Pascal

theatlantic:

Why Clutch Is Overrated

Who said LeBron James isn’t clutch? In the fourth quarter of last night’s loss to the Boston Celtics, he went 4-of-7 from the field for 11 points, carrying the Heat while the rest of the team went 1-of-15 for seven points.
Whoops, I lied. That wasn’t the fourth quarter. It was the second quarter. In fact, James actually put up just four shots for the final 8:10 of the game, leading most of sports media to once again question his so-called “clutchness.” But the fact that I lied isn’t important. What’s important is: Did the fact that I lied in the first paragraph matter? Is there any reason to think that the fourth quarter is really more important than the second?
Read more. [Image: AP]


"The only difference between two points scored at 8:30 in the second quarter and two points scored at 0:01 in the fourth quarter is the significance we attribute to it."
I don’t think so. The difference is that basketball games are limited by time, which add stakes and pressure to the game - much more so than the second quarter. There’s less time to rally from a deficit and increased pressure to score. Players and teams also up their game in the 4th: coaches use all their timeouts, keep in their stars they would have rested in the 2nd. And also while I personally think clutchness overrides stats about clutchness, Bronbron’s stats in clutch situations has been poor nonetheless. View Larger

theatlantic:

Why Clutch Is Overrated

Who said LeBron James isn’t clutch? In the fourth quarter of last night’s loss to the Boston Celtics, he went 4-of-7 from the field for 11 points, carrying the Heat while the rest of the team went 1-of-15 for seven points.

Whoops, I lied. That wasn’t the fourth quarter. It was the second quarter. In fact, James actually put up just four shots for the final 8:10 of the game, leading most of sports media to once again question his so-called “clutchness.” But the fact that I lied isn’t important. What’s important is: Did the fact that I lied in the first paragraph matter? Is there any reason to think that the fourth quarter is really more important than the second?

Read more. [Image: AP]

"The only difference between two points scored at 8:30 in the second quarter and two points scored at 0:01 in the fourth quarter is the significance we attribute to it."

I don’t think so. The difference is that basketball games are limited by time, which add stakes and pressure to the game - much more so than the second quarter. There’s less time to rally from a deficit and increased pressure to score. Players and teams also up their game in the 4th: coaches use all their timeouts, keep in their stars they would have rested in the 2nd. And also while I personally think clutchness overrides stats about clutchness, Bronbron’s stats in clutch situations has been poor nonetheless.



  1. pod313 reblogged this from theatlantic
  2. elppaecarg reblogged this from theatlantic
  3. 12nengineer reblogged this from theatlantic
  4. souumboss said: Depends on who you ask. In my opinion it depends on where the game is leading into the 4th. At the top level in any team sport you’re going to see plenty of close games, and it’s often the big (clutch) performers that make the difference.
  5. ball-in reblogged this from theatlantic
  6. chuddayo said: basketball is the most prominent exception. playoff basketball less so. but swings in score difference happen like no other in the NBA. all the time. it’s called lazy D i.e. we’re up by 15 who cares.
  7. lifetransparent reblogged this from theatlantic
  8. pasky reblogged this from theatlantic and added:
    "The only difference between two points scored at 8:30 in the second quarter and two points scored at 0:01 in the fourth...
  9. terenceinmonochrome reblogged this from theatlantic
  10. entropybegets said: you can’t win or lose in the second quarter of a 4 quarter game
  11. lifeisablr reblogged this from theatlantic
  12. theatlantic posted this