Reply With Quote
If that's your point after your previous intelligent response, whatever dude.
Not exactly in my opinion. If the Spurs win Game #5, that means they took more than their share and the Suns didn't get their 1 win. The series would be ended and that does not follow the trend.
That should have been the case when they went up 3-0 but since it didn't, the regular trend comes back of 1 in SA for the Suns and 3 in SA for the Spurs.
If that's your point after your previous intelligent response, whatever dude.
Your reasoning assumes that the Suns are somehow fated, by statistical quirk, to extend the series to 7 games and that their win in San Antonio (if there is to be one) must come before Game 7. I'd say that your reasoning is rather flawed in that sense.
The trend might show that the Suns are likely to win one of four games in San Antonio (though I'm not sure what statistical proof exists to support that premise -- as noted above, the Spurs have won at home at something better than an 80% clip in recent years and are better than 83% in the 2007-08 season; given those rates, the Suns are already ahead of the curve according to your logic as they've won 2 of 4 in San Antonio during 07-08). But there's no proof that the Suns are likely to specifically win one of the first three games in San Antonio.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the trend also showed that the Spurs were likely to win one of four games in Phoenix, that trend has already been fulfilled. The fulfillment of the Spurs road win trend has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Phoenix is more likely to win the third road game in San Antonio. The trend shows the Suns are (perhaps) likely to win 1 of 4 -- that trend doesn't say which one of the four it might be.
And the fact that losing Game 5 will eliminate the possibility of a 4th road game in San Antonio doesn't, by itself, make it any more likely (or less likely) that the Suns will win the third game in San Antonio, either.
You're connecting two premises that have no logical or statistical connection.
I'm not sure where your statistical reasoning comes from, but it seems to be fundamentally flawed. There's no logic to your logic.
Ultimately, there's little doubt that the Suns could win Game 5. But if they do, it will have nothing whatsoever to do with the odds catching up with either team. Nothing.
We'll have these babies on the shelves long before they figure out the Pickle Matrix!
I think you're confusing yourself going into too many different areas, there's no murky math here or magical connections:
Just look at the ESPN predictions and almost every expert in the world:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs
This series was projected as a 6 or 7 game series from the beginning due to the fact that both teams are pretty evenly matched. I think a 6 or 7 series assumption is correct, reasonable and that is the "trend".
The Spurs bucked the trend by going 3-0 but by going back to 3-1, they're back on track with a trend of 7.
So based upon a 6 or 7 game series, the Suns are most likely to win at least 1 SA game in this series. That game happens to be #5.
It's as simple as that.
I've got some math that might be a little too much for Hollinger to handle. The team with more points at the end of the game tomorrow will be the winner.
If you choose to oversimplify statistical analysis -- and if you deem the predictions of ESPN experts to somehow be either statistical or binding in terms of the likely outcomes of the series. How many times have ESPN's experts unanimously agreed that a series would go 6 or 7 games, only to have the teams decide the series in fewer than 6 or 7 games?
Even if your initial premises are true, there's still nothing about those points that suggests, invariably, that the Suns are somehow most likely to win Game 5. I mean, you're assuming that no matter what, this series goes at least 6 games. Aside from the lack of statistical proof to back that up -- and notwithstanding the basic flaw in your argument: the fact that the outcome of any basketball game is never the product of fulfilling some statistical trend -- there's nothing to say that the series is somehow still likely to go to 6 or 7 games when one team stakes itself to a 3-1 lead.
Again, I don't quarrel with the idea that the Suns can win Game 5 -- they definitely can. I just think it's asinine to suggest that there's some statistical certainty to that result happening. If the Suns win Game 5, it won't be because they're destined to win it or because the odds caught up with them.
Phoenix has already won their one home game per Spurs series. Seriously, they were 2-7 at home over the last three series vs. SA. Game 6 would certainly not be a pencil-in win for PHO.
I'm no expert but I'd take expert opinion over mines and I would say anybody handicapping this series would have called it a 6-7 game series. I suppose you're not much of a numbers guy...this isn't "magic" or "destiny/fate" or anything mystical or paranormal.
These are just numbers and how they relate to patterns. I'm not sure why you are wrapped up in destiny. Statistics trends patterns, it doesn't say they are 100% true but they are generally correct.
in a 7 game series, with 4 games in SA the odds are that the Suns will get 1 game in SA.
We know if they lose tomorrow, that it's over...so that's NOT within the trend.
By winning tomorrow, the Suns follow the trend of winning 1 out of 4.
I suppose we'll find out in 24 hours. And I'll go onto say if the Suns win tomorrow, they will most likely win game #6 and no, it's not "destiny" either
I'm simply pointing out that it was a bit obvious that the Suns must win Game 5 in order to win Game 6.
You insist that because the Spurs did not sweep, the series must now go a full seven games to fulfill some statistical necessity. Ergo, the Suns will win Games 5 and 7 simply so that they can fulfill a 25% road record after a loss in Game 7.
In the end, the Suns still lose. And they know it. I highly doubt that the intangible of the human psyche will want to rise to the occasion over the next two games simply to fulfill a statistical prophecy.
