Clutch vs non-clutch

[Navafan29]

Something that nobody ever seems to mention is that most studies on clutch have a lot of junk data in them that alters the results. What a typical study of clutch might do is take all of a hitter's plate appearances with RISP, and compare it to how they do without RISP. Or they'll take a player's performance in the postseason and compare it to their performance in the regular season. These approaches will include, in the "clutch plate appearance" category, a ton of situations that aren't actually clutch situations, and omit a lot of situations that are clutch situations. For example, if Ortiz is batting with runners in scoring position, but the Red Sox are winning by 4 runs, then it isn't a clutch situation, yet the study would hold it against Ortiz's clutchness when Ortiz pops out.

If Ortiz is batting in a tie game in the 8th or 9th or 15th inning with the bases empty and hits a home run, then that's quite clutch, but the study wouldn't count it towards Ortiz's clutchness because there were no men on base.

If Ortiz is batting with men on 2nd and 3rd with two outs and the Red Sox are down by 2, but the Red Sox are 10 games back in the standings and it's September, and Ortiz grounds out, then a clutch study would count this against his clutchness, even though it's not really a clutch at bat, because the Red Sox don't have much of a chance of making the playoffs, and therefore the situation isn't truly important.

If Ortiz hits a game-tying season-saving grand slam against Benoit in the ALCS, then a clutch study would treat this equally to another PA with RISP in the playoffs, even though a season-saving hit should count much more than another PA of less importance.

Getting a game-tying RBI when your team is 7 games up in the standings should not count as much towards clutchness as the same situation when your team is 1.0 GB in the standings, because there's much more tension and drama in the latter.

 

I think the best way to analyze a player's clutchness is to watch them play, and remember how they do in different mood situations. Also, weigh truly high stakes situations on their clutchness more than unimportant situations.

[notin]

Something that nobody ever seems to mention is that most studies on clutch have a lot of junk data in them that alters the results. What a typical study of clutch might do is take all of a hitter's plate appearances with RISP, and compare it to how they do without RISP. Or they'll take a player's performance in the postseason and compare it to their performance in the regular season. These approaches will include, in the "clutch plate appearance" category, a ton of situations that aren't actually clutch situations, and omit a lot of situations that are clutch situations. For example, if Ortiz is batting with runners in scoring position, but the Red Sox are winning by 4 runs, then it isn't a clutch situation, yet the study would hold it against Ortiz's clutchness when Ortiz pops out.

If Ortiz is batting in a tie game in the 8th or 9th or 15th inning with the bases empty and hits a home run, then that's quite clutch, but the study wouldn't count it towards Ortiz's clutchness because there were no men on base.

If Ortiz is batting with men on 2nd and 3rd with two outs and the Red Sox are down by 2, but the Red Sox are 10 games back in the standings and it's September, and Ortiz grounds out, then a clutch study would count this against his clutchness, even though it's not really a clutch at bat, because the Red Sox don't have much of a chance of making the playoffs, and therefore the situation isn't truly important.

If Ortiz hits a game-tying season-saving grand slam against Benoit in the ALCS, then a clutch study would treat this equally to another PA with RISP in the playoffs, even though a season-saving hit should count much more than another PA of less importance.

Getting a game-tying RBI when your team is 7 games up in the standings should not count as much towards clutchness as the same situation when your team is 1.0 GB in the standings, because there's much more tension and drama in the latter.

 

I think the best way to analyze a player's clutchness is to watch them play, and remember how they do in different mood situations. Also, weigh truly high stakes situations on their clutchness more than unimportant situations.

 

Actually the studies don't include those situations. Fans typically do include them all however. Much like in the recent example of Jeff Bagwell. ...

[Bellhorn04]

What really sticks out in Bagwell's postseason numbers is the lack of extra-base hits. In 129 PA's and 106 AB's, only 2 HR and 4 2B and an SLG of .321. Doesn't prove anything, but it's hard to deny that the numbers are remarkably bad for a power hitter of his stature.

[Bellhorn04]

The ultimate postseason flop may have been Nick Swisher.

