What Defines A Clutch Shot?

[MaxaMillion711]

So I saw this stat on ESPN the other day ...



And I wanted to know how I can find the boxscores of those clutch games for LBJ, Kobe and VC. Is there a way to find out what games those were? Is there a way to filter boxscores for each player where they score a FG in the final 24 seconds of a game?

Also, if they hit a shot at the buzzer to send the game to OT, does that count as a clutch shot? Cause it wasnt FINAL 24 seconds ...

hope you can help me out define what a clutch shot is and help me find out how i can search for clutch shots by player.

[TheSecretWeapon]

Whatever stat you tried to show didn't come through -- at least not on my computer.

A shot at the buzzer would count as "clutch" because it happened before the end of the period.

As for clutch definitions, various people have different ideas. At 82games, they defined it as last 5 minutes of the 4th quarter or OT period with the score within X points. I think X was 5. So, a single game could go in and out of "clutch" depending on the score.

One big problem I have with nearly every "clutch" definition is the hyperfocus on the end of the game. Clutch plays get made throughout a game -- even in the opening minutes. Baseball stat godfather Bill James theorized that one reason so-called clutch hitting varies so much year to year (some sabermetricians argued that clutch hitting doesn't exist) is because it's an artificial construct. That, in reality, almost all at bats are clutch. To an extent, I think the same thing is true in the NBA.

[Ortho Stice]

Whatever stat you tried to show didn't come through -- at least not on my computer.

A shot at the buzzer would count as "clutch" because it happened before the end of the period.

As for clutch definitions, various people have different ideas. At 82games, they defined it as last 5 minutes of the 4th quarter or OT period with the score within X points. I think X was 5. So, a single game could go in and out of "clutch" depending on the score.

One big problem I have with nearly every "clutch" definition is the hyperfocus on the end of the game. Clutch plays get made throughout a game -- even in the opening minutes. Baseball stat godfather Bill James theorized that one reason so-called clutch hitting varies so much year to year (some sabermetricians argued that clutch hitting doesn't exist) is because it's an artificial construct. That, in reality, almost all at bats are clutch. To an extent, I think the same thing is true in the NBA.

In baseball a clutch play can happen in the first inning if a player hits, say, a grand slam and his team's pitcher/defense is known to hold the opposing team to a few runs per game. Unless the pitching and defense play at worse level than normal, then that grand slam could mean the difference in the game. It's plausible that the team wouldn't even need to get another hit, or get on base in the remaining eight innings.

In basketball a player's single basket in the beginning of the game has a radically smaller impact than that grand slam. A player like LeBron has a huge impact throughout the course of a game, but a single basket of his in the second quarter isn't going to be the difference in a game. It's more like several accumulated plays with sustained production.

If we want to see a basketball event similar to the clutch first-inning grand slam, we would have to look toward the very end of the game, in which a single shot can be the difference between a win or a loss. I dislike 82game's clutch statistic, since five minutes left in the game within X amount of points is still too much time for each event to really be critical. A statistic like that may tell us that someone else is more clutch than Kobe, despite his ridiculous amount of game-winners.

I think a statistic on clutchness should look at the very end of games, when the shot directly involves his team tying the game, or taking the lead, with the opposing team only having one possession afterward; this will account for clutch shots made with time left on the clock. And I think the amount of clutch shots hit needs to be leavened with the % of clutch FGs to clutch FGAs.

A possible alternative would be a shot that involves his team tying the game, or taking the lead, regardless of the amount of possessions afterward, as long as the opposing team doesn't score afterward. This would account for someone taking a shot with say, two minutes left that ends up winning the game, because the defense prevents the other team from scoring. Perhaps this statistic could be: shot which ties game or wins the game with greater than a minute left. This statistic could co-exist with the first and could give a defensive clutchness value, as well as a weaker normal clutch value, since the shot isn't made with the perception of its utmost criticalness. I think the defensive side of this statistic would be more important, since it tells us how well a defense can clamp down at the end of the game. It may indicate that certain teams are actually a lot better at defense than is indicated otherwise, since in this criteria we know they're giving their utmost effort. I'm not even sure if this criteria would generate a significant amount of data, which would make it somewhat meaningless, although it's interesting to think about.

