The Lakers reached the 2008 NBA finals: impressive or not?

"Hey Honest Bro", you say. "I thought you were going to take on tough questions. Both this and your last post have answered really easy questions".

"Blame Molson for the last one. Blame Mssr. David Steinberg for this one. (I will call him Mssr. to frenchify/emasculate him through the rest of this post)"

"You're making excuses. Have you gone soft? Have you - errr how do I say this - fallen off?"

"Now all I get all day is hate mail sayin' THB fell off.
What, 'cause I been in the lab with a pen and a pad
Tryin' to get this damn blogpost off.
I ain't havin' that. This is the millenium of Aftermath.
Ain't gonna be nothin' after that.
So give me one more blogpost with 20-30 hits,
and forget answering Q's, you can have it back."

A snippet from my latest hit "Forgot about THB". Why am I taking the time to answer this obvious question? Last night (this morning in fact!) between 0100hrs and 0225hrs, Mssr. David Steinberg and I had a stately, civilized debate on the title question. I won, but there were no witnesses to convince the stubborn Mssr. David Steinberg of this, well, undebatable outcome. Now I appeal to you, scores of faithful readers: kindly inform Mssr. David Steinberg that he is a blithering fool.

So that you have the context, let me describe the debating styles of the two participants:

Mssr. David Steinberg (MDS): a proponent of the brute force style of arguing. His motto: if the opponent is never allowed to complete a sentence, the opponent will struggle to put together a coherent argument. This kill-every-sentence tactic is key because MDS fails to make much of a coherent argument himself. Brandishing the volume and intensity of his voice like a large club, MDS is not afraid to employ any and all guerrilla tactics, such as personal attacks, changing the subject of the argument, and telling me that math is false.

THB: a true finesse player. Battle-tested with years of combat against the guru of brute force argumentation (THB's very father), THB has learned to wait patiently for the occasional calm in the storm of the brute force debator. Presented with this opportunity, THB will use a reserved tone of voice to belay his argument in a clear, coherent manner. THB is even prone to support his argument with facts and logic rather than merely increasing the volume of his voice to match the absurdity of his claims.

I will begin with an answer to this question that makes sense. Then, I will do my best to reformulate MDS's view in standard English sentences. Finally, I will relate the conclusion of our discussion.

Section I: THB's viewpoint

The Los Angeles Lakers making the 2008 NBA finals is not impressive. In no way, shape, or form. They had Kobe Bryant, who should have been league-MVP-runner-up to Chris Paul. They had a starting five team built around Kobe, including proven NBA players such as Derek Fisher and Lamar Odom. They had the best bench in the league, including Farmar, Ariza, Vujacic (the most odious player in the game today), and Luke Walton. Many would be borderline starters. They had Phil Jackson, who may go down as the most accomplished coach in NBA history. And then they added an All-Star center in Pau Gasol without giving up a thing. In short, they were stacked.

That they emerged as clear #1 seed heading into the playoffs surprised no one.

What about their competition? In round 1, they faced the Denver Nuggets. The Nuggets limped into the playoffs with a team that clearly didn't work (i.e., they had two ballhogs and no defense). They were dead meat. The Lakers swept them. Only one game was within 10 points. In round 2: they faced the Jazz. It was a good team playing against a stacked team. The Lakers won comfortably in six. Finally, they faced the San Antonio Spurs. The aging Spurs had played two tough series against the Suns and Hornets, and their marquee finisher Manu Ginboli was playing on a badly sprained ankle. The Lakers were younger and better to begin with, and the Spurs were handicapped. It showed. The Lakers won in five.

Was the Lakers' run impressive? That depends on your definition of impressive. I submit my definition:

im.pres.sive (adj): amazing observers by doing something very difficult

Why is it more impressive when a Cinderella team like George Mason reaches the Final Four than when a favorite like Florida wins the tournament? Degree of difficulty. Florida accomplished more, but it was more difficult for George Mason to reach the Final Four. How do we measure difficulty? Through odds. If you play any match-up in sports a hundred times, each team will win some number of those games - 50 in an even match-up. To reach the Final Four, George Mason had to win four games, and their odds of winning each game was less than 50%. Their odds of beating UConn was probably something like, I don't know, 5%. To string four improbable victories together is extremely difficult. It's very impressive. Florida had to win six games to gain the national title, but they were favored in every single one, even the final against UCLA. They had a team full of future NBA players.

Some rough sample math with made-up-but-probably-not-entirely-unrealistic-odds:

Probability of George Mason winning making the Final Four (multiply the probabilities of their winning each game): 40% * 30% * 15% * 5% = 0.01%. One in ten thousand.

Probability of Florida winning the NCAA tournament: 99.9% * 95% * 80% * 75% * 70% * 60% = ~25%. One in four.

That's why George Mason's run is more impressive. And probability shows us why the Lakers run to the NBA finals in not impressive. As you increase the length of a series, the chances of the better team winning increase. If one team beats another 75% of the time, they will win a seven game series 92.9% of the time. That's a big part of the reason that the probability of the Lakers reaching the NBA finals in 2008 was 49.7% (I prove this in appendix). Yeah, that's as impressive as getting tails when you flip a coin.

