NBA PLAYOFF TIME .....................2025......

OKC player clearly better then the Pacers in both the regular season and the playoffs.

Pacers did improve alot in shooting efficiency margin  in the playoffs by over 2% but what typically happens is, if shooting efficiency  makes a big improvement  then rebounding falls off.

And that is exactly what happened to the Pacers.

Rebounding decreased by over 2%

So Pacers PR II stays almost the same. 

PR I will improve since shooting efficiency  carries more weight  in PR I.

Pacers were already a very poor rebounding team 8n the regular season, one of the worst to ever make the Finals but in the playoffs they drop to a pathetic low level of rebounding.

I pointed out going into conference  finals that Ant was not an elite player.

Well, I am here to tell you Haliburton is not an elite player either, nor is Siakam.

OKC has 4 players as good or better then these 2 best players on the Pacers 

Haliburton player efficiency  rating is like 21.7 when  24 is elite, he was 21.8 in playoffs.

Siakam was lower, below 20.

Haliburton win shares per 48 minutes is .188 in other works he contributes 18.8 % of each win Pacers have.

When 22 % is elite. OKC has 2 players better then Pacers best player and a 3rd player almost as good. 

One of the best if not the single best advanced metrics is VORP, measures everything a player does on the court plus what makes it great is it is acumlative. So it measures games played and minutes  played as a play continues to accumulate over more games, more minutes.

Haliburton 1 Vorp in 16 playoff games equates to like 5.1 or so over 82 games.

Elite is 7 or better.

OKC has 2 players better.

Everything points to OKC winning this series  and it may not be all that close............

I agree with your analysis, TC.  I think OKC looks historically powerful based on my analysis of blowout wins.  I'm lazy, but I may start a thread.

I took OKC -1.5 games/-250 on Saturday, but I am thinking about adding another unit or two on the series.

Of course the linesmakers know this series is a mismatch; Heritage had OKC -635 to take the series.  That is certainly the largest line I can recall for the NBA championship series.

Playoffs rebound research for TC and his many followers - the SDQL is pretty straightforward:

PO = 1 and RB - o:RB > 3.5

SU:   949-398 (7.2,70.5%)

ATS:  904-424-19 (5.3,68.1%)

In the playoffs, a team that outrebounds their opponent by 4+ in the current game wins 70.5% of the games and covers 68.1% of the games.

PO = 1 and HF and -6.7 > line > -11.7 and RB - o:RB > 3.5

SU:   191-25 (12.3,88.4%)

ATS:  140-75-1 (3.7,65.1%) 

If they are home favorites of -7 to -11.5 points, a team that outrebounds their opponent by 4+ in the current game wins 88.4% of the games and covers 65.1% of the games.  Unfortunately, I have no idea if OKC will have 4 or more RBs than IND in Game 1.

Also, IND has been damn tough opponent this postseason.  When outrebounded by 4+, they have been 7-3 SU and 6-4 ATS.

Yes books know this is a mismatch. My book has OKC -675 to win series. That is an implied 87% win rate.

That is about what I think it is, a team like OKC playing a team like Pacers , OKC  should win in the high 80%'s. Up close to 90% of the time.

Good stuff dog, thanks for posting that info, much appreciated..........

I am aware that rebounding has a high correlation to winning games. I built my PR's around correlation to winning stats l. I bought a book years ago on this subject, long before the internet. 

The reason Pacers may have won despite being outrebounded is they could have won the FG% battle or shooting efficiency  battle when adding in extra credit for 3's and FT's.

Doubt they will do this VS OKC, especially  when adding in TO's.

Let's  look at our 5 teams with  home court advantage  that were 3.25 or better in Playoff Only Power Rating.........

This is important as these teams were better in both the regular season and the playoffs.

9-1 SU in game's 1 & 2.

4 of the 5 game 1's were won by 9 pts or more

3 of the 5 teams won both home games 1 & 2 by 9 pts or more

These 5 teams combined to win 11 of 14 home games throughtout the entire series by 9 pts or more.

