I don't think the Celtics play with leads any worse than other teams....and probably better. It seems this way because we almost always have multiple possession leads throughout the 1H so we are spending nearly all of our time on the floor playing with the lead. Teams are going to make runs to overtake us more often than against teams who rarely have 1H leads.
I think this is a good point. If I'm the Magic, I'm definitely in my feelings. But I think it's a little different in ensuing years when teams really get it.
But they compete all season long. I think the tournament is incredibly stupid and they should just play regular season games without the nonsense of a tournament where the only prize is money, but if there is no monetary prize and you gain nothing in terms of playoff seeding, then what the hell is the point?
They definitely do not compete all season long, at least not at 100%. These games have consistently had extra intensity.
what the hell is the point of any of it?
Yeah there's no way to view the IST as anything other than a resounding success so far, and we haven't even gotten to the really good stuff. I'm sorry for the people who don't like this, but y'all are missing out.
100%! Basketball players need carrots when you are playing a ton of basketball to where it is so easy to go through the motions on occasion. I used one example earlier in the year on final exhibition game of the season between Golden St and Sacramento when it had as much intensity as last nights game and as much as a playoff game in the 4Q.....of a preseason game! Give the players something special to play for and they will become more motivated to play for it. This has been going on in the NBA in particular for decades and won't be stopping anytime soon. These quarterfinals will have playoff intensity and the Vegas games are going to be bonkers with teams likely competing who won't be sniffing an NBA Finals....to them, this IS their Finals.
All I’m asking is that the Celtics blow out all the teams that aren’t as good as them (which is all of them) and never blow a lead and never make me nervous that they are going to blow a lead. That doesn’t seem like that big of an ask.
A modest proposal to solve this:
I know this is said tongue in cheek but with so many opportunities to blow leads, because we always have them, we are going to be expected to blow more leads than any other team if all else is equal. To me, it "seems" equal if not leaning the other way....numbers on this would be interesting. If you could filter the number of minutes each team has held say a 15+ pt lead and lost it....or play with those numbers anyway you want. That would be interesting but again I don't think it will show the Celtics have a propensity for blowing these leads more than anyone else aside from them having more opportunity to do so. This is a league of runs and a 15-pt lead isn't considered, or at least shouldn't be considered, a "big lead." Golden State lost a 24-pt lead last night and at no point did it seem as though the Kings were out of the game. That's todays NBA with the 3-point shot so impactful.
Honestly when we as fans think they are "blowing leads", it is simply regression to the mean with shooting accuracy.
I keep hearing about this "extra intensity," but other than keeping the pedal down to score points, is last night's Bucks/Heat or GS/Sac game any different than their regularly tight regular season games? Or was last night's Bulls-Cs game any different? There were 3 blowouts last night and 3-4 close games.
I agree on the regression part for sure but cannot fully discount teams with large leads taking their foot off the gas, getting sloppy with the ball and loverall osing their edge. This occurs frequently as well as does teams trailing showing an extra sense of urgency. There are a combination of all these factors most games it occurs.
I don't like to appeal to the eye test, but in this case, I have to, because it is so obvious when watching the IST games across the league. Final score margins don't tell you much about intensity: there are plenty of blowout game 7s in the playoffs.
Plus, one of the blowouts - the Celts game - was due to one team having a ton to play for, and the other, not. I'd argue that on a normal night the Celts only win that game by like 10-15.
But once the lead is established, regression to the mean doesn't mean that it should diminish, the points are in the books. Just because a team shoots 65% in the first half doesn't mean they should be expected to shoot 35% in the second half to balance it out. You'd more expect them to shoot 50% in the second half, and the lead would be maintained at 30 (and not go to 60, for example).
I meant "more money."
Bill Simmons proposed 5 groups of 6 instead of 6 groups of 5 as a solution to this problem. Then all groups can have their final 3 games played simultaneously.
My biggest complaint about the Celtics with a big lead - more last year and we will see how this year plays out - is that, to my eyes and perhaps only to my eyes, is that they sometimes seem to start to take sort of “lazy” 3’s. A quick contested three, or they run down the clock without much ball movement and then take whatever three they are left with. No attempt to even look for a cutter or go to the basket. Annoying.
Completely agree on the lazy 3s. It especially seems to be a problem when they build a lead by hitting say 10 of their first 20 3s.
Agreed. This is what "taking foot off the gas and losing your edge" looks like. We do it, all teams do it. We do it more because we have more leads to do it with. This was the Warriors last night with a 20+ pt lead as the Kings were still grinding hard every possession.....lazy pass, turnover, quick lazy 3 w/o ball movement (aka flow/rhythm).
Ditto.
That's an interesting point. Not a math guy. Assuming equal ## of shots in both halves, if a team that shoots 50% per game hits 65% in the 1st half, which 2nd half is the statistically right one to expect? Is it 50 (as though the 2nd half is a new and independent data set)? Or is it 39 (which would bring them back to their season average)? Or am I asking the wrong question?
If it's 6 teams per group and everyone plays each other once, you get a different problem - half the teams will have 3 home games, the other half will just have 2. That's not fair either.
Shots are generally viewed as independent events. Leaving aside that some have different context that makes them not fully equal rolls of the dice (corner 3 vs above-the-break, nearest defender distance, catch-and-shoot vs pull-up), and that teams' overall averages are a blend of different players' take rates and make rates and the # of minutes each player has will affect that... "your season average over a large enough sample" will be a much more reliable estimate of the % chance of making the next shot, than "the % that your team has made in this one game up to this point". Stability of averages over different sample sizes, law of large numbers, and other such things. A good game will bring your season averages up, but your median expectation for next game will still be those (new) season averages.
Great answer above. Just wanted to add that, all else being equal, the latter question is the gambler’s fallacy. If you toss six heads in a row, your expectation is not that the next six should be tails to get back to the mean. Regression to the mean means more like your first option, the second half they should be expected to shoot 50%.
It's also a bit bizarre to me that people keep trying to fix what was an extremely successful element of the tournament. Like, it wasn't a given going in that point differential would work as well as it did, and now we have strong evidence that it achieves the league's desired effect really well.
Agreed. Point differential was fine - it works everywhere else in the world. Another year or two and no one will get their feelings hurt.
If anything, we'll soon see teams trying for point differential in games 1-3, now that they see how big a deal it is later. The Celtics absolutely could have run the score up against Brooklyn in game 1, had they wanted.
The old “Seven point game” plan. I forget what league had that (NBDL?) where you got one standings point for each quarter won, plus three points for winning the game.
Eastern League. Those Scranton/Wilkes-Barre matchups were nuts! Damn you're old
Wikipedia tells me it was when they were the Continental Basketball League in the late 1970s and 1980s when the 7 point system came into play, but I think some other league used it this century as I remember discussing it awhile back with the son of a friend who is 28 years old now.Eastern League. Those Scranton/Wilkes-Barre matchups were nuts! Damn you're old
I always confuse those two leagues. I remember watching afternoon games with 23 people in the crowd when I could catch one of a regional channel back in the day.
I think the old Eastern league became the Continental league, so a different kind of confusion
The Bucks won't host the Celtics because that would give them a 42nd home game, and would give the Celtics 42 road games. They're trying to keep it to 41 with the scheduling. If the Celtics and Knicks lose, I read that the Celtics will host because MSG is booked on Friday.
Remember that it was Stacey King, Bulls' broadcaster, who was saying this. Someone who, along with his partner, seemed to be in physical pain whenever the Bulls tried to play "defense." I think that the Bulls and their fans did not enjoy the experience.
