SPURS magic # for #1 seed

[Splits]

Thank you Gordon Bieber.

[Mel_13]

Like I said in the edit. Because it sucks to be me right now.


I got caught up in all of your "magic number" crap. The only point I was making was that all games aren't created equally right now, and we could have closed the thing out with one win in LA, even though we had a "magic number" of 3.

And now that you've calmed down a bit, go back and read the posts in order. You'll see that I never disputed anything you said with regard to the scenarios you posted. I simply stated that there was only one magic number. Somehow, you took that for sniping, but it was simply a statement of fact.

[Mel_13]

BTW - you still can't deny that we had a magic number of 3, but could have locked it up with a single win. One win for us, one loss for LA. That's 2, not 3. And if you have a magic number of 3, shouldn't it take 3 win/loss combinations to clinch? The game in LA would have counted for 3 because of the tiebreaker.

You added this bit after I posted.

As I said, I never disputed your scenario. I was perfectly aware of that scenario and was discussing it with friends before the game today. Talking about how a win in Atlanta would mean that a Spurs win in LA would clinch HCA in the West regardless of what the teams did in all their other games.

All I said was that there is only magic number at any given point in time. Which is true.

[GSH]

Talking about how a win in Atlanta would mean that a Spurs win in LA would clinch HCA in the West regardless of what the teams did in all their other games.
All I said was that there is only magic number at any given point in time. Which is true.

I see the problem, Mel. I don't know how to say this, except that what I said before was right. We were 59-19 after the win. The Lakers were 55-21 before the loss. If we beat LA, and lost the other 3, we would be 60-22. If LA lost to us, but won the rest of their games, they would have been 60-22. But - we would have owned the head-to-head 3 games to 1.

Which means that even though the magic number was 3, we could still have locked up the West with a single game. That's a combination of 2... not 3 wins/losses. Right, or wrong?

I should have said the magic number was either 3 or 2. I said 1, because it was 1 game, and I just didn't count on anyone being snipy about it.

If those calculations are wrong, tell me why and I'll learn from you. If not... ?

[Mel_13]

I see the problem, Mel. I don't know how to say this, except that what I said before was right. We were 59-19 after the win. The Lakers were 55-21 before the loss. If we beat LA, and lost the other 3, we would be 60-22. If LA lost to us, but won the rest of their games, they would have been 60-22. But - we would have owned the head-to-head 3 games to 1.

Which means that even though the magic number was 3, we could still have locked up the West with a single game. That's a combination of 2... not 3 wins/losses. Right, or wrong?

I should have said the magic number was either 3 or 2. I said 1, because it was 1 game, and I just didn't count on anyone being snipy about it.

If those calculations are wrong, tell me why and I'll learn from you. If not... ?

You do realize that the post you quoted was me saying that I understood your scenario and never disputed it at any point in this thread?

Discussing scenarios for reducing the magic number is interesting and entirely appropriate for this thread.

The simple fact remains that there is one, and only one, magic number at any given point in time. The portion bolded above is simply incorrect. When the discussion began earlier this evening, the magic was 3. That's it. Different ways existed to reduce that number from 3 to zero, but the magic was 3. Plain and simple.

[GSH]

That's it. Different ways existed to reduce that number from 3 to zero, but the magic was 3. Plain and simple.

You're being evasive, Mel. I'm pretty sure that 3 means 3. If the "magic number" was 3, then how could we have clinched the West with a single game, which is only a total of 2? Don't change the subject, or bull , just answer the question. How?

I'll give you a hint: The magic number was 3... except that a win in LA would have also won a tiebreaker, which made it worth more than a win against the other teams. Oops. And the only plain and simple "fact" was that there were two different ing "magic numbers" at one point in time, because the game against LA was a special case. One win for us, one loss for LA, that adds up to 2. And we still clinch.

[Mel_13]

You're being evasive, Mel. I'm pretty sure that 3 means 3. If the "magic number" was 3, then how could we have clinched the West with a single game, which is only a total of 2? Don't change the subject, or bull , just answer the question. How?

I'm not being evasive at all. How the magic number is reduced is irrelevant to what the magic number is at any given point in time.

I'll give you a hint: The magic number was 3

That's correct

... except that a win in LA would have also won a tiebreaker, which made it worth more than a win against the other teams. Oops.

Wins against the team directly behind you in this standings always count for at least 2 in reducing the magic number. One win for the first place team and one loss for the second place. That's stating the obvious. The fact that some head-to-head game exists in the future does nothing to change the magic number in the present. Think about it. Have you ever seen or read a sports report that says "Team A's magic number over Team B is both 8 and 6, depending on the outcome of their one remaining head to head contest".

And the only plain and simple "fact" was that there were two different ing "magic numbers" at one point in time, because the game against LA was a special case. One win for us, one loss for LA, that adds up to 2. And we still clinch.

No, there weren't. There was, and is, only one magic number. There were, and are, multiple ways to reduce that number to zero.

The plain and simple fact remains, well, the plain and simple fact. There is only one magic number at any given point in time.

[Spurs rock]

Forget the Lakers, who gets the tie-breaker if the Spurs and Bulls finish tied????

[bluebellmaniac]

Here is how the LA game could count as 3 as far as the magic number goes:
1: We win
1: LA loss
1: We win the tiebreaker if we end up with the same record. Thus effectively upping the effect of this 1 game to being worth 3 in magic number terms.

[jiggy_55]

Forget the Lakers, who gets the tie-breaker if the Spurs and Bulls finish tied????

I would believe it's the Spurs as of now.. 1-1 head to head record, but the Spurs have a better Conference record but only by a slim margin. Bulls: 34-13 and Spurs 36-12

[GSH]

No, there weren't. There was, and is, only one magic number. There were, and are, multiple ways to reduce that number to zero.

Nope. One of the ways to reduce that number to zero only required one win for us plus one loss to LA. And even you can't be stupid enough not to see that 1+1=2. And you've just shown all the nice people on ST that you don't have enough sack to admit when you're wrong.

BTW - there is an accepted mathematical formula for calculating "magic number". But, there is an exception to the formula that is used if the front-running team has clinched the tiebreaker. (And I'd make a bet you didn't know that.) And there can very explicitly be two different magic numbers at one time, because a remaining head-to-head that also clinches a tiebreaker has to be considered. You can look it up. (Don't bother arguing that the tiebreaker hasn't been clinched yet, because if the Spurs beat LA, it would be clinched.)

You tried to skate by hanging on the semantics of "magic number". But it really does have a specific meaning and formula. And you're still wrong.

[Splits]

Forget the Lakers, who gets the tie-breaker if the Spurs and Bulls finish tied????

Two-Team Tiebreaker:

1. Division winner (this criterion is applied regardless of whether the tied teams are in the same division)
2. Better record in head-to-head games
3. Higher winning percentage within division (if teams are in the same division)
4. Higher winning percentage in conference games
5. Higher winning percentage against playoff teams in own conference
6. Higher winning percentage against playoff teams in opposite conference
7. Higher point differential between points scored and points allowed

It is all very confusing with teams from opposing conferences. It would be great if someone could spell it out for sure.

1/2/3 are all meaningless. Does 4 mean opposing conference record if the teams are in opposite confs? If so, both have 23/7 records, which would drop us to criterion #5/6, and the same question persists with teams in opposing confs. If it comes down to point differential (#7), then CHI most likely takes it.

[Mel_13]

Nope. One of the ways to reduce that number to zero only required one win for us plus one loss to LA. And even you can't be stupid enough not to see that 1+1=2. And you've just shown all the nice people on ST that you don't have enough sack to admit when you're wrong.

1. Once more, the ways that exist to reduce that number have nothing to do with what that number at any given point in time.

2. You're apparently still incapable of engaging in a discussion without resort to personal attacks. So sad for you.

3. I would gladly admit it if I was wrong. In the current discussion I happen to be right

BTW - there is an accepted mathematical formula for calculating "magic number". But, there is an exception to the formula that is used if the front-running team has clinched the tiebreaker. (And I'd make a bet you didn't know that.) And there can very explicitly be two different magic numbers at one time, because a remaining head-to-head that also clinches a tiebreaker has to be considered. You can look it up. (Don't bother arguing that the tiebreaker hasn't been clinched yet, because if the Spurs beat LA, it would be clinched.)

You would lose that bet. Read back through this thread. Proof exists that I understand that exception perfectly. I look forward to you "sacking up" and admitting you were wrong about that.

You tried to skate by hanging on the semantics of "magic number". But it really does have a specific meaning and formula. And you're still wrong.

It does indeed have a specific meaning. And I'm right.

[GSH]

I would believe it's the Spurs as of now.. 1-1 head to head record, but the Spurs have a better Conference record but only by a slim margin. Bulls: 34-13 and Spurs 36-12

I'm pretty sure that in the Finals it's different, because the two teams are not in the same conference. I believe that it is based on the teams' records against their opposing conferences. And, at present, I think we are tied in the loss column. To be honest, I don't know what the they do after that.

[Mel_13]

I would believe it's the Spurs as of now.. 1-1 head to head record, but the Spurs have a better Conference record but only by a slim margin. Bulls: 34-13 and Spurs 36-12

Two-Team Tiebreaker:

1. Division winner (this criterion is applied regardless of whether the tied teams are in the same division)
2. Better record in head-to-head games
3. Higher winning percentage within division (if teams are in the same division)
4. Higher winning percentage in conference games
5. Higher winning percentage against playoff teams in own conference
6. Higher winning percentage against playoff teams in opposite conference
7. Higher point differential between points scored and points allowed

It is all very confusing with teams from opposing conferences. It would be great if someone could spell it out for sure.

1/2/3 are all meaningless. Does 4 mean opposing conference record if the teams are in opposite confs? If so, both have 23/7 records, which would drop us to criterion #5/6, and the same question persists with teams in opposing confs. If it comes down to point differential (#7), then CHI most likely takes it.

This was all discussed in another thread yesterday. As it turns out, those rules are mostly ignored when breaking a tie to determine HCA in the NBA Finals.

The only factors considered are:

1) Head-to-head (Chicago and Spurs are tied)

2) Record against opposing conference (Both teams played their final games against the opposite conference last night. Both teams finished with identical records.)

3) Coin flip.

Yes, if the Spurs and Bulls finish the regular with same record and both advance to the NBA Finals, HCA will be determined by a coin flip.

[024]

don't matter. if the spurs make it to the finals, they will be good enough to stomp the bulls even without HCA.

[Mel_13]

Here is how the LA game could count as 3 as far as the magic number goes:
1: We win
1: LA loss
1: We win the tiebreaker if we end up with the same record. Thus effectively upping the effect of this 1 game to being worth 3 in magic number terms.

Excellent summary of how the magic number would be reduced in that scenario.

[GSH]

It does indeed have a specific meaning. And I'm right.

LMAO. I bet your ex-wife has a lot of fond memories.

If you're not divorced, then your future ex-wife.

[Splits]

This was all discussed in another thread yesterday. As it turns out, those rules are mostly ignored when breaking a tie to determine HCA in the NBA Finals.

The only factors considered are:

1) Head-to-head (Chicago and Spurs are tied)

2) Record against opposing conference (Both teams played their final games against the opposite conference last night. Both teams finished with identical records.)

3) Coin flip.

Yes, if the Spurs and Bulls finish the regular with same record and both advance to the NBA Finals, HCA will be determined by a coin flip.

So who gets to call heads or tails? j/k

At least it isn't like MLB where the fuggin All-Star game winner determines where the games are played.

[Mel_13]

LMAO. I bet your ex-wife has a lot of fond memories.

If you're not divorced, then your future ex-wife.

I'm a widower, if you must know. My wife was right most of the time and I told her so. Anything else?

[GSH]

I'm a widower, if you must know. My wife was right most of the time and I told her so. Anything else?

You've spent the evening arguing that 3-2=0, and insisting you're right.

And when you snapped back at Bluebellmaniac, you pretty much forfeited the sympathy vote. But you have my sincere condolences for your loss.

[Mel_13]

You've spent the evening arguing that 3-2=0, and insisting you're right.

No, I've insisted that there is a specific definition of magic number. Something you actually referenced in a previous post of yours. Somehow, despite acknowledging that a specific formula exists to calculate that specific number, you continue to insist that it can be two different things at the same time.

And when you snapped back at Bluebellmaniac, you pretty much forfeited the sympathy vote.

Now we get some insight. You believed a simple statement was sniping (and somehow justification for vulgar personal attacks) and you see my compliment of Bluebellmaniac's succinct, accurate post as "snapping back". I found her post to be completely supportive of the distinction I've been try to get across to you in this thread. And I assure you, the only person trying to garner votes is that guy you see in the mirror.

But you have my sincere condolences for your loss.

Thank you.

[DrSteffo]

Mel_13 has been correct all along and also been very polite. There is only one theoretical "magic number" which is calculated by a formula. Of course there can be several different "hypothetical number of wins needed, depending on what happens in other games", but all those are not "magic numbers".

[pocjetty]

I'm a widower, if you must know. My wife was right most of the time and I told her so. Anything else?

Ive been watching this thing go on for too long. Youre full of crap Mel. Someone like you never admitted he was wrong in your life. Youre one of those miserable s that argue all the time because its the only kind of human contact you can get. Your wife didnt die she escaped.

I went and lookd the magic number thing up. GSH is right you change the formula because of tiebreakers. And one of the math eggheads even said that there can be two different magic numbers when a head2head is left and a tiebreaker is involved. You could have looked it up but you didnt want to because you already knew you were being a horses ass. I guess arguing a lost cause is better than having no one to tlak to at all.

For the rest of the people who are wondering. If the OneAndOnly magic number was 3 it would be impossible to close out with a single win. You dont have to be a rocket scientist to see that.

I never post but you carry stupid to a whole new level. Dont bother arguing back. I wont give you the pleasure. You can just enjoy playing with yourself.

[DrSteffo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_number_(sports)


"The magic number is calculated as G + 1 − WA − LB, where

• G is the total number of games in the season
• WA is the number of wins that Team A has in the season
• LB is the number of losses that Team B has in the season

For example, in Major League Baseball there are 162 games in a season. Suppose the top of the division standings late in the season are as follows:
TeamWinsLossesA9658B9362
Then the magic number for Team A to win the division is 162 + 1 − 96 − 62 = 5.
Any combination of wins by Team A and losses by Team B totaling to 5 makes it impossible for Team B to win the division le.
The "+1" in the formula serves the purpose of eliminating ties; without it, if the magic number were to decrease to zero and stay there, the two teams in question would wind up with identical records. If cir stances dictate that the front-running team would win the tiebreaker regardless of any future results, then the additional constant 1 can be eliminated. For example, the NBA uses complicated formulae for breaking ties, using several other statistics of merit besides overall win/loss record; however the first tiebreaker between two teams is their head-to-head record; if the frontrunning team has already clinched the better head-to-head record, then the +1 is unnecessary."

The logical removal of the +1 in the formula makes it possible for the "magic number" to drop by 3 with a single win, instead of the normal 1 or 2. bluebellmaniac explained this already but it seems some people did't get it. So Mel was right and that new (?) hateful poster failed miserably.