Hollinger: Spurs have Momentum, Little Else

[1Parker1]

Spurs have momentum on their side, but little else
By John Hollinger

NEW ORLEANS -- The San Antonio Spurs are feeling pretty good right now. They're the defending champs. They've got two straight wins. They've got the momentum.

And, I would argue, they've got a lot of commentators leaning too far in the other direction now. I've heard some go so far as to declare the series over in favor of San Antonio.

So let's do a quick quiz.

What would you say is the likelihood of San Antonio winning the series? Most of you would probably give an answer somewhere around 50 percent. I suppose a few of you might go as high as 80 or 90 percent. Even a Hornets fan might tell you 30 or 40 percent.

So it might shock you to learn what the historical data says. Depending on what aspect of history you wish to emphasize most, the Spurs' chances come in somewhere between 0 and 17.5 percent.

Huh? How can this be? Let's take a look.

For starters, we can look at the history of teams that won Games 3 and 4 after dropping the first two games in a best-of-seven series. You'd think since they'd won two straight games and turned it into a best-of-3, they'd have had a pretty good shot. You'd also be wrong.

Since the NBA-ABA merger, the "road" team has won the series only 17.5 percent of the time in best-of-7s when the home team won the first four games -- seven out of 40. Five of them came in the past four years, which tricks us into thinking it's more common than it really is: In the two decades prior, it only happened twice.

If you go by history, in fact, the odds of the Spurs, Cavs and Jazz winning their series are actually slightly worse now than they were when the series began.

In conference semifinals, the team with home-court advantage wins 79.2 percent of the time. But in best-of-7s in which the home team wins the first four games, that number improves to 82.5 percent.

How can that be? It's simple, really: The team without home-court advantage has four shots to steal a game in the other team's building. When the series is tied 2-2, the "road" team has effectively squandered half its chances at getting the needed road win.

Of course, the glass-half-full approach is that Cleveland, Utah and San Antonio all tripled their odds (approximately) of winning with their past two home-court wins. As most of you have heard repeatedly during these playoffs, teams that drop the first two games of a best-of-seven series end up losing 94 percent of the time. Certainly, winning Games 3 and 4 was preferable to the alternative.

But the historical data also shows how important it is to get at least a split in the first two, and none of those teams pulled it off.

In San Antonio's case, the story gets worse. Two other indicators also point against them even more harshly than the 17.5 percent figure above.

First, every team to came back from 2-0 down except one has something in common -- namely, it played at least one competitive game on the other team's home court. Of the 13 teams to rally from down 2-0, 12 had at least one loss that was by 10 points or fewer. Yes, even Miami in 2006.

The Spurs, on the other hand, got waxed in their first two, falling by 18 and 19. Only one team -- the "heart of a champion" Rockets in 1995 -- has survived a worse beating. That year Houston lost the first two games against Phoenix by 22 and 24 before rallying to win the final three games. It will comfort Spurs fans, at least, to know that those Rockets were also a defending champion.

Additionally, both San Antonio and Utah have one more negative indicator to consider.

All seven teams that won the series after losing the first two had something in common: a positive point margin after Game 4. The Jazz (-8) and Spurs (-6) don't, even with San Antonio's Game 4 blowout of the Hornets. Believe it nor, no team in that situation has won a series since the merger, going a combined 0-for-21.

The odds improve a bit for Cleveland, according to NBA history. Teams that trailed 2-0 but had outscored the opposition through four games won the series seven times . . . but lost it on 12 other occasions, for a 36.8 percent success rate. Even teams who are an impressive +10 or better, as Cleveland is, are only 4-6.

OK, you might think, but if the Spurs take Game 5 tonight, then it's definitely over, right?

Wrong.

History says even a win in Game 5 doesn't make the Spurs, Cavs or Jazz odds-on favorites. Teams in their situation that win Game 5 prevail in the series less than half the time.

Five teams have won the series after losing the first two on the road and winning the next three ... but another six won Game 5 on the road and then punted the series anyway by dropping the final two (Cleveland against Detroit in 2006, New Jersey against Detroit in 2004, Charlotte against Milwaukee in 2001, Indiana against New York in 1994, Atlanta against Boston in 1988 and Phoenix against Seattle in 1979).

That 5-of-11 changes to 6-of-13 if you include the two NBA Finalists who won their third road game, a Game 6 (Detroit and Miami in '05 and '06), but the conclusion stays the same -- a success rate of slightly less than 50%.

Finally, let me throw in one more interesting item. Given the Spurs' veteran status, their considerable playoff experience, and their total dismantling of the Hornets in Game 4, a common sentiment has been, "We've seen them do this before." But we haven't exactly seen them do this. The Duncan-era Spurs have never won a series after going down 2-0. In fact they've never won after being down 2-1, or trailing at any point after the second game.

Of course, probability does not equal destiny. Some team is going to win a series when it has split the first four, it has a negative point margin and the home team has won every game. That's why play these games on the court instead of just going by my probability models. But it hasn't happened the first 21 times.

For encouragement, Spurs fans can look to the 1995 Rockets, who overcame even more daunting odds. That club dropped the first two on the road, had a negative point margin after four games, and was down 3-1 rather than being tied 2-2.

But we tend to remember the exceptions and forget the rule-followers, and there have been a whole lot more series that followed the rule. As a result, the odds for the Cavs, Jazz and Spurs heading into Game 5 are a lot weaker than most observers suspect, with history casting a particularly harsh glare on San Antonio's chances. While some want to play the momentum card and put these teams into the conference finals, if they follow history, they probably won't survive another week.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2008/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=SpursHornets_080513

[timvp]

Hollinger is praying the Spurs lose so his lame ass numbers can prove him "right". I bet he has his "I told you they were going to win last year and I told you they were going to lose this year" article ready to be published.

Hopefully the Spurs prove this fake statistician wrong.

[FromWayDowntown]

Hollinger is still hoping to find support for his preposterous models; that requires the Spurs to cooperate and lose this series.

It's also odd that Hollinger is the same cat who was arguing vociferously that the Suns were the most likely team in NBA history to rally from down 0-3 to win a series.

At least the dude is consistent.

[SRJ]

The typical reaction to Hollinger: anger, namecalling, citing exceptions - and never any refutations.

[SpursDynasty]

Did this guy forget that all NOH did in the first 2 games was get their bullshit shots to go down?

All other teams who have gone up 2-0 have gone up in convincing fashion. NOH didn't.

[YoMamaIsCallin]

Hollinger is absolutely right that to get back into a series after being down 0-2, you really have to win the next 3 games. Winning your 2 games at home is, as they say in mathematics, a necessary but not sufficient condition for getting back into the series.

The Spurs recognize this when they point out that they've really done nothing so far.

All of games 3/4/5 are pretty much must wins for a team in the Spurs' position.

Stealing game 5 on the road is crucial for the Spurs' chances of winning the series.

[crc21209]

Hollinger is a jackass who uses numbers for EVERYTHING! lol. It's hilarious. He doesn't know jack shit when it comes to the Spurs and pivotal game 5's:

2003- Spurs beat Lakers in Game 5 at home, Horry's 3 rattles out, Spurs go on to win series and Championship.

2004- Spurs lose to Lakers in Game 5 at home, Fisher's fluke .4 shot.

2005- One of the toughest game 5's ever at Detroit, Horry's clutch-ness leads us to game 5 victory and eventually the Championship.

2007- With Amare and Diaw out, Spurs go down big in 1st half but rally to beat Suns on Bruce's clutch 3-pointer in game 5 at Phoenix, Spurs go onto win series and Championship.

So Hollinger's numbers dont mean shit, also I'm tired about hearing how the Spurs have never come down from 2-0, well the last time we were down 2-0 we didn't have Tim, Manu, or Tony playing all together and at this level, with Bruce being a big part in our success also, so throw that fucking stat out the window.

[BRHornet45]

WONDERFUL article ... 100% truth

[1Parker1]

Hollinger is praying the Spurs lose so his lame ass numbers can prove him "right". I bet he has his "I told you they were going to win last year and I told you they were going to lose this year" article ready to be published.

Hopefully the Spurs prove this fake statistician wrong.



:lol Seriously, it maddens me that he actually thinks his "models and #'s" are actually right.

Someone needs to tell him, this is sports, not quantum physics. That's why people love sports and especially the playoffs; it's highly unpredictable. You can't base anything on #'s of the past or if a team hasn't come back from so and so before because anything is possible. How many teams in the last 2 years alone, came back to win the Series in 6 after losing the first two games?

His model's aren't even using the right variables to project a win/loss and that's whats more annoying to me.

[FromWayDowntown]

The typical reaction to Hollinger: anger, namecalling, citing exceptions - and never any refutations.

He's statistically correct -- it's difficult to refute the basic facts concerning the low likelihood for success among teams attempting to come back from down 0-2. With that said, I find his analysis to be curious because it doesn't take into account much in the way of observation. More specifically, he was willing to argue that the Suns were somehow likely to come back from down 0-3 because of what he had seen, eschewing the statistical truths concerning that situation. Now, with a Spurs team that has made some significant adjustments, he's essentially arguing that the statistics are overwhelming. Are they really more overwhelming against the Spurs than the were against th Suns? Of course not. Does that deter Hollinger from arguing that the Suns had a chance while the Spurs' chances are slim? Absolutely not.

I have no doubt that the odds are stacked against the Spurs and, at this point, it wouldn't be an upset for the Hornets to win the series (of course, statistically speaking, it never would have been an upset for the Hornets to win this series). If the Hornets win Game 5, I'll be disappointed, but not surprised. If the Hornets get the next two, it wouldn't shock me.

I just find Hollinger's fascination with using statistics in an inconsistent manner to argue against the Spurs in consecutive rounds is remarkable. And I do think it has a significant foundation is his need to justify his metrics -- it won't look good for his analytical tools if the Spurs defy the numbers they spit out during the regular season.

So you're right: I can't refute his numbers; I just think he's being a bit inconsistent with his effort to use historical proof to support the arguments he's making these days.

[Galileo]

This analysis is wrong because Duncan was sick the first two games. Otherwise it would been good analysis.

I'll bet the team that won games three and four was less than 17.5% likely to have their best player sick the first two games.

[SpurOutofTownFan]

Spurs have momentum on their side, but little else
By John Hollinger

All seven teams that won the series after losing the first two had something in common: a positive point margin after Game 4. The Jazz (-8) and Spurs (-6) don't, even with San Antonio's Game 4 blowout of the Hornets. Believe it nor, no team in that situation has won a series since the merger, going a combined 0-for-21.

His biggest failure is in here. If the starters stay the entire 4th quarter and they win by 35 all those numbers go nowhere. I don't know if that actually happened on all those other cases he brings up. The Spurs have never been known for blowing out teams even when they had a chance of doing so.

[austinlakepirate]

WTF

This is why accountants shouldn't bother watching sports.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I know people love the whole "history tends to repeat itself" approach, but now its getting ridiculous. History is full of teams that have lost and won in any number of ways, but non of those teams were the Spurs, and non of those teams were playing this season's Hornets.

Statistics are all well and good when you're trying to entertain the masses, of which Hollinger seems to be doing a bang up job at, seeing as though he still has a job even after always being wrong with his predictions... in the end, however, it all boils down to talent, poise and character. One team has already proven to have them all, you guess which one.

[tp2021]

Stats are studied after the fact to figure out trends. They mean nothing during the series. All the numbers show is that it is hard to win after going down 2-0, but not impossible. The Spurs have proved doubters wrong before.

[romsho]

How about a statistic for a far less than 100% Tim Duncan in games 1 and 2 and Bruce Bowen guarding Peja in games 3 and 4? Statistics don't always tell the story. Hollinger is getting lamer by the minute.

[Manu's Bald Spot]

There seems to be mad hate on Hollinger. I think he's one of the better analysts in the game. He's just saying that from looking at historical stats, when the road/lower seeded team goes down 2-0 in a series, it is extremely difficult to come back and win it. It does make sense. Also, I think he touches upon something interesting. I've noticed it on this forum and elsewhere, but people are basically saying that this series is over and we're gonna win it. I have full confidence we can win, but um, let's chill out with calling this series over. NO doesn't have to win on the road, we do, so let's try to get one at NO before we claim this thing over.

[SRJ]

More specifically, he was willing to argue that the Suns were somehow likely to come back from down 0-3 because of what he had seen, eschewing the statistical truths concerning that situation.

I didn't read that particular article; my understanding is that he phrased his argument as "more likely than other teams down 0-3", not "likely to come back". But again, I didn't read it. Was it posted here? I'd like to.

Of course Hollinger, like anyone else, makes mistakes. But I trust him far more than most of the journalist vermin who prognosticate.

[easjer]

My issue isn't with Hollinger reporting the historical statistics. After all, there is some interest in that. My issue is that Hollinger is ignoring that the remainder of the series has yet to be played and refuses to look up from his calculations to watch the games themselves.

It's annoying.

[G-Nob]

I don't mind his stat models only because its another way to look at history. This article should keep us humble and help the team not take their foot off the gas.

[slayermin]

Shit, if Shaq can comeback twice from 0-2, Tim Duncan can do it once.

I would give teams with a top ten all-time great a better chance of pulling it off than a team that does not.

[easjer]

He's just saying that from looking at historical stats, when the road/lower seeded team goes down 2-0 in a series, it is extremely difficult to come back and win it. It does make sense.

Then why bother playing the games? Hollinger ignores the actual play and trends and things in favor of stats. That's why his stats are dust in the wind. Sure, history isn't on our side - I don't fault him for pointing that out. But to only look at historical statistics while ignoring real factors - less than healthy Tim Duncan, change in rebound disparity, etc - just shows that he doesn't understand the game.

You can't rely solely on stats, and that's why I don't respect Hollinger. He clings to them because he doesn't get or appreciate the game as a game that isn't predetermined by statistical expectations.

[CosmicCowboy]

Aw fuck it.

He convinced me. We have no damn chance of winning. Lets just go ahead and concede.

[Spurminator]

He's built a career on the kinds of trivial little stats that you used to get for 5 seconds of a game broadcast, go "Hmm, interesting," and then forget about.

How many of the series in his analysis involved teams with identical records?

[ATXSPUR]

Hope the Spurs read this. They can save time and not show up at the gym tonight...*sarcasm*

[LilMissSPURfect]

spurs win and end this mofo thursday nite...

[Manu's Bald Spot]

Then why bother playing the games? Hollinger ignores the actual play and trends and things in favor of stats. That's why his stats are dust in the wind. Sure, history isn't on our side - I don't fault him for pointing that out. But to only look at historical statistics while ignoring real factors - less than healthy Tim Duncan, change in rebound disparity, etc - just shows that he doesn't understand the game.

You can't rely solely on stats, and that's why I don't respect Hollinger. He clings to them because he doesn't get or appreciate the game as a game that isn't predetermined by statistical expectations.

I agree, stats don't mean that much when compared to actual play and trends. I don't think he's saying that we're going to lose, not at all. Maybe I'm reading the article in a different manner, but all I think he's trying to point out is that a ton of people have been declaring the spurs winners in this series when all we've done is just tie the series. I think that's his main point from the article, which I do agree with somewhat cuz we haven't done anything except take care of our business at home. With his stats model, the most important thing to take out of it, IMO, is to use them as an indicator of the big picture, which in this case states that it's hard for the lower seed to win a series when they're down 2-0. By no means should we use the stats as the absolute truth.

Then again, didn't Hollinger say we're losing this series in 7?? I think in the end, the spurs will show him that come playoff team, no team is tougher

[DarrinS]

Hollinger is a stat dork and one of the few people that picked the Hornets.

[Jimcs50]

This why I am still going to play poker tonight and watch the game later delayed, because I just know that the Spurs are going to get their asses killed.

:depressed

[MoSpur]

His articles bore me.

[Parkerlooms]

90 percent of statistics can be made to say anything 50 percent of the time.

[ambchang]

The problem with the article is that it assumes all the series in which the home team won the 1st 4 games are played by the same, or at least similar, teams. To say that, historically, teams in the Spurs' situation would have a 17.5% chance of winning the series would be correct, but to say


So it might shock you to learn what the historical data says. Depending on what aspect of history you wish to emphasize most, the Spurs' chances come in somewhere between 0 and 17.5 percent.

is not.

This is not a case of saying in the past hundred years, May 13th rained 18 times, therefore May 13th has an 18% chance of raining (and even that is incorrect, as that is the reason we have weather forecasts that based weather on satellite images instead of data from the last 100 years), this is even more erraneous in the fac that this is the first time this Spurs team have met this Hornets team in a playoff environment. There is no historical data. The only forecast people can come up with so far is to base it on the last 4 games, and to some extent, the 4 regular season games.

Road teams who dropped the first two but comes back to the tie the series didn't win or lose because of historical data, they MAKE UP the historical data.

[dbreiden83080]

If Duncan wasn't sick in games 1 and 2 we would probably be up 3-1 right now on these clowns. Bottom line it is 2-2, i feel we are the better team, we bring our A game tonight and Spurs are gonna win.

[K-State Spur]

The typical reaction to Hollinger: anger, namecalling, citing exceptions - and never any refutations.

the results themselves have offered plenty of refutations. san antonio shouldn't still be playing according to his numbers.

[tmtcsc]

Historically, John Hollinger has proven to be a Maverick homer and a numbers nerd. Im surprised he was able to pry his lips off of Dirk's tool long enough to type his nonsense.

History, Shmistory...It's best of 3 and if we play solid D we have a good chance of winning this series. And why dismiss the 4 teams that over came 2-0 in last 5 years. If that says anything, it says that history has no bearing on the present. They aren't the same teams.

Idiocrat.

[NRHector]

why do people keep posting columns of this jerk in SP if he keeps underestimating the spurs:bang

[NoMoneyDown]

Seeing as how Hollinger likes using statistics to base predictions on, he should understand he is 0-1 this year prognosticating Spurs PO round victories. So, based on statistics, his prediction for a NO G5 victory doesn't hold much water to me. Statistically speaking, of course.

[K-State Spur]

:lol Seriously, it maddens me that he actually thinks his "models and #'s" are actually right.

Someone needs to tell him, this is sports, not quantum physics. That's why people love sports and especially the playoffs; it's highly unpredictable. You can't base anything on #'s of the past or if a team hasn't come back from so and so before because anything is possible. How many teams in the last 2 years alone, came back to win the Series in 6 after losing the first two games?

His model's aren't even using the right variables to project a win/loss and that's whats more annoying to me.

it was one thing when he was just harping about PER, but his playoff odds formula is just crap (the only bad thing about the championship last year was that the Spurs inadvertently gave some credence to it).

hell, it was still pretty late in the season when he was touting the Raptors as one of the top teams in the league. funny that he never mentions that now...

[said7]

While i think statistics can be a valuable tool, I'd like to see a little smaller test group.

I think these stats are lopsided just based on the fact that it factors in first round series'. An 6-8th seed (in most NBA years) will not comeback in a series.

It kinda just throws the losers in the pile.

[gwidlon]

this guy Hollinger actually thinks that statistics work that way ....

tell you what, let me throw a coin 4 times ....
ok: 1 head and 3 tails

this Hollinger will say that there is (4/3) 75% chance that next throw is tail or even worse, that next throw will probably be head just to get closer to 50%

[1Parker1]

Ray (San Antonio): Hey John, How come you go to NO for their home games but not here to SA? Come take a visit to the Lone Star State.

John Hollinger: (4:57 PM ET ) Actually, I was in the Land of Crack Smoking Highway Interchanges for Games 3 and 4. Nice of your city planners to repair every highway in town at the same time. That took some real foresight.

John Hollinger: (4:57 PM ET ) On a positive note, Rosario's remains tremendous.



:lol He also trashes SA, the city, in his chat.

[Budkin]

Hollinger is a joke. That is all.

[awktalk]

Hollinger has the same record as Cheney and his Junta. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Wrong about everything. This is the same guy who took the Suns in 6.

Ignore the village idiot unless he's juggling knives.

[awktalk]

Ray (San Antonio): Hey John, How come you go to NO for their home games but not here to SA? Come take a visit to the Lone Star State.

SportsNation John Hollinger: (4:57 PM ET ) Actually, I was in the Land of Crack Smoking Highway Interchanges for Games 3 and 4. Nice of your city planners to repair every highway in town at the same time. That took some real foresight.

More SA bashing from this loser. Ignore him. He knows nothing but his paycheck

[awktalk]

And more bashing. This man should be on the Spururist watchlist at SAT.


Chris (Phoenix): JA Adonde said in his chat last week that everyone calling the Spurs floppers is getting old, and i totally agree. But you know what else is getting old, the Spurs flopping!

SportsNation John Hollinger: (5:01 PM ET ) If you're upset now, wait til you see Tiago Splitter next year. Cut from the same cloth.

[Cry Havoc]

What are the odds of a player like Peja going from two 20+ point games in games 1 and 2 to two sub-10 point games in 3 and 4?

I'll bet it's less than 17.5%. And I'll also bet that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with statistics.

[nkdlunch]

Hollinger has numbers, little else

[SpursFan0728]

If percentage can tell everything
then Duncan will only shoot 50% every night and Kobe will have 0% of getting 82 points.

stupid article IMO

[Pero]

Since the NBA-ABA merger, the "road" team has won the series only 17.5 percent of the time in best-of-7s when the home team won the first four games -- seven out of 40. Five of them came in the past four years, which tricks us into thinking it's more common than it really is: In the two decades prior, it only happened twice.


Hm, how can a road team beat the home team, after the home team won the first four games???

[Cry Havoc]

Hm, how can a road team beat the home team, after the home team won the first four games???

Because the home team for games 3 and 4 is the team without Home Court Advantage.

[Pero]

Because the home team for games 3 and 4 is the team without Home Court Advantage.

Sorry, what? If the home team wins 4, it's over. Or is there some change in rules? :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Hollinger thinks city planners are responsible for interstate highways?

[easjer]

Hollinger thinks city planners are responsible for interstate highways?

:lol

[easjer]

Sorry, what? If the home team wins 4, it's over. Or is there some change in rules? :lol

You are misunderstanding the concept of home team - home team, in this case, is not the team with home court advantage. In this case, it's the team that is playing at home.

For example - the games that have recently been played. Spurs were the home team for the last two, yeah? So the home team has won in all four of the games played.

If the team with HCA wins - then it's a sweep, as you say.

[Pero]

You are misunderstanding the concept of home team - home team, in this case, is not the team with home court advantage. In this case, it's the team that is playing at home.

For example - the games that have recently been played. Spurs were the home team for the last two, yeah? So the home team has won in all four of the games played.

If the team with HCA wins - then it's a sweep, as you say.

Ok, I still don't get it. :lol

He says, "won the first four games".. Any team winning four games, wins the series. Home or not doesn't even matter. I just don't get the point here. :lol

[Darcus]

Ok, I still don't get it. :lol

He says, "won the first four games".. Any team winning four games, wins the series. Home or not doesn't even matter. I just don't get the point here. :lol

The team with the home court won the first four games in this series.

The team with home court won game 1? Check, Hornets won.
The team with home court won game 2? Check, Hornets won.
The team with home court won game 3? Check, Spurs won.
The team with home court won game 4? Check, Spurs won.

The team with home court won the first four games.

[Pero]

The team with the home court won the first four games in this series.

The team with home court won game 1? Check, Hornets won.
The team with home court won game 2? Check, Hornets won.
The team with home court won game 3? Check, Spurs won.
The team with home court won game 4? Check, Spurs won.

The team with home court won the first four games.

Oooooooooohhhhhhhhh..... I get it now. :lmao
Thanks. :)

[FromWayDowntown]

Ok, I still don't get it. :lol

He says, "won the first four games".. Any team winning four games, wins the series. Home or not doesn't even matter. I just don't get the point here. :lol

He's talking about "home team" in two different respects.

1. the team with home court advantage is the home team for purposes of the series.

2. in each game, the team playing at home is the home team for purposes of that game.

When he says "the home team won the first four games," he's talking about a split in which neither team won a road game -- a series that was 2-0 for the team with HCA and then was tied at 2-2 after 4 games.

When he talks about the "home team" having a statistical advantage in the series, he's talking only about the team that has home court advantage.

I agree that it's extremely awkward.

[SRJ]

If percentage can tell everything

As always, statistical analysis remains misunderstood.

Show me a statistician who says "Numbers will tell you everything". If you do, you won't find one who's worth a shit. What you'll find is another ignorant person - only instead of the typical sportswriter who is ignorant of statistical analysis, you'll find a person who ignores everything else.

I don't know what harm it does to look at everything - the stats, the styles, the IR, the coaches, the trends, the momentum - but someone mentions the stats and everyone goes apeshit.

[dbreiden83080]

The team with the home court won the first four games in this series.

The team with home court won game 1? Check, Hornets won.
The team with home court won game 2? Check, Hornets won.
The team with home court won game 3? Check, Spurs won.
The team with home court won game 4? Check, Spurs won.

The team with home court won the first four games.

The team with home court won game 1? Check, Duncan Sick/Hornets won.
The team with home court won game 2? Check, Duncan Sick/Hornets won.
The team with home court won game 3? Check, Duncan Healthy/Spurs won.
The team with home court won game 4? Check, Duncan Healthy/Spurs won.

[dbreiden83080]

Do these NO fans know that this core group of players has won a million games on the road in the playoffs en route to championships?? We are 1-3 on the road right now but 2 of those came when Duncan was sick and the other one we laid down and let the Suns rape us in game 4. We played great in game 3 against the Suns that is for sure. Hornets being home guarantees them nothing.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

This guy totally makes sense.



I was sold on him when he said Jackie Butler was the 3rd best center in the league based up his production per 48 minutes.



The guy's a genius I tell ya. A genius!!

[FromWayDowntown]

It's hard to win a playoff road game, and unlike the Hornets (at least at this point), the Spurs do have to win one of those pesky road games if they are to survive. I think that anyone who thinks a road win (much less a win in Game 5) is a foregone conclusion is delusional. That's true, I think, because I'm relatively confident that the Hornets will make a much better showing in Game 5 than they did in either Game 3 or Game 4 -- and I thought they played pretty damned well for most of Game 3.

With that said, since 1998 there is one (1) NBA franchise that has a winning road record in playoff games: the San Antonio Spurs. The Spurs were 8 over .500 on the road during that stretch (39-31) entering the 2008 Playoffs and are now 6 over .500 (40-34) heading into Game 5. That's a pretty remarkable .541 road winning percentage in almost 75 road games against the toughest teams in the association.

The Spurs losses in Games 1 and 2 weren't just about Duncan being ill or the Spurs handing over games -- the Hornets played legitimately well (they shot nearly 50% in both games -- always a bad sign for the Spurs) and won those games legitimately. The burden is certainly on the Spurs to capitalize on their momentum and get a back-breaking Game 5 win. They can do it; if statistics are proof, then history says they're the most likely team in the league to get a big playoff road win at some point in this round.

Believe.

1.

[dbreiden83080]

It's hard to win a playoff road game, and unlike the Hornets (at least at this point), the Spurs do have to win one of those pesky road games if they are to survive. I think that anyone who thinks a road win (much less a win in Game 5) is a foregone conclusion is delusional. That's true, I think, because I'm relatively confident that the Hornets will make a much better showing in Game 5 than they did in either Game 3 or Game 4 -- and I thought they played pretty damned well for most of Game 3.

With that said, since 1998 there is one (1) NBA franchise that has a winning road record in playoff games: the San Antonio Spurs. The Spurs were 8 over .500 on the road during that stretch (39-31) entering the 2008 Playoffs and are now 6 over .500 (40-34) heading into Game 5. That's a pretty remarkable .541 road winning percentage in almost 75 road games against the toughest teams in the association.

The Spurs losses in Games 1 and 2 weren't just about Duncan being ill or the Spurs handing over games -- the Hornets played legitimately well (they shot nearly 50% in both games -- always a bad sign for the Spurs) and won those games legitimately. The burden is certainly on the Spurs to capitalize on their momentum and get a back-breaking Game 5 win. They can do it; if statistics are proof, then history says they're the most likely team in the league to get a big playoff road win at some point in this round.

Believe.

1.

For me this series is a lock to go 7 games if they lose tonight, no way do i see the Spurs mentally giving up when they are coming back to their Gym trying to close them out. I think with 2 chances to get a game in NO we will get it done.

[K-State Spur]

If you look at his actual basketball 'analysis', then it becomes obvious why Hollinger clings so hard to the numbers.

Hell, in his chat today he talked about how D'Antoni can use Randolph the same way he used Amare. Since they are such similar players and all... (well, they both put forth the same level of effort on defense)

[reck21]

Anything coming from New Orleans..you know it would favor the Hornets.

They are desperate for something to happen to them since the Katrina disaster.

Unfortunately for them they wont have their way with the Spurs.

[Phil Hellmuth]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.... the samples are biased. They weren't of a team that had Tim Duncan on them. Why should i trust this?

[Vito Corleone]

I couldn't care less about his stats, they mean nothing I want to know what the stats are for defending champs who tie up a series against an inexperienced team. Tell me those stats.

[SPARKY]

Hollinger's prediction in the Spurs-Suns series proved prescient.

[wildbill2u]

You can bet that some of the team matchups where the home team held serve for the first 4 games matched up the #1 & #8 or #2 & #7.

I think we're still in a hole--home court advantage means a lot, especially to a young team--but we're a good road team in the playoffs. We've proved that over the years, and those stats don't lie either.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

He obviously hasn't added in the calculation that should be applied when a coach wakes up, pulls his head on his ass, and has Bowen go rip Peja's balls off like Bowen has done.

[BonnerDynasty]

N.O. Hornets have had 0% success of getting out of the 2nd round so suck that hollinger!!1111eleven111!

[FromWayDowntown]

Hell, in his chat today he talked about how D'Antoni can use Randolph the same way he used Amare. Since they are such similar players and all... (well, they both put forth the same level of effort on defense)

His belief that D'Antoni is a "great" coach is interesting to me too. It's as if Hollinger and so many others in the media completely forgot D'Antoni's 14-36 with the Nuggets in 1999 or his 21-40 in his interim stint in Phoenix in 03-04. That's not to say that D'Antoni can't coach -- he obviously can. But his record in seasons without Steve Nash isn't stellar and it would give me pause about concluding that he'll be a great fit for New York.

[SPARKY]

You can bet that some of the team matchups where the home team held serve for the first 4 games matched up the #1 & #8 or #2 & #7.

I think we're still in a hole--home court advantage means a lot, especially to a young team--but we're a good road team in the playoffs. We've proved that over the years, and those stats don't lie either.

Right. In my mind this series is eerily similar to the '04 Spurs-Lakers series. The Spurs torched the Lakers twice at home to start the series and then the Lakers made a key defensive adjustment which enabled them to win games 3 and 4.

[FromWayDowntown]

Right. In my mind this series is eerily similar to the '04 Spurs-Lakers series. The Spurs torched the Lakers twice at home to start the series and then the Lakers made a key defensive adjustment which enabled them to win games 3 and 4.

It still took a miraculous finish for them to win Game 5.

Then again, the Lakers had control of almost all of Game 5 until Pop shortened his bench, the Spurs nutted up, and rallied themselves back into the game to put the Lakers in position to come up with a miracle.

That was truly a battle of pedigreed heavyweights.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

I want to fight John Hollinger

[5 rings]

this article was one of the most idiotic and horrible attempts at finding an excuse I've ever seen. I wanted to write Hollinger, but I honestly don't even know what to say to argue with something that stupid.

[dbreiden83080]

But his record in seasons without Steve Nash isn't stellar and it would give me pause about concluding that he'll be a great fit for New York.

I don't think he will be. Living in NY most of the media and fans have no clue what the hell D'Antoni is doing here?? The team is awful, the roster needs to be blown up. Knicks fans are ready to accept losing as long as they think a long term plan is in place. Knicks can't win now with any coach so why overpay for this guy when they could have got Mark Jackson for almost nothing and see what he's got while the team continues to lose as they slowly get rid of these hacks on the team. Knicks seem to think if they get under the cap they will get Lebron in a few years, i doubt it.

[dbreiden83080]

I want to fight John Hollinger

Raging Bull style. :hat

[Spurs73]

FACT: When I wear my lucky Spurs jersey the Spurs are undefeated in game 5's. And oh yes I will be wearing it tonight. Booyah - stick that in your pipe & smoke it!