Times when single games or quarters disproportionately change a series stats

[falcolombardi]

Basically i was thinking about how often a team loses 2-4 and still outscor3s their rival because they went off for one single game (think 2016 thunder vs spurs)

Are there player equivalent cases where a player "garbage time" or very specific games padded/ruined their stats?

Like someone has a great 5 games but goes 2-24 in the sixth one and it tanked his series numbers?

Or a guy had a meh series but went off in one of those and "padded" his series averages way too much?

One example that comes to mind is jordan game 2 last quarter vs pistons in 91 giving his series scoring averages a huge boost in a game they had a big advantage on

other example in the losing end is lebron 2014 finals having so much garvag.

The players are not necesarrily having to be trying to pad but a lot of their damage ended happening in losing games or garbage time

[parsnips33]

Steph game 2 of the 2015 finals

Shot 50% from the field and 46% from 3 in games 1 + 3-6

Include game 2 and his numbers go down to 44% from the field and 38% from 3

[migya]

Michael Jordan:

1986 ecr1 v Boston - 19pts game 3 of 3, his average for series was still 43.7pts, 50.5fg%. With a 30pt game 3 his average is nearly 48pts.

1987 ecr1 v Boston - 30pts, 9/30 game 3 of 3, his average for series was still 35.7 pts, 41.7fg%. With 15/30 in game 3 his average is 40pts and 50fg%.

1989 ecr2 v NY - 15pts, 7/17 game 2 of 6, his average for series was still 35.7pts, 55fg%. With a 30pt game 2 at 50fg% his average is nearly 39pts.

1989 ecf v Detroit - 18pts, 4/8 game 5 of 6, his average was still 29.7pts. With a 30pt game 5 his average is over 30pts.

1990 ecf v Detroit - 20pts, 5/16 game 2 of 7, his average for series was still 32.1pts, 46.7fg%. With a 30pt game 2 at 50fg% his average is over 33pts and 50fg%.

1991 ecf v Detroit - 22pts, 6/15 game 1 of 4, his average for series was still 29.8pts, 53.5fg%. With a 26pt, 8/15 game 1 his average is over 30pts and almost 55fg%.

1992 ecr2 v NY - 21pts, 9/25 game 6 of 7, his average for series was still 31.3pts, 47.7fg%. With a 29pt, 13/25 game 6 his average is over 32pts and 50fg%.


There are more from Jordan but can't be bothered writing more.

[70sFan]

Wilt had a monster 46/34 game in the last game 5 of 1966 ECF, which gave him a huge boost in overall averages. He had a very mediocre series before that.

[coastalmarker99]

Wilt had a monster 46/34 game in the last game 5 of 1966 ECF, which gave him a huge boost in overall averages. He had a very mediocre series before that.

He was sick with a fever in games 1 and 2 which explains his mediocre play.


Then once he got better he was outstanding from games 3 to 5 despite being swarmed all the time by Boston who furiously tried denying him the ball.

Watch on YouTube

For example, at the 18.33-minute mark of this video, Wally Jones is horribly bricking a wide-open shot before Wilt grabs the offensive rebounds and slams it down.


Everybody besides Wilt on that 76ers team didn't show up offensively in that series.

As Wilt's teammates shot the following: Greer was at .32.5. Walker was at .37.5. Jackson was at .42.9. and Jones was at .32.5. plus Cunningham was at .16.1.

[OhayoKD]

One example that comes to mind is jordan game 2 last quarter vs pistons in 91 giving his series scoring averages a huge boost in a game they had a big advantage on

other example in the losing end is lebron 2014 finals having so much garvag.

The players are not necesarrily having to be trying to pad but a lot of their damage ended happening in losing games or garbage time

IIRC, Lebron's effiency in the ecf and the finals of the 2014 yoffs was much higher in blowouts(wins or losses) than in close games.

On a similar note, had Jordan's numbers stayed the same during "garbage time" in the 2nd game of the ECF, as it had during the first three quarters, Jordan would have averaged roughly 24 ppg vs the pistons as opposed to 30.

Unsure how much we much should weigh this, but it probably deserves some attention in how we assess these seasons. Especially when people insist 2014 was the best offensive season in Lebron's career or that 1991 is the greatest playoff run in history.

