Do you think playoff basketball is the same as regular season basketball? If not, what sort of players can be expected to excel in a playoff setting versus a regular season setting? Which attributes become more important? My general thoughts on the playoffs: - more emphasis on half-court basketball - defense is more important - the better players will be asked to play longer minutes; rotations shorten - defenses are better prepared due to increased familiarity - games are typically more tightly contested, especially in later rounds; in tightly contested close games, shot creators become more important. You may disagree, but I see a correlation between the above and what tends to happen in the fourth quarters (in particular, close fourth quarters). I am willing to change my mind if counter-evidence is brought forth. But none of what you recount here should be considered as conclusive evidence in favor of your position, as far as I can tell. As I said, I have as much proof as you on the topic.
Maggette gets the ball at the top of the key and uses the only move in his arsenal to attack the rim and get to the line. He doesn't pass, doesn't play D and occassionally flops. While effective in his one move, he is predictable and easily guardable by keeping him out of his one spot. He is a gimmick player. Martin is a perimeter player who can shoot from all over the court. He moves extremely well off the ball. He cuts and plays some defense, despite what the masses seem to have convinced themselves of. Two completely different players, with different styles of play. The only thing in common is they are both primary scorers who get to the line.
Maggette attacks the rim on the break, he slashes to the rim minus the ball, and he's a really good mid range scorer stationary and off the dribble. He will iso sum, but he scores alot of diffeent ways. Martin plays better off the ball and shoots the 3 ball better when maggette doesn't start, but maggette performs better offensively in a physical game. I know you haven't wathed martin and maggette enough when you say maggette doesn't pass or play defense but you say martin does. Beyond the numbers, maggette and martin are the same players.
Whats the difference? I've watched both on league pass since they have been in the league and every gm will tell you probably the same. In fact, maggette has more win shares since the stat people like to use stats. If you watch the games, they're the same player to me and neither are the type of players who can turn your team into a contender. They're both effecient scorer and only pass when there is no other option. Both are below average defenders, but maggette won't get powered in the post. Maggette is also a better rebounder.
I have never seen any evidence of this. If anything, the pace is usually dictated by the faster team. i.e. when San Antonio played Phoenix, they were generally high scoring affairs. I think the perception is likely skewed by the fact that in the current iso basketball atmosphere, it's much easier to build a team that can get to the playoffs playing boring basketball. But that doesn't mean fast teams slow down in the playoffs. In the past decade or two, the champion has only been slightly better in terms of defensive efficiency than offensive efficiency. But not sure what this has to do with Martin. Detroit won with Hamilton. Reggie Miller didn't turn into a stiff in the playoffs. I don't see why this is a big deal here. Not sure why this matters. Are you saying starters are generally better defenders than backups? At least it ain't true with this team. So offensive players can't possibly be better prepared with increased familiarity? Do scores of each playoff series get lower with progression? So you're saying a lineup of Brooks, Yao, Martin, Scola, Battier/CBud can't create shots down the stretch? Any reason to think why they can't execute the offense in a close game?
What about the last part of my post? The likelihood of garbage time increases inversely with the time left in game. Is 4th quarter (or the last 5 minutes for that matter) performance really more important than the 1st quarter performance in terms of affecting winning? Let me put it another way. Let say we have two teams, A and B. Team A always does well in the first 3 quarters and builds a large lead. And it always runs out of gas in the 4th and let the opponent come back. But the lead is always just large enough so that they prevail and win. Team B always comes out flat and by the end of the 3rd quarter they are behind by a large margin. But they always "turn up a notch" in the 4th and come back to win at the buzzer. If at the end of the season, both teams win the same number of games and have identical stats in every category (including things like winning margin, offensive and defensive efficiency, etc.) over the whole season. While there is no question that Team B is more "clutch," which team is the better team objectively?
If Kevin Martin is the same player as Corey Maggette, we are going to be in a world of hurt this year. I think Kevin Martin can be the third best player on a championship team. I think Corey Maggette is a fifth or sixth man on a championship team.
History? The downfall of the Adelman Blazers and Adelman Kings, was largely the lack of a superstar closer, that the other team usually had...
What? That was their downfall? A superstar closer? You mean like: Mario Ellie Robert Horry John Paxson Steve Kerr Derek Fisher Sam Cassell That kind of superstar closer? The Kings were danged close to winning it all, and so where the Blazers, sometimes it just comes down to matchups. The Kings lost one year because of their matchup with Dick Bavetta...23 freethrows in the 4th quarter for the Lakers...it was 100% a fake result. This team has a closer in AB, and one of the best 4th quarter scorers in Yao Ming.... Gonna be fun....... DD
The Kings had Bibby, who for a stretch of 2-3 years was one of the better closers in the game. You wouldn't believe it watching him now, but he hit huge shots against the Lakers and the Mavs in the playoffs. What really killed them was the Webber's choking and the refs.
I would never call Bibs a closer. A big shot maker, yes. The Kings and the Blazers were unfortunate victims of superstar players who could work the refs in the 4th quarter, imo. Superstar players WILL get the calls. For all his faults, Steve Francis could win a damn game in the 4th by sacrificing his body and getting us to the line when it mattered.
I don't want to intrude on an argument when I haven't read through this entire thread, but everything you said here is absolutely true, and I agree with leebig's subsequent post to a degree. But I'd also argue that Martin is exceptionally good at getting the calls because he makes "basketball moves" when he drives. And he doesn't need to get superstar calls. Remember the Jordan/Drexler low left shoulder dips when they "bounced" into a guy? I haven't seen that from Martin. He takes a lot of global criticism for not wanting the contact, probably because he's always looking for his shot and not trying to get a call. He's the best stop'n'pop guy we've had from midrange since Cassell and he's a better shooter. To me, that's an ideal situation in the playoffs with Yao on the court.
Half-court execution becomes more important because better teams means generally better transition D and coaches tend to be more active in play-calling and controlling the sort of shots that the team gets. BTW, for 04/05-09/10 I estimated Suns regular season pace to be 95.6, and Suns playoff pace to be at 92.4. I don't think I said Martin would turn into a stiff in the playoffs or that the Rockets wouldn't be able to win with him. I don't see him being a standout playoff performer when I consider the manner in which he plays in the regular season. Maybe I'm wrong. That said, defense is relevant because if Martin is expected to play more focused on defense I think that will take away a lot from his offense. He's not used to being a 2-way player. Bad defenders will hurt you more in the playoffs (and in regular season 4th quarters) than they do overall in the regular season. Longer minutes for the best players means you will be more fatigued, and you will play more against the opposing team's best players. Offense has less to do with preparation and familiarity with the opponent than defense. Does defense efficiency within playoff series get progressively better? Interesting question. I think its more likely than it get progressively worse. No, I'm not saying that.
Two things to look at: time remaining and current game state (which potentially encapsulates a number of relevant factors, most importantly current point differential). If you set the game state as being down by 20, then yeah possessions are more important early in the game than late in the game (which we would call garbage time). If you set the game state as being down by 2, then possessions are more important late in the game (which we would call crunch time) than early. For your made up scenario which is of course totally unrealistic, I can't determine one to be better than the other.
You're right, closer is too strong a word for Bibby. But you don't need to be a superstar to have that kind of impact. Sam Cassell and Chauncey Billups didn't rely on the refs to give them calls, but they were closers/big shot makers. They're also both champions. Bibby hit so many big shots that I considered him in their class at the time. Also, do you not consider Clyde to be a superstar?
My experience is if you come out playing as hard as possible and get hot in the beginning of the game, you have a much better chance of winning then hanging around until desperation time and then "turning it on". Maybe some people are different and perform better in desperation time, I don't know. But I'm pretty sure games with big leads in the early quarters are more likely to ultimately be won by the team with the lead even if the other team does come back and make it close.
Thanks for the clarification. In other words, you can't just take 4th quarter stats and say who is more clutch. You have to know what game situation is for each bit of the data. With different game situations, the stats actually give you totally opposite conclusion of a player. Also, you did not directly reply to my statement. Is it true that in general (without knowing game situations) when one team is leading at a certain point of time, the likelihood of that team eventually losing the game decreases with the amount of time left? I don't have the kind of stats to support it, but it seems logical to me. I guess a simple way to roughly check it is to look at the winning percentages of team leading at the end of 1st quarter, 2nd quarter, and 3rd quarter. I used an extreme hypothetical situation to make clear the point. If you want a more realistic scenario, how about this: Team A and Team B win the same number of games and have very similar overall statistical numbers. But Team A has a significantly worse 4th quarter numbers than Team B. Judging from the objective data, is Team B a better team because they are more clutch?
Assuming the lead stays the same, I think that's true generally speaking. That's what I was trying to say with this in my earlier response to you: There could be exceptional scenarios like there's a matchup where one team can be expected to play well for most of the game, but tank right at the end if its really close. In that case, maybe that team would rather be up 2 with 12 minutes to go than up 2 with 2 minutes to go. But typically, if you're up X points, then the fewer remaining possessions the better your chances of winning. ... In my opinion, no. But I also think it works differently for individuals rather than teams. So, if you changed it to this: Player A and Player B have very similar overall statistical numbers, but Player A is much worse in the clutch than Player B. Which player will help you win more games? Then I would answer Player B because he is more clutch. I might just use him less in non-clutch moments and use him more in clutch moments.
