look on the bright side, at least the Rocks didn't overpay Webber

OK...on the count of 3, we both hangup at the same time...

 

How are you able to say that Webber(or Mo) would never have led us to another ring?? I don't think anyone could judge that outcome, however having Webber on the Rockets squad would greatly increase our chances(if only be actually getting them to the playoffs).

 

Ric,

When I said LA looks vunerable I meant in the sense compared to how they steamrolled SA last year, compared to this year.

 

I'd say 50% from the field for a career versus 44.5% for the playoffs, over a 33 game span (you keep talking about two games against the Mavs, I'm talking about an entire career), is pretty significant. His points per game, rebounds, blocks, and steals are all down (assists are the same), while his turnovers and fouls are up over his playoff career. All this while his minutes are slightly up. He's down in basically every single category, while his teams have usually lost. On an individual level, as well as a team one, he's failed to produce in the playoffs. If he had either stepped up his game himself, while his team continually lost, OR his team won while he failed to step up, it would be a different story. HOWEVER, he's failed to step up, AND his teams usually lose. Where the numbers really matter though, are in the fourth quarters, and I'd like to see some stats on that.

Define clutch however you want. To me (and most other people) it means producing when the pressure is on. It means not tightening up. If you want to pretend that every situation is the same, and pressure doesn't exist, go right ahead, but I won't be agreeing with you. You want to think that Elie's three was just like any other shot, go right ahead. Great players have something inside them that drives them to succeed in the toughest of situations -- that's a fact.

Uh, they got better. Isn't that obvious? I mentioned that there was a difference between not knowing how to win, and not having what it takes. Shaq didn't know how to win (and now does), while Webber doesn't have what it takes. I don't understand your point about LA and Jackson.

 

the mav series was a best of 2?

i won't defend his numbers regressing, and yes, you'd like to see them actually increase, but we're not talking about steep dropoffs. do you realize the difference between a 49.8 FG% and a 44.5% is ONE basket when you factor in webber's career average of 19 shots a game?

are you even aware the playoffs have started this year? i guess judging from your "two maverick games" coment from above, you're three games behind everyone, but newsflash: the kings are in the western conference finals and webber played a significant role in that happening.

he's not failing right now...

freak, i'm sorry to have to break this to you, but it's not a fact. there's no tangible proof a player actually thrives under pressure and gets better. none. zero. zilch. it's a romaniticized idea. reggie jackson's "mr. october," but do you realize his career postseason average is actually .278 (and only .235 in non-world series games)?

there are always statistical glitches and unexpected results, but the bottom line is that when mario elie lines up to shoot a three, he has a 37% chance of making it, whether there's 47 minutes left in the game, or a second; whether it's preseason or the nba finals. over a large enough sample size, it will always even out.

in basketball, players' numbers can increase, sometimes dramatically, in the postseason because, if they're good, really good, their teams are looking for them more often than they would were the game meaningless. so their opportunities increase. in SAC's case, webber is far from their only go-to-guy.

so, at just barely 29 years of age, you're going to write webber off as he enters his prime?

you'll grant olajuwon ten years to learn how to win; you'll concede if took shaq 5 or 6 years to learn how to win, plus the addition of the 2nd or 3rd best player in basketball and maybe one of the game's best coaches, but webber's not afforded the same luxury, or even a comparable luxury?

four years into his playoff career (discouting the anamoly of whatever year the bulls bounced the bullets), when he has his team four wins away from the finals.... webber doesn't have what it takes? that's amazingly short-sighted and overly harsh, and i'll repeat: thank god you weren't the rockets' GM in 1993.

 

Thanks for defining 'percentage' for me...

I'm saying two games because the games that have been referenced in this thread are the games in the playoffs where Webber scored 30 points. I realize that you've been talking about the whole series, and that's fair...but I'm saying the two games in this series have been out of the ordinary in the context of his entire career. Now I realize when coming up with percentages that you must take the good games with the bad, so I'll just stop the talk of the Mavs series right now (throwing aside things like the unusually high scoring numbers for the series, which would inflate scoring numbers, and how the series-clincher was really won after he had fouled out) by saying he had a good series.

