You almost did too well!
My test of the hypothesis that your distributions were the "true" ones produced a p-value of 0.945 (where 0 = your distributions are crap and 1 = you were incredibly lucky or you cheated). Which, if my code is right, suggests your predictive success may be unsustainable... (Or maybe I just chose a test statistic flukily friendly to you.)
Unrealistic wish: that the Stat Geek Smackdown required you to submit probability distributions -- then it would be a much truer test of predictive skill.
]]>http://www.whowins.com/formulae/probformulae.html
Intuitively it makes sense -- given that HCA is so important, if an underdog is going to win a series, they're probably going to steal a road game and make the most of their games at home. When it comes down to a Game 6, up 3-2 at home, that's obviously your best chance to take the series; lose there, and you're back on the road for a do-or-die Game 7 with the odds heavily stacked against you.
]]>Top of my head that does tend to be true though. Lakers beat the the #1 seed Blazers in 6 in 1991. Bulls beat the East leading Knicks in 6 in 1993. Cavs beat the #1 seed Pistons in 6 to make the finals a couple of years ago.
]]>Metrics don't account for Houston being a matchup nightmare for Portland. Metrics don't account for Kenyon Martin single covering David West or for Tyson Chandler's production being impinged by injury. Metrics can't account for Gordon finding 7th gear against Boston or to understand what exactly it means to the Celts to only have 2 legitimate bigs left in their line-up.
Considering all the factors that SPM can't anticipate, those results are very solid.
]]>