Reply With Quote
I'm pretty sure Pop will bring this up to the troops. Complacency can take down any team.
Does anyone worry about history repeating itseif from 2004?
2004-Spurs win last 11 games of regular season.
Spurs sweep first round 4-0
Spurs win games 1 and 2 in round 2 against a Los Angeles team for their 17th straight win.
Then said LA team wins next 4 games and our hot unbeatable Spurs are out of playoffs.
2012- Spurs win last 10 games of regular season.
Spurs sweep first round 4-0
Spurs again play a Los Angeles team in 2nd round.........
Hmmmm, maybe I want Memphis to win in 7 games afterall.
I'm pretty sure Pop will bring this up to the troops. Complacency can take down any team.
They are not doomed to repeat it because Spurs are aware
And those Lakers under Phil Jackson... Shaq/Kobe/Malone/Payton... hungry..
differ from these LA... Clippers... Del Negro... CP/Blake... cinderella.
Clock is striking midnight
No.
Spurs may lose the first game of the series this time and your theory will go down the toilet.
not a theory, just a coincidence that I noticed. Obviously two very different teams.....but I am sure Pop will remind players about how being too y can bite you in the ass
Bit of a coincidence but these Clippers / Grizzlies aren't the 04 Lakers. Either will present a much more difficult matchup than Utah, but the Spurs should be favourites.
I'm sure this veteran team will handle themselves we'll and not be over confident
I could see the Spurs dropping game one...and then winning four straight. : )
I personally do not put any stock into history based stats, they are different teams in the present so relying on trends is very iffy.
I'm not an MIT graduate, but mathematically speaking, aren't long winning streaks usually followed by losing streaks, or at least a period of more losses than wins?
Just like during a game, when a team has a hot-shooting first half, conventional wisdom is that they'll likely (and usually do) end up shooting poorly in the 2nd half and finish the game very close to their normal shooting percentage.
Unless the Spurs go 16-0 in the playoffs, otherwise known as fo-fo-fo-fo, it will be verrry interesting to see how they react to their first loss. A poor performance in their next game could snowball to a 4-game losing streak and an early summer vacation.
A lot of the players are different from 2004 ... the opponent will be very different ... but that math remains the same.
Clearly not.
Players are different, which means, there is a different equation, different values... so the math is different.
In Spurs two 11 game winning streaks, their streak ended on the road when they did not bring their three stars(Portland and Utah). In first scenario, they won the very next game, in other, they did lose the next one too, so I guess that can be a losing streak(2)I'm not an MIT graduate, but mathematically speaking, aren't long winning streaks usually followed by losing streaks, or at least a period of more losses than wins?
Just like during a game, when a team has a hot-shooting first half, conventional wisdom is that they'll likely (and usually do) end up shooting poorly in the 2nd half and finish the game very close to their normal shooting percentage.
Unless the Spurs go 16-0 in the playoffs, otherwise known as fo-fo-fo-fo
A lot of the players are different from 2004 ... the opponent will be very different ... but that math remains the same.
If Spurs can extend this streak to 16, then I'm ok wityh them losing next two on road, because,teams that start a series2-0 have gone on and won 90% of said series. I like their chances when they get that 2-0 lead.
^^^
YES!
*ahem* I mean... No.
Nope. That 04 series was won due to Fishers 0.4 shot in game 5 (in San Antonio) and the lakers closed game 6 at home. Fluky series.
Also, to the non MIT graduate, regardless of what streak they're on look at their win % to get the odds of winning their next game.
Memphis will beat the Clips and advance. you heard it first here
numerology people will point out that since it was 04, the 0.4 shot was destiny.
This.
It's likely that anomalously long winning streaks will be followed by regression to the mean -- i.e. that the team will play at their average level from their on out, so their record over time will be closer to their average than to the record they demonstrated over the streak.
To be more concrete, if you flip a fair coin 10 times and get 10 heads in a row, then you flip the coin 10 more times, the expected number of heads in the second batch is still 5. If you keep doing it, the average is likely to get closer to 50/50, but tails are never more than 50% likely to appear from a fair coin flip.
I don't think this team is as good as the 04 team, but Parker's jumpshot has improved enough that the Lakers gimmick defense of 04 where they just packed the paint wouldn't be effective against this team now.
You're playing the wrong LA.
Please stop jinx.
That '04 team had Hedo, who was probably the closest Spur we've had to RJ. That team couldn't shoot at all. This Spurs team can shoot pretty well, as you've no doubt noticed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
