-17 with outlaw at PF

I have no idea how they define crunch time - and what it tells us about when Roy is inserted into the game - what I do notice however is that Travis's win% in crunch time last year was 51.5% and Roy's is 52.6% - could care less about the +/- stats as they can be skewed by blow-outs or big losses - Travis is very close to Roy in win percent at what they define as crunch time - slightly better than Aldridge, Joel, Jack and a lot better than Webster and Frye.

As for assists - thank god Travis is not dominating the ball and trying to assist people in crunch time - this is not his job, it was Roy's, Blake's or Jack's role in clutch time last year. His job is to put the ball in the hole when all other options fail - and you can see that he was pretty decent at doing that.

I am really finding it amusing that people attack Travis for his assists - this is not what makes him effective. I do not want to see Roy concentrating on blocks, I do not need to see Blake mastering the turn-around jumper, I could care less about Sergio dunking, Rudy backing people in the post or Greg hoisting 3s and I would be really upset if Travis got it into his head that his job on the court is to try and create assists for others. This team is successful when people know their roles, concentrate on them and perform them as needed. Travis needs to play decent defense, try to help on the boards and put the ball in the hole - especially when a play fails and he needs to create for himself and take a crazy shot.

He performs these tasks very well, he is not a prima-donna causing locker-room mayhem, he is not paid like a max-player to do that restricting the team's cap-space - so what's not to love?

Travis is an important cog in a successful machine - he does an ugly job that puts him in an easy to criticize position (take the ugly shots when a play breaks down and we need someone to bail us out) and he is pretty successful doing it. Learn to appreciate him for what he is.

Again - you can try to reconstruct his performance as you wish - but the stat-sheet shows that they won more than lost when he was in the game and the team won an awful lot of close games with Travis usually on the floor...

Just for the record - Travis's win% in crunch time for this year is 66% - and it is even higher than Roy's 63%

 

right... because lots of posters here don't watch the games and only look at stats

STOMP

 

No - they can't. Blowouts are not included in the numbers.

If you had bothered to look at the links, you would have seen the definition of "Clutch Statistics" (not "crunch time").

These numbers show that Travis was not very "Clutch" last season.

Was he part of a team effort that won their share of close games? Yes.

Was Travis a good scorer in close game situations? Yes.

Did Travis do other things like rebound, pass and defend to help seal victories? No.

Was he the driving force of winning those close games more often than losing them? No.

 

I looked at the link and I now notice the definition, I also noticed some more data - so for the year, he is -19 points in 35 games (that they included for his clutch performance) - so he lost you about 0.5 point per game in clutch - but was still a part of these 35 games where we won more than we lost - in other words - this -19 is an insignificant statistic that means nothing. Since their definition is the game is at 5 points margin - 9 games of 5 points losses vs. 26 wins of 1 point losses would also give him the same range of +/- stat but he would be a part of a much higher clutch win.

In other words - given the sample size (35 games), the positive winning ratio and the size of the accumulative +/- stat (it sure looks worse for Travis if we put it at -19 for the year instead of -0.5 per game) - I stand by my previous conclusion. This is an unimportant stat that does nothing but take a number out of context.

It is even more absurd when you look at the same performance this year and see that he has 66% win clutch statistics and is +12 in accumulative +/- (or +1 per game).

Now - you can tell me that he did not rebound well - and I agree. I find it hard to tell how you can tell from these stats what his defensive contributions were or that he did not pass - he might have not done the assists - but if you notice Portland's game plan - they usually have Roy penetrating and passing for an assist if he does not score - or passing out and having the ball passed around the perimeter for an open-3 - you can still be a part of the passing game even if you do not get the assist...