Reply With Quote
There is a difference between embarrassment and defeat.
don't give up so quickly.
There is a difference between embarrassment and defeat.
Over the past 10 years, point differential has not been any better a predictor of playoff success than season record. Just FYI.The Spurs are two points away from being the best team in the NBA. That's it. Two points. In top of that, we have been experimenting all season with new lineups. All the death knell gloom & doomers need to understand that point differential is the best predictor of playoff sucess.
Like scrapping to secure homecourt advantage for the first round (only)?only Mavfan and Sunfan get off from these stats, Spurfan has bigger fish to fry
good call.
So are we still a contender?
Last edited by timtonymanu; 03-17-2010 at 09:41 PM.
Galileo is a delusional fool.
Sadly Mavfan is satisfied with that.Like scrapping to secure homecourt advantage for the first round (only)?
Rockets won a championship from the 6th seed in 94-95, after struggling the first half of the season.
It can be done.
yeah but majority of low seed teams havent won a championship. so what's your point?
That's quite incorrect. There's nothing more accurate than point diff if taken as a univariate indicator of potential playoff success (read: there's a stronger positive correlation between point diff and championship success).
Nice blimp.Sadly Mavfan is satisfied with that.
No, it's actually quite correct:
This is not to say that point differential is not a very strong indicator of future success, but again, it's only marginally better than season record. When point differential is useful is when two teams with very similar records have disparate point differentials--then, one would be wise to look to the point differential.Results:
Winning Percentage correctly predicted the playoff series winner 77.6% of the time.
Point Margin correctly predicted the playoff series winner 78.2% of the time.
This includes data from 120 playoff series dating back to the 2001-2002 season.
Analysis:
There were only 4 out of 120 series in which a team had a significantly better record than their point margin would indicate.
**Cleveland in 2007-2008 had a point margin of -0.4 yet won 45 games. They beat Washington in the first round despite poor scoring margin.
**NJ Nets in 2005-2006 had a point margin of just +1.4 yet won 49 games. They beat the Pacers in the first round despite poor scoring margin.
**Minnesota in 2002-2003 had a point margin of just +2.1 yet won 51 games. They lost to the Lakers in the first round. The Lakers had a point margin of +2.3.
**Detroit in 2001-2002 had a point margin of just +2.1 yet won 51 games. They lost in the second round to Boston. Boston had a point margin of +2.2.
In almost every case the team with the higher scoring margin also had a better record.
Conclusions:
Point margin is a very good predictor of winning percentage for the regular season.
In the playoffs, point margin and winning percentage are equal predictors of series victor at 78% success rate.
Thanks for reading.
You guys just need to give up the contender talk. This team is going nowhere this year other than a first round exit. Yeah I sound like a saying it but it's true. The Spurs arent gonna miraculously click. There's too many negative signs at this point.
lol we like to dream
The Spurs are +5.1 points per game. The Lakers are + 6.0 points per game.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/by...ar=season_2009
Let's say the home court is worth 4 points per game.
In a 7 game series, the Lakers are only up on us by a total of 10.3 points over 7 games.
That means the Lakers are only 1.4 points better than us per game on the average. In other words, each game is basically a toss up, it comes down to less than one shot.
We can make the finals, folks.
Think CIA Pop. Think Tim "the Wizard" Duncan. Believe in Galileo.
I thought you said we were gonna beat the Magic?
It's all very interesting and I do think we'll be dangerous.
But in about a week we'll have a much better picture of if we will be a contender or not.
we've got another game with them soon.
And only if the Spurs played the clippers all year they would be nuber 1!
I keep seeing people say this about the Rockets winning in 95. Do any of you realize that this is not that year. This is a totally new game. The compe ion that year the Rockets made won the championship pales in comparison to today's compe ion, and it's not even close.
Spurs were about the only roadblock that year and that was still with a 1 man show with D-Rob. Teams at that area could win with 1 or 2 main guys, and thats not a luxury anymore.
Tonight should be a good indication of where the Spurs are in the playoff hierarchy.
This thread continues to fail.
The Spurs ended the season as the # 1 or # 2 team in the West in point differential. Given how close they were the Cleveland and Orlando (who play in a weak conference), and the fact that the Spurs improved as the season went on, while Utah lost Okur, the Spurs are now the favorites to win # 5 for Mr. Duncan.
bump.
HOW THE IS THE TEAM WITH THE BIGGER POINT DIFFERENTIAL LOSING?!?!?!
Here's my only logical explanation, I can never come up with theories as accurate and smart as the Galileo's theories, but here goes:
David Stern has a contract with the Free Masons to create an optical allusion that makes all fans, coaches, players and journalists think that the are going to U.S. Airways Center when they are actually going to the studio where Apollo 11 was filmed, this is where the games are played. This arena uses magnetic rims and instead of an actual basketball, just uses a very large magnet. The Illuminati send electric current through one rim throughout the game to increase magnetic attraction based on who Stern wants to win. Does anyone wonder why Amare can jump so much higher than Tim Duncan? It's because in this controlled environment the Knights Templar suspend gravity for Amare Stoudemire and increase the gravitational force on Tim Duncan anchoring him to the ground.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
