Summary.
Including rigged years the past 10, the #1 overall seed is
2-8 in becoming a Champion.
Printable View
Summary.
Including rigged years the past 10, the #1 overall seed is
2-8 in becoming a Champion.
That would make teams not seeded #1 8-142.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
Tbh, 20% > 5.3%.
New experience?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
Compared to the 6 seed who has how many championships? You want to show what every seed gets as each seed is statistically different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
You suck at this.If you want to shit on people's hopes at least do it right.
Hey, that would mean teams that didn't make the playoffs at 0%.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
Graphs? :lol
If we want to keep it real, lets see what seed holds the most Champs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
So number #1 seeds win 20 percent of the time. I wonder if that is the highest percentage of wins by seeding?
When i get time I'll run it.Quote:
Originally Posted by LongtimeSpursFan
Seed # overall of Champ recordwise.
Seed # in Conference of of that same Champ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
We have a winner! I've see this same, stupid "analysis" (the OP) done before, and they always fail to get the part that however bad the odds for the top seeds, they are a lot worse for the bottom seeds. Duh.
I hate to put any lipstick on this pig of a thread, but this sort of fits here:
Wouldn't you hate to be the Spurs, and fight all year to get the 1 seed and HCA, and then feel like a road team in your own freaking arena? How many times this year has it sounded like there were at least as many fans cheering for the other teams as for the Spurs? I can tell you it's too many.
Somebody out there - tell me that's not going to happen again, come playoff time.
:rollinQuote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
Tie between #1 and #3Quote:
Originally Posted by LongtimeSpursFan
West Conf Finish reg season season seed# who won Champ.
#1 seed 3X (Spurs 03 WWELakers 09 10)
#2 seed 1X (05 Spurs)
#3 seed 3X (11 Mavs 07 Spurs 02*Lakers)
#4 seed 1X (Mavs 06)
3 Champs each.
The only two years the West did not win the Champ
#2 Lakers 2004
#1 Lakers 2008
Are you attempting to Strawman that seeds 5-8 don't do as well as #1 thru #4?Quote:
Originally Posted by GSH
How insightful, Stawsie. :rollin Was never brought up by the OP.
Just posted that #3 has done just as well as #1.
Lets hear your response Nozer.
sup Fabbs
The 2006 Mavs should count as a 2 seed, not a 4; they had the 2nd best record in the West, and if today's seeding rules applied then, they would've had the 2 seed.
The Mavs lost in the 2006 finals, btw.
Since the 1976 merger, there have been 35 NBA Finals contested.
By original playoff seeds, the Eastern Conference representative in the Finals has been:
#1 in 20/35 Finals (12 champions)
#2 in 8/35 (2 champions)
#3 in 4/35 (1 champion -- 04 DET)
#4 in 2/35 (1 champion -- 78 WAS)
#5 in 0/35
#6 in 0/35
#7 in 0/35
#8 in 1/35
By original playoff seeds, the Western Conference representative in the Finals has been:
#1 in 20/35 Finals (9 champions)
#2 in 5/35 (3 champions -- 05 SA, 01 LAL, 94 HOU)
#3 in 6/35 (3 champions -- 07 SA, 02 LAL)
#4 in 2/35
#5 in 0/35
#6 in 2/35 (1 champion -- 95 HOU)
#7 in 0/35
#8 in 0/35
If the question is how the teams with universal HCA has fared, the following #1 overall seeds have reached the Finals (champions in bold):
1979 WAS
1981 BOS
1983 PHI
1984 BOS
1985 BOS
1986 BOS
1987 LAL
1988 LAL
1989 DET
1992 CHI
1993 PNX
1996 CHI
1997 CHI
1998 UTH
1999 SA
2000 LAL
2003 SA
2008 BOS
The teams that had overall HCA but failed to reach the Finals were:
2011 CHI (lost ECF)
2010 CLE (lost ECSF)
2009 CLE (lost ECF)
2007 DAL (lost WCFR)
2006 DET (lost ECF)
2005 PNX (lost WCF)
2004 IND (lost ECF)
2002 SAC (lost WCF)
2001 SA (lost WCF)
1995 SA (lost WCF)
1994 SEA (lost WCFR)
1991 PRT (lost WCF)
1990 LAL (lost WCSF)
1982 BOS (lost ECF)
1980 BOS (lost ECF)
1978 PRT (lost WCSF)
1977 LAL (lost WCF)
Just like SpursTalk overcoming your threadstarting and overall low basketball analysis tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
Name call all you want, you lazy ass. This is what you should have posted:
Code:Overall Conf. Runner Overall Conf.
Year Champ Record Record Seed Up Record Record Seed
11 DAL 5 3 3 west MIA 3 2 2 east
10 LAL 3 1 1 west BOS T8 4 4 east
09 LAL 2 1 1 west ORL 4 3 3 east
08 BOS 1 1 1 east LAL 3 1 1 west
07 SAS 3 3 3 west CLE 6 2 2 east
06 MIA 5 2 2 east DAL 3 2 4 west
05 SAS T2 2 2 west DET 5 2 2 east
04 DET 6 2 3 east LAL 4 3 2 west
03 SAS T1 T1 1 west NJN 8 2 2 east
02 LAS T2 T2 3 west NJN 5 1 1 east
Yup, and in both those years, the Lakers got by the Spurs by way of bullshit calls (the late clock .4 in 2004 and the Fisher/Barry no-call in 2008), and then proceeded to get utterly humiliated in the Finals. Karma's a bitch, ain't it? :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Fabbs
BTW - the real message here is that your best bet for predicting an NBA Championship is Whoever Wins the WCF.
And seven out of the last 10 years, the WCF winner has been the 1 or 2 seed in the West. How's that for a stat?
You pretty much have to be in the top 3 in your conference to win it all. That follows the idea of there being roughly six contenders every season. After that I think it comes down to who matches up the best and is playing the best.
The fact that having the #1 point differential better predicts championships than the #1 seed has been canon in APBRmetric circles for decades now (I don't have the statistics off hand), but I'd like to see if Hollinger's automated power rankings improve further upon simply using point differential in predicting championship success.
Anybody know where I can find an archive of Hollinger's power rankings (end of regular season rankings, of course)?
And by the way, this table is far more readable than the OP. Thanks for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by GSH
And i just posted that for the last 10 years the WCF Champ who became NBA Champ is tied at 3-3 amoungst seeds 1 and 3. That's how it is Corky.Quote:
Originally Posted by GSH
Yes. Would also like to see field goal % allowed as related to NBA Champs.Quote:
Originally Posted by jestersmash
therealtruth
Re: #1 seeds and Championships the last 10* years
Yep. Its established overextending for #1 is not worth it.Quote:
You pretty much have to be in the top 3 in your conference to win it all. That follows the idea of there being roughly six contenders every season. After that I think it comes down to who matches up the best and is playing the best.
Most definitely this chart is an improvement.Quote:
Originally Posted by GSH
Verifies that 1st seed overall doesn't overtake #3 seed when East and West are combined. Still tied.
Last 10 years entire NBA seeds they started from/won Championship
#1 4 champs
#3 4 champs
#2 2 champs
Why only last 10 years?