sp6r=underrated wrote:Kaima wrote:I find it odd as well.
Choking isn't just about the last minutes of a game. It is about performing up to your talent level, and beating the teams you are supposed to beat. How do you fall down 0-2 to the 93 Lakers?
But equally, what about the fact that they won three straight?
I understand your point, my issue is where to make the cutoff between underachievement and choking.
The Suns go down 0-2, then win out. The 94 Sonics go up 2-0, then lose out.
Are the Sonics chokers at all if they finish the series in five?
Did the Lakers choke in 00 when they let the Kings push them to a deciding game?
Choking almost becomes the norm if we go far enough with this. And the question then is, what's the true meaning and value of a choke?
This isn't just a question for you, but an issue of how easily we all throw that word around.
I agree with your premise, that it's beyond the moment wherein the initial choke occurs. But I part ways, in that I think it's how you respond.
It's back to the Nick Anderson outlook. A sequence that's so much bigger than itself as far as fallout.
Mental weakness is allowing the moment to destroy. Mental strength, win or lose broadly, is coming back from the crushing event.
I'd say he has a valid point about underachievement, especially looking at the talent level (between teams that over and underachieve, based on roster depth, I'd say the early-mid 90s Suns are the latter), but choking can be a rather vague precedent.
Did the Rockets choke because they went down three-one? Or is that not possible for them, because of their record?
But that returns to an argument and follow-through of underachievement leading to the conclusion of choking, right?
Did the Rockets overachieve in the playoffs, or massively underachieve during the season?
The Drexler trade made that season for them.
The Rockets overachieved in the playoffs.
But that's only based on their regular season record.
By the standard applied, isn't it possible that they underachieved more than they overachieved? And does that then make them chokers, based on the Barkley argument?
There is a big problem with the idea the Drexler trade made the Rockets. They didn't pick it up at all after the trade.
But like so many, I'm looking at what he did in the playoffs.
Houston loses the Utah series without Drexler stepping up. Most likely, they lose the Phoenix series.
And as it turned out, those were their two toughest opponents.
They were the champs and maybe the greatest Cinderella story in NBA history. Good for them but let's not pretend this was anything other than one of the weaker champs in NBA history.
But that's again based on the precedent of the regular season.
The other side of it is that they beat three 60 win teams, one 59 win team, and all without home court.
That's a pretty strong record. Granted, they had specific advantages, including at least one key injury. Probably two, in that Utah was without a starting C.
The fact that the injuries were suffered by Houston's toughest opponents does raise a flag.
The Sonics always loom large as far as Houston's titles as well.
But the striking thing is that the con arguments are far more typical than the pro.
