RealGM Top 100 List #16

[An Unbiased Fan]

Why Stockton or Nash over Isiah?

Stockton has a major longevity edge over Isiah, and was the better facilitator. Isiah's not far off though.

Nash had a great run from 05-07', but.....Stockton put up that kind of production for 15 years. Not to mention that Stock was a superior off the ball player, and defender as compared to Nash. People rave about Nash getting 50/40/90, but it's not like Stock wasn't far off that mark either, and his career TS% is actually better than Nash's.

[JordansBulls]

Why Stockton or Nash over Isiah?

Stockton has a major longevity edge over Isiah, and was the better facilitator. Isiah's not far off though.

Nash had a great run from 05-07', but.....Stockton put up that kind of production for 15 years. Not to mention that Stock was a superior off the ball player, and defender as compared to Nash. People rave about Nash getting 50/40/90, but it's not like Stock wasn't far off that mark either, and his career TS% is actually better than Nash's.

Isiah won titles with a franchise that never won and despite that did so without having a guy as good as Malone on his team.

[FJS]

Vote Moses
nomination Stockton

About Isiah and Stockton and not having Malone.
Sometimes it's better to have a deep roster than 2 top level guys.
Isiah, Dumars, Dantley/Aguirre, Laimbeer, Vinnie, Rodman, Mahorn, Edwards, Salley were a pretty deep team, better than any Malone/Stockton roster.

[Baller 24]

Why Stockton or Nash over Isiah?

Stockton has a major longevity edge over Isiah, and was the better facilitator. Isiah's not far off though.

Nash had a great run from 05-07', but.....Stockton put up that kind of production for 15 years. Not to mention that Stock was a superior off the ball player, and defender as compared to Nash. People rave about Nash getting 50/40/90, but it's not like Stock wasn't far off that mark either, and his career TS% is actually better than Nash's.

The most emphasis throughout this entire project has been dependent on peak or the "better player". Peaks always trumps everything, the fact that Stockton was never CLOSE to being a top 5 player in any relative season should be enough to convince otherwise. Stockton gives you many great years, Isaiah, Payton, Nash, & Kidd might not give you the same "many" amount of seasons, but they'll throw in there elite close to super-star level impacted seasons that Stockton was never able to contribute. I'll say it again, peak always trumps everything…for the love of god Steve Nash has been a part of 5 of the 11 greatest offensive in the history of the league, alone.

And if we're bringing in total career categories into this discussion, than where the **** is Mark Jackson? Can I get a nomination for Mark Jackson plz?

[Baller 24]

About Isaiah and Stockton and not having Malone.
Sometimes it's better to have a deep roster than 2 top level guys.
Isiah, Dumars, Dantley/Aguirre, Laimbeer, Vinnie, Rodman, Mahorn, Edwards, Salley were a pretty deep team, better than any Malone/Stockton roster.

Yeah, but there has to be a player that can give you the "it" factor at anytime to take you to the glory land (championships). No one, aside from Thomas possessed that ability on the Pistons. He's the reason you have the *biggest* chance. How is Stockton at his best better than viewed by objective evidence the greatest defensive anchor of all-time (Ewing)? or one of the greatest offensive players ever, who anchored 5 of the top 11 greatest offenses ever (Nash) ?

[Laimbeer]

Vote Moses
nomination Stockton

About Isiah and Stockton and not having Malone.
Sometimes it's better to have a deep roster than 2 top level guys.
Isiah, Dumars, Dantley/Aguirre, Laimbeer, Vinnie, Rodman, Mahorn, Edwards, Salley were a pretty deep team, better than any Malone/Stockton roster.

Two things - Isiah's competition was tougher, and he actually won titles.

[Sedale Threatt]

Absolutely despised him -- the whole team, frankly -- but if I had to pick one guy whose value wasn't accurately measured by numbers, it might be Isiah. He was just fierce. Give him six more inches and there's no doubt in my mind he would have been a top 10 player.

[mysticbb]

Absolutely despised him -- the whole team, frankly -- but if I had to pick one guy whose value wasn't accurately measured by numbers, it might be Isiah.

But if that is the case, why did the Detroit Pistons played basically as well with Thomas as without him in 1991? The Pistons without him they played at a 3.0 level, with him at 3.1. That isn't a big difference. In 1994 we see the same, no difference at all whether Thomas played or not, the Pistons played even slightly better in games without Thomas.

The fact is that the Pistons improved defensively when they started winning, and they improved after they added several defensive minded players like Laimbeer, Dumars or Rodman, that had little to do with Thomas. And those players played hardly better defensively, because of Thomas. ;)

[Dr Positivity]

Mystic, I'm not sure about the offensive rebounding coorelation stat you posted.

The thing about offensive rebounds is there's two ways to get a high team % of them. One is not sacrificing anything defensively but having strong enough Oreb guys to get them anyways. For example the 2011 Bulls were the 4th best Oreb team who obviously weren't sacrificing anything in transition defense.

The other way is to overly crash the boards at the cost of transition defense. A good example is the 2011 Toronto Raptors ranking 8th in Oreb% in 2011 despite having the worst offensive rebounding starting C in the league. I can tell you from watching them that the Raptors transition defense was a complete joke this year, especially considering Bargnani was the guy back the most. Also, the Kings and Twolves were 1 and 2 in Oreb, Wizards and Pistons were top 10. The Twolves I know had a similarly awful transition d, didn't see the other teams much

I would think that Oreb coorelation stat is effected by the Twolves and Raptors of the world where the offensive rebounding doesn't help them. But in the case of a 2011 Bulls, it does.

I would say having a dominant offensive rebounder still helps a lot because it gives you more options. For example you could put Moses up front and leave the perimeter players back only playing transition defense, plus having Moses means the other team has to leave players back to Dreb. A good example of this is 93-95 Rockets having one of the league's best offensive rebounders but being just about the worst Oreb team in the league. Does that mean Hakeem's Orebs didn't help them? I would say no - it allowed them to do other things like protect transition baskets. A dominant Oreber might help perimeter transition defense, just like a dominant scorer may help you defensively because it allows you to put on specialists or helps the players on the floor expend more energy defensively, etc.

This is why I have a tough time separating ORTG/DRTG/eFG/Oreb/Dreb/FT rate for teams and figuring out players impacts that way, because things players on the court gets spread out to other factors, just by his teammates being forced to do different things without it. Eg. The Cavs dropping as much defensively this year as offensively. I've heard some try to argue that means Lebron is the difference between top 6 and bottom 6 defensively. No way. Lebron leaving left a defensive hole for more reasons than his individual play - his team had to expend a lot more energy and focus offensively, they gave up halfway through most of the games if not before the game because they knew they were going to lose, they had to go extremely small most of the year and play Gibson/Mo/Parker/Jamison type lineups, more possessions ending in a missed shot leads to fastbreak points, defenses could have more legs offensively without the defensive pressure put on them, less players getting in foul trouble, Byron had to weight far more prep into offense than Brown did last year, opponent coaches pretty much didn't have to prep defensively against the Cavs at all, etc. I think there's a reason why all the best defensive teams usually have star offensive players on it - stars make it easier to play defense for all these reasons

[An Unbiased Fan]

Why Stockton or Nash over Isiah?

Stockton has a major longevity edge over Isiah, and was the better facilitator. Isiah's not far off though.

Nash had a great run from 05-07', but.....Stockton put up that kind of production for 15 years. Not to mention that Stock was a superior off the ball player, and defender as compared to Nash. People rave about Nash getting 50/40/90, but it's not like Stock wasn't far off that mark either, and his career TS% is actually better than Nash's.

The most emphasis throughout this entire project has been dependent on peak or the "better player". Peaks always trumps everything, the fact that Stockton was never CLOSE to being a top 5 player in any relative season should be enough to convince otherwise. Stockton gives you many great years, Isaiah, Payton, Nash, & Kidd might not give you the same "many" amount of seasons, but they'll throw in there elite close to super-star level impacted seasons that Stockton was never able to contribute. I'll say it again, peak always trumps everything…for the love of god Steve Nash has been a part of 5 of the 11 greatest offensive in the history of the league, alone.

And if we're bringing in total career categories into this discussion, than where the **** is Mark Jackson? Can I get a nomination for Mark Jackson plz?

I think you're underrating Stockton quite a bit. He was an original Dream Teamer for a reason, and leaps and bounds better than Mark Jackson. And when I speak of longevity, I'm talking about elite years, not just the length of his career.

Stockton vs Nash:

1) From 88'-95', Stockton dropped 12+ apg for 8 straight years. Nash's best season was 11.6. Stockton led the league in apg 9 straight years, Nash did it 5 times. Stockton led the league in AST% 15 times, while Nash did it 4 times.

2) Nash was never a 50/40/90 guy before PHX(half his career), nor had 8.8+ apg before he came to PHX. Some rave about his team's ORtg, but....it's not like Dallas fell off much without him. And it should be noted that Nash has always played on offensively structured teams with multiple offensive weapons.

Does anyone really believe that Nash would have turned a Sloan coached team with Jeff Malone as the 3rd option, into an offensive juggernaut?

3) Stockton is the superior defender, and much better off the ball.

4) I don't see how Nash is above Isiah, Kidd, or even Payton, frankly. He had a nice 3 year run in a crazy SSOL system, but didn't put up the elite years that the other guys did.

[Laimbeer]

Absolutely despised him -- the whole team, frankly -- but if I had to pick one guy whose value wasn't accurately measured by numbers, it might be Isiah.

But if that is the case, why did the Detroit Pistons played basically as well with Thomas as without him in 1991? The Pistons without him they played at a 3.0 level, with him at 3.1. That isn't a big difference. In 1994 we see the same, no difference at all whether Thomas played or not, the Pistons played even slightly better in games without Thomas.

The fact is that the Pistons improved defensively when they started winning, and they improved after they added several defensive minded players like Laimbeer, Dumars or Rodman, that had little to do with Thomas. And those players played hardly better defensively, because of Thomas.

Defense is as much about effort and culture as it is about ability. Rodman thrived in strong cultures under Isiah and Jordan. He came uncorked in others. Remember he was a kid and part time on the title teams. Laimbeer's defense certainly wasn't from great natural ability.

You also still need something on the other end of the court, and Isiah was the catalyst of the offense, as well as being a pretty underrated defender.

[mysticbb]

I would say having a dominant offensive rebounder still helps a lot because it gives you more options. For example you could put Moses up front and leave the perimeter players back only playing transition defense, plus having Moses means the other team has to leave players back to Dreb. A good example of this is 93-95 Rockets having one of the league's best offensive rebounders but being just about the worst Oreb team in the league. Does that mean Hakeem's Orebs didn't help them? I would say no - it allowed them to do other things. A dominant Oreber might help perimeter transition defense, just like a dominant scorer may help you defensively because it allows you to put on specialists or helps the players on the floor expend more energy defensively, etc.

I agree, but for Olajuwon it showed up in the results, for Moses Malone it didn't. That is the difference here. For sure you can have dominant offensive rebounding and be good, the stats don't say that it can't be, they just say that the effect is not that important in average and other stats are more related to the scoring margin than offensive rebounding. The thing is to determine whether it is helpful or not, and for Moses Malone the data suggest that his impact even at peak level wasn't as great as his boxscore numbers are letting us believe.

Some want to use the 76ers championship in 1983 as the proof of Malone's impact. Now, imagine we are putting Kevin Love from last season on the Spurs and they go on and win the championship while Love puts up 20/15. When they have Duncan and Love, they play at +8 level, while they play at 0 level without Duncan, and they are at +6 without Love. Would that championship be the proof of Love being so impactful or would that just mean that the Spurs are a really good team even without Love? Wouldn't the result suggest that Duncan might be more important than Love?
And that's what happened in 1983 with the 76ers. They were already a really good team and Malone basically added just +2.5 to them, but Erving made a clearly bigger difference as we can see in the result with and without him.

Btw, the numbers for Duncan are based a bit on the results of the Spurs last season with and without him. They were -3 in those 6 games without him and +6.4 in 76 games with him.

[mysticbb]

Defense is as much about effort and culture as it is about ability. Rodman thrived in strong cultures under Isiah and Jordan. He came uncorked in others. Remember he was a kid and part time on the title teams. Laimbeer's defense certainly wasn't from great natural ability.

Well, that might have an effect, but would have won Thomas a championship in say Sacramento? Would he also have pushed guys like Thorpe, Theus, Smith, etc. to be better defender?

You also still need something on the other end of the court, and Isiah was the catalyst of the offense,

True, and the results are saying that the Pistons with Thomas indeed played better offensively,

as well as being a pretty underrated defender.

but they became worse defensively. Why?

