NBA 2022-2023

[ExoduS]

Lot's of teams came back from 3-1 There is hope for Celtics. I think Miami will choke. They are not a better team and first two games were strange. Let's see what happens. Want Miami to win but I smell choke.

 

[ExoduS]

He went for 57 points on 21/31 shooting across the second half of game 2 and the first half of game 3. The Nuggets scored 118 points as a team. Jokic went 5/19 for 12 points and 11 assists during

Without Murray playing like he did during that stretch this would be 2-2 right now and going back to Denver

If, if, if ifffffffffffffffff. Sports are complex. One thing not happening doesn't mean everything else would have happened as it did. Murray was poor in the 4th of last two games in the series and Jokic took over. Maybe Jokic would have played better during the stretch Murray was killing it? Maybe someone else would have made big shots.

 

[Swedish_Plumber]

Doesn’t matter who comes through the East. Those Nuggets are winning it

 

[Sarni]

Lot's of teams came back from 3-1 There is hope for Celtics. I think Miami will choke. They are not a better team and first two games were strange. Let's see what happens. Want Miami to win but I smell choke.

I don’t think it is fair to Miami to say they have not been the better team in a series they are leading 3-1.

 

[RobinLFC]

Fecking hell, I don't like stuff like that.

 

[MrMarcello]

Has any 3-0 series ever go to 3-3? I know that a team leading 3-0 has never lost a series, but have they ever been at risk of losing it (getting it tied 3-3)?

Nine times in US sports from 0-3 to 3-3 - thrice in the NBA.
Five times in US sports from 0-3 to 4-3 - none in the NBA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_teams_to_overcome_3–0_series_deficits

 

[calodo2003]

 

[Sarni]

Why are people using 0-150 stat like it has some meaning? If you want to use some stat, look at pre-series favourites that are down 3-0, and then the sample size is probably a lot less than 20, and statistically meaningless. Not all 3-0 situation are similar at all.

The fact it has happened only 5 times in history across all US sports, and never in the NBA, is not meaningless. It is extremely unlikely but of course not impossible. ESPN having Celtics at 31% even before last night’s game is pure lunacy.

Also, Boston were firm favorites but well overrated in how much everyone expected them to win because of their regular season record. Miami beat Bucks and Knicks quite comfortably, they are no mugs.

 

[Rado_N]

From the (admittedly very little) bits I’ve seen of this guy he seems like a right fecking knobhead.

 

[RobinLFC]

Ah alright, cheers for that.

It can only help - certainly won't do him any harm, now he just needs to tell his friends to not go on Instagram Live the next time he flashes a gun somewhere.

 

[Rado_N]

 

[giorno]

Ironically Vanderbilt's ideal setup was to play with KAT. I think he's going to eventually find a setup where he excels, as he's too talented a defender to make nothing of his career. Though I also think the same about Thybulle, and that isn't looking a great call!

In the modern NBA if you are a negative on offence you can't stay on the court no matter how great your defence

If, if, if ifffffffffffffffff. Sports are complex. One thing not happening doesn't mean everything else would have happened as it did. Murray was poor in the 4th of last two games in the series and Jokic took over. Maybe Jokic would have played better during the stretch Murray was killing it? Maybe someone else would have made big shots.

My post wasn't about hypothetical scenarios, it was highlighting how good and impactful Murray was in the series

As for Heat-Celtics i think the Heat close it out in 6, at home in a blowout. The issue with coming back from 3-0 down is that it doesn't happen in the NBA unless the team winning is really really fecking good - and if they are, you just aren't beating them 4 times in a row. The Heat are in their 3rd ECF in 4 seasons in the Butler era, and most importantly the team is exactly the same ad last season's #1 seed in the East. This isn't some plucky underdog that got lucky or got hot at the right time - this doesn't work in the NBA anyways -, they are genuinely one of the best teams in the league

 

[Charlie Foley]

 

[Charlie Foley]

From the (admittedly very little) bits I’ve seen of this guy he seems like a right fecking knobhead.

Yes

 

[massi83]

The fact it has happened only 5 times in history across all US sports, and never in the NBA, is not meaningless. It is extremely unlikely but of course not impossible. ESPN having Celtics at 31% even before last night’s game is pure lunacy.

Also, Boston were firm favorites but well overrated in how much everyone expected them to win because of their regular season record. Miami beat Bucks and Knicks quite comfortably, they are no mugs.

