#1 seeds and Championships the last 10* years

[Fabbs]

Of the last 10 NBA Champs, how many in reg season were 1st seed overall entire NBA?
How many were 1st seed in their Conference?
*exclude WWE rigged years of 2009 and 10.

How hard should we/should we not pursue this? Memphis 2011.

premptive:
CoachRumpHumper why don't you look it up yourself?

Edit: I'll get us started.
2002 Kings Champs and best overall reg season
2003 Spurs were tied for 1st overall with Dallas. Not sure who won tiebreaker.
2004 Detroit was neither overall or Conf best. (Indiana overall, MN West)
2005 Spurs not (neither Finalist was Conf best. Phx Suns overall best)
2006 Detroit#1 Spurs Best West 2nd overall. (Heat over _allas for Champ)
2007 Spurs not by a longshot. Dallas 67-15.
2008 Boston was the #1 overall and LaPhaggots were the #1 West. So 1 vs 1.
2009 rigged
2010 rigged
2011 (Spurs #1 overall) Champion Dallas tied for 2nd West, 4th overall.
2012 Spurs overall #1. Heat won Championship.

[timvp]

Tbh, why don't you look it up yourself?

[Dex]

:lmao

[TampaDude]

Last year doesn't really count. The 2011 Spurs were badly dinged up and ran into a buzzsaw. This year's Spurs are MUCH deeper than last year's Spurs. We'd bounce the Grizz in 5 games, max.

[Mel_13]

:rollin

[vander]

point differential is more important/indicative

except this year the Spurs messed up their point differential by forfeiting some games.

[Fabbs]

Tbh, why don't you look it up yourself?
I like praising you for your research.

[TampaDude]

point differential is more important/indicative

except this year the Spurs messed up their point differential by forfeiting some games.

Yup...the point differential is probably the best indicator of potential playoff success.

[ohmwrecker]

point differential is more important/indicative

except this year the Spurs messed up their point differential by forfeiting some games.

I don't think it matters that much in the playoffs. Other than morale boosting and momentum swinging factors, a 1pt win is just as good as a blowout. Sometimes a gritty, close win is more of a motivator anyway.

[Fabbs]

okay i got it started up top.
2 of 3 Spurs Championships we were NOT the #1 seed reg season.
2005
2007

(2003 we finished tied for 1st. Not sure who won tiebreaker i think we did)

[vander]

I don't think it matters that much in the playoffs. Other than morale boosting and momentum swinging factors, a 1pt win is just as good as a blowout. Sometimes a gritty, close win is more of a motivator anyway.

in recent history, the Champs have been at or near the top of reg. season point differential. and the top teams in point differential that didn't win it all were usually very close, a couple plays away.

[ohmwrecker]

So you're saying…Good teams win playoff games?

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

2011 - Bulls overall #1, Spurs #1 in west neither makes finals, champs Mavs # 3 in west over EC # 2 Miami

2010 - Cavs #1 overall (eliminated in ECF), Lakers win championship as #1 in west

2009 - Cavs #1 overall (bounced by Boston) Lakers win championship as #1 in west

2008 - Boston #1 overall defeats #1 Lakers in finals

2007 - Mavs #1 overall, Pistons #1 in west, #3 in WC Spurs defeat #2 EC Cavs in finals

2006 - #1 overall Pistons, Spurs #1 in west, EC #2 Miami defeats WC#2 Dallas in finals

2005 - #1 overall Phoenix, #1 in east Pistons, WC#2 Spurs defeat EC# 2 Pistons in finals

2004- #1 overall Pacers, #1 in west T-Wolves (WTF?), Pistons (#2 EC) defeat Lakers (#2 WC) in finals

2003 - #1 overall Spurs, #1 EC Pistons. Spurs defeat EC#2 Nets in finals

2002 - #1 overall Kings, #1 EC Nets. WC #3 Lakers defeat Nets in finals.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

That 04 wolves team was good, and first time Garnett got out first round.
If memory serves, Troy Hudson was having a great year, but was banged up by the time the wolves ran into the lakers, and the lakers cake walked into the finals

