Quinn & Clutch Shots

[Native]

Am I the only one to notice that last night's Dockery-esque heave to end the half was, like, the third time Quinn's done that this year? Last night, then twice (at least) in Atlantis.

Brings up an interesting question: so far in the season, if you had to pick one player to hit the buzzer-beater or make a game-winning play, who would you pick?

[oldnavy]

Am I the only one to notice that last night's Dockery-esque heave to end the half was, like, the third time Quinn's done that this year? Last night, then twice (at least) in Atlantis.

Brings up an interesting question: so far in the season, if you had to pick one player to hit the buzzer-beater or make a game-winning play, who would you pick?

Seth

[sagegrouse]

Seth


Am I the only one to notice that last night's Dockery-esque heave to end the half was, like, the third time Quinn's done that this year? Last night, then twice (at least) in Atlantis.

Brings up an interesting question: so far in the season, if you had to pick one player to hit the buzzer-beater or make a game-winning play, who would you pick?

A guy with the handle and the shot. It's gonna be Seth or Quinn or TT (as in his two threes last night).

sage

[CarmenWallaceWade]

Am I the only one to notice that last night's Dockery-esque heave to end the half was, like, the third time Quinn's done that this year? Last night, then twice (at least) in Atlantis.

Brings up an interesting question: so far in the season, if you had to pick one player to hit the buzzer-beater or make a game-winning play, who would you pick?

Seth. Ryan and Sheed would follow.

[dcar1985]

A guy with the handle and the shot. It's gonna be Seth or Quinn or TT (as in his two threes last night).

sage

Tyler as opposed to Sheed w/ the game on the line? I love what Tyler brings to the team but if I need a bucket late or game winner I don't want him anywhere near the ball.

[elvis14]

I want the ball in QC's hands to make a play. That might mean shooting or it might mean breaking down the defense and passing it to someone else to shoot. He's our best ball handler and passer and a pretty good shooter as well.

[Ichabod Drain]

Tyler as opposed to Sheed w/ the game on the line? I love what Tyler brings to the team but if I need a bucket late or game winner I don't want him anywhere near the ball.

Kansas disagrees....:p

haha all kidding aside, it would be seth or sheed imho. With Quinn getting one of the two the ball. If we needed a three at the buzzer i could see a lineup of Ryan, Sheed, Seth, TT, and Quinn with possibly an option for all depending on the defense.

[Monmouth77]

Kansas disagrees....:p

haha all kidding aside, it would be seth or sheed imho. With Quinn getting one of the two the ball. If we needed a three at the buzzer i could see a lineup of Ryan, Sheed, Seth, TT, and Quinn with possibly an option for all depending on the defense.

Speaking of Thornton and gutsy shots, did anyone notice the floater/runner he hit at one point in the second half last night. He dribbled the lane into space just past the free throw line and hit a pretty confident looking floater. It looked like a shot Quinn (or Nolan Smith) would take. I actually had to squint to see whether it was #3 or #2 on the replay.

No one is expecting (or even asking) Tiny Thor to be an offensive dynamo, and that shot may have been an anomaly, but it sure looked like a practiced move, and one that would make us tougher during his time on the floor if he could hit it with consistency.

[The Gordog]

Am I the only one to notice that last night's Dockery-esque heave to end the half was, like, the third time Quinn's done that this year? Last night, then twice (at least) in Atlantis.

Brings up an interesting question: so far in the season, if you had to pick one player to hit the buzzer-beater or make a game-winning play, who would you pick?

Lots of good options. Personally I go with who has the hot hand, but I think I know K and he will go with his senior leader. If Seth is healthy (relatively) K will set up a play for him if that situations arises. If not Ryan (if we need 3) or Mason (if we only need 2.)

[nocilla]

If we only need 2 points I think we would initially try to get the ball into Mason. If nothing is there then I think Curry would get the shot.

[Bob Green]

I'd want the ball in Cook's hands so he could execute a pick-n-roll with Mason. That play should score a lot of points this season. Of course I'd have Seth Curry set-up in the corner as Plan B in case the pick-n-roll was defended.

[NSDukeFan]

Tyler as opposed to Sheed w/ the game on the line? I love what Tyler brings to the team but if I need a bucket late or game winner I don't want him anywhere near the ball.


Kansas disagrees....:p

haha all kidding aside, it would be seth or sheed imho. With Quinn getting one of the two the ball. If we needed a three at the buzzer i could see a lineup of Ryan, Sheed, Seth, TT, and Quinn with possibly an option for all depending on the defense.

