NBA Playoffs - The Deeper You Go, the Greater the 'D'

Golden State's magnificent first round upset is in the history books, becoming the first No. 8 seed to knock off a No. 1 seed in a 7-game series. Unfortunately, their Cinderella story ended right there, as the Utah Jazz just smoked the Warriors in 5 games. How did the Jazz do it, after the mighty Mavericks failed so miserably?

Defense and inside play. The Game 5 clincher spoke volumes about the whole series, which Utah dominated inside. Golden State averaged 107 ppg this season, yet Utah held them to 101 and 87 in the final two games, which sailed under the total by 3 and 30 points.

In Game 5, the Warriors, at various junctures, were 4-for-17, then 4-for-18, then 4-for-19, then 4-for-20. They shot 20 percent (or 6-for-30) from behind the arc for the game. They hit two of 10 threes in the final quarter, with the season on the line. None of Golden State's guards did much to hurt the Jazz. Baron Davis had 21 points, but shot just 5-for-16 from the field in Game 5.

The Warriors and Jazz were tied with 6 1/2 minutes to play when Golden State ran out of gas for the second straight game. The Warriors hit one field goal the rest of the way, missed five consecutive three-point tries at one point and were outscored 17-4 down the stretch. The difference was defense, which is the key ingredient this time of the season.

Utah advances to the Western Conference Finals for the first time since 1998, the year they battled some guy named Michael Jordan in the Finals. Notice that since 2003 NBA playoffs, from the Conference Finals to the NBA Finals, the unders are 50-37-1. It's no surprise, either. When the Conference Finals get going, that means there are only 4 remaining teams in the NBA.

You can bet that teams are not going to pack it in so close to the Holy Grail. They're going to fight and scrap and give it all they have every game. The only team I can think of that packed it in might have been the 2004 Lakers, who got upset in the Finals in 5 games by the Pistons. The Lakers were being torn apart by petty infighting between Kobe Bryant and Shaq, the latter who left a few weeks later. For the most part, though, teams bring their 'A' game, which means loads of defense.

San Antonio has been playing its normal strong defense this time of the season, going 10-2 under the total the last 12 games. The Spurs have won titles in 1999, 2003 and 2005. Coach Gregg Popovich knows what it takes to win this time of the season. To put that in perspective, look at the Spurs first round playoff series with Denver. The Nuggets averaged 104 ppg during the regular season, yet San Antonio held them to 100, 95, 88, 91, 89 and 78 points in the six games. Their defense got significantly better as the season went along, too. Part of that is the players see each other for 5, 6 of 7 games in a row, so they learn the tendencies of the opponent and can anticipate some of their moves.

You don't have to tell Baron Davis and the Warriors, they already know. The Jazz defense was dominating at the end of the four games they won. In the final 6:33 of Game Utah went on an 18-10 run to close it out, in the final 5:52 of Game 2 they went on a 20-5 run, a 29-14 run to close out Game 4 and a 17-4 run in the final 6:26 of Game 5. That's some serious defense! "They were a lot more physical than Dallas, and we got outmuscled," said Warriors guard Baron Davis.

In fact, in last season's NBA Final Four, the under went 14-4 between the Heat/Pistons, the Suns/Mavericks, and the Heat/Mavs Finals. That's some more serious defense!

Sports Picks - "The Due Factor"

Most sports bettors correctly focus on recent performance when making sports picks. Recent performances show not only who's playing well or poorly, but also reveal team mindsets and chemistry. Such intangibles are very useful in making winning sports picks (or at least avoiding losing sports picks).

But how much emphasis should be put on how a team has played over its last 3 or 5 or 10 games? In this article, we examine what we call "The Due Factor" - whether or not a team's performance is ripe for a change because of a long series of similar performances and/or results.

If a team has lost 10 straight games, are they really "due" to finally win one? As of this writing (May 1st), the baseball season is still very young, but a number of notable winning and losing streaks have occurred. Already this season, the Yankees have lost 7 straight games, causing owner George Steinbrenner to issue a terse threat disguised as a statement of hopeful support. The Giants, too, have had a streak of their own, an 8-game winner.

The Yanks finally turned it around at home against their great rival, the Red Sox, but was that victory any more likely because they had lost the seven previous games? Imagine if they had lost the previous 10 games or even 15. How about then? Clearly, they aren't going to lose 130 straight games. They HAVE to win sometime, right?

The Giants 8-game winning streak came to an end as well. If they had won that 9th game, would it make winning the 10th harder? How about if they had won 20 straight? With each consecutive win, the odds of them winning the next game get smaller and smaller, correct?

The answer is a big fat NO.

Although recent performances are useful in evaluating potential sports picks, they are not predictive. The previous game will not tell you what will happen in the next game. It's as simple as that.

Whether it's called "The Due Factor" or "The Law of Averages" or "Regression to The Mean", this type of thinking is so pervasive among gamblers that mathematicians have their own name for it: The Gambler's Fallacy.

Not only are mathematicians aware of it, you can bet sportsbooks and casinos are too. In fact, roulette tables emphasize the Gambler's Fallacy when they show the last 10 or so results on a big board for all players and potential players to see. The casino is HOPING for a streak. If 19 reds have come up in a row, lots of people will pile money on black. It's due, these people think. If they have some (but not enough) knowledge of math, they may incorrectly think that the odds of red coming up 20 times in a row is 1 in 3,091,874, but the odds are exactly the same as the first spin.

