I don't understand this argument; so you'd be more confident if they had the same record but had lost to a bunch of bad teams instead? It seems like people are going to construct a narrative no matter where the losses are coming from. Losing any particular game by 5 points or less is basically luck. They've lost to very good teams by very small margins. They're fine. They've beaten LA, OKC, Dallas, etc. The only really bad loss is the SA loss, because they've gotten blown out of the building. If you've got the best differential in the NBA (well second now), and you're losing tight games to very good teams, you're getting unlucky. When you're dealing with coin flips, basically, you're going to go through stretches where you fail over and over again. Lets look at every game they played against a "top" team: Lost to Boston 88-80 Beat Orlando 96-70 Lost to Boston 112-107 Lost to Orlando 104-95 Lost to Dallas 106-95 Beat Atlanta 89-77 Beat LA 96-80 Lost to Chi 99-96 Lost to Atl 93-89 Beat OKC 108-103 Lost to Boston 85-82 Lost to Chi 93-89 Lost to Orl 99-96 Lost to SA 125-95 Lost to Chi 87-86 That's a lot of close losses to very good teams. They could have won any of those games; if they were getting blown out by bad teams, people would be complaining that they have no mental toughness. Now, I do acknowledge that good defensive teams that don't make mistakes are going to be better in close games. But when you have 3 players who can get their own shots, a lot of that is neutralized. I fully expect Miami to be fine, and they're still my pick to make it out of the east. They also beat Dallas, NY, NO, Atlanta, LA, OKC, Portland and Houston.
Really? Throw this luck shit out the window, losses are losses. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the 1000 shots players take each day or don't take each day, it's luck. And when you're looking at those top teams, those are basically playoff games. They're going to lose playoff games like that. Mentally, Miami is crushed, feeling like the whole league, world, media is against them. LeBron and Bosh thought they were going to be loved and praised and it is crushing their spirit. His fake "I love the boos" has faded away also. Eric S. is a great strategic coach, he makes adjustments, he calls great plays...BUT he does not have the ability to toss the playbook to the floor, look his guys in their eyes and say the gist of what Riley said in the final game in 2004 "You're fucking tougher than these guys, you're fucking better than these guys, go out and beat them" and have them believe. Or the Doc Rivers "Play together, that's all you have to do to win this game, is play together." Fuck the playbook, it's looking your players in their eyes and having them get their shit together - that's mental steroids (also see: Rex Ryan). He cannot get them on mental steroids, so they end up crying in the locker room. Even though they are in third fucking place. Then again, good coaches don't let their teams blow big leads when they have 2 of the top 10 players in the league going against teams that don't have 2 of the top 10 players in the league. Or a "Big 2.5" I had to rep BigTom and tell him to be careful because he's using too much logic. The Bulls beat the Heat 0-3, on both courts. How the hell are the Heat going to turn it on during the playoffs? The Heat, day in and day out, are playing 2.5 vs 5 as I said before. Every fucking Heat game they show the same thing "Big 3 (85-90% of the points) - Rest of Team (15-10%)" you think that they'll be able to do that shit 7 games in a row with back to back games? Really? Really now? Come on...really now? Everyone did watch that game where Bosh went 1-18 right? Did you also see Dwayne Wade with less than 20 games in the season saying things like "We gotta figure it out still?" Really? Really? An off-season and 60 games hasn't been enough yet? I can understand taking games off against shitty teams or other conference teams in the regular season because its the regular season...but, this season has been different. There has been a lot less "they're taking this game off" and a lot more "Why aren't they taking the starters out when they're up 15 with 30 seconds left?" People are playing harder, and everyone knows that. Miami also knows that Chicago is a contender and is directly affecting their playoff spot, it's bullshit to say "Oh they're not playing hard because it's the regular season." Maybe against the Bucks, or the Warriors or some shit, but not against the top teams they KNOW they have to see in the playoffs.
They didn't beat Dallas, the Mavs swept the season series. Portland, New Orleans, New York, Atlanta, and Houston are all going on the road in the first round. So far they're winless against 7 of the other 15 playoff teams. The resume just isn't there.
You're right. Players take thousands of shots per day. Kobe famously had one off-season where he took a thousand three pointers every single day. And you know what? Even the best shooters only make around 50% of them with the game on the line. Look at that last Chicago game, where both LeBron and Wade had shots to win it. They happened to miss them; that's going to happen around 50% of the time, and it has nothing to do with toughness. Toughness isn't going to help you shoot better down the stretch, and the Heat have shot pitifully when they've had a chance to tie or win games late. If you want to criticize their play-selection, or suggest that the wrong people are taking shots, I'd totally buy a convincing argument. But I'm looking at a team that is just constantly missing makeable shots at the end of games, and that has nothing to do with toughness, or skill. It's variance. People have done statistical analysis on top of statistical analysis, and there simply isn't evidence that anyone is "tougher" when it comes to clutch shots. You know why Jordan was so good in crunch time? Because he was so good all the time. The Heat don't have to get tougher mentally, or stop crying, or anything of the sort. They need to play well, and get slightly luckier.
What exactly is the argument from some of the people in this topic? That the Heat suck and have no chance to win the championship this year? (In fact, bigtom404 specifically wrote the latter) That's plain stupid. Or that the Heat do not have the same chance of winning as a team like Boston or the Lakers? (Far more reasonable) When it comes to the latter, what I (and presumably Nom Chompsky) are arguing is that the chances are roughly equal; the play-offs are wide open this year, with a lot of great teams, and the Heat's chances are no less than those of the Celts, Lakers, Mavs, Spurs, etc. The counter-argument to this is that they have lost some very close teams against terrific teams on individual teams. Problem is, as much as people love to bandy such stats, there is zero statistical support for them actually influencing post-season success. For instance, the 2003-2004 Memphis Grizzlies were a 50 win team that was 3-1 against the San Antonio Spurs during the regular season, and a lot was made of this fact when the two teams played in the first round of the play-offs. Guess what happened? The Spurs swept them 4-0, winning each game by an average of 16 points. As much as I think John Hollinger is overrated, in his daily ESPN power rankings he rightly considers margin of victory as the most important statistic, and in terms of postseason success, it historically has been. Meanwhile, things like "record against other good teams", perhaps counterintuitively, does not influence postseason success. Don't argue that last point with me; argue with the numbers on the NBA play-offs for the last 40 years. Yes, there is absolutely a degree of luck. Basketball is a game where guys only hit X percent of their shots, and sometimes, in the short term, you lose a little more in close games, and other times, you win a little more. Over the course of a couple of seasons, it will balance out. What I find funny is that some people act surprised that a great team like the Bulls that are SUPER motivated to play the Heat can beat them by 1-3 points on three regular season nights. Let's see what happens when both teams are at the highest level of motivation, giving everything they have to win 4 out of 7 games. Completely different ballgame. No, regular season games are absolutely not "basically playoff games", even between top teams! How can anyone watch the play-offs and seriously compare the level of effort and even style of play to that of the regular season?! Where are you getting this fake, simplistic narrative from? Outside of purely wishful thinking from rival fans and sports journalists who can't think of anything smarter to write, I have seen zero support for the Heat being "crushed mentally". Again, what's your support for this statement? How do you know Spoelstra isn't doing an optimal job of motivating the Heat given his circumstances? Oh, that's why? I guess the Larry Bird Celtics and Magic Johnson Lakers were mentally crushed, with lousy couching too (including Pat Riley), according to Parker's logic. Good to know. Sometimes I honestly think this is your first season following basketball on more than a purely casual basis. Virtually every single NBA champion and serious contender from the last 40 years has had a losing record against one of their rivals. In many instances, they even beat them in the post-season, like the Spurs against the Grizzlies, mentioned above. If you think the Heat have no chance of beating the Bulls in a 7 game series, you're insane. That's just factually incorrect. The Big Three are averaging a combined 69.9 ppg, while the Heat are averaging 101.5 ppg as a whole. That's 68%, not "85-90%". By the way, that's not an unusual percentage for serious contenders or NBA champions at all. For instance, the 2000-2001 Lakers, NBA champions, had 68.7 ppg from their top 3 scorers (Kobe Bryant, Shaq, and...Derek Fisher), while averaging 100.6 ppg, an identical percentage. And in that case, more of that scoring load went through Kobe and Shaq (28.5 ppg and 28.7 ppg, respectively) than it has in the Miami offense through Wade and James (26.2 ppg and 25.4 ppg, respectively) Yet another false, brain-dead narrative debunked; yes, you can absolutely win a championship if you depend on 3 guys for the bulk of your scoring. That's what would motivate a fan if he were actually a pro basketball player. But it's not what motivates the actual pro basketball players!
