Hollinger Argues ATL and POR ISO Offenses in Playoffs = FAIL

[AHF]

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-100506

I wrote an article recently about playoff myths -- things people think change in the playoffs, but in fact don't.

However, there's another piece to that puzzle. Perhaps there are things people don't think change in the playoffs, but in fact do.

I may have accidentally stumbled upon one in observing my two "home" teams, Atlanta and Portland, compete in the playoffs over the past two seasons. Watching the Hawks in particular, nearly every commentator has been shocked by how little ball movement their offense generates and how many times they end up isolating Joe Johnson while everybody else stands around and watches.

This complaint might sound familiar to folks in the Northwest, because it's not altogether different from what the Blazers do with Brandon Roy. Both teams' fan bases constantly complain about the lack of originality and shameless predictably inherent in such an attack.

The similarities don't end there. Both teams are coached by former players -- Mike Woodson for Atlanta and Nate McMillan for Portland -- with a no-nonsense, old-school mentality.

And both have been wildly successful with this system. In fact, if you look at the numbers, you wonder what everybody's upset about. Both Atlanta and Portland are far better offensive teams than people realize -- their slow pace, low turnover rate and monstrous offensive rebounding numbers mask their efficiency.

In the regular season, Atlanta played the league's fourth-slowest pace and the Blazers played the slowest, so their points-per-game numbers aren't reflective of how well they played at the offensive end. Neither are their shooting percentages: The Hawks were only 14th in true shooting percentage at 54.5 and the Blazers barely ahead of them at 54.7.

Yet if you look at the offensive efficiency standings, the two clubs had few peers. Atlanta, believe it or not, had the league's third-best offense this season at 108.9 points per 100 possessions, while the Blazers were eighth despite being wracked by injuries. This was actually just more of the same -- a season ago a healthier Portland team was second, while Atlanta (without the scoring of Jamal Crawford off the bench) was 10th.

It turns out the iso-heavy offense has some benefits. Though hard on the eyes, the "iso-Joe" and "iso-Brandon" attacks produce remarkably few turnovers. Since both Roy and Johnson are good ballhandlers and nothing technically precise was asked of the other players, Atlanta and Portland were first and second, respectively, in avoiding turnovers.

Additionally, perhaps because they knew when to time their runs to the board while Johnson and Roy created shots, both Atlanta and Portland landed in the top five in offensive rebound rate -- each grabbed 28.4 percent of missed shots.

In other words, theirs is a volume strategy. The Hawks and Blazers might not take better shots than other teams, but they take a lot more of them. Over time, that gives them enough of an advantage to make them potent offensive squads overall.

So what's the problem?

Apparently, there isn't one … until Game 83. Remember when I was talking about things that change in the playoffs? One change is that these iso-heavy offenses apparently have a lot more trouble when opponents have time to game plan against them in a playoff series.

Take a look at the playoff results from these teams the past two seasons, and the conclusion is hard to ignore. If this happened in any one playoff series, we might be able to dismiss it as a short-term fluke. But the fact that it's happened six times in six series tells us that maybe something about isolation-heavy offenses doesn't function well in an environment in which opponents have several days to scout, game-plan and match up for this specific tactic.

We'll start with Portland. The Blazers were the second-best offense in 2008-09 in the regular season, and met the fourth-best defense from Houston in the first round. Based on the opponent, we would have expected some drop-off from the Blazers, yes, but among the 16 playoff teams, they were only eighth in offensive efficiency.

The Blazers were as successful as before at avoiding turnovers, but they couldn't make shots and couldn't get the misses. In particular, the Rockets eliminated their second shots, taking the league's top regular-season offensive rebounding team down to 11th among 16 playoff teams. Portland's TS percentage also dropped from eighth among 30 teams to 12th out of 16.

In 2009-10, Portland faced a much weaker defensive team in Phoenix, but basically the same thing happened. While some of this can be pinned on Roy's injury, the numerical changes were virtually identical to a year earlier -- they were just as good at avoiding turnovers, but missed a lot more shots and didn't rebound nearly as many of them.

Let's move on to Atlanta. In 2008-09 the Hawks played 11 playoff games, a larger sample than the Blazers have to offer, and seven of them were against a fairly average Miami defense (the other four, however, were against a robust Cleveland D).

The same thing happened that befell the Blazers: Atlanta stopped making shots. The Hawks had the second-worst TS percentage of any playoff team, and finished the postseason 13th in offensive efficiency.

This year, we're seeing the same movie. The Hawks have faced two very strong defenses, with Milwaukee ranking third in Defensive Efficiency and Orlando second. But while seven of their eight games were against the Bucks, Milwaukee was without perhaps its best defender in center Andrew Bogut.

Nonetheless, the results have been the same.

Atlanta, as the league's third-best offense, should at least be able to battle these defenses to a draw. But even before Tuesday's Game 1 implosion against Orlando, they were struggling. The Hawks can't make shots, ranking just 14th out of 16 teams in postseason TS percentage. While they've still been able to generate second shots (they lead all teams in playoff Offensive Rebound Rate) and have been somewhat successful at avoiding turnovers, the net result put the Hawks 11th among the 16 playoff teams in postseason Offensive Efficiency.

So what is it? Perhaps the Hawks and Blazers have just had some bad games against some pretty good defenses. But between the two, we've built up a 31-game sample showing that something more nefarious might be at work.

Obviously, this has important implications for Atlanta's Game 2 in Orlando on Thursday. Iso-Joe has had its moments; Game 4 of the 2008 Boston series, for instance, when Johnson single-handedly tore apart one of the best defensive teams in history. But in the aggregate, its failures have been far greater than its successes, and it's notable that the most similar offensive team has faced similar troubles.

Is there something about iso-heavy offenses that makes them vulnerable in the playoffs? We can't say it with certainty yet, but the case is building rapidly. The Hawks have three games left to show that Iso-Joe can be as effective in May as it is between November and April.

[AHF]

Hopefully we reverse this trend, but many of us have questioned whether teams would adjust and shut down a predictable iso offense in the post-season when easy fast break points are less common, offensive rebounds are harder to grab, and defenses adjust and scheme for what they know the Hawks are going to do.

The question is: Does this #*& work in the post-season?

[T21]

Can't argue layed out analisys...

Bottom line... we have talent, but we just limit ourselves offensively. Unfortunately, Playoffs expose all weaknesses...

[niremetal]

My girlfriend is a Portland native and longtime Blazers fan, and I have started watching their games almost as religiously as the Hawks'. Seriously, it's eerie how similar the criticisms of the teams are. The biggest difference is that the Blazers lack guards who know how to run a break,* so they play at a ploddingly slow pace. I actually commented on the similarities between the teams to Sekou awhile back, and he ended up bumping my comment above the line on his blog:

It’s always funny to me reading Blazers fan blogs and seeing how not alone Hawks fans are in our neuroses. Blazers fans have their own Mike Bibby (Andre Miller), JJ (Brandon Roy), Josh Smith (Travis Outlaw), Marvin Williams (Martell Webster), Teague (Jerryd Bayless), Al Horford (Greg Oden), and Zaza Pachulia (Joel Przybilla). They even talk about Nate McMillan almost exactly like we talk about Mike Woodson. Seriously, it’s uncanny. I just emailed Big Ray a series of blog posts from BlazersEdge where you could just substitute in the Hawks’ player’s names and it would be a typical comment section in your blog. My favorites:

“Brandon has dribblexia”

“Oden needs to be further integrated into the offense—immediately!”

“This team has needed a defensive-minded off guard — not a floor general (i.e., Miller), midget shooting guard (i.e, Bayless), or athletically challenged off guard (i.e., Steve Blake) — so Kevin Pritchard not trading for Kirk Hinrich midway through last season is inexcusable in my opinion.”

The biggest difference is that McMillan is a much better motivator than Woody. When the Blazers went down with all those injuries, he actually managed to pull the team together even in the absence of his best player and starting center. Consequently, the Blazers don't have the same types of epic collapses that the Hawks do.

* Say what you will about Bibby and JJ, but they are scions of the Adelman and D'Antoni systems, which is why the Hawks leaped from 20th in the NBA in fast break points to 5th after Bibby arrived.

[HawkItus]

I don't know, I read this a little different. I think we might be stepping a little too far from the horse the brought us here. The reason we look lost on offense is because we are trying to change. Guys aren't getting the ball where they got most of their reps during the season. Skill wise we have a severe mismatch against Orlando. We have to rely on athleticism. Let Joe and Craw isolate. Get decent looks and our big men scramble for the rebound.

[Guest]

Hollinger is a dope. What a small sample size, and ridiculous conclusions. In the regular season you don't play the same opponent every time. Playoffs you do, so right there you have a bias.

Another issue is that in the playoffs you truncate your league. Instead of 30 teams, you have 16. And this isn't a random 14 team deletion, you delete the worst 14. So again, another bias.

Hollinger just likes to use flashy "stats" to try and sell ignorant fans on being empowered by the knowledge of advanced basketball statistics. And sometimes its not just ignorant fans, its also ignorant bloggers, TV/radio personalities, columnists, etc. And because all these ignorant people are ignorant of statistics, if you bring up issues with why Hollinger is incorrect and has biased results they just refer you to Hollinger. And Hollinger is the "professor" so he must be right, any claims against him are incorrect. Again another bias, first read bias. At first you read Hollinger, and since you are ignorant or what he is saying you believe he is more right than anyone else.

[niremetal]

Hollinger is a dope. What a small sample size, and ridiculous conclusions. In the regular season you don't play the same opponent every time. Playoffs you do, so right there you have a bias.

Another issue is that in the playoffs you truncate your league. Instead of 30 teams, you have 16. And this isn't a random 14 team deletion, you delete the worst 14. So again, another bias.

Hollinger just likes to use flashy "stats" to try and sell ignorant fans on being empowered by the knowledge of advanced basketball statistics. And sometimes its not just ignorant fans, its also ignorant bloggers, TV/radio personalities, columnists, etc. And because all these ignorant people are ignorant of statistics, if you bring up issues with why Hollinger is incorrect and has biased results they just refer you to Hollinger. And Hollinger is the "professor" so he must be right, any claims against him are incorrect. Again another bias, first read bias. At first you read Hollinger, and since you are ignorant or what he is saying you believe he is more right than anyone else.

I generally dislike Hollinger too. But it's not like he's the only one who has said that predictable ISO offenses are fodder come playoff-time, for all the reasons (better defenses, same opponent, etc) you said. Don't dismiss the message just because it comes from an unreliable messenger.

[AHF]

Hollinger is a dope. What a small sample size, and ridiculous conclusions. In the regular season you don't play the same opponent every time. Playoffs you do, so right there you have a bias.

Another issue is that in the playoffs you truncate your league. Instead of 30 teams, you have 16. And this isn't a random 14 team deletion, you delete the worst 14. So again, another bias.

I don't know how it is a "bias" so much, though, to delete the worst regular season teams since he isn't comparing raw numbers regular season to post-season and instead is comparing the Hawks' ranking relative to other teams in the regular season and post-season and noting that our top regular season ranking falls to the bottom in the post-season. I agree with your issues with sample size and the potential impact of the same opponent, but when you go from top of the league relative to other teams in regular season offense to bottom of the barrel among playoff teams, it is hard not to think that there is a problem. The majority of the games the Hawks have played the last two season have not been against elite defensive teams. Miami and Bogut-less Milwaukee are not teams that anyone fears defensively. Cleveland and Orlando are a different story - but we have only played they 5 times versus 14 times against the weaker Heat and Bucks and they are still teams you have to beat if you want to succeed in the post-season (just like Orlando beat the league's top defense in round 1).

Anyway since I am rambling, can you replace Hollinger's dopey analysis with your explanation of why we have been among the worst playoff teams offensively the last two seasons or if you disagree with that premise why you think the Hawks' offensive playoff performance is better than Hollinger is making it out to be?

[tonegully]

I dont have the best basketball mind but things that i see are:

JJ gets the ball and seems undecided with want he wants to do with the ball. So he dribbles the ball for 15 seconds while everyone stands around.

It does not take much to get Smoove out of his game. Once he is out of his game he is done for the whole game. I think he is weak mentally

Woody has no control over the team and so worried about his job that he is scared to hold players accountable for their actions on the court.

We dont establish Horf and Smoove in the paint early

Our star doesnt know when to take over games and go out with a blaze of glory

Jamal takes some of the worst shots ever

JJ takes that stupid 1 foot fade away because he held the ball and the shot clock is going down

Marvin is happy not being a factor in the offense

So yeah, no wonder our offense is terrible and its so easy to stop. So i agree with Hollinger. I bet VanGundy hasnt even started to coach because we are easy to stop.

[niremetal]

I don't know how it is a "bias" so much, though, to delete the worst regular season teams since he isn't comparing raw numbers regular season to post-season and instead is comparing the Hawks' ranking relative to other teams in the regular season and post-season and noting that our top regular season ranking falls to the bottom in the post-season. I agree with your issues with sample size and the potential impact of the same opponent, but when you go from top of the league relative to other teams in regular season offense to bottom of the barrel among playoff teams, it is hard not to think that there is a problem. The majority of the games the Hawks have played the last two season have not been against elite defensive teams. Miami and Bogut-less Milwaukee are not teams that anyone fears defensively. Cleveland and Orlando are a different story - but we have only played they 5 times versus 14 times against the weaker Heat and Bucks and they are still teams you have to beat if you want to succeed in the post-season (just like Orlando beat the league's top defense in round 1).

Anyway since I am rambling, can you replace Hollinger's dopey analysis with your explanation of why we have been among the worst playoff teams offensively the last two seasons or if you disagree with that premise why you think the Hawks' offensive playoff performance is better than Hollinger is making it out to be?

+1. There needs to be a "cancel downrate" option for these things, because I accidentally hit "-1." My bad :white flag:

[spotatl]

I would have expected some analysis of how often Portland and Atlanta actually are running ISO's in the playoffs compared to other teams.

[JTB]

Good Read. Obviously this proves that the iso-joe can work, just not in the playoffs when wins are more important. I think both ATL and POR should add to the iso-joe I just dont know exactly what! but then again going back to the article the lack of ball movement the hawks do in particular is a big reason the offense fails as well. In the end this iso can work i believe it just needs ball movement imported in the offense heavily in order to actually succeed. plus you need some good shooters around a offense like this and both teams has that. not sure of portlands problem but the hawks are lacking ball movement in this scheme and thats a bigger factor than many believe.

[niremetal]

I would have expected some analysis of how often Portland and Atlanta actually are running ISO's in the playoffs compared to other teams.

In the first round, the Hawks ran them more often than any team in the East, and 2nd most often (behind Denver) overall:

http://www.mysynergysports.com/playoffdataviews/EasternSummary.htm

The Blazers ran them 4th most often in the West and 6th most often overall:

http://www.mysynergysports.com/playoffdataviews/WesternSummary.htm

Not incidentally, though, Portland averaged more points per play on their ISOs than any team in the league (.947) except Orlando (1.01) - and Orlando was the least ISO-heavy team among all playoff teams in the first round.

Edited May 6, 2010 by niremetal

[Guest]

I generally dislike Hollinger too. But it's not like he's the only one who has said that predictable ISO offenses are fodder come playoff-time, for all the reasons (better defenses, same opponent, etc) you said. Don't dismiss the message just because it comes from an unreliable messenger.

I am not dismissing the message, I am dismissing his methods because they are flawed. At no point in time did I talk about how "Iso-whatever" does in a game. I am focusing on the flawed methods of the flawed Hollinger.

His results are diminished because of his lame methods. That doesn't mean the result as a whole is right or wrong, the way that Hollinger "explains" his results are though.

[JTB]

I dont have the best basketball mind but things that i see are:

JJ gets the ball and seems undecided with want he wants to do with the ball. So he dribbles the ball for 15 seconds while everyone stands around.

It does not take much to get Smoove out of his game. Once he is out of his game he is done for the whole game. I think he is weak mentally

Woody has no control over the team and so worried about his job that he is scared to hold players accountable for their actions on the court.

We dont establish Horf and Smoove in the paint early

Our star doesnt know when to take over games and go out with a blaze of glory

Jamal takes some of the worst shots ever

JJ takes that stupid 1 foot fade away because he held the ball and the shot clock is going down

Marvin is happy not being a factor in the offense

So yeah, no wonder our offense is terrible and its so easy to stop. So i agree with Hollinger. I bet VanGundy hasnt even started to coach because we are easy to stop.

i agree but like i posted on a reply "ball movement" can heavily turn some of these things around trust me. an im not talking 1 or 2 passes im talking smart passes and good passes to find the open man or get jj in good position to score. we dont pass! like you stated jj holds the ball for 15 sec that is crazy. its not the offense completely its how the players are running it without being smart. jj holds the ball way too long and the other hawk players watch him. when we need to again move the ball. thats it! move the damn ball hawks! its not hard to guard a man who holds a ball for 15 sec than takes either a dumb shot or pass it to a non shot making josh smith on a kick out!

[macdaddy]

I think the real conclusion is that lack of ball movement is not a good strategy to beat a good team anytime. Our offense seems great statistically over the course of the season against the whole league. What does it look like against good teams. Something tells me it looks a lot worse and we're just getting fat on the crappy teams.

We've all watched a lot of Hawks games this year. We beat the bottom half of the league many ways, iso/no-iso fast/slow. When we beat the top teams in the league we usually did it by moving the ball and getting out and running. We usually lost to good teams by laying a 13 point 4th quarter where Joe and Jamal dribbled and dribbled and dribbled. That's my expert analysis.

[Guest]

I don't know how it is a "bias" so much, though, to delete the worst regular season teams since he isn't comparing raw numbers regular season to post-season and instead is comparing the Hawks' ranking relative to other teams in the regular season and post-season and noting that our top regular season ranking falls to the bottom in the post-season. I agree with your issues with sample size and the potential impact of the same opponent, but when you go from top of the league relative to other teams in regular season offense to bottom of the barrel among playoff teams, it is hard not to think that there is a problem. The majority of the games the Hawks have played the last two season have not been against elite defensive teams. Miami and Bogut-less Milwaukee are not teams that anyone fears defensively. Cleveland and Orlando are a different story - but we have only played they 5 times versus 14 times against the weaker Heat and Bucks and they are still teams you have to beat if you want to succeed in the post-season (just like Orlando beat the league's top defense in round 1).

Anyway since I am rambling, can you replace Hollinger's dopey analysis with your explanation of why we have been among the worst playoff teams offensively the last two seasons or if you disagree with that premise why you think the Hawks' offensive playoff performance is better than Hollinger is making it out to be?

Really, you don't see how truncating the data distorts results? I will be forced to put you into the "ignorant" category when it comes to statistics then. I don't want to do it because you are an intelligent poster, but I'm penciling you in for right now.

How would I replace Hollinger's analysis? Well for starters, if we just straight ignore the fact that the teams play at most 4 different teams in the post season (a bias in itself) and just focus on the 16 teams that are in the playoffs. Hollinger is comparing a team's performance against all 30 with a team's performance against 16 teams. Are these 14 deleted teams a representative sample of the population? NO! They are the worst teams. So Hollinger wants to make a connection between regular season and postseason but there are two different samples. Its apples verses oranges.

Want to correct the truncation bias? Well why not look at the regular season performance of playoff teams against only playoff teams. So take a playoff team and look at their performance against the other 15 playoff teams. Then rank those teams. Notice how after doing this you will not get the Hawks being 3rd ranked out of 30 for two reasons. One, because we only have 16 teams. Two, these are not representative teams that we are deleting. I don't actually have the numbers nor the time to look them up, but I do not believe you will get the Hawks as 3rd of 16 nor would you get the Hawks 1.6th out of 16. You are going to get much different results. But, that is how you would correct truncation bias.

Of course as I said above, this is ignoring that teams in the playoffs play at most 4 different teams. That alone is what makes all of Hollinger's results hogwash. The rest just makes Hollinger himself look like a dope.

[coachx]

Good find AHF.........thanks for sharing.

The only think I would argue is that if you put a healthy Lebron or Jordan on this Hawks team then that iso offense would be much better.

Is it just the system.............or is it also the players in the system ? Well, of course both are primary factors. Hard to single out one without bringing up the other.

That being said. Give this Hawks team Jerry Sloan and they would be much, much better.

I know this is all Captian Obvious stuff but I just thought it should have mentioned in the article.

Edited May 6, 2010 by coachx

[AHF]

Really, you don't see how truncating the data distorts results? I will be forced to put you into the "ignorant" category when it comes to statistics then. I don't want to do it because you are an intelligent poster, but I'm penciling you in for right now.

I do see that - which is why I agreed that the limited sample size and playing the same team would likely distort the data. I thought you were shooting down the message in addition to Hollinger's analysis - which I agree is flawed much more often than not. His analysis is clearly not statistically significant or adequately controlled here. Nevertheless, the underlying ranking data is very interesting given the huge gap between Altanta's standout regular season offensive efficiency and terrible post-season offensive efficiency.

How would I replace Hollinger's analysis? Well for starters, if we just straight ignore the fact that the teams play at most 4 different teams in the post season (a bias in itself) and just focus on the 16 teams that are in the playoffs. Hollinger is comparing a team's performance against all 30 with a team's performance against 16 teams. Are these 14 deleted teams a representative sample of the population? NO! They are the worst teams. So Hollinger wants to make a connection between regular season and postseason but there are two different samples. Its apples verses oranges.

Regular season versus post-season is apples versus oranges. I agree with Hollinger's premise on that - things that work in the regular season won't necessarily work in the playoffs.

Want to correct the truncation bias? Well why not look at the regular season performance of playoff teams against only playoff teams. So take a playoff team and look at their performance against the other 15 playoff teams. Then rank those teams. Notice how after doing this you will not get the Hawks being 3rd ranked out of 30 for two reasons. One, because we only have 16 teams. Two, these are not representative teams that we are deleting. I don't actually have the numbers nor the time to look them up, but I do not believe you will get the Hawks as 3rd of 16 nor would you get the Hawks 1.6th out of 16. You are going to get much different results. But, that is how you would correct truncation bias.

I don't see any value to that analysis, though, because what he is testing for (in a flawed way) is to see if the Hawks are employing an offense that is successful in the regular season but subject to being abused in the post-season where teams can scheme it into a much less successful tactic. If it is not possible to compare the two, then the focus should be on the success of our offense in the post-season. Proving that the Hawks' offense was successful against regular season teams who were not in "playoff mode" as far as their preparation and rest time, etc. doesn't really speak to whether the in-depth adjustments in the playoffs combined with the other differences between playoff and regular season basketball (higher effort and intensity, longer periods of rest between games, etc.) impact the Hawks' offense differently than some more versatile offenses.

Of course as I said above, this is ignoring that teams in the playoffs play at most 4 different teams. That alone is what makes all of Hollinger's results hogwash. The rest just makes Hollinger himself look like a dope.

No question here that Hollinger's analysis wouldn't pass muster in any statistics 101 class, let alone with a more sophisticated crowd. I can't dismiss the message here - that isolation offenses face greater challenges in the post-season due to their predictability - but better understand where you are coming from.

[Guest]

I do see that - which is why I agreed that the limited sample size and playing the same team would likely distort the data. I thought you were shooting down the message in addition to Hollinger's analysis - which I agree is flawed much more often than not. His analysis is clearly not statistically significant or adequately controlled here. Nevertheless, the underlying ranking data is very interesting given the huge gap between Altanta's standout regular season offensive efficiency and terrible post-season offensive efficiency.

The truncation bias isn't because you have a smaller sample size, its because the data you removed isn't representative of your population. Small size is not a bias. If I try to estimate a population with 500 observations as opposed to 1000 observations, but they are both representative of the population then I will get unbiased estimates. We do not say we have a bias because 500<1000, thats a little silly if they are representative. Now if we have 1000 observations that all have a similar characteristic (say teams that win > 40 games) while a different 500 observation is representative of the population we do have a bias. The bias is not with the 500 observation (smaller sample size), it is with the 1000 observations.

Regular season versus post-season is apples versus oranges. I agree with Hollinger's premise on that - things that work in the regular season won't necessarily work in the playoffs.

I don't see any value to that analysis, though, because what he is testing for (in a flawed way) is to see if the Hawks are employing an offense that is successful in the regular season but subject to being abused in the post-season where teams can scheme it into a much less successful tactic. If it is not possible to compare the two, then the focus should be on the success of our offense in the post-season. Proving that the Hawks' offense was successful against regular season teams who were not in "playoff mode" as far as their preparation and rest time, etc. doesn't really speak to whether the in-depth adjustments in the playoffs combined with the other differences between playoff and regular season basketball (higher effort and intensity, longer periods of rest between games, etc.) impact the Hawks' offense differently than some more versatile offenses.

My solution is just for the truncation bias. I am not accounting for other flaws within Hollinger's analysis that you may or may not be seeing. But what I believe you want to see is a diff-n-diff estimation of isolation basketball and the effects it has in the playoffs. If we want to actually estimate this what we need is a listing of teams that play in both the playoffs and regular season (see ya "out of 30" stats which Hollinger uses like the dope he is), and a list of teams that we can attach a dummy variable of 1 = "iso" and 0 = "not-iso". This alone doesn't guarantee that we can estimate the effects, we also need to have teams that switch between playoffs and regular season. Meaning, we need a team to be 0 (not iso) in the regular season and 1 (iso) in the playoffs. Also the other way around. We also need teams that are 0 in the regular season and 0 in the playoffs (same with 1). Is this feasible? No, so you are right to say we cannot test this. Does Hollinger attempt to test this and pass it off as "statistics"? Yes, and thats why he is a dope.