Clutch vs non-clutch

[notin]

I will. Almost.

 

I believe that a player can will himself to play better in a clutch situation whether by focus, adrenaline, or whatever. He won't be successful every time because that's the nature of the game but he can give himself a better chance to be successful.

 

Better than in a non-clutch situation?

 

Statistics don't agree with you there...

[Spudboy]

Sure, but then you've got David Price, one of the best pitchers in the game, with a 2-8 record and a 5.54 ERA in the postseason.

 

There are lots of things that are not explained. My guess is that he is close to gassed by October and of course he pitches against better competition. Who knows?

 

It is possible for higher end talent to not always shine while in a spotlight. He is not unusual in that regard.

[notin]

its two different discussions Notin. i know you are a very smart man. one discussion is about focus. the other is about clutch. you know that. i know that.

my last post to you was entirely in response to your claim of player focus. it had zero to do with "clutch". please dont strawman it into one.

my comment about the Mets was that the hitters (to me anyways) were WAAAAY more focused on their AB's after Cabrera got buzzed. it had zero to do with Price's postseason woes or Ortiz being the most clutch baseball player that ever lived. in fact my post regarding the Mets didnt even contain the word Clutch.

as for the players on record stating that they never give an AB away - i would never ever ever expect a player to go on record stating anything other than "i try 100% every single pitch of every single at bat". if he was to say anything other than that he would get crucified. you know that. i know that.

 

Well you did say clutch abilities were due to the hitter's increased focus in key situations.

 

I don't think anyone is going to crucify long retired players like Farmer and Jackson if they said they took a few innings or at bats off. Certainly not at this point in their lives.

 

I will say that I do believe players always try regardless. And there are obvious reasons. Great hitters just don't let up. It is part of what makes them great and statistics bear it out. Everyone else just doesn't want to get caught from behind by the bench player or the AAA player or the "next big thing" in the press. If someone is hitting .218, noi one says "he's hitting .218, but a lot of those at bats were unimportant so he probably didn't try." They say "he's hitting .218. Period. And if the guy who has his position in AAA is hitting .318, the pressure to keep the job is on. Ask Coco Crisp about this.

 

And it's really not even limited to players like Crisp. How many times did we hear about Steve Lyons taking over for Wade Boggs? Heck, sometime as georom who he thinks should be starting at second base for the Sox this year - Dustin Pedroia or Brock Holt? How are those twi even comparable? But apparently, the younger, cheaper, healthier (and far, far worse) Holt looks better to some.

 

The bottom line is when your job depends on performing, you have to keep the intensity up all the time. If you don't, someone else will...

[notin]

Pretty much my entire point about clutch hitters is that they come through when the lights are brightest. how many regular season low leverage and "high" leverage situations is a batter facing a #4 or 5 starter? a middle reliever that wouldnt even make a postseason roster? a terrible team that never sniffs the playoffs? a AAA starter in a spot start or for the month of September expanded roster? a lot of chances to pad your leverage stats. the postseason you dont get to face chumps. it's the best of the best. so if your numbers in the postseason are similar or better than your regular season numbers or you have 2 October nights in a row vs your most hated nemesis and walk them off...you are clutch.

 

 

IMO.

 

 

How does it matter if it's a 4th or 5th starter? Those pitchers have given up some of the biggest clutch hits in MLB history, starting with Pat Darcy. Has ANYONE EVER watched Fisk's home run off Darcy in Game 6 of 1975 , possibly the most famous home run in MLB history, and NOT described the clutchness and drama? I never once heard anyone say "Big deal. It was off Pat Darcy. Not like he hit it off Don Gullett or Gary Nolan."

 

In fact, those 4th or 5th starter types make the post-season, too. Playoff teams are not made of the best players in the league. And certainly not all the best pitchers. The Sox didn't face Carrasco or Salazar last season. They faced Trevor Bauer and Josh Tomlin - the fourth and fifth starters, one of who would not have been starting period if not for injuries. So were those or were those not "clutch at bats" by your definition?

 

High leverage is high leverage. And yes a hit to win a game in April can be more important than a hit in a 10-3 World Series game...

[Kimmi]

Has anyone made this claim?

 

Yes, more or less.

[Kimmi]

There are lots of things that are not explained. My guess is that he is close to gassed by October and of course he pitches against better competition. Who knows?

 

It is possible for higher end talent to not always shine while in a spotlight. He is not unusual in that regard.

 

I am surprised by your opinion on the topic of clutch.

[cp176]

Some players are just better at playing than other players.

 

That is the bottom line.

 

And for sure some players are better than others in seriously tough situations. Those are my clutch guys.

[notin]

There are lots of things that are not explained. My guess is that he is close to gassed by October and of course he pitches against better competition. Who knows?

 

It is possible for higher end talent to not always shine while in a spotlighst. He is not unusual in that regard.

 

With post-season games, alot of times you're looking at a small number of games over a large number of seasons. You cannot make the human element argument as many have and think these are the same players year after year.

 

And in Prince's case I think it helps to look inside the box score every once in a while. He's actually had some well pitched post season games that went sour fast...

