just when i felt good about the sweep

[td4mvp3]

from espn

Research Notes
San Antonio's win makes it just the 4th time under the current playoff format that a team swept each of the 1st 2 rounds of the postseason. That might not be as great as it sounds. Each of the previous 3 lost in the following round with Miami the lone squad to take the Conference Finals to 7 games. [-]
Swept 1st 2 Rounds of Postseason - Current Playoff Format
Result
2011-12 Spurs ?
2009-10 Magic L, Conf Finals
2008-09 Cavaliers L, Conf Finals
2004-05 Heat L, Conf Finals
* 1st round expanded to Best-of-7 series in 2002-03

[vander]

:depressed

[BatManu20]

We're not those teams. I believe in us a hell of a lot more then I believe in those Magic, Cavs, and Heat teams. Gotta believe man. It'll be a tough series no doubt, but if we play Spurs ball we can do it. Go Spurs.

[Yuixafun]

All those teams are inferior to the Spurs team now.

[Floyd Pacquiao]

Fock

[timvp]

Meh. Mediocre teams can sweep series in the East. Most years, the first two rounds are byes for the best teams in that conference.

[td4mvp3]

the only solace i took was that they were all eastern conf.

[DMC]

That's because b2b 4 game sweeps means you got the easier path.

[timtonymanu]

We did sweep through two rounds in 99. And won the title. In a lockout season.

tbhfwiw

[Sec24Row7]

ROFL... this is one of those stats that is like... huh? WTF does that have to do with spurs?

[Sec24Row7]

We did sweep through two rounds in 99. And won the title. In a lockout season.

tbhfwiw

We beat Minny in 4 (3-1) in the first round then swept lakers/blazers then beat NY in 5.

[mVp]

oranges and apples tbh

[crc21209]

Meh. Mediocre teams can sweep series in the East. Most years, the first two rounds are byes for the best teams in that conference.

Exactly. And those teams arent anywhere close to being on the Spurs level....

[td4mvp3]

ROFL... this is one of those stats that is like... huh? WTF does that have to do with spurs?

um...they kinda just swept their first two rounds...?

[timtonymanu]

We beat Minny in 4 (3-1) in the first round then swept lakers/blazers then beat NY in 5.

Damn it. I forgot that.

:lol Me

[dbreiden83080]

from espn

Research Notes
San Antonio's win makes it just the 4th time under the current playoff format that a team swept each of the 1st 2 rounds of the postseason. That might not be as great as it sounds. Each of the previous 3 lost in the following round with Miami the lone squad to take the Conference Finals to 7 games. [-]
Swept 1st 2 Rounds of Postseason - Current Playoff Format
Result
2011-12 Spurs ?
2009-10 Magic L, Conf Finals
2008-09 Cavaliers L, Conf Finals
2004-05 Heat L, Conf Finals
* 1st round expanded to Best-of-7 series in 2002-03

WOW Spurs are only a gazzillion times better than those teams.

[Darkwaters]

ROFL... this is one of those stats that is like... huh? WTF does that have to do with spurs?

I hear that teams that put their left shoe on before their right win the Conference Finals 78% more often than those that does the opposite. I'm really concerned...I'm pretty damn sure the Spurs go right/left - not left/right.

[capek]

fuk yo magical thinking clown

[dbreiden83080]

The OKC series will be tough but we match up well with them and have HC.. We can win in 6 and if not game 7 will be in SA.


Go Spurs Go!!

[Sec24Row7]

um...they kinda just swept their first two rounds...?

No shit?

The statistic is irrelevant... none of the teams or their situations are related.

This isn't like saying that a team down 2-0 or 2-1 or 3-0 has an x percent chance of winning the series...

[TimmehC]

@docrostov
the last team in the WEST that swept the first two rounds? 2001 lakers. they went 16-1 in the playoffs.

[sananspursfan21]

Meh. Mediocre teams can sweep series in the East. Most years, the first two rounds are byes for the best teams in that conference.

I hit the imaginary "like" button

[therealtruth]

Meh. Mediocre teams can sweep series in the East. Most years, the first two rounds are byes for the best teams in that conference.

The last time it was done in the West I think was 2001. The Lakers won that year with a 15-1 record.

[Whisky Dog]

Rofl the eastern conference since 1998.

[freetiago]

All 3 are East teams without championships and drama queen as leaders

05 was a young dwhistle who only won with the biggest officiating job in nba history
magic was led by howard whos team was exposed as garbage and howard was exposed as a shitty human being
then you have the lechoke one man teams

way different then 4 time champ spurs on an 18 game winning streak with a complete team

[Salty]

Has absolutely nothing to do with the 2012 Spurs. None of those teams were the best TEAM in the league and riding 18 game win streak with only two losses in the past 31 games.

