who else is clutch on our team? this analysis is based on situational positions that they are put in...then its scaled on a z-score
foye in the top 10? Ya i bet portland is crying wishing they never made that trade for roy who nailed another game winner tonight.
Haha...I thought that as well. Plus, Jarvis Hayes?! Telfair?! Not only just for being there but he had them ranked ahead of Dirk too. Wooooow.... <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wKjxFJfcrcA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wKjxFJfcrcA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I think most people "get it". It's just funny and sort of fatal to see players with losing records like Foye, Jarvis and Telfair for example being representative of this supposed winning formula. "but what they do reflect is the players that are being best put in a position to succeed and are delivering" --- So no credit goes to Al Jefferson or Devin Harris for carrying their respective teams thus putting the aforementioned players in the 'position to succeed' in the first place? Really, what sense does that makes? I do understand the nature of this formula isn't merely to point out wins or losses, at the same time I watch a lot of of NBA and I know what i've seen. Players like Kobe and Dirk are two of the most cold-blooded, clutch players in the league. Roy is reaching that level too. I'm sorry, i've seen those guys win too many close games to take something like this seriously. I know what i've seen, I don't need some flawed and arbitrary formula telling me otherwise. I'll stick with 82Games on this one: http://www.82games.com/CSORT11.HTM
If you get bored Youtube "Dirk game winner", "Dirk clutch" or something to that effect. Let's meet back here in a couple days when you're done watching all the clips. Deal? Hell, there's even clips from the Olympics and Euro leagues where he's killing teams when it matters the most. You could also click on the 82games link I provided as well.
You can say that about pretty much any star that's lost in the playoffs and hasn't won a championship. There are few players in the league I would more willingly trust in crunch time than Dirk. Very few. I'm not going to hold it against him (well, not too bad) that he failed to win a title from 2000-2005 when Western Conference supremacy was at it's highest point. Is it really that shameful to get eliminated by the Spurs or those talented Kings teams? Dirk's playoff career PER is one of the highest in league history. I swear that 2006 Finals series was the only playoff series I watched where he didn't play like a complete madman.
No, BUT DO YOU LACK COMMON SENSE? Just because he puts in a disclaimer saying the list doesn't necessarily list down the best players in the league (despite having a title called "Nba All stars by the numbers") doesn't mean you can't criticize it. Cuban's own wording said that the results show players who deliver and are put in a position to deliver, and yet somehow Okafor, Jarvis Hayes and Matt Bonner are on the list while Tony Parker, Brandon Roy, Manu Ginobili and the greatest pf of all time TD are MIA. Not only that you have Grant Hill and Jason Kidd well above Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitzki. How does that not scream failed formula to you? Obviously they need to tweak their numbers more because the data isn't coming out right. "The numbers for 1 point in time couldnt help another team. And as far as to why players are or arent on there, it means the numbers say they arent impacting their teams more than the people who are listed.That could be a reflection of the coach, the system, the player." -Mark Cuban So by this logic Matt Bonner does more for his team than the Spur's big three? Cuban's formula= FAIL. Leave the number crunching to DM next time lol.
This has been discussed before regarding PER, but I think you are completely wrong here. This particular list seems very flawed, but in general, fans cannot judge better with their eyes than they can with a good detailed statistical analysis like PER. Ideally, you take both statistics and observations. But even then, I don't think the observations of a fan are nearly as good as those of a scout.
Actually, they may not have any championships, but the Mavs do have the second most wins in the league this decade after only San Antonio (at least they did, entering this season). The fact that you say it would mean more coming from a "ring-wearing team" like the Rockets (how many playoff series wins since 1997?) shows your obvious homer-ism.
No they don't get it. First, people still talk as if the list was about who is a better player, which is NOT. Second, it is the numbers for the last 3, 5, and 8 games. You think Cuban would be so dumb to give the public access to his full-blown data? I find a lot of people here have a tendency to immediate dismiss some statistical analysis without even taking the effort to understand what it is. BTW, the thread title is extremely misleading.
Interesting blog. I like the idea of combining adjusted +/- with the "high leverage" possessions. To me, that gets to the crux of what contributing to winning is all about.
