Every championship team has certain qualities that set them apart from the rest of the pack. In order to win it all, especially in a league with great parity, there are a few things a team needs. Every year there are several teams who feel that they were good enough to be champions, but fall short. The Dallas Mavericks have been one of them for a few years now and the most prevalent reason why is the lack of a true closer.
After watching the Mavs lose two heartbreakers in the past week to the teams that are touted as the class of the NBA currently, it became as evident as ever that the Mavericks have a weakness. They showed that they can play with the very best in the league down to the wire, but they have nobody to offset the clutch factor that Tim Duncan, and Manu Ginobli bring to San Antonio, or that Kobe Bryant provides the Lakers.
Come playoff time these are the kinds of games that will decide who will emerge from the logjammed Western Conference. These are the kinds of games that led to the sour taste in the mouths of many a Mav fan, player, and owner to this day. Had the Mavs had that clutch performer two years ago, the Mavericks would have been NBA Champions; if the Mavs had a clutch performer they would not have blown a 13 point lead with just over 6 minutes to play in Game 3 of the Finals that would have put them up 3-0 (a deficit no NBA team has ever overcome). If the Mavs had a clutch performer, they would not have missed those free throws in the pivotal game 5 that went to overtime; if only they had a clutch performer, they'd have a banner of their own.
If you don't believe it, think of recent and past champions of every sport. The Spurs have always had guys step up in the clutch, whether it be Big Shot Bob, Tim Duncan, or Manu. The Pistons had Mr. Big Shot, the Heat had Dwyane Wade. Let's not forget the team who won 6 in 8 years (Chicago Bulls) they had quite the late game performer if you ask me. Look beyond the NBA; the image of Eli Manning's drive to beat the Pats still burns in our memory. The names of the greats, Joe Montana, John Elway, and Jim Kelly (JUST KIDDING) are immortalized for fantastic clutch performances. In the Major Leagues you have to think of guys like Derek Jeter, Reggie Jackson, and recently Josh Beckett, who always seem to come with their best stuff in critical post-season games.
The point is this, the Dallas Mavericks are as good talent-wise as anybody in the West, just look to their recent performances (on the road mind you). As good as they are, however, they will need someone to step up this post-season and make it happen. They remind me of the Kings back when Vlade Divac and Co pushed the Lakers to the brink, but could never get over the hump; why was that? Chris Webber, Peja Stojakovic (Mr. Airball), and Doug Christie could never deliver in the clutch. The window is closing just as it did on the Kings and the Maloofs...Will someone step up and give Cuban his money's worth? I doubt it after watching them fail for years, but you never know.
Avery Johnson needs to take some accountability too, taking out Kidd against the Spurs? What was that about? Or maybe he knew Kidd would choke if he got to the line...
nice writing there ..heck i'll come in and and play point gaurd im 5"11"and 3/4 196lbs and i can shoot the rock ok it rarely goes in the basket but i can shoot it..
LOL I bet you play like the guy from 'Along Came Polly' ... "RAINDROPS!" ::BRICK:: lol, or maybe you're the guy with the sweaty hairy chest and John Salley goggles. lol jk J-Dub, you can be on my squad as long as you got me, I'm clutch.
Rev, he airballed a very good look in OT, the more intense a game becomes the more he chokes. Jason Kidd is a choke artist, he looked visibly nervous when he was at the line, he practically followed his shot because he knew he was going to miss. The more these guys screw up down the stretch, the less likely it is for them to rectify come playoff time.
Also, unfortunately for them, it might as well be June now, every game matters in the West, they dropped to 7th with that loss, unaffordable for this team.
NBA, the free throw stat cannot be overlooked indeed, and it speaks volumes to what the Mavs are lacking, Kobe Bryant scored 17 points just at the line in the 4th quarter and OT. To Dirk's defense it's hard for a 7-footer to draw fouls in that manner, but someone needs to have that killer instinct down the stretch for the Mavs, I just don't see it. D-Wade drew a foul on Dirk and drained the free throws to win a critical game in the finals, and yesterday FT's were a huge reason why the Lakers won.
Hoffman, solid is not good enough for Dallas, they need a superior clutch player, someone who wants the ball. Surely Kidd will always make good decisions in the clutch, which is why I cannot understand Avery Johnson benching him against the Spurs down the stretch. For defense? No way. For lack of experience with the team? How complicated can a play get for a guy with that kind of basketball IQ? Point is, Kidd may set Dirk, Terry, or Howard up for a good look, but who will hit it? That is my point, and Kidd did not look comfortable AT ALL with the pressure on at the line. Remember his clutch situations in Jersey don't compare to the pressure situations he will face now. He helped New Jersey reach a level (2 NBA Finals appearances) that the franchise had not experienced since joining the NBA. In Dallas anything short of winning it all is unacceptable. We will see how it plays out, but I hardly think he will be their clutch performer.
Rev, Calipari is all too familiar with it, I remember Darius Washington missing FT's with no time on the clock to lose their conference championship two years ago. Not to mention they absolutely blow this year, and it will catch up to them.
There is only so much a player can do to "draw" fouls, as a jump shooter Dirk is at a bit of a disadvantage. In the replays I saw with Dirk in isolation against Odom, there was a lot of contact that wasn't called.
Ultra Mega, I think you are on your own with that opinion, if you don't consider Jordan a clutch player, and Chris Webber a choker, then I don't know what you're thinking.
NBA, yes I agree thats why I said that about Dirk. Kobe and other slashing scorers have more speed and momentum to bring attention when they draw contact, because it's usually more intense contact. Dirk has to rely on the pump fake, and clever changes of direction to draw fouls. Guys know that and that is why Dirk is defensible down the stretch. The Mavs need a guy who can make themselves virtually indefensible. I think Jason Terry has the skill and the speed to be that guy, but he is another guy who has been non-existent down in the final 2 minutes. Recall, he missed the 3 pointer that could have sent Game 6 of the Finals to OT, at home...
There's no such thing as a "clutch" player. There are "clutch" events, but players don't have an intrinsic ability to increase the level of their play in a tense situation.
[...]if clutch hitting were an actual skill, it would follow that the same players would do well in the clutch statistics year in and year out (the correlation coefficient between players' performances over multiple seasons would be high). Cramer's study was the first of its kind, and it found that clutch hitting numbers between seasons for the same player varied wildly; in fact, the variance was the kind one would expect if the numbers had been selected randomly. Since Cramer published his results, many others have tried to find some evidence that clutch hitting is a skill, but almost every study has confirmed Cramer's initial findings: that "clutch hitting," in terms of certain players being able to "rise to the occasion" under pressure, is an illusion.
That article talks about baseball but it applies to any situation that talks about "clutch."
Last edited by UltraMegaOK1988 on March 3rd at 11:13 AM.
Right off the bat I could find a major potential flaw in this study. Those who believe "clutch is a skill" would also agree that it is a rare skill that only special players possess. A study analyzing the statistics of every day players would be extremely skewed and would thus hold no weight IMO.
Answer me this, when a person becomes nervous or their adrenaline is elevated, do their pupils not change? Does their breathing not change? Their heart-rate? All of these things contribute to a player's ability to deliver in the clutch. Show me a biokinetic study that proves that these things don't change and do not effect a player in the clutch. Then I will see it your way, but thats just my honest opinion, I am not being sarcastic (it is hard to dictate tone in typing).
Also, baseball is a completely different monster than basketball when it comes to clutch. There are so many other factors such as average success rate against a pitcher; if a pitcher dominates a player 90% of the time, and dominates him in a clutch situation there previous history that suggests that the player performed on par with what was expected. If a player has hit off a pitcher 80% of the time and has never struck out to him, proceeds to strike out in a clutch situation then he performed far under what was expected, so that would be a choke to me. I don't necessarily think clutch refers to raising your game, but simply being at least around what would be expected to do, despite the circumstances at hand. The guys who exceed expectations are the legends.
it is a rare skill that only special players possess.
It's not a skill.
Would you consider Derek Jeter to be a special player? Most in the "clutch is real" camp would. Yet there's little difference between his regular season performance and his post-season performance.
when a person becomes nervous or their adrenaline is elevated, do their pupils not change?
People deal with tension in different ways. There's no evidence that any of these have a tangible effect on production in a game.
And the players unable to deal with pressure have been weeded out long before they become a professional. They have to go through high school sports, college sports, semi-professional leagues, etc.
Michael Jordan
And there's no correlation between Jordan's "clutchness" and his overall amazing ability to play the game of basketball?
Have you noticed that the "clutch" players also happen to be really good players? I don't see the Sixers' Reggie Evans being heralded as "clutch." I don't see the Phillies' starting pitcher Adam Eaton being heralded as "clutch." That's because they're not good players to begin with.
From that Wikipedia article I linked to previously, they name some "clutch" players:
Tiger Woods in golf, Michael Jordan, Jerry West, Hakeem Olajuwon, John Havlicek, Larry Bird, Reggie Miller, Kobe Bryant, and Mike Bibby in basketball, Derek Jeter, David Ortiz, John Smoltz and Reggie Jackson in baseball, Pete Sampras, Jessica Baty (and, more recently, Roger Federer) in tennis [...]
Ultramega, I just don't agree with your logic, and I am sure most other people do not either. How do you explain the good players that statistically disappear during these supposedly non-existent clutch situations. Players are weeded out? Please, how can you compare an professional playoff or championship situation to anything a player will experience at the preparatory level? You are talking about a couple thousand fans and local and school newspaper coverage, as opposed to millions of fans and international media coverage. That does not compare. Derek Jeter is not in fact a special player, but he has become a Yankee legend because of his ability to exceed expetations in the clutch. We will agree to disagree on this one, but good research though.
I am sorry Ultramega, I just really can't fathom how you can try to justify clutchness with science anyway, there are so many factors, numbers cannot say it all. You say that it is correlated with good players, well of course...who are you going to give it to when the game is on the line? The best player, or someone you would consider clutch...Would you rather have Jeter or A-Rod up to bat with 2 outs needing a hit in the 9th? A-Rod is better statistically is he not? Would you want Dirk Nowitzki shooting your last shot instead of Kobe? Dirk has won an MVP, Kobe hasn't...Things like clutchness don't have a statistic, they don't have a science to them, they just ARE. If you are a true sports fan you can just see it. what are the details of that study? what do they consider clutch situations? Clutch situations are not simply down by a run, point, or set, clutch is any tight late-game situation, even if you are on top. Clutch can be subtle things like getting an offensive rebound over a big guy off a free throw miss, would this scientist consider that? It really would bother me if people began to believe in that logic, I am sorry.
You're dead right "clutch" is an inexact science at best the truth lies in that if your team is damn good and you are a true contender your best player won't have than many chances to defend his "clutch" reputation or lack of.
Rafter, No prob man, thanks for stopping by, thank you for backing me on this one, I just have a hard time accepting any quantified approach to this because it is all relative. Clutch is an intangible, so it can be proved neither way. That being said most would agree that it is a quality that some players have, and others do not. If not there would be no single player to plan the final play for, because they all in fact are professionals, and were not "weeded out" at the preparatory levels. That just doesn't make sense to me.
One of the things that makes a great player great is the ability to excel when the game is at a critical point, and the player's performance makes the difference between winning and losing.
So your argument that the players labeled clutch are all good players just supports the argument that there are players that have the ability to perform consistently to help their team win in critical situations, which is called clutch. Am I missing something here?
I'm not a baseball fan, but it seems to me the baseball players mentioned deserve their reputation...
How do you explain the good players that statistically disappear during these supposedly non-existent clutch situations.
Example?
Players are weeded out?
Yes, if they can't handle pressure, they won't be able to do it even at the basic levels. All professional athletes are able to handle the pressure, regardless of the crowd sizes, the media presence, and the money. Teams have specialists train the athletes to handle these things.
A player who is too tense to take a shot with 2 seconds left in the 4th quarter will not be able to do it at the NBA level, nor will he be able to hit it at the college level, and so on.
he has become a Yankee legend because of his ability to exceed expetations in the clutch.
He hasn't, really. It's a huge misconception; his post-season production isn't much different from his regular season production. And, in fact, A-Rod is better in "clutch" situations than Jeter. But you'd never know that if you believe everything the media and fans tell you.
I just really can't fathom how you can try to justify clutchness with science anyway
I'm not justifying it at all; I'm saying it doesn't exist because there's no scientific evidence for it. And based on what you say after this, you seem to agree, but you'll continue believing in it anyway because you want to, not because there is evidence that makes believing in it plausible.
Would you rather have Jeter or A-Rod up to bat with 2 outs needing a hit in the 9th?
A-Rod every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Would you want Dirk Nowitzki shooting your last shot instead of Kobe?
Kobe every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Dirk has won an MVP, Kobe hasn't
Awards are trash.
they don't have a science to them, they just ARE.
This is gap-worship. It's a term that Richard Dawkins coined, I believe, but he used it in the context of God-belief. When we don't have a scientific explanation for something, we just fill in that question mark with God, as if it is an acceptable answer.
"We don't know how the universe began. God did it."
It applies here, as well.
It really would bother me if people began to believe in that logic, I am sorry.
It really bothers me that people devalue the scientific method so much. And I'm not surprised that the U.S. has some of the worst math and science scores in the world.
Clutch is an intangible, so it can be proved neither way.
That does not mean it exists by default. Quite the contrary. You're making a positive claim: Clutch exists. Therefore, you have the burden of having to prove that "clutch" does, in fact, exist.
There has been no evidence whatsoever, and people have been trying for the past 25 years.
most would agree
You used this a couple times and I just want to point out that just becuase a majority of people believe something does not mean it is correct.
If not there would be no single player to plan the final play for
The "single player" is usually the best player on the team, or the player with the highest shooting percentage.
And I'm surprised that you believe that there's no fishiness in the fact that the best "clutch" players are also the best overall players.
So your argument that the players labeled clutch are all good players just supports the argument that there are players that have the ability to perform consistently to help their team win in critical situations, which is called clutch.
As an example, people label Derek Jeter as "clutch," because he's had a couple of game-winning hits in the playoffs. Conversely, people label A-Rod as a choke artist because he seems to fail in the playoffs (for the record, 3 of his 5 playoff series have been pretty good).
The correlation between past and current clutch performance is .01, with a standard deviation of .07. In other words, there isn't a significant ability in clutch hitting; if there were, the same players would be good clutch hitters every year.
A-Rod is going to retire as one of the best offensive players ever to play the game of baseball, yet there will always be people who discount his production because he is supposedly someone who can't get it done in the "clutch."
Last edited by UltraMegaOK1988 on March 3rd at 12:54 PM.
That players are good, like Jeter, and are also "clutch," shows that their "clutchness" has a lot to do with natural ability and not some mystical ability to turn up their level of play because there's pressure.
It's not just a clutch player that they lack. It's also heart. How else can one account for last year's debacle ?
If they should implode again this year then Cuban might as well fold his tent and go and buy a WNBA franchise. He might have more success there in the long run.
How significant is a clutch hit during a 162 game regular season. I am well aware that A-Rod does not have bad clutch numbers during the regular season. Why do they fade in the post season? Is it the weather? What is your explanation for it? Give an example of a player who disappears in the clutch...Vince Carter? Players with the highest shooting percentage are not the guys a play is drawn up for, it is drawn up for the guy with the highest likeliness to deliver in that situation. Hardly ever do jump shooters lead their team in shooting percentage. Again you can throw all of those dumb statistics, but show me the method and criteria for what is considered a clutch situation in this study, show me who they are testing this theory on. Is there an adjustment for situations that are more critical than others? For example clutch situations in a 7 game series are exponentially more significant on a team's season than ones that occur throughout the course of a regular season? Doubt it, if you want me to buy into some weak argument against an idea that has been a staple of sports for decades and decades you better show me a logical substantial "scientific method" carried out that makes sense. Who cares if A-Rod hits above .300 in five regular season clutch situations, but bats .250 or less come post-season. When someone consistently performs poorly during high-stakes games and situations what do you attribute it to? I would love to know. Also, nobody ever said a players worth is based on how they perform in the clutch. A-Rod is the best player in baseball, but I guarantee you ask a
...any manager in baseball who they want batting with two outs in the bottom of the 9th very few would say A-Rod, and why is that? What do you think the people who get paid millions of dollars to decide who does what would agree that a player is more or less clutch than the next but because you say it doesn't exist it is a golden statement? You focus on a broad definition for clutch, surely you would consider a game winning shot by Ricky Davis for the Heat over the Minnesota Timberwolves more significant than what Kobe did against a championship contender in a game with playoff implications equitable?
answer me this, what is the biggest stage you have ever performed on athletically? Do you know what it is like? What is the biggest stage this statistician or scientist has ever played on? Probably none, or in little league in front of your parents. The people who play the game, the people who know what it feels like...they say there is clutch, and they are far more qualified to determine whether clutch exists than any blogger or scientist. So I go with the true experts on this one.
Those are some awful post-season numbers from Mr. Clutch, Derek Jeter. If he's so "clutch," why isn't he always good in the post-season?
It's because there's no intrinsic "clutch" ability.
Players with the highest shooting percentage are not the guys a play is drawn up for, it is drawn up for the guy with the highest likeliness to deliver in that situation.
A.K.A. the guy with the highest shooting percentage.
Again you can throw all of those dumb statistics
You just called facts "dumb."
I'll give you a couple seconds to realize the idiocy of that statement.
but show me the method and criteria for what is considered a clutch situation in this study, show me who they are testing this theory on.
Is there an adjustment for situations that are more critical than others?
There is no such thing as a situation that is "more critical" than another. The first quarter is just important as the fourth quarter. A three-pointer with two minutes left isn't more important than a three-pointer at the start of the game. They're both worth three points.
Doubt it, if you want me to buy into some weak argument against an idea that has been a staple of sports for decades and decades
you better show me a logical substantial "scientific method" carried out that makes sense.
I have the burden of proof? You're making the positive claim, "clutch exists."
I am being skeptical, and rightfully so.
Who cares if A-Rod hits above .300 in five regular season clutch situations, but bats .250 or less come post-season.
Well, first of all, batting average is an awful, awful metric.
Secondly, people discount his regular season performance because he is supposedly bad in the playoffs (he's not). But without his amazing regular season production, his teams never would have made the post-season in the first place.
And thirdly, I'm not focusing on "five regular season 'clutch' situations," since I discard "clutch" entirely. You're making a strawman argument here.
When someone consistently performs poorly during high-stakes games and situations what do you attribute it to?
What is the sample size?
Also, nobody ever said a players worth is based on how they perform in the clutch.
Read the New York newspapers some time.
batting with two outs in the bottom of the 9th very few would say A-Rod, and why is that?
Again, you're making both an appeal to authority and an argumentum ad populum. Stay away from the logical fallacies.
because you say it doesn't exist it is a golden statement?
"Clutch doesn't exist" is actually a scientifically-justified statement, especially since you nor anyone has ever provided any evidence to show that it does exist.
what is the biggest stage you have ever performed on athletically?
Irrelevant. And you're using an ad hominem argument here.
Again, stay away from logically fallacious arguments.
they say there is clutch, and they are far more qualified to determine whether clutch exists than any blogger or scientist.
No, they are not. They are human beings. Thus, their perceptions are both flawed and biased. Therefore their conclusions are flawed and biased.
You are commenting on a basketball blog with baseball hitting statistics. It's apples and oranges.
From reading your statements, it appears to me that your argument is largely semantics. Again I ask, if one of the keys to being labeled a great player is the ability to outperform your competition at critical moments of the game, then how is it that "clutch does not exist", because only good players are called clutch?
Word games such as this do not impress...
I just read the article you linked, and it mentions there are at least two baseball players with batting statistics supporting that they excelled in key situations (with men on base).
So how does that support your claim that "clutch does not exist"?
In basketball, it is significantly different in that all players are alternately offensive and defensive, and the same players are often playing against each other on both ends of the floor. So scoring against your defender at the end o####ame and then stopping your man from scoring when he has the ball would be considered clutch...
Last edited by nba is the worst on March 3rd at 2:33 PM.
You are commenting on a basketball blog with baseball hitting statistics. It's apples and oranges.
Not at all. There are "clutch" basketball players and "clutch" baseball players, apparently. It's not like we're talking about different kinds of "clutch." If it exists, you are either able to come through in big situations or not.
it appears to me that your argument is largely semantics.
If, by "semantics," you mean "scientific," then yes.
if one of the keys to being labeled a great player is the ability to outperform your competition at critical moments of the game, then how is it that "clutch does not exist", because only good players are called clutch?
It's their natural skill that is outperforming their competition, not some intrinsic ability to come through in a big spot.
Michael Jordan was great in late-4th-quarter situations not because he was "clutch," but because he was an insanely talented basketball player.
No need to bring mythical characteristics into this.
and it mentions there are at least two baseball players with batting statistics supporting that they excelled in key situations (with men on base).
Read the article again. Right after that, they write in parentheses, "Johnson didn't argue that the two had this trait, just that of the players in the study, they were the only two whose performance with runners in scoring position showed a statistically significant improvement."
Molitor and Fernandez are aberrations.
So how does that support your claim that "clutch does not exist"?
Read the article again.
So scoring against your defender at the end o####ame and then stopping your man from scoring when he has the ball would be considered clutch
Each is individually "clutch," if it exists. Unless, of course, you're arbitrarily creating your own "clutch" criteria. In which case, it's moot for you even to debate this.
Ultramega, you're a funny guy, you obviously have never played sports in your life and know nothing about the subject, believe what you will, and I will believe what I will. Your logic that every basket is just as significant is a simple minded manipulation of the subject at hand, and you just cemented how little you know about the significance of a play, shot, or score of any kind. Certainly the game that the Patriots won against the Giants was just as significant as the game the Giants won over the Patriots because it was in fact a win added to their win-loss total right? Get out of here with that, your logic is just as fallible if not far more fallible than you claim mine is so let's just both agree to disagree. You say that human being's perception is biased so obviously you are admitting that your perception is flawed and biased...Ill give you a minute to think of the idiocy of that statement while you are trying to support your own perception. I did not "facts" dumb, I am saying if the "facts" are based on the premise that every basket, hit, or play is equally significant, and bear equal amounts of pressure then it is biased and flawed...just like OUR perceptions. However I think people who have actually engagedin a clutch situation can provide the least "flawed" perception, and yes they ARE FAR more qualified than you to judge.
I am done with this argument because you seem to think you are the Plato of sports or something lol...go on thinking that everything about sports is scientific and black and white...surely the best player always succeeds, the highest percentage shooter always scores in the end, and if an undefeated team plays a 6 loss team, and has proven to be better than them head-to-head previously, they will most certainly win because the numbers say so. The Giants and Eli Manning were not clutch, they were just a better team. THE ENTIRE WORLD OF SPORTS IS PREDICTABLE AND NOTHING ANYONE CAN DO WILL CHANGE THE GENERAL ORDER OF THINGS. You have me convinced UltraMega, I submit...
Come on boys--Cant we just be friends??---I love the Mavs, but they may need more than a clutch player--They may need the whole gearbox!!!!--Cuban will buy it if it can be bought!!
