Reply With Quote
Ha ha. The old "they just weren't hitting their shots" gambit.
Hollinger is a stat geek if the numbers favor the team ...then he is all for them. he predicts Utah vs. Boston in NBA Finals ...nuff said. Boston I see ... but Utah?!
Ha ha. The old "they just weren't hitting their shots" gambit.
So the Suns win one quarter by double figures in the entire series and now they play defense? Maybe you're right. Maybe they finally figured it out. Or, maybe, just like they always have, the Suns put it all together for one game.
Guess we'll see.
I'm so torn. I can't bring myself to root against the Suns, but I want D'Antoni gone.
should have... would have... could have...
truth is they didn't and Spurs found a way to win the games. that's what champions do
Why not Utah?
Current series notwithstanding, I don't think the Jazz are good enough on the road to overcome that many home court disadvantages.
Ah I know that, I'm just saying that's why the odds are in favor of them winning in Game 5. They should have won in SA already. But since they haven't their odds of winning in Game 5 are pretty high.
It's not the series odds, Spurs up 3-1 of course are favored to win. But Game #5 should have the Suns favored and #6 as well if it comes to it. #7 is where the Spurs will win it.
Vegas will probably have Phoenix winning on Tuesday...it's just numbers of course.
This is stupid. How are the defending champions and team up 3-1 becoming the media underdogs? This Playoff coverage is starting to feel like the Democratic presidential campaign.
It has been proven that at most, a manager in baseball impacts the entire season and postseason in MLB by + or - 5 games. Usually, this is more like + or - 3 games. In other words, it took over a century for it to happen in pro baseball, because very little affects the outcome, other than pure talent. This has a lot to do with the unique structure of baseball. Without free subs utions and given the limits of a pitching rotation, a manager can do very little to influence the ultimate outcome of a game.
My theory is simple. Coming back from an 0-3 deficit has happened twice already in the NHL, which does allow free subs ution. By this rationale, coaching (at least assigning playing time) has a greater impact on the outcome of NHL games than MLB games. Therefore, winning four in a row becomes more probable, because factors other than the teams' raw talent enter into the picture.
The best analogy I can think of is comparing Poker to a game like Bridge or Spades. It's not just what you have, but how you use the trumps.
In this regard, the NBA is more like the NHL. Assuming my theory has any validity whatsoever, an NBA team will eventually win four in a row after getting in an 0-3 hole. HOWEVER, this assumes that the team down 0-3 is able to outcoach the dominant team or somehow use its "trumps" to a decisive advantage.
My answer: D'Antoni is not capable of the task. While Phoenix might have enough talent to pull it off, it will not receive the necessary coaching or strategic advantage.
I knew an article like this was coming...
I still think the 2007 Cavs have a better shot.
If you read Hollinger's article, he presents score after score that says the Jazz are capable of beating any team by any amount anywhere. They are a great home team, have good size, good depth and two proven scorers in Williams and Boozer. They have a coach who knows how to win, as well. They are a very complete team.
There biggest issue is playing down top the compe ion on occasion.
But this is a team that advanced to the Conference Finals last season. Some key players are now more experienced/skilled.
We'll have to see, but I don't think it's unreasonable at all to say Utah is a Finals caliber team or to expect them to advance there.
Not that I'm interested in arguing or anything, but the Spurs will most likely win game 6, if there is one (IMO). They've done that sort of thing alot (close out on the road, and they got their "this is too easy, we're bored" blow out loss out of the way, espeically after a home loss).
Even if you aren't a believer in that, it's still absurd to say game 6 would be "automatic" for anyone.
If Nike ever finishes its conquest of the NBA, you may well be correct. Of course, by then 2007 will have been renamed "Year Zero"...
I believe Utah has the talent to make the Finals, there's no question. Deron Williams is one of the top 3 point guards in the league, love his game. But for all the stats Hollinger throws out there, I feel this is the most telling:
17-24
Utah's road record through the regular season, no better than that of Dallas or Denver. They're damn near unbeatable at home, but considering they're the five seed they shouldn't get an opportunity to utilize that as a series advantage.
Starting to look like 2006, kids. Spurs take a game off, Pop decides to mess with the rotation. If Horry's ahead of Oberto in the rotation for the next game, be very afraid.
My bad, I shouldn't have said *automatic*, I'm just saying they would have heavy odds to win Game 6 since San Antonio already won 1 in Phoenix.
The Spurs are of course heavy favorites to win the series being up 3-1. The length of the series is what's questionable. Just talking odds, the Suns have good odds to win #5 and great odds to win #6. But the Suns have very poor odds of winning #7.
Hollinger is all about stats, banking his whole basketball analysis on being able to predict the NBA champ from a complex equation basically boiling down to point differential on offense and defense.
According to his stats, the Spurs were the best team last year, and he banked on them winning all last year when others counted them out. This year, he's banked on the Celtics winning all year, and the Spurs have been ranked lower, based on all of the same statistical analysis.
He certainly has a personal motivation to see the Spurs fail: If they go on to win the championship, or even be the West champ, it pokes a serious hole in his theory.
Then again, given that the Spurs are 163-33 (.832) at home since the start of the 2004-05 season (including playoffs) and 25-7 (.781) at home in playoff games during that time, it would seem possible that the Suns had their best chance to win a game in either Game 1 or 2 and missed it.
Ultimately, I don't think the chances of doing something in basketball aggregate over time. You're either better on a given night or you aren't, and that has very little to do with whether you've done something (such as winning in San Antonio) recently. I don't really think odds tend to "catch up" to good teams. Phoenix might win Game 5 -- , they might even win a Game 7 if it happens -- but it won't be because the odds are catching up to them. It will be because they play better than the Spurs do.
Hollinger looks like like the dude at the playground that would kidnap your kids if he got the chance.
He picked the Rockets to get out of the west back at the beginning of the season.
Just a weirdo who thinks he knows basketball and he doesn't.
People who think Suns are going to pull a Red Sox are stupid.
Just plain stupid
This article is as boring as the person who wrote it!
He's right, out of all the teams, the Suns have the best chance. Van Gundy or someone threw it out there. Spurs won Game 4 pretty convincingly. Now say the Spurs come back and *knocks wood* get an injury to one of the Big 3, Suns have a revived chance of winning the next 3 to win because anything can happen from game to game.
Yes, I think what he said was, let's say the Spurs lose one of their Big Three to injury in the first six minutes or so of Game 5. . . are you certain then that the Suns couldn't win four straight? Of course, part of their job as broadcasters is to keep casual viewers thinking there's a chance the so-far never been done can be-- and of course there is, but I'd say it's still pretty small.
a few tidbits from a Hollinger chat on ESPN.com
Adriel Carolino (Cerritos, Ca): If the Suns do stretch the series a bit longer, do you think the Spurs have enough left in them to even get past New Orleans?
John Hollinger: (4:24 PM ET ) I like New Orleans in that series, but there's a good chance it goes seven.John Hollinger: (4:10 PM ET ) Is it really that complex? We should be 2-2 at this very moment. Obviously at 3-1 San Antonio will likely prevail, but I still say if you played this out 100 times it would go about 53-47 for Phoenix.Jack (Chicago): A lot of people are making a big deal about hack-a-shaq, do you really think it made that much of a difference in terms of the outcome of Spurs-Suns?
John Hollinger: (4:36 PM ET ) Pretty much changed Game 1, which pretty much changed the entire series. So I'd go with an emphatic yes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
