Finals Matchups

John Hollinger on television ratings:

I think Spurs- Bulls would pretty much be a nightmare scenario for the folks at the league office. The only saving grace for ABC would be the heavy cross-promotion for Desperate Housewives. To borrow a line from Bill Simmons, "HINRICH!!" "GINOBILI!!!" It's the NBA Finals on ABC!"

Indeed. I must say, however, that I would sort of enjoy that matchup. From a marketing perspective, I feel ike Houston-Miami probably offers the richest plotlines in terms of the Shaq-Yao generational struggle along with the epic story of Pat Riley versus the Van Gundy family. And, of course, ratings-wise an awful lot of people live in China. In aesthetic terms, Phoenix-Detroit has a certain appeal, since the Saunders and Webber-ized Pistons actually run a pretty neat, fluid offense. The incredible contrast in preferred pace would be interesting, too. Unfortunately for the league offense, I think San Antonio has the best shot to come out of the West and Chicago has the best shot to come out of the East. The odds of any particular Finals combo, however, don't strike me as especially high. Both conferences second-round matchups should will be pretty competitive.

Comments

"And, of course, ratings-wise an awful lot of people live in China."

Of course, those folks have zero impact on ABC's ratings...

Posted by Petey | April 17, 2007 10:28 AM

Let's hear the Petey picks.

I may need to rethink San Antonio. I think their team is better than Dallas or Phoenix, but you're right that they have a bad path.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | April 17, 2007 10:33 AM

"Let's hear the Petey picks."

I think Detroit and Dallas are the Intrade favorites for very good reason.

If one were to stipulate that picking the favorites is no fun, I like Miami in the East and very slightly like Phoenix over San Antonio in the West.

I don't think Chicago has a serious shot at beating Detroit/Miami in the conference finals. They've got a better shot at losing to Toronto than they do of beating one of the big boys.

I appreciate the San Antonio story, but tend to think they're a bit too old and slow to keep up with Phoenix over 7 games.

Posted by Petey | April 17, 2007 10:40 AM

I think Simmons came up with the ultimate tag line last year:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/060608

""Pronger! Brind'Amour! It's the Oilers and the Hurricanes. The NHL Finals, only on OLN!"

Posted by Ziggy | April 17, 2007 10:44 AM

There are no good finals matchups. The west has 3 teams that can win 4 straight against any east team.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | April 17, 2007 10:47 AM

ABC would probably be happy to get the Bulls in the Finals, since Chicago is an extremely large market and the Bulls have a nationwide following. The network execs' nightmare scenario is Toronto/Utah.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 17, 2007 10:48 AM

I think the Rockets are much closer to the Western Conference's Big Three than people are willing to admit. Yao's no Shaq, but Best Center + Great Wing + parts worked pretty well for the Lakers. And I think Denver's going to be a very tough out for San Antonio; I wouldn't be surprised if the Nuggs pulled off the upset. My San Antonio hatred might be influencing my belief, though.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 17, 2007 10:56 AM

It's hard for me to believe that ABC would have any objection to Team Longoria making an appearance in the Finals.

Posted by Steve | April 17, 2007 10:57 AM

First, LFP-- true that.

There are no good finals matchups. The west has 3 teams that can win 4 straight against any east team.

Don't forget the lesson of 2004... I remember Marc Stein was on TV and was asked if the Pistons could beat the Lakers or Spurs, and he literally laughed out loud. And the Pistons didn't just win, they destroyed LA.

I don't understand the conventional wisdom that says Phoenix can't win. I feel like the real hidden idea there is that they're fun to watch, so they can't possibly win. Or something. I like Houston to upset Dallas in the second round, Chicago out of the East and Phoenix to win it all.

Posted by Freddie | April 17, 2007 10:59 AM

Yao's no Shaq

I hope you mean "Yao's no Shaq in his prime", because Yao is clearly better now.

Posted by Freddie | April 17, 2007 11:01 AM

"ABC would probably be happy to get the Bulls in the Finals, since Chicago is an extremely large market and the Bulls have a nationwide following. The network execs' nightmare scenario is Toronto/Utah."

Yup.

Though I do think markets can be overrated. For example, I think ABC would be thrilled with Cleveland in the Finals, even though it's a lousy market.

Posted by Petey | April 17, 2007 11:02 AM

"There are no good finals matchups. The west has 3 teams that can win 4 straight against any east team."

Folks have said that for the last three years, and the East has won two out of those three.

I think Detroit and (a healthy) Miami would both be competitive in the Finals.

Posted by Petey | April 17, 2007 11:04 AM

Nets-Spurs, baby. A repeat of the Best Finals Evah.

