Debunking the "Better Energy" Lie

[DMC]

Quite often when a team gets beaten in a way that doesn't make sense given the history of the two, the excuse will surface "they came out with better energy". That's a bald face lie. Why is it a lie, how do I know?

A team is comprised of individuals. Energy is an individual thing, so a team comprised of individuals would have a varying degree of energy based on how each individual approached the game. There simply is no "we" where energy is concerned. Some players would come out more energetic and more aggressive and some would come out less energetic and less aggressive. If someone said "we" as an average, that's one thing, but there was no average issue. It was a collective. There was a collective decision to not play basketball on May 12th, 2014 by a group of San Antonio Spurs players and coaches. The reason for that will probably remain a mystery, but common sense is that they had a reason to lose, or at least not to try to hard to win. It was as a group. This was made obvious to me by how Tim Duncan showed on Lillard's choreographed drive into the paint and the dunk over Tim while Tim stood there with his hands down like he was filming another HEB commercial.

So next time you hear some coach or player use that shitty excuse, just translate it right away into "we decided we didn't care if we won or lost". Otherwise you've accepted the anomaly that every member of the team had a bad night at the same time and that's just not going to happen.

[spurraider21]

Philo

[Russ]

On the other hand . . .

Energy may not be that individualized for groups going through a common experience.

For example, I would imagine the troops in the Bataan Death March were all lacking energy at similar times based upon the common schedule and hardships that they all shared.

A basketball team on the road might be similar. Same itinerary, same travel, same accommodations, same jet lag, same understanding of their favorable position in the series, etc.

Perhaps the Spurs collectively shared a lack of energy due to common (not individualized) factors.

[capek]

Debunking

That word that you use, I do not think it means what you think it means.

And btw, just in case you weren't clear, your thesis is that the Spurs would prefer not to win playoff games. Genius! :lol

[DMC]

That word that you use, I do not think it means what you think it means.

And btw, just in case you weren't clear, your thesis is that the Spurs would prefer not to win playoff games. Genius! :lol

No, Balky... My thesis was that the Spurs would prefer to not win that particular playoff game.

[DMC]

On the other hand . . .

Energy may not be that individualized for groups going through a common experience.

For example, I would imagine the troops in the Bataan Death March were all lacking energy at similar times based upon the common schedule and hardships that they all shared.

A basketball team on the road might be similar. Same itinerary, same travel, same accommodations, same jet lag, same understanding of their favorable position in the series, etc.

Perhaps the Spurs collectively shared a lack of energy due to common (not individualized) factors.

How is that different than "didn't care if we won or lost"?

You don't airball open 3's time and again because of lack of aggression.

[capek]

No, Balky... My thesis was that the Spurs would prefer to not win that particular playoff game.

It's ok that you aren't able to extend your logical thinking very far; I got that from your OP. :tu

[TheGoldStandard]

Pop: They made more shots

[weebo]

The effort and focus wasn't there. They pounded these Blazers in three previous games. Blame it on human nature for the Spur's lackadaisical brand of basketball played last night if you want. However, to say they didn't have the energy to play the game is reaching.

[DMC]

It's ok that you aren't able to extend your logical thinking very far; I got that from your OP. :tu

Keep spinning that broken wheel.

[DMC]

The effort and focus wasn't there. They pounded these Blazers in three previous games. Blame it on human nature for the Spur's lackadaisical brand of basketball played last night if you want. However, to say they didn't have the energy to play the game is reaching.

Neither said they didn't have energy available, just that they didn't bring it. They being a collective of millionaire athletes who get paid to do nothing but bring the energy. They collectively decided not to. Pop is part of that. It's all part of the plan. It's not intentionally losing, it's intentionally not trying to win that particular game. There was no other reason the Blazers should have been up that much. they didn't play any better than they did in the other games.

[tholdren]

you must not have played sports. momentum is a huge part of any game. players feed off of individual energy which leads to momentum. drives are sustained and stopped due to momentum. hence players like manu, rodman, last series blair ....are were keys to success.

it was odd from the tip, you could just sense the loss of swagger and kill mode. common in the pro game

[hater]

you must not have played sports. momentum is a huge part of any game. players feed off of individual energy which leads to momentum. drives are sustained and stopped due to momentum. hence players like manu, rodman, last series blair ....are were keys to success.

it was odd from the tip, you could just sense the loss of swagger and kill mode. common in the pro game

have to agree with this. Energy in team sports is contagious. If your bigman is too lazy to get the defensive rebounds why play D? etc, etc.

Not a great thread IMO

[DesignatedT]

Awful take.

[Spur|n|Austin]

Quite often when a team gets beaten in a way that doesn't make sense given the history of the two, the excuse will surface "they came out with better energy". That's a bald face lie. Why is it a lie, how do I know?

A team is comprised of individuals. Energy is an individual thing, so a team comprised of individuals would have a varying degree of energy based on how each individual approached the game. There simply is no "we" where energy is concerned. Some players would come out more energetic and more aggressive and some would come out less energetic and less aggressive. If someone said "we" as an average, that's one thing, but there was no average issue. It was a collective. There was a collective decision to not play basketball on May 12th, 2014 by a group of San Antonio Spurs players and coaches. The reason for that will probably remain a mystery, but common sense is that they had a reason to lose, or at least not to try to hard to win. It was as a group. This was made obvious to me by how Tim Duncan showed on Lillard's choreographed drive into the paint and the dunk over Tim while Tim stood there with his hands down like he was filming another HEB commercial.

So next time you hear some coach or player use that shitty excuse, just translate it right away into "we decided we didn't care if we won or lost". Otherwise you've accepted the anomaly that every member of the team had a bad night at the same time and that's just not going to happen.

Synergy?

It's crazy to think that group energy is not a real thing when it comes to a professional team..

[DMC]

you must not have played sports. momentum is a huge part of any game. players feed off of individual energy which leads to momentum. drives are sustained and stopped due to momentum. hence players like manu, rodman, last series blair ....are were keys to success.

it was odd from the tip, you could just sense the loss of swagger and kill mode. common in the pro game

So then according to that logic, no one on the team could ever bring energy because it has to be contagious, everyone has to have it or no one does.

[look_at_g_shred]

When you've played with a team (certain players) for a while, you know each others' tendancies. You know what type of game you are going to have after the first quarter, maybe sooner. So as a whole, the energy level is shared throughout. That is exactly why runs happen in the NBA. Why is it all of a sudden teams "click" and go on a run? The energy is triggered through the team. You know when the shots weren't falling last night, spurs were like, ehh it's alright.

[DMC]

Synergy?

It's crazy to think that group energy is not a real thing when it comes to a professional team..

What can you as an individual player do besides your own job? Synergy is a group of people individually bringing energy and the results of that energy will cause a result greater than the sum of it's parts. An entire team doesn't just not bring energy. Who is the energy person who didn't bring it?

Didn't say energy isn't a real thing. An individual has energy. A team is just a group of individuals working toward a common goal. Could you imagine not making a deadline at a construction site and using the excuse "we didn't bring the energy"? No. Some one in the group, maybe several, didn't do their jobs. That lack of give a shit brought the team down. The "team" isn't a separate entity. It's just a convenient name for the group of individuals.

[capek]

So then according to that logic, no one on the team could ever bring energy because it has to be contagious, everyone has to have it or no one does.

:lol again, I do not think that word means what you think it means. Besides, that's exactly the opposite of what he said. Protip: "players feed off of individual energy" is a good place for you to start in trying to understand the pretty basic idea everyone else in this thread is trying to point out to you.

Look, I get what you're going for here. Sometimes, indeed, common intuitions are off base, and you can get to a deeper truth by applying a healthy dose of critical thinking to the topic. It's just that this is not one of those cases. Can you honestly say that you've never observed situations where one player getting hot can dramatically increase the accuracy of other players? You've never noticed how one player, let's go with Tim Duncan as an example, can "make his teammates better"? The individual can impact the group, and the context the group finds itself in can impact each of that group's individual members. In this case, the entire group found themselves in a situation (commanding an historically insurmountable 3-0 lead) where it was easier to go through the motions than apply playoff-level intensity. Quite typical really, expected by, I'm sure, a decent number of posters on this forum.

[hater]

:lol DMC

terrible take

[weebo]

To say they didn't bring energy is saying they didn't care about winning. I would have to disagree with this assumption because these are professional athletes, that for better or worse have competitive personalities (otherwise why would they should to ever play sport).

I still believe that part of their problem last night was due to effort and focus, partly because they already know they can bash this Blazer's team at any time. If you recall, it happened early in the first round with the Mavs. The Spurs had gone 10 straight vs. the Mavs so the effort and focus wasn't there until things got uncomfortable for the Spurs.

[DMC]

:lol again, I do not think that word means what you think it means. Besides, that's exactly the opposite of what he said. Protip: "players feed off of individual energy" is a good place for you to start in trying to understand the pretty basic idea everyone else in this thread is trying to point out to you.

