The Mavericks and Celtics held back for several days in the finals, and I couldn't think of anything new, so let's just talk about it briefly.
celt
The Boston-Celtics have the third-highest regular season net efficiency (+11.7) in history this season, and the top 10 teams in the history of net efficiency have all won the championship except for the Warriors in 2016 - maybe you haven't watched the Celtics games, but this is a "work in progress" top team in history: four All-Stars in the year, led by a star for a while, full of offensive and defensive ends and performances (first in the offensive league, second in the defensive league).
These data are just "brushed out" in the east?
Against Western teams, the Celtics have a 76.7 percent win rate and a terrifying 14.4 net efficiency, which is better than they have against Eastern teams.
Do you think they're just three-point teams and better at playing the regular season?
But in fact, the Celtics not only shoot three-pointers, they are third in the league in singles scoring on the front frame and second in the league in singles scoring on the back - the meaning of the "ultimate five-out lineup" is not to stand all five people standing outside to shoot, but in singles and tactics, as much as possible to eliminate the help defense and rim protection, to create misplaced or comfortable one-on-one space - its ultimate meaning is to improve the "shooting quality".
The Boston Celtics in the 2023-24 season are by far the most extreme team in NBA history to run the "five outsides" to the extreme - not only can they shoot all five, but all five can hold the ball, handle the ball, and score independently, and when they shorten the rotation to eight, this "five outside" system can also cover 48 minutes (Horford is also a top spatial center on the bench)
With historic "space" and "shooting quality," and 4-5 All-Star attackers who can take advantage of that advantage — the combination of the two creates the most offensive efficiency in Celtics history.
And in addition to the offense, the Celtics' defense is just as terrifying.
They not only have the league's top 3 defender Zhu Holiday who is personally pointed out by Doncic, but also have White, Brown, and Tatum, three defensive leaders who take into account size, speed, and strength;
Porzingis' rim protection and interference shooting ability is seriously underrated, and in fact has been one of the league's strongest within 14 feet in the past few years, surpassing Anthony Davis in the number of interference shots and reduction rate this season, behind Gobert and Embiid;
Top defense resources + frame protection resources can basically be equated with top defense, and the Celtics' advantages don't stop there - compared to defensive resources, the Celtics are more restrained by the Mavericks in the way of defense:
Just as the Mavericks can use the presence of Gobert, McDaniels, and Lee Kyle to target the Timberwolves, the Celtics can also use the Mavericks' Jones and PJ Washington to target the Mavericks.
In the past few years, the Celtics have been one of the teams that use the center wrong defense strategy the most, and in the regular season against the Mavericks, the Celtics have been using Tatum's wrong defense of Lively and Gafford who are not strong in the low post, and Porzingis and Horford, who need to defend and retreat, from the Mavericks' 1-5 block, and Tatum will directly change the defense during the 1-5 block, not allowing the Mavericks to name the center.
At the same time, Porzingis and Horford, who play against "pseudo-shooter" Jones, will empty the opponent to recover the inside line to protect the frame, making it more difficult for the Mavericks to attack on the strong side. (We'll expand on this set of errors later)
Overall, the Celtics are an all-time top team with a well-rounded offense and defense, and with full health, they are a team with no shortcomings from a team building perspective:
There's a core press, a two-team level, the league's best two-in-command, two point guards who can skillfully control the tempo, a center with rim protection, projection, and a good low post - all of the above five people, all of them are offensive and defensive, and the single court has the worst impact and is close to the level of an All-Star, and all have years of playoff experience, four of them have played in the Finals.
Yes, I know that the reason many people look down on the Celtics is that Tatum is not as good as Doncic in terms of "single-body offensive development".
However, not every time the team with the "strongest single" wins the series: the Pistons in '04 didn't even come close to the level of the "OK combination", Pierce in '08 was no better than Kobe, and the Spurs in '14 neither Leonard nor Parker could compare to LeBron.
The Celtics don't really have a "super attacker" like Doncic or Jokic, but they do have five main attackers who can play both offense and defense.
And, don't underestimate Tatum. If you take a good look at what Jason is doing on the court, you will know that he deserves his best team for a while.
That's all about the Celtics, and then we'll talk about the Mavericks.
Lone ranger
The Mavericks have been the biggest underdogs of the playoffs this season, and they have had some disappointing voices in the first three rounds, but they all made it through – which has given their players and supporters a lot of confidence.
Dallas is my second home team, and Luka Doncic is my favorite of the younger generation. I can't wait for them to lift the O'Brien Cup – but at this point, I have to look at it from the perspective of a football critic and not a fan.
To put it simply, Dallas' strategy and winning logic in the first three rounds did not hold up against the Celtics.
And it's the same on both offensive and defensive ends.
The Mavericks on the offensive end have Doncic and Kyrie Irving, and we all know what they're capable of, but that's a bit of a point later — let's talk about Dallas' real improvement in reaching the Finals this season: their defense.
In this season's playoffs, the Mavericks faced the Clippers, Thunder, and Timberwolves, and the three-round series defended a defensive efficiency of 111.1 per 100 rounds - ranking seventh in the league.
Leaving aside the Clippers without Leonard, the Thunder's offensive efficiency in the regular season was 118.3, down to 111.8 against the Mavericks, and the Timberwolves' offensive efficiency was 114.6 in the regular season and 112.1 against the Mavericks - considering that Alexander and Edwards actually have some "playoff upshift" attributes, the Mavericks have really defended well this year.
But the defense is good, it's just a conclusion, we still need to analyze the specific problem - how did they defend well?
Friends who can't watch the first three rounds know that the Mavericks' playoff implementation is almost a set of defensive strategies - the center retreats or mistakes the defense to ensure Shuangfu's frame protection and rebounding position; Empty the "pseudo-shooter" on the weak side of the opponent, strengthen the strength of the strong side to help defense, and rely on the numerical advantage of the strong side to eliminate the lower shun.
On the basis of this defensive system, the Mavericks played a good defensive effect - Jones and Washington were close to the opponent with the ball, and were able to use their height and reach to interfere with the opponent's singles; Lively and Gafford are a pillar of optimus on the inside; Defenders on the weak side will also frequently empty their opponents to help defend the downdraft and breakthrough on the strong side.
They relied on this defensive system to limit Alexander and Edwards – but now the opposite Celtics are in a completely different situation.
Against the Celtics, the alignment between Lively and Gafford was difficult to do, and the Celtics didn't have any players who could make them misplace.
Take a look at Porzingis and Horford's shooting heatmaps, both of whom are very good "non-corner shooters" - Porzingis shoots over 40% from three-point range on both wings, and he also has amazing range; Horford shot 46 percent from three-point range at the top of the arc and on the left side, with the top of the arc shooting a whopping 50 percent in both the regular season and the playoffs.
The opposing center has a three-point threat at the top of the arc and on the wing, which is a huge test for the defensive positions of Lively and Gafford - you can't really put them to shoot the same open threes, but the top of the arc and the wing are too far away from the basket to protect the rim and shoot.
This means that the most important link in the Mavericks' defense, the "center frame", will be tested in this round of the series - if you don't recycle the basket frame, the meaning of playing center is questionable; But recovering the basket is tantamount to challenging the opponent's "strengths" gamble.
It's not a question of how many three-pointers Horford and Platinum can shoot — Lively doesn't come out, the Green Army is 3-2, 4-3 on the line, and they have too many ways to create high-quality shots - just like in the second meeting of the regular season, the Green Army threw 138 points from a wide open position, even if Doncic couldn't stop it on the offensive end and scored 37 points?
As long as the Green Army's offensive end is secure, they won't be afraid of Luka Doncic and Kyrie Irving scoring.
They can eliminate 1-5 pick-and-rolls by switching defenses after making mistakes, and not allowing Eastern Europe to play inside and outside connections with centers; Eastern Europe forcibly found the counterparts of Platinum and Horford to block and dismantle, and if they don't block and dismantle inside, the quality of the cover will decline, and they can't play a 1+1 threat:
Jones and Washington's downdraft threat is not as good as Leverley and Gafford and is more likely to be interfered with by the sinking Platinum and Horford, and Tatum or Brown, who are also against Lively and Gafford can also help the frame; In the big picture, Jones and Washington are both poor non-corner shooters, and their cover-out shots are a situation that the Celtics would like to see – and in the end, the Mavericks' offense could easily become a one-on-one and ball-handling shot from Eastern Europe. (That's the case with the regular season)
For the Mavericks to win this series, there are huge problems to solve on both ends of the floor, and most of them are "root cause problems" in the team's configuration.
Let's summarize briefly:
1. How to solve the problem that the opponent's offense adopts five outside, the defense is 4-5 wrong, and the value of the center is weakened?
2. The opponent has more ball carriers, and the Mavericks usually have a weak defensive ring, and two players with poor opposition flexibility (Irving, Shuangfu), and cannot increase the coordination and defense as much as the previous three rounds, how to solve the alignment problem?
3. With the huge gap in "shooting quality", can Eastern Europe force it to be more efficient with its individual ability? (For example, when the exam paper is far more difficult than the other party, you still get a higher score)
Needless to say, I'm sure you can feel the difficulty of the Mavericks' "mission" — it's a bit similar to the Lakers playing the Nuggets, where the Nuggets only need to play 80% to win the game, while the Lakers have to play 100% or even 120% every game.
And at the end of the article, I'm going to talk a little off-topic.
From my point of view, this year's finals – the content of the competition itself is interesting, and the discussion and debate of the competition are equally interesting.
We're not talking about a bickering between Mavericks fans and Celtics fans. Rather, it is a "disagreement" between critics and fans.
Through my observations in the past few days, I have found that there seems to be a serious disagreement between fans and commentators about the Finals predictions: the vast majority of commentators are overwhelmingly optimistic about the Celtics, while the majority of fans seem to favor the Mavericks.
We won't comment on who is right and who is wrong, but only the phenomenon itself: in the final analysis, this is actually a collision of two basketball concepts.
Critics believe more in "science", while fans believe more in "heroes".
The fans' preference for emotion stems from the tireless "star-making movement" and "heroic narrative" of the media and the league - every season, no matter who wins the championship, there will be a "hero" standing on the center stage, and many times, the media will weaken the role of the team to a certain extent, portraying the championship process as a hero's personal growth epic - the more typical case is "The Last Dance". (This is a simple example, not a derogatory one)
The league's long-term behavior has changed many fans' understanding and aesthetics of basketball to a certain extent - superstitious about individual heroism, valuing the individual more than the team, and having more emotional views on the game than rationality.
It's not everyone's fault.
Football critics' bias towards rationality stems from their more in-depth study of the game - after a more in-depth analysis of all aspects of the game, you will find that the heroic performances you have seen, the victory or defeat of the game are not for no reason - "heroes" are important, but opponents, teammates, strategies, styles, etc. are no less important than the heroes themselves, and even many times can be said to be "the times create heroes".
Except for a few "hand randomness" biases, most things on the basketball court can find the "science" behind them - the game is far more diverse and logical than the media advertises, and predicting the game based on a single factor often leads to wrong conclusions.
As a result, commentators tend to analyze the game more diversely – from the data, to the alignment, to the rotation, to the technical and tactical game – to quantify all aspects of the game in a way as close to mathematical as possible, weigh the advantages and disadvantages, learn from past samples, and finally come up with predictions.
This is the reason why football critics are "rational".
At this time, some people will ask - it is so powerful, but many football critics, including many commentators and experts, are not still wrong in their predictions?
Yes, of course, ball critics can be wrong.
First of all, although the critics are more "rational", we are also human beings, and there is also an "emotional" part - sometimes we are also disturbed by "proximal effects" and "stereotypes", overestimating the influence of some elements or underestimating the influence of some elements:
For example, my prediction of the Timberwolves in the last round was wrong, and looking back, I think that I overestimated the Timberwolves' defensive ability and underestimated the ability of Eastern Europe to hit the sinking defense due to the performance of the Timberwolves in the first two rounds and the inherent concept of "defense wins the championship", and to a certain extent, ignored the Mavericks' weak-side contraction strategy to restrain the Timberwolves' configuration.
Ball critics are not robots, and they can't be "exhausted" or "absolutely rational", which is the first mistake we may make.
Secondly, there is a saying that the more you know, the more you don't know - while realizing the diversity of the game, many factors can also become "distractions" in our judgments:
It can be imagined as a complex equation, and even if some people can understand it all, they may end up negligently miscalculating at a certain step; And some people can only understand part of it, but they happen to get the result right – especially when the result of the equation is only right or wrong, this phenomenon will occur more often.
Critics aren't necessarily right, fans aren't necessarily wrong.
However, the game preview is still the most meaningful part of the basketball article - when we list the characteristics of both sides, the alignment, the strengths and weaknesses, the strategy, the X-factor, whether the conclusion is right or wrong, these things help fans to better watch the game and understand the game - what is expected and what is exceeded - what is expected is the charm of sports science, and what exceeds expectations is the charm of sports.
For example, if you don't know that the world record in the 100 meters is 9.74 seconds, then you won't be surprised that Bolt ran a time of 9.58, and if you don't know that the Chinese men's basketball team has reached the top 8 of the Olympics, then you won't regret that the men's basketball team is not in the Olympics now.......
We don't have to care about the predicted results, the objective "content" in the article is the purpose of our article.
(If I had to listen to one result — I'm in favor of the Mavericks, but more bullish on the Celtics.) ）