Blazers In Crunch Time

by amitp06 on Jan 28, 2008 12:41 PM PST Comment 11 comments

While I was reading the game recap for yesterday's game, I noticed this statistic in the notes: The Blazers are 6-0 in games decided three points or less. It seems like we almost always pull it out at the end, but I didn't know we were perfect. Then again, there are games like Toronto where we end up losing by an inflated margin. So do you think this shows that the Blazers execute well at the end or do we just get lucky?

0 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

luck

The more often it happens, the luckier we get. We may just luck our way into the playoffs.

by blazernerd on Jan 28, 2008 12:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I think...

This is one of those anal stats that is not important to me. Some are ok, I like the "100 pt" and "trailing/leading in quarters" stats, but this is lame. What's the stat for "4 points or less?"

James Jones for the block

by RecordTOs on Jan 28, 2008 1:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

3 points

is one possesion. So its a stat that tracks a one possesion game. Pretty important I think

by JPop on Jan 28, 2008 3:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought that was an interesting stat too

That, I think, signifies their relative maturity, compared to other young teams that drop close games (see: yesterday vs atlanta)

I think the more telling stat, however, is that in games decided by 26 pts or less, the blazers are 26 - 18, which means that, according to (insert Hollinger formula) the blazers will/will not make the playoffs...

Brandon Roy 007

by TimG on Jan 28, 2008 2:22 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

It is interesting....

that this season, the Blazers have not been involved in a 30-piecing, either as the buttwhooper or the buttwhoopee.

Two seasons ago, even though they didn't come near the NBA records for losses (73), the 05-06 Blazers would regularly put together 3-4 game streaks where they were blown out by 30 or more.

Last year, even more so than the 11-game improvement in the standings, I was more encouraged by the fact that we were in more games.

This year, we're in most games we play, and are winning most of the ones that are close.

by EngineerScotty on Jan 28, 2008 3:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Speaking of Hollinger

one of his favorite straw men to tear down is the idea that "pulling out close games" has much anything to do with veteran maturity or execution. Games decided by 3 points or less are based almost entirely on luck and should equilibrate to .500 over the course of the season. Average margin of victory is a much stronger indicator of a team's ability than is winning squeakers.

by BlazersOrBust on Jan 28, 2008 3:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hollinger is wrong

Some players are just really clutch at the death, somehow they have the confidence and combination of skills that when you need a play, they make it.

Roy and Outlaw are both that way. This team will consistently win more than 50% of these games for that reason. It may even out some, but it won't even out entirely.

by jscot on Jan 29, 2008 2:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree

Last year San Antonio was 3-5 in games decided by three points or fewer; Detroit, 6-10. Portland was 11-7. Would you really say that in the last three minutes of a seesaw game, you would have put more stock in the 06-07 Blazers' ability to execute down the stretch than either one of these teams?

Another couple of examples: Toronto won 47 games despite having a point differential of only +1.0 last year because they were 11-6 in games decided by three points or fewer. Miami was somehow 44-38 despite having a negative differential, almost unheard of, because they were 13-6 in such games. Both of those teams were handily bounced from the playoffs.

When luck evens out, as it eventually will, the best teams will rise to the top. And the best indicators for "best team" are records in games decided by ten or more points and point differential, both of which are much more strongly correlated to championship success than records in close games.

by BlazersOrBust on Jan 29, 2008 7:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree on best indicators

The best teams will always have a stronger point differential and blow out more teams. No question.

Last year, was there >anyone< on San Antonio or Detroit that is better at making the last second play than Brandon Roy? The guy is just Mr. Clutch, that's all there is to it. The evidence is there, in game after game.

This makes two years in a row. If you are right, over the next two years we are going to lose more of these close games than we will win. Maybe we'll revisit this in April of 2010.

I suspect if you went back and checked, you would find that over the course of his career, Jerry West's teams won a lot more 3 point games than they lost. Same thing with Walt Frazier. And MJ. These guys would just will their team to win, and find the way to make it happen. Roy does the same. And Outlaw has no conscience at all, or he would feel so guilty about what he does to teams in the fourth quarter of close games that he would retire to a monastery.

by jscot on Jan 29, 2008 8:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What about wins/losses in OT?

We have a young team, but a team with character. We have seen other teams emotionally implode when it gets heated at the end of games. We never do. Make a bad call. We look at the clock and see how much time we have to deal with it on the court. We have alot of energy and interest. No Blazer is mailing it in in the 4th. We have several go-to guys -- Roy is clutch, Travis Mr. 4th Quarter, Jones and company who can be stroking the ball. And we tighten up our game down the stretch -- I'm not sure if every team has that next level. Basically, the Blazers have everything but experience on their side.

There are some reasons why the 'Games Decided within 3' statistic might have some meaing.

If it's close at the end, bet Trailblazers.

'77

by LaoTzu on Jan 28, 2008 4:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Blazers...

I think we are a poised team in crunch time (especially Roy and Outlaw) and we've also been lucky. For instance, Joe Johnson had decent looks for the win in both Hawks games.

by jksnake99 on Jan 28, 2008 5:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs