Statistically Speaking: Does Clutch Three-Point Shooting Ability Exist?

[timvp]

In the recent game against the Clippers, in overtime Matt Bonner caught the ball from beyond the three-point line with the Spurs down by two points. He looked everywhere for somewhere to pass it. Finally, realizing he was wide open, he decided to fire.

Swish.

That shot made me wonder: Does clutch three-point shooting ability actually exist? I've always been a believer in some players being clutch and some players being chokers, especially when it comes to shooting three-pointers. Robert Horry? Clutch. Michael Finley? Choker. Manu Ginobili? Clutch. Matt Bonner? Choker.

However, virtually every statistician who has studied sports will tell you there is no such thing as being clutch. "Clutch", they say, is simply a figment of fans' imagination. If Bonner shot that three-pointer against the Clippers a million times, he'd make it 41.8% of the time -- his career three-point percentage. And if Robert Horry shot it a million times, he'd only make it 34.1% of the time. Or so they say.
Some sports analysts have presented evidence that while individual plays and moments may resonate as "clutch" because of their importance, there is no such thing as "clutch ability" or an inherently clutch player. One example of such an argument is presented in the 2006 book Baseball Between the Numbers published by Baseball Prospectus, which compiles evidence that no baseball players are demonstrably consistently clutch over the course of a career, and that the numbers of allegedly clutch players in clutch situations are in fact no different from players reputed to be "chokers."

The Baseball Prospectus team is hardly alone in their skepticism: various baseball analysts, including Bill James, Pete Palmer, and Dick Cramer, have similarly found so-called "clutch hitting" ability to be a myth. This is not to say that clutch hits, like those listed below, do not exist, but rather that any innate ability to perform well in high-pressure situations is an illusion.

[…]

Still others have based their entire careers around the perception of being "clutch." Robert Horry is one example.

[…]

At the same time, skeptics note that, over his career, Robert Horry has hit 35.9% of his 3-point shot attempts in the post-season, which is not much of an improvement from his regular season percentage.

Personally, it's extremely difficult to accept that being clutch doesn't exist. As a Spurs fan, I've simply seen too many examples of clutch three-point shooters being clutch and chokers choking. But, then again, maybe it is a all mirage. I did believe in Santa Claus for an embarrassingly long time so perhaps I'm wrong and all the percentages even out in the long run.

To figure out whether clutch three-point shooters exist or not, I decided to let the numbers be the judge. In doing so, I needed to isolate what constitutes clutch three-point shooting. I wanted to be specific but not overly specific so that the sample sizes remain of adequate size.

The clutch three-point shooting criteria I decided on are as follows: three-point attempts that take place on the road in the fourth quarter and overtime of games in which the Spurs are trailing by between one and ten points. I figured this was fair because road games take make "clutchness" than home games, while the fourth quarter and overtime is when being "clutch" is determined. Plus, hitting a three when trailing takes more "clutchness" -- though I limited it to ten-point deficits so that three-pointers attempted in blowouts don't skew the numbers. And I decided to use both regular season and playoff games to help keep the sample sizes as large as possible.

I'm writing this before I run the numbers. Honestly, I'm a little worried. I don't want to have to start believing that clutchness is a farce. I'm not sure that I could wrap my mind around a belief system that insists that there's no difference between Robert Horry or Matt Bonner when it comes to shooting a three-pointer when it matters most.

Alright, time to see what the number say. The raw data I have only goes back far enough to measure players on the last three Spurs championship seasons. Plus I've limited the results to players who have attempted at least 20 "clutch" shots.

The results:

http://i44.tinypic.com/21mc6yr.jpg

http://oi40.tinypic.com/25q5b0l.jpg
*Percent improvement in the clutch when compared to all other three-pointers attempted while with the Spurs




Well, I guess we believers of clutchness haven't been totally hallucinating all these years :tu

I wouldn't have exactly guessed that order but it looks legit to me. The "clutch" players are near the top of the list, while the "chokers" are near the bottom. Even though I know this experiment is far from scientific, I'm pretty damn happy with the results. Others can say what they want about clutch ability not actually existing, but I can now proceed with my life believing otherwise.

Quick observations:

-In Gary Neal's short Spurs career, he's had all the appearances of a very clutch player. I probably wouldn't have guessed he'd grade out as the clutchest of the clutch, but I don't have a problem with that. I'm not sure if any other player on the list would have hit that shot Neal hit against Memphis last season.

-Robert Horry near the top is awesome. If he was at the bottom, that may have led me to believe clutch doesn't exist.

-Stephen Jackson and Manu Ginobili are definitely a pair of clutch shooters. Great to see that duo near the top.

-While Hedo Turkoglu didn't appear to be clutch while on the Spurs, his high placement shouldn't be too much of a surprise considering he's gone on to be one of the clutchest players in the entire NBA in the last half dozen years.

-Tony Parker keeping his shooting steady is about right.

-Roger Mason was clutch for a stretch in his first season but he seemed to lose that ability and ended up being very pedestrian by the end of his tenure.

-Bruce Bowen is lower than I would have suspected but then again he was never really known for being extraordinarily clutch on the offensive end.

-Matt Bonner, I thank you for being so low. You are like the anti-Robert Horry of this list. If you were near the top, I'd have to rethink whether or not I can truly spot a choker.

-Brent Barry was never too clutch while with the Spurs. Same with Beno Udrih.

-George Hill always seemed to miss the important three-pointers.

-I always knew -- knew! -- Michael Finley was a choker. Thank you to the statistical gods for cooperating.

-Some of the clutchest shots of that time span didn't even make the cut for some of the players high on the list, such as Neal's Memphis shot or Jackson's threes in Game 6 of the Finals.



I'll stop rambling and post this up to see what everyone else thinks. Again, I realize this is far from flawless but as far as I can tell, I made it as fair as possible. If you have any ideas on how it could be improved, let me know.

And excuse me while I go to YouTube to dial up some of my favorite clutch shots of all-time . . .

[Russ]

Wow, you proved it statistically -- something that I did not think could be done!

I thought it was probably mostly perception, i.e., when someone we like makes a clutch three, we say "Of course."

When it's someone we don't favor, we say "Well, every dog has it's day."

But you demonstrated it by hard data. What research!

Great work!

[DPG21920]

I wouldn't have believed it even if the numbers didn't bear out. There are too many metrics in basketball (FG% in clutch, ppp in clutch....) that have shown there is a difference.

[MaNu4Tres]

While that data is nice and all for all "clutch" believers, showing the attempts per player would clarify how relevant these stats are.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What types of sample sizes are we talking about here or did that even make the qualification criteria? I would also posit that the beginning of the fourth quarter is not clutch time nor is being up by ten.

In order to make those kinds of delineations you need to demonstrate that there is a statistically significant difference between shots in the fourth versus at any other time. Otherwise its just cherry picking.

[2centsworth]

LJ,
Would you mind running those numbers at + or - 5 . I'm curious
To see how the numbers change when daggers are taken
Into consideration.
Thx

[therealtruth]

Stating somebody will shoot their career perctange doesn't make any sense because that percentage is an organic thing. Even from shot to shot that changes depending on your mechanics and focus. To me clutch shooting is being able to not let the pressure of the moment get to you when you're taking a big shot. If fact if you're clutch you might shoot better than you normally do because you're more zero'd with your mechanics and focus.

