Would be interesting to see Sean Elliott's numbers on dett one too
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).
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
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.
Mike Finley rocked...you just can't see the light.
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.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).
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.
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.
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.
where are 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?
There's no doubt that certain players get shaky legs when the lights shine the brightest... while other players Neal with it...
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.
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..
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Quality and underrated take. I somewhat agree.
Umm.
Tim Duncan 100%.
Jajajaja. 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
Game 3 2007 finals. Speaking of, Does anyone believe Tony will ever improve his 3pt stroke? Will that make him anymore clutch?
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.
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.
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
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.
Last edited by DAF86; 02-22-2012 at 09:12 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
