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. 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 cons utes 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:
*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
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 . . .
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!
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.
Last edited by DPG21920; 02-21-2012 at 09:20 PM.
While that data is nice and all for all "clutch" believers, showing the attempts per player would clarify how relevant these stats are.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 '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
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
Last edited by Cane; 02-21-2012 at 09:25 PM.
criteria should be:
last 5 minutes of game
from 7 down to 3 up
home or away doesn't matter
IMO
What about that three-pointer against the Suns in 2008 to send Game 1 to Overtime (we know the rest of the story).
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.
I respect the research, I disagree with the criteria. I agree with Vander's criteria, to be honest.
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.
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.
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.
TIMVP, now that was some 'clutch' work of your own, statistically speaking
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.
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.
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.
It doesn't come from the shooting ability or mechanics. Its a mind set.
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.
Horry
Parker hitting clutch 3 's ?
Did I miss something ?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
