Amazing comebacks

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I asked if I was correct, look back. Regardless, "slightly improbable"? Please!!

This is a little out dated as its before the Sox comeback, but I'm sure the numbers are fairly square today:

In the 797 best-of-7 MLB, NBA, and NHL series that have been played from 1905 through 1999, 211 times has a team taken a 3-0 series lead. In theory, if the competing teams have equal chances of winning each game, then the probability of the trailing team winning four straight games is 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/16 or 6.25%. But in practice, only twice in these 211 series (0.95% -- well under 6.25%) has the trailing team rebounded to win four straight.

Anyone who said, "slightly improbable", please keep your day jobs as you've been paying my rent by chasing those long odds for the last four years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ridiculous, and way to get personal. I assure you I am quite aware of the laws of probability, having, you know, published papers that use them extensively. The people who pay your salary are the ones who jump to conclusions based on 797 hands.

I was going to add this to the other post, but silly me I thought this goes without saying. The "amazing" and fluky part is that this hadn't happened before that.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "laws of probability" aren't the only factors in the comeback by the Red Sox. If you don't believe that there is a severe psychological disadvantage for the team that is behind 0-3, then you don't understand the game. It isn't 50-50 when playing the 4th or 5th games, possibly even the 6th.

[Equal]

Miracle On Manchester

The 1982 NHL playoffs - The LA Kings are down 5-0 in the third period against the Great One Wayne Gretzky and the powerhouse Edmonton Oilers, with only 17 minutes to go.

Single greatest Stanley Cup comeback.

Wikipedia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKWWhswwZog

[GuyIncognito]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I asked if I was correct, look back. Regardless, "slightly improbable"? Please!!

This is a little out dated as its before the Sox comeback, but I'm sure the numbers are fairly square today:

In the 797 best-of-7 MLB, NBA, and NHL series that have been played from 1905 through 1999, 211 times has a team taken a 3-0 series lead. In theory, if the competing teams have equal chances of winning each game, then the probability of the trailing team winning four straight games is 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/16 or 6.25%. But in practice, only twice in these 211 series (0.95% -- well under 6.25%) has the trailing team rebounded to win four straight.

Anyone who said, "slightly improbable", please keep your day jobs as you've been paying my rent by chasing those long odds for the last four years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ridiculous, and way to get personal. I assure you I am quite aware of the laws of probability, having, you know, published papers that use them extensively. The people who pay your salary are the ones who jump to conclusions based on 797 hands.

I was going to add this to the other post, but silly me I thought this goes without saying. The "amazing" and fluky part is that this hadn't happened before that.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "laws of probability" aren't the only factors in the comeback by the Red Sox. If you don't believe that there is a severe psychological disadvantage for the team that is behind 0-3, then you don't understand the game. It isn't 50-50 when playing the 4th or 5th games, possibly even the 6th.

[/ QUOTE ]

Possibly a more relevant factor is that a team that goes down 3-0 is very likely to be weaker than its opponent (though this was only barely true, if true at all, of the Red Sox vs. the Yankees in 2004).

[mmbt0ne]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JL6Y...ed&search=

[MacGuyV]

[ QUOTE ]
Possibly a more relevant factor is that a team that goes down 3-0 is very likely to be weaker than its opponent (though this was only barely true, if true at all, of the Red Sox vs. the Yankees in 2004).

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair I think that's at least a little results-oriented. Would anybody argue that the Red Sox were just as good if they had lost Game 4? The '90 A's were regarded by just about everyone as better than the Reds before the series started but they lost Game 4 & got swept; does anyone still think the A's were the better team?

[THAY3R]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Possibly a more relevant factor is that a team that goes down 3-0 is very likely to be weaker than its opponent (though this was only barely true, if true at all, of the Red Sox vs. the Yankees in 2004).

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair I think that's at least a little results-oriented. Would anybody argue that the Red Sox were just as good if they had lost Game 4? The '90 A's were regarded by just about everyone as better than the Reds before the series started but they lost Game 4 & got swept; does anyone still think the A's were the better team?

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, yes to both?

Lol ur dum

[THAY3R]

To explain it more :

In 2004, the Red Sox had easily the biggest run differential in the league that season, and definitely should have been favorites for the series.

In 1990, The A's were one of the best teams ever.

Variance is a bitch.

[GuyIncognito]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Possibly a more relevant factor is that a team that goes down 3-0 is very likely to be weaker than its opponent (though this was only barely true, if true at all, of the Red Sox vs. the Yankees in 2004).

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair I think that's at least a little results-oriented. Would anybody argue that the Red Sox were just as good if they had lost Game 4? The '90 A's were regarded by just about everyone as better than the Reds before the series started but they lost Game 4 & got swept; does anyone still think the A's were the better team?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, in baseball the only best-of-7 series are the LCS and World Series, which obviously are far more likely to have evenly matched teams. The only two comebacks from 3-0 were in a semifinals (2004 ALCS) and a finals (1942 NHL Stanley Cup Finals).