Does Experience Matter?

To state the obvious, Chris Paul is awesome:

Still, everyone knew that but relatively few imagined them being in a position to eliminate the San Antonio Spurs. In particular, many would have agreed with David Freedman who writes "I thought that the Hornets' lack of playoff experience would hurt them in postseason play." It's difficult, however, to see any clear evidence that lack of playoff experience has any genuine tendency to hold teams back. The teams that win usually have playoff experience because normally the best team in year N was at least pretty good in year N-1 and because playoff experience is pretty widespread in the NBA generally.

Comments

Hornets:Obama::Spurs:Clinton?

Posted by Andrew | May 14, 2008 10:40 AM

Does Experience Matter?

Sure does, especially when it's 35 years of experience, including orchestrating peace in Northern Ireland and landing under sniper fire in Bosnia.

"Remarkable bird, the Norwegian blue."

Posted by SoCalJustice | May 14, 2008 10:44 AM

Winning in New Orleans was crucial for the Spurs, of course, as no team that's won a championship since 1979 has ever lost a postseason game there. It raises questions about their potential success in a conference finals or championship setting even if they manage to defeat the Hornets. The Spurs should consider forfeiting game 6 and getting behind the Hornets for the sake of the Western conference, perhaps securing the promise of help paying their luxury tax in exchange?

Posted by Dan Panorama | May 14, 2008 11:01 AM

If the pattern holds up, the Spurs will blowout the Hornets in San Antonio on Thursday. Last night's win was impressive, but we'll really get to test the playoff experience hypothesis during game 7, when both teams are facing elimination.

Posted by Elyas | May 14, 2008 11:06 AM

I'll add that LeBron's inexperience relative to the veteran Pistons didn't seem to matter much last season.

If you put two teams exactly identical except for experience in a matchup (and I don't know, play on a neutral court or something) I'd have to assume that the experienced team would win. There aren't too many NBA players or coaches who will say that playoff games are 100% exactly the same as regular season games. On the margins, I could see this playing some sort of role.

But if one team is just flat out better, and controlling for home court, I'd have to agree that the experience factor gets swallowed for breakfast by the one team's betterness.

Posted by Brent | May 14, 2008 11:15 AM

Andrew, wouldn't Hillary be going for her fifth presidency term as president then?

Posted by eriks | May 14, 2008 11:24 AM

i don't have the time to check a list right now, but off hazy memory, i can recall golden state's 1975 championship and (i think) magic's rookie year championship as the two examples of a team with no playoff experience winning it all.

the question, though, is whether there is something magical about "experience" or whether that (as matthew implies) is simply a proxy for "as a team grows and gets better, it is likely to go deeper in the playoffs."

Posted by howard | May 14, 2008 11:25 AM

Can anyone tell me what Byron Scott was thinking leaving David West in the game last night 'til the 1:45 mark? He was clearly hurt and they were up by 13 with five minutes to go. Take him out and slow the game down. Sheesh...

Posted by Ted2 | May 14, 2008 11:35 AM

I'll add that LeBron's inexperience relative to the veteran Pistons didn't seem to matter much last season.

It helps when the refs protect you like they protect Lebron.

Posted by Freddie | May 14, 2008 11:36 AM

Howard, the lakers reached the NBA Western Conference Semifinals in 78-79.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/1979.html

I did the research for you, maybe somebody will do the research for me on this: No team has won the Finals without winning at least the first round the year before.

Posted by Chris | May 14, 2008 11:40 AM

Freddie,
I actually think Lebron gets fouled more than what's called. He's such a dominating force going through the lane, that refs sometimes swallow their whistles. Same thing happened with Shaq in his prime. Take that dunk the other night. Garnett clearly fouled him but he was driving so hard that it almost didn't seem fair to call a foul on KG. You want to see Refs protecting someone, please refer to Wade in the 2006 finals.

Posted by Ted2 | May 14, 2008 11:43 AM

It helps when the refs protect you like they protect Lebron.

Niether here nor there. The refs didn't actually drain his 29 of the team's last 30 points for him. Nor are they suddenly not protecting LeBron now against Boston during his slump. Yes, he gets the superstar treatment (though with his size and strength he absorbs more fouls than a lot of refs realize) but this has nothing to do with how well he played last season on the road against a veteran, championship, playoff-tested team that should be able to win with even the most partisan officials.

Posted by Brent | May 14, 2008 11:46 AM

Chris,
I'm pretty sure the Spurs didn't MAKE the playoffs before Duncan's rookie year when they won it. Actually, I know they didn't because they had the #1 pick. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Posted by Ted2 | May 14, 2008 11:47 AM

It helps when the refs protect you like they protect Lebron.

Group me in with those who find that this is a load of crap. Not since Shaq have I seen a star player take such a beating without more whistle action.

Now he is allowed to use his offhand to guard his dribble a lot and fend off defenders, but I think that's pretty much necessary given the kind of beating he takes on his typical drive to the basket.

Posted by mpowell | May 14, 2008 11:52 AM

Garnett clearly fouled him but he was driving so hard that it almost didn't seem fair to call a foul on KG.

Right. And to be honest, what was KG doing there? I know he got there late, but why bother with the lazy shove to his abdomen once the ball is halfway thru the rim? That was odd.

Posted by Brent | May 14, 2008 11:52 AM

Brent,
Well, KG had never been "posterized," so he wanted to see what all the fuss was about. In all seriousness, anyone saying that KG should have won the MVP was absolutely kidding themselves. He's a great player, but after seeing these playoffs, its almost laughable.

Posted by Ted2 | May 14, 2008 11:56 AM

While I agree with Matt's main point it should be noted that:

The hornets have a small forward with lots of serious playoff experience - Peja Stojakovitch. Not only in the NBA but in international play. He scores, rebounds and is deadly from the 3 point line.He is an important component to New Orleans success, as he was in Sacramento.

Posted by patrick205 | May 14, 2008 12:07 PM

"No team has won the Finals without winning at least the first round the year before."

As far as I can tell, the last team to win the Finals without winning a playoff series the previous year were the 1975 Golden State Warriors.

They finished 5th in the Western Conference the previous year, but only 4 teams made the playoffs back then.

The Warriors did, however, win a playoff series in 1973.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 14, 2008 12:08 PM

Anyone heard anything about Tyson Chandler? That "bruise" he got on the top of his foot sure sounded to me during the game like it had the potential to be a broken bone.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 14, 2008 12:12 PM

Ted2,
The Spurs were knocked out by Utah in the 2nd round in Duncan's rookie year. They won the championship the next year, which was strike shortened.

Posted by Chris | May 14, 2008 12:12 PM

I'd say there is something qualitatively different about playing the same team several games in a row. Teams learn each other very well and make adjustments; the element of surprise is gone. In this sense, playoff basketball is mentally tougher. Teams need to be more resourceful and show a few new wrinkles. And of course, emotions are higher. All other things being equal, having been through the experience before is beneficial.

Hypothesis: Phoenix is a team with such a unique style, the sheer novelty of it was an advantage. Opponents who saw them only a few times over six months couldn't adjust effectively. When they saw the Suns four games in a row, however, opponents could "solve" them.

Posted by Dix Hill | May 14, 2008 12:16 PM

Correction: The '77 Blazers won the NBA Championship coming off of 6 straight losing seasons. There's your answer.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 14, 2008 12:19 PM

Chris and LaFollette,
Great future trivia question. Thanks for the info. Too lazy here to do any research myself.

Posted by Ted2 | May 14, 2008 12:29 PM

I'll add that LeBron's inexperience relative to the veteran Pistons didn't seem to matter much last season.

It did matter the year before, when the Cavs surprisingly took a 3-2 lead on Detroit in the 2nd round but couldn't clinch at home and got killed in Game 7. The next year, with the added benefit of that experience, they got past Detroit in the conference finals. That wasn't the only difference between those two series, but clearly the experience of coming up just short against Detroit in the previous year was a key stepping stone for Cleveland in getting to the finals the next year.

Back to the original point of this thread...I definitely thought the Hornets' lack of playoff experience would keep them from getting very far this season, but clearly it hasn't, which really is a pleasant (if you're a Hornets fan) surprise. I'd also add that the Celtics' lack of experience together as a group is arguably showing up for the first time in the playoffs, despite their dominance throughout the regular season.

Posted by Haggai | May 14, 2008 12:29 PM

LaFollette Progressive,
Technically you are right... but it was the first season of the NBA-ABA merger sooooo can we just ignore that exception?

Posted by Chris | May 14, 2008 12:33 PM

Hypothesis: Phoenix is a team with such a unique style, the sheer novelty of it was an advantage. Opponents who saw them only a few times over six months couldn't adjust effectively. When they saw the Suns four games in a row, however, opponents could "solve" them.

I kind of see that. In the three full seasons under D'Antoni's freakish offense, the Suns lost twice to the eventual champion Spurs and once to a 60-win Mavs team when Stoudemire was coming back from surgery. The system the Suns run hides a lot of weaknesses in their personnel — they simply didn't match up well with those teams.

That said, the Spurs didn't solve the Suns last season. David Stern did. If not for that ridiculous ruling, I don't think we're having this conversation, the Suns don't trade for Shaq, D'Antoni stays in Phoenix, etc.

Posted by Baseballhead | May 14, 2008 12:39 PM

I think it's silly to say that teams could "solve" the Suns, or that the Suns were a bad playoff team. In 2 of the 3 years of the Nash-Marion era, they lost to the Spurs, who eventually won the title. All that tells you is that the Spurs were better. The Suns could have been the 2nd-best team in the league every year, which I think they probably were. The other time, they lost to the Mavs, who went on the Finals. It's not that the Suns system somewhow didn't enable them to match up with those teams -- it's that those teams were better than the Suns.

Thus, Steve Kerr is a moron. The solution wasn't to scrap the whole system and bring in Shaq, the solution was to surround the awesome Nash-Amare-Marion core with a better supporting cast. Including a backup pg, 3-pt shooters and some decent defenders.

Posted by too many steves | May 14, 2008 1:04 PM

Matt may or may not be right, but he backed it up with exactly zero real analysis.

Here is what I would like to see. First, we need a non-playoff measure of how good a particular team might be--something like regular season record, perhaps--to form a basis for comparison. Then, we need to identify roughly continuous teams which made the playoffs over an extended time. Then we can compare with this independent measure to see if teams on average tended to underperform in the playoffs earlier in these extended series and overperformed later in these series.

Or something like that. But I am not going to do it myself.

Posted by DTM | May 14, 2008 1:09 PM

"I thought that the Hornets' lack of playoff experience would hurt them in postseason play."

I'm an Angels fan, and I remember the experience bit being all the talk before the 2002 ALDS against the Yankees (which the Angels won 3 games to 1). All you heard was that "the Angels had only one player with post-season experience (Kevin Appier)." Well, after game one of that series, the Angels had 25 players with post-season experience.

In short, experience is pretty overrated. Once the ball is tipped, it's just another basketball game.

Posted by Seitz | May 14, 2008 1:45 PM

Rebounds aside, Timmy looked awful last night.

Posted by Petey | May 14, 2008 1:51 PM

Seitz,
I agree. Especially after you get out of the first round. As long as you can match the playoffs intensity, you should be fine. IF you have the talent, of course...

Posted by Stacy | May 14, 2008 1:55 PM

That wasn't the only difference between those two series

Like a 64 win season versus a 53 win season. The Pistons have also firmly established a reputation of apathy throughout vaious playoff series- and then turning back into the REAL Pistons when they're up against the wall (see: 1st round 2008 vs. 76ers). Thus, the Cavs probably weren't supposed to be able to finish them off in 2006 because the Pistons really underachieved to let them get up 3-2.

I think experience is, at best, secondary to all that.

Posted by Brent | May 14, 2008 2:21 PM

@ Ted2, Chris

The Spurs team that won in '99 was also loaded with a lot of playoff vets who'd been winning consistently since David Robinson arrived and turned the team around. The season they lucked out and grabbed Duncan with the #1 pick was a total fluke: Robinson was out with an injured back for most of the year.

Other that that 22-win season, they've been in the playoffs every year since '89, and since Pop took over he's made a point of stocking up on reliable vets (Kerr, Horry, Finley, Mario Elie, Kurt Thomas, etc) instead of young legs. As a Spurs fan, this occasionally drives me completely insane ("We signed ANOTHER 35-year old? Oh, hot dog!"). But it pays huge dividends when Steve Kerr comes off the bench in the 4th totally cold, nails a bunch of threes, and sends the Mavs home.

Posted by Christastrophe | May 14, 2008 3:23 PM

@ Ted2, Chris

The Spurs team that won in '99 was also loaded with a lot of playoff vets who'd been winning consistently since David Robinson arrived and turned the team around. The season they lucked out and grabbed Duncan with the #1 pick was a total fluke: Robinson was out with an injured back for most of the year.

Other that that 22-win season, they've been in the playoffs every year since '89, and since Pop took over he's made a point of stocking up on reliable vets (Kerr, Horry, Finley, Mario Elie, Kurt Thomas, etc) instead of young legs. As a Spurs fan, this occasionally drives me completely insane ("We signed ANOTHER 35-year old? Oh, hot dog!"). But it pays huge dividends when Steve Kerr comes off the bench in the 4th totally cold, nails a bunch of threes, and sends the Mavs home.

Posted by Christastrophe | May 14, 2008 3:26 PM

thanks ted2, chris, lafollette, christastrophe: i had to be out all day and couldn't follow up myself. fundamentally, you've all said the same thing: it's tough to win in the finals if you've never been in the playoffs before, but that still suggests that experience qua experience may well be overrated: typically, it's a matter of teams getting better.

now, haggai used experience in a different way: a losing experience as a form of motivation. that certainly makes sense, and we've certainly seen teams knock on the door, lose, and come back more motivated (and, conceivably, because this is a slippery issue, more careful with the ball, with blocking out, and with foul shooting).

haggai's other point relates back to the first one: having experience together as a team is, i think, quite crucial. the celts will give us a good chance to evaluate that this year....

Posted by howard | May 14, 2008 8:37 PM

PS. petey, if duncan had the same flu bug my wife did last week, it would explain a lot....

Posted by howard | May 14, 2008 8:41 PM

I don't think anyone should be giving credit to Chris Paul for New Orleans winning without also mentioning David West. The argument can be made that West is equally if not more important to their wins.

Hard to believe that in this thread David West is only mentioned once, and that being a throwaway comment.

Posted by Jimm | May 15, 2008 4:03 AM