Hollinger: Why I'm spurning the Spurs

[td4mvp3]

this was hollinger, didn't see it posted

Why I'm spurning the Spurs
posted: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
filed under: NBA, San Antonio Spurs, Los Angeles Lakers

SOMEWHERE IN THE AIRSPACE BETWEEN NEW ORLEANS AND ATLANTA -- With the flight gods blowing up my usual chat schedule, I thought I'd address a couple topics that have come up repeatedly in my mailbag and, presumably, would in the chat as well.

For starters, I've been swamped with email from Spurs supporters questioning my motives. Inevitably, fans of some teams come to feel that I (or other writers) have some kind of vendetta against their favored club. Since emotions run highest at the start of the year and at the end, this is when those sentiments tend to be strongest.

Anyway, Spurs fans think that since I picked them to lose in the first two rounds that I must harbor some vast reservoir of ill will toward the team. Or perhaps they just feel betrayed, since I picked San Antonio last year, and the year before that, and the year before that.

As much respect as I have for what the Spurs have done and continue to do, I saw the Phoenix and New Orleans series as essentially 50-50 propositions with a slight edge going to San Antonio's opponents. Obviously, it didn't work out that way. As I noted at the beginning of the Western Conference playoffs, this was a year in which it was going to be easy to be wrong a lot, and actually I'm pleased to get out of Dodge with those two as my only blemishes in the West thus far.

On a similar note, Spurs fans seemed to think my writing two columns on the Hornets from Monday's Game 7 was the result of my Spur-blindness. Actually, it was my assignment -- Marc Stein handled the San Antonio side of things.

Oh, and there's one other thing that has Spurs fans upset …

Lakers in 5?

The hardest part of picking a series isn't the winner but the games. Essentially, there are two different questions at play -- one is what the average expectation is, and the other is what the most likely outcome is. Those two questions often don't produce identical answers.

For example, in a series where the better team also has home-court advantage, the most likely outcome is that they'll win in 5 -- taking three at home and one on the road. Having three of the first five at home makes this outcome very possible even in scenarios where you wouldn't normally think one team would win 80 percent of the games.

That said, it's not much more likely than the home team winning in six or seven, and the cumulative probability of those two outcomes is much greater -- it really depends on whether they can get a split out of Games 3 and 4.

We saw this twice in the earlier rounds with series that seemed fairly evenly matched -- San Antonio-Phoenix and Detroit-Orlando -- just as we did last year with both Utah-Golden State and San Antonio-Utah. In each case, once the favorite got a split on the road it was over faster than anyone expected.

As a result, it's much easier for a series to end in five games than most believe. So if you're trying to predict the most likely outcome, L.A. in five makes sense. That's what I was gunning for.

But if you're picking along a continuum from "Lakers in four" to "Spurs in four" and looking for the median outcome, L.A. in five is laughable -- it's skewed way too far to the L.A. side. Lakers in six or even seven makes a lot more sense in that event. If you allow that there's some percentage chance of San Antonio winning outright, and just a very small chance of a Laker sweep, than even if there's a large chance of L.A. winning in five, it wouldn't be enough to make it the "average" outcome of the series.

Alas, in the spirit of the Stat Geek Smackdown, I'm trying to peg the games exactly. And my chance of doing that is better if I go five games, even if I don't think the disparity between the teams is as large as that prediction suggest.

So why do I hate the Spurs?

I don't. Really. But as to why I'm off the Spur bandwagon in the first place, the answer is the same reason I was on it the past three years -- point differential.

San Antonio's average scoring margin this year was much worse than in previous season at +4.8 points per game; by comparison, the Lakers were +7.3. That's proven to be a better indicator of future success than win-loss record. The Spurs' margin was similar to the Hornets' (+5.3) and Suns' (+5.0) in the first two rounds, which is what made those series toss-ups in my estimation. In the case of L.A., it's not. And if you only include the 36 regular season and playoff games in which L.A. had Pau Gasol, their margin balloons to an impressive +10.3 (and their record an equally impressive 30-6).

The playoffs have given us similar results. San Antonio was +0.0 against the Hornets and +0.8 against the Suns, while the Lakers were +13.3 against the Nuggets and +3.0 against the Jazz. Since Utah was, in my estimation, the strongest threat besides L.A. to win the conference, (and had the West's second-best regular-season victory margin at +6.9), the latter number is especially impressive.

So that's how I ended up with L.A. in five. It could just as easily be six or seven. But I do expect the Lakers to win.

CP3 for MVP?

Interestingly, Laker fans are also convinced I hate their team (which makes for an interesting dilemma in the conference finals -- how will I root against both sides?)

In this case, it was the first time I've ever been flooded with emails about a player I didn't mention in a story. When I nominated Chris Paul as MVP of the playoffs last week, the Kobe fan club was furious. How could I overlook his 33.3-6.8-6.3 averages?

In this case, it was just that Paul had been so unbelievably good in his first 10 playoff games. And he did against better defenses -- Dallas and San Antonio were eighth and third, respectively, in defensive efficiency during the regular season, while Denver and Utah were only ninth and 12th.

