As it turned out, the Rockets-Lakers series did not turn out to be the art versus science showdown that I’d been hoping for. The key game turned out to be Game 2, in which the Lakers -- having lost its home court advantage in Game 1 -- simply decided to fight. As Ron Artest demonstrates here, it’s tough to stick to the plan with an elbow in your throat.
And then things get even tougher when you lose one of the second of your two best players to a broken foot, as Yao Ming did in Game 3. Although the Lakers lacked the killer instinct to put away the Rockets, even after a horrible 40-point beatdown in Game 5, the theories on offer in the Michael Lewis article did not seem possible to apply after that point.
One of the hottest topics in sports player management over the last decade has been whether the scientific approach to roster-building really creates competitive advantage. I had hoped this series would bring some light to its relative chances at success in the NBA. What it ultimately proved -- again -- is that the playoffs are still a crapshoot with any team having a 45% chance of winning on a given night, especially when emotions and injuries throw one team off its game.
Further reading: Why Don’t The A’s Win in October? (or “Why Doesn’t Billy Beane’s S*** Work in the Playoffs?”)