just when i felt good about the sweep

[Salty]

Has absolutely nothing to do with the 2012 Spurs. None of those teams were the best TEAM in the league and riding 18 game win streak with only two losses in the past 31 games.

[td4mvp3]

No ?

The statistic is irrelevant... none of the teams or their situations are related.

This isn't like saying that a team down 2-0 or 2-1 or 3-0 has an x percent chance of winning the series...

how is it not exactly like those sorts of stats, ones based on historical performance and not probability? probability wise, each game is its own unique thing given pretty much the same chances of each side winning, in the same way a coin flip always has a 50-50 chance regardless of a streak of 10 heads making people think a tail has a better likelihood of showing up. the 2-0 or 3-0 thing just says historically, this number of teams have gone on to do whatever; the other stat says historically, this number of teams have gone on to do this other thing when found in this situation.

not saying the spurs lose, just pointing out the reason for the freaking le of the thread: the stat kind of took some wind out of the sweeping sails.

[Uriel]

That's odd. This was just tweeted by Fran Blinebury of NBA.com.

@franblinebury
Spurs 102, Clippers 99. SA is 12th team in NBA history to sweep 1st 2 rds of playoffs -- 6 previous teams won championship. Last 2001 Lakers

[td4mvp3]

That's odd. This was just tweeted by Fran Blinebury of NBA.com.

now the stats are just screwing with me.

hold on, i think the other stat said the format change of having 7-game first rounds only started in 2003? i think the list they provide starts at 2002 or so.

[hooperflash]

this is supposed to be a BNSF thread?

[Sec24Row7]

how is it not exactly like those sorts of stats, ones based on historical performance and not probability? probability wise, each game is its own unique thing given pretty much the same chances of each side winning, in the same way a coin flip always has a 50-50 chance regardless of a streak of 10 heads making people think a tail has a better likelihood of showing up. the 2-0 or 3-0 thing just says historically, this number of teams have gone on to do whatever; the other stat says historically, this number of teams have gone on to do this other thing when found in this situation.

not saying the spurs lose, just pointing out the reason for the freaking le of the thread: the stat kind of took some wind out of the sweeping sails.

2-0 3-0 means something... you have to win 4-4 or 4-5 games in order to win the series...

This one is irrelevant... Its like saying the last 3 people that won the lottery drove a prius... oh ... I drive a truck.

[InK]

Rofl the eastern conference since 1998.

At idea Jazz and hobbled Clipps are great teams.

[Sec24Row7]

At idea Jazz and hobbled Clipps are great teams.

No one said they were great... but they at least had winning records... which isn't something you can say for every east coast 6-8 seed for the last 10 years...

[pgardn]

PISOMP

People In Search Of Meaningless Patterns.

Its a self help group.

Next meeting 7/13/2012 Dont look up the day of the week...

The Black Cat Across My Path Gym
666 Numerology Lane

Be there, be scared, I sweared.

[td4mvp3]

2-0 3-0 means something... you have to win 4-4 or 4-5 games in order to win the series...

This one is irrelevant... Its like saying the last 3 people that won the lottery drove a prius... oh ... I drive a truck.

not even a little bit. when they say 76 percent of the teams who've gone up 2-0 end up winning the series, it does not mean that the team up 2-0 has a 76 percent chance of winning the next game, it means that if there had been 100 teams in similar situations, 76 of them had gone on to win that series: historical pattern. this is a historical pattern: three teams have swept the first two rounds, three have gone on to lose the next round. the pattern has fewer numbers so there's that, but no less the same kind of thing as the 2-0 thing. it would be insane to think that two teams facing each other suddenly increase their chances of winning a game solely by virtue of having won a previous one. all the components remain the same, so all the probabilities remain the same, too.

[td4mvp3]

PISOMP

People In Search Of Meaningless Patterns.

Its a self help group.

Next meeting 7/13/2012 Dont look up the day of the week...

The Black Cat Across My Path Gym
666 Numerology Lane

Be there, be scared, I sweared.

except i didn't say there was a correlation or causation or even an influence. i just said it dampened my sweep feeling. too many folks are reading too much into my post, which is really what you're getting at.

[racm]

Correlation does not imply causation.

That said, those teams were top-heavy affairs that were playing in the conference that has been weaker since 1998.

[CGD]

The East sucked during that period. No surprises there.

[Keepin' it real]

ROFL... this is one of those stats that is like... huh? WTF does that have to do with spurs?

I agree this has nothing to do with the Spurs ... but THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT. It doesn't matter that it's San Antonio, or that the 3 teams to previously sweep rounds 1 and 2 were in the east, or that the Spurs may (arguably) be playing better that those three prior teams.

The point is that -- numerically and objectively -- teams in this situation do not achieve ultimate success. The point is, after having that much success, even one loss can feel demoralizing, and that can lead to ... splat.

I remember what David Robinson said about the '03 le team. He loved they way they always bounced back from a loss. He knew he could count on his team to get back up after they had been knocked down in the playoffs. None of us know if this Spurs team shares that trait because they've yet to experience the adversity of losing in the playoffs.

So if you don't get it or don't agree that it's relevant to the Spurs, that's fine, but don't criticize the OP for posting a statistic that is a lot more compelling than saying "but we're playing really well right now." (I'm sure the other 3 teams and their fans thought the same thing.)

For numbers people, this could be an alarming statistic.

[703 Spurz]

from espn

Research Notes
San Antonio's win makes it just the 4th time under the current playoff format that a team swept each of the 1st 2 rounds of the postseason. That might not be as great as it sounds. Each of the previous 3 lost in the following round with Miami the lone squad to take the Conference Finals to 7 games. [-]
Swept 1st 2 Rounds of Postseason - Current Playoff Format
Result
2011-12 Spurs ?
2009-10 Magic L, Conf Finals
2008-09 Cavaliers L, Conf Finals
2004-05 Heat L, Conf Finals
* 1st round expanded to Best-of-7 series in 2002-03

Well it's all over now. The past always dictates the future right? Time to pack up and hope next year is better.

[wut]

Stats need context and the context that needs to go with these stats should be: the following teams faced barely above .500 teams.

[Russ]

The 2001 Lakers swept their first two series and then swept the Spurs in the the Western Conference Finals.

I guess that doesn't qualify because it wasn't the "current format," i.e., best 4 out of 7 in the first round.

[Sec24Row7]

not even a little bit. when they say 76 percent of the teams who've gone up 2-0 end up winning the series, it does not mean that the team up 2-0 has a 76 percent chance of winning the next game, it means that if there had been 100 teams in similar situations, 76 of them had gone on to win that series: historical pattern. this is a historical pattern: three teams have swept the first two rounds, three have gone on to lose the next round. the pattern has fewer numbers so there's that, but no less the same kind of thing as the 2-0 thing. it would be insane to think that two teams facing each other suddenly increase their chances of winning a game solely by virtue of having won a previous one. all the components remain the same, so all the probabilities remain the same, too.

If you don't think that a team that has won 3 games in a row against another team is more likely to win 1 game out of the next 4 against that same team than a team who has lost 3 games in a row is to win 4 straight.... then I don't know how to help you.

[Jimcs50]

from espn

Research Notes
San Antonio's win makes it just the 4th time under the current playoff format that a team swept each of the 1st 2 rounds of the postseason. That might not be as great as it sounds. Each of the previous 3 lost in the following round with Miami the lone squad to take the Conference Finals to 7 games. [-]
Swept 1st 2 Rounds of Postseason - Current Playoff Format
Result
2011-12 Spurs ?
2009-10 Magic L, Conf Finals
2008-09 Cavaliers L, Conf Finals
2004-05 Heat L, Conf Finals
* 1st round expanded to Best-of-7 series in 2002-03

Common denominator:

Eastern Conference, was notoriously weak at the bottom half of the draw. Duke could have swept those series.

[rascal]

Too small a sample size to make any type of correlation with this year.

But the spurs have not been tested with easy opponents so far. Next round will be different.

[CosmicCowboy]

, the bottom tier East teams of the playoffs those years didn't even win half their games in the regular season.

[Cory Joseph]

Just a slight parallel, not an accurate comparison.

[ManuTastic]

To complete the picture, someone needs to supply the teams that were swept by those eventual losers. Probably they were, as has been said, crappy teams that only made the playoffs because they were in the East, but it would be nice to know the teams.

[td4mvp3]

Correlation does not imply causation..

yeah...that's what i said, except i went a step further and said there isn't even a correlation.

[td4mvp3]

The 2001 Lakers swept their first two series and then swept the Spurs in the the Western Conference Finals.

I guess that doesn't qualify because it wasn't the "current format," i.e., best 4 out of 7 in the first round.

um...yeah, that would be why they didn't count it, it didn't fit the criteria.