Blazers streaking!

by Yawnie on Nov 13, 2009 10:32 PM PST

No its not a post about the blazers running around naked, its about the blazers currently holding the NBAs longest winning streak, since the hated L*kers lost against the Nuggets.

By my laymans estimates, i feel we have an excellent chance of a 6-13 game winning streak, with the dangerous games being @Hawks, @Golden State, and vs Chicago.

What do u guys think?

Ps. My pre season estimate was 52-30 for the season

Poll

How long will the blazers streak last?

5 games, the Bobcats will get lucky

2 votes

6 games, the Hawks will get lucky

47 votes

7 games, the Pistons will get lucky

4 votes

8 games, the Warriors will get lucky

12 votes

We will end the season 79-3

55 votes

This poll is silly

18 votes

138 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 16 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

what!!?? where??????

by tevisthe4th on Nov 13, 2009 10:55 PM PST reply actions

so far so good on the new line-up

seems odd how public sentiment seemed dubious at first to the new approach… winning is quite the panacea…

I hate to jinx the good luck the PTB have had… guys seem to be finding their groove. The Hawks aren;t going to be easy. They took Boston out tonight. I prefer to take one game at a time. Ya know, easy does it.

Dogs have Owners, Cats have Staff.

by bow4meow on Nov 13, 2009 10:57 PM PST reply actions

By my estimate

By my laymans estimates, i feel we have an excellent chance of a 6-13 game winning streak, with the dangerous games being @Hawks, @Golden State, and vs Chicago.

I feel we have an excellent chance of a 6 game streak. If we get that, I’ll feel we have an excellent chance of a 7 game streak.

"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5

by jscot on Nov 14, 2009 12:05 AM PST reply actions

if we get 7, do you think we have a shot at 8?

Bust a bucket, who’d a dunk it, Blazer duty, super sunk it, slammin’ geez it, killer threes it, go up-get it-got it-good!

by The Arkitect on Nov 14, 2009 12:31 AM PST up reply actions

One thing's for sure

Either way we’ll play the game.

by ericande on Nov 14, 2009 12:56 AM PST up reply actions

Oh, if we get seven I think we've got a great shot at 8

In fact, if we get 13 I think we’ll then have an excellent shot at 14, beating the streak from 2 years ago.

I’m going to go out on a limb here, though. I know I’m just a homer for saying it. But if we get to 78-3, I even think that then we’ve got a good shot at 79-3. And if we finish 95-3, I’m going to really feel annoyed about that bad start to the season, too.

"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5

by jscot on Nov 14, 2009 2:38 AM PST up reply actions

16 = 15

I get the paper, so I don't care!

by Name's Ash on Nov 14, 2009 9:09 AM PST up reply actions

Statistically speaking

With each successive win the odds stack up against the next victory. Your characterization of, "an excellent shot," is therefore misleading.

My hope is that you will issue a sincere apology for getting our hopes up about a 79-3 record. I cannot believe you put the team and fan base under this kind of pressure!

The best players only try to, "do it all," themselves when it is a playoff necessity or, on occasion, to put on a show. There is no need to belabor the point!

by KINGofMACct on Nov 14, 2009 1:30 PM PST up reply actions

This is not actually true

Statistically speaking, a win in a prior game has no impact on the likelihood of a win in any succeeding game.

Practically speaking, in might. Pressure builds on a team to keep winning. Teams on a winning streak face opponents who are highly motivated to break the streak. On the other hand, confidence grows in a team that is winning, and off-court problems are diminished in importance, and less likely to leak into on-court problems.

So there are practical factors, positive and negative, that can impact the likelihood of future wins, but not statistical ones.

Our chance of getting win #7 is now much better than it was a game ago. Our chances of getting win #8 are better, too, though still not great. But if we grab #7, we’ll have a great shot at #8.

And if we do get to 78-3, any reasonable person would say we’ve got a great shot at 79-3. Sorry if that statement makes you feel pressured. :)

"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5

by jscot on Nov 16, 2009 12:08 AM PST up reply actions

OK, I'll bite (maybe nibble)

Statistically speaking, a win in a prior game has no impact on the likelihood of a win in any succeeding game.

