Reply With Quote
It's easier to pick one guy and attribute all the success to him. Same thing with the blame. There's got to be a hero.
Great in' article. During the Clippers game, me and friend were discussing exactly this. An ISO play is the lowest percentage play in basketball, yet coaches continue and continue to give the ball to their star players in a late game situation as the rest of the team stands around and watches. No one sets picks. No ball movement. Nothing. Just the star guard at the top of the key dribbling down the clock and taking a contested jumper that usually hits rim.
A quote from the article that struck a chord with me:
-Teams are not successful on offense because of what they do in the final few minutes of their close games. They are good because they are outscoring the opponent during the rest of the game, and the teams that do so often have (at least) one elite offensive player who can also be used as a go-to scorer. This is a subtle, yet simple issue of causation.-
I've always hated when dumb fans say, "He shows up when it counts (meaning the 4th quarter)." Um. The whole in' game counts. What you do or don't do in the first quarter will have an effect on the outcome of the game.
For better or worse, we can credit the NBA's relentless marketing of Jordan's 4th quarter heroics for the fascination the NBA world has with the "closer" (as the article suggests). In the 80s, that term was never used, and NBA analysts and journalists didn't reduce an entire game down to singular moments like they do presently, which is necessary for today's audience who tunes into Sportscenter highlights for their "analysis." You never think of Bird and Magic as "4th quarter players" or "closers." They had their share of late game heroics, sure, but they beat you playing team ball and with consistent performances across all quarters.
I, for one, will be happy when the term "closer" enters the dustbin of re ed NBA cliches, along with "All they did was defend home court" and "Anything can happen in Game 7."
Link to full article: http://nowitzkijersey.com/nba-analys...rs-and-closing
Last edited by midnightpulp; 05-21-2012 at 05:08 AM.
It's easier to pick one guy and attribute all the success to him. Same thing with the blame. There's got to be a hero.
It's funny how coaches seem to play an active role in the narrative. Chris Paul, in my opinion, is the best ISO player the league, thus he's the best "closer," but as good as he is in that situation, it's a low percentage play. Tonight, Del Negro ran 3 straight ISOs. Paul got to the line one play, but the other two times resulted in a turnover and a missed shot. It's such a predictable play to counter for opposing defenses, but coaches choose to do it over running a proper play, and the reason why, as the article points out, is the coach has little choice not to put the ball in his star's hands at the end of the game when the franchise is paying that star 15-25 million a year.
One thing I'm liking about the Spurs this year is they continue to run plays in the winding moments, with everyone touching the ball. Gone are the days of Ginobili ISOs that would often result in him taking that weak step back of his and clanking the shot.
Ye, glad that those iso's are now gone. On topic though, i think Hero ball is acceptable in the last possession where shot clock = game clock and other team has timeouts. Its easiest by far to be in control of the shotclock in an iso play, and just jack it up at the last second/ or just leave enough time for a putback.
You don't want the other team to get an extra possession and even though those 1-5 seconds possessions have probably the most terrible OR, it has enough to negate the difference in rating from ISO play to the most efficient play in previous possession. If Duncan was more experienced in those type of plays ( like the warrior) and fired that shot in g5 of the 2004 playoffs 0.1 to 1 second later, Spurs would be driving for 6 right now.
Well Memphis gave up 27 points and lost game 1. That's being ty closers, but being great as getting a big lead.
Games are weighted heavier in the last 15% of the game. Missed opportunity in the first 3 minutes isn't as crucial as missed opportunity in the last 3 minutes.
Agree. Memphis and Clippers say hi.
shoutouts to Paul and Gay,tbh.
... thus most of us werent worried after the first quarter in game 3
the game has changed alot from 80s and 90s when it was pure & not rigged, there're far less blow-outs these days then the old time because of manipulation. refs will do their best keeping the game even matched until the last few minutes
I get what you are saying Mid, and it's a good point. But if you played the sport, you know even if just compe ive pickup ball, when you have to win by 2 and you playing to 13 and you are at 12 scoring that last bucket, means more than the the one that put you up one ... it just does. Right or wrong. No one gets mad at the guy who bricked the first shot, or makes a turnover in the first quarter ... Make that same mistake with the game on the line it changes significantly.
I too was thinking about this subject, especially after Pau reasoned that that one play (lazy pass) did not cost the Lakers Game 4. He is right in theory, but by NOT understanding how important THAT moment was explains why Pau is NOT as great a player as he can be. Look at Durant he seized that moment. The steal, and some clutch buckets. Pau & Kobe did not. Based on stats Kobe had a good game but he again failed in the clutch. Just like he was given plenty of credit for being a great closer, when he fails he deserves the blame as well. Who cares if he scores 34 points if he failed the Lakers when they needed him most? Durant was by far the best player in that game (and series) even with Westbrook almost dropping 40 because he was the one they went to down the stretch and had two game-winners in the the closest games.
Which brings to me Lebron. If he plays like he did Sunday his clutch gene or lack there of is a moot point. Those like fkla that say I am too hard on James ...really dont understand how AMAZINGLY good James can potentially be. Mike G (Mike & mike) said he thinks James is the MOST TALENTED player he has EVER seen. I agree. And my guess, he has to be over 45 years old or close to it. He has seen even more players than I have. Lebron just put up 40 18 and 9 ... this not 2K not NBA live ... 40 18 and 9!!! and yet haters still trying to throw stones this morning ....why? Because clutch matters. And sometimes you need a guy that can just walk up to the 3 point line, no screen and bury that dagger. Durant did, Kobe (and Pau) did not and OKC will be moving on while the Lakers look to re-load or rebuild.
I don't think closing is that overrated, maybe slightly. But when a player is very good in the closing moments of close games, particularly in the playoffs, I think it does say a lot about that player. And guys like Jordan and Bird were considered great closers during their time. I am very questionable of the claim that Magic and Bird weren't thought of and called 4th quarter players or closers. I absolutely think of at least Bird in that way.
Consistency over the full course of the game, over the course of a post season, over a player's entire career is what truly makes a player great. But being great under the pressured situations of a close game is also a defining attribute of a great player. And not being great in those situations can take some shine from a great player. Being a great closer by itself doesn't define a player. Someone like Carmelo Anthony who has had many moments of being clutch (at least in the regular season) makes him a great clutch player. But his inability to lead his team deep into the playoffs, let alone to a championship run, also takes from his potential greatness as a player. On the flipside, everyone knows the career resume Robert Horry had built as a clutch shooter in the playoffs, but that alone doesn't make him a legendary, Hall of Fame caliber player. He isn't one. The rest of his career proves that. It's just one aspect of a player.
I tend to give more weight and credit to great players who are great in the clutch than great players who don't always come through in close games. In those clutch situations, defenses play star players differently, double teaming, triple teaming, trying to get the ball out of the hands of those star players, forcing them to take tough, contested, often off balanced shot attempts. If a player can still successfully perform in those situations, that says a lot about that player. If he fails a lot, I think it is more expected than anything because those situations don't really lend themselves to high percentage success. So when you talk about a Jordan or a Bird and their reputations to perform in the clutch and close a game out, that's just one added factor to their greatness. Or when you talk about Kobe's late game failures or LeBron's inability and/or unwillingness to close a game, it takes away from some of their greatness but it doesn't mean they aren't still great players. It's just one factor.
Closing a game isn't overrated. Often, those clutch situations, those crunchtime shot attempts determine the game, possibly determine a championship. If my team is down 1 point with 5 seconds to go in game 7 of the NBA Finals and there's a foul, I want Dirk Nowitzki or Kobe Bryant or Chauncey Billups taking those free throws. I don't want Shaquille O'Neal or Ben Wallace or Blake Griffin shooting them. Being clutch, being able to close is not overrated in my opinion. With the game on the line in the final moments, securing a win is more important at that particular moment than what happened with first quarter made or missed shots or made or missed free throws. The potential outcome of the game is more clear and more immediate. The pressures of the situation are different. The defense is different. The payoff is directly rewarding or heart-breaking.
I disagree that closing is overrated, at least to the extent that the initial post suggests.
The thing is: a lot more often than not Durant will miss that shot.
OKC has played 8 games this playoffs. 6 of the 8 have been close games. He has 3 go-ahead, essentially game winning baskets with under 40 seconds to go, IIRC. Plus he hit another to beat the Mavs in the regular season.
Is a 3 pointer 2 feet behind the three point line a high % look? No. But when i guy can hit one of those along with a FT line and baseline 3 pointer in 3 of the first 6 close playoff games he has played, I call that clutch.
and another stupid thing teams do at the end of quarters is stand there and let 15 seconds run off the clock and then quickly try to score, run your ing offense! it's probably going to take you 15 seconds to get a good look anyways!
clutch is an overrated stat to be given to a player
if he was that damn good, his team wouldnt be playin from behind
then u have very good players who never been in that position cause they been beating teams in blowouts that dont get label being clutch....
your bull ass question will be answered shortly in the form an analyst comment during the WCF...it will go like this:
" and the Los Angeles Lakers once on the verge of elimination now take a commanding 2 games to none lead in this best of 7 Western Conference Finals. We'll be back after this commercial break
for those who played sports in compe ion you know how it is important to close a game out.
I don't believe in clutch but I believe in non clutch. I'm a perfect example tbh, I'm a bit of a choker. Playing tennis, I'm just awful at finishing a set or a game, I will miss some stuff I usually make because I play with a high level of stress. At the end I'm playing for not loosing vs. playing for winning. Some nba players are capable to play the same exact way with a game in line 2 mn remaining than the first 2 mn of the first quarter, other can't. Manu can, Bonner cannot.
Ask Bonner
Illogical.
There cannot be anti-clutch if there is not clutch.
I will use billiards as an analogy as it's one of the games that shot values change from beginning to end:
Many people can break and run 7 or 8 balls of a 9 ball rack. Even pros will choke on that 9 ball though, at times, because they mentally weigh it to be more important than the previous shot, as if their targeting system needs to be calibrated or second guessed suddenly. Often you will see these guys go through the rack like it's nothing, even the 9 ball, when they are just practicing (we're talking practice... practice), but once money hits the table, they tighten up, second guess their decisions and the thin veil of blood pressure induced vision blurring occurs. They miss. Their reactions tell the entire story; a shot they make 999 times out of 1000 in practice, but they missed when the money was down.
That's anti-clutch
Then there are those who go through it despite the money, they are the focused ones who do not second guess their shot selection, timing, or in game decisions based on the moment.
Those latter ones are clutch players. The Robert Horrys of the world who step up and drain big shots when the best 3pt percentage shooters in the world would miss.
That's clutch.
Matt Bonner will hit when he's not pressured by defense (anywhere in the vicinity) or the moment (Spurs must be up double digits, or the game must be a meaningless early season game). If the game is close, you know he's going to miss. Statistics show his 3pt percentage drops significantly in the playoffs. He's anti clutch, a choker.
Gary Neal hits shots when the rest of the team seems to be folding, at the buzzer, at very opportune times. That time Chris Paul threw the ball back court right to Neal, Neal drained a 3 to give the Spurs the lead. Bonner wouldn't even have shot it, probably wouldn't have caught it. Neal acts like it's practice. That's clutch.
Last edited by DMC; 05-21-2012 at 03:50 PM.
A basketball game is not a series of independent events. Every made or missed shot, regardless of what quarter they happened to come in, plays an equal part in determining the outcome of the game. The 5 missed freethrows in the first quarter of the game become pretty damn meaningful if your team loses by 1. The reason we place more importance on late game events is because we recall them more vividly since those events happened the most recently.
And another primary point of the article is how NBA coaches are starting to prefer ISO hero ball late in the 4th over running plays that will lead to higher percentage shots. As a coach yourself, you should know ISO plays are predictable to defend and usually lead to a bad and forced shot, and I bet you continue to have your kids run proper plays until the buzzer sounds. You know why Reggie Miller has so much success in the "clutch?" Not only is he a dead-eye shooter, but Indiana actually ran plays for him, had him come off multiple screens to get an open look. They just didn't throw the ball to him with 15 seconds left at the top of the key and say, "Go to work." Same with Larry Bird. Did you see the Spurs dissect the Clippers last night in the late 4th quarter despite the Clippers having one of the best "closers" in the game? The Spurs ran plays while Del Negro gave the ball to Paul as his teammates stood around watching.
The article's purpose isn't really about debunking "clutch" but about highlighting this new trend of media and fans alike believing you need a great closer to win an NBA championship, or more specifically, a player who can dominate in ISO situations, when in fact, as the success rate of ISO plays suggest, players are anything but dominant, regardless of who it is, whether it be Kobe, Wade, Lebron, Manu, etc. It's not that they're overrated in the clutch per se, it's the style of offense (hero ball) being ran for them that's overrated, and ultimately, detrimental to succeeding.
What's bull is how players are called out for passing to the open man. It's a better basketball play than throwing up a contested jumper. Jordan passed it too, but his players made their shots.
Yep.
"Lebron was too scared to take the last shot against Indiana in game 2*."
*great play was run that got Wade deep in the lane against George Hill, leading to a point blank layup that Wade blew.
As with many game theory problems, you have to be unpredictable and have a mixed strategy to maximize your utility. Always shooting in hero-ball mode is bad, while never shooting is equally bad. People just aren't equipped to evaluate the decisions rather than the results. If Durant chucks a triple-teamed 23-footer to win the game, it's a bad decision regardless of whether or not he makes it.
not just that but Mario Chalmers and Steve Blake missing wide open 3's and it being somehow bad basketball. They were wide open and Chalmers is the best 3 shooter on the 3 line, they were both good plays.Yep.
*great play was run that got Wade deep in the lane against George Hill, leading to a point blank layup that Wade blew.
the media's sucking of jordan certainly helped, and nobody that iso's and scores it all wont get credit from them. of course its a different game, most notably jordan could easily iso since he had shooting and most importantly didnt have to deal with zones
I think the iso focuses on protecting the ball and getting at least a decent attempt, maybe a foul call. Running a play includes passing the ball, which is risky. Good teams do it well, but most last game iso teams seem to not have great ball movement to begin with.
if being clutch is shooting the ball the same way you would have shot in a non decisive moment like in a first quarter then I agree.
I just don't believe stat wise on a large sample that some guys have a better FG% on a decisive situation than the rest of the game. By this definition, a clutch guy would be a guy capable to shoot the 3 at the same % in decisive moments than in non decisive moments. If it's your definition of clutch then we agree. I didn't see stat on R. Horry in clutch situation but I'm pretty sure if once again the sample is large enough his shooting % in clutch moments is the same not better which is obviously different of let's say Matt Bonner who is a 40% 3 pts shooter in RS and 25% in POs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
