Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 64

Thread: VOLUME 2 Another DFDH must read....I rest my case : Fire This F---ing bum.

  1. #46
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by smokes
    Also it may perhaps be because the other main sport I follow is football where the entire game can literally be decided in one moment as a game can finish 1-0.

    Intuitively you would think this is less apparent in basketball because there are so many more "scores" in the game. However I think realistically, NBA teams are close enough that most teams when playing well against each other will result in quite a close game, thus the importance of certain plays is greatly magnified.
    Magnified? Yes.

    Determinative by themselves? No.

    Even in soccer, one guy makes a diving save, or a tackle in the open field.

    Yes, superficially a game can be decided on one shot or one play (hence, "game winners"). But realistically and actually, games are decided in the 100s of possessions that occur in the 48 (or, in the case of soccer, 90) minutes. We lost last night not because of the put-back dunk by itself, because we were sloppy with the ball.

  2. #47
    Veteran Clyde & The Pearl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,463
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Originally Posted by KBlack25
    Still that's not true though. I guarantee there were plays earlier in the game that left the game within a touchdown...someone settled for a FG instead of a TD, things like that. Games are never ever won on one single play.
    I cant see how you can debate this. No matter what happened earlier in yesterdays game or the EGALS/GGIRLS game the game was won/lost on one play.

    Venturing back into the early parts of any game is hindsight or the what if argument. Unless a game is a blowout most contests normally come down to a defining moment. One play. This is why they keep clutch statistics. Otherwise there would be no need for them.

    Heck this is one of the reasons we went out and got MELO. He changes the outcome of games.

  3. #48
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by Clyde & The Pearl
    I cant see how you can debate this. No matter what happened earlier in yesterdays game or the EGALS/GGIRLS game the game was won/lost on one play.

    Venturing back into the early parts of any game is hindsight or the what if argument. Unless a game is a blowout most contests normally come down to a defining moment. One play. This is why they keep clutch statistics. Otherwise there would be no need for them.

    Heck this is one of the reasons we went out and got MELO. He changes the outcome of games.
    Clutch statistics, in my mind, do not exist (not that they don't exist, b/c someone wastes his or her time looking at it, but they are very unimportant and I think almost useless). I know it's a contrarian viewpoint, but any statistical regression run on "clutch" measures has shown almost no reliability from year-to-year or even game-to-game. I do not believe that someone in reality has (or lacks) "clutch-ness", honestly. For me, for a statistic to have any validity, there must be some pattern or predictability year-to-year. I know that, at least in baseball, every statistical analysis for "clutch" that has ever been run frequently showed the most "clutch" hitters one year are average or below average in "clutch" the next, then become "clutch" again the year after. I haven't looked at basketball year-to-year, but I would expect similar fluidity, making the statistic, to me, pretty useless or invalid.

    No game is won/lost on one play. Last night, the put back only mattered because we turned the ball over early, and because Detroit was missing free throws like whoa. In the EGirls game, the return for a touchdown only mattered because they were within a touchdown. The only reason any of the aforementioned plays mattered at all were BECAUSE OF plays that happened earlier, if we didn't turn the ball over the tip-in dunk might not matter. Likewise, if Detroit had hit their free throws, the tip-in dunk doesn't matter either. Yes, if you view one play in the moment that it happened, at that instant, it becomes magnified and its importance bloated. But that is short-sighted, you have to realize that you can't isolate one play out of a game, there were moments leading up to that play whose importance cannot be extracted from that play. Every second of a basketball game is necessarily dependent on every second that came previous. These are called "variables". To look at one play exclusively as the entire game is short-sighted and pointless. I don't think I'm saying anything mind-blowing here.
    Last edited by KBlack25; Mar 19, 2011 at 19:24.