Posted by Al | April 17, 2007 11:06 AM

"Nets-Spurs, baby."

And I thought I was guilty of irrational exuberance for thinking the Powder Blues can take a single series...

Posted by Petey | April 17, 2007 11:08 AM

I hope you mean "Yao's no Shaq in his prime", because Yao is clearly better now

Yeah, I meant "Laker Shaq."

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 17, 2007 11:10 AM

Nets-Spurs, baby. A repeat of the Best Finals Evah

My gawd. The final proof that Al really does Hate America(TM).

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 17, 2007 11:10 AM

"Don't forget the lesson of 2004... I remember Marc Stein was on TV and was asked if the Pistons could beat the Lakers or Spurs, and he literally laughed out loud. And the Pistons didn't just win, they destroyed LA."

Evidence that Petey is smarter than Marc Stein...

Posted by Petey | April 17, 2007 11:23 AM

The spurs will be much better off having to face Phoenix in the second round rather than, say, houston or utah. Phoenix is really not that tough of an out for SA. But slower teams (dallas, houston, detroit, miami) are teams that give them trouble and can wear their old asses down. So I think you should rethink your rethoughts.

i think denver will prove tougher for the spurs. Bowen will bother melo, but melo has figured out a way to abuse bowen on the block. Camby is great, and iverson has always fucked with the spurs.

But no matter how tough the path to the WCF, if SA gets to see Dallas again, SA will find a way to win. Dirk is just too much of a gigantic pussy.

Posted by MP | April 17, 2007 11:34 AM

The 2004 Finals were a glorious moment in history.

I don't know if the Pistons are most likely to emerge from the East, but it's just ridiculous to claim that if they make the Finals, they somehow have no shot. They split with Phoenix and Dallas this year, winning the road matchup against both teams. They lost by a whole point in San Antonio. The Pistons are quite obviously competitive, at a minimum, with anyone in the league.

Posted by Steve | April 17, 2007 11:40 AM

The wicked Smart Money tends to favor the more marketable teams with more marketable players. I seem to recall 'Bron walking right past a good 'Zards club last year. Go figure.

Posted by ed | April 17, 2007 11:50 AM

WAR-RI-ORS, Come out to Play-yay!!!

Posted by adlsad | April 17, 2007 11:50 AM

I don't see much reason to favor the Bulls to come out of the East. Yes, they have the easier record to the conference finals than Miami or Detroit, but the Bulls have not shown that they can reach the top level of play of either of those teams.

If you check the standings, you'll see that Detroit is the only team in the East with a winning road record, and first in road winning percentage by a huge margin (they're 26-14, a full 8 games ahead of Chicago's road record). The odd thing about the Pistons is that their home record is so mediocre--25-15, only sixth-best in the East, and worse than their road record! But what that indicates is that they're fully capable of beating almost anyone on the road, with slips in focus and concentration coming at home. And in the playoffs, it's a lot more likely that they'll get their focus and take care of home court than it is that they'll keep screwing up and losing winnable games. The Bulls did win the season series with Detroit 3-1, including a major spanking at the Palace just a few weeks ago minus Nocioni and Ben Wallace, but I'm pretty confident that the Pistons would handle them in a 7-game series. Even if Chicago managed to take one in Detroit, the odds are at least as good, and probably better, that the Pistons would take at least one in Chicago.

I left Miami out of this because all of their injuries rendered the regular season record even more meaningless than it was for them last year. With a healthy Shaq and a near-healthy Wade, they're obviously capable of playing at a higher level than the Bulls, and the healthier Wade can get, the more they solidify themselves as a real threat to get back to the finals.

Posted by Haggai | April 17, 2007 11:55 AM

Time to recalibrate all your postseason predictions. Caron thinks he can get back by the second round.

If that turns out to be true, I think the 'zards have a good shot at defeating their second round opponent, which I believe will be Aruba.

Posted by Petey | April 17, 2007 12:01 PM

i'm with haggai on this: i mean, i don't rule out that the bulls can win, but i don't think it falls into the likely category.

i'd like to believe that playoff experience is no big deal, but i just looked back over the champs of the last 20 years to refresh myself. if we put aside the strike year of '98-'99, we had the '04 pistons (one of the greatest defensive teams ever) and the hakeem rockets as the only champs in the last 20 years without considerable playoff experience.

the bulls play good defense, but not piston '04 level (partly because ben wallace isn't as good as he was in '04) and they sure don't have hakeem.

and let me just second those who say that just because the west is the tougher division, its champ doesn't have to win it all, as we saw rather clearly in '04.

PS. i've thought all season that there were 5 likely champs - dallas, phoenix, san antonio, detroit, and miami. obviously, due to injury, miami is somewhat iffy after all, but the other 4 still look to me like the source of this year's champ....

Posted by howard | April 17, 2007 12:04 PM

The reason Matt picks Chicago is quite simply that he feels they have 1 tough series rather than 2. He seems to be neglecting Toronto, who has been very solid the latter part of the year, but it's a mathematically sound argument.

People who make money by betting sports realize that every team has a chance to win and that it's all about identifying the right odds. Even if you think San Antonio is a better team than Dallas, there's no conceivable way the Spurs could be more than a 60-40 favorite in that series. Yet most people will make arguments in the style of MP above - "SA will find a way to win." Professional sports bettors make money by knowing the odds and by disregarding this sort of sports cliche.

If you face a number of 60-40 propositions in a row, sooner or later your luck will run out, even though you're favored in each individual matchup. The odds of winning two such matchups in a row are only 36%; yet people will mentally pencil you in to advance through those matchups far more than 36% of the time. In reality, you'd always prefer to pick a team that has only one series to play, even if they're even money or a slight dog, rather than the team that has to win two straight as a mild favorite. (Of course, there are no actual byes in the NBA, and even if you're a huge favorite in your first-round series it still serves to decrease your overall chances, by a factor of 10% or whatever odds you assign to the prohibitive underdog.)

Posted by Steve | April 17, 2007 12:07 PM

Have ye forgotten that the Mavs have no inside game? All these west teams are gonna have tough 2nd round matchups. Further, after the Spurs get past Phx there's just as much reason to think that they'll be in good game shape as opposed to 'banged up.'
Phx on the other hand will have a relatively easy time in rnd 1, so they'll have to pick up the pace bigtime in the 2nd rnd. This won't be a problem for Nash of course, but what about Marion?
Don't sleep on the purple dinos - they're the baby Spurs.

Posted by berger | April 17, 2007 12:09 PM

"The reason Matt picks Chicago is quite simply that he feels they have 1 tough series rather than 2 ... it's a mathematically sound argument."

No. It's a mathematical argument predicated on plugging in the wrong numbers.

The fact that Chicago has a relatively easy path to the conference finals definitely increases their odds of making the finals, but it doesn't make them the favorite.

Posted by Petey | April 17, 2007 12:12 PM

steve, i don't understand you.

that said, we are talking about sports. i am almost required to use a cliche.

and what that cliche means, is despite the "odds", SA will win. because as i explained, the probability of nowitski being a gigantic pussy is extremely high.

Posted by MP | April 17, 2007 12:12 PM

if we put aside the strike year of '98-'99, we had the '04 pistons (one of the greatest defensive teams ever) and the hakeem rockets as the only champs in the last 20 years without considerable playoff experience.

How do you define "considerable playoff experience," howard? Do you mean at least getting to the conference finals the year or two before winning the title? The '04 Pistons had been in the conference finals in '03, plus the second round the year before (albeit with several key personnel changes along the way). The '94 Rockets had been in the playoffs the previous few years, but had not gotten past the second round.

Posted by Haggai | April 17, 2007 12:15 PM

OK, OK, I'll switch my Finals pick to Nets-Phoenix, with all of the games played like this one.

Seriously, while Haggai makes a good case that Detroit would beat Chicago, what he's ignoring is that there's a good chance that Detroit wouldn't even get to play Chicago because the Heat would take out the Pistons in Round 2.

Posted by Al | April 17, 2007 12:18 PM

You know, I hate when you want to respond to someone, get a little sidetracked while writing out your comment, and then post, only to find that, like, 73 people said the same thing before you hit "post".

Posted by Al | April 17, 2007 12:20 PM

Seriously, while Haggai makes a good case that Detroit would beat Chicago, what he's ignoring is that there's a good chance that Detroit wouldn't even get to play Chicago because the Heat would take out the Pistons in Round 2.

Right, I don't doubt that, maybe I should have been more clear in my first post...a healthy Miami can obviously beat Detroit, and I don't think Chicago is likely to beat either Miami or Detroit in the conference finals. I spelled out the case for Detroit over Chicago, and left Miami to the end without saying much besides "they've been hurt all year." But they'd have to favored over Chicago, if both teams got that far.

Posted by Haggai | April 17, 2007 12:25 PM

"Seriously, while Haggai makes a good case that Detroit would beat Chicago, what he's ignoring is that there's a good chance that Detroit wouldn't even get to play Chicago because the Heat would take out the Pistons in Round 2."

Chicago's best scenario is indeed for Miami to take out Detroit, since Chicago's perimeter and overall speed should match up well against Miami.

But I think Intrade's odds of an 18% chance of Chicago winning the East is about right. It's possible, but they'd need a lot of breaks to fall their way.

I think Detroit is majorly undervalued at Intrade at 33% odds. I'd say fair value is something around:

45 Detroit
25 Miami
20 Chicago
10 Field

Posted by Petey | April 17, 2007 12:28 PM

Did LeBron break a leg or something? The Cavs are getting crazy disrespected in all this analysis.

Posted by Steve | April 17, 2007 12:36 PM

Considering that the they're the only team in the East that would have to beat both Miami AND Detroit in the playoffs (and that's before they'd even get to the conference finals), I think it's pretty reasonable to write off the Cavs.

Posted by Haggai | April 17, 2007 12:38 PM

haggai, i'm using the term "considerable playoff experience" kind of loosely, but i mean either: has at least gotten as far as a conference final previously or has been in the playoffs for a few years running and won series at least once or twice. regardless of how loose that is, the bulls don't qualify!

more broadly, i guess i'm a minority here: parsing matchups gives me a headache and i'm not all that interested (as i noted on another recent thread). i look at what teams have the talent and style of play to win the title and call it a day: how it plays out on the court is how it plays out on the court.

i suppose the fact that i haven't bet on a sports game in years isn't unrelated to why i don't much parse matchups!

Posted by howard | April 17, 2007 12:51 PM

But that's ridiculous. If Miami has a reasonable shot to knock off Cleveland, Detroit, and Chicago in succession, then surely Cleveland has some sort of shot to knock off Miami, Detroit, and Chicago in succession. How big an edge are you giving Miami over Cleveland, anyway? Because that edge represents the only difference between Miami's road and Cleveland's road.

There are no reasonable odds you could assign to the Miami-Cleveland series that would make Petey's numbers accurate, considering they give Miami 3x the chance to make the NBA Finals that Cleveland has. The disparity is simply not that great.

Posted by Steve | April 17, 2007 12:52 PM

Fair enough, Steve. I just don't have any faith in Cleveland beating any title-contending team.

Posted by Haggai | April 17, 2007 12:57 PM

"surely Cleveland has some sort of shot to knock off Miami, Detroit, and Chicago in succession."

You'd think so, but no.

(To be fair, I'd be very happy to bet on Cleveland to win the East at 20 to 1.)

Posted by Petey | April 17, 2007 1:01 PM

Well, so would anyone. But to cut to the chase, what odds would you assign Cleveland against Miami?

Posted by Steve | April 17, 2007 1:16 PM

"But to cut to the chase, what odds would you assign Cleveland against Miami?"

Low.

A good defensive team like Miami should be able to force Cleveland to beat them with someone other than LBJ. And Cleveland can't do that right now.

Posted by Petey | April 17, 2007 1:23 PM

Petey,

""There are no good finals matchups. The west has 3 teams that can win 4 straight against any east team."

Folks have said that for the last three years, and the East has won two out of those three."

Well if you get to cherry-pick your stats, then so do I.

I've said it the last 8 seasons, and have been right 6 of those times.

Wow! Cherry-picking stats is FUN!

Posted by sherifffruitfly | April 17, 2007 1:49 PM

"I've said it the last 8 seasons, and have been right 6 of those times."

The difference is that folks who said that in the '01 - '03 period were making sense, but the folks who were saying that in the '04 - '06 period were kinda stupid.

Posted by Petey | April 17, 2007 1:55 PM

But I don't Cleveland has a viable shot at winning three series in a row against the good defensive teams of Miami/Detroit/Chicago.

The books have Cleveland at approximately +570 to win the East, which translates to around a 15% chance. I like their numbers better than yours.

It's easy to look smart by smugly dismissing sizeable dogs as having no shot, since they'll lose most of the time, but you lose a lot of money in sportsbetting if you consistently treat teams with a 15-20% shot as if they have more like a 5% chance.

The Cavs are nobody's pick, and for good reason, but they're still a good team and there's no basis to treat them like they're New Jersey when it comes time to set odds.

Posted by Steve | April 17, 2007 2:35 PM

"but you lose a lot of money in sportsbetting if you consistently treat teams with a 15-20% shot as if they have more like a 5% chance."

But I think the Intrade odds are often wrong. That's why I'm able to make money there. Sometimes teams with a fair value 5% chance really are market valued at 20%. That's where the money is to be made.

