I think Minstrel was BSing just to have some fun. No one can possibly believe that the end of the game is played the same as the rest of the game. It is physically impossible.
I'm amused that you're so adamant about it, yet can't provide a shred of reasoning as to why late-game moments are more important than earlier game moments in terms of winning the game. "This is so obvious that there's absolutely no way to show it. It's just obvious! Why don't you see that it's obvious? It's obviousness is obvious! If you don't see how it's obvious, you're missing it's obviousness!" Etc.
Late game moments, if the game is close or tied late, are more important simply because it takes time to recover from a 5-0 run or 3-point play. When you have less time left in the game, obviously you have less time to recover. As a percentage of time remaining in the game, late-game plays are larger than early-game plays. It's just math (in fact, I could write an equation here; if I get a little more time free, I might try). This is also why Lawler's Law (first team to 100 generally wins) works: by the time you're at 100 points, there's not much time left. If there's not much time left, it's that much harder for the team that's behind to make up the difference. That's why the team who gets a 4-point lead in overtime generally wins. It's not that it take more effort in OT to outscore the other team by 5, but that you can't take 10 minutes doing it by trading baskets, outscoring them on the occasional FT or 3pt shot. By the time they're up 4, there's only 3:30 left. Anyway, that's my attempt at a concrete reason.
That's a reasonable point, but if you had that five-point run earlier in the game, holding other things the same, you'd still have that "hard to overcome" five-point lead late in the game (to wit: you'll be five points ahead of where you'd have been if you hadn't had that five-point run earlier in the game). For your idea to work, it would assume that things wouldn't be the same...that if a team fell behind by five (or ten) earlier, they'd play harder to make it up over the rest of the game and thus not be down five (or ten) later. This is possible, but I don't think it's the case. I don't actually think players play to the score (unless the game itself means nothing or the game seems truly out of reach one way or the other). I think they largely try to play their best for as long as the game is in doubt.
I agree that late-game moments are more important for fame and reputation. That's why I explicitly said "in terms of winning the game."
It's absolutely more important in terms of winning the game. That is how he got the fame and reputation.
What you insist simply is not true. Things can be the same, and are the same early in the game as they are late. But plays at the end are more important precisely because the game is played essentially the same throughout. If a game is a grinder, it's a grinder early and late. So, it's not that a team plays any harder early or late; it's that opportunities for less likely events (3 pointers going in, 2pt shots going in with an and-one FT) that garner extra points in an otherwise equal game are less plentiful late in the game, because you simply have less time. There are also opportunities garnered in the first 3.5 quarters through matchup exploitation -- specifically with starters vs bench players -- that do not happen late, when everyone's starters are in. In a game that's otherwise close or tied, matchups and opportunities for extra points are more important because it matters when you have the lead (i.e., at the end). There's other factors as well: familiarity with the plays being run by the opponent increases over the course of a game; matchup adjustments are finetuned at half-time and again after 3, and yet again 6 minutes into the 4th; time-outs are dwindling, requiring coaches to make smart decisions in play-calling and preparedness. I want to provide a mental excercise to show of the difference between early and late in the game: Let's say that the Blazers are down two with 40 seconds to go in an unnamed quarter. They go for a 2-for-1, shooting quickly with 34 seconds to go. The shot misses, and the Blazers get the rebound with 28 seconds left. Bayless sees an opportunity and drives in to score and get an and-one with 2 seconds left in the half. The Blazers are now up 3. If you're the coach, what do you do with these 2 seconds? The answer is probably not the same if the quarter in question is the 2nd rather than the 4th. EDIT: The most tangible difference is that the rules of the game are different: late in the 4th, you can push the ball up to halfcourt with a 20:sec timeout. In the last two minutes of each quarter, you only get one "free" foul before you're in the penalty, regardless of if you had 1 or 3 before hitting the 2-minute mark. The game changes late, in a real way.
This is a different issue. I didn't mean that nothing changes late in quarters. I was saying that those moments aren't more important and that coaches/players don't change things based on this "added importance." I agree that rules change, and thus coaches/players will adjust based on those. But that has nothing to do with the claim that late-game moments are more important to winning the game than earlier-game moments. Your mental exercise has the same issue. It doesn't show that that final possession is more important than any other. If, in fact, the team had played 3 points better throughout the earlier game, that would be equivalent to nailing a three in that circumstance. You're right that there are situations that occur late in games that coaches/players do something different in, but that isn't linked to "greater importance."
