mjkvol wrote:FireMorey wrote:mjkvol wrote:
Embiid didn't take a shot in the last four minutes of the game - now that's on the coach as well, but still, he's the man and should be demanding the ball. Tatum played like garbage all day, demanded the ball, and won a game they had no business winning. That's all that matters. How many overall shots is irrelevant
Again, agree with what you're saying here, but that's a completely different discussion from what's being argued. Embiid didn't play well enough down the stretch, there is no debating that. I will counter though when someone says Tatum kept shooting because he was unafraid and Embiid didn't keep shooting because he was afraid, when Tatum only took two more shots. Through the course of the 48 minute game, there were stretches where Tatum didn't take shots. And there were stretches where Embiid didn't take shots. They came at different points in the game. People have adopted this crazy notion that only the 4th quarter matters, and it's not true.
I know everyone is all in a rip Joel Embiid kick at the moment, but the criticism needs to be fair or else it comes off as a pile on, which is exactly what it's turning into. Once we start getting into playing arm chair psychologist and saying he was afraid to do x, y, and z it leads to baseless criticisms.
I'm not criticizing Embiid, and I've been one of the only ones on here not piling on him. I never said a word about being 'afraid' to shoot, I simply said that with the money on the table Tatum demanded the ball and delivered while Embiid did not, for whatever reason, and didn't get a single shot up.
The 4th quarter really is all that matters, when it comes down to it. That's where the great players are identified, when the pressure is the greatest. If the first half was nearly as important, Tobias Harris would be an MVP candidate annually.
We're gonna have to agree to disagree that the 4th quarter is all that matters. When games are close that's where the pressure is the greatest. But take game 5 for example. The 4th quarter didn't matter at all really because the Sixers crushed the Celtics in quarters 1-3, rendering the game out of reach in the 4th. If a player dominates in the 3rd quarter and gives his team a big lead, but has a bad 4th quarter and his team still wins, his performance in that 3rd quarter would have helped win them the game just the same as a player who had a great 4th. It depends on the circumstance. I don't like the "4th quarter is all that matters" cliche because it completely eliminates circumstance and context. As do many cliches.
"You are as good as your record says you are!" Well what if during the first 90% of the season you were riddled with injuries and in the final 10% of the season you get healthy.Then that's a team much better than their record indicates. I'm just not a fan of using cliches as universal truths. Sometimes they can be true, sometimes not.