[70sFan]

Wilt had a monster 46/34 game in the last game 5 of 1966 ECF, which gave him a huge boost in overall averages. He had a very mediocre series before that.

He was sick with a fever in games 1 and 2 which explains his mediocre play.


Then once he got better he was outstanding from games 3 to 5 despite being swarmed all the time by Boston.

Watch on YouTube

Take for example at the 18.33-minute mark of this video Wally jones horribly bricking a wide-open shot before Wilt grabs the offensive rebounds and slams it down.

Yeah, we can find explainations for his weak play. Most all-time great players don't play badly without any reasons. I just mentioned it because this one game gave a big boost to his overall averages.

[coastalmarker99]

For Wilt.

Game 6 of the 1968 ECF disproportionately changed his series stats.

Had he put up 32 or 34 points on over 50 percent instead of having 20 on 35%

His numbers for the series would look a lot better despite game seven.

[Dutchball97]

One example that comes to mind is jordan game 2 last quarter vs pistons in 91 giving his series scoring averages a huge boost in a game they had a big advantage on

other example in the losing end is lebron 2014 finals having so much garvag.

The players are not necesarrily having to be trying to pad but a lot of their damage ended happening in losing games or garbage time

IIRC, Lebron's effiency in the ecf and the finals of the 2014 yoffs was much higher in blowouts(wins or losses) than in close games.

On a similar note, had Jordan's numbers stayed the same during "garbage time" in the 2nd game of the ECF, as it had during the first three quarters, Jordan would have averaged roughly 24 ppg vs the pistons as opposed to 30.

Unsure how much we much should weigh this, but it probably deserves some attention in how we assess these seasons. Especially when people insist 2014 was the best offensive season in Lebron's career or that 1991 is the greatest playoff run in history.

The Pistons had 36 points in the 4th quarter, MJ doesn't go off and they quite possibly lose that game. I know people have been clawing lately to try to talk Jordan down but having a strong 4th quarter in the ECF against a notoriously tough defensive team should be an argument for his greatness, not against.

[70sFan]

One example that comes to mind is jordan game 2 last quarter vs pistons in 91 giving his series scoring averages a huge boost in a game they had a big advantage on

other example in the losing end is lebron 2014 finals having so much garvag.

The players are not necesarrily having to be trying to pad but a lot of their damage ended happening in losing games or garbage time

IIRC, Lebron's effiency in the ecf and the finals of the 2014 yoffs was much higher in blowouts(wins or losses) than in close games.

On a similar note, had Jordan's numbers stayed the same during "garbage time" in the 2nd game of the ECF, as it had during the first three quarters, Jordan would have averaged roughly 24 ppg vs the pistons as opposed to 30.

Unsure how much we much should weigh this, but it probably deserves some attention in how we assess these seasons. Especially when people insist 2014 was the best offensive season in Lebron's career or that 1991 is the greatest playoff run in history.

The Pistons had 36 points in the 4th quarter, MJ doesn't go off and they quite possibly lose that game. I know people have been clawing lately to try to talk Jordan down but having a strong 4th quarter in the ECF against a notoriously tough defensive team should be an argument for his greatness, not against.

I agree, some people want to ignore blowout wins, but you have to build this blowout first and some games become blowouts only in the 4th quarter.

[OhayoKD]

IIRC, Lebron's effiency in the ecf and the finals of the 2014 yoffs was much higher in blowouts(wins or losses) than in close games.

On a similar note, had Jordan's numbers stayed the same during "garbage time" in the 2nd game of the ECF, as it had during the first three quarters, Jordan would have averaged roughly 24 ppg vs the pistons as opposed to 30.

Unsure how much we much should weigh this, but it probably deserves some attention in how we assess these seasons. Especially when people insist 2014 was the best offensive season in Lebron's career or that 1991 is the greatest playoff run in history.

I know people have been clawing lately to try to talk Jordan down

My comment literally opens by pointing out a potential criticism for an entire playoff run of Lebron's. Are you sure I'm the biased party here?

but having a strong 4th quarter in the ECF against a notoriously tough defensive team should be an argument for his greatness, not against.