[Sedale Threatt]

But if that is the case, why did the Detroit Pistons played basically as well with Thomas as without him in 1991? The Pistons without him they played at a 3.0 level, with him at 3.1. That isn't a big difference. In 1994 we see the same, no difference at all whether Thomas played or not, the Pistons played even slightly better in games without Thomas.

The fact is that the Pistons improved defensively when they started winning, and they improved after they added several defensive minded players like Laimbeer, Dumars or Rodman, that had little to do with Thomas. And those players played hardly better defensively, because of Thomas.

While is why I said -- if I had to pick one guy whose value wasn't accurately measured by NUMBERS, it might be Isiah.

[mysticbb]

While is why I said -- if I had to pick one guy whose value wasn't accurately measured by NUMBERS, it might be Isiah.

But if that doesn't matter whether Thomas played or not, why would you pick him as a "better" player? He might have been a good coach at that time already, but I thought we are making a list about the best players? Maybe we should start nominating Don Nelson and Phil Jackson soon, both were vital parts of championship teams and were even able to show their transcendent abilities later in their coaching career?

[Fencer reregistered]

Pettit was one of the most respected people in the NBA, the first on his team to help black players like Lenny Wilkens deal with the racism of St. Louis and so classy that, according to Tommy Heinsohn, even the refs called him "Mr. Pettit." Cousy had some issues that came to light later when he coached, purportedly dumping Oscar Robertson because he didn't like his game or the fact that Oscar was considered by most the GOAT PG ever and having trouble with other players as well.

Cousy deserves the same racial bonus. When Russell took a train alone, due to a racist prohibition from staying in a hotel -- he didn't actually take it alone. Cousy went with him. It meant a lot to Russell.

(Confession: I don't know why K. C. Jones isn't part of that particular story, since he was on the team at the same time. Perhaps injury?)

Heinsohn was the guy who probably was a bit racist, just not seriously enough so that he couldn't suppress it and relate well to his black teammates.

[ronnymac2]

Isiah was a bad coach and worse GM. Don't even joke about that...

These regular season on/off numbers- when players missed games or whatever- are nearly useless to me. I see value in APM, RAPM, etc., because that more clearly shows interaction with teammates over longer periods of time. We get whole seasons to see a player's value to a team. The plus/minus family can tell us something.

But this on/off stuff resulting from player injury where stars miss entire games...man, how can I believe anything these numbers say? Anything can happen in a few regular season games. In the regular season, you don't get to gameplan against a team like you do in the playoffs. If a bad team from the West is on a hot streak, they can still easily take out the best team in the East during a random regular season game for a multitude of reasons: The great Eastern team isn't motivated, a player gets hot, matchup issues (that could easily be remedied with postseason gameplanning), coaches not taking gambles with foul trouble, limiting minutes, a player injury that you don't hear about, the flu, a team playing way better on the road or at home, etc.

I'll also bring up an idea that I've talked about before. Some teams are better built to lose a star player over the grind of an 82-game regular season. Other teams aren't equipped to handle injuries, but if they have their irreplaceable components relatively healthy and set (a reasonable hope unless you're from Portland or something), they have a greater chance at winning in the NBA playoffs than the team equipped to lose its star in the REG SEA. It's about team construction. That doesn't necessarily make a player better or worse. It has to do with valuable to his respective team. These players aren't being put into the same situations (in terms of neither talent nor fit), so looking at their value this way doesn't make much sense when deciding who the BEST players are.

Regular season results don't matter that much in the end. The regular season is for a team's habit formation and familiarity; the playoffs give us the best indication of which team is the best (not a be-all-end-all, but it's what we have).

[Baller 24]

I think you're underrating Stockton quite a bit.

No, I'm pretty sure I'm not.

He was an original Dream Teamer for a reason

And your point is? So was Christian Laettner.

and leaps and bounds better than Mark Jackson. And when I speak of longevity, I'm talking about elite years, not just the length of his career.

Yes, but those are elite seasons where he never close to being an MVP caliber player. Nash, Payton, Thomas, & Kidd were. That's the difference.

Stockton vs Nash:

1) From 88'-95', Stockton dropped 12+ apg for 8 straight years. Nash's best season was 11.6. Stockton led the league in apg 9 straight years, Nash did it 5 times. Stockton led the league in AST% 15 times, while Nash did it 4 times.

I'm really confused why these things are remotely relevant when discussing impact of the player at their most elite forms. How about this, Stockton was never a top 5 MVP candidate, why is it that despite hitting these "assist" numbers, the Jazz were never close to being a team offensively on par with ANY of Nash's Mavs OR Suns teams from a historic perspective?

Why is it that from a accolade perspective (since you love hyping your buddy Bryant on accolades), Stockton was only a top 10 MVP vote getter a mere three times? IF Stockton was so elite why was he never regarded as a top 5 player ever in the league, or close to being considered a superstar? Why is it that the Jazz hit elite marks in terms of peak play reaching the finals on multiple occasions when Stockton was on the clear drastic decline in production? Why is it that even during Stockton's most elite seasons that guys like Porter & Price rank ahead of him in MVP voting? Why is it that his own teammate in every SINGLE season they've been together Malone's always been ahead?

2) Nash was never a 50/40/90 guy before PHX(half his career), nor had 8.8+ apg before he came to PHX. Some rave about his team's ORtg,

Nash's efficiency goes up as his volume goes up once he arrives in Pho, why is it that? Shouldn't it be correlated the other way around? Nash was never utilized in the same concept of completely letting him "run" the offense until he arrived in Pho, why is it that he hit historic marks once Don Nelson let him take more control in '04? Or he continued to hit historic marks offensive with the Suns during multiple seasons with various coaches, why is it that?

it's not like Dallas fell off much without him.

Huh? Offensively in 2004, the Mavs are considered the 6th greatest offensive team ever, where they hit historic marks, and if you're focusing relative to that season the Mavs hit a historic mark where they were considered 3rd (You know why they're 6th now? Yeah, cause of the '07, '06 and '10 Suns).

And it should be noted that Nash has always played on offensively structured teams with multiple offensive weapons.

This is an excuse. I'll counter that statement by saying prove your point, you're just pulling statements out of your ass right now, I literally want to see an argument where there is presentable objective evidence backing up your claim.

Why is it that he's hit historic marks offensively with 2 different offensive systems? Why is it that various players that play alongside Nash (Amar'e, Bell, Shaq, Marion, Barbosa, Johnson) hit highs in efficiency, but take drastic dips without him?

Why is it that even without the Suns most lethal offensive weapon in '06, the Suns replicated performances from the prior season, and relative to 2006, set historic marks offensively (2nd greatest offensive team ever). He clearly wasn't properly utilized in Dallas, not sure if you were alive or watching basketball then though. Because all of your claims are wildly inconsistent with your postings.

Does anyone really believe that Nash would have turned a Sloan coached team with Jeff Malone as the 3rd option, into an offensive juggernaut?

?

He's done it various times, to various offensive schemes, in various mind-you historic levels of play offensively. Stockton's Jazz in his 19/20 seasons haven't even come close.

3) Stockton is the superior defender, and much better off the ball.

Nash is much more of a superior and much more lethal scorer, and more efficient in consideration to elite seasons (2002 and after) on more volume. Yet at the same time his "superior" defense cost him multiple series where the opposing point guard absolutely lights him up, Ex. Terry Potter WCF '92 26PPG/8.3APG/4RPG/55 FG%/46.8 3PT%

4) I don't see how Nash is above Isiah, Kidd, or even Payton, frankly. He had a nice 3 year run in a crazy SSOL system

What?

Dude Nash was a critical part of 5 of the top 11 greatest offensives ever, while taking into account that it was through 3 different offensive schemes and coaching strategies. It goes beyond the 3 year run from '05 to '07.

but didn't put up the elite years that the other guys did.

Yet, peak still trumps everything. Nash still gives you the same 3-4 seasons of elite level of basketball play that Kidd, Payton, & Isiah give you. The arguments go beyond that discussion. My point is what do all of the players have in common?

They all have played elite level OR superstar level of basketball, something John Stockton hasn't. I'll say it again if you want a player that will give you many many great years go ahead and take Stockton. If you want a player that will give you many great years, while giving 3-4 seasons of elite superstar level play, you take any of the following.

[TMACFORMVP]

EDIT - Baller kinda just said the same things I did, but beat me to the punch, lol.

I'm with Baller on this one; Stockton has no business being discussed as a nominee at this point. His peak just isn't as good as his contemporaries and his longevity doesn't do enough to make that up.

