Sansterre's Top 100 Teams, #32-34, 2020 LAL, 2010 ORL, 2019 TOR

Moderators: tsherkin, Doctor MJ, penbeast0, trex_8063, Clyde Frazier, PaulieWal

sansterre
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,312
And1: 1,842
Joined: Oct 22, 2020

Re: Sansterre's Top 100 Teams, #32-34, 2020 LAL 

Post#21 » by sansterre » Mon Jan 4, 2021 11:46 am

MyUniBroDavis wrote:
sansterre wrote:
eminence wrote:Tough squad that didn't get seriously pushed last season, hope someone rises up to give them a series this year.

*Note, Kyrie was traded from the Cavs in '18, not a FA.

Balls! You're right, thanks for catching this.

The performance of the '20 Lakers definitely suggests the "They only pushed themselves hard enough to win" narrative, so it's easy to imagine that if a better team had risen up that the Lakers would have risen too. But I have some serious doubts about how much better LeBron and AD could have played; those were some of the best two-man playoff series ever.



Agreed on AD, but Bron was cruising till the finals I’d say, outside of a game or two here and there when the momentum was going away from the lakers or we had to take it back

Playoff LeBron is a deeply weird beast.

Here are his game-level BPMs from the 2020 playoffs:

Portland: +12.8, -5.1, +13.3, +24.6, +16.2 (+12.36 average)
Houston: +3.8, +7.3, +16.6, +1.4, +12.7 (+8.36 average)
Denver: +2.6, +4.1, +13.8, +5.8, +14.0 (+8.06 average)
Miami: +9.0, +14.9, +2.1, +8.1, +23.2, +16.2 (+12.25 average)

Game 1s: +7.05
Game 2s: +5.30
Game 3s: +11.45
Game 4s: +9.98
----Elimination Games----
Game 5s: +16.53
Game 6: +16.20

Non-Elimination Games: +8.45
Elimination Games: +16.46

On one hand, given that Miami was definitely the best defense they faced, I think it's clear that he played better/harder in the Finals than he did beforehand.

The scariest stuff is Elimination Game James. Averaging +16 or better in those, and never less than +12 is . . . fairly insane. The question is always whether or not EGJ is brought on by Elimination Games themselves, or simply by getting far enough in the series to have compiled enough of the opposition's code to click "execute".

I still remember a conversation with my friend going into Game 5 of the Finals. He thought Miami was going to play the Lakers tough with their back to the wall and I said something to the effect of "LeBron is going to play out of his mind. It feels totally unscientific to say, but LeBron in elimination games has, historically, been an entirely different thing." And he went on to have his best game of the series (even if the Lakers still lost).

So the real question is, to what extent is LeBron capable of generating those games out of thin air? His propensity for getting better later in series suggests that perhaps it isn't like he's got +16 games coming out of his pockets, that it does take a few games to get into his sweet spot.

But to your earlier point Uni; I think it's clear that you're right, I don't doubt that LeBron could have played better in the first three series. But given that the Finals were the only series that the Lakers had any real chance of losing, that's the series where I'm talking about being concerned that against a better team, I don't know how much deeper LeBron could have dug.
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."

"Trust one who seeks the truth. Doubt one who claims to have found the truth."
sansterre
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,312
And1: 1,842
Joined: Oct 22, 2020

Re: Sansterre's Top 100 Teams, #32-34, 2020 LAL, 2010 ORL 

Post#22 » by sansterre » Mon Jan 4, 2021 11:57 am

70sFan wrote:
sansterre wrote:Bump for team #33, the 2010 Orlando Magic!

Now this is a surprise! These Magic teams were damn good it seems, better than they got credit for.

You're very generous to go with that interpretation as opposed to the alternative :)

I think they're somewhere in between. When teams come out of nowhere (as measured by betting) there's the instinct to discount them. So when they fizzle before the Finals (as the Magic did both years), they often get dismissed. I think that they were better than that, if perhaps not as good as my list has them (particularly the '10 edition).

Since 2000 only seven franchises have teams on this list in back to back years:

Lakers (2000-2002, 2008-2010)
Warriors (2015-2019)
Heat (2011-2013)
Spurs (2012-2014)
Cavs (2015-2017)
Pistons (2004-2005)
Magic (2009-2010)

The Magic's teams are probably the worst of these seven. But being on that list, even as the worst entrant, is still pretty notable. Each team combined a strong regular season with a postseason that, while it came up short, had one really impressive win (in '09 the win over the Cavs, in '10 the blowout of the Hawks).

Definitely an interesting team.
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."

"Trust one who seeks the truth. Doubt one who claims to have found the truth."
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 30,248
And1: 25,525
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Sansterre's Top 100 Teams, #32-34, 2020 LAL, 2010 ORL 

Post#23 » by 70sFan » Mon Jan 4, 2021 12:16 pm

sansterre wrote:
70sFan wrote:
sansterre wrote:Bump for team #33, the 2010 Orlando Magic!

Now this is a surprise! These Magic teams were damn good it seems, better than they got credit for.

