The close-game monkey

[lhnewman]

Originally Posted by MaceoP

Rough crowd. I've read stuff comparing this team to the 04's. Honestly, from a talent standpoint, we don't have one player who could compare with Brewer, Horford, Noah, or even Taurean.

We may very well make a deep run in the tourney, and if things shake out, who knows what can happen? IMO, make no mistake about it, Billy D did a great job with a bunch of good, not great players.

Calipari and KY brings in his players ready to roll. Billy has to develop his.. Look at Chandler Parsons, he started out here as a mediocre sub. Same with Murphy. The reality is we haven't been bringing in lottery studs. PY is the player who I thought would possibly be the dominant one. To date, it hasn't turned out that way.

IMO, we are getting the most out of the players we have.

I agree...average ball players...coached up into an above-average team...just simply missing inside presence and 6'4-6'-5 slasher type forward who can hit free throws

[MaceoP]

Originally Posted by lhnewman

I agree...average ball players...coached up into an above-average team...just simply missing inside presence and 6'4-6'-5 slasher type forward who can hit free throws

Horford and Noah averaged about 18 rebounds a game. Murphy and Yound average about 12 rebounds a game.

People need to open their eyes and see we are doing as well as can be expected, considering the makeup of our team. I hope we play lights out in the tourney, and shock everyone.

[UFreak]

Originally Posted by SmootyGator

Why wouldn't we elevate our play the whole game then, if we could do it? I think we've played pretty consistent all year (within games), which IMO is good. It just sucks when we play a mediocre game overall, we tend to lose, unless it's against a bad team.

But Smooty, big time players and big time teams are clutch performers down the stretch. They elevate their play. That's what makes them clutch, by definition. They do what it takes to win games when it is tight situations. Certainly I'm not breaking new ground here? That's a widely understood notion in sports. I know you are aware of this notion. When you think of clutch performers, you think of those who you trust when it is tough situations, particularly at the end of games when the pressure is mounting. This team still has chances to show that it can do that in the big dance. But to this point, they have not.

[SmootyGator]

Originally Posted by UFreak

But Smooty, big time players and big time teams are clutch performers down the stretch. They elevate their play. That's what makes them clutch, by definition. They do what it takes to win games when it is tight situations. Certainly I'm not breaking new ground here? That's a widely understood notion in sports. I know you are aware of this notion. When you think of clutch performers, you think of those who you trust when it is tough situations, particularly at the end of games when the pressure is mounting. This team still has chances to show that it can do that in the big dance. But to this point, they have not.

If you've been reading any of my posts the past couple of weeks you would know my feelings on this matter. I think that the term "clutch" is way overused. Name one "clutch" player, and I'll list a bunch of examples of when he wasn't "clutch". I really believe that "clutch" is just perception. When Kobe Bryant makes a game-winning shot, they play it on ESPN about 1 trillion times. When he misses that same shot, they just move on to the next story. Kobe Bryant is not clutch at all if you look at his stats (at least not a few years ago), but the media would tell you otherwise.

[MadduxFanII]

Originally Posted by UFreak

But Smooty, big time players and big time teams are clutch performers down the stretch. They elevate their play. That's what makes them clutch, by definition. They do what it takes to win games when it is tight situations. Certainly I'm not breaking new ground here? That's a widely understood notion in sports. I know you are aware of this notion. When you think of clutch performers, you think of those who you trust when it is tough situations, particularly at the end of games when the pressure is mounting. This team still has chances to show that it can do that in the big dance. But to this point, they have not.

There's an emerging skepticism among certain elements of the sports community toward the idea of the "clutch player."

Part of this is driven by the simple realization that points at the end of games aren't more valuable than points at the beginning of games. Player A goes 2-10 but sinks a game-winning three-pointer at the buzzer, and everyone shouts "CLUTCH PLAYER!", while Player B goes 12-15 but misses a game-tying shot and everyone shouts, "CHOKE!", but the only reason the games are close to begin with is that Player A was so bad for so much of the game and Player B was so good throughout it.

We saw this with Calathes in the 2009 game at Kentucky. The only reason we were in that game was because Nick was absolutely extraordinary. 33 points on 10/20 shooting, seven rebounds, three assists, 11-15 from the line. But because he didn't hit the three straight free throws with time expired that we needed to push us to overtime, the good folks on this board decided it was a perfect example of Nick's lack of heart, toughness, willpower and basic human decency.

Also, there doesn't seem to be a lot of statistical evidence indicating that "clutch" is some kind of repeatable skill from year-to-year or even game-to-game.

Now, I do think there are a handful of tangible, observable skills and traits that a player can possess that do tend to have magnified importance at the end of games. Intelligence, for one. Shooting ability, as you often find yourself having to take long, contested shots in endgame scenarios. The ability to score in traffic, as the lane is always clogged at the end of games.

If people want to talk about how our players lack certain skills, I'm much more amenable to that discussion than I am to a conversation that basically boils down to, in Marshall Henderson's eloquent phrasing, "butts getting tight."

[UFreak]

Originally Posted by SmootyGator

If you've been reading any of my posts the past couple of weeks you would know my feelings on this matter. I think that the term "clutch" is way overused. Name one "clutch" player, and I'll list a bunch of examples of when he wasn't "clutch". I really believe that "clutch" is just perception. When Kobe Bryant makes a game-winning shot, they play it on ESPN about 1 trillion times. When he misses that same shot, they just move on to the next story. Kobe Bryant is not clutch at all if you look at his stats (at least not a few years ago), but the media would tell you otherwise.

Then I think we simply disagree. I am not going to research it because I am at work and don't have time. But there are numerous examples of players who have performed better than normal (in other words, their success rate went up) when the stage was bigger and more pressure was riding on a good performance because it was for a championship or it was a play at the end of the game. Some people just handle those situations better than others. Does that mean they are perfect in those situations and they always are successful, of course not.
And to me choking is different than failing at the end of the game. Really, there is only one person who really knows if he or she choked and that is the person performing. Choking means you were unable to focus on the task at hand at an optimal level because of the perceived circumstances surrounding the performance made the situation have more mental "pressure."

For instance, walk on a balance beam for 10 feet when it is one foot off the ground. Then do the same task when it is 100 feet off the ground. It is the identical skill that it takes at 1 foot as it is at 100 feet. But the "pressure" of the situation is completely different.

[SmootyGator]

Originally Posted by UFreak

Then I think we simply disagree. I am not going to research it because I am at work and don't have time. But there are numerous examples of players who have performed better than normal (in other words, their success rate went up) when the stage was bigger and more pressure was riding on a good performance because it was for a championship or it was a play at the end of the game. Some people just handle those situations better than others. Does that mean they are perfect in those situations and they always are successful, of course not.
And to me choking is different than failing at the end of the game. Really, there is only one person who really knows if he or she choked and that is the person performing. Choking means you were unable to focus on the task at hand at an optimal level because of the perceived circumstances surrounding the performance made the situation have more mental "pressure."

For instance, walk on a balance beam for 10 feet when it is one foot off the ground. Then do the same task when it is 100 feet off the ground. It is the identical skill that it takes at 1 foot as it is at 100 feet. But the pressure of the situation is completely different.

I AGREE.... that we disagree!

I'm not going to research it for similar reasons, but I really hope that someone here might!

I get the analogy about the balance beam, but I think that's pushing it a tad too far. These guys have been playing basketball for their whole lives. They've lost plenty of games in their lives. I seriously doubt anyone on our team was that "affected" because they might lose a regular season game on the road...

Question for you: You say that the only person that really knows if they choked or not is that person performing. Do you think any of our players think that they "choked" in those games?

Another question: I know you don't want to do any research, but just name one player, in any sport that you would say is "clutch".

[UFreak]

Originally Posted by SmootyGator

I AGREE.... that we disagree!

I'm not going to research it for similar reasons, but I really hope that someone here might!

I get the analogy about the balance beam, but I think that's pushing it a tad too far. These guys have been playing basketball for their whole lives. They've lost plenty of games in their lives. I seriously doubt anyone on our team was that "affected" because they might lose a regular season game on the road...

Question for you: You say that the only person that really knows if they choked or not is that person performing. Do you think any of our players think that they "choked" in those games?

Another question: I know you don't want to do any research, but just name one player, in any sport that you would say is "clutch".

The beam analogy was not meant to be a direct analogy. It was made because of its obviousness to show that pressure affects performance.

Question 1, yes.
Question 2, Jordan, Jeter, James Worthy, Justin Timberlake
Guys who were great that weren't very clutch, Barry Bonds, A-Rod, Greg Norman at Augusta

Let me also state, that being clutch also allows for great players to continue to perform great in pressure situations. In other words, they may not have elevated their play, but just simply continued to be great.

[MadduxFanII]

Justin Timberlake

Might have trouble quantifying this one.

Is "Dick in a Box" worth 17 points and 11 rebounds? Is "Mother Lover" the equivalent of eight assists?

I JUST DON'T KNOW!

[MaceoP]

Originally Posted by UFreak

The beam analogy was not meant to be a direct analogy. It was made because of its obviousness to show that pressure affects performance.

Question 1, yes.
Question 2, Jordan, Jeter, James Worthy, Justin Timberlake
Guys who were great that weren't very clutch, Barry Bonds, A-Rod, Greg Norman at Augusta

Let me also state, that being clutch also allows for great players to continue to perform great in pressure situations. In other words, they may not have elevated their play, but just simply continued to be great.

IMO, one of the main attributes of a clutch player is the ability to keep executing under tremendous pressure at a high level. Like a Tiger Woods making a putt on the 18th green. The whole notion of our players 'choking' is, IMO, not applicable. We don't have any 'great' players on our team. Our players seems to perform pretty consistently. Our play aren't draining threes, then in the last couple of minutes can't hit a shot. When we aren't shooting well, its usually for most of the game. We don't have superstars who perform at a very high level, and all of sudden, under pressure, fold. I think it's really very sad that our own fans label our guys 'chokers', when for most of the year, they have been playing up to their ability.

[Matthanuf06]

All the research shows that there is no statistical support for clutch. Teams and players do perform as normal in clutch situations. I'd you aren't, then it's a matter of luck and it eventually balances out.

That being said that doesn't mean that there are not outliers. We just be one of the very few that play differently with the game on the line.

I'd still say its a good chunk of being unlucky combined with a team skill set that will underperform in such situations (poor free throw, no go-to-guy, etc).

[UFreak]

MadduxFanII

If those two JT performances you mentioned don't embody clutch, then I don't know what clutch is.

Matthanuf06
All the research? That's a pretty broad statement. And since you made the claim, it is up to you to produce all of it

Secondly, you can't make statement one and then make statement two. Clutch performers ARE outliers. If you are a positive outlier regarding how you perform in pressure-packed situations, then that makes you clutch. Right?

I agree with your last statement 100 percent, especially as it pertains to this UF hoops team. But by saying we don't have a go-to guy, I think you are saying we don't have someone we can trust in tough, high-pressure situations -- or in other words, someone who is clutch?

[SmootyGator]

Originally Posted by UFreak

Let me also state, that being clutch also allows for great players to continue to perform great in pressure situations. In other words, they may not have elevated their play, but just simply continued to be great.

So now clutch means playing the same as you played all game! You're confusing me!!!

So you say that Michael Jordan is "Clutch". Would you agree that if he was truly "clutch", that his game-winning/tying FG% should be a lot higher than his overall career FG%?

[whitelakegator]

Originally Posted by MaceoP

Horford and Noah averaged about 18 rebounds a game. Murphy and Yound average about 12 rebounds a game.

People need to open their eyes and see we are doing as well as can be expected, considering the makeup of our team. I hope we play lights out in the tourney, and shock everyone.

Good analysis. We are overachievers. Billy did a great job with these guys. Sweet 16 is a good accomplishment. I don't expect anything more than that.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by UFreak

MadduxFanII

If those two JT performances you mentioned don't embody clutch, then I don't know what clutch is.

Matthanuf06
All the research? That's a pretty broad statement. And since you made the claim, it is up to you to produce all of it

Secondly, you can't make statement one and then make statement two. Clutch performers ARE outliers. If you are a positive outlier regarding how you perform in pressure-packed situations, then that makes you clutch. Right?

I agree with your last statement 100 percent, especially as it pertains to this UF hoops team. But by saying we don't have a go-to guy, I think you are saying we don't have someone we can trust in tough, high-pressure situations -- or in other words, someone who is clutch?

I'm on my phone but seriously google it. There is a lot of research, especially in baseball. Players perform the same in clutch situations than not.

Again, that doesn't mean a player that actually gets worse in clutch situations cannot exist. It sure can. You just wouldn't make any personnel (or gambling) decisions based on it. You'd need a huge sample size before making a serious claim of performance increase or decrease.

And that's not how clutch/choke is defined. It's about being better or worse than what you usually are.

And my last point that you commented on is close to what I meant, although its not "clutch". Having an elite go to guy doesn't make the player or team clutch, it means you have an elite player on your team. He's expected to perform at an elite level.

Our problem is we have a balanced team that thrives when we play team offense. Late in the game the teams play more individual ball, which plays against our strengths. Our players simply aren't that good in such situations and shouldn't be expected to perform that well.

[UFreak]

Originally Posted by SmootyGator

So now clutch means playing the same as you played all game! You're confusing me!!!

So you say that Michael Jordan is "Clutch". Would you agree that if he was truly "clutch", that his game-winning/tying FG% should be a lot higher than his overall career FG%?

Well, since being clutch, as I have stated above, is predicated by not letting the "pressure" of the moment negatively affect you, then yes. Being great and continuing to be great when it is a high pressure situation shows that you are clutch, unflappable, cool, etc. I really don't know why that's confusing???

I don't see why great players should be punished and not included in the clutch category for being great all the time. Afterall, they are performing well when it is a highly pressure-packed situation.

And no, to your second statement. I would say because he was great, all he had to do to prove that the moment did not intimidate him or cause him to play poorly was basically sustain his great play. And lastly, he has six rings to show that not only was he great, but also clutch. That's the statistic that matters most. Winning.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by UFreak

Well, since being clutch, as I have stated above, is predicated by not letting the "pressure" of the moment negatively affect you, then yes. Being great and continuing to be great when it is a high pressure situation shows that you are clutch, unflappable, cool, etc. I really don't why that's confusing???

I don't see why great players should be punished and not included in the clutch category for being great all the time. Afterall, they are performing well when it is a highly pressure-packed situation.

And no, to your second statement. I would say because he was great, all he had to do to prove that the moment did not intimidate him or cause him to play poorly was basically sustain his great play. And lastly, he has six rings to show that not only was he great, but also clutch. That's the statistic that matters most. Winning.

I guess you can call such a player clutch but it means nothing statistically because he's simply playing up to expectations. It is exactly how he should perform and how we would predict him to perform.

After all isn't the goal of the whole exercise is to determine if a player/team should be performing better/worse than what they are?

[UFreak]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

I guess you can call such a player clutch but it means nothing statistically because he's simply playing up to expectations. It is exactly how he should perform and how we would predict him to perform.

After all isn't the goal of the whole exercise is to determine if a player/team should be performing better/worse than what they are?

I thought the goal of the exercise was to illustrate that certain players or teams play well down the stretch in high pressure moments, with winning being the manifestation or best measure of playing well.

[UFreak]

And just to be clear, are some of you stating that there is no such thing as "pressure" or that pressure does not affect performance?

Perhaps we can end this conversation now. I'm fine with it if the above statement is what you believe. I believe pressure is real and does affect performance for some, if not most. It's OK for us to disagree.

The close game Monkey below this post is fantastic. That monkey knows how to play defense, hands up.

Close Game Monkey would be the name of my band if I had one. It would be a funk/punk sound, very bass driven sound.

[qwghlmgator]

The Close Game Monkey:



note the tense body language and the poor defensive positioning...