Lebron vs Kobe vs MJ - NBA Clutch Stats

[Baski]

Revisiting this thread after several days is intriguing and humorous for me. It should be obvious to all impartial observers by now that the true point of the thread is part of a larger campaign with a singular agenda: to discredit LeBron and champion Kobe as the superior player at all costs. Make no mistake that this and this alone is the real issue here (and elsewhere where similar antics can be observed).

For heaven's sake, they gave themselves a group name: the 'gang of 27.' They've adopted matching signatures because it's very important to them that you look at their data and their data alone and come to the same conclusion they do. This matters to them-- your opinion about LeBron and how Kobe compares to him is of great importance to them.

A review of the facts:

The heralded data is cherry-picked. The 27-gang assumes an arbitrary stretch of time and an arbitrary point-spread and demands that this and this alone be the metric for comparing LeBron with Kobe. Not only do they not want to address anything that falls outside these capricious parameters, but they also won't accept your cherry-picked data if it yields different implications.

A few pages back, I saw one of our 27ers reject someone else's cherry-picked data because he claimed the sample size is too small! In other words, 'we'll decide what constitutes a fair sample size, not you.'

Good enough, 27-boyz; how about this for an adequate sample size?:

LeBron: 1353-of-2849, .574 TS%, 28.4 ppg
Kobe: 2014-of-4499, .541 TS%, 25.6ppg

That's the total number of field goals and attempts for both guys in the playoffs, along with TS percentage and scoring average. Is that a large enough sample size for you? It ought to be, as you literally can't produce a larger one, since that's every single field goal make and attempt each guy has ever had in the postseason. Hell, if you want to make it sound more like yours, it can be 'offense in the last 48 minutes of a game with a +/- of X points'.

'No', they'll reply, 'that's too broad; this is about a specific clip of time and point-spread'... in other words, a large sample size is bad and a small sample size is also bad; only this one insanely-specific swath of data will be permitted-- it has to be just right (maybe they should change their name to the 'gang of Goldilocks'). Of course, the rest of us know that the real reason this approach is being insisted on is because the real agenda here is to discredit LeBron.

They're inconsistent in their discourse. Multiple times throughout this thread, I've seen the 'gang' jump on a poster for writing something that doesn't have anything to do with the topic. 'This is about the specific conditions we laid out in the OP', they've said; 'don't mess up our thread by bringing things up that don't have anything to do with those conditions.'

That would be fine, except that those 27ers-- the same ones, mind you, who told you not to derail their thread-- have made numerous comments in these pages about 'the decision' and how 'five beats three' and the game the other night against the Warriors... you know, stuff that also doesn't have anything to do with their thread topic. They're evidently free to tangentialize, but you better not.

It becomes a lot easier to understand the motivation behind this selective discourse once we recognize the common idea in those tangents, which also happens to be the real objective of the 27-gang: to discredit LeBron.

They cherry-pick what they respond to. I'm a little disappointed that my last post here was never addressed by any of the 27 guys; it was thoughtful, thorough, and it made some great points, and I even submitted it as a reply to one of their posts, so I know they must've seen it. However, it also pointed out an obvious agenda through behavioral analysis and it laid to rest this silly notion of arbitrarily calling one part of the game clutch and another part meaningless, so I can see why it was ignored: because acknowledging those realities weakens the mission of discrediting LeBron.

So let's take a look at what's really going on here: there's a minority contingent of basketball fans who specifically are Kobe fans who are low-key furious that the 'LeBron or Kobe?' issue was settled a long time with the vast majority of fans coming down on the side of the former. They've always resented LeBron because they've always believed that their guy should've been the recipient of all the attention and admiration LeBron's always gotten.

Recognize that I'm not calling out anyone specific in this thread in the sense of accusing people of being part of that minority group; I'm simply describing a pattern of behavior. I'll leave it to others to analyze peoples' actions and decide for themselves who fits that description. Recognize also that I'm not talking about the overwhelming majority of Laker/Kobe fans, who are amazing fans and who are a great asset to NBA fandom as a whole, but only of that tiny, extreme faction that nevertheless rattles the cage pretty loudly and that unfortunately makes the real Laker fanbase look bad far too often.

Finally, recognize the truth, which is that LeBron and Kobe are/were both gods and titans on the basketball court and that whichever guy you prefer, you've made an excellent choice and your guy is a legend and an all-timer.

Perhaps the most mystifying part of this saga is that most of the people in this minority contingent are yet lucid enough to realize that they're never going to alter the narrative or change anyone's mind, but that isn't really their goal anyhow. This crusade is more about collectively steeling themselves, giving themselves a foundation by which they can convince each other that the overwhelming majority of people are stupid and wrong and that they alone know the truth.

There's a couple of Jordan fans who exhibit this pattern of behaviour too. Except it's worse because they don't really believe Kobe is better than LeBron, but use Kobe aka Jordan-lite to try and establish LeBron's inferiority to Jordan, most times embarrassing themselves in the process.

[-Sammy-]

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

This is jargon; every possession matters, whether it's the first or the last. If you, as a player, were ever to remark that every possession only matters late in a game, you'd get sent to the end of the bench lightning-quick and you'd find yourself in the coach's office for some one-on-one the next day.

But it speaks to something else, which is how something like a law of averages applies to this situation. Suppose that instead of expending X amount of mental and physical energy having to fight fatigue at the end of a close game, you expended it over the course of the rest of the game, improving your performance against the other team over the entire game to the point where there was no end-of-game drama: can we all agree that that's the superior performance? Is there any coach who's ever said 'let's keep it close so we can win it at the end'?

This flawed perspective on late-game possessions having more value than early-game possessions is the finite-perspective fallacy I alluded to earlier in this thread.

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 is false. Each possession has the same value as all the others, and this becomes self-evident once you recognize that objective valuation of a game can only ever occur ex post facto. This is demonstrably true because it's how the NBA values games-- wins and losses, which are only ever determined by taking the game as a singular event after it's been played.

The notion that 'the value of a possession is less because there are many more to come' is an argument from ignorance-- 'we don't know how many more possessions there will be after this one.' The reality is that in evaluating the game objectively, which is done after it's already been played, we have ALL the data at our disposal, so we recognize that there were X number of possessions and that each point is worth the same as all the other points, regardless whether we're analyzing a first- or a fourth-quarter play.

I mean, clutch even has a wikipedia page:

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

Phrenology has a Wikipedia page, too.

[Domejandro]

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.

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.

Literally three posts apart; your consistent "shifting of the goalposts is why people do not take these threads seriously, the agenda is so painfully obvious.

[dhsilv2]

Clutch has absolutely been used to describe players having big games in elimination games.

[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.

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.

Literally three posts apart; your consistent "shifting of the goalposts is why people do not take these threads seriously, the agenda is so painfully obvious.

You're splitting words.

Taken in context, the meaning is clear. In the first example, I refer to the NBA definition of clutch, in the second I refer to the general concept of clutch.

[Long2s]

Clutch has absolutely been used to describe players having big games in elimination games.

It can definitely be used that way as subset, never denied it, however it is not what is generally meant by the word "clutch" in the NBA.

Defining clutch is a worthy concept and as the link to the scientific paper shows, it can mean many things.

What I referred to in the beginning would better be deemed "late game clutch".

[dhsilv2]

Clutch has absolutely been used to describe players having big games in elimination games.

It can definitely be used that way as subset, never denied it, however it is not what is generally meant by the word "clutch" in the NBA.

Defining clutch is a worthy concept and as the link to the scientific paper shows, it can mean many things.

What I referred to in the beginning would better be deemed "late game clutch".

There is absolutely no "general meaning" for clutch anywhere. Only in very recent years has this idea of the last X minutes with the score within Y points has that gotten a plurality of the discussion. For many clutch is any playoff game. For others it is elimination games or key regular season games for seeding. For others it is last second shots. The nba.com stats fyi just default to the 5 minutes and plus or minute 5 points. They let you narrow that data down as you will so they aren't even defining it, they're just giving you a default fitler.

[Ainosterhaspie]

The ability to create separation, to avoid being faced with a clutch situation, is important to winning (perhaps more so than being clutch) yet is often ignored in this type of discussion. Winning by a comfortable margin is not as visceral and memorable, but it protects you from randomness. Even if you have MJ its basically only 50/50 that you'll win if it comes down to him making a shot at the end of the game, and that's assuming the other team doesn't have a chance to counter.

It is better to close out the game before the waning seconds or minutes. What's odd about these discussions is people often pose a question that has nothing to do with reality: "who would you rather have with x minutes left down by y points". That question is pointless because series aren't determined by that scenario. They are determined by one's play over the course of multiple games. The question should be "who do you want have to win four consecutive series" since that is what is required to become a champion.

[CoffeeCakez]

Sorry I haven't had the time chime in as my workload is heavy this semester.

Revisiting this thread after several days is intriguing and humorous for me. It should be obvious to all impartial observers by now that the true point of the thread is part of a larger campaign with a singular agenda: to discredit LeBron and champion Kobe as the superior player at all costs. Make no mistake that this and this alone is the real issue here (and elsewhere where similar antics can be observed).

no this is not the agenda behind this thread; its to explore the clutch capabilities of said players using different metrics than the ones shoved down our throats by analysts and ESPN. You are projecting your own biases for LeBron and showcasing your insecurity by alleging that there is an agenda to discredit him in any way when all Long2s did was post some numbers.

