2002 NBA Playoffs - a Return to Form

A couple of years ago, a "terrible thing" happened to sports bettors - at least to those who had grown accustomed to profiting from the long-held form in the NBA playoffs.

In the 2001 NBA playoffs, the "Zig Zag" teams were only 23-31-1 against the spread. And, in 2001, the "overs" edged the "unders" 37-34 in the playoffs.

Those figures were bad news for playoff bettors who had become accustomed to winning in the postseason by consistently favoring the revenge team in a playoff series and who had become used to grimly wagering on the unders in the playoffs and rooting for both teams to walk the ball up the floor, grind it out on offense, and end up with lots of misses.

Fortunately, at least for those who kept the faith in the time-tested Zig Zag Theory, and who stubbornly stuck to their unders, the 2002 NBA playoffs were a welcome return to form.

In 2002, The Zig Zag teams were a formful 31-23-2 vs. the spread, and the unders outdid the overs 39-30-2. These two trends have been profitable so frequently because they both capture the nature of the NBA playoffs.

The rationale for the Zig Zag Theory is obvious: The loser of the first game of a playoff series is likely to play with a little extra intensity in the next game, and so on. There's usually a tendency for the winner of the previous game of a series to let down just a little, with the players prone to have a sense of satisfaction for their victory, while at the same time often forgetting about how alert they had to be and how hard they had to play to achieve it. For the losing players, the sense of failure tends to linger, and the coaching staff of the loser is more likely to make more adjustments.

The rationale for the under vs. the over makes similar sense. In the first place, except for the "Finals" round, the two opposing teams have faced each other several times in the regular season in conference play. They might even have played each other in the previous year's playoffs. By and by, the teams become familiar with the other's key players, plays, options off those plays, strengths and weaknesses, and so on. And, with advancement in the playoffs at stake, the tension begins to mount. It stands to reason that in most playoff series, points are harder to come by than in regular-season meetings - and the statistics over a period of time bear this out.

Including 2002's formful stats, over the last six seasons, the Zig Zag Theory is now 175-153-7 vs. the spread. Over the last 19 years, it is 585-470-19.

In the last six seasons of the playoffs, the unders lead the overs 227-187-11.

As always in sports betting, the normal provisos apply. The above are tendencies that make sense. But, there are no "sure things," as 2001 showed. (The only sure thing in sports betting is that there are no sure things.) But these two tendencies have provided a very helpful overview of the playoffs for more than just a little while. And they have been profitable over the long term for those who have "kept the faith" and persevered through the frequent swings back and forth.

And, there's one refinement that has been even more useful to the Zig Zag bettors. The Zig Zag tends to work better in the first two rounds of the playoffs than in the last two rounds. The latter two rounds, of course, are the Conference Finals and the Championship Finals. With so much at stake in those important two rounds, it is relatively less likely to be the case that a team that just won a playoff game will get caught in a letdown in the ensuing game. Also, the best of the best teams tend to show up in those rounds - teams with more veterans, more "star" power (that is, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant, and so on), and more reliable supporting casts.

Lastly, here's one caveat regarding the first round. This season, the NBA is implementing a best-of-seven series in the first round of the playoffs rather than the long familiar best-of-five in the opening round. I, for one, will be monitoring that round doubly carefully to see if the Zig Zag Theory is holding up. Also, the unders did extremely well in the best-of-five round last year, outdoing the overs 21-12-1. You can be sure I'll be watching to see if a similar pattern repeats now that the first round is a best-of-seven affair.

Chuck Sippl is the senior editor of The Gold Sheet, the first word in sports handicapping for 46 years. The amazingly compact Gold Sheet features analysis of every football and basketball game, exclusive insider reports, widely followed Power Ratings, and a Special Ticker of key injuries and team chemistry. If you have never seen The Gold Sheet and would like to peruse a complimentary sample copy, or would like information on its Late Telephone Service, call The Gold Sheet at (800) 798-GOLD (4653) and mention you read about it in Card Player. You can look up The Gold Sheet on the web at www.goldsheet.com.