Does the NBA have more volatility with emergence of 3ptrs? Or always had volatility?

[Magic Is Magic]

And if it has more volatility with the 3 point shoot, is this good or bad? I wanted to look at every playoff series where an 8 seed came close to beating a 1 seed; where an 8 seed beat a 1 seed; where teams came back from 3-1 down; and where teams tried to come back from being down 3-0. It should also be noted that from 1984 to 2002 the 1st round was only 5 games. In 2003 the NBA introduced a 7 game, 1st round playoff series.

Instances where a 1 seed was beaten by an 8 seed
-1994 Denver over Seattle
-2007 Golden State over Dallas
-2011 Memphis over San Antonio
-2012 Philadelphia over Chicago

Instances where a 1 seed beats the 8 seed, but it's a close call because the 8 seed pushed it to a game 5/7
-1991 Portland over Seattle
-1993 Phoenix over L.A. Lakers
-1994 Atlanta over Miami
-1998 Utah over Houston
-2000 Indiana over Milwaukee
-2000 L.A. Lakers over Sacramento
-2002 New Jersey over Indiana
-2003 Detroit over Orlando
-2008 Boston over Atlanta

The other piece of information I ponder is all the teams that have blown a 3 to 1 lead.

Instances of a 3-1 comeback, Winner vs Loser
1968 Boston over Philadelphia
1970 L.A. Lakers over Phoenix
1979 Washington over San Antonio
1981 Boston over Philadelphia
1995 Houston over Phoenix
1997 Miami over New York
2003 Detroit over Orlando (1 seed vs 8 seed mentioned above)
2006 Phoenix over L.A. Lakers
2015 Houston over L.A. Clippers
2016 Golden State over Oklahoma City
2016 Cleveland over Golden State
2020 Denver over Utah
2020 Denver over L.A. Clippers

No team has come back down 3-0, but there are the teams that were down 3-0 and forced a game 7

Instances of teams down 3-0, pushes to game 7 and loses game 7
1951 New York loses to Rochester
1994 Denver loses to Utah
2003 Portland loses to Dallas

My research could very well be incomplete or wrong so feel free to chime in if I typed something wrong/inaccurate but based on what I've found it looks like there have been 13 instances where a team comes back from being down 3-1, and 7 of them (53.8%) have occurred from 2003 to 2020. The other 6 (46.1%) occurred from 1968 to 1997. I'm not entirely sure what to make of all of this but I wanted to put it out there and start a discussion and see what the great basketball minds think about it. A few things that caught my eye are

-Of the 13 times an 8 seed took a 1 seed to a game 5/7 the 8 seed only won 4 of those series. The 1 seed won 9 times (69.2%).

-Before Denver did it, Houston was the only franchise to ever come back from being down 3-1 more than once, and that took place over 20 years (1995 and 2015). But with Denver they did it twice in the same playoff run in 2020. No other franchise has come back from being down 3-1 more than once besides Houston and Denver.

-Phoenix, Philadelphia, and L.A. Clippers are the only franchises to blow a 3-1 lead more than once, and the Clippers did this in only 5 years (2015 and 2020).

[8Ball]

There is a lot more volatility when teams can manufacture higher points per possessions on both teams.

It just takes 1 off night defensively or 1 role player offensive 3 point explosion to crack 110+ points.

Its harder to defend now than ever.

[90sgoat]

It has much more volatility theoretically, this can't be argued, because 3 point shots have lower percentages so variance is higher.

The problem is that the league has instituted 7 games in all series, which makes upsets much harder.

If the game was still 5 games in the first round, then you'd see a more upsets.

[Shooter]

There is a lot more volatility when teams can manufacture higher points per possessions on both teams.

It just takes 1 off night defensively or 1 role player offensive 3 point explosion to crack 110+ points.

Its harder to defend now than ever.

Bingo

No more predictabe safety cone defenses these days

Pippen would be even more valubale in the modern era

[8Ball]

It has much more volatility theoretically, this can't be argued, because 3 point shots have lower percentages so variance is higher.

The problem is that the league has instituted 7 games in all series, which makes upsets much harder.

If the game was still 5 games in the first round, then you'd see a more upsets.

I would agree.

With a 7 game series, the winning team has to play a minimum of 4 games, that means nearly 400 possessions to win the series, ~700 possessions by the time game 7 comes. Variance gets factored out with the higher number of possessions and actual upsets are still hard to produce.

[90sgoat]

I would agree.

With a 7 game series, the winning team has to play a minimum of 4 games, that means nearly 400 possessions to win the series, ~700 possessions by the time game 7 comes. Variance gets factored out with the higher number of possessions and actual upsets are still hard to produce.

Yeah, but then today there's the added variance of injuries, which probably also has something to do with posessions played.

[Magic Is Magic]

First of all, I did forget to include the 1999 New York Knicks who beat the 1 seed Miami Heat so there is one more 8 seed vs 1 seed "upset"




It has much more volatility theoretically, this can't be argued, because 3 point shots have lower percentages so variance is higher.

The problem is that the league has instituted 7 games in all series, which makes upsets much harder.

If the game was still 5 games in the first round, then you'd see a more upsets.

I don't think adding more games and decreasing upsets is a bad thing? It sounds like you're arguing volatility is bad with the increased 3 point shots and then volatility is good by keeping the playoff series 5 games instead of 7. Those two don't compile to form a similar argument.


I would agree.

With a 7 game series, the winning team has to play a minimum of 4 games, that means nearly 400 possessions to win the series, ~700 possessions by the time game 7 comes. Variance gets factored out with the higher number of possessions and actual upsets are still hard to produce.

