Is Clutch Hitting a myth?

[CrespoBlows]

I'm curious to hear what people say about this. I read an article by a writer for a Philly paper, and afterwards was convinced that clutch hitting was an illusion. Should be interesting to hear this debate.

[yeszir]

Regardless of what you say, I can find a newspaper article from Philly which scientifically PROVES clutch hitting exists:

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050506140903.htm

 

Oh those crazy Ivy Leaguers.

[Pinstripe_Pride]

Yes according to Moneyball, but no according to the heart and emotion that comes with late inning hits. My vote is yes it is a myth but I think that late hits carry more emotion. The emotion, however, shouldn't take away from everything else that happened in the previous 8 innings of the game. Let's say the third baseman makes a super catch to save 2 runs and potentielly more but because he made that out the inning was over and it enabled the team to be in the "clutch" situaiton. Meanwhile, that gets lost as being "clutch" in the shuffle, when without that play the clutch hit wouldn't have even been possible. There are so many things that go into winning a baseball game that I think it's unfair to point to a game winning hit as the most crucial play in a game. Good players, like Ortiz and Jeter and Rivera, are spectacular to begin with, so I don't really think it's necessary to label their greatness as something else when it shows in the 9th inning. But human emotions are powerful and people are going to get carried away by them and say "LIKE OMG ORTIZ IS SO CLUTCH AHH I WANT HIS BABIES" and there's really nothing wrong with that. Just my opinion.

[CrespoBlows]

Backing me up. Bill James, Pete Palmer, Dick Cramer, and Baseball Prospectus say the following.

 

From wikipedia.com

In his 1984 Baseball Abstract, 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 correlation coefficient 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 variance was the kind one would expect if the numbers had been selected randomly. 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. Despite the evidence, though, most people in baseball steadfastly believe in the idea of the clutch hitter.

[yeszir]

But if it doesn't exist, how can you explain the fact that 9/10 times in a so called "clutch" situation people would choose David Ortiz over Alex Rodriguez, both equally skilled players.

[Pinstripe_Pride]

But if it doesn't exist, how can you explain the fact that 9/10 times in a so called "clutch" situation people would choose David Ortiz over Alex Rodriguez, both equally skilled players.

You can't explain it, because it's a hypothetical baseless quesiton that has one other pretty big factor contributing to how well the batter does. I'll give you a hint, it starts with a p and ends in itcher.

[Youk Of The Nation]

You can't explain it, because it's a hypothetical baseless quesiton that has one other pretty big factor contributing to how well the batter does. I'll give you a hint, it starts with a p and ends in itcher.

 

 

Pants stitcher? (like a tailor)

[Pinstripe_Pride]

Pants stitcher? (like a tailor)

Ding ding ding we have a winner :thumbsup:

[Youk Of The Nation]

http://www.pigs4ever.com/PotBellyPigPictures/friends/hamlette2.jpg

 

 

Pig itcher?

[CrespoBlows]

But if it doesn't exist, how can you explain the fact that 9/10 times in a so called "clutch" situation people would choose David Ortiz over Alex Rodriguez, both equally skilled players.

 

I don't know.

 

Perhaps it is an opinion, and not a fact. Also, those 10 people probably believe clutch hitting exists.

 

What's more ironic to that question is that Alex Rodriguez is statistically just as good as David Ortiz is in the postseason, and was actually a tougher out than Ortiz was "in the clutch" last year.

 

In the Clutch 2005

 

Player AB H HR RBI Avg. OBP Slg.

 

Rodriguez 67 21 4 12 .313 .439 .567

 

Ortiz 68 21 7 25 .309 .407 .691

 

Guerrero 67 25 3 9 .373 .481 .552

 

While Ortiz delievered the big blow, the two players seem to hit near their batting averages overall.

 

Besides, if clutch hitting were actually a skill, wouldn't a player be able to consistently do it? I mean, would you be able to believe that the most "clutch" hitter in the game, (Ortiz) was hitting 2-14 with only two RBI's in late games this year?

[Pinstripe_Pride]

Nice post Crespo and I completely agree with that last sentence.

[He Hate Me]

It's not a myth. Just look at Ortiz.

 

If we want to get into scientific stuff. A while ago in SI or ESPN Mag I read about this doc who studied athletes based on six different aspects of their personality type (Extrovert/Introvert, etc.). I think the doc's name was Jon Niednagel, but I'm not sure. Anyway he typed the athletes by their personalities and explained why it seemed certain athletes performed better under pressure (I believed he used Tim Duncan as an example). I came away from that article convinced that certain people perform better under pressure than others (I mean really, don't we all already know this?). Why shouldn't people's physical abilities get affected based on the pressure that they feel or put on themselves?

 

On a non scientific note. I was seeing this girl for the first time and her boyfriend showed up with about 10 or 12 of his guys. All I knew was when I saw them, I wasn't really thinking straight. Some guys I know freak out during test time. A buddy of mine can nail 50 FTs in a row but during the only 2 organized games in his life, he choked on the FT. I can shoot 3's all day by myself, but when the game is on, I even brick wide open shots. Pressure affects people differently. I don't see why it can't affect your ability to hit a baseball.

 

Also look at pitching. Armando Benitez is a great non pressure guy to have on the mound, but look at what happens to him every single time he is in a big spot.

[CrespoBlows]

It's not a myth. Just look at Ortiz.

 

We did, I just showed you a finding that Ortiz is somewhat inconsistent when it comes to clutch situations. Want another one? Ortiz hit .093 against the Oakland A's in the 2003 ALDS.

 

Is it possible, that maybe a hitter as immensely talented as David Ortiz had one of the hottest streaks in baseball history during that '04 October series? Maybe he was lucky to be facing a burnt out Paul Quantrill and Tom Gordon. No one seems to bring up batter vs pitcher matchups. Against Mariano Rivera (2004 ALCS, all AB's were close and late), Ortiz did the following in order: struck out, struck out, popped out. In those AB's, Ortiz was overmatched, as none of those AB's lasted longer than four pitches.

 

If we want to get into scientific stuff. A while ago in SI or ESPN Mag I read about this doc who studied athletes based on six different aspects of their personality type (Extrovert/Introvert, etc.). I think the doc's name was Jon Niednagel, but I'm not sure. Anyway he typed the athletes by their personalities and explained why it seemed certain athletes performed better under pressure (I believed he used Tim Duncan as an example). I came away from that article convinced that certain people perform better under pressure than others (I mean really, don't we all already know this?). Why shouldn't people's physical abilities get affected based on the pressure that they feel or put on themselves?

 

This is kind of tied into the other quote below. (As you are using a case study)

 

On a non scientific note. I was seeing this girl for the first time and her boyfriend showed up with about 10 or 12 of his guys. All I knew was when I saw them, I wasn't really thinking straight. Some guys I know freak out during test time. A buddy of mine can nail 50 FTs in a row but during the only 2 organized games in his life, he choked on the FT. I can shoot 3's all day by myself, but when the game is on, I even brick wide open shots. Pressure affects people differently. I don't see why it can't affect your ability to hit a baseball.

 

Your example isn't a bad one (the basketball one), but it isn't relevant to what we are talking about. Show me one professional player that is a world beater in the regular season, but disappears in the postseason. Then, show me one player who has had a great postseason. Tell me, if that player has consistently done that.

 

Also look at pitching. Armando Benitez is a great non pressure guy to have on the mound, but look at what happens to him every single time he is in a big spot.

 

I'm sure you meant the same Armando Benitez whose postseason ERA is 3.56. Which, by the way, should be lower. Thanks to Jeff Maier.

[BSL63087]

I believe there is a such thing as clutch hitting. Some people for some reason are better under pressure than others. I think that has a lot to do with it, whether you fold under pressure or not.

[CrespoBlows]

I believe there is a such thing as clutch hitting. Some people for some reason are better under pressure than others. I think that has a lot to do with it, whether you fold under pressure or not.

 

True, but if you are to rate one as a clutch hitter, shouldn't he consistently be able to put up a .300 BA in clutch situations? To quote Bill James, "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?"

 

Is it because he's clutch? If so, why isn't the said player able to consistently able to come up in "clutch" situations. Why does the said player, hit .300 one year, then revert back to a mediocre .240, the next year?

 

Disecting Ortiz even more:

 

When we analyze play-by-play data, David Ortiz does rate as a clutch hitter overall, but most of the damage was limited to just two seasons, 2000 and 2005. Take those two years away, and his lifetime clutch rating is essentially zero. He didn't rate as a clutch hitter in 2004 -- at least not during the regular season -- or in 2002. It isn't a bad track record, but if clutch hitting really exists, one would expect more consistency out of the "greatest clutch hitter in the history of the Boston Red Sox."

 

Basically, the question is: If there is such a skill as clutch hitting, why does the skill disappear?

[CrespoBlows]

The seven who voted no all probably witnessed David Ortiz work his magic in the 2004 ALCS.

 

Now, stating that, did Ortiz' performance sway your vote in anyway?

[MC Hammer]

There are absolutely clutch hits. The body produces adrenaline in clutch/tight situations, and it depends how the player deals with that adrenaline. Some players use it to their advantage and get that clutch hit ... like Ortiz. Some players are brought to their knees by the adrenaline, and fail miserably in those situations ... like ARod.

