# Kobe, a Clutch Choker?!



## neoxsupreme (Oct 31, 2005)

I was checking out the ESPN boards and this guy makes a very interesting and valid statement w/ substantial evidence that Kobe has more clutch misses by a large margin than any other player in history. Man, these haters just go totally out of their way and exhaust so much time and energy to prove negative aspects in Kobe's career. I still think Kobe is one the most clutch players in NBA history b/c he and Jordan each have more game-winners than any other player ever. Not to mention the degree of difficulty of the shots he's made over again in his career to sink the hearts of opposing teams that must confront his fearlessness and confidence to take the big shots. The Lakers have lived and died by Kobe's doing ever since he entered the league b/c never has a franchise relied more on a sole player to take them out of such predicaments.

Link


----------



## Dee-Zy (Jan 12, 2006)

I think I remember reading somewhere that Jordan has missed more game winning shots than actually making them. The only difference is that the shots he missed weren't as big as the ones he made.


I'll have to dig that up...


In a way, it would kinda make sense that a player would miss more clutch shots then making them, no matter how clutch they are...


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

All this shows is how often players miss big shots. Some people have complained about KG missing shots this year, yet I think I've seen Kobe miss more big shots just by watching the highlights of some games than KG. Alot of people just don't realize how often big players miss big shots at big times.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Kobe is overrated in the "clutch" this season by his fans, still though hes the guy who i fear the most when having the ball in those clutch moments.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Say what you like, and I hate Kobe with a passion. But whenever the game is tied or the Lakers are down by one, I just mutter to myself "**** Kobe is going to win the damn game" There's no other player in the league that I do that for. However, I do agree that the Lakers have become INCREDIBLY predictable, and Kobe's willingness to take the last second shot no matter HOW low percentage it is hurts. But damnit when he's got the ball in his hands, I can barely force myself to watch...


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

If a decent player takes a lot of shots in critical moments, he will have a lot of makes and a lot of misses. You can't make them all, hence MJ's large amount of misses. His team wanted the ball in his hands at the end of the game. As a result they won a lot of those games, but lost some too. I think the same can be said for Kobe, especially this season. You want Odom, Cook, or Parker taking the last shot over Kobe?


----------



## f22egl (Jun 3, 2004)

I'm not going to bash kobe for this one. There were 1.7 seconds left on the clock so this does not really descend him to the level of the choker, unless you think he was stupid to foul Pierce in the final moments of the game.


----------



## ballistixxx (Jan 24, 2006)

neoxsupreme said:


> I was checking out the ESPN boards and this guy makes a very interesting and valid statement w/ substantial evidence that Kobe has more clutch misses by a large margin than any other player in history. Man, these haters just go totally out of their way and exhaust so much time and energy to prove negative aspects in Kobe's career. I still think Kobe is one the most clutch players in NBA history b/c he and Jordan each have more game-winners than any other player ever. Not to mention the degree of difficulty of the shots he's made over again in his career to sink the hearts of opposing teams that must confront his fearlessness and confidence to take the big shots. The Lakers have lived and died by Kobe's doing ever since he entered the league b/c never has a franchise relied more on a sole player to take them out of such predicaments.
> 
> Link


like it or not, thet article does say something....


----------



## Carbo04 (Apr 15, 2005)

The only person I'd give it to over KB8 in the final seconds is McGrady.


----------



## Chalie Boy (Aug 26, 2002)

"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I'VE FAILED over and over again in my life. And that is why I SUCCEED." - Michael Jordan

And this was made while he was still playing so the numbers are actually higher......close thread


----------



## GTA Addict (Jun 27, 2005)

Chalie Boy said:


> "I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I'VE FAILED over and over again in my life. And that is why I SUCCEED." - Michael Jordan
> 
> And this was made while he was still playing so the numbers are actually higher......close thread


That commercial was in 1997. I doubt he missed 20+ more game winning shots to match Kobe's misses.

LOL @ that guy's research. And to think he still has several more years to research. 

For the record, Kobe has officially hit 23 gamewinning shots.


----------



## shobe42 (Jun 21, 2002)

S-Star said:


> Say what you like, and I hate Kobe with a passion. But whenever the game is tied or the Lakers are down by one, I just mutter to myself "**** Kobe is going to win the damn game" There's no other player in the league that I do that for. However, I do agree that the Lakers have become INCREDIBLY predictable, and Kobe's willingness to take the last second shot no matter HOW low percentage it is hurts. But damnit when he's got the ball in his hands, I can barely force myself to watch...


except for the hate part i agree with this post 100%... from how Kobe can kill any team at any moment to how the lakers have become predictable... tonight he really could have put it on the floor once or atleats grabbed it in motion... how did they give themselves a good chance to win by him standing with his back to the basket never moving and just catching and shooting? it was plain dumb...


----------



## ninjarr (Jan 20, 2006)

S-Star said:


> Say what you like, and I hate Kobe with a passion. But whenever the game is tied or the Lakers are down by one, I just mutter to myself "**** Kobe is going to win the damn game" There's no other player in the league that I do that for. However, I do agree that the Lakers have become INCREDIBLY predictable, and Kobe's willingness to take the last second shot no matter HOW low percentage it is hurts. But damnit when he's got the ball in his hands, I can barely force myself to watch...


The same phrase goes through my mind as well: "****, Kobe is going to win the damn game."

No one else in the league. No one.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

Agreed with S-Star, that's how I feel, too.


----------



## AK-47 (Jul 7, 2005)

the only way to beat kobe in clutch is be up 15 points with 1 minute remaining.


----------



## TracywtFacy (Mar 29, 2005)

AK-47 said:


> the only way to beat kobe in clutch is be up 15 points with 1 minute remaining.


u can be up by 12 with 30 seconds if you're the spurs and you still won't beat Tmac: 

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=129800&page=1&pp=15

hehe


----------



## pac4eva5 (Dec 29, 2005)

Dee-Zy said:


> I think I remember reading somewhere that Jordan has missed more game winning shots than actually making them. The only difference is that the shots he missed weren't as big as the ones he made.
> 
> 
> I'll have to dig that up...
> ...


so wrong


----------



## pac4eva5 (Dec 29, 2005)

Chalie Boy said:


> "I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I'VE FAILED over and over again in my life. And that is why I SUCCEED." - Michael Jordan
> 
> And this was made while he was still playing so the numbers are actually higher......close thread


he also MADE 30+........close thread


----------



## pac4eva5 (Dec 29, 2005)

btw, i dont care how bad kobe's % is, im scared to DEATH of kobe with the ball with 10 seconds left...


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

Air Fly said:


> Kobe is overrated in the "clutch" this season by his fans, still though hes the guy who i fear the most when having the ball in those clutch moments.


So he's overated in the clutch, but he's the guy you would give the ball to in the clutch, why?

I'd like to see the stats on who has scored the most 4th quarter points this season. Who wants to doubt that Kobe is not at or near the top of that list?


----------



## Demiloy (Nov 4, 2005)

TracywtFacy said:


> u can be up by 12 with 30 seconds if you're the spurs and you still won't beat Tmac:
> 
> http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=129800&page=1&pp=15
> 
> hehe


 :rockon:


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

neoxsupreme said:


> I was checking out the ESPN boards and this guy makes a very interesting and valid statement w/ substantial evidence that Kobe has more clutch misses by a large margin than any other player in history. Man, these haters just go totally out of their way and exhaust so much time and energy to prove negative aspects in Kobe's career. I still think Kobe is one the most clutch players in NBA history b/c he and Jordan each have more game-winners than any other player ever. Not to mention the degree of difficulty of the shots he's made over again in his career to sink the hearts of opposing teams that must confront his fearlessness and confidence to take the big shots.
> Link


Kobe and Jordan also had a ton of opportunites to take those game-winning shots. They're obviously going to make a good many of them in comparison with other players, just like they're obviously liable to miss a good many of them, just like any other player.

It's for this reason I'm not necessarily a believer in "clutch." I doubt many players' shooting percentages with 2 seconds remaining are vastly different from their eFG or even the percentage they've been shooting for the game.

Kobe had a chance to sink a last-second shot against Memphis a week or so ago, with 1.7 seconds remaining. I was a bit anxious and nervous, but I don't really think it was because Kobe was taking the shot. I've seen Kobe miss a few buzzer-beaters this year, and without clicking that link, I'm pretty positive he's shooting sub-.500 with the clock running out in the fourth or overtime. I'll take those odds. I was more worried about us focusing so much on Kobe being the one to take the shot that we forget about Devean George or Smush Parker getting open and by some law of averages, draining it.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

pac4eva5 said:


> btw, i dont care how bad kobe's % is, im scared to DEATH of kobe with the ball with 10 seconds left...


Is it because 1) Kobe, when in a rhythm, is one of the best shooters in the league with under five seconds remaining; or 2) Kobe, when in a rhythm, is one of the best shooters in the league, period?

For me, it's No. 2.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

Rawse said:


> Kobe and Jordan also had a ton of opportunites to take those game-winning shots. They're obviously going to make a good many of them in comparison with other players, just like they're obviously liable to miss a good many of them, just like any other player.
> 
> It's for this reason I'm not necessarily a believer in "clutch." I doubt many players' shooting percentages with 2 seconds remaining are vastly different from their eFG or even the percentage they've been shooting for the game.


You should believe in clutch. In order to be the go to guy you have to have already proven yourself the most reliable player on the team to give the ball when the team needs a basket. Clutch is real. Can you imagine what the stats would read if instead of going to Kobe or Mike, they went to Mark Madsen, or Bill Wennington?


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

IV said:


> You should believe in clutch. In order to be the go to guy you have to have already proven yourself the most reliable player on the team to give the ball when the team needs a basket. Clutch is real. Can you imagine what the stats would read if instead of going to Kobe or Mike, they went to Mark Madsen, or Bill Wennington?


I'd give it to Kobe or Mike because they're incredible shooters with incredible focus and incredible confidence, whether it's the first quarter or the fourth.

Mark Madsen is a lousy shooter outside of three feet. Whether it's in the first quarter or the fourth.

I believe in "good" more than "clutch."


----------



## Burn (Feb 2, 2003)

Yeah I'm agreein with Rawse, and that's what I think everytime one of these threads come up. The reason Kobe makes those shots (sometimes ;-) )is because he's a good player, not because he's 'clutch'. Being as good, in those moments, as you are regularly is as much as you can ask for. No player suddenly gets better...that's just retarded.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

Rawse said:


> I'd give it to Kobe or Mike because they're incredible shooters with incredible focus and incredible confidence, whether it's the first quarter or the fourth.
> 
> Mark Madsen is a lousy shooter outside of three feet. Whether it's in the first quarter or the fourth.
> 
> I believe in "good" more than "clutch."


OKay, then you see no difference between good players, good players that are clutch, or just clutch players? What is it that seperates Jordan and Kobe from the rest? Is it just because they get to take the shots at the end of the game? Doesn't the best/good player on any given team, take the last shot? Sometimes the they're clutch, sometimes they aren't but the consistency and reputation a players builds as a result makes him clutch or not clutch. Does clutch not seperate Jordan in the 90's from Clyde Drexler for example? They both was good players, but Mike's legacy hangs on the clutch players and memorable moments that lifted his team to wins.


----------



## Burn (Feb 2, 2003)

What the hell are you talking about


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

I think being "clutch" has to do with being comfortable in the situation and producing as you would normally produce. Across NBA history there have been players who fell through in "clutch" situations, such as making key free throws or hitting the game winning shot of the dribble. It seems to me the players who are considered to be the most "clutch" are those who do it in the biggest games while everyone is watching (ie. Jordan, Kobe, Horry, Reggie Miller). I don't think being clutch is an ability, but rather a mentality.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

IV said:


> OKay, then you see no difference between good players, good players that are clutch, or just clutch players?


There are anomalies, of course. Robert Horry - not an exceptional player, but fits the definition of what most people consider clutch. Peja Stojakovic - great shooter, but always gags in the playoffs. Anomalies don't universally validate anything though.



> What is it that seperates Jordan and Kobe from the rest?


Kobe isn't really separated for me. He takes a ton of clutch shots, makes some clutch shots and misses some clutch shots. I'm more scared of Dirk Nowitzki (who seems to me to have hit a ton of game-winners this year), because he's a bigger matchup problem and a better shooter from long range and midrange. It's all about given situations on an individual basis.

I don't think players magically get better with the game on the line. Some may block out things like crowd noise and remained focused, but I classify that as being "good" instead of "clutch."




> Is it just because they get to take the shots at the end of the game? Doesn't the best/good player on any given team, take the last shot?


No. See Robert Horry.

The coach should design a game-winning play for the player with the best chance of hitting the shot. Most of the time, it means the best player on the team. But not always.



> Sometimes the they're clutch, sometimes they aren't but the consistency and reputation a players builds as a result makes him clutch or not clutch. Does clutch not seperate Jordan in the 90's from Clyde Drexler for example? They both was good players, but Mike's legacy hangs on the clutch players and memorable moments that lifted his team to wins.


That's because Jordan was better than Drexler and simply got the opportunities to prove it. Jordan hitting a shot over Bryon Russell for the ballgame isn't clutch to me, because MJ could push off and drain an 18-footer all day. Literally, all day. With 7:43 left in the second quarter or three seconds left in overtime. All day. It's timely. But not clutch. Jordan's just flat-out good.

