Kobe and Clutch and Why Jon Will Be Mad at Me

A recent Basketbawful (a sports blog) post took to task the idea that Kobe Bryant is "clutch"; two things were readily apparent: one, no one is really sure what "clutch" means, least of all the author of the relevant post, and two, the guest author was an admitted life-long Celtics fan. Take from that what you will.

The accusation that Kobe is not "clutch" was supported by copious amounts of statistical data compiled by Those Great Men at 82games.com, a website devoted to the painstaking job of compiling all manner of NBA statistics. The stats were laid bare, conclusions were drawn, and cheers went up to the heavens. (This post, I suppose, will be better understood if one has read the Basketbawful post, which I assume many of you haven't; but I'm not worried because the people who would read this kind of post (the current one) all the way through are the people who have read the Basketbawful post.)

But let's ask some questions: how was the data compiled? 82games.com takes "clutch" to be any action taking place with five minutes left in the 4th quarter or overtime (which is five minutes long). The implication here, then, is that "clutch" is simply whatever statistical data one might amass in these narrow chronological constraints. That's a fair enough assessment, but it fails to take into account all sorts of things, like the effect a player has on his team and the defense (the way they space the floor, the way his teammates react and play, and the way plays are run and defended based on a certain player being on the floor) or the ways in which the player amasses statistics inside these narrow chronological constraints.

For instance, let's say Kobe Bryant is guarded man to man for most of the game with the occasional double team, but when the second half of the 4th quarter comes around, the defense begins pressuring him more by double teaming much more often and bringing weak-side help almost every possession he touches the ball. In that case, his shots are going to be much more difficult to both obtain and make, and his avenues for passing will deteriorate as the space around him closes in (the double/triple teams). Also, his ability to steal and/or block the ball may be mitigated if a team forces the ball away from him on defense so that other, weaker defenders are seeing most of the action. All of these things combined make one wonder if a greater statistical prowess inside these chronological constraints is really a measure of "clutch-ness."

Shot selection is itself the most obvious area where things are going to be different. In the final five minutes, Kobe will see the toughest and densest defensive structures teams have to offer and the types of shots he takes are much more difficult than the average basketball shot, or even the average Kobe shot. Most of the game he's doing things like running into the lane and taking jumpers, laying it in, dunking, pick and pops, rolling under screens, catch and shoots, and so on. In the final five minutes, though, he's dribbling the ball, observing the defense, and then he might run at the defender, create space and attempt a turn around fadeaway jumper (with the added pressure of this being a must-make bucket) or he might go at the defender and watch the defense collapse, forcing him into a situation where he has almost no avenue to shoot but an even smaller avenue to pass - so he's forced to rise up and attempt a shot, often with his left hand. And the fact that he makes these shots - at all - is incredible.

And that's another issue with the 82games.com statistics: it doesn't differentiate between Kobe taking these kinds of shots and Sasha Vujacic taking an open three-pointer made possible because Kobe drove into the lane and drew defenders. Statistically, relevant to field-goal percentages (which are apparently very important and meaningful), these shots are the same and thus have the same power. Well, if Kobe Bryant is making 48% of his crazy, awkward, absurd shots and Vujacic is making 60% of his open threes, which one is more clutch? Does it matter? Are they the same?

Kobe makes 77% of his "clutch" shots unassisted whereas Dirk Nowitzki makes 50% of his unassisted. Does this matter? Kobe's shots seem harder; is that more clutch? Is it more clutch to be able to take more assisted shots? But doesn't that mean your team is better able to rotate and get open shots? Do the statistics differentiate between clutch minutes played when a player is playing alongside four idiots and he has to take a lot of dumb shots (such as Kobe during the years 2005 to 2007ish)?

And speaking of dumb shots, what about late game situations where a team is down by a large amount (say 20) and so is indiscriminately taking 3's? Most of these are going to rim out or brick horribly, and yet they will count towards "clutch" statistics. Phil Jackson will not take his starters out until 60 seconds left in the game, unless his team is up/down by 20-30. If it's a 15 point game, Phil will keep Kobe and co. in the game until there's under a minute remaining. So shots in this situation, for the team that is down, are going to be haphazzard and rushed - and yet count the same as other "clutch" shots. And since Phil is more likely to keep his players in the game to be taking such indiscriminate shots, Kobe is going to be taking more useless shots that have a low percentage to begin with. And there's no way to make better shots in these situations: with time almost gone and the deficit so large, any team with any player is going to be rushing possessions and attempting poor shots. If you play with Phil, you'll be in this situation more often than if you play with, say, Greg Poppovich, who takes his starters out of 15 point games at the three minute mark every time.

So clearly there's a problem with identifying statisical prowess as the main component of "clutch-ness." But what else is there? I mentioned a certain aura a player brings to the court, perhaps bolstering his teammates or whatever, and maybe that's it, but honestly, it seems a very difficult attribute to ascertain. Statistics alone will not guarantee - or even hint - at a possible definition. These numbers, because of their neutral mode of compilation, cannot show or explain any more than we want them too. They are simply a measure of what was physically gained and lost, but not how, why, or when it was gained or lost, which is very important if you're going to draw the types of conclusions from them that people have attempted to do.

And Jon will be mad at me for this sort of argumenation, because he'll think I'm just deconstructing whatever hurts Kobe and/or the Lakers. Also, he'll feel I'm just deconstructing for the purpose of deconstruction (though I'm not sure what that means). A constant grievance laid against me is that I staunchly defend (somewhat irrationally) the Lakers and its members against any and all criticism. This if, of course, not true and I'd like to think I'm less biased than, say, Bill O'Reilly or your average social conservative. Obviously, though, it's hard to determine bias when someone is talking about something they love/appreciate/like a lot: how do we discern between me engaging in argumentative discussion because I see something wrong and between me engaging in argumentative discussion because I want to find something wrong? I guess we don't. We have to hope and trust (and watch and learn, too) in order to know if I'm arguing for altruistic reasons. Ideally, whatever ideas I present will be examined in their own light to see if they do, indeed, obtain (thus clearing me, perhaps, of bias?).

Anyone who knows me (or reads this blog, I suppose) is aware that I like to argue - even lost points that have no meaning/relevance. I'll argue anything, or discuss anything, just because life is interesting. When I argue about Lakers and Lakers paraphernalia, am I doing so because it's interesting and I find something wrong with the opposing view, or because I'm adament in my pursuit of making the Lakers et al. the greatest?

Your decision. But it seems likely to be the former, as opposed to latter, because I argue and discuss so often and about so many things. It seems more probable that I'm doing so because I like to argue/discuss than because I'm over-protective of the herd.

Read more...

Pistons Defense and Kobe the Asshole

So the Pistons defense has looked interesting after two games. They beat the Pacers 100-94 and the Wizards 117-109. They're defensive efficiency rating is worse than Golden State who don't actually have a defense. They just let the other team shoot the ball at the bucket a couple of times until it inevitable makes its way back to their end of the floor.

Now, the Pacers and Wizards are bad teams, but defensive efficiency doesn't lie. They gave up a lot of easy shots. Also, the Pacers scored the same amount of points against the Celtics who lost by a billion. And the Wizards, against the No Defense Nets, managed a low 85. So the Pistons are a little rusty defensively...at least that's what Keith is hoping, I bet.

And the Iverson trade? the analysis of it is simple, and boring. But I will mention that Keith cried when he found out that his new Pistons-bench-player-who-should-play-more was thrown into the trade. Goodbye Cheikh Samb, hello Keith's tears.

And now to Kobe vs. Blazers: Or, The Most Talented Asshole on the Court vs. Some Dudes From the Park

Just to annoy Jon, I’ll talk about Kobe’s greatness for a minute and then say why he was an huge asshole against the Blazers on Tuesday.

Against Portland, he really showed his developing ability to judge the game, to decide when and what to do at every turn. He was more or less a team-first player in the first two quarters: he grabbed 8 rebounds, a steal or two, 5 assists, and only scored 6 points. And his team was up by close to 20 at the half.

In the first three minutes of the third quarter, the Blazers went on a solid run. The Lakers defense was collapsing, they couldn’t buy a bucket, and things looked ugly for a minute. At around the 9 minute mark, Portland scored an easy basket to cut the lead to seven and Kobe immediately called for the inbound pass. If they had been paying attention, Portland probably would have forfeited on the spot.

Kobe took the ball up the court and went around the Bynum pick at the top of key. Przybilla was waiting for him on the other side, right next to Bynum. Instead of going around him, which would have been oh-so-easy, Kobe went right into him, hard, drawing the foul. His reaction afterwards told the story: he immediately dropped the ball to the ref, high-fived some teammates, and completely ignored Przybilla who was muttering death threats and giving him The Stare from about 6 inches away. Kobe had planned it; he grabbed the inbound pass at the other end knowing full well he was going to go hard at the first Blazer he saw, no matter who it was. He knew it was time to shed his assist-throwing nature for the moment and score some points (and be a dick about it, too).

And the next few possessions were a testament to that prediction. That same possession he calmly tossed in a three point dagger. After a wasted Blazer possession, he went all the way to the rim, right at Przybilla again, making the layup and drawing the foul, sending Przybilla to the bench. On the replay, you can see Kobe veer slightly away from the basket in order to go into Przybilla for a foul; he has a clear path for the easy dunk, but as Przybilla turns around lamely, Kobe leaps into him and makes the acrobatic layup. After sinking the and-one, he watched the Blazers screw up another possession. Kobe then taunted Brandon Roy at the other end by standing behind the three-point line two feet from the Blazers bench. He kept pivoting his foot, over and over again, and eventually threw up another casual three pointer. I suppose the Rookie of the Year Award is rarely given for defense.

So here it is, another performance that shows Kobe for exactly who he is on the basketball court: the Most Talented Asshole. He plays the game incredibly well, judges what to do and when to do it (which is a new improvement), and then when he erupts for points, he can’t help but flip the other team the middle finger. In this case, he might as well have raped Przybilla’s underage teenage sister right in front of him. I mean, he drove at the guy twice when he didn’t have to just to draw fouls and put him on the bench. Tactically, it was a smart move because with Oden out, Przybilla was the only guy on the Blazers above 6’9”, but still, teenage sister, honestly.

So there you go, Jon. Kobe earned himself, simultaneously, the awards for Asshole of the Week and Player of the Week. Oh, and the Celtics lost by a billion. Did I mention that?

Read more...

Response to Jon: The Kobe Debate

I UNDERSTAND IF ONLY JON READS THIS CONSIDERING ITS LENGTH.

Jon (my brother) is a Celtics fan. I am a Lakers fan. Argument is obviously a natural entailment. He has currently brought against Kobe an argument that he is a bigger douche than Garnett (in an indirect way) and, somewhat implicitly, that he hasn’t earned as many awards as others or played as well as some in certain clutch situations (knocking him in general as a player). Now, I could spend days responding, but I figure one lengthy post was enough.

(Jon's post was in the comments section of my post about fanhood or whatever)

1 Deserved League MVP (to say he didn’t deserve it is false; to say someone else deserved it more would make more sense considering your angle about CP3)
10 time All-Star (youngest player to start an All-Star game)
6 All-NBA First Team (every year since 2002 except 2005)
2 All-NBA Second Team 2 All-NBA Third Team
6 All-Defensive First Team (every year since 2002 except 2005)
2 All-Defensive Second Team Youngest player to be named to an All-Defensive team; youngest player to start a game
[Six consecutive years (excluding 2005) Kobe made both the All-NBA First team and the All-Defensive First Team]

And to address the litany of things you bring against him: Though he has no Finals MVP awards, he was instrumental in the Lakers three-peat. In virtually every game they won, and even many they didn’t, Shaq and Kobe had great statistics and made the win possible. If Shaq was fouling out or on the bench due to foul trouble, or when Shaq was sluggish, Kobe repeatedly took over the game (usually in the 3rd and 4th quarters) and secured the win. If Kobe was sluggish, on the bench, etc., Shaq would take over the game. They were totally together in every way on the court. Every time Shaq wasn’t putting up 30, Kobe was, and vice versa (and sometimes together). In fact, during the last two championship years, Kobe averaged 28 points or more during the playoffs, both years (and during the first championship, he averaged close to 22). So I’m pretty sure his relationship with Shaq was symbiotic in that neither could have come close to doing what they did without the other. People say this and state the relationship to be 80/20 in Shaq’s favor, but that is to simply be ignorant of what happened. It’s more like 60/40 or closer.

The lack of Defensive Player of the Year awards doesn’t really count for much considering only one is given out every year and he is known less for his defense than his offense; however, his defense is stellar, as evidenced by his selection to All-Defensive First and Second teams 8 times (and All-Defensive Third team twice). Also, Kevin Garnett won the award in his 14th or 15th year in the league; does that mean Garnett was only good defensively this past year? It could, but obviously for Garnett it doesn’t, because he’s been selected to the All-Defensive Team nearly every year. Kobe is the same way; he’s never won the award, but he’s been on those teams nearly every year. And how many incredible defenders never won the award or won it very late in their careers?

Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year? Really? It’s given to “the athlete or team whose performance that year most embodies the spirit of sportsmanship and achievement.” Looking at the list, they give it to people and teams who win multiple championships, win MVP’s and championships, or play the game for a thousand years (Brett Favre and Cal Ripken). Kobe embodies a few of those, but how many people embody those and don’t get selected? And what if someone’s amazing performance in one sport is eclipsed by someone else who had a greater performance? Such as Shaquille O’Neal getting the League MVP and the Finals MVP in 2000 but losing the SI award to Tiger Woods who won three of the four majors that year. The very next year, 2001, Curt Shilling and Randy Johnson shared the SI award for doing exactly what Shaq did: winning “league” MVP (Cy Young for Johnson) and the Finals MVP. And Kobe could get the award for 2008 because he got the MVP and the Gold Medal, but it’s more likely that SI would give it to the USA Olympic Basketball Team as a whole or the Boston Celtics as a whole. So the SI award isn’t a fair judge of anything, really.

He was sixth man…for what little he played of his rookie season and most of his sophomore season. But sixth man awards go to players who are really good but happen to come off the bench. Kobe didn’t attain really good status (or at least consistent really good status) until the last half of his sophomore year – his SECOND year in the league (how many can say that? Bird? Magic? Jordan? Etc.?) and at the tender age of 19 (and only Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson, Moses Malone, and Lebron James can say that). And in that sophomore year, he was runner-up in the Sixth Man award race, losing to Danny Manning of the Suns. A statistical comparison shows that he and Kobe had roughly the same production off the bench. So Kobe was right there with him. Besides, Danny Manning was 31 and an 8 year veteran while Kobe was 19 and in his second year.

He also didn’t get Most Improved because his improvements came during the second half a season; so when he came around the next year for a breakout, he had already had, technically, that breakout. It’s the same reason Andrew Bynum won’t get the award this year because he “broke out” last year, even if it was only 30 games.

You point out a few examples from a few games (out of thousands, mind you) where Kobe played poorly. But what about the many times Jordan sucked balls and his team lost? Or Jordan scored 60 but still lost? These examples are meaningless.

And SunsFanBlog guy confused the Shaq/Kobe feud, as do most people. Shaq was being a douche, always has been a douche, and everyone was fed up with it. The team had to get rid of one of them, and Kobe was younger and had, presumably, more better days in his future. The details are that Shaq repeatedly showed up for training camp out of weight and shape, never prepared; he always blamed everyone but himself in post-game conferences when they lost; and he only took credit for himself when they won in those same conferences. Shaq has always been an arrogant douche bag, worse than anything Kobe did. If Shaq wasn’t funny (and ridiculously good), no one would listen to him. That said, I still like Shaq, and always have. But to say that Kobe was a little bitch, or something, is to totally misunderstand the situation. In fact, there’s video evidence of Kobe and his teammates during interviews around that time talking about how Shaq blamed everyone but himself, was always out of shape, would sit out longer with injuries because he wanted to, and on and on. So I’m not making this up, or just believing Kobe. The team was sick of Shaq. If you want further evidence, look at what he did in Miami after one bad year: he sat most of the season with lots of injuries (that trainers have since claimed weren’t that serious or time-worthy) and then when he got traded to the Suns, he’s back up and ready to go in a day or two. So I like Shaq, but honestly, he was more than deserving of blame in getting kicked off the Lakers. Kobe deserves blame, too, but showed more poise and clearheadedness (and more love for the game) than Shaq.

And I won’t even address the rape situation; you can’t argue with an angry guy like SunsFanBlog.

So most of this didn’t address Kobe being a douche, but most of what you cited didn’t either; so it’s all good. But Kobe can be a bit of a douche (and a huge one, especially early in his career), much like anyone and everyone. But the difference between Kobe and Garnett is that Kobe has matured, somewhat; he is not nearly as much of a douche as he was five years ago, whereas Garnett is 32 and still a douche. You will recall the Suns/Celtics game where Garnett repeatedly got angry at Stoudemire, instigated a double technical, and went at him hard a couple of times for no reason (didn’t even have the ball two of those times). So while Kobe has grown up, realized some of his errors, and made amends and progress towards fixing them, Garnett still does douchy things when his team is losing, badly.

I will say that Kobe’s first two years without Shaq were awful and he was partly to blame. He had an awful team, sure, but he didn’t make many efforts to bring them up, to raise their game as Lebron has done. He quickly got over that, however, and the Lakers of 06-07 were much better, and the year after went to the Finals with basically the same squad (Gasol obviously was an addition). Farmar, Odom, Vujacic, Walton, Turiaf, Mihm, etc. have all gotten significantly better over the past few years, and the last year and a half has been to Kobe’s credit. He started encouraging them as a leader, which he hadn’t done before. I don't want to give him sole credit, for that would depreciate what each player did for themselves, but it had to be healthy having an encouraging, incredible player next to them.

(And, just for comparison, Garnett went to the conference finals in 2004 with a decent Minnesota team, but did worse than Kobe or the same every surrounding year until he was put on the Celtics. Obviously, Garnett deserves a lot of credit for the team atmosphere on the Celtics this year, but adding to a positive team atmosphere and raising the game of those around you are two different things. I would say Paul Pierce and Doc Rivers deserve most of the credit for the bench development.)

So yes, Kobe has been a giant douche bag, yes, Kobe has done a lot of stupid things, and no, I won't defend a lot of his actions over the past 11 years; but judge him by who he is, not who he was. The last year and a half, he has matured, grown as a person and a player, has said in different interviews that he feels this way, that he feels closer to his family and his children, and that he’s past all of his boyish nonsense that pervaded most of his early career. Hell, during the Finals last year after a particularly bad loss, he read a Harry Potter book to his two daughters for hours, saying it was the best thing he’s done in a while. So judge him by who he is, not who he was.


Oh, and that uncyclopedia thing was extremely crazy and very hilarious. haha Here it is if you didn't see the comment Jon left: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kobe_Bryant

Read more...