Clutch is Overrated!!!

#26
#26
Spartacavolus said:
You can bend a stat however you want. Evidently, you don't like kobe. I don't care either way. But go ahead and tell a coach to sit a top player in NBA history when its crunch time. One that has multiple rings.
I guess Jordan wasn't clutch, but pax and kerr would be clutch. Who cares? The lakers without kobe have no championships. Period.
Click to expand...

Jordan was clutch. Jordan has nothing to do with Kobe. And Kobe has 0 titles if he doesn't play with dominant 7 footers. So what?

His teams have been among the highest scoring teams in the league and in crunch time their scoring falls to average levels. This is when Kobe has the ball in his hands more than ever. How else do you explain the decline in scoring? It has to be on Kobe.
 
#27
#27
Spartacavolus said:
So in the huddle, you are going to go to fish rather than kobe?
Click to expand...

If I were a coach, I'd have plays drawn up for Bynum, Pau, and Kobe. And I'd keep opposing coaches guessing. As it stands, you know without a doubt the ball is going to Kobe and that makes it easy for the D.
 
#28
#28
Spartacavolus said:
You can bend a stat however you want. Evidently, you don't like kobe. I don't care either way. But go ahead and tell a coach to sit a top player in NBA history when its crunch time. One that has multiple rings.
I guess Jordan wasn't clutch, but pax and kerr would be clutch. Who cares? The lakers without kobe have no championships. Period.
Click to expand...

Correct. Some take them as gospel however.
 
#29
#29
justingroves said:
Correct. Some take them as gospel however.
Click to expand...

The stat is indisputable, it's the interpretation that you think is "bent". Non-crunch time the Lakers are the highest scoring team, and in the crunch time they are average.

How do you explain this? What interpretation should we derive, knowing that Kobe is the one with the ball in his hands?

How do you interpret the stat?
 
#30
#30
More gems from the article:

It's not just players and GMs, it's almost everybody. What we see with our eyes and feel in our hearts is impossible to ignore, even when it's misleading.

Yet we get things wrong all the time anyway, for the simple reason that a lot more happens in the NBA than anybody can catalog in any objective way.

In that same GM survey, for instance, John Wall was a heavy favorite to beat Blake Griffin for rookie of the year. Kevin Durant was a slam dunk to win this year's MVP.

In that player poll, Chauncey Billups got the second-most votes as the preferred go-to crunch-time scorer. Billups is 3-of-27 with the game on the line over the past five seasons. Dead last in the NBA among those who have attempted at least 15 shots.

None of that means anyone is dumb. Instead, it means that reputation is a huge factor, and it's beyond anyone to remember and catalog 7,000 or so shots in your head.

And as for Jackson, he wants the same kind of hit-the-open-man team play every coach wants. We know this because back when he was free to speak frankly on the topic, he could not have been more clear.

"I sometimes think Kobe is so addicted to being in control that he would rather shoot the ball when guarded, or even double-teamed, than dish it to an open teammate," Jackson wrote in his 2004 book "The Last Season." "He is saying to himself: how can he trust anyone else? Well, he should learn to trust ..."
Click to expand...
 
#31
#31
baker is right.

Kobe is extremely overrated in crunch time, and it's all about perception.

In Game 7 of the 2010 NBA Finals, he went 6-24. Think about that for a second.

Who hit the biggest shot? World Peace hit a three. World Peace literally couldn't believe he was passed the ball in a big situation.

Kobe only cares about Kobe. The only reason he is so "competitive" is because that's what is best for Kobe.
 
#32
#32
Spartacavolus said:
So in the huddle, you are going to go to fish rather than kobe?
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be one player? This is such a dumb argument that MILLIONS of people tend to side with.

Let's say the Lakers are playing the Thunder, and they go with a Westbrook/Harden/Cook/Durant/Ibaka lineup late. Westbrook or Harden (both good defenders) are going to guard Kobe, with a Fisher/Bryant/Barnes/Gasol/Bynum look. Why would you go to Kobe with a good one-on-one defender, and a very good shot blocker in Ibake just because Kobe is "clutch"? I'd rather go to Gasol, who can school Durant in the post.

Who should get the ball in crunch time should be defined by matchups and situations, not a player.
 
#34
#34
Please tell me you doubters watched the Lakers last night? Kobe was horrible in crunch time and almost blew their lead (lucky for him the Mavs missed 4 straight FT's). Kobe was able to solidify the win when he finally decided to lob the ball to his 7 footers on back to back plays.

Kobe in the last 5 minutes:

0 points, 2 turnovers, 1 assist, 0 for 2 on Free Throws
 
#36
#36
Dbake005 said:
He was horrible all game, not just crunchtime.
Click to expand...

Usually if Kobe fails to get off 20 shots it's because he turned it over a lot.

4/15, 15 points, 4 assists, 5 rebounds, 1 steal, 7 turnovers

What I don't get is virtually every Lakers fan will tell you they are struggling because their bigs have disappeared in games. They will never put the blame on Kobe.

Kobe has had 7 games where he shot below .500 TS% (league average is .530). He's had 6 games with 6+ turnovers. He's messing up big time basically once every 3-4 games. What's crazy is that his team has been able to win when he plays horribly. Out of his 10 poor performances, they won 7.

Those bigs are legit. In the games where Kobe struggled, Bynum put up 18 and 12 shooting .63 TS%, and Gasol did 17 and 10 shooting .56 TS%.

That's how they won 7 out of 10 with their "best" player sucking it up.
 
#38
#38
TBrown said:
Does your Kobe hatred keep you up at night?
Click to expand...

It's more about proving a point. I liked Kobe before I got into advanced stats and found out how overrated he is. I actually was a pretty big fan.

Allen Iverson was my 2nd favorite player of all-time, but I'll throw him under the bus because he's even more overrated than Kobe. It's not about some subjective bias. The stats determine it for me.

Stats determine it for everybody to some degree (5 rings and 25 ppg are stats too).
 
#41
#41
I hear ya. I wish the advanced stats gave him some sort of saving grace, but they hurt his case more. Still love him.
 
#43
#43
AAdvanced stats aside, he ruled the world in 2001 and straight up dragged the sixers to the finals.
 
#44
#44
Dbake005 said:
AAdvanced stats aside, he ruled the world in 2001 and straight up dragged the sixers to the finals.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought at the time. Turns out Iverson's bigs were very productive. Ratliff/Mutumbo/Hill combined for 34 ppg, and 30 rpg, shooting a good %. It's oddly similar to what Kobe got with Gasol/Bynum/Odom (44 and 29, and 44 and 26 in their 2 title runs).

Note - Eric Snow was also a very good distributor. He just wasn't a good scorer.
 
#45
#45
Kobe and Iverson are good. And production from bigs is good. Pretty acceptable philosophy.
 
#46
#46
zjcvols said:
Why does it have to be one player? This is such a dumb argument that MILLIONS of people tend to side with.

Let's say the Lakers are playing the Thunder, and they go with a Westbrook/Harden/Cook/Durant/Ibaka lineup late. Westbrook or Harden (both good defenders) are going to guard Kobe, with a Fisher/Bryant/Barnes/Gasol/Bynum look. Why would you go to Kobe with a good one-on-one defender, and a very good shot blocker in Ibake just because Kobe is "clutch"? I'd rather go to Gasol, who can school Durant in the post.

Who should get the ball in crunch time should be defined by matchups and situations, not a player.
Click to expand...

Of course it should. This whole "clutch" argument is weak anyway. It depends on the double team and d. What if said player dishes to a teammate for a layup? Is the layup clutch, or the pass?
Dude hates kobe and others do too. I don't really like him either, but he has a bunch of rings and is arguably the 2nd best sg of all time. You wouldn't coach long if you took the ball out of his hands.
 
#47
#47
Dbake005 said:
Kobe and Iverson are good. And production from bigs is good. Pretty acceptable philosophy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's just a case of Kobe and Iverson getting too much credit. Without Kobe none of those 5 Lakers titles happen, but he wasn't the best player on any of those championship teams.
 
#48
#48
Spartacavolus said:
Of course it should. This whole "clutch" argument is weak anyway. It depends on the double team and d. What if said player dishes to a teammate for a layup? Is the layup clutch, or the pass?
Dude hates kobe and others do too. I don't really like him either, but he has a bunch of rings and is arguably the 2nd best sg of all time. You wouldn't coach long if you took the ball out of his hands.
Click to expand...

I'd say that's more of an indictment of basketball resisting innovation. I'm the stat guy, but truthfully everybody loves stats. They just rely on one very simple one: PPG. That's why salary is so highly correlated with FGA's, regardless of shooting efficiency. You want to get drafted high? Shoot 20 times a game. You want a max contract? Shoot 20 times a game. You wanna go to an all-star game? Shoot 20 times a game. That's how this league is run.
 
#50
#50
TBrown said:
when the stats you're looking at tell you this, you need to step away.
Click to expand...

Pau Gasol took the Lakers basically from being a .500 team to a .800 team. Yes, he was their best player.

Kobe = 27 ppg, .561 TS %, 5 rpg, 5 apg, 3 topg
Gasol = 19 ppg, .621 TS %, 10 rpg, 4 apg, 2 topg
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top