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

[tlance]

No, you didn’t but we both were right in a way. I’ll have a summary later. In the meantime if you are bored I think your number is off on the number of teams to have lost the first 2 at home and go ahead and lose. I say that because I quickly found over 20 that lost the first 2 at home and went ahead and got swept. It’s a bit more difficult to find the number that lost the first 2 at home, won a game or two but went ahead and lost. I suspect it’s quite a bit higher than what you thought you found.

The number I got was strictly best of 7 series in 2-2-1-1-1 format since 1984

So no 2-3-2 NBA finals, no best of 5

You are probably including some of those.

And nothing before 1984

That was the timeline from basketball reference.

Not sure if that was a random time to start the data, or if that was when playoff format shifted.

And no, you weren’t right in any way relevant to the topic.

 

[bksballer89]

No, you didn’t but we both were right in a way. I’ll have a summary later. In the meantime if you are bored I think your number is off on the number of teams to have lost the first 2 at home and go ahead and lose. I say that because I quickly found over 20 that lost the first 2 at home and went ahead and got swept. It’s a bit more difficult to find the number that lost the first 2 at home, won a game or two but went ahead and lost. I suspect it’s quite a bit higher than what you thought you found.

so a draw?

 

[thunderc]

The number I got was strictly best of 7 series in 2-2-1-1-1 format since 1984

So no 2-3-2 NBA finals, no best of 5

You are probably including some of those.

And no, you weren’t right.

I was absolutely right, like I said I’ll have a summary later.

 

[thunderc]

so a draw?

Well we were talking about two different things so sure. I know what he is doing now, but I still dispute the numbers he is using.

 

[msgkings322]

Boston shouldn't have been heavy favorites going into this series

Of course they should. This is hindsight talking.

 

[tlance]

I was absolutely right, like I said I’ll have a summary later.

I will be looking forward to it

When you do, please provide rational as to why you were using the numbers you were.

Because the rationale is what makes your side wrong, not the math.

Also, don’t know if I said this, but 312 was the correct number of 0-2 deficits in best of 7 series.

There were 414 total, but that includes 102 0-2 deficits in best of 5 series.

That data from best of 5 is not relevant here either.

 

[thunderc]

I will be looking forward to it

When you do, please provide rational as to why you were using the numbers you were.

Because the rationale is what makes your side wrong, not the math.

Also, don’t know if I said this, but 312 was the correct number of 0-2 deficits in best of 7 series.

There were 414 total, but that includes 102 0-2 deficits in best of 5 series.

That data from best of 5 is not relevant here either.

The number I’m finding including all is 33 out of 417, so 7.4 percent. I’m fine with the 312 number though with about 8.5 percent being successful.

 

[bksballer89]

Of course they should. This is hindsight talking.

Its not. Miami kicked the title favorites ass in a quick 5 games then controlled the knicks series

 

[thunderc]

33/417= 7.9 percent
5/417 = 1.1 percent

I list these because it’s just a fact that only 5 teams have been successful after losing the first 2 at home. So this 1.1 percentage is correct, 1.1 percent total won playoff series losing the first 2 at home.

Now, as for the way you are looking at it, which I agree matters. You are saying that about 30 teams total have lost the first 2 games at home, win or lose. That is where your number of 16 percent came from, 5/30. I think it’s less than that because I think that 30 number is incorrect, but in summary this is the reason for the discrepancy. Common sense told me that a team is better off having more games at home, but perhaps there has been an anomaly because teams that get down 0-2 are so screwed in the first place. It has happened more recently though. I expect the true number is no more than 10 percent though, at most.

 

[msgkings322]

Its not. Miami kicked the title favorites ass in a quick 5 games then controlled the knicks series

You're a gambler, how much did you make?

 

[bksballer89]

-550
+400

Those odds were crazy for a team who had a straight forward run to the conference finals. Not saying Boston shouldn't have been favorites but the odds were a bit much considering who Miami beat to get here.

 

[bksballer89]

You're a gambler, how much did you make?

I don't do straight bets. I do parlays

 

[msgkings322]

I don't do straight bets. I do parlays

How much did you make on your Heat parlays? They were really mispriced after all.

 

[thunderc]

-550
+400

Those odds were crazy for a team who had a straight forward run to the conference finals. Not saying Boston shouldn't have been favorites but the odds were a bit much considering who Miami beat to get here.

I will never say Vegas put out bad odds. I mean they do but it’s easy to say after the fact. Not many make a living on their mistakes. Vegas always protects against getting buried by a favorite.

 

[bksballer89]

How much did you make on your Heat parlays? They were really mispriced after all.

You clearly don't understand how betting work so should probably shut up. You do realize it is impossible to do a parlay on both the 1st round and 2nd round series ahead of time since the matchups are unknown right?

 

[bksballer89]

I will never say Vegas put out bad odds. I mean they do but it’s easy to say after the fact. Not many make a living on their mistakes. Vegas always protects against getting buried by a favorite.

I think the Heat should have been +200 range.

Boston yet to look really good in the playoffs while Miami playing their best basketball of the season for the last month.

 

[bksballer89]

 

[fightinfunbags]

No, you didn’t but we both were right in a way. I’ll have a summary later. In the meantime if you are bored I think your number is off on the number of teams to have lost the first 2 at home and go ahead and lose. I say that because I quickly found over 20 that lost the first 2 at home and went ahead and got swept. It’s a bit more difficult to find the number that lost the first 2 at home, won a game or two but went ahead and lost. I suspect it’s quite a bit higher than what you thought you found.

No you lost my guy. When I actually read the particulars you were in the wrong lane with the data. You were really convinced though. I thought you were tanking for a draft pick.

 

[thunderc]

No you lost my guy. When I actually read the particulars you were in the wrong lane with the data. You were really convinced though. I thought you were tanking for a draft pick.

The data was correct just a bit incomplete. One wouldnt think less home games help lol.

 

[bksballer89]

This is hopefully the message Spo is passing to the guys to avoid a possible letdown