Debunking the "Better Energy" Lie

[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]

[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]

Yeah Spurs walked down and ed 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.

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.

[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/heal...l-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

[z0sa]

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

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.

[wildchild]

I can remember....those years.

I love Bonner. He is ing down to earth as . 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 leist 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

http://ballerball.com/kawhi-leonard-...ner-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 " this game, doesnt matter" in the locker room, it might actually energize the team and do just the in 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.



http://ballerball.com/kawhi-leonard-...ner-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 " this game, doesnt matter" in the locker room, it might actually energize the team and do just the in 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.

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