Similarly, contrasted with a superstar hitting a regular jumpshot or a free throw with the game on the line, a scrub hitting a halfcourt shot with his eyes closed isn't clutch either. That's called luck.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

Rawse said:


> There are anomalies, of course. Robert Horry - not an exceptional player, but fits the definition of what most people consider clutch. Peja Stojakovic - great shooter, but always gags in the playoffs. Anomalies don't universally validate anything though.
> 
> Kobe isn't really separated for me. He takes a ton of clutch shots, makes some clutch shots and misses some clutch shots. I'm more scared of Dirk Nowitzki (who seems to me to have hit a ton of game-winners this year), because he's a bigger matchup problem and a better shooter from long range and midrange. It's all about given situations on an individual basis.
> 
> ...


I don't think you realize that your opinion of clutch is the exact definition of clutch. I think you just prefer to call it something other than clutch. The inverse of the word clutch is to fail in a critical situation, especially out of nervousness or fear. That means clutch is succeeding by capturing the moment in a critical situation. So yes, it is all situational. 

And yeah, a scrub hitting a half court shot with his eyes closed isn't clutch, unless of course it's the final play of the game.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

IV said:


> So he's overated in the clutch, but he's the guy you would give the ball to in the clutch, why?
> 
> I'd like to see the stats on who has scored the most 4th quarter points this season. Who wants to doubt that Kobe is not at or near the top of that list?


Kobe is (I'm pretty sure). But earlier in the season it was Garnett, and people were still saying he isn't clutch. Being clutch is all about reputation, and not about reality.


----------



## Chalie Boy (Aug 26, 2002)

pac4eva5 said:


> he also MADE 30+........close thread


Exactly my point, you are not gonna make every damn shot, but if you don't take them you wont make them.


----------



## Chalie Boy (Aug 26, 2002)

repost...sorry


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

IV said:


> I don't think you realize that your opinion of clutch is the exact definition of clutch. I think you just prefer to call it something other than clutch. The inverse of the word clutch is to fail in a critical situation, especially out of nervousness or fear. That means clutch is succeeding by capturing the moment in a critical situation. So yes, it is all situational.
> 
> And yeah, a scrub hitting a half court shot with his eyes closed isn't clutch, unless of course it's the final play of the game.


I don't think you realize your definition is clutch is actually the definition of "good." And that clutch, from most contexts I've seen it used in, implies that a certain player somehow becomes better in crunch situations than he is in regular ones.

Anyway, I'm hardly out to change opinions...time for class.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

Rawse said:


> I don't think you realize your definition is clutch is actually the definition of "good." And that clutch, from most contexts I've seen it used in, implies that a certain player somehow becomes better in crunch situations than he is in regular ones.
> 
> Anyway, I'm hardly out to change opinions...time for class.


Clutch doesn't imply that a player becomes better in a certain situation. You said it yourself, a player can perform a jump shot as the first play of the game and the same shot, from the same point on the floor, only it's the last play of the game and it's the same thing, but the difference is the situation, the pressure, the 4th quarter or last shot of the game. 

_CLUTCH - A tense, critical situation: *"came through in the clutch."*

or

Being or occurring in a tense or critical situation: *"won the championship by sinking a clutch putt."*
Tending to be successful in tense or critical situations: *"The coach relied on her clutch pitcher."*_

Clutch _(in a sports sense)_ means to succeed in critical situations, under pressure. That's not the definition of good. That's clutch.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

socco said:


> Kobe is (I'm pretty sure). But earlier in the season it was Garnett, and people were still saying he isn't clutch. Being clutch is all about reputation, and not about reality.


Being clutch is all about performing under pressure in critical, tense situations. That is the reality of it and why Kobe has a clutch reputation.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

IV said:


> Being clutch is all about performing under pressure in critical, tense situations. That is the reality of it and why Kobe has a clutch reputation.


Being clutch? Yes. Being called clutch? No. Now I'm not saying Kobe isn't, he sure as hell is, he's at the top of the league in that aspect. But being labeled that is based much more on perception than reality.


----------



## Burn (Feb 2, 2003)

> Clutch doesn't imply that a player becomes better in a certain situation. You said it yourself, a player can perform a jump shot as the first play of the game and the same shot, from the same point on the floor, only it's the last play of the game and it's the same thing, but the difference is the situation, the pressure, the 4th quarter or last shot of the game.
> 
> CLUTCH - A tense, critical situation: "came through in the clutch."
> 
> ...


So in other words, pretty much every good player is clutch. Since very few of them don't perform normally under pressure. Glad we resolved that.


----------



## neoxsupreme (Oct 31, 2005)

Wow I really started a good discussion. Definitions for "clutch" and everything.


----------



## Leviathon1121 (Jan 28, 2005)

Actually, despite Bryants knack for hitting the last second shot, his clutch play at least this season is nothing spectacular. He may be scoring a lot of points in the 4th quarter, but as this site suggests, it is at a highly inefficient rate.

http://www.82games.com/0506/05LAL7E.HTM


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

Burn said:


> So in other words, pretty much every good player is clutch. Since very few of them don't perform normally under pressure. Glad we resolved that.


If you add one and one and get three and that's good enough for you, then so be it.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

socco said:


> Being clutch? Yes. Being called clutch? No. Now I'm not saying Kobe isn't, he sure as hell is, he's at the top of the league in that aspect. But being labeled that is based much more on perception than reality.


Clutch heroics give players reputations as clutch players. If you listed the top clutch peformers in the league, you could also list a few games that stand out when they were clutch. I don't know any players who are perceived as clutch, but have not performed clutch play.

........So list perceived clutch players this year.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

The perception of being "clutch" ironically (or not ironically) coincides with hitting the big shot not in the big moment (game winner in less important games), but rather the big game (game winner in a playoff game). The perception of being "clutch" is heavily swayed by the context for which the shot is being taken.


----------



## neoxsupreme (Oct 31, 2005)

IV said:


> ........So list perceived clutch players this year.


I'll list some... Melo, Kobe, Dirk, Vince, Gordon, David West, and Mo Williams. All these guys have made game-winners and Melo has made the most w/ most of them coming in January. Melo has also sent a couple games into OT. Dirk and Vince are 1st and 2nd in the league in Crunch Time Points. West and Williams have been the sleepers on their teams to perform in the clutch. Sorry if I'm forgetting some but those are the players that stand out in my head.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

IV said:


> I don't know any players who are perceived as clutch, but have not performed clutch play.


How about clutch players who aren't perceived as clutch?

And just go back and read this thread. People think that Kobe makes almost every big shot at the end of games. When he actually makes significantly less than half of them. Even the most clutch players miss shots all the time. If LeBron James misses a big shot, and Kobe Bryant misses two, people are going to use LeBron's shot as further proof of why he's not clutch and say Kobe's two misses are just exceptions to the rule. People get one perception of a player based on memorable plays, and not much can change it from that point.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Being clutch doesn't exist. People in the sports world have made this concept up to furthur immortalize the exploits of the games greats. Hitting a shot is hitting a shot. If Jordan's shot (the push off) in the 1998 NBA Finals to defeat the Jazz happened in the middle of the second quarter it would be just another shot, and if he had missed that shot it would be overlooked today. The idea of being clutch is directly related to the context for which the shot is taken and from there the media and people's beliefs takes it over.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

> Being clutch doesn't exist.


Actually it does. Case in point, the all-star game. Even though Steve Nash is a better ball-handler...you could hear the guys on court shouting "Kobe", meaning give the ball up to him to make plays with in "winning time". Spin it how you want to, but there are guys you want with the ball down the stretch, and then there are those you don't want to have it.



ralaw said:


> If Jordan's shot (the push off) in the 1998 NBA Finals to defeat the Jazz happened in the middle of the second quarter it would be just another shot, and if he had missed that shot it would be overlooked today.


That's because the game isn't won in the second quarter. Come on ralaw, this is elementary school stuff.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

sherako said:


> Case in point, the all-star game.


That's really what you're gonna use? I agree with you to an extent (I think it's way overblown though), but you gotta come with better than an all-star game.



sherako said:


> That's because the game isn't won in the second quarter. Come on ralaw, this is elementary school stuff.


Correct. But I assume you're saying that the 4th quarter is the most important. Well, actually it's the least important.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

neoxsupreme said:


> I'll list some... Melo, Kobe, Dirk, Vince, Gordon, David West, and Mo Williams. All these guys have made game-winners and Melo has made the most w/ most of them coming in January. Melo has also sent a couple games into OT. Dirk and Vince are 1st and 2nd in the league in Crunch Time Points. West and Williams have been the sleepers on their teams to perform in the clutch. Sorry if I'm forgetting some but those are the players that stand out in my head.


So take Melo for example, he's made the most clutch players in the month of January, but he's just perceived as clutch. Why isn't he clutch in reality, when in reality he made those clutch plays?

The perception is reality.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

socco said:


> How about clutch players who aren't perceived as clutch?


that's a good and fair question.



> And just go back and read this thread. People think that Kobe makes almost every big shot at the end of games. When he actually makes significantly less than half of them. Even the most clutch players miss shots all the time. If LeBron James misses a big shot, and Kobe Bryant misses two, people are going to use LeBron's shot as further proof of why he's not clutch and say Kobe's two misses are just exceptions to the rule. People get one perception of a player based on memorable plays, and not much can change it from that point.


Making every shot at the end of games shouldn't be used as a margin to evaluate clutch. No one doesn't this or has ever. Besides, Kobe and IVerson both shoot a FG% somewhere in the mid 40's percentile. There are many other player who shoot as a much higher efficiency, but we all know they are the two best scorers in the league. So it's not always about the efficiency.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

ralaw said:


> Being clutch doesn't exist. People in the sports world have made this concept up to furthur immortalize the exploits of the games greats. *Hitting a shot is hitting a shot.* If Jordan's shot (the push off) in the 1998 NBA Finals to defeat the Jazz happened in the middle of the second quarter it would be just another shot, and if he had missed that shot it would be overlooked today. The idea of being clutch is directly related to the context for which the shot is taken and from there the media and people's beliefs takes it over.


I don't agree with this, particularly the bold part. The pressure is different at the end of a game, regardless of the fact that 2 points in the 2nd quarter counts the same as 2 in the last 3 seconds of the game.
Ask anyone who's been in such a situation (hell, even in say a high school game or anything like that), I don't think its a question whether there's more pressure on a jumper at the buzzer when you're down by one, compared to a jumper off a curl in the middle of the second quarter.

Since there's more pressure riding on the one shot, that can make it more difficult for some players, whereas some players aren't affected by it or even thrive off it.

Though I don't think thats what makes you clutch, you have to prove it too. If a player's scared ****less taking the game winning shot, but drains it most of the time, he's more clutch then the guy that loves those situations but never seems to make the shot. Though usually it's the other way around.

Still, there's something to be said for _wanting_ the ball in those situations, confidence is a big thing. I remember a Cavs game earlier in the year where Lebron passed up an open 3 at the end of a game, opting to pass it off to Pavlovic (I believe it was).
That doesn't go a long way for helping people consider him clutch. Not to single out James, just using him as an example.


----------



## magic_bryant (Jan 11, 2004)

The All-Star game either proved who the players think is the best player in the league, or it proves who they think to be the best clutch player in the ASG where all the "good" players are. Kobe couldn't hit ish in the ASG for the first 46 minutes. Then at the 1:37 mark, Steve Nash, the best PG in the world right now, after having just grabbed a loose ball, can be heard CLEARLY yelling "Kobe!!! Kobe!!!". Kobe comes back and brings the ball up instead, because Nash, being the great PG he is, gave the ball up to the person he thought was the BEST option to make a key play. Kobe goes up court, gets an easy dunk. When Garnett grabs the rebound off the missed McGrady shot, who did he INSTINCTIVELY look for? Kobe Bryant, even when the easier pass would have been to get it back to McGrady and the easier play would have been to lay it up himself and tie the game. But no, he kicks it ALL the way out to the three line.

Allen Iverson is a GREAT player. Not just "good". Yet, I can remember up until last year, ESPN would always show a stat that Allen Iverson had never hit a game-winning shot. And AI's one of my faves.


----------



## Burn (Feb 2, 2003)

IV said:


> If you add one and one and get three and that's good enough for you, then so be it.





> You said it yourself, a player can perform a jump shot as the first play of the game and the same shot, from the same point on the floor, only it's the last play of the game and it's the same thing, but the difference is the situation, the pressure, the 4th quarter or last shot of the game.


Not even adding up 1 and 1, I'm adding 1 and 0. And I'm getting 1. 

If you're a good player, and you perform as good in the 4th quarter as you do in the 1st, that's clutch, according to you, according to what I just quoted. 

And I said, most good players do. There are some who are better, and some who are worse, but for the most part, they're the same in either quarter. Maybe you disagree with that, but you won't have much of a leg to stand on if your counterpoint is 'perception is reality'. Isn't Kobe percieved as a rapist by many? Have a nice argument.


----------



## Burn (Feb 2, 2003)

> Yet, I can remember up until last year, ESPN would always show a stat that Allen Iverson had never hit a game-winning shot. And AI's one of my faves


You misinterpreted, they said he had never hit a walk-off buzzer beater. He had hit plenty of game winners.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

sherako said:


> That's because the game isn't won in the second quarter. Come on ralaw, this is elementary school stuff.


Who wrote that? I surely didn't.......It seems my son is signing in on my account again. :angel: I think what my son was trying to say was that a clutch shot is the same shot you would take in the second quarter, but what makes it clutch is the situation it is taken under. I believe players who are considered clutch aren't intimidated by the game being on the line. 

My question is what makes a player clutch? Is it a series of events or is one event enough? Could I say Steve Kerr and John Paxson are clutch due to the fact their shots clinched championships for the Bulls teams?


----------



## The MAMBA (Jan 6, 2006)

ralaw said:


> Being clutch doesn't exist. People in the sports world have made this concept up to furthur immortalize the exploits of the games greats. Hitting a shot is hitting a shot. If Jordan's shot (the push off) in the 1998 NBA Finals to defeat the Jazz happened in the middle of the second quarter it would be just another shot, and if he had missed that shot it would be overlooked today. The idea of being clutch is directly related to the context for which the shot is taken and from there the media and people's beliefs takes it over.


Oh god, it wasn't that big of a push off. There is no way that Mike pushed him that hard for him to be able to slide as far as he did. Sure Mike nudged him with his hand on Russell's a$$.. but the fall wasn't all due to the supposed "push off". Russell was already beat when Mike sprinted towards the basket. Russell was then on Mike's hip and it would have stayed that way if Mike went all the way to the goal....but instead Mike put his one hand on Russell's but and pulled back with a crossover and Russell went flying. Mostly due to momentum of trying to stop the player with the quickest first step ever. If Russell was staying with him, Mike's little nudge would have had zero to no effect if Russel was actually in front of him playing good defense. This "push off" has been blown out of proportion for YEARS.


----------



## i_like_the_hawks (Feb 2, 2006)

it's also due to the fact that kobe always has the ball in his hands at clutch time therefore he takes more clutch time shots than most.


----------



## Demiloy (Nov 4, 2005)

Actually, I think that shots taken in the clutch are one of the lowest-percentage shots in the game, because

1. It's at the end of the game, so therefore you're tired.

2. Defenses automatically tighten up in those last minutes when the game is close. Players might play slack in the first quarter, but when it really means something, they really play hard.

I think if someone recorded the percentage of gamewinners, it would probably be around 40%, or even only 30%


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Here's a recent article from 82games.com on game-winning shots. Kobe's shooting 24% on these shots over the past 3 years. Again I don't think this means Kobe isn't a clutch player, just goes to show how often players miss big shots.


----------



## pac4eva5 (Dec 29, 2005)

Rawse said:


> I'd give it to Kobe or Mike because they're incredible shooters with incredible focus and incredible confidence, whether it's the first quarter or the fourth.
> 
> Mark Madsen is a lousy shooter outside of three feet. Whether it's in the first quarter or the fourth.
> 
> I believe in "good" more than "clutch."


if u dont believe in clutch...do u at least believe in choking???

when somebody as incredible as jordan or kobe (or close to it i guess) continually misses EVERY TIME at the end, do u call that coincidence?


----------



## pac4eva5 (Dec 29, 2005)

socco said:


> Kobe's misses are just exceptions to the rule. People get one perception of a player based on memorable plays, and not much can change it from that point.


well then whats the point of the thread, because its pretty OBVIOUS that kobe hasn't been all that "clutch" this year...


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

The MAMBA said:


> Oh god, it wasn't that big of a push off. There is no way that Mike pushed him that hard for him to be able to slide as far as he did. Sure Mike nudged him with his hand on Russell's a$$.. but the fall wasn't all due to the supposed "push off". Russell was already beat when Mike sprinted towards the basket. Russell was then on Mike's hip and it would have stayed that way if Mike went all the way to the goal....but instead Mike put his one hand on Russell's but and pulled back with a crossover and Russell went flying. Mostly due to momentum of trying to stop the player with the quickest first step ever. If Russell was staying with him, Mike's little nudge would have had zero to no effect if Russel was actually in front of him playing good defense. This "push off" has been blown out of proportion for YEARS.


I agree 100%. The push of referenced in my post was so people would know what I was talking about. I am on record on these boards of having said Jordan's play was a part of the game and Jazz fans (all 3 of them) and Jordan haters should live with it.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

Burn said:


> Not even adding up 1 and 1, I'm adding 1 and 0. And I'm getting 1.
> 
> If you're a good player, and you perform as good in the 4th quarter as you do in the 1st, that's clutch, according to you, according to what I just quoted.
> 
> And I said, most good players do. There are some who are better, and some who are worse, but for the most part, they're the same in either quarter. Maybe you disagree with that, but you won't have much of a leg to stand on if your counterpoint is 'perception is reality'. Isn't Kobe percieved as a rapist by many? Have a nice argument.


All good players are not clutch players. I've already provided an accurate definition of the word clutch. It is not the same thing as the definition of the word good.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

pac4eva5 said:


> if u dont believe in clutch...do u at least believe in choking???
> 
> when somebody as incredible as jordan or kobe (or close to it i guess) continually misses EVERY TIME at the end, do u call that coincidence?


He would have to not believe in chocking if he doesn't believe in clutch because one basically explains the other. How can a person believe in good but not evil? How can you explain light without understading dark.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

socco said:


> Here's a recent article from 82games.com on game-winning shots. Kobe's shooting 24% on these shots over the past 3 years. Again I don't think this means Kobe isn't a clutch player, just goes to show how often players miss big shots.


If Kobe is shooting 24% on clutch shots in the last 3 years couldn't it be argued he isn't clutch? It seems being clutch is nothing more than making an average shot and timing (the memorable game). For example are Steve Kerr or John Paxson clutch? Is John Starks not clutch?


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

Clutch isn't measured by percentages. The most clutch players in NBA history all likely shoot a poor percentage according to 82.games or whoever. The most clutch players in NBA history also total more memorable game winning individual efforts than other players in NBA history, that's what makes them clutch, not the %.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

IV said:


> Clutch isn't measured by percentages. The most clutch players in NBA history all likely shoot a poor percentage according to 82.games or whoever. The most clutch players in NBA history also total more memorable game winning individual efforts than other players in NBA history, that's what makes them clutch, not the %.


I can see where you are coming from, but without some type of measuring stick it seems being clutch is more about "chance" and less about a ability. So are Steve Kerr and John Paxson clutch in you mind?


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

ralaw said:


> I can see where you are coming from, but without some type of measuring stick it seems being clutch is more about "chance" and less about a ability. So are Steve Kerr and John Paxson clutch in you mind?


They have both made memorable clutch plays, but they are one dimensional players and have not had many clutch plays under their belts so I don't look at them in the same light as a Reggie Miller, Kobe Bryant, Jerry West, or Robert Horry, but they have been clutch nontheless. In this manner, I would rank them accordingly. As far as a measuring stick, I don't think percentages is a good one. Would you consider the player who shoots 4 for 4 from the field and scores 10 points a better scorer than the guy who took 30 shots, made 19 and scored 41? Is the first player a better scorer because he's more efficient percentage wise? Measure them in totals because that's what stands out in everyone mind. Believe me Jordan missed more clutch shots than he made, but he is definately one of the most clutch players of all time because of his great clutch plays and when he made those clutch plays(ala playoffs). The misses don't matter as much when you consider how often this guy has the ball in his hands in the waning moments of close games. Can you imagine what Steve Kerr's career clutch percentage would be? It's likely very high compared to MJ's because Kerr doesn't shoot in the clutch as much as Mike does. He basically only shoots in the clutch when MJ draws the entire defense, so Kerr gets a wide open shot. Sure this will give the player with the ball an advantage because he takes more shots, he'll likely make more, but there is a damn good reason why he's giving that responsibility. It's because he's the most reliable guy to give the ball in a critical tense situation or a clutch situation.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

IV said:


> Measure them in totals because that's what stands out in everyone mind. Believe me Jordan missed more clutch shots than he made, but he is definately one of the most clutch players of all time because of his great clutch plays and when he made those clutch plays(ala playoffs). The misses don't matter as much when you consider how often this guy has the ball in his hands in the waning moments of close games. Can you imagine what Steve Kerr's career clutch percentage would be? It's likely very high compared to MJ's because Kerr doesn't shoot in the clutch as much as Mike does. He basically only shoots in the clutch when MJ draws the entire defense, so Kerr gets a wide open shot. Sure this will give the player with the ball an advantage because he takes more shots, he'll likely make more, but there is a damn good reason why he's giving that responsibility. It's because he's the most reliable guy to give the ball in a critical tense situation or a clutch situation.


That is where I have a problem with what being clutch is. Obviously having more attempts to make the shot in the big game will allow a player to have a better "chance" to make the shot, thus giving that player more clutch shots across his career. However, does that mean they are more clutch? If Steve Kerr is 3/4 in making big shots in the playoffs and Jordan is 5/15, who is the more clutch player? I personally don't believe either is more clutch, because in my opinion being clutch has gotten confused with "chance" and "timing". I could argue the only reason a Jordan or a Kobe is given the ball in game winning situation is due to the fact their games are more versatile, thus providing more options.

I have been in 2 game situations (highschool) where I was called upon to take the game winning shot. The first one was in an actual game situation where I was supposed to take a man of the dribble and score (I missed the shot), but the shot when I took it felt the same as it would have if I took it in the 1st quarter. The second time I was at the foul line and had to make 2 free throws to send the game into overtime (I made both). I will admit though, in the second situation the free throws had more pressure due to the fact it was just me having to make 2 free throws with no defender, the pressure of having to send the game into overtime, and with the crowd watching. 

So the purpose of that story is am I clutch? I missed an everyday shot to win the game, but made 2 free throws to send another game into overtime. To me the first situation is more about "chance" while the second situation was closer to being clutch. 

To me it is more clutch to hit a free throw then to make a jump shot because, once a player gets the ball and has to score in a game situation to win the game it is just like any other game situation, but with free throws the pressure rises immensely due to the nature of shooting free throws.


----------



## Burn (Feb 2, 2003)

Clutch is not clutch when clutch comes to clutch. Clutch means clutching in the clutch. She was a tickler! And I'm not a stickler for a tickler... sticklerticklerticklersticklersticklerticklerticklersticklersticklerticklertickler


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

ralaw said:


> That is where I have a problem with what being clutch is. Obviously having more attempts to make the shot in the big game will allow a player to have a better "chance" to make the shot, thus giving that player more clutch shots across his career. However, does that mean they are more clutch? If Steve Kerr is 3/4 in making big shots in the playoffs and Jordan is 5/15, who is the more clutch player? I personally don't believe either is more clutch, because in my opinion being clutch has gotten confused with "chance" and "timing". I could argue the only reason a Jordan or a Kobe is given the ball in game winning situation is due to the fact their games are more versatile, thus providing more options.


I agree with you. MJ and Kobe's games are more versatile and that is why they get the ball in the clutch. The example you gave with Kerr 3/4 and MJ 5/15, is interesting. I'm curious to see how their stats actually compare, but the one thing that comes to mind before see the stats is Kerr's clutch shots are almost always going to result from another players penetration or assist. MJ doesn't need help to get the open shot, he'll create it himself and this speaks to him being more versatile and ultimately, because of the results of him succeeding, clutch.



> I have been in 2 game situations (highschool) where I was called upon to take the game winning shot. The first one was in an actual game situation where I was supposed to take a man of the dribble and score (I missed the shot), but the shot when I took it felt the same as it would have if I took it in the 1st quarter. The second time I was at the foul line and had to make 2 free throws to send the game into overtime (I made both). I will admit though, in the second situation the free throws had more pressure due to the fact it was just me having to make 2 free throws with no defender, the pressure of having to send the game into overtime, and with the crowd watching.


That's the only difference. The situation made it clutch.



> So the purpose of that story is am I clutch? I missed an everyday shot to win the game, but made 2 free throws to send another game into overtime. To me the first situation is more about "chance" while the second situation was closer to being clutch.


You weren't clutch in the first situation and you were in the next. Had you made the shot off the dribble, and made the clutch free throws and repeated this time and time again in your high school career, don't you think you would develop a reputation as a clutch player? I know if I came to all the games to see you play and you had hit 5 game winners and it was 4th quarter your team has the ball, I'd have faith the ball in going to ralaw, no doubt.



> To me it is more clutch to hit a free throw then to make a jump shot because, once a player gets the ball and has to score in a game situation to win the game it is just like any other game situation, but with free throws the pressure rises immensely due to the nature of shooting free throws.


I agree that it's more pressure when your on the free throw line because you are expected to make a 'free' basket and there is no one defending you. But it's clutch either way because of the tense situation. Eventhough some players don't feel the pressure, it's still crunch time and succeeding in that environment makes you clutch.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

IV said:


> I agree with you. MJ and Kobe's games are more versatile and that is why they get the ball in the clutch. The example you gave with Kerr 3/4 and MJ 5/15, is interesting. I'm curious to see how their stats actually compare, but the one thing that comes to mind before see the stats is Kerr's clutch shots are almost always going to result from another players penetration or assist. MJ doesn't need help to get the open shot, he'll create it himself and this speaks to him being more versatile and ultimately, because of the results of him succeeding, clutch.


That is correct, Kerr's shots are directly influenced by Jordan getting him the ball, but in that situation does it matter? The only point that matters is Kerr made the shot. To my knowledge being perceived to being clutch isn't about how you get the shot, but did you make the shot.



IV said:


> That's the only difference. The situation made it clutch.
> 
> You weren't clutch in the first situation and you were in the next. Had you made the shot off the dribble, and made the clutch free throws and repeated this time and time again in your high school career, don't you think you would develop a reputation as a clutch player? I know if I came to all the games to see you play and you had hit 5 game winners and it was 4th quarter your team has the ball, I'd have faith the ball in going to ralaw, no doubt.


So, is there a difference between the act of being clutch and actually being clutch. I was the one player on my highschool team who had the best "chance" of getting my shot off the dribble, so my coach game me the ball. The more opportunities a player has allows them a greater "chance" to make more shots, thus giving the perception that they are a clutch player. 



IV said:


> I agree that it's more pressure when your on the free throw line because you are expected to make a 'free' basket and there is no one defending you. But it's clutch either way because of the tense situation. Eventhough some players don't feel the pressure, it's still crunch time and succeeding in that environment makes you clutch.


That is my point though, the level of what is tense is far different in a game winning shot and a key free throw. I would venture to say many players such as Kobe are more comfortable taking the shot over the free throw because this is something they have done their entire career, but does that make him more clutch?


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

ralaw said:


> That is correct, Kerr's shots are directly influenced by Jordan getting him the ball, but in that situation does it matter? The only point that matters is Kerr made the shot. To my knowledge being perceived to being clutch isn't about how you get the shot, but did you make the shot.


In the situation it doesn't matter, clutch play is clutch play. But Jordan is more clutch than Kerr because he's done it more, and it can do it more ways. 



> So, is there a difference between the act of being clutch and actually being clutch. I was the one player on my highschool team who had the best "chance" of getting my shot off the dribble, so my coach game me the ball. The more opportunities a player has allows them a greater "chance" to make more shots, thus giving the perception that they are a clutch player.


They give you the ball because you're the most reliable player in critical game defining moments. It's up to you to find a way to put the ball in the hole, whether it's you scoring the clutch basket or creating an open shot for a teammate. I'd say your play in a win would be clutch.



> That is my point though, the level of what is tense is far different in a game winning shot and a key free throw. I would venture to say many players such as Kobe are more comfortable taking the shot over the free throw because this is something they have done their entire career, but does that make him more clutch?


There are alot of variables or factors that play into being clutch. Some are outside of the players grasp. Kerr doesn't have the choice to have the ball at the end of the game, that's the coaches decision. You also have to play for a team that wins games because you can't be clutch in a losing effort. Clutch play is sometimes defensive as well, ala "havelicek steals the ball." Regardless of the factors, the player who has the ball and puts "the nail in the coffin" is clutch. 

When it comes to being more clutch than another, I just don't favor percentages. THe guy I see do it time and time again, is more clutch than the player who did it once or twice. 

:twocents:


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

IV said:


> Clutch isn't measured by percentages. The most clutch players in NBA history all likely shoot a poor percentage according to 82.games or whoever. The most clutch players in NBA history also total more memorable game winning individual efforts than other players in NBA history, that's what makes them clutch, not the %.


So like I was saying earlier, being "clutch" has to do with perception, and not actually being better at those times.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

socco said:


> So like I was saying earlier, being "clutch" has to do with perception, and not actually being better at those times.


That's my take on it.


----------



## The MAMBA (Jan 6, 2006)

ralaw said:


> I agree 100%. The push of referenced in my post was so people would know what I was talking about. I am on record on these boards of having said Jordan's play was a part of the game and Jazz fans (all 3 of them) and Jordan haters should live with it.


Good deal then.. You're one of the smart ones. :biggrin: :banana:


----------



## Pnack (Aug 23, 2005)

Clutch - Tending to be successful in tense or critical situations: _The coach relied on her clutch pitcher._

Kobe is NOT clutch

Kobe - To always be successful in tense or critical situations: _ Phil told Kobe after the timeout, "do your thing."_



Too much?:biggrin:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I agree with rawse...I believe in "good" not "clutch." There's a reason you want the ball in the hands of Jordan or Kobe at the end of the game...because they're great players and scorers.

That's also the reason I want the ball in the hands of Bird, McGrady, James, Oscar Robertson...because they're great players who are/were great scorers.

I don't believe there are players who manifest significantly different ability in clutch situations. There may be players who don't _want_ to take the big shots (Keith Van Horn springs to mind), but I don't agree that there are players who get better or worse in the clutch, to any significant degree, than their normal ability.

Human rationalization feeds these perceptions. If Kobe hits a big shot, people will say, "That proves he's clutch." If Kobe misses a big shot, people will say, "You can't hit every shot, remember that shot he hit last week?" In the end, the moments of those second type are mostly forgotten and the ones of the first type are remembered.

When you actually go and check their percentages and see exactly how players are performing "in the clutch," it invariably tends to their career norms, assuming that there's a suitable sample size to draw any conclusion at all.


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

To the guy who made the first post, kobe and jordan doesn't have the most gamewinners out of anyone in the NBA. its Reggie (who leads everyone in NBA history with buzzerbeaters) and Jordan. get your facts straight if u want ppl to take you serious


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> I don't believe there are players who manifest significantly different ability in clutch situations. There may be players who don't _want_ to take the big shots (Keith Van Horn springs to mind), but I don't agree that there are players who get better or worse in the clutch, to any significant degree, than their normal ability.
> 
> .


Of course there are big differences because not everyone handles pressure well which is what crunch time is all about.

Another example of this are players who are just incredible in practice but fall apart in real game situations, there are a lot of players like that.

Of course Kobe's reptuation as clutch is a result of taking almost every attempt at a gamewinner so naturally he will have more gamewinners than pretty much every other player but also more misses than any other NBA player.

The reason folks are afraid of Kobe making the gamewinner at the end is because they know that he will most likely take the shot. Doesn't mean he is likely to make it and of course sportscenter tends to show only gamewinners not misses.


----------



## GTA Addict (Jun 27, 2005)

The truth is out! Kobe's a CHOKER!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Amareca said:


> Of course there are big differences because not everyone handles pressure well which is what crunch time is all about.


Not everyone in the general population handles pressure well. Players who make it all the way to the NBA are a population picked for ability to handle pressure, as they handle incredible pressure every step of the way, as their professional lives often hang in the balance with weening-out stages that end up eliminating 99% of those who aspire to reach the NBA.

So, no, I don't think there are large differences in ability to handle pressure among NBA players. Between an NBA player and some random person on the street, sure.


----------



## pac4eva5 (Dec 29, 2005)

IV said:


> He would have to not believe in chocking if he doesn't believe in clutch because one basically explains the other. How can a person believe in good but not evil? How can you explain light without understading dark.


agreed 100%. some players have "it", some players dont. "it" = clutch


----------



## pac4eva5 (Dec 29, 2005)

IV said:


> They have both made memorable clutch plays, but they are one dimensional players and have not had many clutch plays under their belts so I don't look at them in the same light as a Reggie Miller, Kobe Bryant, Jerry West, or Robert Horry, but they have been clutch nontheless. In this manner, I would rank them accordingly. As far as a measuring stick, I don't think percentages is a good one. Would you consider the player who shoots 4 for 4 from the field and scores 10 points a better scorer than the guy who took 30 shots, made 19 and scored 41? Is the first player a better scorer because he's more efficient percentage wise? Measure them in totals because that's what stands out in everyone mind. *Believe me Jordan missed more clutch shots than he made*, but he is definately one of the most clutch players of all time because of his great clutch plays and when he made those clutch plays(ala playoffs). The misses don't matter as much when you consider how often this guy has the ball in his hands in the waning moments of close games. Can you imagine what Steve Kerr's career clutch percentage would be? It's likely very high compared to MJ's because Kerr doesn't shoot in the clutch as much as Mike does. He basically only shoots in the clutch when MJ draws the entire defense, so Kerr gets a wide open shot. Sure this will give the player with the ball an advantage because he takes more shots, he'll likely make more, but there is a damn good reason why he's giving that responsibility. It's because he's the most reliable guy to give the ball in a critical tense situation or a clutch situation.


agreed with everything except that. he made more than he missed...


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Not everyone in the general population handles pressure well. Players who make it all the way to the NBA are a population picked for ability to handle pressure, as they handle incredible pressure every step of the way, as their professional lives often hang in the balance with weening-out stages that end up eliminating 99% of those who aspire to reach the NBA.
> 
> So, no, I don't think there are large differences in ability to handle pressure among NBA players. Between an NBA player and some random person on the street, sure.


Oh come on.

College games also have crunch time, even highschool games. There are guys in college and highschool basketball who fall apart in crunch time but are still overall good players and are drafted high.

College also isn't the same as the NBA, NCAA isn't professional basketball.


----------



## pac4eva5 (Dec 29, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> I agree with rawse...I believe in "good" not "clutch." There's a reason you want the ball in the hands of Jordan or Kobe at the end of the game...because they're great players and scorers.
> 
> That's also the reason I want the ball in the hands of Bird, McGrady, James, Oscar Robertson...because they're great players who are/were great scorers.
> 
> ...


so you want the ball in lebron, peja, garnett, duncan, or webber's hands at the end of games over kerr, horry, david west, melo, or sam cassell??? are you _SURE_???


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Amareca said:


> Oh come on.


Witty.



> College games also have crunch time, even highschool games. There are guys in college and highschool basketball who fall apart in crunch time but are still overall good players and are drafted high.


Everyone fails at times. The ones who make it through all those pressure situations while failing / falling apart the least, are the ones who reach the NBA. Therefore, the NBA is a league of guys who have all dealt with lots of pressure and have generally dealt with it the best.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

pac4eva5 said:


> so you want the ball in lebron, peja, garnett, duncan, or webber's hands at the end of games over kerr, horry, david west, melo, or sam cassell??? are you _SURE_???


Am I sure that I'd rather have the first group of players shoot late in games over the second group? Absolutely.

Kerr and Horry aren't particularly great late-game players. They're good shooters who have been in positions to have much, much better players draw the attention and get them wide-open shots. Between Chicago, Houston, LA and San Antonio, the two of them have played on the most successful franchises of the past fifteen years and with some of the best players. It's hardly surprising that they've had numerous opportunities to line up wide open shots with a lot on the line.


----------



## pac4eva5 (Dec 29, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> Am I sure that I'd rather have the first group of players shoot late in games over the second group? Absolutely.
> 
> Kerr and Horry aren't particularly great late-game players. They're good shooters who have been in positions to have much, much better players draw the attention and get them wide-open shots. Between Chicago, Houston, LA and San Antonio, the two of them have played on the most successful franchises of the past fifteen years and with some of the best players. It's hardly surprising that they've had numerous opportunities to line up wide open shots with a lot on the line.


well unfortunately, these players' own coaches disagree with you...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

pac4eva5 said:


> well unfortunately, these players' own coaches disagree with you...


Yeah, I'm sure they do. Popovich always pulls Duncan in the fourth quarter. Same for Adelman and Stojakovic/Webber (when he was a King), Saunders (when he was a Timberwolf) and Garnett, etc.


----------



## pac4eva5 (Dec 29, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> Yeah, I'm sure they do. Popovich always pulls Duncan in the fourth quarter. Same for Adelman and Stojakovic/Webber (when he was a King), Saunders (when he was a Timberwolf) and Garnett, etc.


pulls them? no. but they arent asked to take the big shots even though they are supposdly the star players on their team...why? cant handle the pressure...

lebron? "Ilgauskas, we need you to shoot the freethrows..."
peja? "what ever you do mike, DO NOT pass to him!"
webber? "you know what? how about you just set a high screen for mike "
garnett? "where's sam? we dumped him? somebody trade for ricky davis now!!!"
duncan? "you know what to do. make sure to step in front of manu's defender..."


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> I don't believe there are players who manifest significantly different ability in clutch situations. There may be players who don't _want_ to take the big shots (Keith Van Horn springs to mind)


It's interesting that you bring up Van Horn. He was widely considered clutch entering the NBA draft, after hitting a few game-winners in conference/NCAA tournament play his senior season. It's too bad he "lost" his clutchness along the way. Maybe he didn't practice hard enough.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Hoopla said:


> It's interesting that you bring up Van Horn. He was widely considered clutch entering the NBA draft, after hitting a few game-winners in conference/NCAA tournament play his senior season. It's too bad he "lost" his clutchness along the way. Maybe he didn't practice hard enough.


I wouldn't say he lost his "clutchness" but rather lost his confidence. It think it sad when a player falls into believing they are clutch off of a few "chance" shots, but then when they miss a few they lose their confidence as a shooter. As I said, being clutch doesn't exist to me and is only something people have made up to add or take away from the legacy of the games greats. 

Shooting the basketball has to do with confidence and the shot a player takes in the second quarter has the same confidence behind it that the same shot has as time is running down in the 4th. The perception of being clutch is an overrated idea that needs to go away.


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

ralaw said:


> I wouldn't say he lost his "clutchness"...


I was being sarcastic for the purpose of mocking the notion of "clutchness".


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Hoopla said:


> I was being sarcastic for the purpose of mocking the notion of "clutchness".


My fault, I sometimes get confused with some of these posters on this board. I kind of thought knowing your history of being a good poster that it was out of character for you to believe that.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hoopla said:


> It's interesting that you bring up Van Horn. He was widely considered clutch entering the NBA draft, after hitting a few game-winners in conference/NCAA tournament play his senior season. It's too bad he "lost" his clutchness along the way. Maybe he didn't practice hard enough.


Yeah, and to be clear, I'm not saying he's "unclutch." Just that he seems to avoid taking those shots, anecdotally. I believe that if he took them, he'd be pretty much as efficient then as any other time.


----------

