Conference Semifinals · 2009-10
6 games · Boston Celtics advanced
Every game
Game 1May 1
BOS 93@
CLE 10126·28·24·15 / 20·23·36·2279%Game 2May 3BOS 104@CLE 8626·26·31·21 / 22·26·12·2621%Game 3May 7CLE 124@BOS 9536·29·31·28 / 17·26·27·2542%Game 4May 9CLE 87@BOS 9722·23·27·15 / 31·23·20·2352%Game 5May 11BOS 120@CLE 8820·30·30·40 / 23·21·19·2524%Game 6May 13CLE 85@BOS 9422·27·18·18 / 25·26·25·1865%
BOS 93@CLE 10126·28·24·15 / 20·23·36·2279%Game 2May 3BOS 104@CLE 8626·26·31·21 / 22·26·12·2621%Game 3May 7CLE 124@BOS 9536·29·31·28 / 17·26·27·2542%Game 4May 9CLE 87@BOS 9722·23·27·15 / 31·23·20·2352%Game 5May 11BOS 120@CLE 8820·30·30·40 / 23·21·19·2524%Game 6May 13CLE 85@BOS 9422·27·18·18 / 25·26·25·1865%Each game opens its own page with the period breakdown, the team totals and the full player box score.
What the model made of it
Games it favoured correctly
3 of 6
Mean probability on the winner
47.0%
Brier over the series
0.3245
A backtest, and a sample of 6. The model was refit on games strictly earlier than each of these, so it never saw the result — but a record over a handful of games is not evidence in either direction. The one that means something is on the accuracy page, over 25,749.