Clutch vs non-clutch

[Kimmi]

Nice article...I guess.. but it has little to nothing to do with the debate at hand. I am and always have been a Bill James disciple and I believe in sabermetrics but that doesn't mean that I accept everything a sabermatrician says without proof.It also doesn't mean that I'm going to ignore the human aspect of the game and the physiological aspects of it either.

 

No one is asking you to ignore the human aspect of the game. You are willing to accept what you believe without proof, but you aren't willing to accept something that goes against what you believe, even though there is strong evidence of it.

[Kimmi]

If we accept that clutch doesn't exist we also have to accept the fact that a team stringing together several hits in a row - staging a rally - is the result of randomness. Everyone who's ever played knows that's just not true. A rally like that is the result of adrenaline and motivation and in fact often times flies in the face of probability.

 

You are not going to like this, but a team that stages a rally does so mostly due to luck and randomness and/or because they are the better team.

 

Your last sentence is simply not true.

[Kimmi]

Rallies happen and no doubt there is adrenaline and motivation involved. But the question is why did the team stage a big rally in that game, and then were unable to do the same thing the next game and the game after that? Maybe the answer is that in the first game they were facing a pitcher or pitchers who weren't very sharp.

 

This is the 'repeatibility' issue that is a big part of why the researchers find no evidence of clutch.

 

This may be your best post in this thread.

[Kimmi]

This really doesn't have anything to do with the topic of clutch specifically, but it does relate to the idea of what the stats say versus the 'I know what I see' argument.

 

Here is part of an article by Evan Drelich:

 

BASEBALL 2017: Dombrowski brings an old-fashioned approach

By Evan Drellich April 01, 2017 1:33 PM

 

 

A strong reliance on what his eyes tell him, on what he thinks his eyes are showing him, should be expected.

 

An acceptance of what others have dismissed -- on imprecise statistics like RBIs, on fuzzy concepts like clutch hitters -- is not in itself reason for condemnation.

 

 

But if Dave Dombrowski is guided primarily by empirical truths he has accepted in more than 40 years in this game, then he faces an uphill battle he may not realize is so steep.

 

The Red Sox president of baseball operations may know what he's seen. What's unclear is how much weight he gives to what he hasn't seen.

Gathering, hearing all the information available is one thing. Applying it all properly is another.

 

In a market where his every move and comment will continue to be picked apart, Dombrowski's visualization of the game makes him an outlier from executives who likely more often question their own experiences.

 

The biggest question facing the top Sox boss is how much he questions himself.

 

 

I think Drelich makes a good point about maybe it's not what you've "seen", but more about what you can't see or haven't seen. I have no doubt that you guys have experienced what you call 'clutch'. As I've said, I've experienced those moments myself. But, perhaps it's not really clutch, but something else.

[Bellhorn04]

This may be your best post in this thread.

 

Gee, I wonder why LOL. I like to think I'm capable of seeing both sides of an issue.

[Bellhorn04]

I think Drelich makes a good point about maybe it's not what you've "seen", but more about what you can't see or haven't seen. I have no doubt that you guys have experienced what you call 'clutch'. As I've said, I've experienced those moments myself. But, perhaps it's not really clutch, but something else.

 

My most significant firsthand experiences with 'clutch' and 'choke' come from playing touch football for many years. My claim to fame was that I had 'good hands'. I caught the ball most of the time and I sometimes made difficult catches. On the other hand, sometimes I dropped balls that were right in my hands. Anyone who's ever played receiver in football knows how good it feels to make a tough catch and how agonizing it is to drop a ball. When you drop one you go through this process of trying to figure out how the hell that could possibly happen.

 

Some games you just feel good...you feel strong, your mind feels sharp, you're confident...good things happen. Some games you feel like crap mentally and physically...you're 'fighting the ball', your hands don't feel quite right, when the ball is coming your way you have fears you're going to drop it.

[S5Dewey]

You are not going to like this, but a team that stages a rally does so mostly due to luck and randomness and/or because they are the better team.

 

Your last sentence is simply not true.

Probability would tell us that if a ,333 hitter has gone 0-2 hell probably get a hit in his next AB. He'll then make two outs in a row, then get a hit, then make two outs, and so on. That's probability based on statistics. So what's the probability of four or five players getting consecutive hits?

When that happens there's clearly something else going on there. Something that can't be explained by statistics and/ or probability..

[Bellhorn04]

Probability would tell us that if a ,333 hitter has gone 0-2 hell probably get a hit in his next AB. He'll then make two outs in a row, then get a hit, then make two outs, and so on. That's probability based on statistics. So what's the probability of four or five players getting consecutive hits?

When that happens there's clearly something else going on there. Something that can't be explained by statistics and/ or probability..

 

The 'something else' might also have a lot to do with the opposing pitching...a starter who's gassed or who just doesn't have it that day, a middle reliever with a 5 ERA etc....there are a lot of variables to be considered.

[S5Dewey]

The 'something else' might also have a lot to do with the opposing pitching...a starter who's gassed or who just doesn't have it that day, a middle reliever with a 5 ERA etc....there are a lot of variables to be considered.

It might be that. Or it might be adrenaline & motivation, too.we don't have knowledge of what it is.

Based on my own personal experience I'm going with a & m.

[User Name]

Probability would tell us that if a ,333 hitter has gone 0-2 hell probably get a hit in his next AB. He'll then make two outs in a row, then get a hit, then make two outs, and so on. That's probability based on statistics. So what's the probability of four or five players getting consecutive hits?

When that happens there's clearly something else going on there. Something that can't be explained by statistics and/ or probability..

 

That's an extremely simplistic (and honestly, incorrect) view of how probability works.

[cp176]

I don't think that people stick with their known routines because they are stupid, but rather because they are stubborn and because we are creatures of habit. The example cited in the article is an extreme case given just to make the point.

 

The author does go on to say that the player cannot alter everything he knows because that would create more problems with mechanics etc. In other words, he is not suggesting an all or nothing approach.

 

The author is just suggesting to keep an open mind. Sabermetrics have shown that much of what has been believed for decades is simply not true.

 

I think that author of an article such as this would profit from having someone like you to help explain what they actually were trying to say. Keeping an open mind is something that I absolutely agree with. That is how we learn. I am absolutely willing to accept the fact that sabermetrics is helping to show that there alternatives to traditional thinking that should be considered if traditional ways and concepts just aren't working.

[TedWilliams101]

Probability would tell us that if a ,333 hitter has gone 0-2 hell probably get a hit in his next AB.

That isn't how probability works. Past events have no bearing on future events. The odds of getting a hit are still 0.333, they don't increase or decrease due to the past. Now using someone's career BA isn't a precise probability. There are a lot of factors at play. A hitter in a bad slump would be less likely to get a hit because the odds of getting a hit aren't just a career average. But what doesn't work is the idea that a .333 career hitter is likely to go on a hot streak if they just had a big slump. Odds tend to even out in the long-run, but they don't 'make up' for what has already happened, nor do they actually end up even, and you see a bigger variance the smaller the sample size is. IE, a full season is a pretty good sample size, but even there you see a lot of variance, especially with streaky hitters. There's another point there. A hitter who always ends up with the same BA every season does so out of consistency. IE, they don't generally go on big hot/cold streaks. A player who does go on streaks, well, you see that reflected in major fluxuations in their yearly BA average, which is exactly what happens. And it happens because past events have no bearing on future events. 600 at-bats is not a big sample size for a streaky hitter, thus it doesn't even out of the course of the season, it takes much much longer.

 

He'll then make two outs in a row, then get a hit, then make two outs, and so on. That's probability based on statistics.

That's not probability based on statistics. It's individual event or likely outcomes over a sample size. A 0.333 hitter always has the same 0.333 odds of getting a hit when stepping up to the plate, whether they just went 0 for 10 or 10 for 10. Looking at the likely outcome of 9 plate appearances, then you would think to expect to see 3 hits and 6 outs, but not in any predictable order. But that isn't actually true either. It's the most likely of all outcomes (3 hits, 6 outs), but odds are that you will see some slightly different distribution (2 hits, 7 outs etc etc).

 

Anyways, the odds of getting exactly 1 hit followed by 2 outs is actually lower than the odds of getting at least one hit in 3 at bats. The odds of getting a hit in any of 3 at bats is 0.333. The odds of getting exactly 2 outs and 1 hit are 0.333*0.666*0.666 = 0.148

 

So what's the probability of four or five players getting consecutive hits?

Assuming they all have a 0.333 chance of getting a hit, it's 0.333^4 or 0.333^5 = 0.012 or 0.0041 (1.2% and 0.4%)

 

Which is what you would expect. It is EXTREMELY rare to see exactly 4 or 5 consecutive hits.

 

When that happens there's clearly something else going on there. Something that can't be explained by statistics and/ or probability..

No, probability and statistics is precisely what is going on. Take coin flipping for example. The odds of landing heads or tails is always 50%. Always. Never changes. You can throw 10 heads in a row. That 11th throw is still 50% chance of heads.

Now throw a coin 10 times. The odds suggest, given a large enough sample size, you should end up with an even distribution of heads and tails. BUT, that itself is a probability.

 

There's a 0.19% of flipping 10 straight heads. Guess what, it happens. In fact, over an infinite sample size, you would expect to see EVERY possible distribution in smaller subdivisions of that set. IE, there will be 2 straight heads, 2 straight tails; 3 straight heads, 3 straight tails, etc etc. Every permutation possible is expected to happen with an infinite sample size.

 

THAT is how probability and statistics work. And it's pretty common sense. If clutch were real (from a probability standpoint), then a team would never lose, or would lose less than they are predicted to. That just doesn't happen. Now if you want to talk about how some players are better at handling pressure, that's absolutely true. But it also shows up in the statistics and it isn't clutch, it's a good player that can handle pressure.

 

Now the argument I'm sure you'd then make: "But what about players that have better #s with RISP than without?" That's easy. It's one of two things: 1. The player doesn't focus as much without men on. They don't have some extra ability in pressure situations, they just are actually paying attention. 2. Randomness. Again, it's unlikely that a player will end up with identically stats with RISP vs no-RISP. They should be close, but occasionally they will be much higher/lower. That's expected. The distribution of all of MLB stats is a bell curve in this regard. The majority have very little variance between RISP and non-RISP, ie the middle of the curve. A small percentage will be at either end of the curve, with larger deviations. It's just how it works out. Just like flipping a coin. You flip do 100 sets of 100 coin flips (10,000 total), the majority will be close to a 50/50 split heads and tails. But there will be a deviation, with at least a few sets with the split pretty far from 50/50. THAT is how statistics and probability work.

Edited April 2, 2017 by TedWilliams101

[User Name]

^That.

[Bellhorn04]

It might be that. Or it might be adrenaline & motivation, too.we don't have knowledge of what it is.

Based on my own personal experience I'm going with a & m.

 

But if a & m is all it takes for a team to stage a big rally...

 

Why doesn't that team do it every game?

[dgalehouse]

I don't know if you can compare the probabilities of a flip of a coin , roll of the dice , spin of the wheel ,etc. to a head to head athletic contest with much at stake and emotions running high.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't know if you can compare the probabilities of a flip of a coin , roll of the dice , spin of the wheel ,etc. to a head to head athletic contest with much at stake and emotions running high.

 

It's not a perfect comparison. But probabilities and averages are unavoidable facts in baseball. You can start out with the obvious one that even the best hitters will not hit much higher than .300 over a season. They'll have hot streaks and cold streaks but at the end of it all they'll have an average somewhere around .300.

[TedWilliams101]

I don't know if you can compare the probabilities of a flip of a coin , roll of the dice , spin of the wheel ,etc. to a head to head athletic contest with much at stake and emotions running high.

 

Statistical models are are used to predict everything from the weather to electron scattering patterns. The examples I used were extremely basic, just for the point of explaining statistics and probability. Of course in the real world there are dozen of factors that would go into statistical models for making player/team predictions. The point is simply to show how these things work, not give a real world model.

[Kimmi]

Gee, I wonder why LOL. I like to think I'm capable of seeing both sides of an issue.

 

You are one of the most level headed and fair posters here. You always bring up good counter arguments, which I've told you before, is kind of annoying.

[S5Dewey]

But if a & m is all it takes for a team to stage a big rally...

 

Why doesn't that team do it every game?[/quote

Isn't this like asking why a.player who hits a home run doesn't hit one on every at bat? He's proven he has the ability to do it so why doesn't he do it every time?

Because people and outside influences are involved and not mathematical formulas.

[Kimmi]

My most significant firsthand experiences with 'clutch' and 'choke' come from playing touch football for many years. My claim to fame was that I had 'good hands'. I caught the ball most of the time and I sometimes made difficult catches. On the other hand, sometimes I dropped balls that were right in my hands. Anyone who's ever played receiver in football knows how good it feels to make a tough catch and how agonizing it is to drop a ball. When you drop one you go through this process of trying to figure out how the hell that could possibly happen.

 

Some games you just feel good...you feel strong, your mind feels sharp, you're confident...good things happen. Some games you feel like crap mentally and physically...you're 'fighting the ball', your hands don't feel quite right, when the ball is coming your way you have fears you're going to drop it.

 

I can agree with the idea that when you're feeling good, you perform better. I think that holds true in just about any field, not just sports. I would not call that clutch or choke, however.

[Kimmi]

Ted Williams, thank you for taking the time to make that post.

[TedWilliams101]

But if a & m is all it takes for a team to stage a big rally...

 

Why doesn't that team do it every game?[/quote

Isn't this like asking why a.player who hits a home run doesn't hit one on every at bat? He's proven he has the ability to do it so why doesn't he do it every time?

Because people and outside influences are involved and not mathematical formulas.

 

Mathematical formulas and models are simply a way to describe the natural world. People are part of the natural world. With respect to baseball, you are right that there are limitations, but if you take the core variables, you can create a fairly good predictive model. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's far better than just going by the 'eyeball' test. That's the entire point of this.

 

As for clutch. It simply comes down to the fact that the best players perform the best in the clutch. The reason Ortiz was considered clutch was because he was a damn good hitter that had many opportunities in 'clutch' situations. If you look at his stats, there's actually no significant difference between his 'clutch' stats and his non-clutch stats. And when it comes to the playoffs, the small sample size becomes an issue. Just look at Mr October. He played in so many playoff games that he had many opportunities in 'clutch' spots, but his stat line completely evened out, as to be nearly identical to his regular season stats. The point? He's just a really good player.

[Bellhorn04]

But if a & m is all it takes for a team to stage a big rally...

 

Why doesn't that team do it every game?[/quote

Isn't this like asking why a.player who hits a home run doesn't hit one on every at bat? He's proven he has the ability to do it so why doesn't he do it every time?

Because people and outside influences are involved and not mathematical formulas.

 

OK, well, getting back to your example, 5 consecutive hits doesn't happen very often, and when it does happen, it's usually because of the opposing pitcher or pitchers having commend issues and leaving a lot of pitches in the middle of the plate.

[TedWilliams101]

 

OK, well, getting back to your example, 5 consecutive hits doesn't happen very often, and when it does happen, it's usually because of the opposing pitcher or pitchers having commend issues and leaving a lot of pitches in the middle of the plate.

 

Do you remember the 4 straight HRs by the Sox a while back against the Yankees? (Manny, Drew, Lowell, Vtek I believe). Combination of bad pitching, 4 hitters with power, and dumb luck. Will probably never see that again! But... it happened!

[Bellhorn04]

 

Do you remember the 4 straight HRs by the Sox a while back against the Yankees? (Manny, Drew, Lowell, Vtek I believe). Combination of bad pitching, 4 hitters with power, and dumb luck. Will probably never see that again! But... it happened!

 

2007...the pitcher's name was Chase Wright.

 

The Yanks seem to have a thing for guys named Chase...with Chase Headley and Chase Shreve on the current team...sorry, that's actually *Chasen* Shreve.

[S5Dewey]

God, I hope you're all wrong, because if you're not you just made baseball about as much fun as...well... as Bill James said on the Simpsons, as much fun as doing your taxes.

[Bellhorn04]

God, I hope you're all wrong, because if you're not you just made baseball about as much fun as...well... as Bill James said on the Simpsons, as much fun as doing your taxes.

 

Take heart, man. Statistical analysis is just a sideshow to entertain us between games. The games are the real show. And as much as the stats tell us about averages, they are virtually useless in predicting what will happen in actual games. Weird stuff happened in all 3 games yesterday. Who saw Tanaka getting shelled? The human element is very much a part of it.

[cp176]

God, I hope you're all wrong, because if you're not you just made baseball about as much fun as...well... as Bill James said on the Simpsons, as much fun as doing your taxes.

 

you are not wrong at all. Things happen everyday that just happen. i don't believe that everything can be predicted accurately based on analyzing statistics. I believe as always there will be some very special athletes that do perform better under certain circumstances than others. They often are not what seem to be the best players - they just come up big when you need them most. This is our belief and no one actually can prove that our beliefs are wrong. Obviously, if you are a gambling man then going with the data most of the time will be the safe avenue but it doesn't always work out. if it did, Ben Taylor would not be in our bullpen today. Good for him i say but no one and I mean no one was yapping too loudly about this what number21 or 22 prospect making this year's team. i'm sure that there will start to be a lot of ass covering by the people who rate everything rateable with respect to prospects. Good for them if they do - they aren't wrong it is just that things don't always follow this tidy little path. i guess maybe even spring training had a little significance for this young man as well! Maybe he will even come up big in a moment we might consider clutch. If he does, I will call him a clutch player whether he can do it repeatedly or not. lol

Let the games begin!

[Slasher9]

I agree with the 'maintain your composure' argument, or defining clutch as the lack of choking.

 

I just think that players who succeed at the major league level are pretty much all able to maintain their composure under pressure. Those who can't maintain their composure don't make it to the majors, or they don't last very long. So, while I believe that chokers exist, I don't think that they exist at the major league level.

 

postseason clutch is what matters. there a some players that are clutch and there are many many that crumble under the pressure.

[SoxHop]

When the pressure is on. When the situation is tough, when it is do or die, humans up their game. Ever heard that a team wasn't ready for playoff ball?

 

Things get faster, things get more tight. A routine play in clutch ball game time can feel like do or death situation. Nerves are on full tilt. Emotions too.

 

The same play in the regular 162 games compared to the playoffs could feel totally different.

 

Some people can't handle it. Some can................ some can't rise to the level of the game being played in clutch situations.

 

I could be wrong, but I've seen and been on both sides of the coin on what I just wrote.