Most Similar NBA Finalists & Finals Matchups

Posted by Neil Paine on June 1, 2010

You might think the most similar Finals matchup to this week's upcoming Celtics-Lakers showdown is the one that took place between the same teams just two years ago. After all, most of the cast of characters is exactly the same as it was in '08, with the primary superficial differences being that Andrew Bynum is available for L.A. this time, Rajon Rondo has improved from a role player to a legit star for Boston, and Ron Artest was added to the Lakers in ~~Trevor Ariza's~~ Vladimir Radmanovic's place.

However, the 2010 versions of both teams are actually dramatically different from their '08 incarnations when you look at their offensive & defensive performances relative to the league. To study this, I wanted to look at how said performances stack up to those of past NBA Finalists, and what the most comparable historical matchup is to this year's Lakers-Celtics duel. In order to measure offensive and defensive efficiencies for teams that played before 1973-74 (when the league didn't track the necessary data to calculate possessions), I had to develop a way to estimate possessions used from the stats that were kept back to 1951 (before 1951, they didn't even track rebounds!). I found that the best formula to predict a team's possessions used from the basic team totals that existed going back to 1950-51 was this:

Possessions ~ =-4.05*Wins - 3.96*Losses + 0.97*FG + 0.75*FGA + 0.70*FTA - 1.37*OReb + 0.53*TotReb + 0.31*Fouls - 0.50*Points +0.19*Opp. Pts

Amazingly, for full seasons this equation can predict most teams' possessions within +/- 104 of their actual total.

Armed with these estimates, I can now calculate offensive & defensive efficiency rates for every team in the NBA from 1951-2010. I can also compare those rates to the league average using what's called a z-score, or the # of standard deviations above or below average the team was in a given category. As an example, here are the best offenses and defenses of all-time (regular season + playoffs combined) using z-scores & the estimated efficiencies:

All-Time Best Offenses						All-Time Best Defenses
Year	Team	Pts	ePoss	eORtg	Offense	Year	Team	oppPts	ePoss	eDRtg	Defense
2007	Phoenix Suns	10182	8775.7	116.0	3.25	1993	New York Knicks	9315	9409.9	99.0	2.72
2005	Phoenix Suns	10734	9245.7	116.1	2.92	1984	Milwaukee Bucks	9952	9693.9	102.7	2.31
1971	Milwaukee Bucks	11237	10385.1	108.2	2.72	1963	Boston Celtics	10437	11799.9	88.5	2.24
2010	Phoenix Suns	10753	9241.6	116.4	2.59	2004	San Antonio Spurs	7771	8211.1	94.6	2.19
1982	Denver Nuggets	10729	9463.4	113.4	2.56	1965	Boston Celtics	9669	11360.6	85.1	2.14
2004	Dallas Mavericks	9124	8231.5	110.8	2.49	1962	Boston Celtics	10489	12120.7	86.5	2.13
1975	Houston Rockets	9389	9015.3	104.1	2.40	1975	Washington Bullets	9700	10395.6	93.3	2.13
1987	Los Angeles Lakers	11826	10204.9	115.9	2.34	2008	Boston Celtics	9712	9633.4	100.8	2.11
2004	Sacramento Kings	9575	8677.1	110.3	2.33	1970	New York Knicks	10712	11259.6	95.1	2.08
2006	Phoenix Suns	11030	9748.3	113.1	2.31	1952	Minneapolis Lakers	6276	7742.7	81.1	2.06
2009	Phoenix Suns	8974	7845.5	114.4	2.13	1990	Detroit Pistons	9952	9779.1	101.8	2.05
1988	Boston Celtics	11074	9655.8	114.7	2.12	2003	New Jersey Nets	9198	9374.3	98.1	2.04
1998	Seattle Supersonics	9198	8125.0	113.2	2.07	1964	Boston Celtics	9382	11140.7	84.2	2.02
1996	Chicago Bulls	10378	8925.2	116.3	2.02	2007	Cleveland Cavaliers	9353	9320.3	100.4	2.00
1985	Los Angeles Lakers	12096	10552.3	114.6	2.01	1999	San Antonio Spurs	5617	5914.5	95.0	1.99
1978	San Antonio Spurs	10032	9395.3	106.8	2.00	2005	Detroit Pistons	9476	9485.3	99.9	1.99
1995	Seattle Supersonics	9444	8142.5	116.0	2.00	1989	Utah Jazz	8518	8283.9	102.8	1.98
2004	Seattle Supersonics	7964	7289.2	109.3	1.99	2000	Los Angeles Lakers	9807	10111.8	97.0	1.97
2002	Dallas Mavericks	9501	8602.3	110.4	1.98	1989	Detroit Pistons	9843	9566.1	102.9	1.96
1997	Seattle Supersonics	9535	8331.9	114.4	1.94	2008	Houston Rockets	8090	7985.3	101.3	1.94
1951	Rochester Royals	6930	7595.4	91.2	1.93	2002	Miami Heat	7276	7359.3	98.9	1.93
1993	Phoenix Suns	11813	10403.0	113.6	1.92	1959	Boston Celtics	9183	10757.3	85.4	1.93
1986	Los Angeles Lakers	11235	9921.6	113.2	1.86	1957	Boston Celtics	8258	9839.1	83.9	1.92
1994	Phoenix Suns	9940	8867.8	112.1	1.85	1994	New York Knicks	9696	9729.0	99.7	1.92
1962	Cincinnati Royals	10314	10483.5	98.4	1.84	2004	Detroit Pistons	8765	9161.8	95.7	1.92

Given those two metrics, we can now measure which NBA Finalists are the most similar in both quality and offensive/defensive balance to this year's participants using least squares:

Year	Team	Offense	Defense	Diff	Result
2010	LAL	0.49	1.10
1974	BOS	0.33	1.10	0.02	W
1994	HOU	0.41	0.94	0.03	W
1980	PHI	0.32	1.04	0.03	L
1953	NYK	0.67	1.05	0.04	L
2001	PHI	0.26	1.08	0.05	L
1954	SYR	0.77	1.09	0.08	L
2003	SAS	0.72	1.26	0.08	W
1990	POR	0.26	1.29	0.08	L
2006	MIA	0.20	1.08	0.08	W
2010	BOS	0.21	1.23	0.09
2009	ORL	0.58	1.43	0.12	L
1954	MNL	0.21	1.44	0.19	W
1998	CHI	0.67	1.51	0.20	W
1975	GSW	0.77	0.70	0.25	W
1960	BOS	0.41	1.61	0.26	W
1992	POR	1.01	1.05	0.27	L
1973	NYK	1.00	0.94	0.29	W
1977	POR	1.05	1.03	0.32	W
1968	BOS	-0.05	1.33	0.34	W

Year	Team	Offense	Defense	Diff	Result
2010	BOS	0.21	1.23
1990	POR	0.26	1.29	0.01	L
2006	MIA	0.20	1.08	0.02	W
2001	PHI	0.26	1.08	0.03	L
1974	BOS	0.33	1.10	0.03	W
1954	MNL	0.21	1.44	0.04	W
1980	PHI	0.32	1.04	0.05	L
1968	BOS	-0.05	1.33	0.08	W
2010	LAL	0.49	1.10	0.09
1994	HOU	0.41	0.94	0.13	W
2004	LAL	-0.13	1.07	0.14	L
1969	BOS	-0.08	1.54	0.18	W
2009	ORL	0.58	1.43	0.18	L
1967	SFW	-0.19	1.10	0.18	L
1960	BOS	0.41	1.61	0.18	W
1976	BOS	-0.28	1.23	0.24	W
1953	NYK	0.67	1.05	0.24	L
2003	SAS	0.72	1.26	0.26	W
1998	CHI	0.67	1.51	0.29	W
1954	SYR	0.77	1.09	0.33	L

Bizarrely, neither team is truly similar to their 2008 incarnation; instead, they're actually fairly similar to each other! The 2010 Lakers are an above-average but hardly historically strong offensive team (+0.49) and a very good defensive one (+1.10); the 2008 Lakers were a very good offensive team (+1.31) and an above-average but hardly historically strong defensive one (+0.54). In other words, L.A. has totally flip-flopped its strengths since '08, becoming a defense-first team with merely a decent offense instead of an offense-first team with merely a decent defense. Meanwhile, Boston's split didn't change like the Lakers' did -- they simply got a lot worse in each area. In 2008, Boston had a very good offense (+1.06) and one of the greatest defenses of all time (+2.11); this year, they have a fairly average offense (+0.21) and a very good but not historically dominant defense (+1.23). This is clearly not the matchup that we saw two years ago.

OK, so which matchup is it most similar to, then? Again, let's turn to least squares, using all 4 participant's z-scores as the inputs:

Year	LAL Equiv	Offense	Defense	BOS Equiv	Offense	Defense	Diff	Winner
2010	LAL	0.49	1.10	BOS	0.21	1.23
1954	SYR	0.77	1.09	MNL	0.21	1.44	0.12	MNL
1953	MNL	1.07	1.01	NYK	0.67	1.05	0.60	MNL
1994	HOU	0.41	0.94	NYK	-0.08	1.92	0.60	HOU
1998	UTA	1.03	0.69	CHI	0.67	1.51	0.75	CHI
1990	POR	0.26	1.29	DET	0.28	2.05	0.76	DET
1969	LAL	0.87	0.42	BOS	-0.08	1.54	0.78	BOS
2003	SAS	0.72	1.26	NJN	-0.03	2.04	0.79	SAS
2002	LAL	0.70	1.75	NJN	-0.21	1.64	0.80	LAL
2009	LAL	1.31	1.31	ORL	0.58	1.43	0.90	LAL
2004	LAL	-0.13	1.07	DET	-0.11	1.92	0.96	DET
2001	LAL	1.25	0.49	PHI	0.26	1.08	0.99	LAL
1975	GSW	0.77	0.70	WSB	0.31	2.13	1.06	GSW
1958	STL	0.29	0.34	BOS	0.13	1.91	1.10	STL
2006	DAL	1.40	0.52	MIA	0.20	1.08	1.20	MIA
2005	SAS	0.86	1.75	DET	-0.24	1.99	1.32	SAS
1974	MIL	1.62	1.33	BOS	0.33	1.10	1.35	BOS
1955	FTW	0.84	0.21	SYR	-0.46	1.33	1.38	SYR
1978	WSB	-0.39	1.16	SEA	-0.57	1.33	1.41	WSB
1973	LAL	1.33	0.91	NYK	1.00	0.94	1.45	NYK
1979	WSB	-0.18	1.72	SEA	-0.49	1.63	1.48	SEA
1970	LAL	0.50	0.37	NYK	0.90	2.08	1.74	NYK
1986	BOS	1.39	1.72	HOU	0.44	0.51	1.76	BOS
1967	PHI	1.72	0.72	SFW	-0.19	1.10	1.84	PHI
1977	PHI	0.97	0.16	POR	1.05	1.03	1.86	POR
1992	CHI	1.40	1.76	POR	1.01	1.05	1.92	CHI

Of the top 25 most similar Finals matchups, the Lakers' equivalent won 13. However, only one matchup was extremely similar: the 1954 face-off between the Syracuse Nationals (2010 equivalent: Los Angeles) and the Minneapolis Lakers (2010 equivalent: Boston).

The Lakers were trying to wrap up their 3rd straight NBA title and their 5th NBA/BAA crown in 6 years, but even though they had home-court advantage, they should have been seen as underdogs, since Syracuse's SRS was a full point and a half better than Minneapolis'. The Lakers won Game 1 at home, 79-68, but the Nats responded by stealing Game 2 62-60 when Paul Seymour made a game-winner with 7 seconds to play. As the series shifted to Syracuse, George Mikan dominated Game 3 en route to an 81-67 win, but the Nationals tied the series with an 80-69 win in Game 4. The turning point was Game 5 in Syracuse, as the Lakers took a 3-2 lead with an 84-73 victory that pushed 'Cuse to the brink. Jim Neal's game-winner with 4 seconds left sealed a 65-63 Syracuse win and forced a 7th game, but Minneapolis prevailed 87-80 in the deciding matchup, securing the championship in what was their final season together before Mikan retired and the NBA's first dynasty broke apart. For their part, Syracuse would bounce back and win the title the following season in another 7-game classic. Given the parallels, it wouldn't be surprising to see the 2010 Celtics prevail in what could be their veterans' last dance -- much as their 1954 equivalents in Minneapolis did -- and watch the talented Lakers be in the thick of things yet again in 2011, just as Syracuse responded in 1955.

Or, these current teams could always write their own chapter in history. Either way, we'll find out starting on Thursday...

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 1st, 2010 at 9:06 am and is filed under Analysis, History, Playoffs, Statgeekery. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

23 Responses to “Most Similar NBA Finalists & Finals Matchups”

AHL Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 11:28 am
Shouldn't the 1998 teams be switched? :)
Neil Paine Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 11:53 am
Out of fear of Kobe hate mail, I will abstain from comment. :-)
AYC Says:
June 1st, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Celts in 6; Rondo wins finals MVP....
sidole Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 4:23 am
Seems like a Boston sweep,Kobe will shoot around 35%.Rajon for finals MVP having averaged a trip/doub.
PKY Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 5:31 am
How about throwing the regular season numbers out the window and using only the playoff numbers prior to the finals, since this year's Boston regular season performance is different from their playoff run?
Mohan Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 5:51 am
I think in essence you should mention that Artest replaces from Radmonovich from that 2008 team as ariza played a miniscule role in those finals.. and Artest is a huge improvement from Vladrad...
dquinn Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 8:02 am
Good stuff! Love the fact the old Celtics rate well defensively.

In your formula, do you estimate offensive rebounds in years where it is not known? If so, what % of the total are you assuming are offensive?

Thanks
Neil Paine Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 8:48 am
Mohan - Good point; Artest literally took Ariza's place on the Laker roster, but in terms of the 2008 team's minutes, he's taking all of Radmanovic's and also eating into some of Odom's.
Neil Paine Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 8:50 am
Dquinn - I should have noted this, but I'm assuming 30% of total rebounds are offensive for years where the data is missing. (Justin does this in his pre-1974 PER estimate: http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html)
zorza Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 9:01 am
Since the 95-96 Chicago Bulls hold the best regular season record at 72-10, I would have expected them to be at the top of both lists, since they had won the most games and lost the fewest...however my understanding of statistics is meager...I guess in my mind the win/loss record should be weighted more?
Gerrit Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 11:38 am
Neil,

In this post you show the Celtics as having the better defense. But in the preview post you show the Lakers as having the better defense. Which is it?
Neil Paine Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 11:47 am
Gerrit - This post uses combined regular season + playoffs data, while the preview post just uses regular-season numbers. I haven't run the numbers yet to adjust for playoff SOS, but playing Phoenix definitely made L.A.'s playoff numbers look worse.

Neil Paine Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 11:52 am

Zorza - W/L isn't explicitly factored into the "best offenses & defenses" table, but there's an extremely strong relationship between offensive & defensive ratings and team winning %, so it's implicitly in there. The '96 Bulls were neither the best offensive nor the best defensive team of all time, but they combined offense and defense better than any other team ever:

Year	Team	W	L	Win%	Offense	Defense	Comb
1996	Chicago Bulls	87	13	0.870	2.02	1.67	3.70
1971	Milwaukee Bucks	78	18	0.813	2.72	0.69	3.40
1997	Chicago Bulls	84	17	0.832	1.76	1.48	3.24
2009	Cleveland Cavaliers	76	20	0.792	1.41	1.83	3.24
2008	Boston Celtics	82	26	0.759	1.06	2.11	3.17
1992	Chicago Bulls	82	22	0.788	1.40	1.76	3.16
1986	Boston Celtics	82	18	0.820	1.39	1.72	3.11
1970	New York Knicks	72	29	0.713	0.90	2.08	2.99
1991	Chicago Bulls	76	23	0.768	1.75	1.23	2.98
1974	Milwaukee Bucks	70	28	0.714	1.62	1.33	2.94
1972	Milwaukee Bucks	69	24	0.742	1.80	1.03	2.83
1987	Los Angeles Lakers	80	20	0.800	2.34	0.48	2.82
2007	San Antonio Spurs	74	28	0.725	1.24	1.58	2.82
1994	Seattle Supersonics	65	22	0.747	1.67	1.13	2.80
1972	Los Angeles Lakers	81	16	0.835	1.80	0.98	2.78
1976	Golden State Warriors	66	29	0.695	1.24	1.47	2.71
1980	Boston Celtics	66	25	0.725	1.82	0.89	2.71
2007	Phoenix Suns	67	26	0.720	3.25	-0.55	2.70
2009	Los Angeles Lakers	81	24	0.771	1.31	1.31	2.62
2005	San Antonio Spurs	75	30	0.714	0.86	1.75	2.61
1984	Boston Celtics	77	28	0.733	1.07	1.52	2.59
1981	Milwaukee Bucks	63	26	0.708	1.42	1.17	2.59
2010	Orlando Magic	69	27	0.719	1.59	1.00	2.58
2001	San Antonio Spurs	65	30	0.684	0.93	1.62	2.56
1997	Utah Jazz	77	25	0.755	1.24	1.26	2.51
1995	Seattle Supersonics	58	28	0.674	2.00	0.50	2.50
1981	Philadelphia 76ers	71	27	0.724	1.08	1.42	2.49
1997	Seattle Supersonics	63	31	0.670	1.94	0.54	2.47
1978	Portland Trail Blazers	60	28	0.682	0.77	1.69	2.46
1999	San Antonio Spurs	52	15	0.776	0.46	1.99	2.45
2002	Los Angeles Lakers	73	28	0.723	0.70	1.75	2.45
1995	Utah Jazz	62	25	0.713	1.34	1.10	2.44
1975	Washington Bullets	68	31	0.687	0.31	2.13	2.44
1967	Philadelphia 76ers	79	17	0.823	1.72	0.72	2.44
1989	Cleveland Cavaliers	59	28	0.678	0.91	1.49	2.40
1986	Milwaukee Bucks	64	32	0.667	1.03	1.37	2.40
2002	Sacramento Kings	71	27	0.724	1.20	1.20	2.40
2007	Dallas Mavericks	69	19	0.784	1.61	0.78	2.39
2008	Detroit Pistons	69	30	0.697	0.69	1.68	2.37
1985	Los Angeles Lakers	77	24	0.762	2.01	0.35	2.36
1990	Detroit Pistons	74	28	0.725	0.28	2.05	2.33
1989	Detroit Pistons	78	21	0.788	0.37	1.96	2.32
1989	Phoenix Suns	62	32	0.660	0.94	1.38	2.32
1986	Los Angeles Lakers	70	26	0.729	1.86	0.46	2.32
1985	Milwaukee Bucks	62	28	0.689	0.64	1.68	2.32
2009	Boston Celtics	69	27	0.719	0.87	1.43	2.30
1973	Milwaukee Bucks	62	26	0.705	1.19	1.11	2.30
1981	Boston Celtics	74	25	0.747	1.23	1.06	2.29
2002	San Antonio Spurs	62	30	0.674	0.92	1.36	2.28
1983	Philadelphia 76ers	77	18	0.811	1.36	0.92	2.28

