ClutchFans Game Thread: Mavericks @ Rockets 12/23/2013

He leads the team in assists and points even with a busted ankle.

 

They where comparing Lin and Parsons turnovers. They said Lin's Turnovers were less costly because his was in the first half and Parsons was in the 2nd _ I'm simply pointing out that turnovers can always be costly regardless of when they happen. You should see what a conversation is about before you jump in it...

You just wasted your energy with that one...

 

This...

But I put more blame on the coaching staff... McHale has always been a failure (beyond his playing years). His coaching experience is just as limited as some of these players playing experience.

Morey keeps changing the roster around but he keeps McHale. And now he has went from one star player to two star players and the team still loses the same way it did before Harden, Lin, Howard, etc was here.

 

This is like arguing that a missed shot in the first qtr where everyone is just warming up is just as critical as the last second buzzer beater that decides the difference between a win and a lost.

 

I see your point.

 

All points deecide who won or lost,not just a buzzer beater. If more points were scored by the team who needed the buzzer beater prior to the buzzer beater the buzzer beater would not be needed. Causalty is a linear process not a momentary process. The 47 minutes leading up to the buzzer beater is as important as the buzzer beater Read "models behaving badly". Look it up on Amazon. The author is a mathemetician/stat person and he explains this very well. Its worth reading.

 

Thats what I mean.

 

What's the name of that mascot again? Oh yeah, clutch. Why do people talk about Ray Allen's three pointer? Because of when he scored it. Why was Bev's game breakout game so impressive, because he scored a basket when the other team was coming back to stop their momentum and build the Rox. Yes on paper, a t.o. Is a t.o., but when they happen is also key. I wish Lin took better care of the rock as well, but they weren't deal breakers, and neither were the other 13 T.O. The loss was a collective effort, not just on one guy.

 

I'm interested in this.

Certainly, the 47 minutes (taken as a whole) leading up to the final minutes are as important or more so than the final few possessions of a close game.

But taken individually, the first possession of the game (when the score is tied) is definitely no where near as important as the last possession of a game where the score is tied. I can't image the author of the book you site could credibly argue otherwise.

 

Sports is not linear. There is a human element. Take an extreme example, team A scores 50 points in first half against team b. what are the odds of team A scoring another 50 in the second? Very good. What if team b had put up 100 in the first half, do you like A's chances of scoring 50 in second half still? Momentum is not a linear concept.

 

Please read the book. Most people writing on causality do not consider the last action as the only or most important cause of an event. It may be counterintuitive for most of us, but it makes sense.

 

Its still not clear to me what is the contention made in the book which I may or may not disagree with.

Do you (or the book) disagree with this?

"But taken individually, the first possession of the game (when the score is tied) is definitely no where near as important as the last possession of a game where the score is tied. "

If so, I'd like to know your reasoning.

 

By linear I meant sequential. Please read the book I mentioned. This book is not an exception in the field of causality.

 

They are both equally important. The game is tied at 0-0 for the first posession. If points are scored then they are added to the score. That team is now ahead. Lets say that a 2PT field goal is scored one team is ahead by two points. If a field goal is not scored the game remains tied. If the game is tied with one second left and a 2PT field goal is scored than that team is ahead. If the shot attempted is missed they are tied. How are they different. One is either ahead or tied in both situations. Both shots either contribute 0 or 2 points to the score regardless at what point in the game the shot occurred.It feels different ,but it is not according to the score and according to who is ahead. That's my reasoning and what I took away from the book and other books. Their are multiple causes for most outcomes.
It is the total score that counts not when a shot is made. Previous shots determine if a buzzer beater is needed or not. I hope I am making my self clear.

 

I don't dispute your final point that there are multiple causes for most outcomes. The question, though, is how we weight the importance of those causes towards the final outcome. I look at it in terms of conditional probability. That is, I look at the probability of a particular desired outcome given some condition is true, and then the probability of the same desired outcome given that condition is not true.

Looking at it this way, "importance" corresponds to the extent to which that probability shifts given the occurrence of the condition. In this case, the desired outcome is "winning the game". The condition is scoring on a particular possession.

Scoring on a first possession does indeed put the team up 2 points. But how important is that towards the end goal? A little important, but not very because there's still a long way to go in the game. The team that scores on its first possession has shifted the probability of winning to its favor to some very small degree.

On the other hand, if the score is tied and your team has the ball on a last possession, scoring or not scoring basically decides who wins the game. It not only "feels" important, it is important by the objective criterion that scoring shifts the probability of a team winning by a considerable amount.

If we look at the outcome of every possession after the fact and rearrange when a team scores its baskets, this won't affect the final score. So in that sense, yes, when a shot is made does not matter.

But this, to me, is not the right way of looking at it.

First, there is an undeniable flow to a game which is momentum-based. Teams react to eachother and to how they themselves perform. Possessions are not purely independent of eachother. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to look at the whole game, after the fact, and assume the outcome of every subsequent possession remains the same regardless of whether a particular shot is made or not.

Second, the goal isn't just to pile on a lot of points or maximize point differential. The goal is simply to have more points than the other team at the end of the game. Hence, we rightly ascribe little importance to baskets scored at the end of a game in a blowout. It counts the same on the scoreboard, sure, but it doesn't change who's going to win the game.

 

Its an interesting question.

Agree with this:
"If we look at the outcome of every possession after the fact and rearrange when a team scores its baskets, this won't affect the final score. So in that sense, yes, when a shot is made does not matter."

Beyond this, the only distinction between the two baskets is the timing, i.e., what different impact they have on the game going forward.
In the case of the buzzer beater, there is none (because play stops).
In the case of an early bucket, it generally has a positive impact going forward.

I know this sounds counter-intuitive. But the reason we ascribe more importance to the buzzer beater is because it is typically a much more difficult shot to make, because defences are locked in or because of the pressure to make the shot is much greater. But the impact of the shot is the same, whether made early or at the buzzer.

 

Turnovers are not equal - some of these arguments are simplistic in nature.

For instance a traveling turnover allows the defense to reset, and get in position, where one that leads to an opponents layup on a bad pass is a lot worse.

DD

 

Agreed.

Just like when someone says 2 points is 2 points...totally off.

 

Agree that all turnovers are not created equal. Depends on the impact.

But 2 pts is 2 pts . Same impact.

 

What if its not a buzzer beater, but rather there is 0.4 seconds left on the clock?

And 2 points doesn't mean the same thing in all situation (e.g. garbage time). Clearly, scoring margin and time left on the game clock are also factors to consider.