NBA Finals |OT| Miami Cavaliers Lose To Spurs In 5

I wish I could live in a world where Wade didn't leave Danny Green wide fucking open to triple team the paint, and where Wario doesn't run every pick and roll keeping the ball and eventually turning it over. We should have pulled it out without him, it was just pathetic.

I wonder if he is going to revolve his summer workouts around conditioning, as bizarre as it sounds. When they showed him on the benches I was pretty shocked. He basically looked the way I would look if I played NBA basketball for merely 5 minutes under the sun, like he was about to pass out. I was wondering which of the players is conditioned to that kind of shit (Of course it's right in Ray's wheelhouse) and it seemed to impact him the greatest. I guess it's time to start working out in a sauna!

The Spurs played with a great pace btw. Even when the Heat scored, they were pushing the pace and making the Heat work hard on defense. The shots and drives Allen and Wade made in the first half slowly started to dry up in the second and I'm sure the pace was part of it.

Duncan is one more double double away from tying Magic btw

This game doesn't even count. Encouraging though, that the Spurs needed to shoot lights out to even stay in the game, and then needed to rely on LBJ being out of the game to pull away. Prediction still stands, Heat in 6, and I'm even more confident in that after watching yesterday's BS.

This game doesn't even count. Encouraging though, that the Spurs needed to shoot lights out to even stay in the game, and then needed to rely on LBJ being out of the game to pull away. Prediction still stands, Heat in 6, and I'm even more confident in that after watching yesterday's BS.

So basically..
"____ happened and they still only won by _____" ?

Wade is Gatorade sponsored btw

even Gatorade dumping on LeBron now.

This game doesn't even count. Encouraging though, that the Spurs needed to shoot lights out to even stay in the game, and then needed to rely on LBJ being out of the game to pull away. Prediction still stands, Heat in 6, and I'm even more confident in that after watching yesterday's BS.

So basically..
"____ happened and they still only won by _____" ?

Correct, same thing I said after Game 1 vs. the Pacers. How'd that turn out?

This game doesn't even count. Encouraging though, that the Spurs needed to shoot lights out to even stay in the game, and then needed to rely on LBJ being out of the game to pull away. Prediction still stands, Heat in 6, and I'm even more confident in that after watching yesterday's BS.

So basically..
"____ happened and they still only won by _____" ?

Correct, same thing I said after Game 1 vs. the Pacers. How'd that turn out?

Do you actually believe that the Pacers are as talented as the Spurs? For that matter, do you really not understand statistics to the point that you think the Heat losing game one doesn't affect them?

I don't really know what to make of that game 1. Yes, the Spurs killed it at the end but was that just the Heat being exhausted, the Heat trying to play without Lebron in the fourth, or did the Spurs finally get their shit together, or did they just get a fortunate streak of 3s?

There we're too many factors at play to really judge one way or another. I think game 2 is going to be much more telling as to how the rest of the series unfolds. I can't see the Heat coming back from 2-0 against this Spurs team, especially with the format now being 2-2-1-1-1.

This game doesn't even count. Encouraging though, that the Spurs needed to shoot lights out to even stay in the game, and then needed to rely on LBJ being out of the game to pull away. Prediction still stands, Heat in 6, and I'm even more confident in that after watching yesterday's BS.

So basically..
"____ happened and they still only won by _____" ?

Correct, same thing I said after Game 1 vs. the Pacers. How'd that turn out?

Do you actually believe that the Pacers are as talented as the Spurs? For that matter, do you really not understand statistics to the point that you think the Heat losing game one doesn't affect them?

What does one thing have to do with the other? My point is I said the same thing after they lost Game 1 against the Pacers, period. Also, you seem to be the one that doesn't understand the statistics, or you just don't know Miami's record after losing Game 1 in a series and making the right adjustments. I'll let you go find the data, so that you can never reply to this post and I'll just see you 6 pages down replying to something else.

coach nick pls

I really am interested in seeing where the flaws were in the Spurs gameplan in regards to off-ball defense. There were so many broken rotations the entire night and in particular I'd love to see how Wade was getting freed up so much off the ball.

guys, game to game adjustments

Spo > Pop

What does one thing have to do with the other?