I believe Kansas actually agrees. They don't want Tyler anywhere near the ball at the end of the game if they are playing Duke either.

[Edouble]

I want the ball in QC's hands to make a play. That might mean shooting or it might mean breaking down the defense and passing it to someone else to shoot. He's our best ball handler and passer and a pretty good shooter as well.

Yes. For sure I want Quinn with the ball. He can shoot, dish, or drive. He is also becoming a great decision maker.

I have the most confidence in Quinn to get the ball where it needs to be or shoot it himself. Quinn's ability, confidence, and demeanor make this a no-brainer. When you have an elite point guard, it's generally a good idea for him to have the ball at crunch time.

Unless you have Grant Hill throwing a 3/4 court pass.

[cptnflash]

As a non-believer in clutchness as a skill, I would just choose our best shooter, which is Seth.

[supbros]

As a non-believer in clutchness as a skill, I would just choose our best shooter, which is Seth.

Clutchness is 100% a skill in basketball. Why do you think that Dirk Nowitzki teams always overperform their point differential and Dwight Howard teams always underperform?

I think Ryan Kelly is likely our best clutch option since he can shoot and has the best shot of getting a quality shot off. Curry, Sheed, Quinn all pretty good too, as well as Mason in some select situations. We really do have an awesome starting 5 for clutch situations, which makes it not a surprise that we're winning all of our close games.

[Dukeblue91]

Tyler as opposed to Sheed w/ the game on the line? I love what Tyler brings to the team but if I need a bucket late or game winner I don't want him anywhere near the ball.

Sorry but TT has saved our bacon several times just the last couple of years that I would have no problem putting the ball into his hands.
This kid is a flat out winner and the ultimate team player.
Why so many Duke fans fail to realize what he does and brings to this team is just amazing to me.
He is not flashy or anything like that but when we are in trouble TT shows up every single time.

[elvis14]

Sorry but TT has saved our bacon several times just the last couple of years that I would have no problem putting the ball into his hands.
This kid is a flat out winner and the ultimate team player.
Why so many Duke fans fail to realize what he does and brings to this team is just amazing to me.
He is not flashy or anything like that but when we are in trouble TT shows up every single time.

The problem with putting the ball in TT's hands is that you take it out of QC's hands. It's not who's a 'good' choice, it's who's the 'best' choice. TT IS a flat out winner. So is QC, Mason, Tyler, Seth, Rasheed, K, Wojo, Amile, Alex, etc. etc.

[mike88]

Clutchness is 100% a skill in basketball. Why do you think that Dirk Nowitzki teams always overperform their point differential and Dwight Howard teams always underperform?

I think Ryan Kelly is likely our best clutch option since he can shoot and has the best shot of getting a quality shot off. Curry, Sheed, Quinn all pretty good too, as well as Mason in some select situations. We really do have an awesome starting 5 for clutch situations, which makes it not a surprise that we're winning all of our close games.

There are several reasons besides "clutchness" why teams might be relatively better than others in close games. To your example of Dirk vs Dwight, why look further than the large differential in their free throw shooting abilities, a skill that matters more in close games?

If you believe in "clutchness" (as an ability to perform better than their personal talent level near the end of games) you also have to believe in "slackness" - that these same players are playing below their true ability for the rest of the game.

[uh_no]

Clutchness is 100% a skill in basketball. Why do you think that Dirk Nowitzki teams always overperform their point differential and Dwight Howard teams always underperform?

I think Ryan Kelly is likely our best clutch option since he can shoot and has the best shot of getting a quality shot off. Curry, Sheed, Quinn all pretty good too, as well as Mason in some select situations. We really do have an awesome starting 5 for clutch situations, which makes it not a surprise that we're winning all of our close games.

http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/why_i_dont_believe_in_clutchness

I think maybe you should shoot kenpom an email and let him know that he's wrong.

[Kedsy]

http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/why_i_dont_believe_in_clutchness

I think maybe you should shoot kenpom an email and let him know that he's wrong.

OK, I know KenPom is considered the end of all debates around here, but that article didn't come close to proving there's no such thing as "clutchness." It merely pointed out that calculating someone's free throw percentage in the last five minutes is not a very meaningful measurement of anything (except, of course, their free throw percentage in the last five minutes).

Ultimately, whether you believe some players react better in clutch situations is a similar issue to whether you believe there's such a thing as a "hot shooter" or a "cold shooter." And we've had that debate on this board several times and neither side is going to convince the other. All I'll add to it now is that all these types of things are really psychological issues the effects of which are difficult to measure. But just because something is difficult to measure doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[dcar1985]

Sorry but TT has saved our bacon several times just the last couple of years that I would have no problem putting the ball into his hands.
This kid is a flat out winner and the ultimate team player.
Why so many Duke fans fail to realize what he does and brings to this team is just amazing to me.
He is not flashy or anything like that but when we are in trouble TT shows up every single time.

Your thinking with your heart...I love the toughness and leadership Tyler brings, it's easy to see his impact on the other guys. To be frank though he's just not that good, I saw a post somewhere that was praising Tyler for hitting a floater last game and talking about how he might be practicing that and that be an added wrinkle to his game...As a D1 point guard especially at a program like Duke those are moves that should be second nature to him but they're not, Tyler doesn't put the least bit of fear in anyone on O....The Kansas shot was big but still if I need a bucket or the games on the line there's no way I'm drawing up a play for Tyler...just not happening, regardless of how hard he plays or how many intangibles he brings.

[uh_no]

OK, I know KenPom is considered the end of all debates around here, but that article didn't come close to proving there's no such thing as "clutchness." It merely pointed out that calculating someone's free throw percentage in the last five minutes is not a very meaningful measurement of anything (except, of course, their free throw percentage in the last five minutes).

Ultimately, whether you believe some players react better in clutch situations is a similar issue to whether you believe there's such a thing as a "hot shooter" or a "cold shooter." And we've had that debate on this board several times and neither side is going to convince the other. All I'll add to it now is that all these types of things are really psychological issues the effects of which are difficult to measure. But just because something is difficult to measure doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I think that's about as a true a statement as can be made. In the end can we call it statistical agnosticism? I think it applies to clutchness as well as hotness and coldness. In the end it's hard to prove whether any of these things are caused by random variables or by some actual phenomenon.

Either way, stating that clutchness is "100% a basketball skill" is far from true. We perceive certain players performing better "in the clutch" than other players, and some people will chalk it up to clutch, some will chalk it up to randomness. In the end, there's no real way to know for sure...the sample size for a given individual player is just too small.

That said, I do think that there is something to be said for athletes that can't control themselves....get nervous...in "clutch" situations....it's probably something we have all experienced...but that being said, there is still no way to prove if someone misses, say, a game winning shot, whether that was due to nerves or just do to the fact that they would only make that shot 20% of the time in ANY situation.....again, too small a sample size to understand whether their "clutch" performance deviates from normal performance.

[Edouble]

...the sample size for a given individual player is just too small.


His airness?

[uh_no]

His airness?

is there any evidence that he shot a higher percentage in clutch situations than he did overall?

I suspect not, but I'm really curious.

[Kedsy]

I think that's about as a true a statement as can be made. In the end can we call it statistical agnosticism? I think it applies to clutchness as well as hotness and coldness. In the end it's hard to prove whether any of these things are caused by random variables or by some actual phenomenon.

Hard to disagree with any of that. The problem is there are a lot of things that can be proven or disproven (or as close to proven/disproven as is practical) through basketball statistics but also a decent number of things that can't (or at least it's really hard and nobody has bothered to do it properly yet including Pomeroy). Is that "statisical agnosticism"? If so, I'm with you.

[MCFinARL]

Am I the only one to notice that last night's Dockery-esque heave to end the half was, like, the third time Quinn's done that this year? Last night, then twice (at least) in Atlantis.

Brings up an interesting question: so far in the season, if you had to pick one player to hit the buzzer-beater or make a game-winning play, who would you pick?

Interesting question. If I were Coach K setting up a play for someone, it might not be Quinn. And I acknowledge that data analysis may reach a different conclusion. But, not to go all New Age on folks, I think there IS something about Quinn in clutch situations--I was thinking this myself before seeing this post. For whatever reason, he seems to go into another gear at those times.

[mike88]

Hard to disagree with any of that. The problem is there are a lot of things that can be proven or disproven (or as close to proven/disproven as is practical) through basketball statistics but also a decent number of things that can't (or at least it's really hard and nobody has bothered to do it properly yet including Pomeroy). Is that "statisical agnosticism"? If so, I'm with you.

