Discussion in 'Pistons and NBA' started by mikhail1973, Jun 22, 2009.
The article claims we tanked last year. I resent that ins..............oh, nevermind.
That was a different type of tanking. Last year, players "tanked" in a cowardly way by giving up on their coach, teammates, and fans. It wasn't because they wanted a higher draft pick. They were just being disrespectful, lazy, and unprofessional.
Agreed.............Not sure if one can justify tanking.......in any form.
What about this form of tanking?
Tasteful humor is always in style..........
And Joe decided to bring back 2 of the 4 main culprits and sign 'em to fat contract extensions. That's a good foundation to rebuild your young team right there. ...what a mess.
Man you straight up just sound like a chump when you drop this kind of crap. When you are putting up 30 points a game, and shooting >50%, how 'clutch' you are likely has very little impact on the outcome of the game. Yeh, I mean, Michael Jordon was a total chump. He only had 6 rings. Bill Russell would pummel his ass like a baby back bitch. The reputation isn't deserved at all. Not an LBJ lover, but so sick of seeing the same crap come up again and again with absolutely no factual basis. Its called confirmation bias, and no one has it worse than NBA fans.
It reminds me of this article from a last summer about Late-Game bias. The article is well worth a read. http://www.backpicks.com/2011/06/17/late-game-bias-when-some-points-count-more/
I didn't read the article, but it seems to me that there is more pressure at the end of a close game. No margin for error. Early in a game each basket is not considered as important simply because there is a lot of time/possessions left for the other team to make up for it. In the last several minutes, there are fewer chances to score, and pressure rises. So I don't see why it's misguided to assess players on how they perform in "clutch" situations.
His argument is that 2 points in the beginning is worth as much as 2 points in the end. All else equal, a player who averages 10p, 10p, 7p and 1p in Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 is better than a player who averages 5p, 5p, 5p and 12p but the general consensus would probably be that the guy scoring in the 4th quarter is the better player because of his clutchness and the other guy would be worse because he's a choker.
You need to look at how clutch a "team" is at the end of games to assess a superstar IMO. No superstar shoots a high percentage when they are mobbed. The selfish ones try to do it anyway and cost their teams victories. The unselfish ones take some shots, but also use themselves as a decoy and get teammates better opportunities. I'd rather have Austin Daye shooting a wide open shot than have Kobe playing 1 on 5. The key is that in order to get a guy like Austin Daye a wide open shot, you need a superstar to attract defenders (and the only way that happens is if that superstar makes the occasional clutch shot). I was watching the NJ game last night and they were down 2 points with about 5 seconds in the game. They inbounded to Deron Williams and he drew about 3 defenders with a faux drive before kicking out to a wide open Farmar- who subsequently drained the game winner. Nobody would have faulted Deron for shooting a forced floater in the lane... but they should have. In this case, he made the exact right play.
But "all else" is never equal. Being down 2 points with 12 seconds to go in the first quarter is much different than being down 2 points with 12 seconds to go in the fourth quarter. The tying or go-ahead basket is going to be easier to come by in the first quarter situation than in the fourth quarter. The defending team is going to play the best defense of their lives, the guy shooting the ball is going to feel more pressure to deliver, the referees are going to tend to swallow their whistles more, the arena timekeeper is going to be more liberal with stopping the clock if the home team is ahead, and on and on. That's why the degree of difficulty of making those "clutch" baskets go up, which is why a player who can do it often enough to build a reputation of it is going to be praised for that "killer instinct" more so than the superstar who is perceived to be unable to do it.
This is a common practice at Michigan State University when MSU is Playing any team sport against UM.
I agree it's more impressive to be able to do difficult stuff but it doesn't add any additional value from a win perspective which is the perspective of the author. He actually uses him as an example:
Not disagreeing with you, but some counterpoints to consider- Won't the offensive players try harder too in this situation? Usually they will be coming out of a timeout with 5 offensive specialists on the floor and with their best play called and diagrammed by the coach. Won't the defense also feel pressure and make mistakes (over pursuit, leaving their feet on pump fakes, or even playing too lax for fear of fouling)? Maybe the refs will feel more scrutinized and call contact that they otherwise wouldn't (especially because the offensive player is usually a big name star). There are clearly more fouls calls in crunch time than at any other point in a game after all. Just look at the free throw attempts per 48 minutes that the stars get in crunch time. Lebron averages 22.6 FTA's per 48 minutes of crunch time while he only averages 11.1 FTA's per 48 minutes of total time played- granted a large percentage of the increase could be due to intentional fouls in the last 60 seconds of each game. If the timekeeper favors the home team, then each player examined will have about half their crunch time stats boosted and the other half dampened (it might even out). If you were a statistician and had a whole ton of data, it might be possible to figure out what is really going on during this special time of the game. Some questions I have are: - Are coaches too predictable in drawing up plays for their go-to guys? - Are superstars too selfish in their shot selection? - Does the nature of the game change and just create a lower scoring expection (5 defensive specialists naturally trumping 5 offensive specialist for example) - Do the refs call it looser or tighter? You might have to look at minutes 5-2 left in the game to determine b/c that is before the intentional fouls start. - It would be interesting to see the shooting percentage of "wide open" shots in crunch time vs normal time to see if there is indeed a choke factor going on. One easy thing to look at would be free throw percentage, but you'd have to control by looking at normal vs crunch time for each player and see if their shooting suffers league-wide. e.g Lebron shoots FT's at 70.8% during crunch time, but 77.0% overall. Maybe a sample size issue, but if you looked at a large selection of players and found a similar trend, I could be convinced that there was some choking... however it could also be due to fatigue. For that, you'd have to see their FT% in the last 5 minutes of games that were not close (non crunch time stats).
I disagree with this. Totally. It's that last shot that counts. All the other points throughout the game are nothing but building blocks to make that last shot possible. That's the one that seals the deal.
And it's only the last step in the 100m finals in the olympics that matters? Why would the shot that seals the deal count more than the shots that makes this shot count?
Mathematically, all shots are worth the same number of points obviously. But, like somebody else said, when you miss a shot in the middle of the 1st quarter, there is ample time to make up for that miss. When you miss what would've been a game winning shot, that's it. There's no second chance. That's why it is more important to hit that shot as opposed to a shot in the beginning of the game.
If you were asked, which shot would you rather make, a) the first shot of the game, b) the middles shot in the game, or c) the last shot in the game, which would you pick? They are all equal. When you're imagining choice c, you don't think of all the games where your team is up 10 points, down 10 points, etc. There are a very small fraction of games where the last shot is even needed.... thanks to all of the first shots and the middles shots that were made or missed. From a selfish and personal standpoint, most people would choose c, because that is the shot that everybody remembers and the one that gets the credit in close games. I'd choose c purely for the shoe endorsement revenue.
Separate names with a comma.