Clutch vs non-clutch

[User Name]

Clutch doesn't exist.

 

Also, some of you can't comprehend basic math, so why should I believe any other conclusion you spout in an authoritative tone?

[Kimmi]

Ya know all those times when you've looked at your kids or your family members and been so happy with them or proud of them that you could just burst? Well, guess what. Those feelings don't exist.

 

It's kind of hard to have a serious debate or discussion when you make comments like this, which, BTW, have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[S5Dewey]

It's kind of hard to have a serious debate or discussion when you make comments like this, which, BTW, have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

No. It has everything to do with the topic at hand. Those two things have something in common. They're both emotion-driven and they're both unable to prove mathematically.

 

The only "debate" here, which we've beaten to death, is whether or not we believe something can happen that can't be proven mathematically. You don't. I do. I'm good with that.

[sk7326]

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?

 

I think the thread asks the wrong question (I have been away - so yes I am late here). The question is "is there a definition of clutch hitting that is meaningfully separate from good hitting". And empirically, the answer is no. The answer is not perfect - because life is messy - but from a general rule of thumb perspective, that is the essence.

 

So much of what is called a clutch situation is applied post-hoc. My favorite example is Big Papi - who has so many big hits. But he has also been on tons of good teams - of course he had the chance. I think it was Parcells who talked about luck being preparation meeting opportunity - and ultimately, there has not been a definition of clutch that is much better than that.

[Kimmi]

No. It has everything to do with the topic at hand. Those two things have something in common. They're both emotion-driven and they're both unable to prove mathematically.

 

The only "debate" here, which we've beaten to death, is whether or not we believe something can happen that can't be proven mathematically. You don't. I do. I'm good with that.

 

The problem is that you're making a strawman argument. To my knowledge, no one has ever argued that something can't happen if it can't be proven mathematically. I know that I certainly have not. In fact, I have posted many times that there are many things baseball related that I believe in that I can't prove mathematically.

 

It has also been stated many times that there is no definitive proof that clutch doesn't exist. However, the statistical evidence against clutch being a repeatable and predictable 'skill' or attribute is pretty strong.

[Bellhorn04]

It has also been stated many times that there is no definitive proof that clutch doesn't exist. However, the statistical evidence against clutch being a repeatable and predictable 'skill' or attribute is pretty strong.

 

One might argue that hitting itself is not a precisely repeatable and predictable skill - there will always be random samples of total futility.

[a700hitter]

One might argue that hitting itself is not a precisely repeatable and predictable skill - there will always be random samples of total futility.

Excellent point.

[User Name]

I still don't see how, random or not, some guys magically elevate their game (over a significant sample size) in pressure situations.

[Benintendi]

Clutch doesn't exist.

 

Also, some of you can't comprehend basic math, so why should I believe any other conclusion you spout in an authoritative tone?

 

Clutch absolutely exists. Try driving a standard transmission without one. It CAN be done, but it must be done when then rpm of the engine, speed of the vehicle, and the gear you are going to/from is just right. And you will cause un-necessary premature wear on the synchros in the tranny. Better to just use the clutch.

 

(My profuse apologies if someone else mentions this. I don't care to read 45 pages to find out.)

[cp176]

Clutch absolutely exists. Try driving a standard transmission without one. It CAN be done, but it must be done when then rpm of the engine, speed of the vehicle, and the gear you are going to/from is just right. And you will cause un-necessary premature wear on the synchros in the tranny. Better to just use the clutch.

 

(My profuse apologies if someone else mentions this. I don't care to read 45 pages to find out.)

 

Got to love a third gear. You can actually shift a car without that clutch if you are careful. Don't even have to grind those gears.

[Bellhorn04]

I still don't see how, random or not, some guys magically elevate their game (over a significant sample size) in pressure situations.

 

Agreed - I think the 'magical elevation' idea is wrong. It's much more likely that pressure affects some players negatively than it affects anybody's game positively.

 

Pressure is a negative on performance - that hardly seems like a controversial idea.

[Kimmi]

One might argue that hitting itself is not a precisely repeatable and predictable skill - there will always be random samples of total futility.

 

Of course, and hence my insistence on the large part that randomness plays in the game.

 

However, 'hitting' is more repeatable and predictable than 'clutch' is. It depends on what aspect of hitting you're talking about as to how strong the year to year correlation is.

 

Batting average has a year to year correlation in the .45 ish range. As we all know, BA is not the best metric to use. OBP and SLG have year to year correlations in the .600 range, depending on what set of data you use. This is a fairly strong correlation.

 

Clutch statistics have a near 0 correlation, something like .02 to .04. Meaning none. Even BABIP has a correlation of .3 or .4, again depending on the set of data you use.

 

The higher the correlation, either positive or negative, the more that stat indicates 'true talent' as opposed to luck or randomness.

 

Incidentally, the three true outcomes of a PA, Ks, BBs, and HRs all correlate very well from year to year.

[Kimmi]

Clutch absolutely exists. Try driving a standard transmission without one. It CAN be done, but it must be done when then rpm of the engine, speed of the vehicle, and the gear you are going to/from is just right. And you will cause un-necessary premature wear on the synchros in the tranny. Better to just use the clutch.

 

(My profuse apologies if someone else mentions this. I don't care to read 45 pages to find out.)

 

Ha ha. You are now talking about something that is out of my comfort zone.

[Kimmi]

There is evidence that some batters change their behavior when at bat in high pressure situations.

 

Batters who do so successfully are good and smart hitters to begin with, like Papi.

[Bellhorn04]

Of course, and hence my insistence on the large part that randomness plays in the game.

 

However, 'hitting' is more repeatable and predictable than 'clutch' is. It depends on what aspect of hitting you're talking about as to how strong the year to year correlation is.

 

Batting average has a year to year correlation in the .45 ish range. As we all know, BA is not the best metric to use. OBP and SLG have year to year correlations in the .600 range, depending on what set of data you use. This is a fairly strong correlation.

 

Clutch statistics have a near 0 correlation, something like .02 to .04. Meaning none. Even BABIP has a correlation of .3 or .4, again depending on the set of data you use.

 

The higher the correlation, either positive or negative, the more that stat indicates 'true talent' as opposed to luck or randomness.

 

Incidentally, the three true outcomes of a PA, Ks, BBs, and HRs all correlate very well from year to year.

 

I'm repeating myself, but I believe that the sample of true clutch situations is just too small. I think some of the researchers have said this.

 

A late and close situation in April is not a true clutch situation that will show any separation between players. No major leaguer is going to be choking very much in those situations.

 

Just my opinion.

[notin]

Of course, and hence my insistence on the large part that randomness plays in the game.

 

However, 'hitting' is more repeatable and predictable than 'clutch' is. It depends on what aspect of hitting you're saying about as to how strong the year to year correlation is.

 

Batting average has a year to year correlation in the .45 ish range. As we all know, BA is not the best metric to use. OBP and SLG have year to year correlations in the .600 range, depending on what set of data you use. This is a fairly strong correlation.

 

Clutch statistics have a near 0 correlation, something like .02 to .04. Meaning none. Even BABIP has a correlation of .3 or .4, again depending on the set of data you use.

 

The higher the correlation, either positive or negative, the more that stat indicates 'true talent' as opposed to luck or randomness.

 

Incidentally, the three true outcomes of a PA, Ks, BBs, and HRs all correlate very well from year to year.

 

If you look at Ortiz' career splits on B-R.com, his OPS in high leverage situations is .040 higher than low leverage.

 

However as this is OPS, that difference isn't as great as you think and basically boils down to two singles for every 100 at bats. (Actually, slightly less.) And his ISOP in both situations was practically identical.

 

So is THAT the definition of a clutch hitter? A hitter who gets 2 more singles for every 100 at bats in clutch situations?

[Bellhorn04]

If you look at Ortiz' career splits on B-R.com, his OPS in high leverage situations is .040 higher than low leverage.

 

However as this is OPS, that difference isn't as great as you think and basically boils down to two singles for every 100 at bats. (Actually, slightly less.) And his ISOP in both situations was practically identical.

 

So is THAT the definition of a clutch hitter? A hitter who gets 2 more singles for every 100 at bats in clutch situations?

 

No. The definition of high leverage situations is what needs to be refined. In my opinion.

[Bellhorn04]

Golfer Rickie Fowler, who is tied for the lead after the second round of the Masters, put a smile on my face yesterday when in his post-round interview he used the word clutch in talking about how he played the 16th and 17th holes. Pro golfers think in terms of clutch and choke a lot.

[dgalehouse]

No. The definition of high leverage situations is what needs to be refined. In my opinion.

 

Exactly. There are situations that are somewhat "clutch " , then there are the really critical ones. Sometimes , it is hard to separate and define them , but you usually will know a truly " clutch " situation when you see one. It is too simplistic to say all post season at bats are clutch. I doubt there are any stats or consensus of opinion on a player's performance in the truly critical at bats.

[cp176]

Since I believe that there are among us athletes that can appear very normal who when you least expect them to seem to be able to come up big in big moments, I have to ask this question - to those of you who that this is just not possible, does the concept of infinity vs something finite bother you also? Is there such a thing as infinity? Is it provable? With that being said - your idea of a clutch situation and moment and my idea probably would be quite different.

[notin]

Clutch exists. 100%. as has been proven throughout this thread.

those that are trying to "argue" that it doesn't are just trolling.

lol @ whoever thought a professional baseball player has the same focus in every AB situation. too funny.

that really seals the faux argument that you are trying to make.

 

So the other day, I was listening to the White Sox against the Tigers. In the 8th inning with the score 11-2, White Sox announcers Darrin Jackson and Ed Farmer, both former MLB players with long careers, started talking about how it was important to get those final outs because the Tigers were NOT going to give up.

 

Then Darrin Jackson says, and I will do my best to quote him but it was radio, "I don't remember EVER having an at bat where I didn't care. I wanted my hits." Farmer comes back with "You have no idea how many times a guy cam up to me and said 'Why did you throw me that slider last night with the game out of hand?'. I always told them 'tell me when you give up. I'm not giving you anything.' "

 

 

 

Got any quotes from players about times they quit focusing?

[notin]

Golfer Rickie Fowler, who is tied for the lead after the second round of the Masters, put a smile on my face yesterday when in his post-round interview he used the word clutch in talking about how he played the 16th and 17th holes. Pro golfers think in terms of clutch and choke a lot.

 

 

Even people who don't believe clutch is a skill use "clutch" to describe certain moments. I also don't believe winning the lottery is a repeatable skill, but I would still describe anyone claiming the prize as a winner...

[notin]

Exactly. There are situations that are somewhat "clutch " , then there are the really critical ones. Sometimes , it is hard to separate and define them , but you usually will know a truly " clutch " situation when you see one. It is too simplistic to say all post season at bats are clutch. I doubt there are any stats or consensus of opinion on a player's performance in the truly critical at bats.

 

B-R also has "Medium Leverage". They have definitions, too, depending on how important the moment is in the game using the WPa factor. which weighs the importance of each play on the outcome of the game.

 

Really if you look at Ortiz, he's basically the same hitter in all situations. Ditto A-Rod, who is surprisingly equal to Ortiz in high leverage situations despite a reputation for being notoriously "unclutch"...

[Bellhorn04]

B-R also has "Medium Leverage". They have definitions, too, depending on how important the moment is in the game using the WPa factor. which weighs the importance of each play on the outcome of the game.

 

But where is the leveraging for the importance of the game? All these 'high leverage' situations are not equal in importance. I don't see how that could be more obvious to even the most casual observer of the game.

[Kimmi]

I'm repeating myself, but I believe that the sample of true clutch situations is just too small. I think some of the researchers have said this.

 

A late and close situation in April is not a true clutch situation that will show any separation between players. No major leaguer is going to be choking very much in those situations.

 

Just my opinion.

 

While sample size issues and the definition of clutch are valid points, I think both points are overstated in defending the existence of clutch.

 

Despite the two aforementioned points, the evidence is pretty convincing, if you ask me. It would be a different story if the studies were divided or even 20% of them were able to find some statistical evidence that clutch existed.

[Kimmi]

If you look at Ortiz' career splits on B-R.com, his OPS in high leverage situations is .040 higher than low leverage.

 

However as this is OPS, that difference isn't as great as you think and basically boils down to two singles for every 100 at bats. (Actually, slightly less.) And his ISOP in both situations was practically identical.

 

So is THAT the definition of a clutch hitter? A hitter who gets 2 more singles for every 100 at bats in clutch situations?

 

Not only that, but I'm guessing (I'm too lazy to look), that from year to year, that difference in OPS between high and low leverages situation varies, with it actually being lower in high leverage situations during some years.

 

Clutch is a great story, a feel good story. The Detroit announcers mentioned during the broadcast today how clutch Papi was. I'm okay with calling him the greatest clutch hitter ever, but the fact of the matter remains that he was a great hitter in all situations.

[Kimmi]

Since I believe that there are among us athletes that can appear very normal who when you least expect them to seem to be able to come up big in big moments, I have to ask this question - to those of you who that this is just not possible, does the concept of infinity vs something finite bother you also? Is there such a thing as infinity? Is it provable? With that being said - your idea of a clutch situation and moment and my idea probably would be quite different.

 

Being a calculus teacher, I deal with the concept of infinity all the time. I just finished up a unit on infinite series, as a matter of fact. I love the concept of infinity. I'm not sure how that relates to clutch.

[cp176]

Being a calculus teacher, I deal with the concept of infinity all the time. I just finished up a unit on infinite series, as a matter of fact. I love the concept of infinity. I'm not sure how that relates to clutch.

 

To me it does but I will admit that that very well might be me. I'm not sure whether or not anything can be infinite. Although every piece of scientific data tends to show proof that infinity is for real, who truly knows. I feel the same way about this discussion. There may be overwhelming statistical data to show proof that the concept of what some consider clutch players (whatever that might mean) do not truly exist. No one knows for sure. There are just too many variables.

[mvp 78]

Almost 700 posts of trying to deny the existence of David Ortiz. Shame!

[notin]

To me it does but I will admit that that very well might be me. I'm not sure whether or not anything can be infinite. Although every piece of scientific data tends to show proof that infinity is for real, who truly knows. I feel the same way about this discussion. There may be overwhelming statistical data to show proof that the concept of what some consider clutch players (whatever that might mean) do not truly exist. No one knows for sure. There are just too many variables.

 

Infinity is a tough concept to grasp. Try thinking about the true meaning of "Forever" some day. THAT is infinity and I still can't grasp it, except within the confines of my own lifetime, however long that ends up being. But anyway.

 

From what I can tell and have seen, mosy greay clutch hitters are great clutch hitters because they are simply great hitters. But, like Papi, they can be great enough to produce enough memorable moments that we give them that label...