spursfaninla
06-08-2010, 01:45 PM
If the lakers won both game 1 and 2, I think most of us thought the Celtics had little chance. Now that they split, their odds improved but are still less than 50% I think. Celtics winning game 3 makes the series about even, considering the Laker's superior front court (dominating so far) and HCA if they steal one in boston.
Therefore, Lakers should probably win this series unless they lose game 3 AND 4.
Here is my thinking. If lakers win game 3, this series is highly favoring the Lakers. They could lose the next 2 and get to go back to LA, where they should win.
Same with if the Lakers lose game 3 and win game 4. They really just need to get one game in Boston.
What if Lakers lose game 3 and 5? Not so bad as the previous scenarios, because although they are still numerically 2-3 after game 5, they did not have to win 3 in a row, but instead could come back from a bad game 5 and just win 2 at home.
But why are games 3 and 4 more important than getting game 5? Because that would mean Boston is 3-1 during game 5. Sure, winning one or after being down 3-1 is possible, but almost impossible to come back and win 3 in a row at that point. That is too much pressure, to have to then win 3 in a row after losing 3 in a row. It almost never happens. It is too hard to keep up the intensity at that level, unless you are a clearly superior team to the opponent.
Thus goes my prediction for the conclusion of the series. I think Boston wins the next 2, Lakers take the next one, and the series goes to LA where LA drops one of the 2 and Bostons finishes it.
Therefore, Lakers should probably win this series unless they lose game 3 AND 4.
Here is my thinking. If lakers win game 3, this series is highly favoring the Lakers. They could lose the next 2 and get to go back to LA, where they should win.
Same with if the Lakers lose game 3 and win game 4. They really just need to get one game in Boston.
What if Lakers lose game 3 and 5? Not so bad as the previous scenarios, because although they are still numerically 2-3 after game 5, they did not have to win 3 in a row, but instead could come back from a bad game 5 and just win 2 at home.
But why are games 3 and 4 more important than getting game 5? Because that would mean Boston is 3-1 during game 5. Sure, winning one or after being down 3-1 is possible, but almost impossible to come back and win 3 in a row at that point. That is too much pressure, to have to then win 3 in a row after losing 3 in a row. It almost never happens. It is too hard to keep up the intensity at that level, unless you are a clearly superior team to the opponent.
Thus goes my prediction for the conclusion of the series. I think Boston wins the next 2, Lakers take the next one, and the series goes to LA where LA drops one of the 2 and Bostons finishes it.