[RedRuffing15]

A clutch hit is what people want to believe it to be. Carlos Guillen had the game winning hit vs the Yankees yesterday, clutch right? Sure, but he also had another RBI in that game, in the earlier innings, that, if not for, they wouldn't have won, is that clutch though? I feel as if their are some players who work great under pressure(Ortiz), and then there are some players who are consistent with the way they proform. The difference is, we all remember the 'clutch' hits, but we don't remember the consistent hits. If your down by 2 in the bottem of the ninth, and you win becuase a player hits a 3-run homer, that could be clutch, but it could also be clutch of the guys standing on the bases to get there, and score the runs. So, even though there are definatly players who I would want up to bat in the ending innings, I wouldn't say their a 'clutch hitter' untill their batting over .700 in that position, but they can still come up big, or....clutch.

[CrespoBlows]

There are absolutely clutch hits. The body produces adrenaline in clutch/tight situations, and it depends how the player deals with that adrenaline. Some players use it to their advantage and get that clutch hit ... like Ortiz. Some players are brought to their knees by the adrenaline, and fail miserably in those situations ... like ARod.

 

OK, same argument, but worded a bit differently. I do, see where you guys are coming from. But honestly, don't you think that there is a great deal of luck that comes with being a clutch hitter? If you can't hit a cutter all your life, you're suddenly going to be able to do so? That wasn't the case with Ortiz against Mariano Rivera. Hypothetically, let's say that it was Ortiz vs Rivera in the bottom of the 12th in game 4. Does Ortiz hit it out then? You got to admit facing Quantrill was a momumental factor in deciding that game.

 

Also, if clutch hitting is a skill, and I emphasize the word, skill, shouldn't the player be able to do it consistently? You guys are saying it's a skill, like power hitting is a skill. Power hitters consistently put up 30 HR's per year, why don't clutch hitters consistently hit .300 in clutch situations?

[rician blast]

There are absolutely clutch hits. The body produces adrenaline in clutch/tight situations, and it depends how the player deals with that adrenaline.

 

This is exactly what the measures of clutchness are attempting to quantify...what is the likelihood that a player will come through in an important and stressful situation?

 

I ask those who poo-poo measures of clutchness:

 

If you were a GM looking at 2 potential acquisitions and they were essentially the same player yet one had shown a propensity to come through in these spots....proven by statistical analysis....while the other has shown a propensity to fail, would you go with your gut? Or would you utilize the statistical evidence in making your selection?

 

If you say you'd ignore the empirical evidence and go on gut...then you'd be a fool.

[CrespoBlows]

If you were a GM looking at 2 potential acquisitions and they were essentially the same player yet one had shown a propensity to come through in these spots....proven by statistical analysis....while the other has shown a propensity to fail, would you go with your gut? Or would you utilize the statistical evidence in making your selection?

 

Sorry, but I missed seeing a consistent clutch performer? Could you bring one up? This is from Dick Cramer of baseballprospectus:

 

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 variance was the kind one would expect if the numbers had been selected randomly. 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.

 

So, I ask you, where is the evidence?

[CrespoBlows]

More stats to digest.

 

RISP

 

Alex Rodriguez: .333/.481./.650/1.131

 

David Ortiz: .290/.421/.532/.953

 

Late Innings

 

Rodriguez: .150/.260/.200/.460

 

Ortiz: .143/.200/.428/.628

 

Why is it that the most clutch hitter in the game, would only hit .143 in late innings? Why would the "anti-clutch" hit over .330 with RISP? Why the inconsistencies?

 

It's because clutch hitting is not a skill. If it were a skill, then players would consistently be able to hit over the heads in the clutch. Clearly, that's not the case. The better hitter you are, the more apt you are to get the coveted "clutch" tag placed on you. If some players can rise to the occasion, where are the career .240 hitters rising to the clutch? Why is it they have the talent to hit .240 in the regular season, but somehow can hit .300 in a postseason? That doesn't make sense.

[rician blast]

Sorry, but I missed seeing a consistent clutch performer? Could you bring one up? This is from Dick Cramer of baseballprospectus:

 

 

 

So, I ask you, where is the evidence?

 

Interesting approach, Crespo.

 

Take my comments which say a GM should utilize the statistical data AVAILABLE TO HIM and ask ME to come up with that data?

 

I do not work for an MLB team...I do not maintain statistical baseball data...that is the job of some pretty well-compensated individuals employed by baseball's organizations. So to attempt to dismiss the notion that clutch performers exist by saying I PERSONALLY did not post the statistical data that OTHERS UTILIZE is weak. Drill me all you want for not researching and posting THEIR data here if you want...but you'll have to do better than that.

 

I agree that over time clutch measurements tend to level out for most players and MOST guys are what they are....but I'm pretty sure that MLB teams DO look at performance in clutch situations and utilize that data in making personnel decisions.

 

Past performance IS a predictor of future performance.

[CrespoBlows]

No, you couldn't bring one up, because there isn't one.

 

Numerous studies have been shown that one who has a fantastic year in clutch situations, is wildly inconsistent the next year.

 

Basically, what I'm trying to drill across is this.

 

If clutch hitting were a skill, wouldn't the player who possessed the skill of clutch hitting, be able to consistently come through in clutch situations? I'm not even talking about hitting .700. I'm talking about hitting, .300.

 

Why is it that David Ortiz, is an anti-clutch in the years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, yet becomes a world beater in 2004, and 2005, then reverts back to sub-mediocrity, in 2006.?

[Manny Goes Boom]

Those last numbers are good...and I'm not even going to compare, but I heard on a telecast (and cold pizza) of I think it was Sox/Yanks where they said A-rod's numbers with runners on base (which was like .150) and with the bases clear (which was like .308) for this year. Just thought I'd point that out.

[Papelbon58]

Ortiz, the best clutch hitter in the game today has stats to prove it:

 

554 RBIs with runners on and a .290 AVG

.273 AVG, 179 RBIs RISP w/ 2outs

21 HRs on 3-2 count

 

When opposing fans stomachs sink when he comes to the plate in the 9th, that is tangible. Clutch hitting exists.

Ortiz is clutch, A-Rod is not. Period.

[rician blast]

No, you couldn't bring one up, because there isn't one.

 

 

incorrect statement.

 

Its not that I COULD NOT bring one up, it is that I did not attempt and will not attempt to do what others are paid to do for a living.

 

Bottom line here....if you think stats such as avg. with RISP, RBI's late and close, etc. are NOT USED by baseball's front offices you are grossly mistaken.

 

Let me be clear....I am not saying that a I know, statistically, who baseball's management teams consider clutch or not clutch based on statistical measurement. What I am telling you is that while you don't believe there is any value in such measures as RISP, late and close, etc. the front offices who hire the stat geeks to track such statistics DO USE THESE STATS...they believe, to varying extents, in these stats, so I guess what you and I believe doesn't really matter.

[CrespoBlows]

incorrect statement.

 

Its not that I COULD NOT bring one up, it is that I did not attempt and will not attempt to do what others are paid to do for a living.

 

Bottom line here....if you think stats such as avg. with RISP, RBI's late and close, etc. are NOT USED by baseball's front offices you are grossly mistaken.

 

Let me be clear....I am not saying that a I know, statistically, who baseball's management teams consider clutch or not clutch based on statistical measurement. What I am telling you is that while you don't believe there is any value in such measures as RISP, late and close, etc. the front offices who hire the stat geeks to track such statistics DO USE THESE STATS...they believe, to varying extents, in these stats, so I guess what you and I believe doesn't really matter.

 

You're missing the point entirely. Re-read my statements. Re-read the passages I've quoted. Then make an argument.

[CrespoBlows]

Interesting approach, Crespo.

 

Take my comments which say a GM should utilize the statistical data AVAILABLE TO HIM and ask ME to come up with that data?

 

I do not work for an MLB team...I do not maintain statistical baseball data...that is the job of some pretty well-compensated individuals employed by baseball's organizations. So to attempt to dismiss the notion that clutch performers exist by saying I PERSONALLY did not post the statistical data that OTHERS UTILIZE is weak. Drill me all you want for not researching and posting THEIR data here if you want...but you'll have to do better than that.

 

I agree that over time clutch measurements tend to level out for most players and MOST guys are what they are....but I'm pretty sure that MLB teams DO look at performance in clutch situations and utilize that data in making personnel decisions.

 

Past performance IS a predictor of future performance.

 

You haven't used one fact or stat to back up what your saying. Basically, you're just ranting about my preference for sabermetrics.

 

You're last statement, is the one I want to focus on. If David Ortiz, hits .235, and .251 in his first two years in the playoffs, how exactly is that a predictior for his 2004 postseason? Why does it vary so much? Why is it one year that Oritz is the toughest out in the lineup, then is merely below-average in a previous series? Why does that skill disappear? Shouldn't he consistently hit in the clutch?

[Cityofchampions33]

Yeah, I think clutch-hitting is legit, but though skill has something to do with it, but also mental ability does as well. If you have the determination to pull off something that big, then it most likely will happen. I think Ortiz just has the perfect mindset when he gets up to the plate in a close situation.