ATL - LMA retires with heart issue - pg 78

[truly]

Brooklyn is just insane, they are not losing if they get their top 3 guys healthy at some point.

Yes they have overwhelming talent on that team.It's a shame because i think we match up well against them.

[GHOSTofSIKMA]

Brooklyn is just insane, they are not losing if they get their top 3 guys healthy at some point.

Yes they have overwhelming talent on that team.It's a shame because i think we match up well against them.

were the perfect matchup and its best if aII 3 are heaIthy and pIaying 40 minutes each

[blazza18]

I think we're an ok matchup against Brooklyn but it's going to take Giannis and Jrue to play their best two way series of their lives and for Tucker to be a 2018 version of himself. And even then it might not be enough.

[Prez]

I think we're an ok matchup against Brooklyn but it's going to take Giannis and Jrue to play their best two way series of their lives and for Tucker to be a 2018 version of himself. And even then it might not be enough.

It's going to take at least one of those guys being out of the series entirely or significantly compromised by injury (obviously not rooting for that). If they are full strength I think they stomp everyone in the East and the only team that can maybe hang with them is a full strength LAL imo.

[coolhandluke121]

That's fine we can agree to disagree. If you are telling me that you can perform a task over and over again without having any variance of your execution related to your emotional state or other surrounding factors, then you are either a robot or a vulcan.
Also you're suggesting that every playoff game will be viewed by any particular player as equal. It could be possible that some of the regular season games carry more weight than some of the games in the playoffs, especially for players who have made multiple trips. Trying to do research to determine whether or not a "clutch gene" exists is like trying to do an experiment to prove that "love" is real. Some things you can just see.
If there are players who are unclutch like Eric Bledsoe clearly was, why is it hard to think that there are players who exist on the opposite end of that spectrum?

I fully understand variance and I have a lot of training in math and statistics. It's not that performance doesn't vary, it's that "playing better in the clutch" is not an explanatory part of the variance. Variance actually undermines "clutch" arguments because it's like saying a player will be more consistently good in the clutch than he normally is, which disregards variance that you need to account for. Empirical evidence showing that certain players are "clutch" is just a product of having so many players to choose from that some of them are randomly bound to have better clutch stats than others precisely because of the variance you are implying that I don't understand. There are no more "clutch" players than what anyone would expect from just a certain percentage of competitors being a little luckier than others in those situations.

The reason it's possible to understand players being worse than their baseline performance in the clutch without having to believe that some players are better in the clutch is simply because there's a proven explanatory mechanism for why players are worse in the clutch (performance anxiety, observable stress, etc), whereas there's really not a convincing mechanism by which they would be better in the clutch. You need data AND an explanatory mechanism in order to have a real theory. Clutchiness just has random data that has little correlation year-to-year. There's only hindsight data with almost no predictive value, other than when a player is anti-clutch. But even if you think there is a valid reason some players might be better in the clutch than they normally are, without it just being small sample randomness, then we should see a lot more consistency from year-to-year in who the "clutch" players are.

[coolhandluke121]

I fear the Bucks once again not playing up to their ability in the playoffs a lot more than I fear the Nets. They're plenty good but what's the precedent for trying to compensate for such massive defensive deficiencies by adding more and more good scorers and being successful in the playoffs? I don't really see one. You eventually hit a point of diminishing returns because there's only one ball. They remind me of the Mavs with Nash, Finley, Dirk, Jamison, Fatoine, Van Exel, Howard, Stackhouse, etc, albeit a better version of that.

[GHOSTofSIKMA]

I think we're an ok matchup against Brooklyn but it's going to take Giannis and Jrue to play their best two way series of their lives and for Tucker to be a 2018 version of himself. And even then it might not be enough.

It's going to take at least one of those guys being out of the series entirely or significantly compromised by injury (obviously not rooting for that). If they are full strength I think they stomp everyone in the East and the only team that can maybe hang with them is a full strength LAL imo.

im more worried about 2 out of 3 than 3 out of 3. aII 3 guys wiII create issues and opens things up for us offensiveIy. i know this sounds Iike a hot take but i feeI kind of firm that aII 3 wiII be awkward for them offensiveIy and in our best interest defensiveIy too

[GHOSTofSIKMA]

if aII 3 had pIayed together aII season it wouId be easier. but aII 3 we need to switch everything and take our chances. they wont have an answer for us either if giannis is confident at the Iine

[Plossum]

It’s nuts how KD can miss so many games and just effortlessly come back and drop 33 against one of the best teams in the league.

[Bmaasse]

That's fine we can agree to disagree. If you are telling me that you can perform a task over and over again without having any variance of your execution related to your emotional state or other surrounding factors, then you are either a robot or a vulcan.
Also you're suggesting that every playoff game will be viewed by any particular player as equal. It could be possible that some of the regular season games carry more weight than some of the games in the playoffs, especially for players who have made multiple trips. Trying to do research to determine whether or not a "clutch gene" exists is like trying to do an experiment to prove that "love" is real. Some things you can just see.
If there are players who are unclutch like Eric Bledsoe clearly was, why is it hard to think that there are players who exist on the opposite end of that spectrum?

I fully understand variance and I have a lot of training in math and statistics. It's not that performance doesn't vary, it's that "playing better in the clutch" is not an explanatory part of the variance. Variance actually undermines "clutch" arguments because it's like saying a player will be more consistently good in the clutch than he normally is, which disregards variance that you need to account for. Empirical evidence showing that certain players are "clutch" is just a product of having so many players to choose from that some of them are randomly bound to have better clutch stats than others precisely because of the variance you are implying that I don't understand. There are no more "clutch" players than what anyone would expect from just a certain percentage of competitors being a little luckier than others in those situations.

The reason it's possible to understand players being worse than their baseline performance in the clutch without having to believe that some players are better in the clutch is simply because there's a proven explanatory mechanism for why players are worse in the clutch (performance anxiety, observable stress, etc), whereas there's really not a convincing mechanism by which they would be better in the clutch. You need data AND an explanatory mechanism in order to have a real theory. Clutchiness just has random data that has little correlation year-to-year. There's only hindsight data with almost no predictive value, other than when a player is anti-clutch. But even if you think there is a valid reason some players might be better in the clutch than they normally are, without it just being small sample randomness, then we should see a lot more consistency from year-to-year in who the "clutch" players are.

So you don't think the fear of failure would be an explanatory mechanism? Tell someone that they can't do something and they will go above and beyond to prove you wrong. Why do so many elite athletes carry a chip on their shoulders to use as motivation.

[coolhandluke121]

So you don't think the fear of failure would be an explanatory mechanism? Tell someone that they can't do something and they will go above and beyond to prove you wrong. Why do so many elite athletes carry a chip on their shoulders to use as motivation.

That's actually one explanation for why some players are worse in the clutch, so I don't know how you can argue that it would be a reason some players are better in the clutch than they are otherwise. Fear of failure is definitely not something that improves performance in the moment. It can motivate players to prepare more effectively, but that's going to help as much in any other situation as it does in the "clutch."

[Bmaasse]

So you don't think the fear of failure would be an explanatory mechanism? Tell someone that they can't do something and they will go above and beyond to prove you wrong. Why do so many elite athletes carry a chip on their shoulders to use as motivation.

That's actually one explanation for why some players are worse in the clutch, so I don't know how you can argue that it would be a reason some players are better in the clutch than they are otherwise. Fear of failure is definitely not something that improves performance in the moment. It can motivate players to prepare more effectively, but that's going to help as much in any other situation as it does in the "clutch."

Anxiety is nothing more than energy. Some people allow it to hinder their performance, while others are able to channel it into a positive force.

If clutch players do not exist, then we can't say that there are those that choke either.

[coolhandluke121]

So you don't think the fear of failure would be an explanatory mechanism? Tell someone that they can't do something and they will go above and beyond to prove you wrong. Why do so many elite athletes carry a chip on their shoulders to use as motivation.

That's actually one explanation for why some players are worse in the clutch, so I don't know how you can argue that it would be a reason some players are better in the clutch than they are otherwise. Fear of failure is definitely not something that improves performance in the moment. It can motivate players to prepare more effectively, but that's going to help as much in any other situation as it does in the "clutch."

Anxiety is nothing more than energy. Some people allow it to hinder their performance, while others are able to channel it into a positive force.

If clutch players do not exist, then we can't say that there are those that choke either.

Then why isn't there consistency in who performs better in the clutch than they do the rest of the time from year-to-year? You're suggesting explanations of why something is true when there's not even evidence of it being true. I'm explaining a phenomenon that actually happens (choking in the clutch) whereas you're offering what you consider a plausible explanation of a phenomenon that doesn't actually happen. That's why I say again that you need data AND an explanatory mechanism to have an actual theory. You can barely suggest a plausible mechanism and even that is a bit of a reach.

[Bmaasse]

That's actually one explanation for why some players are worse in the clutch, so I don't know how you can argue that it would be a reason some players are better in the clutch than they are otherwise. Fear of failure is definitely not something that improves performance in the moment. It can motivate players to prepare more effectively, but that's going to help as much in any other situation as it does in the "clutch."

Anxiety is nothing more than energy. Some people allow it to hinder their performance, while others are able to channel it into a positive force.

If clutch players do not exist, then we can't say that there are those that choke either.

Then why isn't there consistency in who performs better in the clutch than they do the rest of the time from year-to-year? You're suggesting explanations of why something is true when there's not even evidence of it being true. I'm explaining a phenomenon that actually happens (choking in the clutch) whereas you're offering what you consider a plausible explanation of a phenomenon that doesn't actually happen. That's why I say again that you need data AND an explanatory mechanism to have an actual theory. You can barely suggest a plausible mechanism and even that is a bit of a reach.

Instead of comparing how a player performs in regular season games vs. the playoffs, did you scompare their shooting splits for the first 3 quarters vs. the 4th, or even the last 5 minutes?
If you only look at the box score from last night, you would think that Middleton had a much better game than Lou Williams, but who's performance actually had a greater impact on the overall outcome of the game. Lou made shots when it mattered most, Lou was clutch last night.

[stillgotgame]

Torrie Craig with 20/14 on only 9 shots yesterday against Brooklyn. A defensive, athletic wing and we don’t play him. Then we let him go so we can trade a 1st for a short, fat, washed up PF who sits out constantly rehabbing.
Why didn’t Torrie Craig work out for us? Bud needs to be held accountable for this.

[coolhandluke121]

Anxiety is nothing more than energy. Some people allow it to hinder their performance, while others are able to channel it into a positive force.

If clutch players do not exist, then we can't say that there are those that choke either.

Then why isn't there consistency in who performs better in the clutch than they do the rest of the time from year-to-year? You're suggesting explanations of why something is true when there's not even evidence of it being true. I'm explaining a phenomenon that actually happens (choking in the clutch) whereas you're offering what you consider a plausible explanation of a phenomenon that doesn't actually happen. That's why I say again that you need data AND an explanatory mechanism to have an actual theory. You can barely suggest a plausible mechanism and even that is a bit of a reach.

Instead of comparing how a player performs in regular season games vs. the playoffs, did you scompare their shooting splits for the first 3 quarters vs. the 4th, or even the last 5 minutes?
If you only look at the box score from last night, you would think that Middleton had a much better game than Lou Williams, but who's performance actually had a greater impact on the overall outcome of the game. Lou made shots when it mattered most, Lou was clutch last night.

And sometimes Khris will have bad games but make a bunch of shots in the 4th quarter. Stop building stupid narratives out of random variance.

ETA: I've been giving you way too much credit. Should have known this was going to boil down to the same narrative-building garbage it always does, all based on the emotions of the 4th quarter with no evidence or reason to back anything up. I'm out.

[EastSideBucksFan]

Torrie Craig with 20/14 on only 9 shots yesterday against Brooklyn. A defensive, athletic wing and we don’t play him. Then we let him go so we can trade a 1st for a short, fat, washed up PF who sits out constantly rehabbing.
Why didn’t Torrie Craig work out for us? Bud needs to be held accountable for this.

Last week when I looked, Suns bench was better with Torrey Craig off the floor than on the floor

The guy came to Milwaukee and then pouted his way out of here

Players need to be held accountable too, he only played hard one game for Bucks, vs Nuggets.

[Ron Swanson]

Athletes aren't robots with static production across all factors/environments. Denying that "clutch" exists is to deny that basketball players are human beings with different mental makeups. Some just don't seem to trust anything that you can't quantify with a nice, clean numerical metric, and I think there's a tremendous amount of backlash against the term because it's so loosely thrown around in situations where it doesn't apply.

[coolhandluke121]

Athletes aren't robots with static production across all factors/environments. Denying that "clutch" exists is to deny that basketball players are human beings with different mental makeups. Some just don't seem to trust anything that you can't quantify with a nice, clean numerical metric, and I think there's a tremendous amount of backlash against the term because it's so loosely thrown around in situations where it doesn't apply.

I doubt you have any idea what is even being argued anyway, but nobody is denying that pressure situations matter or that players are human, and NOBODY is denying that there is variance in those situations. You can predict that certain players will consistently perform worse in those situations than they normally do because of the known ways that pressure affects them, and I'm sure there are plenty of stats on guys like Bledsoe consistently having those issues. What you can't do is just assume there's a mechanism for certain players consistently doing better than their normal performance in the clutch and use anecdotes and cherry-picked examples to try to make that point, especially when nobody has ever been able to provide any credible model that identifies such players with any predictive value.

[stillgotgame]

Torrie Craig with 20/14 on only 9 shots yesterday against Brooklyn. A defensive, athletic wing and we don’t play him. Then we let him go so we can trade a 1st for a short, fat, washed up PF who sits out constantly rehabbing.
Why didn’t Torrie Craig work out for us? Bud needs to be held accountable for this.

Last week when I looked, Suns bench was better with Torrey Craig off the floor than on the floor

The guy came to Milwaukee and then pouted his way out of here

Players need to be held accountable too, he only played hard one game for Bucks, vs Nuggets.

He sure didn't play much. The times he did play he rarely got many minutes. After being a regular rotation guy covering LeBron, Paul George, Kawhi, and Spida Mitchell in last year's playoffs maybe he had unrealistic expectations. Or maybe Bud just likes to play short, unathletic wings that try really hard.
Interesting that you think he pouted his way out of here. Why did he sign with us to begin with?