Rising Suns??? Hollinger ESPN

[biba]

Rising Suns???

Just gonna throw this out there …

John Hollinger ESPN

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2008/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Surprises-080428

All 83 times that a team has taken a 3-0 lead in an NBA best-of-seven playoff series, it has gone on to win the series.

But somebody is going to be the first to buck the trend. It happened for the first time in baseball with the Red Sox a few years ago, and inevitably it will happen in basketball, too.

And when would it happen? Most likely with a team that's basically as good as its opponent. That's a rarity in most of the series that started 3-0 -- but not in the Suns-Spurs series. The two teams finished only a game apart in the regular season, the Suns finished ahead in my power rankings, the scoring margin after four games is only five points, and the series would be even if not for the aforementioned Phoenix blunder at the end of Game 1.

I don't want to make too much out of this -- even if you presume the teams are dead-even and give the home team a three-point advantage each night, the fact that the Spurs have two home games in the final three and need to prevail only once adds up to a 94 percent chance they'll win the series. Most likely, San Antonio will be in the conference semifinals.

But this is one of the rare cases in which the team down 3-0 does still have a genuine chance of winning the series.

And if it happened, that would provide the ultimate surprise of this first round.

John Hollinger writes for ESPN Insider. To e-mail him, click here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

This media love for the Suns never gonna end.

Until...

[bdictjames]

Haha what has happened with Hollinger? Last year he loved the Spurs. This year he doesn't. Rooting for the underdog?

[Findog]

He's not really saying anything anti-Spurs, just that if it's ever gonna happen, this is as likely an instance as any other.

[WildcardManu]

Haha what has happened with Hollinger? Last year he loved the Spurs. This year he doesn't. Rooting for the underdog?

he actually picked the suns before the series started, he's drinking the phx koolaid, what do they put in that water? they see mirage's of a good team, thats about it, all smoke screens , suns are posers, media darlings, nothing more, they don't respond when it counts.

[bigfan]

A team will lose a few games in the playoffs. No need to panic. Wish we would have taken care of business in PHX but since we didnt, we need to win Tuesday. Get an early lead and keep it. Play defense and dont let them back in the game. Thats it.

[Str8Ballin]

come on, aint you guys a little scared?

[m33p0]

stfu, pencil-pusher.

[BigVee]

come on, aint you guys a little scared?

I would give you a serious answer if you didn't have that ridiculous picture.

[hater]

come on, aint you guys a little scared?

even if we go to a game 7, which will not happen because Spurs will take care of business as usual tomorrow night, even at game 7 i would not be scared. I mean, it's the Suns come on.

[Str8Ballin]

come on man that pictures funny as hell.

[SpurOutofTownFan]

He just doesn't know what to write about this morning.

[duncan228]

I'm not scared at all. I'm not even worried.

[Trainwreck2100]

He's not really saying anything anti-Spurs, just that if it's ever gonna happen, this is as likely an instance as any other.


this is more of an article that if it does happen he can say he was the first tojump on that wagon, it's pretty smart for an idiot actually

[Galileo]

his first error is the the Suns are as good as the Spurs. They're not.

[JMarkJohns]

I'm scared. Scared that the Suns can win three in a row, push the series to seven and save D'Antoni's job by almost doing the impossible.

Screw that. If D'Antoni's fired with a Suns loss, then it's a necessary evil.

There's got to be a reason Carlisle hasn't taken a job yet, right?

[FromWayDowntown]

Until the Spurs win 4 games, it remains possible that the Suns will win 4 games first. At this point, the Suns are in actuality the most likely team in NBA history to come back from down 3-0. All of the past teams in this position have failed and the '08 Nuggets haven't yet won a game in their series to make it slightly more possible that they could rally to win. So, in some sort of absolutist terms, the Suns are, in this moment, the most likely team in NBA history to come back to win after being down 3-0.

[xtremesteven33]

Until the Spurs win 4 games, it remains possible that the Suns will win 4 games first. At this point, the Suns are in actuality the most likely team in NBA history to come back from down 3-0. All of the past teams in this position have failed and the '08 Nuggets haven't yet won a game in their series to make it slightly more possible that they could rally to win. So, in some sort of absolutist terms, the Suns are, in this moment, the most likely team in NBA history to come back to win after being down 3-0.


not really, against the defending camps? one of the greatest teams in sports history, and one of the greatest coaches in NBA history? i dont think so. yea its good to be cautious, but lets be realistic. the better team always wins a 7 game series.

[JMarkJohns]

not really, against the defending camps? one of the greatest teams in sports history, and one of the greatest coaches in NBA history? i dont think so. yea its good to be cautious, but lets be realistic. the better team always wins a 7 game series.

He's speaking in technicalities, not reality. Since no one else ever has, and since the other 3-0 team hasn't won a game yet, the Suns are currently the stastically most likely.

The likelihood is very slim, but FWD was merely pointing out that technically, the Suns have the best shot at the moment.

[FromWayDowntown]

not really, against the defending camps? one of the greatest teams in sports history, and one of the greatest coaches in NBA history? i dont think so. yea its good to be cautious, but lets be realistic. the better team always wins a 7 game series.

I think you missed my point. In all of time, there have been 85 teams that have gone down 3-0 in a playoff series. At this moment, there are only 2 teams that have a chance to come back from down 3-0 and win a series -- the 2008 Suns and the 2008 Nuggets. Of those 2, the most likely to come back and win is the Suns, if only because they've already managed to win one of the games necessary to complete such a comeback. As such, the 2008 Suns are the team most likely, in all of NBA history, to rally from down 0-3 to win a series. That's not saying that they will do it; but for now, they have a better chance than the 83 teams who've already failed and they have a better chance than the Nuggets team that has not yet won a game in its series.

[The Truth #6]

I think he has nothing else to write about. Or, he's hoping for another game to be on ESPN/ABC. Who knows what that was all about?

[Allanon]

It's a remote possibility but the possibility is there nonetheless. I think it's ridiculous that a team down 0-3 could come back.

What worries me the most is:
1) The Suns have come back for 0-2 and 1-3 so we know they're resilient
2) They should have won Game 1 OR
2a) They should have won Game 2
4) But instead they discombobulated on themselves when the Spurs applied pressure

Odds say that the Suns are due to win a game in San Antonio in Game 5. And if they win in San Antonio, does that give them an automatic win in Phoenix in Game 6? They should have the odds to win in Phoenix being the home team and already losing 1 badly there.

That places Game #7 in the air, Phoenix would no longer have the odds to win in San Antonio.

So I would say series odds are now in favor of a 7 game series with San Antonio winning in game #7.

[DarrinS]

If the Suns played anything that resembled defense, then I'd be worried.

[All Seeing Eye]

If the Suns played anything that resembled defense, then I'd be worried.

Game 4, 1st Q
Spurs 13
Suns 34

That resembles defense.

[DarrinS]

Game 4, 1st Q
Spurs 13
Suns 34

That resembles defense.


I think the rim was your best defender in that game.

[DarrinS]

If Tony, Tim, and Manu are benched in the 3rd quarter of each game and the Suns have 30 points leads in those games, then the Sons have a very good shot at the series.

[Killakobe81]

Hollinger is a stat geek if the numbers favor the team ...then he is all for them. he predicts Utah vs. Boston in NBA Finals ...nuff said. Boston I see ... but Utah?!

[All Seeing Eye]

I think the rim was your best defender in that game.

Ha ha. The old "they just weren't hitting their shots" gambit.

[JMarkJohns]

Game 4, 1st Q
Spurs 13
Suns 34

That resembles defense.

So the Suns win one quarter by double figures in the entire series and now they play defense? Maybe you're right. Maybe they finally figured it out. Or, maybe, just like they always have, the Suns put it all together for one game.

Guess we'll see.

I'm so torn. I can't bring myself to root against the Suns, but I want D'Antoni gone.

[hater]

2) They should have won Game 1
3) They should have won Game 2



should have... would have... could have...

truth is they didn't and Spurs found a way to win the games. that's what champions do

[JMarkJohns]

Hollinger is a stat geek if the numbers favor the team ...then he is all for them. he predicts Utah vs. Boston in NBA Finals ...nuff said. Boston I see ... but Utah?!

Why not Utah?

[Kyle45]

Why not Utah?

Current series notwithstanding, I don't think the Jazz are good enough on the road to overcome that many home court disadvantages.

[Allanon]

should have... would have... could have...

truth is they didn't and Spurs found a way to win the games. that's what champions do

Ah I know that, I'm just saying that's why the odds are in favor of them winning in Game 5. They should have won in SA already. But since they haven't their odds of winning in Game 5 are pretty high.

It's not the series odds, Spurs up 3-1 of course are favored to win. But Game #5 should have the Suns favored and #6 as well if it comes to it. #7 is where the Spurs will win it.

Vegas will probably have Phoenix winning on Tuesday...it's just numbers of course.

[Kyle45]

This is stupid. How are the defending champions and team up 3-1 becoming the media underdogs? This Playoff coverage is starting to feel like the Democratic presidential campaign.

[Reggie Miller]

It has been proven that at most, a manager in baseball impacts the entire season and postseason in MLB by + or - 5 games. Usually, this is more like + or - 3 games. In other words, it took over a century for it to happen in pro baseball, because very little affects the outcome, other than pure talent. This has a lot to do with the unique structure of baseball. Without free substitutions and given the limits of a pitching rotation, a manager can do very little to influence the ultimate outcome of a game.

My theory is simple. Coming back from an 0-3 deficit has happened twice already in the NHL, which does allow free substitution. By this rationale, coaching (at least assigning playing time) has a greater impact on the outcome of NHL games than MLB games. Therefore, winning four in a row becomes more probable, because factors other than the teams' raw talent enter into the picture.

The best analogy I can think of is comparing Poker to a game like Bridge or Spades. It's not just what you have, but how you use the trumps.

In this regard, the NBA is more like the NHL. Assuming my theory has any validity whatsoever, an NBA team will eventually win four in a row after getting in an 0-3 hole. HOWEVER, this assumes that the team down 0-3 is able to outcoach the dominant team or somehow use its "trumps" to a decisive advantage.

My answer: D'Antoni is not capable of the task. While Phoenix might have enough talent to pull it off, it will not receive the necessary coaching or strategic advantage.

[Budkin]

I knew an article like this was coming...

:rolleyes

[Spurminator]

I think you missed my point. In all of time, there have been 85 teams that have gone down 3-0 in a playoff series. At this moment, there are only 2 teams that have a chance to come back from down 3-0 and win a series -- the 2008 Suns and the 2008 Nuggets. Of those 2, the most likely to come back and win is the Suns, if only because they've already managed to win one of the games necessary to complete such a comeback. As such, the 2008 Suns are the team most likely, in all of NBA history, to rally from down 0-3 to win a series. That's not saying that they will do it; but for now, they have a better chance than the 83 teams who've already failed and they have a better chance than the Nuggets team that has not yet won a game in its series.

I still think the 2007 Cavs have a better shot.

[JMarkJohns]

Current series notwithstanding, I don't think the Jazz are good enough on the road to overcome that many home court disadvantages.

If you read Hollinger's article, he presents score after score that says the Jazz are capable of beating any team by any amount anywhere. They are a great home team, have good size, good depth and two proven scorers in Williams and Boozer. They have a coach who knows how to win, as well. They are a very complete team.

There biggest issue is playing down top the competition on occasion.

But this is a team that advanced to the Conference Finals last season. Some key players are now more experienced/skilled.

We'll have to see, but I don't think it's unreasonable at all to say Utah is a Finals caliber team or to expect them to advance there.

[fyatuk]

Odds say that the Suns are due to win a game in San Antonio in Game 5. And if they win in San Antonio, does that give them an automatic win in Phoenix in Game 6? They should have the odds to win in Phoenix being the home team and already losing 1 badly there.


Not that I'm interested in arguing or anything, but the Spurs will most likely win game 6, if there is one (IMO). They've done that sort of thing alot (close out on the road, and they got their "this is too easy, we're bored" blow out loss out of the way, espeically after a home loss).

Even if you aren't a believer in that, it's still absurd to say game 6 would be "automatic" for anyone.

[Reggie Miller]

I still think the 2007 Cavs have a better shot.

If Nike ever finishes its conquest of the NBA, you may well be correct. Of course, by then 2007 will have been renamed "Year Zero"...

[Kyle45]

If you read Hollinger's article, he presents score after score that says the Jazz are capable of beating any team by any amount anywhere. They are a great home team, have good size, good depth and two proven scorers in Williams and Boozer. They have a coach who knows how to win, as well. They are a very complete team.

There biggest issue is playing down top the competition on occasion.

But this is a team that advanced to the Conference Finals last season. Some key players are now more experienced/skilled.

We'll have to see, but I don't think it's unreasonable at all to say Utah is a Finals caliber team or to expect them to advance there.

I believe Utah has the talent to make the Finals, there's no question. Deron Williams is one of the top 3 point guards in the league, love his game. But for all the stats Hollinger throws out there, I feel this is the most telling:

17-24

Utah's road record through the regular season, no better than that of Dallas or Denver. They're damn near unbeatable at home, but considering they're the five seed they shouldn't get an opportunity to utilize that as a series advantage.

[Obstructed_View]

Starting to look like 2006, kids. Spurs take a game off, Pop decides to mess with the rotation. If Horry's ahead of Oberto in the rotation for the next game, be very afraid.

[Allanon]

Not that I'm interested in arguing or anything, but the Spurs will most likely win game 6, if there is one (IMO). They've done that sort of thing alot (close out on the road, and they got their "this is too easy, we're bored" blow out loss out of the way, espeically after a home loss).

Even if you aren't a believer in that, it's still absurd to say game 6 would be "automatic" for anyone.

My bad, I shouldn't have said *automatic*, I'm just saying they would have heavy odds to win Game 6 since San Antonio already won 1 in Phoenix.

The Spurs are of course heavy favorites to win the series being up 3-1. The length of the series is what's questionable. Just talking odds, the Suns have good odds to win #5 and great odds to win #6. But the Suns have very poor odds of winning #7.

[Supergirl]

Hollinger is all about stats, banking his whole basketball analysis on being able to predict the NBA champ from a complex equation basically boiling down to point differential on offense and defense.

According to his stats, the Spurs were the best team last year, and he banked on them winning all last year when others counted them out. This year, he's banked on the Celtics winning all year, and the Spurs have been ranked lower, based on all of the same statistical analysis.

He certainly has a personal motivation to see the Spurs fail: If they go on to win the championship, or even be the West champ, it pokes a serious hole in his theory.

[FromWayDowntown]

Ah I know that, I'm just saying that's why the odds are in favor of them winning in Game 5. They should have won in SA already. But since they haven't their odds of winning in Game 5 are pretty high.

It's not the series odds, Spurs up 3-1 of course are favored to win. But Game #5 should have the Suns favored and #6 as well if it comes to it. #7 is where the Spurs will win it.

Vegas will probably have Phoenix winning on Tuesday...it's just numbers of course.

Then again, given that the Spurs are 163-33 (.832) at home since the start of the 2004-05 season (including playoffs) and 25-7 (.781) at home in playoff games during that time, it would seem possible that the Suns had their best chance to win a game in either Game 1 or 2 and missed it.

Ultimately, I don't think the chances of doing something in basketball aggregate over time. You're either better on a given night or you aren't, and that has very little to do with whether you've done something (such as winning in San Antonio) recently. I don't really think odds tend to "catch up" to good teams. Phoenix might win Game 5 -- hell, they might even win a Game 7 if it happens -- but it won't be because the odds are catching up to them. It will be because they play better than the Spurs do.

[Harry Callahan]

Hollinger looks like like the dude at the playground that would kidnap your kids if he got the chance.

He picked the Rockets to get out of the west back at the beginning of the season.

Just a weirdo who thinks he knows basketball and he doesn't.

[lefty]

People who think Suns are going to pull a Red Sox are stupid.

Just plain stupid

[Los Spurs]

This article is as boring as the person who wrote it! :violin

[1Parker1]

He's right, out of all the teams, the Suns have the best chance. Van Gundy or someone threw it out there. Spurs won Game 4 pretty convincingly. Now say the Spurs come back and *knocks wood* get an injury to one of the Big 3, Suns have a revived chance of winning the next 3 to win because anything can happen from game to game.

[miss paxton]

Van Gundy or someone threw it out there. Spurs won Game 4 pretty convincingly. Now say the Spurs come back and *knocks wood* get an injury to one of the Big 3, Suns have a revived chance of winning the next 3 to win because anything can happen from game to game.

Yes, I think what he said was, let's say the Spurs lose one of their Big Three to injury in the first six minutes or so of Game 5. . . are you certain then that the Suns couldn't win four straight? Of course, part of their job as broadcasters is to keep casual viewers thinking there's a chance the so-far never been done can be-- and of course there is, but I'd say it's still pretty small.

[Sausage]

a few tidbits from a Hollinger chat on ESPN.com


Adriel Carolino (Cerritos, Ca): If the Suns do stretch the series a bit longer, do you think the Spurs have enough left in them to even get past New Orleans?


John Hollinger: (4:24 PM ET ) I like New Orleans in that series, but there's a good chance it goes seven.


John Hollinger: (4:10 PM ET ) Is it really that complex? We should be 2-2 at this very moment. Obviously at 3-1 San Antonio will likely prevail, but I still say if you played this out 100 times it would go about 53-47 for Phoenix.


Jack (Chicago): A lot of people are making a big deal about hack-a-shaq, do you really think it made that much of a difference in terms of the outcome of Spurs-Suns?


John Hollinger: (4:36 PM ET ) Pretty much changed Game 1, which pretty much changed the entire series. So I'd go with an emphatic yes.

[stress]

utah what the fuck!!!!!!
:flag::lobt2::lobt2::lobt2::lobt2::lobt2::flag:

[FromWayDowntown]

I will say this about Hollinger's comment -- he certainly has a vested interest in Phoenix making a comeback in this series, given that his predictive models said before the series that the Suns would win and given that the accuracy of his predictive models are pretty much his bread-and-butter at this point.

If his model is correct, he's seen as more expert than others; if his model is proven to be shaky, his model-based opinions lose their carry a bit. It's easy to be right in mismatches; the validity of Hollinger's models is really a matter of how well it predicts closer matchups and this series would be among the closer matchups thus far in the playoffs. I have no doubt that somewhere, deep down inside, Hollinger is hoping for a Suns comeback -- if only to validate his model.

I'm not trying to suggest that Hollinger is actively rooting against the Spurs, but it stands to reason that he's looking for hope that he'll be proven right in the end.

[timvp]

Hollinger is the worst type of fake statistician. Making up fake stats is okay; he'll get some sheep to follow him. But now the rest of his existence revolves around him either mentioning his fake stats, making excuses for his fake stats or rooting for his fake stats to prove to be right.

He's getting worse and worse. I used to like him but now Hollinger has become so self-absorbed it's difficult to find any unbiased basketball opinion out of him.

[CubanMustGo]

Hollinger's model excludes emotion, heart, and experience - all things that factor much more heavily into the playoffs than the regular season. And he's too dumb to credit those factors, blindly saying "my numbers say x" no matter what.

[TampaDude]

Fuck a bunch of Hollinger. Spurs in 5. Book it.

[Allanon]

Then again, given that the Spurs are 163-33 (.832) at home since the start of the 2004-05 season (including playoffs) and 25-7 (.781) at home in playoff games during that time, it would seem possible that the Suns had their best chance to win a game in either Game 1 or 2 and missed it.

Ultimately, I don't think the chances of doing something in basketball aggregate over time. You're either better on a given night or you aren't, and that has very little to do with whether you've done something (such as winning in San Antonio) recently. I don't really think odds tend to "catch up" to good teams. Phoenix might win Game 5 -- hell, they might even win a Game 7 if it happens -- but it won't be because the odds are catching up to them. It will be because they play better than the Spurs do.

Yes I can see your point, it's from a basketball point of view. It's hard to predict anything when it comes to humans.

Statistically speaking, only from a numbers perspective, there is no way the Spurs should have been up 3-0 but they are up and it happened.

But looking at it from a 7 game series point of view, the Suns should have won at least 2 games in this series with 1 being in San Antonio. Spurs should have won one in Phoenix (which they have)

You're right in that they had their best chance in game 1 & 2 but it didn't happen. Since the 3-0 was a sort of statistical fluke, the Spurs should have won 4-0 at that point to complete the "statistical" fluke or "buck the trend". But they didn't so now the odds come back into play and we have a normal statistic again, Spurs are 3-1 (winning 2 at home and 1 on the road, just missing 1 more home win to complete the trend #7)

The best chance of the Suns winning now would be in Game 6 but since they can't get to a game 6 without wiinning Game 5, they get odds towards game #5 since that's also the missing SA game win. If the Suns win #5 (as they are statistically favored to), the whole series is exactly back on the statistical trend 3-2 with both teams winning the games they should have won.

Then you round out statistics with Game #6 Suns and Game #7 Spurs and the series went exactly as it should have (looking at it from a 7 game perspective)

Numbers generally tend to even up and the statistics are generally correct...given a large enough sample. The 7 games isn't a large enough sample but that's all we have right now.

[1Parker1]

John(NYC, NY): Your prediction for spurs/suns series was suns in 6. How do you justify that?

John Hollinger: (4:10 PM ET ) Is it really that complex? We should be 2-2 at this very moment. Obviously at 3-1 San Antonio will likely prevail, but I still say if you played this out 100 times it would go about 53-47 for Phoenix.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
braeden, san antonio: As a spurs fan, i'm somewhat worried about the suns coming back or at least sending the series to game 7. should i be?

John Hollinger: (4:10 PM ET ) Of course you should. These teams are basically even, so it wouldn't shock me at all if Phoenix climbed back in it.


From his chat today :rolleyes.

Why do people continue to make excuses for the Suns and downplay what the Spurs have done. News flash, ALMOST winning a game, and ACTUALLY winning a game are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!

[duncan228]

braeden, san antonio: As a spurs fan, i'm somewhat worried about the suns coming back or at least sending the series to game 7. should i be?

Is that ST's braeden0613?

[Kyle45]

Wait, so almost winning two games is as important as actually winning two games? My head might explode trying to read the Hollinger statistical theory behind that logic.

[FromWayDowntown]

From his chat today :rolleyes.

Why do people continue to make excuses for the Suns and downplay what the Spurs have done. News flash, ALMOST winning a game, and ACTUALLY winning a game are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!

I agree with you about the analysis, but I think we're all getting a bit sensitive to hearing/reading media-types who are suggesting that the Spurs are just lucky to be up 3-1 and that it's very likely that the series will wend its way to a Game 7. I think that possibility certainly exists, no matter the mental and tactical advantages that the Spurs might seem to have, and I don't think it's wrong for pundits to argue that there's reason to think that the Suns could even win the series.

I think there's plenty in the 6 quarters that immediately preceeded Game 4 to think that the Spurs are the superior team; but if I'm a Suns fan, I'm banking on the fact that my team has been able to build double-digit first half leads in 3 of the 4 games and that it might have found some answers in its resounding win in Game 4.

Was Game 4 just the Suns playing well and the Spurs playing poorly (probably) or was it something else?

[SPARKY]

Hollinger's just hoping his original prediction pans out.

[Cry Havoc]

You're right in that they had their best chance in game 1 & 2 but it didn't happen. Since the 3-0 was a sort of statistical fluke, the Spurs should have won 4-0 at that point to complete the "statistical" fluke or "buck the trend". But they didn't so now the odds come back into play and we have a normal statistic again, Spurs are 3-1 (winning 2 at home and 1 on the road, just missing 1 more home win to complete the trend #7)

The best chance of the Suns winning now would be in Game 6 but since they can't get to a game 6 without wiinning Game 5, they get odds towards game #5 since that's also the missing SA game win. If the Suns win #5 (as they are statistically favored to), the whole series is exactly back on the statistical trend 3-2 with both teams winning the games they should have won.

Then you round out statistics with Game #6 Suns and Game #7 Spurs and the series went exactly as it should have (looking at it from a 7 game perspective)

Numbers generally tend to even up and the statistics are generally correct...given a large enough sample. The 7 games isn't a large enough sample but that's all we have right now.

This is absolutely false. If you flip a coin 49 times and it lands heads 49 times in a row, the chance of the next flip landing tails is not any greater than it had been on the first 49 flips. It is exactly the same.

There is no statistical evidence to suggest that a "skewed" stat is going to renormalize itself. Statistics do not work in such a manner. Never have, never will.

[ClingingMars]

as SAS would say:

IT'S OVAH!

- Mars

[Pero]

4) But instead they discombobulated on themselves when the Spurs applied pressure


WTH does that mean? :wtf

[K-State Spur]

It's a remote possibility but the possibility is there nonetheless. I think it's ridiculous that a team down 0-3 could come back.

What worries me the most is:
1) The Suns have come back for 0-2 and 1-3 so we know they're resilient
2) They should have won Game 1 OR
2a) They should have won Game 2
4) But instead they discombobulated on themselves when the Spurs applied pressure

Odds say that the Suns are due to win a game in San Antonio in Game 5. And if they win in San Antonio, does that give them an automatic win in Phoenix in Game 6? They should have the odds to win in Phoenix being the home team and already losing 1 badly there.

That places Game #7 in the air, Phoenix would no longer have the odds to win in San Antonio.

So I would say series odds are now in favor of a 7 game series with San Antonio winning in game #7.

I think many would agree that the Suns should have managed to pull out game 1 (although they didn't exactly tank in that game, the Spurs made a lot of plays).

But after their tremendous start in Game 2, the Spurs thoroughly outclassed them for the remainder of the night.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

WTH does that mean? :wtf

They fell apart.

[Ariel]

No, not worried at all, for two main reasons. One, I think the chances that happens are slim to none, considering it'd mean losing the next three games in a row, two of which are in San Antonio including the potential deciding game. But more importantly, it means jack shit to me what round you're eliminated in, it's either a championship or not. And if the Spurs were to blow this lead then I'd take it as a strong indication they weren't going to make it past the next three rounds anyway, considering this might just be the toughest year in a while. In summary, if they're going to make it they can't blow this, and if they do -which they won't- then they weren't going to make it anyways. So no, not worried at all.

[Allanon]

This is absolutely false. If you flip a coin 49 times and it lands heads 49 times in a row, the chance of the next flip landing tails is not any greater than it had been on the first 49 flips. It is exactly the same.

There is no statistical evidence to suggest that a "skewed" stat is going to renormalize itself. Statistics do not work in such a manner. Never have, never will.

On a game by game basis, yes 50-50 would be accurate if you go by heads or tails but in trending the series, numbers tend to follow a pattern.

The skewed stat is 3-0 and that broke all the trends and should have gone 4-0 at that point if it follows the skewed pattern. But 3-1 is no longer an anomally, since it's on the verge of being changed in favor of the trend again aka 3-2:
1) Phoenix is supposed to win 1 of 4 games in SA
2) Suns should win 2 games out of 7 in the least

And if this happens, then the series would be 3-2 which again follows the overall 7 game series trend nicely and also suggests that Suns would win Game #6 as well.

We know trends aren't 100% correct but this series is falling back into the trend so it's not crazy to think the Suns have a good chance at winning #5 and also #6 depending on #5.

Let's see what Timmy, Tony and Manu have to say about the trends tomorrow :D

ps. Hahah Discombobulated, "to fall apart" or in the Suns case, they choked away the final minutes in Game 1 and the second half in Game 2. Spurs Defense had alot to do with it.

[Pero]

They fell apart.

:lol
Why such a strange and long word for something so simple? :lol

[RonMexico]

I was in vegas all weekend and fell asleep at the Bellagio sportsbook watching the Suns-Spurs game on TV after being awake for approx. 36 hours of hard drinking... then I got kicked out... haha.

[sandman]

Yes I can see your point, it's from a basketball point of view. It's hard to predict anything when it comes to humans.

Statistically speaking, only from a numbers perspective, there is no way the Spurs should have been up 3-0 but they are up and it happened.

But looking at it from a 7 game series point of view, the Suns should have won at least 2 games in this series with 1 being in San Antonio. Spurs should have won one in Phoenix (which they have)

You're right in that they had their best chance in game 1 & 2 but it didn't happen. Since the 3-0 was a sort of statistical fluke, the Spurs should have won 4-0 at that point to complete the "statistical" fluke or "buck the trend". But they didn't so now the odds come back into play and we have a normal statistic again, Spurs are 3-1 (winning 2 at home and 1 on the road, just missing 1 more home win to complete the trend #7)

The best chance of the Suns winning now would be in Game 6 but since they can't get to a game 6 without wiinning Game 5, they get odds towards game #5 since that's also the missing SA game win. If the Suns win #5 (as they are statistically favored to), the whole series is exactly back on the statistical trend 3-2 with both teams winning the games they should have won.

Then you round out statistics with Game #6 Suns and Game #7 Spurs and the series went exactly as it should have (looking at it from a 7 game perspective)

Numbers generally tend to even up and the statistics are generally correct...given a large enough sample. The 7 games isn't a large enough sample but that's all we have right now.

Curious about this statistic and numbers perspective that you keep talking about when you say that the Suns have the odds for Game 5.

Weighted percentage of a Spurs home win this series is 72% based on Spurs home record and PHX road record.

This means, based on the odds, that the Spurs can reasonably expect to win three games before losing one game.

The first 4 games had the home team winning three times, a statistical reversal to the regular season where the road team won three times in four games.

How exactly do the odds favor the Suns?

What is this nebulous feeling of being "due"? Just because they missed their first "due" game in Game 1 does not mean that cosmic fate is going to present them with another "due" game.

[Allanon]

The odds are for a 7 game series.

Like you said, it's about 75% for a Spurs home win. 25% would be for a Suns win in San Antonio.

So 1 out of 4. The Suns have not won a game in San Antonio yet so they haven't gotten their statistical "due"...in a statistical 7 game series. It could be game #5 or game #7 of the remaining games. But since the Suns won't have another chance, it must be game #5 and by winning #5, they put themselves into good position to win #6. But at the same time they have a very low chance of winning #7.

Almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[ClingingMars]

I was in vegas all weekend and fell asleep at the Bellagio sportsbook watching the Suns-Spurs game on TV after being awake for approx. 36 hours of hard drinking... then I got kicked out... haha.

plan to do that again? seems to have worked.

- Mars

[sandman]

The odds are for a 7 game series.

Like you said, it's about 75% for a Spurs home win. 25% would be for a Suns win in San Antonio.

So 1 out of 4. The Suns have not won a game in San Antonio yet so they haven't filled their "due"...in a statistical 7 game series.

Nor have the Spurs filled their "due" of three home wins out of four. So statistically, at worst, both teams have a 50-50 chance of winning this game.

If I'm PHX, I don't like those odds.

[sandman]

The odds are for a 7 game series.

Like you said, it's about 75% for a Spurs home win. 25% would be for a Suns win in San Antonio.

So 1 out of 4. The Suns have not won a game in San Antonio yet so they haven't gotten their statistical "due"...in a statistical 7 game series. It could be game #5 or game #7 of the remaining games. But since the Suns won't have another chance, it must be game #5 and by winning #5, they put themselves into good position to win #6. But at the same time they have a very low chance of winning #7.

Almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Suns must win Game 5 to win Game 6.

Brilliant.

Is your name Hollinger?

[Allanon]

Nor have the Spurs filled their "due" of three home wins out of four. So statistically, at worst, both teams have a 50-50 chance of winning this game.

If I'm PHX, I don't like those odds.

Not exactly in my opinion. If the Spurs win Game #5, that means they took more than their share and the Suns didn't get their 1 win. The series would be ended and that does not follow the trend.

That should have been the case when they went up 3-0 but since it didn't, the regular trend comes back of 1 in SA for the Suns and 3 in SA for the Spurs.

[Allanon]

Suns must win Game 5 to win Game 6.

Brilliant.

Is your name Hollinger?

If that's your point after your previous intelligent response, whatever dude.

[FromWayDowntown]

Not exactly in my opinion. If the Spurs win Game #5, that means they took more than their share and the Suns didn't get their 1 win. The series would be ended and that does not follow the trend.

That should have been the case when they went up 3-0 but since it didn't, the regular trend comes back of 1 in SA for the Suns and 3 in SA for the Spurs.

Your reasoning assumes that the Suns are somehow fated, by statistical quirk, to extend the series to 7 games and that their win in San Antonio (if there is to be one) must come before Game 7. I'd say that your reasoning is rather flawed in that sense.

The trend might show that the Suns are likely to win one of four games in San Antonio (though I'm not sure what statistical proof exists to support that premise -- as noted above, the Spurs have won at home at something better than an 80% clip in recent years and are better than 83% in the 2007-08 season; given those rates, the Suns are already ahead of the curve according to your logic as they've won 2 of 4 in San Antonio during 07-08). But there's no proof that the Suns are likely to specifically win one of the first three games in San Antonio.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the trend also showed that the Spurs were likely to win one of four games in Phoenix, that trend has already been fulfilled. The fulfillment of the Spurs road win trend has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Phoenix is more likely to win the third road game in San Antonio. The trend shows the Suns are (perhaps) likely to win 1 of 4 -- that trend doesn't say which one of the four it might be.

And the fact that losing Game 5 will eliminate the possibility of a 4th road game in San Antonio doesn't, by itself, make it any more likely (or less likely) that the Suns will win the third game in San Antonio, either.

You're connecting two premises that have no logical or statistical connection.

I'm not sure where your statistical reasoning comes from, but it seems to be fundamentally flawed. There's no logic to your logic.

Ultimately, there's little doubt that the Suns could win Game 5. But if they do, it will have nothing whatsoever to do with the odds catching up with either team. Nothing.

[Kyle45]

http://simpsons.ugo.com/images/sequel-characters/frink.jpg

We'll have these babies on the shelves long before they figure out the Pickle Matrix!

[Allanon]

Your reasoning assumes that the Suns are somehow fated, by statistical quirk, to extend the series to 7 games and that their win in San Antonio (if there is to be one) must come before Game 7. I'd say that your reasoning is rather flawed in that sense.

The trend might show that the Suns are likely to win one of four games in San Antonio (though I'm not sure what statistical proof exists to support that premise -- as noted above, the Spurs have won at home at something better than an 80% clip in recent years and are better than 83% in the 2007-08 season; given those rates, the Suns are already ahead of the curve according to your logic as they've won 2 of 4 in San Antonio during 07-08). But there's no proof that the Suns are likely to specifically win one of the first three games in San Antonio.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the trend also showed that the Spurs were likely to win one of four games in Phoenix, that trend has already been fulfilled. The fulfillment of the Spurs road win trend has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Phoenix is more likely to win the third road game in San Antonio. The trend shows the Suns are (perhaps) likely to win 1 of 4 -- that trend doesn't say which one of the four it might be.

And the fact that losing Game 5 will eliminate the possibility of a 4th road game in San Antonio doesn't, by itself, make it any more likely (or less likely) that the Suns will win the third game in San Antonio, either.

You're connecting two premises that have no logical or statistical connection.

I'm not sure where your statistical reasoning comes from, but it seems to be fundamentally flawed. There's no logic to your logic.

Ultimately, there's little doubt that the Suns could win Game 5. But if they do, it will have nothing whatsoever to do with the odds catching up with either team. Nothing.

I think you're confusing yourself going into too many different areas, there's no murky math here or magical connections:

Just look at the ESPN predictions and almost every expert in the world:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs

This series was projected as a 6 or 7 game series from the beginning due to the fact that both teams are pretty evenly matched. I think a 6 or 7 series assumption is correct, reasonable and that is the "trend".

The Spurs bucked the trend by going 3-0 but by going back to 3-1, they're back on track with a trend of 7.

So based upon a 6 or 7 game series, the Suns are most likely to win at least 1 SA game in this series. That game happens to be #5.

It's as simple as that.

[Kyle45]

I've got some math that might be a little too much for Hollinger to handle. The team with more points at the end of the game tomorrow will be the winner.

[FromWayDowntown]

So based upon a 6 or 7 game series, the Suns are most likely to win at least 1 SA game in this series. That game happens to be #5.

It's as simple as that.

If you choose to oversimplify statistical analysis -- and if you deem the predictions of ESPN experts to somehow be either statistical or binding in terms of the likely outcomes of the series. How many times have ESPN's experts unanimously agreed that a series would go 6 or 7 games, only to have the teams decide the series in fewer than 6 or 7 games?

Even if your initial premises are true, there's still nothing about those points that suggests, invariably, that the Suns are somehow most likely to win Game 5. I mean, you're assuming that no matter what, this series goes at least 6 games. Aside from the lack of statistical proof to back that up -- and notwithstanding the basic flaw in your argument: the fact that the outcome of any basketball game is never the product of fulfilling some statistical trend -- there's nothing to say that the series is somehow still likely to go to 6 or 7 games when one team stakes itself to a 3-1 lead.

Again, I don't quarrel with the idea that the Suns can win Game 5 -- they definitely can. I just think it's asinine to suggest that there's some statistical certainty to that result happening. If the Suns win Game 5, it won't be because they're destined to win it or because the odds caught up with them.

[PlayoffEx-static]

It's a remote possibility but the possibility is there nonetheless. I think it's ridiculous that a team down 0-3 could come back.

What worries me the most is:
1) The Suns have come back for 0-2 and 1-3 so we know they're resilient
2) They should have won Game 1 OR
2a) They should have won Game 2
4) But instead they discombobulated on themselves when the Spurs applied pressure

Odds say that the Suns are due to win a game in San Antonio in Game 5. And if they win in San Antonio, does that give them an automatic win in Phoenix in Game 6? They should have the odds to win in Phoenix being the home team and already losing 1 badly there.

That places Game #7 in the air, Phoenix would no longer have the odds to win in San Antonio.

So I would say series odds are now in favor of a 7 game series with San Antonio winning in game #7.
Phoenix has already won their one home game per Spurs series. Seriously, they were 2-7 at home over the last three series vs. SA. Game 6 would certainly not be a pencil-in win for PHO.

[Allanon]

If you choose to oversimplify statistical analysis -- and if you deem the predictions of ESPN experts to somehow be either statistical or binding in terms of the likely outcomes of the series. How many times have ESPN's experts unanimously agreed that a series would go 6 or 7 games, only to have the teams decide the series in fewer than 6 or 7 games?

Even if your initial premises are true, there's still nothing about those points that suggests, invariably, that the Suns are somehow most likely to win Game 5. I mean, you're assuming that no matter what, this series goes at least 6 games. Aside from the lack of statistical proof to back that up -- and notwithstanding the basic flaw in your argument: the fact that the outcome of any basketball game is never the product of fulfilling some statistical trend -- there's nothing to say that the series is somehow still likely to go to 6 or 7 games when one team stakes itself to a 3-1 lead.

Again, I don't quarrel with the idea that the Suns can win Game 5 -- they definitely can. I just think it's asinine to suggest that there's some statistical certainty to that result happening. If the Suns win Game 5, it won't be because they're destined to win it or because the odds caught up with them.

I'm no expert but I'd take expert opinion over mines and I would say anybody handicapping this series would have called it a 6-7 game series. I suppose you're not much of a numbers guy...this isn't "magic" or "destiny/fate" or anything mystical or paranormal.

These are just numbers and how they relate to patterns. I'm not sure why you are wrapped up in destiny. Statistics trends patterns, it doesn't say they are 100% true but they are generally correct.

in a 7 game series, with 4 games in SA the odds are that the Suns will get 1 game in SA.

We know if they lose tomorrow, that it's over...so that's NOT within the trend.

By winning tomorrow, the Suns follow the trend of winning 1 out of 4.

I suppose we'll find out in 24 hours. And I'll go onto say if the Suns win tomorrow, they will most likely win game #6 and no, it's not "destiny" either :D

[sandman]

If that's your point after your previous intelligent response, whatever dude.

I'm simply pointing out that it was a bit obvious that the Suns must win Game 5 in order to win Game 6.

You insist that because the Spurs did not sweep, the series must now go a full seven games to fulfill some statistical necessity. Ergo, the Suns will win Games 5 and 7 simply so that they can fulfill a 25% road record after a loss in Game 7.

In the end, the Suns still lose. And they know it. I highly doubt that the intangible of the human psyche will want to rise to the occasion over the next two games simply to fulfill a statistical prophecy.

[Allanon]

I'm simply pointing out that it was a bit obvious that the Suns must win Game 5 in order to win Game 6.

You insist that because the Spurs did not sweep, the series must now go a full seven games to fulfill some statistical necessity. Ergo, the Suns will win Games 5 and 7 simply so that they can fulfill a 25% road record after a loss in Game 7.

In the end, the Suns still lose. And they know it. I highly doubt that the intangible of the human psyche will want to rise to the occasion over the next two games simply to fulfill a statistical prophecy.

There was sarcasm in your post so I took it the wrong way, I apologize.

[Mavs<Spurs]

I think he has nothing else to write about. Or, he's hoping for another game to be on ESPN/ABC. Who knows what that was all about?

He was wrong. He predicted the Suns would win. They won't.

My email to him: Can't admit your power ranking is imperfect? This fits with past Suns/Spurs playoffs. Spurs have 4 titles in 9 years. Regular season isn't important. Meaningless comments you yourself don't even believe. Nor do we.

:nope

[sandman]

There was sarcasm in your post so I took it the wrong way, I apologize.

Oh no, there was a ton of sarcasm in my post! :lol

But I try to use it as humor, not a hammer.

[ShoogarBear]

a few tidbits from a Hollinger chat on ESPN.com

I'm tired of this "Suns should have won game 1 or 2" bullshit.

By that logic, Spurs should have won game 4 last year against them, and actually won the series 5-1, so that whining about the suspensions is moot.

[michaelwcho]

Man, some people are having some strange takes on probability here.

Let's start from square one:

1. coin flip is 50-50
2. if you flip heads 9 times, the probability of getting heads the next time is still 50%

Now, Suns-Spurs

1. Lets assume they are equal, and thus 50-50
2. Let's say the Spurs- winning the first three games was statistically improbable to the same extent as flipping heads 9 times.

Question: what is the chance of winning game 5?

3. Still 50-50

In other words, previous events have no statistical correlation with detached later events. So, using simplistic statistical arguments to "prove" the Suns will win game 5 is nonsensical.

In my opinion, these teams are very evenly matched, and the final 3 games could very well be 50-50. If you do the math, that would come out to .125 chance of the Suns winning the series, right? That leaves out the small effects of home court, and the possibly large effects of injuries, fatigue, and coaching.

[RonMexico]

Man, some people are having some strange takes on probability here.

Let's start from square one:

1. coin flip is 50-50
2. if you flip heads 9 times, the probability of getting heads the next time is still 50%

Now, Suns-Spurs

1. Lets assume they are equal, and thus 50-50
2. Let's say the Spurs- winning the first three games was statistically improbable to the same extent as flipping heads 9 times.

