[h=1]More important: Stars or depth?[/h][h=3]Determining value of Spurs' supporting cast compared to Miami's big three[/h]By Kevin Pelton | ESPN Insider
The first two games of the 2014 NBA Finals have reinforced the different team-building approaches used by the Miami Heat and the San Antonio Spurs. In Game 1, eight of the nine Spurs players who stepped on the court scored at least seven points, and the other player (Boris Diaw) had 10 rebounds and six assists. The Heat answered in Game 2 with a heroic individual performance from four-time MVP LeBron James, who scored 35 points -- more than any two of his teammates combined.
As our J.A. Adande wrote in the wake of Sunday's game, the contrasting philosophies have both proven effective for Miami and San Antonio. But which has the better track record in the NBA Finals? The results might be surprising.
Best player on the court
The simplest cliché for picking a playoff series is that the team with the best player wins. That hasn't always been the case in past NBA Finals. Looking at the same 30-year sample back to 1984 I studied before the start of the series, the team with the more wins-above-replacement player (WARP) during the regular season is 18-12 (.600).
<OFFER></OFFER>
Even that result overstates how well teams with the best player in the NBA Finals do, since naturally they're more likely than not to have home court. The team with home court is slightly more likely to win (.750 versus .727) when the opposing team had the better player during the regular season, as is the case in this year's series. James finished second in the league with 21.4 WARP, far better than San Antonio's most valuable player (Tim Duncan, 9.6).
Best big three
Of course, Miami's star-centric philosophy goes beyond the MVP. The formation of this Heat team was about James joining up with fellow All-Stars Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade to form a big three. Indeed, two of Miami's last four squads rank among the best big threes in the Finals dating back to 1978.
[h=4]Best NBA finals big threes[/h]
<TBODY>
</TBODY>
Looking at the top three players by WARP is probably a better way to measure concentrated star talent. But it doesn't do any better at predicting the outcome of the NBA Finals. Teams with the better big three have gone 18-12 over the last three decades, same as best player, but fare even worse when home court is factored in. Teams with home-court advantage and less WARP from their big three are 5-1 (.833), as compared with .708 for all other home teams.
Since Wade missed so much time because of injury, and James had a relative down year, the 2014 Heat are about average for a recent Finals team in terms of WARP from its top three players (36.0 versus a 35.8 average since 1984). Still, they rank far ahead of the Spurs, who got just 25.8 WARP from their three most valuable players because Gregg Popovich did not play anyone on his roster more than 30 minutes per game, a first in NBA history.
Best supporting cast
Let's take a look at the flip side of the argument and consider the fate of deeper teams in the Finals. Now, San Antonio shines. The Spurs got 22.7 WARP from players beyond their three most valuable, a total that puts them seventh among all NBA teams dating back to 1977-78 and first among NBA finalists in that span.
[h=4]Best NBA finals supporting casts[/h]
<TBODY>
</TBODY><TBODY>
</TBODY>
The team with the stronger supporting cast by WARP has gone 17-13 in the Finals over the last three decades. This time, however, home-court advantage serves to mitigate the effect, since typically the underdog has the better supporting cast. Teams with more WARP from outside their top three players who also have home court have gone a dominant 11-2 (.846), as compared with 11-6 (.647) for home teams with weaker supporting casts.
Explaining the value of depth
Pinpointing why depth has done better than star power in the NBA Finals is challenging. Since WARP tends to reflect value on offense more than defense, it may be an extension of the fact that better defenses have had an edge in the Finals.
Another possible explanation is that teams with more depth tend to be better rested, which has also been a positive in the Finals over the last three decades. The team whose top three players by total minutes logged fewer during the regular season has gone 18-12 in the Finals during that span. Better-rested home teams (13-3, .813) have been more successful than home teams whose key players saw more minutes (9-5, .643).
Not only is that rest potentially useful at the end of a long season, teams with more depth can also ramp up their stars' minutes during the Finals in a way that's impossible for teams already maxing out their key players. That's been the case in this series, with Duncan (35.9 minutes per game) and Tony Parker (35.5) seeing far more action.
Still, those advantages weren't enough for San Antonio to overcome James during Game 2. Such is the appeal of star power, even if historically it hasn't been as effective in the Finals as depth. When stars do come through on the NBA's biggest stage, the moments are hard to forget.
The first two games of the 2014 NBA Finals have reinforced the different team-building approaches used by the Miami Heat and the San Antonio Spurs. In Game 1, eight of the nine Spurs players who stepped on the court scored at least seven points, and the other player (Boris Diaw) had 10 rebounds and six assists. The Heat answered in Game 2 with a heroic individual performance from four-time MVP LeBron James, who scored 35 points -- more than any two of his teammates combined.
As our J.A. Adande wrote in the wake of Sunday's game, the contrasting philosophies have both proven effective for Miami and San Antonio. But which has the better track record in the NBA Finals? The results might be surprising.
Best player on the court
The simplest cliché for picking a playoff series is that the team with the best player wins. That hasn't always been the case in past NBA Finals. Looking at the same 30-year sample back to 1984 I studied before the start of the series, the team with the more wins-above-replacement player (WARP) during the regular season is 18-12 (.600).
<OFFER></OFFER>
Even that result overstates how well teams with the best player in the NBA Finals do, since naturally they're more likely than not to have home court. The team with home court is slightly more likely to win (.750 versus .727) when the opposing team had the better player during the regular season, as is the case in this year's series. James finished second in the league with 21.4 WARP, far better than San Antonio's most valuable player (Tim Duncan, 9.6).
Best big three
Of course, Miami's star-centric philosophy goes beyond the MVP. The formation of this Heat team was about James joining up with fellow All-Stars Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade to form a big three. Indeed, two of Miami's last four squads rank among the best big threes in the Finals dating back to 1978.
[h=4]Best NBA finals big threes[/h]
| Team | Year | WARP | Player 1 | Player 2 | Player 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chicago | 1992 | 54.3 | Michael Jordan (21.4) | Scottie Pippen (17.2) | Horace Grant (15.6) |
| Boston | 1987 | 47.4 | Larry Bird (22.0) | Kevin McHale (16.4) | Robert Parish (9.0) |
| Utah | 1997 | 47.3 | Karl Malone (20.5) | John Stockton (17.5) | Jeff Hornacek (9.3) |
| Chicago | 1996 | 47.0 | Michael Jordan (21.7) | Scottie Pippen (15.8) | Toni Kukoc (9.6) |
| Chicago | 1991 | 47.0 | Michael Jordan (23.8) | Scottie Pippen (14.8) | Horace Grant (8.4) |
| Miami | 2011 | 45.9 | LeBron James (21.2) | Dwyane Wade (17.1) | Chris Bosh (7.6) |
| Miami | 2013 | 45.3 | LeBron James (24.8) | Dwyane Wade (12.2) | Chris Bosh (8.3) |
<TBODY>
</TBODY>
Looking at the top three players by WARP is probably a better way to measure concentrated star talent. But it doesn't do any better at predicting the outcome of the NBA Finals. Teams with the better big three have gone 18-12 over the last three decades, same as best player, but fare even worse when home court is factored in. Teams with home-court advantage and less WARP from their big three are 5-1 (.833), as compared with .708 for all other home teams.
Since Wade missed so much time because of injury, and James had a relative down year, the 2014 Heat are about average for a recent Finals team in terms of WARP from its top three players (36.0 versus a 35.8 average since 1984). Still, they rank far ahead of the Spurs, who got just 25.8 WARP from their three most valuable players because Gregg Popovich did not play anyone on his roster more than 30 minutes per game, a first in NBA history.
Best supporting cast
Let's take a look at the flip side of the argument and consider the fate of deeper teams in the Finals. Now, San Antonio shines. The Spurs got 22.7 WARP from players beyond their three most valuable, a total that puts them seventh among all NBA teams dating back to 1977-78 and first among NBA finalists in that span.
[h=4]Best NBA finals supporting casts[/h]
| Team | Year | WARP |
|---|---|---|
| San Antonio | 2014 | 22.7 |
| L.A. Lakers | 2008 | 20.8 |
| San Antonio | 2013 | 20.3 |
| L.A. Lakers | 1987 | 19.6 |
| Boston | 2008 | 18.4 |
| San Antonio | 2005 | 17.9 |
| Indiana | 2000 | 17.8 |
<TBODY>
</TBODY><TBODY>
</TBODY>
The team with the stronger supporting cast by WARP has gone 17-13 in the Finals over the last three decades. This time, however, home-court advantage serves to mitigate the effect, since typically the underdog has the better supporting cast. Teams with more WARP from outside their top three players who also have home court have gone a dominant 11-2 (.846), as compared with 11-6 (.647) for home teams with weaker supporting casts.
Explaining the value of depth
Pinpointing why depth has done better than star power in the NBA Finals is challenging. Since WARP tends to reflect value on offense more than defense, it may be an extension of the fact that better defenses have had an edge in the Finals.
Another possible explanation is that teams with more depth tend to be better rested, which has also been a positive in the Finals over the last three decades. The team whose top three players by total minutes logged fewer during the regular season has gone 18-12 in the Finals during that span. Better-rested home teams (13-3, .813) have been more successful than home teams whose key players saw more minutes (9-5, .643).
Not only is that rest potentially useful at the end of a long season, teams with more depth can also ramp up their stars' minutes during the Finals in a way that's impossible for teams already maxing out their key players. That's been the case in this series, with Duncan (35.9 minutes per game) and Tony Parker (35.5) seeing far more action.
Still, those advantages weren't enough for San Antonio to overcome James during Game 2. Such is the appeal of star power, even if historically it hasn't been as effective in the Finals as depth. When stars do come through on the NBA's biggest stage, the moments are hard to forget.
