[rjt721]

Teams split the regular season series.

Who wins the series?

[YoungMoney23]

why?

[Tchocky]

Series starts in LA on Wednesday.

[rjt721]

Oops, my bad. Obviously meant Spurs not Cavs.

Tchocky started a Lakers/Spurs thread, so just disregard this one.

[rjt721]

Lakers in 6.

[seaborneq]

This one took a lot out of the Spurs tonight.

[Wilforth]

Lakers.
But don't bet on any of these sides covering the spread except you're buying points. I expect the 1H under to cash in most of the games of this series.

[ryanXL977]

lakers

[Junkyard Dog]

both these conference finals are gonna be wars. ill take the spurs in 7

[playa420]

Fuck da spurs, Lakers take this in 6

[pat venditto]

as much as i like the spurs, lakers in 5

[rake922]

Always pick the better defense in the playoffs..... Spurs

[LT Profits]

Spurs in 6

They steal one game in LA and the home team wins the rest

[imgv94]

Lakers got this in Six Games.. I'm calling it right now, Lakers win Game 4

[Dark Horse]

I think that both teams in the Spurs rear view mirror are better than the Lakers. The Lakers are a lot of hype, but they are only marginally better than before the Gasol trade (player most likely to disappear against the Spurs).

Spurs too savvy for LA. Spurs in finals against Pistons.

[mundane]

Lakers in 6

[Dark Horse]

One of the best reasons why the Spurs will win is that they have more layers of adjusting. They are much more versatile where it comes to slight, but decisive, changes in their game plan. By comparison, the Lakers are very predictable.

Don't forget the Spurs were behind 0-2 before winning four out five against the Hornets.

[fearless]

One of the best reasons why the Spurs will win is that they have more layers of adjusting. They are much more versatile where it comes to slight, but decisive, changes in their game plan. By comparison, the Lakers are very predictable.

Don't forget the Spurs were behind 0-2 before winning four out five against the Hornets.

How can you talk about Phil Jackson like that? You're ruining your credibility, imho.

[chipski]

clicked lakers in 4
sweep

[Dark Horse]

How can you talk about Phil Jackson like that? You're ruining your credibility, imho.

It's not about Phil Jackson. It has to do with available players and their skill sets.

[Illusion]

I like the Lakers in five games.

[gordon gekko]

Lakers in 5

[rjt721]

Good piece from John Hollinger, one of the few ESPN journalists who's worth reading:

Lakers in 5.

The hardest part of picking a series isn't the winner but the games. Essentially, there are two different questions at play -- one is what the average expectation is, and the other is what the most likely outcome is. Those two questions often don't produce identical answers.

For example, in a series where the better team also has home-court advantage, the most likely outcome is that they'll win in 5 -- taking three at home and one on the road. Having three of the first five at home makes this outcome very possible even in scenarios where you wouldn't normally think one team would win 80 percent of the games.

That said, it's not much more likely than the home team winning in six or seven, and the cumulative probability of those two outcomes is much greater -- it really depends on whether they can get a split out of Games 3 and 4.

We saw this twice in the earlier rounds with series that seemed fairly evenly matched -- San Antonio-Phoenix and Detroit-Orlando -- just as we did last year with both Utah-Golden State and San Antonio-Utah. In each case, once the favorite got a split on the road it was over faster than anyone expected.

As a result, it's much easier for a series to end in five games than most believe. So if you're trying to predict the most likely outcome, L.A. in five makes sense. That's what I was gunning for.

But if you're picking along a continuum from "Lakers in four" to "Spurs in four" and looking for the median outcome, L.A. in five is laughable -- it's skewed way too far to the L.A. side. Lakers in six or even seven makes a lot more sense in that event. If you allow that there's some percentage chance of San Antonio winning outright, and just a very small chance of a Laker sweep, than even if there's a large chance of L.A. winning in five, it wouldn't be enough to make it the "average" outcome of the series.

Alas, in the spirit of the Stat Geek Smackdown, I'm trying to peg the games exactly. And my chance of doing that is better if I go five games, even if I don't think the disparity between the teams is as large as that prediction suggest.

So why do I hate the Spurs?

I don't. Really. But as to why I'm off the Spur bandwagon in the first place, the answer is the same reason I was on it the past three years -- point differential.

San Antonio's average scoring margin this year was much worse than in previous season at +4.8 points per game; by comparison, the Lakers were +7.3. That's proven to be a better indicator of future success than win-loss record. The Spurs' margin was similar to the Hornets' (+5.3) and Suns' (+5.0) in the first two rounds, which is what made those series toss-ups in my estimation. In the case of L.A., it's not. And if you only include the 36 regular season and playoff games in which L.A. had Pau Gasol, their margin balloons to an impressive +10.3 (and their record an equally impressive 30-6).

The playoffs have given us similar results. San Antonio was +0.0 against the Hornets and +0.8 against the Suns, while the Lakers were +13.3 against the Nuggets and +3.0 against the Jazz. Since Utah was, in my estimation, the strongest threat besides L.A. to win the conference, (and had the West's second-best regular-season victory margin at +6.9), the latter number is especially impressive.

So that's how I ended up with L.A. in five. It could just as easily be six or seven. But I do expect the Lakers to win.

[rjt721]

The Lakers are a lot of hype, but they are only marginally better than before the Gasol trade (player most likely to disappear against the Spurs).

30-6 and a +10.3 point differential with Gasol in the lineup is only "marginally better"? Come on, DH, you're better than this.

[Dark Horse]

30-6 and a +10.3 point differential with Gasol in the lineup is only "marginally better"? Come on, DH, you're better than this.

I'm talking about Gasol in the playoffs. Soft.

The public remembers the difference Gasol made since he came to town, but that edge has largely disappeared in the playoffs. And against the Spurs it is bound to crumble even more.

[Shumakov]

L. A. Lakers in 6
__________________
NBA 2007-08 record: +44=2-28

[Tsoprano]

This one took a lot out of the Spurs tonight.

On the contrary, put a lot in them, hype and confidence wise going into this game 1 against lakers.

Spurs got this, but im not 100% sure, small wager on it.

[chipski]

was just looking at the results from last years west finals between the spurs and jazz .
4 of the 5 games went over the total . spurs won in 5 games .
was thinking lakers and over tonight but have read all over this place that people like the under . gl

[Wilforth]

was just looking at the results from last years west finals between the spurs and jazz .
4 of the 5 games went over the total . spurs won in 5 games .
was thinking lakers and over tonight but have read all over this place that people like the under . gl

Because people like the under, that's why you should go for the over. The lines for the total first opened at 197, and started tilting toward the under, 196.5, 196, 195.5 and now 195. If over 60% of bets is on the under, expect it to go over. The total will be decided in the last 30 seconds of the game. Don't be surprised if the total is 197. The way the lines are now, it's good to go for the over so you don't accompany the majority that will lose their money today.
I'm personally expecting a score of 107-100. That's typical of Lakers - winning by exactly the first posted spread and achieving exactly the first posted game total.

[Dark Horse]

Lakers were extremely fortunate that the Spurs ran out of gas (eleven hour flight delay and disturbed sleep will do that). A rested Spurs team is not going to give up a 20 pt lead. They couldn't find the extra gear when they needed it.

[Tsoprano]

Spurs in 4.

[chipski]

Lakers got this in Six Games.. I'm calling it right now, Lakers win Game 4

was browsing this thread since lake show just advanced and said ,wow ! how you come up with them winning as a dog in game 4 ? nice call .
predicted a week before the game

[chipski]

as much as i like the spurs, lakers in 5

you too wildman .
and illusion and gekko back to back . impressive to say the least