[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

That's not a null hypothesis. Must laugh at the "we get it, we get it" comments.

Laugh away - points are still being made.


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.

But here is where I just don't understand why you take the statistics to prove your points over what the actual people say involved directly (players, coaches, managers, assistant managers, etc). I mean, they say it matters, but because it isn't predictable, it can't be deemed as a possible theory?

Look at the last full inning of play. You can see momentum swinging greatly. Young comes up and gets the big HR and away we go. Numerous hits after. The emotional swing from getting way down made this club wake the hell up. THAT IS EMOTION AT ITS FINEST. That is absolutely mometum. What we have going RIGHT NOW in the bottom of the 4th inning is momentum building. When the Mavs go on a huge 15-2 run after an amazing block that brings the crowd to their feet, that is momentum shifting.

My primary point is simply that winning a game can bring that momentum over into the next game based on how the win is earned and what happens emotionally in that game. Sure, something like today might take place where the momentum we carried over from our previous win is stolen from us by a horrible call or mistakes that aren't typically made, but that is exactly WHY it isn't predictable - human error.

I used it to explain the concept. The theory will hold no matter what number you use.

Well at least you recognize that it is YOUR butthole this shit came from. Progress.

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.

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.

Sigh... Around and around we go, where we stop, who the hell knows.

Comments above.