For heaven's sake, they gave themselves a group name: the 'gang of 27.' They've adopted matching signatures because it's very important to them that you look at their data and their data alone and come to the same conclusion they do. This matters to them-- your opinion about LeBron and how Kobe compares to him is of great importance to them.

and does this bother you? Are you going to police what we post simply because it doesn't favor LeBron in any way? Have you explored the possibility that we just want to shed some more light and offer a different perspective on LeBron's actual 'clutch' abilities? how dare we right?

A review of the facts:

The heralded data is cherry-picked. The 27-gang assumes an arbitrary stretch of time and an arbitrary point-spread and demands that this and this alone be the metric for comparing LeBron with Kobe. Not only do they not want to address anything that falls outside these capricious parameters, but they also won't accept your cherry-picked data if it yields different implications.

The stats constantly shoved down our throats by BSPN and analysts are also cherry picked and offer a much smaller sample size. The data in the OP offers a different perspective, one that you and others may or may not agree with, BUT that doesn't mean it is completely invalid.

Long2s and I are quite receptive of other contrasting data and welcome dissenting opinions but we will also critique them.

A few pages back, I saw one of our 27ers reject someone else's cherry-picked data because he claimed the sample size is too small! In other words, 'we'll decide what constitutes a fair sample size, not you.'

Nope I simply stated that I did not agree with the data because it had a very small sample size. I did not outright reject it, am I not allowed to have an opinion on this? The actual purpose of this thread is to open up discussion about clutch abilities.

Good enough, 27-boyz; how about this for an adequate sample size?:

LeBron: 1353-of-2849, .574 TS%, 28.4 ppg
Kobe: 2014-of-4499, .541 TS%, 25.6ppg

That's the total number of field goals and attempts for both guys in the playoffs, along with TS percentage and scoring average. Is that a large enough sample size for you? It ought to be, as you literally can't produce a larger one, since that's every single field goal make and attempt each guy has ever had in the postseason. Hell, if you want to make it sound more like yours, it can be 'offense in the last 48 minutes of a game with a +/- of X points'.

'No', they'll reply, 'that's too broad; this is about a specific clip of time and point-spread'... in other words, a large sample size is bad and a small sample size is also bad; only this one insanely-specific swath of data will be permitted-- it has to be just right (maybe they should change their name to the 'gang of Goldilocks'). Of course, the rest of us know that the real reason this approach is being insisted on is because the real agenda here is to discredit LeBron.

once again you are arguing in circles and making false assumptions that our real agenda is to discredit a player you favor; projecting.

I am open to discuss this further with you as I did in previous posts but please do not falsely accuse me or Long2s of something you have no evidence for. It doesnt facilitate a healthy discussion and only derails the thread towards toxicity.

[-Sammy-]

Sorry I haven't had the time chime in as my workload is heavy this semester.

No sweat; thanks for taking the time!

Revisiting this thread after several days is intriguing and humorous for me. It should be obvious to all impartial observers by now that the true point of the thread is part of a larger campaign with a singular agenda: to discredit LeBron and champion Kobe as the superior player at all costs. Make no mistake that this and this alone is the real issue here (and elsewhere where similar antics can be observed).

no this is not the agenda behind this thread; its to explore the clutch capabilities of said players using different metrics than the ones shoved down our throats by analysts and ESPN. You are projecting your own biases for LeBron and showcasing your insecurity by alleging that there is an agenda to discredit him in any way when all Long2s did was post some numbers.

Well, to be fair, I pointed to this thread as part of a larger campaign with that agenda, but the evidence of my evaluation is ample; I won't make this post a call-out session, but it suffices for me to say that this is fairly-obviously the OP's agenda across RealGM, not just here in this thread; I may be more privy to the data than you are, though.

I'm neither biased toward LeBron nor insecure (what do I have to be insecure about? I'm not married to LeBron), but I'm interested in hearing why you think I am (it's ironic that you make these unfounded assumptions about me one paragraph after chiding me for observations for which evidence actually exists).

For heaven's sake, they gave themselves a group name: the 'gang of 27.' They've adopted matching signatures because it's very important to them that you look at their data and their data alone and come to the same conclusion they do. This matters to them-- your opinion about LeBron and how Kobe compares to him is of great importance to them.

and does this bother you? Are you going to police what we post simply because it doesn't favor LeBron in any way? Have you explored the possibility that we just want to shed some more light and offer a different perspective on LeBron's actual 'clutch' abilities? how dare we right?

No, it doesn't bother me; I point it out because it casts light on motives, not because it bothers me. As for 'policing', please elaborate on this. Making observations certainly =/= policing, so if you think I'm trying to 'police' you in some way, you need to buttress that accusation with evidence of some kind.

And yes, I've considered the possibility that your motives are pure; the problem, as I already pointed out in sections of my last post which you didn't address here, is that your own actions in this thread aren't consistent with this claim, which is why I wrote that post in the first place.

A review of the facts:

The heralded data is cherry-picked. The 27-gang assumes an arbitrary stretch of time and an arbitrary point-spread and demands that this and this alone be the metric for comparing LeBron with Kobe. Not only do they not want to address anything that falls outside these capricious parameters, but they also won't accept your cherry-picked data if it yields different implications.

The stats constantly shoved down our throats by BSPN and analysts are also cherry picked and offer a much smaller sample size. The data in the OP offers a different perspective, one that you and others may or may not agree with, BUT that doesn't mean it is completely invalid.

Certainly, but as I also demonstrated in my last post, we can produce data with a larger sample size, as well, that leads us to different conclusions. All you're doing is making my original point from two weeks ago, which is that filtered, cherry-picked data can be used to make virtually any point, which is why evaluating whole data sets is the altogether superior approach.

A few pages back, I saw one of our 27ers reject someone else's cherry-picked data because he claimed the sample size is too small! In other words, 'we'll decide what constitutes a fair sample size, not you.'

Nope I simply stated that I did not agree with the data because it had a very small sample size. I did not outright reject it, am I not allowed to have an opinion on this? The actual purpose of this thread is to open up discussion about clutch abilities.

Of course you're allowed to have an opinion; unless someone's stated that you're not allowed to have an opinion, there's no need to repeatedly re-assert your right to an opinion, because nobody's challenging it. I'm addressing inconsistent methodologies in data evaluation, that's all. Nobody's trying to take away your right to an opinion.

Good enough, 27-boyz; how about this for an adequate sample size?:

LeBron: 1353-of-2849, .574 TS%, 28.4 ppg
Kobe: 2014-of-4499, .541 TS%, 25.6ppg

That's the total number of field goals and attempts for both guys in the playoffs, along with TS percentage and scoring average. Is that a large enough sample size for you? It ought to be, as you literally can't produce a larger one, since that's every single field goal make and attempt each guy has ever had in the postseason. Hell, if you want to make it sound more like yours, it can be 'offense in the last 48 minutes of a game with a +/- of X points'.

'No', they'll reply, 'that's too broad; this is about a specific clip of time and point-spread'... in other words, a large sample size is bad and a small sample size is also bad; only this one insanely-specific swath of data will be permitted-- it has to be just right (maybe they should change their name to the 'gang of Goldilocks'). Of course, the rest of us know that the real reason this approach is being insisted on is because the real agenda here is to discredit LeBron.

once again you are arguing in circles and making false assumptions that our real agenda is to discredit a player you favor; projecting.

Firstly, I explained in my post that I wasn't making accusations toward any specific posters, but that I was describing a range of behavior and arguing probable motives behind it. If you think I was talking about you specifically, then perhaps it's because you perceive that your actions match my descriptions, but I'm not here to call anyone out; this is about diagnosing behavior, not accusing people.

Secondly, I'm not projecting-- projection is the act of ascribing to others what is actually true of oneself. Whether or not any of my assertions are true, it's certainly not the case that I'm trying to discredit LeBron, so there's no projection here.

Thirdly, you should demonstrate what you mean by 'arguing in circles'; I'm not clear on which part of my last post seems tautological to you.

I am open to discuss this further with you as I did in previous posts but please do not falsely accuse me or Long2s of something you have no evidence for. It doesnt facilitate a healthy discussion and only derails the thread towards toxicity.

Well, as I explained above, I haven't accused you of anything; I've described a range of behavior, but I certainly gave substantial argumentation for that description, so if you want to refute it, that's what you should address.

As I told the OP already, though, some of my comments to him in particular are based on his entire body of work across RealGM, not just on his contributions to this one thread.

I mean this in all sincerity, though: if you feel like I was calling you out personally and specifically in some way, I apologize; it wasn't my intention to make you feel that way or to make anyone uncomfortable. It can be hard to communicate tone through the written word, so let me make clear now that I write everything on RealGM from a friendly, conversational perspective, and it is never my intention to be heavy-handed, condescending, or otherwise off-putting. If that's the vibe I sent, I owe you an apology and I'll do better to not make you feel that way going forward.