NBA Playoffs

[Jim Poteet]

Westbrook is shooting a lower % from the field than any rotation player except for Fisher.

When we adjust for three-point shots, Westbrook is effectively shooting 38.8% from the field, still good for the 2nd lowest in the rotation, and yet he's taking the most shots, even though Durant is effectively shooting 56.5% from the field....

From there, it isn't surprising that the team's offensive efficiency while each player was on the court is drastically different, with the team benefitting when Russel is absent and Durant is on the floor, and suffering when Durant is out and Westbrook becomes the main scorer.

Per 100 possessions, 100 points is considered average.

Game 1:

Durant: 113
Westbrook: 77 (effectively shot .333)

Game 2:

Durant: 143
Westbrook: 129 (effectively shot .479)

Game 3:

Durant: 112
Westbrook: 94 (effectively shot .333)

Game 4:

Durant: 155
Westbrook: 67 (effectively shot .300)

Game 5:

Durant: 112
Westbrook: 91 (effectively shot .375)

It seems so far that my analysis is correct. As long as Westbrook is willing to shoot at a low %, his team's offensive efficiency will suffer. If he is limited, the damage will be limited.

This is the analysis you took exception to, and claimed I was somehow puffed up or overconfident. I'm sorry. So far the results seem to say exactly what I said they would, and it is based off of sound, solid, fundamental basketball analysis.

I'm sorry if it bothers you. Instead of taking exception with it, maybe you could just leave it alone next time, instead of trying to find some less-than-noble motives on my part. Taking exception to my analysis is one thing, and I am always open to the actual analysis being critiqued. However, you haven't done that. Instead, you've taken a shot at my character and my motives each time. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't do that, and you'd stick to the topic. I'm given to believe that you're an intelligent, experienced basketballer, with whom I might enjoy talking basketball, if you'd allow us to talk basketabll, without taking exception to what I say and assigning it to nefarious motives and attitudes on my part. Please, if we could do that, I'd really enjoy it.

Westbrook is always going to shoot a lower percentage. He takes much tougher shots. That is what I object to about your analysis.

Why would you think I am attacking your character? I haven't said anything about your character. However, I do think you have a lot to learn about the nuances of the game of basketball and what makes teams tick and what coaches are trying to accomplish in setting up match-ups.

[Scott Moseley]

How long is the flight from Indy to Palma Norte?

David - looks like you can cancel your trip to Palma Norte. Wes was right! Wes has the vision of Karnak (next envelope please) .

[Gina Stevenson]

David - looks like you can cancel your trip to Palma Norte. Wes was right! Wes has the vision of Karnak (next envelope please) .

Was that the Johnny Carson character? Sounds vaguely familiar.

[Bob Hunter]

Thunder struck!

[Benjamin Burch]

Westbrook is always going to shoot a lower percentage. He takes much tougher shots. That is what I object to about your analysis.

Why would you think I am attacking your character? I haven't said anything about your character. However, I do think you have a lot to learn about the nuances of the game of basketball and what makes teams tick and what coaches are trying to accomplish in setting up match-ups.

And thus, you have honed in on my criticism of Westbrook. He needs to learn that htere are shots in basketball that are low-percentage shots. Those shots are bad shots, unless the defesne wins. You get a 24-second shot clock so as to find better shots than those shots. Westbrook, instead of using the 24-second shot, willingly takes shots that have a low percentage, and thus, lowers his team's chance of scoring on that possession, lowering his team's chance at scoring overall.

That matters.

My point is, for many years we didn't pay attention to the importance of that factor in baskebtall, untill the last 5-10 years, and we're only now beginning to see why that matters. If Westbrook misses a low-percentage shot, with 14 seconds on the shot clock, it is a wasted possession, and no better than a turnover where he throws the ball away.

As to why I would say you have said anything about my character, you have said many things about who I think is wrong/right, and why. That matters. I don't think I'm right jsut because I think I'm right. Whether that matters to you or not, that does to me. Understand that in that statement, I recognize and acknowledge that it may not seem a negative thing to you, but it is to me.... and that matters to me. And if the two of us are to talk basketball, I would hope that what matters to me, about me, would matter to you.... as Christians.

Is that fair?

[Jim Poteet]

And thus, you have honed in on my criticism of Westbrook. He needs to learn that htere are shots in basketball that are low-percentage shots. Those shots are bad shots, unless the defesne wins. You get a 24-second shot clock so as to find better shots than those shots. Westbrook, instead of using the 24-second shot, willingly takes shots that have a low percentage, and thus, lowers his team's chance of scoring on that possession, lowering his team's chance at scoring overall.

That matters.

My point is, for many years we didn't pay attention to the importance of that factor in baskebtall, untill the last 5-10 years, and we're only now beginning to see why that matters. If Westbrook misses a low-percentage shot, with 14 seconds on the shot clock, it is a wasted possession, and no better than a turnover where he throws the ball away.

As to why I would say you have said anything about my character, you have said many things about who I think is wrong/right, and why. That matters. I don't think I'm right jsut because I think I'm right. Whether that matters to you or not, that does to me. Understand that in that statement, I recognize and acknowledge that it may not seem a negative thing to you, but it is to me.... and that matters to me. And if the two of us are to talk basketball, I would hope that what matters to me, about me, would matter to you.... as Christians.

Is that fair?

You mean it is negative to disagree with you. If it is, then we need to quit posting. I don't mind you disagreeing with me. In fact, I welcome it.

Now back to the topic - when 5 players are playing on the court, not all will have the same shooting percentage. The top shooting team in the NBA shoots 47%. That means they have players who shoot higher than the average and players that shoot below the average.

Obviously when a coach puts 5 players on the court, some will shoot better, some will shoot worse. A coach tries to keep the players from taking bad shots, but I can tell you, a few bad shots will happen during a game. It is a fact of life.

[Benjamin Burch]

You mean it is negative to disagree with you. If it is, then we need to quit posting. I don't mind you disagreeing with me. In fact, I welcome it.

Now back to the topic - when 5 players are playing on the court, not all will have the same shooting percentage. The top shooting team in the NBA shoots 47%. That means they have players who shoot higher than the average and players that shoot below the average.

Obviously when a coach puts 5 players on the court, some will shoot better, some will shoot worse. A coach tries to keep the players from taking bad shots, but I can tell you, a few bad shots will happen during a game. It is a fact of life.

Sounds good, Jim.

[Dennis M. Scott]

, a few bad shots will happen during a game. It is a fact of life.

Sounds like thoughts on preaching.

[Jim Poteet]

Sounds like thoughts on preaching.

Do you mean that you get lost in the forest sometimes!

[Jim Poteet]

Sounds like thoughts on preaching.

The Celtics never found the arena tonight.

[Scott Moseley]

The Celtics never found the arena tonight.

LBJ found the arena and he looked at home.

[Jim Poteet]

LBJ found the arena and he looked at home.

It was like shooting fish in a barrel!

[Benjamin Burch]

Well, Miami has HCA again! It's nice having 2 of the 3 best players in the game, and the single best player in the universe. LeBron crushed Boston for 3 quarters, and then Dwyane Wade woke up and remembered he's the next best player on the planet, and the two of them outscored Boston in the 4th quarter. I feel good going home. We'll see.

Wade played the worst 3 quarters I've ever seen out of him, and I've seen almost every playoff game he's played since he was drafted.
Miller shot miserably.

We can't have those things continue, because LeBron won't have a repeat performance. Chalmers and Battier need to keep hitting the open looks when they get them. Game 7 should be a great one, and I'm concerned.

For those who didn't know, LeBron had a game that has only happened once ever in NBA history (1964), by one of the two best players to ever play the game (Wilt Chamberlain). 45/15/5. Not only did he do that, in an elimination game, on the road, but he also took opening tip-off, and guarded the other team's center, while playing the 3.

This was simply one of the greatest games in NBA history, by any player, ever. So priveleged to be able to have seen it.

[Scott Moseley]

laughing because of the Homerific post by Ben is kinda cute , not that LBJs game wasn't outstanding; it was as noted before.

[Dennis M. Scott]

So priveleged to be able to have seen it.

Yeah, everyone in Boston was saying what a privilege it was, and to think it was right here in the Garden.

[Benjamin Burch]

laughing because of the Homerific post by Ben is kinda cute , not that LBJs game wasn't outstanding; it was as noted before.

Oh come on, I don't think that's homerific, at least, not in an illogical way.

[Benjamin Burch]

Oh come on, I don't think that's homerific, at least, not in an illogical way.

I don't get it? Can someone point it out to me?

[David Morris]

I don't get it? Can someone point it out to me?

I'll try to help:

Well, Miami has HCA again! It's nice having 2 of the 3 best players in the game, and the single best player in the universe. LeBron crushed Boston for 3 quarters, and then Dwyane Wade woke up and remembered he's the next best player on the planet, and the two of them outscored Boston in the 4th quarter. I feel good going home. We'll see.

Wade played the worst 3 quarters I've ever seen out of him, and I've seen almost every playoff game he's played since he was drafted.
Miller shot miserably.

We can't have those things continue, because LeBron won't have a repeat performance. Chalmers and Battier need to keep hitting the open looks when they get them. Game 7 should be a great one, and I'm concerned.

For those who didn't know, LeBron had a game that has only happened once ever in NBA history (1964), by one of the two best players to ever play the game (Wilt Chamberlain). 45/15/5. Not only did he do that, in an elimination game, on the road, but he also took opening tip-off, and guarded the other team's center, while playing the 3.

This was simply one of the greatest games in NBA history, by any player, ever. So priveleged to be able to have seen it.

The first bolded point is arguable. Kevin Durant and LeBron James are on the same level right now, with the only difference being one has hardware to show for it and the other doesn't.

Dwayne Wade is the second best basketball player on the planet? Who knew!

[Michael Flowers]

I'll try to help:



The first bolded point is arguable. Kevin Durant and LeBron James are on the same level right now, with the only difference being one has hardware to show for it and the other doesn't.

Dwayne Wade is the second best basketball player on the planet? Who knew!

Yea, I disagree about Wade being second, but I will admit that James does have a strong case for being considered the best player currently playing, with Durant very close to him (and younger). A few years ago I would have possibly believed the Wade statement, but not now. Wade falls into the same category for me as Rondo, Paul, Parker, Westbrook, etc (note I am simply picking guards who get a fair amount of attention). They have the capability of being great, but aren't consistent enough to be considered the best in the league. Wade gets a lot of props still for what he did in helping the Heat win a few years ago, he is still a fan favorite, but he is certainly not the best or second best player currently.

[Benjamin Burch]

I'll try to help:



The first bolded point is arguable. Kevin Durant and LeBron James are on the same level right now, with the only difference being one has hardware to show for it and the other doesn't.

Dwayne Wade is the second best basketball player on the planet? Who knew!

There's no argument against LeBron, and hasn't been for 4 years now. It really doesn't matter what you look at, he's the best in all of it.

As far as Wade goes, it's hardly a a strange, or uncommon idea. In terms of advanced statistics, it comes down to Wade, Durant, or Paul for number 3, and any "intangibles" or "championship", or "clutch" credentials one might try to argue for a player, Wade has over all of them.

Again, I said "not in an illogical way." To argue something is debatable is different than to say something is illogical.

[Benjamin Burch]

Yea, I disagree about Wade being second, but I will admit that James does have a strong case for being considered the best player currently playing, with Durant very close to him (and younger). A few years ago I would have possibly believed the Wade statement, but not now. Wade falls into the same category for me as Rondo, Paul, Parker, Westbrook, etc (note I am simply picking guards who get a fair amount of attention). They have the capability of being great, but aren't consistent enough to be considered the best in the league. Wade gets a lot of props still for what he did in helping the Heat win a few years ago, he is still a fan favorite, but he is certainly not the best or second best player currently.

Wade's rankings 2012:

Player Efficiency Rating: 3rd (Durant 4th)
Win Shares per 48 Minutes: 5th (Durant 3rd)
Net Efficiency (Offensive and Defensive): 2nd (Durant 3rd)
82 Games Simple Rating: 3rd (Durant 5th)

Unsurprisingly, LeBron ranks 1st in each of those categories.

Most people only look at offense. In which case, Durant has an argument to be the best player in basketball, with Wade surely not being 2nd. But when we take defense seriously, and weight it as being half of the game of basketball, Durant simply doesn't compare to LeBron, and is not as good as Wade yet, and Wade's combined game is still second in the game, imo. Durant, currently, is a strong #3.

Again, it is one thing to disagree, it is a completley other thing to say it's homerific in any illogical, or fanatic way.

[Jim Poteet]

Wade's rankings 2012:

Player Efficiency Rating: 3rd (Durant 4th)
Win Shares per 48 Minutes: 5th (Durant 3rd)
Net Efficiency (Offensive and Defensive): 2nd (Durant 3rd)
82 Games Simple Rating: 3rd (Durant 5th)

Unsurprisingly, LeBron ranks 1st in each of those categories.

Most people only look at offense. In which case, Durant has an argument to be the best player in basketball, with Wade surely not being 2nd. But when we take defense seriously, and weight it as being half of the game of basketball, Durant simply doesn't compare to LeBron, and is not as good as Wade yet, and Wade's combined game is still second in the game, imo. Durant, currently, is a strong #3.

Again, it is one thing to disagree, it is a completley other thing to say it's homerific in any illogical, or fanatic way.

If the Heat can beat the Thunder, then maybe your post is logical. Wade was a great player! He is not in Durant's universe now.

[Jim Poteet]

Wade's rankings 2012:

Player Efficiency Rating: 3rd (Durant 4th)
Win Shares per 48 Minutes: 5th (Durant 3rd)
Net Efficiency (Offensive and Defensive): 2nd (Durant 3rd)
82 Games Simple Rating: 3rd (Durant 5th)

Unsurprisingly, LeBron ranks 1st in each of those categories.

Most people only look at offense. In which case, Durant has an argument to be the best player in basketball, with Wade surely not being 2nd. But when we take defense seriously, and weight it as being half of the game of basketball, Durant simply doesn't compare to LeBron, and is not as good as Wade yet, and Wade's combined game is still second in the game, imo. Durant, currently, is a strong #3.

Again, it is one thing to disagree, it is a completley other thing to say it's homerific in any illogical, or fanatic way.

Whose rankings are these? Are they the Ben Burch homerific ratings?

[David Snodgrass]

Any comments on the NBA playoffs?

I guess the Miami Heat meltdown (largely due to injuries) is interesting. Lebron came to Miami for help in winning a championship, but it just doesn't look good. They don not appear to have the intestinal fortitude to barrel through the playoffs and win.

It also looks like Kobe and Lakers are struggling.

The Spurs look pretty impressive and I would have to pick them to win.

Any other thoughts?

Sorry I have been out of the loop, but I have been at teen camp all week.

Congrats to the OKC Thunder. I really didn't see that coming. Go Thunder in the finals.

[Benjamin Burch]

Whose rankings are these? Are they the Ben Burch homerific ratings?

You should really look into John Hollinger's Player Efficiency Rating if you haven't.

PER and WS/48 are statistics designed to give you the sum of a player's production on a per-minute basis. WinShares is similar to WAR in baseball, and PER is more similar to wOBA in baseball, yet with some defensive elements added.

Net Efficiency uses PER, and tracks the players' opponent whom they defend each possession's statistics, calculating a PER for their opponents, and subtracting that from their offensive, giving a complete production measure.

82games Simple Rating has been harder to find the formula for, but when I get some time I plan to do more research on their methodology for calculating it.

[Jim Poteet]

You should really look into John Hollinger's Player Efficiency Rating if you haven't.

PER and WS/48 are statistics designed to give you the sum of a player's production on a per-minute basis. WinShares is similar to WAR in baseball, and PER is more similar to wOBA in baseball, yet with some defensive elements added.

Net Efficiency uses PER, and tracks the players' opponent whom they defend each possession's statistics, calculating a PER for their opponents, and subtracting that from their offensive, giving a complete production measure.

82games Simple Rating has been harder to find the formula for, but when I get some time I plan to do more research on their methodology for calculating it.

It sounds to me like you are speaking in "tongues."

[Benjamin Burch]

It sounds to me like you are speaking in "tongues."

I don't doubt it. I do think, however, that you may find a lot of the research interesting.