ChefERD

so the 7-0 series record of the Boston 5 doesn't matter, but 47-0 does?  just curious, how do you decide which trends like this matter and which ones don't?

we'll never know...... but that is not the Celtics' problem to have to prove...... LA can't keep him on the court......

would the Raiders have won the Super Bowl in 1993 with a healthy Bo Jackson?  who knows......

trouble is, when Jordan left for two years, the Bulls didn't win the championship....... and once he came back, they did, 3 more times.......

so the only real evidence you can use in this argument, works against you......

well... i can see someone posting that Wooden died, since it was posted on the internet...

however, the fact that he said he knows someone close to the family Doctor, who confirmed it... that is fucked up, and the guy needs to go for good...

i find it to be exactly the opposite...... interesting.

i always forget it's 2-3-2.....

i hear ya, just sort of an expression...... just making the point that if Cleveland is not the better team, and is playing in Boston, the only argument is motivation or whatever......

but i think a lot of people still believe the Cavs are the better team, so.....

well, that's basically what i'm getting at, Cashin......

there are going to be two types of Cavs backers...

1) those who are looking at the ebb and flow of the series and thinking that the Cavs come out with a great effort and the Celts come out flat (for some reason)......

2) those who think the Cavs are actually better than the Celts over the longhaul and warrant being close to a pick on the Celts home court......

was surprised to see many people considering Cleveland at all, so i just was curious which of the two categories those people are falling into...

no conspiracy....... Boston has outplayed Cleveland every game other than game 3, and they took control of the series last night..... when your team depends completely on one guy for your success, and you are playing a team with multiple players who can step up.....

basic math right there...... no logarithms or nothing......

suppose i made it too complicated...

do you think Cleveland is a better NBA basketball team than Boston, right now?

well, it matters on a neutral court, because i am trying to ask if you believe Cleveland is the better team than Boston..... so that is a way of qualifying it......

clearly, if Boston is better on a neutral court, they are better on their homecourt... regardless of how they have done at home during the regular season......

mostly just trying to survey whether people generally are betting Clev because of the "spot" or because they still think Cleveland is the better team.....

thanks for the feedback!

i have a question for you:

do you think that Cleveland is a better team than Boston on a neutral court?  in other words, if everything else was equal, do you still believe that the Cavs are better than the Celtics?

only looking for feedback from those who think Cleveland (+1) is a good bet in game 6...

not trying to defend Lebron, and i have no idea how bad his injury is...

however, i would much rather have a swollen eye than an elbow injury if i am in a critical NBA game...

true.... but LA usually wins...... but they lost as a 2.5 point favorite to the Celts.....

i see what you are saying...... i am just riding a trend that has been golden over the past 3 years, and this year hasn't been different so far....... so i like the line......

but the reasons most people like the Cavs today are the same reason they will be against the Celts in the playoffs...... so i was just pointing out that their thinking is flawed, at best.....

the Celts tend to take the games against Clev, Orlando and LA very seriously, because they know they are "gauge" games.......

here's a good trend for you for THIS YEAR: against those 3 teams (the best in the league) on the road this year, the Celts are 2-1 SU, and 3-0 ATS (all 3 as a dog)......

is that better?

bottom line: Celts take these games much more seriously than they do games at home against the Nets.......

clever.......

so to recap: i stated an opinion that is supported by statistics....... you said that's the dumbest thing you ever read...... i said elaborate, you couldn't, i said elaborate, you didn't...... i said elaborate one more time, and you said......

ChefRETARD.......

i've said twice...... 3-2 is from this season...... and 3-2 (60%) perfectly reflects the same sample of 9-6 (60%) over 3 years......