Jason J Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 1:09 pm
I believe those '96 Bulls have the highest average margin of victory ever. If I'm not mistaken the '97 Bulls have the second highest. Part of the reason for that is that the league was fairly top-heavy at the time (and if you look at other teams with total wins in the high-60s that tends to be true as well), but ironically that '96 team lost to expansion Toronto Raptors. One out of ten total losses came to a bottom feeder.
Neil Paine Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 1:22 pm
I should do a post on "worst losses by a dominant club"... Everybody has to lose sometime, and for a force of nature like those Bulls, any loss is probably a "bad loss". But some are more embarrassing than others.
MCT Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Looking at the teams near the top of each "All-Time Best" list, most were very good teams, and/or had a reputation as a very good offensive or defensive team (even if some couldn't put both sides together, and therefore may not have been a great team overall). One team jumps out at me as not obviously fitting this criteria, though: the '75 Rockets, who are #7 on the All-Time Best Offense list. They were a little before my time, but I don't remember ever seeing them identified as an offensive juggernaut. They had a .500 record. In terms of raw points scored, they ranked 6th in a 18-team league. They did have Rudy T. and Calvin Murphy; they seem like they would have been a pretty good offensive team, but not neccesarily a historically great one. What's the backstory that makes them rank so high?
Jason J Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 2:17 pm
That poor '94 Sonics team... it is both impressive and sad that they rank so high on that list...

Quick question: if the Sonics don't fall to Denver in the first round, do they beat Houston later in the playoffs? They did in '93. Kenny Smith has a theory that in the playoffs in the early 90s the Suns always beat the Sonics, the Sonics always beat the Rockets, and the Rockets always beat the Suns, and that it was more about matchups than overall talent between those clubs.
Neil Paine Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 2:31 pm
The 1975 Rockets had a slow pace, which hurt their PPG numbers. They had the league's best regular season Offensive Efficiency that year, 2nd in FG%, 2nd in FT%. In the playoffs, their offense was ridiculous, 8 points/100 possessions better than the league average. With a better defense, that team would have been dominant.
Neil Paine Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Rock, Paper, Scissors... I wonder whether we can ID specific "rock-paper-scissors" matchup situations in the past from the season series between teams? Could be an interesting post at some point.
Brian Says:
June 2nd, 2010 at 2:53 pm
So Neal, according to your math, in the last 6 years The Phoenix Suns have had five of the ten best offenses in league history. And seeing as how Steve Nash is the common denominator in all of this; that would make Steve Nash the greatest offensive player in NBA history. Really?

I'm a Phoenix resident, and I've been shaking my head at Steve Nash's greatness for six years. I've always thought he might be one of the top ten offensive players of all time, or even top five. But the best? I'll have to think about it. What does your math say?
Ryan Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 2:47 am
I uploaded the Bulls' '96 loss to Toronto a couple years ago, here's my YouTube highlight-cap:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EruzMMs6wTM

Sorry the quality is so poor, I uploaded it before YouTube allowed HD/HQ videos.
Larry Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 4:02 am
Neil thinks nash is one of the greatest offensive players of all time, i don't know but those numbers are bull to me....it proves nothing. nash never made it to a finals, never will win a title and can't guard anyone.
Neil Paine Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 7:11 am
Brian - It's not that simple, because the Suns' performance also had to do with the system, the coach, the supporting players, etc. But yes, regardless, Nash is one of the greatest offensive players of all time.

And to Larry, I'm not really sure why Nash's individual defensive shortcomings and a lack of team championships -- again, because he and his teammates have been subpar defensively -- would have any bearing on his offensive ability...

« Mega 2010 NBA Finals Preview: L.A. Lakers vs. Boston Celtics

NBA Finalists That Improved the Most In the Playoffs »