Halftime thoughts on Game 2

My general prediction for games this series is: Lakers Win, Lakers Win, Magic Win, Lakers Win, Magic Win, Lakers Win.  

Jeff Van Gundy is a very sharp commentator.  He had a smart comment about something which I can't remember!  Haha, I guess that means I'm dumb.  

I think he was mentioning that you have to have team-mentality when coming off the bench.  You can't as a player complain about rhythm or feel, and he contrasted Rafer Alston to Shannon Brown.  

I'd really like to do some analysis on the past ten years of NBA playoff series' and the patterns that they took.  

Also I thought about my Martingale-Expectation system and didn't learn what I was hoping to prove, but it did show a strong correlation between season to season total wins improvement and percentage of spreads covered.  

Also the Cavs had the highest winning percentage and were the hardest working and biggest hustling team.  The Clippers, despite having talented players, were terrible against the spread because of poor effort.  

So I learned from that research that one should bet on whichever team is trying harder.  

Lakers Magic Preview

My 3/5 method used to preview the Finals:

Point Guard:  Alston slightly better (approx. tie?)

Shooting Guard:  Kobe better than Courtney Lee

Shooting Forward: Turkoglu better than Ariza

Power Forward: Gasol better than Rashard Lewis

Center: Howard better than Bynum

6th Man: Odom better than Pietrus

So Lakers win 3-2 with one tie.  Coach?  Van Gundy better than Jackson.

I think whoever wins the first game will win the series.  It will force the other team to adjust.  

There are a bunch of mismatches on the offensive/defensive ends.  Its about who can force the other team to adjust.  I.e. who can outscore the other and force the other team to make adjustments and get out of their preferred set.  

The Finals are here...finally!

The NBA Finals are here.  Its the Magic vs. the Lakers.  Later today I'll do a more detailed approach to the game.  But first here are some general thoughts I've been having.  My first thought is that whoever wins tonight will win the series.  Its that simple.  

However I've been thinking about my series pattern theory.  And whoever wins game 1 forces the other team to adjust in game 2.  Then if the adjustments work then in game three the original winner has to adjust to changes, and so forth, until someone reaches four wins.  

Getting that first win is important. 

Also, I haven't gone on Bleacher Report to mock the people who slandered me, who ridiculed me, and generally called me nasty names.  They all thought my reasons for the Cavs losing were wrong, that the Cavs would win the championship hands down.  How wrong they were!  Even after the Cavs swept their first two opponents I stuck to my guns. 

Their defeat merely supports one of my main principles: that effort gives a team extra wins during the regular season but doesn't help during the playoffs.  Everyone is playing hard during the playoffs.  There is no effort bonus in the playoffs.  

And Varejao sucks.  He is terrible.  

I really want to do some analysis on playoff post-season series and the patterns that emerge.  Also, the real  lesson for me from the Cavs article is that I'm usually right, my thinking is correct, but I will always have people trying to insult me, wrong me, humiliate me, and convince me I'm wrong.  

I have to ignore them.    

NBA Playoff thoughts

Going into game 5 I really thought the Lakers were in trouble.  They had been outscored up to that point in the playoffs.  And that is not a good thing.  I'm not sure but they still might have been outscored through five games.  I definitely thought they could lose the series.  

However they have won game five and will likely advance to the Finals.  There they meet a juggernaut of a team.  The Orlando Magic.  They have a good center and good perimeter players.  They are just putting the finishing touches on dismantling the Cavaliers.  They are shooting really well right now though, so they  may cool off and struggle by the time they face the Lakers or Nuggets.  

Have to like their chances against the Lakers though.  But they won't have home court advantage.  And that hurts their chances.

Whats the deal with facial expressions

I watched the highlights of Lakers/Nuggets game 3.  With a minute to go, and the Lakers down by two, Kobe Bryant has the ball at the 3-point line, dribbles about three times, and then makes a three pointer.  

It was dramatic.  It was a game winner.  And then he did something totally surprising.  He made a facial expression that I'm still trying to understand the meaning of.  He glared and jutted his lower jaw out while huffing air pretty hard.  And I just can't figure out the mindset that would make that expression.  

Its a fun game to try to mimic someones facial expressions; it really gives you an idea of the emotions they are feeling.  It is a useful tool for figuring out how people really feel about a situation.  Words say one thing.  The face tells reality.  One can pick up on subtle emotions, signs of defeat, of defiance, etc.  

And Kobes facial expression?  I have no idea what it means.  

