The human mind is conditioned to learn through success and failure. If we act a certain way and receive a favorable outcome we will most likely be inclined act in a similar fashion in the future believing that we will receive a similarly favorableoutcome.
Because of this phenomenon more often than not it is actually veteran, experienced teams that become associated with the switch argument. Teams that have been there, done that, will often feel that they can get away with turning it on at the last moment possible. At least that’s what the fans think.
Look at the 2001 Lakers. They were defending champions but they waffled through the first two thirds of the regular season before going on a surge that saw them put on the most dominant post season run in history.
Or how about the 2006 Heat, 1995 Rockets or even both of last years finals combatants, the Celtics and Lakers. All teams that underperformed regular season expectations yet made strong playoff showings with three winning the title and in the case of the Celtics, coming within one quarter of doing the same.
And the unifying thread that binds all of these clubs together? They all had championship pedigrees. Even in the case of the Heat, who had not won a championship together before 2006, they still had Shaq and Pat Riley, both long time veterans of many a championship battle. So why did it take them so long before playing their best basketball of the season?
Is there such thing as a switch?
Next Page: The Bottom Line