[mysticbb]

A statistic like that may tell us that someone else is more clutch than Kobe, despite his ridiculous amount of game-winners.

Actually Bryant has that many game-winners, because he takes so many shots which can result into a game-winner. His scoring efficiency on game-winners is rather bad, in fact worse than his average scoring efficiency. I don't think that the amount of game-winners is a good indicator for being "clutch".
The graphic in the op doesn't show it, but from those players Bryant has the lowest fg% on those shots, LeBron James the highest; slightly ahead of Nowitzki. Carter is closer to Bryant, but still better in terms of fg%.

I think a statistic on clutchness should look at the very end of games, when the shot directly involves his team tying the game, or taking the lead, with the opposing team only having one possession afterward; this will account for clutch shots made with time left on the clock. And I think the amount of clutch shots hit needs to be leavened with the % of clutch FGs to clutch FGAs.

Sorry, but that isn't a good measurement. The dagger with a minute left isn't less valuable than the game-winning buzzer beater.

I take Bryant's game-winners in this season so far as an example. Against the Heat Bryant was the player who missed a shot with 25 seconds left, he missed the layup with 14 seconds left and Fisher made the 3 with 4 seconds left to give the Lakers at least a chance. Bryant's game-winning three was a lucky off-balance shot. Was that really a great clutch performance?

Against the Bucks Bryant missed a shot with 1:50 left in regulation, he missed the shot with 2 seconds left, Fisher made the basket with 31 seconds left in regulation to give the Lakers the lead. In the last 1,5 minutes Bryant took over, a great clutch performance, but the win was also a result of the inability of Ilyasova to make his free throws. Would Bryant's effort being less clutch in OT, if the Lakers had lost, because Ilyasova would have made his free throws?

With 2,5 minutes left in the game against the Kings Bryant missed both of his free throws and a possible game-leading 3pt shot. After that Lamar Odom, Pau Gasol and Shannon Brown brought the Lakers back into the game. Bryant got away with a potential offensive foul as he set the screen to get open for the game-winning 3. And again, without Udoka missing both free throws with 4 seconds left a 3pt wouldn't be enough to win that game. Besides the last second shot it wasn't really that great of a clutch performance by Bryant.

In the game against the Celtics Bryant was 2 of 7 from the field in the 4th quarter, made 6 of the 24 points for the Lakers. Not even one of the other baskets was assisted by Bryant in the 4th quarter. Artest made the basket to bring the game within 1 point, after that he took the charge against Paul Pierce to give the Lakers the possession. Bryant took a really tough shot against Allen. It was a great fadeway shot, no question, but was Artest less clutch than Bryant in that game? Would Bryant be less clutch, if Allen would have made the buzzer-beating 3 to give the Celtics the win?

Bryant scored 9 points in the last 2 minutes against the Grizzlies. Incredible clutch performance to erase a 5 point deficite. Would that be less impressive, if Mayo would have made the buzzer-beating 2 pointer to win that game for Memphis?

As you see your definition depends a lot on the situation while just using a bigger time span gives you an overall better picture. Bryant isn't as a clutch as James or Nowitzki in this season. Just look at their impressive Net48 numbers. The Mavericks are +29.4 per 48 minutes in clutch situations (according to 82games.com) while Nowitzki is on the court, the Cavs are +30.1 with James. Compare that to the Lakers and Bryant with +11.7.
Nowitzki and Bryant are scoring around the same amount of points with the same scoring efficiency, but Nowitzki is the better rebounder and has already 7 blocked shots during clutch time. Nowitzki is even the better passer with 15 assists and 0 passing turnovers compared to Bryant's 10 assists and 2 passing turnovers. James scores nearly 20 points per 48 minutes more on a higher scoring efficiency, has more assists, more rebounds, more blocked shots than Bryant.

Overall if there is a close game (using the definition by 82games.com) it is more likely in this season to win with James or Nowitzki on the court as with Bryant on the court.

So, a clutch shot for me is a shot in a critical possession for the team. Maybe stopping a run in the 4th quarter with that or providing the dagger to give the team a significant lead. A game-winner is a game-winner, quasi a special clutch shot defined by the situation.

[TheSecretWeapon]

In baseball a clutch play can happen in the first inning if a player hits, say, a grand slam and his team's pitcher/defense is known to hold the opposing team to a few runs per game. Unless the pitching and defense play at worse level than normal, then that grand slam could mean the difference in the game. It's plausible that the team wouldn't even need to get another hit, or get on base in the remaining eight innings.

In basketball a player's single basket in the beginning of the game has a radically smaller impact than that grand slam. A player like LeBron has a huge impact throughout the course of a game, but a single basket of his in the second quarter isn't going to be the difference in a game. It's more like several accumulated plays with sustained production.

I disagree with this entirely. A single basket in the 2nd quarter can make a critical difference. Say, for example, the opposition is on a run. They've scored 8 straight points, and they're threatening to blow it open. Then Lebron (or whoever) bulls his way into the lane and throws down a monster dunk. The crowd goes wild, his team gets energized, and they come roaring back with an 8-point run of their own.

That's a clutch play.

If we want to see a basketball event similar to the clutch first-inning grand slam, we would have to look toward the very end of the game, in which a single shot can be the difference between a win or a loss. I dislike 82game's clutch statistic, since five minutes left in the game within X amount of points is still too much time for each event to really be critical. A statistic like that may tell us that someone else is more clutch than Kobe, despite his ridiculous amount of game-winners.

Again, I disagree. Every possession matters. The feeling that stuff that happens early doesn't matter is an illusion. If a team performs better earlier in the game, the game may not hinge on that single shot at the end.

I think a statistic on clutchness should look at the very end of games, when the shot directly involves his team tying the game, or taking the lead, with the opposing team only having one possession afterward; this will account for clutch shots made with time left on the clock. And I think the amount of clutch shots hit needs to be leavened with the % of clutch FGs to clutch FGAs.

What you're talking about isn't really clutch, in my opinion. What you're suggesting is a measure of who has the best shooting percentage at the end of a close game. We'd immediately run into sample size issues -- which are already present using the 82games definition. Ultimately, it wouldn't mean anything because coaches are going to continue giving the ball to their alpha offensive player in these types of situations. Plus, I think there are lots of ways players can make clutch plays without shooting the ball.

A possible alternative would be a shot that involves his team tying the game, or taking the lead, regardless of the amount of possessions afterward, as long as the opposing team doesn't score afterward. This would account for someone taking a shot with say, two minutes left that ends up winning the game, because the defense prevents the other team from scoring. Perhaps this statistic could be: shot which ties game or wins the game with greater than a minute left. This statistic could co-exist with the first and could give a defensive clutchness value, as well as a weaker normal clutch value, since the shot isn't made with the perception of its utmost criticalness. I think the defensive side of this statistic would be more important, since it tells us how well a defense can clamp down at the end of the game. It may indicate that certain teams are actually a lot better at defense than is indicated otherwise, since in this criteria we know they're giving their utmost effort. I'm not even sure if this criteria would generate a significant amount of data, which would make it somewhat meaningless, although it's interesting to think about.

I think your last sentence is correct. Such narrow slicing of the data would render the stats you're proposing virtually meaningless. There'd be no way to know how much was a fluke and how much reflected team or individual quality.

I think it's important to expand the definition of clutch to reflect the game's realities. The hyperfocus on the end of the game is a media/highlight driven thing. In reality, the full 48 minutes matter. In reality, what happens early in the game has a significant effect on the final outcome.

[Ortho Stice]

I disagree with this entirely. A single basket in the 2nd quarter can make a critical difference. Say, for example, the opposition is on a run. They've scored 8 straight points, and they're threatening to blow it open. Then Lebron (or whoever) bulls his way into the lane and throws down a monster dunk. The crowd goes wild, his team gets energized, and they come roaring back with an 8-point run of their own.

If you're saying this single basket is the reason why they went on an 8-point run, then it may be a pretty important basket, but I'm not sure if there's any way of telling whether or not a single basket is the reason why a team scores several subsequent baskets.

Again, I disagree. Every possession matters. The feeling that stuff that happens early doesn't matter is an illusion. If a team performs better earlier in the game, the game may not hinge on that single shot at the end.

I never said otherwise. I was saying basketball can't have a single event in the first quarter that would be as "clutch" as a first inning event in baseball, e.g. the grand slam. In that scenario, it's possible the team wouldn't even need to get on base in the remaining eight innings. But in basketball, you can't stop playing offense in the first quarter and win the game still. Only toward the end of the game can the making of a single basket be the direct cause for a win or a loss.

[Ortho Stice]

Actually Bryant has that many game-winners, because he takes so many shots which can result into a game-winner. His scoring efficiency on game-winners is rather bad, in fact worse than his average scoring efficiency. I don't think that the amount of game-winners is a good indicator for being "clutch".
The graphic in the op doesn't show it, but from those players Bryant has the lowest fg% on those shots, LeBron James the highest; slightly ahead of Nowitzki. Carter is closer to Bryant, but still better in terms of fg%.

Which is why I said "And I think the amount of clutch shots hit needs to be leavened with the % of clutch FGs to clutch FGAs."

Sorry, but that isn't a good measurement. The dagger with a minute left isn't less valuable than the game-winning buzzer beater.

I take Bryant's game-winners in this season so far as an example. Against the Heat Bryant was the player who missed a shot with 25 seconds left, he missed the layup with 14 seconds left and Fisher made the 3 with 4 seconds left to give the Lakers at least a chance. Bryant's game-winning three was a lucky off-balance shot. Was that really a great clutch performance?

Against the Bucks Bryant missed a shot with 1:50 left in regulation, he missed the shot with 2 seconds left, Fisher made the basket with 31 seconds left in regulation to give the Lakers the lead. In the last 1,5 minutes Bryant took over, a great clutch performance, but the win was also a result of the inability of Ilyasova to make his free throws. Would Bryant's effort being less clutch in OT, if the Lakers had lost, because Ilyasova would have made his free throws?

With 2,5 minutes left in the game against the Kings Bryant missed both of his free throws and a possible game-leading 3pt shot. After that Lamar Odom, Pau Gasol and Shannon Brown brought the Lakers back into the game. Bryant got away with a potential offensive foul as he set the screen to get open for the game-winning 3. And again, without Udoka missing both free throws with 4 seconds left a 3pt wouldn't be enough to win that game. Besides the last second shot it wasn't really that great of a clutch performance by Bryant.

In the game against the Celtics Bryant was 2 of 7 from the field in the 4th quarter, made 6 of the 24 points for the Lakers. Not even one of the other baskets was assisted by Bryant in the 4th quarter. Artest made the basket to bring the game within 1 point, after that he took the charge against Paul Pierce to give the Lakers the possession. Bryant took a really tough shot against Allen. It was a great fadeway shot, no question, but was Artest less clutch than Bryant in that game? Would Bryant be less clutch, if Allen would have made the buzzer-beating 3 to give the Celtics the win?

Bryant scored 9 points in the last 2 minutes against the Grizzlies. Incredible clutch performance to erase a 5 point deficite. Would that be less impressive, if Mayo would have made the buzzer-beating 2 pointer to win that game for Memphis?

As you see your definition depends a lot on the situation while just using a bigger time span gives you an overall better picture. Bryant isn't as a clutch as James or Nowitzki in this season. Just look at their impressive Net48 numbers. The Mavericks are +29.4 per 48 minutes in clutch situations (according to 82games.com) while Nowitzki is on the court, the Cavs are +30.1 with James. Compare that to the Lakers and Bryant with +11.7.
Nowitzki and Bryant are scoring around the same amount of points with the same scoring efficiency, but Nowitzki is the better rebounder and has already 7 blocked shots during clutch time. Nowitzki is even the better passer with 15 assists and 0 passing turnovers compared to Bryant's 10 assists and 2 passing turnovers. James scores nearly 20 points per 48 minutes more on a higher scoring efficiency, has more assists, more rebounds, more blocked shots than Bryant.

Overall if there is a close game (using the definition by 82games.com) it is more likely in this season to win with James or Nowitzki on the court as with Bryant on the court.

So, a clutch shot for me is a shot in a critical possession for the team. Maybe stopping a run in the 4th quarter with that or providing the dagger to give the team a significant lead. A game-winner is a game-winner, quasi a special clutch shot defined by the situation.

Yeah but when the criteria is open that wide the players that score well are going to be the same players that score well during the rest of the game. Should I be surprised that LeBron is the best in the league during this time frame? Should I be surprised if someone hands me a log with the same bark on it as the tree it was cut from? I really don't think my clutch statistic would be really meaningful, either, just something fun to look at.

[Silver Bullet]

I know it doesn't help the discussion, but I don't think it is possible to come up with a definition for clutch. The other day, I saw the Lakers-Magic game, the Lakers were behind in the 4th quarter and couldn't make a shot - Kobe carried them virtually throughout the fourth - every time the Magic threatened to pull away with the game, he came up with a huge basket. Clutch basket upon clutch basket throughout the, I think he was 7 of 9 for the quarter. Anyway, he ended up missing the game winner. So for what to me seems like one of the greatest clutch performances of the guys career, ends up being statistical proof that he is not clutch.

To me a clutch play is something that stems the momentum from the other team. For example, the Paul Peirce three pointers a couple of years ago in the NBA Finals against the Lakers were two of the clutchest shots I have seen in my life. Those two back to back threes literally broke the Lakers back and ended the series right there. And from what I remember, they were in the third quarter.

Eddie House, another player, I would consider clutch. Always seems to make the backbreaking play, yet hardly ever takes a game winner.

[ElGee]

I know it doesn't help the discussion, but I don't think it is possible to come up with a definition for clutch

Actually, I think it hits at the heart of the question. There are people out there who don't really believe in the concept of clutch, perhaps because there is little evidence to suggest players perform differently in the long term with any statistical significance, or perhaps because points count whether they're scored in the 1st quarter or the 4th.

I tend to think someone can be clutch (probably because I thought it was my single redeeming quality as an athlete), but it's not a black and white issue. There are a few things to consider:

(1) Primarily, we really want to know if you choke. Most players can't suddenly elevate their games in clutch spots (however we define that), but there are players who can wilt when the moment is the biggest (wilt as in crumble, not wilt as in Chamberlain). Statisticians want to (correctly) point out that a 3 in the 1st quarter is as valuable as a 3 in the 4th quarter, but it's not as easy to make as a 3 in the 4th quarter.

Athletes are humans, and I think we are really trying to measure human error when we speak of "clutch ability." When "it all comes down to this," the crowd is a little louder, and there is no longer a way to correct for an error (a mistake in the 1st quarter can be corrected, a miss on the last shot and The Loss goes in the books), well, that's when people sweat more, grow nervous and potentially over-think situations. Human error. How susceptible is a given player to these problems?

(2) Most the players considered "clutch" are simply the best shooters anyway. Does the notion of "clutch" come into play if I have to decide between Ray Allen and Kobe Bryant taking an open shot? Or Dirk? Or Miller? Or Steve Nash? Wouldn't every coach in the world draw up a play to get his best shooter a good shot in those late-game situations anyway? The only reason not to, it would seem to me, is because that player has shown strong signs of human error, or "chokes," for lack of a better term.

(3) Where does that leave coaches or analysts? Well, if someone is clutch/not a choker, and succeeds well in the final 5 minutes of 5-point games (the definitions that NBA teams reportedly use who believe in this), and clutch also includes playoff performances, there are legitimate implications. Why? The final 5+5 and the playoffs are when the game is the hardest to succeed at (all statistics seem to support this). Strategically, the best players on the court and the game is usually possession-by-possession. In the playoffs, not only is the competition better than average but the makeup of the series allows for constant adjustments.

So, if performance does not diminish (or even improves) in those spots, it may actually reveal something more about a player's value and ability than results from more "normal" circumstances. Sure, how well you play all the time matters, but how well you play in the hardest circumstances matters a little more, since that is usually the only path to a title.

[jicama]

It's funny that even those (stats guys and others) who are determined to believe there's no such thing as 'clutch' are hard pressed to claim there's no such thing as 'choking'.

Reggie Miller recently said that he was never afraid of missing that potential game-winner. Of course, all we have to fear is fear itself. That creates self-doubt, over-thinking, and 'choking'.

[Volcano]

I know it doesn't help the discussion, but I don't think it is possible to come up with a definition for clutch. The other day, I saw the Lakers-Magic game, the Lakers were behind in the 4th quarter and couldn't make a shot - Kobe carried them virtually throughout the fourth - every time the Magic threatened to pull away with the game, he came up with a huge basket. Clutch basket upon clutch basket throughout the, I think he was 7 of 9 for the quarter. Anyway, he ended up missing the game winner. So for what to me seems like one of the greatest clutch performances of the guys career, ends up being statistical proof that he is not clutch.

It works the other way around too. I've seen Kobe continuously turn it over or take and miss bad shot after bad shot in the 4th only to have Gasol/Odom come through for him. He takes and makes the final shot and everyone gives him the credit.

I think being clutch is about at least maintaining your normal level of play or going beyond that. If you go below your normal level of play, then it makes you unclutch. For example, Gasol missing a three pointer to tie the game isn't unclutch because that's not in his game. If he misses a hook shot on single coverage against a guy he was abusing all game long, then it's unclutch. Even then, if he has 10 games of these scenario shots and makes above his average, he's still clutch despite even if he misses for a few games.

[Silver Bullet]

I know it doesn't help the discussion, but I don't think it is possible to come up with a definition for clutch. The other day, I saw the Lakers-Magic game, the Lakers were behind in the 4th quarter and couldn't make a shot - Kobe carried them virtually throughout the fourth - every time the Magic threatened to pull away with the game, he came up with a huge basket. Clutch basket upon clutch basket throughout the, I think he was 7 of 9 for the quarter. Anyway, he ended up missing the game winner. So for what to me seems like one of the greatest clutch performances of the guys career, ends up being statistical proof that he is not clutch.

It works the other way around too. I've seen Kobe continuously turn it over or take and miss bad shot after bad shot in the 4th only to have Gasol/Odom come through for him. He takes and makes the final shot and everyone gives him the credit.

I think being clutch is about at least maintaining your normal level of play or going beyond that. If you go below your normal level of play, then it makes you unclutch. For example, Gasol missing a three pointer to tie the game isn't unclutch because that's not in his game. If he misses a hook shot on single coverage against a guy he was abusing all game long, then it's unclutch. Even then, if he has 10 games of these scenario shots and makes above his average, he's still clutch despite even if he misses for a few games.

Yea, but my point was that game winning or game tying shots are not the only clutch moments in a game. The intensity and pressure of the moment for me defines what a clutch shot is. I don't know if I said this in my last post, but guys like Eddie House or Dell Curry (if you remember him) were insanely clutch, but they hardly ever took a end of game type situation shot.

For example, from my perspective, any bucket in game 7 of the NBA Finals on the road would be more clutch than any buzzer beater.

[rrravenred]

An interesting question is to define the negative. How POORLY, compared to either non-clutch play or the performance of a replacement-quality player on court does player X play?

I remember a 90s ad for MJ where he went through a litany of how poorly he'd performed at statistic X, Y and Z (including game-LOSING shots), finishing with the tag-line "That's why I'm the best".

[FierceRapsFan]

My definition: A shot made with less than 2 minutes left in 4th quarter and team is leading/losing by 6 points.

[Bgil]

Under that definition more than half of T-Mac's 13 in 35 doesn't count as clutch. Likewise the Lakers comeback vs Dallas (24 points) and vs Portland in the 4th quarter of game 7 are underrepresented. The C's comeback against the Lakers has already been mentioned too.

Kobe's 55 point half against the Raptors when they were down by 19 in the third wouldn't count. Lebron's 24 consecutive points against Detroit.... and on and on.

Clutch could very well be a whole game like MJ's flu game or Magic's game 6 in 1980.