The closest thing I can think of is that of a wounded animal, or a person who was just tackled and hit but is now on his feet after fighting off an attacker.  That same glaring, defiant, but also scared? look.  

Predicting Playoff Series Outcomes

I think that the main tool for predicting playoff outcomes is a position by position comparison.  People always do the same thing when predicting a playoff series.  They pick the higher seed.  That is a quick and easy way to tell who will likely win.  

But every playoff upset is caused by the same problem: bad match-ups.  The biggest upset I've seen was the Warriors over the Mavericks in round one of the 2007 playoffs.  And there were matchup problems all over the court.  It was like the Warriors had the athletic advantage at nearly every position.  When the Pistons beat the Lakers in 2004?  They had better players at 3 of 5 positions.  

So the key to evaluating a playoff series is to trust your analysis and go with whoever has the 3 of 5 advantage.  Or 2 of 1 in case of two ties.  Etc.

Why don't we have ties like hockey??

I have read all about the first four games of the conferences finals (two for the east, two for the west).  And the result of all four games so far would have to be correctly called a tie.  So who wins when its a tie?  

Well, if the first four games of the conference finals are any suggestion, pretty much anybody can win.  The outcome is random.  The first two games can of each series were played to standstills.  And each team came away with a win.  

How does one classify a good team?  A good playoff team?  I think a good playoff team can be classified as one that closes out an opponent on the road.  That is the standard.  Orlando and Cleveland are both good playoff teams.  So neither of these good teams will suffer on the road or benefit from being at home.

I'd define a team's "normal" game as what happens at home.  And they may suffer on the road.  So Cleveland fans shouldn't worry about facing a better Orlando team at home, they need to worry about the Cavs playing worse.  But they have proven to be a good road team this postseason (4-0) on the road.  So they shouldn't drop off too much.  I think the blowout wins at Orlando may have been a case of "mistaken identity".

A game of "mistaken identity" means that Orlando circled it on the schedule and made it a huge game for them.  And Cleveland considered their big road games to be at L.A. and at Boston.  And certainly not at Orlando.  

A basketball game is only 48 minutes long.  And if 24 minutes through you realize you are in a huge battle  and are already losing, you simply don't have enough time to come back.  

Lets say that Cleveland is two points better than Orlando over 48 minutes.  If Cleveland and Orlando played forty games, each one serious, they would outscore Orlando by an average of two points.  If half the game has gone by, they are only one point better on average for the rest of the game.  And if they are losing at the half by twenty, well they simply don't have much time to come back.  They have to play wayy above average to come back.  

Lakers/Rockets game 5 and Streak update

Game 5 of the Lakers/Rockets series was a complete blowout.  The final margin was forty points.  The spread was twelve.  So that is a major, major difference.  And I thought that spread was high but my quick analysis was that it would be a close game.  Boy was I wrong.  I wonder a few things.  Namely, what is home court advantage worth?  These two games occured on different home courts; Houston blew out LA in game 4 only to fly to LA and get blown out over there.  

What happened?  

Well the Yao Ming injury happened, which forced Houston into a smaller lineup and totally changed their style of play.  They also had the home crowd and played extremely motivated, worried about the loss of Yao Ming.  Conversely, the Lakers seemed to think the series was over (it is) and didn't come out with any passion and intensity.  

So those two factors: the energy and effort disparity, plus Houston playing a style that was completely different and unexpected from what the Lakers had seen and prepared for, combined to make them lose the game.  

Also, games happen quickly.  That was one thing that I noticed; there aren't chances for many major in-game adjustments.  If the other team is doing something totally different than expected it can really throw a team off.  The Lakers were ready to play a methodical, slowed-down game tempo;  and that just never happened.  Houston was ready to play fast, had early success, and played even faster, urged on by the home crowd.  

Streak update:  record is 3-3.  I lost my third pick, Orlando to beat Boston, and then lost two random picks trying to get a win so I could start a new streak.  Finally got it on the Dodgers-Phillies game today.  And I don't think its possible to pick 27 baseball games in a row.  

Streak for the Cash

I watched the Lakers/Rockets game yesterday, and Lakers just gave the game away.  From the first possession to the last possession, it really seemed like no one gave a crap.  It was astonishing.  And I don't think they will win the championship.  They almost looked bored with the game.  I've never seen anything like it.  And I haven't spent that much time watching games this season or over the course of my life, but it was really, really bad.  

Contrasted to the Celtics last season in the finals, who were also leading a series 2-1, who were also down by about 20 at half time, and who came roaring back to seal the series with a 3-1 lead.  That was amazing to see the difference.

Also, I'm starting to play the "streak for the cash" on ESPN.  Its a lot of fun.  This is a great way to practice making picks and work on my theories that is free with a small chance at reward. 

And I noticed that the crowd is usually wrong, so no surprise there.  I would have picked Rashard Lewis to outscore Ray Allen (he did) but I picked a minute too late so I randomly picked the Red Sox to beat Tampa Bay at home to start my streak out.  And they won!  So hurray for that!

Thoughts on Yao Ming's injury and the next game

This is so far shaping up to be a classic motivational game.  A star player is injured for the home team.  The team is down and struggling in the playoffs.  

The other team has a strong offense and mediocre defense.  

And everyone thinks that because the star is injured the series is over.  And it probably is.  

But the next game?  The home team has started ferociously and is winning by 16.  It hasn't been close the entire game.  

Patterns in a playoff series in the NBA

I really am convinced that there are patterns in an NBA playoff series.  That who wins which game, and how easily, can give you a lot of data as to how the series will go and who will ultimately win.  \

Unfortunately, I have no data.  I also think that I could write good articles on BR using literary teachers and stuff as examples.  Again, no time.  How the hell can I be unemployed and have no time?  I don't know.  

Thoughts on the Playoffs

My first thought is about Stephon Marbury, the second about Mikki Moore.  I read on Wages of Win that Mikki Moore was not a very good player; he simply played more minutes and his productivity was up because of it.  

Also, Stephon Marbury came out of a one and a half year hiatus to play for the Celtics and is not nearly as productive as he was.  And I don't think that should be surprising.  If you don't play NBA level basketball, or any level basketball, for 18 months, you can't come back and be an impact player as a guard.  Maybe a big man could do it, but not a small player who relies on quickness, speed, and shooting touch/shooting confidence.  

Are there counter examples?  BR article, perhaps?

The First Game of a Series

Monitoring the second round of the NBA post-season has continued to get me thinking about the different forms that NBA play-off rounds take.  I think there are patterns that evolve and the preliminary results can tell you a lot about the different strengths of the teams involved and what is going to happen in the long term.

For instance, the Rockets game in and played physical and won game one.  In the second game the teams matched physicality and LA won.  What will happen in game three?  Well only time will tell, but history is a good place to start looking if you want to know the outcome.  Unfortunately, I'm completely ignorant of the history of the NBA.  

Like most everyone else.  A good sports bettor and analyst needs to be known as a historian of the game.  And not just knowing box scores and numbers and statistical data on "which teams win a series which percentage of the time depending on which game they won" but also keeping into context how  the game was won, if it was a blowout, etc.  

Another note is that I think Dwight Howard might be the next Shaq in one critical area: motivation.  While he lacks the physical tools and passing ability of Shaq in his prime, he does bring that lack of motivation and killer instinct that is typical of guys who have the physical greatness to show up and don't have to practice a thousand jumpers a day to stay in the league.  

While Ray Allen's game requires him to be a great shooter, constantly monitoring his form and percentages, Dwight Howard or Shaq don't have to focus with determination.  It makes them less tough, so to speak.  They don't have the mental toughness of an MJ, a Pipper, or even a Ray Allen.  Why?  Because when Dwight's game is off, he just has to get more physical and emotional.  But for Ray Allen, that won't help.  He has to get more focused, more calm, and more "in the zone".  There's a big difference with those things and how they play out with effort and championship level basketball.

Maybe thats why MJ won so much.  Because he was only 6'6".  And LeBron might not win as much because he is taller and has more physical gifts?  Interesting question.  Could height be a hindrance?

Could the Magic beat the C's?

Could the Magic beat the Celtics...and the Cavaliers?

The Celtics, without Garnett, are basically a 50-win team.  Thats too bad because with Garnett they were one of the best teams around in a long time.  Or were they?  I don't know!  

Anyways, I think Orlando will beat the Celtics, Cavs will beat the Hawks, Lakers beat the Rockets, and Denver beat Dallas.  

In the next round though?  Orlando could very well beat the Cavs.  They beat them twice in Orlando (both times pretty badly) and almost won in Cleveland.  The Magic are a good team.  They have power forwards of height 6-10 and 6-10, and a 6-11 center.  And one of their forwards is a great three point shooter.  

Cleveland is good and plays very hard; but their undersized guards will be a liability in challenging their perimenter players.  And if the guards penetrate they will have to deal with the Defensive Player of Year Dwight Howard, who is quite good at blocking shots (lead the league this year).  

But they still have to get past the Celtics.