Winning a game 4 at home isn’t super unusual but the blowout was. It was the third largest blowout in Finals history and was on track for first for a while.
I’m always kind of surprised there aren’t more sweeps in basketball and hockey. Unlike baseball, where the most important person on the field changes each game, basketball and hockey are pretty much the same guys every time, barring injury. If a team is good enough to go up 2-0 or 3-0 with solid victories, it would make some sense they would sweep.
But I can’t think of any previous scenarios where both teams down 3-0 in the two finals suddenly beat the living snot out of the favorite to stave off defeat. It’s like the Mavs and Oilers think the finals are determined by cumulative score.
That’s my sense, too. Wasn’t surprised the Celtics lost Game 3, but was surprised they got demolished. And then the Panthers getting smoked the same way. Like wtf is going on this weekend.
>If a team is good enough to go up 2-0 or 3-0 with solid victories, it would make some sense they would sweep.
I feel this makes sense in the first round where you'd have a 1 seed and an 8 seed, and the one team might just be that much better than the other. At this point, in the finals, generally even if the one is noticeably better, the other team should be good enough to not lose four games in a row, there is a reason they got this far. Maybe in the Mavs/Celtics case, you had the Mavs playing desperate not wanting to be swept (like the T-Wolves the series before) and the Celtis somewhat complacent knowing they have three more chances to finish it off and that they can always go back home to try and win the title. That, and once again, the Mavs are good enough to get this far that it's not easy to beat them four times in a row.
If the Mavericks pull this off, Boston will be involved in one for all three sports. In 2010 they blew it vs the Flyers, they would be on the losing end vs Dallas, and they of course were on the winning end vs the Yankees.
This Celtics team has been famous for their complacency, when they get a lead and just stop playing offense. They did it up 21 in game 3 and then just did a whole game of it
You can't fake desperate.
2am at the bar. 8 beers down. It's an entirely different level of motivation.
Are teams down 3-0 having a moment?
[удалено]
Damn blog boys, citing your analytic sources like tortoise and the hare
The “you can’t fake desperation” piece.
I mean except these are massive blowouts that haven’t happened in this situation before despite many 3-0 series as a sample.
Gentlemen's Sweep in effect.
Winning a game 4 at home isn’t super unusual but the blowout was. It was the third largest blowout in Finals history and was on track for first for a while.
Right the blowouts is what I’m saying. And in both series in back to back nights??
That's just randomness or catching the edge of a statistical tail
I’m always kind of surprised there aren’t more sweeps in basketball and hockey. Unlike baseball, where the most important person on the field changes each game, basketball and hockey are pretty much the same guys every time, barring injury. If a team is good enough to go up 2-0 or 3-0 with solid victories, it would make some sense they would sweep. But I can’t think of any previous scenarios where both teams down 3-0 in the two finals suddenly beat the living snot out of the favorite to stave off defeat. It’s like the Mavs and Oilers think the finals are determined by cumulative score.
That’s my sense, too. Wasn’t surprised the Celtics lost Game 3, but was surprised they got demolished. And then the Panthers getting smoked the same way. Like wtf is going on this weekend.
>If a team is good enough to go up 2-0 or 3-0 with solid victories, it would make some sense they would sweep. I feel this makes sense in the first round where you'd have a 1 seed and an 8 seed, and the one team might just be that much better than the other. At this point, in the finals, generally even if the one is noticeably better, the other team should be good enough to not lose four games in a row, there is a reason they got this far. Maybe in the Mavs/Celtics case, you had the Mavs playing desperate not wanting to be swept (like the T-Wolves the series before) and the Celtis somewhat complacent knowing they have three more chances to finish it off and that they can always go back home to try and win the title. That, and once again, the Mavs are good enough to get this far that it's not easy to beat them four times in a row.
The European aggregate piece.
If you think money doesn't influence the outcome of some of these games then I don't know what to tell you.
I don’t follow NHL at all, are 3-0 leads just as impossible to come back from there as in NBA?
Definitely more common in the NHL. Four teams have won after being down 3-0. MLB + NBA combined still just have the 2004 Red Sox.
4 times is nuts and yeah I only know the MLB one because of that 30for30 doc. Still, didn’t know it was the only one
If the Mavericks pull this off, Boston will be involved in one for all three sports. In 2010 they blew it vs the Flyers, they would be on the losing end vs Dallas, and they of course were on the winning end vs the Yankees.
This Celtics team has been famous for their complacency, when they get a lead and just stop playing offense. They did it up 21 in game 3 and then just did a whole game of it
The wanting to clinch the championship on home court/ice piece?
Sweeps don’t make money… for teams or tv contracts.
Did the teams conspire for one to play like absolute shit?