Upthread, I put the East Field at 10% odds. Cleveland is the large bulk of that 10%. That's why I'd bet on them if they were valued at 5%.

But at 20%, I'd heavily sell short.

(All assuming Chicago doesn't stumble and give up the #2 slot, which would change the odds dramatically.)

Posted by Petey | April 17, 2007 2:43 PM

Intrade is a completely different business model from the folks who make book for a living, though. The Vegas oddsmakers make a good living because they're rarely off by much.

If you're willing to put Cleveland at close to 10%, you're probably not off by a ton, as the 15% number offered by Vegas is likely to be on the high side (since it's a bet you can only take one side of).

Posted by Steve | April 17, 2007 3:31 PM

"The Vegas oddsmakers make a good living because they're rarely off by much."

No, no, a thousand times, no.

Vegas oddsmakers make a good living because of the huge vig.

But more to the point, they're not even trying to be "rarely off by much" in terms of the final outcome. They're trying to balance where the punters are placing bets.

To take one example, the odds for the '04 Finals were 7-1 Lakers over Pistons. Were the oddsmakers wrong? If they got equal action on both sides, they were dead right in the odds they set, even though they wrong about the final outcome.

"Intrade is a completely different business model from the folks who make book for a living"

So actually, Vegas bookmakers are really not very different than Intrade. They're both gauging where bettors want to go, not gauging outcomes. The only real difference is that Vegas bookmakers are one degree removed from the market, while Intrade is zero degrees removed from the market.

Posted by Petey | April 17, 2007 3:42 PM

But more to the point, they're not even trying to be "rarely off by much" in terms of the final outcome. They're trying to balance where the punters are placing bets.

This is the conventional wisdom, but it's almost 100% wrong for the large books, with the solitary exception of the Super Bowl. Books that are sufficiently capitalized are generally looking to do better than just booking even action and making all their money on the vig.

If the books did business any other way, they would be easily exploitable by the sharp bettors. The public, for example, tends to prefer favorites, tends to prefer superstars, tends to prefer big-name teams like the Yankees. If the books set their lines off by a couple points from the "true" lines, in order to capture this public sentiment and get equal action on both sides, they'd get killed by the sharps who would simply fade the public time and time again. The only way they can avoid this is by setting the lines as accurately as they can.

Posted by Steve | April 17, 2007 5:19 PM

"If the books did business any other way, they would be easily exploitable by the sharp bettors."

They are easily exploitable by the sharp bettors. The only caveat to the "easily" is that you have to beat the vig. (Hence the beauty of the no-vig online markets.)

And they don't care about being exploited by sharp bettors. They just care about getting half the bets on each side. Who cares if half the money is being placed by sharp bettors on the winner as long as half the money is on the other side?

Books may occasionally take a flier on playing the game, but they're almost always in it just for the vig. That's why they're the house, and not sharp bettors themselves.

"If the books set their lines off by a couple points from the "true" lines, in order to capture this public sentiment and get equal action on both sides, they'd get killed by the sharps"

I really have no idea what you mean. If they get equal action on both sides, they've set the line properly. If they don't, they haven't. It's just as simple as that. The wise rationale or lack thereof of the bettors has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Posted by Petey | April 17, 2007 6:05 PM

And they don't care about being exploited by sharp bettors. They just care about getting half the bets on each side.

You present yourself with the confidence of someone who knows what he's talking about... but you simply don't. I don't know how else to say it. You're repeating a commonly espoused myth among sports bettors.

Posted by Steve | April 17, 2007 7:09 PM

"You present yourself with the confidence of someone who knows what he's talking about"

Yup. I do that when I know what I'm talking about. When I don't know what I'm talking about, I employ caveats and express misgivings.

"I don't know how else to say it."

English would be preferable. It would also help if what you're trying to say made any sense.

Posted by Petey | April 17, 2007 7:17 PM

Here's a cherry picked stat:

Teams with Shaq-daddy have made the conference finals in 7 out of the last 7 years, and 10 of the last 12 years.

And yet, somehow, Shaq is never the MVP.

The moral of the story is that Cleveland has no chance.

Posted by Just Karl | April 17, 2007 9:16 PM

Starting with 1995, Shaq made the conference finals in every year except '97, '99, and '03, so it should be "6 of the last 7 years" and "9 of the last 12"

Posted by next big thing | April 18, 2007 2:12 AM

Oh, yeah, I forgot about the Spurs in O3. Of course you're right, but that's still pretty impressive. Shaq is the man until he isn't. He has to prove there isn't enough left in the tank.

Posted by Just Karl | April 19, 2007 12:26 AM