The Lebron Thread (2015-16 Pt. 3)

Moderators: trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ

User avatar
yoyoboy
RealGM
Posts: 15,866
And1: 19,077
Joined: Jan 29, 2015
     

Re: The Lebron Thread (2015-16 Pt. 3) 

Post#1841 » by yoyoboy » Tue Jun 14, 2016 7:37 pm

Yeah the argument that the Cavs are simply not utilizing Love correctly should be dead at this point. He's been given enough chances, but when you fail to post up guys much smaller than you (like Steph Curry) without turning it over or throwing up a shot that barely hits rim, it's not an effective play to run anymore. It bogs down the offense and overall just feels forced, considering how inefficient it's been.
JulesWinnfield
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,825
And1: 6,483
Joined: Mar 24, 2013
Location: NY
   

Re: The Lebron Thread (2015-16 Pt. 3) 

Post#1842 » by JulesWinnfield » Tue Jun 14, 2016 7:41 pm

ESPN bpi gives the Cavs a 14% chance to win this series right now. Before game 5 I said if they won game 5 i would give them about a 15% chance to win this series, so the number I pulled directly out of my behind agrees with whatever formula they use. If they get this to a game 7 you can throw any of that crap out the window, nothing can mathematically account for the enormity of that spot and how we see it effect the play on the floor, not to mention the momentum Cleveland would have.
G35
RealGM
Posts: 22,523
And1: 8,071
Joined: Dec 10, 2005
     

Re: The Lebron Thread (2015-16 Pt. 3) 

Post#1843 » by G35 » Tue Jun 14, 2016 7:42 pm

therealbig3 wrote:
G35 wrote:Winning is clutch, losing is not.....


That's actually not what it says.

The concept of "clutch" is to perform well under pressure. Usually, this is taken to mean end of game situations. "Choking" is not performing well under pressure.

It says "possibly changing the outcome"...but it's not a requirement. You can play well, and still lose. You can also play like crap, and still win. That definition from wikipedia supports that.

It's a false equivalency to then equate "clutch" with "winning", and "not clutch" with "losing", because they are two separate things. One does not have to be the other.


Ahhh I knew that others would interpret it in that way. That "possibly changing..." would give them an alibi. However, you snipped what you wanted from the quote, I would like to hear how you interpret this section:

Clutch performance in sports is the phenomenon of athletes under pressure, often 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, and other sports. The opposite is "choking": failing to perform as needed, when under pressure.



To succeed. When these players step on the court, "succeeding" is not determined by 30PPG, 40PPG, 50 or 60PPG. It's not a certain rebounds, assists, blocks, or steals (or even TOV's gasp!).

Now, what is success...some may say it is reaching a certain level of production on the court. However, there are no defined standards on what is "successful" in terms of individual achievement. To define success for an individual based on production would be opening a can of worms many here are not ready to admit to. Because there are players who may not have met those standards.

Furthermore, when a player reaches this level of production is the game stopped? Does this player receive a trophy? Is he recognized in some way? Perhaps in a lifetime achievement situation but in a single game, there is no recognition. When the game is stopped at that moment the points are tallied up and a winner and a loser is determined. Let remind that it is the team with the most points that is then recognized as the winner, not the individual. And yes, possibly changing the outcome is a variable, but it is the most important variable of the entire equation.

Because clutch does not have to be just the last few minutes of the game. You can be a clutch performer over a whole game if you measure it by an entire series. Or you can measure it by several games in the regular season that a player has performed well i.e. the last 10 games of the season. However, I would like to see where a player is labeled as clutch when their team failed to make the playoffs, failed to win a series, or how about a clutch player that got swept in a series....logically this should be possible if winning is not the most important variable......
I'm so tired of the typical......
User avatar
RSCD3_
RealGM
Posts: 13,932
And1: 7,342
Joined: Oct 05, 2013
 

Re: The Lebron Thread (2015-16 Pt. 3) 

Post#1844 » by RSCD3_ » Tue Jun 14, 2016 7:49 pm

I came here to do two things: get lost and slice **** up & I'm all out of directions.

Butler removing rearview mirror in his car as a symbol to never look back

Peja Stojakovic wrote:Jimmy butler, with no regard for human life
Arman_tanzarian
Veteran
Posts: 2,578
And1: 2,712
Joined: Dec 27, 2012
     

Re: The Lebron Thread (2015-16 Pt. 3) 

Post#1845 » by Arman_tanzarian » Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:28 pm

Colbinii wrote:They need to incorporate Kevin Love into the game. I know everyone has been hating on him, and I have, but his offense out of the post is much more conductive to winning basketball than Kyrie Irving's Isolation ball.


I usually agree with you but no it's not. Love is as cringe-worthy as it comes when posting up.

He leads the playoffs with 80 Post-up possessions.

He scores only 0.80 PPP in those and shoots 35.5% on said play types. LMA for example scores 1.07 PPP and shoots over 51%. Lebron 0.90 PPP and shoots over 51%. Albeit LeBron has iggy on him and creates alot for others out of the post that doesn't get recorded.

The last thing you want against a defence as quick and athletic as GSW is to resort to such basic plays GSW can stop in thier sleep. There's a set they ran that got him to become a high post passer. That could be a better option.
Image
JLei
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,579
And1: 3,000
Joined: Aug 25, 2009
 

Re: The Lebron Thread (2015-16 Pt. 3) 

Post#1846 » by JLei » Tue Jun 14, 2016 10:38 pm

JulesWinnfield wrote:ESPN bpi gives the Cavs a 14% chance to win this series right now. Before game 5 I said if they won game 5 i would give them about a 15% chance to win this series, so the number I pulled directly out of my behind agrees with whatever formula they use. If they get this to a game 7 you can throw any of that crap out the window, nothing can mathematically account for the enormity of that spot and how we see it effect the play on the floor, not to mention the momentum Cleveland would have.


Pretty simple math. 50-55% chance of winning game 6. Cavs - 2 right now (53.5%)
If it gets to game 7 would probably be Warriors -6.0 or about a 30% chance for Cleveland.

.50 * .30 = .15.

BPI is probably favoring GS in Game 6 because of their regular season record.
Modern Era Fantasy Game Champ! :king:
PG: Ricky Rubio 16
SG: Brandon Roy 09
SF: Danny Green 14
PF: Rasheed Wallace 06
C: Shaquille O'Neal 01

G: George Hill 14
F: Anthony Parker 10
C: Amir Johnson 12
BasketballFan7
Analyst
Posts: 3,668
And1: 2,344
Joined: Mar 11, 2015
   

Re: The Lebron Thread (2015-16 Pt. 3) 

Post#1847 » by BasketballFan7 » Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:49 pm

ppedro123 wrote:
Colbinii wrote:They need to incorporate Kevin Love into the game. I know everyone has been hating on him, and I have, but his offense out of the post is much more conductive to winning basketball than Kyrie Irving's Isolation ball.



have you ever seen Love post up?

I have supported love this year a lot, but he really needs to consider putting some weight back on. I think he can be effective in the high post if off ball movement is good, but his low post ability is utter trash. He can't out quick or out power guys in the post or on the glass.
FGA Restricted All-Time Draft

In My Hood, The Bullies Get Bullied
PG: 2013 Mike Conley, 1998 Greg Anthony
SG: 2005 Manu Ginobili, 2015 Khris Middleton
SF: 1991 Scottie Pippen
PF: 1986 Larry Bird, 1996 Dennis Rodman
C: 1999 Alonzo Mourning
User avatar
Heej
General Manager
Posts: 8,469
And1: 9,170
Joined: Jan 14, 2011

Re: The Lebron Thread (2015-16 Pt. 3) 

Post#1848 » by Heej » Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:13 am

So apparently Game 5 was the first time either LeBron or Kyrie scored 40 in a game this season

https://twitter.com/espn/status/742569149851926528
LeBron's NBA Cup MVP is more valuable than either of KD's Finals MVPs. This is the word of the Lord
User avatar
Dupp
RealGM
Posts: 112,385
And1: 67,144
Joined: Aug 16, 2009
Location: Lifelong Nuggets Fan
 

Re: The Lebron Thread (2015-16 Pt. 3) 

Post#1849 » by Dupp » Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:19 am

I actually like our chances in game 7 more than game 6. I just think if we can somehow win game 6 we'll win game 7.

I'm not sure we can win game 6 though.
CKRT
Analyst
Posts: 3,472
And1: 493
Joined: Jan 20, 2011

Re: The Lebron Thread (2015-16 Pt. 3) 

Post#1850 » by CKRT » Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:33 am

Dupp wrote:Image


I'm not racist but all the black guys on the left look the same
lilojmayo wrote:Juice is not a chucker, like say James Harden
kayess
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,807
And1: 1,000
Joined: Sep 29, 2013

Re: The Lebron Thread (2015-16 Pt. 3) 

Post#1851 » by kayess » Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:18 am

colts18 wrote:LeBron's defense last night according to NBA sportVU stats:

3-17 FG (18%)
0-5 3P (0%)
1-6 defending rim (17%)

He's allowing 33.9% FG% against Warriors (-14.1% below average) in this series. Kyrie allowing 61% in this series (Love 36%).


Does this count transition? So it's the 2 against Curry, 1 against Iggy, 1 against Livingston and a couple more rim contests in the fourth?
The Realist
Starter
Posts: 2,091
And1: 1,496
Joined: Jun 12, 2014

Re: The Lebron Thread (2015-16 Pt. 3) 

Post#1852 » by The Realist » Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:04 am

G35 wrote:
therealbig3 wrote:
G35 wrote:Winning is clutch, losing is not.....


That's actually not what it says.

The concept of "clutch" is to perform well under pressure. Usually, this is taken to mean end of game situations. "Choking" is not performing well under pressure.

It says "possibly changing the outcome"...but it's not a requirement. You can play well, and still lose. You can also play like crap, and still win. That definition from wikipedia supports that.

It's a false equivalency to then equate "clutch" with "winning", and "not clutch" with "losing", because they are two separate things. One does not have to be the other.


Ahhh I knew that others would interpret it in that way. That "possibly changing..." would give them an alibi. However, you snipped what you wanted from the quote, I would like to hear how you interpret this section:

Clutch performance in sports is the phenomenon of athletes under pressure, often 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, and other sports. The opposite is "choking": failing to perform as needed, when under pressure.



To succeed. When these players step on the court, "succeeding" is not determined by 30PPG, 40PPG, 50 or 60PPG. It's not a certain rebounds, assists, blocks, or steals (or even TOV's gasp!).

Now, what is success...some may say it is reaching a certain level of production on the court. However, there are no defined standards on what is "successful" in terms of individual achievement. To define success for an individual based on production would be opening a can of worms many here are not ready to admit to. Because there are players who may not have met those standards.

Furthermore, when a player reaches this level of production is the game stopped? Does this player receive a trophy? Is he recognized in some way? Perhaps in a lifetime achievement situation but in a single game, there is no recognition. When the game is stopped at that moment the points are tallied up and a winner and a loser is determined. Let remind that it is the team with the most points that is then recognized as the winner, not the individual. And yes, possibly changing the outcome is a variable, but it is the most important variable of the entire equation.

Because clutch does not have to be just the last few minutes of the game. You can be a clutch performer over a whole game if you measure it by an entire series. Or you can measure it by several games in the regular season that a player has performed well i.e. the last 10 games of the season. However, I would like to see where a player is labeled as clutch when their team failed to make the playoffs, failed to win a series, or how about a clutch player that got swept in a series....logically this should be possible if winning is not the most important variable......


Kobe Bryant was perhaps the worst player in the NBA this season IN TERMS OF THE VOLUME OF NEGATIVE IMPACT CAUSED TO THE TEAM, and his team won 17 games, yet I'm sure there are countless and countless people in the world that say he was the clutchest player in the league even this season. Please explain.
meh
User avatar
The High Cyde
General Manager
Posts: 8,550
And1: 15,122
Joined: Jun 06, 2014
Location: Elbaf
 

Re: The Lebron Thread (2015-16 Pt. 3) 

Post#1853 » by The High Cyde » Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:35 am

LeBron ever get that assist added from his pass to Kyrie for a 3 at the beginning of the game?
Image
User avatar
MisterHibachi
RealGM
Posts: 18,657
And1: 19,075
Joined: Oct 06, 2013
Location: Toronto
 

Re: The Lebron Thread (2015-16 Pt. 3) 

Post#1854 » by MisterHibachi » Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:26 pm

Over the last 10 years LeBron has more 40 point games in the Finals than rest of the league combined (4 out of 7). Other three are Kyrie, Kobe in 09, and RW in 2012.
"He looked like Batman coming out of nowhere"
User avatar
Joao Saraiva
RealGM
Posts: 13,450
And1: 6,218
Joined: Feb 09, 2011
   

Re: The Lebron Thread (2015-16 Pt. 3) 

Post#1855 » by Joao Saraiva » Wed Jun 15, 2016 11:26 pm

G35 wrote:
therealbig3 wrote:
G35 wrote:Winning is clutch, losing is not.....


That's actually not what it says.

The concept of "clutch" is to perform well under pressure. Usually, this is taken to mean end of game situations. "Choking" is not performing well under pressure.

It says "possibly changing the outcome"...but it's not a requirement. You can play well, and still lose. You can also play like crap, and still win. That definition from wikipedia supports that.

It's a false equivalency to then equate "clutch" with "winning", and "not clutch" with "losing", because they are two separate things. One does not have to be the other.


Ahhh I knew that others would interpret it in that way. That "possibly changing..." would give them an alibi. However, you snipped what you wanted from the quote, I would like to hear how you interpret this section:

Clutch performance in sports is the phenomenon of athletes under pressure, often 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, and other sports. The opposite is "choking": failing to perform as needed, when under pressure.



To succeed. When these players step on the court, "succeeding" is not determined by 30PPG, 40PPG, 50 or 60PPG. It's not a certain rebounds, assists, blocks, or steals (or even TOV's gasp!).

Now, what is success...some may say it is reaching a certain level of production on the court. However, there are no defined standards on what is "successful" in terms of individual achievement. To define success for an individual based on production would be opening a can of worms many here are not ready to admit to. Because there are players who may not have met those standards.

Furthermore, when a player reaches this level of production is the game stopped? Does this player receive a trophy? Is he recognized in some way? Perhaps in a lifetime achievement situation but in a single game, there is no recognition. When the game is stopped at that moment the points are tallied up and a winner and a loser is determined. Let remind that it is the team with the most points that is then recognized as the winner, not the individual. And yes, possibly changing the outcome is a variable, but it is the most important variable of the entire equation.

Because clutch does not have to be just the last few minutes of the game. You can be a clutch performer over a whole game if you measure it by an entire series. Or you can measure it by several games in the regular season that a player has performed well i.e. the last 10 games of the season. However, I would like to see where a player is labeled as clutch when their team failed to make the playoffs, failed to win a series, or how about a clutch player that got swept in a series....logically this should be possible if winning is not the most important variable......


I swear to myself this is the last time I'm going to reply to this type of statements about evaluation trough team success... Jesus Christ, the amount of stuff I read from you is exactly everything I think is wrong with sports analysis.

So for you clutch is winning under pressure. Let me put these scenarios. We're analyzing player A and player B. Game is tied and the team those players are on have the ball. There is time for 3 possessions for each team.

Scenario 1:
- Player A scores and puts his team 2+ ahead.
- On defense, another two players from player's A team play bad D on a screen far from the ball, and that leads to an open 3. The other team scores, so the team of player A is -1.
- Player A scores yet again, and puts his team +1.
- The other team plays an isolation far away from player A and scores a mid-range jumper. They're down -1.
- Player A gets doubled, assists an open three but his teammate misses. Still -1.
- Player's A team fouls and the other team converts the FTs and they are now -3.
- In the last play, player A gets pressured from 2 guys when they're putting the ball in and his teammate makes a bad pass. The game is over without a shot.

Scenario 2:
- Player B misses a shot badly, with an air ball. That results into an offensive board and his team is 2+.
- On defense, player B plays bad post defense and gets scored on. The game is tied.
- Player's B team runs a play for him, but he can't get a shot. Ball back to his PG, and with a few seconds on the clock he just takes a bad shot. It goes in. +3.
- Player's B team defends successfully and grabs the board. The PG gets fouled and scores 2 FTs. +5 and the game is over. Only time left is for an hero shot but with 5 points it doesn't make a diference.

So by your definition (an individual player being clutch means the team won the game), means player A is not clutch but player B is, even tough player A did much more for his team than player B.

There is a completely wrong approach to the evaluation of individual performance making it go by team results. I can't even believe you believe your own statement. It's just too absurd.
“These guys have been criticized the last few years for not getting to where we’re going, but I’ve always said that the most important thing in sports is to keep trying. Let this be an example of what it means to say it’s never over.” - Jerry Sloan
BasketballFan7
Analyst
Posts: 3,668
And1: 2,344
Joined: Mar 11, 2015
   

Re: The Lebron Thread (2015-16 Pt. 3) 

Post#1856 » by BasketballFan7 » Thu Jun 16, 2016 1:45 am

Joao Saraiva wrote:
G35 wrote:
therealbig3 wrote:
That's actually not what it says.

The concept of "clutch" is to perform well under pressure. Usually, this is taken to mean end of game situations. "Choking" is not performing well under pressure.

It says "possibly changing the outcome"...but it's not a requirement. You can play well, and still lose. You can also play like crap, and still win. That definition from wikipedia supports that.

It's a false equivalency to then equate "clutch" with "winning", and "not clutch" with "losing", because they are two separate things. One does not have to be the other.


Ahhh I knew that others would interpret it in that way. That "possibly changing..." would give them an alibi. However, you snipped what you wanted from the quote, I would like to hear how you interpret this section:

Clutch performance in sports is the phenomenon of athletes under pressure, often 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, and other sports. The opposite is "choking": failing to perform as needed, when under pressure.



To succeed. When these players step on the court, "succeeding" is not determined by 30PPG, 40PPG, 50 or 60PPG. It's not a certain rebounds, assists, blocks, or steals (or even TOV's gasp!).

Now, what is success...some may say it is reaching a certain level of production on the court. However, there are no defined standards on what is "successful" in terms of individual achievement. To define success for an individual based on production would be opening a can of worms many here are not ready to admit to. Because there are players who may not have met those standards.

Furthermore, when a player reaches this level of production is the game stopped? Does this player receive a trophy? Is he recognized in some way? Perhaps in a lifetime achievement situation but in a single game, there is no recognition. When the game is stopped at that moment the points are tallied up and a winner and a loser is determined. Let remind that it is the team with the most points that is then recognized as the winner, not the individual. And yes, possibly changing the outcome is a variable, but it is the most important variable of the entire equation.

Because clutch does not have to be just the last few minutes of the game. You can be a clutch performer over a whole game if you measure it by an entire series. Or you can measure it by several games in the regular season that a player has performed well i.e. the last 10 games of the season. However, I would like to see where a player is labeled as clutch when their team failed to make the playoffs, failed to win a series, or how about a clutch player that got swept in a series....logically this should be possible if winning is not the most important variable......


I swear to myself this is the last time I'm going to reply to this type of statements about evaluation trough team success... Jesus Christ, the amount of stuff I read from you is exactly everything I think is wrong with sports analysis.

So for you clutch is winning under pressure. Let me put these scenarios. We're analyzing player A and player B. Game is tied and the team those players are on have the ball. There is time for 3 possessions for each team.

Scenario 1:
- Player A scores and puts his team 2+ ahead.
- On defense, another two players from player's A team play bad D on a screen far from the ball, and that leads to an open 3. The other team scores, so the team of player A is -1.
- Player A scores yet again, and puts his team +1.
- The other team plays an isolation far away from player A and scores a mid-range jumper. They're down -1.
- Player A gets doubled, assists an open three but his teammate misses. Still -1.
- Player's A team fouls and the other team converts the FTs and they are now -3.
- In the last play, player A gets pressured from 2 guys when they're putting the ball in and his teammate makes a bad pass. The game is over without a shot.

Scenario 2:
- Player B misses a shot badly, with an air ball. That results into an offensive board and his team is 2+.
- On defense, player B plays bad post defense and gets scored on. The game is tied.
- Player's B team runs a play for him, but he can't get a shot. Ball back to his PG, and with a few seconds on the clock he just takes a bad shot. It goes in. +3.
- Player's B team defends successfully and grabs the board. The PG gets fouled and scores 2 FTs. +5 and the game is over. Only time left is for an hero shot but with 5 points it doesn't make a diference.

So by your definition (an individual player being clutch means the team won the game), means player A is not clutch but player B is, even tough player A did much more for his team than player B.

There is a completely wrong approach to the evaluation of individual performance making it go by team results. I can't even believe you believe your own statement. It's just too absurd.

Your post makes complete sense, and yet at the same time I hope you aren't changing his thought process one bit. I'm sure he has been through this conversation before.
FGA Restricted All-Time Draft

In My Hood, The Bullies Get Bullied
PG: 2013 Mike Conley, 1998 Greg Anthony
SG: 2005 Manu Ginobili, 2015 Khris Middleton
SF: 1991 Scottie Pippen
PF: 1986 Larry Bird, 1996 Dennis Rodman
C: 1999 Alonzo Mourning
Colbinii
RealGM
Posts: 34,243
And1: 21,858
Joined: Feb 13, 2013

Re: The Lebron Thread (2015-16 Pt. 3) 

Post#1857 » by Colbinii » Thu Jun 16, 2016 2:41 am

BasketballFan7 wrote:
Joao Saraiva wrote:
G35 wrote:
Ahhh I knew that others would interpret it in that way. That "possibly changing..." would give them an alibi. However, you snipped what you wanted from the quote, I would like to hear how you interpret this section:




To succeed. When these players step on the court, "succeeding" is not determined by 30PPG, 40PPG, 50 or 60PPG. It's not a certain rebounds, assists, blocks, or steals (or even TOV's gasp!).

Now, what is success...some may say it is reaching a certain level of production on the court. However, there are no defined standards on what is "successful" in terms of individual achievement. To define success for an individual based on production would be opening a can of worms many here are not ready to admit to. Because there are players who may not have met those standards.

Furthermore, when a player reaches this level of production is the game stopped? Does this player receive a trophy? Is he recognized in some way? Perhaps in a lifetime achievement situation but in a single game, there is no recognition. When the game is stopped at that moment the points are tallied up and a winner and a loser is determined. Let remind that it is the team with the most points that is then recognized as the winner, not the individual. And yes, possibly changing the outcome is a variable, but it is the most important variable of the entire equation.

Because clutch does not have to be just the last few minutes of the game. You can be a clutch performer over a whole game if you measure it by an entire series. Or you can measure it by several games in the regular season that a player has performed well i.e. the last 10 games of the season. However, I would like to see where a player is labeled as clutch when their team failed to make the playoffs, failed to win a series, or how about a clutch player that got swept in a series....logically this should be possible if winning is not the most important variable......


I swear to myself this is the last time I'm going to reply to this type of statements about evaluation trough team success... Jesus Christ, the amount of stuff I read from you is exactly everything I think is wrong with sports analysis.

So for you clutch is winning under pressure. Let me put these scenarios. We're analyzing player A and player B. Game is tied and the team those players are on have the ball. There is time for 3 possessions for each team.

Scenario 1:
- Player A scores and puts his team 2+ ahead.
- On defense, another two players from player's A team play bad D on a screen far from the ball, and that leads to an open 3. The other team scores, so the team of player A is -1.
- Player A scores yet again, and puts his team +1.
- The other team plays an isolation far away from player A and scores a mid-range jumper. They're down -1.
- Player A gets doubled, assists an open three but his teammate misses. Still -1.
- Player's A team fouls and the other team converts the FTs and they are now -3.
- In the last play, player A gets pressured from 2 guys when they're putting the ball in and his teammate makes a bad pass. The game is over without a shot.

Scenario 2:
- Player B misses a shot badly, with an air ball. That results into an offensive board and his team is 2+.
- On defense, player B plays bad post defense and gets scored on. The game is tied.
- Player's B team runs a play for him, but he can't get a shot. Ball back to his PG, and with a few seconds on the clock he just takes a bad shot. It goes in. +3.
- Player's B team defends successfully and grabs the board. The PG gets fouled and scores 2 FTs. +5 and the game is over. Only time left is for an hero shot but with 5 points it doesn't make a diference.

So by your definition (an individual player being clutch means the team won the game), means player A is not clutch but player B is, even tough player A did much more for his team than player B.

There is a completely wrong approach to the evaluation of individual performance making it go by team results. I can't even believe you believe your own statement. It's just too absurd.

Your post makes complete sense, and yet at the same time I hope you aren't changing his thought process one bit. I'm sure he has been through this conversation before.


You can't fix...G35.
We all have our own views on things, some are just more close minded than others.
User avatar
VideoGameJames
Sophomore
Posts: 241
And1: 147
Joined: Dec 15, 2013
Location: Vancouver

Re: The Lebron Thread (2015-16 Pt. 3) 

Post#1858 » by VideoGameJames » Thu Jun 16, 2016 10:08 am

BasketballFan7 wrote:
ppedro123 wrote:
Colbinii wrote:They need to incorporate Kevin Love into the game. I know everyone has been hating on him, and I have, but his offense out of the post is much more conductive to winning basketball than Kyrie Irving's Isolation ball.



have you ever seen Love post up?

I have supported love this year a lot, but he really needs to consider putting some weight back on. I think he can be effective in the high post if off ball movement is good, but his low post ability is utter trash. He can't out quick or out power guys in the post or on the glass.

I don't know how true it is but I have heard that Love lost that weight because he has bad knees and why he took the long term deal instead of waiting for the cap rise. Love might already be declining.
JulesWinnfield
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,825
And1: 6,483
Joined: Mar 24, 2013
Location: NY
   

Re: The Lebron Thread (2015-16 Pt. 3) 

Post#1859 » by JulesWinnfield » Thu Jun 16, 2016 1:25 pm

Game day! Man game 5 feels like ages ago now. I can't imagine how long the break between 6 and 7 is gonna feel if the Cavs win tonight
Colbinii
RealGM
Posts: 34,243
And1: 21,858
Joined: Feb 13, 2013

Re: The Lebron Thread (2015-16 Pt. 3) 

Post#1860 » by Colbinii » Thu Jun 16, 2016 1:28 pm

JulesWinnfield wrote:Game day! Man game 5 feels like ages ago now. I can't imagine how long the break between 6 and 7 is gonna feel if the Cavs win tonight

If they lose it is even longer :-? :waaa:

Return to Player Comparisons