...Nothing, but you made both points in the same post.

My point is I said the same thing after they lost Game 1 against the Pacers, period.

And my point is that "x happened against the Pacers" is fairly meaningless since the Spurs are a different (and better) team.

Also, you seem to be the one that doesn't understand the statistics, or you just don't know Miami's record after losing Game 1 in a series and making the right adjustments.

Let me help you out. To calculate the probability of a team winning an individual series, we need to start by figuring out how many ways there are for the team to win that series. Let's call a heat win H and a Spurs win S and represent each series as a list of symbols denoting the winners of each game, in order. Since we are trying to figure out how the Heat can win, we know that each such list will end with an H, so the differences can only come in nonterminal games. Before game 1, the Heat could have won after 4, 5, 6, or 7 games.

4 games: the first three games must contain 3 Hs, so we have (3 choose 3) = 3!/(3!(3-3)!) = 1 way this could happen.
5 games: the first four games must contain 3 Hs and 1 S, so we have (4 choose 3) = 4!/(3!(4-3)!) = 4 ways this could happen.
6 games: the first five games must contain 3 Hs and 2 S, so we have (5 choose 3) = 5!/(3!(5-3)!) = 10 ways this could happen.
7 games: the first six games must contain 3 Hs and 3 Ses, so we have (6 choose 3) = 6!/(3!(6-3)!) = 20 ways this could happen.

Now let's suppose the Heat have probability p to win any given game against the Spurs. I'll assume (obviously) that p is not 1, i.e. the Heat do not win every game. We want to calculate the probability of the Heat winning a series n games. Again, we know they win four games, so the probability is (number of ways the Heat could win) * p^4 * (1-p)^(n-4).

4 games: 1 way the Heat could win 3 nonterminal games = 1 * p^4 * (1-p)^(4-4) = p^4
5 games: 4 ways the Heat could win 3 nonterminal games = 4 * p^4 * (1-p)^(5-4) = 4 * p^4 * (1-p)
6 games: 10 ways the Heat could win 3 nonterminal games = 10 * p^4 * (1-p)^(6-4) = 10 * p^4 * (1-p)^2
7 games: 20 ways the Heat could win 3 nonterminal games = 20 * p^4 * (1- p)^(7-4) = 20 * p^4 * (1-p)^3

So the total probability before last night was, roughly:

P(Heat win the series) = p^4 + 4 * p^4 * (1-p) + 10 * p^4 * (1-p)^2 + 20 * p^4 * (1-p)^3. Here's a graph of what that looks like. This is why seven game series tend to magnify differences in team ability--a team that would win 60% of the matchups wins a 7-game series over 70% of the time. I haven't broken down home court, which is doable but trickier (IIRC home court adds about 0.05 to p for most capacity teams). Considering that the better team (yes, regular season, but SRS is a decent indicator of team strength--though it gets tricky with player rest and garbage time points) generally gets home court it again exacerbates their advantage. I am also making the simplifying assumption that teams are independently likely to win each game. That isn't totally true, especially given the propensity for freak injuries and coaching adjustments, but overall this works pretty well on a game by game basis (though I remember reading somewhere that some teams really do have quarter-to-quarter struggles). People make a big deal about adjustments and matchups but these teams have faced each other in a playoff series already, studied a shitload of tape, watched each other during the rest of these playoffs, and have no serious injuries--I think we pretty much know what we're going to get.

In any case, *most* people think the teams are pretty evenly matched, or did going into this series. It's a pretty reasonable assumption to make--last year's series went to 7 games, the lineups have hardly changed, and they both play similar styles of basketball. So ignoring the aforementioned caveats let's say the Heat had a 50% chance of winning this series. But now the Heat have lost game 1. What changes above? Well, we have eliminated some combinations of winning game sequences, so now all patterns must start with an S. Therefore instead of being ((n - 1) choose 3), each series is now ((n - 2) choose 3):

Heat in 4: this option has been eliminated.
Heat in 5: 3 games after first are 3 Hs => (3 choose 3) = 1 way
Heat in 6: 4 games after first are 3 Hs => (4 choose 3) = 4 ways
Heat in 7: 5 games after first are 3 Hs => (5 choose 3) = 10 ways

So what's the Heat's probability distribution now? A term has essentially been knocked off, so it's p^4 + 4 * p^4 * (1-p) + 10 * p^4 * (1-p)^2.

