So the nerds say. Nerds also say Brock Purdy is the best QB in the NFL.
All this says is for a long period of time Lebron was the best player in the NBA and thus affected his teams more positively than everyone else even in clutch time despite missing all his clutch shots.
Do you buy the methodology? I noticed that the top players of "all around clutch" graph at around 13:55 are mostly modern players. Something tells me that there's some omitted time factor that's not being accounted for.
The necessary data is only available from 1996 onwards, hence no old heads.
I didn't go into a deep dive on the methodology but the broadstrokes seem reasonable: how much impact did each guy have on play-to-play win probability?.
The big problem that comes to mind is that an off-ball master like Steph or shot deterrer like Wemby will be undervalued because they have large impacts even when they aren't ultimately in the play. Maybe that's alright, since we don't know if they would have actually made the play that the other team was afraid they'd make.
Depending on how win probability is estimated, there could be a pricing in effect that would also understate how clutch great players are: i.e. Lebron's win probability should always be higher than everyone else's because we know he's more likely to make great high-impact plays.
Lebron missed 16 game winning shots in a row.
So the nerds say. Nerds also say Brock Purdy is the best QB in the NFL.
All this says is for a long period of time Lebron was the best player in the NBA and thus affected his teams more positively than everyone else even in clutch time despite missing all his clutch shots.
It confirms the stans’ point about LeBron making the right play instead of needing to be the hero.
Also, confirms that Westbrook is an abject catastrophe under pressure.
I will buy that Lebron makes the right play. That's not clutch. He is just great.
Clutch requires you to be the hero.
How many playoff game-winners does he have against your Raptors alone?
1
Dumb luck.
Feels like more. Just that one crazy running right-hand bank shot from about 17 feet off to the left?
In the moment, I thought it was going in.
Do you buy the methodology? I noticed that the top players of "all around clutch" graph at around 13:55 are mostly modern players. Something tells me that there's some omitted time factor that's not being accounted for.
The necessary data is only available from 1996 onwards, hence no old heads.
I didn't go into a deep dive on the methodology but the broadstrokes seem reasonable: how much impact did each guy have on play-to-play win probability?.
The big problem that comes to mind is that an off-ball master like Steph or shot deterrer like Wemby will be undervalued because they have large impacts even when they aren't ultimately in the play. Maybe that's alright, since we don't know if they would have actually made the play that the other team was afraid they'd make.
Depending on how win probability is estimated, there could be a pricing in effect that would also understate how clutch great players are: i.e. Lebron's win probability should always be higher than everyone else's because we know he's more likely to make great high-impact plays.
MJ is the ultimate clutch time player in history