There was sarcasm in your post so I took it the wrong way, I apologize.
He was wrong. He predicted the Suns would win. They won't.
My email to him: Can't admit your power ranking is imperfect? This fits with past Suns/Spurs playoffs. Spurs have 4 les in 9 years. Regular season isn't important. Meaningless comments you yourself don't even believe. Nor do we.
Oh no, there was a ton of sarcasm in my post!
But I try to use it as humor, not a hammer.
I'm tired of this "Suns should have won game 1 or 2" bull .
By that logic, Spurs should have won game 4 last year against them, and actually won the series 5-1, so that whining about the suspensions is moot.
Man, some people are having some strange takes on probability here.
Let's start from square one:
1. coin flip is 50-50
2. if you flip heads 9 times, the probability of getting heads the next time is still 50%
Now, Suns-Spurs
1. Lets assume they are equal, and thus 50-50
2. Let's say the Spurs- winning the first three games was statistically improbable to the same extent as flipping heads 9 times.
Question: what is the chance of winning game 5?
3. Still 50-50
In other words, previous events have no statistical correlation with detached later events. So, using simplistic statistical arguments to "prove" the Suns will win game 5 is nonsensical.
In my opinion, these teams are very evenly matched, and the final 3 games could very well be 50-50. If you do the math, that would come out to .125 chance of the Suns winning the series, right? That leaves out the small effects of home court, and the possibly large effects of injuries, fatigue, and coaching.
You make a good point... because a lot of people screw up the concept of probability.
Hollinger tries to use stats too much to try and explain events in which humans are involved. Yes, Suns and Spurs are evenly matched and therefore, odds should be 50-50 in the final 3 games, but nerves, momentum, and streaks factor into NBA games very much. That's why "clutch factors" cannot be measured in numbers. , even in Vegas this weekend they still had the Suns' championship odds at 4-1 and the Spurs at 3-1 before Game 4 began.
However, I'm watching Joe Johnson singlehandedly dismantle the Celtics' defense and I'm realizing three things:
1. This shows that in the NBA, anything (including amazing) can happen.
2. Man, it would be nice to have Joe Johnson in this series.
3. Despite Diaw's Game 4, Robert Sarver for not re-signing him.
Spurs in six............!!
Yes they are!
Phoenix will become the first team to win a best-of-seven first round series after being down 0-3
And for that matter the Spurs will become the biggest CHOKERS in NBA History for allowing this to happen.
So what happened to Game 5?Spurs in six............!!
Already conceding defeat?
Doesn't matter what any of them say. It isn't going to happen.
But before talking about the surprise of the first round, he ought to pay attention to the fact that the Celtics and Hawks are tied at 2-2. If the Hawks somehow pull off a series win, it would be the surprise of the season... period. And right now that's a lot more likely than the Suns winning 3 more in a row.
Considering the Spurs have won every game Louis has guaranteed they will lose this playoffs so far, I suddenly feel a lot better about their chances in Game 5.
And if the Spurs win Game 5, I predict Louis is going to show up as a Hornets troll and guarantee another sweep.
The Spurs are one good first quarter from finishing this series.
Forget having to play a solid entire game. If they just get off to a good start, the mental midgets will fold up tent.
what are the chances of a team coming back when down 4 in a series?
The probability of the Suns winning 1 game out of 4 games in SA remains the same no matter how many games they have already lost. Probability says they will win 1 out of 4 games in San Antonio.
Let's do it a little easier since it's so "non-sensical". Let's do something you can relate to, "Hack a Shaq"
You hack Shaq because he will PROBABLY miss, not because he is 100% going to miss. His % is 60%, and most likely he will miss 4 out of 10 free throws. Is this predicting or controlling the future? Why don't you do Hack a Nash? Nash has a 50/50 chance of making the free throw when he stands at the line...just like Shaq...what bearing do his last million free throws have on his chances today "a detached later event" of making his free throws...it's 50/50 isn't it?
Ah, but is it REALLY that plain and simple 50/50 chance...I mean you either make the shot at the line or you don't right? Why not hack Nash instead of Shaq since past performance doesn't have a direct affect on their shot right now ("a detached later event")? Does probability have any say in whether Shaq or Nash will make their next free throw even though they BOTH have a 50/50 chance of making it?
Is there really only a 50/50 chance that the Suns will lose 4 games straight in San Antonio or is it more probable that the Suns will win 1 game out of 4?
Even though there's only a 50/50 chance, Nash is more likely to hit his free throws than Shaq.
Even though there's only a 50/50 chance, the Suns are more likely to win 1 out of 4 in SA rather than lose 4 straight in SA.
Even though Hollinger's stats are sometimes wrong, they are more often right because of statistical probability.
Last edited by Allanon; 04-29-2008 at 01:50 AM.
The above states that Shaq is 10 percent more likely to make a free throw than Steve Nash is.
You REALLY need to just give up trying to discuss statistics or probability, because you've proven it's far beyond your grasp.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
