Rofl and look what I found. In another thread you state that some people blindly belive that bla bla. Do you actually lack that much intelligence? Why on EARTH in today's playoffs would refs rig PLAYOFF games? Doesn't it REALLY seem like commonsense to just rig regular season games and quieten down in the fking playoffs when the whole WORLD is watching.? Is your thinking that many levels under mine that you have not even considered this?
God your stupidity amuses me.
0
Rofl and look what I found. In another thread you state that some people blindly belive that bla bla. Do you actually lack that much intelligence? Why on EARTH in today's playoffs would refs rig PLAYOFF games? Doesn't it REALLY seem like commonsense to just rig regular season games and quieten down in the fking playoffs when the whole WORLD is watching.? Is your thinking that many levels under mine that you have not even considered this?
Both of you; your stupidity amuses me. This is called capping, not a writing contest.
B1tches like you guys look for glory and attention. Oh so evident. Just state your fking picks rofl and state the numbers.
Scally; human element vs numbers? Are you THAT stupid? These numbers that you speak of is used by the entity that is by far the best capper and will be one of the best campers the world will ever see; the books. Human element will only get you so far and in most cases only in spot betting; hence your low amount of plays. You will get shredded and are incapable of increasing the volume of your plays due to this one dimensional method. Lol, really. Human element.
A real capper not a faker like you told me men lie, woman lie but numbers never lie.
0
Both of you; your stupidity amuses me. This is called capping, not a writing contest.
B1tches like you guys look for glory and attention. Oh so evident. Just state your fking picks rofl and state the numbers.
Scally; human element vs numbers? Are you THAT stupid? These numbers that you speak of is used by the entity that is by far the best capper and will be one of the best campers the world will ever see; the books. Human element will only get you so far and in most cases only in spot betting; hence your low amount of plays. You will get shredded and are incapable of increasing the volume of your plays due to this one dimensional method. Lol, really. Human element.
A real capper not a faker like you told me men lie, woman lie but numbers never lie.
But yeah, don't waste your time or energy with 'this guy'. Don't reply. Don't be a girl scally and go back on your word. Turn around and keep walking.
From now on you seek permission to speak to me. Maybe then shall I share some insight of the NBA which should be a treasure to your incapable limited self.
And no before you start replying and turn into a furious keyboard warrior that you are; tell yourself again pls; don't waste your time and energy on me.
0
But yeah, don't waste your time or energy with 'this guy'. Don't reply. Don't be a girl scally and go back on your word. Turn around and keep walking.
From now on you seek permission to speak to me. Maybe then shall I share some insight of the NBA which should be a treasure to your incapable limited self.
And no before you start replying and turn into a furious keyboard warrior that you are; tell yourself again pls; don't waste your time and energy on me.
And bb; I ain't even done with you son. Rofl. You state that clippers were free cash. First and foremost I want you to understand you imbecile: THERE IS NO SUCH THING. Yeah Yeah try argue back if you want but hey, how about this scenario? Rofl what if cp tore his acl? Impossible? To your shallow mind it must be. And then for you to come out RIGHT after the game 1 loss and b1tch out on your claim of free cash? After one playoff game? Loooooooool.
Wait for it. Wait. Once again. Loooooooool.
0
And bb; I ain't even done with you son. Rofl. You state that clippers were free cash. First and foremost I want you to understand you imbecile: THERE IS NO SUCH THING. Yeah Yeah try argue back if you want but hey, how about this scenario? Rofl what if cp tore his acl? Impossible? To your shallow mind it must be. And then for you to come out RIGHT after the game 1 loss and b1tch out on your claim of free cash? After one playoff game? Loooooooool.
You guys are somewhat On the right track. But the biggest flaw that both of you guys possess...lol.... is that you can't admit it when you are wrong. This is the most iimportant thing to learn in life young padawans.
Sometimes when you don't achieve your desired results, before b1tching and moaning and using your pind1ck little brains to overload yourselves with a bunch of excuses, take a breather. Find your mistakes, and upon this you shall build.
