Why yes, I am a crackpot, thanks for asking

by Aaronstampler on Apr 5, 2011 12:27 PM CDT

So I was watching my beloved World Champion San Francisco Giants play on Sunday night, very much buoyed by the welcome change-of-pace that saw our Spurs win a game for once earlier that afternoon while also enjoying the refractory period after the Lakers surprising loss to Denver, I decided to tool around with ESPN.com's "AccuScore Playoff Predictor," because let's face it, Game 4 of the baseball season is too soon to pay rapt attention to every strike and ball-scratch.

I ran a 100 simulations based on the current standings and recorded the results, as you can see after the jump.

Explanation:

Try: Obviously, the number of the simulation.

Elimination: Which round and which team knocks the Spurs out, with "WQF" standing for Western Quarter-Finals (rd. 1), "WSF" standing for Western Semi-Finals (rd. 2), "WCF" standing for... well you get the gist. The percentage next to each elimination is the percentage the Spurs are favored to win a given series according to the stats fed into this simulation by people who aren't me. You will notice they're underdogs only to the Lakers (45%), even-money against Miami (50%), and favorites to various degrees against everyone else.

Path: The Spurs' path in that playoff simulation before their run ends. You will notice every path begins with the Hornets because they are the current 8th seed and the Spurs are first.

West W: The Western Conference Champion, with the number next to it representing how many times the team in question had made the Finals so far in this experiment.

East W: Ditto, the East.

Result: The champion that simulation, along with how many times thus far they'd won the whole enchilada.

