Can history repeat?

[Jimcs50]

Does anyone worry about history repeating itseif from 2004?

2004-Spurs win last 11 games of regular season.

Spurs sweep first round 4-0

Spurs win games 1 and 2 in round 2 against a Los Angeles team for their 17th straight win.

Then said LA team wins next 4 games and our hot unbeatable Spurs are out of playoffs. :depressed

2012- Spurs win last 10 games of regular season.

Spurs sweep first round 4-0

Spurs again play a Los Angeles team in 2nd round.........


Hmmmm, maybe I want Memphis to win in 7 games afterall.

:p:

[celldweller]

I'm pretty sure Pop will bring this up to the troops. Complacency can take down any team.

[Yuixafun]

They are not doomed to repeat it because Spurs are aware

And those Lakers under Phil Jackson... Shaq/Kobe/Malone/Payton... hungry..

differ from these LA... Clippers... Del Negro... CP/Blake... cinderella.

Clock is striking midnight

[100%duncan]

No.

[urunobili]

Spurs may lose the first game of the series this time and your theory will go down the toilet.

[Jimcs50]

Spurs may lose the first game of the series this time and your theory will go down the toilet.


not a theory, just a coincidence that I noticed. Obviously two very different teams.....but I am sure Pop will remind players about how being too cocky can bite you in the ass

[MI21]

Bit of a coincidence but these Clippers / Grizzlies aren't the 04 Lakers. Either will present a much more difficult matchup than Utah, but the Spurs should be favourites.

[spursfan1000]

I'm sure this veteran team will handle themselves we'll and not be over confident

[Libri]

No.

[Dr Cox]

I could see the Spurs dropping game one...and then winning four straight. : )

[Pocket Hippo]

I personally do not put any stock into history based stats, they are different teams in the present so relying on trends is very iffy.

[Keepin' it real]

I'm not an MIT graduate, but mathematically speaking, aren't long winning streaks usually followed by losing streaks, or at least a period of more losses than wins?

Just like during a game, when a team has a hot-shooting first half, conventional wisdom is that they'll likely (and usually do) end up shooting poorly in the 2nd half and finish the game very close to their normal shooting percentage.

Unless the Spurs go 16-0 in the playoffs, otherwise known as fo-fo-fo-fo :toast, it will be verrry interesting to see how they react to their first loss. A poor performance in their next game could snowball to a 4-game losing streak and an early summer vacation.

A lot of the players are different from 2004 ... the opponent will be very different ... but that math remains the same.

[Ninja]

I'm not an MIT graduate
Clearly not. :lol

[Yuixafun]

Players are different, which means, there is a different equation, different values... so the math is different.

[Jimcs50]

I'm not an MIT graduate, but mathematically speaking, aren't long winning streaks usually followed by losing streaks, or at least a period of more losses than wins?

Just like during a game, when a team has a hot-shooting first half, conventional wisdom is that they'll likely (and usually do) end up shooting poorly in the 2nd half and finish the game very close to their normal shooting percentage.

Unless the Spurs go 16-0 in the playoffs, otherwise known as fo-fo-fo-fo :toast, it will be verrry interesting to see how they react to their first loss. A poor performance in their next game could snowball to a 4-game losing streak and an early summer vacation.

A lot of the players are different from 2004 ... the opponent will be very different ... but that math remains the same.

In Spurs two 11 game winning streaks, their streak ended on the road when they did not bring their three stars(Portland and Utah). In first scenario, they won the very next game, in other, they did lose the next one too, so I guess that can be a losing streak(2)

If Spurs can extend this streak to 16, then I'm ok wityh them losing next two on road, because,teams that start a series2-0 have gone on and won 90% of said series. I like their chances when they get that 2-0 lead.

[anonoftheinternets]

I'm not an MIT graduate, but mathematically speaking, aren't long winning streaks usually followed by losing streaks, or at least a period of more losses than wins?

...

no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

[Legacy]

No.

^^^

YES!


*ahem* I mean... No. :p:

[spurraider21]

Nope. That 04 series was won due to Fishers 0.4 shot in game 5 (in San Antonio) and the lakers closed game 6 at home. Fluky series.

Also, to the non MIT graduate, regardless of what streak they're on look at their win % to get the odds of winning their next game.

[cheguevara]

Memphis will beat the Clips and advance. you heard it first here

[Jimcs50]

Nope. That 04 series was won due to Fishers 0.4 shot in game 5 (in San Antonio) and the lakers closed game 6 at home. Fluky series.

Also, to the non MIT graduate, regardless of what streak they're on look at their win % to get the odds of winning their next game.



numerology people will point out that since it was 04, the 0.4 shot was destiny.

:p:

[tesseractive]

no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

This.

It's likely that anomalously long winning streaks will be followed by regression to the mean -- i.e. that the team will play at their average level from their on out, so their record over time will be closer to their average than to the record they demonstrated over the streak.

To be more concrete, if you flip a fair coin 10 times and get 10 heads in a row, then you flip the coin 10 more times, the expected number of heads in the second batch is still 5. If you keep doing it, the average is likely to get closer to 50/50, but tails are never more than 50% likely to appear from a fair coin flip.

[baseline bum]

I don't think this team is as good as the 04 team, but Parker's jumpshot has improved enough that the Lakers gimmick defense of 04 where they just packed the paint wouldn't be effective against this team now.

[Venti Quattro]

You're playing the wrong LA.

[cd98]

Please stop jinx.

[roycrikside]

That '04 team had Hedo, who was probably the closest Spur we've had to RJ. That team couldn't shoot at all. This Spurs team can shoot pretty well, as you've no doubt noticed.

[smaka]

Meh. Who cares about history?

[Jimcs50]

That '04 team had Hedo, who was probably the closest Spur we've had to RJ. That team couldn't shoot at all. This Spurs team can shoot pretty well, as you've no doubt noticed.

Hedo made 8 out of 28 (28% ) from downtown that series.......

I like our shooters better

[Jimcs50]

Meh. Who cares about history?


Obviously Hitler for one.

:p:

[Venti Quattro]

Meh. Who cares about history?

History majors.

[baseline bum]

That '04 team had Hedo, who was probably the closest Spur we've had to RJ. That team couldn't shoot at all. This Spurs team can shoot pretty well, as you've no doubt noticed.

Del Negro was the closest Spur we had to RJ tbh.

[timvp]

Obviously the 2004 demise is in the back of the minds of the Big 3 and Pop. I'm sure Pop has mentioned how win streaks don't guarantee anything about 234,112,644 times this season.

This Spurs team may eventually implode but it's much more likely to be a defensive meltdown than an offensive meltdown. That 2004 Spurs team was statistically the best defensive team in NBA history. However, offensively they were below average. That below average offense eventually caught up to them . . .

[Horse]

As long as the timekeeper is sober we will be fine.

[Jimcs50]

timvp, why do you have pic of Manu and TP in your posts and not TD??? I mean, look at your name, for chrissakes. Are you figuring that Timmy is old now so not worthy of being in your picture?

:depressed

[z0sa]

timvp, why do you have pic of Manu and TP in your posts and not TD??? I mean, look at your name, for chrissakes. Are you figuring that Timmy is old now so not worthy of being in your picture?

:depressed

Manu's old too dude. :)

[freetiago]

people always say pack the paint blahblahblah like that hurts the spurs
it hurts parkers scoring game but if you pack the paint that means that shooters will be open
we have the best shooters in the league
we want teams to pack the paint
thats how our offense works
then if they decide theyre getting burned to much they stop packing the paint and parker goes into layup drill mode

[Sec24Row7]

Tony Parker can shoot jumpshots now.

That is the reason we didn't win that series...

[Jimcs50]

Does anyone worry about history repeating itseif from 2004?

2004-Spurs win last 11 games of regular season.

Spurs sweep first round 4-0

Spurs win games 1 and 2 in round 2 against a Los Angeles team for their 17th straight win.
Then said LA team wins next 4 games and our hot unbeatable Spurs are out of playoffs. :depressed

2012- Spurs win last 10 games of regular season.

Spurs sweep first round 4-0

Spurs again play a Los Angeles team in 2nd round.........


Hmmmm, maybe I want Memphis to win in 7 games afterall.

:p:



So, here we are again....17 straight wins.....game in LA.....can it happen?




Nah.

:p:

[Budkin]

Tony Parker can shoot jumpshots now.

That is the reason we didn't win that series...

I think the reason was that nobody could hit a damn jumpshot that series, not TP, not Malik, and not He"don't." We would have won if we had kept Jax.

[therealtruth]

We also had Horry who couldn't make a shot against his former team.

[Keepin' it real]

This is worthy of a bump, given the circumstances.


mathematically speaking, aren't long winning streaks usually followed by losing streaks, or at least a period of more losses than wins?

I was afraid that the longer the winning streak got, so would the losing streak that would inevitably follow (law of averages). That's why I was halfway "hoping" for a loss or two in earlier rounds, just so this winning streak would not end up working against the Spurs (mathematically speaking).


Just like during a game, when a team has a hot-shooting first half, conventional wisdom is that they'll likely (and usually do) end up shooting poorly in the 2nd half and finish the game very close to their normal shooting percentage.

Sadly, the Spurs are halfway toward a 4-game losing streak, which would put their playoff win percentage at 71%, which would be very close to their 75% winning percentage in the regular season.


Unless the Spurs go 16-0 in the playoffs ... it will be verrry interesting to see how they react to their first loss. A poor performance in their next game could snowball to a 4-game losing streak and an early summer vacation.

A lot of the players are different from 2004 ... the opponent will be very different ... but that math remains the same.

As I said, these things have a way of evening out. Let's hope the Spurs can overcome the mathematical challenge facing them.

:flag:

[gameFACE]

What about history repeating itself from '03 against the Lakers (W-W-L-L-W-W)? Or the Sonics in '05 (W-W-L-L-W-W)? Those were easily the toughest WC teams the Spurs played in each of those championship runs.

[mexicanjunior]

What about history repeating itself from '03 against the Lakers (W-W-L-L-W-W)? Or the Sonics in '05 (W-W-L-L-W-W)? Those were easily the toughest WC teams the Spurs played in each of those championship runs.

2003 and 2005 Duncan would laugh at this version...

[racm]

What about history repeating itself from '03 against the Lakers (W-W-L-L-W-W)? Or the Sonics in '05 (W-W-L-L-W-W)? Those were easily the toughest WC teams the Spurs played in each of those championship runs.

I'm thinking having game 5 at home is what will swing the momentum back to the guys in silver and black.

[Budkin]

Can it yes? Will it no.

[Jimcs50]

Does anyone worry about history repeating itseif from 2004?

2004-Spurs win last 11 games of regular season.

Spurs sweep first round 4-0

Spurs win games 1 and 2 in round 2 against a Los Angeles team for their 17th straight win.

Then said LA team wins next 4 games and our hot unbeatable Spurs are out of playoffs. :depressed

2012- Spurs win last 10 games of regular season.

Spurs sweep first round 4-0

Spurs again play a Los Angeles team in 2nd round.........


Hmmmm, maybe I want Memphis to win in 7 games afterall.

:p:


Damn, it looks like history is repeating itself, only one series later. 20 game win streak instead of 17 game win streak, 2-0 lead, and possibly lose 4 straight again.

Don't think that in back of my mind, when Spurs had shot to tie game( down 3), with TD having ball in 3 pt area, that I thought of him launching the 3, making it, then having Westbrook hitting game winner at buzzer.....that would have been too freaky.


I am hoping SA can somehow pull out a game 6 victory, because this team does not deserve the ignominy of losing 4 straight and getting bounced out of playoffs. I'd much rather they lose in game 7.

[therealtruth]

Man Pop should have lost a game sooner.

[z0sa]

I commented about this worry when we were up 2-0. Everything, especially the winstreak and how unstoppable Parker looked on screen and rolls, was way, way too similar not to be concerned.

It all came to head on that last jumpshot from Tony last night. I was visibly sickened and disheartened when Parker hesitated and looked wildly around for a defender, even though his defender was seconds behind the play and everyone else was staying home, daring him to shoot a simple 17 footer.

[Jimcs50]

I commented about this worry when we were up 2-0. Everything, especially the winstreak and how unstoppable Parker looked on screen and rolls, was way, way too similar not to be concerned.

It all came to head on that last jumpshot from Tony last night. I was visibly sickened and disheartened when Parker hesitated and looked wildly around for a defender, even though his defender was seconds behind the play and everyone else was staying home, daring him to shoot a simple 17 footer.


Yeah, we had a chances numerous times to hit go ahead shots or shots to tie game. That shot by Manu looked like he made it to me, it was sickening seeing it miss and them get rebound.