NBA Playoffs 2013

[Jd-]

The game being won by 14 is an utterly moot point, as the Heat sat LeBron, Wade, Bosh, and every other player that mattered for the last few minutes after that incident. The game would've likely been closer than that (6, 7 points closer at least) if they had played it out, but if the Heat had gotten that layup by LeBron with the foul, the Pacers wouldn't have been able to launch threes safely left and right and would've had to drive to the basket instead of just shooting randomly after running out the clock since the game would've been a lot closer. As such, the Heat could have very conceivably won the game if LeBron hadn't gotten that bad call as the scoring flowchart would've been a lot different.

[dilbertschalter]

The game being won by 14 is an utterly moot point, as the Heat sat LeBron, Wade, Bosh, and every other player that mattered for the last few minutes after that incident. The game would've likely been closer than that (6, 7 points closer at least) if they had played it out, but if the Heat had gotten that layup by LeBron with the foul, the Pacers wouldn't have been able to launch threes safely left and right and would've had to drive to the basket instead of just shooting randomly after running out the clock since the game would've been a lot closer. As such, the Heat could have very conceivably won the game if LeBron hadn't gotten that bad call as the scoring flowchart would've been a lot different.

Lebron and Wade got pulled a minute left down 14. Bosh got pulled 20 seconds later. It's possible that things would have played out differently had the correct call been made, but there's no actual strong case for why it would have played out more favorably to the Heat.

[Jd-]

When LeBron got that call, they were only down by 9, with a score of 77 Indiana, 68 Miami. If LeBron had gotten the points from that shot on the foul, the score would've been 77-70 with 4 minutes and 18 seconds left. Instead, it ended up at 81-68. The possession change there was absolutely key to the outcome of that game, no matter how badly the Heat had played up to that point. If, hypothetically, the score had been 77-70 when Indiana got the ball back, the deficit could've been brought down to only 5 with a layup on Miami's end on one rebound. At that point, Indiana would have to be a lot more cautious about taking wild shots after running the clock down.

In short, I contend that that call affected the outcome of the game and prevented a potential Heat comeback. The MVP of the league would've been within 7 points with over 4 minutes left and actual motivation going forward. No one on the Heat had any reason to expend any energy after that, because it was clear there was no way to make up that deficit given the Pacers could easily move into safety time.

[ranger]

shoulda coulda woulda, son. From what you've been saying, the entire NBA history could be different if like, a continuous slew of actions happened differently after one or two calls. Miami lost - don't forget that as bad as the calls were, Miami has gotten some pretty generous calls within the past 2 years that would provoke the same reaction from other fans.



Looking forward to our 2nd place winner tomorrow, 10 overtimes please

[Jd-]

Can't believe Chris Bosh and D-Wade are both in the line-up this game. At least, so far. The Pacers are looking a bit shaken, but they're not out just yet. LeBron will need them to stay in the game or else we'll be right back to another neck-and-neck contest.

shoulda coulda woulda, son. From what you've been saying, the entire NBA history could be different if like, a continuous slew of actions happened differently after one or two calls. Miami lost - don't forget that as bad as the calls were, Miami has gotten some pretty generous calls within the past 2 years that would provoke the same reaction from other fans.

I stand by the above analysis. This isn't just any set of continuous circumstances, but instead the direct result of one event at one very crucial point in time. This isn't like, "If only they had made that 3, everything would be different!" No, this is a clearly bad call that the ref simply got wrong (according to, you know, everyone). Ergo, if the ref hadn't gotten it wrong, things may have gone a lot differently.

[Jd-]

D-Wade already has as many points in the first half as he did in two of the last three games. Bosh already has more rebounds in the first half than he has in any game of this series.

[ranger]

Can't believe Chris Bosh and D-Wade are both in the line-up this game. At least, so far. The Pacers are looking a bit shaken, but they're not out just yet. LeBron will need them to stay in the game or else we'll be right back to another neck-and-neck contest.

shoulda coulda woulda, son. From what you've been saying, the entire NBA history could be different if like, a continuous slew of actions happened differently after one or two calls. Miami lost - don't forget that as bad as the calls were, Miami has gotten some pretty generous calls within the past 2 years that would provoke the same reaction from other fans.

I stand by the above analysis. This isn't just any set of continuous circumstances, but instead the direct result of one event at one very crucial point in time. This isn't like, "If only they had made that 3, everything would be different!" No, this is a clearly bad call that the ref simply got wrong (according to, you know, everyone). Ergo, if the ref hadn't gotten it wrong, things may have gone a lot differently.