Yes, it is. Market is giving celtics now 29% to go through. If you think it is something like less than 10%, you much be extremely wealthy man, with net worth of more than 10m, because I sure as hell can't find that kind of misspricings in something that is as followed as this. I have layed Celtics so I agree they have been and might still be overrated, but by a lot smaller margin than people here seem to think. Something like 25% to go through might be possible when it comes to misspricing. But not 10%, or absolutely not less than 10%.

And obviously given that the series is now 1-3, odds at 0-3 are totally meaningless.

 

[JPRouve]

Yes, it is. Market is giving celtics now 29% to go through. If you think it is something like less than 10%, you much be extremely wealthy man, with net worth of more than 10m, because I sure as hell can't find that kind of misspricings in something that is as followed as this. I have layed Celtics so I agree they have been and might still be overrated, but by a lot smaller margin than people here seem to think. Something like 25% to go through might be possible when it comes to misspricing. But not 10%, or absolutely not less than 10%.

And obviously given that the series is now 1-3, odds at 0-3 are totally meaningless.

Has gambling any relevance though?

 

[Sarni]

Yes, it is. Market is giving celtics now 29% to go through. If you think it is something like less than 10%, you much be extremely wealthy man, with net worth of more than 10m, because I sure as hell can't find that kind of misspricings in something that is as followed as this. I have layed Celtics so I agree they have been and might still be overrated, but by a lot smaller margin than people here seem to think. Something like 25% to go through might be possible when it comes to misspricing. But not 10%, or absolutely not less than 10%.

And obviously given that the series is now 1-3, odds at 0-3 are totally meaningless.

Why are you even responding to and getting wound up by some 10%?

It is just very unlikely. They’ve been overrated by bookies, media and everyone else throughout the series, doesn’t really mean much. Coming back from 3-0 against a team like Heat is tough. It happens every other year, people get excited over first 3-0 comeback coming and then it ends within the next two games after 3-1.

 

[massi83]

Has gambling any relevance though?

Of course it has. If the pricing is wrong, there are plenty of smart people in the world willing to bet until the misspricing is not there, or at the very least, is a lot smaller. It sure as hell has much more relevance than clueless posters here rambling on about 0-150.

 

[Sarni]

The issue with Celtics coming back here is that to win another 3 games in a row they either need to be consistently great, or they have to be simply decent when Heat have an off day. Celtics have not been consistently great in any of the series so far, they had games where they sucked badly against both Hawks and Sixers, and Heat have not really had any games where they were very bad so basically to beat them you got to perform. It’s hard to foresee this happening 3 more times, but of course not completely impossible.

 

[JPRouve]

Of course it has. If the pricing is wrong, there are plenty of smart people in the world willing to bet until the misspricing is not there, or at the very least, is a lot smaller. It sure as hell has much more relevance than clueless posters here rambling on about 0-150.

How is that relevant to actually chances of something happening? As an example the Celtics were largely favored before the serie started and yet they have been largely dominated. Unless I'm missing something gambling odds are just "feelings", they are irrelevant to the actually probabilites of something happening.

 

[Sarni]

How is that relevant to actually chances of something happening? As an example the Celtics were largely favored before the serie started and yet they have been largely dominated. Unless I'm missing something gambling odds are just "feelings", they are irrelevant to the actually probabilites of something happening.

Gambling odds are simply a reflection of perceived probability rather than representation of real probability.

 

[JPRouve]

Gambling odds are simply a reflection of perceived probability rather than representation of real probability.

Exactly, which make them irrelevant when one is looking at historic statistics. You can't dismiss facts with gambling odds.

 

[Sarni]

Exactly, which make them irrelevant when one is looking at historic statistics. You can't dismiss facts with gambling odds.

He’s right though in pointing out that Celtics are perhaps way more likely than majority of those 150 teams simply because it’s mostly vastly inferior teams that go 3-0 down in the first place.

 

[JPRouve]

He’s right though in pointing out that Celtics are perhaps way more likely than majority of those 150 teams simply because it’s mostly vastly inferior teams that go 3-0 down in the first place.

I agree but it's not based on Vegas' odds.

 

[JPRouve]

I'm watching JJ Redick's podcast and I know realize that the likes of Edwards/Banchero/Mobley are going to be sent to LA, Chicago, Boston or Golden State by the NBA.

 

[Jim Beam]

 

[vangagal]

He might really do it just because of what MJ did to his finals in 2020.

 

[Sarni]

Lot's of teams came back from 3-1 There is hope for Celtics. I think Miami will choke. They are not a better team and first two games were strange. Let's see what happens. Want Miami to win but I smell choke.

Teams trailing 3-1 down are actually 13-258 so while it's more likely, it is still an extremely rare occurrence. 95% of time the team 3-1 ahead wins the series.

It's been happening somewhat more frequently in recent years (also due to the fact all rounds are 7-game series now, including first round, which wasn't the case before) which gives you the impression that it is a frequent occurrence but it isn't really. Denver did it twice in the bubble (against Jazz and Clippers), it happened twice in 2016 season (first Warriors did it against Thunder and then Cavs against Warriors) and it happened in 2015 in Houston v Clippers. There are five additional cases of teams pulling it back from 3-1 to 3-3 but then failing to win the final game in recent 20 years,

 

[charlton66]

Seems to be quite a bit of talk in the media of LeBron to the Warriors. If the Lakers don't think he's going to re-sign next sumner then they're probably at least open to offers this off season, otherwise he leaves for nothing.

I've always like LeBron.

 

[Zen]

I actually agree with whoevers asking about context of this 0-150....

How many top seeds have been down 3-0, top seeds that were also, legit faves for the title. But either way, historically ignoring the above, the first game is actually the first one to win, since 4-0 accounts for just about 60% of that... win game 5 and they are in the 90% percentile, while actually being comfortably the most favoured team left (compared to where they were going into the playoffs/series)... it's absolutely easy to see why you weren't getting odds of 100/1 and closer to 10/1. It's a genuine unknown.

But on top of that, anyone that thinks otherwise, go on an exchange, and offer better than 6.4+ against the Celtics for the title, forget series, right now and you'll be matched in absolutely no time.

 

[Sarni]

I actually agree with whoevers asking about context of this 0-150....

How many top seeds have been down 3-0, top seeds that were also, legit faves for the title. But either way, historically ignoring the above, the first game is actually the first one to win, since 4-0 accounts for just about 60% of that... win game 5 and they are in the 90% percentile, while actually being comfortably the most favoured team left (compared to where they were going into the playoffs/series)... it's absolutely easy to see why you weren't getting odds of 100/1 and closer to 10/1. It's a genuine unknown.

But on top of that, anyone that thinks otherwise, go on an exchange, and offer better than 6.4+ against the Celtics for the title, forget series, right now and you'll be matched in absolutely no time.

150 is just a number, obviously Celtics are in a better position than many of these teams as they are a closer match for the Heat than your average team being 3-0 down. It’s the 0 that matters, it hasn’t happened yet, it is very unlikely. Even the stat for teams 3-1 down is not very optimistic.

Celtics have been overrated this year though. The level of their performances throughout all series hasn’t warranted this level of belief, I would perhaps feel better about their chances if it weren’t for the fact that they could hardly string two good games in a row.

 

[giorno]

Beating a team good enough to beat you 3 times, 4 times in a row is virtually impossible in the NBA. All it takes is another great shooting night for the Heat - who already have 4 nuclear ones in these playoffs including 2 in this series - or a bad shooting night for the Celtics - who also had a couple of those in these playoffs - and it's over

 

[massi83]

Beating a team good enough to beat you 3 times, 4 times in a row is virtually impossible in the NBA. All it takes is another great shooting night for the Heat - who already have 4 nuclear ones in these playoffs including 2 in this series - or a bad shooting night for the Celtics - who also had a couple of those in these playoffs - and it's over

I hope you don't work in risk-management.

 

[giorno]

I hope you don't work in risk-management.

I don't, and the Celtics are done

 

[Zen]

150 is just a number, obviously Celtics are in a better position than many of these teams as they are a closer match for the Heat than your average team being 3-0 down. It’s the 0 that matters, it hasn’t happened yet, it is very unlikely. Even the stat for teams 3-1 down is not very optimistic.

Celtics have been overrated this year though. The level of their performances throughout all series hasn’t warranted this level of belief, I would perhaps feel better about their chances if it weren’t for the fact that they could hardly string two good games in a row.

Yeah, but sticking on the 0 totally ignores context of the situation, the simple fact is, it's priced the way it is and ESPN or Five30 have it because they don't care about historical stuff that's irrelevant to this situation, because no ones willing to push them further out on exchanges. Which you or I could influence, which would then shift other odds.

There's loads vocal that because it's 150 or whatever, the odds are too small, but then, they aren't willing to throw the money down to back that up. And neither are genuine line movers who work on the exchanges. You'd have too many people just accepting the bet to cash out after the next win, not actually for the eventually outcome.

 

[Sarni]

Yeah, but sticking on the 0 totally ignores context of the situation, the simple fact is, it's priced the way it is and ESPN or Five30 have it because they don't care about historical stuff that's irrelevant to this situation, because no ones willing to push them further out on exchanges. Which you or I could influence, which would then shift other odds.

There's loads vocal that because it's 150 or whatever, the odds are too small, but then, they aren't willing to throw the money down to back that up. And neither are genuine line movers who work on the exchanges. You'd have too many people just accepting the bet to cash out after the next win, not actually for the eventually outcome.

Come on, we can’t treat ESPN seriously on this. They had Miami at 3% before the series started and had Boston at over 30% at 3-0. They are being ridiculous.

Also, I don’t get the whole ‘if you are so confident put serious money on it’. It can literally be just that the people commenting on here are not really into gambling, regardless of how confident they are in certain things happening. Why would you challenge them to do it and use it as any sort of argument in a discussion?

 

[Zen]

To be fair I don't even know what the ESPN thing is as I can't find it, but I see the Five30 ones who have them at 25% right now, which is slightly kinder than the bookies.

And on the second point, because well, people far more intelligent than you and me both on Basketball knowledge and understand risk management because the betting lines, then, again, super savvy financial people who works markets on the initial lines will put money in when they think it's wrong in the initial moments, then it settles at the true price.... yet people just think it's wrong, for no real reasoning whatsoever. There is a very very small window of a betting line potentially being 'wrong' - when it's initially put up, when you have early news of something(say you know Tatum ain't starting tonight before it's truly public or a startling XI without Haaland) and it hasn't adjusted yet.

Give me the last 10 NBA title favourites 3-0 to the 8th seed in the Conference Finals(so the 8th would have to have overcome good teams still).... and I'm betting 1, if not more, come through it. Maybe it's not the Celtics, maybe it is... I ain't taking that risk at the line offered, I think it's right. But I also don't think it'll happen. But context is always key, the 0-150 is meaningless on it's own.

 

[massi83]

Come on, we can’t treat ESPN seriously on this. They had Miami at 3% before the series started and had Boston at over 30% at 3-0. They are being ridiculous.

Also, I don’t get the whole ‘if you are so confident put serious money on it’. It can literally be just that the people commenting on here are not really into gambling, regardless of how confident they are in certain things happening. Why would you challenge them to do it and use it as any sort of argument in a discussion?

It is clear that you don't understand probabilities at all, so why do you keep posting so much about this issue.

 

[massi83]

I don't, and the Celtics are done

Phew, that's a relief.

Nah, they have about 24-29%. But if they do lose, I am sure you guys think it proves that I was wrong. (Which would only be true if I said Celtics are going through 100% of the time.)

I mean, I should be happy that people are so clueless about probabilities. It has enabled a very easy living for me. At the same time it is rather annoying to witness so much stupidity.

 

[Sarni]

To be fair I don't even know what the ESPN thing is as I can't find it, but I see the Five30 ones who have them at 25% right now, which is slightly kinder than the bookies.

And on the second point, because well, people far more intelligent than you and me both on Basketball knowledge and understand risk management because the betting lines, then, again, super savvy financial people who works markets on the initial lines will put money in when they think it's wrong in the initial moments, then it settles at the true price.... yet people just think it's wrong, for no real reasoning whatsoever. There is a very very small window of a betting line potentially being 'wrong' - when it's initially put up, when you have early news of something(say you know Tatum ain't starting tonight before it's truly public or a startling XI without Haaland) and it hasn't adjusted yet.

Give me the last 10 NBA title favourites 3-0 to the 8th seed in the Conference Finals(so the 8th would have to have overcome good teams still).... and I'm betting 1, if not more, come through it. Maybe it's not the Celtics, maybe it is... I ain't taking that risk at the line offered, I think it's right. But I also don't think it'll happen. But context is always key, the 0-150 is meaningless on it's own.

Betting odds follow the money and of course people are going to be putting it on Celtics because they’ve been told Celtics are awesome and Miami are utter and complete garbage. In popular markets like this one the odds are largely going to reflect your average gambler’s perception.

The 8th seed in this case is a bit misleading as your average 8th seed is usually not at the level of Heat. Your average 8th seed can’t beat the 1 seed in the first place, it almost never ever happens in any sports.

BTW even if I wanted to put any money on Miami, I would barely make any profit in Poland as all winnings are taxed at 12% (including the stake) so betting on them at 1.3 would only yield 14%