2010-11 Regular Season

[droponov]

I think by putting it all to luck, you are discounting the mental aspect of the game.

Some players thrive off of pressure on the big stage. Ray allen, pierce, even Kobe...those guys keep their cool and thrive off the pressure... we've all seen Ray allen hit clutch shots without hesitation  that helped put teams away. dont tell me its just luck.

Lebron buckles under the pressure....its not the first time that he has choked in a close game. The guy hasnt won anything on the big stage and when the going gets tough you can expect that lebron will play worse

Nah, I don't think I am. I'm arguing about how close games are decided. Not if player x or player y plays better or worse in pressure situations.

And again, I'm not putting it all on luck. In fact, I explicitly corrected another poster on that. You should read more carefully.

Interesting debate here, albeit a little off-topic.  But droponov is essentially correct: some teams and players are more "clutch" (likely to win close games) than others.´

Which teams and players are those?

[fairweatherfan]

Interesting debate here, albeit a little off-topic.  But droponov is essentially correct: some teams and players are more "clutch" (likely to win close games) than others.´

Which teams and players are those?

Good teams tend to win more close games (even though it happens often that a good team has a negative record on close games, even an awful record), but not at the same % they win non-close games.

You forgot this in 2 hours? 

[droponov]

Interesting debate here, albeit a little off-topic.  But droponov is essentially correct: some teams and players are more "clutch" (likely to win close games) than others.´

Which teams and players are those?

Good teams tend to win more close games (even though it happens often that a good team has a negative record on close games, even an awful record), but not at the same % they win non-close games.

You forgot this in 2 hours? 

But is that because they're clutch or because they're good?

Because good teams winning % of close games is generally lower than their overall record.

On the other hand, bad teams winning % of close games is generally higher than their overall record.

Are bad teams more clutch than good teams?

And who are the players? Is there any player in the NBA whose team has consistently over-performed in close games?

[ACF]

Speaking of clutch, Sasha V is not. Nice airball.

[fairweatherfan]

Interesting debate here, albeit a little off-topic.  But droponov is essentially correct: some teams and players are more "clutch" (likely to win close games) than others.´

Which teams and players are those?

Good teams tend to win more close games (even though it happens often that a good team has a negative record on close games, even an awful record), but not at the same % they win non-close games.

You forgot this in 2 hours? 

But is that because they're clutch or because they're good?

Because good teams winning % of close games is generally lower than their overall record.

On the other hand, bad teams winning % of close games is generally higher than their overall record.

Are bad teams more clutch than good teams?

And who are the players? Is there any player in the NBA whose team has consistently over-performed in close games?

If you missed it, I was agreeing with you.  And if you define clutch as more likely to win close games, like most people do, and good teams are more likely to win close games, the distinction is irrelevant.  The rest of what you're citing is pretty basic regression to the mean when the influence of noise increases, which is again consistent with my first post.

It seems you may be more contrarian than I initially gave you credit for.  Have a good one.

[ACF]

Fratello talking about Williams's DMW tat: "M for Michael". Marv then goes "You have lost it." LOL

[ACF]

Interesting debate here, albeit a little off-topic.  But droponov is essentially correct: some teams and players are more "clutch" (likely to win close games) than others.´

Which teams and players are those?

Good teams tend to win more close games (even though it happens often that a good team has a negative record on close games, even an awful record), but not at the same % they win non-close games.

You forgot this in 2 hours? 

But is that because they're clutch or because they're good?

Because good teams winning % of close games is generally lower than their overall record.

On the other hand, bad teams winning % of close games is generally higher than their overall record.

Are bad teams more clutch than good teams?

And who are the players? Is there any player in the NBA whose team has consistently over-performed in close games?

If you missed it, I was agreeing with you.  And if you define clutch as more likely to win close games, like most people do, and good teams are more likely to win close games, the distinction is irrelevant.  The rest of what you're citing is pretty basic regression to the mean when the influence of noise increases, which is again consistent with my first post.

It seems you may be more contrarian than I initially gave you credit for.  Have a good one.

[droponov]

Interesting debate here, albeit a little off-topic.  But droponov is essentially correct: some teams and players are more "clutch" (likely to win close games) than others.´

Which teams and players are those?

Good teams tend to win more close games (even though it happens often that a good team has a negative record on close games, even an awful record), but not at the same % they win non-close games.

You forgot this in 2 hours? 

But is that because they're clutch or because they're good?

Because good teams winning % of close games is generally lower than their overall record.

On the other hand, bad teams winning % of close games is generally higher than their overall record.

Are bad teams more clutch than good teams?

And who are the players? Is there any player in the NBA whose team has consistently over-performed in close games?

If you missed it, I was agreeing with you.  And if you define clutch as more likely to win close games, like most people do, and good teams are more likely to win close games, the distinction is irrelevant.  The rest of what you're citing is pretty basic regression to the mean when the influence of noise increases.

It seems you may be more contrarian than I initially gave you credit for.  Have a good one.

I don't care about agreements or disagreements. Much less about personal remarks.I questioned your reasoning even if you agreed with me but it's not personal. I'm not being a contrarian, just questioning you.

I think the question you didn't want to respond was "who are the players?". That's because there's no good answer for that. If some players are more "clutch", more likely to win close games, they should be able to do it consistently. The teams of those players should be able to over-perform in close games. But that doesn't happen. There's no persistence: a player can be in a team that wins a lot of close games in a season and in the following season in one that loses 90% of them.

Is Chris Bosh clutch? People now say he isn't, but last season his team won a higher percentage of close games than Boston in spite of having a much worse record.

So, the logical corollary of your reasoning is that if clutch is the propensity to win close games and winning close games is, for players, largely explained by randomness, then clutchness is basically randomness. So, according to your rationale, clutch is luck.

[droponov]

Btw, there are people in the NBA who believe in clutch players - but defined as players who are able to consistently raise their production in the final periods of close games -  and actually believe they can identify clutch players through quantitative metrics. Donnie Nelson is an example, but there are more, including inside the Celtics organization. 

I have doubts about it. Very undecided, will need to see more evidence and more sustained results.

Anyway, I agree with them in the way of defining clutch players. Using the winning % of close games as fairweatherfan did seems extremely problematic to me. It's akin to evaluate the talent of a player by their team record... except that players have even less influence in the team record of their team in close games (because of the added randomness).

[Fafnir]

Btw, there are people in the NBA who believe in clutch players - but defined as players who are able to consistently raise their production in the final periods of close games -  and actually believe they can identify clutch players through quantitative metrics. Donnie Nelson is an example, but there are more, including inside the Celtics organization.  

I have doubts about it. Very undecided, will need to see more evidence and more sustained results.

Anyway, I agree with them in the way of defining clutch players. Using the winning % of close games as fairweatherfan did seems extremely problematic to me. It's akin to evaluate the talent of a player by their team record... except that players have even less influence in the team record of their team in close games (because of the added randomness).

Honestly if anything would define clutch to me in basketball it would be proper execution in the face of the motivated an active defense you see in late game situations.

Getting the good shot is more important than whether or not they go in.

Davis's jumper in 2008-2009 to win the game 4 in Orlando was indeed clutch, but more important than the shot going in was both the correct pass by Pierce and Davis's proper decision to catch and immediately shoot it.

[LB3533]

Good teams facing each other are pretty evenly matched, should be a close game and an exciting finish.

The end result of this game could result from luck = which team executes better down the stretch or which team has the ball bounce their way etc.

The issue for the latest Magic/Heat game was the Magic, as a complete team, garnered more production through the course of the entire 48 minute game compared to the Miami Heat, who generated superior production from 2 of their players for maybe 25 minutes of the game.

[Megatron]

Good teams facing each other are pretty evenly matched, should be a close game and an exciting finish.

The end result of this game could result from luck = which team executes better down the stretch or which team has the ball bounce their way etc.

The issue for the latest Magic/Heat game was the Magic, as a complete team, garnered more production through the course of the entire 48 minute game compared to the Miami Heat, who generated superior production from 2 of their players for maybe 25 minutes of the game.

Thats the flaw of the Miami Heat, they have 3 players who produce, outside of their Big 3, they have nothing. They have no bench, they have no shot blockers or rebounders. The team goes only as far as the Big 3 takes them, they need all 3 of them to step up big every single night, and the moment one of them has an off night, they are in trouble.

[fairweatherfan]

I don't care about agreements or disagreements. Much less about personal remarks.I questioned your reasoning even if you agreed with me but it's not personal. I'm not being a contrarian, just questioning you.

I think the question you didn't want to respond was "who are the players?". That's because there's no good answer for that. If some players are more "clutch", more likely to win close games, they should be able to do it consistently. The teams of those players should be able to over-perform in close games. But that doesn't happen. There's no persistence: a player can be in a team that wins a lot of close games in a season and in the following season in one that loses 90% of them.

Is Chris Bosh clutch? People now say he isn't, but last season his team won a higher percentage of close games than Boston in spite of having a much worse record.

So, the logical corollary of your reasoning is that if clutch is the propensity to win close games and winning close games is, for players, largely explained by randomness, then clutchness is basically randomness. So, according to your rationale, clutch is luck.

Ok, so I've read this, and now I'm not sure if I understand your position at all.  You've been pretty explicit that close-game performance is mostly, but not entirely, luck.  Which again is also what I think.  If it's not entirely random, then by definition there are also weaker non-random factors at work.  What do you think those non-random factors are, if not the teams and players involved?  Are you saying it's just non-player team factors like coaching?  Something else?  The only other one I can think of offhand would be homecourt.

I also don't understand why you corrected Megatron for claiming you believed "it's all luck" when you were actually saying "it's mostly luck", but now are doing exactly the same thing to my position, and much more explicitly.  It seems like arguing for the sake of arguing, which is why it strikes me as contrarian.

[GreenFaith1819]

Poor Dwight.

Looks like he has a suspension coming.

[fairweatherfan]

Poor Dwight.

Looks like he has a suspension coming.

What did he do?  Just the 16th technical or something worse?

Tony Parker is back and playing tonight.  Wow.