Question: what is the chance of winning game 5?

3. Still 50-50

In other words, previous events have no statistical correlation with detached later events. So, using simplistic statistical arguments to "prove" the Suns will win game 5 is nonsensical.

In my opinion, these teams are very evenly matched, and the final 3 games could very well be 50-50. If you do the math, that would come out to .125 chance of the Suns winning the series, right? That leaves out the small effects of home court, and the possibly large effects of injuries, fatigue, and coaching.

You make a good point... because a lot of people screw up the concept of probability.

Hollinger tries to use stats too much to try and explain events in which humans are involved. Yes, Suns and Spurs are evenly matched and therefore, odds should be 50-50 in the final 3 games, but nerves, momentum, and streaks factor into NBA games very much. That's why "clutch factors" cannot be measured in numbers. Hell, even in Vegas this weekend they still had the Suns' championship odds at 4-1 and the Spurs at 3-1 before Game 4 began.

However, I'm watching Joe Johnson singlehandedly dismantle the Celtics' defense and I'm realizing three things:

1. This shows that in the NBA, anything (including amazing) can happen.
2. Man, it would be nice to have Joe Johnson in this series.
3. Despite Diaw's Game 4, fuck Robert Sarver for not re-signing him.

[oski1000]

Spurs in six............!!:flag::flag::flag:

[Princess Pimp]

come on, aint you guys a little scared?

Yes they are!

Phoenix will become the first team to win a best-of-seven first round series after being down 0-3

And for that matter the Spurs will become the biggest CHOKERS in NBA History for allowing this to happen.

[Princess Pimp]

Spurs in six............!!:flag::flag::flag:

So what happened to Game 5?

Already conceding defeat?

[GSH]

Rising Suns???

Just gonna throw this out there …

John Hollinger ESPN

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2008/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Surprises-080428


And if it happened, that would provide the ultimate surprise of this first round.



Doesn't matter what any of them say. It isn't going to happen.

But before talking about the surprise of the first round, he ought to pay attention to the fact that the Celtics and Hawks are tied at 2-2. If the Hawks somehow pull off a series win, it would be the surprise of the season... period. And right now that's a lot more likely than the Suns winning 3 more in a row.

[anakha]

Yes they are!

Phoenix will become the first team to win a best-of-seven first round series after being down 0-3

And for that matter the Spurs will become the biggest CHOKERS in NBA History for allowing this to happen.

Considering the Spurs have won every game Louis has guaranteed they will lose this playoffs so far, I suddenly feel a lot better about their chances in Game 5. :lol

And if the Spurs win Game 5, I predict Louis is going to show up as a Hornets troll and guarantee another sweep.

[K-State Spur]

The Spurs are one good first quarter from finishing this series.

Forget having to play a solid entire game. If they just get off to a good start, the mental midgets will fold up tent.

[clubalien]

I think you missed my point. In all of time, there have been 85 teams that have gone down 3-0 in a playoff series. At this moment, there are only 2 teams that have a chance to come back from down 3-0 and win a series -- the 2008 Suns and the 2008 Nuggets. Of those 2, the most likely to come back and win is the Suns, if only because they've already managed to win one of the games necessary to complete such a comeback. As such, the 2008 Suns are the team most likely, in all of NBA history, to rally from down 0-3 to win a series. That's not saying that they will do it; but for now, they have a better chance than the 83 teams who've already failed and they have a better chance than the Nuggets team that has not yet won a game in its series.

what are the chances of a team coming back when down 4 in a series?

[Allanon]

Man, some people are having some strange takes on probability here.

Let's start from square one:

1. coin flip is 50-50
2. if you flip heads 9 times, the probability of getting heads the next time is still 50%

Now, Suns-Spurs

1. Lets assume they are equal, and thus 50-50
2. Let's say the Spurs- winning the first three games was statistically improbable to the same extent as flipping heads 9 times.

Question: what is the chance of winning game 5?

3. Still 50-50

In other words, previous events have no statistical correlation with detached later events. So, using simplistic statistical arguments to "prove" the Suns will win game 5 is nonsensical.

In my opinion, these teams are very evenly matched, and the final 3 games could very well be 50-50. If you do the math, that would come out to .125 chance of the Suns winning the series, right? That leaves out the small effects of home court, and the possibly large effects of injuries, fatigue, and coaching.

The probability of the Suns winning 1 game out of 4 games in SA remains the same no matter how many games they have already lost. Probability says they will win 1 out of 4 games in San Antonio.

Let's do it a little easier since it's so "non-sensical". Let's do something you can relate to, "Hack a Shaq"

You hack Shaq because he will PROBABLY miss, not because he is 100% going to miss. His % is 60%, and most likely he will miss 4 out of 10 free throws. Is this predicting or controlling the future? Why don't you do Hack a Nash? Nash has a 50/50 chance of making the free throw when he stands at the line...just like Shaq...what bearing do his last million free throws have on his chances today "a detached later event" of making his free throws...it's 50/50 isn't it?

Ah, but is it REALLY that plain and simple 50/50 chance...I mean you either make the shot at the line or you don't right? Why not hack Nash instead of Shaq since past performance doesn't have a direct affect on their shot right now ("a detached later event")? Does probability have any say in whether Shaq or Nash will make their next free throw even though they BOTH have a 50/50 chance of making it?

Is there really only a 50/50 chance that the Suns will lose 4 games straight in San Antonio or is it more probable that the Suns will win 1 game out of 4?

Even though there's only a 50/50 chance, Nash is more likely to hit his free throws than Shaq.
Even though there's only a 50/50 chance, the Suns are more likely to win 1 out of 4 in SA rather than lose 4 straight in SA.

Even though Hollinger's stats are sometimes wrong, they are more often right because of statistical probability.

[Obstructed_View]

You hack Shaq because he will PROBABLY miss, not because he is 100% going to miss. His % is 60%, and most likely he will miss 4 out of 10 free throws. Is this predicting or controlling the future? Why don't you do Hack a Nash? Nash has a 50/50 chance of making the free throw when he stands at the line

The above states that Shaq is 10 percent more likely to make a free throw than Steve Nash is.

You REALLY need to just give up trying to discuss statistics or probability, because you've proven it's far beyond your grasp.

[Allanon]

The above states that Shaq is 10 percent more likely to make a free throw than Steve Nash is.

You REALLY need to just give up trying to discuss statistics or probability, because you've proven it's far beyond your grasp.

I think you REALLY need to learn more about statistics as you obviously don't have a clue. This is a 50/50 chance (shot made, shot missed) which any player has when shooting a free throw. Probability is the likelihood of it.

Shaq, Kobe, Nash, Tony, Duncan all have the same 50/50 chance of making a free throw, but they all have different probabilities.

[mojorizen7]

SUNS playoff history dictates that they'll somehow reach deep down for a gritty,gutsy road win in game 5 in S.A............then they'll come home and come out soft,tight, and otherwise flat and get bounced in front of the home crowd. Never fucking fails. Sometimes i wish that the SUNS could play a 7 game series at either a nuetral site or just play every game on the road.:bang

[ShoogarBear]

You hack Shaq because he will PROBABLY miss, not because he is 100% going to miss. His % is 60%, and most likely he will miss 4 out of 10 free throws. Is this predicting or controlling the future? Why don't you do Hack a Nash? Nash has a 50/50 chance of making the free throw when he stands at the line...just like Shaq...what bearing do his last million free throws have on his chances today "a detached later event" of making his free throws...it's 50/50 isn't it?

Ah, but is it REALLY that plain and simple 50/50 chance...I mean you either make the shot at the line or you don't right? Why not hack Nash instead of Shaq since past performance doesn't have a direct affect on their shot right now ("a detached later event")? Does probability have any say in whether Shaq or Nash will make their next free throw even though they BOTH have a 50/50 chance of making it?

Is there really only a 50/50 chance that the Suns will lose 4 games straight in San Antonio or is it more probable that the Suns will win 1 game out of 4?

Even though there's only a 50/50 chance, Nash is more likely to hit his free throws than Shaq.
Even though there's only a 50/50 chance, the Suns are more likely to win 1 out of 4 in SA rather than lose 4 straight in SA.

Even though Hollinger's stats are sometimes wrong, they are more often right because of statistical probability.

This is the most logically flawed argument I've seen on the board in some time. Just because there are two possible outcomes doesn't mean there's an equal chance of both happening.

Shaq shooting free throws is like flipping a fair coin: 50-50.
Nash shooting free throws is like flipping a "fixed" coin which is going to land heads 90% of the time.

Let's put it another way, that YOU can understand. If you shoot a layup, or if you shoot a halfcourt shot, you have two possible outcomes: either make or miss. That doesn't mean there's a 50-50 chance in either situation. Otherwise it wouldn't matter where you shot from, or who took the shot.

