Norm Peterson Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 Early in the season he was "selfish". Now he's "clutch". Hm... Not saying it's actually one or the other. I'm just sayin'. I'm glad he's on our team, for sure. Early in the season he was jacking up shots early in the shot clock that were out-of-system and low-percentage. The point of this discussion is he's hitting a high percentage of shots as the clock is running out. That's a totally different thing than what people were concerned about at the beginning of the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverbacked1 Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 Early in the season he was "selfish". Now he's "clutch". Hm... Not saying it's actually one or the other. I'm just sayin'. I'm glad he's on our team, for sure. Early in the season he was jacking up shots early in the shot clock that were out-of-system and low-percentage. The point of this discussion is he's hitting a high percentage of shots as the clock is running out. That's a totally different thing than what people were concerned about at the beginning of the season. Even yesterday some where questioning his shots during the game. He just always feels like,it,is going in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huskerpapa Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 Shooters mentality. Yes, some of his shots (including a 3 point attempt on a fast break) are questionable. But he has now established a track record that allows him some leeway. He also does a pretty good sharing the ball, and will step aside when someone else has it going. Norm Peterson 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuttlesworth Posted February 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 He's shooting 46% in conference play. Personally, I don't care what kind of shots he takes as long as he keeps that up. 46% is bordering on Durant-type efficiency. 49r 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookie Belcher Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 Cookie, I think it's an interesting topic. I understand your statistical approach is to say that some other factor than skill has to explain the statistical oddity of his increased shooting percentage during whatever the timeframe is (I thought it was last 5 seconds of the shot clock.) You have chosen the label "luck" to describe this statistical oddity. I'm saying that "clutch" is a better label and "clutch" is not the same as "luck." The term "luck" implies a random fortuity. I don't think it's random fortuity at all. Allow me to illustrate by presenting the opposite of "clutch." I remember watching a segment on Nightline once where they talked about this kind of thing. They have the nightline correspondent, in a room with an artificial putting green, hitting 3 foot putts. And he hits them all. Then, they bring in cameras and put $100 down on the table and ask him to hit the same putt. Now, how do you explain the statistical variance between the higher percentage you'd obtain stroking 3 foot putts when there's no pressure versus the lower percentage of makes you'd obtain stroking 3 foot putts under intense pressure? Is that simply "unluck"? If you hit 80% of your 3 foot putts under normal circumstances but drop to 50% of your 3 foot putts under pressure, that's just "unluck" right? Royal might have a point about small sample size, but the numbers vary too greatly. But I think there's something else at work than "luck" or mere fortuity. Some guys are nails when the chips are down. And Terran is one of those guys. I'm not arguing against defining clutch as people who perform well under pressure. Those people certainly exist. I also agree that certain people choke under pressure. The 3 foot putt is an example of that. Many wilt and shrink under pressure. Clutch players do not. Terran isn't one of those who wilts under pressure. He performs well under pressure. What I disagree with is that he somehow gets better late in games/in the shotclock. That simply should not happen. Not getting worse in a pressure situation? That is clutch. Being able to perform just as well under pressure as you do in a less pressure filled situation is a great skill to have. But shooting 57%? Part of that is just small sample size. With more shots, you will see that 57% align with his overall shooting percentage. If he actually was a 57% shooter late in the shot clock but a 40% shooter before then, why would he ever shoot early in the shot clock? Why not just wait until the last 5 seconds when you would have a better chance of making it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PimpMario Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 Petteway is an experienced bad shot taker...which is typically the shot you get with 5 or less seconds on the clock. In some regards this bad habit probably makes him better at being "clutch" This, so this! I was making this argument during the game. People were complaining about Petteway settling for terrible 3 point attempts late in the shot clock. I tend to agree with the sentiment, he seems to get calls these days so why not try to get to the line? But I also pointed out that he takes bad shots all the time and they routinely go in so it isn't that different at the end of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.