Try Elimination Path West W East W Result

1. WSF to OKC (58%) NO-OKC OKC 1 Bos 1 Bos 1

2. WCF to LA (45%) NO-OKC-LA LA 1 Orl 1 Orl 1

3. WCF to Dal (57%) NO-OKC-Dal Dal 1 Orl 2 Dal 1

4. WSF to OKC (58%) NO-OKC LA 2 Chi 1 Chi 1

5. Finals to Mia (50%) NO-OKC-LA-Mia SA 1 Mia 1 Mia 1

6. WQF to NO (88%) NO NO 1 Mia 2 Mia 2

7. Finals to Bos (52%) NO-OKC-LA-Bos SA 2 Bos 2 Bos 2

8. WCF to LA (45%) NO-OKC-LA LA 3 Chi 2 Chi 2

9. WCF to Dal (57%) NO-Den-Dal Dal 2 Mia 3 Mia 3

10. WCF to Dal (57%) NO-OKC-Dal Dal 3 Orl 3 Dal 2

11. Finals to Bos (52%) NO-Den-LA-Bos SA 3 Bos 3 Bos 3

12. WSF to OKC (58%) NO-OKC Dal 4 Mia 4 Mia 4

13. Finals to Chi (51%) NO-OKC-Dal-Chi SA 4 Chi 3 Chi 3

14. Finals to Orl (62%) NO-OKC-LA-Orl SA 5 Orl 4 Orl 2

15. WSF to OKC (58%) NO-OKC LA 4 Bos 4 LA 1

16. WSF to Den (72%) NO-Den Mem 1 Chi 4 Chi 4

17. WCF to LA (45%) NO-OKC-LA LA 5 Chi 5 LA 2

18. WCF to LA (45%) NO-Den-LA LA 6 Bos 5 LA 3

19. WQF to NO (88%) NO Dal 5 Chi 6 Chi 5

20. WSF to Den (72%) NO-Den Den 1 Orl 5 Den 1

21. WQF to NO (88%) NO LA 7 Mia 5 LA 4

22. WSF to Den (72%) NO-Den Den 2 Chi 7 Den 2

23. WSF to OKC (58%) NO-OKC OKC 2 Mia 6 Mia 5

24. Finals to Orl (62%) NO-Den-LA-Orl SA 6 Orl 6 Orl 3

25. WSF to OKC (58%) NO-OKC Dal 6 Ind 1 Dal 3

26. WQF to NO (88%) NO LA 8 Phi 1 LA 5

27. WSF to Den (72%) NO-Den Den 3 Orl 7 Orl 4

28. WSF to Den (72%) NO-Den LA 9 Mia 7 LA 6

29. WQF to NO (88%) NO OKC 3 Mia 8 OKC 1

30. WCF to Dal (57%) NO-Den-Dal Dal 7 Orl 8 Dal 4

31. WCF to LA (45%) NO-Den-LA LA 10 Mia 9 LA 7

32. WSF to OKC (58%) NO-OKC OKC 4 Orl 9 OKC 2

33. WCF to LA (45%) NO-OKC-LA LA 11 Chi 8 LA 8

34. WSF to OKC (58%) NO-OKC LA 12 Chi 9 Chi 6

35. Beat Chi (51%) NO-Den-Por-Chi SA 7 Chi 10 SA 1

36. WQF to NO (88%) NO NO 2 Chi 11 Chi 7

37. WSF to OKC (58%) NO-OKC LA 13 Mia 10 LA 9

38. Finals to Mia (50%) NO-Den-Por-Mia SA 8 Mia 11 Mia 6

39. Finals to Chi (51%) NO-OKC-Dal-Chi SA 9 Chi 12 Chi 8

40. WCF to LA (45%) NO-OKC-LA LA 14 Orl 10 Orl 5

41. Finals to Mia (50%) NO-OKC-LA-Mia SA 10 Mia 12 Mia 7

42. WSF to OKC (58%) NO-OKC OKC 5 Bos 6 Bos 4

43. Finals to Bos (52%) NO-Den-LA-Bos SA 11 Bos 7 Bos 5

44. Finals to Orl (62%) NO-OKC-Mem-Orl SA 12 Orl 11 Orl 6

45. Finals to Mia (50%) NO-Den-LA-Mia SA 13 Mia 13 Mia 8

46. WSF to OKC (58%) NO-OKC LA 15 Mia 14 Mia 9

47. WSF to OKC (58%) NO-OKC LA 16 Bos 8 Bos 6

48. WCF to LA (45%) NO-Den-LA LA 17 Bos 9 Bos 7

49. WSF to OKC (58%) NO-OKC LA 18 Orl 12 Orl 7

50. WCF to LA (45%) NO-OKC-LA LA 19 Bos 10 LA 10

51. WCF to LA (45%) NO-OKC-LA LA 20 Mia 15 Mia 10

52. WCF to LA (45%) NO-Den-LA LA 21 Orl 13 Orl 8

53. WCF to LA (45%) NO-Den-LA LA 22 Mia 16 LA 11

54. WCF to LA (45%) NO-Den-LA LA 23 Mia 17 Mia 11

55. WFC to Dal (57%) NO-OKC-Dal Dal 8 Chi 13 Dal 5

56. WSF to OKC (58%) NO-OKC LA 24 Orl 14 LA 12

57. WSF to OKC (58%) NO-OKC OKC 6 Chi 14 Chi 9

58. WSF to Den (72%) NO-Den LA 25 Orl 15 LA 13

59. Finals to Mia (50%) NO-Den-Dal-Mia SA 14 Mia 18 Mia 12

60. WQF to NO (88%) NO LA 26 Bos 11 Bos 8

61. Beat Bos (50%) NO-OKC-Dal-Bos SA 15 Bos 12 SA 2

62. WSF to OKC (58%) NO-OKC Dal 9 Orl 16 Dal 6

63. WSF to OKC (58%) NO-OKC LA 27 Chi 15 LA 14

64. WCF to LA (45%) NO-Den-LA LA 28 Chi 16 Chi 10

65. Finals to Bos (52%) NO-OKC-Mem-Bos SA 16 Bos 13 Bos 9

66. Finals to Chi (51%) NO-OKC-Mem-Chi SA 17 Chi 17 Chi 11

67. Finals to Mia (50%) NO-OKC-LA-Mia SA 18 Mia 19 Mia 13

68. WCF to LA (45%) NO-OKC-LA LA 29 Chi 18 Chi 12

69. WSF to Den (72%) NO-Den Den 4 Bos 14 Bos 10

70. Beat Orl (62%) NO-Den-Por-Orl SA 19 Orl 17 SA 3

71. WSF to OKC (58%) NO-OKC OKC 7 Chi 19 Chi 13

72. Finals to Chi (51%) NO-OKC-LA-Chi SA 20 Chi 20 Chi 14

73. WSF to OKC (58%) NO-OKC OKC 8 Mia 20 OKC 3

74. WSF to OKC (58%) NO-OKC LA 30 Orl 18 LA 15

75. Finals to Mia (50%) NO-Den-Por-Mia SA 21 Mia 21 Mia 14

76. WCF to Por (82%) NO-Den-Por Por 1 Chi 21 Chi 15

77. WQF to NO (88%) NO LA 31 Chi 22 LA 16

78. WSF to OKC (58%) NO-OKC Mem 2 Orl 19 Orl 9

79. WCF to Dal (57%) NO-OKC-Dal Dal 10 Chi 23 Chi 16

80. WCF to LA (45%) NO-OKC-LA LA 32 Mia 22 Mia 15

81. WSF to OKC (58%) NO-OKC OKC 9 Chi 24 Chi 17

82. WSF to Den (72%) NO-Den LA 33 Orl 20 LA 17

83. Beat Chi (51%) NO-Den-Mem-Chi SA 22 Chi 25 SA 4

84. WCF to LA (45%) NO-Den-LA LA 34 Chi 26 Chi 18

85. Beat Bos (52%) NO-OKC-Dal-Bos SA 23 Bos 15 SA 5

86. WSF to OKC (58%) NO-OKC LA 35 Mia 23 Mia 16

87. WSF to Den (72%) NO-Den Mem 3 Orl 21 Mem 1

88. WQF to NO (88%) NO Dal 11 Chi 27 Dal 7

89. WCF to Dal (57%) NO-Den-Dal Dal 12 Chi 28 Chi 19

90. WCF to LA (45%) NO-Den-LA LA 36 Chi 29 LA 18

91. WSF to OKC (58%) NO-OKC Dal 13 Orl 22 Dal 8

92. WSF to OKC (58%) NO-OKC Dal 14 Orl 23 Orl 10

93. WCF to LA (45%) NO-Den-LA LA 37 Orl 24 LA 19

94. WQF to NO (88%) NO LA 38 Orl 25 LA 20

95. Beat Chi (51%) NO-Den-Dal-Chi SA 24 Chi 30 SA 6

96. WCF to LA (45%) NO-Den-LA LA 39 Mia 24 Mia 17

97. WCF to Por (82%) NO-OKC-Por Por 2 Chi 31 Chi 20

98. Beat Chi (51%) NO-Den-LA-Chi SA 25 Chi 32 SA 7

99. Beat Chi (51%) NO-Den-Dal-Chi SA 26 Chi 33 SA 8

100. WQF to NO (88%) NO LA 40 Mia 25 Mia 18

Results:

Western Champions: LA 40, SA 26, Dal 14, OKC 9, Den 4, Mem 3, Por 2, NO 2

Eastern Champions: Chi 33, Mia 25, Orl 25, Bos 15, Phi 1, Ind 1

Champions: Chi 20, LA 20, Mia 18, Bos 10, Orl 10, SA 8, Dal 8, OKC 3, Den 2, Mem 1

Finals Record:

Mia 18-7 (76%)

Bos 10-5 (67%)

Chi 20-13 (61%)

Dal 8-6 (57%)

LA 20-20 (50%)

Den 2-2 (50%)

Orl 10-15 (40%)

OKC 3-6 (33%)

Mem 1-2 (33%)

SA 8-18 (31%)

NO 0-2 (0%)

Por 0-2 (0%)

Ind 0-1 (0%)

Phi 0-1 (0%)

Matchups:

Vs. New Orleans Hornets: Expected percentage: 88% Actual: 89% (89 out of 100)

Vs. Oklahoma City: Expected percentage: 58% Actual: 52% (27 out of 52)

Vs. Denver: Expected percentage: 72% Actual: 76% (28 out of 37)

Vs. Los Angeles: Expected percentage: 45% Actual: 35% (11 out of 31)

Vs. Dallas: Expected percentage: 57% Actual: 50% (7 out of 14)

Vs. Portland: Expected percentage: 82% Actual: 67% (4 out of 6)

Vs. Memphis: Expected percentage: 83% Actual: 100% (4 out of 4)

Vs. Chicago Expected percentage: 51% Actual: 56% (5 out of 9)

Vs. Miami: Expected percentage: 50% Actual: 0% (0 out of 7)

Vs. Boston: Expected percentage: 52% Actual: 33% (2 out of 6)

Vs. Orlando: Expected percentage: 62% Actual: 25% (1 out of 4)

So what's there to glean from these results, aside from the fact that this has been, by far, the biggest waste of time of my pathologically wasteful 33 years and change on this muddy rock? Well, I'm certainly no mathematician, but even allowing for statistical variance and random anomalies, some of the results struck me as curious at best and suspicious at worst.

In just about every case where the Spurs squared off against one of ESPN's "sexy" teams, our guys fared worse than their projection, often by a dramatically lopsided rate. In the case of the Western opponents, the difference isn't as extreme, 52% against the Thunder vs. their 58% projection, 50% against Dallas vs. their 57% projection and worst of all, 35% against LA vs. their 45% projection. Again, I'm not necessarily saying the percentages assigned to the Spurs are on the money. But they're AccuScore's percentages, not mine, so you would think after a 100 simulations that the findings would be somewhat more faithful to them, no? If the percentage they assigned the LA-SA match-up was say, 37% going into it, then who would quibble with 35%?

In the Finals match-ups though, it gets kinda nuts. The Bulls one is in range, as the Spurs rallied from a 1-4 start by winning their last four meetings to finish 5-4, so 55% as opposed to the 51% projection. If it was 4-5 again there'd be no issue. Similarly with Orlando while we're 62%, there was such a small sample size, only four meetings, that a 1-3 record doesn't tell us a whole lot. With the Celtics we're at 52%, despite losing both games with them, and the simulation has us winning just 2 of 6. Again, that's okay, because 3-3 and it'd be right there.

