Conventional wisdom says teams that play at a fast pace cannot succeed in the half-court, grind-it-out game that (supposedly) is the NBA Playoffs. You’ll hear this axiom relayed from TV analysts, casual fans, and basketball nerds alike. But is this really true? Welcome to Mythbusters, Dime style.
This season, there are seven teams with a pace (i.e., number of possessions per 48 minutes) of over 96 that are in position to make the playoffs: the Houston Rockets, Denver Nuggets, Milwaukee Bucks, Los Angeles Lakers, Golden State Warriors, San Antonio Spurs, and Oklahoma City Thunder (all stats per NBA.com/Stats). These seven teams make up seven of the top eight teams in the league in pace, which seems to be indicative of the league-wide trend towards small-ball. We still have to wait just a little over a month before we find out if one or more of these teams will dispel the notion that fast-paced teams can’t succeed in the playoffs, so in the meantime, let’s take a look at numbers from the past.
*** *** ***
Does the pace really slow down in the playoffs?
Yes. For every season from 2000-01 to 2011-12, the overall league pace for the playoffs has been slower than that of the regular season (the playoff pace for those seasons ranges from 90.4 to 93.04). Looking at the 192 teams that have made the playoffs in the last 12 seasons, 45 teams have actually increased their pace in the playoffs from the regular season (23 percent). However, only 18 of those teams made it past the first round (nine percent of playoff teams). Out of the last 24 conference champions, four have been teams that increased their pace in the playoffs over the regular season: the 2005-06 Mavericks, the 2002-03 Spurs, the 2001-02 Nets, and the 2000-01 Lakers.
We have confirmed that yes, the pace does slow down in the playoffs, and that generally not many teams have success increasing the pace from the regular season to the playoffs. But what about teams that already played at a high pace during the regular season? How have they fared in the playoffs?
How do fast paced teams fare in the playoffs?
Using a pace of 96 as a threshold for high pace during the regular season, there have been 27 high-pace teams who made the playoffs from 2000-01 to 2011-12. Fourteen of those teams made it out of the first round. However, only five of the 27 teams were able to play at a pace either higher than or only within one possession lower than their regular season (2009-10 Nuggets, 2009-10 Jazz, 2004-05 Wizards, 2002-03 Kings, and 2000-01 Kings). So while teams with a fast pace have had some success in the playoffs, keeping up that fast pace in the playoffs is difficult. The 2007-08 and 2008-09 Lakers are the only teams to have had a pace of at least 96 in the regular season and went on to win a conference championship. Let’s take a closer look at some of those high-pace teams.
Case Studies
Case Study 1: The 2007-08 Los Angeles Lakers
If you think the current Mike D’Antoni-coached Lakers play at a fast pace (97.01), the 2007-08 Lakers have them beat, registering a pace of 98.01 during the regular season. The 2007-08 Lakers go against common ideas about fast paced teams in a number of ways: they were not heavily dependent on fast-break scoring (11.4 percent of their points during the regular season, good for 18th in the league, and 9.2 percent during the playoffs, second to last at 15th) and they played good defense, holding opponents to an Effective Field Goal Percentage of 48.5 percent during the regular season (7th in the league) and 47.7 percent during the playoffs (4th).
The Lakers ran through the Western Conference with ease, sweeping Denver, beating Utah 4-2, and overcoming the Spurs 4-1 in the Western Conference Finals, only to fall to the Big Three Boston Celtics in the NBA Finals. Led by defensive mastermind Tom Thibodeau, the Celtics were able to slow things down — the Lakers played at a pace of 96.12 against the Western Conference, and 93.32 against Boston. Against the Celtics, the Lakers also shot worse (53.7 percent TS percentage against Boston vs. 56.9 percent against the West), turned the ball over more (14.9 percent TmTOV percent to 13.5 percent), rebounded worse (46.8 percent REB to 48 percent), and assisted at a lower rate (16 ASTRatio vs. 16.7). On the other hand, Boston actually got better marks against the Lakers than against their Eastern Conference peers in True Shooting Percentage, Team Turnover Percentage, Rebound Percentage and Assist Ratio.
Boston’s ball control and defense appear to have been the big variables from the Lakers’ smooth sailing against the West to the rough seas they encountered in the finals: the Lakers scored fewer points off turnovers (12.7/game against the Celtics vs. 14.9/game against the Western Conference), fewer second chance points (10.8/game vs. 11.9), fewer fastbreak points (8.0/game vs. 9.9), and fewer points in the paint (33.7 vs. 46.7). They also gave up more points off turnovers (17 vs. 14.7).
Keep reading to see other case studies involving the Warriors, Suns and Kings…
Cast Study 2: The 2006-07 Golden State Warriors
The “We Believe” Warriors brought us one of the more memorable late season runs, and Baron Davis‘ belly reveal is forever etched in many a mind (the dunk was pretty cool, too). But despite the faith of their fans, the fast and furious Warriors met their demise before achieving Larry O’Brien glory.
The Warriors relied heavily on the longball, leading the league in three-point attempts during the regular season at 24 per game, and three-pointers accounted for 24 percent of their scoring. Those number actually went up in the playoffs: the Warriors attempted 31 three-pointers per game, three-pointers accounted for 31.2 percent of their scoring, and even their three-point field goal percentage went up slightly from 35.6 percent to 35.8 percent.
We know that three-pointers are considered one of the most efficient shots in basketball. If Golden State’s longball numbers all went up, what went wrong? The Warriors’ gaudy playoff numbers mostly come from running all over the plodding Mavs, who had a regular season pace of 91.9 (the league average was 94.34). While the Warriors led the league in scoring from fast-break points during the regular season (19.2 percent), and increased that number to 24.2 percent against the Mavericks, their fastbreak song encountered dissonance in the form of the Utah Jazz: only 15.9 percent of their scoring came from fastbreak points against the Jazz. The Warriors’ fast-break points per game dipped from 25.5 against the Mavs to 17.2 against the Jazz, and while the difference in their shooting was not significant, their opposing Effective Field Goal Percentage jumped up (from 46.6 percent to 52.5 percent)
Additionally, the Warriors struggled on the boards against the Jazz, as their rebound percentage dropped from 48.4 percent to 38.9 percent, and they not only gave up more second chance points (from 15.4/game against Dallas to 20.4/game against Utah), but also scored fewer second chance points themselves (15.2/game down to 12/game).
Interestingly enough, the Jazz and Warriors played at a high pace (100.31, up from 95.8 of Golden State vs. Dallas) not far off from the Warriors’ regular season average of 101.64. What was crucial was Utah’s ability to extend their own possessions through offensive rebounds leading to second chance points, and cutting Golden State’s possessions off by getting the defensive rebounds off Warrior misses.
Case Study 3: The 2005-06 Phoenix Suns
The Suns are a curious case. They defeated the hated Lakers, beat the little brother Clippers, but subsequently fell to the Mavericks. Fast-break points accounted for more of the run-and-gun Suns’ scoring against the Mavericks than against either of their Los Angeles opponents, which would seem to be an indicator of success. But once more, the second chance points proved to be crucial, as the Suns gave up 17.2 per game to the Mavs, as opposed to 14.8 against the Lakers and Clippers. The Suns also attempted (and made) fewer three-pointers and free throws, and scored fewer points off turnovers (16.8 vs. 11.8). From this we see that a team being able to run their preferred style of offense alone is not enough.
Case Study 4: The 2001-02 Sacramento Kings
Lastly we turn to the critically acclaimed 2001-02 Sacramento Kings, who reached the Western Conference Finals where, despite their most valiant efforts and alleged food poisoning of Kobe Bryant, they lost to the Lakers.
Out of their three playoff opponents (the Jazz, Mavericks and Lakers), the Kings encountered the most trouble with the Lakers. It wasn’t the pace, though. The Kings posted a pace of 97.99 for the regular season, and the Lakers and Kings played at 97.35 during their playoff series. However, the Kings posted their lowest numbers in three-pointers attempted (from 17.8/game vs. Utah, to 17.4 vs. Dallas, to 14.4 vs. LAL), free throws attempted (30, 31, 29.1), free throws made (24.8, 24.4, 19.1), rebound percentage (49.6 percent, 53.6, 48), offensive rebound percentage (30.9 percent, 33.8, 25.6), points off turnovers (17.8/game, 17.4, 14.9), second chance points (11/game, 18, 14), and fast-break points (13/game, 17, 8.7). They also gave up the most second chance points (15/game, 15.4, 18.6). The Kings also attempted far fewer shots in the restricted area (36.1 percent vs. Jazz and Mavs to 27.6 percent vs. Lakers), and took far more long two-pointers (from 29 percent up to 40.6 percent).
Much of the numbers above can be attributed to the man we know as Shaquille O’Neal, who, when he wanted to be, was a rebounding machine, a rim protector, and a floor-running seven-footer (pre-toe issues, of course).
From the case studies, it appears pace itself may not be what brings down fast teams. Rather, the downfall seems to be the attributes that fast-paced teams may lack, such as rebounders who give both second chance opportunities and take away second chance opportunities from opponents. The seven high-pace teams poised to make the playoffs this season all have athletic and/or capable big men, so be sure to keep an eye on them when April rolls around.
Can a fast-breaking team win in the playoffs?
Follow Felix on Twitter at @Brkn_Yllw_Lns.
Follow Dime on Twitter at @DimeMag.
Become a fan of Dime Magazine on Facebook HERE.
