NBA Finals Aftermath

Free agency is looming around the corner and 2009-10 will soon fade into memory.  But before we look forward, let’s look back for a few moments on some of the issues raised after the Finals.  Here’s a look:

-Despite having the two signatures franchises meet again, the Finals were hardly classic.  While both teams were very good defensively and were leaving everything on the floor, there were few compelling moments and the most memorable moments, namely the end of Game 7, were not played at the highest offensive level either.  While I enjoyed the series, there did seem to a bit of hypocrisy in hyping this as a great series.   In my mind, this series actually mirrored many of the plodding but competitive hard fought series of the 1990s, particularly the 1993-94 Finals between the Knicks and Rockets, which has been unfairly maligned as an ugly series by many.-Both the Lakers and the Celts also were unique in that they did not rate out great during the regular season.  In fact, Boston had only a 3.37 SRS, while the Lakers were a bit better at 4.78.  Between injuries and recovery, we could make post hoc rationalizations as to how the Celts and Lakers were better than they looked but the fact was Boston’s playoff run was almost unprecedented.  Very few teams with such a low SRS rating ever came so close to winning a title, no matter why they struggled in the regular season.  In case you’re wondering here’s is the year-by-year SRS ratings of the NBA Finalist since the Magic/Bird Era:

1979-80: 76ers (4.04) v. Lakers (5.43), Total SRS 9.47

1980-81: Celtics (6.05) v. Rockets (-0.20), Total SRS 5.85

1981-82: 76ers (5.74) v. Lakers (4.37), Total SRS 10.11

1982-83: 76ers (7.53) v. Lakers (5.06), Total SRS 12.59

1983-84: Celtics (6.42) v. Lakers (3.32), Total SRS 9.74

1984-85: Celtics (6.47) v. Lakers (6.48), Total SRS 12.95

1985-86: Celtics (9.06) v. Rockets (2.11), Total SRS 11.17

1986-87: Celtics (6.58) v. Lakers (8.32), Total SRS 14.90

1987-88: Pistons (5.46) v. Lakers (4.81), Total SRS 10.27

1988-89: Pistons (6.24) v. Lakers (6.38), Total SRS 12.62

1989-90: Pistons (5.41) v. Blazers (6.48), Total SRS 11.89

1990-91: Bulls (8.57) v. Lakers (6.73), Total SRS 15.30

1991-92: Bulls (10.07) v. Blazers (6.94), Total SRS 17.01

1992-93: Bulls (6.19) v. Suns (6.27), Total SRS 12.46

1993-94: Knicks (6.48) v. Rockets (4.19), Total SRS 10.67

1994-95: Magic (6.44) v. Rockets (2.32), Total SRS 8.76

1995-96: Bulls (11.80) v. Sonics (7.39), Total SRS 17.39

1996-97: Bulls (10.70) v. Jazz (7.97), Total SRS 18.67

1997-98: Bulls (7.24) v. Jazz (5.73), Total SRS 12.97

1998-99: Knicks (1.45) v. Spurs (7.12), Total SRS 8.57

1999-00: Pacers (4.16) v. Lakers (8.41), Total SRS 12.57

2000-01: 76ers (3.63) v. Lakers (3.74), Total SRS 7.37

2001-02: Nets (3.67) v. Lakers (7.15), Total SRS 10.82

2002-03: Nets (4.42) v. Spurs (5.65), Total SRS 10.07

2003-04: Pistons (5.04) v. Lakers (4.35), Total SRS 9.39

2004-05: Pistons (3.31) v. Spurs (7.84), Total SRS 11.15

2005-06: Heat (3.59) v. Mavericks (5.96), Total SRS 9.95

2006-07: Cavs (3.33) v. Spurs (8.35), Total SRS 11.68

2007-08: Celtics (9.31) v. Lakers (7.34), Total SRS 16.65

2008-09: Magic (6.49) v. Lakers (7.11), Total SRS 13.60

2009-10: Celtics (3.37) v. Lakers (4.78), Total SRS 8.15

SRS is definitely not the be all in determining how strong  the teams are in the Finals.  There are plenty of factors that it doesn’t capture, such as a late trade, recovery from injuries, or the number of really bad teams that might make a good team look better or worse than it might otherwise be.  Still, this year’s Lakers/Celts rate quite low on the SRS scale, with only the aggregate SRS of the teams in 1980-81 and 2000-01 rating lower.  The 1980-81 Finals is dragged down by the Rockets improbable run in a shorter playoff format (the only finalist with a negative SRS during this span), while the 2000-01 Lakers were one of the few “turn it on” teams that went from decent to juggernaut quickly.

The chart brings out another interesting but unrelated point that 1990s had some seriously good teams.  While we all wax poetic about the great Bird/Magic rivalry, Michael Jordan’s Bulls didn’t exactly have it easy.  The Blazers, Sonics, and Jazz of the 1990s were all on par with some of the 1980s icons (though not as good as the those 1980s teams were at their peaks).

-What about the legacy issue?  The popular notion coming out of this post-season is that Kobe Bryant has cemented himself as one of the greats, and potentially better than Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson.  On the Kobe/MJ front, I don’t buy that Bryant is near Jordan’s neighborhood.  Both the eye test and the stats and dovetail quite nicely here since both paint a picture of Jordan as a clearly better player.   In terms of pure perception, Jordan had many more memorable playoff games/moments and rarely looked as mortal as Bryant did against the Celtics in the Finals in 2008 and again in the 2010.  This perception may be formed only on anecdotal evidence but is surprisingly well backed up by the stats.  Kobe has been a great player but MJ’s career PER (which includes the Washington years) is basically the same as Kobe’s PER from his absolute peak season.  Even if you want to discount Jordan’s huge stat years before the Bulls won titles, the 1990-1997 version of MJ still ranks out at least as well as Kobe’s peak.

As for the Magic v. Kobe debate, the two players are near a dead heat in terms of stats and career accomplishments.  Bryant has the added benefit that he’ll likely have a much longer career (Johnson ostensibly was forced into retirement in 1991 at the same age that Kobe is now).  Putting aside career value, if I had to choose between building a team with an 18-year old Kobe or an 18-year old Magic for the next dozen years, Johnson is my slight favorite.  Obviously, Magic could never score or defend as well as Kobe but Johnson did so much on the court as a passer and rebounder, while also scoring quite well, that he is an easier building block to start with and one of the most unique players ever to play the game.

None of this is meant to disparage Kobe the player.  Bryant has emerged as clearly the second best two-guard since the Jerry West/Oscar Robertson times (we are agnostic about how strong West and Robertson would’ve been against modern competition).  In addition, the notion that Kobe needed to win these last two titles to validate his career or to prove how good he is also made little sense.  These last two titles are not a tribute to Kobe Bryant having an epiphany about how to play the perfect unselfish team game.  Rather, these titles are a tribute to the Lakers ability to surround Bryant with the talent and coach he needed to succeed.  Phil Jackson was a help but the fact that the Lakers were able to take Pau Gasol for virtually nothing, has changed Kobe’s reputation forever, just like the trade to the Celtics changed Kevin Garnett in 2007-08.

The takeaway lesson from this title is that while winning matters, so does context.  Few players, even the greatest of the great, can win without decent surrounding players.  If we are really trying to place the great players in historical context, we have to be realistic about the context in which the players actually played in.

Leave a Reply