If you can. :p
0
You guys are somewhat On the right track. But the biggest flaw that both of you guys possess...lol.... is that you can't admit it when you are wrong. This is the most iimportant thing to learn in life young padawans.
Sometimes when you don't achieve your desired results, before b1tching and moaning and using your pind1ck little brains to overload yourselves with a bunch of excuses, take a breather. Find your mistakes, and upon this you shall build.
Surely I hope that I've convinced some people to see the light of your ridiculously weak capping skills. I really hope from the bottom of my heart that no one follows you because I am certain you will only lead them one way. To the grave.
And frankly let's admit it; the playoffs have shat all over your stupid little head. But that's OK. Quote some more tweets and stats and try justify yourself to your followers. Like I said before, men lie women lie numbers don't lie.
stop burying covers. PLEASE. And all you fellow ppl out there; yeah his write ups are long and look very detailed and might state some facts you were unaware of. Look where he is. Almost six feet under. :)
0
Surely I hope that I've convinced some people to see the light of your ridiculously weak capping skills. I really hope from the bottom of my heart that no one follows you because I am certain you will only lead them one way. To the grave.
And frankly let's admit it; the playoffs have shat all over your stupid little head. But that's OK. Quote some more tweets and stats and try justify yourself to your followers. Like I said before, men lie women lie numbers don't lie.
stop burying covers. PLEASE. And all you fellow ppl out there; yeah his write ups are long and look very detailed and might state some facts you were unaware of. Look where he is. Almost six feet under. :)
And while your walking, why don't you ask yourself this question? How many people are you actually helping? Is it a temporary help or a permanent one? How many of these people do you think that tail your plays are long term EVers. The fact that they tail you must let u know that they are probably ones that lack discipline and knowledge hence search for someone to tail.
You got them fooled. Your stupidity has got you fooled too. But I'm smarter than that. Not that ignorant as you. Sure u might give them 6 0 percent winners and make em happy for areas day or two but all in all, let's get it real, they are buried, or will be buried. For you to think otherwise emphasises your stupidity even more.
God I'm so good at dissection you guys up. Carving the hell outta you two. ScallyBB write up style too.
0
And while your walking, why don't you ask yourself this question? How many people are you actually helping? Is it a temporary help or a permanent one? How many of these people do you think that tail your plays are long term EVers. The fact that they tail you must let u know that they are probably ones that lack discipline and knowledge hence search for someone to tail.
You got them fooled. Your stupidity has got you fooled too. But I'm smarter than that. Not that ignorant as you. Sure u might give them 6 0 percent winners and make em happy for areas day or two but all in all, let's get it real, they are buried, or will be buried. For you to think otherwise emphasises your stupidity even more.
God I'm so good at dissection you guys up. Carving the hell outta you two. ScallyBB write up style too.
If you guys are actually that passionate about capping and sharing with the covers community, you'd acknowledge that I actually have some points that might be correct over yours.
Like I said before. You learn from your mistakes. But I got a feeling you guys aren't capable. its aiight. Keep writing bb and calling people dense. Keep walking scally because I ain't worth your time and energy.
0
If you guys are actually that passionate about capping and sharing with the covers community, you'd acknowledge that I actually have some points that might be correct over yours.
Like I said before. You learn from your mistakes. But I got a feeling you guys aren't capable. its aiight. Keep writing bb and calling people dense. Keep walking scally because I ain't worth your time and energy.
This "law" seems like a lot of talk for an very obvious point. In a game or series, you can't let things slip away or you'll find yourself in a position where you are going lose. I mean, stating that giving away a game is going to hurt your chances is beyond obvious, it shouldn't even need to be said.
But what's the point of even analyzing ANYTHING if all you are going to do is come back to the theory that the refs (and NBA) are just controlling things anyway. If that's the case, then who cares who gave away what games, because the refs will just even it out in the end.
You can summarize 5 pages like this:
Giving away games in a series will considerably hurt your chances of winning that series.
The refs can effect the outcome of games (whether intentional or not).
No offense, but this all seems much-ado-about-nothing.
bk
0
This "law" seems like a lot of talk for an very obvious point. In a game or series, you can't let things slip away or you'll find yourself in a position where you are going lose. I mean, stating that giving away a game is going to hurt your chances is beyond obvious, it shouldn't even need to be said.
But what's the point of even analyzing ANYTHING if all you are going to do is come back to the theory that the refs (and NBA) are just controlling things anyway. If that's the case, then who cares who gave away what games, because the refs will just even it out in the end.
You can summarize 5 pages like this:
Giving away games in a series will considerably hurt your chances of winning that series.
The refs can effect the outcome of games (whether intentional or not).
No offense, but this all seems much-ado-about-nothing.
This "law" seems like a lot of talk for an very obvious point. In a game or series, you can't let things slip away or you'll find yourself in a position where you are going lose. I mean, stating that giving away a game is going to hurt your chances is beyond obvious, it shouldn't even need to be said.
But what's the point of even analyzing ANYTHING if all you are going to do is come back to the theory that the refs (and NBA) are just controlling things anyway. If that's the case, then who cares who gave away what games, because the refs will just even it out in the end.
You can summarize 5 pages like this:
Giving away games in a series will considerably hurt your chances of winning that series.
The refs can effect the outcome of games (whether intentional or not).
No offense, but this all seems much-ado-about-nothing.
bk
BK, you are a nice guy so I'll answer but this kind of stuff gets tiring. Even with all the help OKC got throughout the game (and not just the ending) they were still gonna lose, if not for an improbable set of events. Why, because I was 100% right about a team that gives away a game has 90% chance of losing the series. With all due respect, this is not the same as saying "it will considerably hurt your chances of winning that series." Anyone can say that and you may or may not believe it. This write-up was intended to make a very bold prediction based on years of watching this game, and had the Clips won (which they should have) everyone would be here giving me kudos instead of bashing me. But that's life, I can take it. I posted the stat regarding how unlikely it is for two games, much less two consecutive playoff games, to be decided in such a fashion (where the team loses a 13-14 point lead in the 4th quarter) to bolster my initial argument; which that stat totally backs up. The mathematical probability was astronomical and now the Clips are in the same situation the Thunder were a couple of days ago. What else do you want me to say?
0
Quote Originally Posted by bk1374:
This "law" seems like a lot of talk for an very obvious point. In a game or series, you can't let things slip away or you'll find yourself in a position where you are going lose. I mean, stating that giving away a game is going to hurt your chances is beyond obvious, it shouldn't even need to be said.
But what's the point of even analyzing ANYTHING if all you are going to do is come back to the theory that the refs (and NBA) are just controlling things anyway. If that's the case, then who cares who gave away what games, because the refs will just even it out in the end.
You can summarize 5 pages like this:
Giving away games in a series will considerably hurt your chances of winning that series.
The refs can effect the outcome of games (whether intentional or not).
No offense, but this all seems much-ado-about-nothing.
bk
BK, you are a nice guy so I'll answer but this kind of stuff gets tiring. Even with all the help OKC got throughout the game (and not just the ending) they were still gonna lose, if not for an improbable set of events. Why, because I was 100% right about a team that gives away a game has 90% chance of losing the series. With all due respect, this is not the same as saying "it will considerably hurt your chances of winning that series." Anyone can say that and you may or may not believe it. This write-up was intended to make a very bold prediction based on years of watching this game, and had the Clips won (which they should have) everyone would be here giving me kudos instead of bashing me. But that's life, I can take it. I posted the stat regarding how unlikely it is for two games, much less two consecutive playoff games, to be decided in such a fashion (where the team loses a 13-14 point lead in the 4th quarter) to bolster my initial argument; which that stat totally backs up. The mathematical probability was astronomical and now the Clips are in the same situation the Thunder were a couple of days ago. What else do you want me to say?
