|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
 Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| focus wrote: | | ribeye 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 ... |
Sounds like you're catching quite a bit of flack for one of the more interesting posts in this thread. You just might have the makings of something. We have, for years, constantly heard that it doesn't matter so much what you do for the first three+ quarters, as long as you make a big shot or big shots in the fourth. I'm a bit ambivalent on this as I think the entirety of your game play matters, but with the ebb and flow of the game, catching fire at the end is not only dramatic, but final.
However, the data here, though sound from a statistical standpoint, only catches the final play (or maybe two) and has an extremely limited sample size. So, though it confirms my eye test that Kobe is a far the being the God of clutch, I have seen other data such as the yearly clutch data from 82games, that for most years showed Kobe to be at or near the top in their measure--possibly number one over the years of 09 -13--by points. But by FG%, he is well down the list. It might just be a little warm down where he resides here.
So, by volume yes, by efficiency, no. |
For you stat guys, a question. Is there something that measures teammate quality or their 1 on 1 ability/create their own shot ability and takes that into account? Unlikely, but just a thought.
I don't really see a lot of guys Kobe could have passed off to generally or in the clutch that he didn't. Obviously DFish Kobe trusted a lot but not a create his own shot guy. Shaq with his FT liabilites understandable. I thought Bynum might have developed into that, but oh well. If he had a reliable Dumars or Stockton or special DWade or Kyrie or JButler or Klay Thompson or Manu or Parker or Duncan or Pippen, he might have had enough confidence in them like he did with Fish if not more so. DFish to me is why I think Kobe would have been happy to pass to a reliable teammate, and why I think he would have worked out with Melo several years ago (like the first time, not last year). Z Bo would be another guy who is not a supersuperstar but dang reliable who I think Kobe would trust. All speculative true, but I just don't recall a ton of teammates worthy of consistent trust in those situations. Not requiring a superstar, just a fellow clutch dude on offense. How about like a Korver even or a few years ago David Lee? Or am I forgetting certain teammates?
I don't know that with one of those guys that Kobe would have passed in clutch significantly more, but based on DFish and the fact that all these guys are more potent and talented than DFish generally, he might have. |
Let me just quote another solid post herein that says it best:
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: |
As for Kobe, this is another illustration of the paradoxes that surround his career. Kobe has the ability to get off a shot in the dying seconds even when everyone in the building knows what is about to happen. I don't know of any other player in the history of basketball who could do the same thing so consistently. The flip side, however, is that a lot of those shots are ill advised, but Kobe takes them anyway. |
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye 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 ... |
Sounds like you're catching quite a bit of flack for one of the more interesting posts in this thread. You just might have the makings of something. We have, for years, constantly heard that it doesn't matter so much what you do for the first three+ quarters, as long as you make a big shot or big shots in the fourth. I'm a bit ambivalent on this as I think the entirety of your game play matters, but with the ebb and flow of the game, catching fire at the end is not only dramatic, but final.
However, the data here, though sound from a statistical standpoint, only catches the final play (or maybe two) and has an extremely limited sample size. So, though it confirms my eye test that Kobe is a far the being the God of clutch, I have seen other data such as the yearly clutch data from 82games, that for most years showed Kobe to be at or near the top in their measure--possibly number one over the years of 09 -13--by points. But by FG%, he is well down the list. It might just be a little warm down where he resides here.
So, by volume yes, by efficiency, no. |
There's an old courtroom proverb: When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither are on your side, pound the table.
I think the desperate table pounding in this subject matter area has reached a deafening level; it probably reached that fevered pitch when the OP hit "Submit". I also think it's clear where the desperation lies. The ad hominem attacks, the virtual stalking of posts made by others, the pseudo-intellectual attacks on participants (without addressing the actual points established by their views, or providing contra evidence of any kind), etc. If it wasn't childish and amateurish, it would be nettlesome.
There's an abundance of obfuscation, hysterical drivel, misstatements of fact, illogical opinions from many, and then ultimately dead silence from the moderators when posters resort to the nuclear option of making accusatory personal attacks (e.g., this person is a troll, that person is using false identities, this poster has never seen a Lakers game, that poster is a card-carrying member of ISIS, etc.) that are easily disproven by information at their fingertips.
It's OK in my world ... I don't expect a warm welcome when I present a view that threatens a sacred cow. I'm simply expressing my opinion, which has been imbued by lengthy experience as a Lakers fan and adherence to insights stemming from hard data. Given all of the foregoing, I'd like to highlight that nobody new to this website should be under the false impression that the moderators here are somehow independent arbiters of anything. I guess that's also how it works elsewhere, but it's surprising to me nonetheless. At the end of the day, I enjoy the website. Though moderator apathy (and passive hostility) toward those with whom they disagree seems to cultivate "lack of decorum" situations to escalate on the daily, I don't suffer under any unreasonable expectations that this environment might change any time soon ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: |
Let me just quote another solid post herein that says it best:
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: |
As for Kobe, this is another illustration of the paradoxes that surround his career. Kobe has the ability to get off a shot in the dying seconds even when everyone in the building knows what is about to happen. I don't know of any other player in the history of basketball who could do the same thing so consistently. The flip side, however, is that a lot of those shots are ill advised, but Kobe takes them anyway. |
|
Agreed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | ribeye wrote: |
Let me just quote another solid post herein that says it best:
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: |
As for Kobe, this is another illustration of the paradoxes that surround his career. Kobe has the ability to get off a shot in the dying seconds even when everyone in the building knows what is about to happen. I don't know of any other player in the history of basketball who could do the same thing so consistently. The flip side, however, is that a lot of those shots are ill advised, but Kobe takes them anyway. |
|
Agreed. |
I've always thought the bigger chink in Kobe's armor is poor shot selection. But that's part and parcel of his confidence that makes him great -- he's the master of the "no, no, no - YES!" shot. But, as you say, that also results in "no, no, no - NO!" shots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C M B
Franchise Player
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 19864
Location: Prarie & Manchester, high above the western sideline
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | ribeye 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 ... |
Sounds like you're catching quite a bit of flack for one of the more interesting posts in this thread. You just might have the makings of something. We have, for years, constantly heard that it doesn't matter so much what you do for the first three+ quarters, as long as you make a big shot or big shots in the fourth. I'm a bit ambivalent on this as I think the entirety of your game play matters, but with the ebb and flow of the game, catching fire at the end is not only dramatic, but final.
However, the data here, though sound from a statistical standpoint, only catches the final play (or maybe two) and has an extremely limited sample size. So, though it confirms my eye test that Kobe is a far the being the God of clutch, I have seen other data such as the yearly clutch data from 82games, that for most years showed Kobe to be at or near the top in their measure--possibly number one over the years of 09 -13--by points. But by FG%, he is well down the list. It might just be a little warm down where he resides here.
So, by volume yes, by efficiency, no. |
There's an old courtroom proverb: When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither are on your side, pound the table.
I think the desperate table pounding in this subject matter area has reached a deafening level; it probably reached that fevered pitch when the OP hit "Submit". I also think it's clear where the desperation lies. The ad hominem attacks, the virtual stalking of posts made by others, the pseudo-intellectual attacks on participants (without addressing the actual points established by their views, or providing contra evidence of any kind), etc. If it wasn't childish and amateurish, it would be nettlesome.
There's an abundance of obfuscation, hysterical drivel, misstatements of fact, illogical opinions from many, and then ultimately dead silence from the moderators when posters resort to the nuclear option of making accusatory personal attacks (e.g., this person is a troll, that person is using false identities, this poster has never seen a Lakers game, that poster is a card-carrying member of ISIS, etc.) that are easily disproven by information at their fingertips.
It's OK in my world ... I don't expect a warm welcome when I present a view that threatens a sacred cow. I'm simply expressing my opinion, which has been imbued by lengthy experience as a Lakers fan and adherence to insights stemming from hard data. Given all of the foregoing, I'd like to highlight that nobody new to this website should be under the false impression that the moderators here are somehow independent arbiters of anything. I guess that's also how it works elsewhere, but it's surprising to me nonetheless. At the end of the day, I enjoy the website. Though moderator apathy (and passive hostility) toward those with whom they disagree seems to cultivate "lack of decorum" situations to escalate on the daily, I don't suffer under any unreasonable expectations that this environment might change any time soon ... |
1.) Run with an agenda that goes against the grain
2.) The grain goes, too, against you, disqualifying your tendencies to portray your own biases as the ojbective truth
3.) Push the agenda harder, totally expose yourself to reasonable criticism from fellow forum readers
4.) Savage the moderators, martyr yourself as a one-man truth army on a forum full of sycophantic plebs who are all wrong
Textbook
Been done, been seen.
_________________
http://chickhearn.ytmnd.com/ 
| Sister Golden Hair wrote: | LAMAR ODOM is an anagram for ... DOOM ALARM
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | ribeye 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 ... |
Sounds like you're catching quite a bit of flack for one of the more interesting posts in this thread. You just might have the makings of something. We have, for years, constantly heard that it doesn't matter so much what you do for the first three+ quarters, as long as you make a big shot or big shots in the fourth. I'm a bit ambivalent on this as I think the entirety of your game play matters, but with the ebb and flow of the game, catching fire at the end is not only dramatic, but final.
However, the data here, though sound from a statistical standpoint, only catches the final play (or maybe two) and has an extremely limited sample size. So, though it confirms my eye test that Kobe is a far the being the God of clutch, I have seen other data such as the yearly clutch data from 82games, that for most years showed Kobe to be at or near the top in their measure--possibly number one over the years of 09 -13--by points. But by FG%, he is well down the list. It might just be a little warm down where he resides here.
So, by volume yes, by efficiency, no. |
There's an old courtroom proverb: When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither are on your side, pound the table.
I think the desperate table pounding in this subject matter area has reached a deafening level; it probably reached that fevered pitch when the OP hit "Submit". I also think it's clear where the desperation lies. The ad hominem attacks, the virtual stalking of posts made by others, the pseudo-intellectual attacks on participants (without addressing the actual points established by their views, or providing contra evidence of any kind), etc. If it wasn't childish and amateurish, it would be nettlesome.
There's an abundance of obfuscation, hysterical drivel, misstatements of fact, illogical opinions from many, and then ultimately dead silence from the moderators when posters resort to the nuclear option of making accusatory personal attacks (e.g., this person is a troll, that person is using false identities, this poster has never seen a Lakers game, that poster is a card-carrying member of ISIS, etc.) that are easily disproven by information at their fingertips.
It's OK in my world ... I don't expect a warm welcome when I present a view that threatens a sacred cow. I'm simply expressing my opinion, which has been imbued by lengthy experience as a Lakers fan and adherence to insights stemming from hard data. Given all of the foregoing, I'd like to highlight that nobody new to this website should be under the false impression that the moderators here are somehow independent arbiters of anything. I guess that's also how it works elsewhere, but it's surprising to me nonetheless. At the end of the day, I enjoy the website. Though moderator apathy (and passive hostility) toward those with whom they disagree seems to cultivate "lack of decorum" situations to escalate on the daily, I don't suffer under any unreasonable expectations that this environment might change any time soon ... |
Look. Outside of your hatred of Kobe, I think you're one of the best posters here. But it's more than expressing an opinion IMO. You could have let stand any number of posts you've made that you don't hold Kobe in the same regard as many others do. But instead, you seemingly look for threads to express the same POV and then, when you are hit with the backlash, you start accusing others of all of the things that we see you as guilty of. So, go on and do what you do and we'll undoubtedly do the same. But I implore you to be as consistent with your disclosure of your hatred of Kobe as you are as diligent in your seeking out threads and opportunities to diminish him.
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144461
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | ribeye wrote: |
Let me just quote another solid post herein that says it best:
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: |
As for Kobe, this is another illustration of the paradoxes that surround his career. Kobe has the ability to get off a shot in the dying seconds even when everyone in the building knows what is about to happen. I don't know of any other player in the history of basketball who could do the same thing so consistently. The flip side, however, is that a lot of those shots are ill advised, but Kobe takes them anyway. |
|
Agreed. |
I've always thought the bigger chink in Kobe's armor is poor shot selection. But that's part and parcel of his confidence that makes him great -- he's the master of the "no, no, no - YES!" shot. But, as you say, that also results in "no, no, no - NO!" shots. |
And analytically that isn't the best way to play the game. Ineffecient shots are something you should want to avoid. I have no issue with the shot selection Kobe has chosen, but to use that weakness to criticize Lebron for not choosing those shots and pointing to that as his weakness, is plain wrong (I am not accusing you of saying that, but others in this thread). The smart move is to get the ball to the player who has the best chance of making the shot. Do not criticize Lebron for being smart.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | 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're right, of course. Just the same, some people want to believe that Kobe has some mystical ability to make shots in precisely these situations. Conversely, some people want to believe that Lebron can't make these shots. Neither viewpoint is correct.
As for Kobe, this is another illustration of the paradoxes that surround his career. Kobe has the ability to get off a shot in the dying seconds even when everyone in the building knows what is about to happen. I don't know of any other player in the history of basketball who could do the same thing so consistently. The flip side, however, is that a lot of those shots are ill advised, but Kobe takes them anyway. |
Yep. Kobe is the best terrible shot maker in NBA history. But it's still better to avoid terrible shots altogether. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
focus
Star Player
Joined: 23 May 2012
Posts: 2526
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | ribeye wrote: |
Let me just quote another solid post herein that says it best:
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: |
As for Kobe, this is another illustration of the paradoxes that surround his career. Kobe has the ability to get off a shot in the dying seconds even when everyone in the building knows what is about to happen. I don't know of any other player in the history of basketball who could do the same thing so consistently. The flip side, however, is that a lot of those shots are ill advised, but Kobe takes them anyway. |
|
Agreed. |
I've always thought the bigger chink in Kobe's armor is poor shot selection. But that's part and parcel of his confidence that makes him great -- he's the master of the "no, no, no - YES!" shot. But, as you say, that also results in "no, no, no - NO!" shots. |
Unsure who to reply to but you all seem in agreement. AH's point I agree with, but not quite what I meant to ask about, and probably expressed poorly. Or at least maybe discuss the term 'ill advised" clutch plays. His specific teammates is what I wanted to discuss. Were there specific teammates that he didn't pass to in the clutch or was selfish in some other manner other than shooting that would likely have been successful with that or those other teammates? And lightly grazing over his teammates over the years, I don't come up with too many a la the guys I mentioned before who could truly be counted on in that last few seconds situation, like he did with DFish consistently. Is it 'ill-advised' to take the last shot if you have some success with it and your teammates don't have the ability and/or confidence to do it? Lot of quality teammates (with years of exceptions), but what about guys who have closing ability and confidence? I never saw Pau as particularly hungry for the last shot or ball in his hands play creating, though quite capable of course. I mean 'poor shot selection' - selection means among the choices you have and poor implies there was a better option, i.e. to pass to someoene else. Beating a dead horse probably.
If my posts were English exams, I'd get docked for clarity and conciseness. Hope my point is clear enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | ribeye 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 ... |
Sounds like you're catching quite a bit of flack for one of the more interesting posts in this thread. You just might have the makings of something. We have, for years, constantly heard that it doesn't matter so much what you do for the first three+ quarters, as long as you make a big shot or big shots in the fourth. I'm a bit ambivalent on this as I think the entirety of your game play matters, but with the ebb and flow of the game, catching fire at the end is not only dramatic, but final.
However, the data here, though sound from a statistical standpoint, only catches the final play (or maybe two) and has an extremely limited sample size. So, though it confirms my eye test that Kobe is a far the being the God of clutch, I have seen other data such as the yearly clutch data from 82games, that for most years showed Kobe to be at or near the top in their measure--possibly number one over the years of 09 -13--by points. But by FG%, he is well down the list. It might just be a little warm down where he resides here.
So, by volume yes, by efficiency, no. |
There's an old courtroom proverb: When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither are on your side, pound the table.
I think the desperate table pounding in this subject matter area has reached a deafening level; it probably reached that fevered pitch when the OP hit "Submit". I also think it's clear where the desperation lies. The ad hominem attacks, the virtual stalking of posts made by others, the pseudo-intellectual attacks on participants (without addressing the actual points established by their views, or providing contra evidence of any kind), etc. If it wasn't childish and amateurish, it would be nettlesome.
There's an abundance of obfuscation, hysterical drivel, misstatements of fact, illogical opinions from many, and then ultimately dead silence from the moderators when posters resort to the nuclear option of making accusatory personal attacks (e.g., this person is a troll, that person is using false identities, this poster has never seen a Lakers game, that poster is a card-carrying member of ISIS, etc.) that are easily disproven by information at their fingertips.
It's OK in my world ... I don't expect a warm welcome when I present a view that threatens a sacred cow. I'm simply expressing my opinion, which has been imbued by lengthy experience as a Lakers fan and adherence to insights stemming from hard data. Given all of the foregoing, I'd like to highlight that nobody new to this website should be under the false impression that the moderators here are somehow independent arbiters of anything. I guess that's also how it works elsewhere, but it's surprising to me nonetheless. At the end of the day, I enjoy the website. Though moderator apathy (and passive hostility) toward those with whom they disagree seems to cultivate "lack of decorum" situations to escalate on the daily, I don't suffer under any unreasonable expectations that this environment might change any time soon ... |
So much to cover here it is hard to know where to start:
1. You are someone who has demonstrated both a capacity for insightful, informative posts, and also a person who has a capacity for strongly held, intransigent opinion, but you don't demonstrate much capacity for the idea that those could be different things.
