In game 1, I did a check of the game flow and play by play and saw that Miami beat us 42-4 over a total of 12:36 (composed of 4 different runs) and that we beat them 82-49 over the remaining 35:24.

For game 2, the time disparity is even more glarity: Miami beat us 29-13 during two stretches (the final 1:46 obviously, plus a stretch from 10:19 in the 4th to 3:26 in the 4th) that total 8:39. While the Pistons beat Miami 81-61 during the remaining 39:21.

So now, over the first two games, Miami wins 71-17 over 21:15; and we win 163-110 over 74:45.

Now, in game 2, during the 8:39 of the game (really, of the 4th quarter) where they were killing us, we had 23 possessions (i counted an off reb as starting a new possession); on those 23 possessions we got:
-4 field goals (2 tay put backs, 1 tay lay up, and 1 chauncey lay up) on 13 attempts,
-7 TO's,
-5-6 FT's. (I broke these possessions down into a table, so if anybody is interested, let me know).

What's really striking is how long most of the possessions were. If I exclude from the list of possessions tay's 2 put-backs and the 3 quick-foul possessions that resulted in our free throws, we've still got 18 possessions:

Out of those 18 possessions:
-4 points,
-2 field-goals on 11 attempts,
-7 TO's. And of those 18 possessions,
-10 of the 18 possessions took 19 or more seconds off the shot clock. Now, if we are whipping the ball around the perimeter and making beautiful cuts for layups or wide-open triples at the shot clock buzzer i'm all for it. But we all saw what was happening for those long possessions seconds: for the first 8 to 10 seconds, chauncey pounds the ball to get it over the wing, for the remaining 14 to 16 seconds, tay pounds the ball while backing down. meanwhile, ben, rip and sheed stand perfectly still on the weakside and chauncey kind of floats out to the top of the arc. it's a miracle tay could get shots off at all with so little movement around him and we're lucky he was able to get the put backs he did. for this i fault the players, who were just trying to run clock and flip for not calling the time out that would get them running their offense again and playing to crush rather than not to lose. and it was a shame, because miami, especially in the first bad stretch in the 4th quarter, gave us plenty of opportunities with their own turnovers and bad shots.

anyway, sorry to get so anal in breaking this down (i guess it was kinda lock staring at a bad car wreck). i guess my real point is two fold:

1) on the down side, playing not-to-lose we stopped moving on offense and our efficiency and production went way way down and defensively we let them play the short-burst offensive game

2) on the plus side, as in game 1, but better and with better results, we showed we can beat miami handily and steadily over long periods of time and, in this game, those long periods were mostly very very good, with higher assists, higher assist-to-turnover ratio, better and more balanced shooting, and better defense, especially on miami's supporting cast, but also I would say, on shaq and wade (though they obviously got theirs).

I don't think we were complacent during those bad stretches, I think we tightened up. I'm hoping that the players upon reviewing film of the game recognize the striking difference between the unselfish up-tempo intelligent detroit basketball they played to slowly build an 18 point lead and the foolish, stagnant, 1 on 1 pound the ball game they played to piss it away. the contrast couldn't be plainer, more stark, or more obvious.

but all in all, for me at least, there was much more to be encouraged by than discouraged by in last night's game. i feel that we are slowly putting things back together -- as though a piece gets added back with each game.