NBA Playoffs Thread

[tommy]

This is an awfully condescending and insulting post coming from someone who hasn't provided a single fact to back up his assertions, and from someone who ignored the facts I provided (with link to data) -- specifically, that James has shot better and had a better assist rate in clutch situations than Bryant over the past five years. Maybe the reason you aren't getting satisfying answers is that you're being so hostile? Or maybe it's just that you're unable to recognize the fact that you have gotten thoughtful answers from people who have clearly considered the question more thoroughly than you have, and concluded that 1) the answer isn't what you think it is and 2) the question isn't particularly meaningful in any case.

Great post FellowTraveler. To add to the link you previously provided, this guy

http://chasing23.com/michael-jordan-game-winning-shots/

did an analysis of the clutch shooting in playoff games of Kobe, LeBron, and Jordan. He went back to the tape and looked at their shooting in game winning or tying situations in the last 24 seconds of a playoff game, with the team tied or trailing by three or less. What he found was that Jordan was 9 for 18 in those situations; LeBron (up to the point of the article, which was last year) was at 41% and Kobe was at 28%. I read elsewhere that leaguewide average for shooting in that situation is around 40% or so.

To the issue of LeBron vs. MJ, Kobe, Magic, and Bird, this seems to be a piece of evidence (not the entirety of it) that LeBron has performed in between the levels of MJ and Kobe when he has had end-of-game clutch shooting opportunities. Most have conceded that this area was not Magic's specialty, despite the junior-junior-junior skyhook, and as for Bird, while he is generally acknowledged to be a great clutch player and shooter, I can't find any data on him, but to be honest I don't recall any signature game winning shots of his in the playoffs.

[FellowTraveler]

Great post FellowTraveler. To add to the link you previously provided, this guy

http://chasing23.com/michael-jordan-game-winning-shots/

did an analysis of the clutch shooting in playoff games of Kobe, LeBron, and Jordan. He went back to the tape and looked at their shooting in game winning or tying situations in the last 24 seconds of a playoff game, with the team tied or trailing by three or less. What he found was that Jordan was 9 for 18 in those situations; LeBron (up to the point of the article, which was last year) was at 41% and Kobe was at 28%.

Thanks, Tommy. Two other interesting things from the link you provide:

1) From 1985-89, Jordan hit 4 of 6 game winning/tying shots in the last 24 seconds. Championship-era Jordan (1991-1998) was "only" 5 for 12 on these shots (42 percent.) So much for Jordan's indomitable will to win being the reason for the Bulls won those championships -- he was far worse on these "clutch" shots during his championship years than earlier in his career. In fact, during his championship playoff runs, his success rate on these shots was almost identical to that of noted choker LeBron James.

2) "With the exception of a driving bank shot against the Detroit Pistons in 1989 (Game 3), every single Michael Jordan playoff game winning/game tying shot attempt was a jumpshot." So, LeBron James takes a jumper to win a playoff game, and it's evidence that he doesn't have a killer instinct. But Michael Jordan takes a jumper for 94 percent of his late playoff game winning/tying shots, and he simply will not be denied.

[Chris Randolph]

Sorry. This cracked me up. I am pretty sure Skip Bayless himself would be disappointed to hear this. Skip Bayless isn't doing his job if you like him, because he purposely takes incorrect contrarian positions, or states the obvious "95% of the time." He hasn't had a relevant thought in quite a while other than once a year or so when his schtik actually sticks to the wall.

What I like about Skip is he isn't afraid to speak up about what he feels strong about. And he predicts/calls out weaknesses of players often. Everyone makes wrong predictions especially with winners and losers of games. But he has done pretty well of late. Recently he predicted the Giants run to the super bowl before playoffs (and Patriots to super bowl). All year he touted San Antonio and Miami as best teams in NBA. Has been spot on with Westbrook, Lebron and Tebow (over the top with Tebow, yes, but predicted success). Picked Kentucky as well I believe.

[superdave]

Thanks, Tommy. Two other interesting things from the link you provide:

1) From 1985-89, Jordan hit 4 of 6 game winning/tying shots in the last 24 seconds. Championship-era Jordan (1991-1998) was "only" 5 for 12 on these shots (42 percent.) So much for Jordan's indomitable will to win being the reason for the Bulls won those championships -- he was far worse on these "clutch" shots during his championship years than earlier in his career. In fact, during his championship playoff runs, his success rate on these shots was almost identical to that of noted choker LeBron James.

2) "With the exception of a driving bank shot against the Detroit Pistons in 1989 (Game 3), every single Michael Jordan playoff game winning/game tying shot attempt was a jumpshot." So, LeBron James takes a jumper to win a playoff game, and it's evidence that he doesn't have a killer instinct. But Michael Jordan takes a jumper for 94 percent of his late playoff game winning/tying shots, and he simply will not be denied.

But Lebron is not a jump shot artist. He scaled back his 3 point attempts this year considerably (from 3.5 to 2.4) at the request of his coaches while his FG attempts stayed the same. They want him posting up more and driving the lane more. He had plenty of time and should have driven the lane last night, especially considering all the whistles Wade was drawing.

[_Gary]

First off, I appreciate all the anonymous drive-byes. But that's okay, I've got pets at home that love me.

What kills me is that I've said, in numerous posts, that I think LeBron is an incredible player. I-N-C-R-E-D-I-B-L-E. I've mentioned one aspect to his game that quite a few analysts have questioned over the last couple of years. Some of you guys are acting like what I'm talking about is out of the twilight zone when it's not. And some of you are answering me based on what you assume me to be saying instead of what I'm actually saying. I'm saying the guy has yet to show me is "the man" when it comes to end of game situations. Last year in the Finals was the perfect example. The Heat absolutely had a championship in their hands (could have easily swept the Mavs) and he did NOT step up and keep his team from losing 2 of those games. Consequently, his team lost the series. And I'm not putting it all on him. He had teammates who also didn't step up. But if he's going to be considered the greatest of all time then I personally have to factor in championship moxie. And I still haven't seen that from him. Everything else I've seen. But not that. If you disagree then fine. Stats are fine and I know they play big here, but I've always subscribed to the theory that a person can make stats say whatever they want them to say. I'll take the eye test regardless of the so-called dangers of emotionalism. I'm not a LeBron hater at all. I like the guy. I just don't think he should be considered the greatest of all time at this moment. That's been my point from the beginning. If others here feel differently, so be it. It's subjective no matter how you slice it.

[Greg_Newton]

But Lebron is not a jump shot artist.

I think this is kind of lost point in the whole "closer" debate.

Thing is, Lebron isn't one of the great scorers of all time; shooting, in particular, is probably the weakest part of his game. What makes him great is that his 30 points will come with the assist totals of a PG, the rebounding totals of a PF, and the defensive presence if every position in between. He does the little winning things that make his teammates better and has one of the most all-around effective games we've ever seen.

So, I tend to view his end-game performances in that light - hitting a teammate for a wide-open shot to win isn't "not stepping up", it's just continuing to do what he does best. By nature, he's not going to be able to singlehandedly close out games like a pure scorer like Jordan, Kobe, etc.

I do think it gets in his head, though, and that he'd be a lot better off (and more effective in the clutch) if he'd realize and embrace that about himself, rather than worrying so much about making shots like MJ. He does sometimes look like he's playing more timidly and self-consciously in those situations rather than taking his physically dominant game to the next level and letting the chips fall where they may.

[_Gary]

I do think it gets in his head, though, and that he'd be a lot better off (and more effective in the clutch) if he'd realize and embrace that about himself, rather than worrying so much about making shots like MJ. He does sometimes look like he's playing more timidly and self-consciously in those situations rather than taking his physically dominant game to the next level and letting the chips fall where they may.

This I completely agree with. I know we can't read people's minds, but I do feel he gets tentative at the end of close games from time to time.

