Game Thread # 31 -- vs. New York Knicks

Re: Game Thread # 31 -- vs. New York Knicks

Spurs 95
Knicks 82

by Krukow on Jan 4, 2008 6:19 PM CST reply actions

Re: Game Thread # 31 -- vs. New York Knicks

Spurs 99
Knicks 88

by guille on Jan 4, 2008 6:30 PM CST reply actions

Re: Game Thread # 31 -- vs. New York Knicks

Spurs 107
Knicks 78

by Wayne Vore (ATS) on Jan 4, 2008 6:54 PM CST reply actions

Re: Game Thread # 31 -- vs. New York Knicks

Spurs 91
Knicks 79

"I will slap you into a jelly!!!!"

by DennardC on Jan 4, 2008 7:08 PM CST reply actions

Re: Game Thread # 31 -- vs. New York Knicks

SA 94
NYK 70

by sungo on Jan 4, 2008 7:09 PM CST reply actions

Re: Game Thread # 31 -- vs. New York Knicks

I posted my prediction on the denver recap....anyways:
Spurs 100
Knicks 89

by Chilai on Jan 4, 2008 7:13 PM CST reply actions

Re: Game Thread # 31 -- vs. New York Knicks

We'll have a 25 point lead in the half and lose it in the 3rd, make a game of it and come back strong in the 4th... I hope.

Spurs 98
bockers 82

I am happy. I am proud. - Manu Ginobili

by bellasa on Jan 4, 2008 7:19 PM CST reply actions

Re: Game Thread # 31 -- vs. New York Knicks

So, if for some FSM forsaken reason we lose this one, would it be time for the annual oh-my-god-we-suck freak out?

by Hipuks on Jan 4, 2008 7:29 PM CST reply actions

Re: Game Thread # 31 -- vs. New York Knicks

yes.

by Krukow on Jan 4, 2008 8:30 PM CST up reply actions

Re: Game Thread # 31 -- vs. New York Knicks

So ESPN's Hollinger now claims that the Spurs' chances of repeating as NBA champs are now at 1.2%! Good thing they still play the games on the court instead of relying on computers.

by 4Him on Jan 5, 2008 6:19 AM CST reply actions

Re: Game Thread # 31 -- vs. New York Knicks

You have to understand that the Eastern Conference currently features two teams with over +10 point differential. (The 72 win Bulls team were +12.3.) Given the setup of the playoffs, and the relative weakness of the remainder of the Eastern Conference, any Western Conference team has about a 90% chance of facing one of top 10 teams in NBA history (I'm not saying the Pistons and Celtics will fit into that category at the end of the season, but as of now they do).

So even if the Spurs beat Portland, Dallas and Phoenix to get to the finals they would still face a team they would be heavy underdogs against.

Hollinger's formulas are based on historical performance of teams with similar statistical backgrounds to current teams. The 07-08 Spurs are not the Spurs you know. They are not the former champs. They do not have Tim Duncan. They are a team that is 22-9 with a +6.6 point differential.

I think most people that criticize Hollinger have no idea what he's trying to accomplish and judge the quality of his methods based on whether or not they agree with his results. That's horrible science.

But whatever. I'm glad the games are actually played, too, and as of right now I would give the Spurs more like a 15-20% chance to win it all this year.

by sungo on Jan 5, 2008 3:27 PM CST up reply actions

Re: Game Thread # 31 -- vs. New York Knicks

I think anyone who fears the Pistons or Celtics has to remember that, if we meet them in the finals, and even if you think they're as good as us from a talent standpoint, we'd still have pop matching wits with flip saunders or doc rivers. This isn't like avery johnson, where pop likes him. This is flip saunders and doc rivers.

Flip Saunders.
Doc Rivers.

Sorry, I just can't overstate this enough.

by Krukow on Jan 5, 2008 4:00 PM CST up reply actions

Re: Game Thread # 31 -- vs. New York Knicks

While I agree with the opinion that Pop is a better coach than Flip and (especially) Doc, let us not forget that Pop is not without his faults.

Nick Van Exel.

Sorry, I just can't overstate this enough.

by sungo on Jan 5, 2008 8:48 PM CST up reply actions

Re: Hollinger's formula

I understand that Hollinger uses a complex formula, but it doesn't really account for other important factors. His emphasis that teams will "keep playing the way they've been playing" isn't really true in the case of the Spurs, especially if you look at the history of their championship seasons.

To claim that the Pistons and Celtics are two of the top 10 teams in NBA history is highly speculative - a third of a season [without playoff testing] simply isn't enough to go on. Even if one of those teams finished with a record similar to what the Mavs finished with last year, would you really claim that they would be heavy favorites against the Spurs in the Finals? I certainly wouldn't, especially b/c of the factor of championship experience [though some of the Pistons would have that]. Of course, it's going to be a great challenge just to get to the Finals. However, given that we're healthy, I would say that the Spurs' chances of repeating are much higher than 15-20%, and 1.2% is ridiculous.

by 4Him on Jan 6, 2008 3:46 AM CST up reply actions

Re: Hollinger's formula

I understand that Hollinger uses a complex formula, but it doesn't really account for other important factors.

What other important factors would you account for and how would you account for them.