I think this question falls into the area of "hard to study" rather than "can't be studied" -- what we need is data on players broken down by time of the game and closeness of the score-- you would define a player as clutch if they performed much better at the end of close games compared with other situations (best if you could also adjust for any overall trend to better performance in close or end game situations). Like ken Pom started to do in his blog.

Best if you had large samples of opportunities for each player. Also have to consider that you will see some relationships just by chance, so it will be helpful if you could form some prior probabilities of clutchness before looking at the data.

Given our human tendency to see patterns when none exist, I would wager much of what we call clutch isn't really so.

[dukeofcalabash]

Seth

Sorry, but I would pick Seth far down the list because of his up and down shooting last year. There were games where he could not hit a basket if it were lowered for him. This year give me Mason on a dunk (and possibly foul), Cook with a drive or the 3, and then Sheed, Kelly, and maybe Seth after that. In other words, we have go to guys who can score.

[gep]

As far as this year's team goes... maybe the "best" player to handle the ball and/or take the "clutch" shot is the player that has had the best success in that particular game to that point. Kinda like "go with the hot hand?" :confused: A comment... with all due respect to all posters, I really don't care for the "negative" comments on various players for whatever reason they have...

[sagegrouse]

Am I the only one to notice that last night's Dockery-esque heave to end the half was, like, the third time Quinn's done that this year? Last night, then twice (at least) in Atlantis.

Brings up an interesting question: so far in the season, if you had to pick one player to hit the buzzer-beater or make a game-winning play, who would you pick?

There are two questions:

If you are setting up a play with 10 or more seconds left in the game, whom would you choose to take the shot?

If you grab a rebound with 10 or fewer seconds on the clock, whom would you want to take the shot?

In the first case, I suppose we run a play to get Mason a close-in shot and, if that fails, go to Seth or Ryan from outside.

In the second case, you want the rebounder to pass to the point guard, who will head up the court and pass to an open man (Seth or Ryan). If there is very little time, the shooter will always be the point guard -- like Cook against Elon. This case is "the art of the possible."

sagegrouse

[Kedsy]

I think this question falls into the area of "hard to study" rather than "can't be studied" -- what we need is data on players broken down by time of the game and closeness of the score-- you would define a player as clutch if they performed much better at the end of close games compared with other situations (best if you could also adjust for any overall trend to better performance in close or end game situations). Like ken Pom started to do in his blog.

Best if you had large samples of opportunities for each player. Also have to consider that you will see some relationships just by chance, so it will be helpful if you could form some prior probabilities of clutchness before looking at the data.

Given our human tendency to see patterns when none exist, I would wager much of what we call clutch isn't really so.

There are so many factors into what we would consider "clutch" that I doubt you'd ever get a reasonable controlled sample size, so I'm not sure where the line between "hard to study" and "can't be studied" falls.

I do know, from a psychological standpoint, that some people react better to stress than others, which would imply "clutchness" really does exist on some level.

[DevilYouthCoach]

I want the ball in QC's hands to make a play. That might mean shooting or it might mean breaking down the defense and passing it to someone else to shoot. He's our best ball handler and passer and a pretty good shooter as well.

Quinn currently is hitting his three's at the highest percentage of any of our players -- 48+ percent. Yes, a pretty good shooter.

[cptnflash]

Clutchness is 100% a skill in basketball. Why do you think that Dirk Nowitzki teams always overperform their point differential and Dwight Howard teams always underperform?

I think Ryan Kelly is likely our best clutch option since he can shoot and has the best shot of getting a quality shot off. Curry, Sheed, Quinn all pretty good too, as well as Mason in some select situations. We really do have an awesome starting 5 for clutch situations, which makes it not a surprise that we're winning all of our close games.

First, Nowitzki's teams don't always outperform Pythagorus, and Dwight's teams don't always underperform. I looked it up. But more importantly, as others have mentioned, team wins relative to pythagorean expected wins is not the right way to measure the supposed "clutchness" of an individual player. There are too many other variables that can affect team outcomes, especially in small samples. The right way is to define clutch situations, and then measure your clutchy player's performance in those situations relative to their overall performance level, with a sufficiently large clutch situation dataset that any deviation can't reasonably be attributed to randomness. You sound confident (100% confident, in fact), so please feel free to share data along those lines if you have it.

My opinion: we don't have an awesome starting 5 for clutch situations. We have an awesome starting five, period.

[bedeviled]

I read the KenPom article previously and scoffed aloud at him. It seems his premise is that, even if “clutch” is a variable, it is meaningless because a) it is has no instructional value and b) the difference in “clutch” between individuals is not significant to the play’s outcome (see his footnote).

I think most sports psychologists would argue that “clutch” and “choke” are, indeed, real variables (of course, it’s their job, so…YMMV). The predominant theory is that the shot reps taken day-in-and-day-out lead to implicit (unconscious/anoetic) procedural memory (sometimes referred to as “muscle memory” by people in sports). Us mortals have a similar experience when learning and mastering driving a car. Stressful situations, though, can shift the performance of the action back to using explicit (conscious/noetic/declarative) memory. Coaches call timeouts to force the player to think (ie become conscious), thus “icing” the kicker/shooter. When an athlete starts thinking about the mechanics of his shot/swing/whatever, he no longer performs with the fluidity and precision that was encoded in his procedural memory...thus, back to novice and away from mastery level. One could postulate that the stressful thoughts lead to tensing of muscles that disrupts actions and to doubt that disrupts decision-making. Psychologists, though, go a step further and talk about mental processing ability and efficiency. Imagine how difficult it would be to drive well if you had to think about all the biomechanic minutiae of driving a car! (Or, embarrassing yourself by slicing golf balls while you try to verbally teach someone your previously masterful swing). The more input you pile on, the harder it is to process smoothly. Thus, pressure leads to thought, which leads to hitches in the stroke or stiffness in the follow-through, etc (ICE).

Not only do sports psychologist value “clutch/choke” variables, they also work with players to develop a sound mental game based on their psychology. Thus, knowledge about who is “clutch” and who is “choke” DOES have instructional value. What was really laughable to me was that Pomeroy suggested the coach would tell the player to “concentrate harder!” Most of the time, that generic statement is the equivalent to throwing gasoline on the fire.

There is research to support the validity of “clutch/choke” psychology and its manipulation. Moreover, studies suggest that this variable DOES matter in isolated events and sports like golf, marksmanship, weight-lifting. As stated upthread, it is more difficult to study in real-life for basketball due to the number of variables. However, there is some information that suggests it matters, in free-throws for example (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/200904/relax-nba-players-choke-too). And, as the player begins that last-second live-game shot, perhaps many of the extraneous variables drop away. I’m inclined to believe it can be studied and does matter.

[mike88]

I read the KenPom article previously and scoffed aloud at him. It seems his premise is that, even if “clutch” is a variable, it is meaningless because a) it is has no instructional value and b) the difference in “clutch” between individuals is not significant to the play’s outcome (see his footnote).

I think most sports psychologists would argue that “clutch” and “choke” are, indeed, real variables (of course, it’s their job, so…YMMV). The predominant theory is that the shot reps taken day-in-and-day-out lead to implicit (unconscious/anoetic) procedural memory (sometimes referred to as “muscle memory” by people in sports). Us mortals have a similar experience when learning and mastering driving a car. Stressful situations, though, can shift the performance of the action back to using explicit (conscious/noetic/declarative) memory. Coaches call timeouts to force the player to think (ie become conscious), thus “icing” the kicker/shooter. When an athlete starts thinking about the mechanics of his shot/swing/whatever, he no longer performs with the fluidity and precision that was encoded in his procedural memory...thus, back to novice and away from mastery level. One could postulate that the stressful thoughts lead to tensing of muscles that disrupts actions and to doubt that disrupts decision-making. Psychologists, though, go a step further and talk about mental processing ability and efficiency. Imagine how difficult it would be to drive well if you had to think about all the biomechanic minutiae of driving a car! (Or, embarrassing yourself by slicing golf balls while you try to verbally teach someone your previously masterful swing). The more input you pile on, the harder it is to process smoothly. Thus, pressure leads to thought, which leads to hitches in the stroke or stiffness in the follow-through, etc (ICE).

Not only do sports psychologist value “clutch/choke” variables, they also work with players to develop a sound mental game based on their psychology. Thus, knowledge about who is “clutch” and who is “choke” DOES have instructional value. What was really laughable to me was that Pomeroy suggested the coach would tell the player to “concentrate harder!” Most of the time, that generic statement is the equivalent to throwing gasoline on the fire.

There is research to support the validity of “clutch/choke” psychology and its manipulation. Moreover, studies suggest that this variable DOES matter in isolated events and sports like golf, marksmanship, weight-lifting. As stated upthread, it is more difficult to study in real-life for basketball due to the number of variables. However, there is some information that suggests it matters, in free-throws for example (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/200904/relax-nba-players-choke-too). And, as the player begins that last-second live-game shot, perhaps many of the extraneous variables drop away. I’m inclined to believe it can be studied and does matter.

the phenomenon you are describing (and that is nicely described in the article you linked) is slightly different- the tendency of all players to perform worse under pressure- that is not "clutchness" (or lack thereof) as we have been discussing it. Clutchness would be a player or group of players who perform better than expected in high leverage situations. The linked article showed that all players do (moderately) worse in these situations - finding "clutch" players means identifying those who buck that trend and in fact perform better in the end game/ close score scenarios compared with the the rest of the game for them.

just to be clear, the alternate explanation/ strategy is that there is no "clutchness" and that the player you would want at the line at the end of the game is the same one you would want in any situation- the best free throw shooter overall

[dukeofcalabash]

the phenomenon you are describing (and that is nicely described in the article you linked) is slightly different- the tendency of all players to perform worse under pressure- that is not "clutchness" (or lack thereof) as we have been discussing it. Clutchness would be a player or group of players who perform better than expected in high leverage situations. The linked article showed that all players do (moderately) worse in these situations - finding "clutch" players means identifying those who buck that trend and in fact perform better in the end game/ close score scenarios compared with the the rest of the game for them.

just to be clear, the alternate explanation/ strategy is that there is no "clutchness" and that the player you would want at the line at the end of the game is the same one you would want in any situation- the best free throw shooter overall

If you are saying that there is no difference in shooting the opening shot of a game versus shooting a last second shot while trailing by 1 point then I respectfully disagree. Having worked as an electrical engineer for many years in an industrial plant I know the difference in working on a piece of equipment when it's scheduled down and working on it when it's broken down and losing production. There is a HUGE difference and I could feel it. Luckily, I was able to perform in those 'clutch' periods and keep my job. You can see those players on the court who not only want the ball, but WILL take over and score more often than not. From my observations of this years team I would call Cook "Mr. Clutch" and Sheed "Mr. Confident". Two young men who are not afraid and who will come through more often than not when the chips are down.

[Wander]

Maybe "clutchness" exists, but Quinn's shot wasn't an example of it. A long freebie shot at the end of the first half of a regular season home game you're 99% guaranteed to win is about the most low stress situation I can think of in a basketball game.

[Kedsy]

the phenomenon you are describing (and that is nicely described in the article you linked) is slightly different- the tendency of all players to perform worse under pressure- that is not "clutchness" (or lack thereof) as we have been discussing it. Clutchness would be a player or group of players who perform better than expected in high leverage situations. The linked article showed that all players do (moderately) worse in these situations - finding "clutch" players means identifying those who buck that trend and in fact perform better in the end game/ close score scenarios compared with the the rest of the game for them.

just to be clear, the alternate explanation/ strategy is that there is no "clutchness" and that the player you would want at the line at the end of the game is the same one you would want in any situation- the best free throw shooter overall

Your bolded statement above (and hence your entire post, IMO) is not necessarily true. If everyone performs worse in pressure situations, then the "clutch" player could fairly be described as the one who performs "less worse," in other words the player who doesn't feel the pressure as much and thus performs closest to his peak ability. If you have two 50% shooters (putting aside how you would quantify their "normal," non-pressure percentage), and one shoots 30% in pressure situations and the other shoots 48% in pressure situations, then I would consider the second player to be "clutch."

[mike88]

If you are saying that there is no difference in shooting the opening shot of a game versus shooting a last second shot while trailing by 1 point then I respectfully disagree. Having worked as an electrical engineer for many years in an industrial plant I know the difference in working on a piece of equipment when it's scheduled down and working on it when it's broken down and losing production. There is a HUGE difference and I could feel it. Luckily, I was able to perform in those 'clutch' periods and keep my job. You can see those players on the court who not only want the ball, but WILL take over and score more often than not. From my observations of this years team I would call Cook "Mr. Clutch" and Sheed "Mr. Confident". Two young men who are not afraid and who will come through more often than not when the chips are down.

I agree there is a difference between close, end-game situations and the rest of the game, but it is a difference that affects everyone.

The question of "clutchness" is whether there are people who differentially perform better in difficult situations compared with their own usual performance. Let's say that overall players drop from 70% FT % (most of the game) to 65% in close, end of the game situations- we could call that the "stress factor" (a 5 % point drop). To find "clutchness" you need identify players who don't demonstrate that effect relative to their own performance -- that would mean finding someone who 75% in most of the game who then shoots 80% in end of the game situations. Or someone who shoots 55% most of the game, then shoots 65% near the end.

Many people hold up Michael Jordan as being great in the clutch, but he was great all the time - we just remember (because we see the highlights over and over) his successes in the clutch; same with Reggie Miller. The times Michael Jordan missed at the end of the game don't get emphasized as much.

[dukeofcalabash]

I agree there is a difference between close, end-game situations and the rest of the game, but it is a difference that affects everyone.

The question of "clutchness" is whether there are people who differentially perform better in difficult situations compared with their own usual performance. Let's say that overall players drop from 70% FT % (most of the game) to 65% in close, end of the game situations- we could call that the "stress factor" (a 5 % point drop). To find "clutchness" you need identify players who don't demonstrate that effect relative to their own performance -- that would mean finding someone who 75% in most of the game who then shoots 80% in end of the game situations. Or someone who shoots 55% most of the game, then shoots 65% near the end.

Many people hold up Michael Jordan as being great in the clutch, but he was great all the time - we just remember (because we see the highlights over and over) his successes in the clutch; same with Reggie Miller. The times Michael Jordan missed at the end of the game don't get emphasized as much.

Again, I disagree. Clutch to me would be the person "most likely to make the shot" in the most stressful moments. Of course, it's harder for most people to hit that shot than an easy layup 10 minutes into the game. The term "clutch" doesn't mean he'll necessarily do better than when it's easier. It means he handles the situation better than most and therefore is more likely to succeed. It has almost zero comparisons to easy baskets. Duke has had some great "clutch" players --- Heyman, Spanarkle, Christian Lattener (excuse any mispelling), and others who wanted that ball in those situations and could usually get the job done.

[bedeviled]

I agree with those who can allow that the athlete who wilts the least under pressure may be “clutch.” If there is a range of response to stress, he is still “clutch” relative to his colleagues. His shot is more reliable than someone who is even normally better but totally sucks in crunch time. Thankfully for me, some of the best students at Duke were terrible test-takers, allowing me to sneak past for a spot in graduate studies!!

Anyway, pressure is NOT always detrimental. Athletes do NOT always perform worse under pressure. In fact, earlier models of competition anxiety were modeled after a U-shape where a certain amount of pressure had to be present to induce quality play. We see this all the time when athletes “play-down” to their competition. It might lead one to rampant fear of trap games!

And, some people can excel at even high pressure situations. KenPom’s own article lists C.J. McCollum’s stats where he is better in the closing 5 minutes and remarkably better if the game is close. One of the reasons the Olympics is so exciting is because athletes are continually outperforming any feat previously accomplished! And, on a personal note, I’m a great test-taker!

FWIW, here’s a link (http://www.csun.edu/~csbs/events/virtual-2009/Otten.pdf) to studies I haven’t vetted. Note: they use your definition of “clutch”, Mike88!
Indeed, consistent with theory from Baumeister and Showers (1986) and evidence from Hardy and Parfitt (1991) and Hardy (1997), it seems that some athletes not only tend not to choke, but actually tend to perform better than usual under pressure. To balance Baumeister’s (1984) definition of choking under pressure, we define a clutch performance here as any performance increment or superior performance that occurs under pressure circumstances.

[mike88]

Again, I disagree. Clutch to me would be the person "most likely to make the shot" in the most stressful moments. Of course, it's harder for most people to hit that shot than an easy layup 10 minutes into the game. The term "clutch" doesn't mean he'll necessarily do better than when it's easier. It means he handles the situation better than most and therefore is more likely to succeed. It has almost zero comparisons to easy baskets. Duke has had some great "clutch" players --- Heyman, Spanarkle, Christian Lattener (excuse any mispelling), and others who wanted that ball in those situations and could usually get the job done.

To me, that is just "good" - Laettner (or Jordan, for that matter) was good throughout the game, beginning, middle, and end

I agree with others that "clutch" could be just doing "less worse" in difficult situations rather than better ( i.e. only shooting 2% worse in close, end game situations when others shoot 5% worse) but as the margin of difference we are willing to consider important gets smaller, the term has less meaning