Then there's the Miami Heat. ESPN's beloved Miami Heat. As you'll recall ESPN carried LeBron's "Decision," and they also have a "Heat Index" section devoted exclusively to all things Heat. ESPN has sunk a lot of money into those guys and the Heat has made the Disney people a lot of money (along with the TNT folks) because they get incredible ratings, if for no other reason then people want to watch them lose.

Well those Miami Heat, even money against the Spurs according to the percentages, went a perfect 7-0 against the Spurs in these Finals simulations. In addition, over the course of another 50 simulations I ran before these 100 before figuring out how to properly chart what I wanted to chart, I would estimate the Spurs lost another 3-5 meetings with Miami. Let's say four to be in the middle. That means 11 straight wins for Miami. Flip a coin 11 times in a row. What are the odds it comes up heads all 11 times? As I said, I'm no mathematician, but I believe the answer is 1 : 2 x 11th power, which I think is 2,048. So my simulation produced a result that had a 1 in 2,048 chance of happening? Really?

You'll also notice that the Heat fared fairly well against the other Western squads too, and their overall 18-7 record in the finals produced a higher winning percentage (.760) than any other team, despite them not being more than a slight favorite in most cases and slight underdogs to the Lakers. Conversely the Spurs, the second-best team in the West according to this thing and slight favorites over all the East powers (well, the aforementioned even-money to the Heat and 62% to the Magic), had the worst winning percentage of any team except the ones who made the Finals just a couple times, going 8-18 for (.306). In fact, before winning their last five Finals, the Spurs were the Buffalo Bills of this simulation. At one point they were 1-13 and then 2-17. It doesn't figure, statistically. It's almost as though these AccuScore computers can predict Pop playing Bonner and Blair together against the Bulls for 10-minute stretches at a time while benching Tiago get benched because "the Finals are too big for him," or some such nonsense. Or maybe they think Manu is going to break something again, besides our collective hearts.

Who the hell knows?

I'm just asking myself who stands to benefit the most from Miami winning it all? ESPN. Who stands to lose the most if the Spurs win it all? ESPN. Maybe the next 100 simulations would be completely different. But in the words of noted Spurs fan Charles Barkley, "I may be wrong, but I doubt it."

I encourage you all to run a 100 simulations and report your findings, using the handy chronicling method I've devised. Or you can continue living your productive, merry, non-insane existences. Up to you.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

text too long, i didn’t read all, but one thing i can say: Spurs 100% health and with HCA can beat anyone

Best Starting Lineup : TP, Manu(Hill), RJ, Blair(Splitter), TD
Best Bench Lineup : Manu, Neal, Hill(JA), Bonner, Splitter(Macdyess)
Are u reading Pop??!! Stop being stubborn, Blair/Bonner combo doesn't work

by BrunoNba on Apr 5, 2011 12:49 PM CDT reply actions

That’s fascinating. I think I’m going to run one with Hollinger’s odds. Though I doubt we hit the WQF at all

"If the NBA season is a marathon, Gregg Popovich is a full-blooded Kenyan."

-Timothy Varner 48MoH

by Jordan Leithart on Apr 5, 2011 1:14 PM CDT reply actions

I got to the 15th time and got bored. Chicago wins an awful lot in Hollinger. Whenever we met the Laker’s we lost

"If the NBA season is a marathon, Gregg Popovich is a full-blooded Kenyan."

-Timothy Varner 48MoH

by Jordan Leithart on Apr 5, 2011 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions

Actually, as I understand it, the different options at the bottom (current standings, hollinger’s rankings, etc) only set the initial playoff seedings. All the match simulations are done using AccuScore’s methodology, regardless of starting seeds.

gospursgo. hook 'em. metal rules. ganja rules.

by metalandganja on Apr 5, 2011 6:10 PM CDT up reply actions

I bet you would have gotten drastically different results had you run the simulations prior to the losing streak, and I bet you’d get different results after the Spurs win a couple more.

Free Steve Novak

by SpursfanSteve on Apr 5, 2011 2:15 PM CDT reply actions

I’m a crackpot too. I got some friends together right when this came out to see how many times we could get a Spurs championship in 100 runs. We got 3. The predictor is obviously artificially depressing the Spurs chances, and I remember sending an email about it. It sounds like they changed something — in 25 tries, the Spurs NEVER beat the Lakers in our runs.

"Whereas I never went fly like some of the boys." -- Ice

by DocRostov on Apr 6, 2011 12:10 AM CDT reply actions