Clutch vs non-clutch

[Kimmi]

I don't expect to change anyone's mind with this but I'll tell you what I know from personal experience.

 

If you've never realized that you are in the middle of something big and had the hair stand up on the back of your neck or gotten 'goose bumps', and then had a calmness settle into you that makes you forget about everything except what you need to do next, and then performed at a higher than normal level.... then I feel badly for you because it's one of the best feelings in the world.

 

Been there, done that. It's a magical moment and it is indeed one of the best feeling in the world. As I've said, I think it's likely that all of us have experienced what you define as clutch.

 

The hair on the back of your neck standing up and the goose bumps are likely the effects of adrenaline. The sense of calm is brought on by one's ability to handle pressure, or to be non-choke.

 

Performing at a higher than normal level? For what? One at bat? One inning? One set of free throws? Even one 90 yard drive in football? That is far too small a sample to attribute to anything other than luck.

 

Unless you or any player can repeat that higher level of performance every time you are in a clutch situation, or at least enough times that it becomes statistically significant, it's nothing more than luck or randomness.

[Kimmi]

That is not true. I am one whose opinion is almost always supported by the statistics, which is why I have a high regard for statistics.

 

And when your opinion is not supported by the stats?

 

Are you wrong in those cases?

[Kimmi]

Luck is merely where preparedness and opportunity meet. If you are prepared for the opportunity, and the moment isnt too big for you, success will be waiting more times than not.

 

I don't disagree with that.

 

My main point of disagreement is the idea that players are becoming otherworldly at will in clutch moments.

[Kimmi]

It is! It is why I still try to compete. I get the fact that golf is different but I still see so many good young players who honestly have such good looking swings but they just haven't figured out how to score. they don't get that it really is about grinding. I really think that it has to do with mental toughness or strength, call it what you like. You can't define it but it exists. I see it almost everyday. The more you live in pressure situations, the more you learn how to deal with it.

 

I do agree that mental toughness exists.

[Kimmi]

Since no one can define "clutch" (other than mvp), I wonder one thing. What would any of you say was the most clutch hit of JD Drew's career in Boston?

 

I warn you. This is a psychological test being performed by someone with zero knowledge of psychology....

 

This would require me to remember all of JD's hits, which is the type of thing I'm terrible about.

 

I'll bite and go with the postseason grand slam since that's all I can think of.

[notin]

The 14 million dollar grand slam. That's an easy one.

 

I knew someone would say that and it would be a very common choice.

 

But was it a clutch hit? It was a big situation, but ir was the first innong and the Sox did win that game by like 10 runs.

 

Drew certainly had other very big post-season hits for the Sox, including a game-winning home run off Fernando Rodriguez in thr 2007 ALCS and his last 2 at bats in game 5 of the 2008 ALCS (which included a walk off single). Or his single in game 2 of the 3007 World Series that set up the winning run.

 

These hits were all probably more important. But people do gravitate to the grand slam. Not proof or anything, but does this lend itself tp clutch being a perception or an illusion?

[Bellhorn04]

I knew someone would say that and it would be a very common choice.

 

But was it a clutch hit? It was a big situation, but ir was the first innong and the Sox did win that game by like 10 runs.

 

Drew certainly had other very big post-season hits for the Sox, including a game-winning home run off Fernando Rodriguez in thr 2007 ALCS and his last 2 at bats in game 5 of the 2008 ALCS (which included a walk off single). Or his single in game 2 of the 3007 World Series that set up the winning run.

 

These hits were all probably more important. But people do gravitate to the grand slam. Not proof or anything, but does this lend itself tp clutch being a perception or an illusion?

 

I think the grand slam was a huge clutch hit regardless of the inning or the final score. It was an elimination game.

[S5Dewey]

 

Unless you or any player can repeat that higher level of performance every time you are in a clutch situation, or at least enough times that it becomes statistically significant, it's nothing more than luck or randomness.

 

You're forming a Catch-22 situation. You'e demanding that a clutch-type performance be repeatable in every AB but if it happens every AB then it's not clutch, it's normal. To tone this down a bit, according to what you say, statistically the better a person's regular season numbers are the less chance that he's a clutch hitter. When he gets a hit in a clutch situation it would then be said, "See how good he hits anyway?!" Catch-22

 

If a person got a hit in every AB no one would say he was "clutch". They would just say he's a great hitter. But when he does get a hit in a high-pressure AB it gets attributed to luck or randomness.

 

While I buy into the luck factor because there is a lot of luck in baseball there is no way I'm buying into "randomness". Randomness is based on having no outside influences -as much as possible.

 

A computer can generate "random" numbers but even then it's miniscually (is that even a word??) influenced by the programming but things like an AB are influenced by a plethora of things -the pitch, the wind, the emotions of the batter, the sun in the eyes, the placement of the defense, maybe he's thinking about the last conversation he had in the dugout or what he did against this pitcher in his last AB, maybe he had a fight with his wife - there's nothing "random" about it. There are too many outside influences to refer to the results of any AB as being "random". Just the fact that a hitter (or foul shooter) recognizes that he's "in the moment" removes any vestige of "randomness".

 

So if it's not random it must be causative - brought on by things other than randomness... like being that elusive "clutch".

[notin]

I think the grand slam was a huge clutch hit regardless of the inning or the final score. It was an elimination game.

 

So was game 5 of the 2008 ALCS against Tampa. But in that game the Sox were trailing 7-0 in the seventh inning. Drew hit a 2 run homer in the 8th to bring it to 7-6 and had a walk off single in the ninth.

 

So were these hits more or less clutch thsn the grand slam? Both were elimination games, but in 2008 the Sox were down big late and these were major hits in a huge comeback.

 

Yet we all remember the grand slam first. Even me...

[notin]

That is not true. I am one whose opinion is almost always supported by the statistics, which is why I have a high regard for statistics.

 

Realy? Always?

 

The entire clutch debare you repeated your opinion would side with players and coaches, not statistics...

[Bellhorn04]

So was game 5 of the 2008 ALCS against Tampa. But in that game the Sox were trailing 7-0 in the seventh inning. Drew hit a 2 run homer in the 8th to bring it to 7-6 and had a walk off single in the ninth.

 

So were these hits more or less clutch thsn the grand slam? Both were elimination games, but in 2008 the Sox were down big late and these were major hits in a huge comeback.

 

Yet we all remember the grand slam first. Even me...

 

I remember the 2008 hits as well. The clutch hits get lost a bit when the team loses the series, like Hendu's home run in the 1986 World Series.

[notin]

I hits is r the 2008 hits as well. The clutch hits get lost a bit when the team loses the series, like Hendu's home run in the 1986 World Series.

 

I agree, but does that mean hits in an eventual losing effort are not clutch? And how important to the win SHOULD a hit be to be clutch?

 

If the Sox lost game 7 to Cleveland, would Drew's slam have been less clutch?

[Bellhorn04]

I agree, but does that mean hits in an eventual losing effort are not clutch? And how important to the win SHOULD a hit be to be clutch?

 

If the Sox lost game 7 to Cleveland, would Drew's slam have been less clutch?

 

That's simple. A proper measurement of clutch would only consider the situation at the time of the at-bat, not what happened afterward.

 

It wouldn't be based on fan perceptions.

[jad]

I don't expect to change anyone's mind with this but I'll tell you what I know from personal experience.

 

If you've never realized that you are in the middle of something big and had the hair stand up on the back of your neck or gotten 'goose bumps', and then had a calmness settle into you that makes you forget about everything except what you need to do next, and then performed at a higher than normal level.... then I feel badly for you because it's one of the best feelings in the world.

 

If you think performing in an athletic contest is "one of the best feelings in the world," then it is us who should be feeling sorry for YOU, not the other way around!

[notin]

That's simple. A proper measurement of clutch would only consider the situation at the time of the at-bat, not what happened afterward.

 

It wouldn't be based on fan perceptions.

 

I can agree with that.

 

However even you said hits in losing series are often disregarded or lessened with regards to their clutches. And gave a great example. And I agree with that as well.

 

So really what we might be looking at is an intersection between "clutch" and memorable. But are they really the same?

[Bellhorn04]

If you think performing in an athletic contest is "one of the best feelings in the world," then it is us who should be feeling sorry for YOU, not the other way around!

 

It is a pretty sweet feeling.

[a700hitter]

Luck is merely where preparedness and opportunity meet. If you are prepared for the opportunity, and the moment isnt too big for you, success will be waiting more times than not.

"Luck is the residue of design."

Branch Rickey

[a700hitter]

Relative to one's expectations.

 

If I play golf and expect to break 90 and shoot 80 I feel like I was successful.

 

If Tiger Woods plays golf, expects to break par and shoots 80 he's disappointed.

Success doesn't necessarily translate to a box score. If in a big situation a batter executes his approach, gets a good pitch to hit and squares it up, that is success, but if he hits it right at a fielder randomness comes into play. The result in the box score is a failure. The same goes for pitching. If a pitcher executes his pitch against the cleanup hitter and the hitter pokes out his bat and gets a bloop hit, the pitcher was successful in executing, but the bloop is a line drive in the box score. Execution doesn't always have a positive result.

[a700hitter]

And when your opinion is not supported by the stats?

 

Are you wrong in those cases?

It is a case by case basis. But the stats make me think about my opinion.

[a700hitter]

Realy? Always?

 

The entire clutch debare you repeated your opinion would side with players and coaches, not statistics...

Even the stat geeks admit that the stats are not definitive on this.

[Kimmi]

I think the grand slam was a huge clutch hit regardless of the inning or the final score. It was an elimination game.

 

I agree that it was a clutch hit. If I'm not mistaken, the Sox loaded the bases with 0 outs. The next 2 batters both made outs without pushing across any runs. Had Carmona gotten out of that inning without giving up a run, the entire complexion of the game would be different.

 

OTOH, the pitch that Drew hit out was right down the middle of the plate. Can it really be considered a clutch hit if you're given a cookie?

[a700hitter]

I agree that it was a clutch hit. If I'm not mistaken, the Sox loaded the bases with 0 outs. The next 2 batters both made outs without pushing across any runs. Had Carmona gotten out of that inning without giving up a run, the entire complexion of the game would be different.

 

OTOH, the pitch that Drew hit out was right down the middle of the plate. Can it really be considered a clutch hit if you're given a cookie?

Carmona choked by feeding him a cookie. Drew did not choke a pop it up. He crushed it.

[Kimmi]

You're forming a Catch-22 situation. You'e demanding that a clutch-type performance be repeatable in every AB but if it happens every AB then it's not clutch, it's normal. To tone this down a bit, according to what you say, statistically the better a person's regular season numbers are the less chance that he's a clutch hitter. When he gets a hit in a clutch situation it would then be said, "See how good he hits anyway?!" Catch-22

 

Saying that it should be repeatable every time in a pressure situation was a bit much on my part. But it should be repeatable to be statistically significant, meaning that someone does it more often (or less often) than what would happen by random chance.

 

As for the statement that I've bolded, that's not what I'm saying at all. In fact, if anything, the better a player's regular season numbers, the better the chance that he's a clutch hitter.

[Kimmi]

A computer can generate "random" numbers but even then it's miniscually (is that even a word??) influenced by the programming but things like an AB are influenced by a plethora of things -the pitch, the wind, the emotions of the batter, the sun in the eyes, the placement of the defense, maybe he's thinking about the last conversation he had in the dugout or what he did against this pitcher in his last AB, maybe he had a fight with his wife - there's nothing "random" about it. There are too many outside influences to refer to the results of any AB as being "random". Just the fact that a hitter (or foul shooter) recognizes that he's "in the moment" removes any vestige of "randomness".

 

Most of the things you've posted as influencing an AB do not remove the randomness. Quite the opposite. They are the types of things that the stat geeks refer to as randomness. In other words, they are reasons why a batter might or might not get a hit beyond his actual ability or talent.

[Kimmi]

If you think performing in an athletic contest is "one of the best feelings in the world," then it is us who should be feeling sorry for YOU, not the other way around!

 

I think it is a pretty special feeling, but I did find that particular statement of his to be a little condescending.

[Kimmi]

I can agree with that.

 

However even you said hits in losing series are often disregarded or lessened with regards to their clutches. And gave a great example. And I agree with that as well.

 

So really what we might be looking at is an intersection between "clutch" and memorable. But are they really the same?

 

It's not only big hits in games that your team loses that are less memorable, it's also the countless moments when a supposed clutch hitter does not come through in the clutch that are less memorable.

 

We tend to remember the big winning moments, thereby anointing players like Papi with the title of "clutch", but we tend to forget the many times that he did not get a big hit when the game was on the line.

[notin]

 

We tend to remember the big winning moments, thereby anointing players like Papi with the title of "clutch", but we tend to forget the many times that he did not get a big hit when the game was on the line.

 

THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT.

 

But it can be taken a step further. Fans tend to remember the big plays THEY THINK decide big games, and do do at the expense of alot of other equally important plays.

 

For example, Bucky Dent is immortalized, but the actual game winning run that day scored on a solo home run by Reggie Jackson that no one remembers...

[cp176]

If you think performing in an athletic contest is "one of the best feelings in the world," then it is us who should be feeling sorry for YOU, not the other way around!

 

Wow - it is a Red Sox forum board. I guess the assumption is that if we are posting here that there is a pretty good chance that athletics have played a large role in our lives. These experiences don't represent all of my personal best moments but outside of family experiences that did not include athletics ( which most did) they do represent a huge portion of the very times that I have experienced. No one should feel sorry for me. The games including both the ones I watch and the ones I compete in still give a reason to keep on trucking.

[notin]

You're forming a Catch-22 situation. You'e demanding that a clutch-type performance be repeatable in every AB but if it happens every AB then it's not clutch, it's normal. To tone this down a bit, according to what you say, statistically the better a person's regular season numbers are the less chance that he's a clutch hitter. When he gets a hit in a clutch situation it would then be said, "See how good he hits anyway?!" Catch-22

 

If a person got a hit in every AB no one would say he was "clutch". They would just say he's a great hitter. But when he does get a hit in a high-pressure AB it gets attributed to luck or randomness.

 

While I buy into the luck factor because there is a lot of luck in baseball there is no way I'm buying into "randomness". Randomness is based on having no outside influences -as much as possible.

 

A computer can generate "random" numbers but even then it's miniscually (is that even a word??) influenced by the programming but things like an AB are influenced by a plethora of things -the pitch, the wind, the emotions of the batter, the sun in the eyes, the placement of the defense, maybe he's thinking about the last conversation he had in the dugout or what he did against this pitcher in his last AB, maybe he had a fight with his wife - there's nothing "random" about it. There are too many outside influences to refer to the results of any AB as being "random". Just the fact that a hitter (or foul shooter) recognizes that he's "in the moment" removes any vestige of "randomness".

 

So if it's not random it must be causative - brought on by things other than randomness... like being that elusive "clutch".

 

Mathematically its very far from Catch 22...

[Bellhorn04]

THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT.

 

But it can be taken a step further. Fans tend to remember the big plays THEY THINK decide big games, and do do at the expense of alot of other equally important plays.

 

For example, Bucky Dent is immortalized, but the actual game winning run that day scored on a solo home run by Reggie Jackson that no one remembers...

 

Oh, I remember it. I remember just about everything about that game.

 

Dent's home run would have been the 'game winning RBI', under the rules that were used for that short-lived stat from 1980 to 1988. It was the same basic principle used to determine the winning pitcher, that is, the RBI that gave the winning team a lead that they didn't lose.