2. Your stock calling card is to present an opinion very strongly, and then go completely personal against anyone who disagrees at the drop of a hat.
3. Like many people who do number two, you have an overdeveloped sensitivity to anyone responding strongly to your behavior. In layman's terms, this is known as an internet bully. You can't take what you dish out.
4. Like many internet bullies, along with pleading victimhood at the hands of other posters, you resort to calling out the site and its moderation. This is not new, and it greatly amuses us that aggressive, immoderate posters on both sides of a "sacred cow" issue almost always think the moderators are against them and for the "other side".
5. You should never, ever finish typing a sentence that has anything to do with educating anyone on decorum.
6. The mods here don't pretend to be independent arbiters, at least not in the sense that I think you mean. We are all long time, mostly active posters who moderate the site for free out of a love for being here, not paid judges who hang around for the pleasure of settling disputes and forbidden from maintaining or expressing our own opinions.
7. No mod that I know tosses people for disagreeing with them. In fact, if anything, as a group we tend to be more cautious about moderating those we disagree with.
8. The expectation you should concentrate on is that if you don't radically change YOUR behavior, you won't have to worry about any other expectations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
I enjoy the association's posts as I do 24's. I think this site is moderated extremely well.
I know of another site I visit that is a free-for-all, everyone calling everyone this and that (except me of course . . .) with one thread about deflategate with 925 replies that is basically fourth grade banter, YOU are this, not I'm not, YOU are, over and over and over.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| focus wrote: | | Unsure who to reply to but you all seem in agreement. AH's point I agree with, but not quite what I meant to ask about, and probably expressed poorly. Or at least maybe discuss the term 'ill advised" clutch plays. His specific teammates is what I wanted to discuss. Were there specific teammates that he didn't pass to in the clutch or was selfish in some other manner other than shooting that would likely have been successful with that or those other teammates? . |
I'd say its simply his personality and style of player. Sure, like most superstars who have long careers, he's had years where his teammates weren't that good. But if you look at the totality of his career, his quality of teammates has been very high. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| focus wrote: | Unsure who to reply to but you all seem in agreement. AH's point I agree with, but not quite what I meant to ask about, and probably expressed poorly. Or at least maybe discuss the term 'ill advised" clutch plays. His specific teammates is what I wanted to discuss. Were there specific teammates that he didn't pass to in the clutch or was selfish in some other manner other than shooting that would likely have been successful with that or those other teammates? And lightly grazing over his teammates over the years, I don't come up with too many a la the guys I mentioned before who could truly be counted on in that last few seconds situation, like he did with DFish consistently. Is it 'ill-advised' to take the last shot if you have some success with it and your teammates don't have the ability and/or confidence to do it? Lot of quality teammates (with years of exceptions), but what about guys who have closing ability and confidence? I never saw Pau as particularly hungry for the last shot or ball in his hands play creating, though quite capable of course. I mean 'poor shot selection' - selection means among the choices you have and poor implies there was a better option, i.e. to pass to someoene else. Beating a dead horse probably.
If my posts were English exams, I'd get docked for clarity and conciseness. Hope my point is clear enough. |
I don't think that is a question that can be answered. If you believe that any or many of the 100 or so teammates that Kobe has had over the years were not physically, or psychologically capable of taking and making clutch plays, we'd have to first objectively conclude that those players were in fact, incapable of making any clutch plays. And then, even if we could, we'd have to figure out what causes that inability. Is it an innate lack of ability? Or -- is it a direct result of not being regularly involved offensively? Or poor team chemistry? A headache that day?
Even if Kobe passed instead of missing a shot, the shot taken by another could have also been a miss. Or it could have been a make. Or it could have been a pass that led to a pass back to Kobe for a miss. Or a make.
I guess what I'm trying to say, is that in a discussion about being clutch, why doesn't matter. Why a clutch play was or wasn't made, is irrelevant. That flies in the face of the definition of clutch. To be clutch, is to rise above any and all obstacles and get the result that you need done however you need to do it (in this case a pick, a pass, a dunk, a jumper, etc).
The teammates, the good and the bad, are irrelevant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | ribeye 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 ... |
Sounds like you're catching quite a bit of flack for one of the more interesting posts in this thread. You just might have the makings of something. We have, for years, constantly heard that it doesn't matter so much what you do for the first three+ quarters, as long as you make a big shot or big shots in the fourth. I'm a bit ambivalent on this as I think the entirety of your game play matters, but with the ebb and flow of the game, catching fire at the end is not only dramatic, but final.
However, the data here, though sound from a statistical standpoint, only catches the final play (or maybe two) and has an extremely limited sample size. So, though it confirms my eye test that Kobe is a far the being the God of clutch, I have seen other data such as the yearly clutch data from 82games, that for most years showed Kobe to be at or near the top in their measure--possibly number one over the years of 09 -13--by points. But by FG%, he is well down the list. It might just be a little warm down where he resides here.
So, by volume yes, by efficiency, no. |
There's an old courtroom proverb: When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither are on your side, pound the table.
I think the desperate table pounding in this subject matter area has reached a deafening level; it probably reached that fevered pitch when the OP hit "Submit". I also think it's clear where the desperation lies. The ad hominem attacks, the virtual stalking of posts made by others, the pseudo-intellectual attacks on participants (without addressing the actual points established by their views, or providing contra evidence of any kind), etc. If it wasn't childish and amateurish, it would be nettlesome.
There's an abundance of obfuscation, hysterical drivel, misstatements of fact, illogical opinions from many, and then ultimately dead silence from the moderators when posters resort to the nuclear option of making accusatory personal attacks (e.g., this person is a troll, that person is using false identities, this poster has never seen a Lakers game, that poster is a card-carrying member of ISIS, etc.) that are easily disproven by information at their fingertips.
It's OK in my world ... I don't expect a warm welcome when I present a view that threatens a sacred cow. I'm simply expressing my opinion, which has been imbued by lengthy experience as a Lakers fan and adherence to insights stemming from hard data. Given all of the foregoing, I'd like to highlight that nobody new to this website should be under the false impression that the moderators here are somehow independent arbiters of anything. I guess that's also how it works elsewhere, but it's surprising to me nonetheless. At the end of the day, I enjoy the website. Though moderator apathy (and passive hostility) toward those with whom they disagree seems to cultivate "lack of decorum" situations to escalate on the daily, I don't suffer under any unreasonable expectations that this environment might change any time soon ... |
Hell, I mostly agree with you, and still think you need to turn the hostility and self-importance down a few hundred notches. I'll leave the eloquence to 24. Stop acting like an a-hole and have a proverbial beer with us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike@LG
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mmm. Delicious proverbial beer.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
https://lakersdraft.substack.com/
I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Did Mike make a funny?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: |
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. |
It's easy to decide if one particular moment is clutch. However, separating a single "clutch play" from a "clutch player" requires you to analyze the player's performance in every clutch moment.
I don't think there's an objective way to do that. Heck, I don't even think people can define clutch, and if you can't even define something how can you try to measure it?
Your physiological reaction experiment brings up another point: It shows how 'clutch that player shall be considered.' " But that doesn't automatically mean the player is more clutch. That's why measurement is important -- it separates what actually happens from perceptions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jonnybravo
Retired Number
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 30679
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | Did Mike make a funny? |
He took a break from the combine  . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Nightbringer
Starting Rotation
Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 652
Location: Lakersfield!
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ocho wrote: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujuQheviI7U |
There's really only a few people in this world who can top that so... yeah. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike@LG wrote: | | Mmm. Delicious proverbial beer. |
Good indeed.
But I prefer an IPA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Telleris
Star Player
Joined: 28 May 2013
Posts: 2371
|
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2015 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: |
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. |
It's easy to decide if one particular moment is clutch. However, separating a single "clutch play" from a "clutch player" requires you to analyze the player's performance in every clutch moment.
I don't think there's an objective way to do that. Heck, I don't even think people can define clutch, and if you can't even define something how can you try to measure it?
Your physiological reaction experiment brings up another point: It shows how 'clutch that player shall be considered.' " But that doesn't automatically mean the player is more clutch. That's why measurement is important -- it separates what actually happens from perceptions. |
If you isolate down to individual plays, if you move the same play to other points of the game and simply replace the game clock with the shot clock, there's no notable variance in a given shot. Other than the distinction that a bad shot becomes the increasingly better option the closer to the alternative being no shot, the outcome and quality of shot will stay pretty stable (if you can get off a shot with a decent chance to go in, in 2 seconds or less through self creation, you may seem clutch, what you really are is an elite shot creator relative to one's ability to shoot said shot [extreme example - wide open 12 footer for DeAndre Jordan isn't a good shot]).
Most nba players, say over 95% don't really seem to be chokers in that their shot doesn't evaporate based on time, but their ability to create one they can make can plummet under increased defensive attention, that's where the stars really shine. Ergo what we think we're measuring is actually something else entirely.
_________________
I believe everything the media tells me except for anything for which I have direct personal knowledge, which they always get wrong |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2015 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Telleris wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: |
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. |
It's easy to decide if one particular moment is clutch. However, separating a single "clutch play" from a "clutch player" requires you to analyze the player's performance in every clutch moment.
I don't think there's an objective way to do that. Heck, I don't even think people can define clutch, and if you can't even define something how can you try to measure it?
Your physiological reaction experiment brings up another point: It shows how 'clutch that player shall be considered.' " But that doesn't automatically mean the player is more clutch. That's why measurement is important -- it separates what actually happens from perceptions. |
If you isolate down to individual plays, if you move the same play to other points of the game and simply replace the game clock with the shot clock, there's no notable variance in a given shot. Other than the distinction that a bad shot becomes the increasingly better option the closer to the alternative being no shot, the outcome and quality of shot will stay pretty stable (if you can get off a shot with a decent chance to go in, in 2 seconds or less through self creation, you may seem clutch, what you really are is an elite shot creator relative to one's ability to shoot said shot [extreme example - wide open 12 footer for DeAndre Jordan isn't a good shot]).
Most nba players, say over 95% don't really seem to be chokers in that their shot doesn't evaporate based on time, but their ability to create one they can make can plummet under increased defensive attention, that's where the stars really shine. Ergo what we think we're measuring is actually something else entirely. |
I agree that being clutch is as much being able to get off a tough shot, as anything else. I just don't know how you realistically measure that. And ultimately, that may not matter. Clutch is one of those things that fall into the category of: I believe it because I believe and that's enough, and to heck with you if you think differently than I do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Treble Clef
Franchise Player
Joined: 20 Nov 2012
Posts: 23899
|
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2015 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | ribeye wrote: |
Let me just quote another solid post herein that says it best:
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: |
As for Kobe, this is another illustration of the paradoxes that surround his career. Kobe has the ability to get off a shot in the dying seconds even when everyone in the building knows what is about to happen. I don't know of any other player in the history of basketball who could do the same thing so consistently. The flip side, however, is that a lot of those shots are ill advised, but Kobe takes them anyway. |
|
Agreed. |
Perfect breakdown of it. With all of that ability, he should be one of the best tough shot makers and an even better decoy. Problem is, anytime one of those late game situations comes up, we all know what is going to happen. Even though running plays for others would probably yield a higher percentage and also keep the defense more honest so Kobe can take a bunch of the shots himself, the fans and media would not relent if Kobe passes up one of those shots just to see a teammate miss it. Everyone will say Kobe shoulda shot it and no coaches seem to be willing stand up to those criticisms so they just predictably let Kobe fire away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon May 18, 2015 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | Telleris wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: |
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. |
It's easy to decide if one particular moment is clutch. However, separating a single "clutch play" from a "clutch player" requires you to analyze the player's performance in every clutch moment.
I don't think there's an objective way to do that. Heck, I don't even think people can define clutch, and if you can't even define something how can you try to measure it?
Your physiological reaction experiment brings up another point: It shows how 'clutch that player shall be considered.' " But that doesn't automatically mean the player is more clutch. That's why measurement is important -- it separates what actually happens from perceptions. |
If you isolate down to individual plays, if you move the same play to other points of the game and simply replace the game clock with the shot clock, there's no notable variance in a given shot. Other than the distinction that a bad shot becomes the increasingly better option the closer to the alternative being no shot, the outcome and quality of shot will stay pretty stable (if you can get off a shot with a decent chance to go in, in 2 seconds or less through self creation, you may seem clutch, what you really are is an elite shot creator relative to one's ability to shoot said shot [extreme example - wide open 12 footer for DeAndre Jordan isn't a good shot]).
Most nba players, say over 95% don't really seem to be chokers in that their shot doesn't evaporate based on time, but their ability to create one they can make can plummet under increased defensive attention, that's where the stars really shine. Ergo what we think we're measuring is actually something else entirely. |
I agree that being clutch is as much being able to get off a tough shot, as anything else. I just don't know how you realistically measure that. And ultimately, that may not matter. Clutch is one of those things that fall into the category of: I believe it because I believe and that's enough, and to heck with you if you think differently than I do. |
Yeah. I actually think there may be two types of clutch. Mathematically clutch (an index of various statistics) and Perceptibly clutch (a measure of the feeling of fear in opponents' fans and a measure of trust and confidence in fans).
The mathematical clutch factor may perhaps, not favor Kobe. He has missed or turned the ball over on many, many an occasion (especially so in recent years). That said, back in his prime, when we needed a bucket, whether it was in a clutch situation or we had simply gone cold, I often remember muttering "just give it to Kobe" because whether it was mathematically justified or not, I held trust and confidence in his ability to get whatever we needed done. And with a number of friends who are not Lakers fans, I can tell you their anxiety went way up with the ball in Kobe's hands on a critical play.
That idea about being able to make "bad shots" actually makes a lot of sense. Many clutch situations have to occur in straight ISO situations (a "bad" offensive set). And sometimes, all you have time for is a catch and shoot (that would ordinarily be considered a "bad" possession since you would never just catch, and then immediately shoot).
Perhaps the math doesn't favor Kobe, and that would make sense because often times he would just take it on his own and take shots you normally wouldn't want any player to make. So maybe, just maybe, we can't say he isn't mathematically clutch, but if there was a way to measure "impossible" shots made, Kobe would have to be up there even mathematically. And maybe it's that, that we're thinking of when we consider Kobe to be clutch. Few people have made as many "impossible" shots as Kobe. Now whether those impossible scenarios were necessary or not is a totally different story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperboyReformed
Star Player
Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 4083
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2015 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with a lot of things in this last post. A lot of numbers and statistics are being manipulated (obviously) by the NBA and players for many reasons. And that's ok, but if you are the type who is wondering why these numbers are not jiving with what you are actually watching, then that's where you have to get more educated. Statistics is not the most intuitive thing. To properly use it (in an academic sense) requires very complicated setups and analysis. There was an actual professional statistician who posted here once, and what he said was great.
Anyway, the big question for me is this...All these numbers show that lebron is more clutch. Yet, when we watch the games, we know it isn't so, and we know Kobe is crazy clutch. We've just seen it so many times. Either our brains are fooling us by our bias (assuming we are Kobe fans), or there is something wrong with the numbers we are seeing. it can't be both.
I don't think lebron is clutch. I think...lebron thinks a lot about his stats, and he wont do certain things to endanger his numbers. That's not really a good thing for a basketball player. Kobe doesn't really care. So what happens is Kobe will jack up a lot of crazy shots, and lebron just will not. The other factor is skill...lebron can't make complicated shots, kobe can. again, this alters the numbers because if you can make a shot, you are more willing to take it. Kobe can and has made contested long threes. lebron can't really do that. he's not going to try.
it's hard to discuss this because of the amount of passion involved, but it would be a really interesting discussion.
without having an intense academic discussion, what distinguishes kobe ultimately is the highlights. Throughout Lebron's career, his stats have been emphasized. but go on his highlights on youtube, and you will be bored. he doesn't have many game winners or interesting, amazing shots, etc. Now, with Kobe, you get the most amazing plays ever filmed. I mean, it's crazy. I've never seen anything like it. It's like Magic's passing...people who lived it know he was doing 2 or 3 of those a game. it's so easy to put together 10 minutes of highlights of his passes. it's easy to put together 10 minutes of crazy shots of kobe. Not lebron. So that's a big deal to me.
Some will argue that this is just an aesthetic thing. who cares how it looks if it goes in?? Well, true...but not really. It's not like lebron is making ugly contested threes. he's just not making them. he'll do it once in a while, but you get my point.
harden is another lebron-type. stats and gimmicks get him very far. Now, I'm not a huge fan of either, but watching the game last night, harden hit those 5 contested shots in a row, and i was impressed. i was like "Harden is having a legit Kobe/MJ moment here." But then he missed far too many shots when it counted down the stretch, so he wasn't able to do it. because he doesn't have it. Kobe has it. he's done it so many times, it's normal to us and fans. Klay Thompson had a legit Kobe moment in that crazy third quarter earlier this year. Does he have it? No. He doesn't do it enough for us to think it's normal.
If you listened to Ronda Rousey recently, she says this: the reason why she wins so easily is because she's been fighting seriously since she was a little girl, like her mom would tackle her around the house. These other girls started fighting way later in life, and they don't have that soaked in ability, no matter what their skill level is. Kobe is like that. he's a weird, nerdy, basketball-obsessed robot. He hasn't done anything else, really. lebron is not like that. Lebron is very clever with his play, and that's how he gets his numbers (plus other factors that I don't even want to discuss here). Lebron hides his lack of skill or whatever by being clever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
