Lebron vs Kobe vs MJ - NBA Clutch Stats

[_Game7_]

My bad, just poking some fun.
I would admit MJ might be more clutch, for the mere fact he has a nice mid range game that he could get off at anytime. I don't believe Kobe was however, his mystic has surpassed him as a player IMO.

evidence for this?

Well let me just say right off top I'm not a stats guy, I just played ball all my life, and been following the NBA since I was a youngin.
Kobe was an absolute killer in the clutch. Never was a fan of his untill his later years, but I have nothing but respect for him in that regard. It's just that if you buy into the hype of him being a cold blooded killer on the court, you have to buy into he was the best at it, or better then Lebron for example. I don't buy that, yes Kobe in late game situations is scary as an opponent, but I much rather have Lebron's mindset of best option for the team, not an ESPN highlight.

[-Sammy-]

Please link to an example of any player accomplishing a feat alone; otherwise, why make such a banal observation as 'LeBron didn't do it alone'? Why fixate on one isolated shot, as though all the other shots don't matter? (we both already know the answer, but it bears asking nonetheless)

Some of y'all are so rabid in your fixation to explain away everything that man does that it borders on obsession. It's not a good look.

I agree no player wins a championship alone, LeBird was trying to attribute the 2016 series comeback solely/or mostly to lebron when in fact, kyrie had just as an important role. It's implied when he calls the 2016 series 'The GOAT clutch series for a player'.

Nobody's argued that Kyrie wasn't super-important, but his great series doesn't diminish LeBron's all-time series. Just like I think it's silly when people play the 'Pau should've been FMVP/Kobe didn't win until Pau' card, I think it's equally so to try to argue that LeBron wasn't the most important player by a wide margin for the Cavs (just as Kobe was by far the most important player for the Lakers in '09-'10). He literally had a historic, one-of-a-kind series, setting benchmarks that had never been seen before; to dismiss that is disingenuous and it betrays an agenda. The stats support it, the eye test confirms it, and everyone (including those who vote for FMVP) recognizes it except this contingent of people who seem quick-on-the-trigger to qualify everything James accomplishes.

which would you agree is a better defining moment of the game as true crunch time? five minutes left with a margin of 5 or two minutes left with a margin of 3?

Well, I'm on record saying that the whole notion of clutch stats are meaningless and contrived, so I don't play the 'what is true crunch-time' game. It's the worst kind of cherry-picking and most of the time, it's used solely to defend the worst kind of basketball: that iso-hero-ball we unfortunately see all too often at the end of games.

Somebody posted something in one of the other threads about big shots LeBron's hit that were outside of whatever arbitrary 'clutch window' by a matter of seconds, and that makes the point perfectly. If 'clutch time' is the last two minutes, why isn't it the last three? If the last three, why not the last four? If the last five, why not the last 10? Etc. Etc. Etc.

It's silly; every point is worth the same and every minute of the game is equally important; every coach and player worth a damn will agree. That's why we measure stats by-game and it's why people only go to 'the last so-and-so with this team ahead by X'-type metrics when they're trying to make a very nuanced point about a specific player.

The only score that's permanent is the final score and every one of those 48 minutes-- and every point, rebound, and assist recorded in them-- matters equally.

[LeBird]

right, magic johnson (1991 finals),stockton and malone (jazz series) are bad opponents? both of these teams won more than 58 teams in the respective seasons. The others I agree weren't up to the bulls level.

Magic is a great player, but the Lakers were a debilitated team. Likewise Stockton and Malone were great players, but they were better a decade prior when they weren't as old and the Jazz outside of them couldn't compete with the Bulls. These aren't bad opponents - that's your strawman, as I was referring to some of the other finals teams - but they still don't come anywhere close to the kinds of teams LeBron has faced. At best they're comparable with the Mavs and that's it. OKC, Spurs, GSW teams, in those different years, were an order of magnitude more difficult than anything Jordan faced. These teams couldn't push the Bulls, nor Jordan by extension, to anywhere close to a do-or-die situation where clutchness means something.

based on what? kyrie irving averaged 27.1 ppg in that series and hit that go ahead clutch 3 at the end of game 7, lebron did not accomplish the 2016 feat alone.

So? No player wins anything alone. The player with the biggest impact in the most improbable win of all-time is LeBron and that happened in 2016.

based on the data presented in this thread, that would be a horrible choice, especially in the finals

Nah, there's plenty there to suggest It's LeBron and it's not close. You have conveniently skipped over it in multiple threads.

There are damn good reasons MJ is considered the GOAT and one of them is in this very thread. He was arguably the most clutch player ever to play the game, went undefeated in the finals. there are many more but I'm sure you can look them up yourself. Don't forget MJ won the scoring title 10 freaking times! and was also DPOY, a feat lebron hasn't accomplished.

Lebron does not even begin to match MJ's resume so calling him the GOAT is just asinine.

And there are damned good reasons - and continuously more damned good reasons being added - for LeBron to be the GOAT.

For me, Magic's 5/9 is more impressive than Jordan's 6/6. Heck, even Bird's 3/5 is more impressive for me. Beating on weakened teams in a weakened league doesn't mean a whole lot to me. If the Bulls dynasty was occurring in the 80s, he'd not win 6, not would he have a 'perfect' record - which, ironically, he doesn't as he lost before he got to the finals in between those years, as a lot of Jordan fans like to forget.

[CoffeeCakez]

Nobody's argued that Kyrie wasn't super-important, but his great series doesn't diminish LeBron's all-time series. Just like I think it's silly when people play the 'Pau should've been FMVP/Kobe didn't win until Pau' card, I think it's equally so to try to argue that LeBron wasn't the most important player by a wide margin for the Cavs (just as Kobe was by far the most important player for the Lakers in '09-'10). He literally had a historic, one-of-a-kind series, setting benchmarks that had never been seen before; to dismiss that is disingenuous and it betrays an agenda. The stats support it, the eye test confirms it, and everyone (including those who vote for FMVP) recognizes it except this contingent of people who seem quick-on-the-trigger to qualify everything James accomplishes.

I NEVER said that kyrie's amazing series diminishes Lebron's series in any way - this is classic straw man. I just stated that the 3-1 comeback in 2016 cannot be attributed MOSTLY to Lebron because doing so would be disrespectful to kyrie who balled his heart out. I won't put his stats here per game because I'm sure you can look them up yourself. I know very well that lebron put up historic stats in the series and was the 3rd ever player to record a triple double in a game 7 of the finals. Ok thats great, but why diminish kyrie's series by saying 'Lebron was the most important player by a wide margin'. If kyrie doesn't hit that go ahead 3 pointer in game 7, the warriors would most likely celebrate back to back titles. The way I see it is lebron was 55% of the reason the cavs came back from down 1-3 and kyrie was 45% the reason. Lebron was still more important but not by the wide margin the media wants you to believe

And as for your deflection to kobe's championship runs in 09-10 - this is classic red herring fallacy but I saw that coming from a mile away. You are baiting me into an entirely different discussion taking advantage of the fact that I'm a lakers fan and my favorite player is Kobe, therefore I will not comment on that as this topic doesn't pertain to that.

Well, I'm on record saying that the whole notion of clutch stats are meaningless and contrived, so I don't play the 'what is true crunch-time' game. It's the worst kind of cherry-picking and most of the time, it's used solely to defend the worst kind of basketball: that iso-hero-ball we unfortunately see all too often at the end of games.

In an ideal world, yes the correct basketball play should be utilized when there is 1 min left and your team is down by 2 or 3. But this is not an ideal world and this is a superstar league, in tight situations like the one I just described you want the ball in the hands of your best offensive scorer/playmaker. I'm sorry but thats just how it is. This is why Long2s and I used the '2 minutes left with a margin of +/- 3' as a guide in evaluating the clutch caliber of 3 of the most popularly discussed players. This is the 'terrible' hero-ball that you described but its a reality that will stay.