To be clear, "having a strong 4th quarter"more or less translates to getting fouled a bunch by a team trying to make up a 16 point gap in 10 minuites. For the 90's(where 3-pointers were basically non-existent), this is very much "garbage time" territory. Accordingly, facing a defense his teamamtes battered largely without him, Jordan's effiency and volume skyrocketed. It would be one thing if this was a result of Jordan suddenly going crazy on jumpers, but this was more or less just the pistons fouling him a bunch.

And no, the 90 pistons were a notriously tough defensive team, paticulalry when they faced non-helios(bird and jordan led offenses collapsed against the pistons while the Magic-led lakers excelled). The 91 pistons were a shell of their former selves who the Bulls were battering for half the series despite Jordan offering little through game 1 and the first three quarters of game 2.

I think any objective analyst would acknowledge that the conditions in that 4th quarter were unusally favorable for MJ, just as they would acknowledge that what Lebron "produced" in blowouts in 2014 may not be as indicative of what he was offered relative to what he produced when the games were close.

Good analysis invites the consideration of context. Bad analysis dismisses it. Reducing this to "storng 4th quarter performance vs tough defense" is very much the latter imo.

[OhayoKD]

IIRC, Lebron's effiency in the ecf and the finals of the 2014 yoffs was much higher in blowouts(wins or losses) than in close games.

On a similar note, had Jordan's numbers stayed the same during "garbage time" in the 2nd game of the ECF, as it had during the first three quarters, Jordan would have averaged roughly 24 ppg vs the pistons as opposed to 30.

Unsure how much we much should weigh this, but it probably deserves some attention in how we assess these seasons. Especially when people insist 2014 was the best offensive season in Lebron's career or that 1991 is the greatest playoff run in history.

The Pistons had 36 points in the 4th quarter, MJ doesn't go off and they quite possibly lose that game. I know people have been clawing lately to try to talk Jordan down but having a strong 4th quarter in the ECF against a notoriously tough defensive team should be an argument for his greatness, not against.

I agree, some people want to ignore blowout wins, but you have to build this blowout first and some games become blowouts only in the 4th quarter.

The Bulls had close to a 20 point lead entering the 4th quarter. Considering the era-context, that seems like a blowout. How much credit does the conversion of free throws warrant for "building a blowout" when you already've passed that margin of victory.

[Dutchball97]

I know people have been clawing lately to try to talk Jordan down

My comment literally opens by pointing out a potential criticism for an entire playoff run of Lebron's. Are you sure I'm the biased party here?

but having a strong 4th quarter in the ECF against a notoriously tough defensive team should be an argument for his greatness, not against.

To be clear, "having a strong 4th quarter"more or less translates to getting fouled a bunch by a team trying to make up a 16 point gap in 10 minuites. For the 90's(where 3-pointers were basically non-existent), this is very much "garbage time" territory. Accordingly, facing a defense his teamamtes battered largely without him, Jordan's effiency and volume skyrocketed. It would be one thing if this was a result of Jordan suddenly going crazy on jumpers, but this was more or less just the pistons fouling him a bunch.

And no, the 90 pistons were a notriously tough defensive team, paticulalry when they faced non-helios(bird and jordan led offenses collapsed against the pistons while the Magic-led lakers excelled). The 91 pistons were a shell of their former selves who the Bulls were battering for half the series despite Jordan offering little through game 1 and the first three quarters of game 2.

I think any objective analyst would acknowledge that the conditions in that 4th quarter were unusally favorable for MJ, just as they would acknowledge that what Lebron "produced" in blowouts in 2014 may not be as indicative of what he was offered relative to what he produced when the games were close.

Good analysis invites the consideration of context. Bad analysis dismisses it. Reducing this to "storng 4th quarter performance vs tough defense" is very much the latter imo.

Just a small heads up. You're not the judge of what is good or bad analysis.

If you just see strong performance vs tough defense that's on you. As the initial statement is Jordan wasn't as good in 91 because he upped his average in the 4th of the 2nd game, I then add context of the Pistons slashing that lead down significantly and thus MJ's points not being garbage time. I'm also not sure why you'd rate field goals over free throws so heavily. Many games have been won or lost on clutch free throws and are just as integral to the game as field goals.

[OhayoKD]

My comment literally opens by pointing out a potential criticism for an entire playoff run of Lebron's. Are you sure I'm the biased party here?

To be clear, "having a strong 4th quarter"more or less translates to getting fouled a bunch by a team trying to make up a 16 point gap in 10 minuites. For the 90's(where 3-pointers were basically non-existent), this is very much "garbage time" territory. Accordingly, facing a defense his teamamtes battered largely without him, Jordan's effiency and volume skyrocketed. It would be one thing if this was a result of Jordan suddenly going crazy on jumpers, but this was more or less just the pistons fouling him a bunch.

And no, the 90 pistons were a notriously tough defensive team, paticulalry when they faced non-helios(bird and jordan led offenses collapsed against the pistons while the Magic-led lakers excelled). The 91 pistons were a shell of their former selves who the Bulls were battering for half the series despite Jordan offering little through game 1 and the first three quarters of game 2.

I think any objective analyst would acknowledge that the conditions in that 4th quarter were unusally favorable for MJ, just as they would acknowledge that what Lebron "produced" in blowouts in 2014 may not be as indicative of what he was offered relative to what he produced when the games were close.

Good analysis invites the consideration of context. Bad analysis dismisses it. Reducing this to "storng 4th quarter performance vs tough defense" is very much the latter imo.

Just a small heads up. You're not the judge of what is good or bad analysis.

As the initial statement is Jordan wasn't as good in 91 because he upped his average in the 4th of the 2nd game,

Boo, you opened up with an accusation of bias. If you want to discuss the conversations we're having here holsitically, we can discuss the conversations we're having here holistically. But if you're going to dismiss an argument due to bias, I think it's alright for me to defend it against that dismissal.

Just as you "judge" what people have offered, so can I.

I then add context of the Pistons slashing that lead down significantly and thus MJ's points not being garbage time.

Many a-lead have been slashed down in garbage time. That doesn't mean it's not garbage time.

I'm also not sure why you'd rate field goals over free throws so heavily. Many games have been won or lost on clutch free throws and are just as integral to the game as field goals.

The issue here is that those free throws weren't coming when the defense hadn't been broken down by MJ's teammates while the game was still competitive. It became a blowout, and then Jordan started racking up free throws.

Similarly the issue with 2014 Lebron is that the level of effiency he had in blowouts, wasn't coming in close games. Which opens the possibility that the game-states affected how well the spurs and pacers were defending Lebron.

[Dutchball97]

To be clear, "having a strong 4th quarter"more or less translates to getting fouled a bunch by a team trying to make up a 16 point gap in 10 minuites. For the 90's(where 3-pointers were basically non-existent), this is very much "garbage time" territory. Accordingly, facing a defense his teamamtes battered largely without him, Jordan's effiency and volume skyrocketed. It would be one thing if this was a result of Jordan suddenly going crazy on jumpers, but this was more or less just the pistons fouling him a bunch.

And no, the 90 pistons were a notriously tough defensive team, paticulalry when they faced non-helios(bird and jordan led offenses collapsed against the pistons while the Magic-led lakers excelled). The 91 pistons were a shell of their former selves who the Bulls were battering for half the series despite Jordan offering little through game 1 and the first three quarters of game 2.

I think any objective analyst would acknowledge that the conditions in that 4th quarter were unusally favorable for MJ, just as they would acknowledge that what Lebron "produced" in blowouts in 2014 may not be as indicative of what he was offered relative to what he produced when the games were close.

Good analysis invites the consideration of context. Bad analysis dismisses it. Reducing this to "storng 4th quarter performance vs tough defense" is very much the latter imo.

Just a small heads up. You're not the judge of what is good or bad analysis.

As the initial statement is Jordan wasn't as good in 91 because he upped his average in the 4th of the 2nd game,

Boo, you opened up with an accusation of bias. If you want to discuss the conversations we're having here holsitically, we can discuss the conversations we're having here holistically. But if you're going to dismiss an argument due to bias, I think it's alright for me to defend it against that dismissal.

Just as you "judge" what people have offered, so can I.

I then add context of the Pistons slashing that lead down significantly and thus MJ's points not being garbage time.

Many a-lead have been slashed down in garbage time. That doesn't mean it's not garbage time.

I'm also not sure why you'd rate field goals over free throws so heavily. Many games have been won or lost on clutch free throws and are just as integral to the game as field goals.

The issue here is that those free throws weren't coming when the defense hadn't been broken down by MJ's teammates while the game was still competitive. It became a blowout, and then Jordan started racking up free throws.

Similarly the issue with 2014 Lebron is that the level of effiency he had in blowouts, wasn't coming in close games. Which opens the possibility that the game-states affected how well the spurs and pacers were defending Lebron.

I showed you were doing what you were accusing me of, that's all.

[70sFan]

The Pistons had 36 points in the 4th quarter, MJ doesn't go off and they quite possibly lose that game. I know people have been clawing lately to try to talk Jordan down but having a strong 4th quarter in the ECF against a notoriously tough defensive team should be an argument for his greatness, not against.

I agree, some people want to ignore blowout wins, but you have to build this blowout first and some games become blowouts only in the 4th quarter.

The Bulls had close to a 20 point lead entering the 4th quarter. Considering the era-context, that seems like a blowout. How much credit does the conversion of free throws warrant for "building a blowout" when you already've passed that margin of victory.

I wouldn't call 16 points lead at the beginning of the 4th a blowout. We may disagree, but you still have to do your job in the 4th to win such game.

[OhayoKD]

I agree, some people want to ignore blowout wins, but you have to build this blowout first and some games become blowouts only in the 4th quarter.

The Bulls had close to a 20 point lead entering the 4th quarter. Considering the era-context, that seems like a blowout. How much credit does the conversion of free throws warrant for "building a blowout" when you already've passed that margin of victory.

I wouldn't call 16 points lead at the beginning of the 4th a blowout. We may disagree, but you still have to do your job in the 4th to win such game.

Well, if we were to get into the weeds of this, it would probably be a good idea to establish a baseline for what would constitute garbage time. Did any team in the 91 playoffs manage to win a game where they entered the 4th quarter traling by 16 points?

[Texas Chuck]

Well, if we were to get into the weeds of this, it would probably be a good idea to establish a baseline for what would constitute garbage time. Did any team in the 91 playoffs manage to win a game where they entered the 4th quarter traling by 16 points?

I think a better question is did any team entering the 4th leading by 16 or more points pull their regulars and put in bench warmers to start the 4th, right? Because if it truly garbage time I would expect the coaches to pull their heavy minute starters to get them rest, protect against injury, right?

Most NBA teams don't call off the dogs up 16 with a 12 point lead. Even in a lower scoring era with less 3-pt shooting.

I want to be clear I don't have a dog in the fight about the specific game being discussed. I won't pretend to be intimately familiar with a game I haven't paid mind to for 30 years. Just think there is a better way to frame what is garbage time other than did a team come back.

[OhayoKD]

Well, if we were to get into the weeds of this, it would probably be a good idea to establish a baseline for what would constitute garbage time. Did any team in the 91 playoffs manage to win a game where they entered the 4th quarter traling by 16 points?

I think a better question is did any team entering the 4th leading by 16 or more points pull their regulars and put in bench warmers to start the 4th, right? Because if it truly garbage time I would expect the coaches to pull their heavy minute starters to get them rest, protect against injury, right?

Most NBA teams don't call off the dogs up 16 with a 12 point lead. Even in a lower scoring era with less 3-pt shooting.

I want to be clear I don't have a dog in the fight about the specific game being discussed. I won't pretend to be intimately familiar with a game I haven't paid mind to for 30 years. Just think there is a better way to frame what is garbage time other than did a team come back.

That's a fair way to frame this. I wouldn't know the answer to that though I do recall the bulls pulling the starters out for a game against the sixers those playoffs at what I think was an 18 point margin in quarter 3. Garbage time might be hyperbolic, though I think it's fair to say game-states played a factor in Jordan being able to win a flurry of free throws when he wasn't able to do this when the game was truly a toss-up.

What really matters here is how much of Jordan's relative "overperformance" was a result of the defense playing differently than they did when they weren't trailing by a massive margin. By extension with Lebron, the relevant question is whether the pacers or spurs were an easier team to put numbers on when the game wasn't really in doubt.

I think "frequency of comeback" is useful in that it gives us an indication of "likelihood of winning" and therefore how much a player is contributing to this at various points.

[eminence]

The all-time team level example: https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1956-nba-western-division-semifinals-lakers-vs-hawks.html

Two 1 pt wins for the Hawks sandwiching a 58 point beatdown