Posted:
#26
I think nba lets clippers go to the finals and that will increase the teams price so the sterlings get a hefty lump sum to part ways with the nba peacefully
0
The Unwritten Rule of Playoff Basketball
Posted:
#31
Quote Originally Posted by best_bets:
The Clippers are a team of destiny now.........ever since the Sterling Shmerling fiasco broke. It is not a matter of the NBA letting them win. It is their will to do so.
The Clippers are a team of destiny now.........ever since the Sterling Shmerling fiasco broke. It is not a matter of the NBA letting them win. It is their will to do so.
Their will very sorry if it took that sort of thing to wake it up---means in time their will breaks.
0
Posted:
#32
interesting,beginnerboy.....i think this could fall into the 10%......im sure there are many,many other factors that affect the outcome in these situations,like homecourt and playing roster and league interests for the respective teams......not sure if this strictly falls into the "giving away a game" category either..of course,asyou say, it is clearly subjective and it is you that is making the judgment....but these type of mini-meltdowns happen so regularly with the pace of games nowadays and the non-existent defense and the propensity to chuck 3 point shots by so many teams that i dont think that this one cud be considered an earth-shattering type of blow that cud have ongoing repurcussions for the thunder.....yes they clearly,clearly were in a position of ascendency.no-one can argue that...but,as in so many games it just came down to who cud make more big plays and execute over a one minute span(tho of course it shudnt have even got that close).....so i like the theory,but just not sure if this game wud qualify as monumental enuff....its your story however..so you makin the rules i guess
0
Posted:
#34
Quote Originally Posted by melossinglet:
interesting,beginnerboy.....i think this could fall into the 10%......im sure there are many,many other factors that affect the outcome in these situations,like homecourt and playing roster and league interests for the respective teams......not sure if this strictly falls into the "giving away a game" category either..of course,asyou say, it is clearly subjective and it is you that is making the judgment....but these type of mini-meltdowns happen so regularly with the pace of games nowadays and the non-existent defense and the propensity to chuck 3 point shots by so many teams that i dont think that this one cud be considered an earth-shattering type of blow that cud have ongoing repurcussions for the thunder.....yes they clearly,clearly were in a position of ascendency.no-one can argue that...but,as in so many games it just came down to who cud make more big plays and execute over a one minute span(tho of course it shudnt have even got that close).....so i like the theory,but just not sure if this game wud qualify as monumental enuff....its your story however..so you makin the rules i guess
interesting,beginnerboy.....i think this could fall into the 10%......im sure there are many,many other factors that affect the outcome in these situations,like homecourt and playing roster and league interests for the respective teams......not sure if this strictly falls into the "giving away a game" category either..of course,asyou say, it is clearly subjective and it is you that is making the judgment....but these type of mini-meltdowns happen so regularly with the pace of games nowadays and the non-existent defense and the propensity to chuck 3 point shots by so many teams that i dont think that this one cud be considered an earth-shattering type of blow that cud have ongoing repurcussions for the thunder.....yes they clearly,clearly were in a position of ascendency.no-one can argue that...but,as in so many games it just came down to who cud make more big plays and execute over a one minute span(tho of course it shudnt have even got that close).....so i like the theory,but just not sure if this game wud qualify as monumental enuff....its your story however..so you makin the rules i guess
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback, Melo. I agree with some of what you say (the game is certainly different today, and these meltdowns happen more often, also there is the league interests, etc..) and the Thunder can certainly still win, but it will be a lot tougher now (IMO). To me this was an epic collapse because of how the entire game unfolded. The Thunder came out to win this game (come hell or high water) and were winning handily for almost the entire game. The other thing you have to consider is that the Thunder (because they don't have a good coach and good offensive schemes, and have to rely on their two stars to make plays) expend a lot of energy (a lot more than other teams that are more efficient). And they have the motor to do it, but now you have to wonder if they have mental and physical strength to get themselves to that same spot they were in, in game 4.
0
Posted:
#37
First of all, Respect. Anytime someone contributes to the forum in an enlightening way it is appreciated, at least I believe it should be. Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, Teach a man to fish and feed him for life. Dumb Degens.
Back to your theory. Like you said, you believe it happens on a 90% occasion, but I must challenge that rate as I believe the Thunder do make it past this round. Rather than make an argument for the Thunder to beat the Clips, I'm going to argue against your theory.
Like you said, the way you determine whether it was a "give away game" is virtually subjective in your calculations. I'm sure there were times that teams gave away a game but won and those games went under the radar. It's subjective in the eyes of the beholder once you've created the rule. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I may be, but without doing further research about your theory I'm just picking apart the terms on which you've come the conclusion that this occurs 90% of the time.
On top of that, in a nutshell your theory is a variation of "The Law of Averages" as well as momentum. Steal a game and the averages become on your side. Also, what I'm unsure of in your theory is if there were multiple monumental game steals within a series, how then would you determine who stole the series? The team that won it? That's a 100% chance.
Once again, I'm making a bold assumption, without doing the research to back my claim. So I may be way off, but I do believe the Thunder still have the upper hand in this matchup, and eventually move on to the WCF. BOL and appreciate your love for the forum for those who care 
0
Posted:
#39
BB you seem like a decent guy and often have good contributions. But I have to tell you this imitation of Scal's style is pretty lame. You have no posted record and copying his style with these write-ups is a bit dismal. Let him do his thing and you do yours. Be your own man not a pale imitation.
BOL with your bets....
BOL with your bets....
0
Posted:
#40
Quote Originally Posted by OKCSPURS:
First of all, Respect. Anytime someone contributes to the forum in an enlightening way it is appreciated, at least I believe it should be. Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, Teach a man to fish and feed him for life. Dumb Degens.
First of all, Respect. Anytime someone contributes to the forum in an enlightening way it is appreciated, at least I believe it should be. Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, Teach a man to fish and feed him for life. Dumb Degens.
Back to your theory. Like you said, you believe it happens on a 90% occasion, but I must challenge that rate as I believe the Thunder do make it past this round. Rather than make an argument for the Thunder to beat the Clips, I'm going to argue against your theory.
Like you said, the way you determine whether it was a "give away game" is virtually subjective in your calculations. I'm sure there were times that teams gave away a game but won and those games went under the radar. It's subjective in the eyes of the beholder once you've created the rule. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I may be, but without doing further research about your theory I'm just picking apart the terms on which you've come the conclusion that this occurs 90% of the time.
On top of that, in a nutshell your theory is a variation of "The Law of Averages" as well as momentum. Steal a game and the averages become on your side. Also, what I'm unsure of in your theory is if there were multiple monumental game steals within a series, how then would you determine who stole the series? The team that won it? That's a 100% chance.
Once again, I'm making a bold assumption, without doing the research to back my claim. So I may be way off, but I do believe the Thunder still have the upper hand in this matchup, and eventually move on to the WCF. BOL and appreciate your love for the forum for those who care
Thanks, OKC, I appreciate the feedback and dialogue. There is a bit of hyperbole in my claim and I have not done an extensive study by any means. I'm just using my memory from watching 30 years of playoff basketball and there may be instances, like the one you mention, that I don't recall. We are certainly more prone to recalling collapses. Hence, I welcome people to chime in with their own examples/counter-examples in order to test this "law," which at this point might still be a theory; although a very strong one (IMO).
0
Posted:
#41
Quote Originally Posted by Julespussy:
BB you seem like a decent guy and often have good contributions. But I have to tell you this imitation of Scal's style is pretty lame. You have no posted record and copying his style with these write-ups is a bit dismal. Let him do his thing and you do yours. Be your own man not a pale imitation.
BOL with your bets....
BB you seem like a decent guy and often have good contributions. But I have to tell you this imitation of Scal's style is pretty lame. You have no posted record and copying his style with these write-ups is a bit dismal. Let him do his thing and you do yours. Be your own man not a pale imitation.
BOL with your bets....
You are mistaking allusion for imitation. Artists, writers and even cappers allude to their predecessors while trying to transcend them.
0
Posted:
#42
[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.
Of course, there are many reasons why this law hold true so often, reasons that I don't have time to get into, lest my wife bans me from the bedroom. So I'll just end with this:
Which team does this law apply to, as we sit here today: You guessed it, the OKC Thunder.
A note to Scal: I need a snazzy name to this law, like your law of national embarrassment.
[/Quote
Thank you BB for taking the time with this write up and to share this info. 
Wish you the best of luck with all your plays so you can build a big bank roll. 
The law of diminishing returns. lol
0
Posted:
#45
@BB What about 2011 1st Round between the future NBA Champ and 3-seed Mavericks vs. 6-seed Portland? The Mavericks blew a 23 point lead in the third quarter in game 4 behind Brandon Roy's last hurrah, with the Blazers evening the series 2-2.
Dallas won the next two, then swept the Lakers before eventually taking down LeBron and Miami in six.
Is this the 10%?
0
Posted:
#46
Clippers spilled their guts to get that win.... that was a heavy emotional and physical strain to win a home game that they should have been winning in the first place.
Speaking of give away games.....
Miami loses this game tonight..... they'll lose the series. You heard it here first. Wrong place, wrong team, wrong time for them. Pivotal game.
0
Posted:
#48
Quote Originally Posted by Redr107:
Yesterday's game was totally sold.. Okc purposely didn't D-up 4th quarter giving clippers a bunch of wide open shots. It was so obvious Okc gave that game away..clips have no chance against Okc. Okc in game 7 for the series.
If I am to interpret what you have said I am to believe OKC gave the game to the Clippers to possibly play them in a winner take all game 7. Where's the logic?
Yesterday's game was totally sold.. Okc purposely didn't D-up 4th quarter giving clippers a bunch of wide open shots. It was so obvious Okc gave that game away..clips have no chance against Okc. Okc in game 7 for the series.
0
Posted:
#50
Quote Originally Posted by Liturgy_of_Fade:
@BB What about 2011 1st Round between the future NBA Champ and 3-seed Mavericks vs. 6-seed Portland? The Mavericks blew a 23 point lead in the third quarter in game 4 behind Brandon Roy's last hurrah, with the Blazers evening the series 2-2.
@BB What about 2011 1st Round between the future NBA Champ and 3-seed Mavericks vs. 6-seed Portland? The Mavericks blew a 23 point lead in the third quarter in game 4 behind Brandon Roy's last hurrah, with the Blazers evening the series 2-2.
Dallas won the next two, then swept the Lakers before eventually taking down LeBron and Miami in six.
Is this the 10%?
According to the law that series (a 3 seed vs a 6 seed) would not apply, as we need "two evenly matched teams."
0
Hot Forum Topics
