Jax and Mike Brown get into it during game 6

[Taco]

Tic, Tic, Tic, Tic....

[boutons]

The comment I remember about SJax was "he keeps both teams in the game".

I also remember Manu's take on his role in he 02/03was along the lines of "it's not who starts the games, but who finishes" ie, Manu was finishing.

Out of all the SGs in the NBA, the Spurs's fans notalgia for SJax, a low BB-IQ player who hits 3's at rate so low that it keeps him out of the NBA Season Top50 3G %age, is quite amazing.

SJax continues to be a low IQ player @IND, as the current controversy seems to highlight.

But he has managed to break into the NBA Playoffs Top50 3G %age ... at 37th!!, hitting only 9 3G's in 6 games, as one of the Pacers' top offensive options. SJax simply just ain't that good to merit the adulation and drooling.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The guy scored what, like 12.0 points a game that year?

Yeah, and we all know that you have to score 40 a game to be a difference maker. Tell that to Robert Horry with 5 rings, Steve Kerr with 6, Sean Elliott, etc.

Stupid.

Dude has nothing left, what game of importance has he won since 03 ??

His not the next coming he is a role player who is not afraid to take a lot of shots...

Robert Horry is much more "clutch"

What game of importance has he played since '03?

Great, we can have Robert Horry stick around til' he's 45 to play ing small forward after Bowen retires.

"Clutchness" is overrated

Clutchness is a significant factor in every sports le won in every sport across the entire world since the existence of sports.

So, I think I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one.

Also if you're been a Spurs fan for the last 6 years, watching them CHOKE in the playoffs, I think you'd have enough brains to realize that clutchness, in our offense, is an extremely good thing.

If y'all don't like Buckets that's fine, but at least bring a legit take. Clutchness is overrated?

[foodie2]

In Thursday's loss, Jackson was 5-for-15 from the field, including 1-for-6 from the 3-point line, for 14 points. He also had five rebounds, two assists and four turnovers in 47 minutes. He took more shots than anyone except O'Neal (6-for-19), even though the Pacers didn't run many plays specifically for him.

To me, this is Stephen Jackson in a nuts . Plus, he's a serious headcase. Just because Pop managed to keep him in line while he was here the first time, doesn't mean that things would go that way again. I think he is a time bomb, and we are well rid of him.

[Useruser666]

I think Jackson is too expensive under his current contract. He did do some good things when he was here, but something has changed within him. I think his stay with Atlanta has poisoned him and his mind. All of the things that were bad traits here have been magnified since he left. Even if he could be a good contributer, I think there is too much risk in bringing such an unstable ego/mentality to the Spurs. His greatest assest is also his greatest weakness.

[Jimcs50]

I am glad we got rid of him...he is not Spurs' material.

[ducks]

I would take him if big dog does not work out

[SpursChampsIII]

Are you crazy? Scola = Horry replacement. Robertas = Devin replacement (Devin's replacing Bowen).

No and No!

[ChumpDumper]

The Pacers suck even worse than I thought. Jack's a bit overpriced, but you know he's got to be thinking this kind of never happened and would never happen in San Antonio.

[Spurminator]

Clutchness wouldn't be overrated if it actually existed... But aside from a select few players in the history of this league, most of the players we think are "clutch" are simply the ones who have taken the most shots towards the end of games. Ben Gordon, for instance, shoots an incredible amount of shots in the 4th quarter.

Even players that practically define "clutchness" might have overrated reputations. Let's take Michael Jordan, for instance... How often was there a "last shot" opportunity where the ball was not in Jordan's hands? Hardly ever. So Jordan took many "last shots," and if he maintained his shooting percentage from the rest of the game, each of those shots had a 40-50% chance of falling. So based on sheer numbers, Jordan was bound to make a lot of "clutch" shots.

The GREAT players are typically seen as the CLUTCH players, if they are able to maintain their greatness in the 4th quarter or in big games. Some "great" players choke in the 4th, but I don't think we should tag players as "clutch" just for remaining consistent.

If someone can show me statistical proof that Stephen Jackson, on average, stepped up his game in 4th quarters for the Spurs, then I'm comfortable calling him a "clutch player" rather than a good player who had a couple of "clutch games" in the Playoffs. Otherwise, I would agree that "clutchness" - and Stephen Jackson - are overrated.

[Dingle Barry]

I'm going to have to disagree with Spurminator. Being clutch in the playoffs--when it matters most--is what really counts. Who cares if Stephen Jackson made 10% of his three pointers, if 10 out of 100 came when it was all on the line, that is clutch.

Even insinuating that Jordan wasn't clutch is pretty insane in my book. I understand your logic but I disagree with it.

[picnroll]

I'm afraid that Jack has completely gone over to the dark side. If he was at all salvagable it would have to be by being surrounded by grownups like the Spurs. Two years with the Pacers and O'Neal and Artest and he's beyond salvation.

"I'm for my team. I got fined $2 million (lost salary from his 30-game suspension) because I went to war for my team. I will always be there. More than me taking it personally, it hurt because I do everything I can. I felt disrespected by hearing that.

This shows how badly he just doesn't get it. After all the fines, suspensions, criticism, still thinks he was still riding with his homies into the stands and he's proud of it.

At this point I think Artest has his head screwed on straighter than Jack. Artest has impulse contol problems. Jack seems to be in a perpetual state of anger.

[Useruser666]

I'm going to have to disagree with Spurminator. Being clutch in the playoffs--when it matters most--is what really counts. Who cares if Stephen Jackson made 10% of his three pointers, if 10 out of 100 came when it was all on the line, that is clutch.

Even insinuating that Jordan wasn't clutch is pretty insane in my book. I understand your logic but I disagree with it.

If a player hits his shots early in the game, there is no need to be clutch.

[exstatic]

If a player hits his shots early in the game, there is no need to be clutch.

This, and the "he keeps both teams in the game" comments are the best descriptors of Jack.

I also think one major point has been overlooked. When Jack was last here, he was hungry, and not making much. I think that helped keep his head on straight. He's got that fat ass contract now. Why should he even listen? I see no evidence that he would, based on his behavior in Indy, and his comments. He's still monumentally immature.

All of that being said, Barry is such a total bust, that I'd trade his "high b-ball IQ" ass for Jack in a minute. I don't think Jack is a savior, but at least he not a busta.

[ducks]

the more I think about it
I do not want him back at all

[picnroll]

Oner way or the other Pacers are going to have to trade at least one of Jack, Artest or O'Neal. They can't keep all three of those knuckleheads together.

[BronxCowboy]

One final note on "clutchness" for TPark and all the other people who hold such sports supers ions . . . The only way a player can magically become better at the end of the game is if he wasn't playing up to the best of his ability prior to that. Period. So much for clutchness.

[2centsworth]

One final note on "clutchness" for TPark and all the other people who hold such sports supers ions . . . The only way apply can magically become better at the end of the game is if he wasn't playing up to the best of his ability prior to that. Period. So much for clutchness.

If there's no such thing as clutch, and then there can be no such thing as a choke. Every great player in the world and coach disagrees with you. Clutchiness does exist and I wish Steve Smith, Terry Porter, and Danny Ferry would of had more of it against the lakers.


Now as far as Stephen Jackson, the guy is a headcase and I always thought the spurs ran the danger of the guy becomine a cancer on the team. Don't you remember when he was taken out of games how he would not sit with the rest of the team, but on the baseline by himself. I remember when Tim Duncan tried to put his arms around Sjax in a team huddle and Sjax turned away a couple of times telling TD to take his hands off of him.

Neverthelss, Sjax was major clutch in every close out game except the lakers.
Spurs don't win without Sjax IMO, but the spurs don't need him anymore.

[BigVee]

So, Gilbert Arenas was clutch v. the Bulls the other night? Of course the fact that he missed a hundred shots during the game that let the Bulls back into it means what?

[2centsworth]

So, Gilbert Arenas was clutch v. the Bulls the other night? Of course the fact that he missed a hundred shots during the game that let the Bulls back into it means what?

going 2-17 in a game and then hitting the last shot to win is not clutch, but redemption.

nailing every open three when the team needs a basket is clutch, missing them is choking!

[BronxCowboy]

If there's no such thing as clutch, and then there can be no such thing as a choke.

Nobody can suddenly increase their skill level in crucial situations, what people call "clutchness." If you have a skill, you have it, and you hope that you can keep it, because you certainly can lose focus and start playing below your capability. That's a choke, and it's very real. My contention is that good players are good regardless of the game situation. If you are only at your best in pressure situations, that doesn't mean that you are "clutch," that means that you weren't giving your best effort before the game got to that point. It's really similar to what you call a choke because in both situations, the player is only giving their best effort for part of a game. If there is such thing as "clutchness," it should be attributed to those who maintain their focus and composure regardless of the game situation. But if you prefer players that don't show up until they absolutely have to, good luck with those last second prayers.

[2centsworth]

No one defined clutch shooting as last second prayers, except you. Here's more evidence that clutch performances exist.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/studyr...tclutchhitters

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

So I guess the lesson here is that BronxCowboy knows more than all those professional and college coaches and players over the years who talk about a certain guy being incredibly clutch

Got any more insight for us BC?

Nobody can suddenly increase their skill level in crucial situations, what people call "clutchness."

Clutchness isn't a mechanical thing. It's a biological thing. Fight or flight syndrome, basically.

[BronxCowboy]

OK, brilliant. Here's a quote from your "evidence:"

"Fuld defined a clutch hitter as one who hits better at more important moments. "

Apply that to basketball, and it's somebody who shoots better at more important moments. Put another way, it's somebody who shoots less than the best of their ability at all other moments except the most important ones. Whether you call that clutch or not is a matter of semantics. That's what you want to call it, fine. But if that's what it is, it's overrated, which is what I originally said. If somebody only gives their best effort when the game is on the line, they shouldn't get props for it.
For what it's worth, none of this means anything unless you buy the basic assumption made by the writers you quoted that there are "more important moments" in a game. In baseball, this might be true because you have to consider how many outs, whether there are runners on, etc. In basketball, there are 48 minutes in a game and you have to score more than the other guy sometime during those 48 minutes. It doesn't matter when you score them, because they keep adding up during the whole game. If a guy scores 30 points in the first quarter or 30 in the fourth, it doesn't matter. He made the same contribution either way. Every one of the 48 minutes has the same value, so there are no "more important moments." If you score more earlier you don't have to score as much later. So in basketball, clutchness is overrated, if it even exists.

[BronxCowboy]

Clutchness isn't a mechanical thing. It's a biological thing. Fight or flight syndrome, basically.

If that's true, then all players should have it. Every human being has a sympathetic nervous system, epinephrine, and all the other things that are involved in your little fight or flight response there. If you're educated in the field of human physiology, then feel free to enlighten me. Otherwise, don't embarrass yourself.