Is Portland Really Clutch?

by da34shadow on Dec 1, 2008 7:50 PM PST Comment 32 comments

After watching Portland play and win several close games this season, the question of whether Portland was a clutch team entered my mind. The problem is that the word "clutch" is invariably a relative term. Therefore, I made an assumption that any game that ends with Portland winning by a maximum of 2 possessions (six points or less) or goes to overtime, is evidence that the Blazers are clutch. Using that assumption, I went back 4 years (2 years with Pritchard making the decisions and 2 without), and analyzed all of Portland's games.

What I found was pretty interesting. Portland is clutch. In fact, they are getting more clutch with every passing year. From 2004-2006, Portland played in 66 close games and won 26 of them, or approximately 39% of them. From 2006-2008 Portland played in 61 close games and won 38 of them, or approximately 62% of them. Furthermore, Portland is 5-2 this year in close games, displaying further evidence of Portland's continued clutch play.

I attribute this newfound "clutchness" to the Pritchard effect. He was integral in the past drafts that netted Aldridge, Roy, Rodriguez, Oden, Fernandez and Bayless. He was active in the hiring of McMillan to guide the team. He placed a high value on team chemistry and replaced anyone who threatened to harm it. Simply put, he changed the culture of the team so that, when games got close, when difficulty was faced, it would have the resolve to win the game. The biggest evidence of that resolve is how Portland plays in games that went to OT or were won by a single point. Last year Portland won 7 of those games in 10 tries, this year they are 3-0. All in all, I think this shows that Portland really is a clutch team.

15 recs | Comment 32 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Dude...

this is awesome…

Incredible finding!!!

Did you steal this from Jason Quick?

by hotstuffdb22 on Dec 1, 2008 7:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Nope

Just wanted to answer my question while trying to see through my rose-colored glasses.

by da34shadow on Dec 1, 2008 10:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

is this because we've gotten more clutch, or just because we've gotten better?

It would make sense that by getting better, the games we used to lose by a couple would turn into to wins by a couple points instead, even if our team was equally clutch.

Jeff's guide to not looking stupid:
+/- is an absolutely terrible stat, so don't use it, and don't give up on young players before they turn 24.
54!

by joof on Dec 1, 2008 8:00 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

yeah,

but it would also turn lose by 7 into lose by 2 to replace those close losses, so there’s a natural replacement source for some of those close losses in the improvement of the team.

Travis Outlaw is an alien, but in a good way.

Awesome Graphic was provided by CIC, because he felt like he should be hazed.

by Clevelander among roses on Dec 1, 2008 8:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

but

If we’re winning 20% of our games then we’re probably winning 20% of our close games. If we’re winning 67% of our games then we’re probably winning 67% of our close games.

What’s the ratio of win percentage to close win percentage?

by boppitywop on Dec 1, 2008 8:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I bet the ratio..

…is close to 50% for both winning and losing teams in the long run, same as in baseball, especially as you start to narrow the target to something like 3-4 points.

Travis Outlaw is an alien, but in a good way.

Awesome Graphic was provided by CIC, because he felt like he should be hazed.

by Clevelander among roses on Dec 1, 2008 9:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Comparison

I did a quick comparison of close wins to that of Denver, and we won more than them last year. Our ability to win the close ones was definitely higher than our overal win% for the past couple years.

by da34shadow on Dec 1, 2008 10:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Comparison to the LA Clankers

I’d be curious to see us compared to the L@kers. Above you mention we won more close ones than Denver last year. …yes, we had some clutch nail biter wins… but other teams (like the LA Fakers) are blowing teams doors off right now. …so we have probably won more “Clutch” games than the LA Clankers this year, but it is because they are winning by a larger average margin and are not in the position that they have to hit a last second shot. Just something to consider. I have enjoyed the last most recent Blazers victories where we blew teams out from the start & kept the steamroller running…. winning by large margins. …but yes, B-roy is about as clutch as you get. If he was part of a car he would be the clutch.

We all know what K*be did in Colorado to that girl. Dear Lord, please let whatever team that plays the LA Clankers beat them to oblivion. Amen.

by Pritchslap on Dec 2, 2008 12:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This is another feather in the cap of McMillan

If coaching wins games, I think it would show up most in the close games, and this is where Portland has done really well. Also good young talent, too, of course.

Travis Outlaw is an alien, but in a good way.

Awesome Graphic was provided by CIC, because he felt like he should be hazed.

by Clevelander among roses on Dec 1, 2008 8:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I feel the same way

I know Barrett has brought this up during games but we are one of the best teams at executing after a timeout. I know the players put it in the hoop but thats mostly Nate being a fantastic coach and i feel that finishing close games is similar to TO’s because there is a lot of scheming and coaching going on.

"I've been through a lot, like......World War I, World War 2"

- Greg Oden

Son, if you really want something in this life, you have to work for it. Now quiet! They're about to announce the lottery numbers.

- Homer Simpson

by Blazin'aTrail on Dec 2, 2008 9:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Got the graphic and everything

Very nicely done. I think our clutchness can be attributed to one man. Brandon “cool as the other side of the pillow” Roy.

by Sabonis4Ever on Dec 1, 2008 8:25 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

Stole the words from my mouth.

I think its more Roy than Pritchard.

honor rasheed wallace

by Cablinasian on Dec 1, 2008 8:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ditto .....

it’s Roy!

by TwoDeep on Dec 2, 2008 10:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

uh wait...

do these numbers vary from Portland’s winning percentage in the same year?

If they win the same % of regular games as clutch games, it suggests there is no such thing as clutch, or that teams perform similarly in the clutch as they do not in it; or that the increased concentration is negated by increased nerves and it all balances out.

M, period. Fresh, comma.

by manzell on Dec 1, 2008 8:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Last year we were .500

the year before that, even worse. For those two seasons (averaged) The Blazers won 62% of the close games. That is amzing when you think about it.

On drowning my daughter before she becomes a teenager (to my son)-"You know how when you want to drown someone, you first tie something heavy to the their foot?" My Son: "Yeah?" Me:"You're the something heavy"

by 92wastheyear on Dec 1, 2008 8:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think in order to examine the issue fully...

… we need to find a way to look at games in which a single possession separates the scores with 1-2 minutes remaining, rather than the final score. The reason is that a lot of times, a team is well within striking distance in a close game, misses the tie/go ahead shot, and the other team scores on a quick outlet. Then starts the free throw parade, which inflates the score differential. The point is, these are close games where one team or another got cold feet in the clutch, but the final score doesn’t reflect it due to fouling/clock stoppage.

by zaruga on Dec 2, 2008 12:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed.

I was going to ask the OP how he defines “close game.” Final score isn’t good enough. The Utah game this year is evidence of that – Rudy had a chance to tie it with a few seconds to go but missed and the final deficit was 5(?).

by erastus25 on Dec 2, 2008 2:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Clutch is nice, but...

The main reason we’ve been clutch is because we often times put ourselves in that situation in the first place…which I don’t like because it’s not good for the old heart. We are getting better, and the signs are encouraging, but the past few years have seen many games where we either don’t play solid for an entire game, or we play to the level of our competition. In the past, we hae failed to “crush” the bug under the shoe when we play other teams and have them down. Instead, we let them back in. That has been the theme of just about all of our road losses.

I’m thankful we have the Brandon Roys, the Rudy Fernandezs, and Travis Outlaws to hit the big shots. I would prefer those dagger shots to happen with 10 minutes left in the game, instead of 1 minute left in the game.

The last two weeks have been encouraging though, with some big blow-out wins. I look forward to many more in the days, weeks, months, and years to come.

Can I buy you a fish sandwich?

by silkybrown on Dec 1, 2008 8:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

But, if the game is close, it is nice to know that Portland has a better than 50% of pulling out the win. I do agree that these last few blowouts have been pretty nice.

by da34shadow on Dec 1, 2008 10:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

+1...I look at the same things

Although I appreciate the work done on the clutch analysis…it still is a window on the big picture….in all honesty, we should look at being a better team after each game…this means less situations to rely on clutch play at the end of games…..
    You can attach a lot of reasons for clutch play…but the primary reason is good players…..nothing to do do with KP (directly), or for that matter coaching.
    It’s nice to say that the coach made the right moves at the end of the game, but the players have to execute them and they are the ones that get it done…..I’m sure that play calling, or defensive alignments or emphasis on certain parts of play, may contribute to some wins, but it would be difficult to credit coaching in crunch time…(the coaches get credit for the game plan, preparation, matchups etc., but end of game stuff is all about the players execution on offense and dedication to defensive stops)…
   It’s nice to be good in the clutch….but not the best measure of a team….what you say(silkybrown) about playing for 48 minutes, emphasis on good “D” and developing the killer instincts is what a good team is all about ….How you got to crunch time is a well advised footnote to go along with clutch play charts….

That said….da34shadow did some fine work on his graph and I am not denying the quality and content of a keen perspective on clutch play….

'Liability on defense, is an asset on the bench" a quote from my basketball coach, who believed good defense won games and made the offense a product of it

by 67 on Dec 2, 2008 11:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure if I agree...

I will grant you that statistics seem to indicate that coaches, as a whole group, do not seem to affect their team’s success. However, I think credit needs to be given to KP and Nate for the jobs that they have done. It takes skill to find the right pieces and then point them in the right direction.

We did not have that same skill in the Whitsitt/Patterson years, when players were treated as assets and things like “culture” or “chemistry” were ignored. We found out the hard way that you cannot just throw 5 highly skilled players on a court and expect a positive result. That all being said, the actual act of Roy making the Houston 3-pointer, or Outlaw’s bank to start "the streak" falls on the players. My point is that someone had to get them to that point. Someone had to surround them with other passers and shooters and rebounders and blockers and schemes and lessons. That someone was KP.

by da34shadow on Dec 2, 2008 11:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

then

indirectly KP had some input and indirectly the coaches do as well…..It is all these ingredients that have changed the outcome of Portland’s success…..No argument there…but if you were to outline this into what are the most significant reasons for success at crunch time or clutch play, the players should be at the top…….

'Liability on defense, is an asset on the bench" a quote from my basketball coach, who believed good defense won games and made the offense a product of it

by 67 on Dec 2, 2008 12:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed.

by da34shadow on Dec 2, 2008 12:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm kind of curious.

Is the criteria for this just that we ended up with the win and were 6-points ahead or something different? If it’s just that we won with a 6-point lead or less, that could mean that some games we were close to completely blowing a lead.

by Jerb on Dec 1, 2008 9:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Yep

That is the limitation of the study. However, over a long enough horizon, the analysis would include both games that were blowouts until a couple late treys and would exclude close games that ended up being 6+ point games due to late game foul fests.

by da34shadow on Dec 1, 2008 10:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Kewl... Other Thoughts:

This is very interesting (and nice importation of graphic) and I gave it a superfluous rec.

Here are some thoughts I’ll add to the discussion:

1) I’m interested in also knowing how many “clutch games” we had. This would be interesting as a comparison to number of blowouts against us and blowouts against other people. I think just having more clutch games is a good thing if they come at the expense of getting blown out. It at least means we were competitive.

2) This would be harder to do but also interesting. If we could identify the clutch wins and blowout losses/wins against teams that are .500 or better. Being competitive against those teams would mean a lot. Clutch would mean even more. (Blowout, all the better.)

3) Now this gets really dicey. The final score is often not telling of the game. To me, a more true definition of clutch might be point disparity at the midway point in the 4th quarter. If we’re within, say, six points at the 6min mark of the 4th quarter… why, then it’s time to strap it on and get down to bizness.

4) This completely sideways, but I imagine that Vegas lines might be a good arbitrary determiner of whether or not games were supposed to be close. Games that were +/- 3pts in the gambling line would signal that a close game is foreseen. This might be an easier way of determining games that were supposed to be close versus games that were not and we ended up stumbling to a win. (Won ugly, that is.) How did we fare in those games?

I really like and respect this kind of analysis. I agree with above that, at minimum, your graphic should serve as a fine feather in McMillan’s cap. For as much emotional anger as I’ve vented at the poor man, this identifies his strength as a coach. (And KP as a mgr.)

Buck Williams for the hall of fame

by Phizbin on Dec 2, 2008 9:42 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

point 4

Interesting idea…but limited. The reason why is that Vegas gets to know the teams….what I mean is that Vegas is liable to be the first to recognize that Portland is a good crunch time team and move the betting line accordingly. So basically, if the Blazers kept covering the line, the Casinos would start moving the line. So looking at the betting line would work for a while but then become less effective as Vegas responded.

by 92wastheyear on Dec 2, 2008 8:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This fanpost is clutch

Rec’d

That is really hideous
--jscot

by prezofdeath on Dec 2, 2008 11:41 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Another way to see if we're clutch

I think it would be better to see what percent of games we win when there is more than one lead change in the fourth quarter.

That would weed out games where we let a team close in garbage time, and would allow us to factor in victories like the one we had in Detroit where even though the final margin was big we actually did do clutch play in the 4th quarter to close it out.

by boppitywop on Dec 2, 2008 2:22 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Or games won after trailing at any point in the 4th quarter.

That would give credit to games like the sunday one at Detroit. It may not have been clutch as in close game, but it was clutch as in they were down in the fourth and proceeded to take over without panicking.

by erastus25 on Dec 2, 2008 2:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs