Your previous response did not explain why you felt the way you did.
Regular season analytics have to be balanced by the eye test, the strength of the coaches, and playoff matchups. Miami was a bad matchup with Milwaukee, beating them twice in a row when the Bucks were supposed to be a historically great team.
Maybe analytics should only apply to the Western Conference. Beating the worst teams in the East by 30 points means nothing. The Bucks had a bunch of guys who choked in the playoffs, could only play one style and were coached by a guy who saw what was happening and just said if an opponent shot well from deep there was nothing he could do about it.
I think it was three seasons ago that the Celtics had a historically great point differential during the first half of the season, but when you subtracted their blow out wins against Chicago, Atlanta and Cleveland they were a very average team, and this was born out by all the losses they piled up when they played the West.
As far as every analyst on earth, maybe you should analyze the Pareto principle, because 20% do 80% of the competent work and the rest of them are garbage.
Analysts have biases, just like everyone else. Their inability to recognize that determines how much they should be trusted.