Is Miami's 19-Point Win Versus San Antonio Historically Significant?

Miami's 19-point victory on Sunday was the largest margin of victory in a Finals series in the past three seasons. Somehow, the series seemed to have tilted way in favor of the Heat in a little more than a quarter's worth of playing time. The blowout victory was a revelation for the Heat, who made the necessary adjustments in the second half to take a commanding lead on the way to winning Game 2. With the series tied at 1-1, Game 3 has historically been the pivotal game on which a Finals series hinges.  

Can margin of victory predict the Finals winner?

As CBS sports columnist Gregg Doyel wrote, "Since the NBA Finals went to the 2-3-2 format in 1985, the series has been tied 12 times entering Game 3. In those 12 series, the Game 3 winner has gone on to be the champion 11 times."  That's a stat worth paying attention to, or maybe it's a stat just stating the obvious; that championships are not necessarily caused by winning Game 3 itself, but rather in the probability that the better team will win more games. Game 3, all things being equal, has a greater chance of  being won by the better team, and therefore, why the champion wins Game 3 more often than the loser.   

So how about turning our attention to margin of victory? Does the margin of victory in a single NBA Finals game provide a clue into who will win the championship? 

The thinking is that the better team will have a more dominant performance that manifests itself in larger margins of victory. After all, it's rare that an eventual champion would lose in a blowout if they indeed are the better team. Great teams humble lesser teams, and lesser teams rarely have the firepower to beat great teams by more than what great teams can beat them by over the course of a seven-game series. 

Looking at margin of victory data going back to the 1990 NBA Finals -- a span of 23 Finals --  the team with the largest margin of victory in a single game would eventually claim the championship 19 times. 

In addition, only three champions since 1990 have lost a Finals game by more than 13 points; the 1996 Chicago Bulls (21), 2000 Los Angeles Lakers (33), and 2005 San Antonio Spurs (33). The team that lost by 13? That would be the 2006 Miami Heat who lost to the Dallas Mavericks. It should be noted that the 1996 Bulls lost Game 4 by 21 after building a 3-0 series lead against the Seattle Supersonics, and the 2000 Lakers lost Game 5 by 33 after opening up a 3-1 series lead against the Indiana Pacers. The 2005 Spurs lost Game 4 by 33 to the Detroit Pistons to make it a 2-2 series.

From the data, we can infer that if this year's version of the Spurs win the series, they will become only the fourth team since 1990 to win the championship after losing a Finals game by more than 13 points. If the Spurs do not beat the Heat in a game by 20 or more points, they will become just the 5th team in the past 24 Finals to win the championship without having the largest margin of victory in a single game. 

The data seems to suggest that better teams more often than not display the most dominant single-game performances in a series. Miami has staked a claim for most dominant performance in this series, but of course, the series is still in its infancy as the Spurs and Heat play the next three games in San Antonio.  

 

10 Most Hated College Teams

 So Uncoached.com released a list of the 10 most hated teams in sports. The list included three college teams; Ohio State football, Duke men's basketball, and Notre Dame football. It got me thinking about the college programs that people around the country really, really dislike and I ranked them. In addition to the three mentioned above, I added seven more.  

10) UConn women's basketball: The only women's team on this list!!! Nobody likes a team that has dominated for so long. 90 wins in a row? 90 FRIGGIN' wins in a row!!! Amazing, yes. But it just made you feel good to see them lose and cry, and pout, and be like 'We're UConn, what is this feeling of losing?'  And you know, there's just something about Geno Auriemma that rubs people the wrong way. I loved it when Pat Summit was winning titles, but Auriemma? The guy looks angry when his team wins by 30. 

Lane Kiffin. My blood boils. 

9)  Boise State football: I know there are many people who are fans of this perennial BCS crasher. But how many other people out there cry foul? Here's to all the people who ask "How would they do in a power conference? How many games would they lose in the SEC?" To each his own, but Boise State really started the conversation for the importance of strength of schedule in determining the top 2 teams in the BCS national championship game. For the record, I'm a fan of the Broncos. 

8) Southern Cal football: Two words: Lane Kiffin. Every time they lost last year just felt so good, didn't it?

7) Miami, Fla., football: The hatred thrown at the program stems from its renegade days in the 1980's. Some people suggest the program is still living in the past, but if that's the case, then so are all the haters who can't get enough of calling Miami "Thug U." So many people were calling for the Death Penalty liberally following the Shapiro scandal. The sanctions await. 

6) Kentucky men's basketball: John Calipari is the nation's best recruiter, but he hasn't won over many fans with his crop of one-and-done freshman sensations. His reliance on young talent paid off spectacularly with last year's national title, but some basketball purists can't stand the idea of "renting" players for one year, unless of course it's your team cutting down the nets at the end of the year. 

5) Tennessee football: You fire Phil Fulmer who was good at the beginning and bad at the end, kind of like an all-you-can-eat buffet. You gave Lane Kiffin a shot. Then he leaves you, your fans go all apocalyptic, but it's OK because you hired Derek Dooley. Plus, you gave Lane Kiffin a shot. 

Lord Voldemort, er, Saban

4) Alabama football: Roll Tide! Alabama was a broken program just six years ago. Enter Lord Saban and college football's craziest, most rabid fans have reason to get all smug again. They also claim a crazy amount of national titles, some of which are totally unjustified, most of which, begrudgingly, are completely legitimate.

3) Notre Dame football: All the history, nostalgia, and legacy from the Four Horsemen to Lou Holtz. No program has more lore than the Fighting Irish, and it's a bit annoying. Sure it's a historic program, but it's no different now than any other major college football program. Plus, there's the resentment of having their own contract with NBC and holding out of a conference. I predict the ACC is in your near future Notre Dame. 

2) Ohio State football: Only 15 years ago Ohio State was a respectable program cheered on by many people outside the state of Michigan. Then came Jim Tressel, who made the program a Big 10 powerhouse, but it came with his horrible sweater vest. Deep down you just knew Tressel was somehow...off. Then came the embarrassing losses to two SEC teams in BCS title games. The Suckeyes, I mean, Buckeyes have yet to live  those losses down. 

Cameron Indoor, home of the Dukies

1) Duke men's basketball: Blue bloods. Players on Duke teams have been called sell-outs, but all they do is keep winning ACC titles on a regular basis and reach Final Fours for Hall of Fame coach Mike Krzyzewski. After Duke won the 2010 championship people were literally outraged that they had beaten Butler. You ever seen an indignant Digger Phelps? I have. Their fans do tend to get annoying, but it's the only arena in all of sports where I catch myself paying more attention to the crowd than to the game. Is that a bad thing or a good thing?

Lance Armstrong from a Christian Perspective

In my young boys' mind I grew up thinking good athletes were successful because they were naturally good, flawless people. In turn,  I thought less of players who rarely came off the bench because if they were inferior athletes, they must have been inferior people -- with less of a desire to work hard or the willingness to make the necessary sacrifices to be successful. It's why in my youth I took it so hard when I didn't achieve athletically the way I aspired to. As I grew older that kind of thinking evaporated, but the very essence of the idea that moral people accomplish great things has always remained in my romanticized view of sports.

So when Lance Armstrong's interview finally aired and I was able to digest the meaning of yet another sports hero brought down by scandal, my reaction went from one of sadness and disappointment, to one of hope and joy.

I'm not used to writing about sports from a Christian perspective, but I couldn't help but think of the many ways that Armstrong's story parallels so many of the characters in the Bible who distance themselves from God. 

Lance Armstrong made history on his own. But at what price?

By his own account, Armstrong did things his way. His use of performance-enhancing drugs led him to seven consecutive Tour de France titles, a fortune, worldwide celebrity, and becoming an icon as a survivor and philanthropist in the fight against cancer. He became what so many of us can only dream of, and then some. Armstrong did pretty well on his own. He elicited pride from cancer survivors, Americans, war veterans, and sports fans spanning the globe. But his empire was built on the idea of himself. As he would say in the interview with Oprah, "I was used to controlling everything in my life. I controlled every outcome in my life." 

Therein lies Armstrong's mistake -- we are not in control of our lives. God is in control, and when we do not acknowledge the presence of God in our life, the fall is devastating and damning.

In his interview Armstrong revealed that he was "deeply flawed," a "bully," and described himself as full of "arrogance." None of this is surprising, in fact, as we sit in front of our computers and televisions and admonish a human who is by nature flawed and sinful, can't we look at ourselves and say the same thing?

For me to turn Armstrong into a pariah so that I can categorize him in my mind as another wrongdoer in a world that is full of wrongdoing, would simply turn me into an even bigger hypocrite than I already am. Who am I to judge this man for all his shortcomings, when I am just as guilty of being a flawed creature who strays from God's word on a daily basis? 

I hope Armstrong makes amends with those he has hurt. With an open heart, that he make amends and recognize that not only has he been a flawed person, but that he will forever be flawed, and the only way for any kind of change is to begin a conversation with God. As much as he thought he was in control, Armstrong never was and never will be. The events leading up to his admission of PED use and last night's interview is a testament to his lack of control.  

I would also pray that our society be quick to forgive, and that as much as we are guilty of building up our celebrities, that we disassociate ourselves from idol worship. Placing our beliefs and hopes in fellow humans only leads to disillusionment, lies, and a void where God should have been all along. 

When I read Psalm 4:1-4 I can only think of how Armstrong for so long lied to everyone, and how the people he has affected are now quick to condemn and slow to forgive. Yet, within the same passage is a hope of redemption for Armstrong -- in prayer. 

"Answer me when I call, O God who declares me innocent. Take away my distress. Have mercy on me and hear my prayer. 

How long will you people ruin my reputation? How long will you make these groundless accusations? How long will you pursue lies? 

You can be sure of this: The Lord has set apart the godly for himself. The Lord will answer when I call him. 

Don't sin by letting anger gain control over you. Think about it overnight and remain silent."