Reply With Quote
Nice analysis. Got charts/graphs?
[Note: Besides giving some general information, there is a follow-up to Pop's decision to rest the Big 3 in Denver.]
I saw that the average winning percentage for teams on the second night of a back-to-back is about .425. That includes le contenders all the way down to lottery teams. Without going into painful detail, it means that even the best teams do much, much worse on the 2nd night of B2B's. It also shows that the difficulties the Spurs have had with B2B's is not just because they are old.
But then I had a "Hey, wait a minute" moment about the way that stat is calculated. Some nights, both teams are playing the second night of a B2B. Since one team has to win and one has to lose, the average winning percentage for those games is always .500, which skews the numbers upward. (It happens a lot more often than I would have thought.) So I went through the schedules and eliminated the games where both teams are playing second nights.
So what happens when one team is on the second night of a B2B, and the other team isn't? The average winning percentage is just .375. That has to make it one of the best predictors of a loss in the NBA, outside of extremely obvious mis-matches. So much so that the worst teams in the league have a reasonably good chance against the best, when the better team is on a second night. I knew the numbers were bad, but I wouldn't have guessed that they were that overwhelmingly bad.
So when Pop gets upset because the Spurs get scheduled for a night game followed by an afternoon game, with travel time in between, he has good reason. Those games are extremely difficult to win, no matter who the opponent is. The adjusted B2B statistics above give a different perspective to Pop's decision to rest the Big 3 in Denver. With less than a full day in between those two games, and Denver being a good team, the chances of winning were never very good. Fielding a fresh group of players probably gave the Spurs just about as good a chance of winning, even without Manu and Tim being banged up.
If the logic that a back-to-back affects an older team more is true, then getting cheated out of a half-day of rest would have to be a serious disadvantage for the Spurs, especially if the other team has had a full day or more of rest. I know the league looks at the number of B2B's that each team plays. But I wonder if they consider whether the opponents are also on the second day of a B2B?
Nice analysis. Got charts/graphs?
Interesting-- thanks-
It would also be useful to know if any team enjoys a significant advantage of facing other teams on their 2nd game of a back-to-back, thus giving them a few more probable victories per season. For instance, I remember reading somewhere that a lot of Utah's games are vs. teams on the 2nd night of a back-to-back, thus inflating their home game winning percentage (don't know if it's true, but I did read it somewhere).
B2Bs indicate how ed up the NBA is.
Players are cheated out of playing at their best, and fans are cheated by their teams playing sub-par basketball.
I'd agree with that. I'd also say it adds to the number of players breaking down with injuries. There's a reason you're supposed to skip a day or two before working out the same muscle group, it's so they have time to repair themselves. Duncan might not have the problems he's having now (or Manu, for that matter) if they didn't play so many games, especially back-to-backs.
the regular season is too long, there is no need to play 82 games...every team should play each team 2 times or so, eliminate all B2B games.
also each playoff round should be best of 3, best of 7 for all 4 rounds is ridiculous.
basketball should go 72 games
that would stop all back to back games
playoffs should go 7
with atleast 2 days off after winning the playoff series before next round
+1
I always wanted 2 against opp conference teams(30), and 3 against same conf(42). Idk if the nba ever used the schedule computer to sim that, but I bet it would eliminate 90% of B2Bs and 3-5 games stretches with no game(excluding the ASG). And it would get rid of the ing re tiebreakers. Man, I hate those things.
Here's a good example. The Jazz had a hard time getting past Toronto. "Williams said it was difficult to prepare for the 12:30 p.m. tip-off after flying two time zones east and losing another hour of sleep after the clocks were moved ahead for the switch to Eastern Daylight Time."
This game didn't count as a B2B for the Jazz. But it was every bit as tough as one. The better team won, but this kind of scheduling makes the game look a lot more compe ive than it really is.
currently we are 42-20
i think we are better than 42-20....there was at leasts 7 games we coulve won easy....
0-3 season start <<< where parker and ginoboli was injured
duncan sitting out a few games last week...
we should be sitting on something like 49-13 or 48-14 atm......then timmy duncan could be makn a case for MVP and DPOY this season....
How about a WCF road Game 1 which was basically a B2B after a WCSF road Game 7 and spending the night before on an airplane??? Lakers will have no such luck this time around.
playoff schedule sucks especially if a team is waiting for the other team to advance, and catches the team on the next night...fkn lame
how about the eastern team who has to wait a week to play the western team cause of the easy teams in the easts compared to the wests where you can expect a full 7 game series
Not the first two rounds.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
