Kawhi "Carmelo" Leonard is now the most clutch regular season player

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaNu4Tres

Where did I ever say Kawhi sucks or Kawhi is inefficient?

---

After read your post about the FG% I just remember other people here talking about his numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GSH

Last year, his FG% was .506 and his EFG% was .565...This year, his FG% is .471 and his EFG% is .528... So, yeah, I think he's paying a price on both ends.

---

Drops only 0.3% but 'he's paying the price'

Like I've said, I'm tired of reading about his FG%. But you were right, this wasn't really on your post. My bad.

Quote:

---

My posts in this thread is about the OP and others dumb obsessions about clutch players when there's no such thing. If there was such thing as clutch, numbers in the long run ( over large samples) would be substantially different for non clutch and clutch players -- but that's not the case.

---

IDK. I still think there are players who can handle the pressure better in the last minutes than others.

Great players make great shots in crunch time? Not always. If a top scorer shoots over .50% in the season, that means he should shoot the same % in the last 2 minutes? Not really, that's not always related to talent or regular season efficiency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaNu4Tres

Volume has something to do with that since hes shooting 43% and 31% from 3 in 4th quarters this yr. If he was clutch ( or if clutch was such a thing) wouldnt those numbers be better?

---

I'm not sure why you keep defining clutch as a guy going supernova when it's about having to overcome adversity & staying even keel b/c there is a game within the game. Usually, Kawhi doesn't even play in crunch time when he's rolling (there is a reason why his career high is only 35:lol) b/c the game is already a blowout meanwhile if he isn't playing well he's more than likely going to be playing in crunch time unless the team is getting blownout.

There are guys who are white hot then fall apart (not just shooting but turnovers) when the pressure ratchets up then there are guys who struggle all game long then make the moment shifting plays in crunch time. A frontrunner like Durant shooting 80% for the first 43 minute of the game then fumbling the ball or shooting 40% is different than Kyrie shooting 30% then making all the momentum shifting plays. What you need to focus on is the trend that some players persevere while others melt down in pressure situation. Nobody is asking anyone to go supernova in crunch time: if you're playing well then maintain your level of play or if you're struggling then fight through it.

Just from the Hawks game alone, Porker got excited & started playing hero-ball meanwhile Kawhi was struggling all game long but stepped up when his team needed him even if he was denied by two ridiculous misses that occur once a year. There is a reason Pop rarely gave the ball to Porker in crunch time even if he was rolling & put the ball in the hands of Manu even if he was struggling unless he was being extremely sloppy. Porker from day one showed he can't handle adversity & always has a tendency to play hero-ball when he's hot while Manu fight through adversity nor does he let the moment get to him (except for a couple of brain farts:lol).

When Kawhi is rolling & the game happens to be a close game then still maintains his level of play, if he has been struggling all game long then he usually steps up even if he isn't necessarily shooting 47%. (There is a leading MVP candidate shooting 43% for the season:lol)

:lol Clutch... such yesterday's NBA :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YGWHI

After read your post about the FG% I just remember other people here talking about his numbers.
Drops only 0.3% but 'he's paying the price'

---

It's not 0.3% though, it's 3%.

That was a good win for the Spurs against the hawks. Don't know why you guys are fighting.

Kawhi made a 3 and some freethrows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BG_Spurs_Fan

It's not 0.3% though, it's 3%.

---

Exactly, only .3%.

He's scoring 3 ppg more than last season and just .3% less.

That's not even .5% and people still whining...smh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kawhitstorm

(There is a leading MVP candidate shooting 43% for the season:lol)

---

Doesn't matter if he's a top 10 scorer or Spurs have a good record...People here would demand PATFO to trade Kawhi is he shoots .43% in a season. :D

'But but his efficiency is paying the price :cry :cry'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YGWHI

Doesn't matter if he's a top 10 scorer or Spurs have a good record...People here would demand PATFO to trade Kawhi is he shoots .43% in a season. :D

'But but his efficiency is paying the price :cry :cry'

---

Stop with the shrooms kid. No one here has said that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaNu4Tres

Stop with the shrooms kid. No one here has said that

---

I already quoted here one of the guys who said that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaNu4Tres

Stop with the shrooms kid. No one here has said that

---

There's no use in saying that. Y will continue to say that with quotes around it in an attempt to strawman his way to victory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YGWHI

Exactly, only .3%.

He's scoring 3 ppg more than last season and just .3% less.

That's not even .5% and people still whining...smh.

---

havent even followed the whole discussion but you are reading percentages wrong. if player x shoots .489, he shoots 48.9 percent. thus, if he now shoots .429, his percentage dropped 6 percent. the way you are writing .5%, its unclear if you refer to .500 which would be a sizeable 50 percent, .050 which would be 5 percent or .005 which would be a miniscule half of a percentage point. in the prior example the difference was 3 percent, or .03

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

There's no use in saying that. Y will continue to say that with quotes around it in an attempt to strawman his way to victory.

---

No one cares what you think faggot. :lmao

Have many of you ever played Basketball? Some people/players get tight when the pressure is higher at the end of the game (especially a close game), some don't feel it and still perform at their normal level. That's what I call crunch time ability and play. Playing at your normal level, or even raising it up a notch when the pressure is higher and the game is tight.

Some players miss shots due to the fact that they're scared of missing in those situations, so in cases like that, the ball doesn't have the same chance to go in like it normally would when they're shooting it earlier in the game. Some don't even want to take the shot at all and pass it off (even if it is an open look).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diego

in the prior example the difference was 3 percent, or .03

---

He said his FG% was .506 last season, now .471%... He dropped just .03. I mean only 3%

That's why it's hard to believe that someone thinks that just 3% is 'that much' relevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

There's no use in saying that. Y will continue to say that with quotes around it in an attempt to strawman his way to victory.

---

You mean people who want to win a bball talk in a sport forum? Nah, I'm not that pathetic and decadent like you.

But I'm getting tired of people talking about his FG% when they don't even look at the FG% of main scorers in the league.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LongtimeSpursFan

Big Players make Big Shots in Big Games

---

Like the Duncan layup in Games 7?
Jordan missed close to 30 game winners
/Hysteria

We all woulda preferred a win
But unless your scheduled to die the second the game ends this should not be considered a "Big Game"
And thats not even to give Kawhi a pass
He damn sure shoulda tried to finish OVER Milsap as opposed to around him especially with the running start

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YGWHI

He said his FG% was .506 last season, now .471%... He dropped just .03. I mean only 3%

That's why it's hard to believe that someone thinks that just 3% is 'that much' relevant.

---

As far as fg%, I would say that 2% is marginal and 5% is notable, 3% is not a huge difference but enough to be noticeable; it's also about what you would expect in terms of more volume / less efficiency. It's not enough for me to be upset about, but it is indicative of kawhi's increased volume. I would think that for most players, +/- 3% is a big deal, especially as you get closer to 50%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice009

Have many of you ever played Basketball? Some people/players get tight when the pressure is higher at the end of the game (especially a close game), some don't feel it and still perform at their normal level. That's what I call crunch time ability and play. Playing at your normal level, or even raising it up a notch when the pressure is higher and the game is tight.

Some players miss shots due to the fact that they're scared of missing in those situations, so in cases like that, the ball doesn't have the same chance to go in like it normally would when they're shooting it earlier in the game. Some don't even want to take the shot at all and pass it off (even if it is an open look).

---

That was my first thought as well tbh :lol I can't believe this is having to be explained here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 140

That was my first thought as well tbh: lol I can't believe this is having to be explained here

---

Yep. I really do think some people around here or other forums, in general, have played much Basketball outside of pickup games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice009

Yep. I really do think some people around here or other forums, in general, have played much Basketball outside of pickup games.

---

Nah.

Have you been a top 5 player on a playoff NBA team before? Do you know what kind of confidence you need to have to reach that level? Those are the type of players in at the end of big games -- it's not the 9th or 10th guy on the team. Also, I'm not going to act like I know how they feel, its impossible to quantify. But I guarantee its a lot different than a 18 year old starting for the first time on varsity and having to take a big shot.

These are professionals who have played the game for years and usually the best players ( and the ones with the most confidence) are in at the end of big games. In the long run, they convert shots at around their career averages. If clutch was such a thing, then there would be a substantial difference between their percentages in the long run -- but that's not the case.

Bad players won't perform at the highest level vs. the best competition because they simply aren't good enough to produce consistently enough ( its not because they lack clutch). At the same time, good or great players will perform on the highest level vs the best competition because they are good enough to execute vs. the best competition the same way they do in quarters 1, 2 and 3.

If some NBA players had problems being nervous at crucial times there would be strong supporting evidence to back it up through long run statistics, but that simply is not the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaNu4Tres

If some NBA players had problems being nervous at crucial times there would be strong supporting evidence to back it up through long run statistics, but that simply is not the case.

---

It's called panicking, which happens to folks from EVERY walk of life including trained Navy SEALs who are SPECIFICALLY trained not to panic.

Elite professional basketball players getting rattled by a simple full-court press::lol



In the biggest game of his college career, Chris Webber panicked & called a timeout (when Michigan didn't have one) AFTER he traveled.



In the biggest game of his career as a pro, he wet the bed in the final 16 minutes of Gm 7 including picking up a technical in the 4th quarter which came back to bite them as the game went to OT. Mike "Never even been an All-Star" Bibby was the one who stayed composed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaNu4Tres

If some NBA players had problems being nervous at crucial times there would be strong supporting evidence to back it up through long run statistics, but that simply is not the case.

---

This means over the long run, or over a large sample for those people who can't read.

Pointing out ONE TIME " moments" from ONE GAME is something Skip Bayliss does. :lol

Truth is, players miss, players make mistakes a game here or a game there but that doesn't mean the player is unclutch
.
Hit the tape...









So you were pointing out a few games Webber wasn't clutch or moments he " Panicked" because he made a few mistakes at the end of games? Well, here's a few games he did come through, if unclutch was a thing then why did he come through on these occasions?


Like I said before, in the long run, you can't prove clutch or unclutch because over the long run, players make or miss at around their averages. They also will make a mistake here or there on occasion over the course of their careers.

And :rollin at comparing Navy Seals to NBA Players. Because fighting for your life and your country is comparable to a basketball game. Those men in the Navy Seals are trained not to panick in time their LIFE is on the line. When your LIFE is on the line its understandable to be trained to not panick, but for a basketball game? You can't compare the two, and its hilarious that you did.

I'll never agree. I disagree completely with your larger sample size averages evening out.

2006 playoffs Spurs Vs Mavs - Brent Barry didn't want to shoot the ball at times in games where we needed him to. He wanted nothing to do with it (even though he's one of the best shooters in the NBA), he didn't want to shoot the ball. I wanted him traded because of him not shooting the ball. He looked scared to at times. Usually, that was in big games.

2011 NBA finals. Lebron James pissed his pants in the 4th quarters of pretty much all those games. Lebron James also looked scared for quite a few years in Cleveland during crunch time and didn't want to shoot the ball with the game on the line numerous times over the years. It's taken him years to improve on that and get over it. Flip that over to Kobe Bryant. The guy never showed any fear taking big shots from the get go with the game on the line. He might not have made many of them, but he shot them with no fear at all since day one of him being in the NBA.

2013 NBA finals. I hate saying this one, but where is that picture of Kawhi? Does he not look shit scared before shooting those free throws?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice009

I'll never agree. I disagree completely with your larger sample size averages evening out.

2006 playoffs Spurs Vs Mavs - Brent Barry didn't want to shoot the ball at times in games where we needed him to. He wanted nothing to do with it (even though he's one of the best shooters in the NBA), he didn't want to shoot the ball. I wanted him traded because of him not shooting the ball. He looked scared to at times. Usually, that was in big games.

2011 NBA finals. Lebron James pissed his pants in the 4th quarters of pretty much all those games. Lebron James also looked scared for quite a few years in Cleveland during crunch time and didn't want to shoot the ball with the game on the line numerous times over the years. It's taken him years to improve on that and get over it. Flip that over to Kobe Bryant. The guy never showed any fear taking big shots from the get go with the game on the line. He might not have made many of them, but he shot them with no fear at all since day one of him being in the NBA.

2013 NBA finals. I hate saying this one, but where is that picture of Kawhi? Does he not look shit scared before shooting those free throws?

---

You don't have to agree. Again, you're pinpointing single moments players didn't come through, but those same players have came through on other occasions.

I'll never believe in players having a clutch gene or being clutch like Skip Bayliss says. Players are who they are -- all great players will come through on occassion and they'll also fail on occasion as well ( make or miss league -- doesn't mean they're clutch or unclutch just after 1 series or 1 game). Successful moments comes with expanded opportunities.