[FellowTraveler]

Thing is, Lebron isn't one of the great scorers of all time

Of course he is. He's 51st in career NBA points, and he hasn't yet turned 28. He has the highest career scoring average of any active player, is among the top 2-3 scorers in the league every year, and scores more efficiently than most players who score at similar volume. He has a higher career scoring average on more efficient shooting than Kobe Bryant. What definition of "great scorer" includes the guy who scores less and does it less efficiently but excludes the guy who scores more and more efficiently? If you mean James isn't merely one of the great scorers of all time, that's certainly true. But he's absolutely a great scorer.

So, I tend to view his end-game performances in that light - hitting a teammate for a wide-open shot to win isn't "not stepping up", it's just continuing to do what he does best.

This is a very good point. Scoring isn't the only thing that matters, at the end of the game or otherwise. Assists, by definition, only occur when there's a basket, so James' generally quite good late game assist stats shouldn't be overlooked. Nor his defense. Or his rebounding (again, his offensive rebound with 19 seconds left last night was huge.)

By nature, he's not going to be able to singlehandedly close out games like a pure scorer like Jordan, Kobe, etc.

Except that he is able to do so, as the data Tommy provided shows, and as his perennial place near the top of 'clutch' scoring lists shows.

I do think it gets in his head, though, and that he'd be a lot better off (and more effective in the clutch) if he'd realize and embrace that about himself, rather than worrying so much about making shots like MJ. He does sometimes look like he's playing more timidly and self-consciously in those situations rather than taking his physically dominant game to the next level and letting the chips fall where they may.

Better off than what? More effective than what?

He already has comparable 'clutch' shooting stats to championship-era Jordan, according to the site Tommy linked. He's already among the league leaders in 'clutch' points and assists nearly ever year. He already has a better 'clutch' record over the past five years than celebrated clutch performer Kobe Bryant. Yet he could be "a lot better off" if he'd just get his head on right? How much better can we reasonably expect him to be? He's the best player in the world; he isn't Superman.

[Greg_Newton]

$&!$%#@&$, I just deleted my reply. I'll try again:

-I absolutely consider Lebron a great scorer; however, I do not consider him a historically great pure scorer in the realm of MJ and Kobe in terms of being able to reliably hand him the ball and having him put it through the hoop. Would you? He's a physically dominant mutant with insane coordination, IQ and skills for someone of his size and athleticism, but he has very average touch and is not a consistent shooter for an all-time great. He scores in a very diverse array of ways, but doesn't have the same kind of create-separation-and-knock-down-a-shot game that the best pure scorers in the history of the game have had.

-As for his effectiveness as a "closer", I wasn't trying to argue that he's a choker or anything like that (I still think it's amazing how quickly performances like his final-25-points game are forgotten). However, the statistics you referred to represent an extremely small sample size that doesn't take into account any specifics of the shots, etc. - I don't think they prove anything more than does Lebron's same stat for the current season, which I believe is now under 16%.

-I do think that, especially in the last year or two as the criticism has surfaced, Lebron has sometimes tended to back off from his usual attack mode... standing straighter, hesitating slightly before making a more, setting himself for a jump shot rather than just attacking the defense like normal. My point is that it seems like he looks like he's trying to be a "traditional" closer at times, rather than just continuining to do what he does so well. He's never going to be better at being Kobe than Kobe, but he can do things Kobe never could.

[FellowTraveler]

I absolutely consider Lebron a great scorer; however, I do not consider him a historically great pure scorer in the realm of MJ and Kobe in terms of being able to reliably hand him the ball and having him put it through the hoop. Would you? He's a physically dominant mutant with insane coordination, IQ and skills for someone of his size and athleticism, but he has very average touch and is not a consistent shooter for an all-time great. He scores in a very diverse array of ways, but doesn't have the same kind of create-separation-and-knock-down-a-shot game that the best pure scorers in the history of the game have had.

Yeah, I would consider James an historically great scorer. I just don't know how to define "great scorer" in a way that excludes James and includes Bryant, given that James scores more and more efficiently. This isn't figure skating; there aren't style points. If Player A scores more and more efficiently than Player B, I can't call Player B a better scorer.

I do agree James isn't a great shooter. (Neither is Bryant.)

-As for his effectiveness as a "closer", I wasn't trying to argue that he's a choker or anything like that (I still think it's amazing how quickly performances like his final-25-points game are forgotten). However, the statistics you referred to represent an extremely small sample size that doesn't take into account any specifics of the shots, etc. - I don't think they prove anything more than does Lebron's same stat for the current season, which I believe is now under 16%.

The whole conversation suffers from a sample size problem, which is one of several reasons why I find the "closer" question highly overrated. That said: Do you really think a career's worth of data doesn't mean anything more than a single season's worth of the same type of data? That would be an odd stance to take as a result of concern over the small sample size represented by the career data. It also seems a bit odd to argue that despite his success "closing," James isn't a particularly good closer because he doesn't look good at it and we don't have enough datapoints to override that appearance.

He's never going to be better at being Kobe than Kobe, but he can do things Kobe never could.

What does "being Kobe" mean? Scoring a lot in "clutch" situations? If that's it, it looks to me that James is at least as good as Kobe at being Kobe and can do things Kobe never could:

2008-09
Bryant: 56.7 points per 48 min of clutch time on .457 FG%
James: 55.9 points per 48 min of clutch time on .556 FG%

2009-10
Bryant: 51.2 pts on .444 FG%
James: 66.1 pts on .488 FG%

2010-11
Bryant: 49.8 pts on .402 FG%
James: 45.1 pts on .436 FG%

2011-12
Bryant: 36.3 pts on .327 FG%
James: 33.2 pts on .386 FG%

So is it really just about style?

[Greg_Newton]

Thabo Sefalosha with an absolutely monstrous defensive game tonight. He just might be the game's MVP so far.

[Greg_Newton]

I'm just on an iPad so I can't really keep up with the fancy quoting and such, but my responses are in blue.

Yeah, I would consider James an historically great scorer. I just don't know how to define "great scorer" in a way that excludes James and includes Bryant, given that James scores more and more efficiently. This isn't figure skating; there aren't style points. If Player A scores more and more efficiently than Player B, I can't call Player B a better scorer.

Come on. Really? In which season did Lebron James average 35 PPG, again? Who scored more again this season, when Lebron was healthy and 26 while Kobe was playing his 16th season with one hand? You're using Kobe's first couple of seasons and injury-plagued years in which he averaged low-30s minutes to support your argument, which we both know is silly.

I do agree James isn't a great shooter. (Neither is Bryant.)

Bryant is a MUCH better shooter and shotmaker than James. And almost every jumpshot Lebron takes is barely contested because it's what the defense wants him to take, so please don't just make some sarcastic comment about percentages as "proof" that they're roughly equivalent in this sense. They're just not.

The whole conversation suffers from a sample size problem, which is one of several reasons why I find the "closer" question highly overrated.

I agree. I've never said James was a bad closer, and you were the one who referenced the "data" in this context.

That said: Do you really think a career's worth of data doesn't mean anything more than a single season's worth of the same type of data?

Rephrased: do I think that a group of 14-15 data points from this season is roughly equivalent to 12 data points over the last 7 years or so? Absolutely. Perhaps even more relevant, given that they are more reflective of his current mindset. But again, I wasn't the one who presented this statistic as evidence.

That would be an odd stance to take as a result of concern over the small sample size represented by the career data. It also seems a bit odd to argue that despite his success "closing," James isn't a particularly good closer because he doesn't look good at it and we don't have enough datapoints to override that appearance.

So basically, you're saying it's odd to make a basketball observation that there is insufficient "data" to conclusively prove? Gotcha.

What does "being Kobe" mean? Scoring a lot in "clutch" situations?

No. Again, my point here the entire time has been that James has seemed to change his style of play in the last couple of minutes at times, particularly in the past couple of years. I specifically described what I meant by this earlier.

Kobe's offensive game: isolating, methodically working his way to a spot where he knows he can make a shot, getting the defender where he needs him to get the shot off, and knocking down the shot. Again, he's a pure scorer. That's what I mean by "being Kobe". That is NOT Lebron's game, which is more dynamic but less polished/repeatable. However, I have noticed that Lebron sometimes tends to revert to this type of more tentative, finesse approach at the end of games, and I believe he would be better served sticking to HIS game, rather than trying to emulate how "traditional" closers play.

If that's it, it looks to me that James is at least as good as Kobe at being Kobe and can do things Kobe never could:

---

What are you defining as "clutch time"? Does it take score into account? Time left? Home/away crowd? Take desperation shots into account? What about win/loss outcomes? What would the EFG% be? What about if TOs were taken into account? FT%? Percent of team's shots taken? Points that were created/assisted by others, rather than manufactured by the player? Can you quantify "pressure"?

So is it really just about style?

...or is it really just about leaning on certain statistics than barely begin to quantify one of the most qualifiable traits in basketball, in which every data point in the limited sample is extremely unique?

[dcdevil2009]

What does "being Kobe" mean? Scoring a lot in "clutch" situations? If that's it, it looks to me that James is at least as good as Kobe at being Kobe and can do things Kobe never could:

2008-09
Bryant: 56.7 points per 48 min of clutch time on .457 FG%
James: 55.9 points per 48 min of clutch time on .556 FG%

2009-10
Bryant: 51.2 pts on .444 FG%
James: 66.1 pts on .488 FG%

2010-11
Bryant: 49.8 pts on .402 FG%
James: 45.1 pts on .436 FG%

2011-12
Bryant: 36.3 pts on .327 FG%
James: 33.2 pts on .386 FG%

So is it really just about style?

Yes, a lot of it is about style. Kobe is a better perimeter scorer than LeBron. He's also got more of a score first mindset than LeBron, which is probably why Kobe gets more of a reputation for being a "clutch" player. Fairly or not, part of getting the clutch label is being willing to take the last shot, something LeBron hasn't shown a willingness to do as much as his counterparts. Kobe might not have the same percentages as LeBron in the clutch, but that's because he's always taking the last shot. If LeBron shot as much as Kobe, he'd probably have lower percentages as well. I'm not saying LeBron should be shooting as much as Kobe, but for a player as talented as LeBron, he should probably be looking for his own shot more than he does. Just because he's the best basketball player alive right now doesn't mean he couldn't be better. It's what is frustrating about watching LeBron in the 4th quarter, he's got all the tools, but as good as he is, he's still not as good as he could be in clutch situations. With players like Kobe and Jordan, you felt like they got the most out of their potential, but with LeBro that's not the case.

[theAlaskanBear]

In regard to this whole James/Kobe debate, which seems to be occurring on the Dan Patrick show as well...

...Dan Patrick yesterday made a comment about LeBron v Kobe shooting percentage. He said the only reason that LeBron has a better shooting percentage is because of his layups and dunks, and if you looked at jumpshots outside of the paint, Kobe would be better.

Well, "Stats, Inc." guy comes and and tells Dan Patrick this: Kobe Bean Bryant shoots 37% on jumpshots outside th paint. LeBron James shoots 40% on shots outside the paint.

It really is all about perception. You can argue that Kobe faces better defense because they know he shooting...well that may be true, but thats Kobe's fault because his game has become very predictable and easier to defend.

So the poster above who said that James is no "jumpshot artist"...well, you are correct, he is not a jumpshot artist in the mold of a Ray Allen type. But he holds his own against Kobe, if that is your definition of a jumpshot artist.

[Indoor66]

Here we go again. Who can pee the longest?

[theAlaskanBear]

Yes, a lot of it is about style. Kobe is a better perimeter scorer than LeBron. He's also got more of a score first mindset than LeBron, which is probably why Kobe gets more of a reputation for being a "clutch" player. Fairly or not, part of getting the clutch label is being willing to take the last shot, something LeBron hasn't shown a willingness to do as much as his counterparts. Kobe might not have the same percentages as LeBron in the clutch, but that's because he's always taking the last shot. If LeBron shot as much as Kobe, he'd probably have lower percentages as well. I'm not saying LeBron should be shooting as much as Kobe, but for a player as talented as LeBron, he should probably be looking for his own shot more than he does. Just because he's the best basketball player alive right now doesn't mean he couldn't be better. It's what is frustrating about watching LeBron in the 4th quarter, he's got all the tools, but as good as he is, he's still not as good as he could be in clutch situations. With players like Kobe and Jordan, you felt like they got the most out of their potential, but with LeBro that's not the case.

I just posted something about shooting percentages outside the paint on Lebron vs Kobe. But I also want to address your post.

If anything you are pointing out a deficiency in Kobe's game not a strength...Kobe dominates the ball to the detriment of the team late in the game. We all just saw games this playoff where the Lakers have a lead with a few minutes and Kobe turns into his shot-hog persona to the detriment of team offense. Pau Gasol's inconsistencies tend to be related to this...because Kobe doesn't get anyone else going, doesn't get anyone else in the flow.

The reason we see Bryant as a good shooter is because he is unapologetic about it. We have fallen into his confidence game.

[theAlaskanBear]

I'm just on an iPad so I can't really keep up with the fancy quoting and such, but my responses are in blue.

Come on. Really? In which season did Lebron James average 35 PPG, again? Who scored more again this season, when Lebron was healthy and 26 while Kobe was playing his 16th season with one hand? You're using Kobe's first couple of seasons and injury-plagued years in which he averaged low-30s minutes to support your argument, which we both know is silly.

Some more stats gristle:

The season that Kobe averaged 35ppg, he took 27.2 fga per game. The other two seasons he averaged 30ppg he took 23fga per game.

LeBron has two seasons at 30ppg...one was at 23fga, the other was at 22fga. We will never see LeBron average 27fga per game in a season unless the Heat lose Dwayne Wade. James is team player. In Miami he is not even averaging 19fga per game...18.8 and 18.9.

edit: if mod wants to merge my posts, please do so -- early morning idiot forgot to do the multiple quote thing.

[BobbyFan]

For all the James lovers here, I have one simple scenario and question. Down by one, 5 seconds left in the game. Who would you rather have with the ball?

Jordan, Bird, Magic, Kobe or LeBron? I defy anyone with any ounce of common sense to tell me they'd take LeBron over all those other clutch performers. He may, when it's all said and done, be in that class. But right now there's no way I'd take him over any of those guys. Through 3 quarters? Maybe. But for the last shot? No way!

I'd take Jordan, Kobe, and possibly Bird over LeBron in that situation. But not Magic. As for current players, my top guys would be Durant, Kobe, Nowitzki, and a healthy Pierce. I'd consider Paul as well, provided he was being defended by a PG.

[Billy Dat]

Series changing performance by the Thunder last night. Their defense was INCREDIBLE. They came out very focused and, cliche, yes, had the proverbial eye of the tiger. How many times have we wanted Kevin Durant to attack the hoop he was last night. I kept waiting for the Spurs to put him on his back, but he was too quick and explosive. Everyone made their mark last night, Westbrook was a disruptive presence and was actually driving and kicking with abandon. Ibaka was nailing 20 footers. Thabo was excellent on both ends. Harden was Harden. Collison even gave them a bunch of baskets. They were relentless on defense and on the glass and the ball was moving on offense. THAT Thunder team can beat the Spurs and win the title. I wasn't sure until last night that they had that extra gear. Impressive.

[elvis14]

Series changing performance by the Thunder last night. Their defense was INCREDIBLE. They came out very focused and, cliche, yes, had the proverbial eye of the tiger. How many times have we wanted Kevin Durant to attack the hoop he was last night. I kept waiting for the Spurs to put him on his back, but he was too quick and explosive. Everyone made their mark last night, Westbrook was a disruptive presence and was actually driving and kicking with abandon. Ibaka was nailing 20 footers. Thabo was excellent on both ends. Harden was Harden. Collison even gave them a bunch of baskets. They were relentless on defense and on the glass and the ball was moving on offense. THAT Thunder team can beat the Spurs and win the title. I wasn't sure until last night that they had that extra gear. Impressive.

I agree it was an impressive game by the Thunder. It's going to be interesting to see how both teams respond. The Spurs didn't win 20 straight by accident they'll make adjustments and play better. The Thunder will need to come out with the same intensity they had last night to keep up. Game 4 could be the best one yet! It's a shame this series isin't the finals.