You're very generous to go with that interpretation as opposed to the alternative :)

I think they're somewhere in between. When teams come out of nowhere (as measured by betting) there's the instinct to discount them. So when they fizzle before the Finals (as the Magic did both years), they often get dismissed. I think that they were better than that, if perhaps not as good as my list has them (particularly the '10 edition).

Since 2000 only seven franchises have teams on this list in back to back years:

Lakers (2000-2002, 2008-2010)
Warriors (2015-2019)
Heat (2011-2013)
Spurs (2012-2014)
Cavs (2015-2017)
Pistons (2004-2005)
Magic (2009-2010)

The Magic's teams are probably the worst of these seven. But being on that list, even as the worst entrant, is still pretty notable. Each team combined a strong regular season with a postseason that, while it came up short, had one really impressive win (in '09 the win over the Cavs, in '10 the blowout of the Hawks).

Definitely an interesting team.

I do think that Magic team is probably a bit overrated on this list, but we should consider this as an important point. I never tought about this Magic "dynasty" as great one, but I do think that we should reconsider their standings, even if they are not inside top 50 after evaluation.
User avatar
homecourtloss
RealGM
Posts: 11,691
And1: 19,290
Joined: Dec 29, 2012

Re: Sansterre's Top 100 Teams, #32-34, 2020 LAL, 2010 ORL 

Post#24 » by homecourtloss » Mon Jan 4, 2021 3:47 pm

70sFan wrote:
sansterre wrote:
70sFan wrote:Now this is a surprise! These Magic teams were damn good it seems, better than they got credit for.

You're very generous to go with that interpretation as opposed to the alternative :)

I think they're somewhere in between. When teams come out of nowhere (as measured by betting) there's the instinct to discount them. So when they fizzle before the Finals (as the Magic did both years), they often get dismissed. I think that they were better than that, if perhaps not as good as my list has them (particularly the '10 edition).

Since 2000 only seven franchises have teams on this list in back to back years:

Lakers (2000-2002, 2008-2010)
Warriors (2015-2019)
Heat (2011-2013)
Spurs (2012-2014)
Cavs (2015-2017)
Pistons (2004-2005)
Magic (2009-2010)

The Magic's teams are probably the worst of these seven. But being on that list, even as the worst entrant, is still pretty notable. Each team combined a strong regular season with a postseason that, while it came up short, had one really impressive win (in '09 the win over the Cavs, in '10 the blowout of the Hawks).

Definitely an interesting team.

I do think that Magic team is probably a bit overrated on this list, but we should consider this as an important point. I never tought about this Magic "dynasty" as great one, but I do think that we should reconsider their standings, even if they are not inside top 50 after evaluation.


I can’t remember which thread Sansterre posted it in (or it might have been a PM :lol: ), but he lays out an interesting philosophical framework for evaluating the “goodness” of a team given his formula. In this case with Orlando, we ask “how much weight should be given to that utter annihilation of a healthy Hawks team that was a pretty good team?” He posted the rarity of such a blow out and in this case, a blowout without the aid of garbage time minutes piling on. On one hand, one series “shouldn’t” weigh so heavily, but on the other hand, there has to be something remarkable about a team that can do something that’s so rare. Then again, even though a team accomplishes something that’s rare, it’s a small sample p, so how much do you weight it, etc., and Sansterre’s working in refining the formula.

sansterre wrote: 2004: Pacers over Celtics (-2.0), by +16.8 -> loss in Conf Finals
2020: Raptors over Nets (-1.0), by +20.5 -> loss in Semis
1971: Bucks over Warriors (-0.8), by +16 -> Championship
2019: Bucks over Pistons (-0.6), by +23.8 -> loss in Conf Finals
2009: Cavs over Pistons (-0.4), by +15.5 -> loss in Conf Finals
2016: Thunder over Mavericks (0.0), by +18.2 -> loss in Conf Finals
2017: Warriors over Blazers (+0.2), by +18.0 -> Championship
2016: Warriors over Rockets (+0.3), by +18.8 -> loss in NBA Finals
2012: Spurs over Jazz (+0.9), by +16.0 -> loss in Conf Finals
2009: Cavs over Hawks (+1.0), by +18.0 -> loss in Conf Finals
1978: 76ers over Knicks (+1.1), by +18.7 -> loss in Conf Finals
2009: Nuggets over Hornets (+1.4), by +24.2 -> loss in Conf Finals
2013: Spurs over Lakers (+1.5), by +18.7 -> loss in NBA Finals
1980: Celtics over Rockets (+1.9), by +18.5 -> loss in Conf Finals
1989: Suns over Warriors (+2.1), by +15.8 -> loss in Conf Finals
2017: Cavs over Raptors (+2.5), by +15.3 -> loss in NBA Finals
2018: Warriors over Cavs (+2.9), by +15.0 -> Championship
2017: Cavs over Celtics (+3.3), by +20.0 -> loss in NBA Finals
2016: Cavs over Raptors (+4.0), by +15.5 -> Championship
2017: Warriors over Jazz (+4.6), by +15.0 -> Championship
2010: Magic over Hawks (+4.7), by +25.3 -> loss in Conf Finals
1986: Celtics over Bucks (+6.7), by +15.0 -> Championship
1996: Bulls over Magic (+8.5), by +16.7 -> Championship
2017: Warriors over Spurs (+8.9), by +16.0 -> Championship
2001: Lakers over Spurs (+10.3), by +18.2 -> Championship

That’s a lot of data so I’ll try and digest it a bit. First. There are twelve teams since 2003 (when the first round went to four games) that won a series by 15 points or more against opponents at +2.5 or worse. You’ll note that only one of them won a championship. But that doesn’t mean that these blowouts mean nothing. Assuming these blowouts were all achieved in the first round (which is often, but not always true) you’d expect these 12 teams to finish in the following way (assuming the blowouts indicated nothing):

1.5 Champions
1.5 losing in the Finals
3 losing in the Conference Finals
6 losing in the semis

Instead these teams finished thusly:

1 Champion
3 losing in the Finals
7 losing in the Conference Finals
1 losing in the Semis


I have always wanted to compile such a list but you’ve done it and we’re getting to read it for free—great stuff.
lessthanjake wrote:Kyrie was extremely impactful without LeBron, and basically had zero impact whatsoever if LeBron was on the court.

lessthanjake wrote: By playing in a way that prevents Kyrie from getting much impact, LeBron ensures that controlling for Kyrie has limited effect…
sansterre
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,312
And1: 1,842
Joined: Oct 22, 2020

Re: Sansterre's Top 100 Teams, #32-34, 2020 LAL, 2010 ORL 

Post#25 » by sansterre » Mon Jan 4, 2021 4:01 pm

homecourtloss wrote:
70sFan wrote:
sansterre wrote:You're very generous to go with that interpretation as opposed to the alternative :)

I think they're somewhere in between. When teams come out of nowhere (as measured by betting) there's the instinct to discount them. So when they fizzle before the Finals (as the Magic did both years), they often get dismissed. I think that they were better than that, if perhaps not as good as my list has them (particularly the '10 edition).

Since 2000 only seven franchises have teams on this list in back to back years:

Lakers (2000-2002, 2008-2010)
Warriors (2015-2019)
Heat (2011-2013)
Spurs (2012-2014)
Cavs (2015-2017)
Pistons (2004-2005)
Magic (2009-2010)

The Magic's teams are probably the worst of these seven. But being on that list, even as the worst entrant, is still pretty notable. Each team combined a strong regular season with a postseason that, while it came up short, had one really impressive win (in '09 the win over the Cavs, in '10 the blowout of the Hawks).

Definitely an interesting team.

I do think that Magic team is probably a bit overrated on this list, but we should consider this as an important point. I never tought about this Magic "dynasty" as great one, but I do think that we should reconsider their standings, even if they are not inside top 50 after evaluation.


I can’t remember which thread Sansterre posted it in (or it might have been a PM :lol: ), but he lays out an interesting philosophical framework for evaluating the “goodness” of a team given his formula. In this case with Orlando, we ask “how much weight should be given to that utter annihilation of a healthy Hawks team that was a pretty good team?” He posted the rarity of such a blow out and in this case, a blowout without the aid of garbage time minutes piling on. On one hand, one series “shouldn’t” weigh so heavily, but on the other hand, there has to be something remarkable about a team that can do something that’s so rare. Then again, even though a team accomplishes something that’s rare, it’s a small sample p, so how much do you weight it, etc., and Sansterre’s working in refining the formula.

sansterre wrote: 2004: Pacers over Celtics (-2.0), by +16.8 -> loss in Conf Finals
2020: Raptors over Nets (-1.0), by +20.5 -> loss in Semis
1971: Bucks over Warriors (-0.8), by +16 -> Championship
2019: Bucks over Pistons (-0.6), by +23.8 -> loss in Conf Finals
2009: Cavs over Pistons (-0.4), by +15.5 -> loss in Conf Finals
2016: Thunder over Mavericks (0.0), by +18.2 -> loss in Conf Finals
2017: Warriors over Blazers (+0.2), by +18.0 -> Championship
2016: Warriors over Rockets (+0.3), by +18.8 -> loss in NBA Finals
2012: Spurs over Jazz (+0.9), by +16.0 -> loss in Conf Finals
2009: Cavs over Hawks (+1.0), by +18.0 -> loss in Conf Finals
1978: 76ers over Knicks (+1.1), by +18.7 -> loss in Conf Finals
2009: Nuggets over Hornets (+1.4), by +24.2 -> loss in Conf Finals
2013: Spurs over Lakers (+1.5), by +18.7 -> loss in NBA Finals
1980: Celtics over Rockets (+1.9), by +18.5 -> loss in Conf Finals
1989: Suns over Warriors (+2.1), by +15.8 -> loss in Conf Finals
2017: Cavs over Raptors (+2.5), by +15.3 -> loss in NBA Finals
2018: Warriors over Cavs (+2.9), by +15.0 -> Championship
2017: Cavs over Celtics (+3.3), by +20.0 -> loss in NBA Finals
2016: Cavs over Raptors (+4.0), by +15.5 -> Championship
2017: Warriors over Jazz (+4.6), by +15.0 -> Championship
2010: Magic over Hawks (+4.7), by +25.3 -> loss in Conf Finals
1986: Celtics over Bucks (+6.7), by +15.0 -> Championship
1996: Bulls over Magic (+8.5), by +16.7 -> Championship
2017: Warriors over Spurs (+8.9), by +16.0 -> Championship
2001: Lakers over Spurs (+10.3), by +18.2 -> Championship

