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 compe ive 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/playof...Hornets_080513
Last edited by timvp; 05-13-2008 at 02:05 PM. Reason: formatting and link
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.
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.
The typical reaction to Hollinger: anger, namecalling, citing exceptions - and never any refutations.
Did this guy forget that all NOH did in the first 2 games was get their bull shots to go down?
All other teams who have gone up 2-0 have gone up in convincing fashion. NOH didn't.
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.
Hollinger is a jackass who uses numbers for EVERYTHING! lol. It's hilarious. He doesn't know jack 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 , 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 ing stat out the window.
WONDERFUL article ... 100% truth
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.
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.
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.
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.
WTF
This is why accountants shouldn't bother watching sports.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Of course Hollinger, like anyone else, makes mistakes. But I trust him far more than most of the journalist vermin who prognosticate.
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.
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.
, 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.
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.
Aw it.
He convinced me. We have no damn chance of winning. Lets just go ahead and concede.
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?
Hope the Spurs read this. They can save time and not show up at the gym tonight...*sarcasm*
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
