DMN's Colishaw: Spurs, others have "no chance" of beating Mavs or Suns in playoffs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Mr. Hollinger, going 23-4 in games decided by nine points or less cannot possibly be a matter of luck now, can it?

---

Actually, from a statistical point it probably IS luck. One bonce this way, one bounce that way can skew such a small sample - and in statistics 27 examples is an EXTREMELY small sample - to a large degree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ponky

stop getting all riled up by a stupid article. it's a dallas media outlet, of course they're going to homer on the mavs, dang. anyway, wasn't cowlishaw the guy that avery snapped at last season during the playoffs? he's good for some laughs

---

All riled up? This thread is barely 2 pages long. How is that all riled up?

the only team that can beat the Spurs is the mavs, and that series is a toss-up. the suns have zero chance of beating the Spurs in the playoffs...they just can't.

The Suns look (on paper) to have improved from last year a hell of a lot more than the Mavs have.

Cowlishaw sucks on Around the Horn.

If the Mavs have a 2/3 chance of winning a close game (9 points or less), which is pretty good, the odds of winning 23+ out of 27 is still less than 3%...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

If the Mavs have a 2/3 chance of winning a close game (9 points or less), the odds of winning 23+ out of 27 is less than 3%...

---

Exactly.

Exactly what?

That even if the Mavs have a distinct edge in close games (and 2:1 is a pretty damn big edge) that the chances of them having the record they have now are very low and could easily be considered a statistical anamoly or "luck" if you will.

A low probability is an indication that you might have the wrong theory. If you're willing to accept any low probability as luck no matter how small it is, then you're not really taking the data into consideration at all.

3%? That's pretty darn small. Of course, if the odds were 1:1 instead of 2:1, then the odds of winning 23+ of 27 are less than 0.02%. Would just accept THAT model as truth too, and claim the Mavs are hitting a 1 in 5000 chance?

No. The 0.02% is a pretty sure sign that model's wrong. 3% is obviously better, but not that great. The only reason you would accept it is if you really wanted to believe the Mavs were lucky from the start. But like I said, that has nothing to do with the data.

If you wanted to bring that probability up to something reasonable, say 20%, which is still pretty darn lucky (just 1 in 5, not 1 in 33), then instead of 2/3=67% you would have to concede around 76%, more than 3:1.

But you said 2:1 was already a "damn big edge". But like I said, if you make it even smaller, then you're calling the Mavs lucky beyond all reason. That's not going with the best model, that's going with your preferred model.

Either you have to believe the Mavs are way off the charts lucky, or they're actually pretty good at winning close games. I choose the latter.

Having a 2:1 advantage in a situation where there are innumerable variables is a GIGANTIC edge. I'm not sure you realize how a close basketball game can change on a call, bounce, or any other of the numerous variables so having a 3:1 edge in that type of a situation is highly improbable.

You can choose to believe that if you wish, but there is no way I'm going to give the Mavs that kind of credit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

I disagree. I think Utah is going to be the team someone's going to end up wishing they hadn't drawn.

---

I agree that no one is going to want to play Utah as that will be a very physical series. With that said, I think a hot & healthy Houston team has a better chance of knocking off Dallas or San Antonio than does Utah.

Say the other half of your conclusion then.

"I believe the Mavs are lucky, to the point of 1 in 100, 1000, or maybe even 5000."

It is mathematically impossible for them to be lucky within reason AND without any special kind of skill. The numbers speak for themselves.

Not really - with a small sample size you can see large swings in either direction. And 27 games is an extremely small sample size, therefore its not unreasonable for the Mavs to be nowhere near where they should be statistically. Whether or not they are lucky or good is indistinguishable from 27 games therefore you can't really draw any conclusions. Me not wanting to gie them credit doesn't mean that I believe they are completely lucky (obviously the Mavericks are a good team) but rather that how good or how lucky they are remains to be seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

The Suns look (on paper) to have improved from last year a hell of a lot more than the Mavs have.

---

Mavs (on the court) are playing much better than they did last season in several areas. It may not translate on paper but it's obvious to see if you've watched all their games last season & this season. They're really not playing that great during this current winning streak but they've played an easy schedule.

I've only seen about a dozen Sun's games so it's hard for me to compare them from last season. In the games I've seen though, I haven't seen the much improved D that everyone in Phoenix is talking about.

Dude, I'm using a formula.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomia..._mass_function

n in this case is 27, and I'm adding the values from k=23 through k=27. p is the probability that we're discussing. If p is small (close to 1/2), then the sum is EXTREMELY small (around 0.001), GIVEN THE NUMBERS.

The probability is less than 3% if you concede the original 2:1, and it gets worse as you decrease p. NUMBERS DO NOT LIE. It has nothing to do with the "small sample size" because the formula already took the 27 and 23 into account.

Run the formula for a team going 15-0 and tell me what it comes up with. It has everything to do with sample size.

Well, that's just p^15. But you have to give me a p. 2/3? If you are 2/3 likely to win a game, the chance of winning 15 straight is 0.002284, or about 1 in 438.

So a team with a 2:1 advantage will only win 15 in a row less than .25% according to the formula? You know thats a large underestimation, and the reason being that the sample size is so small that you will get wild deviations.

Hence, 27 games isn't enough to draw any conclusions.

The error would be in determining p, not the subsequent calculation.

You don't seem to put very much faith in math.

If the probability of flipping heads is 1/2, then the probability of flipping heads 8 times in a row is (1/2)^8 = 1/256. If you throw 8 coins on the floor, you have a 1/256 chance of getting 8 heads. In other words, If you throw them on the floor, pick them up, throw them again, pick them up, throw them again, etc. and repeat this for a few years, you will be astonished to find that you got 8 heads almost exactly once every 256 tries. The accuracy of the prediction has nothing to do with the fact that we're using 8 coins. The prediction will always be accurate. That's why we do math.

"You know that's a large underestimation"? Ha! No, I actually know it to be pretty spot on. What we've been talking about is a version that's a little more complicated since the probability isn't 1/2, but it's not really any different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mabber

Mavs (on the court) are playing much better than they did last season in several areas. It may not translate on paper but it's obvious to see if you've watched all their games last season & this season. They're really not playing that great during this current winning streak but they've played an easy schedule.

I've only seen about a dozen Sun's games so it's hard for me to compare them from last season. In the games I've seen though, I haven't seen the much improved D that everyone in Phoenix is talking about.

---

Another Mavs fan that doesn't even know his own team. The Mavs had a ton of injuries last year, they've had almost none this year by comparison. The are as healthy right now as they were in the playoffs last year. The only difference is that this year they won't be as rested, and the other teams in the west have improved more than they have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Another Mavs fan that doesn't even know his own team. The Mavs had a ton of injuries last year, they've had almost none this year by comparison. The are as healthy right now as they were in the playoffs last year. The only difference is that this year they won't be as rested, and the other teams in the west have improved more than they have.

---

:rolleyes :lol

I go to just about every home game as I have had season tickets for 4 years now and I have watch every road game for the last several years. Trust me, the level of play is higher than the level of play than last year's team (in many ways). I don't want to get in an argument about it as there's no way you know the Mavs as well as I do. Just like I don't know the Spurs as well as you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mabber

:rolleyes :lol

I go to just about every home game as I have had season tickets for 4 years now and I have watch every road game for the last several years. Trust me, the level of play is higher than the level of play than last year's team (in many ways). I don't want to get in an argument about it as there's no way you know the Mavs as well as I do. Just like I don't know the Spurs as well as you do.

---

Wow. Impressive resume. Too bad you didn't even remember that Howard, Harris, Stackhouse and Van Horn all missed a bunch of games due to injury, yet the Mavs still won 60 games. The Mavs are playing with the confidence that comes with health. Josh Howard has picked up the scoring and has become an even better rebounder. The level of play is higher because there's an actual rotation.

And if you want to know something about the Mavs, just ask me. I don't mind helping you out. I'm certain I've been watching them longer than you have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Wow. Impressive resume. Too bad you didn't even remember that Howard, Harris, Stackhouse and Van Horn all missed a bunch of games due to injury, yet the Mavs still won 60 games. The Mavs are playing with the confidence that comes with health. Josh Howard has picked up the scoring and has become an even better rebounder. The level of play is higher because there's an actual rotation.

And if you want to know something about the Mavs, just ask me. I don't mind helping you out. I'm certain I've been watching them longer than you have.

---

That would be impossible since I've been watching them since day 1. I even had season tickets from year 2 to year 10 or so of their existence. I didn't get season tickets again until 4 years ago as I couldn't afford them for awhile.

I'm guessing that I'm much older than you (44), but unlike you, I'll not say I'm certain of it :rolleyes

Of course I'm aware of the injury situation compared to last season but that doesn't mean that they aren't playing better (individually and as a team). Dirk, Josh, Damp & Devin have all improved their games. The addition of George & Buckner has improved their perimeter defense big time.

They've improved their passing as a team as well and some of that is from them playing more together (less injuries) like you said but a lot of it is just having the core players together another year.

Regardless, you can believe what you want and continue to think you know the Mavs better than all Mav fans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

That even if the Mavs have a distinct edge in close games (and 2:1 is a pretty damn big edge) that the chances of them having the record they have now are very low and could easily be considered a statistical anamoly or "luck" if you will.

---

That's all the Mavs are this season.....an anomaly

:elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant