2010-11 Regular Season

[4THQTR]

Dwight Howard really had no impact on the game.

Not true.

He still ended up with 14pts 18rbs 5ast 5blks...

His scoring was not too impressive, but the magic ended up being this open all the time from beyond the arc because he forced the heat to send bodies at him, away from the perimeter...

Also his defense was a big part why the heat struggled offensively...
Just him being in the paint has a huge impact on anyone driving to the paint and trying to shoot over him...
Unfortunately the other magic players often failed to rotate and secure the defensive rebound when he did his job in help defense, giving miami offensive rebounds...

I'll say he didn't have the impact I would've expected him to have against miami, but he still had a pretty big impact

[barefacedmonk]

I don't think MIA's been the same since...Feb. 13th.

MIA = Missing in action.

[GreenFaith1819]

I'm just Joe Fan at the end of the day, but MIA is missing something....I mean, our Big Three came together over a summer...won close games back in 07-08 (still do, too).

With every game they lose like this, a bit of their confidence goes with it.

NY...with Carmelo, Billups and Amar'e playing together only a WEEK...they go right into MIA and just run roughshod through their house.

ORL takes MIA's best punch and beats them tonight.

35 Y.O. Ray Allen torches them for his age in MIA a few months ago...

The one shot they had at beating an elite team on Feb 13?

Can't get it done.

The list goes on and on.

[4THQTR]

As of today the heat are 14-15 against above .500 teams...

So they are below 0.500 against teams with winning records...

The teams with winning records against above .500 teams are:

Boston (19-9)
Chicago (16-10)
Lakers (22-11)
San Antonio (22-9)
Dallas (23-9)

So basically all teams that are being considered contenders...

Heat don't make the cut though...

[barefacedmonk]

I think Miami is one of the worst teams when it comes to games that are won by 5 or less points. They have a horrible record in close games.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I think Miami is one of the worst teams when it comes to games that are won by 5 or less points. They have a horrible record in close games.

Completely agree. Yet, I don't think their struggles to end games can be sustainable. They have to figure it out at some point, I just hope it's not this year or against us.

[droponov]

Winning close games is a lot about randomness. Luck.

[GreenFaith1819]

Even stranger to me is that MIA can go into LA and just crush them on Christmas day.

Wait - we did that, too - a little over a month ago.

I bet MIA will beat LA again when they play them next, too.

[Megatron]

Winning close games is a lot about randomness. Luck.

Its about having a go-to play and go-to player.

We have Pierce and Ray, but the rest of our roster is capable of coming up in the clutch as well.

Miami has no go-to end of game plays, and all of their main players arent clutch. LeBron has hit 1 clutch shot in his entire career.

[BudweiserCeltic]

They need to put the ball more in Wade's hand at the end of games. The play they ran against us was very good, we were fortunate that Miller missed the 3. They should do more crap like that.

[droponov]

Winning close games is a lot about randomness. Luck.

Its about having a go-to play and go-to player.

We have Pierce and Ray, but the rest of our roster is capable of coming up in the clutch as well.

Miami has no go-to end of game plays, and all of their main players arent clutch. LeBron has hit 1 clutch shot in his entire career.

No, you're wrong. It's mostly about luck.

Last season Cleveland won the same % of close game as Boston and Miami actually won more. Toronto was actually one of the top teams in the NBA winning close games, won 63.2% of them.

There are cases of teams that in consecutive years, with basically the same roster and the same coach, go from being one of the best in winning close games to be one of the worst and then back to be good again. Has happened to the Spurs this past decade: they 11-9 in games decided by five points or fewer in 07/08, 8-11 in 06/07 (when they actually won the championship). The year before, San Antonio went 14-5.

It's mostly about luck. There's a correlation with how good the team is, with the team record, but over/under performance relatively to the expectations is randomness. Not "clutch players" or coaching.

[LB3533]

This last Magic/Heat game wasn't a close game, it was 2 blow outs: one in the 1st half and the other in the 2nd.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Did the Birdman get a crapload of new tattoos?