1.) Stockton's efficiency. This is a big reason why many people have him over Isiah or Payton - yet we don't consider that Stockton's efficiency and all round game went down across the board in nearly every post season. He's had seven seasons with ten or more playoff games, and he shoots 46% from the floor, along with 14 points and 10 assists. That's terrific production, but let's be honest, with not such hard hitting efficiency, the others PG's have much higher volume and the ability to take over games by scoring the ball as well. In fact during his peak, in 5/6 of his post seasons, he shot under 46% from the field.

2.) Stockton's defense. He was a good defender, he disrupted the passing lanes, and generally limited opponents assists, but anyone claiming that he was better than good is stretching the truth. He was a subpar man defender that could be taken advantage of defensively as well. The 93' Playoffs comes to mind, in the WCF, Terry Porter absolutely murdered the Jazz offensively.

Game One: 26 points, 8 assists on 8-12.
Game Two: 41 points, 7 assists on 12-14.
Game Three: 13 points, 7 assists on 3-13.
Game Four: 34 points, 7 assists on 9-16.
Game Five: 24 points, 11 assists on 8-12.
Game Six: 18 points, 10 assists on 6-17.

Series: 26.0 PPG, 8.3 APG on .547 from the field.

I also found it pretty interesting that in the years Stockton led the league in assists (9), his Jazz teams only finished in the top 5 in ORTG three times, including outside the top 10 four times. I think that's also a big reason we consider Nash to be a more effective offensive player - not only for his greater ability to take over down the stretch (and more a threat on the pick and roll, IMO), but Nash since his Dallas days has been to anchor the top offensive team in the NBA for nearly a decade. Hell, even Isiah has had a year in which he led his team to the top ORTG as well.

In case anyone is interested, here's the Jazz #'s over the course of those seasons. The first nine seasons were the years he led the league in assists.

Code: Select all

87-88: 16th in ORTG.
88-89: 17th in ORTG.
89-90: 10th in ORTG.
90-91: 11th in ORTG.
91-92: 4th in ORTG.
92-93: 7th in ORTG.
93-94: 7th in ORTG.
94-95: 4th in ORTG.
95-96: 2nd in ORTG.
96-97: 2nd in ORTG.
97-98: 1st in ORTG.

Overall, I'd say guys like Nash, Frazier, Payton, and Isiah had decently more impactful peaks, with more significant career resumes that trump the longevity edge Stockton possess. Once a guy like Paul, and even Deron get a few seasons under their belt, I think we could apply the same thing to them as well.

[mysticbb]

Isiah was a bad coach and worse GM. Don't even joke about that...

:)

These regular season on/off numbers- when players missed games or whatever- are nearly useless to me. I see value in APM, RAPM, etc., because that more clearly shows interaction with teammates over longer periods of time. We get whole seasons to see a player's value to a team. The plus/minus family can tell us something.

Well, the numbers I used for Thomas are based on his 34 missed games in 1991 and the 24 games missed in 1994. That is not much different anymore. We have also some examples in which it showed a good correlation to those On/Off numbers, thus it might be not completely useless.

But this on/off stuff resulting from player injury where stars miss entire games...man, how can I believe anything these numbers say? Anything can happen in a few regular season games. In the regular season, you don't get to gameplan against a team like you do in the playoffs. If a bad team from the West is on a hot streak, they can still easily take out the best team in the East during a random regular season game for a multitude of reasons: The great Eastern team isn't motivated, a player gets hot, matchup issues (that could easily be remedied with postseason gameplanning), coaches not taking gambles with foul trouble, limiting minutes, a player injury that you don't hear about, the flu, a team playing way better on the road or at home, etc.

Sample size is an issue, and we can at least adjust the results for strength of schedule. For home games I count +3.6 as the home bias and for road games -3.6 as the initial value. In that way I can compensate for home or road heavy schedules. Well, for rest we really can't compensate, but at least we can get an impression.

Regular season results don't matter that much in the end. The regular season is for a team's habit formation and familiarity; the playoffs give us the best indication of which team is the best (not a be-all-end-all, but it's what we have).

I completely agree, and I would like to see more people are looking at the performance in the playoffs. But somehow a lot of people seem to ignore that unless someone was part of a championship team.
BUT, some of the stuff you mentioned can happen in games (like injuries, bad or hot shooting, etc.) can also happen in a playoff game. ;)