Last 10 seconds - Lebron vs Kobe

[Rapcity_11]

1. All the LeBron homers have been cowed these past few weeks.
2. This ENTIRE argument is stemming from Gongxi's laughable idea that "verifiable evidence and statistics" determine who is most clutch when clearly statistics can be manipulated to tell different stories. The data from 5/5 and last 10 seconds is both coming from the same source: NBA games. And yet they indicate different stories.

2009-2010 5/5
Lebron: 66.1 PP48, .488 FG%
Kobe: 51.2 PP48, .444 FG%

2009/2010 last 10 sec
LeBron: 1-8 FGA
Kobe: 7-11 FGA

Those to you don't indicate that statistics can be manipulated to tell different stories?

3. I'm not sure why you think stat manipulation has to be this intrinsically evil thing. And no, I don't know your full definition, but that you think 5/5 is valid and that I don't already would indicate our definitions are different.

I still really don't think there are many Lebron homers left out there, but oh well, moving on...

RE point 2: Taking an extremely small sample out of a data set isn't really what I would call manipulation.

[MSGBallerz]

Kobe was only clutch one season, 09-10. Usually he misses most of his clutch shots, yes he makes a few here and there because he takes so many...

[Gongxi]

Stats can easily be manipulated, and any statistician or analyst will tell you so. It's guys like Gongxi who clearly don't actually do much statistical analysis who think otherwise.

No one ever said stats can't be manipulated. I'm laughing at the "stats lie!!!" line. If something is lying between stats and your memory, I promise you it's your memory. Be aware.

Oh really? It's my memory?

Whoever, ya know, verifiable evidence and statistics point to. Not to what some dudes randomly think based upon their selection bias and anecdotal memory.

Crazy concept, I know: let the facts guide you to your conclusion.

Statistics can easily be manipulated, which is why up till recently all the LeBron fanboys floated the "LeBron is super clutch" argument based off 82games horrifically flawed definition of 'game winning shot' instead of taking account what their eyes told them, which is that LeBron almost always bricks gamewinners.

No, you **** up.

XFD.

Anyways, going back to football, no, if the QB scores with 15 seconds left, he is still clutch, even if his defense loses. That's why the basketball definition we are looking at is with 10 seconds left. However, 30 seconds is such a mammoth window of time that it really is quite similar to the 2 minute drill in football, given that basketball has so many timeouts and clock stoppages. 30 seconds is enough for 8-9 offensive possessions between the two teams; 10 seconds is enough for probably 2, 3 at most.

5 minutes/5 points really isn't important because it's so arbitrary. If the Lakers are blowing a huge lead late in the 4th and Kobe comes back in and drills a three while up 6 with 2 minutes left, how is that less clutch than him making a routine basket in the flow of the offense with the Lakers up 5 with 5 minutes left? It's not.

Abbott's article reeks of bias, and that blog response is biased as well, but at least acknowledges its weaknesses.

Yes, it's your memory. It's not as good as veritable statistics. I'm sorry.

[Gongxi]

2. This ENTIRE argument is stemming from Gongxi's laughable idea that "verifiable evidence and statistics" determine who is most clutch when clearly statistics can be manipulated to tell different stories. The data from 5/5 and last 10 seconds is both coming from the same source: NBA games. And yet they indicate different stories.

They do. They're certainly better than your gut impression. You have to deal with that. I know it's hard, but it can be done: humans aren't good with crunching numbers in their heads and making sense of it, though.

[azuresou1]

Please point out where I said anything about "gut impressions" OR "stats lie." You have been misconstruing words this entire thread.

I have said that fanboys and the statistically ignorant like you have been floating this idea that LeBron is super clutch based on 82games' stats from last year, when
A) It doesn't in the least match the eye test.
B) It is a selective statistic that when compared with the "less than 10 seconds" stat offers a completely different conclusion.

It would be like looking at Kevin Love's 21 PPG on .595 TS%.
You: Kevin Love must be an elite scorer, and absolutely an offensive monster.
Me: 100% of his shots come within the flow of the offense, and he has no ability to score when his team is in a scoring drought and needs points, or when the defense tightens up.

You looking at stats without any sort of context would be horrendously wrong.

[Gongxi]

When did I say LeBron was super clutch? When did I say any of those things?

I'm telling you that statistics don't lie. You set the right sample size and right criteria, statistics will tell you the truth. Your eye test is pretty useless. Don't take it personal bro.

[Rapcity_11]

Please point out where I said anything about "gut impressions" OR "stats lie." You have been misconstruing words this entire thread.

I have said that fanboys and the statistically ignorant like you have been floating this idea that LeBron is super clutch based on 82games' stats from last year, when
A) It doesn't in the least match the eye test.
B) It is a selective statistic that when compared with the "less than 10 seconds" stat offers a completely different conclusion.

It would be like looking at Kevin Love's 21 PPG on .595 TS%.
You: Kevin Love must be an elite scorer, and absolutely an offensive monster.
Me: 100% of his shots come within the flow of the offense, and he has no ability to score when his team is in a scoring drought and needs points, or when the defense tightens up.

You looking at stats without any sort of context would be horrendously wrong.

A) It does match the eye test...
B) Offers a completely different conclusion because it's a handful of shots compared with a much much larger sample size.
C) You look at Lebron's 5/5 stats are you would naturally think he's an elite "closer". Turns out he is.

[Day in the Life]

Please point out where I said anything about "gut impressions" OR "stats lie." You have been misconstruing words this entire thread.

I have said that fanboys and the statistically ignorant like you have been floating this idea that LeBron is super clutch based on 82games' stats from last year, when
A) It doesn't in the least match the eye test.
B) It is a selective statistic that when compared with the "less than 10 seconds" stat offers a completely different conclusion.

It would be like looking at Kevin Love's 21 PPG on .595 TS%.
You: Kevin Love must be an elite scorer, and absolutely an offensive monster.
Me: 100% of his shots come within the flow of the offense, and he has no ability to score when his team is in a scoring drought and needs points, or when the defense tightens up.

You looking at stats without any sort of context would be horrendously wrong.

Kanye just got owned.

[TheOUTLAW]

Fact is, there's a reason that the Cavs had the best record in the NBA for the last 2 years. And it is because LeBron was fantastic at closing out games. In this case the stats do not lie. Somehow, people have this uncanny ability to ignore all of the late shots that Kobe misses while blowing up the makes and doing the exact opposite for LeBron. It's phenomenal frankly.

[ElGee]

1. All the LeBron homers have been cowed these past few weeks.
2. This ENTIRE argument is stemming from Gongxi's laughable idea that "verifiable evidence and statistics" determine who is most clutch when clearly statistics can be manipulated to tell different stories. The data from 5/5 and last 10 seconds is both coming from the same source: NBA games. And yet they indicate different stories.

2009-2010 5/5
Lebron: 66.1 PP48, .488 FG%
Kobe: 51.2 PP48, .444 FG%

2009/2010 last 10 sec
LeBron: 1-8 FGA
Kobe: 7-11 FGA

Those to you don't indicate that statistics can be manipulated to tell different stories?

3. I'm not sure why you think stat manipulation has to be this intrinsically evil thing. And no, I don't know your full definition, but that you think 5/5 is valid and that I don't already would indicate our definitions are different.

1. They have? Because he missed 7 FGA's??? I just don't think there are any...

2. Sorry, I don't see a different story that at all. I see a really really small sample in the second set of data. (Not to mention you'd be measuring something differently bc the last 10 seconds includes incomplete possessions.)

3. 5/5 is a valid measurement of who is performing well in close games down the stretch.

[rrravenred]

Love to see the Assists / Rebounds / Turnovers / Steals / Blocks figures for these three players during the last 10 seconds as well.

[Simplicity0]

azuresou1 is smarter than Gongxi.

It doesn't even have to do with manipulation of stats. If stats aren't supplemented with actual knowledge of a player's situation, you get an extremely basic, one-dimensional picture of that player's ability. Stats are anything but objective. And if you really think a single metric can neatly portray a player's ability, you probably have a pretty simplistic understanding of the world in general.

[Gongxi]

That dog in your profile is smarter than you.

If you think the rebound stat doesn't measure a rebound, I don't know how to help you. If you don't understand that the statistic itself is not meant to incorporate all of the other things in the context of the rebound, and thus can't lie about them, all I can do is tell you that and hope you understand.

Statistics can only measure what is it they're supposed to measure. But they do that very effectively. Much better than someone's memory of how it went down. I can't believe I have to I have to explain this to grown men (maybe you're not and that's part of the issue).

[Simplicity0]

That dog in your profile is smarter than you.

If you think the rebound stat doesn't measure a rebound, I don't know how to help you. If you don't understand that the statistic itself is not meant to incorporate all of the other things in the context of the rebound, and thus can't lie about them, all I can do is tell you that and hope you understand.

Statistics can only measure what is it they're supposed to measure. But they do that very effectively. Much better than someone's memory of how it went down. I can't believe I have to I have to explain this to grown men (maybe you're not and that's part of the issue).

Whoa, nice comeback. It must be that genius-level intelligence you talk about in every post you make. A rebound measures a rebound, but it depends on how you got that rebound, what team you were on, who you got that rebound against, when you got it, how it affected the game, what position you play, pace of the game, number of shots missed by either team, etc. Of course it's not meant to incorporate the entire context, but without the context you don't actually know anything -- except, of course, that at some time, that player got a rebound. "Statistics can only measure what is it they're supposed to measure." Insightful.

[KING JAMES1978]

Please point out where I said anything about "gut impressions" OR "stats lie." You have been misconstruing words this entire thread.

I have said that fanboys and the statistically ignorant like you have been floating this idea that LeBron is super clutch based on 82games' stats from last year, when
A) It doesn't in the least match the eye test.
B) It is a selective statistic that when compared with the "less than 10 seconds" stat offers a completely different conclusion.

It would be like looking at Kevin Love's 21 PPG on .595 TS%.
You: Kevin Love must be an elite scorer, and absolutely an offensive monster.
Me: 100% of his shots come within the flow of the offense, and he has no ability to score when his team is in a scoring drought and needs points, or when the defense tightens up.

You looking at stats without any sort of context would be horrendously wrong.

I have to laugh.Kobe's fanboy speak about fanboys.

[magic1fan]

why is this really a surprise to anyone? there is a reason most gm's and coaches say they would let kobe take the last shot. this isn't a knock on lebron but kobe has been doing this since 2000. yeah lebrons stats look nice in the 5/5 rule,but we are not talking about that. this is 10 seconds or less,and if that is the case there is no one else in the league i want with the ball besides kobe. talking about a small sample size is besides the point.

[Gongxi]

That dog in your profile is smarter than you.

If you think the rebound stat doesn't measure a rebound, I don't know how to help you. If you don't understand that the statistic itself is not meant to incorporate all of the other things in the context of the rebound, and thus can't lie about them, all I can do is tell you that and hope you understand.

Statistics can only measure what is it they're supposed to measure. But they do that very effectively. Much better than someone's memory of how it went down. I can't believe I have to I have to explain this to grown men (maybe you're not and that's part of the issue).

Whoa, nice comeback. It must be that genius-level intelligence you talk about in every post you make. A rebound measures a rebound, but it depends on how you got that rebound, what team you were on, who you got that rebound against, when you got it, how it affected the game, what position you play, pace of the game, number of shots missed by either team, etc. Of course it's not meant to incorporate the entire context, but without the context you don't actually know anything -- except, of course, that at some time, that player got a rebound. "Statistics can only measure what is it they're supposed to measure." Insightful.

I talk about what every post?

I don't think you understand statistics.

[azuresou1]

Please point out where I said anything about "gut impressions" OR "stats lie." You have been misconstruing words this entire thread.

I have said that fanboys and the statistically ignorant like you have been floating this idea that LeBron is super clutch based on 82games' stats from last year, when
A) It doesn't in the least match the eye test.
B) It is a selective statistic that when compared with the "less than 10 seconds" stat offers a completely different conclusion.

It would be like looking at Kevin Love's 21 PPG on .595 TS%.
You: Kevin Love must be an elite scorer, and absolutely an offensive monster.
Me: 100% of his shots come within the flow of the offense, and he has no ability to score when his team is in a scoring drought and needs points, or when the defense tightens up.

You looking at stats without any sort of context would be horrendously wrong.

I have to laugh.Kobe's fanboy speak about fanboys.

Way to contribute something useful. SMFH.

[azuresou1]

That dog in your profile is smarter than you.

If you think the rebound stat doesn't measure a rebound, I don't know how to help you. If you don't understand that the statistic itself is not meant to incorporate all of the other things in the context of the rebound, and thus can't lie about them, all I can do is tell you that and hope you understand.

Statistics can only measure what is it they're supposed to measure. But they do that very effectively. Much better than someone's memory of how it went down. I can't believe I have to I have to explain this to grown men (maybe you're not and that's part of the issue).

Whoa, nice comeback. It must be that genius-level intelligence you talk about in every post you make. A rebound measures a rebound, but it depends on how you got that rebound, what team you were on, who you got that rebound against, when you got it, how it affected the game, what position you play, pace of the game, number of shots missed by either team, etc. Of course it's not meant to incorporate the entire context, but without the context you don't actually know anything -- except, of course, that at some time, that player got a rebound. "Statistics can only measure what is it they're supposed to measure." Insightful.

I talk about what every post?

I don't think you understand statistics.

What, pray tell, do you do involving statistics in your daily life?

[Rapcity_11]

why is this really a surprise to anyone? there is a reason most gm's and coaches say they would let kobe take the last shot. this isn't a knock on lebron but kobe has been doing this since 2000. yeah lebrons stats look nice in the 5/5 rule,but we are not talking about that. this is 10 seconds or less,and if that is the case there is no one else in the league i want with the ball besides kobe. talking about a small sample size is besides the point.

Trailing by 1 or 2 points in the final 24 seconds of regular season and playoff games since 96-97 Kobe is 36/115 = 31.3%. With 1 assist.

Still want Kobe?