Clutch vs non-clutch

[notin]

You know who knowspeople you efinitively 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.

 

You keep trying to rely on the testimony of people you have never talked to. And hypothetical arguments with the "here's what I would do and that should suffice for professional athlete behavior" don't carry the weight you seem to think they do.

 

Basically, you cannot make the argument that they are human beings one on hand while then painting them with a broad brush with the other. And you certainly cannot make the argument that they are all human beings and therefore equal to you (or me), and that means your opinion is relevant....

[notin]

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

 

A lot of weird superstitions happen in a major league dugout, many of which make it to TV e.g. rally caps.

 

Do superstitions work and make a player better? Just as relevant as assuming clutch situations do...

[Bellhorn04]

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?

 

That's just my simplistic reference point. I figure an average postseason at-bat is quite a bit higher leverage than an average regular season at-bat, because almost every postseason game can determine whether the team moves on or goes home. Anybody can go to B-R and see those two sets of numbers side by side. The difference for Bagwell is huge, that's why I'm picking on him.

 

A more sophisticated measurement of high-leverage at-bats is obviously possible, but it's not readily available for the average fan.

[a700hitter]

You keep trying to rely on the testimony of people you have never talked to. And hypothetical arguments with the "here's what I would do and that should suffice for professional athlete behavior" don't carry the weight you seem to think they do.

 

Basically, you cannot make the argument that they are human beings one on hand while then painting them with a broad brush with the other. And you certainly cannot make the argument that they are all human beings and therefore equal to you (or me), and that means your opinion is relevant....

For the third time, you don't know who I have talked to about this. The rest of your post amounts to little more than gibberish.

[Bellhorn04]

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

 

The execution of the pitch is the most important thing, no question. But I think we can all agree that the selection of the type and location of pitch and the sequencing of the pitches is pretty damn important too.

[notin]

For the third time, you don't know who I have talked to about this. The rest of your post amounts to little more than gibberish.

 

I don't know who you have talked to. I'm saying I know who you HAVEN'T talked to.

 

Unless you want to definitively state you have been having discussions on clutch with MLB coaches and players. Are you saying you have?

[notin]

The execution of the pitch is the most important thing, no question. But I think we can all agree that the selection of the type and location of pitch and the sequencing of the pitches is pretty damn important too.

 

True although a lot of times strategies regarding pitch sequence are handled in pre-game meetings. The catcher does have to implement them. And I'd be surprised if they never went off script. ..

[notin]

For the third time, you don't know who I have talked to about this. The rest of your post amounts to little more than gibberish.

 

Gibberish? Unless you have had actual conversations about clutch with coaches and players, your entire contribution to this thread has been nothing more than an opinion you're trying to pass of as fact and supported by conversations you don't admit you've had, but refuse to admit you haven't.

 

Opinions are fine. But fictional support to pass them off as facts doesn't make them anything more than opinions....

[notin]

That's just my simplistic reference point. I figure an average postseason at-bat is quite a bit higher leverage than an average regular season at-bat, because almost every postseason game can determine whether the team moves on or goes home. Anybody can go to B-R and see those two sets of numbers side by side. The difference for Bagwell is huge, that's why I'm picking on him.

 

A more sophisticated measurement of high-leverage at-bats is obviously possible, but it's not readily available for the average fan.

 

Yeah but post-season at bats at so infrequent and spread out. For example, in Bagwell's case over half his post-season at bats came after age 35. Hardly the prime of his career.

 

As for the rest, when the Yankees were thumping the Sox 19-8 in game three of thr 2004 ALCS, were those at bats clutch?

[a700hitter]

Gibberish? Unless you have had actual conversations about clutch with coaches and players, your entire contribution to this thread has been nothing more than an opinion you're trying to pass of as fact and supported by conversations you don't admit you've had, but refuse to admit you haven't.

 

Opinions are fine. But fictional support to pass them off as facts doesn't make them anything more than opinions....

I have had conversations with several players and coaches at several levels about many different topics throughout the years. It's not like I sat down and asked them to discuss the topic of whether clutch exists or not. I don't have transcripts of those conversations, and that probably wouldn't satisfy you. In my experience being around players and coaches at all levels, they are big believers in the mental part of the game and rising to and shrinking in the moment. I am no one to dispute that, and neither are you. As I said many times over, I will side with what I have heard from players and coaches rather than any statistical study.

 

I have decent access to guys that have played the game. Among other connections, my great nephew is currently in the DR at the Pirates facility with a the Dominican Baseball experience sponsored by Underarmour (I think). The kid is 15 and can hit 90 mph. This is his second trip to the DR and he has traveled the country playing with the National Team is the last year. One of his pitching coaches on a recent trip was Black Jack McDowell. He is one of many former players that work with these kids.

 

Let me reiterate one more time, because you aren't getting what I am saying. I cannot prove that clutch/choke exists, but the stats do not definitively prove that it does not exist. No one can make that claim that the stats disprove it definitively. I have said that I will side with those who have played the game and coached the game. You can discount this all you want, and yes, it is just anecdotal evidence, but to me that is more reliable than a statistical study on the matter. That is my position. I can't state it any clearer. You are free to disagree.

Edited February 18, 2017 by a700hitter

[Kimmi]

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.

 

I think there is a difference between saying there is no evidence that clutch exists versus saying there is strong evidence that it doesn't exist.

 

At any rate, I know I'm not going to convince anyone who believes in clutch that it doesn't exist. While I don't think there is an ability to become otherworldly in a clutch moment, I, myself, cannot say with 100% certainty that it doesn't exist.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

There has been recent research that supports the notion that Varitek is a great game caller, or at the very least, that Varitek saves runs for his pitchers beyond all of the defensive metrics that have already been measured, including pitch framing.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

It is not definitive evidence, but it is far from meaningless. It's actually rather convincing evidence.

[Kimmi]

A lot of weird superstitions happen in a major league dugout, many of which make it to TV e.g. rally caps.

 

Do superstitions work and make a player better? Just as relevant as assuming clutch situations do...

 

Good point about superstitions.

 

The funny thing is, even though the rational side of me KNOWS that superstitions don't work, that's not going to stop me from wearing my lucky Red Sox socks or repeating the same behavior that resulted in a favorable outcome the previous time, just in case.

[Kimmi]

The execution of the pitch is the most important thing, no question. But I think we can all agree that the selection of the type and location of pitch and the sequencing of the pitches is pretty damn important too.

 

I 100% believe that whoever is behind the plate can make the pitcher a better or worse pitcher. Confidence, trust, and comfort with the catcher can all affect the performance of the pitcher. Game calling ability has a lot to do with building that confidence, trust, and comfort.

[cp176]

A lot of weird superstitions happen in a major league dugout, many of which make it to TV e.g. rally caps.

 

Do superstitions work and make a player better? Just as relevant as assuming clutch situations do...

 

Although I was never a proponent of some of these age old "superstitions", we get to think what we wish. If someone believes strongly enough in something can they make something extraordinary happen? My contention is very likely if they have done all of their homework.

[Kimmi]

Gibberish? Unless you have had actual conversations about clutch with coaches and players, your entire contribution to this thread has been nothing more than an opinion you're trying to pass of as fact and supported by conversations you don't admit you've had, but refuse to admit you haven't.

 

Opinions are fine. But fictional support to pass them off as facts doesn't make them anything more than opinions....

 

Regardless of who the conversations may or may not have been with, I have no doubt that most players and coaches believe in clutch. As with S5, they've 'experienced' clutch. I think we've all experienced clutch moments. They are magical and they are feel great moments. No one wants to accept that they might have been nothing more than pure luck.

[cp176]

It is not definitive evidence, but it is far from meaningless. It's actually rather convincing evidence.

 

 

I think it might matter some who makes up the audience that this evidence is being presented to.

[Kimmi]

I think it might matter some who makes up the audience that this evidence is being presented to.

 

It is very convincing evidence statistically whether one chooses to believe it or not.

[cp176]

Regardless of who the conversations may or may not have been with, I have no doubt that most players and coaches believe in clutch. As with S5, they've 'experienced' clutch. I think we've all experienced clutch moments. They are magical and they are feel great moments. No one wants to accept that they might have been nothing more than pure luck.

 

I have no problem accepting that these moments of brilliance might be examples of extreme luck. Some athletes though and not always the best statistically seem to be luckier than others.

[a700hitter]

Regardless of who the conversations may or may not have been with, I have no doubt that most players and coaches believe in clutch. As with S5, they've 'experienced' clutch. I think we've all experienced clutch moments. They are magical and they are feel great moments. No one wants to accept that they might have been nothing more than pure luck.

I'll side with the players and coaches, and that is all that I have said all along.

[a700hitter]

It is very convincing evidence statistically whether one chooses to believe it or not.

It is not definitive, and it is very convincing in your opinion.

[notin]

Good point about superstitions.

 

The funny thing is, even though the rational side of me KNOWS that superstitions don't work, that's not going to stop me from wearing my lucky Red Sox socks or repeating the same behavior that resulted in a favorable outcome the previous time, just in case.

 

I think superstitions make a player more comfortable. But, say, Fernando Rodney doesn't gain him arm strength and accuracy from wearing his hat like that. And if he ever put it on properly and pitched well, he'd probably change the wsy he wore it...

[notin]

But superstitions are also a mental part of the game.

 

Justin Monday may have been the mostssuperstitious player ever (Google around; there's an article out there somewhere), but his obsession with the number 33 didn't make him more talented, and if he left his car at 34 minutes past the hour inadvertently, he didn't magically morph into being a worse hitter. But big chunks of Bull Durham were dedicated to the realism of superstitions. "If you think you're a better player because you're wearing women's underwear, THEN YOU ARE!!"

 

But really, you're not.

 

As for clutch, it looks to me like people want to define it to fit it into their beliefs, and not the other way around. That's simply not how life works. And contrary to what S5 says, how many people really believe in ANYTHING that they can't define? With even the simplest definition?

[Bellhorn04]

Regardless of who the conversations may or may not have been with, I have no doubt that most players and coaches believe in clutch. As with S5, they've 'experienced' clutch. I think we've all experienced clutch moments. They are magical and they are feel great moments. No one wants to accept that they might have been nothing more than pure luck.

 

Choking is definitely no illusion and not a product of bad luck.

 

If one accepts the idea that 'clutch' is actually an absence of choking, then 'clutch', or 'non-choking' if preferred, has to be acknowledged as real.

[Bellhorn04]

Yeah but post-season at bats at so infrequent and spread out. For example, in Bagwell's case over half his post-season at bats came after age 35. Hardly the prime of his career.

 

Well, that's a good point...now you're providing a plausible reason for why Bagwell's postseason numbers may have been depressed. Much better than randomness, at any rate.

[notin]

I have no problem accepting that these moments of brilliance might be examples of extreme luck. Some athletes though and not always the best statistically seem to be luckier than others.

 

Or maybe they just give us enough - sometimes one? - memorable successful moments that we forget about the unsuccessful ones....

[Bellhorn04]

As for the rest, when the Yankees were thumping the Sox 19-8 in game three of thr 2004 ALCS, were those at bats clutch?

 

That's a good point as well. Some postseason at-bats are in garbage time and that needs to be taken into consideration.

[Bellhorn04]

As for clutch, it looks to me like people want to define it to fit it into their beliefs, and not the other way around. That's simply not how life works. And contrary to what S5 says, how many people really believe in ANYTHING that they can't define? With even the simplest definition?

 

I'm quite sure, actually, that a definition of clutch could be produced that would be reasonably satisfactory to everyone. We all have a general knowledge of what it means. Putting it into specific terms would take the kind of work it takes for a government to put something new in the tax code.

[Bellhorn04]

Or maybe they just give us enough - sometimes one? - memorable successful moments that we forget about the unsuccessful ones....

 

But there are guys like Ortiz and Schilling who have had multiple extraordinary postseason performances.