2025-11-15 14:01

As I sat watching that intense Game 3 between TNT and their opponents, witnessing how they eventually won 87-85 to grab an upper hand in the finals series at 2-1, I couldn't help but reflect on how much these numbers actually tell us about the game. Having analyzed basketball statistics for over a decade, I've come to appreciate that the final score is merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to understanding player performance. That 87-85 result doesn't reveal which players stepped up in clutch moments, who defended crucial possessions, or how the team's strategy evolved throughout the game.

When we dive deeper into performance metrics, we start seeing patterns that casual viewers might miss. Take field goal percentage, for instance - it's not just about how many shots go in, but where those shots come from and when they're taken. I've always been partial to players who maintain efficiency even when their team needs them most, like someone who shoots 48% overall but climbs to 52% in fourth quarters. The true value of a player often reveals itself in these pressure situations, much like what we likely witnessed in that tight 87-85 finish where every possession mattered tremendously.

Advanced metrics have completely transformed how I evaluate players. While traditional stats like points and rebounds give us a surface-level understanding, metrics like Player Efficiency Rating (PER) and True Shooting Percentage provide much deeper insights. I particularly love tracking defensive metrics - steals and blocks only tell part of the story. Defensive rating and defensive win shares help identify players who might not fill the stat sheet but consistently make the right rotations and contest shots without fouling. In a game decided by just two points like that 87-85 thriller, these subtle defensive contributions often make the difference between winning and losing.

What many fans don't realize is how context-dependent these statistics really are. A player scoring 20 points in a blowout win versus scoring 20 in a close game like that 87-85 battle carries entirely different weight. That's why I always emphasize looking at plus-minus statistics alongside traditional numbers. The plus-minus tells us what happened when a player was on the court - were they part of lineups that built leads or surrendered them? In that crucial Game 3 where TNT took the 2-1 series lead, I'd bet there were players with modest scoring totals who posted outstanding plus-minus numbers because they were part of lineups that executed when it mattered most.

The evolution of basketball analytics has been fascinating to watch. We've moved beyond basic counting stats to sophisticated tracking data that measures everything from player speed to shot distance to defensive proximity. Personally, I find the synergy between traditional scouting and modern analytics most compelling. The eye test still matters - you can't reduce a player's heart or leadership to numbers - but statistics help validate what we're seeing on the court. When a team like TNT wins a close game 87-85 to go up 2-1 in the finals, the numbers help explain how they managed to secure that victory beyond just the final score.

One metric I believe doesn't get enough attention is usage rate in relation to efficiency. High-volume scorers who maintain efficiency despite heavy usage are incredibly valuable, especially in playoff settings where defenses can key in on star players. In tight contests like that 87-85 game, having players who can create their own shot efficiently becomes paramount. I've noticed that championship teams typically have at least two players who can score efficiently with high usage rates, providing offensive stability when plays break down in crucial moments.

As we look at that 87-85 result that gave TNT a 2-1 series advantage, it's worth considering how momentum factors into performance metrics. Basketball isn't played in a vacuum - confidence, rhythm, and momentum significantly impact how players perform. Teams that win close games often carry that confidence into subsequent matchups, which might explain why taking a 2-1 lead in a finals series can be so psychologically important. The metrics might show similar statistical profiles between games, but the intangible factors that numbers can't capture often determine these outcomes.

Ultimately, understanding player stats requires both scientific rigor and artistic interpretation. The numbers provide the framework, but context gives them meaning. That 87-85 victory for TNT represents more than just two points in the win column - it reflects countless smaller victories throughout the game: winning 53% of 50-50 balls, converting 78% of free throws under pressure, or securing defensive rebounds on 86% of opponent misses. These micro-statistics collectively determine macro-outcomes, and appreciating this complexity is what makes basketball analytics so endlessly fascinating to me.

« News Releases