The same goes for flipping a coin. The Law of Averages says that 1000 flips of a coin will produce a near equal split between heads and tails. If, while flipping this coin 1000 times, you hit a streak of 100 heads in a row, the odds of the next flip being tails is 50%, just like every other flip. The important word in the phrase Law of Averages is "Law" not "Averages".

If a team wins 20 games in a row, the odds of them winning the next game are not effected by this streak. Each game is an independent event and has odds of its own completely unrelated to the games which occurred in the past. Besides, why would you ever want to bet against a team that has won 20 in a row? Clearly, this team is kicking ass and taking names.

When it comes to sports betting and streaks, the wisest move is to have your sports picks go with the flow, not against it. Betting against a streak opens up unlimited losses because you never know how long the streak will continue. A streak can go on game after game after game, but the end of a streak can happen only once.

Gab Session- Taking Pleasure In Sports Pain?

I don't know how I feel about the sudden self-righteousness invading sports.

I mean, I was on the Suspend-Pacman-Jones wagon long before it was cool. Kid's a phenomenal talent, and probably deserved to go to the Pro Bowl last year, but he brings the thug life to a whole new level. Same with Chris Henry. And Don Imus has been a curmudgeonly putz for years; it just took five seconds of empty-headed Neanderthal behavior for the world to catch on.

But the unmitigated schadenfreude with which the world has gleefully attacked these stories is positively Anna-Nicole-esque. Have we completely lost our ability to tell a Big Story from a run-of-the-mill, this-guy's-an-a-hole affair? The simple answer is: yes.

So please: some simple requests. No more Don Imus leading the evening news, just as there should be no more Anna Nicole's babydaddy getting cheered by Bahamian hangers-on getting televised. No more press conferences in which the Rutgers University women's hoops team is asked to play media critic. No more self-congratulatory press conferences where Roger Goodell and Gene Upshaw are seen singing "Kumbaya." American culture (and make no mistake, this is all American, through-and-through) needs to take a look at the glee with which it reports stories like this, with overly stern expressions and trembling voices. Pacman Jones and Chris Henry are very sad stories, and I want to hear about them, briefly. I just don't want to know what Mike Golic, Sean Salisbury, Deion Sanders, Bryant Gumbel, Martha Stewart or Triumph the Insult Comic Dog thinks about the implications for the larger trends in society.

Well, actually, wait. I take that back. Triumph, you're pretty funny. Feel free to speak up.

If Tiger Woods had won the Masters, would that have been a bloodbath for the books? And did anyone out there have Zach Johnson?

BoDog Bookmakers, BoDog.com: The books do a good job of line management, so even if Tiger had won, it wouldn't have been too bad. That being said, if Tiger had won, we wouldn't have had nearly as much success we did with a relative unknown like Zach Johnson winning. There actually were a few people who were banking on Zach Johnson. Their foresight or blind luck, whichever you'd prefer calling it, resulted in some huge payouts.

Kevin Durant is headed pro. Do you think he's a true franchise-changing player in the NBA?

BDB, BoDog.com: The 2007 draft will be one of the most talent-laden drafts in recent years. It may not be a repeat of 2003, but it could be very similar to the 1983 draft. Similar to the Jordan-Olajuwon draft in 1983, the choice is between two potential phenoms. Greg Oden is a dominating centre who will anchor a team's middle for years, whereas Kevin Durant will transcend the game altogether. Oden is the safe pick, but so was Olajuwan. Whoever picks Durant is getting not only a franchise-changer but they are getting a kid who will change the game itself. The difference between 2007 and 1983 is that Durant won't slip to the #3 pick.

Just for fun, after about two weeks of the new MLB season, who are your AL and NL MVPs?

BDB, BoDog.com: The easy choice for AL MVP is Alex Rodriguez. Scott Boras has all but guaranteed his client will opt out and look for an even bigger contract next year. Alex Rodriguez plus Boras plus a contract year will add up to some ridiculous numbers. In the NL, Florida's Miguel Cabrera has been knocking on the door of superstardom for a couple of seasons now. The Marlins' success is directly tied to Miguel Cabrera's performance.

Here come the NHL playoffs, and some very interesting storylines. The first series ever for Atlanta. Sidney Crosby with a legit chance to do some damage. Nashville as an incredibly scary #4. Who do you think winds up in the Cup finals this year?

BDB, BoDog.com: Looking at all of the match-ups, the one I find most intriguing is the Sens and Penguins, as both teams have enough firepower to give the goalies nightmares. The series features five of the top 18 regular-season point-getters. Sidney Crosby will be in his first of what will be many more playoffs, and he'll definitely put on a show. I think the young Penguins, along with the Senators' old nemesis Gary Roberts, will take this series right down to the wire. If the Penguins can squeeze past the first round, Crosby could cement himself as "The Next One" by leading his Penguins to the finals. Nashville is an incredibly scary #4, but does Forsberg's body have one more playoff run in him? I think Joe Thornton will be the player to watch in this series. Lastly, the odds say that the Cup finals should be Buffalo Sabres vs. Detroit Red Wings, but Calgary, who underperformed all year, could derail those plans early if they manage to step up their road game.