If you have a projected winning percentage of 66%, then you also have an expected losing percentage of 34%. With each victory the odds are building that you are in fact going to lose. If we win ten in a row, we owe the odds more than three losses. If we win 30 in a row, we would owe the odds more than ten losses. In the long term, statistcally speaking, the odds are going to catch up with us and we are going to lose. At some point the odds of us losing are going to exceed 50%, etc…

Also, this says nothing about some teams being at home, being better than others, and us having back to backs.

Just admit it, we are not going to go 79-3. We are bound to lose sometime, and we should all be happy to get all of our losses for the season out of the way. Then we can win all our games in the playoffs??? ;>)

The best players only try to, "do it all," themselves when it is a playoff necessity or, on occasion, to put on a show. There is no need to belabor the point!

by KINGofMACct on Nov 16, 2009 12:51 AM PST up reply actions

All wrong

Well, except that we aren’t going 79-3. :)

If you flip a coin 10 times, how many times do you expect heads? On average, five times, right? (Hopefully we agree on this part of it).

If it comes up heads the first 9 times, what are the odds that it comes up tails the tenth time? Precisely 50%. It is still a 50-50 proposition.

The fact that you beat the odds on the first nine flips doesn’t change the odds for the tenth one AT ALL.

The key is in your first sentence — “projected”. Statistically, a projection is a moving target. If you get heads on your first flip, your projection for the 10 flips moves from 5 head 5 tails to 6 heads 4 tails. If you then get tails on each of the next two flips, your projection moves back to 5 and 5. If instead, you get one heads and one tails on your third and fourth flips, your projection stays at 6/4.

Your flawed assumption is that we have an allotted amount of wins and losses that is predetermined. We don’t. There is theoretically a number of wins that reflects our talent level. But if we beat the odds and win more games in the first half of the season than that theoretical number would project, that doesn’t make our talent level drop. So in the second half of the season, we are still statistically most likely to win at that original theoretical rate. If we succeed at that, we will have beaten the theoretical expectation.

"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5

by jscot on Nov 16, 2009 10:40 PM PST up reply actions

Just for fun

Statistics are used in an attempt describe and/or predict events numerically. The field of statistics is much broader than probability (coin flipping). A variety of interdependent variables often come into play when dealing with the human element (basketball teams), which are not easily (or accurately) described by attempts involving oversimplification. Relevant factors can easily get lost in the numbers while trying to work from the ground up thus resulting in predictions that defy common sense as well as common experience.

I believe your analysis that the odds of the next win are not significantly affected statistically by a long winning streak falls directly into the category of defying common sense as well as common experience.

Sometimes we work from a series of specific events/trials in order to come up with a general principle (your focus). In this manner we can make relatively accurate statements about situations where the variables are few and easy to control. This method does not work well for complex systems. The fatal flaw here is not giving enough weight to the big picture when considering the probable results of an upcoming event.

At other times statistics try to boil down larger, more varied sets of information into more specific trends or observations (my focus). We look at the whole (as best we can) and try to predict an event. Again, even if for different reasons, information is lost and inaccuracy creeps into this method as well, but within its limits or parameters, this process can be extremely useful. We don’t always fully comprehend why, but we can say with a very high degree of certainty that no NBA team is going to win 40 games in a row this year. We can readily assert this because, through statistics, we know that it has never been done before. Is it possible, yes, but it is also nearly fact that it will not happen this year.

Coin flipping and the like are not a good analogies for a particular basketball team’s odds of winning and losing the next game any more than it would be good for predicting the success of a moon landing. A much better analogy would be free throw shooting.

Common sense and statistics say that a long-term sixty percent shooter, who has made five in a row, (at varying time intervals and circumstances) has odds that are building up against them. Odds are that they are going to miss four of the next five.

The best players only try to, "do it all," themselves when it is a playoff necessity or, on occasion, to put on a show. There is no need to belabor the point!

by KINGofMACct on Nov 17, 2009 10:18 AM PST up reply actions