On June 08 2009 12:40 unknown.sam wrote: with the lakers up 2-0 the championship is pretty much theirs...my research tells me only about 3-4 (correct me if i'm wrong) have come back from 0-2 down to win in the finals. so history is definitely on the lakers' side
Hey everyone ... my cousin and I are going to be holding weekly podcasts talking about NBA stuff next season. We're doing a few for the Finals and this offseason as well.
We've just finished our first this morning (putting it up a bit late, sorry). I apologize in advance for my shitty mic and my voice sounds a bit monotone T_T!
On June 08 2009 12:40 unknown.sam wrote: with the lakers up 2-0 the championship is pretty much theirs...my research tells me only about 3-4 (correct me if i'm wrong) have come back from 0-2 down to win in the finals. so history is definitely on the lakers' side
I heard that teams up n points with n minutes remaining have an 80% chance of winning from the MIT stat conference. After watching the clippers lose a huge lead to the cavs, I figured out the obvious problem with this statistic (though one game doesn't disprove it): it's a correlation masquerading as causation.
A better team is more likely to win the game, and they're more likely to be up n points with n minutes remaining. Of course the clippers had a better chance of winning from being up however many points, but I doubt it would be 80% if they faced the cavs from that situation over and over again. Just like a better team is more likely to win game 1 of a series and more likely to have home court advantage, and Phil Jackson's uber-teams were more likely to win game 1s.
In this case, this is a realistic prediction: Orlando has to go 4-1 to win, and the lakers are likely to be the better team (and therefore have a greater chance of winning the first two games). Of course if Orlando wins 2 at home (I'd give this less than a 50% chance of happening), and convincingly, this all changes. I'm mentioning this because I hate the fake historic statistics announcers pull out, like the celtics game 7 stats and so on.
Yup. A lot of those stats are useless anyway because those take into the account the eras before free agency and expansion - so you had "super" teams the likes of which you'd never have these days that could easily keep winning. It's very rare to have 2 or even 3 superstars on a team for 6-7 years straight.
On June 08 2009 14:10 Ace wrote: Yup. A lot of those stats are useless anyway because those take into the account the eras before free agency and expansion - so you had "super" teams the likes of which you'd never have these days that could easily keep winning. It's very rare to have 2 or even 3 superstars on a team for 6-7 years straight.
okay let's forget about the nba in it's earlier years and focus on the last 10 nba finals where a team went up 2-0 in the finals.
1999 SAS 2-0 ----> eventual champions
2000 LAL 2-0 ----> eventual champions
2002 LAL 2-0 ----> eventual champions
2005 SAS 2-0 ----> eventual champions
2006 MAVS 2-0 ----> last team to lose series after going up 2-0
2007 SAS 2-0 ----> eventual champions
2008 BOS 2-0 ----> eventual champions
2009 LAL 2-0 ----> ???
so you can see that 6 of the past 7 championships in the past 10 years have gone to the team that went up 2-0. now i know it doesn't mean jack and it certainly isn't concrete evidence as to who will win this year's crown, but it's just interesting to note. and if you want to play the percentages history says the lakers have the better chance of claiming the Larry O'Brien Trophy.
On June 08 2009 12:40 unknown.sam wrote: with the lakers up 2-0 the championship is pretty much theirs...my research tells me only about 3-4 (correct me if i'm wrong) have come back from 0-2 down to win in the finals. so history is definitely on the lakers' side
the lakers dont need history... they got kobe.
Hmm they had kobe today and they almost lost. Good thing the magic isn't very good.
Gasol's the one who has been unexpectedly shutting down Howard, albeit with help. There's no way Orlando can win against a team as good as the lakers with a marginalized Howard. People have been looking to Bynum as the answer, but imagine what would happen if the lakers had Bynum and Kwame Brown.
I kind of want to watch USA vs Spain again to see if he matched up with Howard.
Watching D12 in the post is so aggrevating BECAUSE of Shaq. What happens when you give the ball to Shaq (old or young) within 3 feet of the hoop. He goes up and dunks it and no one on the planet can fucking stop him. We've all see than power move. What happens when Dwight gets it down there? 30% of the time he does that move, the rest of the time he dicks around, holding the ball way too low, and comes up without any power. Usually he gets a foul called so it's ok, but he gets nothing when a team like the Lakers plays great D and blocks/strips the ball.
Does/did anyone really expect Orlando would win? They remind me of the Cavs in 2007 who put in a massive effort just to get their but were clearly outmatched by a more battle-hardened and experienced team.
Looks to me like they played their finals vs the Cavs and they're outta juice.
On June 08 2009 21:41 RowdierBob wrote: Does/did anyone really expect Orlando would win? They remind me of the Cavs in 2007 who put in a massive effort just to get their but were clearly outmatched by a more battle-hardened and experienced team.
Looks to me like they played their finals vs the Cavs and they're outta juice.
I just hope they can win a game or two.
I thought they had a chance, but I didn't expect Odom to actually contribute much.
On June 08 2009 21:36 Jibba wrote: Watching D12 in the post is so aggrevating BECAUSE of Shaq. What happens when you give the ball to Shaq (old or young) within 3 feet of the hoop. He goes up and dunks it and no one on the planet can fucking stop him. We've all see than power move. What happens when Dwight gets it down there? 30% of the time he does that move, the rest of the time he dicks around, holding the ball way too low, and comes up without any power. Usually he gets a foul called so it's ok, but he gets nothing when a team like the Lakers plays great D and blocks/strips the ball.
there is a chance dwight could learn this but i fear he is not as physically imposing as shaq was back in the day. dwight is what 6'11 260-280?? shaq is 7'1 and proly 320-350 at that time although i believe he was listed at 315. so size alone dwight is at a pretty big disadvantage and i honestly doubt he'll be able to do what shaq has been doing for practically his whole career. BUT i believe howard will succeed where shaq failed miserably (i.e. FTs)
On June 08 2009 21:41 RowdierBob wrote: Does/did anyone really expect Orlando would win? They remind me of the Cavs in 2007 who put in a massive effort just to get their but were clearly outmatched by a more battle-hardened and experienced team.
Looks to me like they played their finals vs the Cavs and they're outta juice.
I just hope they can win a game or two.
Yeah I don't think anyone really expected Orlando to win. I think it was the ESPN polls that displayed Florida being the only state to think Orlando would win the finals for obvious reasons.
After watching the first two games, I can't agree with you more. Although Orlando says they want to win the championship, it still looks as if they're a team that's only going through the motions. The Lakers are the better, more experienced team and they will simply find a way to win no matter how each game or the series evolves.
On to some of the posts regarding Howard. I doubt he'll ever have the dominance of Shaq. As someone mentioned, he's at a disadvantage when it comes to size. But more importantly, he doesn't have the post moves or the footwork of Shaq either.
Second, Howard isn't a person to "shutdown." If you put a big enough body on him, he will struggle to get his points in the post because his post game is pretty much non-existent. The same way he struggled against Perkins is the same way he'll struggle against the Lakers. Big Z is just a joke of a defender so of course Howard will have his way with him. But when there is a big enough body guarding him, most of Howard's points will come from offensive rebounds or catching the ball deep in the key.
On June 08 2009 12:40 unknown.sam wrote: with the lakers up 2-0 the championship is pretty much theirs...my research tells me only about 3-4 (correct me if i'm wrong) have come back from 0-2 down to win in the finals. so history is definitely on the lakers' side
the lakers dont need history... they got kobe.
Hmm they had kobe today and they almost lost. Good thing the magic isn't very good.
i meant to win the championship not win every game geez
On June 08 2009 12:40 unknown.sam wrote: with the lakers up 2-0 the championship is pretty much theirs...my research tells me only about 3-4 (correct me if i'm wrong) have come back from 0-2 down to win in the finals. so history is definitely on the lakers' side
the lakers dont need history... they got kobe.
Hmm they had kobe today and they almost lost. Good thing the magic isn't very good.
i meant to win the championship not win every game geez
this is precisely why Orlando has no chance to win. the Lakers as a team played pretty badly, but Orlando couldn't even capitalize on it and win. If they can't win when LA is playing badly, how can they win when LA plays well (aka Game 1)
howard only had 1 dunk that whole game, didn't he? and that was his first dunk of the series so far. he needs to be holding the ball higher, like jibba said, and start throwing the damn thing down
EPT
