Clutch vs non-clutch

[Kimmi]

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

 

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.

 

You are both trying to run with this point to discredit all of the research that's been done on the topic. The idea that people have not agreed on a definition of clutch does not invalidate the research that's been done. In fact, it makes the point stronger, because no matter what definition of clutch they use, the results come back the same.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

I am willing to call an impasse as well, as I tried to do once before. Just be forewarned, that as long as you continue to post your opinions in here, I will continue to respond as I see fit.

[Kimmi]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Fixed that for you.

[Bellhorn04]

I find it hard to believe we can't call Ortiz or Schilling clutch players. That's what seems a little ridiculous about this.

[cp176]

I find it hard to believe we can't call Ortiz or Schilling clutch players. That's what seems a little ridiculous about this.

 

The beauty of this whole debate is that you can. It would be kind of like me trying to tell you what constitutes a clutch moment. Thanks but no thanks right.

[notin]

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

 

 

Evidence? Ummm no.

 

Belief is not evidence.

 

 

People believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Loch Ness Monster, Pukwudgies, that Obama wiretapped the White House after being born in Kenya, Nicholas Cage's acting ability.

 

Belief alone doesn't prove the existence of any of these things....

[Bellhorn04]

Evidence? Ummm no.

 

Belief is not evidence.

 

 

People believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Loch Ness Monster, Pukwudgies, that Obama wiretapped the White House after being born in Kenya, Nicholas Cage's acting ability.

 

Belief alone doesn't prove the existence of any of these things....

 

Being totally dismissive and bringing the Tooth Fairy into it doesn't really get us anywhere.

 

Anecdotal evidence from current and former players is a legitimate source of information to be considered, although it has to be supported by some verifiable specifics.

[Hugh2]

I find it hard to believe we can't call Ortiz or Schilling clutch players. That's what seems a little ridiculous about this.

 

I think you may be looking at it the wrong way. We're not trying to say there aren't clutch players but rather point out that what "clutch" actually is, can be very misleading to people.

 

Maintaining your composure while others crumble is still something to be credited for. Some may say that the Falcons choked more than any team in a Super Bowl ever and I think there's truth to that statement. But the Patriots kept their cool, their focus, and maintained their composure.

 

I have zero problem calling David Ortiz a clutch player I just don't think he is mentally or physiologically performing at a higher level there.

[Bellhorn04]

I think you may be looking at it the wrong way. We're not trying to say there aren't clutch players but rather point out that what "clutch" actually is, can be very misleading to people.

 

Maintaining your composure while others crumble is still something to be credited for. Some may say that the Falcons choked more than any team in a Super Bowl ever and I think there's truth to that statement. But the Patriots kept their cool, their focus, and maintained their composure.

 

I have zero problem calling David Ortiz a clutch player I just don't think he is mentally or physiologically performing at a higher level there.

 

Yes, I think we've actually reached a consensus that clutch is absence of choking rather than going to a higher level.

[Hugh2]

I find it hard to believe we can't call Ortiz or Schilling clutch players. That's what seems a little ridiculous about this.

 

Yes, I think we've actually reached a consensus that clutch is absence of choking rather than going to a higher level.

 

Thank god! I apologize, I missed some of the conversation in here and would have never thought we'd come to that consensus in here.

[Kimmi]

I find it hard to believe we can't call Ortiz or Schilling clutch players. That's what seems a little ridiculous about this.

 

You can call them clutch players all you want. I actually call them clutch players myself. They have certainly performed in the clutch enough times to have earned that title.

 

My biggest thing is that clutch is not a repeatable skill and it has no predictive value. But someone like Papi is such a great hitter that he is also a 'clutch' hitter.

[Kimmi]

Being totally dismissive and bringing the Tooth Fairy into it doesn't really get us anywhere.

 

Anecdotal evidence from current and former players is a legitimate source of information to be considered, although it has to be supported by some verifiable specifics.

 

But to determine whether anecdotal evidence is accurate, it needs to be supported by statistical data.

[Kimmi]

Yes, I think we've actually reached a consensus that clutch is absence of choking rather than going to a higher level.

 

We have not reached a full consensus. There are a couple who are defining clutch as raising one's game to a higher level than normal.

[mvp 78]

It is written on a plaque. It's true.

 

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.

[Bellhorn04]

It is written on a plaque. It's true.

 

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.

 

I wonder what the statshounds would say if you asked them if they agree or disagree with this?

[mvp 78]

I wonder what the statshounds would say if you asked them if they agree or disagree with this?

 

"Well, he ONLY has one plaque written about his clutchness. He's really only a 1 OPAR guy (One Plaque Above Replacement)."

 

I hope JH reveals a statue of Ortiz when his number is retired and it has Ortiz wearing a shirt the says "Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox." Then it will be case closed for this argument.

[notin]

Being totally dismissive and bringing the Tooth Fairy into it doesn't really get us anywhere.

 

Anecdotal evidence from current and former players is a legitimate source of information to be considered, although it has to be supported by some verifiable specifics.

 

Is there?