Considering win order; considering site order: The team leading WWWL with site order HHVV (San Antonio) has the following best-of-7 playoff series and games record through the 2014 NHL and NBA Preliminary rounds:
series record, all best-of-7 sports, all rounds: 84-4 (.955)
series record, all best-of-7 sports, Quarterfinals round: 32-2 (.941)
series record, NBA only, all rounds: 36-0 (1.000)
series record, NBA only, Quarterfinals round: 16-0 (1.000)
Game 5 record, all best-of-7 sports, all rounds: 64-24 (.727)
Game 5 record, all best-of-7 sports, Quarterfinals round: 25-9 (.735)
Game 5 record, NBA only, all rounds: 26-10 (.722)
Game 5 record, NBA only, Quarterfinals round: 13-3 (.813)
These records are drawn from the applicable 1236 best-of-7 NHL, NBA, and
MLB series played through the 2014 NHL and NBA Preliminary rounds. Note
in general that the greater the number of games or series fitting a
particular situation, the greater the significance of the corresponding
winning fraction:
For example, 0.800 is far more likely to come closer to the true winning
fraction in a given situation when the corresponding win-loss record is
400-100 rather than 4-1.
SERIES NOTES:
After Game 4: The Portland Trailblazers hosted and defeated the
San Antonio Spurs 103-pts-92 to drop the San Antonio Spurs best-of-7
MLB/NBA/NHL series 1246 lead to 3-games-1. When leading a best-of-7
MLB/NBA/NHL playoff series 3-games-1, the San Antonio Spurs have a
series record of 13-1 (with an active 12-series winning streak) and a
Game 5 record of 9-5. When trailing a best-of-7 MLB/NBA/NHL playoff
series 3-games-1, the Portland Trailblazers have a series record of 0-8
and a Game 5 record of 5-3 (with an active four-Game 5 winning streak).
0
Considering win order; considering site order: The team leading WWWL with site order HHVV (San Antonio) has the following best-of-7 playoff series and games record through the 2014 NHL and NBA Preliminary rounds:
series record, all best-of-7 sports, all rounds: 84-4 (.955)
series record, all best-of-7 sports, Quarterfinals round: 32-2 (.941)
series record, NBA only, all rounds: 36-0 (1.000)
series record, NBA only, Quarterfinals round: 16-0 (1.000)
Game 5 record, all best-of-7 sports, all rounds: 64-24 (.727)
Game 5 record, all best-of-7 sports, Quarterfinals round: 25-9 (.735)
Game 5 record, NBA only, all rounds: 26-10 (.722)
Game 5 record, NBA only, Quarterfinals round: 13-3 (.813)
These records are drawn from the applicable 1236 best-of-7 NHL, NBA, and
MLB series played through the 2014 NHL and NBA Preliminary rounds. Note
in general that the greater the number of games or series fitting a
particular situation, the greater the significance of the corresponding
winning fraction:
For example, 0.800 is far more likely to come closer to the true winning
fraction in a given situation when the corresponding win-loss record is
400-100 rather than 4-1.
SERIES NOTES:
After Game 4: The Portland Trailblazers hosted and defeated the
San Antonio Spurs 103-pts-92 to drop the San Antonio Spurs best-of-7
MLB/NBA/NHL series 1246 lead to 3-games-1. When leading a best-of-7
MLB/NBA/NHL playoff series 3-games-1, the San Antonio Spurs have a
series record of 13-1 (with an active 12-series winning streak) and a
Game 5 record of 9-5. When trailing a best-of-7 MLB/NBA/NHL playoff
series 3-games-1, the Portland Trailblazers have a series record of 0-8
and a Game 5 record of 5-3 (with an active four-Game 5 winning streak).