The play is on OKC

MY LINES ..............game 1

OKC -12.51 over Pacers

NBA Finals game 1..............

Teams better by the minimum of 1.25 in PR I and .75 in PR II and a 1 pt difference  to the closing line are 10-4 ATS in game 1's.

Of the 4 teams failed to cover they went 3-1 ATS  in game 2.

Play is on OKC

OKC -9 over Pacers --- 1.1 units

Game 1 is a very strong spot, I could have played more units.

However, as I talked about before the playoffs and during the playoffs young teams don't win titles.

But there has never been a young team this good at such an early age. So we don't have any history to go off of.

I will use caution here.

To this point there is nothing we have seen yet that these young players have cracked under pressure, if anything they have thrived.

I look at game 4 VS Twolves after OKC took a beat-down in game 3, a big important game that if OKC wins pretty much puts them in the finals.

Down the stretch of a very close game could go either way  the young stars Homgren and Williams  delivered big-time.  

But now they will be on the biggest stage, as long as things go well they should be OK but as soon as things get tough  will they handle that ?

Watching the Pacers they seem to be playing with alot of confidence, teams can't get them down. They seem to come back from anything teams dish out.

The eye test Pacers look stronger then they rate.

They look locked in with  each other, know where to be and how to play efficency together.

Will the young players Crack if Pacers hang-in with them and OKC can't deliver that knock-out punch they have done all season ?

Guys, I am not saying to back the Pacers but I think we all need to proceed with some caution on any big money on OKC.

I expect them to win this series and win some games big.

But let's be level-headed about our approach.

I will always side with my PR's and other info about history as I believe  skill & ability that can be measured by advanced meterics will win out more often then not but it is not nor ever will be 100%.

I could up my plays as the series goes on but for now I will be cautious because of OKC being so young.

I view OKC as historically strong and IND only average based on my analysis of blowout wins.  The big lines are wholly justified.

According to this website, OKC's opening season roster did have the youngest average age, but IND's was just slightly more than one year older:

https://www.nba.com/news/nba-roster-survey-facts-2024-25-season

Here I don’t know why this very simplistic query is off your radar.  If I were you I wouldn’t rely on unknown future game data. 

I mean this is pretty straightforward

playoffs = 1 and HF and series game = 1 and conference!=o:conference and streak>1

Overall it’s 18-4 ATS  and there is minimal results because it only happens once a year. 

The best team is the home favorites in the finals and right off the jump they stick it to them. 

AD and t:wins<72 and not C and game number>95 and series game<6 and p:W

Yes I agree based on history this is a pretty big mismatch...............

I would not go against OKC. 

But I would take young age into consideration to remain disciplined and be cautious throwing down any big money because of the big mismatch.

there is a Big difference dog between OKC and Pacer in age.

Pacers 2cd and 3rd players minutes played per game are 30 & 28 years old which includes Siakam who has won a title as a one of the key players on the team.

To find a player over 26 you have to go all the way to Caruso at 9th most minutes played.

OKC has 3 players on the top 6 in minutes played under 25 with 2 of those 21 & 22. These are key contributors.

Pacers have 2 in top 6 with only 1 below 24.

Top 9 in minutes played for Pacers include , 30. 28,32,26

Top 9 for OKC 26 & 26 & 32 that is it.

Pacers have 3 players over 26 with 2 of those getting 2cd & 3rd most minutes 

OKC has 1 player over 26 getting 9th most minutes played.

Big difference  .

The overall team might be close in age but the main contributors are not that close in age.

Yes I see that being talked about on you tube ............

Impressive trend no doubt. But I would have to look at other things, I personally don't back trends like this without looking into other meterics that may support or not support the play.

In this case the other meterics do support the play.

Pacers winning games while being out-rebounded is indicative of a very weak poor rebounding team.

Shooting % and rebounding are tied together.

Shooting % has the highest correlation to winning games.

Out-shoot opp % wise and you will win a high % of time regardless of rebounds many times.

Now of course it depends on how much you out-shoot opps and how much you out-rebound opps.

Pacers out-shot opps in their wins that is why they won those game. In some of those games they out-shot opps by a huge amount  in these cases rebounds are pretty much irrelevant. It would take a large amount of rebounds to over-come a team out-shooting a team by large amount.

The defensive  team gets the rebound league ave 74.8% of the time.

So if Pacers hold opp to lower shooting % there- by shooting the higher % that means opps miss more shots therefore Pacers should automatically be getting more rebounds based on more rebounds available to them on the defensive side which gets 74.8% of rebounds available.

Pacers cannot do this but OKC can.

If Pacers out-shoot OKC % wise OKC can still hang in the game and win with rebounding but if OKC wins shooting % Pacers have little chance to hang in the game and win.

Basically Pacers will have to win shooting % battle minimum of 5 or 6 games to win series.

Because OKC will win at least 1 of those games and maybe 2 of those games that Pacers win shooting % battle.

The one way that could happen is if OKC younger players Crack on the biggest stage and can't make shots.

@theclaw

 Oh I don’t watch any cappers on YT. 

anyways I like the metrics and it makes sense.  Long term it should be fine. If it loses that’s ok. 

best wishes. 

Good analysis.  Thanks for posting.

I agree makes alot of sense ...............

Defensive Shooting Efficiency ...................

OKC 46.47 % ....by 3.19 %

Pacers 49.66%

The better defensive team by 1 % or better 1980 to 2016 is ......

11-3 at winning the series

This will be very similar if updated to today.

Better  Efficiency Rebounding Team by ..............

OKC 49.4% ......by 1.5 %

Pacers 47.9%

Better rebounding team by 1%  ........ through 2016

12-4 winning series

Better Shooting Efficiency Margin ...........

Including 3 pt shots, 2 pt, FT's, TO's.

OKC 6.11 % .....by 3.98%

Pacers 2.13%

Team Better by 1% or better through 2016.........

15-4 winning the series

All regular season stats .............

Here's an interesting one .........

Better Offensive Efficiency by .5 & Worse Rebounding Efficiency by .5 .........

2-10 winning the series

These 2 areas are the kiss of death for teams in the NBA Finals

I believe only the 2 Rockets teams won  , but very likely they did improve in the playoffs. But Rockets were better than 1 opp in the most important  area Shooting Efficiency  margin and about even with the other opp based on regular season.

Someday I really need to run playoff numbers.

Pacers don't have better Offense in regular season but playoffs they do

But what it took for Pacers to elevate their Offense and Overall Shooting Efficiency  margin takes away from Rebounding.

So the rebound difference  in playoffs balloons 3.28 % from only 1.5% in regular season.

This method fits the Pacers in the playoffs but I don't have any history in playoff using this method.

The difference  in Defense Shooting Efficiency in playoffs goes to 4.14%. A bigger advantage to OKC.

So when we look at what the Pacers are doing better and doing worse in the playoffs certainly don't point to NBA championship level of play.

Per NBA.com, these are the PO-only DEF ratings and rankings:

IND 113.6 (#9)

OKC 104.7 (#1)

IND's OFF is better which draws them closer in the rankings, but the net rating edge for OKC is huge:

IND 4.1 (#4)

OKC 11.2 (#2)

Bad day for me.  That upset loss means I need OKC to win 4 of the next 5 to win my OKC -1.5 games series bet.  I also lost one unit on a 57-26-1 query.  The only thing I did right was to pass on my IND TT Under 110.5 pick.

TC and Indigo999 were right to be leery.

How freakishly lucky was IND to win (or how freakishly bad did OKC play to lose) is shown by this present-game query:

PO = 1 and AD and line > 7.2 and TOM > 8.5

SU:   5-22 (-19.0,18.5%)

ATS:  7-20 (-9.4,25.9%)

In the playoffs Away Dogs of 7.5+ points that committed at least 9 more turnovers than their opponents went 5-22 SU (avg margin = -19.0) and 7-20 ATS.