Note: I don't like the coin-flip analogy since "tails never fails" in practice, but it works in theory.

Section II: MDS's viewpoint

THEY'RE ALL NBA TEAMS. WINNING A SERIES AGAINST ANOTHER NBA TEAM IS IMPRESSIVE. THAT'S IMPRESSIVE. THEY ALL PLAY IN THE NBA. THEY'RE ALL GREAT BASKETBALL PLAYERS. THAT'S IMPRESSIVE. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN SAY THAT'S NOT IMPRESSIVE. YOU CAN'T APPLY MATH TO THIS. ODDS JUST DON'T APPLY. I DON'T CARE HOW THE HOUSE ALWAYS WINS IN SPORTS GAMBLING. YOU CAN'T APPLY ODDS. THEY'RE NOT PLAYING LOUSY TEAMS. EVEN IF THEY HAVE MORE TALENT, THEY'RE STILL PLAYING NBA TEAMS. IT'S HARD TO DO. IT'S IMPRESSIVE WHEN ANY TEAM IN PRO SPORTS MAKES A FINAL. THAT'S IMPRESSIVE. WELL, EVEN IF THE LAKERS HAD GOOD ODDS, IT'S IMPRESSIVE THAT THEY COULD FOLLOW THROUGH. IT'S IMPRESSIVE THAT THEY COULD MAKE GOOD ON THEIR ODDS BECAUSE SPORTS AREN'T AUTOMATIC. THEY STILL HAD TO DO IT. IT'S IMPRESSIVE. YOU'RE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. YOU'RE AN IDIOT. YOU PROBABLY BELIEVE THE BULLS WINNING THREE TITLES IN A ROW IS NOT IMPRESSIVE. WHAT'S IMPRESSIVE THEN? NOTHING TO YOU. YOU'RE ABSURD. IF THE LAKERS HAD GOOD ODDS, IT'S IMPRESSIVE THEY WERE GOOD ENOUGH TO GET THOSE ODDS. IT'S IMPRESSIVE THEY HAD THE MONEY TO PUT TOGETHER THAT GOOD OF A TEAM. IT'S THE NBA. YOU STILL HAVE TO BEAT GOOD TEAMS.

(Now imagine I typed this all again, only in bold and in a larger font.)

Section III: Conclusion

THB: I don't find it impressive when a team follows through on good odds. It's not automatic, but it's not impressive either. It's fairly likely to happen. More likely than not.
MDS: IT'S IMPRESSIVE. WHENEVER A FAVORITE WINS, IT'S IMPRESSIVE. ALL THE TEAMS IN THE NBA ARE GOOD. IT'S IMPRESSIVE WHEN A FAVORITE FOLLOWS THROUGH AND GETS THE JOB DONE.
THB: Say the Celtics were to face the Bobcats in a seven game series. Would you find it impressive if they won?
MDS: YES. IF THEY IT WERE THE PLAYOFFS, THE BOBCATS ARE STILL AN NBA...

At this point, I walked away to brush my teeth and go to sleep. I reduced his argument to pure absurdity. The Celtics would have a ninety-something percent chance of beating the Bobcats in a seven game series. I was satisfied that I reduced MDS to absurdity. If he's impressed when a Ray Allen free-throw goes in, more power to him. MDS is blessed (doomed?) to travel this earth wide-eyed.

Plus, Mitalee called, so I had to switch from my arguing voice to my girlfriend voice. I was too tired to switch back afterward and refute more of MDS's rubbish.

Appendix

Theorem: Based on reasonable assumptions, the Los Angeles Lakers had a 49.7% chance of reaching the 2008 NBA finals

Here are those reasonable assumptions:

1. The 2008 Los Angeles Lakers would beat the 2008 Denver Nuggets 75% of the time on a neutral court. Carmelo and AI just didn't work. On offense. Nevermind defense.

2. The 2008 Los Angeles Lakers would beat the 2008 Utah Jazz 65% of the time on a nuetral court. Again, the Jazz are good. But the Lakers are quite clearly better. Kobe trumps Deron Williams. Gasol trumps Boozer. The rest of the Lakers trump the rest of the Jazz.

3. The 2008 Los Angeles Lakers would beat the 2008 San Antonio Spurs 60% of the time. The Lakers are a deep team in their prime. They're rested. The Spurs are an aging team with a thin bench, extremely thin with an injured Manu Ginobli.

Note: if someone has NBA2K9, I'd be interested to know how close my estimates are (I think you'll need 2K9 to have Gasol on the Lakers and AI still on the Nuggets). Play the games computer v computer 10 times each.

Probability theory yields the following three results (using the probabilty mass function):

1. The Lakers had a 87.4% chance of beating the Nuggets in a seven game series.
2. The Lakers had a 80.0% chance of beating the Jazz in a seven game series.
3. The Lakers had a 70.1% chance of beating the Spurs in a seven game series.

To get the probability of three discrete events occuring in sequence, you multiply the probability of each event occurring. 87.4% * 80.0% * 70.1% = 49.7%. Therefore, the Lakers had a 49.7% chance of reaching the NBA finals.
QED.

My calculations are included here for reference.