Pre-series assessment:
In the 2013-14 NBA regular season, the San Antonio Spurs finished eight
games ahead of the Portland Trailblazers. From 1947 through the 2014
NBA Preliminary round, when NBA teams led their best-of-7 playoff series
opponents by eight regular-season games, they have posted a best-of-7
playoff series record of 20-6 (.769) in those series against those
opponents. MLB/NBA/NHL best-of-7 playoff series 1246 is the 52nd
best-of-7 NBA playoff series for the San Antonio Spurs, and the 24th for
the Portland Trailblazers. In best-of-7 NBA playoff series, the San
Antonio Spurs have an all-rounds series record of 31-20, a
Quarterfinals-round series record of 12-10, and a Game 1 record of 31-20
(with an active eight-Game 1 winning streak), while the Portland
Trailblazers have an all-rounds series record of 11-12, a
Quarterfinals-round series record of 6-3 (with an active
five-Quarterfinals series winning streak), and a Game 1 record of 10-13.
Series 1246 is the third best-of-7 NBA playoff series meeting between
the San Antonio Spurs and the Portland Trailblazers. Portland defeated
San Antonio in series 568 (in the 1990 NBA Quarterfinals); San Antonio
returned the favor in series 793 (in the 1999
0
Pre-series assessment:
In the 2013-14 NBA regular season, the San Antonio Spurs finished eight
games ahead of the Portland Trailblazers. From 1947 through the 2014
NBA Preliminary round, when NBA teams led their best-of-7 playoff series
opponents by eight regular-season games, they have posted a best-of-7
playoff series record of 20-6 (.769) in those series against those
opponents. MLB/NBA/NHL best-of-7 playoff series 1246 is the 52nd
best-of-7 NBA playoff series for the San Antonio Spurs, and the 24th for
the Portland Trailblazers. In best-of-7 NBA playoff series, the San
Antonio Spurs have an all-rounds series record of 31-20, a
Quarterfinals-round series record of 12-10, and a Game 1 record of 31-20
(with an active eight-Game 1 winning streak), while the Portland
Trailblazers have an all-rounds series record of 11-12, a
Quarterfinals-round series record of 6-3 (with an active
five-Quarterfinals series winning streak), and a Game 1 record of 10-13.
Series 1246 is the third best-of-7 NBA playoff series meeting between
the San Antonio Spurs and the Portland Trailblazers. Portland defeated
San Antonio in series 568 (in the 1990 NBA Quarterfinals); San Antonio
returned the favor in series 793 (in the 1999
Considering win order; considering site order: The team leading WWLW with site order HHVV (Miami) has the following best-of-7 playoff series and games record through the 2014 NHL and NBA Preliminary rounds:
series record, all best-of-7 sports, all rounds: 130-5 (.963)
series record, all best-of-7 sports, Quarterfinals round: 43-1 (.977)
series record, NBA only, all rounds: 67-1 (.985)
series record, NBA only, Quarterfinals round: 29-1 (.967)
Game 5 record, all best-of-7 sports, all rounds: 93-42 (.689)
Game 5 record, all best-of-7 sports, Quarterfinals round: 35-9 (.795)
Game 5 record, NBA only, all rounds: 48-20 (.706)
Game 5 record, NBA only, Quarterfinals round: 23-7 (.767)
These records are drawn from the applicable 1236 best-of-7 NHL, NBA, and
MLB series played through the 2014 NHL and NBA Preliminary rounds. Note
in general that the greater the number of games or series fitting a
particular situation, the greater the significance of the corresponding
winning fraction:
For example, 0.800 is far more likely to come closer to the true winning
fraction in a given situation when the corresponding win-loss record is
400-100 rather than 4-1.
SERIES NOTES:
After Game 4: The Miami Heat visited and defeated the Brooklyn
Nets 102-pts-96 to take a best-of-7 MLB/NBA/NHL playoff series 1245 lead
of 3-games-1. When leading a best-of-7 MLB/NBA/NHL playoff series
3-games-1, the Miami Heat have a series record of 8-0 and a Game 5
record of 7-1 (with an active six-Game 5 winning streak). When trailing a
best-of-7 MLB/NBA/NHL playoff series 3-games-1, the Brooklyn Nets have a
series record of 0-1 and a Game 5 record of 1-0. Trailing a best-of-7
NBA playoff series 3-games-1, the old "New Jersey" Nets had a series
record of 0-2 and a Game 5 mark of 1-1.
0
Considering win order; considering site order: The team leading WWLW with site order HHVV (Miami) has the following best-of-7 playoff series and games record through the 2014 NHL and NBA Preliminary rounds:
series record, all best-of-7 sports, all rounds: 130-5 (.963)
series record, all best-of-7 sports, Quarterfinals round: 43-1 (.977)
series record, NBA only, all rounds: 67-1 (.985)
series record, NBA only, Quarterfinals round: 29-1 (.967)
Game 5 record, all best-of-7 sports, all rounds: 93-42 (.689)
Game 5 record, all best-of-7 sports, Quarterfinals round: 35-9 (.795)
Game 5 record, NBA only, all rounds: 48-20 (.706)
Game 5 record, NBA only, Quarterfinals round: 23-7 (.767)
These records are drawn from the applicable 1236 best-of-7 NHL, NBA, and
MLB series played through the 2014 NHL and NBA Preliminary rounds. Note
in general that the greater the number of games or series fitting a
particular situation, the greater the significance of the corresponding
winning fraction:
For example, 0.800 is far more likely to come closer to the true winning
fraction in a given situation when the corresponding win-loss record is
400-100 rather than 4-1.
SERIES NOTES:
After Game 4: The Miami Heat visited and defeated the Brooklyn
Nets 102-pts-96 to take a best-of-7 MLB/NBA/NHL playoff series 1245 lead
of 3-games-1. When leading a best-of-7 MLB/NBA/NHL playoff series
3-games-1, the Miami Heat have a series record of 8-0 and a Game 5
record of 7-1 (with an active six-Game 5 winning streak). When trailing a
best-of-7 MLB/NBA/NHL playoff series 3-games-1, the Brooklyn Nets have a
series record of 0-1 and a Game 5 record of 1-0. Trailing a best-of-7
NBA playoff series 3-games-1, the old "New Jersey" Nets had a series
record of 0-2 and a Game 5 mark of 1-1.
Pre-series assessment: In the 2013-14 NBA regular season, the
Miami Heat finished ten games ahead of the Brooklyn Nets. From 1947
through the 2014 NBA Preliminary round, when NBA teams led their
best-of-7 playoff series opponents by ten regular-season games, they
have posted an 18-4 (.818) best-of-7 playoff series record in those
series against those opponents. MLB/NBA/NHL best-of-7 playoff series
1245 is the 29th best-of-7 NBA playoff series for the Miami Heat, and
the third for the Brooklyn Nets. In best-of-7 NBA playoff series, the
Miami Heat have an all-rounds series record of 20-8 (with an active
nine-series winning streak befitting a two-time defending NBA champion),
a Quarterfinals-round series record of 6-2 (with an active
five-Quarterfinals series winning streak), and a Game 1 record of 15-13,
while the Brooklyn Nets have an all-rounds series record of 1-1, a
Quarterfinals-round series record of 0-0 (i.e., series 1245 is the first
for the “Brooklyn” Nets in the NBA Quarterfinals), and a Game 1 record
of 2-0. Series 1245 is the first best-of-7 NBA playoff series meeting
between the Miami Heat and the “Brooklyn” Nets. Miami twice before
defeated the "New Jersey" Nets.
0
Pre-series assessment: In the 2013-14 NBA regular season, the
Miami Heat finished ten games ahead of the Brooklyn Nets. From 1947
through the 2014 NBA Preliminary round, when NBA teams led their
best-of-7 playoff series opponents by ten regular-season games, they
have posted an 18-4 (.818) best-of-7 playoff series record in those
series against those opponents. MLB/NBA/NHL best-of-7 playoff series
1245 is the 29th best-of-7 NBA playoff series for the Miami Heat, and
the third for the Brooklyn Nets. In best-of-7 NBA playoff series, the
Miami Heat have an all-rounds series record of 20-8 (with an active
nine-series winning streak befitting a two-time defending NBA champion),
a Quarterfinals-round series record of 6-2 (with an active
five-Quarterfinals series winning streak), and a Game 1 record of 15-13,
while the Brooklyn Nets have an all-rounds series record of 1-1, a
Quarterfinals-round series record of 0-0 (i.e., series 1245 is the first
for the “Brooklyn” Nets in the NBA Quarterfinals), and a Game 1 record
of 2-0. Series 1245 is the first best-of-7 NBA playoff series meeting
between the Miami Heat and the “Brooklyn” Nets. Miami twice before
defeated the "New Jersey" Nets.
Thanks, RL, I feel honored that you posted these stats on this thread. There is a lot of info here but I'm assuming that the lines for today's games reflect these probabilities and that there is no clear edge, one way or another.
0
Thanks, RL, I feel honored that you posted these stats on this thread. There is a lot of info here but I'm assuming that the lines for today's games reflect these probabilities and that there is no clear edge, one way or another.
For all of you who waited patiently, here it is. And I hope it is worth your while.
The law says: In a series between two evenly matched teams, the team that gives away a game (and understanding what this means is crucial to understanding the law) will lose the series 90% of the time; a percentage that is directly proportional to their chances of winning the game they gave away.
Basketball playoff history is so replete with examples of this that I can’t believe no one discovered this law sooner. Before I delve in to the examples, however, we have to define what we mean by “give away a game.” Of course, there is a subjective element to saying a team gave away a game, so we will have to do our best to remove that level of subjectivity from our definition. We do that by saying, a team gives away a game when (within the laws of statistical probability) they had a 90% or more chance of winning that game (meaning, they would win that game 9 out of ten times in that exact situation) when they proceeded to lose it. A team losing a game on a last second shot is not enough to qualify under this law unless what transpired before that shot was so unlikely and improbable that it would not happen 90% of the time.
Now let’s give some concrete examples to show what we mean.
One of my favorite examples (and one we’ve see in a countless time on replays) was Bird stealing the inbound pass from Isiah in game 5 of the ECF, and feeding it to DJ for the score and the win. That loss was so devastating for the Pistons (who were, to my mind, the better team that year, as the Celtics were old, beat-up and on their decline) that they never recovered, even though they won the next game.
Other examples, in no particular order, are: from this year’s playoffs, the Grizz up by 5 with about a minute to play in game 4, with KD and Westbrook shooting bricks, go to OT and lose the game. Although they won game 5, they never recovered from that loss and lost the series. The 2000 Blazers/Lakers series had two such games. First, game 3, where the Blazers were ahead for the 1st three quarters only to lose by 2 at the end. And then, of course, there was their historic game 7 meltdown, where they were up 75-60 in the 4th. Game 2 of Heat/Mavs series, during the 2011 finals, with the Heat up 88-73 with 7:15 to play in the game (LBJ and Wade were preening), collapsed and lost. The Heat, like all the others, never recovered from that loss. The Spurs, last year’s game 6, up 93-89 (with 28 seconds to play) missed a couple of free throws, which they would normally make, only to have Ray Allen send the game to OT, and lose. Game 3 of Mavs/Heat 2006 Finals, Mavs were up 91-81 with 5 minutes to play (about to go up 3-0 in the series) and they only end up scoring 5 more points in the next five minutes, losing the game by two points 96-98 and never winning another game.
Remember this thread? The Clippers, with the ball and the lead in game 2 end up losing. Then tonight, the ball is about to go in and they are called for goaltending. Series over. The emotional toll is too great. Giving away one game is bad enough but giving away 1.5 games (we will count this as half of a game since the Spurs would still have had time on the clock even if Blake's shot had counted) is epic.
0
Quote Originally Posted by begginerboy:
For all of you who waited patiently, here it is. And I hope it is worth your while.
The law says: In a series between two evenly matched teams, the team that gives away a game (and understanding what this means is crucial to understanding the law) will lose the series 90% of the time; a percentage that is directly proportional to their chances of winning the game they gave away.
Basketball playoff history is so replete with examples of this that I can’t believe no one discovered this law sooner. Before I delve in to the examples, however, we have to define what we mean by “give away a game.” Of course, there is a subjective element to saying a team gave away a game, so we will have to do our best to remove that level of subjectivity from our definition. We do that by saying, a team gives away a game when (within the laws of statistical probability) they had a 90% or more chance of winning that game (meaning, they would win that game 9 out of ten times in that exact situation) when they proceeded to lose it. A team losing a game on a last second shot is not enough to qualify under this law unless what transpired before that shot was so unlikely and improbable that it would not happen 90% of the time.
Now let’s give some concrete examples to show what we mean.
One of my favorite examples (and one we’ve see in a countless time on replays) was Bird stealing the inbound pass from Isiah in game 5 of the ECF, and feeding it to DJ for the score and the win. That loss was so devastating for the Pistons (who were, to my mind, the better team that year, as the Celtics were old, beat-up and on their decline) that they never recovered, even though they won the next game.
Other examples, in no particular order, are: from this year’s playoffs, the Grizz up by 5 with about a minute to play in game 4, with KD and Westbrook shooting bricks, go to OT and lose the game. Although they won game 5, they never recovered from that loss and lost the series. The 2000 Blazers/Lakers series had two such games. First, game 3, where the Blazers were ahead for the 1st three quarters only to lose by 2 at the end. And then, of course, there was their historic game 7 meltdown, where they were up 75-60 in the 4th. Game 2 of Heat/Mavs series, during the 2011 finals, with the Heat up 88-73 with 7:15 to play in the game (LBJ and Wade were preening), collapsed and lost. The Heat, like all the others, never recovered from that loss. The Spurs, last year’s game 6, up 93-89 (with 28 seconds to play) missed a couple of free throws, which they would normally make, only to have Ray Allen send the game to OT, and lose. Game 3 of Mavs/Heat 2006 Finals, Mavs were up 91-81 with 5 minutes to play (about to go up 3-0 in the series) and they only end up scoring 5 more points in the next five minutes, losing the game by two points 96-98 and never winning another game.
Remember this thread? The Clippers, with the ball and the lead in game 2 end up losing. Then tonight, the ball is about to go in and they are called for goaltending. Series over. The emotional toll is too great. Giving away one game is bad enough but giving away 1.5 games (we will count this as half of a game since the Spurs would still have had time on the clock even if Blake's shot had counted) is epic.
Rofl and look what I found. In another thread you state that some people blindly belive that bla bla. Do you actually lack that much intelligence? Why on EARTH in today's playoffs would refs rig PLAYOFF games? Doesn't it REALLY seem like commonsense to just rig regular season games and quieten down in the fking playoffs when the whole WORLD is watching.? Is your thinking that many levels under mine that you have not even considered this?
God your stupidity amuses me.
i pity any fool who honestly believes the league does not manipulate playoff games....where the real money comes in.
0
Quote Originally Posted by greymamba:
Rofl and look what I found. In another thread you state that some people blindly belive that bla bla. Do you actually lack that much intelligence? Why on EARTH in today's playoffs would refs rig PLAYOFF games? Doesn't it REALLY seem like commonsense to just rig regular season games and quieten down in the fking playoffs when the whole WORLD is watching.? Is your thinking that many levels under mine that you have not even considered this?
God your stupidity amuses me.
i pity any fool who honestly believes the league does not manipulate playoff games....where the real money comes in.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
