I think I understand why you can't seem to grasp what I'm trying to say. We're talking about win points, or how much a certain shot helps you win the game, and not the probability of you winning the game. For example, at the first quarter Tmac makes the first basket of the game. What's the probability of us winning the game? We don't know, the effect of the made shot is probably marginal on the probability of us winning the game because so many other things can happen. However, how much does that shot actually contribute to us winning? 2 pts. End game, last 15 secs. Tmac has makes the shot and just 2 secs are left. What's the probability of the Rockets winning the game? Probably 99.99%. All the last shot does is it shows you the odds, like what are the chances of you winning the game if you make the shot. Just because it lets you know the outcome of the game (i.e. make shot win, miss shot lose), doesn't mean its more valuable, it just makes the unkown variables known so you can start calculating your odds. However its "win pts", or how much it actually contributed to you winning is still 2 pts, the same as the shot in the beginning of the game.
Huh? The difference is 5 pts, the same for both instances. It just so happened that your lead is so high in the first instance that you can withstand a 5 pt swing, while in the 2nd instance you couldn't. What's your point?
The objective in basketball is not maximizing margin. It is winning. Your team does not benefit from losing by 3 points versus losing by 12. Similarly, there is no extra benefit from winning by 15 points versus winning by 10. A loss is a loss. A win is a win. Your view that the value of 1 point doesn't change regardless of circumstance is only true if the objective is maximizing margin. Suppose playoff seeding was not based on W-L record, but rather point differential over 82 games. In such a world, game winners don't matter any more than any other shot. Garbage time doesn't exist. And, as you insist, the value of all possessions are equal. But that is a fantasy world. The NBA does not operate that way.
The internal logic you are employing here lead to absurd conclusions. Example: All points scored contribute the same towards wins. And, by similar logic, all games should hold equal value as well. Hence, points scored in garbage time of some random regular season game is just as important as points scored in the final minute of a tied game with serious playoff implications.
I see what you mean. Then I suppose you are right, not all basketball possessions have the same value then. However in the case of a blowout then the the "theoretical" last shot isn't exactly the last shot, but the shot wherein the opponent lost the game and any shot they make make after that wouldn't matter, or the "dagger" as people normally refer to it. In that case, I see no reason to believe why the shots from the first shot to the "dagger" won't have the same value. If you didn't make one particular shot, the "dagger" would move further and further away in the shot chart, and if you missed enough the "dagger" becomes property of the opponent, and you would be the one who has no chance to win the game. At the end of the day, I don't know how you can say the game winner is definitively more valuable than the first shot when the first shot contributes to the current value of the game winner. Anyway, I think I already explained my view to the best of my ability, if we can't see eye to eye on it then its ok lol. I think I hijacked the thread from its orignal topic, which is basically to poke fun at the ridiculous article lol.
In blowouts, there usually isn't a "dagger". You're just beating up on the opponent over a span of many, many possessions. Let's say your team goes from tied to up 30 in a span of 40 possessions in the first half of the game. Because it happens early, there won't be much difference in the value of any individual possession -- there is no single possession that could be considered a "dagger". In particular, note the margin is closer in the earlier possessions and it widens in later possessions. So you have two of the aforementioned factors (point differential, time remaining) counter-balancing eachother. The net result is the marginal value of each possession will be close to constant. But when you look at all the possessions collectively, it sums up to a huge swing in favor of your team.
I don't how you want to consider "hands down". But 90% means "hands down" to me. Again, "hands down" is not an objective term. There are way less than 90% of fans consider MJ GOAT, for example. But you still hear columnists saying MJ hands down GOAT.
You know, I think the reverence Kobe gets from his peers and coaches/GMs throughout the league is probably the best argument in his favor actually.