[Atzar]

Winning close games is a lot about randomness. Luck.

Its about having a go-to play and go-to player.

We have Pierce and Ray, but the rest of our roster is capable of coming up in the clutch as well.

Miami has no go-to end of game plays, and all of their main players arent clutch. LeBron has hit 1 clutch shot in his entire career.

No, you're wrong. It's mostly about luck.

Last season Cleveland won the same % of close game as Boston and Miami actually won more. Toronto was actually one of the top teams in the NBA winning close games, won 63.2% of them.

There are cases of teams that in consecutive years, with basically the same roster and the same coach, go from being one of the best in winning close games to be one of the worst and then back to be good again. Has happened to the Spurs this past decade: they 11-9 in games decided by five points or fewer in 07/08, 8-11 in 06/07 (when they actually won the championship). The year before, San Antonio went 14-5.

It's mostly about luck. There's a correlation with how good the team is, with the team record, but over/under performance relatively to the expectations is randomness. Not "clutch players" or coaching.

See, this is where I think stats come up short.  You can't honestly think that guys like Dirk, Melo, Ray, Billups etc. are clutch because they're lucky.  You also can't honestly think that good coaching can't significantly aid the process.  KG's open layup at the end of the Sixers game earlier this year had little to do with luck and a lot to do with good play-calling and good players.

The problem with stats in scenarios like this one is that they have absolutely no ability to assess the psychological aspect of the game.  Certain players play well in crunch time - they tune the pressure out, or it might even help them focus.  

Others press.  They start trying too hard, playing out of control.  Maybe a string of bad outcomes gets in their head (which I think is what is going on with Miami now).  There are plenty of reasons why some players have a knack for stepping up in crunch time, while others fade.  Luck is one of them, especially over a small sample size, but it's only part of the story.

[droponov]

Winning close games is a lot about randomness. Luck.

Its about having a go-to play and go-to player.

We have Pierce and Ray, but the rest of our roster is capable of coming up in the clutch as well.

Miami has no go-to end of game plays, and all of their main players arent clutch. LeBron has hit 1 clutch shot in his entire career.

No, you're wrong. It's mostly about luck.

Last season Cleveland won the same % of close game as Boston and Miami actually won more. Toronto was actually one of the top teams in the NBA winning close games, won 63.2% of them.

There are cases of teams that in consecutive years, with basically the same roster and the same coach, go from being one of the best in winning close games to be one of the worst and then back to be good again. Has happened to the Spurs this past decade: they 11-9 in games decided by five points or fewer in 07/08, 8-11 in 06/07 (when they actually won the championship). The year before, San Antonio went 14-5.

It's mostly about luck. There's a correlation with how good the team is, with the team record, but over/under performance relatively to the expectations is randomness. Not "clutch players" or coaching.

See, this is where I think stats come up short.  You can't honestly think that guys like Dirk, Melo, Ray, Billups etc. are clutch because they're lucky.  You also can't honestly think that good coaching can't significantly aid the process.  KG's open layup at the end of the Sixers game earlier this year had little to do with luck and a lot to do with good play-calling and good players.

The problem with stats in scenarios like this one is that they have absolutely no ability to assess the psychological aspect of the game.  Certain players play well in crunch time - they tune the pressure out, or it might even help them focus.  

Others press.  They start trying too hard, playing out of control.  Maybe a string of bad outcomes gets in their head (which I think is what is going on with Miami now).  There are plenty of reasons why some players have a knack for stepping up in crunch time, while others fade.  Luck is one of them, especially over a small sample size, but it's only part of the story.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Stats come up short? What stats? It's the record. Wins, losses. There's absolutely no problem with it. Are you saying the standings come up short? I mean, I don't even know how to address the point you're trying to make. You'll need to clarify.

Winning or losing close games is mostly about randomness. Otherwise, you'd find out some sort of pattern - like some coaches or some players or some teams consistently performing above or below their overall record in close games. But that doesn't happen.

(this is nothing new. basketball coaches know this for decades - the less possessions played in a game, the more the chances of victory for the weaker team as it becomes more about luck).