[Snowball]

chock-full article with graph and historical data from 1996-present.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...in-crunch-time

[Deep_Rest]

I dunno man. This article seems like a joke to me. A bunch of the guys ahead of Kobe may have a higher clutch shot percentage, but most choke in the playoffs or don't even get there.

I mean, Glenn Robinson the 7th most clutch player since 1996-1997? Come on.

It's hard to argue against guys like Tim Duncan or Ray Allen because they've been in the finals, they've made clutch plays when the entire season is on the line (not just a game) and I admit I'd probably take Ray Allen to take a shot over Kobe, but the other 75% of the people, no way. I bet even Michael Jordan would be like 20th on this list and you can't tell me with a straight face you'd take anybody else over Jordan.

Thanks for sharing the article, though!

[SBRMAN23]

What he said +

[FindTheLock]

Jordan most clutch player in NBA history with the season on the line. I don't need stats I used my eyes to determine this! Kobe isn't clutch so I agree with that part.

[Le_Donk]

good article
lol kobe

[NYSportsGuy210]

This is terrible slandering. Kobe top 8 in clutch in history of NBA. Peace.

[Snowball]

there will always be those who prefer Fantasy to facts.

[NYSportsGuy210]

And I am not one of them. Once again....statistical analysis based on small sample sizes do not count.

[demens]

Yeah, facts like Big Dog Robinson or the Matrix being top 10 most clutch players in the last 15 years.

People cant twist the meaning of clutch whatever way they want and find stats to back it. It just take a brain to actually understand what these numbers mean and most people dont know how to use theirs.

Nice to see Dirk and Vince Carter up there with the best of them. Funny how clowns always call these guys chockers.

[kobefanatic]

how many of those guys on that list have more rings than kobe?
those in the top 10 have a combined 0 rings, these guys are so clutch that they can't even win a ring, only duncan,ray allen, kobe, kg ron artest have won a ring on that list

[kobefanatic]

then most of the people in the NBA must be a bunch of idiots since he won in a landslide voted by GM and players, they know better than most of us here that's why they have their positions in the NBA and the players are playing there

[demens]

Trailing by one or two points, or tied, in the final 24 seconds of regular season and playoff games since 1996-1997

Thats the criteria for these stats.

Tell me. Is a shot with 25 seconds left in a tie game any less clutch then 1 with 20 seconds left?
How about a 3 pointer at the buzzer down by 3? I guess those shots are not clutch enough for whoever wrote that article and compiled those stats.

To me, anything in the 4th qtr with less then 6 min to go in a single digit game = clutch.

[Bradyd]

how many of those guys on that list have more rings than kobe?
those in the top 10 have a combined 0 rings, these guys are so clutch that they can't even win a ring, only duncan,ray allen, kobe, kg ron artest have won a ring on that list

You know, everything is not about winning a ring. Sometimes is good to recognize guys who are good in specific areas, regardless of whether they won a ring or not...

[vinny808]

there will always be those who prefer Fantasy to facts.

And there's always those who manipulate stats to support his or her own argument. Here's the rebuttal:

http://www.silverscreenandroll.com/2...d-henry-abbott

Disagreeing with a statistical argument is hard to do objectively. After all, statistics are cold, hard facts. Derek Fisher is shooting 38% on the year, and no matter how many ways you look into justifying that number, it is set in stone. And the people who make statistical arguments are quick to point out the factual basis of their message. In this, they are absolutely correct. The problem is that a statistical argument can be presented with every bit as much bias as a non-statistical argument. A prime example is the latest opus from Henry Abbott.
Just so we're clear, this is not an anti-stats piece. It's an anti-Abbott piece.

Click the link to read more.