Spurs Record After Winning Game 1's in the Tim Duncan Era

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

The Spurs have won 29 opening games in playoff series since Tim Duncan's arrival. Of those 29 series with game 1 victories they've gone on to win the series a total of 25 times (86%). However, their record in games 2s after a game 1 win is only 20-9, so based on that 86% series winning percentage it would appear that the Spurs let off the gas a bit in game 2 winning only 69% of those games.

If the Spurs go up 2-0, they own a 18-2 record in those series in the Duncan era (90%).

[jARS mEsH sEt]

These stats are completely useless because the applicability of these stats in predicting future outcomes are based on assumptions that aren't fulfilled.

[jARS mEsH sEt]

For example, for Spurs vs Dallas, you can cite figures for outcomes when the Spurs win game 1. The figures for when the Spurs lose game 3 are completely different, and yet both occurred in that series. We both won game 1 and lost game 3 to go down 1-2.

[TacoCabanaFajitas]

These stats are completely useless because the applicability of these stats in predicting future outcomes are based on assumptions that aren't fulfilled.

Yes but he isn't concluding that based on those stats alone, that the outcome is a certainty. The numbers don't tell the entire story of course, but there is certainly a trend that can be used to make certain assumptions.

[hater]

in other words anything could happen from here on out :lol

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

These stats are completely useless because the applicability of these stats in predicting future outcomes are based on assumptions that aren't fulfilled.

Just the numbers...not a prediction of any sort.

Your comment doesn't even make sense..."applicability of these stats in predicting future outcomes are based on assumptions that aren't fulfilled." What is that?

The Spurs won game 1...that's the only "assumption that's fulfilled." You sound like a retard.

My advice to you would be to say "we can't predict the future based on past history." At least then you wouldn't sound like an idiot.

[Mel_13]

If the Spurs go up 2-0, they own a 19-1 record in those series in the Duncan era (95%).

They've lost twice after going up 2-0, Lakers in 2004 and OKC in 2012.

[Fpoonsie]

Lakers in 2004

*throws up violently*

[Spurs7794]

They've lost twice after going up 2-0, Lakers in 2004 and OKC in 2012.

Hahaha, I was just going to say that these stats are useless when they are incorrect.

[hater]

Hahaha, I was just going to say that these stats are useless when they are incorrect.

We got a black hawk down, we got a black hawk down! Super 61 is down. We got a bird down in the city!!

:lol

[Darius McCrary]

EHJ tha old school freestyle king, ain't no pro

[Mugen]

The 2012 backdoor sweep hurts way more than 2004 despite .4 tbh.

The Spurs would have rolled Miami that year but would have gotten bent over by the Pistons in 2004 tbh.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

They've lost twice after going up 2-0, Lakers in 2004 and OKC in 2012.

'04 doesn't count.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

I'm counting that one as a win.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Hahaha, I was just going to say that these stats are useless when they are incorrect.

No longer useless. I was recalling playoff history from memory, of course. .04 had been blocked from my mind thanks to therapy. Thanks for bringing it back, fvcker.

[jARS mEsH sEt]

Just the numbers...not a prediction of any sort.

Your comment doesn't even make sense..."applicability of these stats in predicting future outcomes are based on assumptions that aren't fulfilled." What is that?

The Spurs won game 1...that's the only "assumption that's fulfilled." You sound like a retard.

My advice to you would be to say "we can't predict the future based on past history." At least then you wouldn't sound like an idiot.

Yeah, no offense but you don't have the required background information in basic statistics to understand. Go read a textbook.

[jARS mEsH sEt]

Yes but he isn't concluding that based on those stats alone, that the outcome is a certainty. The numbers don't tell the entire story of course, but there is certainly a trend that can be used to make certain assumptions.

That's exactly what you can't do.

[HI-FI]

We got a black hawk down, we got a black hawk down! Super 61 is down. We got a bird down in the city!!

:lol
:lmao

[heyheymymy]

well it was worth a shot op

[superjames1992]

These stats are completely useless because the applicability of these stats in predicting future outcomes are based on assumptions that aren't fulfilled.
Agreed.

See: 2012 WCF vs. OKC. :cry

See: 2004 WCSF vs. LAL. :cry

[jag]

The Spurs won game 1...that's the only "assumption that's fulfilled." You sound like a retard.



:lol

[Strategic]

Thanks Ed. Lets win this bithc!

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

I smell an imposter. The Chopper I know couldn't have made a thread about any statistic numbering 69 without making a sophomoric sex joke. Tbh the presence of arithmetic at all is another red flag.

[ezau]

The Spurs have won 29 opening games in playoff series since Tim Duncan's arrival. Of those 29 series with game 1 victories they've gone on to win the series a total of 25 times (86%). However, their record in games 2s after a game 1 win is only 20-9, so based on that 86% series winning percentage it would appear that the Spurs let off the gas a bit in game 2 winning only 69% of those games.

If the Spurs go up 2-0, they own a 18-2 record in those series in the Duncan era (90%).

The two losses when the Spurs were up 2-0 were against the Lakers in 2004 and OKC in 2012

[jARS mEsH sEt]

:lol

I presume you're laughing at his ignorance.

[lil'mo]

Just the numbers...not a prediction of any sort.

Your comment doesn't even make sense..."applicability of these stats in predicting future outcomes are based on assumptions that aren't fulfilled." What is that?

The Spurs won game 1...that's the only "assumption that's fulfilled." You sound like a retard.

My advice to you would be to say "we can't predict the future based on past history." At least then you wouldn't sound like an idiot.

:lmao

[100%duncan]

They may have won 1 but we lost the 6. :cry

[jARS mEsH sEt]

:lmao

Let's start a new stat. What's the spurs record after jars mesh set calls lil'mo a faggot. Stay tuned :lmao

[lil'mo]

Statistics is a fucking joke. It's a practice of making up numbers to say anything you want them to. :Rollin

Fake math :lol

[KaiRMD1]

I thought we always lost a series after losing game 3

[jARS mEsH sEt]

I thought we always lost a series after losing game 3

So which stat/trend was applicable against dallas? The one that says we win 90%+ of our series after winning game 1, or the one that says we lose 90% of our series after losing game 3?

[jARS mEsH sEt]

(That's a rhetorical question)

[TheRemix]

Advanced stats have shown that when the spurs win 4 games they always win the series

[KaiRMD1]

(That's a rhetorical question)

Stats are useless, fag

[jag]

Statistics is a fucking joke. It's a practice of making up numbers to say anything you want them to. :Rollin

Fake math :lol

Jars is probably retarded. But anyone who says statistics is a joke, because he isn't smart enough to grasp statistics, is equally retarded.

[SpurAddict561]

FOUR RINGS FAGGOT

[cjw]

The last game 1 loss was the friggen Grizzlies? How spoiled we are...

[Fireball]

fuck it ... we lost against OKC being up 2-0 and against Miami having a 1-0 ...

[Cowboys_Wear_Spurs]

These stats are completely useless because the applicability of these stats in predicting future outcomes are based on assumptions that aren't fulfilled.

They actually come into play as how well the Spurs as a unit close out series and hang on to series leads. But I think the main factor is Duncan and Co. are no spring chickens anymore. But Kawhi, Splitter, Green, Beli, Mills, now Baynes kinda negate the age factor a bit for the Spurs.

[lil'mo]

Jars is probably retarded. But anyone who says statistics is a joke, because he isn't smart enough to grasp statistics, is equally retarded.

Because I have a grasp on statistics, I know they are a fucking joke :lol

Hey I can take any set of random data I want to make any argument I want! :lmao

[Al Koholik]

Because I have a grasp on statistics, I know they are a fucking joke :lol

Hey I can take any set of random data I want to make any argument I want! :lmao

Becaush I took a stats class once. Shutdahellup. Stupid full of themself youngsters.

[Spur|n|Austin]

Just the numbers...not a prediction of any sort.

Your comment doesn't even make sense..."applicability of these stats in predicting future outcomes are based on assumptions that aren't fulfilled." What is that?

The Spurs won game 1...that's the only "assumption that's fulfilled." You sound like a retard.

My advice to you would be to say "we can't predict the future based on past history." At least then you wouldn't sound like an idiot.

He's not even sure what he's saying sometimes..

[jARS mEsH sEt]

Jars is probably retarded. But anyone who says statistics is a joke, because he isn't smart enough to grasp statistics, is equally retarded.

:lmao Jag with the usual high horse bullshit without contributing anything meaningful to the thread. How does it feel to be a non-contributing zero?

[jARS mEsH sEt]

He's not even sure what he's saying sometimes..

:rollin so...fucking...mad. I love it.

[Spur|n|Austin]

Mad at? :lol I think it's fun watching you troll around here with shit takes.

[Skull-1]

We got a black hawk down, we got a black hawk down! Super 61 is down. We got a bird down in the city!!

:lol


"Shughart and Gordon requesting permission to go in and secure the crash site."

[Skull-1]

The Spurs have won 29 opening games in playoff series since Tim Duncan's arrival. Of those 29 series with game 1 victories they've gone on to win the series a total of 25 times (86%). However, their record in games 2s after a game 1 win is only 20-9, so based on that 86% series winning percentage it would appear that the Spurs let off the gas a bit in game 2 winning only 69% of those games.

If the Spurs go up 2-0, they own a 18-2 record in those series in the Duncan era (90%).

totally irrelevant since every variable has changed except for Pop and Tim. They have changed, too. Gotten older. So forecasting is impossible.