Hollinger: Blazers Were "Unlucky" - Should Have Won 61 Last Season

[ABM]

Via: Bleacher Report's Bucket Of Links

John Hollinger previews every team in the NBA including our Portland Trail Blazers. It's on ESPN Insider but here's a nice tidbit:

In one respect, however, they were horribly unlucky. Portland opponents shot 80.3 percent from the line last season, far exceeding the league average of 77.1 percent -- no other team's opponents shot this well. It seems unrealistic to blame this on bad free throw defense. Relative to the league average, Portland lost 58 points because of this, which is worth about two games in the standings.

Combining this result with the Blazers' superior point differential yields a very interesting conclusion -- the Blazers had the offensive and defensive results of a 61-win team and were very unfortunate to win only 54 games. What that means going forward is that the Blazers are in much better shape than most people realize.

 

[Rodolfo]

Interesting. There isn't a person on here that wouldn't be thrilled with 61 wins. That puts us, at worst, 3rd in the West.

 

[Shooter]

What that means going forward is that the Blazers are in much better shape than most people realize.

I sure like the sound of that!

 

[mook]

If you believe him, then it makes the first-round loss to Houston much more humiliating. We should've creamed those guys.

I think I get Hollinger's system, and I really can't refute his analysis. The guy probably knew more about statistics in 7th grade than I do now.

But I think his models are based on the performance of typical NBA teams. "Typical" NBA teams that average 24 years of age are typically very, very bad. Our team was exceptionally good. I think our highly unusual combination of quality and youth may be the reason we appeared so exceptionally "unlucky." In reality it's not so much luck as it is mental lapses that come from quality players who just don't have the experience to handle pivotal situations. Those lapses manifest themselves in tight games or in the playoffs. Hence we got dumped in the first round and our point margin says we should've won more regular season games.

I'd wager that in the future if some other team assembles this much young talent, they'll appear to be similarly "unlucky" too.

 

[mook]

The question in my mind is how long this "unluckiness" can continue, if it really is just a reflection of youth. By bolting on a vet like Miller, and by merely aging one year, have we vanquished the issue of inexperience?

 

[Rodolfo]

The question in my mind is how long this "unluckiness" can continue, if it really is just a reflection of youth. By bolting on a vet like Miller, and by merely aging one year, have we vanquished the issue of inexperience?

Vanquished is a strong word. Core guys could use a little more experience. I think that Houston series was a huge lesson for our guys. If we roll into the playoffs with HC again, think we've got a great shot at moving on this time around.

 

[drexlersdad]

If you believe him, then it makes the first-round loss to Houston much more humiliating. We should've creamed those guys.

I think I get Hollinger's system, and I really can't refute his analysis. The guy probably knew more about statistics in 7th grade than I do now.

But I think his models are based on the performance of typical NBA teams. "Typical" NBA teams that average 24 years of age are typically very, very bad. Our team was exceptionally good. I think our highly unusual combination of quality and youth may be the reason we appeared so exceptionally "unlucky." In reality it's not so much luck as it is mental lapses that come from quality players who just don't have the experience to handle pivotal situations. Those lapses manifest themselves in tight games or in the playoffs. Hence we got dumped in the first round and our point margin says we should've won more regular season games.

I'd wager that in the future if some other team assembles this much young talent, they'll appear to be similarly "unlucky" too.

like jh said you can't really blame our free throw defense. Just pure bad luck. If you are saying that all young teams will have bad free throw luck, I can't agree.

 

[Nikolokolus]

like jh said you can't really blame our free throw defense. Just pure bad luck. If you are saying that all young teams will have bad free throw luck, I can't agree.

The only thing I could think of when it came to giving up such a high percentage from the charity stripe is perhaps the team was fouling the good free three shooters more than the league average. I have no idea how you could get ahold of those kinds of stats, except to compare each opponent's free throws against us to their average against all other teams. Something tells me that there's more to this high percentage stuff than simple bad luck.

 

[handiman]

like jh said you can't really blame our free throw defense. Just pure bad luck. If you are saying that all young teams will have bad free throw luck, I can't agree.

But he's attributing FT% to 2 of the 7 "unlucky" losses, so the 5 losses that point differential says should have gone our way are the bigger issue. I've said before, and I think it echoes what mook was saying above about youth/inconsistency, that point differential was strangely misleading with the Blazers last year because of all the blowout victories. That isn't unlucky, just a statistical oddity.

 

[mook]

The only thing I could think of when it came to giving up such a high percentage from the charity stripe is perhaps the team was fouling the good free three shooters more than the league average.

That's an interesting question. That wasn't my point, but it kind of makes sense.

As an examples, a guy like Batum might foul Zach Randolph near the basket because he doesn't want a big man to score so close to the rim, and big men tend to be bad free throw shooters. However, experience tells you that Zach can often be blocked even at point blank range, and that Zach's a 77% FT shooter. So the smart play is to contest the shot and not foul. (And hope somebody else cleans up the rebound, because Zach does that really well too.)

Batum makes the right play philosophically, but he makes the wrong play in this particular instance because he lacks the experience to recognize a particular player's skill set. Over the course of a season with hundreds of such instances, you could see how we have a 3% worse FT% defense.

 

[THE HCP]

But I can think of 3 games where we got really lucky and won!

 

[bobf]

I can think of a few things besides luck that would affect "FT defense"
1) being dumb about who you foul
2) poor defense v guard penetration (since typically guards have better FT%)
3) soft homcourt rims

 

[Natebishop3]

But I can think of 3 games where we got really lucky and won!

That's what I was thinking.

 

[MARIS61]

I blame our pathetic FT defense, which is the fans.

It appears Portland fans have gotten soft, lazy, and unimaginative.

We're all that stands between opposing players and a free point, and all it takes is some creative distraction.

A waved Playboy (or better yet Playgirl pin-up), a shouted slur of the player's wife, a hilarious remark at the right time, that's all it takes to tilt the score.

 

[elcap15]

Something tells me that there's more to this high percentage stuff than simple bad luck.

Why? When dealing with statics and finding a mean, there has to be a high end and a low end. It really could be that you guys were flat out unlucky.

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

Games that we could have won

Philly at home (after coming back from a road trip, but Philly beat us soundly at their place)
Orlando at home (Hedo's three at the buzzer)
at Golden St. twice (I think the Warriors are still hurt from flopping)
at OKC (OKC earned the win though. Loved how they came out with gusto.)
New Orleans at home (Still not understanding how we went absolutely flat after the Tyson ejection. Paul played a great game.)
at Charlotte (They earned the victory, but easily could have went the other way.)
Clippers at home (Blake will forever remember this one)

Games we easily could have lost

at New Orleans (JB's best game coupled with Paul going down)
Houston at home (Great way to start a season)

Games where we exceeded expectation

at Orlando
at San Antonio

I think we will deserve to win over 60 games when we can be competitive on the road against playoff teams. The New Orleans game was fluky and the San Antonio win came when they were really beat up. Until then, it does not leave alot of room for error.

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

I blame our pathetic FT defense, which is the fans.

It appears Portland fans have gotten soft, lazy, and unimaginative.

We're all that stands between opposing players and a free point, and all it takes is some creative distraction.

A waved Playboy (or better yet Playgirl pin-up), a shouted slur of the player's wife, a hilarious remark at the right time, that's all it takes to tilt the score.

I blame dependance on ThunderSticks for our lack of creativity.

 

[blazerboy30]

But he's attributing FT% to 2 of the 7 "unlucky" losses, so the 5 losses that point differential says should have gone our way are the bigger issue. I've said before, and I think it echoes what mook was saying above about youth/inconsistency, that point differential was strangely misleading with the Blazers last year because of all the blowout victories. That isn't unlucky, just a statistical oddity.

This is supposed to be captured in the point differential analysis. Really good teams should have a lot more blowout victories. That isn't misleading. You could look at the variance of the Blazers' point differential and see how it compares to other teams to see if we were possibly more inconsistent (possibly due to youth).

However, I think you could make the argument that there should be a cap on the point differential. A 40 point win probably doesn't mean more than a 25 point win since the majority of either game was garbage time.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Come up to the BlazerManiac section sometime. I do my best (when I'm there). Alas, the section is gone and the prices went up 40% for the seats.

RIP, BlazerManiac section.

 

[LittleAlex]

I can think of a few things besides luck that would affect "FT defense"
1) being dumb about who you foul
2) poor defense v guard penetration (since typically guards have better FT%)
3) soft homcourt rims

4) Fouling soft instead of hard. If a guy gets put on his ass when he goes to the rim, his free throw percentage might go down a bit.

 

[handiman]

This is supposed to be captured in the point differential analysis.

I'm not really sure that's true, though. In theory, everything averages out and big wins should be indicative of winning consistency... But how does a handful of 40 pt victories tell you anything about the likelihood of getting a key stop in a 1 pt game? I don't see how it's at all relevant. I would be much more interested in our point differential once 30+ pt wins and losses are removed from the equation... I'm guessing that would yield a number much closer to the actual win-loss record.

 

[blazerboy30]

I'm not really sure that's true, though. In theory, everything averages out and big wins should be indicative of winning consistency... But how does a handful of 40 pt victories tell you anything about the likelihood of getting a key stop in a 1 pt game? I don't see how it's at all relevant. I would be much more interested in our point differential once 30+ pt wins and losses are removed from the equation... I'm guessing that would yield a number much closer to the actual win-loss record.

Wouldn't you agree that a team with more blowouts is more likely to have less 1pt games? It isn't guaranteed, but this is where looking at the variance comes into play.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I've always had a bit of an issue with Hollinger's stuff (which is pretty good, for the most part) b/c of the heavy reliance on point differential in a lot of his metrics. Pythagorean works pretty well in baseball but in basketball it seems a bit unreliable (I haven't done a historical league-wide stat spread on this, so I could be talking out of my hat). I thought the Blazers were generally better than the point delta in 2007-08, winning close games (remember the WSJ article on Nate?) but getting blown out at times when they lost. I think the opposite happened last year, where we showed glimpses (CHI, SAC) that we could absolutely dominate a team, but weren't as good against good teams on the road. To me, that's a much larger issue than pure point differential, and shows a bit why I was concerned about us having a long playoff run. We're not a great team (no matter how many wins we get) until we show that we can play with good teams on the road. And just b/c we beat SAC by 40 and lose to another team by 4 doesn't mean we're better than a team who beat the L*kers by 10 and the Nets by 20. But point differential says you are.

 

[GriLtCheeZ]

Perhaps the Blazers' slow pace just doesn't tire their opponents legs out like other teams.

 

[Luther]

If you believe him, then it makes the first-round loss to Houston much more humiliating. We should've creamed those guys.

We got out coached and out hustled. They wanted it more. They were the better team.

 

[Erroneous Subterfuge]

If you believe him, then it makes the first-round loss to Houston much more humiliating. We should've creamed those guys.

I think I get Hollinger's system, and I really can't refute his analysis. The guy probably knew more about statistics in 7th grade than I do now.

But I think his models are based on the performance of typical NBA teams. "Typical" NBA teams that average 24 years of age are typically very, very bad. Our team was exceptionally good. I think our highly unusual combination of quality and youth may be the reason we appeared so exceptionally "unlucky." In reality it's not so much luck as it is mental lapses that come from quality players who just don't have the experience to handle pivotal situations. Those lapses manifest themselves in tight games or in the playoffs. Hence we got dumped in the first round and our point margin says we should've won more regular season games.

I'd wager that in the future if some other team assembles this much young talent, they'll appear to be similarly "unlucky" too.

I scanned the schedule and during the regular season we were 9-1 in games decided by 3 points or less, which may surprise you.

In the playoffs I think you have a point, since we were 0-2 in games decided by 3 points or less. But they did win a 4 point game.

 

[handiman]

Wouldn't you agree that a team with more blowouts is more likely to have less 1pt games?

As I said, that would be true according to theory. But with a historically young team, I think inconsistency trumps most other factors... (The slow pace and high offensive efficiency in late game situations certainly played a role.) And as Erroneous Subterfuge just posted, 12% of our games were decided by 3 pts or less. Is that not inconsistent with all the blowouts?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I think the Blazers have reached the point where a successful season will be measured on how they do in the post season rather than how many regular season games they win.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Why? When dealing with statics and finding a mean, there has to be a high end and a low end. It really could be that you guys were flat out unlucky.

My only point is that their deviation from the median might have nothing whatsoever to do with simple fluky bad luck, but could have actually had a real root cause like possibly consistently fouling another team's best free throw shooters ... I'm not claiming it because I don't have access to that kind of information, but it does make me wonder.

 

[BBert]

Perhaps the Blazers' slow pace just doesn't tire their opponents legs out like other teams.

That's pretty much what I was wondering. If you are rested and can take a leisurely stroll to the free throw line, it's gravy. If you are wiped out, it's a little tougher.