Quote:
Originally Posted by Male30Dan
Let me see if I get this straight. We argue for 2 days about independent vs. non-independent theories and now your stance is that my theory really shouldn't even exist because the independent theory has not been 100% proven wrong? I mean is that basically what you are telling me? I swear dude, if you lived in the late 1400s your ass would have never boarded those ships. That World was flat and would always be flat until forward thinkers and visionaries proved it wrong for you.
|
That's not a null hypothesis. Must laugh at the "we get it, we get it" comments.
Quote:
|
Well that's a helluva way to look at it considering that there are countless people on record indicating the power of momentum, speaking of how the emotional state of players has to be overcome given a personal/team performance, etc. So professionals speaking on it - our very own Rangers (would be happy to link some soundbits from articles - show you quotes) mentioning it means nothing because it hasn't been definitively proven in percentages and stats. OK...
|
But you can't tell if it's a positive or negative influence. Look at my example again with the two recent NBA Finals series. You can write revisionist history to prove *both* right, or admit "momentum" isn't very predictable.
Quote:
|
Oh, and as far as the 10% goes that I pulled out of my "butthole" as you so eloquently stated it? I continued to use that number because you FIRST used it and I just wanted to proceed with a figure we could both agree on. Twas you that pulled that little number out of your very derriere... Below is the post it was in and please feel free to find me speaking of it before then:
|
I used it to explain the concept. The theory will hold no matter what number you use.
Quote:
|
For the sake of example, let's assume your odds of winning a home game are 60% and your odds of winning a road game are 40%.
|
But then it turned out 60.4% was the number arrived at when looking at history.
Actually, that is a good example of a null hypothesis, namely that home field has no influence on the outcome of the game, being refuted by sufficient evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrobx
So using your own numbers, in a 2-3-2 format where both teams defend their home court for the first 5 games of the series, the team up 3-2 with games 6 and 7 on the road has a 63.5% chance of winning the series, even though they don't have HCA. I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just trying to make sure this is what you're stating and agreeing with. Because if it is, it's a pretty good indicator that 2-3-2 isn't very beneficial to the home team. Which position would you rather be in after 5 games? I'm not going to run the numbers but I'm pretty sure in a 2-2-1-1-1 format, if the home team wins every game up until game 5, and the team with HCA is up 3-2 with game 6 on the road and game 7 at home, their odds of winning the series would be much greater than 36.5%...so one would imagine that HCA would be more beneficial in a 2-2-1-1-1, which was my point all along. I'm actually interested in your rebuttal to this.
|
From the perspective of the V team:
Under 2-3-2
-------------
Odds of 3-2 lead: 33.2%
Odds of winning series after taking 3-2 lead: 63.5%
Overall odds of winning in this fashion: 21.1%
Under 2-2-1-1-1
-------------
Odds of 3-2 lead: 30.4%
Odds of winning series after taking 3-2 lead: 76.1%
Overall odds of winning in this fashion: 23.1%
Like I said, you have better odds of getting a worse advantage in 2-3-2. But where did those extra couple percentage points go? To the extra change you get in 2-3-2 of clinching in five games:
Under 2-3-2
-------------
4 games: 5.72%
5 games: 15.07%
6 games: 13.16%
7 games: 12.71%
Total odds: 46.66%
Under 2-2-1-1-1
-------------
4 games: 5.72%
5 games: 9.88%
6 games: 18.35%
7 games: 12.71%
Total odds: 46.66%
But for some reason, everyone just LOVES 2-3-2. Even though the Cards have a strong threat to permanently take HFA as early as Game Three.