Posted: Tue May 12, 2015 10:27 pm Post subject: Re: FiveThirtyEight.com: Lebron Most Clutch Shooter, Kobe Least Clutch Shooter
activeverb wrote:
dont_be_a_wuss wrote:
activeverb wrote:
dont_be_a_wuss wrote:
I feel like these guys add all the numbers to excel, and then run a goal seek to find the parameters to make LeBron look best and kobe look worst.
I think these guys come up with a formula they think is good, and then the results are whatever the results are. I don't think this formula was created with any agenda to produce a certain outcome. I
Its only human. We are doing it now in this thread, trying to figure out the formula to really show Kobe is clutch.
How do they decide the formula should use 6 seconds? Maybe thats one of the variables they adjusted to see how the results looked under different conditions.
The formula used 5 seconds. I suspect he used it because his formula was about end-of-game shots, not clutch per se. And 5 seconds is a tidy number to put into a formula like this.
I don't have your belief that he tinkered with different seconds to make some players look better and some look worst.
I just can't believe someone would spend so much time on an analysis and not look at a few different conditions. From there, subconsciously, his own opinions are going to influence his decisions.
For many years, the loudest, most hubristic voices selling the predominant "clutch" narrative demanded that we disregard any inefficiencies in play during the first 3Q, and only focus on the play at the end of the game. "We don't care about the efficient player scoring 23 points (14 FGA) through 3Q and 6 points (3 FGA) in the 4Q", they told us. "Watch the guy scoring 14 points (15 FGA) through 3Q and 11 points (10 FGA) in the 4Q", they told us. "That latter guy is the clutch one! He's the closer! He's the Alpha!" ... this has been going on for years. And anyone who might have the chops to really challenge the primacy of that latter guy is going to be subjected to the most irrational, misguided campaign of misinformation and idiocy since McCain | Palin 2008.
Now, when the data has come home to roost, we have tidal wave after tidal wave of salty tears lamenting the data for somehow "missing" the mark and providing a woefully inferior perspective to the notoriously reliable "eyeball test". I completely understand the pathological underpinnings of confirmation bias, but this is ridiculous x 10 ...
For many years, the loudest, most hubristic voices selling the predominant "clutch" narrative demanded that we disregard any inefficiencies in play during the first 3Q, and only focus on the play at the end of the game. "We don't care about the efficient player scoring 23 points (14 FGA) through 3Q and 6 points (3 FGA) in the 4Q", they told us. "Watch the guy scoring 14 points (15 FGA) through 3Q and 11 points (10 FGA) in the 4Q", they told us. "That latter guy is the clutch one! He's the closer! He's the Alpha!" ... this has been going on for years. And anyone who might have the chops to really challenge the primacy of that latter guy is going to be subjected to the most irrational, misguided campaign of misinformation and idiocy since McCain | Palin 2008.
Now, when the data has come home to roost, we have tidal wave after tidal wave of salty tears lamenting the data for somehow "missing" the mark and providing a woefully inferior perspective to the notoriously reliable "eyeball test". I completely understand the pathological underpinnings of confirmation bias, but this is ridiculous x 10 ...
Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 6054 Location: My own little piece of reality
Posted: Wed May 13, 2015 7:35 am Post subject:
Gwyn wrote:
Sock puppet
Mods will remove it soon enuf. _________________ “There is always light if only we're brave enough to see it, if only we're brave enough to be it.” --Amanda Gorman
Joined: 15 Nov 2006 Posts: 19866 Location: Prarie & Manchester, high above the western sideline
Posted: Wed May 13, 2015 8:31 am Post subject:
the association wrote:
For many years, the loudest, most hubristic voices selling the predominant "clutch" narrative demanded that we disregard any inefficiencies in play during the first 3Q, and only focus on the play at the end of the game. "We don't care about the efficient player scoring 23 points (14 FGA) through 3Q and 6 points (3 FGA) in the 4Q", they told us. "Watch the guy scoring 14 points (15 FGA) through 3Q and 11 points (10 FGA) in the 4Q", they told us. "That latter guy is the clutch one! He's the closer! He's the Alpha!" ... this has been going on for years. And anyone who might have the chops to really challenge the primacy of that latter guy is going to be subjected to the most irrational, misguided campaign of misinformation and idiocy since McCain | Palin 2008.
Now, when the data has come home to roost, we have tidal wave after tidal wave of salty tears lamenting the data for somehow "missing" the mark and providing a woefully inferior perspective to the notoriously reliable "eyeball test". I completely understand the pathological underpinnings of confirmation bias, but this is ridiculous x 10 ...
Calling out other biases by propagating your own biases using hyperbole disguised as objectivity. Not gonna work. Been done, been seen. Just say you're a huge LeBron fan, and don't care much for Kobe (which is alright) and leave it at that. _________________ http://chickhearn.ytmnd.com/
For many years, the loudest, most hubristic voices selling the predominant "clutch" narrative demanded that we disregard any inefficiencies in play during the first 3Q, and only focus on the play at the end of the game. "We don't care about the efficient player scoring 23 points (14 FGA) through 3Q and 6 points (3 FGA) in the 4Q", they told us. "Watch the guy scoring 14 points (15 FGA) through 3Q and 11 points (10 FGA) in the 4Q", they told us. "That latter guy is the clutch one! He's the closer! He's the Alpha!" ... this has been going on for years. And anyone who might have the chops to really challenge the primacy of that latter guy is going to be subjected to the most irrational, misguided campaign of misinformation and idiocy since McCain | Palin 2008.
Now, when the data has come home to roost, we have tidal wave after tidal wave of salty tears lamenting the data for somehow "missing" the mark and providing a woefully inferior perspective to the notoriously reliable "eyeball test". I completely understand the pathological underpinnings of confirmation bias, but this is ridiculous x 10 ...
Calling out other biases by propagating your own biases using hyperbole disguised as objectivity. Not gonna work. Been done, been seen. Just say you're a huge LeBron fan, and don't care much for Kobe (which is alright) and leave it at that.
Exhibit "A" ... and the prosecution rests, your Honor.
[I don't ceaselessly attempt to (inaccurately) frame how you view individual players, so perhaps you might care to reciprocate the courtesy?] ...
Joined: 15 Nov 2006 Posts: 19866 Location: Prarie & Manchester, high above the western sideline
Posted: Wed May 13, 2015 8:53 am Post subject:
the association wrote:
C M B wrote:
the association wrote:
For many years, the loudest, most hubristic voices selling the predominant "clutch" narrative demanded that we disregard any inefficiencies in play during the first 3Q, and only focus on the play at the end of the game. "We don't care about the efficient player scoring 23 points (14 FGA) through 3Q and 6 points (3 FGA) in the 4Q", they told us. "Watch the guy scoring 14 points (15 FGA) through 3Q and 11 points (10 FGA) in the 4Q", they told us. "That latter guy is the clutch one! He's the closer! He's the Alpha!" ... this has been going on for years. And anyone who might have the chops to really challenge the primacy of that latter guy is going to be subjected to the most irrational, misguided campaign of misinformation and idiocy since McCain | Palin 2008.
Now, when the data has come home to roost, we have tidal wave after tidal wave of salty tears lamenting the data for somehow "missing" the mark and providing a woefully inferior perspective to the notoriously reliable "eyeball test". I completely understand the pathological underpinnings of confirmation bias, but this is ridiculous x 10 ...
Calling out other biases by propagating your own biases using hyperbole disguised as objectivity. Not gonna work. Been done, been seen. Just say you're a huge LeBron fan, and don't care much for Kobe (which is alright) and leave it at that.
Exhibit "A" ... and the prosecution rests, your Honor.
[I don't ceaselessly attempt to (inaccurately) frame how you view individual players
You do, though. And you only cheapen this approach by framing yourself as this unbiased, objective fan, here to but like all of the ones who've tried this message board re-direction before you--they all oddly antagonize positive perceptions of Kobe, and will push hard for retroactive deprecation of his career, for some reason--you lean on bollocks like the link posted in the OP.
For many years, the loudest, most hubristic voices selling the predominant "clutch" narrative demanded that we disregard any inefficiencies in play during the first 3Q, and only focus on the play at the end of the game. "We don't care about the efficient player scoring 23 points (14 FGA) through 3Q and 6 points (3 FGA) in the 4Q", they told us. "Watch the guy scoring 14 points (15 FGA) through 3Q and 11 points (10 FGA) in the 4Q", they told us. "That latter guy is the clutch one! He's the closer! He's the Alpha!" ... this has been going on for years. And anyone who might have the chops to really challenge the primacy of that latter guy is going to be subjected to the most irrational, misguided campaign of misinformation and idiocy since McCain | Palin 2008.
Now, when the data has come home to roost, we have tidal wave after tidal wave of salty tears lamenting the data for somehow "missing" the mark and providing a woefully inferior perspective to the notoriously reliable "eyeball test". I completely understand the pathological underpinnings of confirmation bias, but this is ridiculous x 10 ...
Calling out other biases by propagating your own biases using hyperbole disguised as objectivity. Not gonna work. Been done, been seen. Just say you're a huge LeBron fan, and don't care much for Kobe (which is alright) and leave it at that.
Exhibit "A" ... and the prosecution rests, your Honor.
[I don't ceaselessly attempt to (inaccurately) frame how you view individual players
You do, though. And you only cheapen this approach by framing yourself as this unbiased, objective fan, here to but like all of the ones who've tried this message board re-direction before you--they all oddly antagonize positive perceptions of Kobe, and will push hard for retroactive deprecation of his career, for some reason--you lean on bollocks like the link posted in the OP.
You can enjoy LeBron James without doing this.
Sure, I'll engage (much more than is deserved) this morning ...
Can you direct me to a single thread where I responded to a post of yours and railed against your position re: individual players, as you perseveratively seem to make a habit of doing with mine? But really, to ensure that we're keeping a level playing field in this discussion, you're going to have to find the (n)one that demonstrates how I sought to undermine and besmirch your credibility without addressing the point of the thread or providing contra evidence (which is little surprise since objective source material seemingly isn't an important aspect of reasonable discussion for some of us). Though the recent analytics had little bearing on "my" pre-existing views (other than to confirm other independent analyses), dismissing something as "bollocks" that doesn't fit the long-time narrative that has kept your dream alive doesn't constitute rational argument.
My memory isn't perfect, of course, but I can think of at least a 1/2 dozen or so instances where you have perfected this subterfuge (attack the messenger, bring nothing to bear on the subject matter at hand). If you wish to utilize the preceding parenthetical as your "single thread", I guess I won't protest (too much). But you're going to need to find another (non-existent) thread if you wish to continue engaging me in this back-and-forth about my supposed allegiances, of which there actually happen to be none of any consequence.
On the one hand, this feeble attempt to wrest control and frame who I might be IRL is amusing, in a "cat bats mouse around a bit, before losing interest" sort of way. But it's also tiring in an "I'm not going to capitulate toward a position of weakness, much less passively condone mischaracterization of my intentions" sort of way. In any event, it's not constructive ...
I'm not from Akron (or Cleveland or Ohio), I've never lived in Akron (or Cleveland or Ohio), I don't buy jerseys for myself, I don't own a stitch of LeBron memorabilia or clothing or anything with his imprimatur on it, I don't intentionally arrange travel plans around home games in this city or that one, I don't hang around with Maverick and the boys, and I don't belong to fan clubs ... in fact, I have no aversion whatsoever to criticizing LeBron (or any other player) when I believe they play poorly.
Do I have lenses that are specific to my experiences? Like everyone else, of course I do. But I also bring hard data to the party and that's where ish goes real sideways, real fast for those who share your views. Despite your mischaracterizations, I'm deeply agnostic in these matters (other than a bias toward the 1980s stripe of the Lakers brand) and I try to be as objective as I possibly can in any situation. As one example, have you stopped to consider that I probably couldn't be an actual "LeBron fan" AND maintain my fanatical (and demonstrated) Kawhi support at the same time? From time to time, I highlight the bananas play of a guy who I believe sets a very, very, very high bar. Unfortunately, the sacred cow disease prevents some around here from practicing this otherwise healthy policy of "keeping it real".
The fact is that anyone standing up and having the temerity to call B.S. on the echo chamber that persists in this otherwise fantastic website is going to have to suffer through the usual suspects trying to chase them off like so many awkward scarecrows. It's OK ... I don't report people or resort to crying to the moderators to stop others from ruining my fun of living in denial. Live and let live ... if you cannot handle that mantra, feel free to ignore my posts. I feel like I've presented this invitation before, but I reiterate it now since we appear to be at some sort of cognitive loggerheads with one another ...
Posted: Wed May 13, 2015 11:43 am Post subject: Re: FiveThirtyEight.com: Lebron Most Clutch Shooter, Kobe Least Clutch Shooter
dont_be_a_wuss wrote:
activeverb wrote:
dont_be_a_wuss wrote:
activeverb wrote:
dont_be_a_wuss wrote:
I feel like these guys add all the numbers to excel, and then run a goal seek to find the parameters to make LeBron look best and kobe look worst.
I think these guys come up with a formula they think is good, and then the results are whatever the results are. I don't think this formula was created with any agenda to produce a certain outcome. I
Its only human. We are doing it now in this thread, trying to figure out the formula to really show Kobe is clutch.
How do they decide the formula should use 6 seconds? Maybe thats one of the variables they adjusted to see how the results looked under different conditions.
The formula used 5 seconds. I suspect he used it because his formula was about end-of-game shots, not clutch per se. And 5 seconds is a tidy number to put into a formula like this.
I don't have your belief that he tinkered with different seconds to make some players look better and some look worst.
I just can't believe someone would spend so much time on an analysis and not look at a few different conditions. From there, subconsciously, his own opinions are going to influence his decisions.
This particular formula is really straight forward (go-ahead field-goal attempts with five or fewer seconds remaining in the fourth quarter or overtime of playoff games) so it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't tweak it much.
In any case, I don't think the guy who created the formula consciously or subsconsiously tweaked it to make some players look better, and some look worse.
This article introduces nothing new we shouldn't already know already.
Lebron isn't as unclutch as a lot of folks in here want to make him out to be. And Kobe isn't as super clutch as a lot of folks in here want to make him out to be.
Anyone know if they factor in distance? I don't think you should get the same credit for a wide open dunk as you would a 20-foot contested jumper.
This article introduces nothing new we shouldn't already know already.
Lebron isn't as unclutch as a lot of folks in here want to make him out to be. And Kobe isn't as super clutch as a lot of folks in here want to make him out to be.
Anyone know if they factor in distance? I don't think you should get the same credit for a wide open dunk as you would a 20-foot contested jumper.
Yeah, I'll argue in two places at once.
Of course you should get equivalent credit ... this is basketball. The shots inside that arc all count for two points. This isn't gymnastics ...
This article introduces nothing new we shouldn't already know already.
Lebron isn't as unclutch as a lot of folks in here want to make him out to be. And Kobe isn't as super clutch as a lot of folks in here want to make him out to be.
Anyone know if they factor in distance? I don't think you should get the same credit for a wide open dunk as you would a 20-foot contested jumper.
Yeah, I'll argue in two places at once.
Of course you should get equivalent credit ... this is basketball. The shots inside that arc all count for two points. This isn't gymnastics ...
I'm not talking about style.
I'm talking about someone feeding Deandre Jordan a wide open game winning dunk versus Curry having to create his own shot and still make the shot.
To me, DJs dunk isn't clutch. But Curry's is.
Fwiw, a half court prayer that goes in to win it is not clutch either. No matter what your name is.
This article introduces nothing new we shouldn't already know already.
Lebron isn't as unclutch as a lot of folks in here want to make him out to be. And Kobe isn't as super clutch as a lot of folks in here want to make him out to be.
Anyone know if they factor in distance? I don't think you should get the same credit for a wide open dunk as you would a 20-foot contested jumper.
Yeah, I'll argue in two places at once.
Of course you should get equivalent credit ... this is basketball. The shots inside that arc all count for two points. This isn't gymnastics ...
I'm not talking about style.
I'm talking about someone feeding Deandre Jordan a wide open game winning dunk versus Curry having to create his own shot and still make the shot.
To me, DJs dunk isn't clutch. But Curry's is.
Fwiw, a half court prayer that goes in to win it is not clutch either. No matter what your name is.
As I think about it, the general formula below makes sense to me:
20.0% stamina
33.3% muscle memory
16.7% super-sentience (which the purveyors of the false "clutch" narrative often attribute as the primary ingredient)
30.0% luck
I think nearly everyone possesses the capacity to experience super-sentience in certain situations. But the idea that a particular athlete possesses an ability to experience extraordinary levels of enhanced functioning in high-pressure situations is mostly a wagonload of ish, IMO. This isn't The Matrix ... Joe Montana thrived in the crucible of the Super Bowl for reasons other than the "Joe Cool" moniker. LeBron isn't suddenly "clutch" because the data has finally been analyzed in a more insightful way. If you're in peak physical condition with an optimal build, committed to mastering your craft, and you happen to be the beneficiary of a very, very, very significant allocation of the 16.7% "clutch" gene, you still have to live with the 30% of the equation associated with factors outside your control. Therefore, luck really is the key ...
I know this is an old clip by now, but the link below really is bananas ... LeBron throws a basketball like a full-zed adult throwing an orange. Craziness ...
Dwight's basket was a hybrid jai alai / Pedro Feliciano movement ... I wish I didn't see that basket, but also his squealing after the fact didn't help ...
This article introduces nothing new we shouldn't already know already.
Lebron isn't as unclutch as a lot of folks in here want to make him out to be. And Kobe isn't as super clutch as a lot of folks in here want to make him out to be.
Anyone know if they factor in distance? I don't think you should get the same credit for a wide open dunk as you would a 20-foot contested jumper.
Yeah, I'll argue in two places at once.
Of course you should get equivalent credit ... this is basketball. The shots inside that arc all count for two points. This isn't gymnastics ...
