Official NBA Discussion Thread

[Slagaholic]

Clutch may exist in basketball, but in baseball it most often evens out. I don't follow basketball much. But in baseball there is more than enough evidence to suggest that in baseball, clutchness is highly overrated.

 

The point is, in the context of any game clutch isn't as important as we think. When a team loses on a last second shot...is that why they lost? Of course not. The previous 47 minutes 58 seconds are why.

 

Human nature and emotion is why we think clutch is important, but really if you're good for the first 47 minutes, being clutch isn't necessary (in the context in which you're using it).

[lazorbeak]

Clutch doesn't exist. But since people keep referring to it, someone tracked that stat as far as game winning shots. Haven't seen one with this year included, but the latest one I found includes this little nugget:

 

http://www.82games.com/gamewinningshots.htm

 

Through the 08-09 season (not including playoffs), Vince Carter had taken less "game winners" and made more than Kobe Bryant. In fact, Bryant was hitting it at a 25% rate.

 

Wonder how the stats have changed since then.

 

Perception is reality I guess, in the NBA.

 

Yeah, clutch does exist. I've seen it. I've lived it. I've hit clutch free throws to win games. I've knocked down threes that took games out of reach, and I've been on the court when guys more clutch than me have hit half court unbelievable shots when they needed to. It's harder to score at the end of the game because a) you're tired, b) the refs are reluctant to decide the game short of your murder, and c) there's more pressure. That is why the best clutch players are often players that play off of contact, because they're expecting it and aren't counting on a ref to bail them out. And while VC has made clutch threes in regular season games, his playoff record is far less impressive. He's sat on the bench with a towel on his head far more often than he's forced his way through contact to knock down tough shots, because he lacks physical and mental toughness. It's why a guy like Kobe has 4 championships and VC... doesn't.

 

It's one thing to say that Kobe's shot-making is overrated (it is), but it just makes you sound like you've never played the game to say it doesn't exist.

 

"Clutch doesn't exist" is one of those retarded things statisticians and sebermetrics geeks spout off. It's BS. So any two free throws at any point in a game are exactly the same regardless of game situation, time on the clock, playoff or regular season, etc?

 

It completely ignore human nature and emotion and the way athletes react to their outside environment. It's a crap theory.

 

Agreed. There is no pressure at all in a lot of plays you make in basketball because so much of it is second nature. When there is pressure it's how players react to it that defines them. Take Steve Kerr. He was never a physical specimen, but in a playoff game against the Mavericks in 2003, with the Spurs down, Kerr enters the game and hits FOUR three pointers to bring them back, having not played at all the entire playoffs to that point. That is clutch. It's not just that he hit 4 three pointers, it was that he completely turned things around so suddenly it was the Mavs who were under pressure to respond, and they couldn't do it.

[lazorbeak]

Clutch may exist in basketball, but in baseball it most often evens out. I don't follow basketball much. But in baseball there is more than enough evidence to suggest that in baseball, clutchness is highly overrated.

 

The point is, in the context of any game clutch isn't as important as we think. When a team loses on a last second shot...is that why they lost? Of course not. The previous 47 minutes 58 seconds are why.

 

Human nature and emotion is why we think clutch is important, but really if you're good for the first 47 minutes, being clutch isn't necessary (in the context in which you're using it).

 

Being "clutch" goes far beyond game winning shots. It involves toughness on offense and defense, individually and as a team. On a team like the Lakers, any guy could get the game-winner on a given night. If you have a lead and the other team starts making a run, being clutch can be the difference between holding your composure and answering or letting the other team back into the game. If you're behind, being clutch means playing tough defense and creating opportunities for yourself to get back into the game.

 

There's a reason that the Lakers are winners and the Clippers are losers, and a lot of times it comes down to: the Lakers made plays when they had to, and the Clippers didn't. All the talent in the world can't buy you a championship. You need to have desire, that swagger, that belief that you are the best. "Clutch" is a measure of that desire.

[GatorBait19]

I don't understand where this Hedo Defense is coming from?

 

Watch the whole season plus the playoffs the defense it isn't there. In fact Lebron would torch Hedo when he was in the game, but the moment Mike P. would enter he would challenge Lebron. Lebron struggled against Mike P. and did well against the likes of Lewis and Hedo.

 

 

 

I am not defending Carter, but when you look at the stats Carter did better this year. He doesn't play the 3 he plays the 2. With the trade of Carter we also got a kid who reminds people of Hedo. We only have to deal with Carter for two more years (which means maybe only one because someone might want his expiring contract) to where we would have to deal with Hedo for 4.

 

Was Carter there in the playoff's (outside of the first two series) no.

 

The Magic need to do a lot of work this offseason. We have 3 and 2 years left with Lewis and Carter. Nelson and Howard are the two true players that should be kept on this team. I don't like Van Gundy (don't like his offense) but he is a good coach. They need a PF (like a Bass or Gortat) who can play good minutes, when the Magic three point game is going it's because they fed the ball inside for shots.

 

 

The Magic have some big trade peices, Gortat (big Center that people wanted last year for only 5 million), Bass (feel out of favor with the Magic.... to bad), a 8 million dollar trade exemp.

[GatorBait19]

Being "clutch" goes far beyond game winning shots. It involves toughness on offense and defense, individually and as a team. On a team like the Lakers, any guy could get the game-winner on a given night. If you have a lead and the other team starts making a run, being clutch can be the difference between holding your composure and answering or letting the other team back into the game. If you're behind, being clutch means playing tough defense and creating opportunities for yourself to get back into the game.

 

There's a reason that the Lakers are winners and the Clippers are losers, and a lot of times it comes down to: the Lakers made plays when they had to, and the Clippers didn't. All the talent in the world can't buy you a championship. You need to have desire, that swagger, that belief that you are the best. "Clutch" is a measure of that desire.

 

 

That and the fact the Clippers have pretty much sucked. Lately I give it to them for spending money, but they still have a crap load of holes plus horrible coaching.

 

A better example could have been the Wiz (a couple years ago) vs the Lakers

 

Wiz just didn't hit key shots (like the magic this year and finals last year) it really hurts not having a clutch player.

[lazorbeak]

Seriously you can't watch this:

 

and argue whether clutch exists. Two huge baskets and a steal in the last 30 seconds that's the difference between winning and losing.

[GatorBait19]

Also last thing, people who say Hedo not being there was the difference for the Magic I give some points

 

1) We won 7 more games in the regular season this year

 

2) Magic only gave up one more point per game on average than last year

 

4) Our points per game went up by one this season

 

3) The C's vs Magic last year went 7 games with the Magic winning game 7 up there in 09 playoffs. KG didn't play in that series.

[GatorBait19]

Seriously you can't watch this:

 

and argue whether clutch exists. Two huge baskets and a steal in the last 30 seconds that's the difference between winning and losing.

 

was that to me? I didn't argue about clutch.

 

Clutch does exist, think Brady, Kobe, the shot Lebron made last year against the magic to win or send it to overtime. Maybe what he means by clutch is it doesn't exist because anyone can be clutch? but you'd have to ask him that one.

[Slagaholic]

Being "clutch" goes far beyond game winning shots. It involves toughness on offense and defense, individually and as a team. On a team like the Lakers, any guy could get the game-winner on a given night. If you have a lead and the other team starts making a run, being clutch can be the difference between holding your composure and answering or letting the other team back into the game. If you're behind, being clutch means playing tough defense and creating opportunities for yourself to get back into the game.

 

If you think when a team is playing well and has good players is clutch, then we have two very different definitions of clutch.

 

There's a reason that the Lakers are winners and the Clippers are losers, and a lot of times it comes down to: the Lakers made plays when they had to, and the Clippers didn't.

Stop throwing cliches around. The Lakers made the plays because they're a better team. Well put together, better coach, better front office, better home court environment, better everything. Those can't all just be attributed to being clutch. Your definition of clutch is far too broad.

 

All the talent in the world can't buy you a championship. You need to have desire, that swagger, that belief that you are the best. "Clutch" is a measure of that desire.

 

You can desire all you want to hit that fade away three pointer over 3 defenders at the buzzer, but no matter how 'clutch' you are, the chances are that you're going to miss it. Just like in baseball, even in clutch situations even the best players fail 70% of the time.

 

Seriously you can't watch this:

 

and argue whether clutch exists. Two huge baskets and a steal in the last 30 seconds that's the difference between winning and losing.

 

I'll argue that you're overstating the potency of 'clutchness.'

 

The thing that bothers me about clutchness is that great athletes are guilty of being unclutch until proven innocent. The expectations of fans in "clutch situations" is ridiculous. Pro sports chiefly decided by a combination of skill and luck, but people tend ignore luck in "clutch situations".

 

When that ball bounced off the rim three times, off of seven players and bounced right to you and you made that relatively easy jump shot? Clutch.

[lazorbeak]

If you think when a team is playing well and has good players is clutch, then we have two very different definitions of clutch.

 

The Mavericks play well and have good players every year for a decade, but they are not clutch. Same with the Jazz, same with this current Hawks squad, same with a lot of teams that never make it over the hill. Talent is not enough. And again, I'm not talking about playing well and having good players. I'm talking about having mental toughness both individually and as a team to rebound from adversity when it happens, because you have to be able to do it every game.

 

 

Stop throwing cliches around. The Lakers made the plays because they're a better team. Well put together, better coach, better front office, better home court environment, better everything. Those can't all just be attributed to being clutch. Your definition of clutch is far too broad.

 

The point is, the Clippers are playing the same game. The Lakers are better run and better coached, obviously, but there is literally nothing stopping the 12 guys that suit up from the Clippers from winning any game on any given night. But no, my definition of clutch is not all encompassing. Again, it comes up maybe a few times a game, but my point is that it is not something that only applies to the last two seconds of a game. There are multiple clutch possessions that help determine every game.

 

 

I'll argue that you're overstating the potency of 'clutchness.'

 

The thing that bothers me about clutchness is that great athletes are guilty of being unclutch until proven innocent. The expectations of fans in "clutch situations" is ridiculous. Pro sports chiefly decided by a combination of skill and luck, but people tend ignore luck in "clutch situations".

 

When that ball bounced off the rim three times, off of seven players and bounced right to you and you made that relatively easy jump shot? Clutch.

 

Because "clutchness" as you call it is so tied to winning, and until we've seen a player win, how sure are we that he has this attribute that winners possess? Not everyone can be a winner. In fact, most aren't. So when you see a guy like Robert Horry, who, when the ball happens to bounce towards him, is ready and able to hit the big shot, you know you're dealing with someone who is "clutch." When you see Dwayne Wade initiate contact and out-muscle the Mavericks, or Jordan create separation from Russell to hit a game-winner, you're dealing with guys that when they needed to make big plays, made them. I don't think I can emphasize how important it is, because more than talent, it's what separates the haves from the have-nots in basketball.

 

Again, I've experienced this first-hand. There are guys that you want on the court with you at the end of the game and guys that you want on the bench with towels on their heads.

[Slagaholic]

There's no use arguing anymore. It's been fun though

[PeterHilton]

Slag, you're definition is cluth is too connected to baseball (where it's easier to statistically recognize repetition in a player's performance ) and - as I stated earlier to the previous poster - ignores the emotional context of the game.

[Slagaholic]

Just like 'clutch' ignores luck.

[PeterHilton]

And? So does any kind of statistical analysis.

[Slagaholic]

So it's alright to ignore luck? In my opinion, ignoring luck means the game might as well be played on a computer.

[TakerNGN74]

Not a huge fan of the finals right now, I was hoping that Phoenix would get the upset on LA. Even if they would have lost the finals to Boston it still would have been something different. I could really care less about the finals now because LA is in it and they have won way too many times and the Celtics have as well. I guess if I had to cheer for one team I would go with the Celtics because it would break up LA's wins again.

[CQI13]

I'm glad it's LA, hopefully they come through this time. I dislike Boston's Whiny 3, and Gazoo.

[PeterHilton]

So it's alright to ignore luck? In my opinion, ignoring luck means the game might as well be played on a computer.

 

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

"Luck" is just as indefinable and indeterminate a quality as you seem to think that "clutch" is. If you want people to take something as ambiguous and totally random as luck into the equation then you pretty much HAVE to talk about players who are clutch.

 

After all, if you're going to ignore the fact that some players know how to clutch up, then the game might as well be played on a computer.

 

EDIT: I want to clarify because i don't want to seem totally dismissive of youur opinion

 

I've read lots of articles talking about how clutch is a myth in baseball; basically that if you take a large enough sample size then players perform under pressure situations in a way so similar to their performance under normal circumstances that the difference is negligible.

 

Fine.

 

but terms like 'clutch' and 'luck' and 'homefield advantage' and 'the will of the <insert sport here> Gods all fall under a very nebulous aspect of athletes and their psyche that really can't be measured or explained by stats. Can stats explain why some players always seem to perfrom best in the most importan games? Not really.

 

They also can't explain why certain franchises always get the worst bounces, how certain players can fall ass backwards into great plays, or why athletes like Rick Ankiel or that catcher from Texas can go from totally normal to getting the yips and being able to perform the most rudimentary of acts.

 

So yes...fans don't realize that 'cluth' has something to do with luck.

 

But if you're going to take luck into the equation, then you have to also consider that some players are just more likely to succeed in trying circumstance (they're clutch!) regardless of the numbers.

 

Anbd if you want to eliminate clutch, then do the same for luck, because that kind of thins is all sports voodoo that will never be fully explained by numbers alone. .

[Slagaholic]

I don't want to eliminate clutch from sports lingo. And I'm not trying to say that clutch doesn't exist. I just wanted to point out that there is more to big plays and big shots than just clutchness. Clutchness alone is not enough in big situations.

 

Really we agree on this matter, I just chose to play devil's advocate. I want it to be known that clutchness is not something that only winning teams have, and that it is something that will rarely determines the outcome of a game.

[lazorbeak]

I don't want to eliminate clutch from sports lingo. And I'm not trying to say that clutch doesn't exist. I just wanted to point out that there is more to big plays and big shots than just clutchness. Clutchness alone is not enough in big situations.

 

Really we agree on this matter, I just chose to play devil's advocate. I want it to be known that clutchness is not something that only winning teams have, and that it is something that will rarely determines the outcome of a game.

 

If "clutchness" is something that more teams have, why don't we see it? Are you seriously saying that teams that fail to win big games year after year are just unlucky? To me, that suggests that 1. You've never played the game, and 2. you don't even watch the game. As I said earlier, there's a different attitude and a different style of play when the pressure is on, and teams lacking a player willing to be physical and make plays is often the difference between winning and losing. There is a mindset that "clutch" teams have and other teams don't. Heck, even baseball, a sport you're apparently more familiar with, how long was it that the Red Sox were the ultimate in NOT being clutch? And you saw it from the players and the fans until they came back from a 3-0 deficit where they trailed late in the game in both games 4 and 5 but rallied. This was a team where the fans expecting them to choke and the players themselves seemed half-ready to choke for years, and suddenly a switch flips and they win 2 championships in 4 years. That's not the result of just getting a couple of lucky breaks or just being talented. That's about changing the team's mindset.

 

Statistically, yes, you've got between a 1 in 3 and a 1 in 4 shot to get a hit on any given at-bat, but that's under no pressure at all. Guys who aren't "clutch" are the ones that might as well already be out by the time they stepped to the plate. Even if the pitcher totally blows it they aren't ready to take advantage of the situation because they're too busy psyching themselves out.

[Tha Black Phenom]

Huh? That was the most baffling "defense" of a player I've ever seen. He missed two free throws in a game the Magic absolutely had to win at the beginning of the series, was nowhere to be seen when Howard struggled, and "they got this far" is a poor response because they got ..yknow... FARTHER last year..

 

Disagree on the Howard part. He dropped 20s at a few times, his season stats aren't baffling, only if lower than Turk.. he was "there" so to speak. Just not enough there. He is overpaid, inconsistent no doubt about it but he DID step up. He brought it, just not when they needed him the most(which is essentially what you said at the beginning).

 

His role was largely overcompensated, they should've seen what role he had in the Raptors and Nets. He was the running boat but clearly neither of the teams went anywhere much. But he shouldn't be completely thrown to the wolves is what I'm saying. Abysmal signing as you said, the bad egg being more on the shoulders of the Magic higher-ups and what they prepped for him.

[GatorBait19]

Disagree on the Howard part. He dropped 20s at a few times, his season stats aren't baffling, only if lower than Turk.. he was "there" so to speak. Just not enough there. He is overpaid, inconsistent no doubt about it but he DID step up. He brought it, just not when they needed him the most(which is essentially what you said at the beginning).

 

His role was largely overcompensated, they should've seen what role he had in the Raptors and Nets. He was the running boat but clearly neither of the teams went anywhere much. But he shouldn't be completely thrown to the wolves is what I'm saying. Abysmal signing as you said, the bad egg being more on the shoulders of the Magic higher-ups and what they prepped for him.

 

C's have been the best team in the east for three years now. the reason the magic got passed them last year was because of the simple fact that KG wasn't in the lineup. That means Orlando us still 2 and Cavaliers 3.

 

The key to the magic offense is Howard, he has an offensive game (granted not where it should be for all the hype people give him). When teams are forced to double team Howard it allows for the quick passes to one of the open men on the perimeter

 

 

But hands down C's proved they were the better team and no not because hedo wasn't there.

[GatorBait19]

Along with clutch doesn't composure come into play. Carter has show he's been clutch in the past games. You could say he lost his composure shooting the two FT.

 

Composure plays just a big of a factor as anything. QB lose composure and Pitchers lose it, so wouldn't composure be an add on with clutch?

[GatorBait19]

Disagree on the Howard part. He dropped 20s at a few times, his season stats aren't baffling, only if lower than Turk.. he was "there" so to speak. Just not enough there. He is overpaid, inconsistent no doubt about it but he DID step up. He brought it, just not when they needed him the most(which is essentially what you said at the beginning).

 

His role was largely overcompensated, they should've seen what role he had in the Raptors and Nets. He was the running boat but clearly neither of the teams went anywhere much. But he shouldn't be completely thrown to the wolves is what I'm saying. Abysmal signing as you said, the bad egg being more on the shoulders of the Magic higher-ups and what they prepped for him.

 

Did you mean Carter?

 

Carter had better stats then Hedo did, he had a higher FG% then the last two years Hedo was with the Magic and a better FT% as well. (the 3 was only of by 1%).

 

I didn't understand how Carter was the best Offensive weapon for the Magic game 1,2,3 and 6 but couldn't score in 4 and 5 our only 2 wins.

[CQI13]

Tim Donaghy is currently 14-2 picking games these playoffs. Awesome!