I think you're making the mistake of chopping the game up into these little pieces and looking at quarters separately. A game is one free flowing event, where the actions you made in the first quarter affect what happens in the last. Therefore saying that the last shot "wins" them the game is erroneous because had the shot been made earlier it would have contributed the exact same "win" points as the last shot. In your example, making a 3 pointer with 42 mins remaining would mean you get a free pass on the 3 pointer 40 mins later. My belief is the "ideal" clutch player would be one that doesn't need to go into clutch situations at all. If you shoot/pass/defend/whatever so well that the game turns into a blowout, wouldn't that be better than someone who shoots 4-10 then hits the game winner during OT?
That's not true. A single shot (or a single possession) has relatively little impact early in the game compared to the closing minutes when the score is close. The importance of a possession (or anything, for that matter) increases as the stakes increase. If I make a shot to put go from 1 down to 1 up with 41 minutes to go, I haven't significantly altered the chances of my team winning the game. If I do it with 1 minute remaining, however, that's a very important swing in momentum in a crucial situation. I've gone from maybe 25% chance of winning the game to, say, a 60% chance of winning the game. You could think of that as giving your team 0.35 "game winning points". And then, if you want to assess how much each player contributing to a given win, add up all the "game winning points" for the entire team (using 0 for players that are negative), and take the ratio. Yes, because I would predict such a player is more likely to make winning plays in future games than the guy who maybe just got lucky and hit one big shot. But for that game, maybe I give the guy who hit the game winner more credit. It depends on the flow of the game.
I agree with this. Points in the 1st quarter are equal to those in the 4th. They have exactly the same value. The importance of a clutch performer is that, in general, the points in "the clutch" are much harder to come by. There's more pressure, there's less cheap fouls called, there's more focus defensively, etc.
If they have the same value, why is there elation when someone hits a game winner, and merely a tame clapping of the hands when they hit a shot early? Are we deranged to behave that way? And if all points have the same value, we should ascribe the same importance to "garbage-time" baskets. Its called garbage time for a reason. The value of a possession has to be considered a function of time remaining and point differential.
Points scored at any point within the 48 minutes of an NBA basketball have exactly the same value. They count the same, they affect teams' differentials the same, players' PPG, PPM, etc. We applaud the game winner because of the difficulty level involved. It becomes harder to score in those clutch situations. But, If Kobe Bryant breaks out early and scores 20 points in the 1st quarter and the Lakers coast to a win (other than difficulty level) it is exactly the same as when he scores 20 points in the 4th to win a game by the same margin. He's not helping his team any more by waiting until later in the game. As fans we enjoy watching difficult plays which is why you see so many mid-game trick shots (many times en route to a loss) on highlights. Also, a player who performs in the clutch is often a player who performs in any intense situation, like the playoffs. I would agree that a clutch player is more valuable than one that is not (because he will score in very difficult situations) but at the end of the game the point differential is all that matters. So, imo, the points themselves are not valuable but the teams' ability to get them is - given that the road to a championship is more similar to the clutch than a regular season game.
They affect team differential the same. But, more importantly, they don't affect a team's chances of winning the same. Again ... garbage time buckets are as valuable as a game winner because affect point differential the same? I know you don't really believe that. Difficulty is not the reason we applaud game winners. A person can make a high-difficulty shot at the beginning of the game or when the game is already a blow out, and another person can score on a point-blank layup at the end that wins it. Which one will get more applause? Let's take it even further. What's more valuable -- a point-blank layup that wins game 7 of the NBA Finals, or a behind the basket prayer that somehow drops in the first quarter of a random regular season game? The higher stakes, the higher the value.
The different values are only due to subjective psychological or emotional affect for human beings because we cannot see the future. Objectively they have the same value, except as has pointed out the factor of difficulty due to pressure. When you are down by 20 points with only 2 minutes left, that's "garbage time" because you now can see that the result of the game is not going to change by whatever you do on the court. But if you KNEW the result could be changed, then it would be "clutch." Take for example McGrady's 13 in 35. Over 99% of games in that kind of situation, those would be considered "semi-garbage" time. The first of the string of 3-pointers TMac hit might not feel very clutch at the time of the shot. It "became" clutch only when the result turned out to be different. Battier hit a couple of 3-pointers in a row a week ago and got us within 2 points. But we lost the game eventually. So nobody remembered the shots as clutch. But if we came back and won the game, those two shots would have been remembered as the "game changers." You see, Battier's two shots had no less value than two of McGrady's 4 shots in that sequence. But McGrady's were "clutch" because of the game result. Basketball has so many made baskets in a game, those shots made in "non-crucial" time are usually not very memorable. Think about a football game. You often hear people say that "wow that missed extra point in the second quarter was huge" when it got down to one point at the end of the game. In basketball, we seldom say, "wow that missed shot in the first quarter was huge" because of the sheer volume of shots to remember.
Yes, there is a criteria that's demonstrated in the playoffs in the toughest of pressure situations. He's preformed. He's gotten it done. He does it in the regular season as well. We've all seen him make high pressured shots. He's hands down the most clutch player since Hakeem and Jordan. No doubt. That's an opinion. It's subjective. Just like saying who is the most beautiful woman in the world. Just like saying who is the smartest person in the world. Some things can be definitively defined - like who is the richest person in the world. Some things can't - who is the most charismatic. Being clutch is subjective - because pressure isn't a definitive attribute. It's subjective to begin with. Trying to create a definitive metric out of something subjective is futile.
But if it is all subjective, then there is really no point of arguing. I think that's durvasa's point.
No, its not. You just listed some of the criteria. Performing well in the playoffs or hitting high pressure shots is not "subjective". That's the problem. In order to justify your claim that he's "hands down" the most clutch player, you are compelled to point to evidence. But at the same time, you want to reject a systematic appraisal of the evidence, because its supposed to be "subjective". This, to me, is inconsistent.
A single basket has relatively little impact because there are many possessions in a given game. When you have over 60 possessions a game then missing or making one isn't a big deal. I mean supposing Dirk goes 14-15 from the field, and his lone miss happens in the clutch, and the Mavs lose. Does his 1 miss undo the 14 straight field goals he made? Its the same thing here. Ok let's put it this way. If your team made all of its field goals in the beginning and as a result your team goes up by 40, then your end shot has a value of 0%, because you already won the game no matter if you made it or not. On the other hand, if you make say, 48% of your beginning shots and your team goes is tied at end game, then by your logic your end shot value becomes more valuable because it can win you the game. Finally if your team goes 0-22 from the field and are losing by 40, then your measley end game shot also has a value of 0%, because no matter what you do you will still lose. What we can see here is Shots at the beginning affect the value of the end shot, so they cannot be LESS valuable than the end shot because they determine the value of the end shot In mathematical terms: Team end Shot value (TESV) = X+Team beginning shot value (TBSV) where X is unknown Therefore TESV cannot be greater than TBSV because then it would be a circular logic. Again this is wrong because if Pau Gasol missed that 2 pt at the start then Kobe's game clinching three wouldn't matter, as the Lakers would be down by 4 instead of 2 in the closing seconds.
It is garbage time because there is very little chance that anything you do on the floor will change the outcome of the game. I don't agree with that. Each basket became successively more clutch. Collectively, the entire series was unbelievably clutch. But I would not say that future made shots changes how "clutch" a previous shot is. That does not make sense to me. You may counter that each of those 3-pointer were essential to eventually win the game. I would dispute that. If McGrady missed the first three-pointer, its possible that the Rockets could have gotten a rebound and put-back. And then, maybe San Antonio misses a free throw instead of making all of them down the stretch. The only truly essential make was the very last one. That's why, to my mind, that has to be deemed the most valuable of the 4 shots he made. I think that is the wrong way to look at it. How important Battier's made 3-pointers were does not, to me, depend on what happens afterward. If that's how we want to look at it, let's not give players any credit for anything they do in a loss. I don't see it that way. And, in any case, there is one famous historical example which I think does away with your argument. Perhaps the most famous shot from Jerry West, "Mr. Clutch" himself, was the shot he made to send an NBA Finals game to overtime against the Knicks back in 1970 from beyond half court. In historical compilations of great clutch shots, that is generally included. We know, of course, that the Knicks won that game. When people say stuff like that, I roll my eyes. You can't assume that everything that follows would play out exactly the same way. Suppose the Rockets win a game by 2 points. If Ariza missed a particular 3-pointer back in the first quarter instead of making it, does that mean the Rockets would have lost by 1? Of course not.
I guess since we're on the subject of being "clutch", then let me look at it philosophically: 1) Clutch is generally defined as performing better in the end game 2) Clutch isn't just limited to shooting buckets. If you come up with a great defensive play that leads to a win (like block the potential game winning shot), then that also counts as a clutch perfomance. Generally speaking, people call Kobe clutch because he performs in the end game, when it is generally tougher to score. But why is it tougher to score? Obviously because people play harder and are more locked in during the last few moments. Then doesn't that mean they are *gasp* clutch as well?! Well then if everybody is clutch then being clutch isn't so special isn't it? People can argue that even if everybody's clutch than Kobe's "clutcher", but my guess is he's just generally a better player than the one guarding him, and as a better player he has a greater chance of making any given bucket than the other guy has of defending him. People just have this mistaken because of how dramatic the end game is.
But if Tmac only made the last 3 pt shot and missed his first 4 attempts then would the rockets have won the game? No, they would have lost by 9. How can the last shot be more valuable when it couldn't win you the game? Supposing he missed the first but made the last three do the rockets win? No they lose by 2. So how can the last shot be more valuable than the first when you won't win the game unless you make all four? Saying the last shot is the most important shot of the game is like complaining why no matter what you do, the thing you're looking for is always in the last place you look.
Well, clutch is a subjective opinion. At the same time, when you have this kind of survey result, it's safe to say he's hands down the most clutch player in the league since that's the consensus for years already. http://www.nba.com/news/features/gmsurvey.misc/index.html Which player would you want taking a shot with the game on the line? 1. Kobe Bryant, L.A. Lakers 89.7% 2. Paul Pierce, Boston 6.9% 3. Carmelo Anthony, Denver 3.4% - Last year: Kobe Bryant 88.9%
If all that matters is the final margin, then yeah every point has the same value. 1 miss at the end is no more a big deal than 1 miss at the beginning. But that is not the objective in basketball. The objective is to win. This means that a point scored in close games towards the end are far more important than a point scored at the beginning. Yes. Yes. That is true. You are forgetting that the original claim was each individual possession carries the same weight. Here, you are comparing the importance of 22 shots at the beginning of the game to a single shot at the end. Well, yeah, its possible to effectively lose a game during your first 20 possessions if you go down by, say, 40 points in the first quarter. Your team, in all likelihood, is done. But you certainly can't lose a game in one possession in the first quarter. This is where I feel the logic really breaks down. You can't say that if Gasol hits that shot, everything that follows plays out the exact same way. I believe the following must always apply: The chances of winning depend on four factors: (1) how good your team is, (2) how good the opposing team is, (3) what's the current score, and (4) how much time is remaining.
Did you not actually read what I wrote? "If McGrady missed the first three-pointer, its possible that the Rockets could have gotten a rebound and put-back. And then, maybe San Antonio misses a free throw instead of making all of them down the stretch." As long as there is time remaining, there is always a chance that things play out differently. Basketball is not predetermined.
"Hands down" implies there is no argument otherwise. The results of those surveys indicate otherwise.
Huh? Um of course all that matters is the final margin, doesn't it? Unless you count "moral victories", the team that wins the game is the one that has the highest score when the game ends, meaning the final margin. Right? I mean, if your last shot didn't result in your team having the higher scroe then why is valuable? I could say the same thing, if you can't lose a game in one possession, how can you win it due to one possession, even if its at the end of the game? If that's the case then why would you play your starters 30 mins a game and risk injury then. Just bench all of them until the final possession then bring them all out Robert Horry style. I mean, the end shot determines whether you win or lose right? Then just bring Kobe and Pau in the final possession so they'll be well rested, and just bench them the rest of the game.
According to margin, the difference between winning by 10 and winning by 5 is identical to the difference between winning by 3 and losing by 2. Do you see it that way as well? I hope not. Because if you don't make the play you lose, but if you make the play you win. Those situations happen at the end of the game. They can't happen at the beginning of the game. What I'm referring to, essentially, is a way to distinguish what Daryl Morey has referred to as "high leverage moments": 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.[/rquoter] More on this "leverage" idea in this thread at the APBRMetrics board (Ed Kupfer, by the way, is currently an analyst for the Rockets): http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics/viewtopic.php?p=1879&sid=f3ff4c26f3bde0109a4804072c8463e9 I did not say that. I did not say that all preceding possessions, collectively, don't have much value. We're talking about the value of individual possessions.
