The final night of group play for the NBA in-season tournament delivered on drama and stakes, with multiple teams fighting for a spot in the knockout stage and pulling out all the stops to get there.
And that strong desire for teams to make the final eight also ignited a bit of a controversy—with point differential being one of the tiebreakers for group play, teams not only had to win, but in some instances, they had to win by a certain amount.
In layman’s terms, you could call this running up the score. Multiple players and coaches expressed discomfort with the idea, including Jayson Tatum, Donovan Mitchell and Bam Adebayo. The point differential, however, also undoubtedly added an extra layer of intrigue to already compelling games. As people go back and forth about the quality of the NBA regular season, isn’t it good to encourage everyone to play through the final whistle?
The Celtics, for example, went to a hack–Andre Drummond strategy in the fourth quarter despite holding a lead of nearly 30 points when first sending him to the line. Tatum also played the vast majority of a fourth quarter that was a blowout from the start.
Joe Mazzulla had to discuss Boston’s point differential situation with Billy Donovan mid-game to explain why he was hacking Drummond. Did it lead to some uncomfortable feelings? Yes. People on both sides after the game expressed mixed emotions about the Celtics hunting points.
You know what was probably fun for the fans to watch, though? Boston playing Tatum for longer minutes than usual and not sitting on the ball with backups for an entire quarter.
David Butler II/USA TODAY Sports
The intrigue was especially good in Sacramento. The Warriors had to beat the Kings by 12 points to advance to the next stage of the tournament. The Dubs held a massive lead for most of the night, only for the Kings to come roaring back in the fourth. Sacramento ended up winning, but it’s fascinating to look at the Warriors’ decision-making down the stretch through the prism of the tournament. Would Golden State have played more conservatively with its slim lead if it didn’t need to win by 12? It’s impossible to say for sure, though it was definitely thrilling to watch Stephen Curry sell out for threes in the last few minutes of the game.
Watch the NBA with Fubo. Start your free trial today.
In case it’s not obvious, I’m not out there on the floor, so I can’t speak to how the players feel about the awkwardness of focusing on point differential when it’s never been a part of their calculus before. Is it poor sportsmanship? I wouldn’t go quite that far, but I’m sure it doesn’t feel respectful.
What I would push back on is the players and coaches who are saying the point differential aspect messes with the integrity of the game. At the end of the day, I am in favor of any wrinkle that forces teams to play the game at their hardest for as long as possible. And this is not a novel concept in sports! Wildly popular international ones such as soccer and cricket implement similar tiebreakers, and it’s largely not an issue. (Seriously, do you know how stodgy cricket can be? But sometimes you need to get that run rate up!) I would argue that throwing end-of-bench players on the floor for mop-up duty for 10 minutes of the fourth alters the integrity of the game more than keeping on the players who actually decided it.
Also, no one was forcing the Celtics and Warriors to win by a certain amount. Let’s say each won by a normal score; they still would’ve earned important regular-season victories. But if the goal of the in-season tournament is to add some extra zhuzh of competitiveness to early-season games people have long complained about, then the point differential tiebreaker was an undoubted success. Even if it may take some time for those involved to get used to, the riveting nature of the group stage’s final night should outweigh any initial uneasiness.
