Andrew wrote:though I think that exemplifies the knock on Nellieball; it's great to watch if you appreciate up-tempo basketball, it's certainly unique and it's definitely capable of producing good results during the regular season if the talent is there, but it's not a system built for success in the Playoffs.
I have no clue how you can make this claim. The Lakers have won 9 titles since 1979 all ranked in the top half of the league in pace (with a few top five finishes including last years team), the 1995 Rockets and 2006 Heat also won titles with top half paces. Phil Jackson has taken four teams to the Finals and won two titles using teams with top six paces. Riley has taken two Finals teams and won a title with a top six pace. Nelson has only coached five contenders with top six paces.
Or even tie it to his 50-win seasons since half of them came when the Bucks were the leagues dominant defense.
Let's look at Nelson's "contenders" (top-six SRS's):
Year-Team | Pythag | Pace Rank | Off Rank | Def Rank | SRS Rank | Playoff Defeat |
1979-80 Bucks | 51-31 | 14th of 22 | 5th | 8th | 5th | 4-3 to Sonics (16th, 8th/3rd, 3rd, lost in West Finals) |
1980-81 Bucks | 59-23 | 4th of 23 | 2nd | 3rd | 2nd | 4-3 to Sixers (5th, 8th/2nd, 1st, lost in East Finals) |
1981-82 Bucks | 55-27 | 14th | 9th | 1st | 3rd | 4-2 to Sixers (11th, 5th/7th, 2nd, lost in NBA Finals) |
1982-83 Bucks | 53-29 | 19th | 10th | 6th | 5th | 4-1 to Sixers (15th, 5th/5th, 1st, NBA Champions) |
1983-84 Bucks | 52-30 | 22nd | 12th | 2nd | 2nd | 4-1 to Celtics (15th, 6th/3rd, 1st, NBA Champions) |
1984-85 Bucks | 58-24 | 19th | 6th | 2nd | 1st | 4-0 to Sixers (16th, 4th/10th, 4th, lost in East Finals) |
1985-86 Bucks | 62-20 | 13th | 4th | 2nd | 2nd | 4-0 to Celtics (16th, 3rd/1st, 1st, NBA Champions) |
1986-87 Bucks | 51-31 | 15th | 7th | 4th | 5th | 4-3 to Celtics (19th, 3rd/9th, 3rd, lost in NBA Finals) |
1991-92 Warriors | 50-32 | 1st | 3rd | 20th | 6th | 3-1 to Sonics (18th, 9th/15th, 11th, lost in Second Round) |
2000-01 Mavericks | 53-29 | 4th | 4th | 13th | 4th | 4-1 to Spurs (23rd, 6th/1st, 1st, lost in West Finals) |
2001-02 Mavericks | 53-29 | 4th | 1st | 25th | 4th | 4-1 to Kings (1st, 3rd/6th, 1st, lost in West Finals) |
2002-03 Mavericks | 62-20 | 7th | 1st | 9th | 1st | 4-2 to Spurs (20th, 7th/3rd, 3rd, NBA Champions) |
2003-04 Mavericks | 53-29 | 2nd | 1st | 26th | 6th | 4-1 to Kings (4th, 2nd/21st, 3rd, lost in Second Round) |
Times lost to a faster paced team: 5/13
Times lost to a better offense: 6/13
Times lost to a better defense: 9/13
Times lost to a better team: 10/13
Times lost to eventual NBA Champion: 4/13
Times lost to a NBA Finalist: 6/13
Times lost to a faster team or a team within three ranks in pace: 9/13
Let's look at the other four times.
2003 Mavericks, Dirk gets hurt in the West Finals against Spurs and the team falls apart.
2001 Mavericks, they get beat by the best team in the league during the regular season.
1992 Warriors, lost last two games of the series 129-128 and 119-116.
1987 Bucks, four spots out, still below average pace. Nowhere near as good as Celtics, still take them to seven games.
And there's more to Nellieball than just an up-tempo team, as the Bucks show. Other keys are often using a point-forward, and using a vast array of lineups to create mismatches and force teams to adjust. As his Warriors (1st in pace) did to the Mavericks (28th in pace) in 2007.
Jeffx wrote:Where does "sissy-ball" get you in the playoffs when the defenses tighten up and the game becomes more half-court?
Five Conference Finals?