Beckett writes a very good article, but I disagree with(mainly)one point: To me, this is the first time in 25(not 15) years, that the 76ers beat a good team in the playoffs. The Chicago Bulls of 2011-12 somehow captured the top seed in the Eastern Conference, but without both Derrick Rose and Joakim Noah(who got hurt in the 76ers/Bulls series), they were Not a top team.
The teams the 76ers beat in 2001(Pacers,Raptors, Bucks) were not as good as the Spurs or Kings, perhaps, but they were better than the paper-thin 2011-12 Bulls, missing two of their best players.
Reasonable disagreement! I'm just generally of the opinion that if you beat the #1 seed as an #8 seed, then that counts. But I can certainly see why you'd be opposed to that.
Ok, this comment is slightly unrelated to a post about the nature of the Sixers' season, but it very much has to do with the literal way the season ended. And it's stat-related so I think replying to The Statman is fitting enough.
I think the nature of the way the current NBA game is played, massively increased 3PA and the attendant variance, has broken people's brains. I think it leads to outcomes that are over-interpreted by viewers and commentators (Spike and Mike included) when really the main answer (though not the only answer) is game to game randomness.
Obviously, what I just said could apply to any NBA game and I've had the thought countless times before. But the final game of the season and the reaction to it brought it to the forefront of my thoughts.
Did the Sixers play well on either end in game four? Nope, not at all. They played badly. But it's also true that the Knicks were shooting over 60% from three on high volume when garbage time set in and the Sixers were shooting well under 30%. Given those conditions, I think even if the Sixers played in an admirable, non-embarrassing way, they still lose by 20. And I think the final score would, in that alternate reality, still have made people assume they played embarrassingly... because what else could explain losing by 20?
But in reality, that's just what happens. If your opponent is setting 3 point shooting records and ~tripling up (no pun intended) your shooting percentage on high volume...you lose! What if you try really really hard though? You lose! What if, instead of being the less talented team, as the Sixers were, you are actually a more talented team who is just cold while your opponent in on fire? You lose!
I know an obvious response to this is, "Well, if you played better (less embarrassing) defense, this kind of slanted outcome wouldn't happen!" And, obviously playing defense is better than not. But it doesn't fix this type of outcome and I will use a fascinating (to me) example to show this:
Steph Curry is probably the greatest shooter of all time. For his career, when left WIDE OPEN (per NBA tracking) he shoots ~49% from three.
So, if instead of a mix of average to good shooters, the game four Knicks were entirely made up of Steph Currys. And, for the entire game, the Sixers failed to contest ANY of their 3PA...you STILL wouldn't expect a shooting outcome like what actually happened in game four! (To say nothing of the other side of equation and the Sixers poor shooting)
And, like, that's just what happens. There are a lot of NBA games! Some are going to be crazy anomalies!
Eventually, my hypothetical New York Stephs would have a game where they hit 80% of their threes! And it wouldn't matter who they were playing or how hard they were playing...they'd win!
Being a lifelong Philadelphia sports fan since the 1970s, there are a couple of distinguishing characteristics I think we all identify with and display. Firstly, it’s disappointment at not winning titles. That’s just baked in to what it means to be a Philly sports fan. Some of my first clear memories of excitedly following one of our teams in the playoffs, only to see them lose were the Phillies in the late 70s against the Dodgers. That was the first time a shocking fielding error (by Gary Maddox) handed the Phillies a series ending loss. The second time being last fall, of course. Over the years there have been too many playoff disappointments by our teams to even keep in my brain anymore.
But that also leads to the second characteristic that I think is part of who we are. And that is the perhaps unique appreciation for when one of our teams enters a playoff series as an almost universally perceived underdog and manages to win the series. I’d suggest our fans get more satisfaction from that kind of upset win than perhaps any other sports fan base would. We typically don’t expect good things to happen because they usually don’t. But when even WE get surprised that something great happens and we unexpectedly win a playoff series, that’s pure joy. For me, that’s what I got to feel when we won game seven, on the road, against the favored Celtics and erased a 1-3 deficit to take the series. It didn’t erase everything else that’s so incredibly messed up with this Sixers franchise for so long. It was just a great thing that happened within all of that. A moment to just appreciate for what it was. Didn’t need to mean anything bigger for me. We beat the Celtics in a game 7 in Boston for the first time since I was a teenager. I appreciate the rarity of it and was just glad that it got to happen once more.
Beckett writes a very good article, but I disagree with(mainly)one point: To me, this is the first time in 25(not 15) years, that the 76ers beat a good team in the playoffs. The Chicago Bulls of 2011-12 somehow captured the top seed in the Eastern Conference, but without both Derrick Rose and Joakim Noah(who got hurt in the 76ers/Bulls series), they were Not a top team.
The teams the 76ers beat in 2001(Pacers,Raptors, Bucks) were not as good as the Spurs or Kings, perhaps, but they were better than the paper-thin 2011-12 Bulls, missing two of their best players.
Reasonable disagreement! I'm just generally of the opinion that if you beat the #1 seed as an #8 seed, then that counts. But I can certainly see why you'd be opposed to that.
Ok, this comment is slightly unrelated to a post about the nature of the Sixers' season, but it very much has to do with the literal way the season ended. And it's stat-related so I think replying to The Statman is fitting enough.
I think the nature of the way the current NBA game is played, massively increased 3PA and the attendant variance, has broken people's brains. I think it leads to outcomes that are over-interpreted by viewers and commentators (Spike and Mike included) when really the main answer (though not the only answer) is game to game randomness.
Obviously, what I just said could apply to any NBA game and I've had the thought countless times before. But the final game of the season and the reaction to it brought it to the forefront of my thoughts.
Did the Sixers play well on either end in game four? Nope, not at all. They played badly. But it's also true that the Knicks were shooting over 60% from three on high volume when garbage time set in and the Sixers were shooting well under 30%. Given those conditions, I think even if the Sixers played in an admirable, non-embarrassing way, they still lose by 20. And I think the final score would, in that alternate reality, still have made people assume they played embarrassingly... because what else could explain losing by 20?
But in reality, that's just what happens. If your opponent is setting 3 point shooting records and ~tripling up (no pun intended) your shooting percentage on high volume...you lose! What if you try really really hard though? You lose! What if, instead of being the less talented team, as the Sixers were, you are actually a more talented team who is just cold while your opponent in on fire? You lose!
I know an obvious response to this is, "Well, if you played better (less embarrassing) defense, this kind of slanted outcome wouldn't happen!" And, obviously playing defense is better than not. But it doesn't fix this type of outcome and I will use a fascinating (to me) example to show this:
Steph Curry is probably the greatest shooter of all time. For his career, when left WIDE OPEN (per NBA tracking) he shoots ~49% from three.
So, if instead of a mix of average to good shooters, the game four Knicks were entirely made up of Steph Currys. And, for the entire game, the Sixers failed to contest ANY of their 3PA...you STILL wouldn't expect a shooting outcome like what actually happened in game four! (To say nothing of the other side of equation and the Sixers poor shooting)
And, like, that's just what happens. There are a lot of NBA games! Some are going to be crazy anomalies!
Eventually, my hypothetical New York Stephs would have a game where they hit 80% of their threes! And it wouldn't matter who they were playing or how hard they were playing...they'd win!
Well written summary of this past Sixers season.
Being a lifelong Philadelphia sports fan since the 1970s, there are a couple of distinguishing characteristics I think we all identify with and display. Firstly, it’s disappointment at not winning titles. That’s just baked in to what it means to be a Philly sports fan. Some of my first clear memories of excitedly following one of our teams in the playoffs, only to see them lose were the Phillies in the late 70s against the Dodgers. That was the first time a shocking fielding error (by Gary Maddox) handed the Phillies a series ending loss. The second time being last fall, of course. Over the years there have been too many playoff disappointments by our teams to even keep in my brain anymore.
But that also leads to the second characteristic that I think is part of who we are. And that is the perhaps unique appreciation for when one of our teams enters a playoff series as an almost universally perceived underdog and manages to win the series. I’d suggest our fans get more satisfaction from that kind of upset win than perhaps any other sports fan base would. We typically don’t expect good things to happen because they usually don’t. But when even WE get surprised that something great happens and we unexpectedly win a playoff series, that’s pure joy. For me, that’s what I got to feel when we won game seven, on the road, against the favored Celtics and erased a 1-3 deficit to take the series. It didn’t erase everything else that’s so incredibly messed up with this Sixers franchise for so long. It was just a great thing that happened within all of that. A moment to just appreciate for what it was. Didn’t need to mean anything bigger for me. We beat the Celtics in a game 7 in Boston for the first time since I was a teenager. I appreciate the rarity of it and was just glad that it got to happen once more.