Incredibly misleading ESPN stat...

[WaltonsIllegitimateSon]

Forgive me if someone's already mentioned this, I haven't been able to find anyone saying it anywhere...

Watching ESPN lately,  I heard that stat about the opening round going to seven.  It goes something like this: "Since going to a best-of-seven series in the opening round, no team that went to a Game 7 has ever made it to the Finals."

So I looked it up, and it's actually VERY misleading.

For MANY reasons.

Since 2003, when the NBA went to a best-of-seven in the opening round, only two #1 conference seeds have gone seven games in that round, Detroit and Dallas, both in 2003.  They each ultimately lost in the Conference Finals (which is about the best that many people expect the Celtics to do, at present, is lose to Detroit if they get past LeBron).

However, what makes that stat VERY misleading is that ALL the top seeds since 2002 have FAILED to win a conference finals!  That's right, NONE of the NBA Finalists of the last six years were #1 playoff seeds.  The last was New Jersey in 2002.

So if you're in a stat-quoting mood, one might just as easily say that #1 seeds that SWEEP the best-of-seven opening round have never won the Championship!  It's just as true!!  You could even say #1 seeds haven't ever won the Championship after PLAYING IN a best-of-seven opening round!  After LACING UP THEIR SHOES for a best-of-seven opening round!!!!  Also true!

But wait!  There's more!

There's NO discernable pattern in this decade of #1 seeds who got pushed to final games (5 or 7) in the opening round stumbling afterwards.  None!  Only 5 times since 2000 has a #1 seed actually gone the limit (5 or 7) in that round, all before 2003, and none since!  Of those five #1 seeds, three went to the Finals (with the Lakers winning in 2000) and the other two lost in their Conference Finals.

So, since 2000, the #1 seeds that WENT the distance in the opening round actually fared BETTER on average than the #1 seeds that DIDN'T, since 3 of those 5 went to the Finals!  Good news for Celtics fans!

Also, out of ALL #1 seeds since 2000, all but TWO MADE the Conference Finals: Dallas last year (an historic collapse, statistically aberrant) and San Antonio in 2006.  Good news for Celtics fans, again!  Bad news for LeBron!

So while we're going down the "history suggests" road, remember that, according to this comparison, the Celtics are actually statistically LIKELY to beat Cleveland (and just as statistically likely to lose to Detroit, sadly).

As for the stat ESPN used, since opening-round-game-7's have only happened twice before, again, the stat is utterly worthless and misleading.  Shame on Stuart Scott.

Makes you wonder why they chose to frame it like that on ESPN, since obviously the MORE impressive stat is that it's been six years since a #1 seed made it to the Finals at all...

Hear that, Lakers?  History is against you, too!!!!

[RebusRankin]

San Antonio won the championship in 2003 and has the NBA's best record.

[WaltonsIllegitimateSon]

San Antonio won the championship in 2003 and has the NBA's best record.

Hrmm... Looks like you're right, in part.  Although Dallas' record tied San Antonio's that year, and they're listed above San Antonio in the standings at http://www.basketballreference.com/leagues/leagueyear.htm?lg=N&yr=2002, it appears they weren't the #1 seed (I'd forgotten all this).  I didn't catch that, and I don't remember that year well enough.

So what that means for what I said above is that actually only ONE #1 seed has gone to 7 in the opening round, not two.  Which only deepens Stuart Scott's shame in repeating that horrible stat.

And TWO number one seeds have won the Championship since 2000, which makes the Celtics' odds this year even better, from the standpoint of this comparison.

Thanks for the correction.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I'll let you guys on a little secret, ALL stats have potential of being misleading... stats are simply data, and should be used as such.  The misleading portion comes from people that try to turn that data into information and have no clue about doing research and interpretation.  It's a guide, not an absolute and in no way tell the whole story.

Anyways, I'm not worried about this bogus crap, and TP for calling them out on their BS.

I'll show you a great stat since 2003 though, no team that has swept the first two rounds in the playoffs has gone one to win the championship.  So, the Lakers should be worried of continuing to win games at this pace because they could be in real trouble.  I'll let you guys figure out how useful that stat is.

[RebusRankin]

"Statistics can say whatever you want. 62% of people believe that." Homer Simpson.

[Roy Hobbs]

Statistics are absolutely meaningless unless they show some sort of predictive trend or pattern.  Here, there just aren't enough data points to mean anything at all.

[PaulBonner]

Roy Hobbs speaks the truth.

And even in cases where there is a LOT of supporting data leading one to a seemingly inevitable conclusion (oh, let's say, up until 2004 no MLB or NBA team had ever come back from down 0-3 in a 7 game series...), there's always a chance something crazy will happen. And that's what makes sports so much fun to watch.

(And by the way, it never gets old bringing up the '04 Red Sox, does it? I'm sitting here grinning like an idiot just thinking about it!)

[WaltonsIllegitimateSon]

Agreed with all the above.  I was going to title this post "Lies, [dang] Lies, and Statistics," but I thought it'd be better if I stuck to the hook!

[EarthBall]

Speaking of misleading, I don't like the stat '80% of the time, the winner of game 1 wins the series'.

1) if you win game 1, you only need 3 more wins and your opponent needs 4 wins. So, the expected percentage of teams that win game 1 and win the series would be 4/7 = 57%, not 50%, if everything was random.

2) usually the better team wins game 1, so that team should be expected to win the series.

Thus, the advantage to winning game 1 isn't as much as it seems. I'd be more interested in seeing the percentage of teams that win the series given that they win the first game on the road (implying they have a worse record and are the lesser team). That would be a better indicator of the importance of winning game 1. 

[BudweiserCeltic]

Here's a stat I like about LeBron against the Celtics this season.  In 4 games, 31 for 88 shooting @ 35%. Since the Cavs trade (2 games), LeBron is 9 for 42 shooting @ 22%.  And they say LeBron dominated the Celtics this season because he has a high ppg.

[SQ84]

Mark Twain famously said, "There are lies, [dang] lies and statistics".

[paintitgreen]

Yeah, not much of a sample to choose from. Conference quarterfinals only began in 1974, with Seeds 1 to 3 getting into the Conference Semis and the 4th and 5th seeds playing a First Round best of 3 series. That continued until 1977, when only the top 2 seeds got a first round bye, and seeds 3 through 6 playing best of 3 series to make it to the Conference Semis. Incidentally, in 1977, Portland was the 3rd seed in the West and had to play an opening round series against Chicago. They won 2 games to 1 and went on to win the Championship.

The format stayed the same until 1984, when all teams had to play in the First Round, in a best of 5 series. From 1984 to 2002, when the series were best of 5, two champions went the full 5 games in the first round - the 1995 Houston Rockets (the 6th seed, beating the 3rd seed Jazz in 5) and the 2000 Lakers (the #1 seed, which finished 67-15 and beat the 8th seeded Sacramento Kings 3 games to 2).

[WaltonsIllegitimateSon]

TP for the additional legwork!  I was too lazy busy working to look earlier than this decade, and I'd forgotten about Houston's remarkable 1995 run.  So from what you say, it sounds like nobody except the '00 Lakers won as a #1 seed after going the distance in the opening round?  Since 1984?  That is interesting...

Off-topic, but tonight's game made me smile... hope we can do it on the road now!

[PP34RG4]

Great research here. ESPN is notorious for this sort of thing. I'm really tired of their bogus staff, their dumb story lines, and Sportscenter in general. It's too bad they don't have a competing network because the quality has drastically deteriorated from a lack of competition.

I gave them up after watching the media circus they made around the Patriots with the taping scandal, and the perfect season. I don't like how they basically spoon fed hatred of the Patriots to the entire US minus New England.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Here's a stat I like about LeBron against the Celtics this season.  In 4 games, 31 for 88 shooting @ 35%. Since the Cavs trade (2 games), LeBron is 9 for 42 shooting @ 22%.  And they say LeBron dominated the Celtics this season because he has a high ppg.

Well, let's update these stats. On 5 games against the Celtics, LeBron is 37 for 112 @ 33% from the field... since the trade (3 games), he is 15 for 66 @ 23% shooting from the field.  Great job LeBron, you certainly got our number.