Clutch vs non-clutch

[S5Dewey]

My opinion would be that most of us who believe in things like "clutch players" know that it is not really something you can not define. Not everything needs to be defined. It is just one of those things.

 

This.

 

Unfortunately there are those who believe that if something can't be explained it can't be true.

[jad]

This.

 

Unfortunately there are those who believe that if something can't be explained it can't be true.

 

I don't think this is quite what the argument is. As I understand it, those of us who don't believe in clutch players (but of course do believe in singular clutch performances) are saying "Go ahead and define it any way you want". You will then obviously find players who, say, perform better than others in those situations (they are more skilled generally), and players who over a year, say, perform better in those situations than they do in normal situations. What statisticians and historians have not found is a player who does that consistently, year after year. No one is saying we are going to give up talking about a 'clutch' hit because we don't agree on a definition.

[notin]

This.

 

Unfortunately there are those who believe that if something can't be explained it can't be true.

 

And there are people who insist something is true solely because they believe in it. That doesn't make anything true and many of these people have been proven wrong throughout history.

[notin]

I agree with your assessment of not being able to compare basketball with baseball in that basketball is much more of a reaction sport. However, in the context of someone being clutch IMO there are very few sports where "clutch" comes into play any more than the instance I mentioned - a player on the foul line with the game in the balance with no defense to contend with. It's you, the ball, and the rim. Pass or fail. That's pressure and people who can respond to it are "clutch". So IMO "clutch" does exist.

 

As to the players who are clutch being the better hitters, is he a better hitter because he makes solid contact more often, or is it because his performance in clutch situations boosts his statistics? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

First if all, "chicken and egg" is a lousy metaphor. Everyone knows -or should know - the egg came first. There were eggs millions of years before there wete chickens.

 

Second, the non-clutch sample size is always significantly larger for every player, and therefore guides the stats i in their direction. So if you want to make your "chicken and egg" argument, you're going toneed a ddefinition of clutch that is WAAAY more encompassing than many are anticipating...

[notin]

If you believe"choke" exists, you know the primary culprit is players getting inside their own heads. They think too much. So that means in order to be clutch, a player cannot think.

 

If a player doesn't think, he doesn't exist. That's pure DesCartes, and how he disproved the "clutch hitter."

[a700hitter]

Yogi Berra: "You can think and hit at the same time."

[cp176]

If you believe"choke" exists, you know the primary culprit is players getting inside their own heads. They think too much. So that means in order to be clutch, a player cannot think.

 

If a player doesn't think, he doesn't exist. That's pure DesCartes, and how he disproved the "clutch hitter."

 

Des Cartes - really Notin - What is it going to be next some of that Alexander Dumais (as in dumb ass). I would really like to see some how much weight some of this reasoning would carry in the normal ml dugout. lol

[Dojji]

weird things happen to logic when you conflate zen theory with cognito ergo sum

[Kimmi]

I think that's the definition us 'clutch' believers have pretty much reached a consensus on.

 

All MLBers may be clutch, to have gotten that far, but are they all equally clutch? And does reaching the big leagues prepare you for playing with your team's season on the line?

 

Actually, I don't think that's the definition of clutch that many clutch believers think of.

 

I think they are more or less equally clutch, considering that their clutchness is related to how good they are.

[Kimmi]

We're going round in circles, but you're not addressing the question of why not all good hitters hit well in clutch situations.

 

Hall of Famer Jeff Bagwell had a .948 career OPS, but only .685 in the postseason. Because he's such a good hitter, shouldn't he have almost automatically hit well in clutch situations?

 

Yes, we're going around in circles.

 

Within any of Bagwell's regular seasons, even his best ones, you can find several 3 or 4 game stretches where he had an OPS of .685 or lower. That's essentially what you're looking at when you look at a postseason series.

 

You cannot make a definitive judgment off of a small number of series like that, especially if they are spread out over several seasons.

 

Bagwell had 129 PAs and 106 ABs in the postseason. OBP does not stabilize until 460 PAs and SLG does not stabilize until 320 ABs. The fact that his PAs and ABs were spread over several postseasons makes them even more meaningless.

[Kimmi]

I'm giving my head a good hard shake here. It sounds like you're saying that you can buy into the mental aspect of a game affecting a player's performance in a negative way but not in a positive way. Why would that be?

 

If he didn't raise his game to a whole new level, was his making two in a row the product of randomness?

 

I do think that the mental aspect of a game can affect a player's performance in a positive way, just not in the way that you are defining clutch. The ability not to choke in a pressure situation would be the mental aspect affecting a player's performance positively.

 

I don't know anything about this kid's free throw making ability. Is he normally an 80% free throw shooter? If so, then the chances that he'd make both free throws are pretty good. If he's normally a 40% free throw shooter, then I would have to call it luck.

[Kimmi]

This.

 

Unfortunately there are those who believe that if something can't be explained it can't be true.

 

That is simply not true. The reason that I don't believe clutch exists is not because it can't be explained, but because there is very strong evidence against it existing.

[Kimmi]

If you believe"choke" exists, you know the primary culprit is players getting inside their own heads. They think too much. So that means in order to be clutch, a player cannot think.

 

If a player doesn't think, he doesn't exist. That's pure DesCartes, and how he disproved the "clutch hitter."

 

Nice!

[S5Dewey]

If you believe"choke" exists, you know the primary culprit is players getting inside their own heads. They think too much. So that means in order to be clutch, a player cannot think.

 

If a player doesn't think, he doesn't exist. That's pure DesCartes, and how he disproved the "clutch hitter."

 

No. If a player is clutch it means he knows enough to not let the situation get into his head... not at all that he cannot think.

[S5Dewey]

And there are people who insist something is true solely because they believe in it. That doesn't make anything true and many of these people have been proven wrong throughout history.

 

Seeing something happen is pretty good evidence that it's true.

[S5Dewey]

If you believe that choking happens then you believe that a person can be negatively affected by pressure. If one believes that they they should also believe that a player can be positively affected by pressure, a/k/a being clutch.

 

To believe anything else one would have to believe that negative performances is the result of pressure and positive performance is simply randomness.

 

That's kinda like blaming the manager for a loss but not giving him credit for a win.

[Bellhorn04]

Yes, we're going around in circles.

 

Within any of Bagwell's regular seasons, even his best ones, you can find several 3 or 4 game stretches where he had an OPS of .685 or lower. That's essentially what you're looking at when you look at a postseason series.

 

You cannot make a definitive judgment off of a small number of series like that, especially if they are spread out over several seasons.

 

Bagwell had 129 PAs and 106 ABs in the postseason. OBP does not stabilize until 460 PAs and SLG does not stabilize until 320 ABs. The fact that his PAs and ABs were spread over several postseasons makes them even more meaningless.

 

OK, that's all fair, but what this means to me is that there is not 'strong evidence' of anything one way or the other.

 

That's my big beef. You're saying the samples are too small and there's too much randomness, but that there's 'strong evidence' that clutch does not exist.

[Bellhorn04]

If you believe that choking happens then you believe that a person can be negatively affected by pressure. If one believes that they they should also believe that a player can be positively affected by pressure, a/k/a being clutch.

 

To believe anything else one would have to believe that negative performances is the result of pressure and positive performance is simply randomness.

 

That's kinda like blaming the manager for a loss but not giving him credit for a win.

 

Well there is some truth in that, I think, S5. The manager's main job is not to make things happen, but to not screw things up.

 

I'm a believer in clutch but I think that's the main principle that applies. Keep your head while others are losing theirs. The ability to be calm and focused and not think too much about how big the moment is.

[Bellhorn04]

There aren't a whole lot of quotes from players or managers about clutch and choking. But after Game 3 of the 1999 ALCS when the Red Sox beat the Yankees 13-1 at Fenway, with Pedro pitching for the Sox and Clemens getting knocked out of the game in the third inning, Joe Torre said he thought the moment may have been too big for Clemens, or words to that effect. Certainly an admission that the circumstances of the game can affect a player's performance.

[southpaw777]

My opinion would be that most of us who believe in things like "clutch players" know that it is not really something you can not define. Not everything needs to be defined. It is just one of those things.

 

Exactly.

[Kimmi]

Seeing something happen is pretty good evidence that it's true.

 

You can't really see clutch though. You can see that someone came up big in a big moment. You are convinced that it is clutch. However, you being convinced of it does not make it true.

[Kimmi]

If you believe that choking happens then you believe that a person can be negatively affected by pressure. If one believes that they they should also believe that a player can be positively affected by pressure, a/k/a being clutch.

 

To believe anything else one would have to believe that negative performances is the result of pressure and positive performance is simply randomness.

 

That's kinda like blaming the manager for a loss but not giving him credit for a win.

 

As I previously posted, I do believe that a player's performance can be positively affected by emotion or pressure. When a player doesn't choke, he is handled the pressure in a positive manner.

[Kimmi]

OK, that's all fair, but what this means to me is that there is not 'strong evidence' of anything one way or the other.

 

That's my big beef. You're saying the samples are too small and there's too much randomness, but that there's 'strong evidence' that clutch does not exist.

 

While there is no proof that clutch doesn't exist, there is strong evidence that clutch doesn't exist. There are enough ways to analyze the data with large enough samples, including postseason data.

 

OTOH, there is no statistical evidence that clutch does exist.

[Bellhorn04]

While there is no proof that clutch doesn't exist, there is strong evidence that clutch doesn't exist. There are enough ways to analyze the data with large enough samples, including postseason data.

 

But the samples are for groups, as I understand it, not for individual players. This is where the statistical methodology becomes incomprehensible for the layman.

[Kimmi]

But the samples are for groups, as I understand it, not for individual players. This is where the statistical methodology becomes incomprehensible for the layman.

 

I will have to try to find the research on postseason 'clutch'. If the methodology is faulty or the data is not reliable, the stat geeks would not publish it as such.

 

In terms of individual players, they have combined postseason moments with regular season clutch moments to create large enough samples, and those studies provided no evidence of clutch either.

 

I'm guessing that's not going to sit well with you either.

[Bellhorn04]

I will have to try to find the research on postseason 'clutch'. If the methodology is faulty or the data is not reliable, the stat geeks would not publish it as such.

 

In terms of individual players, they have combined postseason moments with regular season clutch moments to create large enough samples, and those studies provided no evidence of clutch either.

 

I'm guessing that's not going to sit well with you either.

 

By now I'm fine with the idea that they can't find evidence that clutch exists. I just can't equate that with providing evidence that it doesn't exist. As S5 said earlier, I think, this is almost like a debate over religious beliefs.

Edited February 18, 2017 by Bellhorn04

[Bellhorn04]

What this reminds me of too is the debate about 'game-calling', and how the research was unable to show that there was such a thing as a superior 'game-caller', not even one named Jason Varitek.

[a700hitter]

You can't really see clutch though. You can see that someone came up big in a big moment. You are convinced that it is clutch. However, you being convinced of it does not make it true.

You know who knows definitively about choking. The guys who have choked. Most will not talk about it, because it would be emasculating for an athlete and it would also give his opponents a mental edge. There are so many dynamics involved in quantifying these concepts to prove or disprove them definitively. The level of the talent is higher in these crucial spots, because you are usually facing an above average pitcher, although that is not always true. The batter might be choking, but the pitcher might be choking too and his fastball might be 6 inches short or he might miss his spot by 6 inches and even a choking hitter can hit that kind of pitch. Nerves may get to a guy early in his career but not as much after he gains some experience. A guy might press harder in a contract year too. Players don't always handle pressure in the same way, but some handle it better than others. There are so many variables and dynamics that no statistical study could definitively prove or disprove these things. If you think the evidence against it is strong, good for you, but you know that it is not at all definitive, so it is meaningless.

[notin]

What this reminds me of too is the debate about 'game-calling', and how the research was unable to show that there was such a thing as a superior 'game-caller', not even one named Jason Varitek.

 

The debate on the effect of game-calling makes sense to me. The actual execution of the pitch seems more important...

[notin]

A big part of the clutch debate is the lack of a definition. Without one, it enables staunch supporters to claim any at bat is clutch or not as they need it to support their case.

 

Case in point -Jeff Bagwell and his post-season numbers. The propsed argument does indicate that ALL post-season at bats are clutch. Is that really true?