Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Kobe Bryant... not so clutch?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kobe Bryant... not so clutch?

    This is interesting and illuminating.

    http://espn.go.com/blog/TrueHoop/pos...in-crunch-time

    I like the table included which shows the makes, attempts, and FG% of the most clutch players since the 1996-1997 season.

    In other words, Kobe's popularity in the clutch-department is largely due to quantity, as opposed to just pure quality. His % isn't hot, but he's taken so many big shots that you just remember all of the times it worked out, and you feel like, based on that, he's this ultimate clutch performer, when he's not so much. Carmelo comes up looking like gold, though.

  • #2
    Re: Kobe Bryant... not so clutch?

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    This is interesting and illuminating.

    http://espn.go.com/blog/TrueHoop/pos...in-crunch-time

    I like the table included which shows the makes, attempts, and FG% of the most clutch players since the 1996-1997 season.

    In other words, Kobe's popularity in the clutch-department is largely due to quantity, as opposed to just pure quality. His % isn't hot, but he's taken so many big shots that you just remember all of the times it worked out, and you feel like, based on that, he's this ultimate clutch performer, when he's not so much. Carmelo comes up looking like gold, though.
    Yea I always thought he was overrated as a 'clutch' player.

    Another player, that is probably even more overrated, is Chauncey Billups. There was a similar article a couple years ago showing this (same results as this article). I've always been confused when announcers gush about Billups and how clutch he is... while he bricks 3 after 3... only for them to say 'It's ok, he's Mr. Big Shot. He'll come up big WHEN IT MATTERS!'

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Kobe Bryant... not so clutch?

      I've seen this before.

      The percentage thing is nice. But I could have told you he'd have a lower percentage, it only makes sense.

      Who takes the most "clutch" shots in the league? Kobe Bryant. By a huge margin. Who takes the hardest "clutch" shots, in the league? Kobe Bryant. By a huge margin. (only three players ahead of him had taken more than a third of Bryant's clutch shots. Two of which are post players with guards on their teams that can create shots for them.)

      Why do I say that? Take a look at how Bryant is guarded at the end of the game, compared to how any other player is guarded.

      Lebron James..Lebron James..made a "huge" clutch shot at the end of a game against Orlando in the playoffs a few years ago. He was wide open. Kobe Bryant is never wide open at the end of games. Quite often, he's double teamed. And this is Lebron we're talking about, not just a measley starter.

      Hedo, Rashad Lewis, Ray Allen, Shawn marion, Eddie Jones...I'd say there's a good chance they were pretty open when they took their shots.

      This is one of those times, where despite saying "oh, it's just counting" the stats are once again misleading. Chris Paul's percentage is fantastic, but he's taken 31 "clutch" shots. Bryant's taken 115.

      This is like the Center that took 20 threes in his career, and made 10. Right, because he's definitely a better shooter than Ray Allen, just look at the percentage!

      Second, this article uses quotes from Jackson's book. Something that Jackson has even said he used Kobe as a scapegoat a bit.

      And third, defining clutch in the manor that they have is extremely restrictive. I've seen Kobe break many teams backs in the final 2 minutes of the game.

      So essentially, I know what the numbers say, I'm not suprised. But I think this is more of using numbers as an "agenda" than it is anything else. It's much better, in clutch situations to run a play, rather than an iso. (......)

      Iso's are much easier to guard, and it's much more likely to end up in a good shot. The majority of Kobe's clutch shots were taken in ISO situations, they are harder to make, they are easier to guard, and Kobe's taken more of those shots than any player in the league.

      So yea, I've seen these numbers before..but what these numbers actually show is that it's better to run a play to get a guy a good shot, then to have a player run an ISO. It also shows that Bryant has taken an extremely large portion of "clutch" shots. But at the end of the day, I'd give Bryant the ball and say "get your own shot" at the end of the game, before I'd do that for any other player.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Kobe Bryant... not so clutch?

        I'm generally in favor of using statistics to either support or refute questions like this. And I generally like Henry Abbott's work. In this case though, there are several things that bother me.

        Sookie pointed out a few of them. The definition of clutch seems a little too narrowly defined, leading to a sample size issue. Kobe's in his 15th season, so his 115 "clutch" shots means about 8 attempts per season - surely that's too low? Furthermore, Kobe's clutch reputation is being painted as due solely to volume, but he's not even top in "clutch" attempts - LeBron's data from the table for example lists 69 attempts in 8 seasons, for 8.6 attempts per season compared to 7.7 for Kobe.

        Another problem is that there has been no effort to differentiate guys who create their own shot (like Kobe, Paul, etc) versus pure shooters who were getting shots off set plays. It's no surprise that set up shooters drain a good percentage.

        Then there are just a lot of odd names popping up in that list. Big Dog Robinson? Jalen Rose? That really suggests low sample size is injecting noise into the data.

        Finally, where are reputed clutch performers such as our own Reggie Miller? Or Robert Horry? Heck, how about James Posey? The collected data is from 1996 to the present, so Reggie should have the requisite shot attempts. Are their reputations as overrated as Chauncey's? Certainly I think this article should have looked at other reputed clutch players too, rather than solely picking at Kobe's record. If your statistical system is telling you too many odd things, it's time to take a second look and wonder if you're measuring the right thing. And don't stop with Reggie. Why not look at the record of guys like Jordan, Bird, Magic? That should be a useful sanity check.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Kobe Bryant... not so clutch?

          As someone who sat through the overtime of game 4 in person, I have no interest in hearing that Kobe isn't clutch.
          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Kobe Bryant... not so clutch?

            I don't easily assume that Kobe is the only one on that list covered on most of those shots. That's a huge stretch IMO.

            Carmelo Anthony, Brandon Roy, Hedo Turkoglu, Tim Duncan, LeBron James, Gilbert Arenas, Vince Carter, you can't tell me guys like that, most of the time, are not as heavily covered during the last shot of a close game.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Kobe Bryant... not so clutch?

              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
              I don't easily assume that Kobe is the only one on that list covered on most of those shots. That's a huge stretch IMO.

              Carmelo Anthony, Brandon Roy, Hedo Turkoglu, Tim Duncan, LeBron James, Gilbert Arenas, Vince Carter, you can't tell me guys like that, most of the time, are not as heavily covered during the last shot of a close game.
              If you watch, they really aren't. Take a look at that photo, five guys are on Kobe.

              I gave you the example of Lebron, they'll give him a three pointer. They won't give Kobe a three pointer.

              Look at Monte Ellis, an established star. At the end of the game, we put one player on him to try and stop his shot. He made it.

              You think one player will ever be on Kobe? As I said, take a look at that picture.


              And once again, I don't think it's fair to compare someone who has taken 115 clutch shots to someone who has taken 40. I expect Kobe's reputation is what has contributed to him being more heavily guarded.

              Like I said in my original post, and like I've been saying throughout this season when talking about the Pacers problems at the end of the games. Set plays are much more successful than ISOs. You want to make a basket in the final seconds of the game, in the final two minutes..have set plays..don't run ISOs.

              But if we were going to just say, give a player the ball and look for the win..I'd take Bryant.
              Last edited by Sookie; 01-28-2011, 03:34 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Kobe Bryant... not so clutch?

                Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                I've seen this before.

                The percentage thing is nice. But I could have told you he'd have a lower percentage, it only makes sense.

                Who takes the most "clutch" shots in the league? Kobe Bryant. By a huge margin. Who takes the hardest "clutch" shots, in the league? Kobe Bryant. By a huge margin. (only three players ahead of him had taken more than a third of Bryant's clutch shots. Two of which are post players with guards on their teams that can create shots for them.)

                Why do I say that? Take a look at how Bryant is guarded at the end of the game, compared to how any other player is guarded.

                Lebron James..Lebron James..made a "huge" clutch shot at the end of a game against Orlando in the playoffs a few years ago. He was wide open. Kobe Bryant is never wide open at the end of games. Quite often, he's double teamed. And this is Lebron we're talking about, not just a measley starter.

                Hedo, Rashad Lewis, Ray Allen, Shawn marion, Eddie Jones...I'd say there's a good chance they were pretty open when they took their shots.

                This is one of those times, where despite saying "oh, it's just counting" the stats are once again misleading. Chris Paul's percentage is fantastic, but he's taken 31 "clutch" shots. Bryant's taken 115.

                This is like the Center that took 20 threes in his career, and made 10. Right, because he's definitely a better shooter than Ray Allen, just look at the percentage!

                Second, this article uses quotes from Jackson's book. Something that Jackson has even said he used Kobe as a scapegoat a bit.

                And third, defining clutch in the manor that they have is extremely restrictive. I've seen Kobe break many teams backs in the final 2 minutes of the game.

                So essentially, I know what the numbers say, I'm not suprised. But I think this is more of using numbers as an "agenda" than it is anything else. It's much better, in clutch situations to run a play, rather than an iso. (......)

                Iso's are much easier to guard, and it's much more likely to end up in a good shot. The majority of Kobe's clutch shots were taken in ISO situations, they are harder to make, they are easier to guard, and Kobe's taken more of those shots than any player in the league.

                So yea, I've seen these numbers before..but what these numbers actually show is that it's better to run a play to get a guy a good shot, then to have a player run an ISO. It also shows that Bryant has taken an extremely large portion of "clutch" shots. But at the end of the day, I'd give Bryant the ball and say "get your own shot" at the end of the game, before I'd do that for any other player.
                You are absolutely delirious. You have been provided with statistics proving that Kobe is not nearly as "clutch" as widely believed, yet you still choose to hold your belief due to your flawed logic. I would continue to disect your post and disprove each and every OPINION you present, but I do not feel like wasting another 30 minutes of my time retyping what I had previously written.

                On a side note, anyone know of a way to recover text from a web page? I had written out a response to this post previously but when I had tried to submit it I had been logged out, and when I logged back in my post had disapeared.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Kobe Bryant... not so clutch?

                  so, umm, where's reggie on that list?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Kobe Bryant... not so clutch?

                    Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                    I've seen this before.

                    The percentage thing is nice. But I could have told you he'd have a lower percentage, it only makes sense.

                    Who takes the most "clutch" shots in the league? Kobe Bryant. By a huge margin. Who takes the hardest "clutch" shots, in the league? Kobe Bryant.
                    Your last sentence is the point of Abbot's essay. Kobe takes the most shots, and the most difficult shots, for no reason. There are five players on the court. No one player should take the last second shot every time. It's predictable and as Abbot has proven not that good percentage-wise.

                    You bring up Chris Paul. Chris Paul has taken way less last second shots than Kobe. He also passes on that shot when it's the right thing to do for a better shot (I remember the Hornets beating the Pacers two years ago when he gave the ball up and David West hit the game winner).

                    The Lakers won the title last year in spite of Kobe's late game shooting. He's been blessed with super talented teammates (Pau, Ron) who saved him twice after he shot last second air balls.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Kobe Bryant... not so clutch?

                      Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                      so, umm, where's Posey on that list?
                      Fixed
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Kobe Bryant... not so clutch?

                        Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                        Your last sentence is the point of Abbot's essay. Kobe takes the most shots, and the most difficult shots, for no reason. There are five players on the court. No one player should take the last second shot every time. It's predictable and as Abbot has proven not that good percentage-wise.

                        You bring up Chris Paul. Chris Paul has taken way less last second shots than Kobe. He also passes on that shot when it's the right thing to do for a better shot (I remember the Hornets beating the Pacers two years ago when he gave the ball up and David West hit the game winner).