[lurker23]

Pretty cool stuff, especially since it flies in the face of a lot of long-term statistical analysis. I agree with MaNu4Tres that the sample size needs to be included.

Personally, I'd like to see the "clutch" sample size be increased. I'd think the easiest way to do this would be to add home games (personally, I don't see that much of a difference; "clutch" needs to happen at home too), and I'd add situations where the Spurs were tied or up by 3 or fewer points. Giving the Spurs the lead or extending the lead to two possessions is pretty clutch, too.

I'm not sure I would have included the entire 4th quarter, or all the way down to a 10 point deficit, but restricting that would have the opposite effect of increasing the sample size, so I'm fine being a little more inclusive.

[Spurs7794]

How can you say Finley was not clutch? His first year here, he hit the three in game 3 against Sac under a minute left to give us the lead. Game 4 against Dallas, he hit the three with 10 seconds left to give us the 2 pts lead before Bavetta gifted Dirk two freethrows. Game 7, he hit the three to bring us to within 1 with about 90 seconds left. I always felt like if he was shooting a three in the 4th quarter, it was going in. I'm actually surprised by the percentages.

[Cane]

Gary Neal was even clutch during the summer games when we first got to see him play. He was hitting buzzer beaters and pulling off the heroics we've come to neal with.

I'm also surprised by Finley's numbers as well although thanks to the Spurs he was in the NBA for too long. He hit some pretty big shots for the Spurs and his shooting form was pretty nice for what its worth. I suppose it was at home

I'm also surprised by Hedo's numbers although the days of him wearing the silver and black are kind of hazey for me, but he was definitely great for Orlando in their Finals run not too long ago

Also surprised to see Bruce Bowen just in the middle of the pack

I wonder what Dick's numbers are like although he probably doesn't even have the attempts to qualify? Ditto with George Hill who was notorious for being missing in action on the road EDIT: never mind saw his name on the list :lol

As usual, great stuff timvp. damn shame that the professional sportswriters repping the NBA/Spurs don't put in half the effort that the admins do :toast

[vander]

criteria should be:
last 5 minutes of game
from 7 down to 3 up
home or away doesn't matter

IMO

[mexpurs21]

How can you say Finley was not clutch? His first year here, he hit the three in game 3 against Sac under a minute left to give us the lead. Game 4 against Dallas, he hit the three with 10 seconds left to give us the 2 pts lead before Bavetta gifted Dirk two freethrows. Game 7, he hit the three to bring us to within 1 with about 90 seconds left. I always felt like if he was shooting a three in the 4th quarter, it was going in. I'm actually surprised by the percentages.

What about that three-pointer against the Suns in 2008 to send Game 1 to Overtime (we know the rest of the story).

[barbacoataco]

The whole "clutch doesn't exist" thing has always been ridiculous to me. In life there are obviously some people who perform better under pressure than others.

I think it exists more in basketball than baseball.

[roycrikside]

I respect the research, I disagree with the criteria. I agree with Vander's criteria, to be honest.

[timvp]

What types of sample sizes are we talking about here or did that even make the qualification criteria?


Plus I've limited the results to players who have attempted at least 20 "clutch" shots.

I'll post the complete numbers after the game when I have time to format them.

I'm pretty satisfied with the criteria because it takes into account the clutcher possibilities of most available variables while keeping the sample size respectable ... but I'll try other settings to see what the numbers say.

And yeah, and good idea @ whoever said to get the overall team three-point shooting percentage given this criteria and compare it to other times.

[DMC]

Matt even chokes FTs in crucial seconds most of the time.

I don't think there are "clutch" shooters as much as there are those who do not allow the pressure of the moment to change their odds of making the shot, first shot of the game or last shot of the game.

[GSH]

You know that I'm a big believer that the numbers don't lie - but they don't always say what you think they are saying. These look pretty convincing, but I'll have some fun playing with them after the game.

I'll say this much: I had sort of come to believe the idea that players aren't "clutch" - meaning they don't get better under duress. But I have always been absolutely convinced of "choke". Some players absolutely can't get it done when the heat is on.

[ginobilized]

TIMVP, now that was some 'clutch' work of your own, statistically speaking

[Spurs7794]

What about that three-pointer against the Suns in 2008 to send Game 1 to Overtime (we know the rest of the story).

Hahahha, I got lazy in my post and didn't feel like mentioning that one.

Also, I think this definition of clutch is too specific. I think making a shot while up by 1 in the 4th quarter at home in a game where you've blown a 20 point lead is more clutch than a 4th quarter three on the road down by 8. Bowen was amazing at hitting daggers to push a lead to three possessions.

[therealtruth]

I'm also surprised by Hedo's numbers although the days of him wearing the silver and black are kind of hazey for me, but he was definitely great for Orlando in their Finals run not too long ago

Part of the reason the Lakers were so effective when they decided to pack the paint in '04 was nobody could hit shoots, Hedo included.

[SpursFaninMS]

I understand giving road games a little more importance but counting home games out all together?

Regardless, the stats did turn out about how you would expect.

I do think it is funny how we seem to always forget clutch play when our team loses. Not to defend Matt Bonner as being "clutch," but no one ever mentions Game One last year.

[angelbelow]

It doesn't come from the shooting ability or mechanics. Its a mind set.

[therealtruth]

The whole "clutch doesn't exist" thing has always been ridiculous to me. In life there are obviously some people who perform better under pressure than others.

I think it exists more in basketball than baseball.

It's simple to reason that clutch exists. Basically you're going to hit shots at a higher percentage when you're more focused than when you're less. I think everyone can agree with that. People aren't video game players and their focus will vary at times. Think about RJ on that 3 against the Jazz. He was zero'd in. The times you become more focused are you're clutch moments. A clutch shooter is able to make those moments coincide with the clutch moments in the game.

[lefty]

Horry

[lefty]

Parker hitting clutch 3 's ?

Did I miss something ?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Would be interesting to see Sean Elliott's numbers on dett one too

[baseline bum]

I'm shocked Finley was so low, as he has hit a lot of big threes for the Spurs. For instance, the three to force OT in game 1 of the 08 series vs Phoenix. Or the 3 with 1 second left in OT to steal a win in Staples in 2007. Or the 3 to force OT vs New Orleans to lock up the division in 2009. Or the 3 to take the lead with about 30 seconds in Sacramento in game 3 of the 06 series (the one where Manu lost the ball to Kevin Martin and Martin hit the game-winning layup at the buzzer).

[lefty]

Sheed had the best seats for both Elliott and Horry's 3s

Im sure he can help Timvp to build an up to date graphic

[timvp]

I always thought Finley was a choker. He'd hit enough shots to get Pop's eternal green light but when it came down to it, he missed way more than he made.

Looking at the numbers, Finley shot a huge amount of "clutch" shots. More than 20% more attempts than Bowen, which is pretty crazy considering Bowen played so many more games as a Spur than Finley.

IMO, there are a lot of memorable Finley shots because he took so damn many shots in big situations. Only Manu has more attempts over the years.

As whottt liked to say: Finley's the worst type of choker, a choker who thinks he's clutch.

[SequSpur]

Mike Finley rocked...you just can't see the light.

[Sean Cagney]

What about that three-pointer against the Suns in 2008 to send Game 1 to Overtime (we know the rest of the story).

