NBA Power Rankings: How Far Can Each Elite Team Advance in the Playoffs?
How much does it mean that the Miami Heat have been struggling against winning teams? Does the Chicago Bulls' road record really matter? Did the Boston Celtics really prove the "regular season doesn't matter" last year?
These are the kinds of questions I wanted to answer.
Anecdotal evidence tends to be weaker than statistical evidence. For instance say I flip a "fair" coin and it comes up heads, so I use that one toss to "prove" that it will always come up heads.
The truth is the more I flip that coin, the closer it will be to 50 percent heads and 50 percent tails. However, I can use any one toss to "prove" heads or tails.
Anecdotal evidence uses an instance. Statistical evidence uses a series of instances to see a pattern. Too often, these sorts of debates descend upon "what about...?"
What follows the "what about?" is a anecdotal instance which contradicts the pattern. The problem is that we don't know the patterns. We only know the anecdotes.
So in order to know the patterns, I thought I'd at least see what kind of patterns might emerge if I looked at historical results in the playoffs.
I went back seven years and charted the results of every playoff team looking at a number of details. On the next slide, I will discuss the various details I considered and why.
The Measures
1 of 17
If you get bored by all the stats and explanations then you can just skip past the next few screens. Still, I need to explain why I chose the factors I chose, and perhaps for some, even what they mean.
First, though, I'd like to explain a basic matter in understanding basketball: The basic premise of most of the modern statistical analysis is possessions.
Some teams run faster games than other teams, so basic stats like "points per game" can be deceptive. A team can actually have a worse offense, but score more points per game, simply because they are just running a faster game.
Similarly, a good defense can give up more points than a slower-paced team because of running a faster-paced game.
For instance, the 2000 Lakers team gave up 92.3 points per game, while the Knickerbockers only gave up 90.7. You might look at that and conclude that the Knicks had a better defense.
However, the Lakers game ran a pace where there were a total of 93.3 possessions per game while the Knicks only had a pace of 89.2.
Therefore, the Lakers, yielding only 98.2 points per 100 possessions, were actually a better defense than the Knicks, who gave up 100.9 points per 100 possessions. This makes more statistical sense because it actually gauges which teams are harder to score upon.
That's why I used offensive and defensive rating, which I'll explain more on the following slides. I also used record against winning teams, record against road teams and seeding to consider the chances of each of the top 10 teams.
Offensive Rating
2 of 17
Offensive Rating (ORtg) is the number of points a team scores per 100 possessions. I wanted to see how important it was to having a good offense to winning in the playoffs. The highest ORtg over the last seven years belongs to the 2010 Phoenix Suns, who advanced to the Western Conference finals.
Offense generally was not that important to winning championships. In fact, over the last seven years, teams that won the NBA championship actually average only 0.3 points more than winning teams in the playoffs generally.
It was favorable to advancing to the second round or the conference finals, though. Teams with an above-average (average of the 104 winning postseason teams) offensive rating reached on average 2.22 rounds, compared to the teams that had a below-average offense that reached only 1.78 rounds.
The 20 best offenses made it through 2.47 rounds on average. The 20 worst made it through 1.56 rounds. So, having a great offense is no guarantee, but you need a respectable one to advance.
It should be mentioned, though, that the fifth-worst offense with a winning record was the 2004 Detroit Pistons, who won the NBA championship. It is possible to win without a good offense, but it makes it a lot harder.
In other words, it can help a team with a good offense to get to the second or third round, but teams that are largely built around offense tend to have issues in later rounds when they are playing against the better teams.
Teams without at least a decent offense usually get knocked out early.
Defensive Rating
3 of 17
Defensive Rating is the number of points a team allows per 100 possessions. The best defensive rating over the span is 94.1 and belongs to the 2004 San Antonio Spurs, who lost in the second round.
I wanted to see how important it was to having a good defense to winning in the playoffs. This was much more telling in terms of winning NBA championships. Teams that have gotten the ring give up 3.5 fewer points than teams who make the playoffs generally.
Looking at the top 20 defenses, though, is much more telling. Four of the NBA champions are among the top 11 defenses over the last seven years. Furthermore, three more of the conference champions are also in the top 20.
Of the top 20, they made it through an average of 2.7 rounds, while the bottom 20 only made it through 1.46 rounds. The furthest any of the bottom 20 defenses went in the playoffs was 2010 Suns, who made it to the conference finals. They are the only team among the bottom 20 to make it past the second round.
A great defense, therefore, seems much more important than a great offense.
What is interesting here, though, is that teams built on defense only have marginally more success in getting to the second or third round of the playoffs. Above-average defenses made it through 2.29 rounds while those with below-average defenses only survived 1.76 rounds.
Generally, then, we can conclude that whether you've got a good defense or offense it doesn't make much difference in terms of advancing to the second round, but when it comes to a good defenses vs. a good offense, defense tends to win out.
Simple Rating System
4 of 17
Simple Rating System, or SRS, is margin of victory with an adjustment for strength of schedule.
There are variations on this, such as Hollinger's Margin of Victory, or efficiency differential, but they pretty much all measure the same thing: How much better do you do when you have the ball than if your opponent has the ball. I looked at all three, and there was no appreciable difference between them.
The best SRS over the last seven years belongs to the Celtics, who had an SRS of 9.31 in 2008 and won the NBA championship.
There are different ways of attaining a high margin of victory. You can have a great offense, a great defense, or just a solid offense with a solid defense.
Of the top 50 SRS scores, 18 were in the top 20 on offense. Those teams reached an average of 2.5 rounds of the playoffs and accounted for one NBA champion.
Only 14 of the top 50 were among the top 20 on defense, though. However, those 14 teams reached an average of 2.86 rounds and accounted for four NBA champions.
Teams who were between 21 and 60 on both offense and defense accounted for 15 teams, and those teams averaged 2.6 rounds and accounted for the other two champions.
Therefore, it confirms the previous conclusions that defense matters more than offense; however, it's helpful to be solid on both.
A great defense is good, but it still needs at least a respectable offense to hold it up. While SRS matters, how you get it is important, too.
Seeding and Regular Season Records
5 of 17
I wondered how much the regular season matters. How much does seeding matter? The answer is a lot more than you might think.
No team below a four seed or with fewer than 50 regular season wins has advanced beyond the second round in the last seven seasons.
In fact, of the 28 teams that have made it to the conference finals, 11 have been a one seed, nine have been a two seed, five have been a three seed, and only three have been a four seed.
There is definitive correlation between seeding and advancing. The Celtics did not "prove" last year that the regular season doesn't matter; they were an exception to the rule.
Record Against Winning Teams and Record in Road Games
6 of 17
This is actually the question that got me started on this whole adventure: Which matters more, record against winning teams or record on the road? The answer is that they matter about the same, but they both matter a lot.
Consider the following logic and you'll understand why. As far as beating teams with winning records, it should be pretty obvious. If you can't beat good teams, you're not going to win in the postseason.
To win an NBA championship, you have to get 16 wins against winning teams. If you can't beat winning teams, you're not going to advance in the playoffs.
In theory, you wouldn't think that road record would matter as much. At least I didn't. When I saw the patterns were nearly identical, though, I gave it some consideration and realized why it's important.
Technically, if you're a one seed you never have to win a road game; however, in order to go all the way you would need to go seven games in every series to win it all. That's a lot of games.
Winning on the road doesn't just mean winning the series, it means winning it more quickly.
However, the patterns are almost identical. Teams with NBA championships have a .600 record against winning teams and a road record of .610. Teams with a .600 record against winning teams advance 2.77 rounds. Teams with a .600 road record advance 2.63 rounds. It's hard to say that neither matters.
I checked to see what happened when a team was strong in one but not so strong in the other. There were five teams who had a .600 record against winning teams but less than .550 record on the road. Those teams reached the third round on average.
The 2005 Spurs won the finals in spite of only having a 21-20 road record. Their record against winning teams was 31-17.
The 2005 Pistons were 22-19 on the road, but 29-19 against winning teams and lost in the finals. And no, the road team didn't lose every game, even though the series went seven. The road team won Games 5 and 6.
On the other side of the coin, there were seven teams that had a better than .600 road record but a lower than .550 record against winning teams. Of those seven, only last year's Celtics made it past the second round. As you probably know, they lost in the finals.
So, you're better off struggling a bit on the road than against winning teams, but you're better off doing well against both. In other words, the Bulls are looking better than the Heat.
Potential First-Round Upsets and Challenges
7 of 17
New York Knicks
The addition of Carmelo Anthony to the Knicks makes them a complete wild card. How well can they play defense now? How well do they need to? How well will he mesh with Amare? All of these are questions that need to be answered.
Throw in that Chauncey Billups is running the show now and the supporting cast has been pretty completely re-worked, and it's just too difficult to figure out this team without more games under their belt. They could pull a first-round upset. Going further than that is highly unlikely, though.
Philadelphia 76ers
Squash that urge to laugh. Since starting 3-13, they've gone 27-16. They've also won 12 of their last 16. They've won six of their last eight against winning teams.
Sometimes in the playoffs, the teams playing hot are the biggest danger. Depending on their seed and opponent, they could score an upset, or at least present a big challenge to an Eastern Conference team.
Memphis Grizzlies
This year's Thunder is a team that's getting better as the season progresses. They've won 21 of their last 32 and worked their way up to the eighth seed.
This is going to come as a shock to those who aren't paying attention, but they are only two games out of the fifth seed. Factor in also that they've split their series with the Lakers.
While I don't see an upset in the series, I can see them making LA work harder than they want to in the first round if they are matched up, much as Oklahoma City did last year.
10: New Orleans Hornets
8 of 17
Wins: 48
SRS: 1.2
ORTG: 105.7
DRTG: 103.3
Record Against Winning Teams: .515
Road Record: .452
Projection: First Round
Reasons for Concern: There are a number of things that don't look good for New Orleans. First, they are projected to a six seed. Of the 14 six-seeds, only four have made it past the first round, and none have made it past the second.
Another major cause for concern is their road record. Of the 56 teams who have made it to the second round, only eight have had a worse road record than the Hornets.
Finally, out of the 36 teams with an SRS of under two, 26 have made it past the first round. Of the 25 who had the Hornets' 1.2 or lower, 18 made first-round exits.
Reasons for Hope: If there's any reason for hope for the Hornets it's that they have a winning record against winning teams while they win because of their defense.
Of the 21 teams that had a better than .500 record against winning teams and a defensive rating of 103.5 or lower, 17 of them made it to the second round.
The problem for the Hornets is that they more closely resemble the four teams who didn't. Still, in the grand scheme of things, defense is more reliable than offense.
9: Atlanta Hawks
9 of 17
Wins: 49
SRS: 0.2
ORTG: 106.9
DRTG: 105.7
Record Against Winning Teams: .384
Road Record: .576
Projection: First Round
Reasons for Concern: Pretty much everything is a reason for concern with Atlanta. Of the 24 teams with an SRS below 1.0, only five won their first series, and none went beyond that.
Of the 12 teams who had a record of .400 or worse against winning teams, only four have made it past the second round. Two of those had home-court advantage.
As previously mentioned, no team has made it past the second round with fewer than 50 wins.
Reasons for Hope: Hard to find one here without being mean. There's just a lot working against them, and it's hard to see them getting past one of the four dominant Eastern Conference teams. About the only thing going for them is that they win on the road, which they are going to need to do.
Six of the 10 teams who have a road record between .550 and .600 reached the second round or further. It's just that all of those teams were superior to the Hawks in virtually every other category.
8: Orlando Magic
10 of 17
Wins: 51
SRS: 5.54
ORTG: 108.2
DRTG: 101.7
Record Against Winning Teams: .419
Road Record: .536
Projection: Second round, outside shot at conference finals
Reasons for Concern: There are 45 teams over the last seven years who have a losing record against winning teams. Of those, 33 have failed to make it out of the first round. Only nine have made it to the second round with a record equal to or worse than Orlando's.
Their other issue is seeding. Only three of the 14 four-seeds have made it out of the second round, but most make it to the second. Only five have failed to do so.
Reasons for Hope: They have a solid SRS. There are 14 teams who have had an SRS of between five and six. Of those, 11 have made it to the second round, and half have made it to the conference finals.
One, the 2004 Pistons, won the NBA championship.
7: Oklahoma City Thunder
11 of 17
Wins: 51
SRS: 2.38
ORTG: 1110.3
DRTG: 108.2
Record Against Winning Teams: .485
Road Record: .551
Projection: Second round, possible first-round upset.
Reasons for Concern: There are three big red flags here—first the record against winning teams. They are below .500 and as previously stated, that's a significant factor.
Second, they have an SRS of 2.38, and that's not very good. Of teams with an SRS between two and three, 10 of 12 failed to get out of the second round. None have made it past that. In fact, no one with an SRS below three has made it past the second round.
Third, they have a 108.2 DRtg. Over the last seven seasons, only three teams have made the playoffs with winning records and worse defensive ratings. Two of those teams made it past the first round, though, and one made it to the conference finals.
That's a little optimistic, though. Of the 14 teams who have DRtg over 107.5, only one made it to the third round, and nine were eliminated in the first round.
Reasons for Hope: They have a very good offense. With Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook, that should come as no surprise. Of the 22 teams who have a greater than 111 ORtg, 16 have made it to the second round, and nine have made it to the conference finals or further, three have made it to the NBA Finals and one has won the championship.
All in all, they have a great offense, but as established earlier, a great offense without at least a solid defense does not bode well. It will be interesting to see how much the acquisition of Perkins helps to bolster their defense. If it does, the Thunder could make a run to the conference finals.
6: Los Angeles Lakers
12 of 17
Wins: 56
SRS: 5.71
ORTG: 111.8
DRTG: 105.0
Record Against Winning Teams: .625
Road Record: .656
Projection: Conference finals (give or take a round)
Reasons for Concern: The going take on the Lakers is that they are just bored and waiting for the playoffs. The thought is that the "regular season doesn't matter."
It matters more, though, than a cursory glance at last year's Celtics might suggest. The third seed has only won once in the seven years I studied. Since 1984, only three teams have won the NBA title with a third seed or worse.
Furthermore, there are concerns about the Lakers as a team. Their offense is almost a full point off what it was last year. Furthermore, their defense is surrendering almost a half-point more than last year. In fact, the defense is the worst it's been in the Pau era.
Finally, their defensive rating is a little high to win an NBA championship. Of the seven teams from the years studied, none had a higher DRtg.
Reasons for Hope: They are still the champs, so of course you can't rule them out. Having said that, the research doesn't really include such intangibles.
Statistically there is reason for hope. Looking at the averages of the last seven champions, the Lakers are better in ORtg, as well as in opponents over .500 and road winning percentage.
There are enough indicators that are positive that you can't count them out even if they hadn't won a championship. That they have is just gravy.
Having said that, they will significantly help themselves if they can overtake Dallas for the second seed. It is a huge difference between that and third.
5: Chicago Bulls
13 of 17
Wins: 58
SRS: 5.44
ORTG: 106.8
DRTG: 100.5
Record Against Winning Teams: .592
Road Record: .518
Projection: Second round or conference finals; outside shot at championship.
Reasons for Concern: There are no major concerns with the Bulls, but there are a couple of things that are slightly troublesome.
First, their offensive rating is a little average. It's not bad, but it's not good, either. They need to pick that up. In fact, they've actually been doing that lately.
Since January, they've been at 109.5, which is much more favorable. While only one of the seven champions was worse than 106.8, only two were better than 109.5.
This is not an arbitrary date. Derrick Rose watched film to ascertain why he was not getting foul calls. He determined that he was getting into the paint too fast, and needed to slow down. Apparently, fast does lie.
Before that, he averaged five free throws a game, since he's averaged over seven. This also translates into a higher offensive rating.
The other concern is that they have only a .518 road record. It's not as bad as if they had a struggle against winning teams. Of the 12 teams who had a .500-.550 road record, seven made the conference finals, four made the finals and two won the finals.
On the other hand, 51 of 52 teams with losing records on the road failed to advance past the second round. So, the Bulls are fine where they are on the road, but if it gets worse, they could be in trouble.
Having said that, they've won six of their last nine on the road.
Reasons for Hope: There are eight teams with a DRtg below 101 and an SRS over five. They reached an average of 3.5 rounds in the playoffs. Of the eight teams, four won the NBA championship and five reached the conference finals.
The Chicago Bulls have a defensive identity, and they have a championship-level defense with enough of an offense to win it all.
Statistically, the '11 Bulls are not that different from the '05 Spurs, who won the championship. Their big problem is that the Celtics are just a little bit better at offense and just a little bit better at defense.
Still, they are close enough to challenge the Celtics in the conference finals and possibly even pull of the upset.
The Bulls may be good enough to win it all this year, but it's not likely. It may just come down to how well the Bulls merge the newly returned Noah into their system the last third of the season.
If they do that well enough, and pull of the first seed, look out, you might be looking at the champs.
4: Miami Heat
14 of 17
Wins: 59
SRS: 6.74
ORTG: 110.9
DRTG: 102.6
Record Against Winning Teams: .482
Road Record: .656
Projection: Second round
Reasons for Concern: It's hard to keep denying it. The Heat struggle against the good teams. They are 14-15 against teams with winning records. What's worse is that the trend isn't turning around as they get through the season.
They've lost three of their last nine against winning teams. In fact their last two "wins" came when Philadelphia got over .500 and gave Miami credit for two wins that came early in the season.
Of the 45 teams that have had losing records against winning teams, one has made it past the second round.
That was the Heat when they won it all, but that was a team that started off the season 1-7 against winning teams because Shaq missed the first 20 games. It's not the same kind of situation for the Heat this year. This is something far more telling than Heat fans realize.
Last night's loss to the Knicks isn't helping inspire more confidence. Following that, the Heat will play nine more consecutive games against .500-plus teams. They can either change or reinforce that trend.
It's not too much to say that over the next two weeks, the Heat will determine whether they can win a championship this year.
Reasons for Hope: They had the SRS lead in the NBA until last night. Theoretically, based on Pythagorean wins, they should be 45-15. Statistically they are a better team than their record indicates. While I do think such things can be overblown, I think they can be overlooked as well.
What this tells me is that the essential makings of an NBA champion are there; it's just a matter of pulling things together.
There are 18 teams who had an SRS over six over the last seven years. Of those 11 made it to the conference finals, six made it to the NBA Finals, and four won it all. Those 11 all had at least a .586 record against winning teams, though.
3: Dallas Mavericks
15 of 17
Wins: 59
SRS: 3.91
ORTG: 109.7
DRTG: 105.4
Record Against Winning Teams: .676
Road Record: .714
Projection: Second round or conference finals
Reasons for Concern: Let's be honest. The Mavericks and their fans aren't "hoping" for a conference final. There's only one way this season ends well for the Mavs and that's with a title.
Much of the team has been together for years. They've been to the finals and lost. It's possibly Dirk's last real shot, and at this point in his career you've got to put him on the list of "greatest players without a ring."
Therefore, "concern" and "hope" need to be taken with that context.
The biggest reason for concern? They just might not be good enough to do that. Yes, they might reach 60 wins, but the SRS is lower than anyone but the Heat who have won in the last seven years.
It might be a little easier to accept if they had a great defense, but they don't. They have a respectable defense, but not a great one.
As far as 60 wins goes, it's remarkable. Of the 13 teams that have won 60 games over the last seven years, only three have made it to the finals, and only seven made it past the second round.
The Mavs could be facing a second-round exit depending on how the seedings break down, but a series against the Lakers in the second round is possible and may not bode well for Dallas.
Reasons for Hope: There are only two teams that have their impressive combination of record against winning teams and record on the road. Part of the problem with all the "SRS" or "MOV" logic is that such things reduce the value of the win.
When the game is on the line, players either step up or don't. They make good shots or they don't. They make good decisions or bad decisions.
In games decided by three points or less, the Mavs are 9-3. They know how to win close games and in tough situations.
Those things translate well into postseason success, and the Mavericks are the type of team that could tell the whole "SRS-MOV-stat-geek" crowd like me to go take a leap.
They are a veteran team that knows how to win. The question is: This year, is it enough to win in the postseason?
2: Boston Celtics
16 of 17
Wins: 60
SRS: 6.18
ORTG: 107.1
DRTG: 99.8
Record Against Winning Teams: .700
Road Record: .630
Projection: Conference finals or NBA champions
Reasons for Concern: Uhm, are there any? Across the board against the things I researched, there's nothing to worry about for the Celtics. They are for all intents and purposes a very legitimate championship-level team.
Statistically, though, there's a very close resemblance in most areas to Chicago. They are just slightly better at everything.
Where they could run into a problem, though, is in something I didn't measure, which is rebounding. The Bulls lead the NBA in rebound differential in spite of hardly having played with both Boozer and Noah at the same time.
The Celtics are 20th. The Bulls and Celtics are also first and third in the NBA in opponents' effective field-goal percentage. In other words, a series between the two could feature a lot of missed shots and come down to rebounding.
Reasons for Hope: Having said that, they still have to be the favorites to win it out of the East, albeit by a small margin. I actually think that whoever wins the East wins the finals, too, and Boston has the best chance to do that.
In every single category I researched, the Celtics are as good or better than the average of the last seven NBA champions. How does that not translate to cause for hope?
1: San Antonio Spurs
17 of 17
Wins: 68
SRS: 6.85
ORTG: 111.3
DRTG: 103.6
Record Against Winning Teams: .727
Road Record: .724
Projection: Conference or NBA finals
Reasons for Concern: This is a team in many ways eerily similar to the Mavericks team that was upset by the Warriors in the first round.
Of the teams I surveyed, they have the most wins, 67. They had a similar SRS, 7.22, ORtg, 111.3, DRtg 103.2, even their record against winning teams, .650 and on the road, .756 were comparable.
What happened to the Mavs? They were a team built on offense and that got exposed when they hit a good offensive team. The Spurs could hit a similar wall if they play the Thunder in a playoff series.
Only two of the seven champions had a lower defensive rating. Of course, the Spurs know how to play defense when they need to, and that means they could be the exception here.
Reasons for Hope: People talk about the Lakers and Celtics and experience, but it seems that the Spurs' experience gets brushed to the side. Duncan has four rings, too, you know. Ginobili and Parker have three each. They know how to play playoff basketball, too.
Apart from their defensive rating, everything else points to a potential NBA champion. They win on the road, they win against good teams, they can score, they are consistent.
The Spurs are every bit a contender, and my personal pick to represent the West in the finals. I do think that the Bulls or Celtics could beat them in a seven-game series, though.
However, if the Heat come out of the East, look for the Spurs to win it all.