Somebody posted something in one of the other threads about big shots LeBron's hit that were outside of whatever arbitrary 'clutch window' by a matter of seconds, and that makes the point perfectly. If 'clutch time' is the last two minutes, why isn't it the last three? If the last three, why not the last four? If the last five, why not the last 10? Etc. Etc. Etc.

because with 5 minutes left with a margin of +/- 5 the game isn't as heavily dependent on the ball being in the hands of the best scorer and playmaker as it were if there were 2 minutes left with a margin of +/- 3. Note - I'm not saying that its not important for the best player to have the ball in the 5 min scenario, just not as important as it is in the latter scenario.

This is a little complicated to explain but I'll try my best: with 5 minutes left, your 2nd/3rd/4th best players can execute a play that benefits the team and puts them up by more than 5 points - that's a clutch team play in which the superstar may or may not have been all that important in executing.
However with 2 minutes left with a margin of +/- 3, the coach WANTS the ball in the hands of his superstar and its where the ball SHOULD be. Therefore, in this scenario the role of the superstar is of paramount importance and his ability to get buckets or make the best play that will result in points is the most important outcome.

I'm not saying the superstar isn't important in the 5 min scenario - he is but not as important in the 2 min scenario. I hope that makes sense.

It's silly; every point is worth the same and every minute of the game is equally important; every coach and player worth a damn will agree. That's why we measure stats by-game and it's why people only go to 'the last so-and-so with this team ahead by X'-type metrics when they're trying to make a very nuanced point about a specific player.

The only score that's permanent is the final score and every one of those 48 minutes-- and every point, rebound, and assist recorded in them-- matters equally.

This goes back to my scenario again with the two minutes left; margin of +/- 3. Which points would be most important in helping your team win? the points you score within the last 2 minutes or the points that you scored in the opening minutes of the first quarter?

[Ainosterhaspie]

That thinking is wrong and outdated. If everyone knows the superstar is getting the ball and taking the shot, defense becomes simple. Low-quality looks are generated. The team loses more than it should.

Superstars are important because they can usually get a good quality look no matter what, but the key is the good quality look, not the superstar. So if the defense sells out to stop the superstar leaving another player open, the right play every time no matter what is to pass to the guy with the good look. (By good look, I don't mean Shaq at the three point line, that should be obvious.) You do that, you're the house. It won't always work out in your favor, but over time you win more than you otherwise would, because you are working with the odds, not against them.

The most elite teams aren't worried about who is taking the last shot. They are worrying about getting a professional a good look. The results flow from that.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[CoffeeCakez]

I was going to ask Long2s to update the data after today's game then I remembered its just the regular season.
Lebron's clutch woes continues...

[bledredwine]

I was going to ask Long2s to update the data after today's game then I remembered its just the regular season.
Lebron's clutch woes continues...

I literally called and foreshadowed this - KD outplaying Lebron and KD is the best threads on the general board.

[Long2s]

I was going to ask Long2s to update the data after today's game then I remembered its just the regular season.
Lebron's clutch woes continues...

Yeah, you know man, it's almost as if the stats reflect skillset.

[-Sammy-]

Nobody's argued that Kyrie wasn't super-important, but his great series doesn't diminish LeBron's all-time series. Just like I think it's silly when people play the 'Pau should've been FMVP/Kobe didn't win until Pau' card, I think it's equally so to try to argue that LeBron wasn't the most important player by a wide margin for the Cavs (just as Kobe was by far the most important player for the Lakers in '09-'10). He literally had a historic, one-of-a-kind series, setting benchmarks that had never been seen before; to dismiss that is disingenuous and it betrays an agenda. The stats support it, the eye test confirms it, and everyone (including those who vote for FMVP) recognizes it except this contingent of people who seem quick-on-the-trigger to qualify everything James accomplishes.

I NEVER said that kyrie's amazing series diminishes Lebron's series in any way - this is classic straw man.

I didn't accuse you of saying it (strawman); I do think you imply it, though, when you say that the comeback 'cannot be attributed mostly to Lebron.' If LeBron's performance > every other player's performance, then he was by definition the most important player and thus the biggest factor. If you're arguing that Kyrie's performance = LeBron's performance, we can have that conversation.

But recognize that nobody here is arguing that biggest factor = only factor. That's what I mean when I say that it suggests an agenda when you say 'but Kyrie...' in a discussion about LeBron; nobody said Kyrie wasn't great in that series, so you're addressing a non-issue, and it smacks of trying to diminish LeBron.

why diminish kyrie's series by saying 'Lebron was the most important player by a wide margin'.

See above. Why is it diminishing Kyrie to say LeBron was the biggest factor? If someone was arguing 'LeBron was great; therefore, Kyrie wasn't great', you'd have a case here, but nobody is.

And as for your deflection to kobe's championship runs in 09-10 - this is classic red herring fallacy

No, it's not; it's an analogy, and a perfectly apt one-- Kobe is to the '09-'10 Lakers as LeBron is to the '16 Cavs. I chose this analogy because I have little doubt that if someone asks you 'was Kobe the most important player on the '09-'10 Lakers by a wide margin?', you'll answer in the affirmative.

Well, I'm on record saying that the whole notion of clutch stats are meaningless and contrived, so I don't play the 'what is true crunch-time' game. It's the worst kind of cherry-picking and most of the time, it's used solely to defend the worst kind of basketball: that iso-hero-ball we unfortunately see all too often at the end of games.

In an ideal world, yes the correct basketball play should be utilized when there is 1 min left and your team is down by 2 or 3.

Even in a non-ideal world, the correct play is the best one. You'll never hear a winning coach say 'it's not an ideal world, so don't bother trying to make the best play.'

Somebody posted something in one of the other threads about big shots LeBron's hit that were outside of whatever arbitrary 'clutch window' by a matter of seconds, and that makes the point perfectly. If 'clutch time' is the last two minutes, why isn't it the last three? If the last three, why not the last four? If the last five, why not the last 10? Etc. Etc. Etc.

Spoiler:

because with 5 minutes left with a margin of +/- 5 the game isn't as heavily dependent on the ball being in the hands of the best scorer and playmaker as it were if there were 2 minutes left with a margin of +/- 3. Note - I'm not saying that its not important for the best player to have the ball in the 5 min scenario, just not as important as it is in the latter scenario.

This is a little complicated to explain but I'll try my best: with 5 minutes left, your 2nd/3rd/4th best players can execute a play that benefits the team and puts them up by more than 5 points - that's a clutch team play in which the superstar may or may not have been all that important in executing.
However with 2 minutes left with a margin of +/- 3, the coach WANTS the ball in the hands of his superstar and its where the ball SHOULD be. Therefore, in this scenario the role of the superstar is of paramount importance and his ability to get buckets or make the best play that will result in points is the most important outcome.

I'm not saying the superstar isn't important in the 5 min scenario - he is but not as important in the 2 min scenario. I hope that makes sense.

The question was rhetorical; I understand the reasoning as you've laid it out here, and it's as flawed now as it was the first time I addressed it, for all the same reasons.

It's silly; every point is worth the same and every minute of the game is equally important; every coach and player worth a damn will agree. That's why we measure stats by-game and it's why people only go to 'the last so-and-so with this team ahead by X'-type metrics when they're trying to make a very nuanced point about a specific player.

The only score that's permanent is the final score and every one of those 48 minutes-- and every point, rebound, and assist recorded in them-- matters equally.

This goes back to my scenario again with the two minutes left; margin of +/- 3. Which points would be most important in helping your team win? the points you score within the last 2 minutes or the points that you scored in the opening minutes of the first quarter?

The problem with your setup here is that you don't understand why each of those baskets is equally important: because without those first quarter points, you don't have a +/-3, you have a +/-5. The only reason you have a +/-3 in your scenario is because those first-quarter points were scored.

To put it another way, whichever basket is worth two (or three) points is the most important basket-- and this is tongue-in-cheek, of course, because every basket is worth two (or three) points. To use an analogy from science, Einstein suggested that the reason the present seems to be happening now and the past and future seem 'further away' in time is because of our finite, imperfect perspective; in reality, all points in time are equal. The only reason those two-minutes-left points seem to be more important is because of our imperfect perspective; the reality is that a point = a point = a point.

[Ainosterhaspie]

@bombsquadsammy. I think you're mistaken about first quarter points and points in the last five minutes being equally important. Yes they count the same, but basketball is a game where waxing and waning intensity levels leads to wild swings in the score. Points come easy during most of the game, but are very hard to come by in other parts of the game, like the last five minutes. At the end of the game you are facing the most intense defensive effort, the opponent's best defensive players and trying to score on tired legs which can throw off your jump shot.

That isn't a reason to just discount what happens the rest of the game as so many LeBron detractors try to do. If a player rattles off a quick ten points early in the third quarter turning what would have been a 25 point deficit into a more manageable 15 point deficit, that matters. You can't have important crunch time chances if the game is a blowout.

And flipping that, a personal 10-0 run to make the game a blowout should matter in terms of evaluating the player as much as taking a crunch time shot. I'd rather have the player who is so dominant that there isn't a crunch time very often. Or put another way, the guy who plays in far fewer close games is better than the guy who is marginally better at the end of close games. (This last bit isn't referencing any particular player.)

Anyway to sum up, points at the end of close games are harder to get and are more valuable even if they count the same in the box score. Even so, important turning points can happen throughout the game, so it is a mistake to only focus on the end of close games.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Baski]

To add to Bombsquad Sammy's point:

Take LeBron's sequence of 6 straight points to take the lead in the 4th Q of game 7 in the 2016 finals. He made 3 straight free throws with 5:24 left on the clock (Credit to bondom24 for pointing that out) and then made a three soon after with under 5 mins left. According to this stupid definition of exactly 5 mins left and /- 5 or whatever, LeBron would be credited with just 4 "clutch" points that game. It makes you think about the possibility of many other similarly timed sequences by great players that don't get counted because of this arbitrary criterion.
And the fact that there are 2 perfectly valid sets of data that tell us different things about the relative clutchness of LeBron and Kobe should make it clear that stats like this are easily manipulated. Hell i bet someone dedicated enough could probably put together some data that shows that Paul George is not as unclutch as we all think.

So asking his question again, "if the last 5 mins matters, why not the last 5:24?" and if the score being within 5 points matters, why not within 6 or 7 points?
Did the extra 24 seconds or extra 1 point gap make it so much easier to score that any points scored within that frame shouldn't count as "clutch"?

[Ainosterhaspie]

I agree that clutch is arbitrary and earlier mentioned the three LeBron made in game six of the 2013 finals with 20 seconds on the clock and his team behind by five. That was a series saving clutch shot, but it doesn't count in some common clutch definitions. For example he gets no credit for that shot in the standard game within 3 in the last 24 seconds way of defining clutch. And since he missed the next shot, when the game was within three thanks to him, that game harms his clutch count in one of the most cited clutch counts.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[bledredwine]

I agree that clutch is arbitrary and earlier mentioned the three LeBron made in game six of the 2013 finals with 20 seconds on the clock and his team behind by five. That was a series saving clutch shot, but it doesn't count in some common clutch definitions. For example he gets no credit for that shot in the standard game within 3 in the last 24 seconds way of defining clutch. And since he missed the next shot, when the game was within three thanks to him, that game harms his clutch count in one of the most cited clutch counts.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Clutch is far away from arbitrary. Clutch is why a Durant helped Golden State win the series quickly last year. Clutch is Jordan never being taken to a game 7. The amount of times he won games late made all the difference, and it shows in the numbers. Pippen stated that if the Bulls were within 6 heading into the 4th, he knew that they'd win the game. Lebron doesn't have that reputation, and if he did, it's likely that the Cavs could have won last night or won another close game in the finals last season. Also, the free throws are yet another Lebron excuse. You guys cited one situation.... but the free throw situation applies to all players, not just Lebron. According to many Lebron fans, jordan gets too many free throws anyway. Well, you can't have both so what will it be? Jordan's more clutch or gets less free throws than Lebron?

[therealbig3]

Taking Kobe over LeBron is just never the right choice regardless of how much time is on the clock.

MJ was the better offensive player, LeBron is the better defensive player, I think MJ peaked slightly higher, but LeBron trumps him as far as longevity goes, so LeBron is the best as far as I'm concerned.

All this other conversation is just noise about outdated concepts that don't really have a place in modern basketball.

[Ainosterhaspie]

But Durant blew a three game lead just the year before and was beaten in his first finals 1-4 so Durant can't be clutch right.

Also, Jordan did go seven games two times that I can think off of the top of my head (Pacers '98 and Pistons' 90). Yes it wasn't the finals, but I have no idea why that should matter.

But that aside, you are missing the point of what I said. I didn't say there is no such thing as clutch, I said clutch definitions are arbitrary and gave an example to illustrate. It's not the only example given in this thread or that could be given overall either. You have to look at the whole game to make a call as to whether player x was or was not clutch in a particular game.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Long2s]

Of course clutch is arbitrary, that's a given by definition.

However it is not simple nonsense, a 3 point lead is a one possesion game, a 5 point game is 2 possesion game. These are things that are talked about all the damn time, because they happen all the damn time, again and again, when games close and coaches spend an inordinate amount of time practicing and strategising to win in those situations.

[Sedale Threatt]

All I know is LeBron's Game 6 in the 2012 ECF (45 points, 15 rebounds, 19-26 FGs) is just about the most clutch performance I've ever seen -- elimination game, on the road, another championship opportunity on the verge of being squandered -- and he did most of his damage in the first half. You can come up with so much stuff along these lines as to render the "last five minutes" thing, if not entirely worthless, pretty damn close.

[CoffeeCakez]

Taking Kobe over LeBron is just never the right choice regardless of how much time is on the clock.

except for the times in the data presented in the OP of this thread that is.

MJ was the better offensive player, LeBron is the better defensive player, I think MJ peaked slightly higher, but LeBron trumps him as far as longevity goes, so LeBron is the best as far as I'm concerned.

1. MJ was a much better 1 on 1 defender than james ever was. Lebron may be the better help/weakside defender but he couldn't lock down opponents like jordan. Jordan also won DPOY. You could argue that LBJ is a more versatile defender since he can guard all 5 positions but that doesn't mean he can LOCK down all 5 positions. MJ locked down the 1-3 in his peak.

All this other conversation is just noise about outdated concepts that don't really have a place in modern basketball.

Of course, all of this is just noise when it doesn't portray LeBron in a favorable light. The concept of clutchness will always have a place in basketball and a lot of other sports for that matter.

Take the GSW vs cavs game on monday for example: how would you define LeBron's performance in the last few minutes of that game in terms of clutchness?

[Baski]

Clutch is far away from arbitrary. Clutch is why a Durant helped Golden State win the series quickly last year. Clutch is Jordan never being taken to a game 7. The amount of times he won games late made all the difference, and it shows in the numbers. Pippen stated that if the Bulls were within 6 heading into the 4th, he knew that they'd win the game. Lebron doesn't have that reputation, and if he did, it's likely that the Cavs could have won last night or won another close game in the finals last season. Also, the free throws are yet another Lebron excuse. You guys cited one situation.... but the free throw situation applies to all players, not just Lebron. According to many Lebron fans, jordan gets too many free throws anyway. Well, you can't have both so what will it be? Jordan's more clutch or gets less free throws than Lebron?

If we're being honest, this thread has almost nothing to do with Michael Jordan. It's basically LeBron vs Kobe within whatever timeframe suits the agenda. Jordan is clearly in a league of his own when it comes to making the right play towards the end of games. I've noticed that most of these clutch definitions, no matter who between LeBron and Kobe they favor, always show Jordan as better than both or at least one of them. I've only seen like one post in this whole thread saying they'd pick LeBron over Jordan in the 4th.

But what free throw situation are you talking about?

[Long2s]

Clutch is not arbitrary.

Clutch exists everywhere in life. Yeah, it's easy to walk on a tight rope when you're 1 foot above the ground, not so easy when you're 1000 feet over a canyon. Easy to do a great presentation in front of the mirror, not so easy in front of thousands of people. Easy to come up with what you're going to tell a crush in your mind, not so much in front of a living person. Easy to have a plan for the boxing ring, not so easy when you get punched in the face (Mike Tyson: "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth").

Clutch is "keeping your cool" under pressure. That's a real thing.