[Solid D]

Fabbs, since Pop is coaching and making decisions, what difference do all these numbers thingies make?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

IMO, spurs could have won 04 wcf easily, dunno if they beat pistons
They steam roll into the championship if they get past Dallas in 06

However I think if we beat lakers in 08, Celtics corn hole us in Finals

[Fabbs]

That 04 wolves team was good, and first time Garnett got out first round.
If memory serves, Troy Hudson was having a great year, but was banged up by the time the wolves ran into the lakers, and the lakers cake walked into the finals
Damn good and they got WWE reffed out by the Flamers.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

That 04 wolves team was good, and first time Garnett got out first round.
If memory serves, Troy Hudson was having a great year, but was banged up by the time the wolves ran into the lakers, and the lakers cake walked into the finals

They had Spree and Cassell in the backcourt too. Still looks weird to see them sitting atop any standings ever.

[Fabbs]

Fabbs, since Pop is coaching and making decisions, what difference do all these numbers thingies make?
Spurs have overcome Pop before, they can do it again.
Believe.

[wut]

2011 - Bulls overall #1, Spurs #1 in west neither makes finals, champs Mavs # 3 in west over EC # 2 Miami

2010 - Cavs #1 overall (eliminated in ECF), Lakers win championship as #1 in west

2009 - Cavs #1 overall (bounced by Boston) Lakers win championship as #1 in west

2008 - Boston #1 overall defeats #1 Lakers in finals

2007 - Mavs #1 overall, Pistons #1 in west, #3 in WC Spurs defeat #2 EC Cavs in finals

2006 - #1 overall Pistons, Spurs #1 in west, EC #2 Miami defeats WC#2 Dallas in finals

2005 - #1 overall Phoenix, #1 in east Pistons, WC#2 Spurs defeat EC# 2 Pistons in finals

2004- #1 overall Pacers, #1 in west T-Wolves (WTF?), Pistons (#2 EC) defeat Lakers (#2 WC) in finals

2003 - #1 overall Spurs, #1 EC Pistons. Spurs defeat EC#2 Nets in finals

2002 - #1 overall Kings, #1 EC Nets. WC #3 Lakers defeat Nets in finals.
1) Thanks for posting the facts to this question, unlike OP who doesn't understand what learning is about. (ie. ask question, find facts, form opinion)

2) I find it interesting to note that in the past 10 years that no seed lower than 3 even made it into the finals.

[wut]

That 04 wolves team was good, and first time Garnett got out first round.
If memory serves, Troy Hudson was having a great year, but was banged up by the time the wolves ran into the lakers, and the lakers cake walked into the finals
Cassell was playing out of his mind that year too. (his best year statistically)

[Fabbs]

1) Thanks for posting the facts to this question, unlike OP who doesn't understand what learning is about. (ie. ask question, find facts, form opinion)

2) I find it interesting to note that in the past 10 years that no seed lower than 3 even made it into the finals.
1. See up top.
2. And you're wrong. Dallas was the #4 seed in 2006.

1 San Antonio
2 Phoenix
3 Denver
4 Dallas

[Mel_13]

Dallas had the second best record in the West in 2006. The NBA changed their playoff seeding rules after 2006 to keep the teams with the two best records on opposite sides of the bracket.

[Fabbs]

Dallas had the second best record in the West in 2006. The NBA changed their playoff seeding rules after 2006 to keep the teams with the two best records on opposite sides of the bracket.
Thank you for adding to my factually correct statement that Dallas was the #4 seed in 2006.
Hopefully wut has learned. :lol

[wut]

Dallas had the second best record in the West in 2006. The NBA changed their playoff seeding rules after 2006 to keep the teams with the two best records on opposite sides of the bracket.
No he's right Dallas was a 4th seed(albeit they had 2nd best record in the west)....still seems to prove that not only does HCA seem important....there is no 'mailing it in, and turning on the switch' come playoff time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005%E2%80%9306_NBA_season

[Fabbs]

Summary.
Including rigged years the past 10, the #1 overall seed is
2-8 in becoming a Champion.

[timvp]

Summary.
Including rigged years the past 10, the #1 overall seed is
2-8 in becoming a Champion.

That would make teams not seeded #1 8-142.

Tbh, 20% > 5.3%.

[Mel_13]

my factually correct statement

New experience?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Summary.
Including rigged years the past 10, the #1 overall seed is
2-8 in becoming a Champion.

Compared to the 6 seed who has how many championships? You want to show what every seed gets as each seed is statistically different.

You suck at this.If you want to shit on people's hopes at least do it right.

[Fabbs]

That would make teams not seeded #1 8-142.

Tbh, 20% > 5.3%.
Hey, that would mean teams that didn't make the playoffs at 0%.
Graphs? :lol

If we want to keep it real, lets see what seed holds the most Champs.

[LongtimeSpursFan]

Summary.
Including rigged years the past 10, the #1 overall seed is
2-8 in becoming a Champion.


So number #1 seeds win 20 percent of the time. I wonder if that is the highest percentage of wins by seeding?

[Fabbs]

So number #1 seeds win 20 percent of the time. I wonder if that is the highest percentage of wins by seeding?
When i get time I'll run it.
Seed # overall of Champ recordwise.
Seed # in Conference of of that same Champ.

[GSH]

That would make teams not seeded #1 8-142.

Tbh, 20% > 5.3%.


We have a winner! I've see this same, stupid "analysis" (the OP) done before, and they always fail to get the part that however bad the odds for the top seeds, they are a lot worse for the bottom seeds. Duh.


I hate to put any lipstick on this pig of a thread, but this sort of fits here:

Wouldn't you hate to be the Spurs, and fight all year to get the 1 seed and HCA, and then feel like a road team in your own freaking arena? How many times this year has it sounded like there were at least as many fans cheering for the other teams as for the Spurs? I can tell you it's too many.

Somebody out there - tell me that's not going to happen again, come playoff time.

[BUMP]

2009 rigged
2010 rigged


:rollin

[Fabbs]

So number #1 seeds win 20 percent of the time. I wonder if that is the highest percentage of wins by seeding?
Tie between #1 and #3
West Conf Finish reg season season seed# who won Champ.
#1 seed 3X (Spurs 03 WWELakers 09 10)
#2 seed 1X (05 Spurs)
#3 seed 3X (11 Mavs 07 Spurs 02*Lakers)
#4 seed 1X (Mavs 06)

3 Champs each.

The only two years the West did not win the Champ
#2 Lakers 2004
#1 Lakers 2008

[Fabbs]

We have a winner! I've see this same, stupid "analysis" (the OP) done before, and they always fail to get the part that however bad the odds for the top seeds, they are a lot worse for the bottom seeds. Duh.
Are you attempting to Strawman that seeds 5-8 don't do as well as #1 thru #4?
How insightful, Stawsie. :rollin Was never brought up by the OP.

Just posted that #3 has done just as well as #1.
Lets hear your response Nozer.

[Axe Murderer]

sup Fabbs

[Seventyniner]

The 2006 Mavs should count as a 2 seed, not a 4; they had the 2nd best record in the West, and if today's seeding rules applied then, they would've had the 2 seed.

The Mavs lost in the 2006 finals, btw.

[FromWayDowntown]

Since the 1976 merger, there have been 35 NBA Finals contested.

By original playoff seeds, the Eastern Conference representative in the Finals has been:

#1 in 20/35 Finals (12 champions)
#2 in 8/35 (2 champions)
#3 in 4/35 (1 champion -- 04 DET)
#4 in 2/35 (1 champion -- 78 WAS)
#5 in 0/35
#6 in 0/35
#7 in 0/35
#8 in 1/35

By original playoff seeds, the Western Conference representative in the Finals has been:

#1 in 20/35 Finals (9 champions)
#2 in 5/35 (3 champions -- 05 SA, 01 LAL, 94 HOU)
#3 in 6/35 (3 champions -- 07 SA, 02 LAL)
#4 in 2/35
#5 in 0/35
#6 in 2/35 (1 champion -- 95 HOU)
#7 in 0/35
#8 in 0/35

