Originally posted by TeapotI just saw this interesting stat: in the Finals, when the teams are tied 1-1 after two games, the winner of game 3 has won the series 28/32 times. Since 1985, when they changed to the current 2-3-2 format (as opposed to the old 2-2-1-1-1 format), the winner is 10-0.
On another note, wasn't the format changed to 2-3-2 because of the frequent Lakers/Celtics matchups in the Finals, and the fact that it seemed harsh to force them into so much coast-to-coast travel time after Game 4?
"Say, the next time you want to win your daughter back, you could just try giving her a pony, the apocalypse doesn’t really cut it!" --The Prince, Prince of Persia (2008)
Fan of the Indianapolis Colts (Super Bowl XLI Champions), Indiana Pacers and Washington Nationals
Certified RFMC Member-- Ask To See My Credentials!
Co-Winner of Time's Person of the Year Award, 2006
Originally posted by TeapotI just saw this interesting stat: in the Finals, when the teams are tied 1-1 after two games, the winner of game 3 has won the series 28/32 times. Since 1985, when they changed to the current 2-3-2 format (as opposed to the old 2-2-1-1-1 format), the winner is 10-0.
On another note, wasn't the format changed to 2-3-2 because of the frequent Lakers/Celtics matchups in the Finals, and the fact that it seemed harsh to force them into so much coast-to-coast travel time after Game 4?
More because the media outlets bitched about having to take 5 cross country flights to cover the series instead of 3.
Originally posted by TeapotI just saw this interesting stat: in the Finals, when the teams are tied 1-1 after two games, the winner of game 3 has won the series 28/32 times. Since 1985, when they changed to the current 2-3-2 format (as opposed to the old 2-2-1-1-1 format), the winner is 10-0.
I love to use stats when it comes to basketball but this series is different; there really is no rolling momentum for either team unless one of them wins 2 in a row (which is hard to do against either team).
Paul Pierce made a bold statement by saying the series will be finished in Boston but chances are, one team will be heading back to LA with a 3-2 series lead but for which team is uncertain right now.
I was not a fan of the officiating last night ... It didn't change the fact that the Celtics couldn't hit a shot, or that they made some bone-headed plays down the stretch, but I'd still like to go on record as saying that I was not a fan of the officiating last night.
Anyway, Game Three was an important game, but not a critical one ... THE critical game is always Game Four, since either the Lakers will take a commanding 3-1 lead or the Celtics will tie things up at two apiece and make this a three-game series.
This Celtics team has made a habit of defying expectations during the postseason, so we'll just have to wait and see what happens Thursday ... There's no way to make a prediction in these Finals anyway, so I'm not even going to try and make one, biased or otherwise
(edited by Alessandro on 10.6.10 1421) "All RAW is these days is a cheap version of Saturday Night Live, so if you wanna tune in to watch the amazing star power of Al Sharpton and Nancy O'Dell, go ahead! Who's gonna host next week, Big Bird? Wow, that's must-see TV!" - John Morrison (10/16/09 Smackdown!)
I was also nearly accosted twice for daring to wear my Holy Cross jacket (holycross.edu) ... A word of advice from me to you - unless you are in fact rooting for the Lakers (and are thus mentally prepared for the abuse), don't wear purple to a Celtics game ;)
"All RAW is these days is a cheap version of Saturday Night Live, so if you wanna tune in to watch the amazing star power of Al Sharpton and Nancy O'Dell, go ahead! Who's gonna host next week, Big Bird? Wow, that's must-see TV!" - John Morrison (10/16/09 Smackdown!)
Another rock-solid basketball game. Paul Pierce showed up again for the 2nd game in a row and good balanced Celtics attack allowed Boston to be within 1 game of hoisting banner #18.
LA will come back in game 6 with a stronger attack so the C's better come with just as a strong (if not stronger) attack for a crucial game 6.
Originally posted by CajunManSomebody better tell the Celtics they have a game Thurs. night, and it is the final game! Otherwise the Lakers have this thing won again.
Someone tell the same thing to the Lakers. They have that terrible tendency to fall asleep the next game after blowing a team out. Now's not that time.
Well, at least we get a bit of unpredictability in the usually very predictable NBA. I have no idea what is going to happen in Game Seven. Both of these teams have been so hot-and-cold that almost anything could go down and I wouldn't be totally surprised. The only shocking result would be another Laker blowout like last night.
Fun fact: this is Phil Jackson's first seventh game in the NBA Finals.
One thing's for sure-- Game 7 is must-see TV for me! Absolutely no idea who will win.
"Say, the next time you want to win your daughter back, you could just try giving her a pony, the apocalypse doesn’t really cut it!" --The Prince, Prince of Persia (2008)
Fan of the Indianapolis Colts (Super Bowl XLI Champions), Indiana Pacers and Washington Nationals
Certified RFMC Member-- Ask To See My Credentials!
Co-Winner of Time's Person of the Year Award, 2006
Thread ahead: Bucks trade for Corey Maggette Next thread: Manute Bol (October 16, 1962 - June 19, 2009) Previous thread: Iverson wants to return to basketball?
Well, its not like people missing the three pointers are making the game UGLY, what people dont like is all the crappy grabbing, hacking, jump step plus two steps bullshit that they allow these days. (at least thats what I hate)