I've posted the results from each round on my Facebook once these posts go up, and it's garnered some interest among family and friends who grew up with basketball. While I certainly saw a tendency, I didn't really look too close into something my dad saw an interest in:
"One observation on your first round. We tend to view today's athletes as bigger, stronger, and faster (i.e. better) than their predecessors, and that was reflected in your simulations. The more recent team won 75% (24 of 32) of the series played."I think the Mikan Bracket was an excellent example of this; 3 of his Lakers title teams were in there, and none of them advanced. As we get closer to the title round, I think era will matter less and less since we're weeding out the weaker teams now. A couple friends from my WONC days liked reading it too and we ended up discussing the merits of using simulations versus playing games out on the hardwood in reality. Obviously this would be my preferred way of doing this, but sadly time travel doesn't exist (as far as I know), so I'm stuck with this method. It may not be perfect, but it's the best we've got.
So onto the second round we go. My dad's theory gets put to the test immediately with two more modern teams going up against classic title squads. Same format holds true this round: all series are best of seven (2-2-1-1-1 format) with home court advantage going to the team with the better overall record (regular season plus playoffs). All simulations are provided by WhatIfSports.com. For reference, here's the first round results. Let's move onward.
'08 Boston Celtics (82-26) vs '77 Portland Trailblazers (63-38)
Game 1: @ '08 Celtics 102, '77 Trailblazers 93 (BOS leads 1-0)
Game 2: '77 Trailblazers 126, @ '08 Celtics 104 (Series tied 1-1)
Game 3: '08 Celtics 118, @ '77 Trailblazers 85 (BOS leads 2-1)
Game 4: '08 Celtics 116, @ '77 Trailblazers 92 (BOS leads 3-1)
Game 5: @ '08 Celtics 111, '77 Trailblazers 95 (BOS wins 4-1)
Boston's Big Three came out guns blazing in Game 1, but in Game 2 Portland's bug guns tied it up (Walton and Lucas were excellent). Then once the series shifted to Portland things came unraveled. After 3 games I was of the opinion that as Kendrick Perkins went, so went the Celtics (he fouled out and was virtually nonexistent in Game 2), but he didn't do much in Game 4. Garnett was consistent throughout the series, but Paul Pierce really stepped it up in Games 4 and 5, as did Ray Allen.
'96 Chicago Bulls (87-13) vs '63 Boston Celtics (66-27)
Game 1: @ '96 Bulls 133, '63 Celtics 120 (CHI leads 1-0)
Game 2: @ '96 Bulls 107, '63 Celtics 86 (CHI leads 2-0)
Game 3: '96 Bulls 135, @ '63 Celtics 102 (CHI leads 3-0)
Game 4: '96 Bulls 117, @ '63 Celtics 99 (CHI wins 4-0)
Full disclosure: had to tweak the depth chart for the Bulls again to make sure Toni Kukoc had the impact he did on that '96 team (he was 6th Man of the Year, for crying out loud!) He certainly helped, given that Sam Jones had a really good Game 1 and was at least decent the rest of the way, as were Russell, Cousy and Heinsohn. Ultimately though, the Celtics' demise in this bracket primarily came for the same reason the prior year's Celtics team got swept: a 6'6" guy from North Carolina, only this time MJ was even more possessed. After only averaging about 30 a game last round, Jordan went up to 36, including 44 in Game 1, 45 in Game 3 and 36 in the clincher. Have fun next round, Doc.
To see the updated bracket, click here.
As we continue to whittle down teams, my dad's theory seems to hold true again. The final in this bracket in a couple weeks will have a couple more modern teams, but can the Big Three slow down the greatest Dynamic Duo possibly ever? We'll find out soon, but first tomorrow we go back to a bracket whose namesake is no longer even playing. Can the older teams still standing in that bracket buck the trend?
No comments:
Post a Comment