If the question is how the teams with universal HCA has fared, the following #1 overall seeds have reached the Finals (champions in bold):

1979 WAS
1981 BOS
1983 PHI
1984 BOS
1985 BOS
1986 BOS
1987 LAL
1988 LAL
1989 DET
1992 CHI
1993 PNX
1996 CHI
1997 CHI
1998 UTH
1999 SA
2000 LAL
2003 SA
2008 BOS

The teams that had overall HCA but failed to reach the Finals were:

2011 CHI (lost ECF)
2010 CLE (lost ECSF)
2009 CLE (lost ECF)
2007 DAL (lost WCFR)
2006 DET (lost ECF)
2005 PNX (lost WCF)
2004 IND (lost ECF)
2002 SAC (lost WCF)
2001 SA (lost WCF)
1995 SA (lost WCF)
1994 SEA (lost WCFR)
1991 PRT (lost WCF)
1990 LAL (lost WCSF)
1982 BOS (lost ECF)
1980 BOS (lost ECF)
1978 PRT (lost WCSF)
1977 LAL (lost WCF)

[jjktkk]

Spurs have overcome Pop before, they can do it again.
Believe.

Just like SpursTalk overcoming your threadstarting and overall low basketball analysis tbh.

[GSH]

Name call all you want, you lazy ass. This is what you should have posted:



Overall Conf. Runner Overall Conf.
Year Champ Record Record Seed Up Record Record Seed
11 DAL 5 3 3 west MIA 3 2 2 east
10 LAL 3 1 1 west BOS T8 4 4 east
09 LAL 2 1 1 west ORL 4 3 3 east
08 BOS 1 1 1 east LAL 3 1 1 west
07 SAS 3 3 3 west CLE 6 2 2 east
06 MIA 5 2 2 east DAL 3 2 4 west
05 SAS T2 2 2 west DET 5 2 2 east
04 DET 6 2 3 east LAL 4 3 2 west
03 SAS T1 T1 1 west NJN 8 2 2 east
02 LAS T2 T2 3 west NJN 5 1 1 east

[TampaDude]

The only two years the West did not win the Champ
#2 Lakers 2004
#1 Lakers 2008

Yup, and in both those years, the Lakers got by the Spurs by way of bullshit calls (the late clock .4 in 2004 and the Fisher/Barry no-call in 2008), and then proceeded to get utterly humiliated in the Finals. Karma's a bitch, ain't it? :lol

[GSH]

BTW - the real message here is that your best bet for predicting an NBA Championship is Whoever Wins the WCF.

And seven out of the last 10 years, the WCF winner has been the 1 or 2 seed in the West. How's that for a stat?

[therealtruth]

You pretty much have to be in the top 3 in your conference to win it all. That follows the idea of there being roughly six contenders every season. After that I think it comes down to who matches up the best and is playing the best.

[jestersmash]

The fact that having the #1 point differential better predicts championships than the #1 seed has been canon in APBRmetric circles for decades now (I don't have the statistics off hand), but I'd like to see if Hollinger's automated power rankings improve further upon simply using point differential in predicting championship success.

Anybody know where I can find an archive of Hollinger's power rankings (end of regular season rankings, of course)?

[jestersmash]

Name call all you want, you lazy ass. This is what you should have posted:



Overall Conf. Runner Overall Conf.
Year Champ Record Record Seed Up Record Record Seed
11 DAL 5 3 3 west MIA 3 2 2 east
10 LAL 3 1 1 west BOS T8 4 4 east
09 LAL 2 1 1 west ORL 4 3 3 east
08 BOS 1 1 1 east LAL 3 1 1 west
07 SAS 3 3 3 west CLE 6 2 2 east
06 MIA 5 2 2 east DAL 3 2 4 west
05 SAS T2 2 2 west DET 5 2 2 east
04 DET 6 2 3 east LAL 4 3 2 west
03 SAS T1 T1 1 west NJN 8 2 2 east
02 LAS T2 T2 3 west NJN 5 1 1 east



And by the way, this table is far more readable than the OP. Thanks for this.

[Fabbs]

http://www.amarillo.com/images/100804/23104_512.jpg BTW - the real message here is that your best bet for predicting an NBA Championship is Whoever Wins the WCF.

And seven out of the last 10 years, the WCF winner has been the 1 or 2 seed in the West. How's that for a stat?
And i just posted that for the last 10 years the WCF Champ who became NBA Champ is tied at 3-3 amoungst seeds 1 and 3. That's how it is Corky.

[Fabbs]

The fact that having the #1 point differential better predicts championships than the #1 seed has been canon in APBRmetric circles for decades now (I don't have the statistics off hand), but I'd like to see if Hollinger's automated power rankings improve further upon simply using point differential in predicting championship success.

Anybody know where I can find an archive of Hollinger's power rankings (end of regular season rankings, of course)?
Yes. Would also like to see field goal % allowed as related to NBA Champs.

therealtruth
Re: #1 seeds and Championships the last 10* years

You pretty much have to be in the top 3 in your conference to win it all. That follows the idea of there being roughly six contenders every season. After that I think it comes down to who matches up the best and is playing the best.
Yep. Its established overextending for #1 is not worth it.

[Fabbs]

I'm butt hurt, but my chart still adds to the thread:



Overall Conf. Runner Overall Conf.
Year Champ Record Record Seed Up Record Record Seed
11 DAL 5 3 3 west MIA 3 2 2 east
10 LAL 3 1 1 west BOS T8 4 4 east
09 LAL 2 1 1 west ORL 4 3 3 east
08 BOS 1 1 1 east LAL 3 1 1 west
07 SAS 3 3 3 west CLE 6 2 2 east
06 MIA 5 2 2 east DAL 3 2 4 west
05 SAS T2 2 2 west DET 5 2 2 east
04 DET 6 2 3 east LAL 4 3 2 west
03 SAS T1 T1 1 west NJN 8 2 2 east
02 LAS T2 T2 3 west NJN 5 1 1 east


Most definitely this chart is an improvement.
Verifies that 1st seed overall doesn't overtake #3 seed when East and West are combined. Still tied.

Last 10 years entire NBA seeds they started from/won Championship
#1 4 champs
#3 4 champs
#2 2 champs

[Josepatches_]

Why only last 10 years?

[Spurs and Mavs fan]

It's true that 1# seeds don't tend to win it all, but anyone who is seriously suggesting that we should tank to the 2# seed in order to avoid such a fate is being ridiculous.

[spursfaninla]

Since the 1976 merger, there have been 35 NBA Finals contested.

By original playoff seeds, the Eastern Conference representative in the Finals has been:

#1 in 20/35 Finals (12 champions)
#2 in 8/35 (2 champions)
#3 in 4/35 (1 champion -- 04 DET)
#4 in 2/35 (1 champion -- 78 WAS)
#5 in 0/35
#6 in 0/35
#7 in 0/35
#8 in 1/35

By original playoff seeds, the Western Conference representative in the Finals has been:

#1 in 20/35 Finals (9 champions)
#2 in 5/35 (3 champions -- 05 SA, 01 LAL, 94 HOU)
#3 in 6/35 (3 champions -- 07 SA, 02 LAL)
#4 in 2/35
#5 in 0/35
#6 in 2/35 (1 champion -- 95 HOU)
#7 in 0/35
#8 in 0/35

If the question is how the teams with universal HCA has fared, the following #1 overall seeds have reached the Finals (champions in bold):

1979 WAS
1981 BOS
1983 PHI
1984 BOS
1985 BOS
1986 BOS
1987 LAL
1988 LAL
1989 DET
1992 CHI
1993 PNX
1996 CHI
1997 CHI
1998 UTH
1999 SA
2000 LAL
2003 SA
2008 BOS

The teams that had overall HCA but failed to reach the Finals were:

2011 CHI (lost ECF)
2010 CLE (lost ECSF)
2009 CLE (lost ECF)
2007 DAL (lost WCFR)
2006 DET (lost ECF)
2005 PNX (lost WCF)
2004 IND (lost ECF)
2002 SAC (lost WCF)
2001 SA (lost WCF)
1995 SA (lost WCF)
1994 SEA (lost WCFR)
1991 PRT (lost WCF)
1990 LAL (lost WCSF)
1982 BOS (lost ECF)
1980 BOS (lost ECF)
1978 PRT (lost WCSF)
1977 LAL (lost WCF)

This data shows that the out of 35 years, the number one seed won 21 times, which is around 60%. Number 2 seed won 5 times, about 15%. Number 3 seed won 4 times, round to about 15%. Other seeds were about 1/35.

