They have to win 4 of games. There is no one game they have to win. The do not have to win game 2. If they lose game 2, but wint the next 2 at home, what's the big deal?
They only need to win 1 on the road if they win 3 at home. Can be game 5 or game 7.
There are so many cliche things to say in sports, but they are usually just cliches. It is always better to win than to lose, but the only must win games are elimination games.
What are the odds of the Celtics winning 4 of the next 6 games? What about 4 of the next 5?
I get your point (which is very literal-minded, I suppose) but really, going down 2-0, with a game 7 looming in Cleveland... if it doesn't bury us, it almost buries us.
Why would we be buried if the home team wins each of the first 4 games?
Look at the Atlanta-Milw series. Milw goes down 0-2 and then gets to 3-2 by winning the 2 at home than winning game 5 on the road.
All we need is one road win. It doesn't matter which game it is. Each loss makes a series win less likely, and each win makes a series win more likely. This is a trivial statement, but one that also make the over-dramatization of game 2 a bit silly.
Of course our odds of losing the series decrease if we lose game 2. That doesn't make the game vital, regardless of the mental gymnastics we do to make it seem essential.
I have no idea how my point is "literal-minded". My point is cutting through the cliche mumbo-jumbo, which is appropriate considering the title of the thread.
If we lose game 2, and then lose the series in 5 games, for example, it is possible people will say, "see, we needed game 2". That response would be nonsense. What they should say is, "Gee, the Cavs are better so the won game 2 and 2 and one in Boston."
The game 2 is in no way vital, but if we are Clev's equal, than we would have a good shot at game 2. If they really are considerably better than us, than odds are that game 2 will be more evidence of this when Clev wins.
Topic: Do the C's have to win Game 2 to win the series? (Read 6889 times)