Yes, this is more of my thinking. 7 game series seems like a good idea given the increased volatility of the 3 point shot.

[Airupthere]

I dont see the 99 knicks

[8Ball]

First of all, I did forget to include the 1999 New York Knicks who beat the 1 seed Miami Heat so there is one more 8 seed vs 1 seed "upset"





I don't think adding more games and decreasing upsets is a bad thing? It sounds like you're arguing volatility is bad with the increased 3 point shots and then volatility is good by keeping the playoff series 5 games instead of 7. Those two don't compile to form a similar argument.



Yes, this is more of my thinking. 7 game series seems like a good idea given the increased volatility of the 3 point shot.

Compare it with hockey where there is a lot more upsets.

Fewer goals.
1 goalie could shut out the entire other team.
The best player on the hockey team can't possibly play the entire game like in basketball.


The best NBA players can dictate a game a lot more by simply playing more. So a team with more talented NBA players can impact each possession more than a less talented team. Multiply that by 700 possessions and the best team should win out over 7 games.

[Axe]

The best NBA players can dictate a game a lot more by simply playing more. So a team with more talented NBA players can impact each possession more than a less talented team. Multiply that by 700 possessions and the best team should win out over 7 games.
They used to say that stephen curry is one of them but little did they know about the paltry impact he gave to his team without the availability of their second option in klay. Sure, he had some hot shooting nights against lottery teams and some of them against title contenders that allowed to boost his team's ranking slightly above .500 (which peaked at a mediocre .542 at best) throughout the regular season but not in a way in which he elevated his g-league teammates somehow. I mean those guys had untapped potential in them i believe but as we all know, stephen curry is not the mighty king kong at all so he never got to unlock them. This shortcoming ultimately took a toll on him when his team inevitably got swept in the losers bracket, despite him averaging 38 points in those b2b losses.

[iamgine]

And if it has more volatility with the 3 point shoot, is this good or bad? I wanted to look at every playoff series where an 8 seed came close to beating a 1 seed; where an 8 seed beat a 1 seed; where teams came back from 3-1 down; and where teams tried to come back from being down 3-0. It should also be noted that from 1984 to 2002 the 1st round was only 5 games. In 2003 the NBA introduced a 7 game, 1st round playoff series.

Instances where a 1 seed was beaten by an 8 seed
-1994 Denver over Seattle
-2007 Golden State over Dallas
-2011 Memphis over San Antonio
-2012 Philadelphia over Chicago

Instances where a 1 seed beats the 8 seed, but it's a close call because the 8 seed pushed it to a game 5/7
-1991 Portland over Seattle
-1993 Phoenix over L.A. Lakers
-1994 Atlanta over Miami
-1998 Utah over Houston
-2000 Indiana over Milwaukee
-2000 L.A. Lakers over Sacramento
-2002 New Jersey over Indiana
-2003 Detroit over Orlando
-2008 Boston over Atlanta

The other piece of information I ponder is all the teams that have blown a 3 to 1 lead.

Instances of a 3-1 comeback, Winner vs Loser
1968 Boston over Philadelphia
1970 L.A. Lakers over Phoenix
1979 Washington over San Antonio
1981 Boston over Philadelphia
1995 Houston over Phoenix
1997 Miami over New York
2003 Detroit over Orlando (1 seed vs 8 seed mentioned above)
2006 Phoenix over L.A. Lakers
2015 Houston over L.A. Clippers
2016 Golden State over Oklahoma City
2016 Cleveland over Golden State
2020 Denver over Utah
2020 Denver over L.A. Clippers

No team has come back down 3-0, but there are the teams that were down 3-0 and forced a game 7

Instances of teams down 3-0, pushes to game 7 and loses game 7
1951 New York loses to Rochester
1994 Denver loses to Utah
2003 Portland loses to Dallas

My research could very well be incomplete or wrong so feel free to chime in if I typed something wrong/inaccurate but based on what I've found it looks like there have been 13 instances where a team comes back from being down 3-1, and 7 of them (53.8%) have occurred from 2003 to 2020. The other 6 (46.1%) occurred from 1968 to 1997. I'm not entirely sure what to make of all of this but I wanted to put it out there and start a discussion and see what the great basketball minds think about it. A few things that caught my eye are

-Of the 13 times an 8 seed took a 1 seed to a game 5/7 the 8 seed only won 4 of those series. The 1 seed won 9 times (69.2%).

-Before Denver did it, Houston was the only franchise to ever come back from being down 3-1 more than once, and that took place over 20 years (1995 and 2015). But with Denver they did it twice in the same playoff run in 2020. No other franchise has come back from being down 3-1 more than once besides Houston and Denver.

-Phoenix, Philadelphia, and L.A. Clippers are the only franchises to blow a 3-1 lead more than once, and the Clippers did this in only 5 years (2015 and 2020).

The sample size seems too small here.

I think a good way to measure this would be the rate of lower seed beating a higher seed in a series within the past 10 years. Then compare that to the rate of a 10 year period before 3pt become so common (say, the 80s or 90s).

[90sgoat]

Good volatility:

Kawhi going ham on the Mavs

Bad volatiliy:

D'Antoni Rockets losing because they can't hit 18 threes in a row (live by the 3, die by the 3)
Stephen Curry fading in the playoffs cause he only shoots 3

What we want is that teams can bring more energy, more fight, ride the wave to win.

What we don't want are teams trying to level the playing field by simply spamming 3s