[td4mvp3]

No shit?

The statistic is irrelevant... none of the teams or their situations are related.

This isn't like saying that a team down 2-0 or 2-1 or 3-0 has an x percent chance of winning the series...

how is it not exactly like those sorts of stats, ones based on historical performance and not probability? probability wise, each game is its own unique thing given pretty much the same chances of each side winning, in the same way a coin flip always has a 50-50 chance regardless of a streak of 10 heads making people think a tail has a better likelihood of showing up. the 2-0 or 3-0 thing just says historically, this number of teams have gone on to do whatever; the other stat says historically, this number of teams have gone on to do this other thing when found in this situation.

not saying the spurs lose, just pointing out the reason for the freaking title of the thread: the stat kind of took some wind out of the sweeping sails.

[Uriel]

That's odd. This was just tweeted by Fran Blinebury of NBA.com.

@franblinebury
Spurs 102, Clippers 99. SA is 12th team in NBA history to sweep 1st 2 rds of playoffs -- 6 previous teams won championship. Last 2001 Lakers

[td4mvp3]

That's odd. This was just tweeted by Fran Blinebury of NBA.com.

now the stats are just screwing with me.

hold on, i think the other stat said the format change of having 7-game first rounds only started in 2003? i think the list they provide starts at 2002 or so.

[hooperflash]

this is supposed to be a BNSF thread?

[Sec24Row7]

how is it not exactly like those sorts of stats, ones based on historical performance and not probability? probability wise, each game is its own unique thing given pretty much the same chances of each side winning, in the same way a coin flip always has a 50-50 chance regardless of a streak of 10 heads making people think a tail has a better likelihood of showing up. the 2-0 or 3-0 thing just says historically, this number of teams have gone on to do whatever; the other stat says historically, this number of teams have gone on to do this other thing when found in this situation.

not saying the spurs lose, just pointing out the reason for the freaking title of the thread: the stat kind of took some wind out of the sweeping sails.

2-0 3-0 means something... you have to win 4-4 or 4-5 games in order to win the series...

This one is irrelevant... Its like saying the last 3 people that won the lottery drove a prius... oh fuck... I drive a truck.

[InK]

Rofl the eastern conference since 1998.

:lol:lol:lol At idea Jazz and hobbled Clipps are great teams.

[Sec24Row7]

:lol:lol:lol At idea Jazz and hobbled Clipps are great teams.

No one said they were great... but they at least had winning records... which isn't something you can say for every east coast 6-8 seed for the last 10 years...

[pgardn]

PISOMP

People In Search Of Meaningless Patterns.

Its a self help group.

Next meeting 7/13/2012 Dont look up the day of the week...

The Black Cat Across My Path Gym
666 Numerology Lane

Be there, be scared, I sweared.

[td4mvp3]

2-0 3-0 means something... you have to win 4-4 or 4-5 games in order to win the series...

This one is irrelevant... Its like saying the last 3 people that won the lottery drove a prius... oh fuck... I drive a truck.

not even a little bit. when they say 76 percent of the teams who've gone up 2-0 end up winning the series, it does not mean that the team up 2-0 has a 76 percent chance of winning the next game, it means that if there had been 100 teams in similar situations, 76 of them had gone on to win that series: historical pattern. this is a historical pattern: three teams have swept the first two rounds, three have gone on to lose the next round. the pattern has fewer numbers so there's that, but no less the same kind of thing as the 2-0 thing. it would be insane to think that two teams facing each other suddenly increase their chances of winning a game solely by virtue of having won a previous one. all the components remain the same, so all the probabilities remain the same, too.

[td4mvp3]

PISOMP

People In Search Of Meaningless Patterns.

Its a self help group.

Next meeting 7/13/2012 Dont look up the day of the week...

The Black Cat Across My Path Gym
666 Numerology Lane

Be there, be scared, I sweared.
except i didn't say there was a correlation or causation or even an influence. i just said it dampened my sweep feeling. too many folks are reading too much into my post, which is really what you're getting at.

[racm]

Correlation does not imply causation.

That said, those teams were top-heavy affairs that were playing in the conference that has been weaker since 1998.

[CGD]

The East sucked during that period. No surprises there.

[Keepin' it real]

ROFL... this is one of those stats that is like... huh? WTF does that have to do with spurs?

I agree this has nothing to do with the Spurs ... but THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT. It doesn't matter that it's San Antonio, or that the 3 teams to previously sweep rounds 1 and 2 were in the east, or that the Spurs may (arguably) be playing better that those three prior teams.

The point is that -- numerically and objectively -- teams in this situation do not achieve ultimate success. The point is, after having that much success, even one loss can feel demoralizing, and that can lead to ... splat.

I remember what David Robinson said about the '03 title team. He loved they way they always bounced back from a loss. He knew he could count on his team to get back up after they had been knocked down in the playoffs. None of us know if this Spurs team shares that trait because they've yet to experience the adversity of losing in the playoffs.

So if you don't get it or don't agree that it's relevant to the Spurs, that's fine, but don't criticize the OP for posting a statistic that is a lot more compelling than saying "but we're playing really well right now." (I'm sure the other 3 teams and their fans thought the same thing.)

For numbers people, this could be an alarming statistic.

[703 Spurz]

from espn

Research Notes
San Antonio's win makes it just the 4th time under the current playoff format that a team swept each of the 1st 2 rounds of the postseason. That might not be as great as it sounds. Each of the previous 3 lost in the following round with Miami the lone squad to take the Conference Finals to 7 games. [-]
Swept 1st 2 Rounds of Postseason - Current Playoff Format
Result
2011-12 Spurs ?
2009-10 Magic L, Conf Finals
2008-09 Cavaliers L, Conf Finals
2004-05 Heat L, Conf Finals
* 1st round expanded to Best-of-7 series in 2002-03

Well it's all over now. The past always dictates the future right? Time to pack up and hope next year is better.

[wut]

Stats need context and the context that needs to go with these stats should be: the following teams faced barely above .500 teams.

[Russ]

The 2001 Lakers swept their first two series and then swept the Spurs in the the Western Conference Finals.

I guess that doesn't qualify because it wasn't the "current format," i.e., best 4 out of 7 in the first round.

[Sec24Row7]

not even a little bit. when they say 76 percent of the teams who've gone up 2-0 end up winning the series, it does not mean that the team up 2-0 has a 76 percent chance of winning the next game, it means that if there had been 100 teams in similar situations, 76 of them had gone on to win that series: historical pattern. this is a historical pattern: three teams have swept the first two rounds, three have gone on to lose the next round. the pattern has fewer numbers so there's that, but no less the same kind of thing as the 2-0 thing. it would be insane to think that two teams facing each other suddenly increase their chances of winning a game solely by virtue of having won a previous one. all the components remain the same, so all the probabilities remain the same, too.


If you don't think that a team that has won 3 games in a row against another team is more likely to win 1 game out of the next 4 against that same team than a team who has lost 3 games in a row is to win 4 straight.... then I don't know how to help you.

[Jimcs50]

from espn

Research Notes
San Antonio's win makes it just the 4th time under the current playoff format that a team swept each of the 1st 2 rounds of the postseason. That might not be as great as it sounds. Each of the previous 3 lost in the following round with Miami the lone squad to take the Conference Finals to 7 games. [-]
Swept 1st 2 Rounds of Postseason - Current Playoff Format
Result
2011-12 Spurs ?
2009-10 Magic L, Conf Finals
2008-09 Cavaliers L, Conf Finals
2004-05 Heat L, Conf Finals
* 1st round expanded to Best-of-7 series in 2002-03


Common denominator:

Eastern Conference, was notoriously weak at the bottom half of the draw. Duke could have swept those series.

[rascal]

Too small a sample size to make any type of correlation with this year.

But the spurs have not been tested with easy opponents so far. Next round will be different.

[CosmicCowboy]

Hell, the bottom tier East teams of the playoffs those years didn't even win half their games in the regular season.

[Cory Joseph]

Just a slight parallel, not an accurate comparison.

[ManuTastic]

To complete the picture, someone needs to supply the teams that were swept by those eventual losers. Probably they were, as has been said, crappy teams that only made the playoffs because they were in the East, but it would be nice to know the teams.

[td4mvp3]

Correlation does not imply causation..

yeah...that's what i said, except i went a step further and said there isn't even a correlation.

[td4mvp3]

The 2001 Lakers swept their first two series and then swept the Spurs in the the Western Conference Finals.

I guess that doesn't qualify because it wasn't the "current format," i.e., best 4 out of 7 in the first round.

um...yeah, that would be why they didn't count it, it didn't fit the criteria.

[td4mvp3]

If you don't think that a team that has won 3 games in a row against another team is more likely to win 1 game out of the next 4 against that same team than a team who has lost 3 games in a row is to win 4 straight.... then I don't know how to help you.

no, i'm saying the team that won 3 games in a row has no better chance of winning that fourth game than they did when they played the first game, which is exactly what should be expected.

take a stone, lift it into the air, you expect a certain result, and you continue to expect that result so long as stone, arm, and height remain the same: hence, if a team comes in vastly superior, that superiority doesn't diminish or increase just because they win. that's looking at it backwards: they win because they are superior.

it is not that the 3-win team has a better chance of beating the loser after having won 3 games, it is that the team has the same chance as they started with and that chance had been enough the first game to win, the second game to win, and the third game to win. why suddenly be surprised that a fourth game was won given that nothing changed?

[td4mvp3]

Common denominator:

Eastern Conference, was notoriously weak at the bottom half of the draw. Duke could have swept those series.

which is what i pointed out as solace so really got confused by all the vitriole from folks acting as if i'd condemned the team to mediocrity. i didn't make up the stat or go searching for it, just saw it.

[Creation88]

who cares...if we play the way we've been playing, as a team, and execute we'll be hard to beat. :downspin:

[td4mvp3]

Just a slight parallel, not an accurate comparison.

even giving the obvious differences of west and east conferences, the comparison is exact, not slightly parallel. the defining trait for the stat was simply the sweeping of the first two rounds, which the spurs did.

[td4mvp3]

just for comparison


reg season rank by point differential:

2011-12:
2 San Antonio 103.7 96.5 +7.2 .478 .452 .393 .353 .748 .251 .760 .511 13.6 13.7

10 LA Clippers 97.5 95.0 +2.5 .455 .447 .357 .365 .680 .295 .732 .511 13.3 14.6

16 Utah 99.7 99.0 +0.7 .456 .453 .323 .340 .754 .302 .738 .518 14.2 14.7


2009-10

1 Orlando 102.8 95.3 +7.5 .470 .438 .375 .363 .724 .246 .774 .519 14.1 12.8

6 Atlanta 101.7 97.0 +4.7 .468 .460 .360 .345 .759 .282 .727 .502 12.0 13.8

15 Charlotte 95.3 93.8 +1.5 .453 .448 .346 .338 .751 .265 .742 .507 15.7 15.3

2008-09
1 Cleveland 100.3 91.4 +8.9 .468 .431 .393 .333 .757 .277 .746 .520 12.7 13.9

12 Atlanta 98.1 96.5 +1.6 .458 .454 .366 .353 .737 .260 .716 .489 12.8 13.7

17 Detroit 94.2 94.7 -0.5 .454 .451 .349 .354 .751 .279 .740 .506 11.9 11.8

2004-05
3 Miami 101.5 95.0 +6.5 .486 .427 .377 .348 .672 .270 .741 .515 13.7 13.2

16 Washington 100.5 100.8 -0.3 .437 .459 .343 .364 .725 .311 .700 .499 14.3 15.9

19 Brooklyn 91.4 92.9 -1.5 .429 .439 .362 .368 .763 .255 .732 .490 14.2 15.6

[Sec24Row7]

no, i'm saying the team that won 3 games in a row has no better chance of winning that fourth game than they did when they played the first game, which is exactly what should be expected.

take a stone, lift it into the air, you expect a certain result, and you continue to expect that result so long as stone, arm, and height remain the same: hence, if a team comes in vastly superior, that superiority doesn't diminish or increase just because they win. that's looking at it backwards: they win because they are superior.

it is not that the 3-win team has a better chance of beating the loser after having won 3 games, it is that the team has the same chance as they started with and that chance had been enough the first game to win, the second game to win, and the third game to win. why suddenly be surprised that a fourth game was won given that nothing changed?

You don't get it... and its not my job to explain it to you.

The 2-0 and 3-0 statistics IN A SERIES are nothing like saying that the teams to sweep the first to rounds 4-0 4-0 haven't made it out of the second round.

[mabrignani]

didnt the lakers sweep everyone but iverson one year and still win it?

[TDomination]

didnt the lakers sweep everyone but iverson one year and still win it?

yeah, but espn is only using the stat after the NBA integrated a 7-game series in the first round.

[therealtruth]

It's definitely a much harder feat to accomplish in the WC.

[TDomination]

We are the 12th team overall to sweep the first 2 rounds of the playoffs in NBA history.

Six have gone on to win the NBA championship

Link (http://www.nba.com/2012/news/features/fran_blinebury/05/21/spurs-perspective/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt1)

[jimo2305]

this thread has severly weakened my boner.. good job

[Obstructed_View]

Yeah, that's because the eastern conference usually has three or four teams that shouldn't even be in the playoffs. This was about as deep and competetive a western conference as we've ever seen.

[urunobili]

stats in the west? 2001 Lakers won it all, 1999 Spurs won it all

[td4mvp3]

You don't get it... and its not my job to explain it to you.

The 2-0 and 3-0 statistics IN A SERIES are nothing like saying that the teams to sweep the first to rounds 4-0 4-0 haven't made it out of the second round.
i know you're not explaining your point, that's part of my frustration. you say "in a series" as if that makes everything remarkably clear. you've yet to show how what i said is wrong. you keep doing a remarkable job of not explaining why and then ranting about how you're not going to explain why. so don't post, issue solved.

so i found this when the thunder were bashing the mavs


History already favors teams up 2-0 in a series (94 percent win the series). But history really favors teams up 3-0 (100 percent win the series). Where the Mavs sit, they now have to beat the Thunder four out of five times. But it starts with one game and the Thunder can really grab this one around the throat with a win tonight. Winning one of these two games in Dallas is key so that there’s a chance to finish it out at home in Game 5, but Oklahoma City has a chance to essentially put it away tonight.

the article is saying that 94 percent of the teams in the same situation went on to win the series; that every team that has gone up 3-0 has gone on to win the series. but none of those stats say anything about the chances of one team beating the other team in that particular game. the stat is only a neat tidy way to point out some historical pattern.

hell, as i think about it, the real issue is the way we're phrasing it. we keep saying the team that's 3-0 and obscuring the real parallel: the stat says that, say, 100 teams since the nba started have gone up 3-0, and all of those teams won their series; this stat says that 3 teams since 2003 have swept their first two playoff series and all have gone on to lose in the conference finals. as a historical pattern and bit of trivia, it stands just as valid as the 3-0 thing.

[td4mvp3]

this thread has severly weakened my boner.. good job

sorry, man, i'm right there with you.

[Sec24Row7]

i know you're not explaining your point, that's part of my frustration. you say "in a series" as if that makes everything remarkably clear. you've yet to show how what i said is wrong. you keep doing a remarkable job of not explaining why and then ranting about how you're not going to explain why. so don't post, issue solved.

so i found this when the thunder were bashing the mavs



the article is saying that 94 percent of the teams in the same situation went on to win the series; that every team that has gone up 3-0 has gone on to win the series. but none of those stats say anything about the chances of one team beating the other team in that particular game. the stat is only a neat tidy way to point out some historical pattern.


we weren't really even arguing about the series thing... Although your logic is slightly flawed... i mostly agree with you on this...

there isn't a set number (%) chance team A is going to beat team B as a constant for all games of a series... injuries, adjustments, HCA, start time, B2B, assigned officials... are all variables that change winning % chance from game to game...

I was arguing that the thread topic makes no logical sense to apply to the spurs... There is no causality between sweeping two rounds of the playoffs and losing in the next round... There is just absolutely no relationship... so it is pointless to compare the two.

[td4mvp3]

we weren't really even arguing about the series thing... Although your logic is slightly flawed... i mostly agree with you on this...

there isn't a set number (%) chance team A is going to beat team B as a constant for all games of a series... injuries, adjustments, HCA, start time, B2B, assigned officials... are all variables that change winning % chance from game to game...

which was my point, so i really didn't get why you seemed to be arguing against it.


I was arguing that the thread topic makes no logical sense to apply to the spurs... There is no causality between sweeping two rounds of the playoffs and losing in the next round... There is just absolutely no relationship... so it is pointless to compare the two.

and i wasn't understanding why anyone thought my thread topic was trying to prove some causality or correlation, especially after i clearly point out that the only issue i had was that this particular bit of trivia lessened my thrill for the sweep. that was the only point of the thread: did anyone know this bit of trivia and how that trivia made the sweep less sweet for me. i was looking to commiserate, much like i did with the dude whose boner was sacrificed.

[TD 21]

Meh. Mediocre teams can sweep series in the East. Most years, the first two rounds are byes for the best teams in that conference.

That and they have nothing to do with the Spurs. That's like those stats about "in (insert team's) franchise history, they're (insert stat) in (insert situation)". As if something from 10, 20, 30, etc. years ago has any bearing on the current team.

The reality is, those teams weren't as good as this team and were led by arrogant pukes. This team has appropriate fear of every situation and takes nothing for granted. I saw some slippage in their play the last few games, but that was more so inevitability than overconfidence.