The reason we lost...

[BlazerCaravan]

I addressed this in an earlier point to you:

"For your idea to work, it would assume that things wouldn't be the same...that if a team fell behind by five (or ten) earlier, they'd play harder to make it up over the rest of the game and thus not be down five (or ten) later. This is possible, but I don't think it's the case. I don't actually think players play to the score (unless the game itself means nothing or the game seems truly out of reach one way or the other). I think they largely try to play their best for as long as the game is in doubt."

I agree that you can't just change shot #13 and assume everything else beyond it plays out exactly the same. However, I think shot #13 was just as important in determining the outcome of the game as the final shot.

It's not as important, but not totally unimportant. The earlier the miss is, though, the less important it is. Again, this is because of the "time to react" principle that I have laid out. I can't really be any clearer about it than I have been.

 

[Minstrel]

To that end, the psychological effects of being in a late-game situation are powerful, because the underdog is trying to score the extra points, and the team in the lead is trying to prevent them from doing so (or, if they're disciplined, also trying to score at the same rate as before).

I don't agree. I don't think teams are trying harder to score late in games, when trailing, then at any other time in a competitive (one that's not out of reach) game. Both teams are always trying their best to score points and trying their best (if they're disciplined) to prevent points.

I don't think teams in the second quarter think "Well, no big deal if we score now, it's only the second quarter" and then in the fourth think "We're trailing and it's late...okay, it really matters now...let's try harder."

This is essentially the problem I have with the idea of "clutch" players, the idea that some players elevate their games near the end. If they had a higher level of play to use, they should have been using it all game. The idea that prime Jordan or Kobe was not exerting maximum effort in the second quarter and then, in the final five minutes, decide to really do their best is pretty unlikely to me. The same goes for teams in general.

 

[Minstrel]

It's not as important, but not totally unimportant. The earlier the miss is, though, the less important it is. Again, this is because of the "time to react" principle that I have laid out. I can't really be any clearer about it than I have been.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think "time to react" is relevant. The vast majority of the players in the league are trying their best all the time, not "reacting" to the score. So when the points are scored isn't important, IMO, only that you score the most in total.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think "time to react" is relevant. The vast majority of the players in the league are trying their best all the time, not "reacting" to the score. So when the points are scored isn't important, IMO, only that you score the most in total.

Time To React has no bearing on how hard people are trying. It's how many shot attempts you can realistically get off in a period of time. At its core, basketball still has a lot of chance in it. Most of the skill is making the odds more in your favor (a short shot is generally more likely to go in than a long shot). So, the more chances you have to hit a shot, the more likely you are to finally hit that shot. On defense, slowing the other team down and making them shoot a low-percentage shot is as important, since it reduces their opportunities to score. So, given that your team is trying their hardest the entire game (they are), the number of possessions becomes important.

If you get a large enough sample size, teams score points in a pretty linear fashion; the lumps all smooth out at a distance. But when you zoom into a single-game or single-quarter level, the progression is lumpy. There's streaks of made shots and of missed shots. There's several of these in every game. Very rare is the "average game" where Team A scores at Rate A linearly, and Team B scores at Rate B linearly. Ties and lead changes abound in a close game. Sometimes, big leads (8-12 points), and sometimes several of these.

Now, knowing that progression is "lumpy", and the risk of a slump always exists, imagine taking the sample size down a notch to a 6:00 block. A slump in this block can lead to big run by the other team, who is taking advantage of your inability to score simply by scoring normally. Combine that with (horror of horrors) a streak by your opponent, and you can have a big swing in points.

Because the game is slump and streak, having another 6:00 block in front of you to shoot your way back into the game (and to give the other time a chance to "cool off") is nice. A couple of missed shots by your opponent, a couple of made ones by your team, and the score is close again. Streak and slump, slump and streak. It's not that your team isn't trying, it's that they're in a slump. Or conversely, they're not trying harder, just taking advantage of a streak.

If there's no 6:00 block in front of you though, there's no opportunity to streak if you're slumping. So what happens? The coaches play hard against the odds. Make it so that the shots are as low-risk (or high-reward) as possible; usually this means waiting until the defense makes a mistake, and driving in for a hoop and harm. A made bucket and a foul is the Holy Grail of risk/reward: a close-in shot that could be worth 3 points.

Anyway, the last 6:00 is important for two reasons: it's the last, and scoring is not perfectly linear; it's lumpy.

 

[Minstrel]

If there's no 6:00 block in front of you though, there's no opportunity to streak if you're slumping. So what happens? The coaches play hard against the odds. Make it so that the shots are as low-risk (or high-reward) as possible; usually this means waiting until the defense makes a mistake, and driving in for a hoop and harm. A made bucket and a foul is the Holy Grail of risk/reward: a close-in shot that could be worth 3 points.

And how is that different from any other time in the game? In the second quarter, coaches are preaching higher risk/lower reward shots? Offenses aren't trying to take advantage of defense mistakes? A bucket and foul isn't the ultimate?

Everything you say here pretty much sounds like what teams want all game long, so it doesn't at all make the case that the last six minutes are different.

Anyway, the last 6:00 is important for two reasons: it's the last, and scoring is not perfectly linear; it's lumpy.

Hmm. Well, this lack of understanding definitely goes both ways. I read your post through twice and couldn't understand how this makes the final block of minutes more important. I agree that scoring is "lumpy," but still don't see why you think a late "lump" of scoring is more important than early lump of scoring. I can see that you clearly do think that, but not why.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

And how is that different from any other time in the game? In the second quarter, coaches are preaching higher risk/lower reward shots? Offenses aren't trying to take advantage of defense mistakes? A bucket and foul isn't the ultimate?

Everything you say here pretty much sounds like what teams want all game long, so it doesn't at all make the case that the last six minutes are different.

Coaches preach playing the game the same from one quarter to the next, of course. But do your five best players all play 48 minutes a game? Can they also not fall pray to bad luck in the form of early foul trouble, slumping shooting, shifting defensive strategies that are in fact experiments to find a "key" to "crack to offense"?

Let's talk about the bench. It looks like all our examples have been player-agnostic. But there's a gulf in talent between some starting fives and their benches. Some teams play 3 bench players, other play 5. Some play 2 because their bench sucks. This causes differences in talent that are temporary. The game changes; it speeds up or slows down depending on the people out there. Some players *do* take risks regardless of what the coach says, because they're on a fast break and consider it a "free play" or because they have the green light to shoot because they could get hot and rattle off 5 threes in a row. There are plenty of high risk/high reward players (Rudy is definitely one of them. Drazen was one too).

But those high risk players? Usually not in at the end unless you're behind and need to roll the dice.

Hmm. Well, this lack of understanding definitely goes both ways. I read your post through twice and couldn't understand how this makes the final block of minutes more important. I agree that scoring is "lumpy," but still don't see why you think a late "lump" of scoring is more important than early lump of scoring. I can see that you clearly do think that, but not why.

Streaks are often followed by slumps, to the point that "things even out" by the end of a game. An early streak is canceled out by a slump in the next quarter. I would go so far as to say that a 7 point streak to open a game is almost completely unimportant to the outcome of the game. Its potential effect is minimized by the number of potential slumps and opponent streaks that *could* follow. I don't get excited about a 7 point lead 2 minutes into the game because the opponent has so many opportunities to nullify the effect of that streak.

An early streak has to be HUGE to affect the endgame, like 20 points. But as we've seen, even a 25-point lead, if it comes too early, means nothing by the 4th quarter. If the game is tied with 2 minutes to go, the 46 minutes before that have been effectively nullified, like a crushed waveform of scoring.

 

[Minstrel]

But as we've seen, even a 25-point lead, if it comes too early, means nothing by the 4th quarter. If the game is tied with 2 minutes to go, the 46 minutes before that have been effectively nullified, like a crushed waveform of scoring.

Yeah, I completely disagree with this. The fact that large leads can be overcome doesn't make them "too early" or unimportant. If it ends up close at the end, the 20 point run was hugely important in balancing out runs your opponent made later. Which is the crux of my point...you say that you can't make up for a late "lump" in scoring, because there's no time left. I don't agree with that...you can make up for a late "lump" in scoring by having had scoring "lumps" earlier in the game that give you breathing room.

I think it's logically invalid to start the analysis from the 6 minute mark or the 2 minute mark. What you did prior to that is what determines where you are at the 6 minute mark or the 2 minute mark. If you're tied, those scoring "lumps" you had earlier were massively important in allowing you to be tied late...far from being "nullified" or unimportant.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I think it's logically invalid to start the analysis from the 6 minute mark or the 2 minute mark. What you did prior to that is what determines where you are at the 6 minute mark or the 2 minute mark. If you're tied, those scoring "lumps" you had earlier were massively important in allowing you to be tied late...far from being "nullified" or unimportant.

Sure... that's kind of a cheerful way of putting it. Pessimistically, you could say it was all for naught and here you are, tied with two minutes to go.

Of course there's lots you take with you at that point: fatigue, experience, knowledge of how the game's being called, timeouts (or lack thereof), fouls to give, etc. But at the end, you're still tied. What came before could have happened a billion different ways. What matters is the next basket.

And when that basket could be the last, the law of scarcity places the value of that basket higher than the 70 or 80 shots that came before it.

Anyway, it's been a great discussion. Thanks!

 

[jlprk]

Let's say you get off work at 5 pm. (I know, I know, just pretend, bums.) At 4:30 you go into overdrive to meet the 5:00 deadline. Why? Because 1) everyone else's daily results arrives and you must put it all together, and 2) maybe you slacked earlier, and 3) maybe you didn't but you know that putting in extra effort at the end will increase your day's results so you'll look better. Also, 4) going into overdrive will exhaust you, but since there will be no more work after 5:00, you won't need any more energy anyway (except to defend yourself from your vicious wife and kids).

These are reasons for why deadlines are widely used as motivators to make people more efficient.

 

[Minstrel]

And when that basket could be the last, the law of scarcity places the value of that basket higher than the 70 or 80 shots that came before it.

Hmm. I'm not sure this is true. If you eat 30 cookies, I don't think you can say that your last cookie was "scarcer" than your 10th cookie. You consumed from a resource of 30 cookies, and all the cookies had the same scarcity...the order of them doesn't affect the scarcity. You're going to get a certain number of shots in a game...the final one is just one of them, not a qualitatively different resource.

There's only one last shot, sure, but there's only one 17th shot...and I don't mean that facetiously. If you miss that shot, you can't get it back...it's a lost possession. It's one forever missed chance to help win the game.

Anyway, it's been a great discussion. Thanks!

I agree! Thanks for the civil, interesting discussion.

 

[jlprk]

Where's everyone going? The party's just beginning!

 

[BGrantFan]

Where's everyone going? The party's just beginning!

I'm still wondering why a coach would bench a star players in early foul trouble, if they didn't think having them available for the end of games was a good thing. Why not just let them play through foul trouble if a shot at 8:00 mark of the 2nd quarter is the same thing as a shot at the 00:8 at the end of the game.

This place is fun.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Seems to me you guys are making this waaaay too complicated.

Tie game, 10 minutes to play. Player hits a 3. His team's odds of winning are "X"%.

Tie game, 10 seconds to play. Player hits a 3. His team's odds of winning are "Y"%.

If "Y" is greater than "X", than BlazerCaravan is correct. If "Y" is less than or equal to "X", Minstrel is correct.

 

[tlongII]

Seems to me you guys are making this waaaay too complicated.

Tie game, 10 minutes to play. Player hits a 3. His team's odds of winning are "X"%.

Tie game, 10 seconds to play. Player hits a 3. His team's odds of winning are "Y"%.

If "Y" is greater than "X", than BlazerCaravan is correct. If "Y" is less than or equal to "X", Minstrel is correct.

Yes! Mathematical PROOF!

 

[BlazersBlood]

The late game iso ball when the Blazers have the lead is the perfect example why points made towards the end are more important than points made in the beginning. Style of play and the ACTUAL score dictates how most teams approach each possession. To say that a missed bucket in the 2nd quarter has the same relevance as a missed bucket late in a close game is just not correct. Yes 2 points is 2 points, but the scoreboard at that moment in time will decide how either team approaches the possession. It all adds up in the end, but the end will be different depending on each and every made or missed shot.

 

[Minstrel]

Seems to me you guys are making this waaaay too complicated.

Tie game, 10 minutes to play. Player hits a 3. His team's odds of winning are "X"%.

Tie game, 10 seconds to play. Player hits a 3. His team's odds of winning are "Y"%.

If "Y" is greater than "X", than BlazerCaravan is correct. If "Y" is less than or equal to "X", Minstrel is correct.

I don't agree with the logic here. By using the "team's odds of winning" at 10 seconds versus 10 minutes, you're essentially adding up everything that happened up to the 10 minute mark and comparing that to adding up everything that happened up to the 10 second mark...you're not comparing the value of the single possessions. Of course odds change more near the end of the game....more has already been decided. But the volatility of odds changing is not the same as the value of a single possession. Y will be greater than X, but that's due to all of what happened between 10 minutes left and 10 seconds left, not because that possession at 10 seconds was more important.

 

[oldmangrouch]

I don't agree with the logic here. By using the "team's odds of winning" at 10 seconds versus 10 minutes, you're essentially adding up everything that happened up to the 10 minute mark and comparing that to adding up everything that happened up to the 10 second mark...you're not comparing the value of the single possessions. Of course odds change more near the end of the game....more has already been decided. But the volatility of odds changing is not the same as the value of a single possession. Y will be greater than X, but that's due to all of what happened between 10 minutes left and 10 seconds left, not because that possession at 10 seconds was more important.

No, I AM comparing the value of a single possession. The value of any particular possession is not an abstraction - it is based on time and score.

 

[Minstrel]

No, I AM comparing the value of a single possession. The value of any particular possession is not an abstraction - it is based on time and score.

Yes, that was the original assertion I disagreed with. I don't think your "odds of team win" measures a single possession. It measures everything that's happened in the game up to that point. That, to me, is not equivalent to the importance of the single play that occurs after all those events.

 

[jlprk]

Hey, where's everyone going? The party's just beginning!

 

[fumanchu]

Minstrel is taking the human element completely out of the equation. Most players play (and coaches coach) with their utmost effort and focus late in the 4th quarter of a close game. Moreso than in the 2nd quarter of a close game. And Minstrel is ignoring the obvious fact teams have their best players on the floor late in close games, not the backups that played in the 2nd quarter of that same close game.

Certainly things like effort, concentration, and focus can't be quantified. It's something you can only judge by watching the players. And players generally play with more of those things in the final seconds of a tight game, because they (and the coaches) know the possesion is more important.

But blaming Andre Miller for the loss is a bit of a stretch. He didn't make so many mistakes that he alone was resposible. More like Chicago started off hot from the outside. They didn't cool off. Undjustments weren't made to cool them off. So the Blazers had to execute almost flawlessly offensively to pull out the win. They gave themselves a chance, but BRoy's shot missed, game over.