Sorry for the double post, but I've been doing some reading. Point/Counterpoint. This is all from Basketball Prospectus: HOWEVER: Again, I'd totally buy that having high-usage guards taking late game shots, and the lack of a true point guard causes Miami to run bad late game plays. In that case, it WOULD be a coaching issue, but it would have nothing to do with toughness. And it would be compounded by bad luck. In the end, however, (from basketball-reference): Long story short, the Heat (like most teams with high-scoring stars) should probably run better late-game plays (your fourth option shooting a wide option 18 footer is better than your shooting a double-teamed fallaway, Kobe), but they shouldn't be concerned about losing to the Bulls by 1. EDIT TO ADD: There's some research that suggests that head-to-head record has some predictive ability, but that's largely due to unfavorable style matchups, and most comes into play when the margin of victory is lopsided. So if I'm a Miami fan, I'm more concerned that they got destroyed by the Spurs than anything else.
I agree with any individual event, and even consider it mind-numbingly obvious. I tend to not give much weight to handfuls of games. But we're not talking about handfuls. We're talking about a trend over 14 games. That is a significant sample size. And against playoff-qualifying teams, we're talking about 30-35 games. Let's run with your coin-flipping analogy. My point is this: flipping a coin is luck. If I get tails when I flip a coin, that's just mere luck. However, if I flip a coin ten times and get nine tails, I start getting very suspicious about whether something is funny about this coin. Getting 9 or more tails is, roughly speaking a 1% probability event. One game is a toss up. Ten, fifteen games is a long run trend. When something is exceedingly unlikely to occur as a merely probabilistic event, I start to see if there might be alternative explanation that better fit this trend. When I watch the Heat in close games, what I've seen is a trend for everyone besides LeBron and Wade to stand and watch, while those two fall into isolation offenses. For an example, see their recent loss to Chicago. That isolation with LeBron at the top of the key is a very low percentage play (for further discussion on this, see the Hank Abbott article on Kobe that I linked to a few pages ago). Maybe Mike Bibby could change this, as he historically hasn't been afraid of the ball late in games. The Heat tend to play 5 man offense...until the end of games. Then it's Wade & LeBron vs. the World. They play a style that is poorly suited for close games, and when they play similarly defensive-minded teams that can manage their turnovers, they're going to be in close games. if I were a Heat fan, I would be worried about how this will impact them in the playoffs. My argument isn't that the Heat are shitty and have no title shot. Like KIMaster said, that would be retarded. What I am saying is that they have no higher chance than the other top teams (and maybe less). Mostly, that Nom's original post, quoted below, is unwarranted given their performance thus far. It's been a mixture of luck and poor play selection for their "big shots," it's unclear that they should be considered the best team, and I don't see why they should be obviously favored over Chicago, Boston, or San Antonio.
Actually, that is mathematically false. Every single flip is an independent entity, and no previous flip has any bearing on the outcome of the next one. Every single coin flip is a 50-50 chance, even if you flipped tails 1,000,000 times in a row.
I agree, and I think I said in another post, that having perimeter players take defended shots is a poor late game strategy. I just don't think the Heat are alone in that, but I'd be willing to listen to arguments that suggest that they are particularly bad. Still, no great players are 1-16 bad; that's got to be luck. The reason I think that the Heat will be the best team in the playoffs is that their major weakness -- lack of depth -- is mitigated by the shorter lineups in the playoffs. Furthermore, I think the true talent of the Heat is more closely reflected by what they've done after their slow start. I don't think they're head and shoulders above the rest of the league. I just think that in a 7 game series, they're a little bit better than any other given team. If they had won just a couple of those winnable games, nobody would be talking about this. As it is, their overall record has better predictability than that small sample.
