Reply With Quote
I'd rather see a close Game 1 win than a blowout win. This was the perfect result for the Spurs.
A close playoff win intimidates an opponent more than a blowout. A couple of close wins and the Mavs' shaky confidence may collapse.
does mouse really matter?
I'd rather see a close Game 1 win than a blowout win. This was the perfect result for the Spurs.
A close playoff win intimidates an opponent more than a blowout. A couple of close wins and the Mavs' shaky confidence may collapse.
All the games matter.
But I think beating the Mavs on their own floor will be crucial.
That's why I'm considering going to Dallas for Game 3 to witness it.
"going to Dallas for Game 3 to witness it"
I think the rested, prepared Spurs will take Game2, and then split by taking Game4.
Game3 will probably find the Mavs, 0-2, playing extremely hard, in desperation to avoid 0-3, and the 2-0 Spurs won't (bother to) match.
Having come back to earth in Game4, the Mavs give the Spurs get their split.
Spurs 4-1.
Well Game 3 is Saturday, so more convenient to attend
Technically, game 1 matters in every series. Who does not want to have a 1 game advantage.
Mavs winning game 1 is crucial since it will take away the Spurs' homecourt advantage. As simple as that.
about 17% from what I remember.I am not sure how true that is. How many teams won a 7 game series after losing game one? where is a Sports geek when you need him
well whats the percent when the team wins game 1
someone finally asked the right question.
i dont know how to find the answers but find:
-percentage of home teams that win their series in a 7 game series
-percentage of home teams that win their series after a game 1 win in a 7 game series
the difference between these two percentages is exactly the answer to the question "does game one really matter?"
Imagine if the Mavs had won Game1. They would have achieved their split @ATT.
The pressure would be on Spurs to take Game2. They do. But they've lost HCA. Now it's a 5-game series, with 3 games @DAL, only 2 @ATT.
Now more pressure on the Spurs to at least get a split @DAL, with the Mavs having te confidence that they have neutralized Spurs HCA, actually stolen HCA from the Spurs.
Spurs winning Game1 today, on little rest, was extremely important, HUGE, to set the tone. Mavs are now feeling the pressure of playing catchup, and wondering if this really is the year that they can get past the Spurs.
.
Let's use the 2 teams history in the coference semis(Series W/L): Mavs are 1-5 when starting the series on the road while the Spurs are 7-4 when starting the semis at home. Dallas has won a whopping 24% of road games during this round as well(5-16)...
Some interesting stats here:
http://www.whowins.com/home.html
it means now the mavs have to beat us 4 out of 6 times
if you already have home court, troll
greyforest=mouse(or similar troll pretending to be spurs fan).
Does it really matter: The difference in greyforest's intelligence and the intelligence he displayed? (I am being charitable in supposing you are smarter than your comments would indicate).
I am finishing my master's in math (next semester) and you seem confused or malevolent. The latter appears more likely from what I read.
The Spurs have home court advantage. Your answer is trivial as it does not deal with the actual facts in this case. [B]What most people here reading this are attempting to determine is what are the chances that the Spurs will win the series.[/B] You have eliminated this variable not to attempt to isolate it but in an obvious and blatant attempt to manipulate the facts to confuse uninformed fans and to cloud the actual issue at home.
The question which you don't like, but which most people here are most interested in deals with the most relevant facts at hand. What are the chances that the Spurs will win this series given that they have won game 1 at at&t center? The closest we can come to an answer is: What percentage of times does the home team win the series when they win game 1? The answer has already been given by another poster: 83 % (I haven't confirmed this, but it seems to be a reasonable answer, one in line with rational expectations).
Let us say that x % of home teams win their series.
Let us say that y % of home teams win their series after a game 1 win.
However, we can easily correct this with:
Let us say that x % of road teams win their series.
Let us say that y% of road teams win their series after losing game 1.
The difference between them tells us the importance for the road team of winning game 1. In fact, this is compounded by the odds against a road team winning the series from the outset. Dallas doesn't suddenly become the home team in the middle of the series, troll.