 

Players have also given us strong anecdotal "evidence" that hitting is tied to eating chicken and that pitch counts don't matter. Why is there belief in clutch and stronger than anyone else's?

 

For that matter, the entire "clutch is not choking" argument is also probably as poorly supported. Fans like to believe in chokers, but the actual definition of one appears to be far more related to reputation than to actual performance.

 

Take A-Rod. He is labeled a choker because he has a reputation for not coming through in the post-season. But has he really? He has an .822OPS in the post-season. For comparison, Derek Jeter has a career .838OPS in the post-season. Yet A-Rod is the consummate choker while Jeter is considered such a post-season legend, he was nicknamed "Mr. November" for his late season clutch hits. And the difference between the two is a whoppingly negligible 0.016 OPS points?

 

Granted, not all post-season plate appearances are clutch situations (whatever they are), but then the post-season isn't the only time for clutch hits. It's just the most memorable one. In a very long career, Alex Rodriguez has likely had his share of successful hits in clutch situtations. But we as fans tend to give players "choke" or "clutch" reputations based on small samples and selective samples, usually spread out over multiple seasons.

 

Sure, a player can come through in the clutch, and a player can fail (or choke, if you prefer) in a key situation, but you really should not try to support either a key attribute of the player by citing "these are human beings" and then go on to ignore that these human beings change from year to year physically and emotionally (the typical range for sample sizes)..

[User Name]

OPS is also greatly affected by SLG%. The ARod-Jeter comparison is disingenuous if OPS is the only performance measurement used, as Jeter was never a true slugger.

[mvp 78]

OPS is also greatly affected by SLG%. The ARod-Jeter comparison is disingenuous if OPS is the only performance measurement used, as Jeter was never a true slugger.

 

Jeter also OPS'd .438 during the series he was labelled Mr November (walk off in 2001 WS).

 

It helped that this was his fifth trip to the WS over the past 6 years.

[User Name]

Clutch doesn't exist.

[mvp 78]

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

 

I agree.

[Bellhorn04]

I agree.

 

LOL well played.

[notin]

OPS is also greatly affected by SLG%. The ARod-Jeter comparison is disingenuous if OPS is the only performance measurement used, as Jeter was never a true slugger.

 

In 330PA, A-Rod had a .365 OBP and a .457 SLG

 

in 734PA. Jeter had a .374 OB and a .465 SLG.

 

 

 

As he had over twice as many plate appearances, Jeter had many more opportunities (some of which were successful) to get meaningful hits. The end result was it created the clutch illusion around Jeter. A-Rod was a virtually identical hitter in the post-season, but fewer opportunities and successes have left him with the illusion of being a choker...

[Bellhorn04]

In 330PA, A-Rod had a .365 OBP and a .457 SLG

 

in 734PA. Jeter had a .374 OB and a .465 SLG.

 

As he had over twice as many plate appearances, Jeter had many more opportunities (some of which were successful) to get meaningful hits. The end result was it created the clutch illusion around Jeter. A-Rod was a virtually identical hitter in the post-season, but fewer opportunities and successes have left him with the illusion of being a choker...

 

Jeter's postseason OPS was 102.57% of his regular season OPS. Therefore, clutch.

 

A-Rod's postseason OPS was 88.39% of his regular season OPS. Therefore, choke.

 

(I'm not being entirely serious with that.)

[Slasher9]

That's the thing. They won't quit.

 

I don't mean to offend anyone with the following (though I probably will). Non stat baseball fans have been allowed to claim that things are true and are fact for decades without any proof that they are. It's what they know, it's what they see, it's the way that it's always been, and so it must be true.

 

The reality is, much of what has been accepted as true really isn't. At least the stat geeks are making an attempt to understand what's really going on in the game, not just accepting what has been assumed for all those years.

 

Holy smokes Kimmi.

do you believe in Love? can you prove love? can a statistician prove love?

love = clutch

or even further:

love = clutch = God

[Slasher9]

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

 

do you have love and god?

[a700hitter]

You are both trying to run with this point to discredit all of the research that's been done on the topic. The idea that people have not agreed on a definition of clutch does not invalidate the research that's been done. In fact, it makes the point stronger, because no matter what definition of clutch they use, the results come back the same.

But if none of the definitions are accurate, the research (which does not disprove the concept) is not only useless but also irrelevant.

[Bellhorn04]

Holy smokes Kimmi.

do you believe in Love? can you prove love? can a statistician prove love?

love = clutch

or even further:

love = clutch = God

 

Well, God should probably be left out of it, but you do have a basic point, proving the existence of something intangible is pretty goddam difficult.

[Slasher9]

We have not reached a full consensus. There are a couple who are defining clutch as raising one's game to a higher level than normal.

 

yes. its called focus. do you believe in focus? do you believe that in a defining moment in a game a player could have more focus? be "zoned in"? thats raising your level.

[notin]

But if none of the definitions are accurate, the research (which does not disprove the concept) is not only useless but also irrelevant.

 

That means you are operating on the definition that NONE o the definitions are accurate.

 

Of course, if none of them are accurate, that means no one knows what clutch is, which means saying it does exist is a complete fallacy..