5 of his 30 playoff games, or 16%, were in 2006. I don't put much stock in just his 2006 performance either. But 30 playoff games is a decent sample size when you look at how consistent his PER has been during every year he's been in the playoffs: 2006: 5 games/ 11.3 PER 2009: 14 games/13.0 PER 2010: 11 games/12.1 PER He hasn't just had a bad series or two which drag down his numbers. He's been consistently bad over three different seasons. I might agree with you if I hadn't seen everybody but Roy implode in the Rockets series last year. We need to add role players like Horry or Fisher--guys who provide consistent performance in regular season and the playoffs. I don't like the idea of a guy who allows our team to play one way through the regular season, and then forces us to play differently in the playoffs. Every game is too critical to be forcing your team to adjust on the fly at that point. I mean, you have to adjust, obviously. But why add a guy you know is going to require you to change how your bench works? I'd agree if I thought he'd be a long-term fixture on Portland's bench. For example, I really don't care that much if Andre Miller makes $7 mil or $10 mil/year, because we probably aren't going to trade him. But if we added Mo Williams, within a year he'll be considered overpaid and impossible to unload without taking back an equally bad contract. Derek Anderson 2.0. If we are giving up decent trade assets (JPEC) for someone we will likely need to trade again, I want that guy to also be a decent trade asset.
One thing I would point out. Cleveland as a whole has been a failure in the playoffs the past 2 seasons, and I don't pin it all on Mo Williams. Has he not played great? Yep. But the same can be said of the rest of the team. When a team as a whole is not playing well, it effects everbody.
I reject that people are either good or bad in the postseason. They are either good or bad, period. The team would be better having Mo Williams coming off the bench than they would be with anyone else on their current roster doing so, and that's what I care about. He's 27. Why would he suddenly be overpaid a year from now? His contract actually goes DOWN a bit over time, actually, so unless there's some reason he regresses when he should be in his prime, he will be a better value over time than he is now. Ed O.
Some guys clearly aren't good post-season players. They wilt under the pressure of the packed arena, the hype, the competition. They do fine during the regular routine of an 82 game season, but when the spotlight comes to bear, they get distracted and can't perform like they normally do. The guys who don't wilt are mis-labeled as clutch, as though they drastically elevate their games for the playoffs. They don't. They just don't let the distractions bother them. Funny enough, I was just thinking about this yesterday while teaching my 4-year-old to ride a bike. He was doing fantastic for 30 minutes, and then he fell over when an oncoming cyclist distracted him. After that he rode at half the speed he was going at before, and was scared every time somebody peddled by. He eventually got his confidence back, but even then you could see he was different when there was traffic around. He just started thinking too much. Obviously, a pro basketball player is different from a 4 year old learning to bike. But human nature is human nature.
Mo williams twitter @mogotti2: Pls don't trade me, I'm not ready to go. I'm begging. My work ain't done yet. I'm on both knees....pls. I'm serious Wow
Yeah, I don't pin it all on Mo Williams either. Sorry if that's how I came across. But he did log the most minutes on the team during those playoffs (after LeBron), and he was the starting point guard. Was the team dysfunctional and so he sucked, or was the team dysfunctional because he sucked? Some of both, I guess.
Not necessarily. There's such a thing as a "picked population." A population made up entirely of people who have a certain characteristic due to the selection criteria. The players who make it to the NBA are players who have experienced and dealt with pressure throughout their careers. It's such a demanding task to get a spot in the NBA, being prone to struggling when under pressure is likely to wash you out prior to reaching the NBA. So while I agree that in the general population a large percentage see their performance degrade under pressure, I'm not sure it's a significant issue in the NBA (or MLB, NFL). It's a group of people picked (in part) for their ability to handle pressure.
I don't see Cleveland trading Mo until they figure out LeBron's status. If LeBron stays they will keep Mo, but if LBJ leaves the Cavs would consider offers for a salary dump and young talent, such as Pryz and Rudy. So if we don’t get some miracle CP3 trade I’m now hoping LeBron leaves town Easier said than done, I mean how do you add an all-star type player? Is there an easy button you can push? I’d say dynasty’s have two hall of fame studs. So instead of worrying about piddly all-stars why don’t the Blazers simply add two hall of fame players so we have an instant dynasty? Duh it’s so simple…. Well seriously I’d love a big consolidation trade that brings in a bona-fide all-star if one is available, but I think it’s unlikely. I do believe Oden was a better player than Roy for the first 21 games this season, so if his injuries improve we would add that second All-star without any moves. At the end of the day when evaluating any trade I break it down to this; “does this move make the team better in the long run?” I believe adding Mo definitely would so I’d be all for it. Yes adding a superior player would be even more beneficial but if it’s not an option you have to choose the most beneficial move you can make from the options available.
I think that's why I like the trade I mention in the Collison thread. It's tough to acquire an All-Star after they become one. But Collison isn't there yet. A consolidation trade for a guy with All-Star upside is just more do-able.
Then where does "clutch play" come from? I know from past posts you don't think players miraculously add talent when the pressure of a tight game is on. I've always felt clutch players are ones who just handle pressure better than other players. There are lots of key ingredients that go into making an NBA player. Athleticism, size, shooting accuracy, speed, dexterity....and ability to handle massive amounts of pressure. You can have elite levels of several of those things and make it into the NBA without having all of them. Shaq shoots .527 on free-throws during the regular season over his career, and .505 during the playoffs.
Well, I'm not Minstrel, but I think clutch is a matter of perception, rather than reality. Horry and Fisher have succeeded in the playoffs, but a random distribution of player performances would lead to some players succeeding beyond their abilities and some underperforming. Sample sizes--even in a career's worth of playoff appearances--aren't enough to smooth out those variances entirely. Ed O.
My personal belief is that "clutch players" don't exist, they're more a matter of narrative. It's rarely enough for fans and sports writers to say "So and so played really well this playoffs" or "So and so played quite poorly this playoffs." With the heightened importance of playoffs, emotions run higher and those who do well, people want to single out for greater praise and those who do poorly people want to single out for greater scorn. The idea of being "clutch" allows for moral judgment on the players--players who do well are displaying a certain nobility of character, while those who didn't do well are showing an ugly weakness to theirs. It's possible that "clutch players" exist. I've never seen good studies on it basketball. In baseball, I've seen a number of studies on player performance in situations that are considered "clutch time": stretch runs, playoffs / runners in scoring position / close and late. And the conclusions are generally that players tend to show no real gains or losses. Derek Jeter, the current crown prince of clutch in baseball, show very little difference in his numbers between all those situations. Alex Rodriguez, at least at one time the prince of "unclutch" also didn't show much difference in his stats between the different situations. The difference is that people especially remember Jeter's heroics and especially remembered Rodriguez's failures. "Mr. Clutch" Reggie Jackson had a number of stinker post-seasons...but it's his heroics in the post-season that are remembered. Maybe basketball players are different...I'm not saying it's impossible that there may be real differences between NBA players in pressure situations. But without compelling evidence, I tend to think there isn't. Neither of us believes in the ability to "magically elevate" one's game and I think that NBA players are a collection of the ones who have already shown they can handle pressure, so the difference between them are negligible. Just as the collection of NASA rocket scientists are a population of people who have already shown they're great at math...so it's unlikely that the differences between the best and worst of them, in terms of math ability, is significant. And you're right that there are a number of selection criteria that go into reaching the NBA and you don't have to be at the very highest level in all of them. But folding under pressure impacts your entire performance. If you couldn't handle the pressure knowing a scholarship was on the line or knowing that exposure in the NCAA tournament or a draft position was on the line...your entire performance, and numbers, would fall. So it seems to me that a player who isn't good at dealing with pressure would be an extreme long-shot to reach the very highest level.
Mo Williams isn't much of an upgrade to Miller and certainly isn't worth trading anyone decent for. If Mo came over in a deal that only had Martell, Rudy, Bayless, Donte and Pendergraph then I would be all for it. Anything else would mean that Portland got ripped off.
I don't consider Williams an upgrade on Miller at all. I think he's a worse player. He may be a slightly better fit, but even that I consider only arguable after seeing Roy and Miller acclimate over time. I think Williams is currently better than Bayless, but I wouldn't deal Bayless for him...I think they're similar types of players, Williams is only a little ahead of him and Bayless is much younger. If Portland could get Williams for players like Webster or Rudy (and/or Pendergraph/Cunningham), I'd pull the trigger.
