Reply With Quote
which is what i pointed out as solace so really got confused by all the vitriole from folks acting as if i'd condemned the team to mediocrity. i didn't make up the stat or go searching for it, just saw it.
no, i'm saying the team that won 3 games in a row has no better chance of winning that fourth game than they did when they played the first game, which is exactly what should be expected.
take a stone, lift it into the air, you expect a certain result, and you continue to expect that result so long as stone, arm, and height remain the same: hence, if a team comes in vastly superior, that superiority doesn't diminish or increase just because they win. that's looking at it backwards: they win because they are superior.
it is not that the 3-win team has a better chance of beating the loser after having won 3 games, it is that the team has the same chance as they started with and that chance had been enough the first game to win, the second game to win, and the third game to win. why suddenly be surprised that a fourth game was won given that nothing changed?
Last edited by td4mvp3; 05-21-2012 at 12:16 PM.
which is what i pointed out as solace so really got confused by all the vitriole from folks acting as if i'd condemned the team to mediocrity. i didn't make up the stat or go searching for it, just saw it.
who cares...if we play the way we've been playing, as a team, and execute we'll be hard to beat.
even giving the obvious differences of west and east conferences, the comparison is exact, not slightly parallel. the defining trait for the stat was simply the sweeping of the first two rounds, which the spurs did.
just for comparison
reg season rank by point differential:
2011-12:
2 San Antonio 103.7 96.5 +7.2 .478 .452 .393 .353 .748 .251 .760 .511 13.6 13.7
10 LA Clippers 97.5 95.0 +2.5 .455 .447 .357 .365 .680 .295 .732 .511 13.3 14.6
16 Utah 99.7 99.0 +0.7 .456 .453 .323 .340 .754 .302 .738 .518 14.2 14.7
2009-10
1 Orlando 102.8 95.3 +7.5 .470 .438 .375 .363 .724 .246 .774 .519 14.1 12.8
6 Atlanta 101.7 97.0 +4.7 .468 .460 .360 .345 .759 .282 .727 .502 12.0 13.8
15 Charlotte 95.3 93.8 +1.5 .453 .448 .346 .338 .751 .265 .742 .507 15.7 15.3
2008-09
1 Cleveland 100.3 91.4 +8.9 .468 .431 .393 .333 .757 .277 .746 .520 12.7 13.9
12 Atlanta 98.1 96.5 +1.6 .458 .454 .366 .353 .737 .260 .716 .489 12.8 13.7
17 Detroit 94.2 94.7 -0.5 .454 .451 .349 .354 .751 .279 .740 .506 11.9 11.8
2004-05
3 Miami 101.5 95.0 +6.5 .486 .427 .377 .348 .672 .270 .741 .515 13.7 13.2
16 Washington 100.5 100.8 -0.3 .437 .459 .343 .364 .725 .311 .700 .499 14.3 15.9
19 Brooklyn 91.4 92.9 -1.5 .429 .439 .362 .368 .763 .255 .732 .490 14.2 15.6
You don't get it... and its not my job to explain it to you.
The 2-0 and 3-0 statistics IN A SERIES are nothing like saying that the teams to sweep the first to rounds 4-0 4-0 haven't made it out of the second round.
didnt the lakers sweep everyone but iverson one year and still win it?
yeah, but espn is only using the stat after the NBA integrated a 7-game series in the first round.
It's definitely a much harder feat to accomplish in the WC.
We are the 12th team overall to sweep the first 2 rounds of the playoffs in NBA history.
Six have gone on to win the NBA championship
Link
this thread has severly weakened my boner.. good job
Yeah, that's because the eastern conference usually has three or four teams that shouldn't even be in the playoffs. This was about as deep and competetive a western conference as we've ever seen.
stats in the west? 2001 Lakers won it all, 1999 Spurs won it all
i know you're not explaining your point, that's part of my frustration. you say "in a series" as if that makes everything remarkably clear. you've yet to show how what i said is wrong. you keep doing a remarkable job of not explaining why and then ranting about how you're not going to explain why. so don't post, issue solved.
so i found this when the thunder were bashing the mavs
the article is saying that 94 percent of the teams in the same situation went on to win the series; that every team that has gone up 3-0 has gone on to win the series. but none of those stats say anything about the chances of one team beating the other team in that particular game. the stat is only a neat tidy way to point out some historical pattern.History already favors teams up 2-0 in a series (94 percent win the series). But history really favors teams up 3-0 (100 percent win the series). Where the Mavs sit, they now have to beat the Thunder four out of five times. But it starts with one game and the Thunder can really grab this one around the throat with a win tonight. Winning one of these two games in Dallas is key so that there’s a chance to finish it out at home in Game 5, but Oklahoma City has a chance to essentially put it away tonight.
, as i think about it, the real issue is the way we're phrasing it. we keep saying the team that's 3-0 and obscuring the real parallel: the stat says that, say, 100 teams since the nba started have gone up 3-0, and all of those teams won their series; this stat says that 3 teams since 2003 have swept their first two playoff series and all have gone on to lose in the conference finals. as a historical pattern and bit of trivia, it stands just as valid as the 3-0 thing.
Last edited by td4mvp3; 05-21-2012 at 07:55 PM.
sorry, man, i'm right there with you.
we weren't really even arguing about the series thing... Although your logic is slightly flawed... i mostly agree with you on this...
there isn't a set number (%) chance team A is going to beat team B as a constant for all games of a series... injuries, adjustments, HCA, start time, B2B, assigned officials... are all variables that change winning % chance from game to game...
I was arguing that the thread topic makes no logical sense to apply to the spurs... There is no causality between sweeping two rounds of the playoffs and losing in the next round... There is just absolutely no relationship... so it is pointless to compare the two.
which was my point, so i really didn't get why you seemed to be arguing against it.
and i wasn't understanding why anyone thought my thread topic was trying to prove some causality or correlation, especially after i clearly point out that the only issue i had was that this particular bit of trivia lessened my thrill for the sweep. that was the only point of the thread: did anyone know this bit of trivia and how that trivia made the sweep less sweet for me. i was looking to commiserate, much like i did with the dude whose boner was sacrificed.I was arguing that the thread topic makes no logical sense to apply to the spurs... There is no causality between sweeping two rounds of the playoffs and losing in the next round... There is just absolutely no relationship... so it is pointless to compare the two.
That and they have nothing to do with the Spurs. That's like those stats about "in (insert team's) franchise history, they're (insert stat) in (insert situation)". As if something from 10, 20, 30, etc. years ago has any bearing on the current team.
The reality is, those teams weren't as good as this team and were led by arrogant pukes. This team has appropriate fear of every situation and takes nothing for granted. I saw some slippage in their play the last few games, but that was more so inevitability than overconfidence.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions