Bonn1997 wrote:

Marv wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

then why are you making so much out of the one series that got them to the finals?

I didn't even mention that one series. I mentioned the sample of 97 playoff games.

oh really? then what else but "that one series" that got them to the finals could you be referring to here:

Oh, now I understand what you're saying at least. I'd still base my evaluation more on the 97 games (which you keep ignoring!) than on either the finals or the series that got them there.

His playoff stats overall are great. But he really wilted in the high-profile series. To wit, re: the finals:

The Mavericks took an early 2–0 lead, but then gave away a late 15-point lead in a Game 3 loss[64] and finally fell to a scoring onslaught by Heat Finals MVP Dwyane Wade: Wade scored at least 36 points in the next four games, which the Heat all won. Nowitzki only made 20 of his last 55 shots in the final 3 games as the Mavericks lost the Finals series 4–2 to the Heat. The German was criticised by ESPN as "clearly... not as his best this series" and remarked: "That was a tough loss (in Game 3) and that really changed the whole momentum of the series... After that, they got confidence. They played a lot better afterwards".[65]

The series against golden st:

Dallas earned the first seed of the 2007 NBA Playoffs.[66] Nowitzki was touted as the overwhelming favorite for the Most Valuable Player award, and was expected to lead the Mavericks to an easy win against the eighth seed Golden State Warriors. However, the Mavericks ended up losing to the Warriors in six games, marking the first time a #8 seed has beaten the #1 in a best of seven series in NBA history.[67] In the clinching Game 6, Nowitzki shot just 2–13 from the field for only eight points.[67] Defended by Stephen Jackson, Nowitzki averaged nearly five points less than his regular season average in that series and shot only 38.3% from the field as compared to 50.2% during the regular season.[23

Its not the size of a Dirk, but how you use it.

Nalod wrote:I'd rather have even a small Dirk than no Dirk what so ever.

Its not the size of a Dirk, but how you use it.

dirkweed

Marv wrote:

Nalod wrote:I'd rather have even a small Dirk than no Dirk what so ever.

Its not the size of a Dirk, but how you use it.

dirkweed

dirkless

Panos wrote:

Marv wrote:

Nalod wrote:I'd rather have even a small Dirk than no Dirk what so ever.

Its not the size of a Dirk, but how you use it.

dirkweed

dirkless

dirkface

Marv wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Marv wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Marv wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

then why are you making so much out of the one series that got them to the finals?

I didn't even mention that one series. I mentioned the sample of 97 playoff games.

oh really? then what else but "that one series" that got them to the finals could you be referring to here:

Oh, now I understand what you're saying at least. I'd still base my evaluation more on the 97 games (which you keep ignoring!) than on either the finals or the series that got them there.

His playoff stats overall are great. But he really wilted in the high-profile series. To wit, re: the finals:

The Mavericks took an early 2–0 lead, but then gave away a late 15-point lead in a Game 3 loss[64] and finally fell to a scoring onslaught by Heat Finals MVP Dwyane Wade: Wade scored at least 36 points in the next four games, which the Heat all won. Nowitzki only made 20 of his last 55 shots in the final 3 games as the Mavericks lost the Finals series 4–2 to the Heat. The German was criticised by ESPN as "clearly... not as his best this series" and remarked: "That was a tough loss (in Game 3) and that really changed the whole momentum of the series... After that, they got confidence. They played a lot better afterwards".[65]

The series against golden st:

Dallas earned the first seed of the 2007 NBA Playoffs.[66] Nowitzki was touted as the overwhelming favorite for the Most Valuable Player award, and was expected to lead the Mavericks to an easy win against the eighth seed Golden State Warriors. However, the Mavericks ended up losing to the Warriors in six games, marking the first time a #8 seed has beaten the #1 in a best of seven series in NBA history.[67] In the clinching Game 6, Nowitzki shot just 2–13 from the field for only eight points.[67] Defended by Stephen Jackson, Nowitzki averaged nearly five points less than his regular season average in that series and shot only 38.3% from the field as compared to 50.2% during the regular season.[23

This debate just boils down to a more fundamental difference regarding what is the best predictor of future playoff performance: the smallest sample of games that fans label the most important (which usually means deeper in the playoffs) or the largest sample of games you can get. For many reasons, I don't find the former choice compelling. First, in any measure of performance, there is going to be measurement error (e.g., maybe he had the flu, maybe a close relative died, maybe it was just a random string of sub-par games that would have been ignored had they happened during the regular season). As a social scientist, you surely know that, all else being equal, there's going to be more measurement error in smaller samples, and you haven't given any reason why that general rule would not apply in this situation. Second, there are countless examples of players being labeled chokers after a bad playoff performance that then succeed later in the playoffs.

bonn bonn bonn.

we've posted together for 7 years. we've gone to the knicks together at the garden.

you know i don't respond to hoops as a social scientist. i respond as a maniac.

loosen up a little with this. you'll like it.

If you want me to loosen up, you'll have to buy me some drinks!

Bonn1997 wrote:

Marv wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Marv wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Marv wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

then why are you making so much out of the one series that got them to the finals?

I didn't even mention that one series. I mentioned the sample of 97 playoff games.

oh really? then what else but "that one series" that got them to the finals could you be referring to here:

Oh, now I understand what you're saying at least. I'd still base my evaluation more on the 97 games (which you keep ignoring!) than on either the finals or the series that got them there.

His playoff stats overall are great. But he really wilted in the high-profile series. To wit, re: the finals:

The Mavericks took an early 2–0 lead, but then gave away a late 15-point lead in a Game 3 loss[64] and finally fell to a scoring onslaught by Heat Finals MVP Dwyane Wade: Wade scored at least 36 points in the next four games, which the Heat all won. Nowitzki only made 20 of his last 55 shots in the final 3 games as the Mavericks lost the Finals series 4–2 to the Heat. The German was criticised by ESPN as "clearly... not as his best this series" and remarked: "That was a tough loss (in Game 3) and that really changed the whole momentum of the series... After that, they got confidence. They played a lot better afterwards".[65]

The series against golden st:

Dallas earned the first seed of the 2007 NBA Playoffs.[66] Nowitzki was touted as the overwhelming favorite for the Most Valuable Player award, and was expected to lead the Mavericks to an easy win against the eighth seed Golden State Warriors. However, the Mavericks ended up losing to the Warriors in six games, marking the first time a #8 seed has beaten the #1 in a best of seven series in NBA history.[67] In the clinching Game 6, Nowitzki shot just 2–13 from the field for only eight points.[67] Defended by Stephen Jackson, Nowitzki averaged nearly five points less than his regular season average in that series and shot only 38.3% from the field as compared to 50.2% during the regular season.[23

This debate just boils down to a more fundamental difference regarding what is the best predictor of future playoff performance: the smallest sample of games that fans label the most important (which usually means deeper in the playoffs) or the largest sample of games you can get. For many reasons, I don't find the former choice compelling. First, in any measure of performance, there is going to be measurement error (e.g., maybe he had the flu, maybe a close relative died, maybe it was just a random string of sub-par games that would have been ignored had they happened during the regular season). As a social scientist, you surely know that, all else being equal, there's going to be more measurement error in smaller samples, and you haven't given any reason why that general rule would not apply in this situation. Second, there are countless examples of players being labeled chokers after a bad playoff performance that then succeed later in the playoffs.

bonn bonn bonn.

we've posted together for 7 years. we've gone to the knicks together at the garden.

you know i don't respond to hoops as a social scientist. i respond as a maniac.

loosen up a little with this. you'll like it.

Fair enough. I respond to everything as a social scientist, though, because no one's convinced me that there's a more valid way to understand the world.

If you want me to loosen up, you'll have to buy me some drinks!

This conversation is just too good to be true. A gold mine.

Damn forum etiquette.