Then you try to tighten up coverage but at that point "they can't seem to miss." Is that still luck?

Research shows that making a shot does not contribute to making subsequent shots unless you are shooting from an identical spot.