Blazers crap all over Ralph Lawler's formula

[Mediocre Man]

Clippers play by play man, Ralph Lawler, has a formula where he looks at evey NBA game and sees who gets to 100 first. In those games 92% of the teams to 100 first win. That is not this season, that is over 20 seasons.

Portland has done it twice in the last three games

 

[maybeso]

The long-term probability of getting heads (or tails) on a coin flip is 50%.

Flip your favorite quarter three times and report back the results .

 

[Mediocre Man]

The long-term probability of getting heads (or tails) on a coin flip is 50%.

Flip your favorite quarter three times and report back the results .

What does that have to do with Lawler's Law?

 

[drexlersdad]

my theory that the team that scores the most usually wins is alive and well

 

[drexlersdad]

i believe the average score has been less than 100 for awhile so its not really rocket surgery

couldnt find average point totals for the last 20 years in a quick googler but here this year

http://www.nba.com/statistics/sortable_team_statistics/sortable1.html

 

[Mediocre Man]

my theory that the team that scores the most usually wins is alive and well

Maybe the best theory to have....maybe

 

[glazeduck]

Clippers play by play man, Ralph Lawler, has a formula where he looks at evey NBA game and sees who gets to 100 first. In those games 92% of the teams to 100 first win. That is not this season, that is over 20 seasons.

Portland has done it twice in the last three games

Is that really what passes as a "formula" these days? Doesn't that seem more like a casual observation?

 

[illmatic99]

Found this to be a fun read over on the Rockets forum: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=232971

 

[BBert]

Clippers play by play man, Ralph Lawler, has a formula where he looks at evey NBA game and sees who gets to 100 first. In those games 92% of the teams to 100 first win. That is not this season, that is over 20 seasons.

Portland has done it twice in the last three games

While Portland's feat in winning those games was impressive, I can't fathom how "Lawler's Law" has any useful purpose whatsoever. It's tantamount to saying that the the team that scores the most points usually wins.

 

[BBert]

my theory that the team that scores the most usually wins is alive and well

My theory is that the team that scores the fewest points, usually loses. If only there were some scientific method to test our theories against one another?

 

[Mediocre Man]

Found this to be a fun read over on the Rockets forum: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=232971

That was a fun read, and I agree with the ones who said they weren't worried about us. I think it's awesome that we keep defying the odds and winning these types of games, but I really don't think it's sustainable

 

[e_blazer]

That was a fun read, and I really enjoyed the Cuban clip:

 

[Rhal]

Found this to be a fun read over on the Rockets forum: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=232971

That was a fun read and not the first of its kind i'v read. A LOT of fanbases are pissed that we keep finding ways to win and the "there bad just lucky" keeps popping up. The constant fight in them between weather our players are good or scrubs is also funny. No team in the playoff hunt should be scared of us, were an inconsistent team so were going to have win streaks and losing streaks, I don't think were going to make the playoffs unless something drastic happens to Utah/Houston.

 

[handiman]

Is that really what passes as a "formula" these days? Doesn't that seem more like a casual observation?

No joke. I'm dying to know what % of teams win when reaching 99 pts first!

 

[Nikolokolus]

It's interesting to see how other teams' fans see the Blazers. Luck certainly has been part of this year's close wins and comebacks, but I'll give them some credit; this is a really resilient starting 5 that seems to trust each other. I'm not sure where it's coming from, but if that can carry forward despite the inevitable roster overhaul this summer, that would be a huge win for this team long-term.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

It's interesting to see how other teams' fans see the Blazers. Luck certainly has been part of this year's close wins and comebacks, but I'll give them some credit; this is a really resilient starting 5 that seems to trust each other. I'm not sure where it's coming from, but if that can carry forward despite the inevitable roster overhaul this summer, that would be a huge win for this team long-term.

Luck doesn't really account for our performance in OT, either. That's five minutes of clutch time you have to do well in to win. We have good leadership, yes some luck (to get us into these situations), and a lot of skill in our starting five. It's a potent mix.

 

[magnifier661]

It's interesting to see how other teams' fans see the Blazers. Luck certainly has been part of this year's close wins and comebacks, but I'll give them some credit; this is a really resilient starting 5 that seems to trust each other. I'm not sure where it's coming from, but if that can carry forward despite the inevitable roster overhaul this summer, that would be a huge win for this team long-term.

tor.rocks

Like I said in my first thread on these forums, LA is the heart of that team. He should be given more chances for the win. The guy is automatic from 15 feet.

Yeah they are nothing like some of the Blazer's own fans that claim Aldridge is not even a top 10 PF.

 

[magnifier661]

And as others have observed, it's a fluke. Portland doesn't concern me nearly as much as the Lakers and not even as much as the Mavericks do.

Seriously guys, think about it. Even WITH all this luck, Portland is still behind us. The only way they can pass Houston is if Houston screws up bad - and then we'll have a lot more problems than just Portland.

I wonder if this guy knows that we have the same amount of losses as they do and hold the tie breaker over them so far.

 

[maybeso]

What does that have to do with Lawler's Law?

if it is true (I haven't done the research) that the first team to 100 usually wins, then that is the long-term expectation if you look at enough games. Like heads/tails at 50%.

Any three game sequence that doesn't match the long-term expectation doesn't invalidate the expectation. It is part of the noise of real data.

The term "small sample size" applies.

 

[Eastoff]

I'd like to see how teams fair when they are first to reach 10 points.

 

[e_blazer]

if it is true (I haven't done the research) that the first team to 100 usually wins, then that is the long-term expectation if you look at enough games. Like heads/tails at 50%.

Any three game sequence that doesn't match the long-term expectation doesn't invalidate the expectation. It is part of the noise of real data.

The term "small sample size" applies.

Check out this article on the probability angle: http://www.portlandroundballsociety...4-reaction-damiancrantz-and-lamarcustern.html

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Maybe the best theory to have....maybe

Unless you're a golfer.