2010 NBA Finals Game 7 Odds: Celtics vs. Lakers Point Spread Breakdown
This is it.
One final game to decide it all, and one final NBA betting line">NBA betting opportunity for the season. Let’s break down the trends and make our final wagers count!
NBA FINALS – GAME 7
Boston Celtics vs Los Angeles Lakers
Thursday, June 17, 9:00 p.m. ET
Sportsbook spread: Lakers -7
The biggest trend for bettors— and for the Lakers— to watch for is Boston’s resiliency. Following a straight-up loss, they’re 7-1 against the spread over their last eight games. Their ugly 67-point performance was the second-worst in NBA Finals history. Boston has beaten the spread seven times in its last nine following an output of 75 points or less in the previous game.
The betting trends for the Lakers aren’t as extreme as Boston’s but they’re quite consistent. The Lakers are 5-2 ATS in their last seven home games. Building momentum with a second straight game at Staples Center could serve them well, too; they’re 7-3 ATS in their last 10 games following a straight-up win. The main trend against L.A., which seems to be a constant theme, is the one that connects to the Lakers’ private lifestyles. They’re 7-15 ATS over their last 22 games when playing on one day’s rest. Do they burn the candle at both ends too often?
The main head-to-head trend to note on this sports betting blog — pretty much the only significant one— is that the Celtics have the 12-5-1 spread advantage over the last 18 meetings.
If Game 6 doesn’t convince you that this series will keep trending UNDER the total, nothing can. The total has gone under in four straight games and in three of the last five meetings at Staples Center. It seems playing on relatively short rest makes each team too sluggish to run the floor; the under is 5-0 in the Lakers’ last five and 4-0 in Boston’s last five playing on one day’s rest.
For anyone wanting to take the chance on the OVER, it’s worth noting that the Celtics’ games have gone OVER in their last four games following a 75-or-fewer point output. They work hard to get back into Doc Rivers’ good books.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?