To claim that the Pistons and Celtics are two of the top 10 teams in NBA history is highly speculative - a third of a season [without playoff testing] simply isn't enough to go on.

Only a third of the season has been played. What the hell is he supposed to go on? Last season?

Even if one of those teams finished with a record similar to what the Mavs finished with last year, would you really claim that they would be heavy favorites against the Spurs in the Finals?

You're missing a key aspect here. Neither of those teams may be a heavy favorite against the Spurs in the Finals. But either of those teams, given the strength of the Eastern Conference, would be much more likely to get to the finals than the Spurs. This is a HUGE reason why their probabalistic likelihood of winning the title is much higher than the Spurs.

by sungo on Jan 6, 2008 11:54 AM CST up reply actions

Re: Hollinger's formula

What other important factors would you account for and how would you account for them.

Factors that can't necessarily be put into computers. Intangibles. The fact that our star guards have played before raucous crowds in Europe that prepared them well for what they would face in the NBA playoffs. Most importantly, as I mentioned, the fact that how the Spurs are playing at a given point in the season is not an accurate reflection of how they will perform in the playoffs.

Only a third of the season has been played. What the hell is he supposed to go on? Last season?

I assume that these are your words [not Hollinger's]: any Western Conference team has about a 90% chance of facing one of top 10 teams in NBA history. Hence, my statement above. A lofty regular season record doesn't make a team one of the top 10 in NBA history, especially when it's a projection based on a third of a season.

You're missing a key aspect here. Neither of those teams may be a heavy favorite against the Spurs in the Finals. But either of those teams, given the strength of the Eastern Conference, would be much more likely to get to the finals than the Spurs. This is a HUGE reason why their probabalistic likelihood of winning the title is much higher than the Spurs.

I understand what you're saying in your last two sentences here. But my statement is based on this: So even if the Spurs beat Portland, Dallas and Phoenix to get to the finals they would still face a team they would be heavy underdogs against. Aren't those your words? If the Spurs get to the Finals, why would they be heavy underdogs?

I think that overall Hollinger has some very interesting statistics. But you're right in saying that guys like me don't understand what he is trying to accomplish with this "probability of winning the finals," especially when he gives the defending champs a 1.2% chance of winning the title [and they sit atop the Western conference standings the following year]. Do you know what he is trying to accomplish? [And isn't this the guy who predicted that Manu would be on the all-decline team this season?]

by 4Him on Jan 6, 2008 5:35 PM CST up reply actions

Re: Hollinger's formula

ok. You said you would account for "intangibles." Which, by definition, are things that cannot be accounted for. I will no longer waste my time typing at you.

by sungo on Jan 6, 2008 9:54 PM CST up reply actions

Re: Hollinger's formula

That's the whole point, Matthew - that's why the formula isn't worth much at all. Nice dodge with being accountable for what else you wrote. Nice civil tone as well.

by 4Him on Jan 7, 2008 1:32 AM CST up reply actions

Re: Game Thread # 31 -- vs. New York Knicks

At this point last season I tought our chances were like 0,0001%

by Chilai on Jan 5, 2008 11:30 AM CST reply actions

Re: Game Thread # 31 -- vs. New York Knicks

god that album depressed me. it's like they did cover of lateralus but having american teenagers for their target market. i was very disappointed. but i guess lyrically it was fine.

massive boisson aka chicken

by massive boisson on Jan 5, 2008 12:07 PM CST reply actions

Re: Game Thread # 31 -- vs. New York Knicks

It definitely pales in comparison to Lateralus

by sungo on Jan 5, 2008 2:27 PM CST up reply actions

Re: Game Thread # 31 -- vs. New York Knicks

wow - this is a lot of space spent on some conjecture from some guy in britol (or wherever he actually sits....).

fact is that the spurs are not playing very well right now - manu or not. defense has been improving lately, but the offense cintinues to be suspect, stale and defendable. a far cry from the 17-3 start we had.

by bones on Jan 6, 2008 9:17 PM CST reply actions

Re: Game Thread # 31 -- vs. New York Knicks

Matthew, calm down. I know you're the scientist, but I think I understand what Key is trying to say. Any formula that treats the defending champions with three HOF players and a HOF coach and a roster loaded with experience as just another 22-9 team with a 6.whatever scoring differential deserves to get mocked. Details matter.

Hollinger has a lot of good ideas, but this formula he came up with is essentially useless, IMO. His power rankings is a lot more credible, but even with that you need to apply some common sense. Team A is not the equal to Team B if their records are identical just because Team A has faced injuries all year and Team B hasn't.

The fact of the matter is that for various reasons, some teams take regular seasons more seriously than others and all the computers in the world cannot account the "light switch is on" vs. "light switch is off" factor.

I think right now the Spurs have a better chance of winning the whole thing precisely because the Celtics and Pistons are playing like the two best teams in basketball. We don't have to face either of them til June and are guaranteed to not face both. Either of them will have to face each other and then potentially us. Not easy.

I think the West is having a down year and none of the teams in our conference look all that formidable or daunting to me. Maybe Dallas, but that's about it. It's hard to take them too seriously when we won without Timmy. Something is missing with them. Maybe if they got Kidd....