I'm pretty sure he's using that as an example of why it doesn't actually boil down to simple luck (In this case, a 50/50 coin flip). If you flip a coin ten times and it comes up tails 9 on of them, could it be explained by variance? Of course. But with nothing else to go on, you could easily make the case that there's something wrong with the coin that favors a losing outcome.
KIMaster, please do not mistake this as me trying to pick on you or argue with you specifically, you are just providing some great arguments that can spark a great intelligent NBA argument, something that does not occur often. I have arguments against the 2 main quotes here. In my opinion , the regular season should be treated more importantly than the playoffs. Your record in the Regular season establishes who you are going to face during the post season. My thinking would be that the superstars would be more motivated to win close big games against good teams in the regular season so they can play the weaker teams in the first round. Look at the history, superstars who play weak teams in the first round have strong games in the later rounds. Easier games in the earlier rounds equals more rest going into the later rounds of the playoffs. Also, yes superstars have teams that they are statistically poor against. But even you quoted me as saying "They wont win it THIS YEAR." My argument here is that we are talking about the Heat in 1 season struggling against good teams and you are comparing them to superstars entire careers against good teams. If you look at some superstars, the years they struggled were also the years they their teams struggled against good teams. EDIT: Shit I am an idiot and read his last quote wrong, I am not going to delete mine, but everyone please note that KIM was not saying what i thought he was saying and my argument might not apply correctly.
The argument that I was making is that given that I flip a coin ten times, the odds of getting 9 or more tails is just barely north of 1%. Each flip is independent, but the odds of 9 out of 10 such independent events having the same outcome is very low. So if you saw nine tails in ten flips, it's either extraordinarily improbable, or something is up.
I have to be honest, I kinda like Carlos Arroyo signing with the Celtics. I mean, other than him knowing the Heat's playbook, it will be nice to have an actual point guard coming off the bench for Rondo. Delonte West sure as shit can't do it.
Ah, now there's an argument I can agree with. While a large bulk of Heat struggle in close games are mere variance, part of it is the offense breaking down a bit near the end of games, with it being unclear who gets the last shot to boot, LeBron and Wade. The stuff about their record against other play-off teams determining anything is false, and their struggles in close games are partly just the variance of the game, but a part of it might well be what you described. I think they might figure it out by the play-offs, but we'll see. Yes, and in the regular season, the Heat are presently 43-21, not a dominating record, but still well within the bounds of the NBA champions and major contenders of the last 10 years. Nom Chompsky did a good job supplying the numbers above; record against good teams is way less relevant than the team's record overall in predicting postseason success. The Heat are 43-21 this year. That's a very good record, and they have just as much chance to win it this year as most other top contenders. Having followed Carlos Arroyo very closely when he was on Utah, (until Sloan got sick of him) and then on Detroit (until Larry Brown got REALLY sick of him) and then on Orlando (until Stan Van Gundy got sick of him...), I can tell you that Arroyo is not a pure point. Rather, he's a shoot-first guard who over-dribbles the hell out of the ball, and occasionally throws a nice pass. I would compare him to a way less potent, athletic, and skilled Gilbert Arenas, without a three-point shot. Maybe he's a slight improvement over whom the Celts had there previously, but I don't understand any Boston fans jumping for joy here. If he's in the game, you're still in trouble.