What does this new graph look like? Notice anything different?. That's right--if the teams are evenly matched, the Heat's odds just dropped to less than 35% by losing game 1. Again, this is without taking home court advantage into account (except inasmuch as it helped the Spurs win the game they already won).

The Heat's record after game one losses is a product of their usually being quite a bit better than the other team they face. That's why no Heat fans were worried during the Pacers series--even if p is as low as 0.6 (so the Heat are expected to lose 4 in 10 games against the team), losing game 1 would still leave them with a 55% chance of winning the series. They put themselves at a serious disadvantage when they lose it against an equally matched team. Spo's (anyone's) "adjustments" do not make up for a 15% loss in probability.

I'll let you go find the data, so that you can never reply to this post and I'll just see you 6 pages down replying to something else.

MVP, this is math. You can't wish it away because it's convenient for you. If the Heat actually think like you think they're either fucking idiots or they believe that they are way, way better than the Spurs, which is probably not a position I'd take if I were them after needing a miracle three last year.

got dam

i told yall to not let him in here

Also, you seem to be the one that doesn't understand the statistics

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


EVERY fucking time someone says this to Sharp, I just get giddy.

Jesus fucking Christ

Sharp how come you never did any of these probability formulas for the MLB thread when you used to post?

Jesus fucking Christ

Sharp how come you never did any of these probability formulas for the MLB thread when you used to post?

I did.

Someone hijacked the site.

Holy mother of fuck.

Sharp, I love you.

I work with numbers all day.

that shit still blew my face off.

MVP has really gone out on a limb the last four seasons predicting that the Heat would win some games. Really bold prediction. He really put himself out there.

I did.

Let me rephrase:

Sharp how come you never did any of these probability formulas for the MLB thread when you used to post on eznark and Sanjuro?

What does one thing have to do with the other?

…Nothing, but you made both points in the same post.

My point is I said the same thing after they lost Game 1 against the Pacers, period.

And my point is that "x happened against the Pacers" is fairly meaningless since the Spurs are a different (and better) team.

Also, you seem to be the one that doesn't understand the statistics, or you just don't know Miami's record after losing Game 1 in a series and making the right adjustments.

*bunch of math shit*

You still didn't tell me what the Heat record is after losing Game 1. It isn't just against "inferior" teams, they lost Game 1 against the Spurs last season. How'd that turn out? Like I said, them losing Game 1 is fairly meaningless at this point, them only losing Game 1 because they lost the best player in the world to cramps is even more so.

I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALA LALA L ALALA

.

What does one thing have to do with the other?

…Nothing, but you made both points in the same post.

My point is I said the same thing after they lost Game 1 against the Pacers, period.

And my point is that "x happened against the Pacers" is fairly meaningless since the Spurs are a different (and better) team.

Also, you seem to be the one that doesn't understand the statistics, or you just don't know Miami's record after losing Game 1 in a series and making the right adjustments.

*bunch of math shit*

You still didn't tell me what the Heat record is after losing Game 1. It isn't just against "inferior" teams, they lost Game 1 against the Spurs last season. How'd that turn out? Like I said, them losing Game 1 is fairly meaningless at this point, them only losing Game 1 because they lost the best player in the world to cramps is even more so.

It would be awesome to see you commentate a coin-flipping competition.

"LOL heads has won four straight times, of course it will keep being heads, don't you understand statistics?"

*bunch of math shit*

This isn't really helping the perception that you don't understand statistics.

You still didn't tell me what the Heat record is after losing Game 1.

I know it's high. I also know that they haven't played many playoff games compared to the sum totality of all playoff games in existence and I am also pretty sure that the Heat are not able to beat math.

It isn't just against "inferior" teams, they lost Game 1 against the Spurs last season. How'd that turn out?

One of the most important things about understanding statistics is to focus on process, not outcomes. Assuming you think the teams were evenly matched last year (and I do, despite injuries on both sides), the Heat still had around a 35% of coming back. That's not nothing. But neither does it make sense to pretend that that 15% blow didn't nearly cost them the series.

Like I said, them losing Game 1 is fairly meaningless at this point, them only losing Game 1 because they lost the best player in the world to cramps is even more so.

I and others already explained earlier why blaming the Heat's loss on 8 minutes without LeBron doesn't actually make sense. Either way, you should be pissed off that the Heat lost game one, because no matter what the circumstances it still counts as a loss and it still hurts them just as much. Again, if you aren't, you either do not understand mathematics, or you believe the Heat are significantly better than the Spurs. It's not possible to concurrently understand mathematics, believe that the two teams are evenly matched, and maintain that the Heat losing game one is fairly meaningless.

It would be awesome to see you commentate a coin-flipping competition.

"LOL heads has won four straight times, of course it will keep being heads, don't you understand statistics?"

He's also operating under the assumption that the Heat are a vastly superior team (especially this season compared to the Spurs a year ago...). He's like the Skip Bayless of Heat fans.

What does one thing have to do with the other?

…Nothing, but you made both points in the same post.

My point is I said the same thing after they lost Game 1 against the Pacers, period.

And my point is that "x happened against the Pacers" is fairly meaningless since the Spurs are a different (and better) team.

Also, you seem to be the one that doesn't understand the statistics, or you just don't know Miami's record after losing Game 1 in a series and making the right adjustments.

*bunch of math shit*

You still didn't tell me what the Heat record is after losing Game 1. It isn't just against "inferior" teams, they lost Game 1 against the Spurs last season. How'd that turn out? Like I said, them losing Game 1 is fairly meaningless at this point, them only losing Game 1 because they lost the best player in the world to cramps is even more so.

This on some CPAC climate change science denial level nonsense right here.

What does one thing have to do with the other?

…Nothing, but you made both points in the same post.

My point is I said the same thing after they lost Game 1 against the Pacers, period.

And my point is that "x happened against the Pacers" is fairly meaningless since the Spurs are a different (and better) team.

Also, you seem to be the one that doesn't understand the statistics, or you just don't know Miami's record after losing Game 1 in a series and making the right adjustments.

*bunch of math shit*

You still didn't tell me what the Heat record is after losing Game 1. It isn't just against "inferior" teams, they lost Game 1 against the Spurs last season. How'd that turn out? Like I said, them losing Game 1 is fairly meaningless at this point, them only losing Game 1 because they lost the best player in the world to cramps is even more so.

It would be awesome to see you commentate a coin-flipping competition.

"LOL heads has won four straight times, of course it will keep being heads, don't you understand statistics?"

Yes because sports are a fixed scenario with fixed variables that can be explained away with calculus. Please. I know you're trolling because no one is this ignorant to think you can apply math formulas to a sports series. If that were the case, gamblers worldwide would be racking in billions betting on the team that wins Game 1 in a series, and be +EV in the long run. It doesn't work that way, sports are dynamic, math is meaningless, historical results actually mean something, this isn't roulette, case closed.

MVP, this is math. You can't wish it away because it's convenient for you.

You must be thinking of some other guy.

Yes because sports are a fixed scenario with fixed variables that can be explained away with calculus. Please. I know you're trolling because no one is this ignorant to think you can apply math formulas to a sports series. If that were the case, gamblers worldwide would be racking in billions betting on the team that wins Game 1 in a series, and be +EV in the long run. It doesn't work that way, sports are dynamic, math is meaningless, historical results actually mean something, this isn't roulette, case closed.

Gamblers understand statistics, which is why the Spurs are favored to win in all the major betting markets right now. I mean, really dude.

and I am also pretty sure that the Heat are not able to beat math.

lmao ok I get it now, you're one of "those". You have some ancient gambling formula that predicts the winners with an outstanding 84.7% accuracy.

Again, if you think math is the only thing that matters in the long run in sports, with so many moving pieces and dynamic variables, go ahead and just bet on the Game 1 winner in every sports series. Let me know how that works out for you.

Yes because sports are a fixed scenario with fixed variables that can be explained away with calculus. Please. I know you're trolling because no one is this ignorant to think you can apply math formulas to a sports series. If that were the case, gamblers worldwide would be racking in billions betting on the team that wins Game 1 in a series, and be +EV in the long run. It doesn't work that way, sports are dynamic, math is meaningless, historical results actually mean something, this isn't roulette, case closed.

Gamblers understand statistics, which is why the Spurs are favored to win in all the major betting markets right now. I mean, really dude.

The Spurs were already the favorite. If the Heat were favored, that wouldn't have changed after Game 1. THAT is my point. Game 1 is meaningless in this case.

What does one thing have to do with the other?

…Nothing, but you made both points in the same post.

My point is I said the same thing after they lost Game 1 against the Pacers, period.

And my point is that "x happened against the Pacers" is fairly meaningless since the Spurs are a different (and better) team.

Also, you seem to be the one that doesn't understand the statistics, or you just don't know Miami's record after losing Game 1 in a series and making the right adjustments.

*bunch of math shit*

You still didn't tell me what the Heat record is after losing Game 1. It isn't just against "inferior" teams, they lost Game 1 against the Spurs last season. How'd that turn out? Like I said, them losing Game 1 is fairly meaningless at this point, them only losing Game 1 because they lost the best player in the world to cramps is even more so.

It would be awesome to see you commentate a coin-flipping competition.

"LOL heads has won four straight times, of course it will keep being heads, don't you understand statistics?"

Yes because sports are a fixed scenario with fixed variables that can be explained away with calculus. Please. I know you're trolling because no one is this ignorant to think you can apply math formulas to a sports series. If that were the case, gamblers worldwide would be racking in billions betting on the team that wins Game 1 in a series, and be +EV in the long run. It doesn't work that way, sports are dynamic, math is meaningless, historical results actually mean something, this isn't roulette, case closed.

Sharp isn't saying Heat have no chance. He's saying a 15% drop in probability isn't something to shrug over just because your attitude is "LEBRONZ THE BEST!! HEAT 4EVER!!!"

And I can't believe you used gambling as an analogy. Vegas runs a profitable sports betting business by using statistics EVERY DAMN DAY

Sharp isn't saying Heat have no chance. He's saying a 15% drop in probability isn't something to shrug over just because your attitude is "LEBRONZ THE BEST!! HEAT 4EVER!!!"

And I can't believe you used gambling as an analogy. Vegas runs a profitable sports betting business by using statistics EVERY DAMN DAY

lol sportsbooks are the least profitable part of casinos, their aim is to minimize risk not to "make a killing". Their "advanced" formula for setting odds equates to throwing shit at the wall, then adjusting based on the action. The market makes the odds, not Vegas.

Nowhere did Sharp say that the Heat were most definitely going to lose, just that it makes it LESS likely for them to win four more games after losing Game 1. Historically speaking, the team that wins Game 1 of a Finals Series wins the series 70% of the time -- and we have 50-plus years of data points of that compared to the three or four or maybe even five times the Heat have been able to beat those odds. That's not the same as Heat have zero percent chance of winning, but it makes it less likely.

and I am also pretty sure that the Heat are not able to beat math.

lmao ok I get it now, you're one of "those". You have some ancient gambling formula that predicts the winners with an outstanding 84.7% accuracy.

Again, if you think math is the only thing that matters in the long run in sports, with so many moving pieces and dynamic variables, go ahead and just bet on the Game 1 winner in every sports series. Let me know how that works out for you.

I think matchups are extremely important in individual sports like tennis or boxing, but in basketball it's mostly about *lineups* and the Spurs and Heat have basically the exact same rosters they did last year. And I'm assuming the teams are dead even--that means I'm assuming the Heat and Spurs are equally likely to win each subsequent game. That allows for a lot of moving pieces and dynamic variables, doesn't it? What you're trying to say without saying it is that you think that all of those moving pieces and dynamic variables will go the way of the Heat, even though you have absolutely no basis for believing that.

Yes because sports are a fixed scenario with fixed variables that can be explained away with calculus. Please. I know you're trolling because no one is this ignorant to think you can apply math formulas to a sports series. If that were the case, gamblers worldwide would be racking in billions betting on the team that wins Game 1 in a series, and be +EV in the long run. It doesn't work that way, sports are dynamic, math is meaningless, historical results actually mean something, this isn't roulette, case closed.

Gamblers understand statistics, which is why the Spurs are favored to win in all the major betting markets right now. I mean, really dude.

The Spurs were already the favorite. If the Heat were favored, that wouldn't have changed after Game 1. THAT is my point. Game 1 is meaningless in this case.

There is more to gambling than which team has better odds, the odds themselves also have meaning. Also, I doubt Spurs in 5 had the second best odds yesterday.

Nowhere did Sharp say that the Heat were most definitely going to lose, just that it makes it LESS likely for them to win four more games after losing Game 1. Historically speaking, the team that wins Game 1 of a Finals Series wins the series 70% of the time – and we have 50-plus years of data points of that compared to the three or four or maybe even five times the Heat have been able to beat those odds. That's not the same as Heat have zero percent chance of winning, but it makes it less likely.

I'm not saying he said they would lose, I know exactly what he's saying. He's just going purely based off math, and I'm debating that when it comes to a team that historically outperforms after losing Game 1, that math is meaningless. No professional gambler that bet on the Heat is running to double down on the Spurs now. If anything, they'd run to put more down on the Heat if the odds got even better.

Nowhere did Sharp say that the Heat were most definitely going to lose, just that it makes it LESS likely for them to win four more games after losing Game 1. Historically speaking, the team that wins Game 1 of a Finals Series wins the series 70% of the time – and we have 50-plus years of data points of that compared to the three or four or maybe even five times the Heat have been able to beat those odds. That's not the same as Heat have zero percent chance of winning, but it makes it less likely.

I'm not saying he said they would lose, I know exactly what he's saying. He's just going purely based off math, and I'm debating that when it comes to a team that historically outperforms after losing Game 1, that math is meaningless. No professional gambler that bet on the Heat is running to double down on the Spurs now. If anything, they'd run to put more down on the Heat if the odds got even better.

So you're arguing that five data points outweigh SIXTY-SEVEN?

The Game 1 winner of the NBA Finals goes on to win the series 70.1 percent of the time (47-20). Don't forget, though, that the Finals format has reverted back to 2-2-1-1-1 for the first time since 1984.

I mean... you're really concentrating hard on a small data sample and ignoring the majority of them. It's some Mitt Romney in 2012 shit.

I mean… you're really concentrating hard on a small data sample and ignoring the majority of them. It's some Mitt Romney in 2012 shit.

You really don't understand how historical performance fits in, and why it makes those overall odds meaningless, especially after the first game.

So hypothetically, if you put money down on Mayweather to beat Maidana, and Mayweather loses the first two rounds, are you changing your bet if your math book says fighters who lose the first two rounds are now bound by the curriculum structure theorem which states the hypotenuse of X+Y = Z and E=MC2, or do you have common sense to say that historically Mayweather is a beast, so those first two rounds are fairly meaningless?

Miami has historically come back to win after losing Game 1, so IN THIS CASE, where that loss came with the best player in the world out of the game, that math is meaningless.

So hypothetically, if you put money down on Mayweather to beat Maidana, and Mayweather loses the first two rounds, are you changing your bet if your math book says fighters who lose the first two rounds are now bound by the curriculum structure theorem which states the hypotenuse of X+Y = Z and E=MC2, or do you have common sense to say that historically Mayweather is a beast, so those first two rounds are fairly meaningless?

I think matchups are extremely important in individual sports like tennis or boxing, but in basketball it's mostly about *lineups* and the Spurs and Heat have basically the exact same rosters they did last year.

...

The Spurs are undefeated with Tony Parker hurt this postseason.

Someone take a 2x4 to that man's hamstring, it will make the Spurs' odds of winning even better.

So hypothetically, if you put money down on Mayweather to beat Maidana, and Mayweather loses the first two rounds, are you changing your bet if your math book says fighters who lose the first two rounds are now bound by the curriculum structure theorem which states the hypotenuse of X+Y = Z and E=MC2, or do you have common sense to say that historically Mayweather is a beast, so those first two rounds are fairly meaningless?

I think matchups are extremely important in individual sports like tennis or boxing, but in basketball it's mostly about *lineups* and the Spurs and Heat have basically the exact same rosters they did last year.

…

Sure, in basketball it's mostly about lineups, and the best player in the world wasn't in it for the Heat in crunch time, and that's when the Spurs pulled away. How many points did Danny Green have with LBJ on him?

The Spurs are undefeated with Tony Parker hurt this postseason.

Someone take a 2x4 to that man's hamstring, it will make the Spurs' odds of winning even better.

No you're right, if Tim Duncan has a season-ending injury, Spurs are still the favorites. It's all math.

"Let me throw out 67 data points and focus on these 4 that happened against supremely shit competition to make my point... Trust me, I understand statistics. You don't."

Did that just happen? Yes, yes it did.

"Let me throw out 67 data points and focus on these 4 that happened against supremely shit competition to make my point… Trust me, I understand statistics. You don't."

Did that just happen? Yes, yes it did.

Get off his nuts already and make your own contribution instead of just hanging on to an incorrect point someone else made. Otherwise, just sit on the sidelines.

So hypothetically, if you put money down on Mayweather to beat Maidana, and Mayweather loses the first two rounds, are you changing your bet if your math book says fighters who lose the first two rounds are now bound by the curriculum structure theorem which states the hypotenuse of X+Y = Z and E=MC2, or do you have common sense to say that historically Mayweather is a beast, so those first two rounds are fairly meaningless?

I think matchups are extremely important in individual sports like tennis or boxing, but in basketball it's mostly about *lineups* and the Spurs and Heat have basically the exact same rosters they did last year.

…

Sure, in basketball it's mostly about lineups, and the best player in the world wasn't in it for the Heat in crunch time, and that's when the Spurs pulled away. How many points did Danny Green have with LBJ on him?

Sorry, are you still talking about game one? That's over, and the Spurs won it, which was my entire point above. Fluky shit has happened and will continue to happen but it doesn't always favor the Heat, so it's probably the least dumb thing to assume that it will affect both teams equally going forward. Again, the only way you could be totally unconcerned right now is if you think the Heat are a significantly better team than the Spurs. If you think that, then fine--we just have different fundamental assumptions in this simplified example (I'll let someone else who actually believes it or wants to delve into the math try to argue that regular season record Really Matters). What I won't let you do is pretend that the Heat are somehow immune to combinatorics and have a better than 50% chance of winning the series now even though they're equally matched, because it flat out doesn't make sense.

Sorry, are you still talking about game one? That's over, and the Spurs won it, which was my entire point above. Fluky shit has happened and will continue to happen but it doesn't always favor the Heat, so it's probably the least dumb thing to assume that it will affect both teams equally going forward. Again, the only way you could be totally unconcerned right now is if you think the Heat are a significantly better team than the Spurs. If you think that, then fine–we just have different fundamental assumptions in this simplified example (I'll let someone else who actually believes it or wants to delve into the math try to argue that regular season record Really Matters). What I won't let you do is pretend that the Heat are somehow immune to combinatorics and have the same chance of winning now that they did before game one even though they're equally matched, because it flat out doesn't make sense.

Well I have the Heat in 6 so yes I think they are the better team, and that's factored in to my "equation". What's also factored in is that it was pretty obvious in last night's game that they were winning that one had LBJ been in. So in my book, odds don't change for the Heat.

To cut this debate short, yes I get your point, we'll be here all day going back and forth, I understand, from a purely math standpoint, starting from today, should the Spurs have better odds to win 3 more games vs. winning 4 more games. I understand that. I just think it's irrelevant.

"Let me throw out 67 data points and focus on these 4 that happened against supremely shit competition to make my point… Trust me, I understand statistics. You don't."

Did that just happen? Yes, yes it did.

Get off his nuts already and make your own contribution instead of just hanging on to an incorrect point someone else made. Otherwise, just sit on the sidelines.

Sweet, you've now engaged in ad-hominen attacks. You're really winning everyone over.

Here are all the series that the Heat have overcome after losing Game 1 in the playoffs:

2014 versus Pacers (LOL), no HCA
2013 versus Spurs, HCA
2013 versus Bulls, HCA, no Rose, no Deng
2012 versus Thunder, no HCA
2011 versus Bulls, no HCA

...

That's it. Literally. You're hanging your hat on those 5 series? Don't worry guys, he understands statistics. The Heat were a better team the entire season against each and every one of those teams, except the Bulls in 2011.