Clutch vs non-clutch

[Bellhorn04]

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

 

I think S5Dewey has stated that some players can take it to another level in clutch situations. I think he's the only one here who has taken that position.

[Kimmi]

I think S5Dewey has stated that some players can take it to another level in clutch situations. I think he's the only one here who has taken that position.

 

S5, cp, and Slasher (there may be others) have all taken the position that clutch is something more than just the absence of choke. They have all said to one extent or another that the players raise their game during clutch moments.

[notin]

Nobody on here has ever saidthat clutch = extra ability.

 

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

 

So the pro-clutch are saying " clutch is real. Its the ability to maintain the status quo!"

 

And the anti-clutch people have been saying "clutch isn't real and players maintain the status quo."

 

Sound about right?

[S5Dewey]

So the pro-clutch are saying " clutch is real. Its the ability to maintain the status quo!"

 

And the anti-clutch people have been saying "clutch isn't real and players maintain the status quo."

 

Sound about right?

 

Almost, but not exclusively.

[Bellhorn04]

S5, cp, and Slasher (there may be others) have all taken the position that clutch is something more than just the absence of choke. They have all said to one extent or another that the players raise their game during clutch moments.

 

Right you are.

[Bellhorn04]

So the pro-clutch are saying " clutch is real. Its the ability to maintain the status quo!"

 

And the anti-clutch people have been saying "clutch isn't real and players maintain the status quo."

 

Sound about right?

 

You're glossing over an important difference.

 

The majority of us 'pro-clutch' people believe that some players choke or are non-clutch.

 

Do any of the 'anti-clutch' people believe that?

[Kimmi]

You're glossing over an important difference.

 

The majority of us 'pro-clutch' people believe that some players choke or are non-clutch.

 

Do any of the 'anti-clutch' people believe that?

 

I do believe in the existence of choke, but I think that the 'chokers' are weeded out by the major league level. Or if they make it there, they do not last very long. I believe that most major league players handle pressure pretty well, though I'm sure they all have their moments when they let it get to them. At the major league level, their are choke moments, just as there are clutch moments.

[mvp 78]

If chokers are weeded out, why are there guys like Price or BH Kim who melt in the playoffs so consistently? I just don't buy into the "weeded out" theory.

[mvp 78]

I think S5Dewey has stated that some players can take it to another level in clutch situations. I think he's the only one here who has taken that position.

 

That opinion is gross to me. Elevating is a myth. Choking is not.

[Bellhorn04]

I do believe in the existence of choke, but I think that the 'chokers' are weeded out by the major league level. Or if they make it there, they do not last very long. I believe that most major league players handle pressure pretty well, though I'm sure they all have their moments when they let it get to them. At the major league level, their are choke moments, just as there are clutch moments.

 

Here's my view on David Price:

 

I don't think of him as choking in postseason games in the sense that he's scared out there on the mound.

 

I do think he may be suffering from negative thinking in those games.

 

It's a fundamental psychological principle that success breeds confidence and confidence breeds success, and the same holds for failure and negative thinking.

 

When athletes hire sports psychologists, most of what they're trying to accomplish is to get rid of those demons of negative thinking.

[notin]

If chokers are weeded out, why are there guys like Price or BH Kim who melt in the playoffs so consistently? I just don't buy into the "weeded out" theory.

 

Byung Hyun Kim pitched all of 11 post-season innings over 3 seasons in his career. THAT is an example of "consistent" meltdowns in the post-season?

[notin]

That opinion is gross to me. Elevating is a myth. Choking is not.

 

Ok. So what's choking?

 

And how do you differentiate from a normal yet ill-timed bad week?

[S5Dewey]

Ok. So what's choking?

 

And how do you differentiate from a normal yet ill-timed bad week?

 

We can't differentiate. That's what all 53 pages of this thread are about. For every person who talks about a player being clutch or choking an argument can be made that the player's performance is 'random' and that their overall statistics are a product of that randomness.

 

"We don't see things as they are. We see things as we are".

[TedWilliams101]

If chokers are weeded out, why are there guys like Price or BH Kim who melt in the playoffs so consistently? I just don't buy into the "weeded out" theory.

 

I don't think 'chokers' are completely weeded out just getting to the MLB level because not all franchises are created equal. How many players have we seen go from a team, that has Zero expectations and barely plays a meaningful game (TB, SD, etc), to the Red Sox and can't handle the pressure? The only meaningful games price ever pitched were in the playoffs before coming to Boston. There were no expectations in TB, there was no giant contract to live up to, he didn't face anything like the Boston Media while in TB. That is why I'm a big proponent of keeping guys who have proven to excel on big-market teams rather than pinch pennies (Lester :: rolls eyes).

 

As for clutch, I think it is a bit semantics. The issue isn't with saying "that was clutch", rather, trying to equate a person as being 'more clutch' and using it as a predictor. Yes, by definition, Ortiz has had more clutch his in the playoffs than almost anyone. But it isn't because he has some different ability, it's because he was just a really good hitter who had lots of opportunities and had luck on his side. You can equate it to a poker tournament. The best player in the world needs an inordinate amount of luck to win a large tournament. There's a big variance between, say, the amount of WSOP bracelets each of the top Pros have, but it isn't because of ability, it's just pure variance. You need luck, and acknowledging that isn't diminishing anyone's abilities or accomplishments. It's just the way things work.

 

So if we agree that there is no such thing as a player 'elevating' their play in critical spots (at least on the highest professional levels in sports), then clutch shouldn't ever be used as a factor in a player's worth, ability, or projections. It's to look back and say "Man, Ortiz had a lot of clutch hits", because, by definition, he did. But that does NOT make him a more clutch hitter, in terms of ability or projections (if he were still playing). Just like the poker analogy, it simply means he got more bracelets, but it doesn't make him any more likely to win the next one over any of the other top pros.

 

That is the point. People using clutch as a predictor is flat up wrong. Otherwise, Panda might as well be Babe Ruth.

[S5Dewey]

I don't think 'chokers' are completely weeded out just getting to the MLB level because not all franchises are created equal. How many players have we seen go from a team, that has Zero expectations and barely plays a meaningful game (TB, SD, etc), to the Red Sox and can't handle the pressure? The only meaningful games price ever pitched were in the playoffs before coming to Boston. There were no expectations in TB, there was no giant contract to live up to, he didn't face anything like the Boston Media while in TB. That is why I'm a big proponent of keeping guys who have proven to excel on big-market teams rather than pinch pennies (Lester :: rolls eyes).

 

As for clutch, I think it is a bit semantics. The issue isn't with saying "that was clutch", rather, trying to equate a person as being 'more clutch' and using it as a predictor. Yes, by definition, Ortiz has had more clutch his in the playoffs than almost anyone. But it isn't because he has some different ability, it's because he was just a really good hitter who had lots of opportunities and had luck on his side. You can equate it to a poker tournament. The best player in the world needs an inordinate amount of luck to win a large tournament. There's a big variance between, say, the amount of WSOP bracelets each of the top Pros have, but it isn't because of ability, it's just pure variance. You need luck, and acknowledging that isn't diminishing anyone's abilities or accomplishments. It's just the way things work.

 

So if we agree that there is no such thing as a player 'elevating' their play in critical spots (at least on the highest professional levels in sports), then clutch shouldn't ever be used as a factor in a player's worth, ability, or projections. It's to look back and say "Man, Ortiz had a lot of clutch hits", because, by definition, he did. But that does NOT make him a more clutch hitter, in terms of ability or projections (if he were still playing). Just like the poker analogy, it simply means he got more bracelets, but it doesn't make him any more likely to win the next one over any of the other top pros.

 

That is the point. People using clutch as a predictor is flat up wrong. Otherwise, Panda might as well be Babe Ruth.

 

Then we also can't use "chock" as a predictor because there's too much luck involved in it. Did the hitter get a good pitch to hit? Did he hit it hard but right at someone? That's luck. And if you believe it's all based in luck then Panda may as well be Babe Ruth and David Price may as well be Tom Seaver.

[mvp 78]

Being a better hitter and more calm in high stress situations is adifferent ability.

[mvp 78]

Ok. So what's choking?

 

And how do you differentiate from a normal yet ill-timed bad week?

 

When your ill timed bad week is ALWAYS during the playoffs. That's choking, not randomness.

[mvp 78]

Byung Hyun Kim pitched all of 11 post-season innings over 3 seasons in his career. THAT is an example of "consistent" meltdowns in the post-season?

 

It's what lead to the downward spiral of his career.

[notin]

When your ill timed bad week is ALWAYS during the playoffs. That's choking, not randomness.

 

But how do you know it isn't fatigue or simply nagging injuries from a long season?

[notin]

It's what lead to the downward spiral of his career.

 

No. Much like Derek Lowe, converting to starting pitching lead to the downward spiral of his career...

[notin]

I don't think 'chokers' are completely weeded out just getting to the MLB level because not all franchises are created equal. How many players have we seen go from a team, that has Zero expectations and barely plays a meaningful game (TB, SD, etc), to the Red Sox and can't handle the pressure? The only meaningful games price ever pitched were in the playoffs before coming to Boston. There were no expectations in TB, there was no giant contract to live up to, he didn't face anything like the Boston Media while in TB. .

 

Price also pitched for Detroit and Toronto...

Edited April 16, 2017 by notin

[Kimmi]

If chokers are weeded out, why are there guys like Price or BH Kim who melt in the playoffs so consistently? I just don't buy into the "weeded out" theory.

 

It could be any number of things. I really don't think they could sustain an MLB career if they can't handle pressure. JMO

[Kimmi]

Here's my view on David Price:

 

I don't think of him as choking in postseason games in the sense that he's scared out there on the mound.

 

I do think he may be suffering from negative thinking in those games.

 

It's a fundamental psychological principle that success breeds confidence and confidence breeds success, and the same holds for failure and negative thinking.

 

When athletes hire sports psychologists, most of what they're trying to accomplish is to get rid of those demons of negative thinking.

 

I can agree with this. I don't think that's choking though.

 

I think of choking as the inability to handle high pressure.

 

I don't know if anything psychological is going on with Price, but if there is, I would think of it more as 'psyching himself out' then choking.

[Kimmi]

Then we also can't use "chock" as a predictor because there's too much luck involved in it. Did the hitter get a good pitch to hit? Did he hit it hard but right at someone? That's luck. And if you believe it's all based in luck then Panda may as well be Babe Ruth and David Price may as well be Tom Seaver.

 

There is no evidence that either choke or clutch are repeatable or predictable at the MLB level.

[Benintendi]

Weather can also have a tremendous affect on a pitcher. The air in October is much colder than during the summer months. If the pitchers fingers get cold, that affects his grip quite a bit. It also can affect how "loose" his arm feels. I would like to see what the weather was like during Prices playoff starts, and see if it correlates in any way to performance. Does anyone know of a way to check or a website that shows this?

[Bellhorn04]

Here's something about 'randomness': it is a huge factor in baseball, and it does explain a lot of things. But sometimes it turns out to be the wrong explanation for something too. We've seen it happen a number of times that a pitcher has a rough outing or two, and at first you think it was just a randomness thing, but then they examine him and find out he's got an injury and probably had it in those bad outings. 'Randomness' is kind of a one-size-fits-all explanation that gets applied to everything.

[cp176]

S5, cp, and Slasher (there may be others) have all taken the position that clutch is something more than just the absence of choke. They have all said to one extent or another that the players raise their game during clutch moments.

 

I could have said that I guess more or less. I do of course know that there are players who for what ever the reason might be seem somewhat ordinary for the most part and then just seem to get lucky i guess in very difficult situations. Most if to all of this discussion centers around hitting. My clutch players are often the guys who do things that don't show up glaringly in the box score. They just consistently do what is expected of them. i have stated numerous times that my hands on experience over the course of a lifetime is what tells me that this "phenomenon" exists. i also will admit that personally it relates to large school football, basketball especially, and baseball at the high school level. I also admit that I can't statistically prove most of what i have said but I also think that it is silly to try - imo. Better add that right. I also am pretty much ok with being on an island with a few others here when it comes to discussing all things athletic. it's been my life and a pretty good one.

[mvp 78]

It could be any number of things. I really don't think they could sustain an MLB career if they can't handle pressure. JMO

 

"It could be any number of things, just not the one thing I think it isn't."

[Bellhorn04]

I can agree with this. I don't think that's choking though.

 

I think of choking as the inability to handle high pressure.

 

I don't know if anything psychological is going on with Price, but if there is, I would think of it more as 'psyching himself out' then choking.

 

Being psyched out may not be choking, but it can have the same results.

[Slasher9]

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

 

Hey Kimmi. i think you are being rhetorical here but i will try and answer as to my thoughts. i never said players dont focus in late innings only. i would guess that this early in the season the hitters are still shaking off some rust and the 3rd or 4th time up in a game they are feeling more comfortable. we also arent facing the starter in the 8th or 9th.....