 

Career regular season 249/351/447 OPS 799

Career postseason 185 PA's 165/277/297 OPS 575

[Bellhorn04]

Some of the terms you hear when a player is going through a slump:

 

He's 'pressing'.

He's 'trying to do too much'.

He's 'falling into bad habits'.

 

All of which confirms the idea that when a hitter has been failing it gets in their head and messes them up.

 

When I think of guys like Price and Swisher and their postseason failures I don't really think of them 'choking', but I do think of them having 'psychological baggage' that affects them. And even if the guy had a great regular season and finished strongly, when the postseason starts I suspect their past postseason results are very much in their heads.

[Slasher9]

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.

 

hey Kimmi.

I am wondering if you believe in momentum?

[moonslav59]

Something that nobody ever seems to mention is that most studies on clutch have a lot of junk data in them that alters the results. What a typical study of clutch might do is take all of a hitter's plate appearances with RISP, and compare it to how they do without RISP. Or they'll take a player's performance in the postseason and compare it to their performance in the regular season. These approaches will include, in the "clutch plate appearance" category, a ton of situations that aren't actually clutch situations, and omit a lot of situations that are clutch situations. For example, if Ortiz is batting with runners in scoring position, but the Red Sox are winning by 4 runs, then it isn't a clutch situation, yet the study would hold it against Ortiz's clutchness when Ortiz pops out.

If Ortiz is batting in a tie game in the 8th or 9th or 15th inning with the bases empty and hits a home run, then that's quite clutch, but the study wouldn't count it towards Ortiz's clutchness because there were no men on base.

If Ortiz is batting with men on 2nd and 3rd with two outs and the Red Sox are down by 2, but the Red Sox are 10 games back in the standings and it's September, and Ortiz grounds out, then a clutch study would count this against his clutchness, even though it's not really a clutch at bat, because the Red Sox don't have much of a chance of making the playoffs, and therefore the situation isn't truly important.

If Ortiz hits a game-tying season-saving grand slam against Benoit in the ALCS, then a clutch study would treat this equally to another PA with RISP in the playoffs, even though a season-saving hit should count much more than another PA of less importance.

Getting a game-tying RBI when your team is 7 games up in the standings should not count as much towards clutchness as the same situation when your team is 1.0 GB in the standings, because there's much more tension and drama in the latter.

 

I think the best way to analyze a player's clutchness is to watch them play, and remember how they do in different mood situations. Also, weigh truly high stakes situations on their clutchness more than unimportant situations.

 

"Late & Close" and "High Leverage" take into account just the situations you are talking about.

 

I don't see many people using RISP as a significant basis for claiming someone is clutch or not, or a choke. If they are, they are wrong.

 

Papi overall: .931

 

Papi "Late & Close": .951

(Plate Appearances in the 7th or later with the batting team tied, ahead by one, or the tying run at least on deck.)

 

High Leverage: .942

(Within a game, there are plays that are more pivotal than others. We attempt to quantify these plays with a stat called leverage index (LI). LI looks at the possible changes in win probability in a given situation; situations where dramatic swings in win probability are possible (e.g. runner on second late in a tie game) have higher LIs than situations where there can be no large change in win probability (e.g. late innings of a 12-run blowout).

 

The stat is normalized so that on average the leverage is 1.00. In tense situations, the leverage is higher than 1.00 (up to about 10) and in low-tension situations, the leverage is between 0 and 1.0.)

 

Papi had 9 seasons with a high leverage OPS of over .960.

 

He had 9 seasons below .870, including 5 below .807.

 

He had none within 28 points of his career norm!

 

If it is a skill, it's very hard to be consistent ("repeatable").

 

In "Late & Close", he was...

 

5 times over .999

 

3 times between .895 and .941

 

1 at .867

 

0 times between .768 and .866

 

5 times between .699 and .767

 

3 times under .683

 

Edited February 20, 2017 by moonslav59

[Slasher9]

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...

 

so are you arguing for different levels of clutch? stepping up to the plate in the postseason with the bases juiced and coming through with a knock is a clutch hit. i dont care if it's inning 1 or inning 17. it's a clutch hit. those other hits you mentioned were clutch as well. just because someone rates the granny as the first thought that comes to mind when presented "JD Drew Clutch Hit" doesnt invalidate the others. it just means that he had multiple clutch hits for the Boston Red Sox and the one that comes to mind first is the Grand Slam. i was actually at that game btw. and it felt clutch live and in person.

[Slasher9]

also...clutch is a word. we say it all the time. i bet even those that dont believe in "clutch" use it. when Bill Mueller's groundball went up the middle in the bottom of the 9th on 17-Oct-2004 i guarantee you said to yourself "that was a clutch hit". i very much doubt in the moment you said to yourself "that was a lucky hit".

 

“Love is just a word, the reality is the connection it implies.”

[Bellhorn04]

also...clutch is a word. we say it all the time. i bet even those that dont believe in "clutch" use it. when Bill Mueller's groundball went up the middle in the bottom of the 9th on 17-Oct-2004 i guarantee you said to yourself "that was a clutch hit". i very much doubt in the moment you said to yourself "that was a lucky hit".

 

“Love is just a word, the reality is the connection it implies.”

 

Of all the hits in Red Sox history, that one by Mueller may have been the biggest.

[jad]

Of all the hits in Red Sox history, that one by Mueller may have been the biggest.

 

Exactly. Another one was Posada's 'hit'; if he had actually gotten more of the ball, it would have been a routine fly ball: Martinez would have been called gritty and a beast, and Grady Little would have been hailed a genius.

[Northern Star]

Ok, so ive been reading a lot of posts regarding a player being "clutch" or not. Bellhorn made a suggestion for a thread..so Heres what I think...

There IS a human element to this game that cant be denied. Well, you can deny it but youd be wrong:) Each players mental makeup and Higher pressure situations can change players. Some players can remain the same where there heartbeat stays the same or even slows down. Some can have zero thoughts except exactly whats going on. On the other hand, some players can get a bit "excited" in the same situations where their heart is racing or they out think themselves...basically they get in their own way.

The problem is unless your in a players head youll never really know unless you hear certain things when the player talks that may shed some light...So my answer is I believe the human element is a big part of baseball in this situation and therefore I believe certain players, no matter skill level, are able to stay balanced in any situation which gives them a greater chance for success more times than not in some of the biggest, pressure filled situations. Not sure if that means I believe in a "clutch" player or not though...

 

So, Does a clutch player exist? I look forward to your answers.

 

Clutch has been proven statistically not to exist, so I'm going with that.

[Bellhorn04]

Clutch has been proven statistically not to exist, so I'm going with that.

 

Move one little word and you're right:

 

Clutch has not been proven statistically to exist.

[Kimmi]

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...

 

You make a good point about the fans remembering the plays they think decide the big games.

 

Confirmation bias plays a big part in what we tend to remember in our pursuit of clutch.

[Kimmi]

Something that nobody ever seems to mention is that most studies on clutch have a lot of junk data in them that alters the results. What a typical study of clutch might do is take all of a hitter's plate appearances with RISP, and compare it to how they do without RISP. Or they'll take a player's performance in the postseason and compare it to their performance in the regular season. These approaches will include, in the "clutch plate appearance" category, a ton of situations that aren't actually clutch situations, and omit a lot of situations that are clutch situations. For example, if Ortiz is batting with runners in scoring position, but the Red Sox are winning by 4 runs, then it isn't a clutch situation, yet the study would hold it against Ortiz's clutchness when Ortiz pops out.

If Ortiz is batting in a tie game in the 8th or 9th or 15th inning with the bases empty and hits a home run, then that's quite clutch, but the study wouldn't count it towards Ortiz's clutchness because there were no men on base.

If Ortiz is batting with men on 2nd and 3rd with two outs and the Red Sox are down by 2, but the Red Sox are 10 games back in the standings and it's September, and Ortiz grounds out, then a clutch study would count this against his clutchness, even though it's not really a clutch at bat, because the Red Sox don't have much of a chance of making the playoffs, and therefore the situation isn't truly important.

If Ortiz hits a game-tying season-saving grand slam against Benoit in the ALCS, then a clutch study would treat this equally to another PA with RISP in the playoffs, even though a season-saving hit should count much more than another PA of less importance.

Getting a game-tying RBI when your team is 7 games up in the standings should not count as much towards clutchness as the same situation when your team is 1.0 GB in the standings, because there's much more tension and drama in the latter.

 

I think the best way to analyze a player's clutchness is to watch them play, and remember how they do in different mood situations. Also, weigh truly high stakes situations on their clutchness more than unimportant situations.

 

One of the difficulties in proving the existence or nonexistence of clutch is that there is no consensus on exactly what a clutch moment is. A hit that one person considers to be clutch might not be clutch to another. However, the baseball geeks are some pretty smart folks. If the Sox are up by 4 runs and Papi comes to the plate, that plate appearance will not be considered clutch.

 

That said, the researchers have studied the idea of clutch from just about every angle that it can be studied from. Regardless of how it's been dissected, the results come back the same.

[Kimmi]

Some of the terms you hear when a player is going through a slump:

 

He's 'pressing'.

He's 'trying to do too much'.

He's 'falling into bad habits'.

 

All of which confirms the idea that when a hitter has been failing it gets in their head and messes them up.

 

When I think of guys like Price and Swisher and their postseason failures I don't really think of them 'choking', but I do think of them having 'psychological baggage' that affects them. And even if the guy had a great regular season and finished strongly, when the postseason starts I suspect their past postseason results are very much in their heads.

 

I do not really disagree with any of this.

[Kimmi]

hey Kimmi.

I am wondering if you believe in momentum?

 

Hi Slash. I believe in momentum as far as it is something that exists. I don't believe in it in terms of having any predictive value.

 

For example, if a team has won 7 games in a row to end the season, that team has momentum. If, however, one said that this team has a better chance of winning their first postseason series because they have all the momentum, that would be a false statement.

 

The team with momentum is not more likely to be successful in the future, whether you're talking about one play, one inning, one game, or several series.

 

In other words, momentum is one of those descriptive words of what has already happened, not a predictive word of what is likely to happen.

[Kimmi]

also...clutch is a word. we say it all the time. i bet even those that dont believe in "clutch" use it. when Bill Mueller's groundball went up the middle in the bottom of the 9th on 17-Oct-2004 i guarantee you said to yourself "that was a clutch hit". i very much doubt in the moment you said to yourself "that was a lucky hit".

 

“Love is just a word, the reality is the connection it implies.”

 

You are right, I use the word 'clutch' and the word 'choke' regularly when watching the games. I have even referred to Papi as being clutch when he comes up big.

 

There are definitely clutch hits and clutch moments. It is just not a repeatable skill or talent that any player possesses.

[cp176]

You are right, I use the word 'clutch' and the word 'choke' regularly when watching the games. I have even referred to Papi as being clutch when he comes up big.

 

There are definitely clutch hits and clutch moments. It is just not a repeatable skill or talent that any player possesses.

 

Are you saying that because it is not measurable than you do not think that it exists?

[Kimmi]

Are you saying that because it is not measurable than you do not think that it exists?

 

No. There are many things that are not measurable that I believe exist. I have talked about Pedroia's 'grit' before, as one example.

 

I don't believe clutch exists because there is very strong evidence that it doesn't.

[cp176]

Ok, so ive been reading a lot of posts regarding a player being "clutch" or not. Bellhorn made a suggestion for a thread..so Heres what I think...

There IS a human element to this game that cant be denied. Well, you can deny it but youd be wrong:) Each players mental makeup and Higher pressure situations can change players. Some players can remain the same where there heartbeat stays the same or even slows down. Some can have zero thoughts except exactly whats going on. On the other hand, some players can get a bit "excited" in the same situations where their heart is racing or they out think themselves...basically they get in their own way.

The problem is unless your in a players head youll never really know unless you hear certain things when the player talks that may shed some light...So my answer is I believe the human element is a big part of baseball in this situation and therefore I believe certain players, no matter skill level, are able to stay balanced in any situation which gives them a greater chance for success more times than not in some of the biggest, pressure filled situations. Not sure if that means I believe in a "clutch" player or not though...

 

So, Does a clutch player exist? I look forward to your answers.

 

Why oh Why?

[notin]

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.

 

While true, it doesn't change the fact that Jackson's home run was the difference and is largely forgotten, and certainly diminished comparatively...

[notin]

also...clutch is a word. we say it all the time. i bet even those that dont believe in "clutch" use it. when Bill Mueller's groundball went up the middle in the bottom of the 9th on 17-Oct-2004 i guarantee you said to yourself "that was a clutch hit". i very much doubt in the moment you said to yourself "that was a lucky hit".

 

“Love is just a word, the reality is the connection it implies.”

 

Yes we do use it all the time.

 

But there is a big differences between a clutch hit and a clutch hitter. ..

[notin]

Are you saying that because it is not measurable than you do not think that it exists?

 

No one said that.

 

Try and get past that part of the argument...

[jad]

Hi Slash. I believe in momentum as far as it is something that exists. I don't believe in it in terms of having any predictive value.

 

For example, if a team has won 7 games in a row to end the season, that team has momentum. If, however, one said that this team has a better chance of winning their first postseason series because they have all the momentum, that would be a false statement.

 

The team with momentum is not more likely to be successful in the future, whether you're talking about one play, one inning, one game, or several series.

 

In other words, momentum is one of those descriptive words of what has already happened, not a predictive word of what is likely to happen.

 

Doesn't that mean that (at least as far as the use of the word in sports goes) it doesn't exist? My favorite is when sportscasters describe each score as a "change in momentum." I notice they don't use this much in basketball, which would reveal how dumb-ass the word and the idea behind it is. I suppose there are cases where the term might seem to apply: when you're getting your butt whipped in any sport, you often give up--surely we all know what THAT feels like!--but this has nothing to do with "momentum"--it has to do with "getting down because you're getting your butt whipped."

[notin]

Some of the terms you hear when a player is going through a slump:

 

He's 'pressing'.

He's 'trying to do too much'.

He's 'falling into bad habits'.

 

All of which confirms the idea that when a hitter has been failing it gets in their head and messes them up.

 

When I think of guys like Price and Swisher and their postseason failures I don't really think of them 'choking', but I do think of them having 'psychological baggage' that affects them. And even if the guy had a great regular season and finished strongly, when the postseason starts I suspect their past postseason results are very much in their heads.

 

I think the problem is that fans LEAP to conclusions like this as if being incapable to handle the pressure is the only possibility. The media does help heavily in this regard.

 

There are always other possibilities, like fatigue. Price typically throws in excess of 200 innings before every post-season. Or small sample sizes spread out. Swisher, for example, was not a great hitter to begin with. And while he did hit worse on the post-season, the small sample sizes were results of extremely minor drops in performance or luck. And that its over too many seasons. I seriously doubt anything that happened on the field in 2009 still bothers bothers Price, but people talk about games that long ago like they were yesterday.

 

But the media pushes it and fans buy into the whole "pressure/choke" thing as the only viable excuse...

[Slasher9]

Hi Slash. I believe in momentum as far as it is something that exists. I don't believe in it in terms of having any predictive value.

 

For example, if a team has won 7 games in a row to end the season, that team has momentum. If, however, one said that this team has a better chance of winning their first postseason series because they have all the momentum, that would be a false statement.

 

The team with momentum is not more likely to be successful in the future, whether you're talking about one play, one inning, one game, or several series.

 

In other words, momentum is one of those descriptive words of what has already happened, not a predictive word of what is likely to happen.

Personally I only have to go back a few weeks to see momentum as predictive. The 4th quarter of the super bowl.

[Slasher9]

Yes we do use it all the time.

 

But there is a big differences between a clutch hit and a clutch hitter. ..

 

To you there is no doubt that there is a big difference. And that is fine. To slasher the difference is non existent. And that should be fine as well.

[notin]

To you there is no doubt that there is a big difference. And that is fine. To slasher the difference is non existent. And that should be fine as well.

 

So any player who comes through in the clutch one time suddenly gains this ability as a repeatable skill?

[notin]

Personally I only have to go back a few weeks to see momentum as predictive. The 4th quarter of the super bowl.

 

Ifv we have to keep going to other sports, was Drew Bledsoe clutch or not?