Look, I get what you're going for here. Sometimes, indeed, common intuitions are off base, and you can get to a deeper truth by applying a healthy dose of critical thinking to the topic. It's just that this is not one of those cases. Can you honestly say that you've never observed situations where one player getting hot can dramatically increase the accuracy of other players? You've never noticed how one player, let's go with Tim Duncan as an example, can "make his teammates better"? The individual can impact the group, and the context the group finds itself in can impact each of that group's individual members. In this case, the entire group found themselves in a situation (commanding an historically insurmountable 3-0 lead) where it was easier to go through the motions than apply playoff-level intensity. Quite typical really, expected by, I'm sure, a decent number of posters on this forum.

Momentum is an abstract idea. It's not something you can measure or even prove exists. If you flip a quarter 1000 times, there will be a long series of heads and a long series of tails. Is that momentum?

I cannot believe you're trying to play the "accurate definition" card right before throwing out an abstract concept as if it's a measurable thing.

[Uriel]

I cannot believe OP is seriously insinuating that the Spurs intentionally tried to tank a playoff game. And his main line of argumentation appears to stem from a misunderstanding of the difference between "not having enough energy" and "being genuinely disinterested."

Just because the Spurs, having played at full-blast for 4 straight games, did not have the energy to close it out on Game 4 doesn't mean they were disinterested in winning. It only means they didn't have energy. To assert otherwise would be fallacious.

DMC's Argument:
1. Energy is tied to individuals; it's not a collective thing.
2. All the Spurs players displayed virtually no energy throughout the game.
3. Therefore, the Spurs must have collectively decided they were disinterested in winning.

Notice how the jump from point 2 to point 3 is a complete non-sequitur.

[capek]

Momentum is an abstract idea. It's not something you can measure or even prove exists. If you flip a quarter 1000 times, there will be a long series of heads and a long series of tails. Is that momentum?

I cannot believe you're trying to play the "accurate definition" card right before throwing out an abstract concept as if it's a measurable thing.

Hey, I'm all for pruning one's ontology. If that's a genuine interest of yours, you have a friend in me. But if you haven't already, at some point you'll come to the conclusion that it's absurd to try to remove all abstractions, or things that require defining, from your ontology. The trick is not to merely reduce one's ontology to the barest minimum. Instead it's to know the what and whens of letting generalities or "abstractions" back into the system. A reliable way to know if you're on track there is to see if, by keeping your system bare, you're getting closer or further from an accurate description. I'll let the feedback you've received from this thread speak for itself.

[z0sa]

Youre completely ignoring psychology by approaching this from a purely physical angle.

[littlecoyotecoin]

The effort and focus wasn't there. They pounded these Blazers in three previous games. Blame it on human nature for the Spur's lackadaisical brand of basketball played last night if you want. However, to say they didn't have the energy to play the game is reaching.

Punch someone in the face long enough, even your hand can get sore and tired.

[DMC]

Hey, I'm all for pruning one's ontology. If that's a genuine interest of yours, you have a friend in me. But if you haven't already, at some point you'll come to the conclusion that it's absurd to try to remove all abstractions, or things that require defining, from your ontology. The trick is not to merely reduce one's ontology to the barest minimum. Instead it's to know the what and whens of letting generalities or "abstractions" back into the system. A reliable way to know if you're on track there is to see if, by keeping your system bare, you're getting closer or further from an accurate description. I'll let the feedback you've received from this thread speak for itself.

Abstractions in conversations about facts are merely distractions, add to it that you're rewarding your laziness with a convenient escape route. Momentum is a "wishful thinking" concept that makes a neat explanation for a series of events. True momentum is an aspect of physics. The ability to sharpen ones focus in certain situations is what makes a pro a pro, and having several people do it in the same stretch of time isn't necessarily a momentum issue as much as it is simply a synchronizing of events that are otherwise not connected. A guy makes a 3 in the first minute of the game and his team fails to "catch fire". No one mentions momentum. The same guy, same game... hits another 3 and his team follows by going on a 15-0 run. That's suddenly labeled momentum. The team took the shots in the 1st quarter but they missed. Making those shots suddenly isn't a supernatural group energy caused event. It's simply a series of events that happens given enough iterations. A team goes down by 20 points because they failed to evolve quick enough to cover an exploited weakness, not because they lost the momentum. If momentum was real, any team in the league could win the ring. Odd that the same team seems to keep winning it.

[Bartleby]

IbUxePfsoWE

[DMC]

Youre completely ignoring psychology by approaching this from a purely physical angle.

The Spurs didn't lose because of psychological points. They lost because of physical points that can be shown using stats and seen on video. Failing to show on a PG dunk when you're the team defensive anchor isn't an issue with psychology. It's simply a team decision to lower the output and live with the results.

[DMC]

IbUxePfsoWE

Yeah Spurs walked down and fucked them all. Like the Spurs, Duvall died at the end.

[capek]

Abstractions in conversations about facts are merely distractions, add to it that you're rewarding your laziness with a convenient escape route. Momentum is a "wishful thinking" concept that makes a neat explanation for a series of events. True momentum is an aspect of physics. The ability to sharpen ones focus in certain situations is what makes a pro a pro, and having several people do it in the same stretch of time isn't necessarily a momentum issue as much as it is simply a synchronizing of events that are otherwise not connected. A guy makes a 3 in the first minute of the game and his team fails to "catch fire". No one mentions momentum. The same guy, same game... hits another 3 and his team follows by going on a 15-0 run. That's suddenly labeled momentum. The team took the shots in the 1st quarter but they missed. Making those shots suddenly isn't a supernatural group energy caused event. It's simply a series of events that happens given enough iterations. A team goes down by 20 points because they failed to evolve quick enough to cover an exploited weakness, not because they lost the momentum. If momentum was real, any team in the league could win the ring. Odd that the same team seems to keep winning it.

:lol If your goal was to fit as many wrong assertions into as dense a wall of text as possible, this post is an unmitigated success. :lmao

[littlecoyotecoin]

I cannot believe OP is seriously insinuating that the Spurs intentionally tried to tank a playoff game. And his main line of argumentation appears to stem from a misunderstanding of the difference between "not having enough energy" and "being genuinely disinterested."

Just because the Spurs, having played at full-blast for 4 straight games, did not have the energy to close it out on Game 4 doesn't mean they were disinterested in winning. It only means they didn't have energy. To assert otherwise would be fallacious.

DMC's Argument:
1. Energy is tied to individuals; it's not a collective thing.
2. All the Spurs players displayed virtually no energy throughout the game.
3. Therefore, the Spurs must have collectively decided they were disinterested in winning.

Notice how the jump from point 2 to point 3 is a complete non-sequitur.

Agreed. That's why he had to explain the leap, which I thought Russ did a masterful job of countering. A false premise. A group can be collectively tired, especially after common experiences. And, not saying it is or isn't relevant, but there are all sorts of other bio-social parallels we might draw as well: Yawns being contagious, synchronized periods (not as conclusive as yawning, but barnacles make a more convincing adjustment, surely, and would possibly support the pheromone idea), groupthink, mass hallucinations, etc. lots of scientific evidence supporting these things. We are highly social animals. Separating the individual from the group isn't as cut-and-dried as one might think.

http://news.discovery.com/human/health/yawning-social-behavior.htm

It did LOOK like they intentionally tanked one (rotations mostly, and lack of coaching from Pop), or at least didn't give it their all, but I find it hard to believe that it was actually intentional-that they HOPED to lose. Sure would hate to get backdoor swept after having intentionally tanked a game in order to "not get rusty". Could be some ballsy genius. Fine line between that and reckless over-confidence. I am sure we will never know. There is a lot of grey area between intent to lose and "not giving it 100%".

Fun thread though.

[Calavera]

Pop and the management prefered to play one more game in SA due to financial reasons (i guess the team gets at least $2 million from tickets, ads and etc.).
It's so easy to see it, I was surprised the media instruction for the players to repeat "we didn't have the energy" was so obvious, yet no one dared to suggest or ask if they really liked it better to finish the series in SA.

[spurraider21]

i basically summarized this thread in the first response


Philo

[ElNono]

Youre completely ignoring psychology by approaching this from a purely physical angle.

damn... our discussions on the psychology of Bonner's choking... those were the days :lol

[z0sa]

damn... our discussions on the psychology of Bonner's choking... those were the days :lol

Ah, yes, the most heckled player in the League, starting at center. Those were strange times, for they usually centered on the unsolvable plus minus conundrum. Remember all of us, even timvp being at a loss? It's like (regular season) basketball's version of pi.

Sandwich Hunter definitely deserves the honor of having his practice jersey retired tbh. He really tore his teammates up in the shoot around when he had a starting gig. :lobt2:

[wildchild]

I can remember....those years.

I love Bonner. He is fucking down to earth as hell. You Bonner haters are suckers.

Just for the record..in my mind these Bonner's situations are true and happen every day.


Behind him he heard some commotion and when he turned he saw someone get thrown into the river. A couple chairs followed him and there were people screaming. One guy, a white man with very fixed red hair and a very turquoise shirt, wasn’t phased by any of this. He stood on a table with an al pastor taco in his hand and his pants were off, revealing to the world a pair of boxer shorts that looked like a Stiegl can. It was Matt Bonner...

Bonner took his shirt off to reveal a tattoo across his chest, a red gator. Bonner reached into his underwear and pulled from it a cigarette and a lighter. He lit up, took two puffs, then put the cigarette out on the face of a man in a Titleist hat. Then he threw a table into the river. He was the one who kept this going. He was the straw...

Bonner took a break from plunging his face into a bowl of queso...
Bonner was smiling and holding a steak knife, guacamole dripping to the brick below.

It’s madness, isn’t it? It’s lovely madness.

Then he jumped into the water
:toast
http://ballerball.com/kawhi-leonard-gives-matt-bonner-his-phone/

[z0sa]

The Spurs didn't lose because of psychological points. They lost because of physical points that can be shown using stats and seen on video. Failing to show on a PG dunk when you're the team defensive anchor isn't an issue with psychology. It's simply a team decision to lower the output and live with the results.

So you think a lack of focus or "energy" in the perceived defensive anchor would have no effect on the effort put forth by another player involved in the play? Thats a possibility. For a single play, I think it depends on the exact situation.

If a prolonged distinct lack of intensity becomes apparent in the aforementioned anchoring player, however, it will undoubtedly affect his teammates' expulsion of energy on that end. It might actually increase a wing defender's output, for instance, as well as alter his mindset since he cannot rely on his help. The opposite wing might do the opposite or shift focus to playing risky and going for steals. Or maybe no one else changes anything for fear of a coaching reprisal, making it seem as though theyre not mentally engaged when they truly are.

Even tired teammates can "feed" off the energy of someone playing energetically, or a raucous crowd. Even if Tim and Pop said "fuck this game, doesnt matter" in the locker room, it might actually energize the team and do just the fuckin opposite bro. Individual output is an everchanging variable influenced by many factors your conclusion disregards.

[z0sa]

I can remember....those years.


Just for the record..in my mind these Bonner's situations are true and happen every day.


:toast
http://ballerball.com/kawhi-leonard-gives-matt-bonner-his-phone/

Jesus wept.

[DMC]

So you think a lack of focus or "energy" in the perceived defensive anchor would have no effect on the effort put forth by another player involved in the play? Thats a possibility. For a single play, I think it depends on the exact situation.

Having an effect isn't the same as causing it. When a person calls in sick at a place of employment, it affects the rest of the staff because they have to make up for that person's absence. If everyone else decided to go home as well after one person called in, that's not because the person called in but because the rest of the staff decided collectively to leave. I'd look more toward why they all wanted to leave instead of looking at the first call in and blaming that person but to each his own I guess.


If a prolonged distinct lack of intensity becomes apparent in the aforementioned anchoring player, however, it will undoubtedly affect his teammates' expulsion of energy on that end. It might actually increase a wing defender's output, for instance, as well as alter his mindset since he cannot rely on his help. The opposite wing might do the opposite or shift focus to playing risky and going for steals. Or maybe no one else changes anything for fear of a coaching reprisal, making it seem as though theyre not mentally engaged when they truly are.

Or maybe there's more money to be made by stretching out a series.


Even tired teammates can "feed" off the energy of someone playing energetically, or a raucous crowd. Even if Tim and Pop said "fuck this game, doesnt matter" in the locker room, it might actually energize the team and do just the fuckin opposite bro. Individual output is an everchanging variable influenced by many factors your conclusion disregards.

Wasn't changing in 4 consecutive games. Money is a great motivator, and they would lose money if they won out early. Unlike most sports, the NBA loses money if a team is overwhelmingly efficient and sweeps a series. Think of what the NBA makes off of just one playoff game. Now image leaving 3 on the table x 4 series x how ever many games per series are going. That's likely well over a billion dollars being lost to just having sweeps vs 7 game series.

[ElNono]

Ah, yes, the most heckled player in the League, starting at center. Those were strange times, for they usually centered on the unsolvable plus minus conundrum. Remember all of us, even timvp being at a loss? It's like (regular season) basketball's version of pi.

Sandwich Hunter definitely deserves the honor of having his practice jersey retired tbh. He really tore his teammates up in the shoot around when he had a starting gig. :lobt2:

We weren't good enough, and Matty was the punching bag... I blame Xenu