No. I would say if they wanted to change the result, they should have asked the team to replay the game. I understand your point that if something changed in the past, subsequent events would not have happened the same way. But it still does not make the event unimportant to the ultimate result. That win would surely be tainted because of the mistake.
Edit: If the Rockets won by making a last second "clutch" shot in that game, that mistake in the 1st quarter would make the "clutch" shot almost meaningless. In a football game, if a team is behind by 6 points at the last play of the game. Is a touchdown or the extra point more important to winning?
How is it meaningless if its the difference between a win and loss? We're not talking about moral victories here, are we? I think the touchdown is more important. If there is no touchdown, there is pretty much no chance of winning. With a touchdown, you give yourself maybe a 90% chance of winning (depending on the accuracy of your kicker). So I would credit an importance of .90 to the touchdown. For the extra point, if the kicker misses it the game goes into overtime, where let's say there is a 50/50 chance of winning. If he makes it, the game is won. So, I would credit an importance of .50 to the extra point.
I thought before you said that each individual shot is equally important. That is what I disagreed with. Now you are arguing that "all the other points/shots" put together should be considered as important as the last one? That may or may not be true. But it is a different argument. How spectacular a shot is has little importance as far as winning the game. Far more relevant is the current score and how much time is remaining. Perhaps I'm not grasping the point you're making here. In your scenario, the last play requires the Rockets to get the steal, bring it quickly across half court, find Yao underneath, and for Yao to make the layup. At the start, the Rockets are down 2, without the ball, no timeouts remaining, with less than 10 seconds left. Under those circumstances, they had maybe a 10% chance of winning the game (perhaps more, perhaps less). At the end, they had a 50% chance of winning it (its heading into overtime). So, I'll attach an "importance" of .40 to the entire sequence, with the steal being arguably as important as the make (if there is no steal the Spurs go to the line where they were hitting their free throws, and the Rockets have no timeouts). What about the preceding 3-pointers? Consider the first one. On that possession, with maybe 40 seconds remaining, the Rockets were down 7. McGrady's made 3-pointer cuts it to 4 with 33 seconds remaining (and without the ball). If McGrady doesn't take and make that shot, the Rockets probability of winning is, generously, 1%. After making it, the probability is maybe something like 1/20. So I'll give .04 to that one. It gave the Rockets a glimmer of hope. Unfortunately, the Spurs make both their free throws, so the Rockets are again down 6. The next 3-pointer cuts it to 3. I don't recall the time remaining, but let's say it was 20 seconds. Without McGrady taking and making that shot, the Rockets are pretty much dead (let's say 0.5%). After the make, the Rockets are down only 3 with 20 seconds to go. I'll guess that gives them maybe a 1/10 chance of stealing the win. So he gets .095 for the second make. The Spurs make 2 more free throws, and the Rockets get the ball down 5 with, what, 10 seconds left? Now things are even more desperate. If McGrady does not take and make his shot, the chances of winning are almost negligible (I'll put it at 0.05%). But after hitting and bringing the score down to 2, he's again given his team maybe a 1/10 chance of winning the game. So I'll give him .0995 for that one. Adding it all up, I'll credit the three 3-point makes with an "importance" of .235 (or thereabouts). That's huge, but does it supercede the steal and finish at the end in importance? By my guesstimates, no. Perhaps a more careful investigation of game probabilities would suggest differently. But in terms of level of difficulty, we could reach a different conclusion. The chances of McGrady hitting those three 3-pointers in a row may very well be less than the chances of getting a steal and taking it the length of the court for a game tying layup. But let's not confuse difficulty with importance. Two different things (though I will acknowledge that if a player has a knack for making difficult or spectacular plays, he could be more reliable when an important play is needed). Saying it is worth same amount of points is of course true. That is different from saying they are worth the same amount in improving a team's chances of winning the game, or they are all equally important.
Easy, you still thinking winning a game 1 is as important as winning a game 7? That seems very counter-intuitive to me.
But your proposed method doesn't measure "clutchness" but rather measures the VALUE of clutchness. Do you see the difference. You're coming up with a system that ties Clutchness to the value of winning a championship. I'm talking about being clutch itself. And that's not measureable because no one can really actually say what is truly clutch. Michael Jordan hitting that jumper against Utah - clutch right? Or was it clutch by Jordan's standard? Or just an easy play? That shot won the championship - so clearly it's one of the highest rated clutch moment in basketball right? Maybe not. I'd say Reggie Miller's performance against the Knicks was far more Clutch. Hitting the trey, then stealing the inbounds pass, running outside the three point line and hittting another 3 - that might be the biggest clutch performance in the NBA's history. Yet it didn't win the Pacers the championship. So how do you assign values to make that work. You can't. You just know it was freaking the greatest thing.
Sure you can. You're combining the unlikelihood of the play (hitting a contested shot, getting the steal, hitting another shot) along with the importance of the moment. If one wanted to, they could come up with a metric to do that as well. It's alright for your criteria to be different from mine. As long as it is sensible, just apply it consistently for all players and all plays. "Stats" help us to do that, because there are a lot of players/plays to wade through.
Yes. It is counter intuitive only because of the emotional factor as I argued. I'll say more to your other points when I have time later.
But it's not just the importance of the moment - that's my point. If you were to do that, than all the greatest clutch moments were in the finals or conference finals. That's not the case.
It doesn't have to be the case. Set your own criteria on what you consider clutch. But have criteria. Have a certain reasoning behind your assessment. And then strive to apply it consistently for all plays, without bias towards any particular player. We can agree on that?
It is counter-intuitive because a series can not be won or lost in game 1. Not seeing the relevance of the "emotional factor" you keep referencing. I'm arguing from the standpoint of what is at stake, not how emotionally charged the moment is.
Durvasa I have to say I'm really impressed with your patience and respect. Sweet Lou, Pmac, Roslian, and Easy all appear to be idiots yet you treat them as equals. Impressive.
Having known them all for a while on this board, I know them all to be intelligent and very knowledgeable basketball fans. They are respectful towards me, as I try to be towards them.
Idiots? Because we have a different viewpoint? At least we can come up with a semblance of coherent thought. The only idiot I see here is you
It's one thing to have different viewpoints. It's another to have different viewpoints that are illogical.
You can be wrong and still be smarter than people who just blindly accept what someone says just because he has a rep of being a stats guy. All this time we have been arguing with Durvasa I haven't seen any contribution from you whatsoever then you suddenly appear out of nowhere and insult me with that condescending post? Don't piggyback Durvasa's points like you're part of the "cool kids" just because you agree with him, you haven't done squat.
First of all, where have I piggybacked his points? Secondly, I don't care to be part of the "cool kids" clique. I'm not in high school anymore. Thirdly, it doesn't matter if you're smarter than the senseless masses. If you're unable to accept your mistakes, you're still an idiot. And fourthly, you shouldn't be so shocked that my post insulted you. Unlike Durvasa, I see nothing wrong with ridiculing idiots. I actually believe that in the long run, it improves the quality of the board. Hopefully, it'll give people some incentive to do a little research before they post. Anyways, just so we stay on topic, here was one of your posts: In other words, you believe that your first possession of the game (assume you are down by 2) is just as important as your last possession of the game (assume you're down by 2, 10 seconds left). Do you really think that's a logical assertion?
That's my point. You haven't posted anything yet you have the nerve to insult people who have been trying to have a meaningful and fruitful discussion here. Anyway I don't want to waste my time like this. Carry on.