[jmard5]

So what happened to Game 5?

Already conceding defeat?


Ladies and Gentlemen, the Phoenix Suns will dominate this series sweeping the Spursies 4-0

If the Suns win Game 1 this will be a sweep!

You will get embarrassed in front of a worldwide audience.

[jmard5]

Yes they are!

Phoenix will become the first team to win a best-of-seven first round series after being down 0-3

And for that matter the Spurs will become the biggest CHOKERS in NBA History for allowing this to happen.


Ladies and Gentlemen, the Phoenix Suns will dominate this series sweeping the Spursies 4-0

If the Suns win Game 1 this will be a sweep!

You will get embarrassed in front of a worldwide audience.

[Allanon]

This is the most logically flawed argument I've seen on the board in some time. Just because there are two possible outcomes doesn't mean there's an equal chance of both happening.

Shaq shooting free throws is like flipping a fair coin: 50-50.
Nash shooting free throws is like flipping a "fixed" coin which is going to land heads 90% of the time.

You are agreeing with me actually. There's no guarantee that Nash makes 9 out of 10 free throws everytime. He might shoot 10 out of 10 or 0 out of 10 on any given day. Your "fixed-coin" is due to probability.

Now how do you know Nash is going to make it 90% of the time? How do you know that Shaq is going to make it 60% of the time? It's due to probability, even though Shaq and Nash have even chances. Even though Nash is a 90% shooter, he could miss 2 free throws in a row while Shaq makes 2 free throws in a row. Both have even chances of making 2 free throws in a row. But it's not likely that Shaq outshoots Nash because they have different probabilities.

So even though the Suns have already lost 2 straight games in San Antonio, they could lose a third straight game in San Antonio but it's not likely.

[Ariel]

Yes, it does mean there's a 50/50 chance . Regardless of how or where you make the shot, it's still a 50/50 chance/opportunity (the shot is either a make or a miss). If you were point blank at the basket, only 1 foot away, you would think you would make it 100% of the time right? But again, the ball still has a 50/50 chance of going in or out so you still get misses within 1 foot of the basket no matter how good you are. Again, probability.
:lol

No. You're using simultaneously "chance" as synonym of both "event" and "probability" and therein lies the confusion. You probably think there are two chances, therefore each has a 50-50 chance of happening. Well, as you've been told, that's flawed. Don't get me wrong, I wish you were right because nothing would make me happier than having a 50-50 chance of doing Jessica Alba... but it just doesn't work that way.

[Allanon]

:lol

No. You're using simultaneously "chance" as synonym of both "event" and "probability" and therein lies the confusion.

No I am stating that chance is NOT a synonym for both while the others are posting that they are. There is chance and probability, two very separate things.


You probably think there are two chances, therefore each has a 50-50 chance of happening. Well, as you've been told, that's flawed. Don't get me wrong, I wish you were right because nothing would make me happier than having a 50-50 chance of doing Jessica Alba... but it just doesn't work that way.
There aren't two chances at making a basket? If the shot is not a make or a miss, what other chance is there? Perhaps there's a third chance the ball will just disappear or maybe get abducted by aliens? :D

[GSH]

I've never seen a thread about probability where any of the people posting knew what the fuck they were talking about.

[Ariel]

No I am stating that chance and is NOT a synonym for both while the others are posting that they are.
Yes you are, you just don't realize. Here you're using "chance" meaning "event":

There aren't two chances at making a basket? If the shot is not a make or a miss, what other chance is there? Perhaps there's a third chance the ball will just disappear? :D
Here you're using "chance" meaning "probability":

But again, the ball still has a 50/50 chance of going in or out so you still get misses within 1 foot of the basket no matter how good you are.
So even though there are two "chances" (events), the ball either goes in or it goes out, there isn't necessarily a 50-50 "chance" (probability) of either happening because that would imply in the long term out of a hundred times you'd get an average of 50 occurrences of each.

[K-State Spur]

Ah, but is it REALLY that plain and simple 50/50 chance...I mean you either make the shot at the line or you don't right?


...yeah, you would have flunked Stats. That's pretty similar to the example most professors use on the first day to show that many people don't know their ass from a hole in the ground in regards to statistics.

[Allanon]

Blah, blah, blah....

Yes you are right, there is only a make or a miss

Yes, I thought so.

[Allanon]

...yeah, you would have flunked Stats. That's pretty similar to the example most professors use on the first day to show that many people don't know their ass from a hole in the ground in regards to statistics.

You left out the rest of the paragraph that says it's NOT just as simple as 50/50 since there is probability. Sure please educate us as to why that's not true, K State Spur or you're just talking out of your ass.

[Supergirl]

The problem with Hollinger's analysis is the same thing that makes it interesting at times - it's entirely based on stats. But the problem with stats is that they don't measure the intangibles: Exhibit A is Bruce Bowen. He is possibly the most important person in the Spurs 3 championships, yet statistically goes way under the radar all the time.

Statistically speaking, Utah should go far in the playoffs, based on their domination at home. But it is the sign of a young, vulnerable team that plays as inconsistently as they have on the road, and that could easily be their downfall against a confident, experienced team like the Spurs.

Statistically speaking, the Celtics should sweep their way to the Finals, because they've been dominant all year long. Yet they find themselves 2-2 with the Hawks, because they are also young and inexperienced when it comes to playoff pressure.

Statistically speaking, it is unlikely that the Suns will come back, but it is certainly possible, statistically speaking. However, if the Spurs go on to lose 4 games in a row, they certainly don't deserve to repeat their championship. Statistically speaking, Diaw and Bell probably won't continue to shoot 80% for the rest of the series, and that will make a huge difference.

[wildbill2u]

Haha what has happened with Hollinger? Last year he loved the Spurs. This year he doesn't. Rooting for the underdog?

he said the Suns finished ahead in his power rankings. If he's gonna have any cred at all on his rankings, he has to support them in the name of objectivity.

He does say we have a 94% chance of winning, based on past series--but leaves open a door to the 6% chance for the Suns because of their ranking inhis system.

[Budkin]

I can't wait to mock Hollinger even more when his stat champs are eliminated tonight.

[nkdlunch]

live by the numbers, die by the numbers

[Doctor J]

No team in the NBA can beat this Spurs 4 in-a-row in the playoffs... Period. Ha Ha.

[SAGambler]

Game 4, 1st Q
Spurs 13
Suns 34

That resembles defense.

That was not from some imagined lock down D the Suns provided.

[K-State Spur]

You left out the rest of the paragraph that says it's NOT just as simple as 50/50 since there is probability. Sure please educate us as to why that's not true, K State Spur or you're just talking out of your ass.

You make statements like this:

"Even though there's only a 50/50 chance, Nash is more likely to hit his free throws than Shaq."

If there's only a 50/50 chance, then he's not more likely. The likelihood of anybody to hit a free throw would 50/50 in that scenario. But that's obviously not the case.

Number of possible outcomes has little to do with the odds and chances when one outcome is much more likely than the other. It's like saying that you have a 50/50 shot of winning the lottery - either you'll win or you won't. That's obviously not true.

You've been owned this entire thread. Take a stats course (hell, half of this stuff is simple ALGEBRA) and get back to us.

[Slohoop]

Maybe in Hollingers dream Spurs can lose 4 games in a row. Maybe in regular season, but not in playoffs.
Hollinger is such a great expert :nope.

:flag::lobt:

[Allanon]

You make statements like this:

"Even though there's only a 50/50 chance, Nash is more likely to hit his free throws than Shaq."

If there's only a 50/50 chance, then he's not more likely. The likelihood of anybody to hit a free throw would 50/50 in that scenario. But that's obviously not the case.

Number of possible outcomes has little to do with the odds and chances when one outcome is much more likely than the other. It's like saying that you have a 50/50 shot of winning the lottery - either you'll win or you won't. That's obviously not true.

You've been owned this entire thread. Take a stats course (hell, half of this stuff is simple ALGEBRA) and get back to us.

Is that the only thing you learned coming out of that big bad statistics course? Love how your reading skills skip parts of the post.

50/50 chance, different probability as my post states. :D

Owned yet again. :sleep

[FromWayDowntown]

I'll admit that I've not taken even a basic statistics course and can't begin to truly expound on these matters. But this issue seems pretty simple to me.

There may be two outcomes for any Steve Nash free throw, but we all know that the probability of any one free throw going in is 90% and the probability of any one free throw missing is 10%.

There may be two outcomes for any Shaquille O'Neal free throw, but we all know that the probability of any one free throw going in is 50% and the probability of any one free throw missing is 10%.

The same is true, in a general sense, with dunks or three pointers. That there are only two potential outcomes doesn't increase or reduce the likelihood of one of those outcomes occurring in a given situation.