He hit a three to beat LA too! Regular season but it was a long one. I remember him hitting the three as well to win the last game of the regular season to match the Spurs up with a higher seed (I know we lost to Dallas without Manu but), he hit a few I remember for the Spurs. I always thought of him as a clutch shooter here, surprised to see the PCT.
It's simple to reason that clutch exists. Basically you're going to hit shots at a higher percentage when you're more focused than when you're less. I think everyone can agree with that. People aren't video game players and their focus will vary at times. Think about RJ on that 3 against the Jazz. He was zero'd in. The times you become more focused are you're clutch moments. A clutch shooter is able to make those moments coincide with the clutch moments in the game.

This is true, most focus on that clutch shot more, but some just freeze up in those situations and are better at making them when the pressure is off! Just more loose at those times (Regular season players I call them).

[JsnSA]

Great Job! I have to admit I was worried when I started reading this. I didn't want your results to take away from my like/HATE relationship with Bonner. I knew that dude had no balls....when it counts.

Timvp, I have always admired your takes on bball related topics but since you returned from the dead you have been on fire. As much as I love how your content adds to the forum, you need to find a way to expand on some of this outside of the message board. Like with a side blog for just your take on things Spurs/NBA related.

[mathbzh]

Just have a look at tennis.
There are countless clutch situation in that game and it is obvious some player thrive under pressure (Maybe it is perception, but I remember Sampras getting an ace whenever he needed one) when other don't.

I don't know about being clutch. But anybody who practice sport at a reasonable level know there are some situation where your body feel heavy, your heart is running crazy and you miss things you would never miss in practice.

[mercos]

Glad to see the numbers prove something I believed in as well. I believe we have another clutch shooter in the making in Danny Green. He has hit several buzzer beaters, though they were mostly just to end quarters. He even had two in one game if I recall correctly. Can't forget the shot that didn't count against Dallas too.

Great article timvp. You've written on some really fascinating topics recently. It is a shame that mainstream sports writers are not as creative.

[adonis827]

where are dick jefferson's numbers?

how about general clutch fg pct? since guys like manu have hit quite a lot of game winners but which are not 3 pointers?

[ElNono]

There's no doubt that certain players get shaky legs when the lights shine the brightest... while other players Neal with it...

[baseline bum]

IMO, there are a lot of memorable Finley shots because he took so damn many shots in big situations.

Ah, the Kobe effect. Makes sense.

[MaNu4Tres]

Ah, the Kobe effect. Makes sense.

And he's considered one of the most clutch players in league history by many.

What gives?

When a player is given ample amount of opportunities like Kobe or even like Horry (playing for 7 championship teams-- going to the playoffs every year of his career)-- they are bound to hit shots in crucial moments. For as "clutch" as Horry was, there's been multiple playoff runs where Horry has failed in the clutch.

[jiggy_55]

You do need to include such situations such as "dagger" 3's, those shots are "clutch" IMO.. When the score is tied late in a game, or if the team is up 1 or 2 points and someone hits a big time 3..

[angelbelow]

And he's considered one of the most clutch players in league history by many.

What gives?

When a player is given ample amount of opportunities like Kobe or even like Horry (playing for 7 championship teams-- going to the playoffs every year of his career)-- they are bound to hit shots in crucial moments. For as "clutch" as Horry was, there's been multiple playoff runs where Horry has failed in the clutch.

Its because Kobe has the swagger and the confidence to get it done and no one could really convince him otherwise. That's why hes scary in clutch time - same goes for a player like Ginobili. It's not a mechanical/technical skill that makes them more dangerous its the sheer desire to win the game and be responsible for it.

Therefore, its not about

If Bonner shot that three-pointer against the Clippers a million times, he'd make it 41.8% of the time -- his career three-point percentage.
but how much a player believes in their own ability and how badly they want to win.

[GSH]

Its because Kobe has the swagger and the confidence to get it done and no one could really convince him otherwise. That's why hes scary in clutch time - same goes for a player like Ginobili. It's not a mechanical/technical skill that makes them more dangerous its the sheer desire to win the game and be responsible for it.

Therefore, its not about

but how much a player believes in their own ability and how badly they want to win.

Count on it. I'll tell you this - every time we're up by 2, and Kobe raises up on a 3-pointer, I believe he's going to make it. I get that stomach flip-flop thing every time.

There are also times when a team is losing a big lead that they have built up, and somone drains a 3 to shut down the run. Manu and Kobe are both good about that. (Neal did it the other night, too.) That's also "clutch", but measuring it would be nearly impossible. Those shots seal wins though.

[mathbzh]

If Bonner shot that three-pointer against the Clippers a million times, he'd make it 41.8% of the time -- his career three-point percentage. And if Robert Horry shot it a million times, he'd only make it 34.1% of the time. Or so they say.

And they are probably right. Because these shot would not be clutch anymore if you could shot a million of them.

Actually I think there is an inner contradiction trying to analyse clutch situation with statistics. By definition the sample size is small and the expected error is high. So basically no results you may observe is statistically unexpected.

I am not even sure one could really have a consistent definition for clutch time. How do you ensure your sample is big enough while not including many "normal" shots into your numbers?

This is something that bothers me with statisticians. If they can't measure something it does not exist and people are just victims of an illusion.
They would never admit they don't have the tools to analyse a situation and that other approach may be necessary.

[therealtruth]

Count on it. I'll tell you this - every time we're up by 2, and Kobe raises up on a 3-pointer, I believe he's going to make it. I get that stomach flip-flop thing every time.

There are also times when a team is losing a big lead that they have built up, and somone drains a 3 to shut down the run. Manu and Kobe are both good about that. (Neal did it the other night, too.) That's also "clutch", but measuring it would be nearly impossible. Those shots seal wins though.

Another term for it is a big shot or dagger. They are shots that stop runs and put games out of reach. Not all scoring during the game has the same importance.

[MaNu4Tres]

And they are probably right. Because these shot would not be clutch anymore if you could shot a million of them.

Actually I think there is an inner contradiction trying to analyse clutch situation with statistics. By definition the sample size is small and the expected error is high. So basically no results you may observe is statistically unexpected.

I am not even sure one could really have a consistent definition for clutch time. How do you ensure your sample is big enough while not including many "normal" shots into your numbers?

This is something that bothers me with statisticians. If they can't measure something it does not exist and people are just victims of an illusion.
They would never admit they don't have the tools to analyse a situation and that other approach may be necessary.

Quality and underrated take. I somewhat agree. :tu

[iManu]

Umm.

Tim Duncan 100%. :toast

[RodNIc91]

-Matt Bonner, I thank you for being so low. You are like the anti-Robert Horry of this list. If you were near the top, I'd have to rethink whether or not I can truly spot a choker.

-George Hill always seemed to miss the important three-pointers.



Jajajaja :lol. Thanks for the post, Im a big fan of clutch as well, so Im glad our eye test meets the statistics somehow.
And yeah, I'll always remember cheering for George to hit the three but the only one I can remember being memorable was the 4 point play in the last game of the sweep Phoenix gave us


Parker hitting clutch 3 's ?

Did I miss something ?

Game 3 2007 finals. Speaking of, Does anyone believe Tony will ever improve his 3pt stroke? Will that make him anymore clutch?

[ffadicted]

I think anyone who has played any kind of sport will tell you that YES, clutch is absolutely a real thing. Fact of the matter is, when there's a lot more on the line and a lot more pressure, getting things done becomes harder. Some thrive under it, some falter, this is true for essentially everything in life, not just sports.

So yes, shooting a 3-ball with 4:26 left in the 2nd quarter of a game is a heck of a lot different than shooting one with 0:04 seconds left in the 4th, down by 2. It's all mental, and it actually amazes me how people can actually try to deny it.

[jag]

The whole "clutch doesn't exist" thing has always been ridiculous to me. In life there are obviously some people who perform better under pressure than others.

I think it exists more in basketball than baseball.

In baseball it gets messy once you start to take into account the opposing pitchers.

With basketball you could get pretty detailed by taking into account whether or not a shot was contested, and if so, the relative performance of a defender. But even still, it's nothing close to what you'd be dealing with if you really try to arrive at accurate numbers with baseball.

It's far easier to isolate variables when it comes to basketball.

[Cane]

Ah, the Kobe effect. Makes sense.

I think its also because of timvp's clutch criteria. Finley hit a lot of big shots at home. Finley also wanted to shoot the clutch free throws and he was pretty reliable at that anyway

Just focusing on away games is interesting but the sample size is even smaller then. timvp should post up overall clutch stats including home/away, it would be interesting imo

vander's post on the first page would add some more good info to the thread :toast clutch has been defined in several ways by stat geeks fwiw

[DAF86]

I don't believe in "clutchness". I don't think anybody can be better than they usually are under a pressure situation, they can at best mantain their normal level (stats could be a bit better because of luck, coincidence, etc but not because a guy is ""clutch").

I do believe in chokers though, guys that can't perform under pressure.

[jag]

I don't believe in "clutchness". I don't think anybody can play better than they usually are under a pressure situation, they can at best mantain their normal level (stats could be a bit better because of luck, coincidence, etc but not because a guy is ""clutch").

I do believe in chokers though, guys that can't perform under pressure.

So you believe in cold but you don't believe in hot?

[SpurNation]

I believe clutch is in the persona of a player more so than the numbers can dictate. I believe it's more about being able to control one's adrenaline during certain situations and having the ability to channel that adrenaline into focus and concentration at the time. A complex myriad of mental and physical attributes converging at the same time.

Some have it...some don't.

[DAF86]

So you believe in cold but you don't believe in hot?

It's impossible to have a stat about this but I'm pretty sure every player in the World hits free throws at a higher rate during practice than in a game, that imo is a very good reason to debunk the "clutch" theory.

[jag]

It's impossible to have a stat about this but I'm pretty sure every player in the World hits free throws at a higher rate during practice than in a game, that imo is a very good reason to debunk the "clutch" theory.

Increased ability during "Clutch" situations - high pressure situations - makes sense from a chemical standpoint. Increased levels of epinephrine and norepinephrine during these situations can have a wide range of effects on players. Everyone knows what an adrenaline rush is. As your heart rate increases, you're getting more blood (oxygen) to your brain, more blood to your muscles and your pupils will dilate. Your hearing ability will decrease, and your peripheral vision is limited. You get tunnel vision and you're basically in the "zone".

Some players get overly excited or nervous, some become scared, and some have learned to find a good balance and seem to display increased focus and stamina.

[DAF86]

Increased ability during "Clutch" situations - high pressure situations - makes sense from a chemical standpoint. Increased levels of epinephrine and norepinephrine during these situations can have a wide range of effects on players. Everyone knows what an adrenaline rush is. As your heart rate increases, you're getting more blood (oxygen) to your brain, more blood to your muscles and your pupils will dilate. Your hearing ability will decrease, and your peripheral vision is limited. You get tunnel vision and you're basically in the "zone".

Some players get overly excited or nervous, some become scared, and some have learned to find a good balance and seem to display increased focus and stamina.

I could buy that but untill I see proof of a guy performing clearly and repeatedly better during the clutch than under a normal situation I just can't. Not when the guy generally percived as the clutchest player of this generation hits like 20% of his shots during the clutch.

[Bruno]

Behind significantly better in clutch time than during the rest of the game is a negative to me.

Stephen Jackson and to a lesser extend Gary Neal takes a lot of bad shots, that is to say low percentage shots, during games. In clutch time, they are more focused and reduce the amount of these bad shots taken. Being clutch was/is in fact for them being less a chucker and having a better shot selection.

Robert Horry was coasting when it didn't really matters. Being clutch was in fact for him carrying about the game.

I agree with DAF86. While there are players like Bonner who disappear when there are some pressure, I don't believe in the opposite. Players who do way better in clutch time or during the playoffs than the rest of the time have a flaw that is either chucking or coasting.

[sabar]

Increased ability during "Clutch" situations - high pressure situations - makes sense from a chemical standpoint. Increased levels of epinephrine and norepinephrine during these situations can have a wide range of effects on players. Everyone knows what an adrenaline rush is. As your heart rate increases, you're getting more blood (oxygen) to your brain, more blood to your muscles and your pupils will dilate. Your hearing ability will decrease, and your peripheral vision is limited. You get tunnel vision and you're basically in the "zone".

Some players get overly excited or nervous, some become scared, and some have learned to find a good balance and seem to display increased focus and stamina.

I find that unlikely. The rush is more likely to screw with your muscle memory and the balance of your whole system. Those physical responses are made to let you run and fight, not put a fine feathered touch on a basketball. They make delicate work much more difficult, not easy. As a matter of fact, I propose that clutch players do not feel the pressure at all and remain as they do in non-clutch time. By that factor, I also propose that a choker experiences the chemical rush and ends up failing because of that.

Just look at clutch players. They are cool and collected, like the situation isn't any different than normal. It is like public speaking. You are either comfortable like nothing is wrong (clutch) or you get nervous, sweating, and feel a rush (choke).

I propose that Gary Neal is an anomaly or he is just really good at collecting himself and getting back to normal in big situations. Sometimes you gotta stop thinking so much and he seems good at it.

[benefactor]

I find that unlikely. The rush is more likely to screw with your muscle memory and the balance of your whole system. Those physical responses are made to let you run and fight, not put a fine feathered touch on a basketball. They make delicate work much more difficult, not easy. As a matter of fact, I propose that clutch players do not feel the pressure at all and remain as they do in non-clutch time. By that factor, I also propose that a choker experiences the chemical rush and ends up failing because of that.

Just look at clutch players. They are cool and collected, like the situation isn't any different than normal. It is like public speaking. You are either comfortable like nothing is wrong (clutch) or you get nervous, sweating, and feel a rush (choke).

I propose that Gary Neal is an anomaly or he is just really good at collecting himself and getting back to normal in big situations. Sometimes you gotta stop thinking so much and he seems good at it.
Good take. It's more about two players that are both good shooters...only one keeps the same steady hand and the other goes all shaky.

[lefty]

Game 3 2007 finals.
ah ok

[jag]

I find that unlikely. The rush is more likely to screw with your muscle memory and the balance of your whole system. Those physical responses are made to let you run and fight, not put a fine feathered touch on a basketball. They make delicate work much more difficult, not easy. As a matter of fact, I propose that clutch players do not feel the pressure at all and remain as they do in non-clutch time. By that factor, I also propose that a choker experiences the chemical rush and ends up failing because of that.

Just look at clutch players. They are cool and collected, like the situation isn't any different than normal. It is like public speaking. You are either comfortable like nothing is wrong (clutch) or you get nervous, sweating, and feel a rush (choke).

I propose that Gary Neal is an anomaly or he is just really good at collecting himself and getting back to normal in big situations. Sometimes you gotta stop thinking so much and he seems good at it.




Some players get overly excited or nervous, some become scared, and some have learned to find a good balance and seem to display increased focus and stamina.



I agree that certain ("clutch") players are able temper the chemical effects of high-pressure situations. But I disagree that all those effects are negative when it comes to basketball. A fine feathered touch is great but it means nothing in overtime if you don't have the legs to get ball to the rim.

I believe that all players feel pressure, the most "clutch" and the most "un-clutch". The difference comes in how they deal with that pressure and whether or not they are able to suppress the negative effects while taking advantage of the positive effects. I think we're downplaying the increased levels of focus that certain players have during these situations. So I disagree that it's all about players "getting back to normal". Coming out of a timeout, in overtime of a tie game, a player can do his best to relax his mind and his body, but it isn't going to change the physiological effects associated with an increased heart rate. Certain players use that to their advantage, others can't handle it.

[Spurs7794]

I think there are different types of clutch players. There are those who play better in important moments. Horry obviously and Neal. Ginobili is also in there...since he arrived, you can always count on him to hit the big shot to stop a run or seal a game. Parker in the last few years is getting there with his midrange game. It might be off all game long, but come 4th quarter, I now feel like its going in. What separates the other guys tho is that Parker still has a tendency to force the issue which gets him in trouble.

The other level of clutch are players who I feel like just shoot the same regardless of what time of the game it is. Tim, Bruce, and Finley come to mind for me.

Then there are guys who sometimes make big shots but its not the norm. RJ and Barry are two guys who come to mind for me.

Then there are the chokers. Bonner, as much as I like him, is scared of shooting in crunch time. One of the only times I've seen him shoot without hesitating in crunch time, he drilled the two biggest shots of his career in game 1 against Memphis. For whatever reason, he gets nervous and passes up good shots (or shoots as a last resort like he did against the Clippers).

[timvp]

I'll post the complete numbers after the game when I have time to format them.

http://oi41.tinypic.com/2z6s0eh.jpg

The last two columns: first one is what percent of their threes while with the Spurs fell within the criteria, second one is how many of these threes they attempted per 1000 minutes with the Spurs.

[timvp]

Sifting through the stats, here are some other observation:

-While Bowen's overall numbers here aren't great, if you isolate just his shots in the playoffs that fit the criteria, he was 4-for-6.

-Bonner even worse in the playoffs (1-for-6)

-In Horry's first year with the Spurs, he was 1-for-13 on such shots. That means he was a ridiculous 21-for-43 in his last four years with the Spurs. That's 48.8%.

-Fans' perception of being clutch has a lot to do with quantity. Finley, Neal, Mason and Horry were widely regarded as clutch during their time ... and I don't think it's a coincidence that they are near the top in that "Per 1000 Min" category. As bbum said, it's the Kobe Bryant effect.

-Bonner and Barry were criticized for routinely passing up clutch shots ... which might be illustrated by those two players being last in the "% 3s Clutch" category.

[Arcadian]

Nice analysis, man! It's funny because I'm reading this while sitting in my graduate statistics class. Do you have any background in academic stats?

On the subject matter, I think it's not hard to imagine "clutch factor" being a real phenomenon. I would operationalize it by relating it to calmness under pressure. It has been empirically established that there are individual differences on this factor, i.e. some people get more nervous (physiologically aroused) than others in stressful situations. It is also well-known that nervousness interferes with task performance. Therefore, if we define "clutch shooting" as the ability to perform a shot with minimal impairment from stress, then this is clearly a real phenomenon.

[Arcadian]

Oh, and have you ever thought about doing some inferential tests like t-tests, anova, or regression? Most people would have no idea what that means, but it would be really cool for those of us who do.

[will_spurs]

Nice analysis. If the raw data is easy to use, I'd really love to see the same analysis with vander's criteria (which seems "clutcher" to me) and also with 2pt and/or FT shooting, just to see if some players generally improve in the last 5 minutes of contested games and/or OT.

[timvp]

More data:

From the 2002-03 season until today, the Spurs shoot 35.8% (238-for-665) on three-pointers under this clutch criteria. On all other three-pointers, the Spurs have shot 37.5% (4,961-13,228).

The most clutch team graded out to be the 2003 Spurs -- which makes sense subjectively. The least clutch team was the 2010 Spurs -- which could explain why that team was the worst team of the bunch.

Pretty interesting, tbh.

[cantthinkofanything]

It seems like using the entire 4th quarter and a max deficit of 10 is going result in a large part of the sample being made up of shots that most people wouldn't consider "clutch". I don't think of 3 pointers early in the 4th quarter (close game or not) as clutch. Or 3's with a couple of minutes left and down by 10. In fact with a minute or two left and losing by 10, there isn't a hell of a lot of pressure on that three point shot. I appreciate the effort you put into this and realize that it would take some time to actually narrow it down to a partial quarter. But I don't think you ended up with a good definition of "clutch".

[timvp]

Good convo in this thread :tu

Personally, I don't really believe in clutch in terms of someone becoming automatic in big moments. In fact, a simple definition for clutch could be the ability to avoid choking.

Every three-point shooter probably has a true percentage they shoot when they are totally locked in mentally and playing within the framework of the team. Clutch players are able to shoot that percentage in key moments, while uncluch players shoot worse.


Therefore, its about how much a player believes in their own ability and how badly they want to win.

I don't think "how badly they want to win" enters the equation. Pretty much every choker really, really wants to win. For example, I doubt Bonner is unclutch simply because he doesn't care enough.


And they are probably right. Because these shot would not be clutch anymore if you could shot a million of them.For the record, it's not literally shooting the shot a million times. But rather it's the same moment in time repeating itself a million times.


Just look at clutch players. They are cool and collected, like the situation isn't any different than normal.Horry always said that he was able to hit clutch shots because basketball was never life and death with him. He said that he gained that perspective after caring for his sick daughter (the one that recently died). For him, make or miss didn't really matter to him very much in the grand scheme of things.

I think that explains a lot of Horry's success, tbh.


Nice analysis. If the raw data is easy to use, I'd really love to see the same analysis with vander's criteria

I'm using Vander's criteria next. It should be interesting.

However, before I run the numbers, I'll explain why I didn't use it to begin with: My goal in this experiment wasn't to necessarily calculate a player's clutch three-point shooting percentage exactly. IMO, that doesn't make sense to be the goal since that's something that is possible to calculate. You'd have to go back in history and look at each three-point attempt and determine if it was a clutch attempt or not. Obviously, that would take forever but by doing so, you could get an actual clutch three-point shooting percentage.

The criteria I used was based off the logic that using the clutchest option of the available variables could serve as a guide. Road requires more clutch than home, fourth quarter requires more clutch than earlier in the game, shooting while behind requires more clutch than being ahead, etc.

And while I agree that three-pointers when being up by 1-3 are important, I see a flaw that is Spurs-specific due to their strategy: When the Spurs are up by a small margin late in games, they like to let the shot clock run down and then run a pick-and-roll with 5-7 seconds remaining. Oftentimes, by the time the guard gets around the pick, there's only a few seconds remaining in the shot clock, which then results in a lot of contested three-pointers either by the original ball-handler or the player who receives the first (and only) pass. Especially back when the Spurs were a great defensive team, they valued wasting time more than getting quality shots when they were ahead late. Conversely, when the Spurs are behind, the goal is always a made basket and wasting time doesn't enter into the equation.

Perhaps I'm wrong and Vander's criteria will be better but I thought about it a lot and that's why I elected not to include "daggers".

We'll see . . . :wakeup

[Mel_13]

Sifting through the stats, here are some other observation:

-While Bowen's overall numbers here aren't great, if you isolate just his shots in the playoffs that fit the criteria, he was 4-for-6.

-Bonner even worse in the playoffs (1-for-6)

-In Horry's first year with the Spurs, he was 1-for-13 on such shots. That means he was a ridiculous 21-for-43 in his last four years with the Spurs. That's 48.8%.

-Fans' perception of being clutch has a lot to do with quantity. Finley, Neal, Mason and Horry were widely regarded as clutch during their time ... and I don't think it's a coincidence that they are near the top in that "Per 1000 Min" category. As bbum said, it's the Kobe Bryant effect.

-Bonner and Barry were criticized for routinely passing up clutch shots ... which might be illustrated by those two players being last in the "% 3s Clutch" category.

Interesting thread. My thoughts would echo what several other have said about the definition used to define clutch situations and the "Kobe effect". There are players that have no fear of such situations and we recognize that whether or not the stats support the notion.

I highlighted the Bonner numbers above because I was just looking at a small set of Bonner stats to demonstrate how the stats can say many different things if you make some changes in the criteria used or the scope of the search.

So thinking back to the Memphis series last year and the two 3-pointers Bonner made near the end of Game 1. He took 4 other 3-pointers in that series that met the criteria in the OP and made one. So he was 3-6 in clutch situations in the 2011 playoffs (not sure how you got the 1-6 number). In non-clutch situations he was 3-12. Put that data in the tables used in the OP and Matt Bonner appears to have been incredibly clutch in the 2011 playoffs. Even moreso if you used Vander's criteria.

In the end, clutchness is a much more subjective thing. We recognize that in Horry. You cited Horry's terrible numbers from the 2004 playoffs with the Spurs. Most of us forget that he was even worse for the Lakers in the 2003 playoffs. He shot 2-38 from distance in 12 playoff games that year (including a miss at the end of Game 5 against the Spurs from almost exactly the same spot as his shot in OT of Game 5 of the 2005 Finals). That wretched performance was one reason he was available to the Spurs as a free agent in the summer of 2003. Yet, after two abysmal playoff runs, he did not shy away from the tough shots in 2005. That's clutch.

[timvp]

^Game 1 was at home, tbh.

So far, the Vander Criteria has created a massive drop in sample size. Pretty surprising since it's using both home and road stats.









And the CoM needs to leave this thread and never come back :wow

[Mel_13]

^Game 1 was at home, tbh.

mea culpa

[therealtruth]

Interesting thread. My thoughts would echo what several other have said about the definition used to define clutch situations and the "Kobe effect". There are players that have no fear of such situations and we recognize that whether or not the stats support the notion.

I highlighted the Bonner numbers above because I was just looking at a small set of Bonner stats to demonstrate how the stats can say many different things if you make some changes in the criteria used or the scope of the search.

So thinking back to the Memphis series last year and the two 3-pointers Bonner made near the end of Game 1. He took 4 other 3-pointers in that series that met the criteria in the OP and made one. So he was 3-6 in clutch situations in the 2011 playoffs (not sure how you got the 1-6 number). In non-clutch situations he was 3-12. Put that data in the tables used in the OP and Matt Bonner appears to have been incredibly clutch in the 2011 playoffs. Even moreso if you used Vander's criteria.

In the end, clutchness is a much more subjective thing. We recognize that in Horry. You cited Horry's terrible numbers from the 2004 playoffs with the Spurs. Most of us forget that he was even worse for the Lakers in the 2003 playoffs. He shot 2-38 from distance in 12 playoff games that year (including a miss at the end of Game 5 against the Spurs from almost exactly the same spot as his shot in OT of Game 5 of the 2005 Finals). That wretched performance was one reason he was available to the Spurs as a free agent in the summer of 2003. Yet, after two abysmal playoff runs, he did not shy away from the tough shots in 2005. That's clutch.

There was a reason for his shooting in both cases. In 2003 he was forced into playing more minutes than usual and probably got worn down quicker. In 2004 he was going against the Lakers and I think that affected him psychologically.

[Brazil]

And the CoM needs to leave this thread and never come back :wow

:corn:

:lol cannot wait

Elnono get your ass over there !

[angelbelow]

I don't think "how badly they want to win" enters the equation. Pretty much every choker really, really wants to win. For example, I doubt Bonner is unclutch simply because he doesn't care enough.

I strongly believe it does, but its not limited to just that factor. But this one can't be measure because we're talking about work ethic, mindset and attitude.

It doesn't mean Bonner doesn't care about winning, if you polled every NBA player if they wanted to win you would probably get a result of 99% yes and 1% no. But how badly does he really want to win.. and how badly does he want to be responsible for it? When Bonner chokes in the playoffs, how many people would bet their life that Matt goes home with a burning rage and proceeds to train like a man possessed? Now imagine how Duncan, Ginobili, Kobe, Jordan, Bird, Dirk etc would react if they choked an entire playoff series away.

Similarly, how many talented 7'0 footers want a career like Duncan's? How many talented swingmen would want to achieve what Kobe did? Probably the majority of players would love to do what they did. But very few will actually put in the work necessary to become an all time great.

Therefore, I think attitude matters a lot. The all time great clutch players in the NBA are known for their confidence on and off the court. I don't think its a coincidence.



And the CoM needs to leave this thread and never come back :wow

What does com stand for?

[MaNu4Tres]

The most clutch team graded out to be the 2003 Spurs -- which makes sense subjectively. The least clutch team was the 2010 Spurs -- which could explain why that team was the worst team of the bunch.

Pretty interesting, tbh.


"We just need to hit more shots." -:pop:

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You cannot make predictions on future performance with sample sizes of 20 or even 100. The variance between values is just too significant.

[timvp]

http://oi42.tinypic.com/300xzie.jpg

On one hand, if my goal were to simply prove that Horry is clutch and Bonner is a choker, I should like the Vander Method more than my own because it resulted in an even larger spread. However, for the reasons I listed above, this method doesn't make as much sense to me. But maybe that's just me.




Now that I think even more about it, the fluctuation corresponds with how I thought the numbers would be skewed if we tried to include "dagger" threes. When the Spurs are nursing a late lead, they always run a pick-and-roll late in the shot clock.

1. If it's defended perfectly, the result is a contested three-pointer by the ball-handler. And if you look at that list, the last four players on the list were used primarily as ball-handlers.

2. If the ball-handler is able to penetrate and the other team helps off of a three-point shooter, that three-point shooter will get the pass and get a wide open three. That could explain why the standstill shooters all improved.



Either way, Horry grades out as clutch and Bonner grades out as a choker, so I can go forth believing in clutchness and chokers. But if you trust these numbers more, Ginobili is a massive choker in disguise.

Damn, maybe ducks was right all along :stirpot:

[timvp]

You cannot make predictions on future performance with sample sizes of 20 or even 100. The variance between values is just too significant.

I don't necessarily disagree. Optimally, a quality sample size in basketball is about 800 shots. But since we are dealing with something that happens so infrequently, it's just impossible to reach that number.

That said, if you throw away these numbers completely, you'd have to believe that there's no such thing as a choker. Instead, you'd have to view "chokers" as players who simply haven't been given an adequate sample size to prove themselves.





P.S.

The Vander method resulted in a sample size about 60% as large as the original method, which obviously hurts the reliability.

[Mel_13]

:lol

The average STer will prefer the first set of numbers. Data that puts Bonner, SJax, and Manu in the same group won't be well received.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't necessarily disagree. Optimally, a quality sample size in basketball is about 800 shots. But since we are dealing with something that happens so infrequently, it's just impossible to reach that number.

That said, if you throw away these numbers completely, you'd have to believe that there's no such thing as a choker. Instead, you'd have to view "chokers" as players who simply haven't been given an adequate sample size to prove themselves.

When you showed the team stats and that they were within .02 it made me feel that there is little justification that it has an effect either way.

if i throw the numbers away i do not have to believe anything. i will just keep an open mind about it and not try to make something that its not.

i am not saying you are wrong; i am just saying the analysis doesn't prove anything.

[timvp]

:lol

The average STer will prefer the first set of numbers. Data that puts Bonner, SJax, and Manu in the same group won't be well received.

True. :lol

Speaking of Bonner, his shots against Memphis are even more impressive now because outside of those two clutch threes, he has a total of only five other clutch threes in his career according to this criteria. And one was that one against the Clippers.

Matt Bonner, saving 28.6% of his clutchest shots for the playoffs :smokin

[Mel_13]

Matt Bonner, saving 28.6% of his clutchest shots for the playoffs :smokin

and making all of them....

[timvp]

When you showed the team stats and that they were within .02 it made me feel that there is little justification that it has an effect either way.IMO, a 5% drop in accuracy over a sample size that large is significant. Especially since the drop was consistent year over year.

And, even if it isn't, it doesn't really have an impact regarding whether "clutch" exists. In theory, it's entirely possible that the "clutch" players negate the "chokers" and thus X remains X.


if i throw the numbers away i do not have to believe anything. i will just keep an open mind about it and not try to make something that its not.I didn't mean you as in you personally. I meant you as in someone looking at this phenomenon mathematically.


i am just saying the analysis doesn't prove anything.Agreed. Nothing has been proven in this thread. And, tbh, I don't think it's possible to prove anything. Even if you take the entire history of the NBA, one could still point to the sample size still not being large enough to prove whether there are clutch players and chokers.

[roycrikside]

I think the idea of limiting to just three point shooting is in itself subjective and flawed. I'd prefer the question of "Who's a clutch player, period?"

And there are various ways to find this... what does a guy score in the last six minutes of the 4th quarter in a game that is +/- 5 point differential per 48 minutes compared to how he scores overall per 48 minutes?

What's his PER in those situations vs. regular?

What's his overall shooting percentage and FT shooting percentage?

What's his +/-?

I think all those are more significant, but I understand that it's problematic to research all that stuff.

[DAF86]

Manu in the clutch goes to the rim, tbh.

[timvp]

I think the idea of limiting to just three point shooting is in itself subjective and flawed.My original goal was to figure out whether clutch three-point shooters exist, hence the title of the thread. Whether clutch players exist is another question entirely.


I'd prefer the question of "Who's a clutch player, period?"

...

I think all those are more significant, but I understand that it's problematic to research all that stuff.That's an interesting question too. It'd obviously be a lot more difficult to research but I might try tackling it.

[timvp]

Manu in the clutch goes to the rim, tbh.

Manu has more than twice as many three-point attempts as anyone else, tbh.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

IMO, a 5% drop in accuracy over a sample size that large is significant. Especially since the drop was consistent year over year.

And, even if it isn't, it doesn't really have an impact regarding whether "clutch" exists. In theory, it's entirely possible that the "clutch" players negate the "chokers" and thus X remains X.

I didn't mean you as in you personally. I meant you as in someone looking at this phenomenon mathematically.

Agreed. Nothing has been proven in this thread. And, tbh, I don't think it's possible to prove anything. Even if you take the entire history of the NBA, one could still point to the sample size still not being large enough to prove whether there are clutch players and chokers.

if you were to take the vander method and apply it to the league as a whole over a couple of years and compare that to the league averages overall during that time and there is a significant difference i think you will have gone a long way in showing that the phenomenon exists.

[Brazil]

What does com stand for?

really ?

CoM CoP

[Brazil]

F/C Matt Bonner has no illusions of what his job is in San Antonio. He takes three-pointers and hustles. That's about it. "It's just a matter of roles," Bonner said. "My role is to stretch the court, shoot the ball when I'm open."
(Yahoo! Sports)

[angelbelow]

really ?

CoM CoP

I have no idea what either mean.

[Mel_13]

I have no idea what either mean.

Church of Manu, Church of Parker.

[angelbelow]

Church of Manu, Church of Parker.

Ahh, okay thanks.

[gospursgojas]

Awesome thread Timvp.... Your stat threads are way more relevant and make much more sense than anything Hollinger tries to do.

Props :tu on RTB and bringing ST back to life.

[DAF86]

Manu has more than twice as many three-point attempts as anyone else, tbh.

That's 'cause he probably has played more than twice as many games as most of those guys, tbh.

[Drz]

Statistician here. I hate to be a thread-crapper, but the analysis is extremely flawed.


My original goal was to figure out whether clutch three-point shooters exist, hence the title of the thread. Whether clutch players exist is another question entirely.
If that was truly your goal, you went about it wrong. Like FuzzyLumpkins said, an analysis with thousands of three-point shots, at a bare minimum, would be needed to get results with a high degree of confidence. I suspect you limited your analysis to Spurs players due 1) a lack of knowledge of how to achieve your goal, or 2) because you wanted some numbers that made Horry look good and Bonner look bad. Based on your other posts, I'm leaning towards the latter.

Here is the crux of the problem: Shots made WILL have a distribution, and roughly half the players will perform better than expected, and half worse. Next point bolded for emphasis -- Your analyis makes the (very) faulty assumption that if a player has missed more than their expectation, they must not be "clutch." In reality, that a player missed more than their expectation does not necessarily tell you one single thing about their future performance. Literally, nothing. Not one iota.

Your analysis is nothing more than counting buckets, then pointing to the bad performers and saying "not clutch!" and pointing to the people who had a good count and saying "clutch!" Of course you're going to find "evidence" of clutchness if you use that method. Half will be clutch, half won't.

[timvp]

Statistician here. I hate to be a thread-crapper, but the analysis is extremely flawed.I've admitted as much in just about every post in this thread, tbh.



If that was truly your goal, you went about it wrong. Like FuzzyLumpkins said, an analysis with thousands of three-point shots, at a bare minimum, would be needed to get results with a high degree of confidence.NBA players simply don't shoot "thousands of three-point shots" during clutch moments of games throughout their careers. Hence the sample size issues discussed throughout the thread.


I suspect you limited your analysis to Spurs players due 1) a lack of knowledge of how to achieve your goal, or 2) because you wanted some numbers that made Horry look good and Bonner look bad. Based on your other posts, I'm leaning towards the latter.I limited it to the Spurs because this is a Spurs forum. No one asked for a look at other players around the league. I was planning on checking it out -- and probably will -- but I doubt many in here will care about the stats of other players.

And if you had read the thread, you would see that the criteria I selected made Bonner and Horry appear closer than the criteria suggested by others. If my goal was simply to make Bonner look bad and Horry look good, I could have concocted a much more "creative" formula.

Bonner, by any measure, has hit less than about a dozen "clutch" threes in his Spurs career. It'd be quite easy to negate just about all of them if that were my goal.


Your analyis makes the (very) faulty assumption that if a player has missed more than their expectation, they must not be "clutch." In reality, that a player missed more than their expectation does not necessarily tell you one single thing about their future performance. Literally, nothing. Not one iota. That makes no sense. If the sample sizes were large enough, we could absolutely use such data to predict future outcomes. For example, if we had the thousands of shots necessary to create a reliable sample size you mentioned earlier in your post and I mentioned earlier in the thread, the resulting percentages would be just as reliable as any other percentages used in the game of basketball.


Of course you're going to find "evidence" of clutchness if you use that method. Half will be clutch, half won't.Again, I was the first to say it's flawed. But did you look at the numbers? The first set ended up with 4-of-13 players rating out as "clutch". The second set had 4-of-12. In both cases, players who otherwise shot about 38% on three-pointers shot approximately 33% in "clutch" situations. That's hardly a redistribution of the original percentages and then a half and half split, tbh.

[bugmenot]

My 1-5. My favorites are 99% based on personality, and 1% on playing ability.

1. Matt Bonner -- Funny. Smart. Unique.
2. Tim Duncan -- The hidden wizard/nerd/paintball side is awesome.
3. Manu Ginobili -- For the obvious reasons.
4. Richard Jefferson -- I've been impressed with how he's handled his role on the Spurs, and how he handles the negative attention.
5. Gary Neal -- Liked him ever since watching his ESPN OTL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FElU4FyGJEU) video.


I almost ran into Matt Bonner and his wife at the Boerne Stage Road HEB maybe 30 minutes ago. I was flying down the center aisle as his wife, who I didn't recognize, came out from the right, and we stopped in a near-collision. She said "watch out, Matt" and I expected a little boy (her son) to come from the aisle. But instead, out whooshes Matt Bonner, deftly pushing a stroller. What made it especially fun was that he physically said the word "whoosh!" as he drove by. He then promptly drained a 3.

Highlight of my life.


Help me understand -- he only shot 27 threes in the playoffs and made 10 for a .370 %. Given the small sample size and the not unrespectable 3P%, why is everyone saying he's a playoff choke artist?


Statistician here.

:lmao: This person only adds to the discussion to talk about his love for Bonner; and now he is a statistician with knowledge in data mining and analysis when Bonners clutch is questioned!

[timvp]

Some pretty interesting numbers...

For the last four seasons, I found the league-wide "clutch" three-point shooting percentage using the original criteria. I then compared those percentages to the percentage of three-pointers shot in all other circumstances.

Clutch Three-Point Shooting
2011: 829-2585 (32.07%)
2010: 832-2556 (32.55%)
2009: 933-2824 (33.04%)
2009: 813-2451 (33.17%)

Other Three-Point Shooting
2011: 15057-41728 (36.08%)
2010: 14990-42066 (35.63%)
2009: 15419-41759 (36.92%)
2008: 15311-42093 (36.37%)

Effect of Clutch Situation on Normal Accuracy
2011: -11%
2010: -9%
2009: -10%
2008: -9%


That is a shockingly consistent negative effect, tbh :wow

[timvp]

:lmao: This person only adds to the discussion to talk about his love for Bonner; and now he is a statistician with knowledge in data mining and analysis when Bonners clutch is questioned!

Oh damn, looks like I got trolled.

Ah well :wakeup

[Bruno]

For people interested in this whole clutch thing, I've just read a nice statistical study on the subject:
http://www.sloansportsconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/16-Goldman_Rao_Sloan2012_updated.pdf

[Drom John]

Hmm, the Goldman/Rao piece on free throws and offensive rebounds identifies a statistical "home choke", with road teams being flat.
The best, Ginobili! with Horry in the running.

A better study should include home games. Then you could make home/away as a factor.
Otherwise it implies that road games are more important than home games.
More significant clutch parsings than H/A, would be tighter scores, and less time.

[silverblk mystix]

D Fisher is clutch...

against the Spurs for sure...

[Russ]

Statistician here.

Your analysis is nothing more than counting buckets, then pointing to the bad performers and saying "not clutch!" and pointing to the people who had a good count and saying "clutch!"

Well, duhhhhhhhhhh.


Of course you're going to find "evidence" of clutchness if you use that method. Half will be clutch, half won't.

Actually, not. That would assume that half the shooters exceed their seasonal three point % norm in clutch situations and half do not. That would (arguably) imply some randomness (and insignificance) to the clutchness stat.

But, on balance, three point % declines by about 10% in clutch situations. So, Mr. Statistician, your "base line" is flawed.


Some pretty interesting numbers...

Clutch Three-Point Shooting
2011: 829-2585 (32.07%)
2010: 832-2556 (32.55%)
2009: 933-2824 (33.04%)
2009: 813-2451 (33.17%)

Other Three-Point Shooting
2011: 15057-41728 (36.08%)
2010: 14990-42066 (35.63%)
2009: 15419-41759 (36.92%)
2008: 15311-42093 (36.37%)

Effect of Clutch Situation on Normal Accuracy
2011: -11%
2010: -9%
2009: -10%
2008: -9%

That is a shockingly consistent negative effect, tbh :wow

So, to summarize, Mr. Statistician, you need to read "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman and come back when you're more prepared.

[jag]

For people interested in this whole clutch thing, I've just read a nice statistical study on the subject:
http://www.sloansportsconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/16-Goldman_Rao_Sloan2012_updated.pdf

Interesting study. Thanks for the link.

[superbigtime]

I can't believe Finley is so low. Seems like he knocked alot of critical 3s for the Spurs during his tenure. Nice breakdown.

[timvp]

For people interested in this whole clutch thing, I've just read a nice statistical study on the subject:
http://www.sloansportsconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/16-Goldman_Rao_Sloan2012_updated.pdf

Awesome read. It basically proves that being at home makes free throw shooters choke but being at home also improves performance at least in terms of offensive rebounding.

The best part of the piece:


Interestingly we note that Robert Horry, who’s nickname is "Big Shot Bob," shows up as sufficiently clutch, and the Spurs’ crunch-time hero, Manu Ginobili, is the only player in our sample who is indisputably "clutch"

Obviously this research far exceeded the depth of my experiment, but it's kinda cool that Horry and Ginobili shined in both cases.

:hat

[Russ]

Obviously this research far exceeded the depth of my experiment, but it's kinda cool that Horry and Ginobili shined in both cases.

:hat

So intuition meets fact.

What a shock.

How did Matt fare in the study? (Rhetorical, no answer neccessary.)

[timvp]

How did Matt fare in the study? (Rhetorical, no answer neccessary.)No answer available but I'm assuming his sample size is incredibly small. The only "clutch" free throws of his I can remember off the top of my head happened on the road . . .






Speaking of chokers, this study showed Michael Finley as the tenth biggest choker in the entire NBA from 2005-2010 (the years studied, which also happen to include his entire Spurs career).

So in summary, my method resulted in Ginobili and Horry being one and two over the time span, plus Finley being last. This research paper resulted in Ginobili and Horry at the top and Finley at the bottom.

I thinks we done got ourselves a pattern . . .

[Libri]

The results:

http://i44.tinypic.com/21mc6yr.jpg

http://oi40.tinypic.com/25q5b0l.jpg
*Percent improvement in the clutch when compared to all other three-pointers attempted while with the Spurs



-Stephen Jackson and Manu Ginobili are definitely a pair of clutch shooters. Great to see that duo near the top.



:downspin: