I don't know about you guys, but the Western Conference Finals are hella exciting this year. I am gonna pick OKC for a couple reasons: when they lost in SA it wasn't terrible and my girlfriend, Hannah, is from OKC and is slowly converting me. I will say that I secretly refer to them as the Sonics in my head. Well, I guess that isn't so secret anymore. Anyway!
The game last night was quite awesome and, as per usual, due to this media cycle, the idea of clutchness was brought up. I have already defended LBJ once on this year, and I will continue to do so, but I really just want to help people understand what clutch really is and who tends to have that.
For whatever reason, the media is fixated on walk-off jumpers at the end of the game, also known as hero ball. They cannot seem to wrap their heads around the fact that you simply CANNOT confine clutch to those moments. Those moments are clutch, but there is also a little luck involved. Now, luck isn't some indeterminable force, but it rather is more of when skill and practice meet the opportunity for last second shots. Often, these shots are not wide open gimmes where you have to keep your nerves down because everyone hates the guy who misses the wide open clincher (these shots are actually more difficult in my opinion because the adrenaline fear is different and you have infinitely more time--in basketball time--to THINK about the shot).
No, these "hero" shots are usually contested and often done without the chance to really think or adjust. This is where your practice as a kid pretending to knock down last second shots comes into play. It is essentially muscle memory with a little flash. Your body knows how to shoot, it has done it a million times. Now, you are just doing the same thing, but instead with a defending practically on you and having to adjust to hit the shot. All that is, again, stuff that has essentially been practiced by the star player their whole life. You don't become a straight up star without having done so, it doesn't happen. So, when they make a majority of them, cause it is still a game of probability, it is not that big a deal. They have practiced for that moment.
Now, let's look specifically at the NBA. The NBA is filled with the best of the best. Even if they are simply roleplayers, they had to be more than scrubs to have a legit career in the league and not get dropped fairly frequently. These guys, an overwhelming majority of them (because, let's face it, scrubs can fall through the cracks), can ball. Let's just accept that now. These players also got quite a few breaks, such as: getting with the right coaches, having someone invest in their skills etc. But, the fact is, they can play. So, unless they are obviously terrible, let's avoid talking as though they are or that they are lacking the genetics to do certain things in the game.
Now, specifically about clutchness, it isn't that last second shot that matters the most. Those are the things we most remember, but the 4th quarter is more than those last seconds. If the game is in OT, the same thing applies. Clutchness, in its truest form, is better defined as how that play plays during the fourth quarter, OT, and the last couple minutes of any game. It is possible for certain players to play better at these moments when the pressure isn't as high, such as in regular season games. But, that is not my focus. There are some players who truly are not closers in the playoffs, but I want us to realize what clutch really is.
A clutch player ups their level of play in the fourth quarter, the last few minutes, or OT. They can have had a terrible game up until that point, but when some shots start dropping or they get a steal or two, the moment swings back in their favor. For the best players, this means they become pretty much unstoppable.
We've seen this over the years, MJ in most every situation (even before he learned what team was), Stockton and Malone, Magic, Bird, Reggie Miller, and many others have shown us this. I mean, who doesn't remember 8 points in 9 seconds from Mr. Miller? That was a moment that we had not seen before. He did this in the last minute and turned the game around for the Pacers. He wasn't the "Knick-Killer" for nothing, ya feel me?
However, for these players, it often does NOT come down to a last second shot. They won't let that happen. You make the plays you need to before hand, so it does not come down to that. The statistics are not in your favor if you let it come to that.
Here is an example from my own life. I was starting point guard for the McKinney North JV team (btw, we use to regularly trash our varsity on the court, but the coaches never tried to move all of us up and give us real experience) and we were playing a district opponent, Greenville, in a game that would bring us closer to the district title that year.
We were up the whole game, but let them come back in the fourth quarter. We simply were not hitting our shots, I personally missed some threes I should have hit. In the end, the were ahead by 4 with under 30 or so seconds left. We had a particularly good shooter on our team that we got the ball in the waning seconds. He puts up a three, and one of Greenville's bonehead players fouls him as he is shooting. The kid hits the shot (big ups blake) and then hits the free throw to tie it up. (fairly sure this is what happened. the three definitely did, but maybe it wasn't a foul and just a miscommunication after the 3 and we were actually just down three. I AM GETTING OLD!)
We went into overtime, and then we played real clutch basketball after being energized by that last second shot. Still, what are the odds that Blake would hit a three while being fouled and hit the clutch free throw as well? There was clearly some luck involved. However, after the luck moment had passed, we took the game over. I hit some big shots, blake hit some, and other players did to. We just played better in that OT. That was what was really clutch, in my mind.
Once the opportunity presented itself, after an unlikely turn of events, a few of our players made the shots that were needed for us to come away with a win. That team (my final season) went 23-4. We lost one regular season game, the rest were in tournament games. We had many clutch players on that team, people who could step up. We did not have a straight up star; though, in my opinion, I should have stepped up and become that player because, before I ended up in Texas and many other factors came into play, I WAS that guy. In my next post, I will talk more in depth on that.
In any case, it was the plays leading to those last minutes that mattered the most. If you're handling your business (whether it is through rebounding or whatever), you are performing clutch plays. It isn't just the scoring aspect. It is that timely pass or rebound that leads to those buckets. Those little things are really what is clutch. If you are not clutch, you cannot even do those things. It ends up being the details that matter. If you had not turned the ball over there, we might have scored. If you had grabbed that rebound, we would have had enough time to draw a foul and score 3 points the old-fashioned way.
So, since I have hopefully established clutch as being more than just a last second shot, I want to discuss what we have seen in these playoffs. You'll notice that, against the legit teams, hero ball often does not work. You need the little things--cutting, passing, rebounds, and getting open looks--to win the game.
Last night's game is a great example of this: San Antonio did not make the plays necessary to win the game, while OKC did.
OKC was up practically the whole game, but they showed resolve and clutchness by responding to every San Antonio run. That is what is truly clutch, not buckling under the pressure. Game winners are extremely difficult to hit, get open for, or even get up. Letting the game come down to that is less than ideal. A truly clutch player or team built with clutch players will do those little things to keep that from having to be the case.
Yes, in the 4th quarter the Durantula hit 16 straight points for his team. That was not all him, as great a scorer as he is. Two points were from an alley-oop, He was freed by a change in the picks he was getting from his big men (a coaching adjustment), his teammates got the ball to him at opportune moments, he was fouled on a jump shot, and--when that onslaught was over--other players added to the clutch shooting. Harden hit a few 3's that further cemented SA's down fall. Now, the series is 2-2.
In closing, I'm gonna hit on the LBJ problem. Everytime you watch First Take and Skip Bayless is on, he talks about how not clutch Lebron is while neglecting the fact that he was the ONLY dude worth his salt on those old Cleveland teams, one of which he took to the finals against an obviously superior Spurs squad. We saw how they faired when he left, and don't say his organization got him real help (Old Fat Shaq will NEVER count). He was the DUDE on that team, but had no one to back him up. Let's remember that Jordan did a similar thing, and had to, until he got the proper help (Pippen, Grant, Kerr, Kukoc). He would hit the big shots, but his teams we not good enough teams in the clutch for him to get over those humps in the form of the Bad Boy Pistons and Bird's Celtic squads.
Understandably, LBJ got fed up with this situation. He was consistently given no REAL help. But, we certainly have seen LBJ be clutch in the playoffs, even though he has DEFINITELY had 4th quarters where he disappeared (against boston one year and last year in the finals; though, in both cases, he was playing legit teams and couldn't do it himself). But, he clearly has a clutch gene, even if it has not completely matured. It was Lebron who closed out the Bulls and Celtics last year while helping a first year team get to the Finals. That alone means his overtly happy boasts had some merit to them. More recently, it was Lebron who reignited DWade and helped close out the Pacers.
Did he score the shot, or even the last 10 shots, in those games? Not necessarily. He did, however, pass, rebound, play outstanding defense, and hit most of the shots he did take. That is significantly more clutch than the second shot. Could he use more of those moments? Possibly. But, they certainly do not determine how clutch you are. The game isn't just won on offense, people.
So, that's it for this one, for now. I think I'll compile a list of current clutch players and figure out how many last second shots they have all hit (LBJ has hit far more consistently than Kobe btw, that doesn't detract from Kobe though). Peace EASY!
Zaire
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Please, Stop the Madness
I never thought that I would start writing a freaking sports blog, but here it is!
I have been getting more and more irritated with how we look at sports and athletes in this ridiculous 24-hour media cycle, so I feel I must do some sports apologetics, usually for specific players.
How am I qualified to do this? Well, for one, this is the internet age and you hardly need a pedigree to write about any subject and get people to read it; however, I do have somewhat of a pedigree. It isn't a long and extensive one for various reasons. I'll have to write about high school sports in another blog.
In any case, I have played basketball since I was 2 years of age and I was actually a bit of a prodigy at the game, naturally gifted. The circumstances of my life, unfortunately, pushed me away from the game that I loved my entire life, but that love yet remains. I've been able to recover in a lot of ways in the past few years.
When I played, I played point guard and I had to ability to put up a 30 point game. So, I wasn't a scrub. There were mental blocks in HS that made me lose my mojo, but I have never been a scrub.
That said, I know what I am talking about when it comes to basketball most of the time. I have times when I am wrong but, when you love something as much as I loved basketball (especially), you like to know what you are talking about.
Anyway, here is my beef: "instant-legacy syndrome." This term, which I am fairly sure I did NOT coin, is referring to the fact that we want great or potentially great players to achieve the things that WE want for them to achieve as fans (i.e. championships). Everyone wants to root for a champion, and there is nothing inherently wrong with this, but there is a line that seems to be getting crossed more and more.
The line itself is that we will start talking about how a person who isn't performing the way they think they should is a scrub or not clutch, the list goes on. Now, before several of you go off the deep end, I do not mean that there are no such things as players not being this or that. There are players who are not clutch or scrubs. Most of those players don't make it to the college level, let alone the NBA level. Occasionally, players that should have went to college or overseas for a bit slip into the NBA and are lackluster. But, they are few and far in between. Even if they were in abundance, basketball is an artful, TEAM game.
Since MJ came along, it seems like we have this incessant need to compare everyone to him. I didn't live in other eras, but I am sure with bird, magic, erving, etc. it was probably a bit similar. They were supreme talents. However, they did not have to deal with the internet and social media. By the time they were out of the League, the internet was just starting up and gaining popularity. This meant that news and criticism travelled a bit slower. Now, we have twitter and facebook and immediately you see people dogging out players with or without good reason.
Now, there isn't anything wrong per say with comparisons, but those comparisons can become blinders for fans and ridiculous standards for players who are clearly NOT whom we are comparing them to. The prime example of this is with the whole Jordan, Kobe, and LeBron thing. This playoffs and season has really set me on edge with all the inane chatter prattling forth from various pundits (professional or not) and dummies on social networks.
I am not an expert, but I can tell when a player's game is or is not similar to another's. Out of those three Kobe is the most like MJ in style, mindset, and substance. LeBron doesn't play anything like Jordan and we should not compare the two. Jordan was probably the greatest, but let's not forget there were MANY other greats before and there will be many after him, and they do NOT have to fit his pattern.
Now, if not Jordan, then whom does LeBron's playing style tend to emulate. There are two options here, really: Magic and Bird. Both of those players had similar skill sets and abilities, though Bird was perhaps not as naturally athletic. Both players played team basketball and tried to do a little bit of everything. This is more like LeBron than MJ is. That much is clear.
To go in a bit further, let's look at the early careers of bird and Magic. Both were perennially championship contenders in the 80s until the rise of the "Bad Boy" Pistons of the latter part of that decade.
Now, it is agreed that Bird and Magic were all time greats, but what was it that made them great? Is it the many rings they both have? You know, the championship ones? Well, that simply cannot be because there are plenty of players I would rank lower than them with far more rings (see: Robert Horry, though he was a good player). However, this is the biggest thing brought up by various professional and amateur analysts. Why, in the WORLD, is that the case? It makes little to no sense. It takes a team to win a championship, to beat another team for four games. Show me a superstar who truly was all his team had that won a championship. Go on, I'll wait.
The closest thing are those occasional players who carry their team to the Finals; but, historically speaking, they don't win it all because they often come up against a better, wait for it, TEAM. See: Spurs vs. Cavs a few years back. I have not, for the life of me, in my 24 years of stalking this planet, seen an individual win an team championship. The physics simply do not allow for it. I tried...once. Shut up!
So, what is this diatribe about? Basically, I have three points:
1. Stop trying to immediately decide whether or not a player is going to be great. Let them have their career and then look back and deem it great or not. If you do choose to debate their greatness, please look at their stats and make judgements from there. The whole last shot clutchness thing is tired, and I'll write about that later as well. Just be FAIR to the players who are out there for your entertainment. Don't defame their character etc. they have families, problems and stuff too. They are humans, damnit.
2. If you are going to compare players, please actually understand a bit how they play. Jordan and Kobe play the same position and they do it in a similar way. LeBron and others are most definitely not those guys. Please find proper parallels. Comparing LeBron and Kobe is a foolish task because they are VERY different players. Now, if I went off of overall skill, I would say LeBron just has more to his game than Kobe does. Still, they are both great players and deserve their props. Occasionally, players will also defy comparisons, so just stop doing it.
3. it is a TEAM game people. Individuals that win awards and dazzle us with their skills are not the only ones on the court. Also, not that all championship teams have at least 2 players that can be stars in their own right and sometimes multiple superstars. For example: Bird's Celtics, Magic's Lakers, Robinson's and then Duncan's Spurs, both of Jordan's 3 peat teams, Hakeem's Rockets, Shaq's Lakers, etc. If you do not think those teams were stacked, you are likely delusional and need a hug. In championship series, the better TEAM is the one that wins (usually). Most teams that make the Finals are decently stacked, but they have to play at a higher level than their opponents. In close games, it is the superstars who are to take over, but if your team is getting blown out...your TEAM isn't as good. (sidenote: look at Lebron's Cavalier teams...I mean...REALLY!?)
And with that, I'm going to bed, because I DESERVE to go to bed. *nods*
Zaire
Final Note: I do believe the intangibles are necessary, but not necessarily something you are born with. The killer instinct can be learned, it is a mindset. Those born with it just have the advantage, but players can be shaken and lose that edge. So, please, be fair and humble.
I have been getting more and more irritated with how we look at sports and athletes in this ridiculous 24-hour media cycle, so I feel I must do some sports apologetics, usually for specific players.
How am I qualified to do this? Well, for one, this is the internet age and you hardly need a pedigree to write about any subject and get people to read it; however, I do have somewhat of a pedigree. It isn't a long and extensive one for various reasons. I'll have to write about high school sports in another blog.
In any case, I have played basketball since I was 2 years of age and I was actually a bit of a prodigy at the game, naturally gifted. The circumstances of my life, unfortunately, pushed me away from the game that I loved my entire life, but that love yet remains. I've been able to recover in a lot of ways in the past few years.
When I played, I played point guard and I had to ability to put up a 30 point game. So, I wasn't a scrub. There were mental blocks in HS that made me lose my mojo, but I have never been a scrub.
That said, I know what I am talking about when it comes to basketball most of the time. I have times when I am wrong but, when you love something as much as I loved basketball (especially), you like to know what you are talking about.
Anyway, here is my beef: "instant-legacy syndrome." This term, which I am fairly sure I did NOT coin, is referring to the fact that we want great or potentially great players to achieve the things that WE want for them to achieve as fans (i.e. championships). Everyone wants to root for a champion, and there is nothing inherently wrong with this, but there is a line that seems to be getting crossed more and more.
The line itself is that we will start talking about how a person who isn't performing the way they think they should is a scrub or not clutch, the list goes on. Now, before several of you go off the deep end, I do not mean that there are no such things as players not being this or that. There are players who are not clutch or scrubs. Most of those players don't make it to the college level, let alone the NBA level. Occasionally, players that should have went to college or overseas for a bit slip into the NBA and are lackluster. But, they are few and far in between. Even if they were in abundance, basketball is an artful, TEAM game.
Since MJ came along, it seems like we have this incessant need to compare everyone to him. I didn't live in other eras, but I am sure with bird, magic, erving, etc. it was probably a bit similar. They were supreme talents. However, they did not have to deal with the internet and social media. By the time they were out of the League, the internet was just starting up and gaining popularity. This meant that news and criticism travelled a bit slower. Now, we have twitter and facebook and immediately you see people dogging out players with or without good reason.
Now, there isn't anything wrong per say with comparisons, but those comparisons can become blinders for fans and ridiculous standards for players who are clearly NOT whom we are comparing them to. The prime example of this is with the whole Jordan, Kobe, and LeBron thing. This playoffs and season has really set me on edge with all the inane chatter prattling forth from various pundits (professional or not) and dummies on social networks.
I am not an expert, but I can tell when a player's game is or is not similar to another's. Out of those three Kobe is the most like MJ in style, mindset, and substance. LeBron doesn't play anything like Jordan and we should not compare the two. Jordan was probably the greatest, but let's not forget there were MANY other greats before and there will be many after him, and they do NOT have to fit his pattern.
Now, if not Jordan, then whom does LeBron's playing style tend to emulate. There are two options here, really: Magic and Bird. Both of those players had similar skill sets and abilities, though Bird was perhaps not as naturally athletic. Both players played team basketball and tried to do a little bit of everything. This is more like LeBron than MJ is. That much is clear.
To go in a bit further, let's look at the early careers of bird and Magic. Both were perennially championship contenders in the 80s until the rise of the "Bad Boy" Pistons of the latter part of that decade.
Now, it is agreed that Bird and Magic were all time greats, but what was it that made them great? Is it the many rings they both have? You know, the championship ones? Well, that simply cannot be because there are plenty of players I would rank lower than them with far more rings (see: Robert Horry, though he was a good player). However, this is the biggest thing brought up by various professional and amateur analysts. Why, in the WORLD, is that the case? It makes little to no sense. It takes a team to win a championship, to beat another team for four games. Show me a superstar who truly was all his team had that won a championship. Go on, I'll wait.
The closest thing are those occasional players who carry their team to the Finals; but, historically speaking, they don't win it all because they often come up against a better, wait for it, TEAM. See: Spurs vs. Cavs a few years back. I have not, for the life of me, in my 24 years of stalking this planet, seen an individual win an team championship. The physics simply do not allow for it. I tried...once. Shut up!
So, what is this diatribe about? Basically, I have three points:
1. Stop trying to immediately decide whether or not a player is going to be great. Let them have their career and then look back and deem it great or not. If you do choose to debate their greatness, please look at their stats and make judgements from there. The whole last shot clutchness thing is tired, and I'll write about that later as well. Just be FAIR to the players who are out there for your entertainment. Don't defame their character etc. they have families, problems and stuff too. They are humans, damnit.
2. If you are going to compare players, please actually understand a bit how they play. Jordan and Kobe play the same position and they do it in a similar way. LeBron and others are most definitely not those guys. Please find proper parallels. Comparing LeBron and Kobe is a foolish task because they are VERY different players. Now, if I went off of overall skill, I would say LeBron just has more to his game than Kobe does. Still, they are both great players and deserve their props. Occasionally, players will also defy comparisons, so just stop doing it.
3. it is a TEAM game people. Individuals that win awards and dazzle us with their skills are not the only ones on the court. Also, not that all championship teams have at least 2 players that can be stars in their own right and sometimes multiple superstars. For example: Bird's Celtics, Magic's Lakers, Robinson's and then Duncan's Spurs, both of Jordan's 3 peat teams, Hakeem's Rockets, Shaq's Lakers, etc. If you do not think those teams were stacked, you are likely delusional and need a hug. In championship series, the better TEAM is the one that wins (usually). Most teams that make the Finals are decently stacked, but they have to play at a higher level than their opponents. In close games, it is the superstars who are to take over, but if your team is getting blown out...your TEAM isn't as good. (sidenote: look at Lebron's Cavalier teams...I mean...REALLY!?)
And with that, I'm going to bed, because I DESERVE to go to bed. *nods*
Zaire
Final Note: I do believe the intangibles are necessary, but not necessarily something you are born with. The killer instinct can be learned, it is a mindset. Those born with it just have the advantage, but players can be shaken and lose that edge. So, please, be fair and humble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)