I still don't understand how there is any logical basis for a conclusion that the Suns are somehow more likely to win Game 5 because of statistical probabilities. Notwithstanding the lack of data to support the underlying premise, there is no connection between the assumption and the conclusion. The sole connection is that a bunch of ESPN experts thought, about two weeks ago, that this series was likely to go to 7 games. But that's not data -- that's opinion. Ultimately, I think Allanon is doing precisely what Hollinger is doing with his argument -- there are opinions out there and Allanon is trying to fit those opinions into an unrelated statistic that has far too many variables to be binding in this situation.

I'll say it again -- the Suns might well win Game 5 (I honestly wouldn't be surprised) but if that comes to pass I don't think winning game 5 will somehow be a matter of statistical inevitability. Likewise, if the Suns somehow extend the series to 7 games, I don't think they'll be somehow unlikely to win that game because they will have happened to win Game 5. The outcome of any one single game is largely unrelated to the outcome of any game that came before it. Things like acquired knowledge, confidence, injuries, and fatigue do make a difference, but the fact of a past win doesn't make the next game a more likely loss and the fact of past losses doesn't make the next game a more likely win.

[Allanon]

I still don't understand how there is any logical basis for a conclusion that the Suns are somehow more likely to win Game 5 because of statistical probabilities. Notwithstanding the lack of data to support the underlying premise, there is no connection between the assumption and the conclusion. The sole connection is that a bunch of ESPN experts thought, about two weeks ago, that this series was likely to go to 7 games. But that's not data -- that's opinion. Ultimately, I think Allanon is doing precisely what Hollinger is doing with his argument -- there are opinions out there and Allanon is trying to fit those opinions into an unrelated statistic that has far too many variables to be binding in this situation.

I'll say it again -- the Suns might well win Game 5 (I honestly wouldn't be surprised) but if that comes to pass I don't think winning game 5 will somehow be a matter of statistical inevitability. Likewise, if the Suns somehow extend the series to 7 games, I don't think they'll be somehow unlikely to win that game because they will have happened to win Game 5. The outcome of any one single game is largely unrelated to the outcome of any game that came before it. Things like acquired knowledge, confidence, injuries, and fatigue do make a difference, but the fact of a past win doesn't make the next game a more likely loss and the fact of past losses doesn't make the next game a more likely win.

As usual, you come up with a well thought out intelligent post FWD.

The statistical relevance is that it's highly unlikely that Suns will lose 3 straight in San Antonio. Just like Nash is more likely to hit 9 shots out of 10 instead of missing 9 out of 10.

It's not a prediction, it's just more probable that the Suns win 1 instead of lose 3 straight in SA given that the 2 teams are very even.

Again, these are just the numbers as one previous poster said but I can see where Hollinger is coming from

[FromWayDowntown]

The statistical relevance is that it's highly unlikely that Suns will lose 3 straight in San Antonio.

See, I think you're making an assumption there, too. Assuming your statistical data are correct, what they show is that it's highly unlikely that the Suns will lose 4 straight in San Antonio. It doesn't say where within those 4 games the Suns are likely to win; it just says that if the Suns play 4 games in San Antonio, they're likely to win 1.

The rub, in the context of this thread, is that the Suns might not get a chance to play the hypothetical 4 games in San Antonio. And there's nothing, statistically (from what I can tell), to say that they're unlikely to lose 3 straight in San Antonio. Losing 3 straight and then winning the 4th is as consistent with the statistical trend as losing 2 straight, winning 1, and then losing 1 more.

[Allanon]

See, I think you're making an assumption there, too. Assuming your statistical data are correct, what they show is that it's highly unlikely that the Suns will lose 4 straight in San Antonio. It doesn't say where within those 4 games the Suns are likely to win; it just says that if the Suns play 4 games in San Antonio, they're likely to win 1.

The rub, in the context of this thread, is that the Suns might not get a chance to play the hypothetical 4 games in San Antonio. And there's nothing, statistically (from what I can tell), to say that they're unlikely to lose 3 straight in San Antonio. Losing 3 straight and then winning the 4th is as consistent with the statistical trend as losing 2 straight, winning 1, and then losing 1 more.

Ah I can go with that if you don't want to go 7 games. We don't have to go 4 deep, 3 deep will do.

It's unlikely that the Suns will lose 3 straight in SA and more probable that they will win 1 of 3.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's unlikely that the Suns will lose 3 straight in SA and more probable that they will win 1 of 3.

Wait a second, you've been saying throughout this thread that the Suns were probable to win 1 of 4 games in San Antonio (25%). Now you've unilaterally raised those chances to 1 of 3 games in San Antonio (33%).

What changed? (other than your need to fit facts to make your argument?)

Honestly, I think I'm done with this probability argument.

[Obstructed_View]

:lol

[Allanon]

Wait a second, you've been saying throughout this thread that the Suns were probable to win 1 of 4 games in San Antonio (25%). Now you've unilaterally raised those chances to 1 of 3 games in San Antonio (33%).

What changed? (other than your need to fit facts to make your argument?)

Honestly, I think I'm done with this probability argument.

I lowered it to 1 in 3 because YOU would not accept a 7 game series, I changed it to fit your needs but you don't like that either.

As you are no longer debating it, I suppose you agree that the Suns have a higher proability to win 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 rather than lose 3 or 4 straight. :D

[ambchang]

Why is it not likely for the Suns to win 3 straight in SA? This is assuming that the chance of each outcome of the game is 50/50 (which was stated above). However, in an extreme case, say the Spurs are playing a JV team, the chances of the JV team winning any contest is 0.1%, the chances of them losing 3 straight in San Antonio is quite high, namely 99.9^3, which is about 99.7% of the time. Now if the probability of the Suns winning in San Antonio for any particular game is 30%, the chances of them losing 3 straight would be 70%^3, which is about 34.3% of the time, and that isn't a low probability at all.

However, we already know that the Suns have lost two straight games in San Antonio, and since those two games were not up for probabilities, and has already happened, the outcome of the next event should not be "affected" in the same manner where the 3 games should be addressed independently. In other words, the fact that the Spurs has shown that they could win games vs. the Suns in San Antonio at a high percentage would move the probabilities of the Spurs winning the next game in the Spurs favour.

This is NOT a coin flip, these games are closely affected by the results of the others.

[Allanon]

...

This is NOT a coin flip, these games are closely affected by the results of the others.

Exactly.

[101A]

I lowered it to 1 in 3 because YOU would not accept a 7 game series, I changed it to fit your needs but you don't like that either.

As you are no longer debating it, I suppose you agree that the Suns have a higher proability to win 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 rather than lose 3 or 4 straight. :D

Probability SAYS:

The Suns don't have to lose 3 straight in San Antonio:

NOW - they have to win one. Tonite, in San Antonio; against a Spurs team that is historically very good at finishing series.

Those are the fundamental statistical measures to use to judge what is going to happen this evening. I would say, based on that, the Spurs have a better than 50% chance of winning.

[ambchang]

Exactly.

Hmmm ... it actually refutes most of the points you have made so far, in that you are treating the three games as independent events where the result of one does not affect the result of another.

I am not sure if you are thinking that this as a classic draw coloured balls out of bag randomly experiment, where there are 7 balls in a bag, 4 black and 3white, and the chances of drawing 3 straight black balls are low. The series is not playing out this way. The series is closer to having 7 bags with an certain number of black and white balls, and the number and ratio of coloured balls depends on what you draw in bag 1, bag 3 depends on bag 2, and so on and so forth. It is not entirely unlikely that you draw black balls three straight times out of 3 different bags.

[Allanon]

Hmmm ... it actually refutes most of the points you have made so far, in that you are treating the three games as independent events where the result of one does not affect the result of another.

I am not sure if you are thinking that this as a classic draw coloured balls out of bag randomly experiment, where there are 7 balls in a bag, 4 black and 3white, and the chances of drawing 3 straight black balls are low. The series is not playing out this way. The series is closer to having 7 bags with an certain number of black and white balls, and the number and ratio of coloured balls depends on what you draw in bag 1, bag 3 depends on bag 2, and so on and so forth. It is not entirely unlikely that you draw black balls three straight times out of 3 different bags.

No actually I've agreed with you. I've said all along that they were related, the coin flips were brought up by somebody else along with unrelated events and such. Excellent post +1.

As you said, they are inter-related events, not singular events and not coin-flips.

[ambchang]

No actually I've agreed with you. I've said all along that they were related, the coin flips were brought up by somebody else along with unrelated events and such. Excellent post +1.

As you said, they are inter-related events, not singular events and not coin-flips.

Then I am probably missing something, in the case where losing 3 straight is not probable probability wise. It is actually probable based on historical data, despite the extremely extremely small sample size (4 games).