Whats the difference between a guy who scores 10 points in the first three quarters, 0 in the fourth. vs. A guy who scores 30 in the first three and none in the fourth? Answer: Nothing. The guy scores 30 points in the game and that is that. When your points are scored has zero effect on the outcome of the game.
not* To explain myself further, if a guy scores 30 in the first three but nothing in the forth, he has no momentum. if a guy scores 20 in the fourth, he has momentum, he has the psychological edge per se, rather than the guy who fades out in the fourth
There are more "high leverage moments" in 4th quarters -- possessions that can dramatically swing the likelihood of winning the game. Morey has briefly mentioned it in the past. http://www.nba.com/rockets/news/Q_and_A_with_Daryl_Morey-299705-34.html [rquoter] JCF: I heard you discussing something the other day that I found to be fascinating. You were talking about “high leverage moments” late in games. Can you go into the meaning of that term and how it relates to the Rockets? DM: I don’t want to go into details since it’s somewhat proprietary, but it basically looks into what people would consider key moments of the game, where the chance of one team winning or the other would shift dramatically. We just add a little more sophistication to it, that’s all. JCF: And the Rockets have been very poor in that area, correct? DM: Yeah, we’ve been last out of all the playoff teams and we’ve been even worse recently. So we have to address that. I think we might see Aaron a little more, because he’s had some success in those situations. JCF: But I imagine a big part of getting better depends on Tracy getting back to being Tracy? DM: Yeah, that’s the most important thing. I mean, we’re not counting on Aaron. We’re expecting Tracy to get back to that role. JCF: How have you been in recent years in that area? DM: We haven’t been the worst, but we’ve not been good. Below average. JCF: So if history indicates you’ve been below average and you’ve been even worse this year, do you feel like it’s realistic to expect that to change? DM: That’s why we’re looking at things like Aaron, and also coach may try to get Tracy into better situations. [/rquoter]
I don't need Daryl Morey to tell me that points in the 4th quarter, in a tight game, are harder to come by than points in the first 3 quarters, against oft mixed lineups with much less pressure. Common sense should tell anyone that is true.
You can run a great marathon and have a lead on everybody for 3/4 of the race, but what's the point if you fall at the end before the finish line and lose?
I just don't prescribe to this. It seems to me to be about perceptions. People generally perceive Kobe as a clutch player, but then I read some stats about how he hasnt been nearly as good as he is made out to be. Take Hakeem as another example. Suppose Elie misses the kiss of death and Rockets go on to lose that series but Hakeem plays exactly the same in every way. Hakeem's legacy and his perception of clutchness completely changes, despite ZERO playing differences from the actual outcome. I dont believe there is some trait or ability to magically step it up at a specific time of the game. You play the game, you shoot your shots and they either go in or they dont. Unless you think that the refs intentionally keep the games close for a photo finish at the end of the game, I don't see the difference between 2 points scored in the second, and 2 points in the fourth.
Its not magic and its not perception. Strategy changes at the end of the close games. Intensity picks up. The best players are on the floor. The pressure is on, and some players feel it more than others. These are real factors. You don't see the difference between a 2nd-half last second shot with the score tied versus a 1st-half last second shot with the score tied? The former determines which team wins the game. The latter determines which team is ahead at half-time, with still a whole half of basketball left to play. That's a pretty big difference.
This is a huge flaw in your thinking. Its like saying there is no difference between game 45 and game 7 in the playofs. Games are played in ebbs and flows and as the game goes on, the intensity picks up. The refs aren'e trying to keep it close, but the last 4 mins of games are where games are won and lost logically speaking. Thats not to say you cant lose a game from the outset, but 20 pt lead in the first is different from a 20 pt lead in the 4th with 5 mins left.
I just personally believe the outcome is the sum of the entire game, not the last 4-8-12 minutes. Going into the forth, if you scored x earlier, you are up x points, you didnt you dont have those points. Saying the game is different with two minutes left tied is fine, but if you scored earlier its not tied with two minutes left, you are up with two minutes left. In my opinion, its just perceptions drawn from the excitement of the game.
If you score earlier, it may still be tied with two minutes left. It depends on what transpired between the extra score and the 2 minute mark. We can objectively say that garbage time is less important than last 5 minutes with the score tied. We can objectively say that what happens in the final minute of the second quarter with the score tied is less important than what happens in the final minute of the 4th quarter with the score tied. An emotionless computer estimating the changing probabilities of one team beating the other can see it, so how can this be construed as a "perceptions drawn from the excitement of the game"?
My amateur opinion on clutchness, I think its more about a player NOT choking under the pressure, more than it is a player "rising to the occassion". As pointed out with Robert Horry and Tracy McGrady, to rise at the end all you need to do is dog it in the beginning. Clutchness can be like procrastination in a sense. I always "rised to the occassion" on my homework and term papers hours and minutes before it was due. I had to, because I didnt work on them at all in all the time prior.
We've all heard Martin compared to Rip Hamilton. They're both phenomenal scorers coming off screens, but no one's going to confuse them with Reggie Miller. They simply don't have that take over ability. Scoring in high pressure situations is important. Anyone who fondly remembers Clutch City should know that. Going into the fourth, I'd easily take a "lesser" scorer like Sam Cassell over Martin. I don't care if Martin scores like a madman for the first three quarters. Unless you think the rockets are good enough to be up by 20 every game after three quarters (I don't) we're going to need someone that can perform in the crunch.
The Zone doesn't have to happen in the fourth quarter. And it doesn't have to happen to a star player, although it happens more often to good players than lesser players. It's called the "hot hand." You try to give the ball to whoever is hot at that time.
Is it objectively more important when the score is tied with 2 minutes left in the game than with 12 minutes left in the game? How do you quantify that? It seems the probability of winning the game is the same in both situations. What you say is true only when the number of possessions (or the time they have to get a shot off) is definitely uneven between two teams, which must be within the last 30 seconds or so of the game. Tell me if I have missed something.
Not really, the covariance of winning % and scoring gets much closer to 1, the closer you get to the end. (I'd imagine a proprietary covariance stat is what dork elvis uses for it too).
There could be exceptional scenarios like there's a matchup where one team can be expected to play well for most of the game, but tank right at the end if its really close. In that case, maybe that team would rather be up 2 with 12 minutes to go than up 2 with 2 minutes to go. But typically, if you're up X points, then the fewer remaining possessions the better your chances of winning. How might we quantify this? Ed Kupfer (now a Rockets employee) described some work on leverage years ago on the APBRmetrics board. By regressing data from play-by-plays over multiple season, he computed what he called a "game state matrix" to estimate the probability of winning the game given TIME REMAINING and HOME LEAD. http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics/viewtopic.php?p=1879&sid=f3ff4c26f3bde0109a4804072c8463e9
As presently constructed, you are absolutely correct. Brooks is the number one player down the stretch for the team. No one else is even close to Aaron in terms of being able to drain a tough shot from deep or to create for themselves off of the dribble. He is, without question, option #1, especially down the stretch when defenses tighten up.
