Are "Clutch" Statistics Meaningful When Evaluating Players?
I already wrote about Russell Westbrook being benched. The Lakers lost that game to the Pacers, not making up any ground with Westbrook out of the game. There have been no lingering issues from Westbrook being benched: he has not griped, complained, or sulked, nor has he been benched again, and he has played well as the Lakers won two of their next three games (19.0 ppg, 8.7 rpg, 6.7 apg, .522 FG%). There are two underrated aspects of Westbrook's career:
1) His positive attitude--he never throws his coach or his teammates under the bus, and he does his best to fill whatever role is provided for him.
2) Every star player who has played alongside him has had a career season, from Kevin Durant to Paul George to James Harden to Bradley Beal to LeBron James, who at 37 years old is scoring at a clip that he has not matched in over a decade (including his years partnering with Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh).
Westbrook's coaches and teammates have mentioned these traits, but most media members ignore any information that does not fit into their preconceived narratives. Remember that when Westbrook first entered the NBA we were told that he was not a real point guard and that he would never be a good playmaker. The facts that Westbrook has won three assist titles, that he ranks ninth all-time with an 8.5 apg career average, and that he ranks 12th all-time with 8248 assists have not put the slightest dent in that preconceived narrative; we are still regularly told that Westbrook is a poor decision maker who does not make his teammates better, even though the evidence demonstrates that he is a great playmaker who helps star players have career seasons (he also led the 2017 Thunder to the sixth seed in the tough Western Conference even though that squad ranked last in three point field goal percentage).
Another preconceived narrative about Westbrook is that he is not effective in "clutch" situations, which is one of the justifications provided for benching him against Indiana.
In The Strengths and Limitations of "Advanced Basketball Statistics," I explained why so-called "clutch" statistics are, by and large, irrelevant if not ridiculous:
Roland Beech has done some nice research about game-winning shots but, unfortunately, a lot of people borrow his data without bothering to consider his conclusion: "Ultimately though while this kind of thing is fun, it's not to my mind particularly meaningful, other than indicating that the league as a whole could probably get more efficient in 'end game' possessions...one easy place to start might be to try and be less predictable! It's nice to have a go-to guy, but when the other team knows without much doubt that a certain guy is getting the ball, it is going to be a lot easier to defend!" Beech is right on target that this data is both "fun" and "not...particularly meaningful" though I think that he is a bit harsh regarding the alleged lack of efficiency on "end game" possessions; he fails to consider two very important points: (1) since this is a small sample size the shooting percentages are disproportionately skewed downward by desperation heaves, broken plays, etc.; (2) it is very difficult to score against a set NBA defense and it is even more difficult to do so when your time is extremely limited, particularly if you need a three pointer just to tie. When the time is limited why would a coach design a play for someone other than his best player? Anyway, most people have no idea how plays work in the first place; no NBA coach is just giving the ball to one guy and saying, "Shoot it" (unless there is only enough time to catch and shoot): you give the ball to your best player because he is most capable of creating his own shot, creating a shot for someone else if he gets trapped and making free throws if he is fouled. You don't want to give the ball to someone who cannot dribble or who cannot get a shot off or who is a bad free throw shooter. When role players hit big shots it is usually after the team's best player created an opening--but if you give the ball to the role player first then you are asking him to do something he is not comfortable doing. If "stat gurus" think that "clutch shooting" percentages are low now just imagine what those percentages would look like if coaches started drawing up plays for non-ballhandlers to catch the ball at the top of the key with five seconds remaining.After Westbrook was benched, many media members scurried to dig up various statistics (from small sample sizes, naturally) to "prove" that Westbrook is an ineffective player in "clutch" situations or even in fourth quarters in general. Fourth quarter statistics from less than a half season of games are not very relevant or meaningful, but since so many people are determined to use those numbers to attack Westbrook it is worth noting that last season Westbrook ranked first in the league in clutch FG% (59.1) while scoring 105 points (fifth in the league), shooting .409 from three point range, and compiling a league best .659 eFG% (per StatMuse).
I have consistently maintained that Being a Clutch Player is More Significant than Just Making Clutch Shots; I have never pretended to know or even care which NBA player is the best at making last second shots--but I am perplexed that so many "stat gurus" (other than Beech) think that this is an important topic to investigate ("stat gurus" famously do not believe in the so-called "hot hand" so there is no reason for them to believe that a player will perform much differently in some arbitrarily defined "clutch" moment than at any other time); I am also amazed at the lack of intellectual rigor displayed by the conclusions that have been loudly and repeatedly stated in some quarters about this issue. Setting aside for a moment the fact that "clutch shots" have not been universally defined in terms of time remaining/score differential, regardless of how such shots are categorized they comprise just a tiny, unrepresentative portion of a player's total shot attempts--and within that small subset of "clutch shots" there are in fact many different kinds of shots that cannot reasonably be lumped together. For instance, consider two "clutch shots" that Kobe Bryant recently attempted; near the end of the fourth quarter versus Detroit, Bryant received the ball outside the three point line in the top of the key area, took two strong dribbles and drained a midrange pullup jumper to send the game into overtime; near the end of overtime, with the Lakers trailing by three and the Pistons possibly ready to foul rather than permit a three point attempt, Bryant caught the ball well behind the three point line and quickly fired a shot that missed. If you are a "stat guru" measuring "clutch shots" then you lump in Bryant's desperation three pointer with his two dribble pullup, combine it with some half court shots and other miscellaneous attempts taken against a variety of defenses with differing amounts of time on the clock and then you produce one field goal percentage that supposedly provides a definitive measurement of Bryant's "clutchness." Does anyone measure the "clutchness" of NFL quarterbacks by looking at their completion percentages on "Hail Mary" passes? This stuff is so foolish that I cannot believe that it is a topic for supposedly serious discussion; the problems with sample size are so obvious that it should be readily apparent that "clutch shot" data is, at best, a fun, frivolous stat to consider lightly, and not something that is worthy of in depth debate. If someone nails a lucky half court shot does that prove that he is "clutch"? The reality is that most shots taken in the final few seconds against a set defense are inherently low percentage shots--but it should not be surprising to anyone that in the same game Bryant calmly nailed a two dribble pullup (a shot that is a normal part of his repertoire) and then missed a twisting, rushed, long three point attempt; anyone who combines those two attempts into one "clutch shooting percentage" and takes that number seriously is an idiot.
If a whole season of efficient "clutch" play does not impress you, then you should also consider that Westbrook made 15 go-ahead field goals in the final minute of play from 2017-2019, ranking first in the NBA.
I would not evaluate Westbrook or any other player based on arbitrary "clutch" statistics, but if this is going to be an ongoing discussion topic then the least that media members can do is acknowledge that there are "clutch" data points that contradict their preconceived narrative that Westbrook is not effective in such situations.
Labels: "clutch" statistics, L.A. Lakers, Russell Westbrook
posted by David Friedman @ 1:48 AM
