Clutch vs non-clutch

[User Name]

Clutch doesn't exist.

[Bellhorn04]

Clutch doesn't exist.

 

But choking does. We've agreed on that much, haven't we?

[User Name]

Case closed.

[Bellhorn04]

Case closed.

 

Not this one, it'll never be closed.

[cp176]

choking is clearly just a random occasion of someone not getting the job done every now and then

[a700hitter]

choking is clearly just a random occasion of someone not getting the job done every now and then

In an indefinable yet statistically disprovable way.

[cp176]

In an indefinable yet statistically disprovable way.

 

That clears things up for me!!!

 

One last question though - Is it possible to be one of the greatest clutch athletes (Nicklaus) and also one of the greatest chokers of all time? (Nicklaus once again)

[a700hitter]

That clears things up for me!!!

 

One last question though - Is it possible to be one of the greatest clutch athletes (Nicklaus) and also one of the greatest chokers of all time? (Nicklaus once again)

None of it exists, because none of it can be proved statistically. Are we sure that Nicklaus is real?

[Hugh2]

Choking is a function of not maintaining ones composure. Clutch hitting is a function of maintaining your composure against those who can't.

[User Name]

Choking is a function of not maintaining ones composure. Clutch hitting is a function of maintaining your composure against those who can't.

 

So, an absence of choke. It's not that f***ing hard.

[Kimmi]

Thus far we've gone from "clutch doesn't exist" to "we don't know if clutch exists or not because we can't even define it". And it's taken 26 pages to get there.

 

Wouldn't it have been easier to have just said that in the beginning rather than start with the premise that it doesn't exist and then try to build a case from that point?

 

My 3rd post on the topic and post #16 in this thread:

 

The stat geeks have admitted that one of the problems with 'proving' whether clutch exists or not is that clutch has not been clearly defined. What might be considered clutch to one person might not be clutch to another. Also, there are varying degrees of clutch moments.

 

That said, even though a uniform definition of clutch has not been accepted, it has been studied in pretty much every way imaginable, using pretty much every reasonable definition of it, and there is still no statistical evidence that it exists.

[Kimmi]

When it gets boiled down to a percentage, good s nd bad hitters all succeed within a very tight range as it is. .

 

When someone gives an example of a player who has been exceptionally good or exceptionally bad in clutch situations, those types of outliers are what would be expected in any randomly data. In other words, it's likely a fluke. You expect a certain percentage of players to perform better than average and a certain percentage of players to perform less than average.

 

The actual data of MLB players falls within that statistical bell curve.

[Kimmi]

You're right in the sense that there are a pile of variables in the data, and the 'strength of opposition' has to be factored in. Analyzing this much data is a massive undertaking, that's for sure.

 

Actually, I don't think it's that huge of an undertaking anymore. With the technology that's available these days, there are tons of data available at one's fingertips, and this data can be filtered any way you want.

 

It might be a huge undertaking for you or me, but not for the statisticians who do this for a living. It's what they do.

[Kimmi]

choking is clearly just a random occasion of someone not getting the job done every now and then

 

At the major league level, this is mostly true.

[a700hitter]

My 3rd post on the topic and post #16 in this thread:

 

 

 

That said, even though a uniform definition of clutch has not been accepted, it has been studied in pretty much every way imaginable, using pretty much every reasonable definition of it, and there is still no statistical evidence that it exists.

How can there be a valid statistical study of something that people can't even define?

[Bellhorn04]

I love the quote I came across in one of the columns about this. Apparently it comes from the great Donald Rumsfeld.

 

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

[S5Dewey]

My 3rd post on the topic and post #16 in this thread:

 

 

 

That said, even though a uniform definition of clutch has not been accepted, it has been studied in pretty much every way imaginable, using pretty much every reasonable definition of it, and there is still no statistical evidence that it exists.

 

Then isn't it also safe to say that there is no statistical evidence that it doesn't exist?

Edited March 25, 2017 by S5Dewey

[S5Dewey]

How can there be a valid statistical study of something that people can't even define?

 

I wish I'd said that!

[User Name]

I love the quote I came across in one of the columns about this. Apparently it comes from the great Donald Rumsfeld.

 

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

 

I have an unicorn and a sasquatch for sale who, much like clutch, are made up fantasies who people refuse to let go.

[Bellhorn04]

Okay, choking and non-choking, then.

[TylerD]

Okay, choking and non-choking, then.

 

Regular season Price vs Playoff season Price lol

[Kimmi]

How can there be a valid statistical study of something that people can't even define?

 

There are several valid statistical studies, each defining clutch a specific way.

[Kimmi]

Then isn't it also safe to say that there is no statistical evidence that it doesn't exist?

 

There is no proof that it does not exist. There is strong statistical evidence that it does not.

[S5Dewey]

There is no proof that it does not exist. There is strong statistical evidence that it does not.

 

There's also strong evidence from players that clutch does exist.

 

It sounds to me like the statisticians have spent a lot of time trying to prove something but they don't know what it is they're trying to prove - or disprove - because they can't define the target. Therefore even if they prove something they won't know for sure whether they are proving (or disproving) what they want to prove or disprove.

 

I'm willing to call this an impasse - that the existence of clutch can neither be proven nor disproven, respect one another's right to be wrong and let it go at that.

[mvp 78]

The Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox, David Ortiz, #34.

 

The Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox, David Ortiz, #34.

 

The Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox, David Ortiz, #34.

 

The Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox, David Ortiz, #34.

 

The Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox, David Ortiz, #34.

 

The Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox, David Ortiz, #34.

 

The Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox, David Ortiz, #34.

 

The Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox, David Ortiz, #34.

[a700hitter]

There are several valid statistical studies, each defining clutch a specific way.

But as has been pointed out numerous times there is no agreement on the definition of clutch/chokes so the statistical are meaningless.

[TylerD]

90s Van Damme vs 2017 Van Damme.... I dunno.... I'm drunk.... sorry

[TylerD]

The Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox, David Ortiz, #34.

 

The Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox, David Ortiz, #34.

 

The Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox, David Ortiz, #34.

 

The Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox, David Ortiz, #34.

 

The Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox, David Ortiz, #34.

 

The Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox, David Ortiz, #34.

 

The Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox, David Ortiz, #34.

 

The Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox, David Ortiz, #34.

 

Point taken!

[User Name]

There's also strong evidence from players that clutch does exist.

 

It sounds to me like the statisticians have spent a lot of time trying to prove something but they don't know what it is they're trying to prove - or disprove - because they can't define the target. Therefore even if they prove something they won't know for sure whether they are proving (or disproving) what they want to prove or disprove.

 

I'm willing to call this an impasse - that the existence of clutch can neither be proven nor disproven, respect one another's right to be wrong and let it go at that.

 

There's also strong evidence from players that not changing your socks and boxers prolongs winning streaks. Like their opinion on clutch, you know what that means? Jack s***.

[Kimmi]

There's also strong evidence from players that clutch does exist.

 

Players and managers believe in a lot of things that simply aren't true.

 

A prime example of that is Jeter being voted the Gold Glove winner so many times. Managers and coaches truly believed that he was a great defensive shortstop.