You make some good points, allthough I really don't think that any NBA team really runs high profile offenses. They are all pretty much simple motion sets that are designed for the stars on the team to prevail...this is why I like college much better. I'm not sure the average NBA player even remembers what a down screen or a back cut are.
And I see your point in the Bonds analogy...allthough I think that baseball above any sport exploits players who are and are not clutch. But it can swing both ways. Kirk Gibson was an extremely clutch player in playoff games and world championships.....but his batting avg overall was around .265, not bad, but not great by any means. Bonds lifetime avg. before the 2003 or 2004 playoffs ( I can't remember which) was around .310 or so.....and he was hitting .089 lifetime in the playoffs.....which is pathetic. So yes, I think you can be a very good hitter and not be clutch in baseball.
Quote:
Originally posted by TonyB06
Stats, screened tightly enough, can say whatever anyone chooses to make them say. That 2-for-16 you cite doesn't at all take into account where those shots are taken from. Obviously Jordan was a tremendous player, but he also had a long line of good/great coaches (Albeck, Collins, Jackson) who knew how to devise plays that got him good looks for those shots. Trust me, that's not the case in Cleveland. Often LeBron's shots, last minute or otherwise, are less than optimal because of the weak offensive sets they run, or the play has broken down and someone tosses him the ball 30 feet from the basket with 2.2 seconds left on the shot clock and says "here, LeBron. Shoot it." ESPN and other national outlets fail to mention this when they put up their stat comparison charts.
Last night, LeBron scored 19 of his 36 points in the 4th quarter. Does the 4th quarter of a game not "really count" as you say? LeBron clearly takes over games, and often does so in the 4th quarter -- in clutch time. As he matures, he'll do it better. I'm not a LeBron apologist but it's non-sensical to me to suggest that one of the game's top 5 players is not "clutch."
Basketball requires to teammates to depend on each other far more than baseball does, so the Bonds analogy doesn't work, IMO. But it does raise a question. If you hit .300, you're considered a great hitter, agreed? That means you failed 7 of 10 times. Is that "great" hitter still not "clutch?"
|