Is Kobe is still exciting to watch?

[darth dnzy]

--Cmon Luke, I already said I've respected you POV. But you just keepin more numbers in our faces.
--I've read your thesis on clutchness and I still aint buyin it. Like I said earlier either a player is clutch or they're not. At that moment of the game or juncture, forget the stats.
--Kobe is the only one you want shooting the ball at that time. Or Ginobli on the Spurs. Or Nash on the Suns. Or Amare on the Knicks. Or Pierce on the Celtics. Jennings on the Bucks. Ellis on the Warriors. Wade on the Heat. Should I go on?

--I'm just sayin. With 2 seconds left in the game they aint thinkin about stats. There's a clearcut person they want shooting the ball. And its because they are that team's clutch player. Stop with all these stats discrediting not just Kobe but all the other clutch players. Theres at least one on each team.

--Kobe and Ellis were clutch down the stretch last night. Or maybe they werent, lemme go check my stats....

 

[darth dnzy]

--Cmon Luke, I already said I've respected you POV. But you just keepin more numbers in our faces.
--I've read your thesis on clutchness and I still aint buyin it. Like I said earlier either a player is clutch or they're not. At that moment of the game or juncture, forget the stats.
--Kobe is the only one you want shooting the ball at that time. Or Ginobli on the Spurs. Or Nash on the Suns. Or Amare on the Knicks. Or Pierce on the Celtics. Jennings on the Bucks. Ellis on the Warriors. Wade on the Heat. Should I go on?

--I'm just sayin. With 2 seconds left in the game they aint thinkin about stats. There's a clearcut person they want shooting the ball. And its because they are that team's clutch player. Stop with all these stats discrediting not just Kobe but all the other clutch players. Theres at least one on each team.

--Kobe and Ellis were clutch down the stretch last night. Or maybe they werent, lemme go check my stats....

 

[xsalvioutlawx]

Alot of KB Haters in this thread.... What's new?

People are just sick of him still being relevant and having to hear his name 15 years later.

 

[xsalvioutlawx]

Alot of KB Haters in this thread.... What's new?

People are just sick of him still being relevant and having to hear his name 15 years later.

 

[lukethejediknight]

Originally Posted by DARTH DNZY

--Cmon Luke, I already said I've respected you POV.

I'm also not an idiot. If you truly respect a point of view, then save the "LOOK FELLAZ WE GOT A HOLLINGER IN THA BUILDING" quips. Aight?

--Like I said earlier either a player is clutch or they're not.

I can also say the same about Kwame Brown. He's the greatest player of all time - but you see, the stats don't matter! They're LYING! Stop calling him a bust!!!

I like proof to back things up.

--Kobe is the only one you want shooting the ball at that time. Or Ginobli on the Spurs. Or Nash on the Suns. Or Amare on the Knicks. Or Pierce on the Celtics. Jennings on the Bucks. Ellis on the Warriors. Wade on the Heat. Should I go on?

Agreed. But it's because those guys are your teams' best shot-creators/makers ANYWAY. Not because they're necessarily clutch. Unless of course, you're someone who is satisfied with a 26% conversion with game-winning shots (which is what Kobe shot at one time, which was below the league average) for example.

--I'm just sayin. With 2 seconds left in the game they aint thinkin about stats.

See above.

--Kobe and Ellis were clutch down the stretch last night. Or maybe they werent, lemme go check my stats....

See response before the response above.

 

[lukethejediknight]

Originally Posted by DARTH DNZY

--Cmon Luke, I already said I've respected you POV.

I'm also not an idiot. If you truly respect a point of view, then save the "LOOK FELLAZ WE GOT A HOLLINGER IN THA BUILDING" quips. Aight?

--Like I said earlier either a player is clutch or they're not.

I can also say the same about Kwame Brown. He's the greatest player of all time - but you see, the stats don't matter! They're LYING! Stop calling him a bust!!!

I like proof to back things up.

--Kobe is the only one you want shooting the ball at that time. Or Ginobli on the Spurs. Or Nash on the Suns. Or Amare on the Knicks. Or Pierce on the Celtics. Jennings on the Bucks. Ellis on the Warriors. Wade on the Heat. Should I go on?

Agreed. But it's because those guys are your teams' best shot-creators/makers ANYWAY. Not because they're necessarily clutch. Unless of course, you're someone who is satisfied with a 26% conversion with game-winning shots (which is what Kobe shot at one time, which was below the league average) for example.

--I'm just sayin. With 2 seconds left in the game they aint thinkin about stats.

See above.

--Kobe and Ellis were clutch down the stretch last night. Or maybe they werent, lemme go check my stats....

See response before the response above.

 

[darth dnzy]

--We'll just have to agree to disagree on our definitions of clutch.
--You're being waaay too technical about the matter though Luke. These guys arent machines.

 

[hybridsoldier23]

Luke, can you provide proof that stats remain consistent in the final 2 minutes of the game?

 

[darth dnzy]

--We'll just have to agree to disagree on our definitions of clutch.
--You're being waaay too technical about the matter though Luke. These guys arent machines.

 

[hybridsoldier23]

Luke, can you provide proof that stats remain consistent in the final 2 minutes of the game?

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by LuketheJediKnight

Originally Posted by 5am6oody72

Originally Posted by LuketheJediKnight


The point is that this is all bunk. Players will perform to their usual levels in any given situation

There are some players that let the moment get to them and start pressing. Others aren't fazed and play like it's any other moment, and others seem to elevate their play another notch. If players perform to their usual level in any given situation, how do you explain players like A-Rod who for years hit much worse in the postseason? Or guys whose batting average dips with runners in scoring position? Different players have completely different mental makeups/attitudes; you can't assume that because a player shoots 45% for their career that they will also shoot that percentage in the clutch. They might, but if they are one of those players who get nervous and starts pressing they might shoot 30%.

Someone wasn't reading what I said about the importance of sample size earlier.

When you take many seasons of "clutch statistics", you see that players pretty much perform to the mean over time. So while the psychological factor of the clutch might be present, the highly-trained athlete who has spent a lifetime honing his craft can overcome this factor. The issue however is that a player takes a mere handful of those shots "in the clutch" compared to the thousands of shots they take during a season. When he makes them, you and I as a fan naturally get excited and attribute it to some "special" ability to play better in a particular moment. Perception bias also takes effect (thanks to SportsCenter playing those crazy turnaround shots a billion times) and you don't remember that the same player has missed that same shot in other games more times than he has made them; see Kobe's "clutch" numbers by people who actually track these things. When Kobe is a mere 30% something shooter in game winning shot situations, and other players who are not as good as Kobe make nearly as many (or even more) shots in less attempts, watch the homer fans on BOTH sides argue about Kobe as either being the greatest clutch shooter or someone who shouldn't be allowed to touch the ball in tight games.

I just say that they need to keep things in perspective. YES Kobe should get the ball. But not for the same reason his fans think he should. Your eyes don't lie. But your mind isn't perfect, doesn't remember everything, and can be subject to all kinds of biases - that why we go out and measure things.

Also, CP - I'm pretty sure when someone suggests someone is "clutch", it's not just chucking up the ball a TON and making enough shots to put in a highlight reel. They want to mean that the player ACTUALLY "raises his game" (you hear this cliche all the time) or performs better than he usually does or other players do "in the moment". It's why Kobe fans go out of their way to prop up Kobe as "the best clutch shooter". It's also funny to watch them backpedal and say "Stats don't matter!" when the "clutch" numbers actually show that he not only plays to HIS usual level, he also doesn't play as well as some other players who make as many shots with less attempts. You can't have it both ways.
  

See, I sort of get where you are coming from.  But when we say stats don't matter, it's very very true to a point.  You say usually stars perform to their mean.  A-Rod performs to his mean in the playoffs? 

  Barry Bonds had a lot of postseason success did he? 

  Barry sucked for years in the postseason, and then had one big huge magical year in 02 which basically "evened" out his numbers a little, but still they were not even close to his usualy numbers.  Him having ONE elite level postseason run, does NOT make up for the years of suckage he endured.  So if you just opened a book and examined his stats and said oh, he was almost a .300 hitter, hit 10 homers, etc etc, yeah, he's a good postseason hitter.  YOU WOULD BE WRONG on many many levels.  Hence, stats don't matter.  (now, clearly, if you were examining his stats close enough, you would see the one year spike, I'm speakin in general terms of casual fans)

Kobe can be a 30% shooter late in games, that's fine.  Certainly that is not a great percentage, but the question is when and how.  I have asked this so many times with numbers guys, and they always just dodge the question.  Amare for his entire career has made a living getting buckets when it's already over.  As in, down 6 with 20 seconds.  You know the routine, quick score, foul, hope for a miss FT, quick score, foul, miss, etc etc.  You see the routine right?  Ok, so Amare gets a dunk off a pick and roll in which NOBODY goes near him.  (they don't want to foul and add a FT)  17 seconds left.  Foul.  2 shots, both made.  Back to 6 points, now 16 seconds left.  Come down, same play, Amare gets a dunk again.  Foul, 2 ft's made again, come down, Amare gets a wide open 3, splash.......game over, they lose by 3 points.  In the final 20 seconds, Amare was 3-3 with 7 points.  They lost the game.  Clutch?  The stats say so right?  But in the grand scheme of the game, or even a few games that this has happened, those stats don't mean much, do they?  But when you check advanced stats, they don't say WHEN he hit them, or if they won the game, or won because of. 