Sure it is. If you miss the 3 pointer at the end of the 2nd quarter, you don't LOSE THE GAME like you do if you miss the 3 pointer at the end of the 4th. If you go into halftime down 3, you have 24 more minutes to make it up. If you stay down 3 after the 4th quarter, you don't get to make up those three points, period.
That still doesn't explain why it's more important than having scored three points more on an earlier possession and now being tied up in the final 2 seconds. I don't think you're understanding me. The points add up the same no matter where you score them. Getting three points on the final possession are worth the same on the scoreboard as getting three on the ninth possession of the second quarter. Yes, you don't get to make up late deficits...but if you scored more on the previous, supposedly less important possessions, you won't have a late deficit.
Please explain yourself more because I still am not getting it. I want to try to wrap my head around your point now, instead of trying to explain my point any more.
My contention would be that the manner in which a team plays changes as the clock begins to dwindle. As such, the greatest difference in the impact of early points vs late points is not on the team or the game, but on the opponent. A five-point run midway through the second quarter won't have an appreciable impact on the manner in which the opponent plays the remainder of the game, whereas a five-point run with three minutes left in the fourth will. Also, let us not forget the unquantifiable but undeniable concept of momentum. If a team scores five straight points late in a close game, confidence usually swells, the opponent's psyche may be impacted, and the likelihood of that team scoring the next bucket is higher than if that same run had occurred two quarters earlier.
This is close to what I was going to post, so instead of reposting it in my own words, I'll just rep BlazerCaravan.
I'm not sure how to explain it more or differently. Where you are on the scoreboard (5 up, 7 down) depends on all your possessions preceding it. When you look at the final score of a game, you want to be up 1 or more. This can be achieved by hitting a three-pointer with 2 seconds remaining while down less than 3, or it can be achieved by having scored those three points on an earlier possession where you hadn't scored...thereby already being ahead by 1 at that 2 second point, and not needing a three to win. I really don't know how to say it any more plainly. I recognize that somehow we're not connecting on this, but I'm not sure why.
Maybe you see just a math problem... I see it as a mostly human problem, though. A 3 point lead with 2 seconds remaining is different than a 3 point lead with 24 minutes and 2 seconds remaining. Why? Because humans are not machines; they react to stimuli and being down after a made shot is stimuli. You can say that all thing stay equal if you make the "extra" 3 pointer to win very early in the game, but the fact is that it isn't simply a matter of "if we'd hit shot #13 instead of missing, we'd have won" because at that point, the score would be different, and the opponent's human reactions would be different.
It may or may not be unquantifiable but it's not undeniable, in my opinion. It's certainly common wisdom that momentum makes players play better, but is there any evidence for this? In baseball, there have been all sorts of common wisdoms, like some players being "better in the clutch" or players hitting better with "lineup protection" that don't hold up to statistical study. In your narrative about how psychology plays in, how do you separate the "run" from the "effects of a run?" Clearly there are runs, and those are easily explainable by variance in player performance...a slightly better team doesn't play slightly better every minute, they play much better at times, a little worse at times and usually win by a little bit. If a team scores 10 straight points, is that a 10 point run, or a 5 point run followed by another 5 points achieved due to opponents being demoralized by the 5 point run? Personally, I don't think it's at all obvious that player performance changes due to the psychological effects of either being part of a run or having a run happen against you. It might be true, but it's certainly not undeniably so.
I addressed this in an earlier point to you: "For your idea to work, it would assume that things wouldn't be the same...that if a team fell behind by five (or ten) earlier, they'd play harder to make it up over the rest of the game and thus not be down five (or ten) later. This is possible, but I don't think it's the case. I don't actually think players play to the score (unless the game itself means nothing or the game seems truly out of reach one way or the other). I think they largely try to play their best for as long as the game is in doubt." I agree that you can't just change shot #13 and assume everything else beyond it plays out exactly the same. However, I think shot #13 was just as important in determining the outcome of the game as the final shot.
A full timeout caused by a 10-point run is definitely a psychological reaction to a basketball action. Coach Pop's 20-second time out two plays into the game is a psychological reaction. Phil Jackson's *lack* of a timeout during a run is also a reaction, which doesn't always work out. Same with pulling or not pulling a player after 3 fouls in the 2nd quarter. All these are reactions that have a psychological element to them, caused by a basketball-related action. To that end, the psychological effects of being in a late-game situation are powerful, because the underdog is trying to score the extra points, and the team in the lead is trying to prevent them from doing so (or, if they're disciplined, also trying to score at the same rate as before).
