Show Me The Title.

[nuraman00]

#JazzReunited: John Stockton re-enacts 'The Shot,' and other highlights from 1996-97 team's reunion

Good article. But you can't talk about the "Show Me The Title" slogan, and not link to it in the article.

Here it is:


I wish he wore the same sunglasses from that commercial, to the reunion a few months ago.

Who's the guy with the football in the commercial? Is he just supposed to be parodying Tom Cruise in Jerry McGuire, or is it someone famous?

 

[nuraman00]

Did they really make shorts with players' numbers on them? Did they wear them to practice?

Or was it just for the commercial?

I don't remember seeing any other player in the league with numbers on their shorts.

 

[nuraman00]

The one thing I have to say is that this was a tie game. There wasn't as much pressure with a miss. A miss, and the game goes into overtime, so it's still a 50/50 game.

Better than 50/50.

The Jazz won 5/7 OT games that year, including 1 at Houston. 71.4%.

http://bkref.com/tiny/1AMzo

Houston had also won 5/7 OT games that year:

http://bkref.com/tiny/UcmcQ

So did both have a 71.4% chance of winning?



Anyways, there is more at stake where a missed shot loses the game.

See this Lillard game-winner (also a series winner):


BTW, I didn't think about this on my own. Someone pointed it out a few years ago that it's rare for a buzzer beater to be one where the miss loses the game. So after that, I had a heightened appreciation for it.

Doing the same OT exercise:

Houston was 4/7 in OT games (2-1 in vs Portland including the playoffs prior to game 6) in 2013-2014. 57.1%.

Portland was 6/9 in OT games, including 1-1 in the playoffs against Houston prior to that game 6. So 66.667% chance.

So Portland would have seemingly had a slight advantage in OT. But still, the point was that in that situation, a missed shot loses the game.

 

[nuraman00]

Who's the guy with the football in the commercial? Is he just supposed to be parodying Tom Cruise in Jerry McGuire, or is it someone famous?

The guy with the football @ 0:29 says he has 3 rings.

 

[nuraman00]

Where is that from? "No one wears a suit like you wear a suit".

I think I'm missing something from this joke.

 

[MHSL82]

The one thing I have to say is that this was a tie game. There wasn't as much pressure with a miss. A miss, and the game goes into overtime, so it's still a 50/50 game.

Better than 50/50.

The Jazz won 5/7 OT games that year, including 1 at Houston. 71.4%.

http://bkref.com/tiny/1AMzo
Houston had also won 5/7 OT games that year:

http://bkref.com/tiny/UcmcQ
So did both have a 71.4% chance of winning?



Anyways, there is more at stake where a missed shot loses the game.

See this Lillard game-winner (also a series winner):


BTW, I didn't think about this on my own. Someone pointed it out a few years ago that it's rare for a buzzer beater to be one where the miss loses the game. So after that, I had a heightened appreciation for it.

Doing the same OT exercise:

Houston was 4/7 in OT games (2-1 in vs Portland including the playoffs prior to game 6) in 2013-2014. 57.1%.

Portland was 6/9 in OT games, including 1-1 in the playoffs against Houston prior to that game 6. So 66.667% chance.

So Portland would have seemingly had a slight advantage in OT. But still, the point was that in that situation, a missed shot loses the game.

71.4% x 71.4% = 50.9796% chance of winning.

Just kidding. If two teams have the same chance of winning as the other team, it would be a 50-50 game from logic. But it was in Houston so I guess they would get the tiebreaker.

I think that if it were a tie game and I thought that a two point shot had a better chance of going in, I would have more pressure to take that three-point shot. But when non-athletes talk about a pressure situation, I don't think they know what they're talking about. There is plenty of pressure, 100% max. I don't think Stockton goes into it thinking that if he misses we go to overtime.

 

[nuraman00]

71.4% x 71.4% = 50.9796% chance of winning.

Just kidding. If two teams have the same chance of winning as the other team, it would be a 50-50 game from logic. But it was in Houston so I guess they would get the tiebreaker.

I think that if it were a tie game and I thought that a two point shot had a better chance of going in, I would have more pressure to take that three-point shot. But when non-athletes talk about a pressure situation, I don't think they know what they're talking about. There is plenty of pressure, 100% max. I don't think Stockton goes into it thinking that if he misses we go to overtime.

I agree that's not what Stockton is thinking.

Just pointing out the reality though that a miss wouldn't lose the game.

I don't think there is any advantage for home court in OT games. Especially in the playoffs, when only good teams are left, so home court means even less. Ok, what I meant was the second sentence, the not the first one of this paragraph.

In a regular season game, when a good team faces a bad team, they have the advantage, regardless of where it's played.

Can you help me out with some of these questions to the clip in the OP?

 

[nuraman00]

I also don't agree with the common adage that you go for the win on the road.

I think you just go for the play that gets you the best shot opportunity.

 

[nuraman00]

The Jazz have played 14 OT playoff games.

They are 8-7.

6-1 at home.

2-5 on the road.

There's additional filtering I could have done to only show OT games from certain seeds.

Since 1996-1997, home teams are 54-51 in the playoffs.

So it is very close to 50/50. 54.1%.

So the Jazz should win more road OT games in the playoffs than they have.

 

[MHSL82]

The Jazz have played 14 OT playoff games.

They are 8-7.

6-1 at home.

2-5 on the road.

There's additional filtering I could have done to only show OT games from certain seeds.

Since 1996-1997, home teams are 54-51 in the playoffs.

So it is very close to 50/50. 54.1%.

So the Jazz should win more road OT games in the playoffs than they have.

First of all 8 + 7 is not 14.

Second, unless you were able to show me across the board statistically that road teams win as often as home teams, I'm going to get the tiebreakers to home teams, even in playoff games between good teams. Sure the better team wins regardless more often, but teams are more evenly matched in the playoffs. Even the one in HC doesn't have as big of a gap has the one often plays in the regular season. (There are 14 non-playoff teams that that one seed plays around 42 games against. 7 Conference games x 4, 7 non-Conference x 2)(This is compared to every one of the playoff teams having made the playoffs for any one of the playoff teams playing them.)

The fact that the Jazz were 6-1 at home and 2-5 on the road shows that the assumption of home still being a factor between two of the teams is still alive. I wouldn't look at one side of the statistics and say the Jazz should just win more on the road to match your guess of 50-50.

Eight and seven is very close to 50%. And this is just one team. But if the NBA on the whole won at that percentage at home, that would be significant.

 

[MHSL82]

I also don't agree with the common adage that you go for the win on the road.

I think you just go for the play that gets you the best shot opportunity.

I would agree with your disagreement. If the road team has a smaller chance of winning in overtime, that percentage, I don't think, is bigger than the difference between a three point shot and two point shot. I especially don't think it is bigger than the percentage of a forced three-point shot versus a well-placed two-point shot plus overtime. You have no chance of winning the game if you miss the shot, so you go for the tie if the two point shot is the better stat. If you get a wide-open three pointer that is a good shot, that has a better chance of going in and winning than a contested shot plus OT.

 

[MHSL82]

Good article. But you can't talk about the "Show Me The Title" slogan, and not link to it in the article.

Here it is:


I wish he wore the same sunglasses from that commercial, to the reunion a few months ago.

Who's the guy with the football in the commercial? Is he just supposed to be parodying Tom Cruise in Jerry McGuire, or is it someone famous?

Really? Just kidding. The football guy is Steve Young who played for BYU, the inferior college from Utah. (Inferior is synonymous to South; Provo, where BYU plays, is south of Salt Lake.) He played for the Niners and won 2 rings. I mean, two "titles."

 

[MHSL82]

Did they really make shorts with players' numbers on them? Did they wear them to practice?

Or was it just for the commercial?

I don't remember seeing any other player in the league with numbers on their shorts.

The 55 that you see on Antoine Carr is on his sweats. I didn't look at their sweats or their shorts much.

 

[nuraman00]

Really? Just kidding. The football guy is Steve Young who played for BYU, the inferior college from Utah. (Inferior is synonymous to South; Provo, where BYU plays, is south of Salt Lake.) He played for the Niners and won 2 rings. I mean, two "titles."

Thanks.

I told you I'm bad with faces.

Thanks. He looked familiar, but I couldn't place him.

I never watched much MTV, but I remember the name from the 90s.

I'm also bad with faces. I'll get two people who look similar to me, mixed up, in terms of their names. People will say "how can you not tell them apart?" to me.

 

[nuraman00]

The 55 that you see on Antoine Carr is on his sweats. I didn't look at their sweats or their shorts much.

I wonder if he got those sweats custom made.

I don't think teams made heavy sweats for players, only light team-branded warmups.

 

[nuraman00]

The Jazz have played 14 OT playoff games.

They are 8-7.

6-1 at home.

2-5 on the road.

There's additional filtering I could have done to only show OT games from certain seeds.

Since 1996-1997, home teams are 54-51 in the playoffs.

So it is very close to 50/50. 54.1%.

So the Jazz should win more road OT games in the playoffs than they have.

First of all 8 + 7 is not 14.

Second, unless you were able to show me across the board statistically that road teams win as often as home teams, I'm going to get the tiebreakers to home teams, even in playoff games between good teams. Sure the better team wins regardless more often, but teams are more evenly matched in the playoffs. Even the one in HC doesn't have as big of a gap has the one often plays in the regular season. (There are 14 non-playoff teams that that one seed plays around 42 games against. 7 Conference games x 4, 7 non-Conference x 2)(This is compared to every one of the playoff teams having made the playoffs for any one of the playoff teams playing them.)

The fact that the Jazz were 6-1 at home and 2-5 on the road shows that the assumption of home still being a factor between two of the teams is still alive. I wouldn't look at one side of the statistics and say the Jazz should just win more on the road to match your guess of 50-50.

Eight and seven is very close to 50%. And this is just one team. But if the NBA on the whole won at that percentage at home, that would be significant.

Well, I did show you that since 1996-1997, home teams are 54-51 in playoffs OT games.

Sorry for the typos.

The Jazz are 8-6 in playoffs OT games.

6-1 at home.

2-5 on the road.

If I look at all playoffs OT games in NBA Playoffs History (not just since 1996-1997):

128-116 for home teams. 51.6%.

So that's why I said that if all playoffs teams only have a 51.6% record in OT games at home, then the Jazz should be closer to that number, and not at 85.7% (6W 1 L).

If I look at all OT games in regular season history (where my guess was that the home win % would be higher because there would be bigger mismatches in how good a team was):

Home teams are 1588-1494. 51.5%.

Well, I guess it's a little lower, but still close. Maybe the good teams are winning against bad teams in OT on the road more than bad teams are winning against good teams in OT at home.

How do these numbers look to you in whether you'd give a team an edge in OT in the playoffs at home? How significant is this to you?

 

[nuraman00]

Where is that from? "No one wears a suit like you wear a suit".

I think I'm missing something from this joke.

@MHSL82 , can you help with this one?

 

[MHSL82]

Well, I did show you that since 1996-1997, home teams are 54-51 in playoffs OT games.

Sorry for the typos.

The Jazz are 8-6 in playoffs OT games.

6-1 at home.

2-5 on the road.

If I look at all playoffs OT games in NBA Playoffs History (not just since 1996-1997):

128-116 for home teams. 51.6%.

So that's why I said that if all playoffs teams only have a 51.6% record in OT games at home, then the Jazz should be closer to that number, and not at 85.7% (6W 1 L).

If I look at all OT games in regular season history (where my guess was that the home win % would be higher because there would be bigger mismatches in how good a team was):

Home teams are 1588-1494. 51.5%.

Well, I guess it's a little lower, but still close. Maybe the good teams are winning against bad teams in OT on the road more than bad teams are winning against good teams in OT at home.

How do these numbers look to you in whether you'd give a team an edge in OT in the playoffs at home? How significant is this to you?

I honestly think that overtime games are a crapshoot because both teams are obviously playing equal throughout regulation. In game momentum plays a factor, maybe stronger than home court. I'm just saying that I would give the edge to the home team.

Take a look at it this way: It isn't 51.6 compared to 50. It's 51.6 compared to 48.4. That's 3.2%. If a team beat another team 103.2 to 96.8, it wouldn't look like a tie game. But it would be close. (Please ignore the fact that now team can score decimals. I just didn't want to round. If I worked around, I could've around it before I doubled. I could say 104 to 96 because double of 52 and double of 48 would be those numbers. I would've then just compared it to football in a no defense game.)

51.6% is 106.7% of 48.4%.

 

[nuraman00]

I honestly think that overtime games are a crapshoot because both teams are obviously playing equal throughout regulation. In game momentum plays a factor, maybe stronger than home court. I'm just saying that I would give the edge to the home team.

Take a look at it this way: It isn't 51.6 compared to 50. It's 51.6 compared to 48.4. That's 3.2%. If a team beat another team 103.2 to 96.8, it wouldn't look like a tie game. But it would be close. (Please ignore the fact that now team can score decimals. I just didn't want to round. If I worked around, I could've around it before I doubled. I could say 104 to 96 because double of 52 and double of 48 would be those numbers. I would've then just compared it to football in a no defense game.)

51.6% is 106.7% of 48.4%.

Thanks, I understand.

Speaking of momentum, I seem to think momentum in the first 2 mins is a big factor. If any team has an edge after the first 2 mins (more than a 1 possession game), then I think they'll likely win. It seems hard to come back from 3 possessions after the first 2 mins. 2 possessions is a little more doable.

But it's just a theory, maybe someday someone will analyze OT and see if there's any such correlation to leading by 2 possessions after 2 mins and winning within that OT period (not having it sent to another OT).

If it's within 1 possession, or one of those OTs were no one is scoring, then it's very unpredictable.

Can you also help with some of other commercial references? I asked above.

 

[nuraman00]

Really? Just kidding. The football guy is Steve Young who played for BYU, the inferior college from Utah. (Inferior is synonymous to South; Provo, where BYU plays, is south of Salt Lake.) He played for the Niners and won 2 rings. I mean, two "titles."

Maybe someday soon Alex Smith can show Steve Young his NFL title, and star in a sequel "Show Me The Title" commercial with Quinn Snyder.

I picked Snyder because he's probably the most charismatic Jazz Man, and can replicate Big Dog's energy.

Or else, if Hayward resigns with the Jazz, then he can make his announcement as to why he resigned by starring in Smith in such a commercial.