Overwhelming number of one seeds won prior to the last 10 years. In the last 10 years, it seems things have changed, where you see the 2 and 3 seeds win sometimes too.

On a side note, I think it is relevant to look at when the number 2 and 3 seeds won in the finals, if they had HCA.

[Assman]

Tie between #1 and #3
West Conf Finish reg season season seed# who won Champ.
#1 seed 3X (Spurs 03 WWELakers 09 10)
#2 seed 1X (05 Spurs)
#3 seed 3X (11 Mavs 07 Spurs 02*Lakers)
#4 seed 1X (Mavs 06)

3 Champs each.

The only two years the West did not win the Champ
#2 Lakers 2004
#1 Lakers 2008

I'm pretty sure the Mavs lost in '06.

[GSH]

I'm pretty sure the Mavs lost in '06.


Don't point out his mistakes. He'll post a bad picture, and call you Corky and stuff. It's very hurtful.

:rolleyes

[Mel_13]

Yep. Its established overextending for #1 is not worth it.

Where is that established exactly?

[KaiRMD1]

The 04 Wolves isn't a WTF candidate, they were a really great team. I guess it considering how 05 went for them, they could be a giant WTF factor but they were pretty damn good.

[Sean Cagney]

okay i got it started up top.
2 of 3 Spurs Championships we were NOT the #1 seed reg season.
2005
2007

(2003 we finished tied for 1st. Not sure who won tiebreaker i think we did)

Obviously the Spurs won the tiebreaker since they had HC in the WCF that year, or did you forget?

[Jimcs50]

Last year, the Spurs were not a true #1 seed by the time the playoffs started.
they only won 4 games in their last 12 games and at one point lost 5 straight games. Add injuries to that and they were ripe for a quick exit from playoffs.

This years team is peaking instead of sliding. That is a huge difference.

[100%duncan]

Yeah...

[Fabbs]

Don't point out his mistakes. He'll post a bad picture, and call you Corky and stuff. It's very hurtful.

:rolleyes
I'm sorry. I'll send you some flowers and a Midol.

[Fabbs]

I'm pretty sure the Mavs lost in '06.
But you're not sure?

[Fabbs]

Obviously the Spurs won the tiebreaker since they had HC in the WCF that year, or did you forget?
I've tried forgetting about Michael Finley at the PF guarding Dirk. :pop:
And Manus brain fart negating the win over the Mavs and Pop. :depressed

[Fabbs]

Bump

[cd021]

1. See up top.
2. And you're wrong. Dallas was the #4 seed in 2006.

1 San Antonio
2 Phoenix
3 Denver
4 Dallas

Dallas had the second best record but didn't win their division so they were place in the 4th spot.

[Chris16]

Last year doesn't really count. The 2011 Spurs were badly dinged up and ran into a buzzsaw. This year's Spurs are MUCH deeper than last year's Spurs. We'd bounce the Grizz in 5 games, max.

Too bad "depth" didn't pay off in the WCF, right?

[TampaDude]

Too bad "depth" didn't pay off in the WCF, right?

It wasn't depth last year, it was defense, or rather the utter lack of it. Add in Ibaka going 11 for 11, stir with the shitty officiating spoon, and it's just one of those things. Spurs would likely have lost to Miami in the Finals anyway.

The Spurs' D is much better this year, and OKC is weaker this year without Harden, so the Spurs should be able to beat them.

All of the above is just conversation, though, because barring LeBron going down, Miami is going to repeat. Anyone who seriously thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

[TheGoldStandard]

If only we could sign Robert Horry for his hip checking intangibles for the playoffs.