That’s a lot of data so I’ll try and digest it a bit. First. There are twelve teams since 2003 (when the first round went to four games) that won a series by 15 points or more against opponents at +2.5 or worse. You’ll note that only one of them won a championship. But that doesn’t mean that these blowouts mean nothing. Assuming these blowouts were all achieved in the first round (which is often, but not always true) you’d expect these 12 teams to finish in the following way (assuming the blowouts indicated nothing):

1.5 Champions
1.5 losing in the Finals
3 losing in the Conference Finals
6 losing in the semis

Instead these teams finished thusly:

1 Champion
3 losing in the Finals
7 losing in the Conference Finals
1 losing in the Semis


I have always wanted to compile such a list but you’ve done it and we’re getting to read it for free—great stuff.

It took me a bit, but here is the reasoning that he's mentioning (this is from a prior post):

sansterre wrote:I feel like there are two variables in play when it comes to margins of victory.

One is Capacity. Capacity is basically showing what you can do. Winning by 20 a game is notable because it demonstrates the capacity to do so. Beating an average team by 20 points a game in a playoff series is a fairly insane achievement, particularly because most teams are incapable of that level of dominance. If Team A beats an average team by 10 points a game, and Team B beats an average team by 5 points a game, it is very intuitive that Team A is considerably better than Team B. This whole idea of Capacity is the premise behind which SRS is based. Capacity as measured by margin of victory is a pretty effective predictor of future success. And in theory, if all teams played full-out every game, MoV would equal Capacity and that would be that. The problem is, if some teams run up the score (as a product of choice and not capacity) while others do not, then MoV becomes a little compromised.

The second is Probability. The principle axiom is that teams play as hard as they can to win by as much as they can until more points no longer add to the chance of winning. Are you up by 20 at halftime? Keep going, a lot can happen in half a game. Are you up by 20 going into the fourth quarter? Keep going, a lot can happen in a quarter. Are you up by 20 with four minutes to go? You can probably take your foot off the gas at that point, extra points don't buy you anything, and you gain more by resting your starters.

So the theory is, basically, Capacity (as measured by margin of victory) is the entire game as long as its gains are applicable to win probability. Keeping the starters in to win by 35 instead of 20 is pretty worthless. Here's an example from the one blowout in 2020 Boston/Philly:

Game 2: Boston leads by 8 at the half. They're up by 23 going into the 4th. In the 4th both teams put in their benches and Boston wins the quarter by 5, winning by 28. I have zero problem crediting the Celtics with a 23 point win - that lead through three quarters was completely legitimate and appropriate. But those 5 points in the 4th quarter? Bench against bench, I don't think that says anything about capacity.

Honestly, I think the coach (of either team) emptying the bench is a pretty good indicator of when we're in garbage time. Because once you're up by enough that it's in the bag, sitting your players is the more efficient choice.

Likewise, using a win probability calculator like this one: http://stats.inpredictable.com/nba/wpCalc.php is interesting as well. It basically says that you only hit 100.0% chance of winning going into the 4th if you're up by 30+. Anything less than that and there's still a chance.

If you're curious, 100% Leads:

4th Quarter: 30 points
9 minutes left: 25 points
6 minutes left: 20 points
3 minutes left: 15 points

So yeah. My thesis is that if you're blowing out a team but the issue isn't yet put to rest (because you blew them out too fast) then I say that's a reliable indication of quality.

So if I were rebuilding this formula (as I hope to), I'd cap MoV for individual games based on bench emptying / win probability maxing and basically kill the MoV there. If a team is up by 30 at the end of 3, call it a 30 point win for SRS/MoV purposes, whatever happens in the 4th. Even games in ancient times when they rode dinosaurs to the games (1957) they still have the points by quarter breakdown. So you could estimate it if you were curious.

So, for 2.0, I'd humbly propose to scrape the data for all these series, and audit games with MoV's larger than say 15 points to see if I can find evidence of garbage time minutes and adjust them. But, frankly, if you simply obliterate a team in the first three quarters . . . I'm not convinced that a mercy rule is applicable, given that both teams are (presumably) playing their best, and if you at your best are 30 points better than someone else's best . . . that's worth knowing.

