PDA

View Full Version : Clutch Shooter vs. High FG%



JasonJohnHorn
10-30-2014, 10:14 AM
I missed the Charlotte game last night, but I checked out the stats and saw the highlights. I noticed in the highlights that Kemba Walker hit a game-tying shot that forced overtime and then hit the game winner in over time.

Impressive.


However, the dude was 9/26 from the floor.

Walker just got an extension (which honestly surprised me), but his FG% has never been very good.

So my question is this, would you rather have a guy who was 'clutch', or a guy who shot a higher percentage.

goingfor28
10-30-2014, 10:18 AM
High%, but I'd rather have a clutch playmaker like Kemba over a spot up 3pt specialist like Mike miller.
Kemba has been crazy clutch dating back to his run at Uconn tho, I enjoy watching him play

GrumpyOldMan
10-30-2014, 10:19 AM
You wouldn't have needed the "clutch" shots if you made a higher percentage of your shots all game. I'll take efficiency.

D-Leethal
10-30-2014, 10:34 AM
You wouldn't have needed the "clutch" shots if you made a higher percentage of your shots all game. I'll take efficiency.

That is such a stupid way to look at the game.

Most of the efficient guys couldn't create a shot in a late game scenario anyway. The majority of them are stand still jump shooters or dump off big men who can't create space and get a shot off against a defender. I'll take the guy who can make plays and collapse defenses. The efficient jump shooter can't do jack without those guys anyway.

D-Leethal
10-30-2014, 10:40 AM
That said, if your talking an efficient PG like Tony Parker or Goran Dragic who can do everything Kemba can do at a more efficient level, than I'm taking those guys. If were talking Jose Calderon vs John Wall, I am not taking Jose Calderon.

Hawkeye15
10-30-2014, 10:50 AM
easily higher %. This shouldn't even be a question honestly. How many last minute shots do even the biggest players take? 8 a year? I am more concerned with the other 1500 shot attempts.

D-Leethal
10-30-2014, 10:57 AM
easily higher %. This shouldn't even be a question honestly. How many last minute shots do even the biggest players take? 8 a year? I am more concerned with the other 1500 shot attempts.

I would say the top gun on an NBA team takes a shitload of "clutch" shots throughout a season. Whether its a shot to ice a game when you have a 3-5 point lead, a shot to win a game when its closer, a shot to stop a late game run by the other team etc. Ice water doesn't only come out in the last second of a tie game.

Would you take Jose Calderon over Kemba? I can't really say which I would take because I personally think Kemba blows. If John Wall had a clutch rep it would be a better discussion.

Hawkeye15
10-30-2014, 11:37 AM
I would say the top gun on an NBA team takes a shitload of "clutch" shots throughout a season. Whether its a shot to ice a game when you have a 3-5 point lead, a shot to win a game when its closer, a shot to stop a late game run by the other team etc. Ice water doesn't only come out in the last second of a tie game.

Would you take Jose Calderon over Kemba? I can't really say which I would take because I personally think Kemba blows. If John Wall had a clutch rep it would be a better discussion.

even if you think there are a "shitload", it pails in comparison to the amount of shots taken away from clutch moments.

Give me Kemba, Calderon can't guard me haha.

I agree on your definition of clutch btw. I don't think there is one, but who is to say clutch isn't slowing a big run mid 2nd quarter?

Jamiecballer
10-30-2014, 11:40 AM
You wouldn't have needed the "clutch" shots if you made a higher percentage of your shots all game. I'll take efficiency.

ftw

Stinkyoutsider
10-30-2014, 12:08 PM
I'll take the clutch player. Teammates and the crowd can feed off of plays like this and can swing the momentum of the game to your side.

valade16
10-30-2014, 12:51 PM
You wouldn't have needed the "clutch" shots if you made a higher percentage of your shots all game. I'll take efficiency.

Tell that to Kevin Love. He is one of the most efficient superstars in the league and his team was flat out abysmal in close games last season. (not saying it was on him, just pointing out the flawed concept that high % shooters somehow avoid close games)...

valade16
10-30-2014, 12:59 PM
I think it depends (as always) on context. I'd have to rephrase it as "Would you take a higher % or a clutch shooter from players that play the same position or have the same role".

It's obvious Kyle Korver has a higher shooting % than most clutch shooters in the league but spot up 3-pt specialists naturally have higher shooting %'s based on their role.

Given that, if you had to players whose job on the team was similar, I'd take the higher % person. (So think Goran Dragic over Kemba Walker)

Hawkeye15
10-30-2014, 01:02 PM
Tell that to Kevin Love. He is one of the most efficient superstars in the league and his team was flat out abysmal in close games last season. (not saying it was on him, just pointing out the flawed concept that high % shooters somehow avoid close games)...

he isn't a player who can create like that though. Neither is Tim Duncan, or Shaq, or many greats. And the Wolves problems were not Love in the closing moments of games haha, not even close. No defense and a PG who isn't a scoring threat and turns the ball over like he is getting paid in tight games was the reason.

valade16
10-30-2014, 02:18 PM
he isn't a player who can create like that though. Neither is Tim Duncan, or Shaq, or many greats. And the Wolves problems were not Love in the closing moments of games haha, not even close. No defense and a PG who isn't a scoring threat and turns the ball over like he is getting paid in tight games was the reason.

:laugh2:

Hawkeye15
10-30-2014, 02:51 PM
:laugh2:

dude, I am serious haha. 1 of 2 things happens in crunch time with Rubio. He either dribbles around desperately looking for anyone else to shoot, and when the defense literally makes him, he either frantically bricks a shot, or throws the ball away.

And he wants in excess of $12 million a year....

ewing
10-30-2014, 03:49 PM
clutch. that means I am in the game late and scoring big buckets when i need them. %s mean **** if you lose

Jamiecballer
10-30-2014, 05:32 PM
clutch. that means I am in the game late and scoring big buckets when i need them. %s mean **** if you lose
Not sure where you got that from

Tony_Starks
10-30-2014, 06:15 PM
I don't define clutch as only last second game winners. What if your team is down big and a player singlehandedly goes on a spree that swings the game in your favor? Does that have to be in the last 2 minutes? Last 5? It could be in the 3rd quarter. That's still clutch to me.

That being said I'm taking clutch over FG%. You can be the most efficient player in the world and not have a real impact on the game outside of a stat sheet.

I'll take the player that you can count on when everyone else gets tight...

Slug3
10-30-2014, 06:25 PM
High%, but I'd rather have a clutch playmaker like Kemba over a spot up 3pt specialist like Mike miller.
Kemba has been crazy clutch dating back to his run at Uconn tho, I enjoy watching him play

Honestly its also going to go down to what team is around them. Mike Miller fit pretty good with Miami those few years as his job was to sit at the 3 and shoot. Kemba would not fit that role, and Miami when they won their 2 rings would not have needed a player like Kemba.

goingfor28
10-30-2014, 06:28 PM
Honestly its also going to go down to what team is around them. Mike Miller fit pretty good with Miami those few years as his job was to sit at the 3 and shoot. Kemba would not fit that role, and Miami when they won their 2 rings would not have needed a player like Kemba.
Very valid point

Chronz
10-30-2014, 06:28 PM
Yeah, this is one of those loaded questions that tell us more about each posters bias than attempting to ask a legit question. I try not to fall for these threads anymore but allow me to join the fun.

Since the Q is open to interpretation, this is how I read it. Would you rather win comfortably or just barely scrape bye? I'd rather win comfortably. It implies a championship caliber dominance and shows ZERO weaknesses.

JasonJohnHorn
10-30-2014, 06:48 PM
I would have rather Walker when 8/18 than 9/26.... that way they would have won in regulation.

26 shots? SMH

HoopsDrive
10-30-2014, 07:04 PM
Why is it that a clutch player can't also be an efficient one? Shooting in clutch situations is still shooting, albeit with an added degree of pressure depending on said situation.

It really depends on context. What if the player had a monster efficient game, carrying his team on his back until the last 2 minutes when it was close and he happened to turn it over or brick a shot? Not being clutch in that situation isn't gonna affect my view on the player considering he was so important in actually getting his team to that close game in the first place.

What if the player had a terrible game and bricked shot after shot but was able to nail that 3pt to secure the win, should that elevate his standing at all? Consider for a moment that if he had played well to begin with, his team could have coasted for an easy win.

I remember a quote, maybe it was Popovich but not sure... he said that he's not trying to have his team trailing but in position to win the game by scoring a shot in the last 10 seconds of the game, but to have his team playing well throughout a game so that the win is in the bag by that point. Something along that line but said much more eloquently.

Being clutch is definitely a good trait though, it means the player is able to handle pressure in tight situations, magnified if that trait is on an important player since he'll be the focus of the offense. However, it is very overrated among fans, if the game is close throughout 48 minutes, then pretty much all those minutes are clutch.

jerellh528
10-30-2014, 07:38 PM
I don't define clutch as only last second game winners. What if your team is down big and a player singlehandedly goes on a spree that swings the game in your favor? Does that have to be in the last 2 minutes? Last 5? It could be in the 3rd quarter. That's still clutch to me.

That being said I'm taking clutch over FG%. You can be the most efficient player in the world and not have a real impact on the game outside of a stat sheet.

I'll take the player that you can count on when everyone else gets tight...

I agree with what you've said here.

valade16
10-31-2014, 09:27 AM
Yeah, this is one of those loaded questions that tell us more about each posters bias than attempting to ask a legit question. I try not to fall for these threads anymore but allow me to join the fun.

Since the Q is open to interpretation, this is how I read it. Would you rather win comfortably or just barely scrape bye? I'd rather win comfortably. It implies a championship caliber dominance and shows ZERO weaknesses.

Speaking of...

D-Leethal
10-31-2014, 11:36 AM
Who says you sub Jose Calderon and his 6-8 over Kemba and his 7-18 means you win comfortably? There is absolutely zero correlation there.

Chronz
10-31-2014, 01:13 PM
Who says you sub Jose Calderon and his 6-8 over Kemba and his 7-18 means you win comfortably? There is absolutely zero correlation there.
Who says those are my only options? And not buying the zero correlation bit either.

Again, if the choice is asking If I'd rather be clutch then the alternative has to be winning comfortably because the only other option is losing the game. Lol obviously nobody wants that. You can lose games with both options but both being equal, I'd rather win comfortably than be clutch.

And since we already know at a team level that efficiency is what wins games, that's the only way for me to interpret this vague question. Which brings me back to my original point regarding biases. One that seems to have flown over your head considering your strawman argument.

diu9leilomo
10-31-2014, 01:15 PM
Why is Calderon keep getting mentioned? Hes a role player, while kemba is a potential franchise player. A better comparison would be you rather have Lebron or Melo (efficiency vs clutch) in the last 5min of the game

JasonJohnHorn
10-31-2014, 01:27 PM
Why is Calderon keep getting mentioned? Hes a role player, while kemba is a potential franchise player. A better comparison would be you rather have Lebron or Melo (efficiency vs clutch) in the last 5min of the game


Kemba is NOT a potential franchise player... he is a potential Steve Francis or Stephan Marbury, and he hasn't even gotten as good as THEY were in their prime.

Jose Calderon can run the floor as well as Steven Nash when the coach lets him. He's as good a shooter and playmaker.

If you were giving me two players at the age of 22, and my options were Jose and Kemba, there is not even a question that I am taking Jose.

JasonJohnHorn
10-31-2014, 01:30 PM
Yeah, this is one of those loaded questions that tell us more about each posters bias than attempting to ask a legit question. I try not to fall for these threads anymore but allow me to join the fun.

Since the Q is open to interpretation, this is how I read it. Would you rather win comfortably or just barely scrape bye? I'd rather win comfortably. It implies a championship caliber dominance and shows ZERO weaknesses.


I agree, which is why I included the third option. It jsut really irks me that highlight reels go on about how clutch Kemba is when they would have won the game in regulation by a comfortable margin if he was shooting the ball ever a 48%. It's like: This guy is the REASON you needed a last second shot... why are you praising him for being clutch instead of criticizing him for going 9/26?

It's like those people who say: Well... he might not be the best shooter, but he hits them when they count. NEWS FLASH: THEY ALWAYS COUNT!!! (that news flash is not directed at you btw, just a general news flash).

D-Leethal
10-31-2014, 01:37 PM
Who says those are my only options? And not buying the zero correlation bit either.

Again, if the choice is asking If I'd rather be clutch then the alternative has to be winning comfortably because the only other option is losing the game. Lol obviously nobody wants that. You can lose games with both options but both being equal, I'd rather win comfortably than be clutch.

And since we already know at a team level that efficiency is what wins games, that's the only way for me to interpret this vague question. Which brings me back to my original point regarding biases. One that seems to have flown over your head considering your strawman argument.

What is your explanation for team efficiency going up in a big way with certain inefficient chuckers on the court compared to lesser team efficiency when they are off the court?

You CAN have an inefficient scorer that increases the efficiency of the team. Putting pressure on the defense and, as a result, being forced into tougher spots that might make your individual efficiency suffer CAN allow everyone elses to skyrocket as they are getting easier opportunities and less defensive attention.

There is zero correlation when it comes to your individual efficiency. We have seen #1 options who are considered inefficient chuckers spearhead top 5 efficient offenses more than a few times.

You want to talk personal belief bias look in the freakin' mirror. If I'm biased in one direction you are the same in the opposite. You can't isolate the individuals and say "hey, this guys TS% is sub-par, he must hurt his team when he is out there". It doesn't work that way, there is plenty of statistical proof (team stats) it doesn't work that way, yet you still try your hardest to convince everyone it does.

D-Leethal
10-31-2014, 01:41 PM
I agree, which is why I included the third option. It jsut really irks me that highlight reels go on about how clutch Kemba is when they would have won the game in regulation by a comfortable margin if he was shooting the ball ever a 48%. It's like: This guy is the REASON you needed a last second shot... why are you praising him for being clutch instead of criticizing him for going 9/26?

It's like those people who say: Well... he might not be the best shooter, but he hits them when they count. NEWS FLASH: THEY ALWAYS COUNT!!! (that news flash is not directed at you btw, just a general news flash).

Such a stupid way to analyze the game. Look, if he was Tony Parker efficient nobody would be questioning this. Thats why he is Tony Parker and Kemba is Kemba. I bring up Calderon because he is hyper-efficient and ranked somewhat similarly in the PG echelon than Kemba. But Calderon couldn't create a shot to save his life and thus isn't asked to. You throw Calderon on there and let him shoot 60% from the field for 14 points it doesn't mean you win the game over Kemba being out there scoring 18 on 40% shooting.

Having a hyper-efficient PG who can't beat his man off the dribble, force defensive help completely changes the landscape of your offense and not always in a good way. You can't trade a lower shooting % for a higher one, ignore HOW the two players play and how it effects the rest of the team, assume the higher % guy is going to mean your team plays better and doesn't need a last second shot compared to the lower % guy whose team needed a last second shot to win.

This is basketball, it doesn't work that way.

Tony_Starks
10-31-2014, 02:22 PM
They should've never gave these guys Moneyball.....

IKnowHoops
10-31-2014, 04:54 PM
That is such a stupid way to look at the game.

Most of the efficient guys couldn't create a shot in a late game scenario anyway. The majority of them are stand still jump shooters or dump off big men who can't create space and get a shot off against a defender. I'll take the guy who can make plays and collapse defenses. The efficient jump shooter can't do jack without those guys anyway.

Lebron, Jordan and KD say was sup player.

IKnowHoops
10-31-2014, 04:58 PM
What is your explanation for team efficiency going up in a big way with certain inefficient chuckers on the court compared to lesser team efficiency when they are off the court?

You CAN have an inefficient scorer that increases the efficiency of the team. Putting pressure on the defense and, as a result, being forced into tougher spots that might make your individual efficiency suffer CAN allow everyone elses to skyrocket as they are getting easier opportunities and less defensive attention.

There is zero correlation when it comes to your individual efficiency. We have seen #1 options who are considered inefficient chuckers spearhead top 5 efficient offenses more than a few times.

You want to talk personal belief bias look in the freakin' mirror. If I'm biased in one direction you are the same in the opposite. You can't isolate the individuals and say "hey, this guys TS% is sub-par, he must hurt his team when he is out there". It doesn't work that way, there is plenty of statistical proof (team stats) it doesn't work that way, yet you still try your hardest to convince everyone it does.

Can you give an example please?

IKnowHoops
10-31-2014, 05:01 PM
What is your explanation for team efficiency going up in a big way with certain inefficient chuckers on the court compared to lesser team efficiency when they are off the court?

You CAN have an inefficient scorer that increases the efficiency of the team. Putting pressure on the defense and, as a result, being forced into tougher spots that might make your individual efficiency suffer CAN allow everyone elses to skyrocket as they are getting easier opportunities and less defensive attention.

There is zero correlation when it comes to your individual efficiency. We have seen #1 options who are considered inefficient chuckers spearhead top 5 efficient offenses more than a few times.

You want to talk personal belief bias look in the freakin' mirror. If I'm biased in one direction you are the same in the opposite. You can't isolate the individuals and say "hey, this guys TS% is sub-par, he must hurt his team when he is out there". It doesn't work that way, there is plenty of statistical proof (team stats) it doesn't work that way, yet you still try your hardest to convince everyone it does.

Could you give me an example of this too? Then I can give an explanation to that specific team/scenario.

koreancabbage
10-31-2014, 05:27 PM
I missed the Charlotte game last night, but I checked out the stats and saw the highlights. I noticed in the highlights that Kemba Walker hit a game-tying shot that forced overtime and then hit the game winner in over time.

Impressive.


However, the dude was 9/26 from the floor.

Walker just got an extension (which honestly surprised me), but his FG% has never been very good.

So my question is this, would you rather have a guy who was 'clutch', or a guy who shot a higher percentage.

I'm picking the high FG% because that will probably win you more games regularly.

Chronz
11-02-2014, 02:39 AM
I agree, which is why I included the third option. It jsut really irks me that highlight reels go on about how clutch Kemba is when they would have won the game in regulation by a comfortable margin if he was shooting the ball ever a 48%. It's like: This guy is the REASON you needed a last second shot... why are you praising him for being clutch instead of criticizing him for going 9/26?

It's like those people who say: Well... he might not be the best shooter, but he hits them when they count. NEWS FLASH: THEY ALWAYS COUNT!!! (that news flash is not directed at you btw, just a general news flash).

Thats a different argument. Its hard to prove someone hurt a team just by looking at raw%'s.




What is your explanation for team efficiency going up in a big way with certain inefficient chuckers on the court compared to lesser team efficiency when they are off the court?
WTF bro? Cmon man, you're not giving me any sort of differentiating argument. The exact same thing could be said for a team losing its most efficient player. BOTH players have value, thats what I dont think you realize in your endless quest to disparage efficiency. If you want to actually discuss the numbers then feel free but you're not explaining what any of this has to do with what I was saying.



You want to talk personal belief bias look in the freakin' mirror. If I'm biased in one direction you are the same in the opposite.
Yes, that was why I began my post with that distinction.


You can't isolate the individuals and say "hey, this guys TS% is sub-par, he must hurt his team when he is out there". It doesn't work that way, there is plenty of statistical proof (team stats) it doesn't work that way, yet you still try your hardest to convince everyone it does.

LOL. If I wasn't so drunk I would be offended by you trying to pigeonhole me with nothing but strawman arguments at hand. Happy Halloween you (not trying to get banned cuss word),

IndyRealist
11-02-2014, 10:01 AM
If we are defining clutch to include stone cold plays outside of the final seconds, then Kemba was NOT clutch that game. 9-26. He shot his team out of a comfortable win and his teammates carried him until the end of regulation.

Players do not create shots, plays create shots. Players TAKE shots away from their teammates. Sometimes that's the best shot you could get, most times it's ego.

GrumpyOldMan
11-02-2014, 03:46 PM
If we are defining clutch to include stone cold plays outside of the final seconds, then Kemba was NOT clutch that game. 9-26. He shot his team out of a comfortable win and his teammates carried him until the end of regulation.

Players do not create shots, plays create shots. Players TAKE shots away from their teammates. Sometimes that's the best shot you could get, most times it's ego.
He wasn't "clutch" with his 1-11 shooting in a 2 point loss last night either.

ohreally
11-02-2014, 04:48 PM
Tell that to Kevin Love. He is one of the most efficient superstars in the league and his team was flat out abysmal in close games last season. (not saying it was on him, just pointing out the flawed concept that high % shooters somehow avoid close games)...

The choice is between field goal efficiency or being able to hit clutch shots, and Love is not an efficient shooter or a clutch scorer. He could prove me wrong now that he's playing with LeBron, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Of course, not picking the efficiency is kind of absurd, except that when it comes to the playoffs, everyone says the value of a star is that the star is expected to be clutch--not that that's always true. So really, when push comes to shove, a clutch scorer is valued more than an efficient one.

The trouble is that inefficient scorers can, for some span of time, seem to be clutch, since they are shooting a lot and by the law of averages there are going to be stretches where they appear to be clutch.

True clutch scorers should tend to be efficient for their position, but that efficiency can be masked by poor overall team play and in a true clutch situation the play will usually be more focused on the clutch player, where the player really gets a chance to show efficiency.

When it comes down to it, over the long term the choice is between the same players

Hardaway Here
11-02-2014, 06:16 PM
Efficiency wins out for me. Most instances you wouldn't need clutch shots if your are playing an efficient game. Most instances you only need clutch shots because a team is inefficient so what's the argument really?