I'm not talking about style.
I'm talking about someone feeding Deandre Jordan a wide open game winning dunk versus Curry having to create his own shot and still make the shot.
To me, DJs dunk isn't clutch. But Curry's is.
Fwiw, a half court prayer that goes in to win it is not clutch either. No matter what your name is.
That's part of the problem, especially when you are talking about the really low number of occurences is these situations.
Is the guy who made the dunk clutch or is the guy who made the pass to him clutch or are both of them? You could go through the tape a million times and argue that.
Did a guy make a clutch shot or a lucky shot? And if he was lucky, why shouldn't it count as a clutch moment because he executed?
That's one reason, I personally don't believe in formulae that purport to tell "clutch."
This article introduces nothing new we shouldn't already know already.
Lebron isn't as unclutch as a lot of folks in here want to make him out to be. And Kobe isn't as super clutch as a lot of folks in here want to make him out to be.
Anyone know if they factor in distance? I don't think you should get the same credit for a wide open dunk as you would a 20-foot contested jumper.
Yeah, I'll argue in two places at once.
Of course you should get equivalent credit ... this is basketball. The shots inside that arc all count for two points. This isn't gymnastics ...
I'm not talking about style.
I'm talking about someone feeding Deandre Jordan a wide open game winning dunk versus Curry having to create his own shot and still make the shot.
To me, DJs dunk isn't clutch. But Curry's is.
Fwiw, a half court prayer that goes in to win it is not clutch either. No matter what your name is.
That's part of the problem, especially when you are talking about the really low number of occurences is these situations.
Is the guy who made the dunk clutch or is the guy who made the pass to him clutch or are both of them? You could go through the tape a million times and argue that.
Did a guy make a clutch shot or a lucky shot? And if he was lucky, why shouldn't it count as a clutch moment because he executed?
That's one reason, I personally don't believe in formulae that purport to tell "clutch."
I'm not a huge fan of using formula either. Frankly, it's a case-by-case thing for me. Jerry West's 60-foot prayer was not a clutch shot. It was a made shot by a clutch player yes, but that's different than a clutch shot.
I also think there is a big distinction between being not being clutch and being unclutch.
Maybe the most objective (and interesting) measure for clutchness, is if you could measure the physiological reaction of opposing fans when a particular opposing player has the ball. The more intense the reaction of fear/doubt/worry, the more clutch that player shall be considered. Ha.
I'd argue that Kobe was a very inefficient shooter in the final seconds of a close game, while simultaneously being very "clutch." It's a difficult term to quantify, but in my mind it comes down to helping your team make plays at the end of close games, which lead to wins. 82games.com defines "Clutch" play as the last 5 minutes of a game that's within 5 points. This statistics measures how the team performs on a per 48 minute basis when a player is on the court, which Kobe invariably was. This data is from the playoffs.
So either the contributions of other Lakers rose significantly down the stretch of close games to overcome the atrocious production of Kobe Bryant, or the aforementioned data may not be the best way of measuring clutchness. The fact of the matter is that Kobe dominated the hell out of the ball down the stretch of close games, and the various incarnations of the Lakers over those years were considerably more productive in the clutch than they were at other times.
I'd argue that Kobe was a very inefficient shooter in the final seconds of a close game, while simultaneously being very "clutch." It's a difficult term to quantify, but in my mind it comes down to helping your team make plays at the end of close games, which lead to wins. 82games.com defines "Clutch" play as the last 5 minutes of a game that's within 5 points. This statistics measures how the team performs on a per 48 minute basis when a player is on the court, which Kobe invariably was. This data is from the playoffs.
So either the contributions of other Lakers rose significantly down the stretch of close games to overcome the atrocious production of Kobe Bryant, or the aforementioned data may not be the best way of measuring clutchness. The fact of the matter is that Kobe dominated the hell out of the ball down the stretch of close games, and the various incarnations of the Lakers over those years were considerably more productive in the clutch than they were at other times.
If the application of data is valid, then Pau should not have any season with higher "clutch" score than Kobe right? (Since I'm sure we can all agree Kobe > Pau in terms of clutchness.
What does the data look like for Pau for those 4 years you ran them for Kobe?
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Wed May 13, 2015 4:29 pm Post subject:
Yeah, subjecting the term clutch to a single, arbitrary thing like shots made in a five second period to take the lead is fairly ridiculous. Is having a big game when a series is tied, or on the opponent's floor, not clutch? Not only that, but it also depend on a lot of external factors, such as, do the opponents play LBJ to drive more and try to smother Kobe?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