One bad call in an already lop-sided game wouldn't have changed the game that much man - from your analysis it's exactly like the example you used man - you're just a Heat fan so you are obviously biased and emotionally invested and that's why you think you don't sound like some crazy fan right now - where it's pretty obvious for people who don't care like me.

You're essentially saying "man if that call didn't happen and then Lebron hit his free throws with the right call and then whittled down a 7 point lead, and in that one posession that happened if lebron made a layup, assuming this possession plays out exactly the same in this alternate dimension, it would have been 5. THEN WE WOULD HAVE HAD A CHANCE". How is that not similar to the example you just used? Come on man, take off the homer cap. Sounding delusional.

Eh, I expected Miami to win or it would have been a shitty rating Final - now the media will all be over lebron and duncan's rematch, and play that one clip where Duncan says "thanks for letting us have this one" a billion times over.

Pick your poison really with Miami or Indiana. Should be a more interesting finals though.

[dilbertschalter]

Can't believe Chris Bosh and D-Wade are both in the line-up this game. At least, so far. The Pacers are looking a bit shaken, but they're not out just yet. LeBron will need them to stay in the game or else we'll be right back to another neck-and-neck contest.

shoulda coulda woulda, son. From what you've been saying, the entire NBA history could be different if like, a continuous slew of actions happened differently after one or two calls. Miami lost - don't forget that as bad as the calls were, Miami has gotten some pretty generous calls within the past 2 years that would provoke the same reaction from other fans.

I stand by the above analysis. This isn't just any set of continuous circumstances, but instead the direct result of one event at one very crucial point in time. This isn't like, "If only they had made that 3, everything would be different!" No, this is a clearly bad call that the ref simply got wrong (according to, you know, everyone). Ergo, if the ref hadn't gotten it wrong, things may have gone a lot differently.

One bad call in an already lop-sided game wouldn't have changed the game that much man - from your analysis it's exactly like the example you used man - you're just a Heat fan so you are obviously biased and emotionally invested and that's why you think you don't sound like some crazy fan right now - where it's pretty obvious for people who don't care like me.

You're essentially saying "man if that call didn't happen and then Lebron hit his free throws with the right call and then whittled down a 7 point lead, and in that one posession that happened if lebron made a layup, assuming this possession plays out exactly the same in this alternate dimension, it would have been 5. THEN WE WOULD HAVE HAD A CHANCE". How is that not similar to the example you just used? Come on man, take off the homer cap. Sounding delusional.

Eh, I expected Miami to win or it would have been a shitty rating Final - now the media will all be over lebron and duncan's rematch, and play that one clip where Duncan says "thanks for letting us have this one" a billion times over.

Pick your poison really with Miami or Indiana. Should be a more interesting finals though.

Pretty much this. Bad calls happen all the time and imputing decisive importance to a single blown call (of the type that gets messed up all the time) in a game that was never that close after the Heat's offensive collapse early in the third quarter makes no sense. I was rooting for the Heat to beat the Pacers (down with shameball) and I'm certainly hoping they save us from that nightmare that would be 5pur5, so I'm even more impartial than ranger.

[Jd-]

One bad call in an already lop-sided game wouldn't have changed the game that much man - from your analysis it's exactly like the example you used man - you're just a Heat fan so you are obviously biased and emotionally invested and that's why you think you don't sound like some crazy fan right now - where it's pretty obvious for people who don't care like me.

You're essentially saying "man if that call didn't happen and then Lebron hit his free throws with the right call and then whittled down a 7 point lead, and in that one posession that happened if lebron made a layup, assuming this possession plays out exactly the same in this alternate dimension, it would have been 5. THEN WE WOULD HAVE HAD A CHANCE". How is that not similar to the example you just used? Come on man, take off the homer cap. Sounding delusional.

To be honest, your summation is fairly elementary, flawed, and to quote you, "lop-sided". What it really comes down to are four questions. Man.

1) Was the call wrong? The answer: Yes. By the letter of the NBA rules, the call is wrong. The analysts, the fans, the critics--they were in pretty resounding agreement that yes, the ref did get the call completely wrong. Hopefully we're in agreement on this, because there's not really much argument on this actual point. It's not really subjective when reviewing the evidence with the rules in mind.

2) Is it possible to overcome a 7-point deficit in four minutes of gametime? The answer: Of course it is. LeBron himself has done so many times, and so have the Spurs, and basically every other dynamic team in the game. Momentum is a huge, completely understated facet of sports. (Hint: This is why, when the other team is hot and has scored five baskets in a row, the opposing team's head coach signals for a timeout--something's not right, time to make an adjustment) Sports is the least mechanical example of human competition. People can, do, and will get effected by things going their way. That is why LeBron had such a reaction when the ref got the call utterly wrong within the prime sub-five minute mark. Typically, refs aren't expected to make that call even if the offensive player is guilty of a charge, when there's less than 5 to play. That's why it's important when they get it wrong there, because they don't usually do it even when they get it right. No one expected it, especially not LeBron.

3) Does the score after that have anything to do with the other scenario in which the call hadn't been made? The answer: Almost definitely not. I've been part of plenty of bad games, and one bad call can, does, and will shake an entire team and make everyone just give up. In baseball, one bad call at homeplate in a game where you're still a couple runs down can make everyone too pissed to even see straight or do anything but swing at every ball that comes their way. Human psychology plays a tremendous role in the outcome of any sport. Once you get one bad call against you when you are digging in and doing everything you can to win, you are ready to give up, because you feel like, "What's stopping these ***** from ******* calling the same ******** calls the next time, those ******* **** **** *****!?/1/1/dsfa". This obviously happened two nights ago, such why I said--and continue to contend--that the score after that incident didn't mean anything. Not only because overcoming 11 points in 4 minutes is a hell of a lot different than 7, but because no one was playing seriously after that anyway (reference previous point).

4) Is it likely that the Heat would have won the game if the call had been the right one? The answer: Statistically, it is not MORE likely that the Heat would have won, but it is also not statistically overwhelmingly LESS likely that the Heat would have won. The reasoning for this is that a comeback in a time-pressure situation is statistically unlikely in every sport to begin with, no matter what the scenario is. One team has to score more points than the other, and the only indication we have to measure this likelihood of this occurring is the frequency of scoring over time compared to the scores they've made to that point versus the amount of time left ...EXCEPT: This is an insanely inept and ineffective means of measuring likelihood, because not only do points come out of varying play-by-play situations, there's no consistent means by which points scored can be predicted over the course of time. A team can go on a 12-2 run at any point, and that happens often. There's no reliable means of gauging exactly how likely a comeback is when it comes to such a time-pressure situation, such why they are exciting and, in a word, unpredictable. That's why I said, and continue to say, we do not know what would have happened if the call had been right, but because the call was wrong, it does not take very much effort to see that there is an alternate scenario. It does not rely on multiple variables, like, "If only they'd made that 3 and that layup and made this substitution at this time!". It simply relies on one thing for this scenario to come to begin: the ref getting the call right. That's it. If the ref had not gotten the call so wrong, the only other variable to bring this scenario to fruition is LeBron making two foul shots, which we can statistically support, given that he was 7 for 8 on the night with free throws and is .750 from the line. Chances are, he would've made the shots. Now, if that happened, would the game have turned out differently? Absolutely. Just how differently is the question, but what is statistically more likely is that the Heat would have been in a better position to win and that the score would have been more favorable to the Heat, if the call had been right.

What I do find very interesting is that, when the NBA obviously needed the Heat to win (as was expressly stated by me in previous posts, prior to this game), the calls--indeed--favored them all over the place. They outplayed the Pacers last night, no doubt about it, but part of that was because the Pacers were pretty helpless even beyond their sloppy play. Basically every call went against them, even borderline ones, and that is coming from a Miami fan. Everything in sports is going to be subjective, because there are exceedingly few instances of pure apathy in which someone has no interest that favors one side over the other (even slightly so). Because the consequences of calls themselves are generally subjective (at least in who they favor), you are always going to be favoring your team, or favoring the team playing one you do not like, and arguing to that point. In this sense, it is much like the law. There are very few cut-and-dry scenarios when it comes to the prosecution and defense and really comes down to convincing people that are entirely unrelated to the matter and are meant to be uninvolved in every sense prior to the case (having no prior knowledge).

Now, are you really trying to say that one possession that resulted in four points for the opposing team in such a situation had no effect on the outcome of the game? It obviously did, no matter how much you may dislike LeBron or disagree with his reaction to an obviously horrendous call. What I said in the other posts, and continue to say, is that we do not know what the outcome of the game would have been if the bad call hadn't been made. Anyone pretending otherwise, and especially pretending that the call did not affect the game, is in the wrong. The question is not whether it affected it, but just how much it affected it, and I would pose the argument (as I've done here) that we do not know how much it affected the game. What we do know, of course, is that a 7-point comeback in 4 minutes is not impossible or overwhelmingly unlikely. As such, it is not inconceivable for the Heat to make a comeback in that time should the wrong call not have been made. This is not some sort of abstract idea to tax yourself with. One ref made one bad call. If that one ref had made the right call, the situation would be wildly different. My exact words before were: "I contend that that call affected the outcome of the game and prevented a potential Heat comeback" and I absolutely stand by that. I never said anywhere in here that the Heat would have definitely won the game, or that it was more likely the Heat would have won the game than lost. What I said was pretty simple: The score of the game was affected by this bad call and it prevented the Heat from making a comeback. If the right call had been made, it is not inconceivable for the Heat to have made a comeback. After the bad call was made, it was pretty inconceivable for the Heat to make that comeback. All of this was stated in the previous posts, should you care to read them.

For any further discussion on this game, I'll be referring to this post and my previous ones, as not only is that game now over, the entire series is over. I have to move on to complaining about Bosh not contributing again for the series against the Spurs compared to the money he's getting paid.

[M.Holmes]

Even though the final match-up turned out to be Spurs v. Heat as expected, that Pacers series was probably the best of the playoffs so far (though I liked Heat v. Bulls too).

As much as TD and company are making it look otherwise, I think this might be the Spurs' swansong. I hope they win it this year, thought the Heat are the favorite and I know they won't make it easy. If James, D-Wade, and, Bosh can perform like they did in last years finals, I don't see them losing, but the probability of that is looking pretty low at the moment.

[ranger]

the "mans" were just me playing around. Briefly because I think we all agree we don't want to talk about this anymore -
1. Yes I think the call is wrong
2.Yes it is possible
3. Eh sure, this question is once again a shoulda-coulda-woulda type of deal with alternate dimensions
4. The biggest concern - NO. You can't play just by the numbers, there's too many intangibles and other things statistics don't cover. The Pacers by your same argument could of also stepped up their game and increased their lead as well.


@M-Holmes: Actually, I don't think there is a clear determined favorite, judging from the media, coming into this series, mainly because of how the Heat are underachieving. But who cares about favorites and non-favorites.

I think the Spurs have a couple years left in em after this, I dunno about Swansong. Especially if Tim keeps doing voodoo and reverse his age

Prediction because I am a Spurs fan - Spurs in 6.

[Jd-]

If Bosh and Wade appear: Heat in 6.

If they don't: Spurs in 5.

Basically: The Spurs are a much better-equipped team. No one on the team is LeBron, but as a team, they are definitely better than the sum of Miami. Wade was great last night, and they not-so-coincidentally won by a large margin. In the season games where the Heat went 3-0 against the Spurs, all of the Big Three showed up and well if I recall. All and all, the role players on the Spurs are just simply than the B-Team that makes up the Heat (especially on the Heat bench).

I would love it for the Heat to win, but it really just isn't going to be easy.

[Pmofmalasia]

I'm really more of a Pistons fan, but since I'm from San Antonio (lived in Detroit prior to that, though) I suppose I'll root for the Spurs. Plus, as a Pistons fan, I really don't like LeBron

[M.Holmes]

@M-Holmes: Actually, I don't think there is a clear determined favorite, judging from the media, coming into this series, mainly because of how the Heat are underachieving. But who cares about favorites and non-favorites.

Perhaps there isn't a clear favorite, but the Heat have had a monster season, going 3-0 against this Spurs thus far as Jd mentioned, and an NBA.com poll I viewed a couple days ago was in significantly in favor of the Heat in 5 or 6 games (and it had a substantial 5-6 figure sample) so that's what leads me to dub the Heat as favorites.

In any case, it's going to be a good series and the first game is only 7 hours away!

[irishock]

the "mans" were just me playing around. Briefly because I think we all agree we don't want to talk about this anymore -
1. Yes I think the call is wrong
2.Yes it is possible
3. Eh sure, this question is once again a shoulda-coulda-woulda type of deal with alternate dimensions
4. The biggest concern - NO. You can't play just by the numbers, there's too many intangibles and other things statistics don't cover. The Pacers by your same argument could of also stepped up their game and increased their lead as well.


@M-Holmes: Actually, I don't think there is a clear determined favorite, judging from the media, coming into this series, mainly because of how the Heat are underachieving. But who cares about favorites and non-favorites.

I think the Spurs have a couple years left in em after this, I dunno about Swansong. Especially if Tim keeps doing voodoo and reverse his age

Prediction because I am a Spurs fan - Spurs in 6.

If the guy in the farthest right of your sig could beat the Heat, then the greatest PF ever can do the same.


But... imo the Spurs are not a better team than the 2011 Mavericks. They haven't faced a legitimate team yet, while the Mavs cruised through the 2x defending champs and the up and coming Thunder squad in just 9 games.