Retro Player of the Year Project

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

SinceGatlingWasARookie
RealGM
Posts: 11,712
And1: 2,759
Joined: Aug 25, 2005
Location: Northern California

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#1481 » by SinceGatlingWasARookie » Wed Oct 1, 2014 2:04 pm

sp6r=underrated wrote:Clutch play is mostly luck.

Some players raise their game in clutch situations. Some players get worse in clutch situations.

I cringed whenever Dennis Johnson shot an 18 footer in the first 3 and a half quarters of a game because he shot them at about 40% But I was happy when Dennis Johnson shot an 18 footer in the last 5 minutes of a tight game because he shot them at about 55%

Dennis Johnson needed the extra emotional focus to get the precise motion out of his hands.


sp6r=underrated wrote:Furthermore, points in the 4th quarter count exactly the same as points scored in the 1st quarter.


Good teams often have the bad habit of letting inferior competition stay in the the game with them until mid way through the 4th quarter. To some degree pressure is needed to create focus.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,506
And1: 22,520
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#1482 » by Doctor MJ » Thu Oct 2, 2014 1:05 am

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:
sp6r=underrated wrote:Clutch play is mostly luck.

Some players raise their game in clutch situations. Some players get worse in clutc situations.

I cringed whenever Denns Johnson shot an 18 footer i the first 3 and a half quarters of a game because he shot them at about 40% But I was happy when Dennis Johnson shot an 18 footer in the last 5 minutes of a tight game because he shot them at about 55%

Dennis Johnson needed the extra emotional focus to get the precise motion out of his hands.


Do you have any objective data to back this up?
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
SinceGatlingWasARookie
RealGM
Posts: 11,712
And1: 2,759
Joined: Aug 25, 2005
Location: Northern California

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#1483 » by SinceGatlingWasARookie » Thu Oct 2, 2014 2:25 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:
sp6r=underrated wrote:Clutch play is mostly luck.

Some players raise their game in clutch situations. Some players get worse in clutc situations.

I cringed whenever Denns Johnson shot an 18 footer i the first 3 and a half quarters of a game because he shot them at about 40% But I was happy when Dennis Johnson shot an 18 footer in the last 5 minutes of a tight game because he shot them at about 55%

Dennis Johnson needed the extra emotional focus to get the precise motion out of his hands.


Do you have any objective data to back this up?


Where would I go to find data to back that up? Does any data source separate out the last five minutes of the game? If I could find random game logs I could construct the data but it would be a small sample size,

A few discussions about Rondo but poor shooting DJ being a good clutch shooter comes up in in both discussions :
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php ... 6.200;wap2
http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists ... rondo.html

using google phrase "when it counts"
From : http://www.bulletsforever.com/2007/2/22/22177/8880 " He was one of those classic only-when-it-counts shooters who could be riding a 3-for-14 game into the final minute, then nail a wide-open 20-footer to win the game."
http://lexnihilnovi.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... -when.html
"DJ's Still Money When it Counts"
DJ shot 17 percent for his career from 3 point land and 26 percent on 3 pointers his best year. DJ was a career 44% fg shooter but I know DJ's drives were well better than 44% so his jump shot had to be significantly worse than 44%.

Ask the people who watched DJ. Did he knock to his jumpers when the game was on the line? Did he knock down his jumpers when the game was not on the line?
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,506
And1: 22,520
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#1484 » by Doctor MJ » Thu Oct 2, 2014 3:43 am

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:Some players raise their game in clutch situations. Some players get worse in clutc situations.

I cringed whenever Denns Johnson shot an 18 footer i the first 3 and a half quarters of a game because he shot them at about 40% But I was happy when Dennis Johnson shot an 18 footer in the last 5 minutes of a tight game because he shot them at about 55%

Dennis Johnson needed the extra emotional focus to get the precise motion out of his hands.


Do you have any objective data to back this up?


Where would I go to find data to back that up? Does any data source separate out the last five minutes of the game? If I could find random game logs I could construct the data but it would be a small sample size,

A few discussions about Rondo but poor shooting DJ being a good clutch shooter comes up in in both discussions :
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php ... 6.200;wap2
http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists ... rondo.html

using google phrase "when it counts"
From : http://www.bulletsforever.com/2007/2/22/22177/8880 " He was one of those classic only-when-it-counts shooters who could be riding a 3-for-14 game into the final minute, then nail a wide-open 20-footer to win the game."
http://lexnihilnovi.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... -when.html
"DJ's Still Money When it Counts"
DJ shot 17 percent for his career from 3 point land and 26 percent on 3 pointers his best year. DJ was a career 44% fg shooter but I know DJ's drives were well better than 44% so his jump shot had to be significantly worse than 44%.

Ask the people who watched DJ. Did he knock to his jumpers when the game was on the line? Did he knock down his jumpers when the game was not on the line?


Right so, what we've seen in the data era is that people thought stuff like this was happening all over the place...and it just wasn't. Even the guys who are truly kicking it up in the clutch aren't doing it because they are literally shooting it better, they're doing it by taking different shots.

And as you stated, I really doubted you had access to the actual data on this.

So yeah, you come across as someone putting a ton of stock in things that just aren't real.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
SinceGatlingWasARookie
RealGM
Posts: 11,712
And1: 2,759
Joined: Aug 25, 2005
Location: Northern California

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#1485 » by SinceGatlingWasARookie » Thu Oct 2, 2014 4:19 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Do you have any objective data to back this up?


Where would I go to find data to back that up? Does any data source separate out the last five minutes of the game? If I could find random game logs I could construct the data but it would be a small sample size,

A few discussions about Rondo but poor shooting DJ being a good clutch shooter comes up in in both discussions :
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php ... 6.200;wap2
http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists ... rondo.html

using google phrase "when it counts"
From : http://www.bulletsforever.com/2007/2/22/22177/8880 " He was one of those classic only-when-it-counts shooters who could be riding a 3-for-14 game into the final minute, then nail a wide-open 20-footer to win the game."
http://lexnihilnovi.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... -when.html
"DJ's Still Money When it Counts"
DJ shot 17 percent for his career from 3 point land and 26 percent on 3 pointers his best year. DJ was a career 44% fg shooter but I know DJ's drives were well better than 44% so his jump shot had to be significantly worse than 44%.

Ask the people who watched DJ. Did he knock to his jumpers when the game was on the line? Did he knock down his jumpers when the game was not on the line?


Right so, what we've seen in the data era is that people thought stuff like this was happening all over the place...and it just wasn't. Even the guys who are truly kicking it up in the clutch aren't doing it because they are literally shooting it better, they're doing it by taking different shots.

And as you stated, I really doubted you had access to the actual data on this.

So yeah, you come across as someone putting a ton of stock in things that just aren't real.


I trust my lying eyes.

There is also no data to dispute the claims of clutchness.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,506
And1: 22,520
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#1486 » by Doctor MJ » Thu Oct 2, 2014 5:05 am

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:I trust my lying eyes.

There is also no data to dispute the claims of clutchness.


The putative phenomenon of human beings being able to do what you believe your eyes did seems to have been disproven by all the data we have access to. Now, maybe someone else comes up with more data that goes away from what I"m saying, not saying that's impossible, but you shouldn't be looking at this as if a reasonable approach is "yeah that's what it says for a bunch of other people who sound like me, but they aren't me, and that wasn't DJ, so it's irrelevant".
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
SinceGatlingWasARookie
RealGM
Posts: 11,712
And1: 2,759
Joined: Aug 25, 2005
Location: Northern California

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#1487 » by SinceGatlingWasARookie » Thu Oct 2, 2014 6:31 am

The best argument against clutchness comes from baseball because they have actual data to debunk exaggerated claims of clutch hitting.

From personal experience I insist that focus whether mental or physical is sharpest when there is both the tension of motivation along with a paradoxical relaxation perhaps from confidence.

If you say clutchness does not exist do you say that it's opposite, "chokers" also doesn't exist?

Do you say that boredom does not create inconsistent performance?
When good teams play down to the level of their competition until the last 5 minutes of the game do attribute the entire effect of playing down to the level of the competition to lack of effort or do you separate out lack of focus as being a 2nd factor related to but not the same as lack of effort?
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,506
And1: 22,520
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#1488 » by Doctor MJ » Sat Oct 4, 2014 10:03 pm

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:The best argument against clutchness comes from baseball because they have actual data to debunk exaggerated claims of clutch hitting.

From personal experience I insist that focus whether mental or physical is sharpest when there is both the tension of motivation along with a paradoxical relaxation perhaps from confidence.

If you say clutchness does not exist do you say that it's opposite, "chokers" also doesn't exist?

Do you say that boredom does not create inconsistent performance?
When good teams play down to the level of their competition until the last 5 minutes of the game do attribute the entire effect of playing down to the level of the competition to lack of effort or do you separate out lack of focus as being a 2nd factor related to but not the same as lack of effort?


So yeah, there's an entire realm of sports statistics and analysis in basketball that you're not only unfamiliar with but seem to simply assume doesn't exist despite the fact the stuff you're quoting is really old and the past decade has seen the beginning of big data in earnest. I don't know why you do that.

Look, I live in clutch-believer central: Los Angeles. Where we have Kobe Bryant, and everyone on the sports radio took it as a given that he was able to do the precise kind of stuff you're talking about. But we now have access to crunch time data, and it turned out that Kobe's raw percentages don't go up, he simply shoots more in the clutch which drives his volume stats up and gives people the impression he's working miracles.

That doesn't mean that clutchness doesn't exist, and I never said it didn't exist. I only said that the particular strain of clutch reasoning you're employing is basically what most clung to, and it's been the one torn apart when people actually started counting these things.

When I said that guys don't get better at shooting jumpers, the ones who shoot better change their shots, that's a flat out statement that some manner of clutchness does exist...it's just not a fine motor skill thing so much. The way to be clutch is to fight for better shots, and you can tell who's doing that by the free throws they shoot (if we're just talking about scoring).

I also have to say it's weird to see this brought up with DJ given that his "choking" in 1978 is a key part of who he is narrative-wise. Maybe you're one of the one's who believe that he cured himself of choking after that and became a clutch hero, but this is most certainly not a guy with some extreme innate ability to control his fine motor muscles better the more things matter to him.

Last thing I'll say: I do think choking exists as a separate phenomenon, and that sometimes clutchness is simply being the guy who isn't choking. And I do think a player can go from being choking-prone to no longer being. DJ may be one of those players - everything fits with that narrative. Wouldn't make him figure out how to shoot a better jump shot in the clutch, but it would have positive effects.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
D Nice
Veteran
Posts: 2,840
And1: 473
Joined: Nov 05, 2009

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#1489 » by D Nice » Sat Oct 4, 2014 10:26 pm

The problem with "clutch data" analysis is that it restricts the problem defintion to situations < what is it, 4 minutes, within a certain margin scoring deficit. That doesn't even come close to an all-encompassing look at clutch "phenomena."

In reality clutch can be scoring 6-8 consecutive points to cut a 3rd quarter deficit in half, hitting a big 3 to stem a run, being given the ball with 2 seconds left on the shotclock and making a <10% shot 25% of the time, etc. "Clutch" isn't something that magically only becomes relevant 4-5 minutes before the game ends when the score is within 5 points. And even if you were to use that data and say "Kobe isn't clutch" (which, oh, the entire league and front-office personnel would disagree with), those same "studies" still paint other guys (Melo & Vince IIRC) as extremely clutch, so the mere existence of the phenomena would still have to be acknowledged, even if the most popular current example of it is inaccurate to some degree. And didn't Kobe hit something like 11/12 game-winners/game-tying shots a few seasons ago?
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,506
And1: 22,520
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#1490 » by Doctor MJ » Sat Oct 4, 2014 11:09 pm

D Nice wrote:The problem with "clutch data" analysis is that it restricts the problem defintion to situations < what is it, 4 minutes, within a certain margin scoring deficit. That doesn't even come close to an all-encompassing look at clutch "phenomena."

In reality clutch can be scoring 6-8 consecutive points to cut a 3rd quarter deficit in half, hitting a big 3 to stem a run, being given the ball with 2 seconds left on the shotclock and making a <10% shot 25% of the time, etc. "Clutch" isn't something that magically only becomes relevant 4-5 minutes before the game ends when the score is within 5 points. And even if you were to use that data and say "Kobe isn't clutch" (which, oh, the entire league and front-office personnel would disagree with), those same "studies" still paint other guys (Melo & Vince IIRC) as extremely clutch, so the mere existence of the phenomena would still have to be acknowledged, even if the most popular current example of it is inaccurate to some degree. And didn't Kobe hit something like 11/12 game-winners/game-tying shots a few seasons ago?


What you're describing is only an issue if someone's trying to prove that clutchness doesn't exist.

What I'm talking about are studies proving that a particular strain of clutch-oriented reasoning fits with the data or doesn't. The reality is that a lot of people like Gatling literally think they've seen their guy pull up and take his same normal shots (or sometimes even harder than normal shots) and make a far higher percentage of them. We have data, it tells us that's not what happened, and so their idea of the application of clutchness is just plain wrong.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
User avatar
bondom34
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 66,716
And1: 50,290
Joined: Mar 01, 2013

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#1491 » by bondom34 » Sat Oct 4, 2014 11:12 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:

Last thing I'll say: I do think choking exists as a separate phenomenon, and that sometimes clutchness is simply being the guy who isn't choking. And I do think a player can go from being choking-prone to no longer being. DJ may be one of those players - everything fits with that narrative. Wouldn't make him figure out how to shoot a better jump shot in the clutch, but it would have positive effects.

Other than the definition issue brought up by D Nice, I think I'd agree with the bolded as much as/more than anything really. I think pressure can bear down on some people in certain situations, any (may) affect performance. I'd still rather see good data on the subject, but I think if something similar to clutch exists, its just the lack of choking.
MyUniBroDavis wrote: he was like YALL PEOPLE WHO DOUBT ME WILL SEE YALLS STATS ARE WRONG I HAVE THE BIG BRAIN PLAYS MUCHO NASTY BIG BRAIN BIG CHUNGUS BRAIN YOU BOYS ON UR BBALL REFERENCE NO UNDERSTANDO
D Nice
Veteran
Posts: 2,840
And1: 473
Joined: Nov 05, 2009

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#1492 » by D Nice » Sat Oct 4, 2014 11:12 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
D Nice wrote:The problem with "clutch data" analysis is that it restricts the problem defintion to situations < what is it, 4 minutes, within a certain margin scoring deficit. That doesn't even come close to an all-encompassing look at clutch "phenomena."

In reality clutch can be scoring 6-8 consecutive points to cut a 3rd quarter deficit in half, hitting a big 3 to stem a run, being given the ball with 2 seconds left on the shotclock and making a <10% shot 25% of the time, etc. "Clutch" isn't something that magically only becomes relevant 4-5 minutes before the game ends when the score is within 5 points. And even if you were to use that data and say "Kobe isn't clutch" (which, oh, the entire league and front-office personnel would disagree with), those same "studies" still paint other guys (Melo & Vince IIRC) as extremely clutch, so the mere existence of the phenomena would still have to be acknowledged, even if the most popular current example of it is inaccurate to some degree. And didn't Kobe hit something like 11/12 game-winners/game-tying shots a few seasons ago?


What you're describing is only an issue if someone's trying to prove that clutchness doesn't exist.

What I'm talking about are studies proving that a particular strain of clutch-oriented reasoning fits with the data or doesn't. The reality is that a lot of people like Gatling literally think they've seen their guy pull up and take his same normal shots (or sometimes even harder than normal shots) and make a far higher percentage of them. We have data, it tells us that's not what happened, and so their idea of the application of clutchness is just plain wrong.


Ah, yeah, that's true, I guess in some quick reading I misinterpreted your point, because I very much did think you were trying to argue clutch as a theoretical concept is imagined and unproven. Was probably a function of how you referenced putative phenomenon in debunking his claims.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,506
And1: 22,520
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#1493 » by Doctor MJ » Sat Oct 4, 2014 11:29 pm

bondom34 wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:

Last thing I'll say: I do think choking exists as a separate phenomenon, and that sometimes clutchness is simply being the guy who isn't choking. And I do think a player can go from being choking-prone to no longer being. DJ may be one of those players - everything fits with that narrative. Wouldn't make him figure out how to shoot a better jump shot in the clutch, but it would have positive effects.

Other than the definition issue brought up by D Nice, I think I'd agree with the bolded as much as/more than anything really. I think pressure can bear down on some people in certain situations, any (may) affect performance. I'd still rather see good data on the subject, but I think if something similar to clutch exists, its just the lack of choking.


Yup, one thing I'll say though:

For the most part, if you've got serious anxiety issues, you don't play NBA basketball. Unless you're just an insane physical talent (and by that I mean much than just normal NBA talent levels - typically the type of talent you only see from bigs), to get to the NBA you have to have performed well in tense situations. That's how you got your multi-million dollar contract in the first place. So the notion that there's an epidemic of millionaires constantly choking in the NBA in tense situations has always seemed silly.

What we do see though are particular situations where a guy freezes. I think you can see it at the free throw line most often because a guy has so much time to think before doing a fine-motor task. In live play where it comes most often is when a guy is unsettled about a decision because something's come up that was not in the game plan.

Examples:
-The guy hesitating on a shot because he thinks he's cold (and thus actually becomes cold).
-The guy hesitating on a shot because he's a role player and he's afraid he'll get yanked if he doesn't pass to the star.
-The guy hesitating because the defense is throwing new things at him, and he's not sure what the best move is.

For the most part, if you're a scoring star, the first two things don't hit you. Anyone used to shooting a lot knows that you have streaks you keep missing, and they wouldn't still be shooting like that if they couldn't get through it.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
User avatar
bondom34
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 66,716
And1: 50,290
Joined: Mar 01, 2013

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#1494 » by bondom34 » Sat Oct 4, 2014 11:35 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
Examples:
-The guy hesitating on a shot because he thinks he's cold (and thus actually becomes cold).
-The guy hesitating on a shot because he's a role player and he's afraid he'll get yanked if he doesn't pass to the star.
-The guy hesitating because the defense is throwing new things at him, and he's not sure what the best move is.

For the most part, if you're a scoring star, the first two things don't hit you. Anyone used to shooting a lot knows that you have streaks you keep missing, and they wouldn't still be shooting like that if they couldn't get through it.

Agree, one thing I'd add though, is that I feel like the first 2 are a little more likely in certain types of players. Particularly, players either who are young and/or are seeing a bigger role for the first time in their careers. An example from last year in particular I'd take is DeRozan. Just pulling up stats from nba.com last season (and I use the last 1 minute for clutch, because really 5 minutes seems way too long), but he shot 22.2 percent in the last minute w/in 5 points. Some of that is likely defense, but at the same time I think guys in the primary scorer's role may struggle more than vets in the last moments.
MyUniBroDavis wrote: he was like YALL PEOPLE WHO DOUBT ME WILL SEE YALLS STATS ARE WRONG I HAVE THE BIG BRAIN PLAYS MUCHO NASTY BIG BRAIN BIG CHUNGUS BRAIN YOU BOYS ON UR BBALL REFERENCE NO UNDERSTANDO
SinceGatlingWasARookie
RealGM
Posts: 11,712
And1: 2,759
Joined: Aug 25, 2005
Location: Northern California

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#1495 » by SinceGatlingWasARookie » Sun Oct 5, 2014 6:49 am

What about streak shooters? Is there any debate whether streak shooting exists?

When way say so and so is heating up?
Or he is feeling it now? Do people doubt the concept of a player heating up or getting in the groove?

Why shouldn't there be a psychological component to getting in the groove. Why shouldn't a little extra pressure help some people to focus better and remove extraneous small random motions from their shot?

The fine motor skills seem to be changeable.

From the perspective of a non athlete who sometimes gets out of shape and needs stretching, little hitches in the muscles ruin an otherwise good shot. But those hitches can release and the smooth motion can be restored after warming up.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,506
And1: 22,520
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#1496 » by Doctor MJ » Sun Oct 5, 2014 7:44 pm

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:What about streak shooters? Is there any debate whether streak shooting exists?

When way say so and so is heating up?
Or he is feeling it now? Do people doubt the concept of a player heating up or getting in the groove?

Why shouldn't there be a psychological component to getting in the groove. Why shouldn't a little extra pressure help some people to focus better and remove extraneous small random motions from their shot?

The fine motor skills seem to be changeable.

From the perspective of a non athlete who sometimes gets out of shape and needs stretching, little hitches in the muscles ruin an otherwise good shot. But those hitches can release and the smooth motion can be restored after warming up.


You will see some statisticians claim that streak shooting doesn't exist, but you'll see others who are wiser refrain from such statements.

My opinion: Streak shooting exists, but it typically manifests itself in ways that both reinforce the phenomenon to spectators and leave statisticians without any data to back it up:

Guy gets "hot".
Guy is quicker to shoot.
Guy ends up taking tougher shots because he's quicker to shoot.

Being quicker to shoot means you shoot more which means you're more likely to get several buckets in a row, leaving the spectator saying "He's on fire!". But the cocky guy taking tougher shots then drives down his percentages, which is what the statisticians are looking at.

Why shouldn't there be a psych component? I'm sure there is.

Why shouldn't that help their fine motor mechanics? Well, first, the key thing is it just doesn't according to everything I've ever seen on this. In theory it could, but when we look at guys people agree are clutch, we don't see that. What we instead see is that those guys just shoot a lot in the clutch.

And this is really my point with all of this: Not that anything doesn't actually exist, but wherever we see people thinking they see percentages when they watch the game, they aren't. The human brain just doesn't work like that.

With that said, while it's theoretically possible for fine motor skills to go up when the adrenaline is up, form is form. If you couldn't get the right form when you were practicing it a 1000 times, well then your muscle memory is going to have the wrong form. So all we're really talking about in "clutch" play is a kind of focus that let's you match your muscle memory ideal that you developed in practice.

Hence, to see someone show major effects along the lines of what you describe, we'd have to see someone who created a great muscle memory in practice, then got sloppy in game, but then pulled it all together again in the clutch. Not saying that doesn't exist, but I don't think it's typical. I think for the most part guys have their adrenaline up when they are out there even early in the game, and while they may slack on defense early on, they rarely chuck shots without focus.

I'll mention again though: I think free throws are different, and that relates to why I think clutch/choke-thinking is a far bigger deal in other sports.

Growing up I played 3 sports a lot: basketball, soccer, and tennis. In only one of those sports did I really feel myself go hot & cold severely: tennis. And if you watch enough tennis, you can see how a guy who was doing fine for 2 sets all of a sudden falls apart.

It has everything to do, imho, with the fact that you have more time to think and very little room for error - plus the matter that you have to choose your strategy constantly. With kids, you see what tends to happen is they end up backing off their power and just "dink" the shot over for fear of losing, knowing that if they miss even once they lose the point...and if they play anyone good, this guarantees their loss. (You can still see this to some degree with the pros actually, but their "dink" is typically still very fast.)

In basketball, everyone knows you can't make them all, and there's no such thing as "dinking" you shot. You have one motion in your shot. It's what you've practice. You don't change it unless you do so to avoid getting blocked. If you go into that moment fully intending to shoot if you get a shot of a certain quality, you're going to shoot it, and if it doesn't quite go in, you're not going to beat yourself up for it.

Unless it's a super-easy shot of course...like a lay up, or a free throw.

Re: hitches. Right, so practice makes perfect. You can improve your muscle memory, no doubt about that. It's just that if you've never developed the muscle memory to have a smooth J in the past, it's not going to magically appear because the game's on the line.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,506
And1: 22,520
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#1497 » by Doctor MJ » Sun Oct 5, 2014 8:09 pm

Head's up: lorak was trying to work with this data himself and couldn't duplicate my 1998 results. Comparing our data we realized that he had way more players from 1998 than me. This was probably caused by me somehow deleting them, but regardless:

This would lower the data's standard deviation I recorded for that year, and thus cause individual player's results in that year to have inflated values compared to other years.

So you know how we seemed to see some big values for 1998 and we wondered about that? This might be the reason.

I've checked all my other years from 1999 to 2012, none of them have the same issue. So just be cautious with the 1998 numbers for now.

Thank you lorak!
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,506
And1: 22,520
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#1498 » by Doctor MJ » Sun Oct 5, 2014 8:12 pm

I'll be putting further updates on the thread on the Stats board.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
SinceGatlingWasARookie
RealGM
Posts: 11,712
And1: 2,759
Joined: Aug 25, 2005
Location: Northern California

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#1499 » by SinceGatlingWasARookie » Sun Oct 5, 2014 8:19 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:So yeah, there's an entire realm of sports statistics and analysis in basketball that you're not only unfamiliar with but seem to simply assume doesn't exist despite the fact the stuff you're quoting is really old and the past decade has seen the beginning of big data in earnest. I don't know why you do that.

Look, I live in clutch-believer central: Los Angeles. Where we have Kobe Bryant...........

......When I said that guys don't get better at shooting jumpers, the ones who shoot better change their shots, that's a flat out statement that some manner of clutchness does exist...it's just not a fine motor skill thing so much. The way to be clutch is to fight for better shots, and you can tell who's doing that by the free throws they shoot (if we're just talking about scoring).

I also have to say it's weird to see this brought up with DJ given that his "choking" in 1978 is a key part of who he is narrative-wise. Maybe you're one of the one's who believe that he cured himself of choking after that .


So where do you find crunch time data for the modern NBA?
Does crunch time NBA data exist for the mid 1980s NBA and where would I find it?

I never saw clutchness in Kobe. I saw Kobe take and hit very difficult shots. I also saw Kobe take and miss very difficult shots. Having a player like Kobe is good as long as Kobe is not depriving teammates of better shots. If the team offense failed at least the Lakers had a chance with Kobe shooting difficult shots.

What I saw with Dennis Johnson is not something that I would be able to notice on a player that I did not see a lot of. The only players that much of played for the 1980s Celtics, 1990s to current Warriors and the dominant Lakers, Spurs, 76ers, Jazz, Kings and Bulls in the playoffs during the years when they were constantly playing in the playoffs.Even my mid 1990s Rockets sample is too small for me to say anything about clutchness. Dennis Johnson is the only player that I am saying that I saw shot better in clutch situations than normal situations. Some of the greats seemed better in clutch situations but they were good enough shooters in normal situations that they did not stand out to me as clearly improving their shooting in the clutch situations like DJ did.

With Dennis Johnson, DJ seemed to like taking crunch time shots but DJ was a poor jump shooter. On the Celtics DJ deferred to his teammates as he should.

DJ was much ore efficient going to the rim. Teams would let DJ shoot long mid range shots because every other Celtic on the floor was a more efficient scorer.

Most of the guards in the NBA shot open mid range shots better than DJ did. Watching DJ shoot mid range shots looked like watching a player choking. What I am saying about DJ's long mid range jump shooting with the Celtics is that he resembled a choker except when the game was on the line at which point he looked like an average NBA guard shooting a open jumper that should not be given to an average NBA guard. You can't give open mid range jumpers to average NBA guards because they will hit at a high percentage (unless we are talking about the 1960s and earlier ). There are guys like Rajon Rondo who shoot poorly enough that you can let them shoot long mid range shots until they knock down a few in a row.

Shooting an uncontested mid range shot is like free throw shooting in that it is all about fine motor control. I say that Celtics era DJ's fine motor control on long mid range shots improved from being bad to being normal when it was crunch time. Because DJ's was not defended as if he could shoot he often hit late in game jumpers while the defenses had to make a great effort to defend DJ's talented teammates.

Where do I find data to prove or disprove my belief that DJ reliably hit clutch jumpers while being a poor shooter of non-clutch jumpers?
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,658
And1: 3,165
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project 

Post#1500 » by Owly » Sun Oct 5, 2014 8:50 pm

Regarding the notion that it's the final 5 minutes of the game that are usually/often decisive and that teams will often cruise up to that point, Stats Inc did a study in the mid 90s that found that the game result correlated roughly equally with the winners of each of the quarters (iirc it hovered around 70%, but this is from quite some time ago, so don't quote me on that), with only the third being slightly less predicitive of the winner (their possible explanation: that it is least representative of typical team quality because it was the quarter in which substitutes saw the most action).

Return to Player Comparisons