What will be the 2017 greatest weakness for the Sox?

[Kimmi]

A lot, yes. A preponderance? That would need to be proven for me to believe it.

 

The same pitcher can show up one day and get lit and show up the next day and mow the opposition down. Does the fact that we don't know which pitcher we'll get in any given start mean the results are random? Hardly. What it actually comes down to is a multiplicity of tiny factors we can't know or account for. Being intellectually lazy and unable to dig further, we dismiss that as "randomness" but it really really isn't.

 

The fact that we need large sample sizes to sort out the noise is exactly because what happens on the baseball field is NOT random, and it takes the X factors a large group of responses to even out and give a real statistical perception of a person's average skill level. If the distribution were "random" we might expect true data in a much smaller dataset.

 

Is it possible that Schilling had a personal X factor that made him far more likely to perform at a high level in a playoff situation? Yes, because we can't know or document all possible x factors affecting a ballplayer we HAVE to concede that possibility.

 

And once you concede that possibility you CANNOT pretend that clutch is impossible, that there aren't x factors that may exist and impact a player in a way to make them more likely to be effective (or on the other side of the same coin, less likely to fail) in critical situations. And of course the counterpoint is also true, and x factors make a player less likely to succeed in those same situations.

 

Baseball is driven by variables, many of which we still haven't identified. That's why the game is still entertaining after all these years. It's lazy to shorthand that into "driven by randomness" because the randomness isn't truly random. All factors of talent and skill are weighted by attitude and psychology and that will create individual variations in either direction in key situations. Ergo, clutch IS a thing, at least potentially.

 

In fact before I doubted the existence of "clutch" I'd seriously doubt the existence of "random" as the concept of truly random numbers is still a source of serious debate in mathematical circles and has been for a very long time now.

 

Yes, there is a lot of randomness in baseball. I never said a preponderance, but more than I think you realize. I also never said that clutch is impossible.

 

Beyond that, I pretty much disagree with this entire post.

 

The research that the sabermetric community does is about as far from intellectually lazy as you can get. Trust me when I say that they are still digging further into the idea of clutch. What is intellectually lazy is accepting something is so just because it's conventional wisdom or because it seems like it's true. The stat heads are now proving that many traditional beliefs about baseball are wrong, and it's hard to accept.

[a700hitter]

But those players are the toughest outs or the pitchers who never give in in non pressure situations as well.

 

These players perform well in the clutch because they are simply good players.

You can say it as much as you want and point to whatever statistical studies you can find, but I will give more credence to the players and coaches in the clubhouses.

[notin]

You can say it as much as you want and point to whatever statistical studies you can find, but I will give more credence to the players and coaches in the clubhouses.

 

You mean the players and coaches that you never talk to and who only speak to the media in cliches?

[a700hitter]

You mean the players and coaches that you never talk to and who only speak to the media in cliches?

You don't know who I talk to.

[S5Dewey]

This whole discussion seems to come down into two camps. Those who have actually played on winning teams and know the personalities involved in winning and those who haven't played on winning teams so they rely on statistics as an answer to everything .

 

The fact that "clutch" can't be proven statistically doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I personally know of no one who's played on a winning team who wouldn't recognize that some people are more clutch than others.

[User Name]

I've talked to players who have been on consistent winners (though not at the mlb level, but rather winter league levels, with some having cups of coffee in the majors) who believe clutch is not a repeatable skill (because it's not) but that some guys let the pressure get to them and shrink. Your statement is incorrect on so many levels.

[a700hitter]

I've talked to players who have been on consistent winners (though not at the mlb level, but rather winter league levels, with some having cups of coffee in the majors) who believe clutch is not a repeatable skill (because it's not) but that some guys let the pressure get to them and shrink. Your statement is incorrect on so many levels.

I think we just differing on semantics. I agree that clutch is the opposite of choking. Guys definitely choke. Choking happens at the big league level.

 

Choking is a well known part of Golf. In Golf everyone chokes. The guy who chokes the least and last wins. It was also acknowledged that Jack Nicklaus never choked. He was clutch.

Edited February 6, 2017 by a700hitter

[Spudboy]

You mean the players and coaches that you never talk to and who only speak to the media in cliches?

 

Lawd. This won't end well for you dude.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Spudboy

[Spudboy]

This whole discussion seems to come down into two camps. Those who have actually played on winning teams and know the personalities involved in winning and those who haven't played on winning teams so they rely on statistics as an answer to everything .

 

The fact that "clutch" can't be proven statistically doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I personally know of no one who's played on a winning team who wouldn't recognize that some people are more clutch than others.

 

That sentence is one giant nuggie in the muffbone.

[a700hitter]

lawd. This won't end well you dude.

lol!

[cp176]

You can say it as much as you want and point to whatever statistical studies you can find, but I will give more credence to the players and coaches in the clubhouses.

 

You are correct. There is room for inclusion here though. it really doesn't have to be like we are dealing with two specifically different groups. Most players and coaches accept and respect the good work that the people collecting all of the data do. It doesn't have to be an either or debate. I have worked with a few athletes who have gone on to compete as professionals. As young adults, I found that they did not morph into something that they weren't. they still felt the same pressures and general feelings that they felt as athletes in high school. The stage was just a little bigger and the competition a little better. On a personal level, I'm so happy that I got to spend my time on the field, court, and dugout as opposed to being the one compiling the data. whatever floats your boat I say - room for both. All of my teams over the years tended to play better at home for the most part too.

[Bellhorn04]

Conclusive proof may not be possible, but there is certainly strong evidence against clutch.

 

If the performances were completely random, you'd expect more or less the same results that we have from the actual performances.

 

That's one thing. The other is that postseason sample sizes are too small.

 

The combination of the two means that trying to prove or disprove clutch is an exercise in futility.

 

We do have wide variances in postseason numbers. You say randomness is the only explanation. I think there may be others.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Bellhorn04

[Bellhorn04]

I think we just differing on semantics. I agree that clutch is the opposite of choking. Guys definitely choke. Choking happens at the big league level.

 

Choking is a well known part of Golf. In Golf everyone chokes. The guy who chokes the least and last wins. It was also acknowledged that Jack Nicklaus never choked. He was clutch.

 

Exactly, I'm glad someone other than me brought golf into it. Johnny Miller, NBC's golf commentator, talks about choking all the time. And he's pretty qualified to talk about it, considering that he won 25 PGA tournaments, including the US Open and British Open, and is in his sport's Hall of Fame.

[Bellhorn04]

But those players are the toughest outs or the pitchers who never give in in non pressure situations as well.

 

These players perform well in the clutch because they are simply good players.

 

But that doesn't explain why Schilling's postseason numbers are so much better than David Price's. They're both very good pitchers. So why the big difference? Now you have to drop the 'good players' argument and pull out the 'randomness' and 'small sample sizes'.

[Bellhorn04]

Are you trying to say the 1.4 rpg is a result solely of batting average? And not the 40 more home runs the Sox hit or the higher team slugging and team walks? We are talking about batting average ranges here...

 

You're the one who based your argument about small differences on batting averages.

[Bellhorn04]

Just so you know, when you move the baseline like this, you're ignoring that hitters make outs, which is the overwhelming majority of their at-bats and the entire point....

 

I fully get that. I still say the guy with 28 hits is 16.7% more productive than the guy with 24 hits, not 4%.

[Dojji]

That's still a small enough spread that factors that you'd think might be too small to matter are going to have an influence.

[Spudboy]

lol!

 

I left out a word and have now fixed it.

[notin]

I fully get that. I still say the guy with 28 hits is 16.7% more productive than the guy with 24 hits, not 4%.

 

Even if the guy with 28 hits takes 200ABs to get them while the guy with 24 only needs 100?

 

A batting average already is a percentage in decimal form. All you're trying to do is modify the percentage difference from another percentage.

 

If one Player A hit .280 and another hit .240, do you argue Player A was 40 points better? Or not?

[Bellhorn04]

Even if the guy with 28 hits takes 200ABs to get them while the guy with 24 only needs 100?

 

A batting average already is a percentage in decimal form. All you're trying to do is modify the percentage difference from another percentage.

 

If one Player A hit .280 and another hit .240, do you argue Player A was 40 points better? Or not?

 

Player A was definitely 40 points better. I'm just saying he was also 16.7% better.

 

The real point is that there's a big difference between a career .280 hitter and a career .240 hitter, in terms of their skill levels (forgetting about OBP and SLG).

 

To expand the point, compare a .300 hitter to a .220 hitter. The difference in skill level is so large that Player A can be a perennial all-star making huge money and Player B might be a backup catcher for a few years or some other form of obscurity.

[Bellhorn04]

I have no idea why we're talking about batting averages here anyway. With on-base pct. and SLG you get much wider and more meaningful ranges.

 

Then when you look at the pitching end you have large ranges in ERA.

 

The differences between elite players and barely adequate major leaguers are not small at all, it's just a matter of what numbers you're using, right?

[jad]

Since most of us can relate to the "choking at golf" reference, is there anyone here who claims that in golf, their best performance (longest drives, best putts) is consistently when there is the most pressure? That when the chips are down (who knows what that might be?), THAT'S when their drives are suddenly 25-50 yards farther and right in the middle of the fairway, and all those 8ft putts, which they ordinarily miss, are in the hole? (I can't speak to this, since the only shots I even remember are the good ones.)

[Bellhorn04]

Since most of us can relate to the "choking at golf" reference, is there anyone here who claims that in golf, their best performance (longest drives, best putts) is consistently when there is the most pressure? That when the chips are down (who knows what that might be?), THAT'S when their drives are suddenly 25-50 yards farther and right in the middle of the fairway, and all those 8ft putts, which they ordinarily miss, are in the hole? (I can't speak to this, since the only shots I even remember are the good ones.)

 

The most pressure I've ever experienced has been playing in a club championship where my goal was not to embarrass myself, or playing in a tournament with my buddies where there was a hundred bucks or so on the line for me. In other words, no real experience.

[Kimmi]

This whole discussion seems to come down into two camps. Those who have actually played on winning teams and know the personalities involved in winning and those who haven't played on winning teams so they rely on statistics as an answer to everything .

 

The fact that "clutch" can't be proven statistically doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I personally know of no one who's played on a winning team who wouldn't recognize that some people are more clutch than others.

 

Why do you assume that people who believe in stats have not played on championship teams?

 

Your statement is very insulting.

[Kimmi]

But that doesn't explain why Schilling's postseason numbers are so much better than David Price's. They're both very good pitchers. So why the big difference? Now you have to drop the 'good players' argument and pull out the 'randomness' and 'small sample sizes'.

 

Frankly, that's what it is Bell. It's not the popular explanation, but it's the correct one.

 

And no, it's not a explanation that stat people resort to when all else fails. It just is.

[Kimmi]

You can say it as much as you want and point to whatever statistical studies you can find, but I will give more credence to the players and coaches in the clubhouses.

 

Of course players think that they or others are clutch. As Sheehan pointed out, it makes for a much nicer story than thinking that a player just got lucky.

 

But let me be clear. It's not all luck. There is skill involved, but not skill at a level above what the player has had all season long.

[Kimmi]

Players also believe that good teams know how to win the 1 run games.

 

Ha!

[a700hitter]

Of course players think that they or others are clutch. As Sheehan pointed out, it makes for a much nicer story than thinking that a player just got lucky.

 

But let me be clear. It's not all luck. There is skill involved, but not skill at a level above what the player has had all season long.

It has nothing to do with a "nicer story". It has to do with the mental aspect of the game. Some players are tougher mentally than others, and that doesn't always correlate to talent levels.

[User Name]

A-Rod is a prime example of a guy who let the pressure steamroll him over, while Gary Sheffield was the exact opposite.

[Bellhorn04]

Frankly, that's what it is Bell. It's not the popular explanation, but it's the correct one.

 

And no, it's not a explanation that stat people resort to when all else fails. It just is.

 

What I mean is, if a guy like Ortiz has good numbers in big moments, you say 'well that's because he's simply a good player.'

 

If a guy like David Price has bad numbers in big moments, you say 'well that's randomness and small sample size.'