The question I have is how often someone has to put in a clutch performance to be a clutch performer? Is it all the time?, half the time?, once in a while? For example, take the Heat. Wade has been fantastic in the finals, not so vs the Bulls. Bosh has been very up and down throughout the playoffs, and last night was off until hitting a last minute, game winning "clutch" shot. Also, if someone performs above their norm, is that kicking clutch up a gear?
I think the problem here is that some here have the definition of clutch wrong. Jdang, you say clutch is playing the same way no matter the circumstances. That's not clutch. That's called being a great player. Clutch is defined as a player having the ability to play better in than they usually do in "high stress " situations like the post season for example. You used one of Robert horry's stats in order to prove clutch....his 3 point shooting percentage. You cherry picked stats. Look at Horry's entire regular season career stats vs playoff stats ....no difference. Sent from my PB99400 using Tapatalk
Your stats are wrong. Go to basketball-reference. Com Reg season- 43% FG%, 34% 3PT %, 72% FT%, Ave 7 points per game. Playoffs- 42% FG%, 35% 3 PT %, 72% FT %, 7.9 points per game. Sent from my PB99400 using Tapatalk
I don't think you're statistical analysis is wrong. Matter of factly, I think it's correct. However, that doesn't mean a hill of beans to the players themselves. I think that's a bigger indication to the truth of clutch. If players talk about it, if it has an affect on their mentality, then that shows it must have some real, whether it's indicative in the stats or not. The stats show players might perform the same, but the players themselves don't believe such, same as the fans.
More than the average. Nobody is perfect 100% of the time. But if everyone is at 10% and you're at 50% ...
No, that's your definition. Since it's different than mine, you're wrong. Clutch is performing well in tense situations. Some play better. Some great players wilt at the sign of pressure.
So you take my definition of clutch as how they perform the WHOLE post-season? No wonder you think I'm wrong. You ignored everything I wrote! Take a look at kobe bryan'ts shot % during his career, and his shot percentage when it's time to take the final shot to win or tie the game. It goes from 45% to 25%. He's so cocky he always takes the shot, but he sucks. He's the anti-clutch. How does a guy with a 7ppg average hit so many game changing and securing shots? Because it seems that all 7 points he scores are in the last minute.
No. Clutch isn't better than other players under pressure. Dwyane Wade is better than Jason Kidd all the time. So of course in the last two minutes he'll still be better than Jason Kidd. Clutch is defined as somehow being better than your usual in crunch time. But really, what happens is they play just how they usually play at all times. Bad players don't fade down the stretch. Bad players continue to play how they were already playing. You guys are giving as many definitions as clutch as you can to confuse the issue.
Explain Kobe's utter drop in shot percentage when it comes time to hit that game winning/tying shot. as posted earlier, Jordan kept his average, 50% or so FG percentage throughout his career, and when you analyze his crunch time shots, it's still 50%. Kobe, goes from 45% down to 25%. So what about the guy who plays worse when the pressure is on? Look at how they won last year, clankers by kobe rebounded and put in by his own teammates. And Kobe is one of the greatest players of all time. Yet he throws up clankers all the time when it's the last shot of the game. http://www.slamonline.com/online/nba/2011/05/kobe-bryant-im-not-clutch/
You're cherry picking stats in order to prove something that is a myth. You can't compare an entire career to 40 seperate shots. I could probably find a player that shoots better, or worse, the 40 times he ate tuna before a game compared to the rest of his career. I guess the tuna is clutch. Lol... No, great players play great. That's why they are great. It's the dame for good players, average players, and below average players. Sent from my PB99400 using Tapatalk
No I'm not and you know it. You know very well that when people talk about a clutch player they're saying that player plays better in stressful situations. And that's the myth. Once again, empirical studies have proven that this myth is well, a myth. Sent from my PB99400 using Tapatalk
It was addressed to KingMotion's quote. But applies to you as well. You have your definition, I have mine. Dictionary agrees with me. You're saying your definition is correct without any evidence. It's really all a matter of perspective. Your point is correct with your definition, and not correct with my definition. No point in arguing it any further.
If you're the greatest of all time already, how do you play better? It's performing well in stressful situations. We don't expect Jordan to shoot 50% in normal situations and 60% in stressful ones. If you're great, and you continue to be great when it's crunch time, that's clutch. If you're Barry Bonds and you hit 73 home runs in the regular season, you're not expected to hit at an even greater pace in the crunch time. Maintaining that average is already good. Even a slight dip is good, if you're head and shoulders above everyone else.
That's not "clutch". Or at least what those who believe in clutch want to thunk. Hell, just making it into MLB is "clutch". If you're saying you think clutch is nothing more than playing how you normally play, then we are in agreement. It's those who believe, for example, that "Mr. October" played better in the post season than he did in the regular that I disagree with. And those people do exist or else Reggie wouldn't have that nickname. Sent from my PB99400 using Tapatalk
I'm not arguing that Kobe is clutch, but a drop in percentage can easily be explained. Clutch shots are generally going to be from a greater distance than your average shot. They're also generally going to be guarded more than your average shot. If we're talking about the last shot of the game, you are dealing with time constraints that give defenders an advantage. They know you have to go up by a certain point. Again, not getting into the Kobe debate. I'm just saying that you can't simply compare the two stats without acknowledging the differences in situations. The fact that Jordan maintained a similar percentage is just further proof that he was not human.
Couldnt greater relative success in end-of-game situations just be a result of better conditioning???????????
Kobe shoots 31.3% in the last 24 seconds not 25. The league average is 29%. Only Carmelo and CP3 perform as well in crunch time as the rest of the game. That has got to be worth something. http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/24200/the-truth-about-kobe-bryant-in-crunch-time
We did this same thing last year. All I have to say is, let's compare again at the end of the season with a REAL OC.
Brandon Marshall can take some of the blame for that one. He certainly didn't look like a guy who was determined to get position. He was slow off the line, slow to break to the slant. It was almost as if he didn't even want the throw. Even still, it was a bad decision by Henne because he should have seen that Marshall DIDN'T have position. But Marshall, at times, let up in games. This was one of those times. He could have undercut the defender.