                        The Lakers won the title last year in spite of Kobe's late game shooting. He's been blessed with super talented teammates (Pau, Ron) who saved him twice after he shot last second air balls.
                        Wow. You really believe the Lakers won in spite of Kobe? They wouldn't even be in a position to win the title if it wasn't for Kobe.

                        As for the general point of this article, it's laughable. It's nitpicking at the greatest player of this era. And for what? What's the point? To prove he isn't as good as we think he is? Mr. Abbott, you are incredibly wrong. He is as good as we think he is. Actually, probably even better.

                        The stats are very skewed, and it's certainly not as simple as "oh look, this is the total number and he made and missed this many. See, that's all to see here." Think about those years after Shaq left when he had to carry his team every single night. He averaged the second highest ppg for a season since Jordan. You can say "well he takes difficult shots, he should pass more, he's a ball hog," and so on. Well my answer is, pass to whom? Kwame Brown? Smush Parker? Luke Walton? I'm sure those years had a big impact on these stats, and I would love to see his "clutch" statistics for just those years, post-shaq and pre-pau. And if you can tell me you would rather have Kobe pass to one of those players than shoot with 3 people on him, then we can just agree to disagree. I wouldn't even trust those players if they were wide open in a scrimmage.

                        This is why Kobe is so polarizing. You either hate him or you love him, and I believe we just found out which category Mr. Abbott prefers.
                        2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Kobe Bryant... not so clutch?

                          If you guys could choose a current player in the league to take the last shot with the NBA Championship on the line, who would you chose? I'm taking Kobe every time.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Kobe Bryant... not so clutch?

                            Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                            If you guys could choose a current player in the league to take the last shot with the NBA Championship on the line, who would you chose? I'm taking Kobe every time.
                            I'll be honest that I would have a hard time picking. Kobe is right there but i'd also throw Paul Pierce in there as well.

                            I certainly don't buy that Kobe isn't clutch. I just have a lot of faith in PP in the clutch.

                            It would come down to those two for me.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Kobe Bryant... not so clutch?

                              Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
                              Wow. You really believe the Lakers won in spite of Kobe? They wouldn't even be in a position to win the title if it wasn't for Kobe.
                              Not in spite of Kobe. "The Lakers won the title last year in spite of Kobe's late game shooting."

                              They won even though Kobe took some terrible shots at the end of games. Overall he played great and was a huge part of why they won back to back titles.

                              As for the general point of this article, it's laughable. It's nitpicking at the greatest player of this era. And for what? What's the point? To prove he isn't as good as we think he is? Mr. Abbott, you are incredibly wrong. He is as good as we think he is. Actually, probably even better.

                              The stats are very skewed, and it's certainly not as simple as "oh look, this is the total number and he made and missed this many. See, that's all to see here." Think about those years after Shaq left when he had to carry his team every single night. He averaged the second highest ppg for a season since Jordan. You can say "well he takes difficult shots, he should pass more, he's a ball hog," and so on. Well my answer is, pass to whom? Kwame Brown? Smush Parker? Luke Walton? I'm sure those years had a big impact on these stats, and I would love to see his "clutch" statistics for just those years, post-shaq and pre-pau. And if you can tell me you would rather have Kobe pass to one of those players than shoot with 3 people on him, then we can just agree to disagree. I wouldn't even trust those players if they were wide open in a scrimmage.

                              This is why Kobe is so polarizing. You either hate him or you love him, and I believe we just found out which category Mr. Abbott prefers.
                              Abbott doesn't hate Kobe. I don't hate Kobe. Kobe isn't flawless, no one is. It's just analysis.

                              Abbott's larger point, the same point most statisticians and economists will make, is that we need to look at things with a more critical eye. Anecdotal evidence is only part of the larger picture. I don't understand why anyone wouldn't WANT to try and understand basketball more. Be it through statistics or any other means.
                              Last edited by King Tuts Tomb; 01-28-2011, 08:07 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X