Science Why Cleveland (and Portland) will not win a championship this year

[Wizard Mentor]

Data from 2004-present. With 1 exception, no team has made it to the finals being worse than 12th in Drtg.

Cleveland this year ranked 21st in Drtg. The team that was the exception? 2 years ago Cleveland was 18th in Drtg making it to the finals (solitary dot in upper left corner) but losing to GSW. As my son pointed out, Kyrie and Love were out during the finals during which they were a much worse than 3rd offensive team, and much better than 18th defense, so this data point deserves some sort of asterisk.

Of course, Portland isn't making it either! This year we're 24th in defense, 11th in offense. The homers (like me) will point out that our numbers with Nurk are much better. However, that should apply to many other teams in the last 11 years but no such team broke through, so the data is the data.

From the graph, it looks like the prerequisite to making it to the finals is
a) top 5 in either defense or offense.
b) top 12 in the other.

note: error in graph title: should say 2005-2016.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Many teams have had Nurkic?

EDIT of course we're not winning the championship. Mid season kickstarts like a Nurk still end up on teams that have poor seeding and get the toughest matchups out of the gate. That said, I will consider this season a wild success if we take two from GSW.

 

[stampedehero]

Would you consider this to be a short term statistic since it is only 13 years rather than "ever"?

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Would you consider this to be a short term statistic since it is only 13 years rather than "ever"?

no, I could have gone back farther. It's easy to do. However, that can also lead to poor analysis.

 

[KingSpeed]

Meaningless stat. Only 13 years.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Meaningless stat. Only 13 years.

Which stat do you think is meaningless? I DARE you to make an intelligent comment here.

 

[KingSpeed]

Which stat do you think is meaningless? I DARE you to make an intelligent comment here.

Too small of a sample size. There was basketball before 2004.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Too small of a sample size. There was basketball before 2004.

The basic game strategy was substantially difference before 2004, so in that sense, no there wasn't basketball before 2004.

 

[e_blazer]

The homers (like me) will point out that our numbers with Nurk are much better. However, that should apply to many other teams in the last 11 years but no such team broke through, so the data is the data.

Not sure that is a reasonable assertion. How many teams have picked up a player at the deadline who has had as big of an impact on their defense as Nurk has here? It seems to me that it's the defense the team is playing at the end of the season that counts, not the average over the entire season.

That said, success this season will be defined by winning a game or two against the Warriors. The Blazers aren't ready to contend just yet

 

[Mediocre Man]

So the refs don't like poor defensive teams? According to many of you, that's the reason for our lack of success.

 

[Blazers Roy]

Data from 2004-present. With 1 exception, no team has made it to the finals being worse than 12th in Drtg.

Cleveland this year ranked 21st in Drtg. The team that was the exception? 2 years ago Cleveland was 18th in Drtg making it to the finals (solitary dot in upper left corner) but losing to GSW. As my son pointed out, Kyrie and Love were out during the finals during which they were a much worse than 3rd offensive team, and much better than 18th defense, so this data point deserves some sort of asterisk.

Of course, Portland isn't making it either! This year we're 24th in defense, 11th in offense. The homers (like me) will point out that our numbers with Nurk are much better. However, that should apply to many other teams in the last 11 years but no such team broke through, so the data is the data.

From the graph, it looks like the prerequisite to making it to the finals is
a) top 5 in either defense or offense.
b) top 12 in the other.
View attachment 13732
note: error in graph title: should say 2005-2016.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Here's all the science you need:

Golden State.