Very Interesting (and surprising)

Guys- this has nothing to do with our teams' respective series. As everyone knows, I picked the Cs and Lakers to both advance. This is just an interesting bit of playoff info.

I've always assumed that when a team wins game 1 and 2 on the road it is the absolute death knell for the team that loses those games. Much worse than a team losing games 1 +2 on the road. BUt apparently I've been wrong all these years.


I read today that teams that lose the first two games of a best-of-seven series at home are 3-22, while those that lose the first two on the road are 11-195.

What really jumped out and surprised me was that the team losing the first two at home has a higher winning percentage (13.6%) than teams losing the first two on the road (5.6%).


Obviously, it's bad news for the losing team either way, but I would have thought the numbers would be reversed.

I guess the explanation is that because the higher-seeded team is usually the better team, the home team usually wins the first two and goes on to win the series, which accounts for the vast majority of these scenarios.

Losing the first two games at home is much more rare to start with, so the sample size is much smaller, and when it's happened, there have been 3 times when it's been the result of a playoff-tested, veteran team that has previously performed in the clutch not being focused (or something) to start the series, but later rallying to win. (Orlando most decidedly does not fall into that category.)

Off the top of my head, I know the Rockets came back from an 0-2 hole at home to beat PHX in '94 with Hakeem. I think the Spurs did it once also. Anyone remember who the other team was ? Was it the Suns when Barkley was there ?

Anyway- thought you guys would find this as interesting as I did.

Sam! Calling Slippery Sam! Call for you on the white courtesy phone!

BSH,
I don't pay much attention to all these stats. Just from math standpoint they are almost meaningless. On the other hand it's a great food for media.

AK

Bob,

Sorry, no clue!

Sam

Baby, not so surprising to me, for the reason you stated... If the higher seed can get back in the groove..and get the other guy out of the groove..For one thing, you finish at home.

anything is doable. Celtics need to take this one quarter...hell one posession at a time of max effort

BSK

Were any of these the 2-3-2 set up for the finals or the 2-2-1-1-1 ?
Losing 2 at home then going to play the next three on the road seems a bit insurmountable!

beat

Game 3 to me is huge. The Celts have opened the door for the best that Orlando has to offer. i do not sit comfortable here, nor do I think we have it in the bag. I do not care about stats of teams that have been in this position, nor do care about the Celts previous stats about winning percentages based on this happening before. Game 3 is gonna be tough, and I hope the team realizes it. this could be the toughest of the playoffs so far.

Pete

beat wrote:BSK

Were any of these the 2-3-2 set up for the finals or the 2-2-1-1-1 ?
Losing 2 at home then going to play the next three on the road seems a bit insurmountable!

beat

beat-

not sure. These numbers were for all 7 game series, so for sure the "Lose first two on the road" category was well-represented from the Finals (off the top of my head, that's the way the last 4 Finals all started). BUt I don't know about a home team losing the first two games of the Finals. I can't remember if that's ever happened.

Most of the Magic players were on the team that won game 7 in Boston last year. They know they can win in Boston so it behooves the C's to come out focused with extreme energy to at least match that of the Magic. The 2 games the C's won could have gone the other way with a couple of breaks or calls for Orlando. Nothing is secured yet. The fans at the Garden need to stay behind this team and urge them on at every opportunity. A let down could be catastrophic. Orlando has good athletes who are better shooters than they've shown to date. Hopefully, the C's play that swarming "D" to keep 'em in a Funk!-MD

dbrown4:

you are right, you need to include all outcomes.

dbrown4 wrote:I think it was Barkley with the Suns. Charles was specifically referring to that series from personal experience on TNT during halftime or after their last game with Kenny, EJ and Chris or whoever was there.

BSH, interesting numbers. Good work. Overall conclusion is at worst there is a 13% chance ORL is coming back to win it. If I'm in Vegas I don't like my chances here any more than I do setting my pocket pair on the river for the win. It happens, but not enough to effect my bank account.

Sorry BSH, this is the math major coming out in me. When your record is 3-22, the winning percentage is 3/25, not 3/22. Therefore, it's 12% and (11/206) 5.33%. I think what you're showing is a ratio of wins to loses, not winning percentage. Please have LaCeltic verify since he's armpit deep in this getting his math degree as we speak. Your point is uneffected, though.

You are right sir.
As you said though, it doesn't change the numbers much. To throw a little stats in the mix, it might turn out that it would be difficult to determine whether anything meaningful is going on or it's due to chance.
So much of sports or anything else, for that matter, may simply be a chance distribution that people "see" patterns in. Having said that, GO CELTICS....

No, economics.

swedeinestonia wrote:No, economics.

swede,

Ah, the "Dismal Science", eh?

What do you get when you build a frankenstein made up of an actuary's heart, an accountant's brain and Thomas Malthus' sense of humor? An economist!

I made that up just now.

For the record, I got my BS in Accounting, and minors in economics and history. So, maybe I can't quite claim that "it takes one to know one", but I'm in the ballpark. :-)

bob

.

You are very right. Economics is more or less considered a bastard

swedeinestonia wrote:You are very right. Economics is more or less considered a bastard

swede,

Like I said, I'm very close. I've been called a bastard many, many times.

bob

.

I do not really mind math majors calling it a bastard..

I find it to be more of a problem that the every day common man are certain they have a firm grasp about economics and how it works without spending a single day studying it..

I guess it is one of those cases where "the more I study, the more I realize I know nothing."

swedeinestonia wrote:I do not really mind math majors calling it a bastard..

I find it to be more of a problem that the every day common man are certain they have a firm grasp about economics and how it works without spending a single day studying it..

I guess it is one of those cases where "the more I study, the more I realize I know nothing."

swede,

The crux of the issue, I believe, lies in the fact that the overwhelming majority of people think of economics in terms of their paycheck vs rent and bills (very micro-economic) and macro-economics looks at the world very differently. Furthermore, because the world is NOT a laboratory, where you have control over inputs and variables, the results will almost always vary from expectations and be irreproducible. This calls into question why it's called a "science", since reproducibility is a sine qua non for the rest of the sciences. Perhaps it's because it's clearly more than just "an art". It's a global financial platypus that has similarities to different beasts (e.g. banking, manufacturing and non-GDP stuff like community "quality of life" issues) and yet is none of the above.

Still, we need something like it even if it is, by its uncontrollable nature, not completely reliable.

Look at it this way, you're probably as good or better than meteorologists. That means when you make a rosy prediction about GDP/job growth, bring an umbrella anyway.

bob

.

dbrown4 wrote:same here, swede. I actually wound up taking more economics courses in college than math but got a math degree instead. Then got a masters in econ and business. Thanks, LA. Sir not necessary! I think we are about the same age.

I was trying to do my impression of Ed McMahon....Doesn't translate as well in text....If you've got a math degree you've gone further than I. I'm still stuck on group theory....right now I'm studying the Beatles. LACELT

LACELTFAN wrote:

dbrown4 wrote:same here, swede. I actually wound up taking more economics courses in college than math but got a math degree instead. Then got a masters in econ and business. Thanks, LA. Sir not necessary! I think we are about the same age.

I was trying to do my impression of Ed McMahon....Doesn't translate as well in text....If you've got a math degree you've gone further than I. I'm still stuck on group theory....right now I'm studying the Beatles. LACELT

LACeltsfan,

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.

I hope you're better at group theory than I am because that one has me chasing my own tail.

bob

.

for a guy who wears sandals to be able to count to 20 yur all way ahead of me, bastards or no. lol

Key to game 3: value the ball