  4. #49
    Veteran Clyde & The Pearl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,463
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Originally Posted by KBlack25
    Clutch statistics, in my mind, do not exist (not that they don't exist, b/c someone wastes his or her time looking at it, but they are very unimportant and I think almost useless). I know it's a contrarian viewpoint, but any statistical regression run on "clutch" measures has shown almost no reliability from year-to-year or even game-to-game. I do not believe that someone in reality has (or lacks) "clutch-ness", honestly. For me, for a statistic to have any validity, there must be some pattern or predictability year-to-year. I know that, at least in baseball, every statistical analysis for "clutch" that has ever been run frequently showed the most "clutch" hitters one year are average or below average in "clutch" the next, then become "clutch" again the year after. I haven't looked at basketball year-to-year, but I would expect similar fluidity, making the statistic, to me, pretty useless or invalid.

    No game is won/lost on one play. Last night, the put back only mattered because we turned the ball over early, and because Detroit was missing free throws like whoa. In the EGirls game, the return for a touchdown only mattered because they were within a touchdown. The only reason any of the aforementioned plays mattered at all were BECAUSE OF plays that happened earlier, if we didn't turn the ball over the tip-in dunk might not matter. Likewise, if Detroit had hit their free throws, the tip-in dunk doesn't matter either. Yes, if you view one play in the moment that it happened, at that instant, it becomes magnified and its importance bloated. But that is short-sighted, you have to realize that you can't isolate one play out of a game, there were moments leading up to that play whose importance cannot be extracted from that play. Every second of a basketball game is necessarily dependent on every second that came previous. These are called "variables". To look at one play exclusively as the entire game is short-sighted and pointless. I don't think I'm saying anything mind-blowing here.

    So in your view Jordan, Bird, Magic Horry, Staubach, Elway, Manning, Manny, Big Pappi, Ruth, Jeter really did nothing at all to define themselves they were just good players. I guess you never played sports. Hitting a foul shout knowing that 1500 people are watching you is very difficult. Hitting that foul shot to win the game knowing that millions are watching could be brutal for some. No matter how many foul shots you've taken in your life.

    Trust me there is clutch. Let me ask you this. Who on the Knicks would you want taking the last shot to win the game? Why?


    You cant go back to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and most of the forth quarter and try to say what if. Thats in a competitive game. I mentioned the Knicks situation going into last nights game. On the road, against a team that would love to put a damper on their playoff hopes (remember misery loves company), playing the type of team they struggle against. This has the makings of a close game. A game that could come down to the last shot to win the game.

    Playing the what ifs in earlier quarters is just that. What if the Knicks didnt turn the ball over? Well what if the Pistons made their free throws? You probably still have the same defining moment at the end. The put back dunk. I know you being a Knicks fan you want the WHAT IFS you're talking about to favor your team but you cant have it like that.

    The game played out exactly like it was supposed to and one play at the end won the game.

    The put back dunk...

  5. #50
    Fundamentally Sound ronoranina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by DontForgetDerekHarper
    first off the only reason I even wrote what I wrote was because I had an initial thread with points related to my distrust of the coach, they were all valid assessments of the team; this thread was a follow up, and you responded with the heart on your sleeve comment, which was completely out of line, being that I was making a point to support my earlier thread regarding firing dantoni, at no point was my initial title post to this tread emotional, or out of control in fact all i said was

    I think

    you get

    the point



    How is that being overly emotional ?

    for you to respond in the way you did, caused me to question your motivation as a knicks fan, being that something as simple as

    i think

    you

    get the

    point, would cause you to act as if im being over emotional,

    read back and see who initiated the nonsense

    ronorania

    the NEW

    METROTARD.
    Dude, ^^^^^^ say it ain't so.. lol

    If im starting to sound like Metro then I really need to reevaluate my steez.

    Anyway, if it seemed like I was coming at your neck I didn't mean to come off like that.

    I was simply trying to put on blast how reactionary and emotional you've been of late and why I feel it's unnecessary at the moment.

    As a result, you went on a tirade trying to call me a fake fan smh.., hence the response/ retaliation.

    I actually like alot of your posts DFDH.

    Again, I have a bad tendency sometimes to call things as I see them..

    If I offended, apologies bro.
    Last edited by ronoranina; Mar 19, 2011 at 22:26.

  6. #51
    Superstar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    Clutch is a very important statistic. The ability to hit a shot when the pressure on is an immeasurable stat, but very important.

  7. #52
    Veteran DontForgetDerekHarper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,263
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Originally Posted by ronoranina
    Dude, ^^^^^^ say it ain't so.. lol

    If im starting to sound like Metro then I really need to reevaluate my steez.

    Anyway, if it seemed like I was coming at your neck I didn't mean to come off like that.

    I was simply trying to put on blast how reactionary and emotional you've been of late and why I feel it's unnecessary at the moment.

    As a result, you went on a tirade trying to call me a fake fan smh.., hence the response/ retaliation.

    I actually like alot of your posts DFDH.

    Again, I have a bad tendency sometimes to call things as I see them..

    If I offended, apologies bro.
    again

    you responded to me

    before i responded to you

    I wasnt even emotional, nor did I tirade

    i said 3 lines

    i think you get the point and you questioned my heart on my sleeve
    the other threads I have originated were all based on points i noticed in dantonis coaching, it was analytical, point based, rational and technical with no emotional involvement what so ever. go back and read my other threads. My post sare never emotionally taught, they are all based on empirical evidence from statistics or trends, as well as assessment from games I have either sat front section for, or watched at home. The bottom line is i havent missed a knicks game since i was 8 years old, which would mean for 22 years I have seen every regular season plus playoff game. I recognize our talent level, as well as the fact we have 3 legitimate experienced winning talents, which only maybe 10-12 other teams in this league possess, and we are highly under achieving.

    my only sum of the equation i can come up with, is what i see on the floor; and in truth i base our production, like any one else who understands team sports on the ability of our coach to prepare that talent to win games against lower level opponents.

    shi;s chess not checkers

    and right now

    mike dantoni is in check.

  8. #53
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by Clyde & The Pearl
    So in your view Jordan, Bird, Magic Horry, Staubach, Elway, Manning, Manny, Big Pappi, Ruth, Jeter really did nothing at all to define themselves they were just good players. I guess you never played sports. Hitting a foul shout knowing that 1500 people are watching you is very difficult. Hitting that foul shot to win the game knowing that millions are watching could be brutal for some. No matter how many foul shots you've taken in your life.

    Trust me there is clutch. Let me ask you this. Who on the Knicks would you want taking the last shot to win the game? Why?
    All the players you mentioned ARE good players, and every statistical analysis of clutch ever run shows that players normally in clutch situations regress to about what you would expect them to in a normal situation. The reason a guy like Jordan would get the final shot is not because he is "clutch" but rather he is a good player.

    Big Papi, Manny and Jeter, for what it's worth, all measured insanely high for a season, maybe two in "clutch" situations, but regressed back to below average afterwards. This indicates to me and to anyone looking at those numbers not in a single season but over the course of a career (to get a more palpable sample size) that "clutch" is not an innate statistic, but rather is a microchosm that, when extrapolated, compaers similarly to what you would expect from a player over his career. I am not alone in this thought, in fact quite the opposite:

    Clearly the curse could not have just gone away; it is a curse after all. No. It must have been some thing that broke it. Of course! A-Rod has “got his mind right,” and now can perform in “clutch” situations, where he could not before. Which brings me, albeit not quite coherently (cut me some slack—this is my first column), to my main point. Clutch hitting does not exist, at least not to the extent many want to believe.


    The fact is A-Rod has just started to hit the ball. Rodriguez has hit .438/.548/.969 (AVG/OBP/SLG) this postseason. He has hit five A-Bombs, knocked in 12 Yankees, taken nine free passes and gone down on strikes just five times. He has even stolen base! There is nothing to point to: no bat change, no glove change, no underwear change. The man is just doing what he does: being good at baseball.
    Some sports analysts have presented evidence that while individual plays and moments may resonate as "clutch" because of their importance, there is no such thing as "clutch ability" or an inherently clutch player. One example of such an argument is presented in the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] book Baseball Between the Numbers published by [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], which compiles evidence that no baseball players are demonstrably consistently clutch over the course of a career, and that the numbers of allegedly clutch players in clutch situations are in fact no different from players reputed to be "chokers."<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]</sup>
    The Baseball Prospectus team is hardly alone in their skepticism: various baseball analysts, including [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], and [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], have similarly found so-called "clutch hitting" ability to be a myth. This is not to say that clutch hits, like those listed below, do not exist, but rather that any innate ability to perform well in high-pressure situations is an illusion. In his 1984 [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], James framed the problem with clutch hitting thusly: "How is it that a player who possesses the reflexes and the batting stroke and the knowledge and the experience to be a .260 hitter in other circumstances magically becomes a .300 hitter when the game is on the line? How does that happen? What is the process? What are the effects? Until we can answer those questions, I see little point in talking about clutch ability." Most studies on the matter involved comparing performance in the "clutch" category of statistics (production with runners in scoring position, performance late in close games, etc.) between seasons; if clutch hitting were an actual skill, it would follow that the same players would do well in the clutch statistics year in and year out (the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] between players' performances over multiple seasons would be high). Cramer's study was the first of its kind, and it found that clutch hitting numbers between seasons for the same player varied wildly; in fact, the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] was the kind one would expect if the numbers had been selected [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. Since Cramer published his results, many others have tried to find some evidence that clutch hitting is a skill, but almost every study has confirmed Cramer's initial findings: that "clutch hitting," in terms of certain players being able to "rise to the occasion" under pressure, is an illusion.
    The explanation offered by most skeptics is that players who have several memorable hits in big games, especially early in their careers, acquire the mantle of "clutch hitter," and fans then unconsciously watch for such hits in the future from those players in particular, falsely reinforcing their beliefs over time. Despite the evidence, many people in baseball steadfastly believe in the idea of the clutch hitter. [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] once told [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] after SI reported to the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] that many analysts deny clutch hitting as a skill, "You can take those stat guys and throw them out the window."
    In many cases, a simple review of statistics debunks the notion that certain players are "clutch" performers. Baseball's [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] has long been known as "Mr. October" because of his alleged ability to elevate his game in the post-season. A look at his post-season statistics is instructive. In 281 post-season at-bats, Jackson batted .278 with 18 homers and 48 RBIs. Extrapolated, that would mean 36 homers and 96 RBIs in a full season, which is approximately what we would expect from Jackson in a typical season. The numbers suggest that Reggie Jackson was not a "clutch" performer but a very solid player who performed about the same in the regular season and the post-season.
    Similarly, despite his reputation as a "money pitcher," [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] had a post-season E.R.A. of 3.80, almost exactly the same as his career 3.90 E.R.A. in the regular season. And Derek Jeter, supposedly a "clutch" hitter, has batted .314 in the post-season, almost the same as his career .317 average in the regular season.

    The concept of "clutch" is one of the clearest dividing lines between traditional coverage of baseball and what you'll find here at Baseball Prospectus. In the mainstream, performance in important situations is often attributed to some wealth or deficit of character that causes a particular outcome. Here, we're more likely to recognize that when the best baseball players in the world go head-to-head, someone has to win and someone has to lose, and it doesn't mean that one side has better people than the other.
    Clutch performances exist, to be sure; you can't watch a day of baseball without seeing a well-timed hit, a big defensive play or a key strikeout that pushes a team towards victory. The biggest moments in baseball history are almost all examples of players doing extraordinary things in extraordinary circumstances. Those moments make the game great and the players responsible for them deserve credit, and even adulation, for their heroics.
    In trying to get across the notion that no players possess a special ability to perform in particular situations, the usual line we use is that clutch performances exist, not clutch players. That's wrong. The correct idea is that clutch performances exist, and clutch players exist: every last one of them.
    All major-league players have a demonstrated ability to perform under pressure. They've proven that by rising to the top of an enormous pyramid of players, tens of thousands of them, all trying to be one of the top 0.1% that gets to call themselves "major leaguers." Within this group of elite, who have proven themselves to be the best in the world at their jobs, there is no discernable change in their abilities when runners are on base, or when the game is tied in extra innings, or when candy and costumes and pumpkins decorate the local GigaMart. The guys who are good enough to be in the majors are all capable of succeeding and failing in these situations, and they're as likely to do one or the other in the clutch as they are at any other time. Over the course of a game, a month, a season or a career, there is virtually no evidence that any player or group of players possesses an ability to outperform his established level of ability in clutch situations, however defined.

