Series Thread: ECF: 2) Boston Celtics vs 8) Miami Heat

[trojanfan12]

This is the best version of a Tatum/Brown-led Celtics team that has been put together... but it still has all the same problems that have plagued this version of the Celtics. Even with Tatum and Brown being smack in the middle of their prime years... (they're not kids anymore)... even with a bevy of veterans surrounding them...

• Boston can't consistently beat a zone defense
• Boston can't consistently execute in the clutch

I have to say, though... Jimmy Butler is a marvel. I can't help but admire him even as he's killing my team. The combination of confidence, competitiveness, leadership and joy that he brings to the basketball court is amazing.

Anywho... unless the Celtics are winning by 20+ points with any less than 5 minutes to go in a game, I wouldn't bet money on them earning the W.

Oh, so it's just about how the Celtics are playing? Why are you so disrespectful to the Heat? - @bksballer89

 

[tlance]

No, based on your numbers, which aren’t correct anyway but we will go with them. 5/312 is 1.6 percent like I said.

I got them from an article written yesterday.

Could be wrong. But assuming they are correct you are not.

Not sure if it the math failing you or the logic.

It isn’t 5/312

Because there were not 312 teams to lose their first 2 games at home.

The denominator you are looking for to calculate the actual percentage of teams to come back after losing their first 2 at home is way lower than 312.

 

[DJ]

Those selfish bastards.

LOL.

 

[thunderc]

I got them from an article written yesterday.

Could be wrong. But assuming they are correct you are not.

Not sure if it the math failing you or the logic.

It isn’t 5/312

Because there were not 312 teams to lose their first 2 games at home.

The denominator you are looking for to calculate the actual percentage of teams to come back after losing their first 2 at home is way lower than 312.

No you say 312 went down 0-2. 27 came back but only 5 lost the first 2 at home. My math is correct, 5/312 is the correct percentage for going down 0-2 at home. You are moving goalposts.

 

[trojanfan12]

Well, you would be wrong.

27 teams (out of 312) have come back from 0-2.

That is 8.7%

5 of the 27 had home court advantage. Almost 20% of the teams to do it.

The Clippers did it in 2021 and the Celtics did it in 2017 with a few key players still on the roster today.

It is unlikely for a heavy favorite to lose the first 2 at home. Almost never happens.

But when they do?

They are also more likely to come back.

And the numbers seem to bear that out.

So if true the real number is 1.6 percent. Got it.

Wrong again.

Because the vast majority of the 312 teams to go down 0-2 were not the teams with home court advantage.

So way bigger than 1.6%

I was told that there would be no math here.

 

[fightinfunbags]

I was told that there would be no math here.

I don’t have the heart to tell them it has fuck all to do with this series. Sixers fans were pointing out that in a 2-2 series the winner of Game 5 wins the series 80% of the time. Sounds great. Now the Sixers are making tee times.

 

[tlance]

No you say 312 went down 0-2. 27 came back but only 5 lost the first 2 at home. My math is correct, 5/312 is the correct percentage for going down 0-2 at home. You are moving goalposts.

Dude.

And like I have now said multiple times.

Most of the teams to go down 0-2 lost their first 2 games on the road.

If you are trying to find the percentage of teams to win a series after going down 0-2 at home…

You have to divide the number who won (5) by the number who lost the first 2 games AT HOME.

NOT the total number of teams to lose their first 2 games.

You are wrong

 

[thunderc]

I don’t have the heart to tell them it has fuck all to do with this series. Sixers fans were pointing out that in a 2-2 series the winner of Game 5 wins the series 80% of the time. Sounds great. Now the Sixers are making tee times.

Heart really isn’t taken into account in numbers, the numbers don’t care. That said, heart is not an issue with the Heat.

 

[thunderc]

Dude.

And like I have now said multiple times.

Most of the teams to go down 0-2 lost their first 2 games on the road.

If you are trying to find the percentage of teams to win a series after going down 0-2 at home…

You have to divide the number who won (5) by the number who lost the first 2 games AT HOME.

NOT the total number of teams to lose their first 2 games.

You are wrong

Lmao, you are arguing with a math major. You are reducing the pool tremendously when it’s obviously harder to recover if you lost the first 2 at home instead of on the road. This is dumb but you are very wrong. You are trying to say the chances are greater for a team that lost the first 2 at home instead of on the road when the numbers say that only 5 out of the 27 that came back from 0-2 lost the first 2 at home. Basically the true odds would be 5/27 times 27/312 so less than 1 percent. Sorry.

 

[fightinfunbags]

Heart really isn’t taken into account in numbers, the numbers don’t care. That said, heart is not an issue with the Heat.

Amen.

 

[tlance]

Lmao, you are arguing with a math major. You are reducing the pool tremendously when it’s obviously harder to recover if you lost the first 2 at home instead of on the road. This is dumb but you are very wrong. You are trying to say the chances are greater for a team that lost the first 2 at home instead of on the road when the numbers say that only 5 out of the 27 that came back from 0-2 loat the first 2 at home. Basically the true odds would be 5/27 times 27/312 so less than 1 percent. Sorry.

And you are arguing with someone who scored perfect on math GREs.

These word problems are my jam.

You are setting up the problem incorrectly.

You are looking at the total number of teams when that is irrelevant.

The total of 312 is only relevant to the total number of teams who won when trailing 0-2.

If you want to find the percentage of teams to successfully come back when trailing 0-2 after losing their first 2 games at home, you have to look at the subset of teams who actually lost their first 2 games at home.

The teams who went down 0-2 on the road are not relevant to the subset of data we are considering.

I was not able to find the relevant number in my quick search, but most definitely way lower than 312.

 

[thunderc]

And you are arguing with someone who scored perfect on math GREs.

These word problems are my jam.

You are setting up the problem incorrectly.

You are looking at the total number of teams when that is irrelevant.

The total of 312 is only relevant to the total number of teams who won when trailing 0-2.

If you want to find the percentage of teams to successfully come back when trailing 0-2 after losing their first 2 games at home, you have to look at the subset of teams who actually lost their first 2 games at home.

The teams who went down 0-2 on the road are not relevant to the subset of data we are considering.

I was not able to find the relevant number in my quick search, but most definitely way lower than 312.

No, the math says you are wrong. 5/27 times 27/312 gives the mathematical probability of recovering from losing the first 2 at home. I would bet it all on this, sorry but you are totally wrong. 0.3 percent is the correct odds. All of this is based on history obviously. Feel free to show your work but you will look bad.

 

[tlance]

No, the math says you are wrong. 5/27 times 27/312 gives the mathematical probability of recovering from losing the first 2 at home. I would bet it all on this, sorry but you are totally wrong. 0.3 percent is the correct odds. All of this is based on history obviously. Feel free to show your work but you will look bad.

I don’t have the data because I don’t know how many teams have fallen behind 0-2 at home.

But you are wrong.

Always have been on this.

 

[thunderc]

Lmao you are trying to completely throw out the teams that lost the first 2 at home that didn’t come back and win.

 

[tlance]

Someone please back me up and tell this dude he is wrong.

 

[bksballer89]

Is there another math head on here to declare the winner of this intense debate?

 

[thunderc]

I don’t have the data because I don’t know how many teams have fallen behind 0-2 at home.

But you are wrong.

Always have been on this.

You have statistics issues

 

[thunderc]

Someone please back me up and tell this dude he is wrong.

Dude it’s not going to happen. Ive made my living off of stuff like this.

 

[tlance]

Lmao you are trying to completely throw out the teams that lost the first 2 at home that didn’t come back and win.

No, I am doing the opposite.

I am trying to throw out the teams who went down 0-2 on the road.

Because we are also throwing out the 22 teams who went won their series after losing the first 2 games on the road

 

[tlance]

Dude it’s not going to happen. Ive made my living off of stuff like this.

Well, you are wrong this time.

It isn’t your math, it is your logic failing you.