By this reasoning (for example), consider the infamous Game 4 of the Nuggets/Hornets series in 2009. After two quarters the Nuggets are up by 22. No biggie, that's only 94.9%, keep going. But they win the third quarter by 16 points. We know that 38 points by the 4th is over 100%. Assuming that there's a fairly linear rate of scoring, I'd say the 100% mark gets reached around 1 minute left, when the Nuggets are up by 36. In the fourth quarter both teams empty their benches and the Nuggets win by another 20 in that quarter. So I'd propose crediting the Nuggets with a 36 point win (or 38 if we're taking shortcuts) but ignoring everything past that. And while a 36-point win may seem like running up the score, if the Nuggets got there early enough, they were still adding to their chance to win by getting farther ahead and they should be credited for it.

And obviously you could quibble with my 100% cutoff. You could decide that if it's 99%, that's enough. Or 99.5%. There's some wiggle room in where you set the bar, but that would be my proposed methodology.

Anyhow. That's my two cents, chopped into fifty farthings and scattered into the wind.
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."

"Trust one who seeks the truth. Doubt one who claims to have found the truth."
User avatar
homecourtloss
RealGM
Posts: 11,691
And1: 19,290
Joined: Dec 29, 2012

Re: Sansterre's Top 100 Teams, #32-34, 2020 LAL 

Post#26 » by homecourtloss » Mon Jan 4, 2021 4:01 pm

sansterre wrote:
MyUniBroDavis wrote:
sansterre wrote:Balls! You're right, thanks for catching this.

The performance of the '20 Lakers definitely suggests the "They only pushed themselves hard enough to win" narrative, so it's easy to imagine that if a better team had risen up that the Lakers would have risen too. But I have some serious doubts about how much better LeBron and AD could have played; those were some of the best two-man playoff series ever.



Agreed on AD, but Bron was cruising till the finals I’d say, outside of a game or two here and there when the momentum was going away from the lakers or we had to take it back

Playoff LeBron is a deeply weird beast.

Here are his game-level BPMs from the 2020 playoffs:

Portland: +12.8, -5.1, +13.3, +24.6, +16.2 (+12.36 average)
Houston: +3.8, +7.3, +16.6, +1.4, +12.7 (+8.36 average)
Denver: +2.6, +4.1, +13.8, +5.8, +14.0 (+8.06 average)
Miami: +9.0, +14.9, +2.1, +8.1, +23.2, +16.2 (+12.25 average)

Game 1s: +7.05
Game 2s: +5.30
Game 3s: +11.45
Game 4s: +9.98
----Elimination Games----
Game 5s: +16.53
Game 6: +16.20

Non-Elimination Games: +8.45
Elimination Games: +16.46

On one hand, given that Miami was definitely the best defense they faced, I think it's clear that he played better/harder in the Finals than he did beforehand.

The scariest stuff is Elimination Game James. Averaging +16 or better in those, and never less than +12 is . . . fairly insane. The question is always whether or not EGJ is brought on by Elimination Games themselves, or simply by getting far enough in the series to have compiled enough of the opposition's code to click "execute".

I still remember a conversation with my friend going into Game 5 of the Finals. He thought Miami was going to play the Lakers tough with their back to the wall and I said something to the effect of "LeBron is going to play out of his mind. It feels totally unscientific to say, but LeBron in elimination games has, historically, been an entirely different thing." And he went on to have his best game of the series (even if the Lakers still lost).

So the real question is, to what extent is LeBron capable of generating those games out of thin air? His propensity for getting better later in series suggests that perhaps it isn't like he's got +16 games coming out of his pockets, that it does take a few games to get into his sweet spot.

But to your earlier point Uni; I think it's clear that you're right, I don't doubt that LeBron could have played better in the first three series. But given that the Finals were the only series that the Lakers had any real chance of losing, that's the series where I'm talking about being concerned that against a better team, I don't know how much deeper LeBron could have dug.


There was a good discussion going on here a few months back about LeBron figuring teams out by game 3 or 4 and if you’re not going to beat him quickly, he’ll become an even bigger monster than he normally is.

+20.6 vs. Ind in 2018
+12.6 vs. Tor in 2018
+19.2 and +8.8 vs Bos in 2018

2017 wasn’t as stark and neither was 2016 until the finals, i.e., +21.5, +23.5, +11.5 in games 5, 6, and 7 respectively vs Golden state
lessthanjake wrote:Kyrie was extremely impactful without LeBron, and basically had zero impact whatsoever if LeBron was on the court.

lessthanjake wrote: By playing in a way that prevents Kyrie from getting much impact, LeBron ensures that controlling for Kyrie has limited effect…
MyUniBroDavis
General Manager
Posts: 7,827
And1: 5,034
Joined: Jan 14, 2013

Re: Sansterre's Top 100 Teams, #32-34, 2020 LAL 

Post#27 » by MyUniBroDavis » Mon Jan 4, 2021 10:53 pm

homecourtloss wrote:
sansterre wrote:
MyUniBroDavis wrote:

Agreed on AD, but Bron was cruising till the finals I’d say, outside of a game or two here and there when the momentum was going away from the lakers or we had to take it back

Playoff LeBron is a deeply weird beast.

Here are his game-level BPMs from the 2020 playoffs:

Portland: +12.8, -5.1, +13.3, +24.6, +16.2 (+12.36 average)
Houston: +3.8, +7.3, +16.6, +1.4, +12.7 (+8.36 average)
Denver: +2.6, +4.1, +13.8, +5.8, +14.0 (+8.06 average)
Miami: +9.0, +14.9, +2.1, +8.1, +23.2, +16.2 (+12.25 average)

Game 1s: +7.05
Game 2s: +5.30
Game 3s: +11.45
Game 4s: +9.98
----Elimination Games----
Game 5s: +16.53
Game 6: +16.20

Non-Elimination Games: +8.45
Elimination Games: +16.46

On one hand, given that Miami was definitely the best defense they faced, I think it's clear that he played better/harder in the Finals than he did beforehand.

The scariest stuff is Elimination Game James. Averaging +16 or better in those, and never less than +12 is . . . fairly insane. The question is always whether or not EGJ is brought on by Elimination Games themselves, or simply by getting far enough in the series to have compiled enough of the opposition's code to click "execute".

I still remember a conversation with my friend going into Game 5 of the Finals. He thought Miami was going to play the Lakers tough with their back to the wall and I said something to the effect of "LeBron is going to play out of his mind. It feels totally unscientific to say, but LeBron in elimination games has, historically, been an entirely different thing." And he went on to have his best game of the series (even if the Lakers still lost).

So the real question is, to what extent is LeBron capable of generating those games out of thin air? His propensity for getting better later in series suggests that perhaps it isn't like he's got +16 games coming out of his pockets, that it does take a few games to get into his sweet spot.

But to your earlier point Uni; I think it's clear that you're right, I don't doubt that LeBron could have played better in the first three series. But given that the Finals were the only series that the Lakers had any real chance of losing, that's the series where I'm talking about being concerned that against a better team, I don't know how much deeper LeBron could have dug.


There was a good discussion going on here a few months back about LeBron figuring teams out by game 3 or 4 and if you’re not going to beat him quickly, he’ll become an even bigger monster than he normally is.

+20.6 vs. Ind in 2018
+12.6 vs. Tor in 2018
+19.2 and +8.8 vs Bos in 2018

2017 wasn’t as stark and neither was 2016 until the finals, i.e., +21.5, +23.5, +11.5 in games 5, 6, and 7 respectively vs Golden state


It’s more so about figuring out stuff as a series goes on IMO. I think against Toronto in 2016 there was a trend like that too though right?
sansterre
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,312
And1: 1,842
Joined: Oct 22, 2020

Re: Sansterre's Top 100 Teams, #32-34, 2020 LAL, 2010 ORL, 2019 TOR 

Post#28 » by sansterre » Tue Jan 5, 2021 10:57 am

Bump for team #32, the 2019 Toronto Raptors!
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."

"Trust one who seeks the truth. Doubt one who claims to have found the truth."
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 30,248
And1: 25,525
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Sansterre's Top 100 Teams, #32-34, 2020 LAL, 2010 ORL, 2019 TOR 

Post#29 » by 70sFan » Tue Jan 5, 2021 12:23 pm

To be honest, I thought that 2019 Raptors would be even higher than that but I think that after some time to think about it, this position is fair for them. They were absolutely a great team, but short of an all-time great level. Their RS was weak relative to other great teams and their postseason (although extremely good) isn't among the best either.
User avatar
AdagioPace
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,899
And1: 7,479
Joined: Jan 03, 2017
Location: Contado di Molise
   

Re: Sansterre's Top 100 Teams, #32-34, 2020 LAL, 2010 ORL, 2019 TOR 

Post#30 » by AdagioPace » Tue Jan 5, 2021 12:28 pm

70sFan wrote:To be honest, I thought that 2019 Raptors would be even higher than that but I think that after some time to think about it, this position is fair for them. They were absolutely a great team, but short of an all-time great level. Their RS was weak relative to other great teams and their postseason (although extremely good) isn't among the best either.


their PS defense was alltime great If I recall correctly but offensively they were nothing outrageous

it's intersting that the last two champions ended up so close, btw (of course if we ignore Sansterre's asterisk on the Lakers)
"La natura gode della natura; la natura trionfa sulla natura; la natura domina la natura" - Ostanes
User avatar
homecourtloss
RealGM
Posts: 11,691
And1: 19,290
Joined: Dec 29, 2012

Re: Sansterre's Top 100 Teams, #32-34, 2020 LAL, 2010 ORL, 2019 TOR 

Post#31 » by homecourtloss » Tue Jan 5, 2021 3:44 pm

AdagioPace wrote:
70sFan wrote:To be honest, I thought that 2019 Raptors would be even higher than that but I think that after some time to think about it, this position is fair for them. They were absolutely a great team, but short of an all-time great level. Their RS was weak relative to other great teams and their postseason (although extremely good) isn't among the best either.


their PS defense was alltime great If I recall correctly but offensively they were nothing outrageous

it's intersting that the last two champions ended up so close, btw (of course if we ignore Sansterre's asterisk on the Lakers)


