Reply With Quote
Philo
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 ty 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.
Philo
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.
That word that you use, I do not think it means what you think it means.Debunking
And btw, just in case you weren't clear, your thesis is that the Spurs would prefer not to win playoff games. Genius!
No, Balky... My thesis was that the Spurs would prefer to not win that particular playoff game.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!
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.
It's ok that you aren't able to extend your logical thinking very far; I got that from your OP.
Pop: They made more shots
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.
Keep spinning that broken wheel.It's ok that you aren't able to extend your logical thinking very far; I got that from your OP.
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.
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
Awful take.
Synergy?
It's crazy to think that group energy is not a real thing when it comes to a professional team..
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.
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.
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 brought the team down. The "team" isn't a separate en y. It's just a convenient name for the group of individuals.
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.
terrible take
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 compe ive 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Youre completely ignoring psychology by approaching this from a purely physical angle.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