Show me a systematic appraisal that accurately measures the pressure one is in to hit a shot against the performance of that shot. How do you measure the pressure of a game 7 vs a game 1? How do you measure the pressure of an elimination game vs a close-out game? Tell me how you fact that in to ANY systematic appraisal? Because certainly clutchness has to do with that sort of this? Our beloved Rockets are called Clutch City because they won win facing elimination - not because they won in the regular season or won win they weren't facing elimination. So how do you create a metric that incorporates that??? You can't. You only can watch and you see a trend where a guy like Kobe or MJ hits the big shots when they count the most. The shots that change the game. The plays that change the game. It might be a steal, it might be a great pass, it might be Larry Bird stealing the inbounds pass and flicking it to Danny Ainge. Or Derek Jeter saving a throw off target and scooping it to the catch to throw the guy out. Because clutchiness isn't defined just by performing in the playoffs with a tight score and with a certain amount of time left. It's about each and every play against the pressure it is to perform. Any you can't measure pressure. There's no metric. If you can come up with one, great, then let's do the analysis. But where's the metric to measure pressure - the biggest input into the equation that determines clutchiness.
I would ignore pressure. One guy might feel pressure in every game he plays in. Another guy may never feel pressure. That's not a practical basis for assessing ability in the clutch. You have no idea how much pressure Kobe Bryant feels because you're not in his head. You can't tell me that's how you determined him to be "hands down" the most clutch player. I would base my approach on the importance of what is at stake, and that can certainly be described in a systematic way. You list out what are the goals of the team, and works backwards from there. Given the goals, how does a certain action increase the chances of achieving them. Like that. So elimination games gain more importance because winning or losing decides whether you go on to compete for the ultimate prize -- the championship.
Yes, but if you ignore pressure, than why does the stakes matter? Any one can step up and play poker with pennies. But when millions of dollars are at stake - when the stakes are higher - why is it so much harder? Why is it so much harder if your house is on the line? Why do stakes matter? Because the higher the stakes the greater the pressure. My point is exactly that you can't measure pressure - that no one knows how much pressure Kobe feels. I bet he feels a lot to be honest, but that in fact he gets a high off of it. he trives on it. That's part of what makes him a clutch player. He loves the pressure. Loves those situations. Where others get nervous, Kobe wants more of it. Pressure affects people. How it affects people is the difference between choke and clutch. Pressure comes from raising the stakes. Even if you were to base it on stakes...how do you analytically compute an elimination game vs. a game 1 of a series? You agree that a game winning shot when facing elimination, or in a game 7 is far more clutch than a game winning shot in game 1 right? How much more clutch is it? How much more does it mean? How do you measure it? You can't.
My turn my turn. Regarding points in the beginning of the game vs. end of the game - I agree with the notion that a point's effect on the game is dependent on the how close the game is as well as dependent on how many possessions are remaining in the game. If the rockets had an automatic 3 point leader beginning the first quarter, near the end of game with 2 minutes left we are up by 10 as opposed to 7, I would guess that those extra 3 points increase our chances of winning from 85% to 87%. However, the probability of this condition of being up by 10 is small. If we had 3 extra points, and with 2 minutes left we are up by 3 as opposed to being tied, those 3 extra points increase our chances of winning from 50% to perhaps 60%. So, while all points are equal, some conditions you won't need those points. Under the condition that the game is within 5 points with 2 minutes left, then yes, you will regret Ariza jacking up that ill advised 3 in the first quarter. But it is important to note that this is a conditional situation, meaning there's like a 40% chance that you're going to be in the 4th quarter the pointing at that earlier possession as having a huge affect. However, if you are already in that situation, then it is no longer conditional. If Ariza did that in the end of the game, then there's a 100% chance that you're going to be pointing at the possession as having a huge affect. In Daryl Morey's words, "high leveraged moments". They do exist. Regarding clutch. I don't think it helps that Using Kwame's list of "leadership, ability to stay calm under pressure, toughness, determination, mental fortitude, and of course the "it" factor", while these variables can't be measured directly, you COULD ask "if these variables exist, how would they manifest itself in a basketball game". Take determination for example. While you can't claim that Kobe has a score of 90 out of 100 on determination, you COULD measure when his determination changed the game. I would argue that a determined individual will win more than 50% of 50/50 situations. So every situation where there is a loose ball, jump ball, an abnormally long rebound in a certain area where two players have relatively equal chance at getting, a determined player will win more than 50% of these seemingly "coin flip" situations. What would leadership look like? At least defensively, I would argue that Battier has above average leadership, because I'm sure there exists somewhere evidence that his willingness to take charges directly affects his teammates willingness to take charges. Or perhaps that off the floor he contributes towards the defensive game plan, and on the floor he contributes to the ability to execute this game plan, like having proper defensive rotations. So, at least defensively, you could score "leadership" as "an individual who greatly increases the team's defensive effectiveness". Finally, mental fortitude. I'd like to equate this to proper decision making. Again, you can't score that Kobe has 99 score of 100 on mental fortitude, but you could define situations that exhibit a lack of it, and situations that are full of it. Rasheed Wallace leaves the inbounder Robert Horry to double team somebody, leaving Horry with an open corner 3 at the end of a game? Severe lack of mental fortitude, poor decision. Kobe Bryant playing free safety off of Battier in game 5 of playoffs, allowing Battier to go 4-4 on open 3's? Poor decision making. Aaron brooks opting to NOT go into the lane to try to draw a foul and go for pick and pop wide open 15 footer? Good decision. Mental fortitude should be viewed as outside of physical abilities. Just because "clutchness" encomposses many individual components, and just because these components are meticulous to define, does not mean that it can not be measured. No, we can't say Kobe scores 99 of 100 on a clutch scale. But I would say that to be clutch is to perform well in a "high leveraged moments". I would say that in these critical possessions, Kobe wins an abnormally large share of coin flip situations (determination), and does a superior job not fouling on defense and knows when to rotate or not(mental fortitude).
There are any number of ways to do it, all of which would be no worse than what you are doing which is just, in your mind, arbitrarily attaching some extra level of importance to each play, and each game (with, no doubt, disproportionate weight on plays/games that make the highlight packages). One approach would be to do what I said. Attach a level of importance to each game based on how it impacts your chances of getting a championship. Winning a regular season game increases your odds of getting a favorable seeding by a certain amount. Winning a playoff game increases your odds of winning the series by a certain amount. Winning a series increases your odds of winning a championship by a certain amount. A mathematical model can be devised to more accurately tell you how much a winning a particular game increases your chances of winning the ultimate prize. That would be a systematic way of attaching a level of importance to each game, and you could break it down further to attach a level of importance to each play within the game. I can imagine all the "yeah buts" swimming in your mind, but note that the goal isn't to strive for perfection. Just improve on what we currently have. All I'm saying is we can make better judgments by trying to look at the evidence systematically, rather than picking and choosing things from our memory. That means very little to me. I'm not going to call a player great in the clutch because he said in some interview that he loves pressure. How does he actually perform when the stakes are highest? That's what I want to know. Kobe can talk about loving pressure all he wants, but if his performance doesn't back that up its just talk.
durvasa, I am not going to answer you point by point. You are already dealing with too many people's points at once. First off, it is true that subsequent events change the significance of a prior event. Let me give you a non-sport example. Abe Lincoln was born in a Kentucky small town. When that baby was born in an insignificant house, nobody cared about the birth of an ordinary child. Now that place, called "Lincoln's birth place" became a tourist attraction. Why? Subsequent events made the birth of Lincoln significant. Another way to look at it. If Team A beat Team B by the score of 100-80. The "winning shot" happened when Team A scored the 81st point, probably early in the 4th quarter. Usually, nobody even remembers who scored that point in a game like that. But if the score was 100-99 and the winning shot was made at the last second, we feel that it was a "clutch" shot. But in fact, both shots were equally important in winning the game. The only difference is, the latter was emotionally charged and the former was not.
Edit: I misread. Let me try again ... They are not equally important. You can't win a game early in the 4th if the score is still close. There is still a lot of basketball left to play. I would never say that a go ahead basket, early in the fourth quarter, is a game winner. That makes no sense to me. Let me ask you a very general question. What makes something important? Something is important if you gain something you value with it, and you lose something you value without it. In basketball, what do we value? Winning the game. More specifically, doing things on the floor that increase our chances of winning the game. So, importance of a given shot should be understood in those terms.
I think you are confusing two issues. There are two kinds of "importance" subjective and objective. Why is winning the game important? As fans, it is totally subjective. Who wins the game, at what point of the game, has zero importance to my wife because she is not a fan. The importance of winning a game is 100% emotional. (For players and coaches etc. it is obviously objectively important because they make a living out of trying to win games.) I am arguing that the feeling of "clutch" is mostly subjective in this sense. We are also talking about the objective importance of a "clutch" shot in winning the game. I contend that every shot prior to the winning point is objectively equally important that contributes to winning the game. Are you disputing this? (BTW, there is a reason why they do not continue a 7-game series once a team has won 4 games. Any game after that has no objective value. But EVERY win in that 4 wins, not just the 4th win, is equally important to winning the series. Is it not true?) There is a subjective element that has objective effect: the emotional effect on the players. The "clutch" time is obviously not the same as other times in a game because the players feel more pressure, which affect their performance. Some players thrive, other wilt, under pressure. There are "clutch" moments other than the endgame situation. A shot that has to be made to keep a behind team in the game, for example, would affect the emotional state of the players and thereby affect their performance. So in that sense, some shots are objectively more important to the outcome of the game because of its subjective effect on the players. This is similar to the reason why a spectacular dunk is sometimes more important than an ordinary layup even though they both worth exactly two points.
Of course. If a guy on the winning team hits a shot at the buzzer with his team already up by 20, that has no importance whatsoever. It is why most teams don't even bother to take that shot, and in fact it is frowned upon to take such a shot. It is correctly considered pointless stat-padding. Edit: I misunderstood what you're saying again. But my answer is the same. I absolutely dispute that. There is no such thing as a "winning point," unless it is the point which decides if the team wins or loses a game. That would be the point scored on a buzzer beating last shot. I would consider that point the most important, because it is the only point that can be considered absolutely essential to the win. No. Winning a game 1 is not as important as winning a game 7. It should be clear why, and it has nothing to do with "emotions". Importance depends on the stakes, which are very real. If you lose a game 1, you can still win the series. Win a game 1, you can still lose the series. Lose a game 7, and you go home. Win a game 7, you move on to the next round. To say the only thing that distinguishes crunch time from garbage time is "emotions" (if that is what you are saying) is just flat out false. One determines which team will win the game. The other determines nothing. Help me understand why I'm not seeing things as you are seeing it. The argument you and pmac and some others are giving in this thread truly makes no sense to me.
Easy, I have a question for you. Suppose in a game that the Rockets win by 2 points, the league determines after the fact that Ariza was standing out of bounds on one of his made 3s back in the first quarter. Suppose the league decides to make it a loss for the Rockets, reasoning that they should actually have lost the game by 1 point. Do you think that reasoning makes sense? Would the Rockets have lost the game by 1 point if that out-of-bounds call was made correctly?
Why do you believe that all other shots/points "determines nothing"? Every point contributes to winning. Every point determines something toward winning. The winning shot (as defined by you) "determines" the outcome ONLY BECAUSE the team scored enough points prior to that shot. So you can say that all the other points/shots DETERMINE the importance, even the mere existence, of the winning shot. Without ANY of those shots, there would have been no winning shot. If you have to eat 5 hamburgers to make you feel full, all 5 hamburgers fill you up, not just the 5th one. In fact, it does not matter what order you eat the 5 burgers. Same thing, the winning shot can be just a very ordinary layup while most of all other shots leading up to the winning shot can be spectacular shots. What if McGrady made three, not four 3-pointers in that game and instead of TMac shooting the last shot, some other player passed it to a wide open Yao under the basket who made a layup to tie the game, and then we won in overtime by a wide margin? Was Yao's shot more important than all of TMac's 3-pointers? I don't understand why it makes no sense to you. You, of all people, who cares about OBJECTIVE evidence, should understand that each shot worth exactly the same amount of points objectively.