Few thoughts about the Lakers. Been a fan since 1972 but I'm now old enough to be objective in my sports observations, even about my favorite team. I have watched almost every Laker game this year and I believe the Lakers' turn-around is real. The current iteration of the Lakers have been frustrating for their fans (even as they have been to the finals three straight years) . They get bored and distracted easily (the worst was the Houston series a couple of years ago that went 7 games even though Yao went down). I think this regular season is nothing more than the Lakers' personality writ large. It may be wishful thinking on my part, but the recent change in this team's attitude is palpable. Few observations: 1. Kobe is 1/2 step slower -- but that is all. You see this when he tries to drive around people. In the past he could do it all the time, now not so much. However, when the Lakers run the triangle, which they are now doing, it stops much of his one-on-one nonsense. He has played wonderfully in the last 8 games. The Lakers have limited his minutes this season and he looks fresher at this time of year than I have seen in a long time. And he is starting the make those "F-You" three pointers. I agree with those on this board that argue that LeBron is a better basketball player. But don't underestimate Kobe. 2. Gasol is playing at his best again. His slide in the middle of the season was attributable to too many minutes, playing out of position because of Bynum's injury, and a hamstring problem. He's now making the 15-18 foot jumpers with ease which is a key to the Lakers' offense. 3. Odem is playing the most consistently effective basketball of his career. The national NBA announcers seem to have to always say that "Lamar would start on any other team." In past seasons I have disagreed with that. Not this year. He's making his outside shots, which opens up his drives where he is consistently making layups which he often missed in the past. 4. Bynum, finally, has reached some level of maturity (at least for a 23 y/o NBA player). He has embraced his role as a rebounder and the anchor of the Lakers defense. The team is so confident in his ability to alter/block shots that they are aggressively chasing teams off the three and challenging jump shots (safe in the knowledge that Bynum will back them up) . Big concern remains his knee, which apparently has not healed and which continues to bother him. Without him, the Lakers' chances in the playoffs are bleak. 5. Artest is playing the way he did in the finals against Boston. (He has also clearly been tutoring Shannon Brown who's defensive style mimics Artest and is dramatically improved). There has been much recent discussion on this board about the meaning, if anything, of particular regular season games. I tend to agree that specific games are meaningless. I've seen the Lakers sweep teams in the regular season and then lose a playoff round to that team and vice-versa. That said, I think he next two Lakers games are very interesting -- Miami and Dallas. There is no doubt in my mind that the Lakers are taking these games extremely seriously. They want to make a statement against Miami and they want to catch Dallas in the Western Conference race. I actually think Miami is going to win on Thursday. That team needs to get out of its funk, and there would be no better way than by beating the Lakers when the Lakers are on a roll. But I will be surprised if we don't see a much better Laker team than on Christmas day.
To be fair, Delonte is much more of a slashing SG who plays solid defense. Putting him at the point is borderline retarded. And on another note, I got to watch the Cleveland-Golden State game last night. Monta Ellis was on goddamn fire from the beyond the arc (5/5 in the 3rd quarter alone, if I remember correctly). Baron Davis has actually showed up since he got to Cleveland, though that's not to say he couldn't decide to just take a shit the rest of the season, especially with the death in his family right now. Watching him up close (yeah, great Cavs seats are 10 bucks on stubhub), you can really see shreds of talent peaking through a kind of doughy exterior. If he showed up to next year's camp in-shape (big "if"), he could definitely serve as the mentor to the younger players Byron Scott envisioned him as. Hopefully we just land the #1 and pick up Kyrie Irving, suck for another year and land another solid lottery pick before Davis expires. Oh, and what the hell happened to David Lee? I know he still occasionally puts up numbers, but he looked almost apathetic out there last night. I know his contract is an albatross and he's living in a backcourt-dominated setting, but I really expected more out of him this year.
Here's an uplifting story about the 2004 Clippers. Apparently, a few players paid out-of-pocket for their assistant coach's cancer treatment when it wasn't covered by insurance. And to think that all this time, I thought that Corey Maggette was completely worthless... <a class="postlink" href="http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/news/story?id=6220206&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/n ... NHeadlines</a>
You know, much as I hate Adrian W., and feel he is a blithering idiot, the following article wasn't complete shit; <a class="postlink" href="http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AheY1hzuFuAXZYTwZgi.XL.8vLYF?slug=aw-sternnba031511" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=A ... nnba031511</a> That being said, I disagree that Stern is necessarily hurting himself or the league through this, or that this behavior is different than what any other powerful, successful commissioner would do in that spot. That's Adrian's typical myopic view of an issue coming through.