Is Kobe is still exciting to watch?

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
 
Originally Posted by LuketheJediKnight

Click to expand...
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".


Clutchness isn't a hidden ability.  It's just being able to be the same player that everyone knows you're capable of being no matter the situation.  Whether it's a regular season game or game 5 of the nba finals. 

Some players let the pressure get to them and clearly underperform below their standards. 

If you can examine a players career and see a consistency in his stat output - with moderate to low cases of underperformance - with high incidences of games where he either performs up to par or above par - then I don't know why you can't say that such person isn't clutch. 

Your argument is a very frustrating argument to argue against. 

It's basically like saying "I don't know evil exists."

Well I'd say "well such person did such and such yada yada"

Then you say "oh yea such person did do this but was this because the person was evil or it's just because he lacked a chromosome or a neuronal process or a chemical balance that non criminals have.  Is there really such a thing as the concept of evil or is it something that human beings have conditioned in society that it has to exist"
 
Originally Posted by LuketheJediKnight

Click to expand...
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".


Clutchness isn't a hidden ability.  It's just being able to be the same player that everyone knows you're capable of being no matter the situation.  Whether it's a regular season game or game 5 of the nba finals. 

Some players let the pressure get to them and clearly underperform below their standards. 

If you can examine a players career and see a consistency in his stat output - with moderate to low cases of underperformance - with high incidences of games where he either performs up to par or above par - then I don't know why you can't say that such person isn't clutch. 

Your argument is a very frustrating argument to argue against. 

It's basically like saying "I don't know evil exists."

Well I'd say "well such person did such and such yada yada"

Then you say "oh yea such person did do this but was this because the person was evil or it's just because he lacked a chromosome or a neuronal process or a chemical balance that non criminals have.  Is there really such a thing as the concept of evil or is it something that human beings have conditioned in society that it has to exist"
 
--Luke, just wondering because you dont have a sig: who are your teams? (Basketball/football & baseball)
 
--Luke, just wondering because you dont have a sig: who are your teams? (Basketball/football & baseball)
 
amel223 wrote:

Your argument is a very frustrating argument to argue against. 

It's basically like saying "I don't know evil exists."

Let's stick to basketball. This argument seems similar but it's a different can of worms you're opening.

People often assign clutch to future performance, and it's fallacious. I've seen Chauncey Billups miss two free-throws in a row in a close game; I've seen Dwight make both. You could say Dwight was "more clutch", yes, but if these two were on the same team, to give yourself the best chance to win are you going to tell your players to send Billups to the line? Billiups could very well have been distracted by that fan heckling "Chaaaaaaaaaaun-CEEEEEEEEY" and let him get into his head, but would you really have "Nothing But Net" Dwight shoot those free throws instead next time?

Now you can easily extend this to cases that have relatively larger samples like clutch shooting, but if Kobe only hits 30% of his "clutch shots" do I tell defenders to guard him with single-coverage and go double up 40% clutch shooter (just made this up) Robert Horry instead? It's the same idea. This time though, my evidence is Kobe just being a better player than Horry for an awesome 15-year career.

@ Darth - Skins/Nats fan. Don't have a "favorite" in basketball really but I enjoy watching it.
Click to expand...
 
amel223 wrote:

Your argument is a very frustrating argument to argue against. 

It's basically like saying "I don't know evil exists."

Let's stick to basketball. This argument seems similar but it's a different can of worms you're opening.

People often assign clutch to future performance, and it's fallacious. I've seen Chauncey Billups miss two free-throws in a row in a close game; I've seen Dwight make both. You could say Dwight was "more clutch", yes, but if these two were on the same team, to give yourself the best chance to win are you going to tell your players to send Billups to the line? Billiups could very well have been distracted by that fan heckling "Chaaaaaaaaaaun-CEEEEEEEEY" and let him get into his head, but would you really have "Nothing But Net" Dwight shoot those free throws instead next time?

Now you can easily extend this to cases that have relatively larger samples like clutch shooting, but if Kobe only hits 30% of his "clutch shots" do I tell defenders to guard him with single-coverage and go double up 40% clutch shooter (just made this up) Robert Horry instead? It's the same idea. This time though, my evidence is Kobe just being a better player than Horry for an awesome 15-year career.

@ Darth - Skins/Nats fan. Don't have a "favorite" in basketball really but I enjoy watching it.
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by 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? 
grin.gif
  Barry Bonds had a lot of postseason success did he? 
laugh.gif
  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.  Yes I do, years and years of performance.  It's not like A-Rod has only played in one series in his life and got 17 at bats.  Why are you trying to compare 231 to 8500?  The 8500 are irrelevant at that point.  The stakes are raised.  Same in basketball.  Better teams, better competition, more minutes.......come to think of it, how do Advanced stats account for a guy playing in his 100th game of the season, on the road, after playing for 2 and a half hours, and now it comes down to one possession, and the best defender on the court guarding you?  Stats factor all that in do they?  Should we mention any knee or ankle or hand injuries, the flu perhaps, deaths in a family, etc etc.  Stats count all those factors somehow? 

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.  I've seen plenty of stats that count games in final 5 minutes within 5 points, etc.  If there are breakdowns by final 30 seconds in tie games, I would be willing to view those, have em?

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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



  
 
Originally Posted by 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? 
grin.gif
  Barry Bonds had a lot of postseason success did he? 
laugh.gif
  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.  Yes I do, years and years of performance.  It's not like A-Rod has only played in one series in his life and got 17 at bats.  Why are you trying to compare 231 to 8500?  The 8500 are irrelevant at that point.  The stakes are raised.  Same in basketball.  Better teams, better competition, more minutes.......come to think of it, how do Advanced stats account for a guy playing in his 100th game of the season, on the road, after playing for 2 and a half hours, and now it comes down to one possession, and the best defender on the court guarding you?  Stats factor all that in do they?  Should we mention any knee or ankle or hand injuries, the flu perhaps, deaths in a family, etc etc.  Stats count all those factors somehow? 

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.  I've seen plenty of stats that count games in final 5 minutes within 5 points, etc.  If there are breakdowns by final 30 seconds in tie games, I would be willing to view those, have em?

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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



  
 
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
Click to expand...

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%.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

Isn't that exactly the point? The best players overcome the psychological pressure of the moment and still perform up to or beyond what they would in a normal game situation? 
I think what you're trying to say is that any decent player that makes it to a professional league qualifies as a  "highly-trained athlete who has spent a lifetime honing his craft" and "can overcome this factor." I disagree. One of the reasons why a great free throw shooter can clank a pair of important free throws back to back, or a great golfer can blow a short put, or a good hitter can look foolish in a big at bat, is that in situations where we feel the anxiety/pressure to perform, our body and brain do not perform the same way they do during normal action. When you practice an action over and over again and learn the coordination through muscle memory, it becomes second nature after awhile. The part of your brain that you used to learn the specifics/technique is different than the part of your brain that you use once it's perfected through muscle memory and becomes instinctual/second nature. When you first learned to shoot a basketball, most likely your muscles were not naturally inclined to keep your elbow tucked in, balance the ball on your fingertips and flick your wrist and follow through; the process seems not very fluid and somewhat awkward until you've become accustomed to it. 

The point to all this is that studies have shown that in what we're referring to as so-called clutch situations, due to psychological pressure, the brain can "panic" and revert to using the part of the brain we used when we were first learning the action. The result is that instead of a fluid, instinctual movement from muscle memory, the brain attempts to think through the action step by step the way it did while we were learning it and the muscle movement is not coordinated as well as it is when we do it casually/intinctively. (If you've ever heard a coach tell a quarterback to quit aiming so much and just THROW it, that is what this refers to). Assuredly, a lot of professional athletes HAVE overcome this phenomenon. However, it is entirely mental, so no matter how skilled or coordinated somebody is they can still suffer from it if the pressure of the moment gets to them mentally. I can almost guarantee you this is what happened to Nick Anderson in the 1995 Final when he missed 4 straight free throws. Another example would be to walk in a straight line down a path 1 foot wide. Most people can do that pretty easily. But if we take that same 1 foot wide path and put it 200 feet in the air, you would get pretty damn nervous wouldn't you? Your brain is thinking "Oh crap, if I don't nail this I'm going to fall down and die!" So instead of casually operating the same way it does when you walk every day, it pretty much switches over to the part that it used when you first learned to walk, and it's not near as easy at is when you are doing it while safely on the ground. This is an extreme example, but it's the same principle that affects how the brain and body work together in pressure situations. 

One of my friends had an internship with a sports psychology company this past summer and while they worked mostly with tennis and soccer player they were studying similar issues. I don't recall all of the specific terms but basically, they measured indicators for anxiety/stress levels physiologically while the athletes played and studied how their performance changed when their anxiety/stress/adrenaline levels fluctuated. There were certain "acceptable" baselines for these numbers during athletic activity. One of the athletes they brought in was a professional tennis player, and he played against the guy who was conducting the studies (he was a professor, who I guess was also pretty good at tennis). What they found was that even though the pro player was more skilled, when his anxiety/adrenaline peaked at key points in the match, his performance suffered; he was feeling the pressure of the moment. Conversely, his opponent (the professor leading the study) posted the same expected anxiety peaks at key points in the match, but he responded the opposite way; his performance either remained consistent, or sometimes improved in these spots. 

All of this is to say, don't assume that because a player is highly skilled that they will perform well in pressure-filled situations, especially because they may be using a different part of their brain involuntarily. All the shooting percentages and stats etc go out the window in that instance because the body and brain may not be working together the same way they did when they compiled those statistics from that large sample size. Additionally you can't prove that an athlete will either never suffer from that performance anxiety or he will always suffer. He might hit a game winner in the 10th game of the season against the Timberwolves because he doesn't feel the pressure, but once he's in the 7th game of the finals he could be scared to death and that other part of his brain kicks in. So all the percentages and sample sizes etc are only valid if you assume that every athlete has overcome the phenomenon I'm talking about, and their stats are a direct result of their ability/skill. Also, the stats may not account for whether or not the player created the shot for themselves rather than just spotting up in the corner for a wide open 3, how closely they were defended, who was defending them, etc. Or if we look at a stat as dumb as scoring in crunch time, that doesn't account for a situation where a player drew a double team and then had a hockey style assist. They would get no statistical credit for that play, and yet they were the one that was responsible for it. Or look at the example CP brought up about Amare. That's why CP and I are arguing that you can't quantify everything through stats because they are blind, things have to pass the eye test. 

In the end, I'll take the guys who want the ball in that situation and have a history of making plays. That would indicate to me that they are both highly skilled compared to their peers and also respond to stress/pressure/anxiety the way the professor did in the tennis match. That way I can be reasonably confident that they either don't react negatively to  the pressure or they even thrive on it; regardless of whether or not they hit 30% of their clutch shots according to your data or 50% of them. 
 
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
Click to expand...

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%.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

Isn't that exactly the point? The best players overcome the psychological pressure of the moment and still perform up to or beyond what they would in a normal game situation? 
I think what you're trying to say is that any decent player that makes it to a professional league qualifies as a  "highly-trained athlete who has spent a lifetime honing his craft" and "can overcome this factor." I disagree. One of the reasons why a great free throw shooter can clank a pair of important free throws back to back, or a great golfer can blow a short put, or a good hitter can look foolish in a big at bat, is that in situations where we feel the anxiety/pressure to perform, our body and brain do not perform the same way they do during normal action. When you practice an action over and over again and learn the coordination through muscle memory, it becomes second nature after awhile. The part of your brain that you used to learn the specifics/technique is different than the part of your brain that you use once it's perfected through muscle memory and becomes instinctual/second nature. When you first learned to shoot a basketball, most likely your muscles were not naturally inclined to keep your elbow tucked in, balance the ball on your fingertips and flick your wrist and follow through; the process seems not very fluid and somewhat awkward until you've become accustomed to it. 

The point to all this is that studies have shown that in what we're referring to as so-called clutch situations, due to psychological pressure, the brain can "panic" and revert to using the part of the brain we used when we were first learning the action. The result is that instead of a fluid, instinctual movement from muscle memory, the brain attempts to think through the action step by step the way it did while we were learning it and the muscle movement is not coordinated as well as it is when we do it casually/intinctively. (If you've ever heard a coach tell a quarterback to quit aiming so much and just THROW it, that is what this refers to). Assuredly, a lot of professional athletes HAVE overcome this phenomenon. However, it is entirely mental, so no matter how skilled or coordinated somebody is they can still suffer from it if the pressure of the moment gets to them mentally. I can almost guarantee you this is what happened to Nick Anderson in the 1995 Final when he missed 4 straight free throws. Another example would be to walk in a straight line down a path 1 foot wide. Most people can do that pretty easily. But if we take that same 1 foot wide path and put it 200 feet in the air, you would get pretty damn nervous wouldn't you? Your brain is thinking "Oh crap, if I don't nail this I'm going to fall down and die!" So instead of casually operating the same way it does when you walk every day, it pretty much switches over to the part that it used when you first learned to walk, and it's not near as easy at is when you are doing it while safely on the ground. This is an extreme example, but it's the same principle that affects how the brain and body work together in pressure situations. 

One of my friends had an internship with a sports psychology company this past summer and while they worked mostly with tennis and soccer player they were studying similar issues. I don't recall all of the specific terms but basically, they measured indicators for anxiety/stress levels physiologically while the athletes played and studied how their performance changed when their anxiety/stress/adrenaline levels fluctuated. There were certain "acceptable" baselines for these numbers during athletic activity. One of the athletes they brought in was a professional tennis player, and he played against the guy who was conducting the studies (he was a professor, who I guess was also pretty good at tennis). What they found was that even though the pro player was more skilled, when his anxiety/adrenaline peaked at key points in the match, his performance suffered; he was feeling the pressure of the moment. Conversely, his opponent (the professor leading the study) posted the same expected anxiety peaks at key points in the match, but he responded the opposite way; his performance either remained consistent, or sometimes improved in these spots. 

All of this is to say, don't assume that because a player is highly skilled that they will perform well in pressure-filled situations, especially because they may be using a different part of their brain involuntarily. All the shooting percentages and stats etc go out the window in that instance because the body and brain may not be working together the same way they did when they compiled those statistics from that large sample size. Additionally you can't prove that an athlete will either never suffer from that performance anxiety or he will always suffer. He might hit a game winner in the 10th game of the season against the Timberwolves because he doesn't feel the pressure, but once he's in the 7th game of the finals he could be scared to death and that other part of his brain kicks in. So all the percentages and sample sizes etc are only valid if you assume that every athlete has overcome the phenomenon I'm talking about, and their stats are a direct result of their ability/skill. Also, the stats may not account for whether or not the player created the shot for themselves rather than just spotting up in the corner for a wide open 3, how closely they were defended, who was defending them, etc. Or if we look at a stat as dumb as scoring in crunch time, that doesn't account for a situation where a player drew a double team and then had a hockey style assist. They would get no statistical credit for that play, and yet they were the one that was responsible for it. Or look at the example CP brought up about Amare. That's why CP and I are arguing that you can't quantify everything through stats because they are blind, things have to pass the eye test. 

In the end, I'll take the guys who want the ball in that situation and have a history of making plays. That would indicate to me that they are both highly skilled compared to their peers and also respond to stress/pressure/anxiety the way the professor did in the tennis match. That way I can be reasonably confident that they either don't react negatively to  the pressure or they even thrive on it; regardless of whether or not they hit 30% of their clutch shots according to your data or 50% of them. 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dave East
Feeling Nostalgic, F IT. NFL Week 3 In Review ! ! ! ! !
Replies
9
Views
404
spacedoodoo
spacedoodoo
Brownstone
Buzzer Beaters Only Thread
Replies
8
Views
600
Public Enemy
Public Enemy
fdub
New Rapper: Jam Wayne from Gadson, Alabama
Replies
0
Views
5K
fdub
fdub
therealest1
Adidas Crazy 2 (Kobe 2) - Returning in 2025
Replies
5
Views
1K
da hen
da hen
feeninlikejodeci
Tactics to scare Landlord?
Replies
12
Views
1K
feeninlikejodeci
feeninlikejodeci

Latest News

View All News

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom