Clutch is Overrated!!!

#51
#51
nbakerld said:
Pau Gasol took the Lakers 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
Click to expand...


Which Lakers team wins more games?

One w/Kobe and no Pau, or one with Pau but no Kobe?

Rhetorical question.
 
#52
#52
Lakers record with Kobe = .662

Lakers record without Kobe = .604 (95 games)

And for perspective, what happens when a real superstar who actually carries his team is absent from the roster:

Cavaliers record with Lebron: .618

Cavaliers record without Lebron: .384 (26 games)
 
#54
#54
nbakerld said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're nuts if you think that Gasol is better than Kobe.
 
#59
#59
Kobe's team has won .06% less games without him over his career.

You guys never come back with anything of substance. You just say "You're nuts", or "you wouldn't coach long", and "stats can be bent". You rely on stats just as much as me. You just rely on simple stats. If Kobe's career average were 15 ppg, none of you would would think of him as an all-time great. Basically what advanced stats contradict is the notion that scoring is everything.

Make an argument.
 
#60
#60
Not necessarily an argument, but if he averaged 15 ppg for his career instead of 28ish... no **** people wouldn't say he was an all time great?
 
#61
#61
The difference is that most of us don't need advanced stats to know that Kobe is infinitely better than Pau, we only have to watch the games to know that. Some (including Magic himself) are tossing around the notion of Kobe being the greatest Laker ever (I wouldn't but I understand the argument). Not sure anyone in their right mind would put Pau in the top ten.
 
#63
#63
nbakerld said:
Kobe's team has won .06% less games without him over his career.

You guys never come back with anything of substance. You just say "You're nuts", or "you wouldn't coach long", and "stats can be bent". You rely on stats just as much as me. You just rely on simple stats. If Kobe's career average were 15 ppg, none of you would would think of him as an all-time great. Basically what advanced stats contradict is the notion that scoring is everything.

Make an argument.
Click to expand...

Someone showed a stat the other day that woolridge was one of the top clutch players in the sec.
That's my argument.
 
#64
#64
Train23 said:
The difference is that most of us don't need advanced stats to know that Kobe is infinitely better than Pau, we only have to watch the games to know that. Some (including Magic himself) are tossing around the notion of Kobe being the greatest Laker ever (I wouldn't but I understand the argument). Not sure anyone in their right mind would put Pau in the top ten.
Click to expand...

Magic is a real basketball expert, too. Possibly the worst coach ever.

MJ was a great player but apparently he doesn't know talent when he sees it because he's put together maybe the worst team ever.

So if Jordan can't judge talent, who can?

I contend that nobody can adequately judge talent without stats. And you all use stats anyways. If Pau averaged 27 and Kobe averaged 18, you would say Pau was the best player on that team.

You simply base your opinion on who scores the most.
 
#65
#65
Spartacavolus said:
Someone showed a stat the other day that woolridge was one of the top clutch players in the sec.
That's my argument.
Click to expand...

The stat isn't necessarily false, and neither is the interpretation (unless you think clutch = good). Clutch does not mean good. Clutch is 5% of the game. So he is good in the clutch (assuming the stat is valid), but the other 95% of the time he's not so good. You remember the other 95% and are simply thinking, "how could he possibly be good in the clutch, he sucks."

The answer is, he has performed well in the clutch but it's likely a statistical fluke.

The interpretation is everything.
 
Last edited:
#66
#66
nbakerld said:
The stat isn't necessarily false, and neither is the interpretation (unless you think clutch = good). Clutch does not mean good. Clutch is 5% of the game. So he is good in the clutch (assuming the stat is valid), but the other 95% of the time he's not so good. You remember the other 95% and are simply thinking, "how could he possibly be good in the clutch, he sucks."

The answer is, he has performed well in the clutch but it's likely a statistical fluke.

The interpretation is everything.
Click to expand...


So why doesn't CM put Wool on the floor, especially for the last 5% of the game, everygame?
Because he doesn't need some lame stat to tell him that's not the best idea. Most people that know the game of basketball don't need stats to know who can play and who can't. It takes about 2 minutes of watching to figure it out.
Since you know more than everybody else, including magic and mj, how many NBA gm's would have taken Pau over Kobe to start a franchise a few years ago? The answer is none, but I guess you and your stats know more than them as well.
 
#67
#67
Spartacavolus said:
So why doesn't CM put Wool on the floor, especially for the last 5% of the game, everygame?
Because he doesn't need some lame stat to tell him that's not the best idea. Most people that know the game of basketball don't need stats to know who can play and who can't. It takes about 2 minutes of watching to figure it out.
Since you know more than everybody else, including magic and mj, how many NBA gm's would have taken Pau over Kobe to start a franchise a few years ago? The answer is none, but I guess you and your stats know more than them as well.
Click to expand...

Cause like I said, it's a fluke. Before you criticize advanced stats, maybe you should try to understand them first.

Woolridge has likely just had a few opportunities in crunch time and if the stat is true, he's performed well. That doesn't mean he's likely to perform well next time. Going 2/4 on buzzer beaters is really good, but I wouldn't expect you to go 1 for your next 2. If you had gone 25/50 I would. The difference is 2/4 is likely to be a fluke, and 25/50 isn't.
 
#68
#68
He admitted that the stat was probably a statistical fluke. Random things do happen in statistics. It isn't saying he is a dominant crunchtime player. It is just that those stats in possibly a small sample size show he's better than some in those moments. It can be luck.

Fact is, stats are important, as well as actually watching the games and scouting.

It is the same never ending argument as baseball... advanced statistics can clear up some possible confusions and give more in depth knowledge. But scouting and actually watching the games tells you something entirely different. One supplements the other. Neither is an end all.
 
#69
#69
Dbake005 said:
He admitted that the stat was probably a statistical fluke. Random things do happen in statistics. It isn't saying he is a dominant crunchtime player. It is just that those stats in possibly a small sample size show he's better than some in those moments. It can be luck.

Fact is, stats are important, as well as actually watching the games and scouting.

It is the same never ending argument as baseball... advanced statistics can clear up some possible confusions and give more in depth knowledge. But scouting and actually watching the games tells you something entirely different. One supplements the other. Neither is an end all.
Click to expand...
what's with the thoughtful response and no insults? Get that crap out of here! :)
 
#70
#70
All I have had today is a slimjim for breakfast. It's thrown me off.
 
#71
#71
Dbake005 said:
He admitted that the stat was probably a statistical fluke. Random things do happen in statistics. It isn't saying he is a dominant crunchtime player. It is just that those stats in possibly a small sample size show he's better than some in those moments. It can be luck.

Fact is, stats are important, as well as actually watching the games and scouting.

It is the same never ending argument as baseball... advanced statistics can clear up some possible confusions and give more in depth knowledge. But scouting and actually watching the games tells you something entirely different. One supplements the other. Neither is an end all.
Click to expand...

People think baseball is the stats sport, but statisticians will tell you stats accurately capture more in NBA basketball than any other sport. Only 2% of the game isn't explained by stats (R^2 = .98).
 
#72
#72
There's a difference in supporting an argument with stats and being married to stats though.
 
#74
#74
Dbake005 said:
He admitted that the stat was probably a statistical fluke. Random things do happen in statistics. It isn't saying he is a dominant crunchtime player. It is just that those stats in possibly a small sample size show he's better than some in those moments. It can be luck.

Fact is, stats are important, as well as actually watching the games and scouting.

It is the same never ending argument as baseball... advanced statistics can clear up some possible confusions and give more in depth knowledge. But scouting and actually watching the games tells you something entirely different. One supplements the other. Neither is an end all.
Click to expand...


I agree 100%. The problem is implementing stats to back a terrible argument.
 
#75
#75
GAVol said:
There's a difference in supporting an argument with stats and being married to stats though.
Click to expand...

My point is y'all are married to stats, too. I'll prove it to you:

Kobe averages 20 FGA's and 25 Points per game over his career. Say he was the exact same player, but he had only shot 12 times per game over his career. That'd mean he only scored 15 ppg over his career. Everyone's opinion of him would drastically change, even though he's the exact same player just taking fewer shots. Nobody would consider him to be an all-time great talent. Even if he had 5 championships.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top