Now, x > = y. Then, x-y > = 0. So, let d be an element of the positive Reals such that d=x-y. Then what d represents is the precise difference between the percentage of home teams winning game 1 who win the series and the percentage of home teams losing game 1 who win the series. So, then d is only one advantage that the Spurs have. A partial truth masquerading as the whole truth is a complete untruth. d is not the only advantage the spurs have. Another advantage the Spurs have is that they have home court. The difference between the % of times that the road team wins a 7 game series and the % of times that the home team wins a 7 game series is significant. No wonder you wanted to ignore it.
The compounded improbability of the Mavericks winning the series at this point can be calculated as follows: % of times road team wins a 7 game series after losing game 1 of the series * % of times that _allas beat the Spurs in 7 game series (during the TD era ) . The more facts we bring in and the more light we shed with the truth, the worse things get for _allas. Well, actually zero times any number is zero.
Your chances were never good to begin with. After losing game 1 despite our lack of rest and Tony's injury, your chances worsened considerably. You must know that Spurs will win at least 1 of games 3 and 4. This is a virtual certainty. Remember, certainly Kings (tough physical team with difficult match ups) > Mavs (soft as charmin-hence, we get away with Bruce on Dirk since Dirk = 7 ft with no post game at all). Since Mavs < Kings, then it doesn't logically follow that our difficulties on the road at Arco will occur in Dallas.
So, we have Memphis < Mavs < Kings < Spurs
Also, Suns < Clippers. In any event, let team a = max of {Suns, Clippers}
Memphis < team a < Mavs < Kings < Spurs.
Spurs chances = Pistons chances.
Spurs 3 _allas 0. Yes, previous postseason success with your best player on those teams and the current team are highly relevant. On the other hand, winning a few more or a few less (in your case less) games during the regular season says nothing at all about what you all can do in the postseason against the Spurs or the Pistons.
of course game 1 matters, otherwise Pop woulda started Melvin, Sean, Beno and the rest of the bench warmers
There must be something I don't know, because since I have been here, mouse has claimed to be nothing but a Maverick fan. Where does the troll stuff come from, anyway?
Usually from mouse's ass.
I'm thinking about doing that too... SpursTalk GTG @ AA Center in Dallas?All the games matter.
But I think beating the Mavs on their own floor will be crucial.
That's why I'm considering going to Dallas for Game 3 to witness it.
Greyforest isn't Mouse. He's just a regular Spurs fan posting.
Have you seen a psychiatrist about this schizophrenia, mouse?
Sure sounds like you are pretty familiar with Cuban's positions for an
East Coast fan who likes the Pistons. Interesting position that you take, mouse, that just because something has never happened in the past, ergo it will occur in the present.
Wow, the world is completely unknowable. All previous events in the history of the earth were anomalies. Sure, you want to take this position, mouse?
Umm.. East Coast Babe isn't Mouse either.Have you seen a psychiatrist about this schizophrenia, mouse?
Sure sounds like you are pretty familiar with Cuban's positions for an
East Coast fan who likes the Pistons. Interesting position that you take, mouse, that just because something has never happened in the past, ergo it will occur in the present.
Wow, the world is completely unknowable. All previous events in the history of the earth were anomalies. Sure, you want to take this position, mouse?
A little obsessed with accusing everyone of being Mouse, aren't you?
He very well may not be mouse. I'll take that on faith from you. So, I hitherto will refer to him as mouse jr. His comments are consistently hostile to the Spurs. So, he thinks like a troll and posts like a troll, regardless of his current home city. So, at this point, from what I have read, I feel justified in treating him like a troll.
Greyforest isn't Mouse. He's just a regular Spurs fan posting.
His obvious slant of statistics (meaning he tries to pick the least favorable statistics for the Spurs) would not lead anyone to think that he is a regular spurs fan, Kori.
Would a real Spurs fan go out of his way to obfuscate the issue like this, removing the fact that the Spurs have home court from the equation?
Just to set the record straight. I am not mouse!! I do live on the east coast just like my name suggests, in Panther territory, which of course is North Carolina. We did live in Fort Worth for several years and you cannot help hearing about the Mavs and Cuban. I do know something about them and you. But, I hate Texas!! I made skid marks getting out of there when I moved here. My favorite basketball team is Detroit when I was there and now that I am here. Not even fond of the closest team to us, which is of course the Bobcats! Does that help?
that's funny for you to say since you are the moderator and the only person who knows for certain which aliases belong to Mouse. I can only go by the evidence I have before me. I am not omniscient. I am uncertain of whether your viewpoint would stay like this were you not the moderator, knowing who is and who isn't. It's kind of like having the key to the test and saying the test is easy.
If you don't allow posters to have so many aliases, this never happens. This is just a logical consequence of that policy. If you dislike this reaction, isn't it reasonable to change the policy which leads to it?
Trying to have a normal conversation with posters when one poster adopts numerous aliases is not easy. My skepticism seems warranted. Nor I am the only person who believes that mouse has aliases.
When I see a pro Maverick anti Spur spin by a relatively new poster, it seems not out of the realm of possibilities that the new poster = mouse.
While I would prefer that each poster would only have one name on this site, I accept that this is your policy as indeed I must if I am to post here. If you allow mouse to have numerous aliases, surely you will allow me to be as skeptical as I want and accuse everyone of being mouse with the exceptions of Horryfor3, 1Parker1, ducks, SolidD, timvp, Rumpped, angelluv, boutons, exstatic, chumpdumper, Kori, Pistons<Spurs, vinniejohnson and some others.
If mouse can have numerous aliases, then I can make numerous accusations that someone I don't know is mouse (based on their post). Isn't that fair?
Or you could change your policy and say that mouse is only en led to one name when he posts on this board.
Besides, it sounds as if accusing someone of being mouse is accusing them of something bad. Is that how you really feel?
Is it worse to accuse someone of being an alias of mouse than for mouse to have so many aliases?
Kori said that you are not mouse. So, this is evidently true.
I am sure that you understand that I had no way of knowing whether or not you were or are speaking the truth, apart from Kori's help. Since Kori provided confirmation, I apologize for unintentionally offending you.
For the record, I know some things about you also (with the same implication which you meant). By the way, my comments were addressed to someone who I suspected was merely an alias of mouse. You have no such su ion of me, yet you didn't stop to ask yourself whether there was some reason from the past that I might suspect a new poster of being mouse in disguise and decided to insult me, without the belief that I was another poster in disguise?
Had I not suspected that you were mouse, then I would not have directed any negative comments towards your posts in the way that I did.
I will venture to say that we both have our faults and our strengths. Remember, it is possible that this poster helped start an orphanage in Reynosa Mexico. (among other things on 8 mission trips) .... (this could take some serious space and time) Perhaps I am not quite as evil as you make me out to be. And neither one of us are saints on our own merits and on our own strength. Although you may perceive yourself as Mother Theresa and me as Hitler, that may not be as close to reality as you suggest.
I am sorry that you did not enjoy your stay in Texas. I love it. If you hate Texas, it would be hard to be around people who live here and love it.
In any event, now that I know you are not an alias of mouse, I will not direct my comments for aliases of mouse towards you. And if you are the saint that you represent yourself as, you won't intentionally insult me again when you have the knowledge that my negative comments were all predicated upon the belief or su ion that you were an alias of mouse. Else, you cede the moral high ground that you appear to believe that you occupy.
originally posted by themanrules:
"In any event, now that I know you are not an alias of mouse, I will not direct my comments for aliases of mouse towards you. And if you are the saint that you represent yourself as, you won't intentionally insult me again when you have the knowledge that my negative comments were all predicated upon the belief or su ion that you were an alias of mouse. Else, you cede the moral high ground that you appear to believe that you occupy."
Why can't I hate Texas and just be an ordinary person? I don't represent myself as a saint and I don't know where you got that idea. Maybe you can enlighten me. We met a lot of nice people in Texas that we liked very much and still keep in contact with. When I say I hate Texas, it means I hate the heat, the dry plains, and the lack of green in the countryside. Had we lived in very northeastern Texas (around Texarkana say), I might not have felt that way. If you love it, then you belong there. I just don't. I don't think you are evil. My previous post was in response to a comment made that I knew an awful lot about the Mavs and Cuban to be a Pistons fan. I only meant to tell you why I knew so much. Not make myself a saint. But if you insist that I am, hey... who am I to argue?
Actually, Mouse is pretty entertaining here. He is like the Larry, Curly, and Moe of this site. Thanks, Curly, I mean Mouse.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