[Bellhorn04]

29.1 of Price's 66.2 postseason innings have come against Texas. He has given up 18 earned runs in those innings for an ERA of 5.52.

 

What's weird is that Price has given up an identical 5.52 ERA against Texas in 75 regular season innings.

 

Which raises another question - why does such a good pitcher have so much trouble with one particular team?

 

We've seen it with other pitchers, like Tazawa's numbers against Toronto.

 

The old adage is 'that team just has his number'. Maybe it's something psychological or maybe that team has figured out something about him tipping his pitches, who knows.

[S5Dewey]

Better than in a non-clutch situation?

 

Statistics don't agree with you there...

 

...which is why I believe there's more to baseball than statistics. And many here don't agree with me. I can live with that.

[sk7326]

Is David Ortiz also the best hitter in Red Sox history?

 

David Ortiz, because of expanded playoffs - as well as the general quality of the Red Sox during his time here, had ... I have to think ... the most number of chances to deliver in big spots of any of the great hitters in Red Sox history. (Yaz may have had more since his career was 750 years long) There were more "pennant chases" and certainly more playoff games.

 

There are some big spots which are obvious while its happening. There are others that seem big after something happens. (for instance, the Reggie Jackson homerun in the Bucky Dent game was every bit as big) Can a big spot occur in the 1st inning? (like Ortiz' homerun in Game 7 of the 2004 ALCS) The definitions are all squishy and ultimately for our enjoyment/narrative.

[a700hitter]

David Ortiz, because of expanded playoffs - as well as the general quality of the Red Sox during his time here, had ... I have to think ... the most number of chances to deliver in big spots of any of the great hitters in Red Sox history. (Yaz may have had more since his career was 750 years long) There were more "pennant chases" and certainly more playoff games.

 

There are some big spots which are obvious while its happening. There are others that seem big after something happens. (for instance, the Reggie Jackson homerun in the Bucky Dent game was every bit as big) Can a big spot occur in the 1st inning? (like Ortiz' homerun in Game 7 of the 2004 ALCS) The definitions are all squishy and ultimately for our enjoyment/narrative.

The first dozen years of Yaz's career were a pitching dominated era.

[cp176]

...which is why I believe there's more to baseball than statistics. And many here don't agree with me. I can live with that.

 

Many do agree with you also.

[TedWilliams101]

Sure, but then you've got David Price, one of the best pitchers in the game, with a 2-8 record and a 5.54 ERA in the postseason.

 

So everything in life is now symmetrical? Not everything work like "if +x = y, then -x must equal -y!". In fact, very few situations do. David Price doesn't make valid the idea of clutch, he's simply a weak-minded pitcher who sh*ts himself when anyone puts pressure on him. I imagine it's not just baseball, either. If he didn't sh*t his pants, he wouldn't be 'clutch', he'd just be doing his job, pitching up to his abilities.

 

The problem is clutch doesn't mean anything and it certainly has no value as a predictor. A great player playing great in the playoffs... is just a great player... playing great... in the playoffs. No clutch necessary. As discussed before, we all call Ortiz the most clutch hitter for the Red Sox, yet his playoff statline is almost identical to his regular season. ie, he isn't better in the playoffs, he's just a great hitter. Trying to pick single moments that come up once in a blue moon for lucky players, and never for others, is simply statistically of no value due to how much variance there is. While Ortiz is a great hitter, him coming through in several 'win or go home' spots in '04 was more luck than skill, statistically speaking. That's just the way it is.

[Bellhorn04]

So everything in life is now symmetrical? Not everything work like "if +x = y, then -x must equal -y!". In fact, very few situations do. David Price doesn't make valid the idea of clutch, he's simply a weak-minded pitcher who sh*ts himself when anyone puts pressure on him. I imagine it's not just baseball, either. If he didn't sh*t his pants, he wouldn't be 'clutch', he'd just be doing his job, pitching up to his abilities.

 

So you don't believe in clutch but you do believe in choking.

[Bellhorn04]

There are some big spots which are obvious while its happening. There are others that seem big after something happens. (for instance, the Reggie Jackson homerun in the Bucky Dent game was every bit as big) Can a big spot occur in the 1st inning? (like Ortiz' homerun in Game 7 of the 2004 ALCS) The definitions are all squishy and ultimately for our enjoyment/narrative.

 

You're right about the squishiness, but since I do enjoy this stuff I'll tackle the two you brought up.

 

1) Reggie's HR in the playoff game was not as big as Dent's - the swing in the win probability stuff on Dent's was much larger. And Dent's brought in 3 runs.

2) Ortiz's HR in Game 7 was very big, once again because of the win probability stuff, and is one of the more overlooked of his big hits. There was also the 'intangible' value of it because we had just had a runner thrown out at the plate moments earlier.

[Kimmi]

@ Slasher - I'm wondering if our current offense just does not focus until the 8th inning or 9th inning?

[Kimmi]

For Bellhorn, here's some randomness for you:

 

The Sox outhit the Rays 14-12 in last night's game but scored 5 fewer runs.

 

And from my favorite stat provider:

 

Red Sox Stats‏ @redsoxstats 5h5 hours ago

 

1 out of every 5 fly balls allowed by Red Sox staring pitchers this year has ended up a home run. 2.3 HR/9.

 

Red Sox batters have hit the 4th most balls in the air, have the second best hard contact %, and the worst HR/FB by a lot at 3.8%.

 

How many well struck balls have we seen from the Sox hitters this season that have resulted in outs?

[TedWilliams101]

So you don't believe in clutch but you do believe in choking.

 

Anyone who is getting paid to do a job, is expected to do the job, even when there is pressure. You can fail when the pressure is on or you can do your job (not fail). Call it choking. Regardless, you wouldn't see someone say "Clutch job on the proposal Billy!". No, they'd say, "Good job!". You MET your expectations, not exceeded them. David Price hasn't even come close to MEETING his expectations come playoffs.

 

If you simply want clutch to refer to anytime you come through in a pressure situation, then OK, it's kind of the opposite of choke. But then it just doesn't mean anything. Outside of the expected statistically anomalies and small sample size issues, there hasn't been a single MLB player who has far exceeded their normal production in the playoffs. It just doesn't exist.

 

Clutch exists in the sense of, by definition, of coming through in in a critical spot. However, there is no evidence what so ever that there is such thing as a "clutch" player. You can describe past events, but you can't always use them to predict future events. In this case, clutch has less than zero value as a predictor (less, because used incorrectly, it can be worse than not using it). That is the heart of the argument. Clutch as a predictor or quality factor.

[Bellhorn04]

Anyone who is getting paid to do a job, is expected to do the job, even when there is pressure. You can fail when the pressure is on or you can do your job (not fail). Call it choking. Regardless, you wouldn't see someone say "Clutch job on the proposal Billy!". No, they'd say, "Good job!". You MET your expectations, not exceeded them. David Price hasn't even come close to MEETING his expectations come playoffs.

 

If you simply want clutch to refer to anytime you come through in a pressure situation, then OK, it's kind of the opposite of choke. But then it just doesn't mean anything.

 

I would argue that if some guys choke, a lack of choking means plenty.

[TedWilliams101]

I would argue that if some guys choke, a lack of choking means plenty.

 

Yes, but that isn't clutch. Doing your job isn't "clutch". I'm saying this notion that, some guys have an extra ability in critical spots, is false and therefore not valuable.

[mvp 78]

Yes, but that isn't clutch. Doing your job isn't "clutch". I'm saying this notion that, some guys have an extra ability in critical spots, is false and therefore not valuable.

 

Nobody on here has ever saidthat clutch = extra ability.

 

Whatpeople have said is that clutch is the lack of choking.

[mvp 78]

If stats can't explain something the it's due to luck or randomness.

 

OR MAYBE STATS CAN'T EXPLAIN AWAY EVERYTHING?!?!?

[TedWilliams101]

If stats can't explain something the it's due to luck or randomness.

 

OR MAYBE STATS CAN'T EXPLAIN AWAY EVERYTHING?!?!?

 

The stats support the fact that 'clutch' doesn't exist. Big coincidence every player whom people consider among the 'most clutch players of all time' are also hall of fame players and the absolute best of the best. Where's the Julio Lugo's? Oh yeah, that because clutch doesn't exist. Great players are great players for a reason. There's also a reason why the only players with crazy playoff #s compared to their regular season #s are tiny sample sizes, and the bigger the sample size gets, the closer to the players career norms (Papi, Jeter, Pujols, etc etc etc).

 

There are no players that consistently perform(ed) BETTER (statistically significant) in critical spots. If 'clutch' just simply is to mean not f*cking up in critical spots, then the only difference between Jason Bay and David Ortiz is that Ortiz was a better player and had more opportunities.

[mvp 78]

If 'clutch' just simply is to mean not f*cking up in critical spots, then the only difference between Jason Bay and David Ortiz is that Ortiz was a better player and had more opportunities.

 

I'm glad you finally agree that clutch exists. You took a big step today. Congrats!

[TedWilliams101]

I'm glad you finally agree that clutch exists. You took a big step today. Congrats!

 

The word exists. But the difference between Jason Bay and David Ortiz isn't 'clutch', it's one is simply the better player. End of story...

[Kimmi]

Nobody on here has ever saidthat clutch = extra ability.

 

Whatpeople have said is that clutch is the lack of choking.

 

There are people here who have said clutch = extra ability, or at least the ability to elevate one's game.

[Kimmi]

If stats can't explain something the it's due to luck or randomness.

 

OR MAYBE STATS CAN'T EXPLAIN AWAY EVERYTHING?!?!?

 

Who said stats can explain away everything?

[mvp 78]

There are people here who have said clutch = extra ability, or at least the ability to elevate one's game.

 

Who? The only ones to state anything like that are people that think it doesn't exist.

[mvp 78]

The word exists. But the difference between Jason Bay and David Ortiz isn't 'clutch', it's one is simply the better player. End of story...

 

Thank you. Better players tend to be more clutch. Except for David Price.