    I understand the thought that there is some "clutch" stat, but to this date it has proven immeasurable and entirely fluid, as your crony has pointed out:



    Originally Posted by MusketeerX
    Clutch is a very important statistic. The ability to hit a shot when the pressure on is an immeasurable stat, but very important.

    If it is "immeasurable" by definition it is not a stat.


    All the players you cite did something to prove themselves as standout players. They had moments. Again, there are moments that are clutch, and you could hit a shot in a very important situation in one particular instance.



    Eli escaping pressure and hitting Tyree. Some of Papi's hits (and Manny's) in 2004. The Drive by Elway. All of these are clutch situations no doubt. But however one defines clutch, over the long term and the long haul, all evidence points to any one player being about the same in "clutch" situations as he is in normal situations.

  9. #54
    Veteran Clyde & The Pearl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,463
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    With all that being said isnt clutch being able to do what you normally do in high pressure situations? I never said these guys STATS all of a sudden became astronomical. Just that they're able to perform when the pressure is on them. Other players for example are unable to perform under pressure. When the games on the line. Sports is littered with them.

    Oh, by the way, that Eli play was PURE LUCK. Not clutch...

  10. #55
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by Clyde & The Pearl
    With all that being said isnt clutch being able to do what you normally do in high pressure situations? I never said these guys STATS all of a sudden became astronomical. Just that they're able to perform when the pressure is on them. Other players for example are unable to perform under pressure. When the games on the line. Sports is littered with them.

    Oh, by the way, that Eli play was PURE LUCK. Not clutch...
    Again, almost every statistical analysis ever run has shown that any player, from ARod (considered not clutch) to Reggie Jackson (who got the name Mr. October for being clutch), has performed about as well as they did over the course of their career in "clutch" situations.

    Not much has been done with basketball, likely because of the nature of the game...but the current clutch statistics (the ones you cited to start) have guys like Kyle Korver and Kevin Martin above Kobe.

    I want the best player who can get the most open shot to get the final shot, most of the time that will be Carmelo. Carmelo isn't necessarily as "clutch" as he is "good". I want the best player to take the shot because the best player has the best chance of hitting it. If the best player cannot get an open shot I want the open guy to take the shot (see: Robert Horry, Steve Kerr), not because Horry or Kerr are clutch, but because they are/were very good set shooters, and wide open they are well equipped to hit the shot. It has nothing to do with clutch as much as skill, because, as I said, every analysis ever done has really shown that guys perform about as well as they always do in "clutch" situations.

  11. #56
    Fundamentally Sound ronoranina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by DontForgetDerekHarper
    again

    you responded to me

    before i responded to you

    you'll wasnt even emotional, nor did I tirade

    i said 3 lines

    i think you get the point and you questioned my heart on my sleeve
    the other threads I have originated were all based on points i noticed in dantonis coaching, it was analytical, point based, rational and technical with no emotional involvement what so ever. go back and read my other threads. My post sare never emotionally taught, they are all based on empirical evidence from statistics or trends, as well as assessment from games I have either sat front section for, or watched at home. The bottom line is i havent missed a knicks game since i was 8 years old, which would mean for 22 years I have seen every regular season plus playoff game. I recognize our talent level, as well as the fact we have 3 legitimate experienced winning talents, which only maybe 10-12 other teams in this league possess, and we are highly under achieving.

    my only sum of the equation i can come up with, is what i see on the floor; and in truth i base our production, like any one else who understands team sports on the ability of our coach to prepare that talent to win games against lower level opponents.

    shi;s chess not checkers

    and right now

    mike dantoni is in check.
    Yes, your analysis was fine in volume 1 of this DFDH "coach hunt" series.. I question your motivation and timing however. The fact you create these threads after losses says something. And that you're pushing so strongly for our coach to be fired when he's succeeding at fulfilling our one and only goal for this season also says something. IMO, the two of these factors point to one thing... irrational emotion/ hatred. That's all I was attempting to point out.

    Your feelings showed whether you wanted them to or not..

    You also made an excuse for your seeming raw emotion when I pulled your card by calling yourself a so-called "real" Knick fan. Remember that??
    Last edited by ronoranina; Mar 20, 2011 at 02:26.

  12. #57
    Fundamentally Sound ronoranina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Here you explain very well why you've decided to go "coach hunting" this past week:

    Originally Posted by DontForgetDerekHarper
    14 games
    it hasnt been 14 games

    its been 232 games of no defense what so ever.

    I dont wanna hear it

    its been longer than that since zeke, and lenny wilkens, and larry brown, and don nelson ?


    how long have you been a knicks fan, or been alive, or been aware, do you even live in new york, have you spent money on over 100 tickets in your life time, if you arent emotional and pissed after going 0-5 against sub 500 teams since the melo trade

    THEN YOU ARENT A REAL KNICKS FAN

    see its funny every one wants to compare us to the heat

    oh they had issues coming together

    no
    the heat BLEW OUT TERRIBLE TEAMS BECAUSE THEY UTILIZED THERE ABILITY TO OVER POWER WEAKER TEAMS


    we shrink at the moment of a weaker team its ridiculous and it falls with the preparedness of our coach to get our players ready to dominate smaller teams

    the heat couldnt win against top teir teams, but small fish , DOMINATe

    we Should kill the PACERS PISTONS AND CAVS

    yet we lose miserably to them.


    its just sad and if youre not emotional,

    please find another forum to post your ridiculous assinine nonsensical foolish remarks about "wearing hearts on sleeve"

    im a knick fan damn it.

    I have had orange and blue on my sleeve for 20 years and its not going any where

    if you have other ideas go root for the lakers or celtics.

    enough is enough
    Like I said your irrational emotions were there all along. They only rushed to the surface after my original response to you..

    It's okay to be passionate, but you've missed some important variables that contribute, along w MDA, to what we've seen on court of late. I've pointed many of them out in this thread already.
    Last edited by ronoranina; Mar 20, 2011 at 10:25.

  13. #58
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    county of the kings
    Posts
    1,120
    Rep Power
    9

    Nyk Logo

    Originally Posted by KBlack25
    You never ever lose the game on one play. We lost the game because we were sloppy with the ball on the offensive end.

    97% of our losses are because of what happens on the defensive end... get it

  14. #59
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by moneyg
    97% of our losses are because of what happens on the defensive end... get it
    Okay...even if you showed me any sort of analysis to show that is true, that doesn't mean that we lose the game on any one play. To say we lost any game on one play is shortsighted and ignores the basic fact that all plays in a game are inexorably linked to one another. To separate one out and say it is THE cause (even if it may be most important), in my opinion, is foolish.

  15. #60
    Superstar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    Originally Posted by KBlack25
    Okay...even if you showed me any sort of analysis to show that is true, that doesn't mean that we lose the game on any one play. To say we lost any game on one play is shortsighted and ignores the basic fact that all plays in a game are inexorably linked to one another. To separate one out and say it is THE cause (even if it may be most important), in my opinion, is foolish.
    It just comes down to whether or not you choke at the end of the game. Some people don't work well under pressure. Some do. The former are clutch. The latter are not.

Similar Threads

  1. Another DFDH must read....I rest my case : Fire This F---ing bum.
    By DontForgetDerekHarper in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: Jan 28, 2012, 09:46
  2. Christianity in 30 Seconds
    By KnicksFan4Realz in forum Hangout
    Replies: 425
    Last Post: Sep 19, 2008, 17:15
  3. New York Knicks@ Boston Celtics
    By D-Lee42fan in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: Dec 01, 2007, 23:59

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •