[Obawan12]

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/playo...ory?id=5159847

Debunking NBA playoff myths

We're in the midst of the second round of the NBA playoffs, and if my calculations are correct that means you are already sick of commentators telling you everything changes in the postseason. Yeah, yeah -- the game is chippier, the crowds rowdier, the pressure heavier. From where I sit, though, the playoffs don't look much different from the season's first 82 games. In fact, many such commonly repeated mantras are more like myths. Let me break down four of them for you.



Myth 1: Defense tightens in the playoffs. You've heard all the bluster about playoff matchups being knock-down, drag-out wars in which every point made is a minor miracle because locked-in defenders know the offense better than their opponents do. That makes sense. Over a seven-game series a team would be able to scout foes down to the equipment man, making them completely prepared for every imaginable option.



If only it were true. "San Antonio was a great team in 2005," says Suns coach Alvin Gentry. "But we averaged 104 points against them in the playoffs." Gentry is no dummy. Offenses maintain their level of efficiency in the postseason. Last year, teams actually scored slightly more on a per-possession basis in the playoffs (1.056) than in the regular season (1.048), and that's consistent with results of the past few years. Teams did shoot slightly worse from the field in the 2009 playoffs than in that regular season (45.1% vs. 45.9%), but they made up for it by turning the ball over less (14.4% of possessions vs. 14.8%).



That's just a continuation of a regular-season trend. Offenses struggle early, then pick up steam. This year, the league average in offensive efficiency was 103.0 after the first two months and 105.1 after, rising with each monthly interval. There's no reason to think that pattern would stop in the playoffs.

Myth 2: Experience matters. Young teams are at an extreme disadvantage when they wade into the playoffs against a battle-tested crew. Or so we're told. Veteran teams do have an edge. But it has nothing to do with players' ages.



We tend to get cause and effect backward. When the Bobcats lost to the Magic in this year's first round, what mattered more -- that they were making their first run as a group or that they were the No. 7 seed facing a 59-game winner? Teams with less playoff experience are usually not as talented as their opponents; that's why they lose.

The last truly inexperienced team to earn a No. 1 seed was the 2001-02 Nets, and they held to form and reached the NBA Finals. The youngest playoff team ever, the 1977-78 Bucks, nearly made the conference finals as a No. 6 after beating a seasoned Phoenix team that had gone to the Finals two years earlier. And while we're used to seeing veteran teams gobbling up the top seeds and rolling to the Finals, that hasn't always been the case. The 1976-77 Blazers won the NBA title in the franchise's (and most of its players') first-ever trip to the postseason. "It's a misconception that youth and inexperience are why you don't win," says Grizzlies coach Lionel Hollins, who knows -- as everyone should -- that factors like talent, health and chemistry are far more important. He knows because he was a starting guard on that Blazers team.



Myth 3: Regular-season matchups matter. Of course, you'd expect head-to-head results from the regular season to offer predictive value in the playoffs. Support for that came as recently as last year's conference finals, as the Lakers and Magic both won in six games after taking the regular-season series from the Nuggets and Cavs, respectively.



Don't let those two series fool you. When we look at a sufficient sample size -- in other words, something more than two series -- reality is revealed. For starters, three of the past four NBA champs were swept by their Finals opponent in the regular season. Now, it is true that in the 25 postseasons before this current one, teams with homecourt advantage that also won a regular-season series did win the same matchup in the playoffs 81.9% of the time. But that number is bolstered by the fact that since 1999-2000 (not including this year's opening round), higher-seeded teams that won a regular-season series against their playoff opponents went a statistically skewing 41-0 in the first round. From the second round on, though, only 63.6% of teams scored the playoff double-up. In other words, after the first round, you'd have been better off picking the team with the homecourt advantage (72.9%).



My closing argument is the Heat's title run in 2006. After the first round, Miami beat three teams -- the Nets, Pistons and Mavs -- it was 2-8 against in the regular season.



Myth 4: Refs swallow their whistles in the playoffs. This one is so ingrained it's virtually impossible to convince people otherwise. But you have to believe me: It's wrong. Actually, the exact opposite is true. Significantly more fouls are called and more free throws attempted in the playoffs. Last season .246 personal fouls were called per possession in the playoffs compared with .222 in the regular season, a 10.8% increase that is pretty consistent with other recent seasons. "There's more focus on every possession, which makes each more intense and physical," says Blazers coach Nate McMillan. And maybe players are trying harder to force officials to notice (see page 76). Shooting fouls in particular get closer attention. Last year's playoffs saw .341 free throw attempts per field goal attempt, compared with .305 in the regular season. That's a huge jump of 11.8%. And if that doesn't convince you, maybe these two words of anecdotal evidence will: Dwyane Wade. You may recall his parade to the free throw line as being instrumental in the Heat's victory over the Mavs in the 2006 Finals. If Bennett Salvatore swallowed his whistle in Game 6 of that series, it must have gotten stuck in his larynx.



I will grudgingly admit, though, that conventional wisdom isn't always wrong. Here's one maxim that withstands scrutiny.



Truth: Pace slows way down. How better to explain why high-octane teams like the Suns and the millennial Kings failed to win championships? Last year, teams averaged 94.1 possessions per 48 minutes in the regular season but a measly 91.1 come playoff time. Put another way, the average possession lasted .6 of a second longer, going from 15.3 seconds to 15.9. That may not seem like more than an eyeblink, but it's the difference between playing at an average pace (like the Lakers or Mavs do) and playing at the league's slowest tempo (this year, that honor belongs to the Blazers).



The reason for the downshift is fairly obvious. Call it an issue of control. "We can play at the pace we want to," Gentry says, "but our opponent can slow down the game at his end." Foes may not have the same kind of commitment on a random Tuesday night in January, but in the postseason, with elimination on the line, you'd better believe teams will do all they can to take away the Suns' Steve Nash-fueled transition game.



The tempo slowdown more than offsets the postseason's increase in offensive efficiency, which is why so many analysts mistakenly believe defense improves. And there you have it. Even when truth is revealed in the NBA, another misrepresenting myth lurks around the corner.

[theSTEREO.]

Didn't look all through the article, but here's a VERY interesting tidbit from his chat today:

paul (akron)


do you still like the chances of the cavs advancing?I predicted cavs in 5 but i changed my mind in 6 games for the cavs..

John Hollinger
(1:18 PM)


Historically, road teams have lost Game 1 and won Game 2 of the second round 42 times. You know how many times they advanced? Would you believe ... 12? So yes, I still like Cleveland's chances.

[chiefwahoo]

I like this from his chat today too:

paul (akron)

do you still like the chances of the cavs advancing?I predicted cavs in 5 but i changed my mind in 6 games for the cavs..

John Hollinger
(1:18 PM)

Historically, road teams have lost Game 1 and won Game 2 of the second round 42 times. You know how many times they advanced? Would you believe ... 12? So yes, I still like Cleveland's chances.

*edit* theSTEREO hadn't posted that yet when I replied

[Richfield Kid]

Interesting. I wonder how many arguments have been "won" by using these myths as if they were facts. This makes even more annoyed with the Marc Jackson's of the commentating world.

[tedginnjr]

Originally Posted by theSTEREO.

Didn't look all through the article, but here's a VERY interesting tidbit from his chat today:

Originally Posted by chiefwahoo

I like this from his chat today too:

Ya, but did either of you see THIS???:

paul (akron)

do you still like the chances of the cavs advancing?I predicted cavs in 5 but i changed my mind in 6 games for the cavs..
John Hollinger (1:18 PM)

Historically, road teams have lost Game 1 and won Game 2 of the second round 42 times. You know how many times they advanced? Would you believe ... 12? So yes, I still like Cleveland's chances.

[Noonan]

Originally Posted by theSTEREO.

Didn't look all through the article, but here's a VERY interesting tidbit from his chat today:

This is basically what I like and don't like about Hollinger all in one quote. He provides great numbers but there's nothing in the way of match-up analysis.

I listened to Bill Simmons podcast with Ric Bucher earlier. Once Bucher got done ripping LeBron for his lack of a killer instinct (and following Game 2 there was no better occasion to do it), he actually made a pretty decent point about Kobe and Jordan's willingness to accept a defensive challenge and how that separates them from other great players. First he cited Kobe taking on Russell Westbrook and then flashed back to Jordan guarding Dan Marley in the 1993 Finals after Marley torched the Bulls early in the series. He said Jordan was willing to spend injury on defense because he knew it would wreck the Suns offense.

After listening to Bucher I'd like to see LeBron take on the challenge of guarding Rondo, even if his elbow is hurting him. Guarding Rondo is how LeBron can change the course of the series by completely disrupting what Boston is doing without having to worry too much about his arm. Teams have to make adjustments all the time in a close series. Mike Brown needs to figure that out quickly.

[Brandname]

John Hollinger is far and away the best analyst ESPN has employed for the NBA right now.

Hell, he might be the only one.

[theSTEREO.]

Originally Posted by Noonan

This is basically what I like and don't like about Hollinger all in one quote. He provides great numbers but there's nothing in the way of match-up analysis.

I listened to Bill Simmons podcast with Ric Bucher earlier. Once Bucher got done ripping LeBron for his lack of a killer instinct (and following Game 2 there was no better occasion to do it), he actually made a pretty decent point about Kobe and Jordan's willingness to accept a defensive challenge and how that separates them from other great players. First he cited Kobe taking on Russell Westbrook and then flashed back to Jordan guarding Dan Marley in the 1993 Finals after Marley torched the Bulls early in the series. He said Jordan was willing to spend injury on defense because he knew it would wreck the Suns offense.

After listening to Bucher I'd like to see LeBron take on the challenge of guarding Rondo, even if his elbow is hurting him. Guarding Rondo is how LeBron can change the course of the series by completely disrupting what Boston is doing without having to worry too much about his arm. Teams have to make adjustments all the time in a close series. Mike Brown needs to figure that out quickly.

I don't disagree really. And I'd have to go back and watch the other games, cause I might just be pulling this out of my butt, but Lebron HAS been guarding Paul Pierce this whole time, and in general, Paul has been very quiet. I do remember several very good posessions guarding Paul.

I wouldn't be upset seeing Lebron guard Rondo. I hope it just doesn't spark Paul Pierce into going off. Although I suppose Pierce is slower and a more reasonable matchup for Parker.

[ButterMPancakes]

Originally Posted by Noonan

This is basically what I like and don't like about Hollinger all in one quote. He provides great numbers but there's nothing in the way of match-up analysis.

I listened to Bill Simmons podcast with Ric Bucher earlier. Once Bucher got done ripping LeBron for his lack of a killer instinct (and following Game 2 there was no better occasion to do it), he actually made a pretty decent point about Kobe and Jordan's willingness to accept a defensive challenge and how that separates them from other great players. First he cited Kobe taking on Russell Westbrook and then flashed back to Jordan guarding Dan Marley in the 1993 Finals after Marley torched the Bulls early in the series. He said Jordan was willing to spend injury on defense because he knew it would wreck the Suns offense.

After listening to Bucher I'd like to see LeBron take on the challenge of guarding Rondo, even if his elbow is hurting him. Guarding Rondo is how LeBron can change the course of the series by completely disrupting what Boston is doing without having to worry too much about his arm. Teams have to make adjustments all the time in a close series. Mike Brown needs to figure that out quickly.

Wouldn't that lead to either Allen or Pierce posting up Mo Williams, though?

[Obawan12]

Originally Posted by ButterMPancakes

Wouldn't that lead to either Allen or Pierce posting up Mo Williams, though?

With how badly Mo has been getting torched by Rondo, I think most of us cavs fans can live with Ray Allen posting up Mo Williams...

[Noonan]

Originally Posted by ButterMPancakes

Wouldn't that lead to either Allen or Pierce posting up Mo Williams, though?

If the Celtics respond by running the offense through Allen post-ups and Paul Pierce's slow-ass cross-over leading to an 18 food jumper I'm good with that. That totally changes what's working for them right now. Disrupting their rhythm is key.

[ButterMPancakes]

Originally Posted by Noonan

If the Celtics respond by running the offense through Allen post-ups and Paul Pierce's slow-ass cross-over leading to an 18 food jumper I'm good with that. That totally changes what's working for them right now. Disrupting their rhythm is key.

Yeah, but I've always figured you can let Rondo get his as long as you shut down Allen/Pierce. Rondo LIVES off of people putting pressure on him and he's a great passer so he eats it up.

It's kind of like letting LeBron get his on offense and keep him being a facilitator, which I think is when he's most dangerous. Granted there's a huge difference here and that Rondo cannot be the scorer LeBron is, and if you force him to be one he may get extremely lucky and score 25+, or he will get no more than 20 and the rest of the team will also be cold.

[Prime 1978]

I disagree with the whole Michael taking on the defensive challenge thing. Scottie in most cases did this. Scottie played Magic in their finals, I remember them putting Scottie on John Stockton as well. Scottie took the bigger defensive assignment not Michael.

The whole Kobe on Westbrook thing is not telling either. The Lakers were able to hide Fisher against Thabo Sefolosha. The Cavaliers have no such luxury in this series.

However, I would like to see Mo on Matt Barnes next round if we face Orlando. If they wanna rn their offense through Matt Barnes fine more power to them.

[Richfield Kid]

Originally Posted by ButterMPancakes

Yeah, but I've always figured you can let Rondo get his as long as you shut down Allen/Pierce. Rondo LIVES off of people putting pressure on him and he's a great passer so he eats it up.

It's kind of like letting LeBron get his on offense and keep him being a facilitator, which I think is when he's most dangerous. Granted there's a huge difference here and that Rondo cannot be the scorer LeBron is, and if you force him to be one he may get extremely lucky and score 25+, or he will get no more than 20 and the rest of the team will also be cold.

We've just learned that we have to do more than stop Allen/Pierce if were going to give Rondo a free-for-all.

Did you watch CP3's interview on TNT about guarding Rondo? If you back way off him, he gets a head of steam and still gets by you. You need to find a balance, and only great defenders can do that. The more I think about it, the more I think LeBron is our guy for the job. We need length and quickness without too much gambling. We can't just let him see the whole floor and make it easy for him to get where he wants and easy for him to put the ball where he wants.

[The Optomist]

Originally Posted by Prime 1978

I disagree with the whole Michael taking on the defensive challenge thing. Scottie in most cases did this. Scottie played Magic in their finals, I remember them putting Scottie on John Stockton as well. Scottie took the bigger defensive assignment not Michael.

The whole Kobe on Westbrook thing is not telling either. The Lakers were able to hide Fisher against Thabo Sefolosha. The Cavaliers have no such luxury in this series.

However, I would like to see Mo on Matt Barnes next round if we face Orlando. If they wanna rn their offense through Matt Barnes fine more power to them.

Ray Allen isn't as quick as Rondo. We have some sort of luxury in that. There's no way we want Moon in for even close to 25 minutes though, especially if he isn't able to hit shots. The Celtics will be able to roam off of him defensively.