Want a better example?  Vlad Radmonovich his like 2 or 3 3's last night, and they lost by 5.  Why?  Kobe hit all his free throws to seal the game.  But Vlad's %'s just went thru the roof, did they not?  Clutch you say?  No, right?  He merely hit some shots that were actually irrelevant. 

That is why stats don't matter.  Kobe can miss and miss and miss and miss, and if he hits the shot that WINS the game at the buzzer, why do I care that he went 1-5 in the final minute?  If I remember correctly, numbers guys will tell me that if Kobe made the first 4, he wouldn't have had to hit the game winner, correct?  Well, not every game does he miss the first 4 shots in the final minute of a game either. 

Clutch is not a collection of stats only in the final minute.  Clutch is the fact that YOU are the face of a franchise, the franchise guy if you will, the team, coaches, opponents, media, crowd, ALL expect you to take the team on your back on the final shot, and make it.  If you have a rather lengthy collection of those shots, guess what, you're clutch.  No matter the numbers. 
The bottom line is some guys don't handle the pressure well. 

Tracy McGrady has terrific playoff numbers.  He's never been out of the first round. 
Kobe has terrific playoff numbers, but not as "nice" on a per game basis as TMac.  But Kobe has played first round, second round, third round, and for all the marbles. 

Which player played in more pressure type situations, where the stakes were raised?  Kobe right?  So do you give TMac the nod in terms of "better playoff performer?" 

I sure hope not. 

For even that matter, TMac has done big numbers, but I don't even consider him a better playoff performer then a guy like Derek Fisher, or Robert Horry.  Guys who have altered NBA history with their shots/games more so then any numbers that one might speak of.  TMac is certainly the better player, and has the better numbers, but the other 2 "role" guys have done things that TMac only wishes he could do.   

I hope that more explains where it is that I am coming from in regards to stats don't matter.  They don't detail the moment of things, they don't show the difficulty of a play, or the miracle of it.  They are just numbers on a paper. 

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by LuketheJediKnight

Originally Posted by 5am6oody72

Originally Posted by LuketheJediKnight


The point is that this is all bunk. Players will perform to their usual levels in any given situation

There are some players that let the moment get to them and start pressing. Others aren't fazed and play like it's any other moment, and others seem to elevate their play another notch. If players perform to their usual level in any given situation, how do you explain players like A-Rod who for years hit much worse in the postseason? Or guys whose batting average dips with runners in scoring position? Different players have completely different mental makeups/attitudes; you can't assume that because a player shoots 45% for their career that they will also shoot that percentage in the clutch. They might, but if they are one of those players who get nervous and starts pressing they might shoot 30%.

Someone wasn't reading what I said about the importance of sample size earlier.

When you take many seasons of "clutch statistics", you see that players pretty much perform to the mean over time. So while the psychological factor of the clutch might be present, the highly-trained athlete who has spent a lifetime honing his craft can overcome this factor. The issue however is that a player takes a mere handful of those shots "in the clutch" compared to the thousands of shots they take during a season. When he makes them, you and I as a fan naturally get excited and attribute it to some "special" ability to play better in a particular moment. Perception bias also takes effect (thanks to SportsCenter playing those crazy turnaround shots a billion times) and you don't remember that the same player has missed that same shot in other games more times than he has made them; see Kobe's "clutch" numbers by people who actually track these things. When Kobe is a mere 30% something shooter in game winning shot situations, and other players who are not as good as Kobe make nearly as many (or even more) shots in less attempts, watch the homer fans on BOTH sides argue about Kobe as either being the greatest clutch shooter or someone who shouldn't be allowed to touch the ball in tight games.

I just say that they need to keep things in perspective. YES Kobe should get the ball. But not for the same reason his fans think he should. Your eyes don't lie. But your mind isn't perfect, doesn't remember everything, and can be subject to all kinds of biases - that why we go out and measure things.

Also, CP - I'm pretty sure when someone suggests someone is "clutch", it's not just chucking up the ball a TON and making enough shots to put in a highlight reel. They want to mean that the player ACTUALLY "raises his game" (you hear this cliche all the time) or performs better than he usually does or other players do "in the moment". It's why Kobe fans go out of their way to prop up Kobe as "the best clutch shooter". It's also funny to watch them backpedal and say "Stats don't matter!" when the "clutch" numbers actually show that he not only plays to HIS usual level, he also doesn't play as well as some other players who make as many shots with less attempts. You can't have it both ways.
  

See, I sort of get where you are coming from.  But when we say stats don't matter, it's very very true to a point.  You say usually stars perform to their mean.  A-Rod performs to his mean in the playoffs? 

  Barry Bonds had a lot of postseason success did he? 

  Barry sucked for years in the postseason, and then had one big huge magical year in 02 which basically "evened" out his numbers a little, but still they were not even close to his usualy numbers.  Him having ONE elite level postseason run, does NOT make up for the years of suckage he endured.  So if you just opened a book and examined his stats and said oh, he was almost a .300 hitter, hit 10 homers, etc etc, yeah, he's a good postseason hitter.  YOU WOULD BE WRONG on many many levels.  Hence, stats don't matter.  (now, clearly, if you were examining his stats close enough, you would see the one year spike, I'm speakin in general terms of casual fans)

Kobe can be a 30% shooter late in games, that's fine.  Certainly that is not a great percentage, but the question is when and how.  I have asked this so many times with numbers guys, and they always just dodge the question.  Amare for his entire career has made a living getting buckets when it's already over.  As in, down 6 with 20 seconds.  You know the routine, quick score, foul, hope for a miss FT, quick score, foul, miss, etc etc.  You see the routine right?  Ok, so Amare gets a dunk off a pick and roll in which NOBODY goes near him.  (they don't want to foul and add a FT)  17 seconds left.  Foul.  2 shots, both made.  Back to 6 points, now 16 seconds left.  Come down, same play, Amare gets a dunk again.  Foul, 2 ft's made again, come down, Amare gets a wide open 3, splash.......game over, they lose by 3 points.  In the final 20 seconds, Amare was 3-3 with 7 points.  They lost the game.  Clutch?  The stats say so right?  But in the grand scheme of the game, or even a few games that this has happened, those stats don't mean much, do they?  But when you check advanced stats, they don't say WHEN he hit them, or if they won the game, or won because of. 

Want a better example?  Vlad Radmonovich his like 2 or 3 3's last night, and they lost by 5.  Why?  Kobe hit all his free throws to seal the game.  But Vlad's %'s just went thru the roof, did they not?  Clutch you say?  No, right?  He merely hit some shots that were actually irrelevant. 

That is why stats don't matter.  Kobe can miss and miss and miss and miss, and if he hits the shot that WINS the game at the buzzer, why do I care that he went 1-5 in the final minute?  If I remember correctly, numbers guys will tell me that if Kobe made the first 4, he wouldn't have had to hit the game winner, correct?  Well, not every game does he miss the first 4 shots in the final minute of a game either. 

Clutch is not a collection of stats only in the final minute.  Clutch is the fact that YOU are the face of a franchise, the franchise guy if you will, the team, coaches, opponents, media, crowd, ALL expect you to take the team on your back on the final shot, and make it.  If you have a rather lengthy collection of those shots, guess what, you're clutch.  No matter the numbers. 
The bottom line is some guys don't handle the pressure well. 

Tracy McGrady has terrific playoff numbers.  He's never been out of the first round. 
Kobe has terrific playoff numbers, but not as "nice" on a per game basis as TMac.  But Kobe has played first round, second round, third round, and for all the marbles. 

Which player played in more pressure type situations, where the stakes were raised?  Kobe right?  So do you give TMac the nod in terms of "better playoff performer?" 

I sure hope not. 

For even that matter, TMac has done big numbers, but I don't even consider him a better playoff performer then a guy like Derek Fisher, or Robert Horry.  Guys who have altered NBA history with their shots/games more so then any numbers that one might speak of.  TMac is certainly the better player, and has the better numbers, but the other 2 "role" guys have done things that TMac only wishes he could do.   

I hope that more explains where it is that I am coming from in regards to stats don't matter.  They don't detail the moment of things, they don't show the difficulty of a play, or the miracle of it.  They are just numbers on a paper. 

 

[lukethejediknight]

Originally Posted by HybridSoldier23

Luke, can you provide proof that stats remain consistent in the final 2 minutes of the game?

82 games is a great source of data for this kind of thing, but there are also external studies. Here's one I found that was pretty interesting. Read below:

Somewhat unsurprisingly, when presented with the results of these experiments, the bankers also maintained that they were, apparently, super special individuals; unlike most people, they insisted, they work better under stress. It didn't seem to me that they were really so different from other people, but I conceded that perhaps they were right. I invited them to come to the lab so that we could run an experiment to find out for sure. But, given how busy bankers are and the size of their paychecks, it was impossible to tempt them to take part in our experiments or to offer them a bonus that would have been large enough to be meaningful for them.

Without the ability to test bankers, Racheli Barkan (a professor at Ben-Gurion University in Israel) and I looked for another source of data that could help us understand how highly paid, highly specialized professionals perform under great pressure. I know nothing about basketball, but Racheli is an expert, and she suggested that we look at clutch players -- the basketball heroes who sink a basket just as the buzzer sounds.

Clutch players are paid much more than other players, and are presumed to perform especially brilliantly during the last few minutes or seconds of a game, when stress and pressure are highest.

With the help of Duke University men's basketball Coach Mike Krzyzewski ("Coach K"), we got a group of professional coaches to identify clutch players in the NBA (the coaches agreed, to a large extent, about who is and who is not a clutch player). Next, we watched videos of the twenty most crucial games for each clutch player in an entire NBA season (by most crucial, we meant that the score difference at the end of the game did not exceed three points). For each of those games, we measured how many points the clutch players had shot in the last five minutes of the first half of each game, when pressure was relatively low. Then we compared that number to the number of points scored during the last five minutes of the game, when the outcome was hanging by a thread and stress was at its peak. We also noted the same measures for all the other "nonclutch" players who were playing in the same games.

We found that the non-clutch players scored more or less the same in the low-stress and high-stress moments, whereas there was actually a substantial improvement for clutch players during the last five minutes of the games. So far it looked good for the clutch players and, by analogy, the bankers, as it seemed that some highly qualified people could, in fact, perform better under pressure.

But -- and I'm sure you expected a "but" -- there are two ways to gain more points in the last five minutes of the game. An NBA clutch player can either improve his percentage success (which would indicate a sharpening of performance) or shoot more often with the same percentage (which suggests no improvement in skill but rather a change in the number of attempts). So we looked separately at whether the clutch players actually shot better or just more often. As it turned out, the clutch players did not improve their skill; they just tried many more times. Their field goal percentage did not increase in the last five minutes (meaning that their shots were no more accurate); neither was it the case that non- clutch players got worse.

At this point you probably think that clutch players are guarded more heavily during the end of the game and this is why they don't show the expected increase in performance. To see if this were indeed the case, we counted how many times they were fouled and also looked at their free throws. We found the same pattern: the heavily guarded clutch players were fouled more and got to shoot from the free-throw line more frequently, but their scoring percentage was unchanged. Certainly, clutch players are very good players, but our analysis showed that, contrary to common belief, their performance doesn't improve in the last, most important part of the game.

Obviously, NBA players are not bankers. The NBA is much more selective than the financial industry; very few people are sufficiently skilled to play professional basketball, while many, many people work as professional bankers. As we've seen, it's also easier to get positive returns from high incentives when we're talking about physical rather than cognitive skills. NBA players use both, but playing basketball is more of a physical than a mental activity (at least relative to banking). So it would be far more challenging for the bankers to demonstrate "clutch" abilities when the task is less physical and demands more gray matter. Also, since the basketball players don't actually improve under pressure, it's even more unlikely that bankers would be able to perform to a higher degree when they are under the gun.

http://www.huffingtonpost...side-of-co_b_592165.html

Usually I would also like to see the actual numbers with these things, but from what I've also seen from 82 games (and Dan is a credible author) this study seems to be valid.

There are a couple of caveats of course - once, the sample size (always an issue with "clutch data"), and that creating shots IS in of itself a skill. But even with regards to shot-creation, you should at least hold your shooting constant if you're a clutch player, which isn't the case here.

 

[lukethejediknight]

Originally Posted by HybridSoldier23

Luke, can you provide proof that stats remain consistent in the final 2 minutes of the game?

82 games is a great source of data for this kind of thing, but there are also external studies. Here's one I found that was pretty interesting. Read below:

Somewhat unsurprisingly, when presented with the results of these experiments, the bankers also maintained that they were, apparently, super special individuals; unlike most people, they insisted, they work better under stress. It didn't seem to me that they were really so different from other people, but I conceded that perhaps they were right. I invited them to come to the lab so that we could run an experiment to find out for sure. But, given how busy bankers are and the size of their paychecks, it was impossible to tempt them to take part in our experiments or to offer them a bonus that would have been large enough to be meaningful for them.

Without the ability to test bankers, Racheli Barkan (a professor at Ben-Gurion University in Israel) and I looked for another source of data that could help us understand how highly paid, highly specialized professionals perform under great pressure. I know nothing about basketball, but Racheli is an expert, and she suggested that we look at clutch players -- the basketball heroes who sink a basket just as the buzzer sounds.

Clutch players are paid much more than other players, and are presumed to perform especially brilliantly during the last few minutes or seconds of a game, when stress and pressure are highest.

With the help of Duke University men's basketball Coach Mike Krzyzewski ("Coach K"), we got a group of professional coaches to identify clutch players in the NBA (the coaches agreed, to a large extent, about who is and who is not a clutch player). Next, we watched videos of the twenty most crucial games for each clutch player in an entire NBA season (by most crucial, we meant that the score difference at the end of the game did not exceed three points). For each of those games, we measured how many points the clutch players had shot in the last five minutes of the first half of each game, when pressure was relatively low. Then we compared that number to the number of points scored during the last five minutes of the game, when the outcome was hanging by a thread and stress was at its peak. We also noted the same measures for all the other "nonclutch" players who were playing in the same games.

We found that the non-clutch players scored more or less the same in the low-stress and high-stress moments, whereas there was actually a substantial improvement for clutch players during the last five minutes of the games. So far it looked good for the clutch players and, by analogy, the bankers, as it seemed that some highly qualified people could, in fact, perform better under pressure.

But -- and I'm sure you expected a "but" -- there are two ways to gain more points in the last five minutes of the game. An NBA clutch player can either improve his percentage success (which would indicate a sharpening of performance) or shoot more often with the same percentage (which suggests no improvement in skill but rather a change in the number of attempts). So we looked separately at whether the clutch players actually shot better or just more often. As it turned out, the clutch players did not improve their skill; they just tried many more times. Their field goal percentage did not increase in the last five minutes (meaning that their shots were no more accurate); neither was it the case that non- clutch players got worse.

At this point you probably think that clutch players are guarded more heavily during the end of the game and this is why they don't show the expected increase in performance. To see if this were indeed the case, we counted how many times they were fouled and also looked at their free throws. We found the same pattern: the heavily guarded clutch players were fouled more and got to shoot from the free-throw line more frequently, but their scoring percentage was unchanged. Certainly, clutch players are very good players, but our analysis showed that, contrary to common belief, their performance doesn't improve in the last, most important part of the game.

Obviously, NBA players are not bankers. The NBA is much more selective than the financial industry; very few people are sufficiently skilled to play professional basketball, while many, many people work as professional bankers. As we've seen, it's also easier to get positive returns from high incentives when we're talking about physical rather than cognitive skills. NBA players use both, but playing basketball is more of a physical than a mental activity (at least relative to banking). So it would be far more challenging for the bankers to demonstrate "clutch" abilities when the task is less physical and demands more gray matter. Also, since the basketball players don't actually improve under pressure, it's even more unlikely that bankers would be able to perform to a higher degree when they are under the gun.

http://www.huffingtonpost...side-of-co_b_592165.html

Usually I would also like to see the actual numbers with these things, but from what I've also seen from 82 games (and Dan is a credible author) this study seems to be valid.

There are a couple of caveats of course - once, the sample size (always an issue with "clutch data"), and that creating shots IS in of itself a skill. But even with regards to shot-creation, you should at least hold your shooting constant if you're a clutch player, which isn't the case here.

 

[hybridsoldier23]

Thank you, I don't know why this wasn't posted 3 pages ago so people wouldn't just call you a hater.

The bottom line is you want to have the ball in the hands of the most skilled player at the end of the game to help you win. In basketball especially it's about recognizing the situation and give yourself or team the best statistical chance to win the game. I think that "clutch" players recognize what they need to do to get themselves in the best possible position to win.

Whether that is  Ray Allen coming off a down screen to his "sweet spot", Kobe going to his fade, or Jordan passing out of a double to Steve Kerr or Paxton for them to hit a game winner "clutchness" to me is not about shooting % but decision making.

 

[hybridsoldier23]

Thank you, I don't know why this wasn't posted 3 pages ago so people wouldn't just call you a hater.

The bottom line is you want to have the ball in the hands of the most skilled player at the end of the game to help you win. In basketball especially it's about recognizing the situation and give yourself or team the best statistical chance to win the game. I think that "clutch" players recognize what they need to do to get themselves in the best possible position to win.

Whether that is  Ray Allen coming off a down screen to his "sweet spot", Kobe going to his fade, or Jordan passing out of a double to Steve Kerr or Paxton for them to hit a game winner "clutchness" to me is not about shooting % but decision making.

 

[darth dnzy]

--Maybe..clutch isnt supposed to be used to describe a player. Maybe it should be used to describe a moment.
--There are players who werent the best player on their teams that have had clutch moments. Paxson Game 6 three-pointer vs the Suns. Horry's countless 3's. Fisher's countless 3's.
--But I would consider these players clutch though.

--Eh. I still consider Kobe and Wheelchair Pierce to be clutch though.

 

[darth dnzy]

--Maybe..clutch isnt supposed to be used to describe a player. Maybe it should be used to describe a moment.
--There are players who werent the best player on their teams that have had clutch moments. Paxson Game 6 three-pointer vs the Suns. Horry's countless 3's. Fisher's countless 3's.
--But I would consider these players clutch though.

--Eh. I still consider Kobe and Wheelchair Pierce to be clutch though.

 

[lukethejediknight]

Originally Posted by CP1708

See, I sort of get where you are coming from.  But when we say stats don't matter, it's very very true to a point.  You say usually stars perform to their mean.  A-Rod performs to his mean in the playoffs? 

  Barry Bonds had a lot of postseason success did he? 

  Barry sucked for years in the postseason, and then had one big huge magical year in 02 which basically "evened" out his numbers a little, but still they were not even close to his usualy numbers.  Him having ONE elite level postseason run, does NOT make up for the years of suckage he endured.  So if you just opened a book and examined his stats and said oh, he was almost a .300 hitter, hit 10 homers, etc etc, yeah, he's a good postseason hitter.  YOU WOULD BE WRONG on many many levels.  Hence, stats don't matter.  (now, clearly, if you were examining his stats close enough, you would see the one year spike, I'm speakin in general terms of casual fans)

A-Rod has 231 at-bats in the postseason. Barry had even less (151). These guys have at LEAST 8500 at-bats in their careers.

Like I said before: sample size. You don't have it with clutch numbers.

Kobe can be a 30% shooter late in games, that's fine.  Certainly that is not a great percentage, but the question is when and how.  I have asked this so many times with numbers guys, and they always just dodge the question. 

Dodge? Depends on who you talk to. The curious "stats people" actually LOOK at numbers in tight games (literally one possession games), not games where the other team is up by a good margin late in games.

That is why stats don't matter.  Kobe can miss and miss and miss and miss, and if he hits the shot that WINS the game at the buzzer, why do I care that he went 1-5 in the final minute?

You don't. Your team won; congrats to Kobe and the Lakers. But when it goes back to comparing players, people don't keep in mind that winning and losing games should kept within a team context. Kobe's great teammates can bail him out of missing those first 4 shots before the game-winner, but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work on this year's Cavaliers. Missing those shots is key, even on the Lakers. The team can cover for you for one game or even several games. But over time that doesn't win you ALOT of games or championships. Consistency is more important (which Kobe has shown over the years regardless of the situation).

If I remember correctly, numbers guys will tell me that if Kobe made the first 4, he wouldn't have had to hit the game winner, correct?

That's not what they say. 

Tracy McGrady has terrific playoff numbers.  He's never been out of the first round. 
Kobe has terrific playoff numbers, but not as "nice" on a per game basis as TMac.

You do realize basketball has moved WELL beyond per game statistics right? They are there. Find them.

For even that matter, TMac has done big numbers, but I don't even consider him a better playoff performer then a guy like Derek Fisher, or Robert Horry.

No way. Those guys I respect, but remember we're comparing players. Not teams.

I hope that more explains where it is that I am coming from in regards to stats don't matter.  They don't detail the moment of things, they don't show the difficulty of a play, or the miracle of it.

They show results though. That's the most important.

But once again, it also depends what numbers you're looking at.

 

[lukethejediknight]

Originally Posted by CP1708

See, I sort of get where you are coming from.  But when we say stats don't matter, it's very very true to a point.  You say usually stars perform to their mean.  A-Rod performs to his mean in the playoffs? 

  Barry Bonds had a lot of postseason success did he? 

  Barry sucked for years in the postseason, and then had one big huge magical year in 02 which basically "evened" out his numbers a little, but still they were not even close to his usualy numbers.  Him having ONE elite level postseason run, does NOT make up for the years of suckage he endured.  So if you just opened a book and examined his stats and said oh, he was almost a .300 hitter, hit 10 homers, etc etc, yeah, he's a good postseason hitter.  YOU WOULD BE WRONG on many many levels.  Hence, stats don't matter.  (now, clearly, if you were examining his stats close enough, you would see the one year spike, I'm speakin in general terms of casual fans)

A-Rod has 231 at-bats in the postseason. Barry had even less (151). These guys have at LEAST 8500 at-bats in their careers.

Like I said before: sample size. You don't have it with clutch numbers.

Kobe can be a 30% shooter late in games, that's fine.  Certainly that is not a great percentage, but the question is when and how.  I have asked this so many times with numbers guys, and they always just dodge the question. 

Dodge? Depends on who you talk to. The curious "stats people" actually LOOK at numbers in tight games (literally one possession games), not games where the other team is up by a good margin late in games.

That is why stats don't matter.  Kobe can miss and miss and miss and miss, and if he hits the shot that WINS the game at the buzzer, why do I care that he went 1-5 in the final minute?

You don't. Your team won; congrats to Kobe and the Lakers. But when it goes back to comparing players, people don't keep in mind that winning and losing games should kept within a team context. Kobe's great teammates can bail him out of missing those first 4 shots before the game-winner, but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work on this year's Cavaliers. Missing those shots is key, even on the Lakers. The team can cover for you for one game or even several games. But over time that doesn't win you ALOT of games or championships. Consistency is more important (which Kobe has shown over the years regardless of the situation).

If I remember correctly, numbers guys will tell me that if Kobe made the first 4, he wouldn't have had to hit the game winner, correct?

That's not what they say. 

Tracy McGrady has terrific playoff numbers.  He's never been out of the first round. 
Kobe has terrific playoff numbers, but not as "nice" on a per game basis as TMac.

You do realize basketball has moved WELL beyond per game statistics right? They are there. Find them.

For even that matter, TMac has done big numbers, but I don't even consider him a better playoff performer then a guy like Derek Fisher, or Robert Horry.

No way. Those guys I respect, but remember we're comparing players. Not teams.

I hope that more explains where it is that I am coming from in regards to stats don't matter.  They don't detail the moment of things, they don't show the difficulty of a play, or the miracle of it.

They show results though. That's the most important.

But once again, it also depends what numbers you're looking at.

 

[lukethejediknight]

Originally Posted by HybridSoldier23

The bottom line is you want to have the ball in the hands of the most skilled player at the end of the game to help you win. In basketball especially it's about recognizing the situation and give yourself or team the best statistical chance to win the game. I think that "clutch" players recognize what they need to do to get themselves in the best possible position to win.

Whether that is  Ray Allen coming off a down screen to his "sweet spot", Kobe going to his fade, or Jordan passing out of a double to Steve Kerr or Paxton for them to hit a game winner "clutchness" to me is not about shooting % but decision making.

The great players already do this ALL the time though; it's not out of some "hidden" ability to perform better. It makes no difference to these players if they're down three or up by 13.

Pressure and the psyche certainly exists. But when you do this for a living, you eventually make it work. Even if you start off "unclutch".

 

[lukethejediknight]

Originally Posted by HybridSoldier23

The bottom line is you want to have the ball in the hands of the most skilled player at the end of the game to help you win. In basketball especially it's about recognizing the situation and give yourself or team the best statistical chance to win the game. I think that "clutch" players recognize what they need to do to get themselves in the best possible position to win.

Whether that is  Ray Allen coming off a down screen to his "sweet spot", Kobe going to his fade, or Jordan passing out of a double to Steve Kerr or Paxton for them to hit a game winner "clutchness" to me is not about shooting % but decision making.

The great players already do this ALL the time though; it's not out of some "hidden" ability to perform better. It makes no difference to these players if they're down three or up by 13.

Pressure and the psyche certainly exists. But when you do this for a living, you eventually make it work. Even if you start off "unclutch".

 

[JD617]

I always thought this was funny. This was pointed out during the Yankees' '09 playoff run:

A-Rod, through 42 postseason games: .291, 25 RBIs, 9 HRs, 46 hits, 158 at-bats, not a True Yankee, not clutch. Reggie Jackson, through his first 42: .265, 19 RBIs, 7 HRs, 40 hits, 151 at-bats, True Yankee, clutch.

 

[JD617]

I always thought this was funny. This was pointed out during the Yankees' '09 playoff run:

A-Rod, through 42 postseason games: .291, 25 RBIs, 9 HRs, 46 hits, 158 at-bats, not a True Yankee, not clutch. Reggie Jackson, through his first 42: .265, 19 RBIs, 7 HRs, 40 hits, 151 at-bats, True Yankee, clutch.

 

[Girl Thats Jules]

you have a great argument


but there is a such thing as clutch factor,if you cant grasp it idk what to tell you


scientists have a hard time proving the theory of gravity but we all know its there