Teams that make it to the NBA Finals and their shot distribution

[MFFL]

Since 1989, only 2 teams have made it to the NBA Finals with 3 players taking over 1000 shots. Neither of them won. And both of those teams were before 1990. Successful NBA teams now go through at MOST two options. The Mavs have 3 players this year with over 1000 shots - Dirk Nowitzki at 1195 shots, Michael Finley at 1039 shots, and Steve Nash at 1002 shots. For them Mavs to make it to the finals, history would suggest that they should quit spreading the ball around so much and concentrate the offense.

NBA Title Winners - Players with over 1000 shots

1989
Detroit Piston won the NBA Title 63-19
Isiah Thomas had 1227 shots
Beat Los Angeles Lakers 57-25
Magic Johnson had 1137 shots & James Worthy had 1282 shots & Byron Scott had 1198 shots

1990
Detroit Piston won the NBA Title 59-23
Isiah Thomas had 1322 shots & Joe Dumars had 1058 shots
Beat Portland Trailblazers 59-23
Clyde Drexler had 1357 shots & Kevin Duckworth had 1146 shots & Jerome Kersey had 1085 shots

1991
Chicago Bulls won the NBA Title 61-21
Michael Jordan had 1837 shots & Scottie Pippen had 1153 shots
Beat Los Angeles Lakers 58-24
James Worthy had 1455 shots & Byron Scott had 1051 shots

1992
Chicago Bulls won the NBA Title 67-15
Michael Jordan had 1818 shots & Scottie Pippen had 1359 shots
Beat Portland Trailblazers 57-25
Clyde Drexler had 1476 shots & Terry Porter had 1129 shots

1993
Chicago Bulls won the NBA Title 57-25
Michael Jordan had 2003 shots & Scottie Pippen had 1327 shots
Beat Phoenix Suns 62-20
Charles Barkley had 1376 shots & Dan Majerle had 1096 shots

1994
Houston Rockets won the NBA Title 58-24
Hakeem Olajuwon had 1694 shots
Beat New York Knicks 57-25
Patrick Ewing had 1503 shots

1995
Houston Rockets won the NBA Title 47-35
Hakeem Olajuwon had 1545 shots
Beat Orlando Magic 57-25
Shaquille O'Neal had 1594 shots & Anferne Hardaway had 1142 shots

1996
Chicago Bulls won the NBA Title 72-10
Michael Jordan had 1850 shots & Scottie Pippen had 1216 shots
Beat Seattle SuperSonics 64-18
Gary Payton had 1276 shots

1997
Chicago Bulls won the NBA Title 69-13
Michael Jordan had 1892 shots & Scottie Pippen had 1366 shots
Beat Utah Jazz 64-18
Karl Malone had 1571 shots

1998
Chicago Bulls won the NBA Title 62-20
Michael Jordan had 1893 shots
Beat Utah Jazz 62-20
Karl Malone had 1472 shots

1999
San Antonio Spurs won the NBA Title 37-13
Tim Duncan had 845 shots in 50 games (projects to 1385)
Beat New York Knicks 27-23
Allan Houston had 703 shots in 50 games (projects to 1152)

2000
Los Angeles Lakers won the NBA Title 67-15
Shaquille O'Neal had 1665 shots & Kobe Bryant had 1183 shots
Beat Indiana Pacers 56-26
Jalen Rose had 1196 shots & Reggie Miller had 1041 shots

2001
Los Angeles Lakers won the NBA Title 56-26
Shaquille O'Neal had 1422 shots & Kobe Bryant had 1510 shots
Beat Philadelphia 76ers 56-26
Allen Iverson had 1813 shots

[nekked]

i find your stats very interesting, but i have one question to ask...

did those teams focus their offense on one or two guys becuase it was the way to win, or because it was the only two effective options they had...i.e. bulls, magic, sixers, rockets, sonics?

also, since you are so adept at acquiring stats, i would be interested in seeing how many teams each year have 3 guys take 1000 shots?

i guess that's two questions...oh well, counting was never my strong suit...oops, i'm an accountant (no, not for arthur anderson)...

[MavKikiNYC]

<< For them Mavs to make it to the finals, history would suggest that they should quit spreading the ball around so much and concentrate the offense. >>



Why stop at Y1989?

Even in 1989, a strong argument can be made that the Lakers lost due to hamstring injuries to Johnson and Scott, rather than a flawed offensive structure.

But what about the 1980s Lakers (Johnson, Adbul-Jabbar, Worthy) v. Celtics (Bird, McHale, Parrish)? Or Philly with Erving, Malone, and Toney?

Also, the style of play in the NBA changed in the 1990s to a slower, more defensive-oriented, more deliberate tempo, with fewer shots and less scoring. To limit your review to the 1990s would seem to skew the data.

The NBA has been in a quandary for the last couple of years trying to figure out how to reverse the trend toward lower-scoring games. The league has implemented changes to try to quicken the pace of the game. Nelson was ahead of the curve on these moves, emphasizing an uptempo game, ball movement and 3-pt shooting.

Where the Mavs will go against history is to win the NBA championship with mediocre/poor/inconsistent defense.

[MFFL]

I limited myself to 1989+ because those were all the stats I could find. Besides the style of basketball played in the 80's was radically different than it is now. It is true that an up-tempo scoring style of basketball may be the wave of the future - I'm not going to guess WHEN it will arrive.

[MavKikiNYC]

I think Nelson is going for a 1980s style of play.

[MFFL]

<< I think Nelson is going for a 1980s style of play. >>



Maybe it will work. Recent history suggests that the Mavs need to narrow their offensive focus slightly.

[scooterj5]

Isn't 1000 shots a completely arbitrary number? You haven't showed the 3rd highest shot, so there is nothing to compare our 3rd scorer to. You need to take percentages into account too.

[scooterj5]

<< Recent history suggests that the Mavs need to narrow their offensive focus slightly. >>



Well that's only if Dallas wants to win in the same scoring style as the Bulls, Lakers, Rockets and Spurs in recent years. We are unique. Drawing anything else from these stats is stretching it.

[grbh]

But what choice does this team have? Let's look at the winning teams from 1989 for a moment. They all have something very significant that the Mavs don't

1989 Pistons, 1990 Pistons Great Defense
1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998 Bulls: Possibly the best player ever
1994, 1995: The Best Big Man in the Game
1999: The second and third best big men in the game
2000, 2001: The Best big man in the game

I just don't see how the Mavs have any choice in how they try to win. They don't have the great Defense of the Pistons, they don't have Jordan, and they don't have the most dominant big man in the game.
If someone was to suggest that Nash, and Finley take fewer than 1000 shots per game then that is only 12 per game. I don't think that is enough.

[MFFL]

<< But what choice does this team have? >>



Very few others unfortunately. The Mavs are not a good defensive team and most of the stars here will never be more than adequate defensively. But while the only way for us to win is to buck the current NBA trend, I have my doubts as to whether the Mavs current system will be successful.

[scooterj5]

<< But while the only way for us to win is to buck the current NBA trend >>



So you suggest playing like defensive teams, even though we are not one? Last time I checked, you win by outscoring your opponents. I do not understand the importance of the 1000 mark-- why 1000?

[grbh]

Take heed tought their is hope. I don't think the Mavs will win it this year, but in the future I think they have a shot. Granted some will say basketball was different in the 80s, but was it basketball that was different or the good teams played a slightly different style. Take a look at the shooting numbers of the NBA champs in the 10 years preceeding 1989.

1987-1988 Lakers: Scott 1248, Worthy 1161, Magic 996 (But he missed 10 games)
1986-1987 Lakers: Magic 1308, Worthy 1207, Scott 1134
1985-1986 Boston: Bird 1606, Dennis Johnson 1066, McHale 978 ( He missed 13 games)
1984-1985 Lakers: Kareem 1207, Worthy 1066, Scott 1066
1983-1984 Boston: Bird 1542, Parish 1140, McHale 1055
1982-1983 Philadelphia: Didn't take the time to look up, but I doubt they had 3
1981-1982 Lakers: Magic 1036, Kareem 1301, Jamaal Wilkes 1417
1980-1981 Boston: Bird 1503, Parish 1166, McHale 666

That takes us through the 80s. In that sampling 4 out of 8 times three players took over 1000 shots per game. On two other occasions players were right on the cusp, and if not for injury certainly would have surpassed that number.

Has the NBA trend changed to a single player, or duo taking the championship, yes. Can it revert back to the days of the trio (i.e Bird, Parish, McHale, and Magic, Kareem, Worthy). I hope so for the Mavericks sake.

[MFFL]

grbh - I hope you are right. I really want an NBA championship in Dallas. I was just pointing out the trends that exist right now.

[scooterj5]

Can you answer my questions?

[MFFL]

<< Can you answer my questions? >>



Yes

[Murphy3]

hmmm, good answer

[scooterj5]

The statistics are pointless, since 1000 shots is a meaningless, abritrary number.

[MFFL]

Using that definition, all numbers are arbritary and thus meaningless.

[scooterj5]

Yes, unless 1000 is relative to something. Jeez.

You haven't explained the importance of 1000 shots and you haven't provided any comparison for the 3rd highest field goal attempts from the other teams that did not have 3 over 1000.

[Murphy3]

did anyone ever explain why rushing for 100 yards in a game is so important..why they picked that number?..why not 75?
no, they didn't

but there is a certain place where trends start to occur..like with the emmitt smith and rushing for over a hundred yards..

virtually all stats can simply be swept aside as meaningless by some... sports and general can be swept aside as meaningless by some..however, we know that it is not true.

[grbh]

I agree and the trand over the last 10 years or so is that 1 or 2 people who dominate the scoring (hence have more shots) win titles. In the previous 10 years the trend was the more scorers the better. Obviously, I would like to see that trend revert back to the 80s

[scooterj5]

<< did anyone ever explain why rushing for 100 yards in a game is so important..why they picked that number?..why not 75?
no, they didn't >>



I don't follow American football, but 100 yards is probably a good measure of how well someone has played. I have NO IDEA the above statistics is supposed to represent. Why choose 1000 field goals? Wouldn't the percentage of the team field goals be far more accurate, since it doesn't discriminate against teams who score more or less.

[/i] >>

but there is a certain place where trends start to occur..like with the emmitt smith and rushing for over a hundred yards..

virtually all stats can simply be swept aside as meaningless by some... sports and general can be swept aside as meaningless by some..however, we know that it is not true. >>

[/i]

Okay, maybe I should post an 'article' about how NONE of the past 10 championship teams have scored over 105 points per game, but Dallas has this year. SO WE HAVE TO BE SCORING LESS TO WIN?!?!

You can't just post numbers you need to explain their relevance.

[StrangeBrew13]

The Mavs would be the first with 4 people over 1000 shots(Dirk,Mike,Steve,Nick). Also, LaFrentz has over 900 shots.

[Nash13]

As the popular saying goes, There's a first time for everything.