So, I've criticized Hayward for not producing when we need him to...

[LogGrad98]

With your team down by one with 5 seconds left in the game which of the following players would you NOT want taking the last shot:

a) Michael Jordan
b) John Stockton
c) Kobe Bryant
d) Gordon Hayward

Be completely honest with yourself...

Easy, Kobe. Because he is a dick. I would rather see us lose than see a dick win. Unless it is my own, in which case it wins anyway.

 

[akirac73]

18 pts in the first half
4 pts in the 3rd
ZERO pts in the 4th (only 2 shot attempts)

Ladies and gentleman, this is the undisputed leader and face of the franchise...the amazing Gordon "God" Hayward.

 

[Gameface]

With your team down by one with 5 seconds left in the game which of the following players would you NOT want taking the last shot:

a) Michael Jordan
b) John Stockton
c) Kobe Bryant
d) Gordon Hayward

Be completely honest with yourself...

Hayward isn't as good as any of those players with 48min left on the clock. Easy decision.

 

[Weezur]

18 pts in the first half
4 pts in the 3rd
ZERO pts in the 4th (only 2 shot attempts)

Ladies and gentleman, this is the undisputed leader and face of the franchise...the amazing Gordon "God" Hayward.

Who's undisputing this?

 

[b_line]

With your team down by one with 5 seconds left in the game which of the following players would you NOT want taking the last shot:

a) Michael Jordan
b) John Stockton
c) Kobe Bryant
d) Gordon Hayward

Be completely honest with yourself...

huh? No one here was comparing Hayward to hall of famers. unless it was that time when people were comparing him to Larry Bird because he was a white small forward.

 

[CitizenofCapua]

Come on guys. As some famous rapper would say; We got 99 problems but Hayward not being "clutch" aint one.

 

[spycam1]

Was this thread made by Corbin?

Lol

Sent from my SPH-L720 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

18 pts in the first half
4 pts in the 3rd
ZERO pts in the 4th (only 2 shot attempts)

Ladies and gentleman, this is the undisputed leader and face of the franchise...the amazing Gordon "God" Hayward.

It is quite common for players to be hot and score a lot in one period or half and then cool down in the other. It happens all the time even among premier players. I'd bet, though I don't have stats so I'm only guessing, is that it more ore less as common for players to have disproportionately productive (unproductive) periods over games than to score in consistent amounts over the course of games. If true, to lambast Hayward for what is common (if not the norm), even among star players, is being overly harsh. (It would be great if someone actually could produce some stats about this so we can see how common/uncommon this is.) He did score 22 points, and last I checked, a point scored in the first period is worth the same as a point scored in the 4th period. If Hayward has gone scoreless in the first three periods, and exploded for 22 in the 4th in a loss, you'd probably be slamming him for that. I get the feeling he's in a no win situation on this one, unless he performs consistently at a superstar level, which I don't think anyone, including Jazz FO, see him as. Honestly, you need to adjust your expectations.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I think I get what he is talking about. I have noticed it too over the years. Hayward never seems to hit the big shots often. When the game is close, he more often than not misses. It seems like he plays better when the game is not on the line.

You mean like the 3 he missed (whoops, made) against Boston with time running down to tie the game? Your conclusion here seems to me to be to be a clear case of selection bias.

One thing seems to be true, perceptions of 'clutchness' don't always correspond to actual data. For instance Kobe--he has this totally unearned reputation for clutchness if what I'v heard/read about his shooting at end of close games is accurate (and if I remember it correctly). Like most things, people remember the things that confirm their expectations and forget those that don't. If, for example, Kobe were to miss 5 straight game winners and make the 6th, the only thing most people would remember was the one he made because that is the one that confirms their pre-existing belief.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

A couple large problems with that article:

1. ESPN's "In the last 24 seconds" includes all sorts of ridiculous shots with little/no time on the game/shot clock from all over the court. Comparing the field goal percentage of those shots to regular shots is meaningless.

2. The 82games.com stats may also be misleading, as clutch FG% should be compared relative to the change in league average field goal percentage in close games (relative to the rest of the time). That is, at the end of close games, when defenses tighten and more low percentage buzzer beaters are shot, team field goal percentage undoubtedly goes down. Based on the analysis, if a player's field goal percentage decreases by less than league average in clutch situations, he's not clutch, even if, as stated in point 1, he's taking a bunch of deep, well defended buzzer beaters. The analysis has been rigged to produce the desired result.


To correct the study, you need to define clutch possessions, and then look at league average expected points by possession type on those possessions (possession type would include scoring margin, time remaining on shot/game clock when the player receives the ball, where the player receives the ball and what play type is used). Do the same for non-clutch possessions. Then, calculate how each player does (points per possession) in both their clutch and non-clutch possessions (for each possession type already mentioned). How does the player do relative to league average? How does his performance drop-off relative to league average?

It might also be worthwhile to look at team performance with certain players on/off court in clutch v. non-clutch situations.

Not sure I agree. Yes, in some cases it's comparing apples to oranges, but in most cases, I'd guess that a shot taken in the final 24 seconds of a tied or 1 point game game, or with less than 5 minutes left in regulation or overtime and neither team ahead by 5 points are overwhelmingly legit shots, not half court bombs or other prayer shots. Also, I disagree that the measure of clutchness is how one does in pressure situations relative to the league average--I think the better measure is how one does under pressure relative to how one does when not under pressure. Clutchness seems to imply an ability to transcend one's normal ability when the pressure is ramped up. I think that the evidence presented by these articles is, while not necessarily convincing, compelling and very useful.

Keep in mind also that if this were a scientific test, the null hypothesis would be that there's no such thing as clutchness. In this case, the burden of proof seems to me to lie on those who claim that it exists, not those who are skeptical of it. Again, this data, though flawed (as is by the one almost all studies of this nature, though to different degrees) certainly gives us no reason to reject the null hypothesis.

 

[akirac73]

You mean like the 3 he missed (whoops, made) against Boston with time running down to tie the game? Your conclusion here seems to me to be to be a clear case of selection bias.

The Boston game was a blowout, there was no tie score late in the game.

 

[Monte666]

The fact is without a consistent flow on offense, everyone is going to look lost. Hayward is trying to play outside of his comfort zone and is trying to do way too much. The entire team needs to learn to play within a system, which we seem to currently lack. All I see is on ball screens over and over or a pass to the post. No cuts to the basket, for the post player to dump too, etc. Sure, there are a few off ball screens when they run a semblance of the UCLA, Motion or Flex offense, but they are half-hearted and while they position to screen, they don't actually screen a defender. Part of this is a product of the screened defenders man not properly setting up the screen, and part of it is the people we have setting screens aren't setting good picks.

I enjoyed watching the team with limited talent in 04/05 because they ran efficient sets. This team has gobs of talent, but they aren't running anything.

What your asking for requires a PG and we don't have one of them just Tinsley and Lucas

Sent from my HTC One using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[GVC]

but in most cases, I'd guess that a shot taken in the final 24 seconds of a tied or 1 point game game, or with less than 5 minutes left in regulation or overtime and neither team ahead by 5 points are overwhelmingly legit shots, not half court bombs or other prayer shots...

certainly gives us no reason to reject the null hypothesis.

1. Of course MOST are legit shots. A higher percentage than usual are not, however.

2. Given 1, we should consider the average decrease in points per possession from non-clutch to clutch situations. If an 80th percentile player in non-clutch situations (on a points per possession basis) is consistently in the 95th+ percentile in clutch situations, is he not clutch?

3. That article doesn't give us the requisite data/analysis to begin to know whether to reject the null.

 

[DarkMount]

I watched the game closely last night to see if I could see why he always starts strong and seems to fade out throughout the game. After last nights game my observation was the problem I noticed...? Alec Burks... As soon as he comes into the game the offense just dies. He is like the SG version of Al Jefferson. Ball movement stops, Alec dribbles around until he finds a 21' jump shot. I really like Burks, but after watching him closely this year I'm starting to see he is a black hole on offense. He seems to really bee trying to get better and passing the ball more, but he forces too much and takes a bad shot or makes a horrible pass for a turnover.

I think Hayward gets a bad wrap because people think he wants max money and are treating as if he is already being paid that much. But there is no doubt that when the ball is in Hayward's hands the ball moves and flows a lot better. As many people have said though, he is definitely not a #1 option on a good team so I think the tank is actually going quite well and I hope to grab that stud #1 in the draft.

Obviously these are my observations and opinions and could be completely wrong. Just what I have noticed after watching closely this season.

 

[akirac73]

I watched the game closely last night to see if I could see why he always starts strong and seems to fade out throughout the game. After last nights game my observation was the problem I noticed...? Alec Burks... As soon as he comes into the game the offense just dies. He is like the SG version of Al Jefferson. Ball movement stops, Alec dribbles around until he finds a 21' jump shot. I really like Burks, but after watching him closely this year I'm starting to see he is a black hole on offense. He seems to really bee trying to get better and passing the ball more, but he forces too much and takes a bad shot or makes a horrible pass for a turnover.

I think Hayward gets a bad wrap because people think he wants max money and are treating as if he is already being paid that much. But there is no doubt that when the ball is in Hayward's hands the ball moves and flows a lot better. As many people have said though, he is definitely not a #1 option on a good team so I think the tank is actually going quite well and I hope to grab that stud #1 in the draft.

Obviously these are my observations and opinions and could be completely wrong. Just what I have noticed after watching closely this season.

I think the most disappointing thing about Haywards 4th quarter performance is not the zero points or the turnovers, it's that he only attempted TWO freaking shots in the entire quarter (both 3 pt attempts). As the so called leader, he needs to put on his big boy pants and assert himself more at the end of games (like he did in the Boston game), either that or take his *** out of the game if he's going to be a ghost out there. Like you said, the offense seems to flow better with the ball in Haywards hands, so the dude needs to DEMAND the ball towards the end of games.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

1. Of course MOST are legit shots. A higher percentage than usual are not, however.

2. Given 1, we should consider the average decrease in points per possession from non-clutch to clutch situations. If an 80th percentile player in non-clutch situations (on a points per possession basis) is consistently in the 95th+ percentile in clutch situations, is he not clutch?

3. That article doesn't give us the requisite data/analysis to begin to know whether to reject the null.

Well a higher percentage than not, most probably. But I think you overestimate the noise (but I have no idea really, just guessing)

In #2, that would seem to imply clutchness, again if we assume that the definition is performing better under pressure than normal. Even then, however, we don't get rid of the noise problem you identify (again, I tend to think it's not that great).

I believe I said the evidence was compelling, not convincing. In any case, absent evidence to the contrary, we fail to reject the null and continue assuming that there is no such thing as clutchness.

 

[GVC]

Well a higher percentage than not, most probably. But I think you overestimate the noise (but I have no idea really, just guessing)

Noise? I'm inclined to believe that the greater percentage of buzzer beating shots AND the increased defensive intensity would have a significant effect (statistically and substantively) on overall offensive efficiency. Testing this is straightforward.

In #2, that would seem to imply clutchness, again if we assume that the definition is performing better under pressure than normal.

My definition is performing better relative to your position in the distribution across players of offensive efficiency. You could absolutely be performing worse in clutch situations yet further to the right in the clutch distribution (relative to non-clutch).

I believe I said the evidence was compelling, not convincing. In any case, absent evidence to the contrary, we fail to reject the null and continue assuming that there is no such thing as clutchness.

You can just as easily define the null as clutch exists. It's not obvious which makes more sense IMO.

 

[8]

Shooting oneself is not always the correct play to make down the stretch. Too many people overlook this. Lebron happily passed to an open Ray Allen many times last season for a clutch shot because he was making the right play.

 

[♪alt13]

Shooting oneself is not always the correct play to make down the stretch. Too many people overlook this. Lebron happily passed to an open Ray Allen many times last season for a clutch shot because he was making the right play.

Plus it could be fatal.

 

[One Brow]

You can just as easily define the null as clutch exists. It's not obvious which makes more sense IMO.

Choosing a null is not about what makes more sense, it's about determining whether an effect is statistically significant. If "clutchness" exists, but can be separated from random variation, it may as well not exist. You always choose the null as saying there is not noticeable effect.