So you're telling me that there are numbers out there that show, say, Hakeem Olajuwon's free throw percentage in the last 5 minutes of close playoff games versus his percentage during the regular season? Really? 'Cause I would bet you that Hakeem's ft percentage in those situations is consistently higher than that of his regular season numbers, especially during the championship years. But if you're telling me that's just a 'romanticized idea', I guess I'm wrong. Or are you saying that the reason 'clutchness' can't be proven is that those numbers don't exist? Well that's pretty convenient...I'd really like to see those numbers, if they're out there, so it'd be cool if you could point me in that direction...

You don't know that. How many three pointers has Mario Elie taken over the course of his career in the closing seconds of a close playoff game, with his team down by 1, on the road, from the exact same spot on the floor? You have no idea how many of those he would make, because you can't recreate the situation. I do know, however, that I would rather he take that shot (or Robert Horry), over many players with a higher percentage than he had, because Elie is more CLUTCH. I'm a romantic guy, what can I say.

The sample size is never going to be large, because it's the playoffs, and there are always less playoff games to play in. You have a limited amount of chances to produce, and you either do or don't. The stakes are higher; it's NOT the same.

Increased opportunities don't account for an increase/decrease in shooting percentages. Free throw percentages, in particular, should have nothing to do with an increase in opportunities. My theory is that if a player is clutch, his percentages will go up in crucial situations. If you don't have stats collected in crucial situations, you can't prove that incorrect.

Webber is not their only go-to guy, true, which is why they're better this year. It's also because he's not good enough to be their only go-to guy. Let's see how many baskets he hits in the last 5 minutes of the game of the next series (if the games are close).

If by write off you mean, pardon the expression, "grow balls", then yeah, I'm betting against it. The willingness, drive, and ability of a player to come through in the clutch is someting that you either have, or you don't, in my opinion. I don't think it's something you can just acquire.

But not knowing how to win isn't Webber's problem, in my opinion. It's not being able to be counted on when the game is on the line. That's not something you can just learn. You always knew Hakeem would rise to the occasion when you needed him, he just needed more basketball smarts, which he (and every player) got with age. It's not the same with Webber. I think Shaq is more in Hakeem's category than Webber's, but he's also rare in that he's often so good, that it doesn't matter how clutch he is.

Not short-sighted at all...I think 9 years in the league and 33 playoff games are enough to tell if a player can be counted on in the clutch...and I never would've traded Hakeem, partly because he demonstrated that ability early on (along with the fact that he was just flat-out better than Webber in nearly every aspect of the game).

edit: The funny thing is I'll be rooting like mad for C-Webb because I hate the Lakers ALMOST as much as I love the Rockets. So go Christina, go.

 

sorry took so long; kinda forgot about this thread....

they likely exist, but so do, say... lance berkman's batting totals from the first week of the 2002 season; i think he was on pace to hit 100 HR's. IOW, it's too small a sample size to draw any definitive conclusions.

i'll admit, when stakes are higher, athletes probably, likely (hopefully) concetrate more; or, yes: less. and thus, there is a slight correlation betweeb situation and performance. but what it really tells us is that 99% of the time, the athlete isn't intently focused. if olajuwon shot every FT with the same focus and intensity he did when a playoff game was on the line... his %, over a large enough sample size, would be pretty consistent.

you had me at sample sizes...

if elie were given 100 chances to make the same GW shot, over the course of his attempts, he'd eventually fall closer and closer to his career average. but he might start off making 10 in a row. or even 20. because he's clutch? because he game gets better when something's on the line? nope. it's just a statitical anamoly. my guess is, if there are enough attempts, elie has probably missed more GW shots than he's made. of course... who among us remember him missing one in april against the cavs? that what feeds the romantic notion of clutch...

i'm not a math major, but i think this works and makes sense; let me know if doesn't: let's say during the regular season, olajuwon shoots 50% on 10 shots a game, i.e. 5/10. but let's say during the playoffs, because the team looks to him more and because he's clutch (right?), he shoots 60% on 20 shots.

do you realize for olajuwon's FG% to jump from 50% to 60%, all he has to do is hit 2 of his additional 10 shots, i.e. shoot 20%? hell, if he shoots 10% over the course of those additional 10 shots, he's going to improve his FG% from 50 to 55%.

so it's really not that far-fetched to assume a decent shooter's %'s are going to increase if given more opportunities. but it is a little far-fetched to believe some athletes have a switch inside them that actually makes them play better when the stakes are higher.

here's the crux of my problem with your argument -- hakeem's given time to learn, shaq's given time to learn... why write off webber? if he were 35, ok. but he turned 29 a month ago, and his playoff numbers certainly aren't in rapid decline.

you could, ultimately, be right... i'd just like to wait until webber proves one of us wrong before we start making baseless assumptions. we're about to get a real good idea what he's made of in the next week or two...

i don't think webber's even played in 30 playoff games, though i'm going off the top of my head, so i could be wrong. still, obviously, you're including in that lot this year's games, and i'm not sure what you've seen this year to make you think he hasn't delivered, or never will -- he's played quite well.

so you're talking about 18-23 playoff games, so he seems to be about right, in terms of growth. hell, dream played in, what? 20-22 during his first trip to the playoffs, and didn't the rockets clinch the WC with a certain someone in civies? (btw, do you think ralph sampson is clutch?)

like i said, i just think it's a little early to define webber.

 

i'm not a math major, but i think this works and makes sense; let me know if doesn't: let's say during the regular season, olajuwon shoots 50% on 10 shots a game, i.e. 5/10. but let's say during the playoffs, because the team looks to him more and because he's clutch (right?), he shoots 60% on 20 shots.

do you realize for olajuwon's FG% to jump from 50% to 60%, all he has to do is hit 2 of his additional 10 shots, i.e. shoot 20%? hell, if he shoots 10% over the course of those additional 10 shots, he's going to improve his FG% from 50 to 55%.


OK, I've left this argument, but I have to correct this. You are correct in that you are not a math major.

To go from 50% to 60%, he'd have to hit 7 of those 10 additional shots - or 70% - rather than 2 out of 10. If he hit 2 of out the 2nd 10, along with 5 of the first 10, that would be 35% shooting (7 out of 20). To go to 55%, he'd have to hit 6 of the extra 10 shots. Regardless, he'd have to perform above his average abilities of 5 out of 10.

 

I agree with Freak about "clutchness". Just because it hasn't been statistically proven doesn't mean there isn't something to being clutch. And IMO it isn't just about increased focus in the situation, there is increased anxiety (or pressure if you will). Two guys may perform similarly in everyday low to moderate pressure situations, but one guy may better manage high-extreme anxiety or actually improve his performance under such conditions where another guy can't deal as well. I think that is what clutchness is, and it is real even if we havn't the adequate measures and samples to prove it in a high stakes sports context.

Ric I agree with you about Webber however, that it is too soon to tell about him. I don't think he will ever be Hakeem-level, but he still could be good enough and have enough sac to get his team a title. I think this may be his last best chance--at least in terms of him being the #1 guy for his team. Freak, Malone was a choker too, but still with one severely twisted ankle of MJ he would have got a ring anyway. Sometimes circumstance is most important and being very very good (but perhaps not great) is enough. With Shaq and Kobe having to grind as much as they are (especially with Shaqs injuries) and the loaded squad around Webber this might be one of those situations. Remember there were times Hakeem's teams lost to the Sonics, Jazz, and others when Hakeem was the best and most clutch guy--they other team was just enough better everywhere else to overcome him.

 

man, in my head... that made SOOOOOOOOOOOO much sense; but yeah, obviously, i was taking the TWO additional buckets he's have to make... and leaving off the other five.

 

I'll admit that Webber is playing inside much more and bodying up...

Maybe it's because he's not afraid of the hobbled Shaq?

Anyway, he is bodying up more than I've ever seen him in the past. I'm still glad we don't have him because he'll never win as a #1 option, which is exactly what he would be for us...

Edit: The guy still is a dumbass when it comes to the refs and a wuss when it comes to stepping up in the 4th quarter...