8 to 9 “plus” players, all either plus or neutral defenders, all can shoot and play 5 out...it was a fun year.
lessthanjake wrote:Kyrie was extremely impactful without LeBron, and basically had zero impact whatsoever if LeBron was on the court.

lessthanjake wrote: By playing in a way that prevents Kyrie from getting much impact, LeBron ensures that controlling for Kyrie has limited effect…
freethedevil
Head Coach
Posts: 7,262
And1: 3,237
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: Sansterre's Top 100 Teams, #32-34, 2020 LAL, 2010 ORL, 2019 TOR 

Post#32 » by freethedevil » Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:31 pm

sansterre wrote:
But in 2019 things looked up for two reasons. First, LeBron left Cleveland and signed with the Lakers in the West. Second, Kawhi Leonard was on the block. Despite him having led the Spurs to some very strong seasons there were significant tensions there. In 2018 Leonard had injured his quadriceps and had been out much of the year. Eventually the Spurs doctors cleared him to play, but he got a second opinion from a doctor that encouraged him to sit out the year. This led to him feeling like the Spurs didn’t have his health or his interests at heart, so he demanded a trade. He was a risk. His health was in question, and he only had one more year on his contract, so there was a very good chance that acquiring him, however successful, would be a one-year rental. Ujiri, sensing opportunity, pulled the trigger, sending DeRozan and a protected 1st to the Spurs for Leonard. Despite having taken a 59-win team and added Leonard, the oddsmakers put Toronto below the Lakers, Rockets, Celtics and Warriors. The first three seem a bit nuts, but the last certainly makes sense. Golden State was the massive x-factor to the whole thing. Even if Toronto could now win the East, could they beat the Curry/Durant/Draymond Warriors that had just posted arguably the most dominant two-year stretch in history?

The regular season for Toronto went pretty well (if not as well as you might guess); they won 58 games and finished with a +5.49 RSRS. Kawhi proved healthy (with a healthy amount of load management) and would be most everything advertised. And midseason Ujiri pried veteran Marc Gasol away from the Grizzlies for Jonas Valanciunas and a 2nd. But the Raptors only won the two-seed; the immediate threat to their championship journey would not be from the Warriors, but instead the Milwaukee Bucks. Forecast 11th in the league at 48 wins, the Bucks would win 60 games and a +8.04 RSRS, the best in the league. Their young phenom, Giannis Antetokounmpo, took a leap, averaging 39 points and 20 rebounds per 100 on +8.4% efficiency and posting a BPM above +10. He won the MVP handily. He anchored the best defense in the league, and on offense he could not be kept from the rim. If Toronto was going to win a championship they’d likely have to get through the Bucks first.

In the first round they blew apart the +0.3 Orlando Magic to the tune of 14.4 points a game. The Magic were held to -6.4% shooting and the Raptors shot a strong +2.2%, led by Kawhi who averaged a 28/7/3 on +11.9% shooting. The Magic were only an average team, but it was a strong showing in any case.

They ran into a much tighter contest in the second round against the 76ers (+4.8). The Sixers lacked the Raptors’ firepower but boasted an intriguing defensive lineup (Jimmy Butler, Joel Embiid, Tobias Harris and Ben Simmons), and a big man (Embiid) that nobody in the league had a really good answer for. It was a tight series, with the first six games splitting 3-3, with the Raptors averaging around a 3 point MoV for the six. Game 7 went down to the wire, in one of the most exctiing finishes of the season. With two minutes to play the score was tied.

1:41 - Kawhi Leonard gets a screen and drills a long two-pointer just over Joel Embiid to give the Raptors a two point lead.
1:18 - the Sixers possession stalls out, late in the clock they pass to Harris, who gets doubled, he unloads to Embiid, Lowry jumps the pass and sets Siakam up for a layup, four point Raptors lead. The crowd goes nuts. Pretty much the entire last two minutes.
0:59 - Jimmy Butler gets fouled and hits one of two free throws. Three point lead for Raptors
0:41 - Leonard drives into the paint but is completely shut down by Butler’s defense, Leonard takes an awkward two and misses, but Ibaka gets the rebound, Raptors’ ball
0:27 - Leonard takes a weird turnaround three-pointer and clanks it, Sixers’ ball, still three point lead for the Raptors.
0:12 - Embiid draws a foul and gets two free throws, hitting both, Raptors lead by one.
0:11 - Leonard is intentionally fouled, makes one and misses one, Raptors lead by two.
0:04 - Butler gets a head of steam in transition and barrels in for a layup, tie game.
0:00 - Leonard takes an insane running three with Embiid all over him, the ball bounces around the rim before falling through, Raptors win. Everyone loses their mind.

That the Raptors won the series on buzzer-beater like that gives an impression that they were lucky to win (sort of like the ‘13 Heat were to beat the Spurs on the Allen three). But there are several important differences:

-In 2013, the Heat had been outscored leading up to that moment (if not by a lot), the Heat would have lost without the shot going in, and they were down 3-2 at the time.
-In 2019, the Raptors had outscored the Sixers for the series to date, they would have gone to overtime if the shot had missed and the series was tied.

In other words, the '13 Heat needed the shot to land to even have a chance, while the '19 Raptors were already in the driver's seat, they just needed the shot to ice the game.

So, on the whole, beating the Sixers by 2.7 points a game was a narrow win, tighter than you’d want for a contending team over a quality (but not great) opponent. But it was a lot better than what may have been remembered as a coin-flip.

And in the Conference Finals were, of course, the Milwaukee Bucks. The Bucks had immolated the average Pistons by 23.8 points per game and, in case they needed to prove things further, they played a strong Celtics team (+5.5) and beat them in five by 8.6 points a game. The Bucks went into the game with an OSRS of +12.4, an intimidating challenge for the Raptors. The Bucks won Game 1 by eight, with Giannis posting a 24/14/6 on +0.4%, 2 steals and 3 blocks. In Game 2 the Bucks won by 22, with Giannis having a 30/17/5 on +3.3%. Two games in, it seemed over. So coach Nick Nurse made a change, matching Kawhi Leonard up on Giannis. Furthermore, the Raptors through the series would make cutting Giannis off on his route to the basket a priority, especially with the man defending light-shooting Eric Bledsoe. The resulting combination slowed Giannis, and the rest of the Bucks were unable to make up the difference. Giannis averaged a 23/14/6 on -4.2% for the series, while Kawhi averaged a 30/10/4 on +1.4%. The Raptors won it in six, but the margin of victory was tight, one point a game. Nevertheless, any victory over the Bucks was an impressive achievement. And the Raptors advanced to the Finals to face the Warriors.

But the ‘19 Warriors weren’t the same monster that they’d been in years past. Their playoff series to this point had been: +10.9 SRS eq, +9.7 SRS eq and +14.3 SRS eq. You may look at that and say “An 11.6 average PSRS? That sounds pretty good.” It was. But compared to the ‘17 and ‘18 Warriors, +11.6 PSRS was awkwardly mortal. Compounding matters, Kevin Durant was expected to be out for the series. This was bad for the Warriors . . . but not as bad as it sounded. Tensions between Durant and the rest of the Warriors had been high all year. And the Warriors had posted their best playoff series (the +14.3 SRS eq against the Blazers) with no Durant at all. Losing Durant would hurt, but not as much as one might guess. It would be a tight Finals, but the Raptors would prevail in six, by 5.7 points a game. The Raptors slightly controlled possession (3 shots a game) and slightly outshot the Warriors, +2.1% to +1.0%.

Did the fact that the Raptors won with Durant out (and Klay missing Game 6) diminish the victory? Yeah, some. But their 5.7 margin of victory is pretty solid against a clearly strong team; remember, this was basically the ‘15 and ‘16 Warriors, just older and with a thinner bench (and no Harrison Barnes). Personally, I’m more impressed by the victory over the Bucks, but still.

Either way, the Raptors had run the table and won the franchise’s first championship. Kawhi had played marvelously. He would leave in the offseason, and it would still be worth it.

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

2019 was a fairly non-competitve year. 12% of the league above +7 and 12% of the league below -8 is pretty lopsided. So that diminishes the Raptors season somewhat. Still. Their RSRS was nothing to brag about (77th on the list) but their playoff run was excellent, 30th on this list. Skeptics may seek to diminish their achievement by saying that the Bucks were overrated, but remember, the Bucks were trashing everyone. They faced a very solid, young, athletic, well-coached Celtics team and the Bucks mowed right through them. The Bucks were unstoppable . . . until the Raptors stopped them. And the Warriors without Durant may have been diminished, but even diminished they still stomped through the West pretty handily. I’m comfortable with this ranking for the Raptors. It was a hell of a run.[/spoiler]

Back to the Main Thread

Two things I'd say on the raptors.

1: Re, regular season. The raptors played at a 63 win pace without kawhi and their 59 wins came with kawhi playing like a non-superstar and much of their cast losing significant time. On top o all that there was a massiev jumpp in defensive rating post the gasol trade. I'm not pointing this out to excuse "how they played", I'm more pointing this out because rs play has a lot weaker correlation with title odds than one might expect, so how this team operated in the rs with all their horses is probably moe relevant than their 'actual' performance keeping in mind theybasically coasted to their 59 wiin record Even - kawhi, the raptors in 2019 were probabably a singifcantly better playoff roster than the 2018 raptors. Sure tehy lost derozan. They gained a top tier rim protector in gasol, saw improvement from their bench and siakiam and traded an aawful postseason coach in casey for arguably the best coach in the league.

2. Re: Sixers Series. There's fairly major context to consider with the sixers srs in regards to the jimmy butler tade which saw them become a top 5 offense in the league. In addition to that Embid missed signifcant time tanking their srs. On top of that, the sixers had --the best-- 5 man lineup in the league per +/- which bodes well for palyoff elevation and they backed it up, irrc, by demolishing a >.500 nets team in the first round. I would guess that when they played the raptors they were more like a 55 win team than a 47 wn team. The Raptors probably still underperformed, but I don't think it was really by near the margin taking the sixers raw srs would indicate.

Return to Player Comparisons