Obviously, what happened since I wrote the story tilts the scales towards Kobe, and if I were writing the story today he'd be the choice. But at the time, Paul's case was the strongest. If Lakers fans weren't watching the Hornets-Mavs series, that ain't my problem.

On the 0-21 (uh, make that 1-22) mark

Based on the emails, several fans seemed confused by I stat I brought up last week mentioning that teams which lost the first two on the road, won the next two at home, and had a negative scoring margin through four games were 0-21 since the NBA-ABA merger. Folks wrote in talking about Utah-Houston a year ago or the Lakers-Spurs series in 2004, where teams came back from 0-2 down to win.

However, those series weren't part of the 0-21 -- the key qualifier was that the team without home court had to have been outscored over the first four games. The teams who did manage to outscore their opponent had a much better mark, winning nearly 40 percent of their series -- including the 2007 Jazz and the 2004 Lakers (and, on the losing side, the Cavaliers this week).

At any rate, it's now 1-22. Utah fell to Los Angeles, as the rule predicted, but San Antonio defied the odds by outlasting the Hornets Monday night. Inevitably, somebody was going to break the rule, just as it's inevitable that somebody will eventually come back from 0-3 down. It's a credit to the Spurs' resilience and adjustments that they were first.

Incidentally, San Antonio is now the seventh team to come back from a 2-0 deficit in the past five years … after it only happened seven times in the previous history of the NBA. Much like the question of home-team dominance in the second round, one wonders if there's an underlying cause.

Certainly having so many more best-of-sevens is a factor -- stretching out the first round in 2002 more than doubled the number of seven-game series each year from 7 to 15. The fact we're in an era of relative parity may be another -- there's no Jordan or Russell, or even a Bird-Magic duopoly, lording it over the league at the moment. At any rate, it appears being down 2-0 isn't quite the death sentence it used to be.

Celtics in 7?

Finally, I've been told there's a playoff series going on in the East as well. This was a tough one to predict. Before the playoffs I would have said the Celtics and not thought twice about it, but Boston's struggles in the second round against Cleveland obviously are worrisome.

The Celtics were outscored on the series and in truth were lucky to survive; they squeaked by in three of their four home games and absorbed a 108-84 beating in Game 3. That this happened against a team with a fairly unimpressive resume -- Cleveland was itself outscored on the season and didn't exactly dominate its first-round match-up against Washington -- makes you wonder if the Celtics are leveling off at the worst time.

For now, I'll stick with Boston. A lot of the evaluation depends on how much of that series you think was the Celtics playing worse, how much you think was the Cavs playing better, and how much you think was random noise.

My instinct is that it was more a case of Cleveland playing better, as the assorted pieces of the midseason blockbuster trade finally gelled and the Cavs could take advantage of being able to play LeBron nearly the entire game. So my thinking is the Celtics can use the home-court edge to outlast one more opponent and win the conference -- though I'm guessing they'll need a road win this time.

But if I'm wrong and it was a case of Boston declining, then the Celtics are toast.

[celldweller]

:sleep

[G-Nob]

Funny that he feels he has to explain himself.

[SPARKY]

Here's a stat, Holly: 0 for 2.

[Medvedenko]

You can't argue math.....

[SPARKY]

Just did.

[ClingingMars]

Here's a stat, Holly: 0 for 2.

[Whisky Dog]

Who do people try to apply logic and mathematics to events where there are so many more variables in place that defy logic? This guy's whole outlook and perspective is flawed beyond belief.

I bet he's one of the 98% of men who try to apply logic to meeting and attracting women, you know - by buying them dinners and gifts and being NICE guys. Because logically, that would seem the thing to do. What a dumb ass.

[Darcus]

I think it's worth it paying attention to Hollinger. Stats are interesting and can help determine how things are going to sway. But at no time should you use stats to completely determine the outcome of a future game, like Hollinger does. There's always the chance that the original used stats had odd variables that affected the gameplay at that time, and there's always the chance that the future game will have an odd variable that will affect the gameplay.

So while I would pay attention to him, I definitely wouldn't agree blindly with his predictions. But taking stats into account is always interesting.

And I don't think he hates the Spurs.

[SpurOutofTownFan]

Problem with this guy is that he's a numbers guy, that's all. His argument of point difference is so flawed a 4 year old could contest it any day. He also brought it up in the hornets series when he said point differential on spurs losses was less than in hornets losses so therefore the spurs had only 10+ % to win game 7 or something like that. Again he isn't counting the 4 quarters of a blown out game where the starters just sit and the rest is garbage time, therefore taking the blowing out to more closer numbers. This is very characteristic and a trademark of the Spurs where they rarely blow out teams.

The point most believing fans have been trying to make during all these past weeks is that theres something more to the spurs that can't be explain by any pundit. One day, they will realize it, or not.

[Whisky Dog]

I forgot, what's the mathematical value for heart?

For a rotation full of championship experience?

[tmtcsc]

throw all the #'s out the window

[DDS4]

Hollinger and all these writers can't please everyone.

If they want to go against the Spurs, let them be.

If the Spurs win, they have no choice but to backpedal and praise. Which is the most satisfying part.

[ShoogarBear]

Problem with this guy is that he's a numbers guy, that's all.

And not a very good one. He calculates a lot of numbers, but I've never seen anything he's written that gives an indication he knows the slightest about hypothesis testing, correlations, or statistical significance. He basically depends on bamboozling people who understand less about math than he does.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

And not a very good one. He calculates a lot of numbers, but I've never seen anything he's written that gives an indication he knows the slightest about hypothesis testing, correlations, or statistical significance. He basically depends on bamboozling people who understand less about math than he does.
Depends on his degree and if he's even applying any of the basic statistical meaning stuff. But yeah, it's a lot of bunk (Especially the article above. :lol) and arbitrary arithmetic on his part.

[Allanon]

Even though he screwed up on the Spurs, I think he was right on all the other series.

He always had Utah high even through their major suck period and it turns out they were much better than their early season record indicated.

His team Power Rankings are surprisingly quite accurate.

[Helix Versa]

Didn't he pick the Jazz against the Lakers in the 2nd round, too?

[tmtcsc]

Sometimes he fails to see the forest for the trees. If Utah was so good, why did they have the 5th seed ? They played in a weak division too. Try scrambling some of those numbers. The Jazz regressed from last year and didn't build on anything.

[celldweller]

http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/3640/johnhollingercs9.jpg

[Allanon]

Didn't he pick the Jazz against the Lakers in the 2nd round, too?

He changed his mind right before the series started saying he didn't have enough statistics on the Lakers post-Pau so he grudgingly picked the Lakers. Utah fans wanted to burn him at the stake. :D

[tmtcsc]

Throw this chump in the stack too.

http://assets.espn.go.com/i/columnists/bucher_ric_m.jpg

Celtics-Cavs Game 7 was not memorable for him. New Orleans should beat San Antonio. Kobe vs. Chris Paul will be great. Ric likes the Pistons to beat the Celtics.
More from Ric Bucher

[wildbill2u]

Hollinger stands by the theory:

The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong---but that's the way to bet.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

stats schmats

Maybe we should give him a list of stats we just proved wrong by winning the last series the way we did.

Stats are just half of the story; the other half is Ginobili, Parker, Duncan, Bowen, and Pop.

[Doctor J]

Nobody picked Bill Russell's Celtics to win 1968 and 1969 championships.

That's why it was so sweet, and that's why Bill Russell burst into tears after the 69 win.

I believe Spurs will repeat this year against all odds.

Thanks, Mr. Hollinger.

[Warlord23]

So Utah is the 2nd best team in the conference because of PPG differential? Does any sane fan think that Utah would have outlasted SA or NO?

So LA having a +7.3 PPG diff against SA's +4.8 means that LA wins in 5 games? Ok, then I guess:

- Boston had a +10.3 PPG diff compared to Atlanta's -1.8 PPG diff. Boston should have won in 3 games with Atlanta not showing up for game 4
- Golden State in 2007 (PPG diff = -0.2) shoulda been swept by the Mavs (PPG diff = +7.2)
- Miami in 2006 with a PPG difference of +3.6 (6th best in the league) shouldn't even have sniffed the Finals, much less win it all
- In 2004, the Lakers (+3.9 PPG diff) should have been swept by the Spurs (+7.2 PPG diff)
- In 2003, when SA won it all, the Kings and Mavs had better PPG differentials

I could go on and on, but I guess we all get the point. Playoff series are about matchups. They are about experience. They are about strategies, counters and adjustments. Hollinger honestly doesn't understand playoff basketball, never will

[Cry Havoc]

You can't argue math.....

I can certainly argue it when Hollinger uses said math to make predictions like he's Nostradamus.

[ShoogarBear]

The point about point differential is valid, but like everything else with Hollinger he relies too simply on the number.

The biggest thing he ignores is that the Regular Season Spurs are not the Playoff Spurs. That's true for them more than any team since the 2002 Lakers. Maybe even since the 1995 Rockets.

[Mr. Body]

I love his whole point differential strategy for determining winners of one-on-one matchups. Taking winning margins over a vast range of teams over a long period of time makes sense because it's that same vast range of teams you're playing against in that seven game series. Obviously you have to take into account the blowouts the Hornets handed the Spurs in the regular season, because they will be playing the Hornets when they are also playing the Lakers. Or something.

:rolleyes

[Man of Steel]

[QUOTE=td4mvp3;2520360]this was hollinger, didn't see it posted

CORRECTION:


THE FOLLOWING IS THE ORIGINAL DRAFT BEFORE EDITED BY ESPN EDITORS...


Why I'm spurning the Spurs
posted: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
filed under: NBA, San Antonio Spurs, Los Angeles Lakers

SOMEWHERE IN THE AIRSPACE BETWEEN NEW ORLEANS AND ATLANTA -- With the flight gods blowing up my usual chat schedule, I thought I'd address a couple topics that have come up repeatedly in my mailbag and, presumably, would in the chat as well.

For starters, I've been swamped with email from Spurs supporters questioning my motives. Inevitably, fans of some teams come to feel that I (or other writers) have some kind of vendetta against their favored club. Since emotions run highest at the start of the year and at the end, this is when those sentiments tend to be stronger.


The truth of the matter is that I AM A GAY AMERICAN WHO HAS BEEN OBSESSED WITH SUCKING KOBE'S THREE INCH COCK EVER SINCE PAU GASOL TOLD ME HOW SOFT AND SMOOTH IT WAS.

It is my feverent desire that--by sucking up to Kobe and the Lakers--he may bestow upon me my fondest dream.


So Kobe--good luck--I am awaiting you...

So--once again--I state--LAKERS IN FIVE (but hopefully in four)

Sincerely,

John Hollinger


http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p179/clark101857/nba_hollingerEast_412.jpg

[Allanon]

The truth of the matter is that I AM A GAY AMERICAN WHO HAS BEEN OBSESSED WITH SUCKING KOBE'S THREE INCH COCK EVER SINCE PAU GASOL TOLD ME HOW SOFT AND SMOOTH IT WAS.

It is my feverent desire that--by sucking up to Kobe and the Lakers--he may bestow upon me my fondest dream. So Kobe--good luck--I am awaiting you...

Actually, I don't think Hollinger likes Kobe or the Lakers much. He wanted CP3 for MVP and didn't make a Laker favored pick/comment until the Jazz/Laker series. Even then he said the Jazz could just as easliy win.

[DazedAndConfused]

Utah would have beat NOH, they owned them in the regular season.

They would have lost to SAS though.

[SpursFan0728]

Point differential in regular season means nothing in the playoff

Thats all I have to say

[Deimosfobos]

Using math to predict a series... lol

Using math to predic the Spurs... lolololololol

No wonder he sucks with his predictions, from Manu getting worst (best regular series ever), to the Spurs losing every single series so far...

I'm glad he said Lakers in 5, thats translates to Spurs in 5-6. :)

[texas_lefty]

What ever happened to looking at the match-ups between the two teams playing?

[mathbzh]

On the 0-21 (uh, make that 1-22) mark

There are a few things he forgot in that analysis. I think he gives too much importance to the "Home court advantage". He forgot that generally the team with home court advantage is the best team by a confortable margin. This is not true when the team without home court advantage is the reigning champ and has a record comparable to the other top records in the west.

[TDMVPDPOY]

his got his voodoo doll also...

i swear man, these fukn media clowns should stfu and predict who should win, reason being stern is going to look at it and say hey, we should fix this to get ratings...

[ImmortalD24]

Hollinger is a jackass trying to jinx the Lakers. :cuss

[ElNono]

When you have to explain yourself for being wrong over and over again you know you've hit rock bottom. I said it before: I wish this clown would put his money where his mouth is. Go to Vegas and bet on your predictions... He would be bankrupt by now.

[Harry Callahan]

Hollinger should do the world a favor and suck on the exhaust pipe of a running car for 15 or 20 minutes. What an irritating blow hard. I can't imagine ESPN actually pays money for his crappy work.

[TampaDude]

Hollinger should do the world a favor and suck on the exhaust pipe of a running car for 15 or 20 minutes. What an irritating blow hard. I can't imagine ESPN actually pays money for his crappy work.

That's okay...after the Spurs beat the Lakers in 6, and the Pistons beat the Celtics in 6, we can :lol at all his justifying and backpedaling while watching the Spurs and Pistons in the NBA Finals.

[Supergirl]

whatever. the spurs play best when they are the underdogs. so this is all good.

[m33p0]

don't fret. hollinger doesn't determine who the eventual winner is. that is the province of those who compete.

[gwidlon]

Hollinger , your numbers are just not reallistic, there are too many variables to make them valid and there are too few experiments with current spurs/lakers team to mean anything.
Also, you cannot use results from other spurs games, everybody knows that some teams are better match for spurs than others. and everybody knows that playoffs are different than regular season (2007 spurs-cavaliers).
your 50-50 on previous series was accurate because that are the odds when you know shit.
man, I am so mad that I will go to punch my boss just because your stupidity

[mrspurs]

i couldnt finish this article....this guy is related to buck harvey.....and buck harvey sucks....go spurs go

[CubanMustGo]

Hollinger's latest can be summarized thusly:

"whine whine self-justification whine whine numbers whine whine"

[Manu_Ginobili]

this was hollinger, didn't see it posted

Why I'm spurning the Spurs
posted: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
filed under: NBA, San Antonio Spurs, Los Angeles Lakers

SOMEWHERE IN THE AIRSPACE BETWEEN NEW ORLEANS AND ATLANTA -- With the flight gods blowing up my usual chat schedule, I thought I'd address a couple topics that have come up repeatedly in my mailbag and, presumably, would in the chat as well.

For starters, I've been swamped with email from Spurs supporters questioning my motives. Inevitably, fans of some teams come to feel that I (or other writers) have some kind of vendetta against their favored club. Since emotions run highest at the start of the year and at the end, this is when those sentiments tend to be strongest.

Anyway, Spurs fans think that since I picked them to lose in the first two rounds that I must harbor some vast reservoir of ill will toward the team. Or perhaps they just feel betrayed, since I picked San Antonio last year, and the year before that, and the year before that.

As much respect as I have for what the Spurs have done and continue to do, I saw the Phoenix and New Orleans series as essentially 50-50 propositions with a slight edge going to San Antonio's opponents. Obviously, it didn't work out that way. As I noted at the beginning of the Western Conference playoffs, this was a year in which it was going to be easy to be wrong a lot, and actually I'm pleased to get out of Dodge with those two as my only blemishes in the West thus far.

On a similar note, Spurs fans seemed to think my writing two columns on the Hornets from Monday's Game 7 was the result of my Spur-blindness. Actually, it was my assignment -- Marc Stein handled the San Antonio side of things.

Oh, and there's one other thing that has Spurs fans upset …

Lakers in 5?

The hardest part of picking a series isn't the winner but the games. Essentially, there are two different questions at play -- one is what the average expectation is, and the other is what the most likely outcome is. Those two questions often don't produce identical answers.

For example, in a series where the better team also has home-court advantage, the most likely outcome is that they'll win in 5 -- taking three at home and one on the road. Having three of the first five at home makes this outcome very possible even in scenarios where you wouldn't normally think one team would win 80 percent of the games.

That said, it's not much more likely than the home team winning in six or seven, and the cumulative probability of those two outcomes is much greater -- it really depends on whether they can get a split out of Games 3 and 4.

We saw this twice in the earlier rounds with series that seemed fairly evenly matched -- San Antonio-Phoenix and Detroit-Orlando -- just as we did last year with both Utah-Golden State and San Antonio-Utah. In each case, once the favorite got a split on the road it was over faster than anyone expected.

As a result, it's much easier for a series to end in five games than most believe. So if you're trying to predict the most likely outcome, L.A. in five makes sense. That's what I was gunning for.

But if you're picking along a continuum from "Lakers in four" to "Spurs in four" and looking for the median outcome, L.A. in five is laughable -- it's skewed way too far to the L.A. side. Lakers in six or even seven makes a lot more sense in that event. If you allow that there's some percentage chance of San Antonio winning outright, and just a very small chance of a Laker sweep, than even if there's a large chance of L.A. winning in five, it wouldn't be enough to make it the "average" outcome of the series.

Alas, in the spirit of the Stat Geek Smackdown, I'm trying to peg the games exactly. And my chance of doing that is better if I go five games, even if I don't think the disparity between the teams is as large as that prediction suggest.

So why do I hate the Spurs?

I don't. Really. But as to why I'm off the Spur bandwagon in the first place, the answer is the same reason I was on it the past three years -- point differential.

San Antonio's average scoring margin this year was much worse than in previous season at +4.8 points per game; by comparison, the Lakers were +7.3. That's proven to be a better indicator of future success than win-loss record. The Spurs' margin was similar to the Hornets' (+5.3) and Suns' (+5.0) in the first two rounds, which is what made those series toss-ups in my estimation. In the case of L.A., it's not. And if you only include the 36 regular season and playoff games in which L.A. had Pau Gasol, their margin balloons to an impressive +10.3 (and their record an equally impressive 30-6).

The playoffs have given us similar results. San Antonio was +0.0 against the Hornets and +0.8 against the Suns, while the Lakers were +13.3 against the Nuggets and +3.0 against the Jazz. Since Utah was, in my estimation, the strongest threat besides L.A. to win the conference, (and had the West's second-best regular-season victory margin at +6.9), the latter number is especially impressive.

So that's how I ended up with L.A. in five. It could just as easily be six or seven. But I do expect the Lakers to win.

CP3 for MVP?

Interestingly, Laker fans are also convinced I hate their team (which makes for an interesting dilemma in the conference finals -- how will I root against both sides?)

In this case, it was the first time I've ever been flooded with emails about a player I didn't mention in a story. When I nominated Chris Paul as MVP of the playoffs last week, the Kobe fan club was furious. How could I overlook his 33.3-6.8-6.3 averages?

In this case, it was just that Paul had been so unbelievably good in his first 10 playoff games. And he did against better defenses -- Dallas and San Antonio were eighth and third, respectively, in defensive efficiency during the regular season, while Denver and Utah were only ninth and 12th.

Obviously, what happened since I wrote the story tilts the scales towards Kobe, and if I were writing the story today he'd be the choice. But at the time, Paul's case was the strongest. If Lakers fans weren't watching the Hornets-Mavs series, that ain't my problem.

On the 0-21 (uh, make that 1-22) mark

Based on the emails, several fans seemed confused by I stat I brought up last week mentioning that teams which lost the first two on the road, won the next two at home, and had a negative scoring margin through four games were 0-21 since the NBA-ABA merger. Folks wrote in talking about Utah-Houston a year ago or the Lakers-Spurs series in 2004, where teams came back from 0-2 down to win.

However, those series weren't part of the 0-21 -- the key qualifier was that the team without home court had to have been outscored over the first four games. The teams who did manage to outscore their opponent had a much better mark, winning nearly 40 percent of their series -- including the 2007 Jazz and the 2004 Lakers (and, on the losing side, the Cavaliers this week).

At any rate, it's now 1-22. Utah fell to Los Angeles, as the rule predicted, but San Antonio defied the odds by outlasting the Hornets Monday night. Inevitably, somebody was going to break the rule, just as it's inevitable that somebody will eventually come back from 0-3 down. It's a credit to the Spurs' resilience and adjustments that they were first.

Incidentally, San Antonio is now the seventh team to come back from a 2-0 deficit in the past five years … after it only happened seven times in the previous history of the NBA. Much like the question of home-team dominance in the second round, one wonders if there's an underlying cause.

Certainly having so many more best-of-sevens is a factor -- stretching out the first round in 2002 more than doubled the number of seven-game series each year from 7 to 15. The fact we're in an era of relative parity may be another -- there's no Jordan or Russell, or even a Bird-Magic duopoly, lording it over the league at the moment. At any rate, it appears being down 2-0 isn't quite the death sentence it used to be.

Celtics in 7?

Finally, I've been told there's a playoff series going on in the East as well. This was a tough one to predict. Before the playoffs I would have said the Celtics and not thought twice about it, but Boston's struggles in the second round against Cleveland obviously are worrisome.

The Celtics were outscored on the series and in truth were lucky to survive; they squeaked by in three of their four home games and absorbed a 108-84 beating in Game 3. That this happened against a team with a fairly unimpressive resume -- Cleveland was itself outscored on the season and didn't exactly dominate its first-round match-up against Washington -- makes you wonder if the Celtics are leveling off at the worst time.

For now, I'll stick with Boston. A lot of the evaluation depends on how much of that series you think was the Celtics playing worse, how much you think was the Cavs playing better, and how much you think was random noise.

My instinct is that it was more a case of Cleveland playing better, as the assorted pieces of the midseason blockbuster trade finally gelled and the Cavs could take advantage of being able to play LeBron nearly the entire game. So my thinking is the Celtics can use the home-court edge to outlast one more opponent and win the conference -- though I'm guessing they'll need a road win this time.

But if I'm wrong and it was a case of Boston declining, then the Celtics are toast.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Broom_icon.svg/400px-Broom_icon.svg.png

[Harry Callahan]

He just wants to give the impression that he is smarter than you with his statistical mumbo jumbo. A waste of space is what this gay, I mean, guy is.

[DarrinS]

What was the scoring differential for the New England Patriots?


/end of thread

[td4mvp3]

i think too many folks are misreading the guy. i think his schtick is to use probabilities and whatnot to project a winner, to take the homerism and pundit myopism out of the equation and say, if you just look at the numbers, how are things SUPPOSE to turn out, not how will they turn out. and it's not like the guy has picked against the spurs forever, just so far this year, and to be honest, a whole lot of others have done the same.

[DarrinS]

i think too many folks are misreading the guy. i think his schtick is to use probabilities and whatnot to project a winner, to take the homerism and pundit myopism out of the equation and say, if you just look at the numbers, how are things SUPPOSE to turn out, not how will they turn out. and it's not like the guy has picked against the spurs forever, just so far this year, and to be honest, a whole lot of others have done the same.


Spurs had what, a 13% chance of beating the Hornets down 2-0. Sometimes, you beat the odds.

[carrecaminos]

You can't argue math.....

Yes, you can if you know enough.

[gwidlon]

Spurs had what, a 13% chance of beating the Hornets down 2-0. Sometimes, you beat the odds.

Spurs never had 13% chance. you cannot mix different teams on different years being 2-0 to predict a series and you cannot use limited amount of games either

tossing a coin is always 50-50 , no matter if you got 7 tails on 10 attemps
that is what fucking hollinger can't get

[BlackSwordsMan]

Dunno why people post hollinger's garbage here.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Who do people try to apply logic and mathematics to events where there are so many more variables in place that defy logic? This guy's whole outlook and perspective is flawed beyond belief.

Absolutely. It's a BASKETBALL GAME, Hollinger, not a PS3 simulation!


I bet he's one of the 98% of men who try to apply logic to meeting and attracting women, you know - by buying them dinners and gifts and being NICE guys. Because logically, that would seem the thing to do. What a dumb ass.

You've read some seduction community theory, I see, or are you just a 'natural'?

Some of us aren't capable of being anything but the "nice guy". That's who we are, and yes, it is our burden to bear. Pity us, don't dump on us. :dramaquee :lol

[Extra Stout]

So here we are, at the threshold of what would have been the NBA Finals, and I have been swamped with criticism from fans, league officials, and even my boss for my insistence that the Detroit Pistons will win the NBA Finals in zero games, because it is statistically impossible that the Finals will actually take place.

My reasoning is sound when one takes an honest look at it. The NBA reports that the San Antonio Spurs defeated the Los Angeles Lakers in six games. However, since the Lakers won two blowouts and lost four close games, cumulatively, L.A. had a +3.5 scoring differential over the Spurs in the conference final series, which means statistically they won the series in six games. This creates a paradox whereby there is no Western Conference representative in the NBA Finals, since the Lakers were eliminated even though they won.

[greyforest]

Here's a stat, Holly: 0 for 2.

[SAGambler]

One of the problems of using numbers in BB, is that the numbers aren't the same for every team.

Now if every team played every other team the same number of times, with the exact same personnel in the RS, it might make more sense to use the stats. But none of this happens. So he ends up with a bunch of skewed stats and tries to use numbers to figure out a winner.

But how do you "stat in" such things as the Champs may not play as hard during RS as the team trying to reach a division championship does. Does another division banner mean much to the Spurs? But what about another WC banner? What about another O'Brian? Now you are dealing with an entire different set of stats.

Right now two teams are "starting over" so to speak. Throw out whatever has happened between them in the past. Right now anything could happen. Kobe or Manu could get a season ending injury in the first quarter of the first game. Then you have another new set of "stats".

Right now it starts out with either team having a 50/50 chance of succeeding. Once the game 1 starts, many things can happen to tip the scales to one team having a greater chance of winning.

[ElNono]

But Al Gore won the popular vote!

[MoSpur]

Hollinger is very boring.

[Phenomanul]

Classic ES. :lol

[101A]

Here's a stat for you....

When was the last time an NBA Champion made it to the Conference Finals and DIDN'T go on the the Finals?

1991

Didn't look back further, but a quick reference of my rapidly failing memory says it was a while.

NEVER underestimate the heart of a champion.

[capek]

I had to stop reading halfway through. What a bunch of self justificatory BS. Normally I really like Hollinger's stuff, but not when he's scrambling like a little bitch to explain away how wrong he's been. Just take it like a man and STFU.

[Vito Corleone]

The best part about Hollinger is that he has used the same formula to pick against the Spurs twice and still he is 0-2, that is called a trend.

Here is a hint that spurs fan learned back in 95. NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE HEART OF A CHAMPION!!!

The Lakers don't have anyone as athletic or big as Tyson Chandler so Duncan is going to have his way with whoever they put on him. The Lakers have no one that can stay with Tony Parker that is why he is going to abuse him. The Spurs have someone who can keep Kobe in front so they don't have to double him, in fact all the spurs have to do is keep the rest of the Lakers under raps and let Kobe have his and they will win easily, the thing about the Spurs is that we have great perimeter defense and the Lakers feed off of breakdowns in defense which they won't get from the spurs.

Spurs in 5

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

I'd like to know what the Rockets point differential was the second year of their back-to-back. I know their record wasn't that great in the regular season.

Ditto for the 2002 Lakers...they seemed to sleepwalk through the regular season much like San Antonio did this year and then played well when it actually counted.

Miami was 5th in point differential during the regular season of their title year. Detroit was 2nd for theirs. Boston and Detroit were no.'s 1 and 2 this year, but they also had a lot of Eastern conference fodder to bulk up stats on.

Hollinger is an idiot blindly predicting post season success on something like regular season point differential.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'd like to know what the Rockets point differential was the second year of their back-to-back. I know their record wasn't that great in the regular season.

Ditto for the 2002 Lakers...they seemed to sleepwalk through the regular season much like San Antonio did this year and then played well when it actually counted.

The 1994-95 Rockets were +2.1 in point differential. That was worse than each of the 4 teams they beat on the way to the crown that year (UTH +8.0; PNX +3.8; SA +6.0; ORL +7.1).

The 2001-02 Lakers were a very different story in a Hollinger World. That team was +7.2 in regular season point differential, which appears to have been 2nd best in the league. Using that metric, they were basically as good as or better than each of their postseason opponents (PRT +2.9; SA +6.2; SAC +7.6; NJ +4.2).

[ShoogarBear]

As I said, point differential is not an unreasonable thing to look at. Hollinger's problem is, like with PER, he puts way too much focus on the number without considering the entire context.

[FromWayDowntown]

As I said, point differential is not an unreasonable thing to look at. Hollinger's problem is, like with PER, he puts way too much focus on the number without considering the entire context.

I agree with you about that; I was mostly just curious in the same way that Chopper was about the historical precedents of championship teams that malaised their way through regular seasons and might have had deceivingly low point differentials.

I'll go one step further with my criticism of Hollinger. I wouldn't mind his narrow focus and lack of context if he wasn't so infuriatingly bound by these metrics he devises and so hellbent on defending their reliability, even to the point of looking foolish in that effort.

[Extra Stout]

We all remember the 2000-01 Western Conference Finals between the Lakers and Spurs. The Lakers were an ordinary team, with a 56-26 record, and a +2.8 point differential during the season. The Spurs were vastly superior, what with their 58-24 record and +7.8 differential. And so it played out in the series, with the Spurs crushing the Lakers in a four-game sweep that ranks as the most one-sided series in history. Hollinger really is all but infallible with these metrics.

[GrandeDavid]

throw all the #'s out the window

The only thing interesting in this thread, literary or otherwise, is tmtcsc's thumbnail.

[easjer]

I don't mind Hollinger or any journalist picking against the Spurs.

I don't mind Hollinger's stats.

I mind that Hollinger clearly either does not watch games or doesn't understand what he's viewing. You can't watch/understand and continue to return time and again to rigid statistics; there are simply too many variables.

[nkdlunch]

hahahaha HOllinger what a fucking tool

why would you even respond to fans emails if you really beleive what you do. he is second guessing himself. fucking loser.

[yaicu2]

You can't argue math.....

I don't think anybody is arguing the math, if you can sit there and read all that crap, the fact of the matter is, Hollinger's articles as of recent, and if memory serves me correctly tons of stats, math, and numbers why the spurs are going to loose. Case in point, when the series was tied 2-2, he wrote this huge article on why the spurs didn't have a chance in hell against the Hornets. Don't live and die by the math, because there are no formulas, or equations that explain the heart of a champion. This will be a series of wants it more. Lakers are very hungry, and Spurs are playing like there is no tommorow. :flag:

[michaelwcho]

i think too many folks are misreading the guy. i think his schtick is to use probabilities and whatnot to project a winner, to take the homerism and pundit myopism out of the equation and say, if you just look at the numbers, how are things SUPPOSE to turn out, not how will they turn out. and it's not like the guy has picked against the spurs forever, just so far this year, and to be honest, a whole lot of others have done the same.

I'm guessing most of the Hollinger sukz! guys didn't do too well on word problems in school.

Statistics have one point--to show that seeing _isn't_ believing. Due to the way our brains work, we tend to make certain types of errors. Keeping records, adding, averaging them--in other words, science--helps us combat the misjudgements that routinely occur. They are simply tools, not voodoo.

The Spurs' poor regular season performance, in terms of differential, is worrying. When we won the championships, we had much better statistics. Given this fact, what sane person would think we have just as good a chance as then? Maybe the type that thinks, you either win or lose, so you have a 50% chance.

One caveat is that our starters play less minutes in the regular season, so we do get less minutes. You give the Ginobilis and Duncans more minutes, you get more production. Another is that we had injuries to our best players this year. Both throw any prediction out of whack.

Most statistical systems showed that the Spurs, Hornets, and Suns were basically equal. All that does is point to a close series--which both of them were.

No statistician or economist wants to make a prediction, because sports is highly random. The "hollinger sux" posts say a lot more about the posters than him.

[phxspurfan]

The thing that happens when you go with a chalk prediction is you miss the point. The regular season is a completely different league. You've got back-to-backs, injured/resting/unmotivated players, meaningless win streaks, variations in effort put forth by lottery teams, etc.

It would be interesting to see how many times a prediction of the best regular season team winning the championship comes to fruition over the years. It's probably a low number. Teams also have systems that are 'built' for the regular season or playoffs, and not both, since they are such different atmospheres. Coaching also has a lot to do with why teams win; ask Avery Johnson.

[Dave McNulla]

i am never put off by jh's predictions. i don't know why anybody would be. they are as emotionless as could be.

the only emotion is that he gets attached to his formulas like they are his kids. even when they let him down big time, he doesn't want to let it go.

no big deal. just another guy that guessed wrongly.

[jag]

You can make a stat about anything and everything, that doesn't mean those stats have any significance whatsoever. There's a reason this man is 0-2 is Spurs' series so far.

[703 Spurz]

You can't argue math.....

So b/c the Lakers beat two teams by more points then the Spurs beat their opponents means the Lakers will win the series?

I mean, really? It's that simple?

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

The 1994-95 Rockets were +2.1 in point differential. That was worse than each of the 4 teams they beat on the way to the crown that year (UTH +8.0; PNX +3.8; SA +6.0; ORL +7.1).

The 2001-02 Lakers were a very different story in a Hollinger World. That team was +7.2 in regular season point differential, which appears to have been 2nd best in the league. Using that metric, they were basically as good as or better than each of their postseason opponents (PRT +2.9; SA +6.2; SAC +7.6; NJ +4.2).


Nice find, FWD.

ExtraStout, thanks for finding the 2000-01 Lakers +2.8 point differential.

So, what I see is that the 1995 Rockets B2B championship team had a low point differential and the 2001 Laker B2B championship team had a low point differential, and it didn't stop either of those two teams on the way to the title.

Perhaps Hollinger needs to consider some sort of "defending champions" handicap rating when calculating his point differential because that's two recent examples of teams that went back-to-back without turning up the heat during the regular season.

His "stats" mean nothing. He is dead to me.