2011-12 RealGM Player of the Year Discussion Thread

[ElGee]

Thats the point -- it's not merely specific to Spacing, but obviously the impact of one's Spacing will be dictated by role and teammates (as I said, with Terry and Peja on the court, what do you think the effect looks like)?

What do you think?

To adress that issue a bit with some numbers:

With Nowitzki, Stojakovic and Terry on the court in 2011 (regular season and playoffs): 130.2 ORtg in 755 poss
With Stojakovic and Terry on the court: 110.3 ORtg in 539 poss.

The effect of spacing is more dictated by the efficiency the teammates are able to use that spacing than by role or teammates also being able to provide spacing. The overall effect for Nowitzki gets maximized by putting shooters around him, who can convert the open shots.

When I was looking for an example in which James didn't move well and destroyed any kind of good spacing, I was able to find it with the first hit. Game 4 of the finals, 4th quarter and 5 min to go. Wade has the ball while James is standing on the wings just watching Wade. What does happen? Wade is dribbling the ball and is forced to move to the wing, he is doubled by Kidd and Nowitzki, giving him no angle to pass the ball to Haslem. Stevenson is the primary defender on James, but because James is just standing there Stevenson can just move into the situation for a triple team on Wade while still being in arms reach to James. Stevenson is forcing the turnover leading to a inbound for the Mavericks.
Well, the pbp says that Wade had a turnover, I guess your EV will credit Wade with a turnover as well. But the real problem here was actually James. Him staying there on the wing and not moving gave the opportunity for the triple team on Wade. If Wade had passed the ball to James, the only chance would have been a catch&shoot for James over three defenders (Stevenson, Nowitzki and Kidd). Now, if James moves over to the corner instead, Stevenson either has to follow or Wade gets a better angle for a pass to James while James is basically open. When Stevenson follows, Wade has a chance to split the double and/or getting a better angle for a pass inside to Haslem. James not moving at all is reducing the possibility to score on that possession, while no on-ball metric will give him blame for that.
And you don't see Nowitzki standing on the strongside and doing nothing, he either is moving away to keep the spacing or he is setting screens for possible pick&roll or pick&pop. You think that is not a big issue, because I said in average the difference might be 3 pt per 100 possessions, but that is the difference between winning 41 games and 47 games in a 82 games season (assuming 70 poss per game for a player, similar to 36 min).

When you say that you are aware of the spacing effect, why haven't you mentioned it at least once in the comparison between James and Nowitzki? All I see are numbers which are based on on-ball action, while the really big difference between Nowitzki and James in the finals was the off-ball game. You are writing that Nowitzki was the "primary scoring hub/threat ... shooting the hell out of the ball", while presenting numbers that Nowitzki was actually not shooting at an awesome rate. That is implying that Nowitzki couldn't have played well or were actually having much of a bigger effect than James. Those numbers completely ignoring that Nowitzki took a couple of bailout shots. It also makes a difference whether someone is taking bad shots or is missing some good shots. Besides the 1st half of game 6 Nowitzki actually just missed rather good shots. He didn't force the issue while taking bad shots over multiple defenders, he played within the flow of the offense, which makes sure that his teammates are involved and getting opportunities. If Nowitzki would have been also shooting well, we would have seen a blowout in game 4 and game 6 would have been over after 3 quarters.

Regarding the free throws stuff I did NOT imply any sort of conspiracy theory at all. I simply assumed that you were quite satisified with those numbers presented by Hollinger, because they were a good fit for your argumentation. You didn't explicit search for them, you just didn't bother to check them, because it came in handy and was inline with your previous opinion. You are critical of opinions, because of possible biases, but you have not checked your own bias here before referring to Hollinger's numbers 3 times while it was pointed out twice before that those numbers are wrong. The same thing is happening again. You are accusing others of having a winning bias, completely ignoring the possibility that you are biased as well. I see a blind spot bias and confirmation bias in your posts here. You want that to see that Nowitzki and James aren't much apart, thus it is quite enough for you to look at on-ball stuff which is supporting your view, while completely ignoring the results during the time both were on the court. You want to assign the spacing effect as "conditional value" and you just assume (without anything to back that up) that this value would say nothing about how well a player played. That is ignorant on your part, because you just assume that James and Nowitzki had just the same effect with their off-ball game.

Maybe I'm looking too much into those things, which is likely caused by my soccer experience, a game in which moving without the ball is actually the main action for every player on the field, but even in basketball you have only 1 ball and 4 players on offense who don't have the ball in their hands. How those 4 players are moving without the ball and how they are distributing themselves on the court is crucial for the ball handler, because static not well distributed players will likely lead to double or even triple teams on the ball handler.
I also disagree that the effect is rather constant within a series, because each player has a good or bad day also in terms of moving without the ball. In soccer it is easier to see, because if a player is not moving well, he most times doesn't receive the ball at all, he is prone to being in a offside position or is just losing the ball rather quickly due to the defender being always close. In basketball such a bad day for a player will cause a player to be off by a meter or so, which doesn't look much. But the main effect is rather that the ball handler has less options. The player might look passive a bit, but it is not much seen when he has the ball in his hand.

Well, even in a case of a player being a better player with the ball, there can be a massive difference off-ball, which can cause that the guy with the better off-ball game is actually helping more than the other guy. And that off-ball game is actually a trait of the player.

So we've been talking about Spacing for 2 years. I appreciate your efforts in our discussions and it's certainly something I've grown to appreciate. I think it's widely underrated, although I think you overvalue it, or maybe just overvalue it in terms of Nowitzki.

With that said, I've asked you to quantify because I think it's a pretty interesting thing to try and put in perspective with other elements of the game. I also think, since we're getting into such nitty gritty (and hopefully people can bring this back around to Kevin Durant, Kevin Love, etc.) that it needs to be clarified that Opportunities Created can happen without the ball (if an extra defender is forced to react to something). Obviously, this doesn't happen a whole lot, because what we're talking about is holding a defender outside the paint because of the threat of shooting.

I don't really like your example with LeBron, because you are talking about "standing in a good place." That floor balance is basic stuff and/or dependent on coaching and scheme. I have a hard time believing in 90 offensive possessions, key players are standing next to other players with the ball, messing up the floor balance in that regard. So yes, I'd say your soccer background has your brain on overdrive here. Being off by a meter, if it were mucking up lanes, would be something a coach can simply point out in the first TO of the game. Again, I've never really seen this be a repetitive problem in this sense. It's like assuming a rebounder has a bad day because he was constantly out of position by a meter (for whatever reason).

The Spacing Effect, then, to me, is primarily about sucking defenders out with shooting threats (as I've written about and tried to examine). You say

The effect of spacing is more dictated by the efficiency the teammates are able to use that spacing than by role or teammates also being able to provide spacing. The overall effect for Nowitzki gets maximized by putting shooters around him, who can convert the open shots.

But that's like saying "Steve Nash's 'creation effect' is dictated by his teammates ability to hit open shots." Yes and No. Yes, in the obvious literal sense that if his teammates never hit shots, Nash could create all he wanted and it would be for naught. But no in the sense that, ESPECIALLY IN SMALL SAMPLES, we don't want to penalize players for their teammates missing open shots they should be making. I mean, no coach spreads the floor with open shooters so his best player can pass to them wide open and then says "crap that's a horrible shot for our team." Miami does this with Mario Chalmers and Shane Battier right now, and they would be better off if Steve Kerr and Steve Novak were shooting them, but I don't see what that has to do with LeBron James' ability to CREATE those open shots.

In Dirk's case, where Spacing is what helps his teammates, the DRIVING/CUTTING lanes are as important, if not more important, than the open shooters standing at the line. Are they not?

Consider, if we stick with the 2011 Mavs (RS + PS per BR):

Dirk alone: 2,023 pos 107 ORtg 53.3% eFG%
-- 0.24 3pA/pos, 0.18 FTA/pos

Dirk + Terry (no Peja): 3,285 pos 116 ORtg 52.8% eFG%
-- 0.20 3pA/pos, 0.34 FTA/pos

Dirk + Peja (no Terry): 383 pos 102 ORtg 53.0% eFG%
-- 0.28 3pA/pos, 0.14 FTA/pos

Dirk +Peja + Terry: 592 pos 131 ORtg 61.0% eFG%
-- 0.27 3pA/pos, 0.30 FTA/pos

You know who the two primary creators for the Mavs were last years? JJ Barea and Jason Terry (Kidd was 4th behind Dirk -- man I loathe assists). They loved the PnR. Dirk gets no credit in any metric (save the PM family) when his defender doesn't sag off as much to defend Terry's PnR, which will more quickly lead to a defensive breakdown, offensive rebounding, and open lanes at the rim. And as you can see, if we assume some faith in these raw numbers, when Terry was in the game the team shot free throws at roughly double the frequency. (!)

Then there's the other issue, which I just addressed, which is the actual conversion of the 3-point shots. If all the lineups hit 3's at the same rate of Dirk's alone lineup, the ORtg's would be:
Dirk alone: 107
Dirk + Terry: 117
Dirk + Peja: 107
Dirk + Peja + Terry: 121

Now, if we adjusted for the frequency of free throws (replace all the eFG attempts with FTA's at their given conversions, 78% FT%), the oRtg for the Dirk lineup would jump to 112 and the Dirk+Peja lineup up 6 points ot 108. That's how much getting to the line matters. So while the DIrk + Peja is taking more threes, are they suddenly taking three's that aren't open? Or is the lack of Terry (38% on 3's last year) just meaning those shots are taken by weaker shooters? And what would that have to do with how well Dirk Nowitzki played basketball?

Btw, I think 3pt/100 would be a huge Spacing Effect. 3pt/100 is like the difference between an average player and ~all-star. That's why I was so incredulous when you were floating this around, as if James has to make that up per game to equal Dirk (and relative to the league, Dirk was +2.1). Not saying it's impossible in this case, but I think that would be a big effect.

Finally, as MisterWestside said succinctly, I do feel a degree of cherry-picking here. I mean, do you want me to qualify every example I ever use with all the caveats and problems? And as I've said, defense would be an enormous place to start, although that's one of the areas I feel LBJ slacked on in last year's FInals, and I don't think that's what people are thinking about when they think "Dirk easily > LBJ 2011 Finals," do you?

[Doctor MJ]

I suppose I should clarify as I understand how this has gone awry a little. I'm using you as an example of someone committing Winning Bias in this once instance to illustrate the point to the group as a whole (if I didn't make it clear that that's what OTHERS were doing in spades, I apologize). I know you're thick-skinned so I frankly wasn't thinking of you taking any of this as a slight.

A slight? Oh, if I'm coming off as defensive I apologize. Truthfully it's just I expect to get critiques from you that I need to ruminate over, so I'm not inclined to take a statement from you in response to me as something that's about "those other people".

To your last point about "resilience," this reminds me of something I wrote at the end of a blog post today.

Impacting the game with rebounding, free throws, or layups is fairly consistent because the “talent� needed isn’t highly variable – it’s not a 40% proposition. Impacting the game with outside shooting has the potential to be way more inconsistent due to the fine motor control and rapid hand-eye coordination involved. (eg Missing five threes instead of making 40% of them will lop off six points of “impact.�)

So yes, this is why I referred to it as "implicitly, a relative constant" in my exchange with mystic. If you step on the court, and the THREAT of something provides value, you don't really lose that value unless the opponent stops respecting the threat. This "resiliency" holds true in other areas, btw.

I'd agree that it's true in other areas, and depending on the specifics, Dirk's game is can be seen either relatively resilient or fragile. Any player whose game relies on outside shooting is somewhat fragile because of the high variance in that type of shot, but on the other hand outside shooting is very resilient in its ability to keep the defense honest.

[penbeast0]

As the postseason has continued, mine is probably looking like:

1. LeBron
2. Durant (if he outplays LBJ in the Finals it becomes interesting)

3. Paul (great regular season, don't blame him for the Spurs loss as he was injured. Against the Grizzlies, prior to the injury he was great.)

Big gap now.

4. Kevin Love: A superfluous regular season. He was probably worth the most wins to a team this season. I don't mean win shares, I just mean in an intangible sense. If he and Rubio had both not got injured the Wolves might actually have been a Playoff team.

5. Kobe or Garnett. Can't decide. Kobe had some great playoff scoring performances, and KG was very good defensively after the ASG and also an efficient shooter. Can't decide for now.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[MisterWestside]

I'd agree that it's true in other areas, and depending on the specifics, Dirk's game is can be seen either relatively resilient or fragile. Any player whose game relies on outside shooting is somewhat fragile because of the high variance in that type of shot, but on the other hand outside shooting is very resilient in its ability to keep the defense honest.

Well that's just it; shooting is one of those high risk/high reward skills that also happens to captivate an audience more than other skills. But would you prefer it over a more reliable set (key word here: SET) of skills? For example, Durant's a better shooter than LeBron, but LeBron has been compensating for his outside shooting by doing four things better than Durant:

1) Creating more shots on his own (due to injuries to Bosh/Wade and Heat lack of depth). Durant relies a little more on other players to set up shots for him
2) Getting to the foul line a little more per shot attempt
3) Finding his teammates for shots more often
4) Rebounding well on offense.

That's just on the offensive end. Along with defense, they're all key reasons why LeBron has helped to keep his team in the title hunt despite injuries to the Heat and an inconsistent bench, both of which the Thunder haven't had in this playoffs.

You see threads around here about Durant being better because of his jumper, but I lean more towards building around players who are more dynamic in several other areas on offense.

[Dr Positivity]

I'm aware of that, and it's nonsensical. There isn't a person alive who has been able to explain how points in the 4th quarter count more.

I think the difference comes down to how one considers the mental/emotional aspect of the game, momentum, pushes, etc.

I generally agree that 4th quarters gets overinflated, just like the closer phenomenon, but to defend it a little - To me basketball has a lot of teams making runs and throwing their best punch at different times of the game. I count 3 games in the last week (OKC-SAS Game 6, MIA-BOS G7, MIA-OKC Game 1) where a 5 point lead for the home team felt like a 15 pt lead, because after the road team blow their double digit lead, it was exceedingly obvious that from an emotional perspective they had lost control of the game. Miami in the 4th quarter of Game 1 had zero confidence. They were flat. This is stuff that holistic point vs point measurements have a hard time measuring. To me the Spurs, Celtics and Heat in those 3 losses, needed points when their double digit leads were being wiped away, far more than they needed them when they were down by 5+. It would've been much easier for them to win the game by controlling it after their big leads, then it would've been to take the game after the home team had stormed back and built their comfortable lead. This is an example where I think the technical fact of the 4th quarter trailing points meaning as much as the 3rd quarter leading ones, while true, doesn't tell the true difference in importance between the poitns

When people talk about 4th quarter this and that, I'm not sure if it comes down to it being the fact of the final quarter itself. For example if a game is tied at halftime and then a star player drops 20 pts in the 3Q, and then the team ends up with a 15 overall lead - that still matters as much as something like Dirk's Game 2 4th quarter last year. To me it's just about game changing plays. To me Dirk's points in the 4th in Games 2 and 4 meant more than Lebron's in the first 3 quarters, because Miami had that game and had the 2-0 lead in their hands and then Dallas completely reversed the momentum.

The reason I think it's natural to give credence to 4th quarter production is that the closer it gets to the end, the more each point becomes "game changing". Kevin Durant scoring 6 points in a row when his team is trailing 6-10 to make it 12-10 is a blip on the radar in terms of the direction the game is going. Durant scoring points if it's 4:00 left in the 4th and OKC's 13 point lead has just turned into a 4 pt lead, to bring it back up to 10, may very well not just be game changing but season changing for reasons that go beyond just a point vs point measure and into the momentum/putting out a fire type of perspective. Obviously Durant scoring 6 points in a row in a 90-90 game with 1:20 left has a ridiculous "game changing" factor

With Lebron, I see it as a situation where in Games 2, 4, and 5, the title was on a platter for him if he got hot and he didn't take it. Dirk was in a situation in Games 2 and 4 where he was going to lose the title if he didn't get hot and he came through. Regardless of how they got there, Lebron playing poor and Dirk playing great at that critical junction changed those 2 games and the entire series, while a lot of Lebron's 1Q-3Q production in the Finals didn't really change the direction of those games to me.

I'm not saying you're definitively wrong, I just think there's different ways to look at it. Technically points in the 4th quarter or critical junctions don't mean more than points in the 1st. But I personally at least, believe in the idea of players and stars changing games and the importance of production at critical junctions, either to break a tight game open or to stop a lead from being erased, etc. and I think a lot of the media insistence on these things comes down to that - Critical Game Changing Points Bias more than 4th Quarter Bias

I do almost entirely agree with you on the Winning Bias thing and how stuff like Kobe's 6 for 24 or Bird's 15ppg 1981 Finals get wiped away when they win and on the other end some amazing performances like Lebron's 09 against the Magic not having a tenth of the hype it would if the Cavs got the title that year. But to me there's a difference between 2011 Dirk and Lebron that goes beyond who won the title, I think it comes down to the 4th quarter thing more than Winning Bias

[Swingy]

As of right now:

1. Lebron (can't see Durant passing him unless LeBron has a truly massive choke)

2. Durant (like how his all-around game is coming along)

3. Paul (completely dictates flow of game, although he probably should be more urgent to score earlier in games; played fine in PS until hip injury)

4. Parker (best player on best RS team; legit MVP candidate during RS, but Pop truly was unbelievable coaching-wise)

5. Garnett (caught a second wind this year and played like it was 08)

HM: Love (if only didn't get hurt; ridiculous stats and actually seemed improved in every facet of his game)

Westbrook (won a lot of games for the Thunder, but I still didn't see him as reliable yet. Finals is key)

Kobe (shot too much, but was only perimeter threat on team and still impressed he could still score like this)

Howard (good season objectively, although he has had better and his whole trade fiasco caused unnecessary distractions)

Rondo (good PS and at times in the RS, looked like Magic; however, Garnett seemed to have the most impact on team success)

Dirk (started sluggish, although he wasn't the reason the team got swept)

[ElGee]

I'm aware of that, and it's nonsensical. There isn't a person alive who has been able to explain how points in the 4th quarter count more.

I think the difference comes down to how one considers the mental/emotional aspect of the game, momentum, pushes, etc.

I generally agree that 4th quarters gets overinflated, just like the closer phenomenon, but to defend it a little - To me basketball has a lot of teams making runs and throwing their best punch at different times of the game. I count 3 games in the last week (OKC-SAS Game 6, MIA-BOS G7, MIA-OKC Game 1) where a 5 point lead for the home team felt like a 15 pt lead, because after the road team blow their double digit lead, it was exceedingly obvious that from an emotional perspective they had lost control of the game. Miami in the 4th quarter of Game 1 had zero confidence. They were flat. This is stuff that holistic point vs point measurements have a hard time measuring. To me the Spurs, Celtics and Heat in those 3 losses, needed points when their double digit leads were being wiped away, far more than they needed them when they were down by 5+. It would've been much easier for them to win the game by controlling it after their big leads, then it would've been to take the game after the home team had stormed back and built their comfortable lead. This is an example where I think the technical fact of the 4th quarter trailing points meaning as much as the 3rd quarter leading ones, while true, doesn't tell the true difference in importance between the poitns

When people talk about 4th quarter this and that, I'm not sure if it comes down to it being the fact of the final quarter itself. For example if a game is tied at halftime and then a star player drops 20 pts in the 3Q, and then the team ends up with a 15 overall lead - that still matters as much as something like Dirk's Game 2 4th quarter last year. To me it's just about game changing plays. To me Dirk's points in the 4th in Games 2 and 4 meant more than Lebron's in the first 3 quarters, because Miami had that game and had the 2-0 lead in their hands and then Dallas completely reversed the momentum.

The reason I think it's natural to give credence to 4th quarter production is that the closer it gets to the end, the more each point becomes "game changing". Kevin Durant scoring 6 points in a row when his team is trailing 6-10 to make it 12-10 is a blip on the radar in terms of the direction the game is going. Durant scoring points if it's 4:00 left in the 4th and OKC's 13 point lead has just turned into a 4 pt lead, to bring it back up to 10, may very well not just be game changing but season changing for reasons that go beyond just a point vs point measure and into the momentum/putting out a fire type of perspective. Obviously Durant scoring 6 points in a row in a 90-90 game with 1:20 left has a ridiculous "game changing" factor

With Lebron, I see it as a situation where in Games 2, 4, and 5, the title was on a platter for him if he got hot and he didn't take it. Dirk was in a situation in Games 2 and 4 where he was going to lose the title if he didn't get hot and he came through. Regardless of how they got there, Lebron playing poor and Dirk playing great at that critical junction changed those 2 games and the entire series, while a lot of Lebron's 1Q-3Q production in the Finals didn't really change the direction of those games to me.

I'm not saying you're definitively wrong, I just think there's different ways to look at it. Technically points in the 4th quarter or critical junctions don't mean more than points in the 1st. But I personally at least, believe in the idea of players and stars changing games and the importance of production at critical junctions, either to break a tight game open or to stop a lead from being erased, etc. and I think a lot of the media insistence on these things comes down to that - Critical Game Changing Points Bias more than 4th Quarter Bias

I do almost entirely agree with you on the Winning Bias thing and how stuff like Kobe's 6 for 24 or Bird's 15ppg 1981 Finals get wiped away when they win and on the other end some amazing performances like Lebron's 09 against the Magic not having a tenth of the hype it would if the Cavs got the title that year. But to me there's a difference between 2011 Dirk and Lebron that goes beyond who won the title, I think it comes down to the 4th quarter thing more than Winning Bias

In general, we're talking about professional athletes here. These guys are better at what they do (play basketball) than 99% of the people watching them will ever be at anything. Think about that. They are grown men. The idea that they have the same whimsical emotions that children do on the playground based on "momentum" is something that makes me a cringe a bit. I just don't see it, other than "us" attributing it to them too strongly. The media likes to describe things in sweeping terms -- "adversity," "resilient," "knockout punch," etc. -- but what evidence is their that the guys playing are having their play affected by these things?

It seems to me if there were real momentum shifts, in the emotional sense, then we'd see plenty of 20-0 or 30-0 runs and teams just totally giving up after they'd lost leads. That really doesn't seem to exist in basketball. Everything falls right in line with basic mathematical variance based on the probabilities of the game.

I wonder, do we talk about these attributes in sports where our brain can comprehend everything that's laid out in front of to explain a result? Do horse races have momentum? Track and Field events? What about chess? Does an opponent have a mental breakdown if he drops a point? (Wouldn't you think the mental activity of chess would be more inclined to these momentum swings? It is in my experience.)

I'm not saying the players aren't emotional. Or that they don't have little ups and downs based on results as the game unfolds. We see this in facial expression, body language and technical fouls. But I reject the basis for these grand attributes because it assumes the majority of professional basketball players -- the outliers of the outliers -- are giant children while performing their professional craft. Good teams don't need to play the scoreboard, they just keep playing. (No discouragement, launching 3's, panic, etc. they just play.) Sometimes teams "press" or launch too many 3's, and that's a strategy error that I'm not ever sure they are aware of. (http://www.backpicks.com/2012/04/24/how ... ocom=15597)

You mention 3 games where it "felt" like something. I think your brain is tricking you. Because in game 5 of the ECF, it "felt" like Boston had lost after Miami's 11-2 run with 6 minutes left...especially given how fatigued the Celtics looked. Yet they won. You can test this "feeling" out by actually writing down every point in the game you think "it feels like it's over" and see how often the other team wins. I think you will see that it is in line with the probabliites of winning in those situations, regardless of how they arrived there.

When you say "Miami in the 4th Q had zero confidence," it's not a confidence issue to begin with. They just weren't executing well. What I don't understand is the need to attribute these emotions to some physical skill-based game like basketball. Vin Baker needs confidence and a good mental state. I'm not sure the rest of the NBA is so fragile.

[ElGee]

Game-Changing plays is an interesting idea. But I don't believe they exist in the manner you are describing. Actual game-changing plays that I have seen:

-Key player injured
-Key player fouled out/benched with fouls
-Key player ejected
-Team finds single offensive set that defense handles horribly, runs said set for a while before defense reacts, if ever (this could include a PG leaking out on defense starting fast breaks, for eg)

Otherwise, saying "Dirk's team needed points at a juncture of the 4th" is a flaw in strategy. If they just scored the darn points in the 2nd there would be no points to "need" in the 4th. "Ah, but wait," you say, "what I'm saying is some guys play better when those 'critical' junctures arrive. That's important because it means better play when the games get close, which is when the result is highly volatile."

Where's the evidence?

Really, think about what you're saying. I used to think this way too. What you're saying is that there are basketball players that are so good, that they "turn it on" whenever the game is close, their team is down by a few, finishing a comeback, or holding off the other team from coming back to protect the lead. What evidence do you have for some players being better at this skill, which, btw, would only come in handy occasionally? I've done some pretty exhaustive research on this and haven't found any evidence of this in the slightest. (What team wins all these close games because some Timely Player always comes through in this "critical" junctures???)

Take Two Players, Mr. Choker and Mr. Timely. For the purpose of the example, let's pretend that points are everything in basketball:

Points by Quarter every game
Choker 9-9-9-3
Timely 6-6-6-DependsOnSituation

Now, in the 4th quarter scenarios (could be 3rd, as you said, but let's stick with 4th), the DependsOnMomentum player behaves like this:

-if his team is behind by 5 or less, he goes to "take the game" by scoring 12 4th quarter points (ie he "gets hot" when his team "needs" it.)
-If his team is holding on to a lead of 5 or less, he goes to "take the game" by scoring 12 4th quarter points (ie he "gets hot" when his team "needs" it.)

Both players score exactly 30 points in all close games. Choker scores more points in games that aren't close. By Win Probability, Choker's teams are always in a better place throughout the entire game because he's scored early (http://www.backpicks.com/2011/06/17/lat ... ount-more/). Now, you want me to believe that Mr. Timely is a better player? Based on what? You think he's getting his team more wins by playing like this?

Which leads to an obvious question: Why doesn't Mr. Timely just play like Superman ALL THE TIME if it's so easy for him?

[Black Feet]

Mental aspect of the game is huge, just ask Kings fans about Peja's inability to come through in the clutch. Players aren't robots that go out and perform the same under every circumstance, some players handle pressure better than others. Emotions also play into it as well, some can control thier emotions better than others also.

[StateOfThunder]

I think the only players rankings who could change after the Finals is Wade and Westbrook especially Westbrook.

I expect both Durant and LeBron to remain constant for the rest of the Finals and cancel each other out like everyone thought and said they would. If LeBron has a massive choke though or starts playing like hot garbage for the rest of the Finals then I would consider putting Durant above him assuming Durant continues to play the same or plays even better.

As of right now, my top 5 is this compared to what I put in page 1 of this thread...

1. Lebron James
2. Kevin Durant
3. Chris Paul
4. Kobe Bryant
5. Kevin Garnett

Westbrook could end up landing from 3-5 depending on how the Finals play out. I honestly don't think Wade can be in the top 5 unless he plays like the way he did in the Finals of last season or in 2006.

I'm not sure about Kobe/KG though, I haven't read too much of this thread, but who do you guys think was better this season, KG or Kobe?

[MisterWestside]

Mental aspect of the game is huge, just ask Kings fans about Peja's inability to come through in the clutch.

Please show that a "lack of a mental game" hindered Peja's ability to "come through in the clutch".

[Black Feet]

Mental aspect of the game is huge, just ask Kings fans about Peja's inability to come through in the clutch.

Please show that a "lack of a mental game" hindered Peja's ability to "come through in the clutch".

Proof is in the pudding.

[ElGee]

Mental aspect of the game is huge, just ask Kings fans about Peja's inability to come through in the clutch.

Please show that a "lack of a mental game" hindered Peja's ability to "come through in the clutch".

Proof is in the pudding.

[rrravenred]

[GSP]

Assume that Lebron has the same averages hes had the first 2 games for the rest of the finals and the Heat win in 5 (or 6 if you want to stretch) he has to be a top 10 player ever right? His regular season and playoffs are among the best EVER.