Clipps-Nuggz Gm 7 Discussion

[LogGrad98]

How many times has Doc Rivers lost a series after a 3-1 lead? Is it 3 times now? More?

More. I saw an article on this. It's like 3 or 4 he has blown a 3-1 lead and another 3 or 4 blown a 3-2 lead.

He is probably the worst coach to have won a ring.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

This. I was shocked kawhi didn't stay there. I mean I'm sure he prefers the glitz and glamor of LA over Toronto, but they had a very good chance of repeating if he had stayed. He could have strung 2 or 3 rings together.

It’s home he cares about... not the glitz and glamour... he’s also not a fan of the cold.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

No. He wouldn't even have one ring if not blessed with facing a decimated Warriors team.

I mean he got one in San Antonio against LeBron so he’d at least still have one.

 

[jom2003]

More. I saw an article on this. It's like 3 or 4 he has blown a 3-1 lead and another 3 or 4 blown a 3-2 lead.

He is probably the worst coach to have won a ring.

then some guy here would tell you its statically insignificant just like mike conley's career 0-4 G7 record

 

[NAOS]

I mean he got one in San Antonio against LeBron so he’d at least still have one.

SOURCE???!1!

 

[One Brow]

then some guy here would tell you its statically insignificant just like mike conley's career 0-4 G7 record

I suppose you could learn to be more number literate, or you could complain when someone corrects you on numeric literacy.

I don't know that it's possible to realistically model the results of a 3-1 series, but I doubt its anything approximating 50-50.

 

[jom2003]

I suppose you could learn to be more number literate, or you could complain when someone corrects you on numeric literacy.

I don't know that it's possible to realistically model the results of a 3-1 series, but I doubt its anything approximating 50-50.

the chance of going 0-4 on G7s is not 50-50 either. it's 0.5*0.5*05.*05=6.25%

 

[One Brow]

the chance of going 0-4 on G7s is not 50-50 either. it's 0.5*0.5*05.*05=6.25%

Exactly, and that's not significant enough to draw a conclusion on Conley's play in those games. Thanks for agreeing with me.

 

[jom2003]

Exactly, and that's not significant enough to draw a conclusion on Conley's play in those games. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Well except i did show you exactly how Conley's played in those games. He shot 19/59 and **** his pants.

 

[Troat Guru]

More. I saw an article on this. It's like 3 or 4 he has blown a 3-1 lead and another 3 or 4 blown a 3-2 lead.

He is probably the worst coach to have won a ring.

Totally agreed.
The "2008 Celtic" were reeeeally good and I'm pretty sure they could have won the ring even with no coach at all.
After that experience Doc has gone from a failure to another one (ok perhaps sometimes with CP3 and Griffin he was a bit unlucky, but this year has no excuses with injuries).

Ahn BTW; an advise for "Playoff P" alias PG13: next time, choose your nickname after proving something.

 

[LoPo]

Ahn BTW; an advise for "Playoff P" alias PG13: next time, choose your nickname after proving something.

Playoff P stands for Playoff Pathetic. I'm still shocked how much LA gave to OKC for him.

 

[One Brow]

Well except i did show you exactly how Conley's played in those games. He shot 19/59 and **** his pants.

Going 19/59 is also statistically insignificant. It's not enough shots.

You can make a fair argument that Conley shoots worse in the playoffs than the regular season. This focus on game 7, and using it as evidence of a larger pattern, is silly.