Lebron vs Kobe vs MJ - NBA Clutch Stats

[Long2s]

The heralded data is cherry-picked. The 27-gang assumes an arbitrary stretch of time and an arbitrary point-spread

No, the data is picked from NBA.com definitions.

These definitions are chosen and used by analysts, seemingly because they are deemed important.

[-Sammy-]

The heralded data is cherry-picked. The 27-gang assumes an arbitrary stretch of time and an arbitrary point-spread

No, the data is picked from NBA.com definitions.

These definitions are chosen and used by analysts, seemingly because they are deemed important.

No, the data is cherry-picked from the whole set of data that's available on NBA-com, bb-ref.com, and numerous other sites; it's cherry-picked by definition because it's taken out of the context of entire basketball games, which comprises the whole set of data that's actually used to determine wins and losses (which is the only statistic that matters in every context), to average player statistics, to do scouting analysis, etc. The fact that filters are available on NBA.com doesn't suddenly legitimize cherry-picking; the architects of that site are just giving the people what they want. As another example, the 'ferocity' of a dunk doesn't make it more valuable than any other two-point field goal, but NBA.com still hosts dunk highlight features. That merely speaks to the balance between entertainment and information.

This is why I keep hammering the point that the cherry-pickers keep missing, which is that analyzing all the data free of all context is the most honest analysis one can do on sports statistics.

I made lots of other points in my post, though; feel free to address any of them.

[Dupp]

Hold on but long 2s doesn’t respond to posts that debunks his posts so that means he’s right. Gosh

[Long2s]

The heralded data is cherry-picked. The 27-gang assumes an arbitrary stretch of time and an arbitrary point-spread

No, the data is picked from NBA.com definitions.

These definitions are chosen and used by analysts, seemingly because they are deemed important.

No, the data is cherry-picked from the whole set of data that's available on NBA-com, bb-ref.com, and numerous other sites; it's cherry-picked by definition because it's taken out of the context of entire basketball games, which comprises the whole set of data that's actually used to determine wins and losses (which is the only statistic that matters in every context), to average player statistics, to do scouting analysis, etc. The fact that filters are available on NBA.com doesn't suddenly legitimize cherry-picking; the architects of that site are just giving the people what they want. As another example, the 'ferocity' of a dunk doesn't make it more valuable than any other two-point field goal, but NBA.com still hosts dunk highlight features. That merely speaks to the balance between entertainment and information.

This is why I keep hammering the point that the cherry-pickers keep missing, which is that analyzing all the data free of all context is the most honest analysis analysis one can do on sports statistics.

I made lots of other points in my post, though; feel free to address any of those.

It's like you either don't understand subset analysis or don't care.

[-Sammy-]

No, the data is picked from NBA.com definitions.

These definitions are chosen and used by analysts, seemingly because they are deemed important.

No, the data is cherry-picked from the whole set of data that's available on NBA-com, bb-ref.com, and numerous other sites; it's cherry-picked by definition because it's taken out of the context of entire basketball games, which comprises the whole set of data that's actually used to determine wins and losses (which is the only statistic that matters in every context), to average player statistics, to do scouting analysis, etc. The fact that filters are available on NBA.com doesn't suddenly legitimize cherry-picking; the architects of that site are just giving the people what they want. As another example, the 'ferocity' of a dunk doesn't make it more valuable than any other two-point field goal, but NBA.com still hosts dunk highlight features. That merely speaks to the balance between entertainment and information.

This is why I keep hammering the point that the cherry-pickers keep missing, which is that analyzing all the data free of all context is the most honest analysis analysis one can do on sports statistics.

I made lots of other points in my post, though; feel free to address any of those.

It's like you either don't understand subset analysis or don't care.

Or it's like you don't understand the limitations and application of subsets, the reasons we use them, and the reasons they don't supplant whole-data analysis.

[Long2s]

No, the data is cherry-picked from the whole set of data that's available on NBA-com, bb-ref.com, and numerous other sites; it's cherry-picked by definition because it's taken out of the context of entire basketball games, which comprises the whole set of data that's actually used to determine wins and losses (which is the only statistic that matters in every context), to average player statistics, to do scouting analysis, etc. The fact that filters are available on NBA.com doesn't suddenly legitimize cherry-picking; the architects of that site are just giving the people what they want. As another example, the 'ferocity' of a dunk doesn't make it more valuable than any other two-point field goal, but NBA.com still hosts dunk highlight features. That merely speaks to the balance between entertainment and information.

This is why I keep hammering the point that the cherry-pickers keep missing, which is that analyzing all the data free of all context is the most honest analysis analysis one can do on sports statistics.

I made lots of other points in my post, though; feel free to address any of those.

It's like you either don't understand subset analysis or don't care.

Or it's like you don't understand the limitations and application of subsets, the reasons we use them, and the reasons they don't supplant whole-data analysis.

Why do you say that?

It's just a baseless claim.

This thread is a perfect example of subset analysis. It doesn't claim to show anything other than what it sets out to look at. It deals with the NBA definition of clutch, nothing more, nothing less. If you have a problem with the NBA definition of clutch, then take it up with the NBA.

Though that is a strange argument on a subforum which uses completely arbitrary "advanced stats" all the time. You can to any thread and people will use Win Shares or Box Plus Minus or whatever fits their argument and no one will call it out for "being arbitrary" despite it actually being completely arbitrary.

[Dupp]

Kobe can shoot a contested midrange pretty well. If that counts for more than volume scoring/ efficiency/ passing/ playmaking/ defense/ rebounding/ 3 point shooting and leadership then he’s probably more valuable than Lebron.

[-Sammy-]

It's like you either don't understand subset analysis or don't care.

Or it's like you don't understand the limitations and application of subsets, the reasons we use them, and the reasons they don't supplant whole-data analysis.

Why do you say that?

For the same reason you wrote what you wrote.

This thread is a perfect example of subset analysis. It doesn't claim to show anything other than what it sets out to look at. It deals with the NBA definition of clutch, nothing more, nothing less.

It's not the data in isolation I've critiqued here; it's how you and others have conducted yourselves around it that I'm calling out. You seem to think you've been subtle here, which makes me a little embarrassed for you, given how blatantly--and clumsily-- you've tried to advance your agenda. (In case your next question was going to be something like 'whatever do you mean?', I've already addressed what I mean in the post I wrote earlier this morning, which you still haven't responded to, but which you may at any time.)

If you have a problem with the NBA definition of clutch, then take it up with the NBA.

I already have, numerous times in this thread (feel free to review and respond). You repeatedly saying 'but it's NBA.com', as though that automatically legitimizes your cherry-picking, is a fallacious appeal to authority. You should address the arguments on their merit, not on the basis of which website contains what data.

You can to any thread and people will use Win Shares or Box Plus Minus or whatever fits their argument and no one will call it out for "being arbitrary" despite it actually being completely arbitrary.

You must be looking at a different forum, because the battle over the legitimacy and value of advanced stats rages daily across RealGM.

[Ainosterhaspie]

In long2s defense, the last five with the game within +/- 5 is a widely used definition of clutch. Whenever professional talkers talk clutch, that's one of the most common definitions they use. The other is shot with game +/- 3 in the last 24 seconds. The two last two minutes +/- 3 definition is one I've not seen before this thread, and I find it to be far more arbitrary the other two.

With any, context matters. The shooting percentages of these guys is just a starting point for a conversation, not an ultimate indictment on any player. And pleas to stay on topic when people are pointing out the bigger picture to show how the clutch focus misses important aspects of the games come off as a bit desperate. You won't change many minds if you insist on ignoring counter arguments.

[-Sammy-]

In long2s defense, the last five with the game within +/- 5 is a widely used definition of clutch. Whenever professional talkers talk clutch, that's one of the most common definitions they use.

Yeah, it is. I say that it's a flawed approach, though, and I've explained why; I'm inviting anyone from the gang of 27 to address my explanation instead of just saying 'but NBA.com...'

With any, context matters. The shooting percentages of these guys is just a starting point for a conversation, not an ultimate indictment on any player. And pleas to stay on topic when people are pointing out the bigger picture to show how the clutch focus misses important aspects of the games come off as a bit desperate. You won't change many minds if you insist on ignoring counter arguments.

100%.

[Long2s]

In long2s defense, the last five with the game within +/- 5 is a widely used definition of clutch. Whenever professional talkers talk clutch, that's one of the most common definitions they use. The other is shot with game +/- 3 in the last 24 seconds. The two last two minutes +/- 3 definition is one I've not seen before this thread, and I find it to be far more arbitrary the other two.

With any, context matters. The shooting percentages of these guys is just a starting point for a conversation, not an ultimate indictment on any player. And pleas to stay on topic when people are pointing out the bigger picture to show how the clutch focus misses important aspects of the games come off as a bit desperate. You won't change many minds if you insist on ignoring counter arguments.

There are counter arguments and there are derailings.

Trex for example posted stats in elimination games. That has absolutely zero to do with the topic. Do you agree? It's fine if someone wants to point out how Lebron is better at this or that, but it really doesn't have anything to do with a thread about clutchness. It's like a kid saying "i am taller than you" and gets response "yeah but you're uglier". I mean, ok? What are we supposed to do with that? We have a discussion in this thread about clutch. It is fine to not agree with the value of clutch, but why bring all other things into it.

[Long2s]

; it's how you and others have conducted yourselves around it that I'm calling out. You seem to think you've been subtle here, which makes me a little embarrassed for you, given how blatantly--and clumsily-- you've tried to advance your agenda.

I'm sorry man, but you're showing a really flawed understanding of debate and factual rational discourse. I don't mind stating my agenda, it should be fairly obvious that I think Lebron is overrated (particularly in comparison to MJ), but that doesn't change facts.

Facts are facts.

No matter who says them. If Hitler had stated facts, they would still be facts.

By the way, all this discussion is great and I don't mind it at all.

I will not be subjected to claims of "agenda trolling" or other accusations of not providing proper objective data for debate, that's just a cheap way of trying to undermine me.

[Ainosterhaspie]

Trex for example posted stats in elimination games. That has absolutely zero to do with the topic. Do you agree?

No, I don't. The topic is clutchness. Playing really well when facing elimination or with the chance to eliminate is clutch. It's one of the classic ways people say Jordan is super clutch--"he never went seven games in the finals".

LeBron being down 1-3 in the finals and storming back in an unprecedented manner was super clutch. (And yes, Kyrie was super clutch in those games also.) I don't know what his numbers were in the last five minutes or last 2 or last 24 seconds, but it doesn't really matter. That was three games of incredibly clutch play, that can't be ignored in a conversation about the topic of clutchness.

[-Sammy-]

I'm sorry man, but you're showing a really flawed understanding of debate and factual rational discourse. I don't mind stating my agenda, it should be fairly obvious that I think Lebron is overrated (particularly in comparison to MJ), but that doesn't change facts.

Facts are facts.

No matter who says them. If Hitler had stated facts, they would still be facts.

Of course, but the reason you posted these facts was for the community to discuss them; otherwise, why create a thread about them at all? I'm glad you acknowledge your agenda.

The first issue I have is that it's fairly obvious that the point of the thread isn't simply to discuss the isolated stats in isolation. Not only is that bad data analysis, but it's not productive; there's got to be some context. The second issue I have with it is that you've failed to address the legitimate observations I and others have made about why these cherry-picked data don't make the point you want them to. You (and the rest of the 27ers) have been selective about what counterpoints you've addressed, which is bad discursive form.

[Goudelock]

Let me add my two cents in this conversation. Kobe Bryant was not as dominant as LeBron James, and it pains me to say that as a Lakers fan who grew up idolizing Kobe. However, the gap between Kobe and LeBron and Jordan is minuscule at best. By most people's lists, Kobe Bryant is #8-10, while MJ and LeBron are somewhere in the top 4. When you consider the fact that there have been thousands of players to don a NBA jersey, that means that all 3 of those players are in the top 0.01% of basketball players in history. As such, it seems foolish to me to try to see which one is better or worse then the margin between players in so minute.

To address how I view "clutchness", NBA.com has their definition, but is that the only viable definition of clutchness? For instance, let's take Michael Jordan's game 2 of the 1997 NBA Finals. He scored 38, grabbed 13 rebounds, and dished out 9 assists in a comfortable 97-85 victory of the Jazz. By NBA.com's definition of the word, Michael Jordan was not clutch in this game, since the margin was never within 5 points in the last few minutes. Yet I would still argue that MJ was very much clutch in this contest, as he controlled all facets of the game and helped keep the Jazz at arm's reach. Shouldn't big performances in big games also be considered clutch moments for a player, even though the final score may not be close?

[-Sammy-]

I will not be subjected to claims of "agenda trolling" or other accusations of not providing proper objective data for debate, that's just a cheap way of trying to undermine me.

I'm referring to your body of work across RealGM, not just your posts in this thread.

[Jurassic_Park]

jordan by far the most clutch of the 3.

the other 2 are interchangeable.. if you need a tough shot, then kobe, if u want a good assist, lebron

[Long2s]

Let me add my two cents in this conversation. Kobe Bryant was not as dominant as LeBron James, and it pains me to say that as a Lakers fan who grew up idolizing Kobe. However, the gap between Kobe and LeBron and Jordan is minuscule at best. By most people's lists, Kobe Bryant is #8-10, while MJ and LeBron are somewhere in the top 4. When you consider the fact that there have been thousands of players to don a NBA jersey, that means that all 3 of those players are in the top 0.01% of basketball players in history. As such, it seems foolish to me to try to see which one is better or worse then the margin between players in so minute.

To address how I view "clutchness", NBA.com has their definition, but is that the only viable definition of clutchness? For instance, let's take Michael Jordan's game 2 of the 1997 NBA Finals. He scored 38, grabbed 13 rebounds, and dished out 9 assists in a comfortable 97-85 victory of the Jazz. By NBA.com's definition of the word, Michael Jordan was not clutch in this game, since the margin was never within 5 points in the last few minutes. Yet I would still argue that MJ was very much clutch in this contest, as he controlled all facets of the game and helped keep the Jazz at arm's reach. Shouldn't big performances in big games also be considered clutch moments for a player, even though the final score may not be close?

You can always discuss what a word means.

Clutchness as commonly understood in sports deals with performing under pressure, particularly in late games when fatigue sets in and every possession matters.

There's a mathematical reason for this. Early in the game, the value of a possession is less because there are many more to come, late games there are fewer possessions, the value of a possesion is worth more.

This "clutch" is commonly understood and accepted, thus we have that term. I don't think it is really that subjective.

What Trex and you describe is a different kind of clutch. Most people would call it "raising your ceiling" or something like that. It's also a worthy stat to examine, yet it also has many flaws. Why should MJ be judged on his last game against the Sonics and not his all out domination in the first 3 to go 3-0?

I find "elimination games" therefore to be even more subjective than "clutchness".

In the end, clutchness is a generally accepted and agreed upon factor, that is measured by what NBA does (particularly 5 mins left +-5 points).

I mean, clutch even has a wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clutch_(sports)

Clutch performance in sports is the phenomenon of athletes under pressure, usually in the last minutes of a game, to summon strength, concentration and whatever else necessary to succeed, to perform well, and perhaps change the outcome of the game. It occurs in basketball, hockey, football, other sports and esports. The opposite is "choking": failing to perform as needed, when under pressure.

I think you and the rest of the posters are reaching mightily when there is a literal wikipedia definition of clutch that exactly matches what I use as clutch.

Clutch exists:

A great deal of the academic literature shows that is important for athletes to be able to control their anxiety if they are to produce peak performances [2] in clutch moments.

I mean, it is there, it is measurable, it has a common agreed upon definition and it mostly is about dealing with anxiety and stress during late games situations.

[Long2s]

This guy has a longer article about clutch:

https://squared2020.com/2017/06/25/identifying-clutch-players-in-the-nba-201617-analysis/

He also agrees on 5 and 5.

Crunch time has been commonly suggested as “within five points with five minutes remaining in the game.”

[Long2s]

http://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/N3zj2McZNUZ5xDjTR5vD/full

Here is a literal scientific study examining clutch:

[b]In this paper, we analyze the shooting performance of basketball players by examining the factors that may generate high-pressure game situations.

It uses entirely different factors for clutch, which I think are very interesting and definitely worth examining:

when the shot clock is going to expire;

when the score difference with respect to the opponent is small;

when the team as a whole has performed poorly during the match up to that particular moment in the game;

when the player has missed his previous shot.