What will be the 2017 greatest weakness for the Sox?

[moonslav59]

He seemed to be pretty clutch during that season as well as during the regular season in subsequent years.

 

He was 8 for 29 with the Twins in the playoffs with 0 HRs before 2003 with the Sox.

 

Yes, he had 2 HRs and 6 RBI vs the Yanks in 2003 but was 2 for 21 vs Oakland the series beforehand.

[mvp 78]

He was 8 for 29 with the Twins in the playoffs with 0 HRs before 2003 with the Sox.

 

Yes, he had 2 HRs and 6 RBI vs the Yanks in 2003 but was 2 for 21 vs Oakland the series beforehand.

 

Ok?

[sk7326]

What if the Sox never made the playoffs after 2003?

 

Would Papi and his 17 for 76 record at that point be enough to call him "unclutch"?

 

It would have changed the narrative. Would he have gotten better? Who knows? But he became a great hitter - and with the Red Sox being so successful, a number of those moments found him.

[a700hitter]

What if the Sox never made the playoffs after 2003?

 

Would Papi and his 17 for 76 record at that point be enough to call him "unclutch"?

It would not be enough to make an argument for being clutch.

[moonslav59]

My point is that some posters are labeling players clutch or unclutch on sample sizes close to what Papi's was before 2004. Had circumstances been different, some one might consider Papi "unclutch" or neutral clutch had he not had many more opportunities after 2003.

 

I don't think Papi developed into a clutch hitter after 2003. Papi was always Papi, but the scattered sample size taken before 2004 did not reflect who Papi really was. Assigning a label to a player based on small sample sizes makes no sense to me.

 

I'm not negating the fact that players have had great playoffs or poor playoffs. Both have meaning, especially when it helped us win or lose, but it should not define who the player is or was.

[a700hitter]

My point is that some posters are labeling players clutch or unclutch on sample sizes close to what Papi's was before 2004. Had circumstances been different, some one might consider Papi "unclutch" or neutral clutch had he not had many more opportunities after 2003.

 

I don't think Papi developed into a clutch hitter after 2003. Papi was always Papi, but the scattered sample size taken before 2004 did not reflect who Papi really was. Assigning a label to a player based on small sample sizes makes no sense to me.

 

I'm not negating the fact that players have had great playoffs or poor playoffs. Both have meaning, especially when it helped us win or lose, but it should not define who the player is or was.

I got what you were saying. My response is that this (clutch v. non-clutch) is not an exact science. Let's try not to make so, because it isn't.

[cp176]

When I meant unclutch - I note that he was the league's best player. I would have wanted him up at every hour of the day - not just the big moments. That is my issue with the clutch player definition - it does not deny psychology. It does not deny the reality of players coming up big. It's just that in almost every case - those identified also happened to be the best players in the sport. They weren't hulking up - they were that way the entire time. The moment found them.

 

I knew exactly the point you were trying to make and for you and others (probably most) it certainly is a good point. The beauty of a discussion like this is that we are talking about something that would be pretty hard to prove even exists. That is what makes it so real for me. It is kind of like who I would rather have playing center for me - Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain. In every measurable statistic, Chamberlain would come out on top but I would take Russell everyday and all day. I believe that the moments did not necessarily find Yaz in 67. He created his fair share not only with his bat but his glove and arm as well.

[moonslav59]

I got what you were saying. My response is that this (clutch v. non-clutch) is not an exact science. Let's try not to make so, because it isn't.

 

I'll go one step further and say it is not a science at all.

 

1) It's nonexistent.

2) Even if it existed, the sample sizes can enver be large enought to determine anything definitively.

[a700hitter]

I'll go one step further and say it is not a science at all.

 

1) It's nonexistent.

2) Even if it existed, the sample sizes can enver be large enought to determine anything definitively.

I disagree.

[Bellhorn04]

I'll go one step further and say it is not a science at all.

 

1) It's nonexistent.

2) Even if it existed, the sample sizes can enver be large enought to determine anything definitively.

 

Your two statements are pretty contradictory. Why not just say it can't be either proven or disproven.

[Kimmi]

There isn't necessarily a 'purpose' in labeling guys like Ortiz and Henderson and Schilling as clutch. It's just a way of giving them some extra credit for their achievements in big moments. I don't see the purpose in denying them that simply because the sample sizes can never be large enough to satisfy some arbitrary standard.

 

By saying someone is clutch, you are in a sense taking some credit away from that player by implying that they are doing something otherworldly in limited big moments. The truth is that the so called clutch player is doing something 'otherworldly' all the time.

[Kimmi]

When I meant unclutch - I note that he was the league's best player. I would have wanted him up at every hour of the day - not just the big moments. That is my issue with the clutch player definition - it does not deny psychology. It does not deny the reality of players coming up big. It's just that in almost every case - those identified also happened to be the best players in the sport. They weren't hulking up - they were that way the entire time. The moment found them.

 

I endorse this post.

[Kimmi]

I just accept that some really good players made big ( timely ) hits or plays. Better players have a tendency to do that.

 

There are clutch or timely hits, but that is not the same as saying there are clutch players.

[Kimmi]

Your two statements are pretty contradictory. Why not just say it can't be either proven or disproven.

 

While it hasn't been proven or disproven, there is rather strong evidence against the existence of clutch.

[Bellhorn04]

By saying someone is clutch, you are in a sense taking some credit away from that player by implying that they are doing something otherworldly in limited big moments.

 

I don't think so. The idea that someone can be clutch is that some players handle pressure better than others. It's not so much that they get better than their regular selves, it's that they remain their regular selves while their opponents succumb to the pressure more.

 

As I've said many times I believe there are significant psychological factors. This is just one of them.

[a700hitter]

There are clutch or timely hits, but that is not the same as saying there are clutch players.

But the hometown crowd can put such pressure on a team that it can ruin the team's entire season.

[a700hitter]

While it hasn't been proven or disproven, there is rather strong evidence against the existence of clutch.

And that evidence has no meaning withing the four walls of the clubhouse.

[cp176]

It is an opinion. I believe that there are athletes that perform better than their stats say they should quite often in very high pressure situations. I call them clutch players.

[Bellhorn04]

At the end of the day, clutch vs. non-clutch is just another topic to toss around.

[cp176]

At the end of the day, clutch vs. non-clutch is just another topic to toss around.

 

Ain't that the truth. It is just for fun but I really do get a kick out of the various ways people try to use statistics to explain it away. That might even be why I try to keep topics like this alive.

[mvp 78]

I don't think so. The idea that someone can be clutch is that some players handle pressure better than others. It's not so much that they get better than their regular selves, it's that they remain their regular selves while their opponents succumb to the pressure more.

 

As I've said many times I believe there are significant psychological factors. This is just one of them.

 

Yes, players are not robots. Just because fangraphs hasn't come up with a proper equation to account for it, doesn't mean it could never be quantified.

[jad]

Clutch. Team Identity. Heart. Momentum (my personal favorite!) Then Intangibles, "Knows how to win," Grit, Mental toughness, ... Most so abstract as to be utterly meaningless; others statistically proven to be bunk. But you're right. They provide us with a ridiculous language with which we can discuss what is essentially an escape from reality. Some in addition provide us with the illusion that there is really no difference between us and them (whether players, managers, or GMs).

[User Name]

Yes, players are not robots. Just because fangraphs hasn't come up with a proper equation to account for it, doesn't mean it could never be quantified.

 

Chokers are quantifiable.

[mvp 78]

Chokers are quantifiable.

 

Then the absence of choking should be quantifiable too.

[Eddy Ballgame]

Chokers are quantifiable.

 

I'd love to hear this. Do have legitimate reasoning for your theory, or are you just one of those people who like to "blame" someone or something for everything?

[User Name]

Nope, some guys just perform worse on pressure situations. If a guy consistently has problems hitting or getting people out out in pressure situations, he's a choker. Let me do a little research (I have done this before mind you) and I'll give you a list of hitters and pitchers who have consistently underperformed in pressure situations throughout their careers (Hint: A-Rod is not one of them).

[moonslav59]

Nope, some guys just perform worse on pressure situations. If a guy consistently has problems hitting or getting people out out in pressure situations, he's a choker. Let me do a little research (I have done this before mind you) and I'll give you a list of hitters and pitchers who have consistently underperformed in pressure situations throughout their careers (Hint: A-Rod is not one of them).

 

Nobody said there were not players with bad numbers in pressure situations, but that proves nothing. A random generator would produce extreme numbers in many of the many small sample sizes one can dig up.

[User Name]

The problem is that, over a career, the randomness gets mitigated substantially.

[moonslav59]

The problem is that, over a career, the randomness gets mitigated substantially.

 

The real problem is that nobody really has a large enough post season sample size to definitively determine a label like "choke" or "clutch".

 

The other problem is that even if you had a million large enough randomly generated sample sizes, there would be a few that looked far away from the norm on both ends of the spectrum. If a random generator produces a few, then finding a few MLB players at the extreme proves nothing about their mental make-up. It could just be they ended up on the extreme end of randomness.

 

Look, I'm not arguing a player's mental make-up has nothing to do with their numbers. I never have. I'm just saying nobody can prove the reason a player's numbers are at an extreme is due to mental make-up and not randomness.

 

The fact that the sample sizes are way too small and scattered over several seasons to even be considered mathematically determinitive (is that a word?), I see it as an exercise in futility.

 

It's fine to point out that certain players came up short or large in their small and important sample sizes, but I cannot see that judging them so definitively as a choke or clutch goes too far.

[a700hitter]

Look, I'm not arguing a player's mental make-up has nothing to do with their numbers. I never have. I'm just saying nobody can prove the reason a player's numbers are at an extreme is due to mental make-up and not randomness.

 

Nor can the inverse be proved, but you have seemingly made that conclusion.