Clutch vs non-clutch

[a700hitter]

That play was definitely Edelman bailing out Brady. Are you saying it was anything else?

I wouldn't call it bailing him out, because as was pointed out by Slasher (I think), Brady probably would have come up big on the next play.

[notin]

Notin, i'm not sure how this turned into TB12 and whether or not he is considered "clutch". i simply used the 4th quarter of the super bowl as an example of "momentum" after i had asked kimmi if she believed in momentum. this really is a separate discussion than "clutch". again, personally i can only grant a FG kicker "clutch" in football. every other position requires 10 other men.

as for Tom Brady...at least we can all agree that he is the greatest of all time. of that, there is no further discussion required.

 

Its a thread about clutch. Easy mistake.

 

As for momentum, you compared an example of one football game to counter her statement that its not predictive. But she eas talking about streaks of multiple games.

 

A better example might have been Game 7 of the 2004 ALCS. Did any og us think the Yankees had a chance then?

 

Of course wr also probably felt the same way for Game 7 of the 2008 ALCS. And the results wete a little less predictable given the momentum in that series...

[notin]

I wouldn't call it bailing him out, because as was pointed out by Slasher (I think), Brady probably would have come up big on the next play.

 

He very well might have. But that's supposition and faith. And faith is the opposite of proof...

[S5Dewey]

Actually it doesn't beg that question.

 

But I do know that no one (except a few people on this board) watched this year's Super Bowl and said "Wow! That was an amazing comeback by Tom Brady! This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt thst certain baseball players can gain extra skills and exceed their normal performance level repeatedly when key games are on the line!"

 

You're aware that post made NO sense, right? While I haven't "polled the audience" my best guess is that during that game most people were not only not thinking about baseball they also weren't thinking about whether or not baseball player choke or are clutch.

[a700hitter]

He very well might have. But that's supposition and faith. And faith is the opposite of proof...

Based on a demonstrated ability to repeat clutch performances.

[Kimmi]

Doesn't that mean that (at least as far as the use of the word in sports goes) it doesn't exist? My favorite is when sportscasters describe each score as a "change in momentum." I notice they don't use this much in basketball, which would reveal how dumb-ass the word and the idea behind it is. I suppose there are cases where the term might seem to apply: when you're getting your butt whipped in any sport, you often give up--surely we all know what THAT feels like!--but this has nothing to do with "momentum"--it has to do with "getting down because you're getting your butt whipped."

 

In terms of how most people think of momentum, I agree that it does not exist.

[Kimmi]

Brady's performance in the 4th quarter? Completely random. Since neither momentum nor clutch can be explained statistically we have to assume that neither of them exist.

 

Brady is so damn good that any outstanding performance he has can be attributed to randomness and not momentum or being clutch. He occasionally goes on streaks like that. We Patriot fans are just fortunate that the randomness exhibited itself in the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl.

 

I'm not sure why you and a couple of others keep bringing that strawman argument up, since no one has said anything of the kind.

 

Brady is so darn good that almost any outstanding performance he has can be attributed to his skill and talent, which is quite the opposite of randomness.

[Kimmi]

Hey now - you know better . No one has ever said that if it can't be measured then it can't exist. At least that is what I have been told. Guys like us probably wouldn't recognize clutch and clutch moments even if they did exist. lol

 

I know that you were being snarky, which does not suit you BTW, but no one has ever said that.

[Kimmi]

no. not everyone. and you and i both know that hitting a baseball is a fail endeavor. you fail 7 out of 10 times and you are an All Star and make $20MM a year.

 

in the moment it is a clutch hit. what makes someone (Ortiz) a clutch hitter is that they have repeated the clutch hit.

 

They have repeated a clutch hit, but not to the extent that it is any different from what they normally do.

[Kimmi]

for the most part i agree with this 100%. i just happen to label those that have a lot of them as "clutch".

 

There was a study done where teammates were asked who they wanted up at the plate with the game on the line. They were given the choice of the better player or the player that was considered to be clutch. One such example was the choice between ARod or Jeter. Most teammates chose the 'clutch' player, in this case Jeter.

 

The better player overwhelmingly outperformed the so called clutch player in clutch situations.

 

The point being, who we think of as being clutch may often be false perception.

[User Name]

Why is this argument still a thing? No one is going to change anyone's mind. Not that I mind the discussion by the way, as it is the purpose of both the board and this thread specifically. I'm just wondering where y'all think this is going to lead.

[cp176]

I know that you were being snarky, which does not suit you BTW, but no one has ever said that.

 

You are probably right but I really don't know what snarky is. Sarcastic - you bet. I don't care at all whether you or anyone believes what I believe about topics such as this. I sense an extremely condescending tone coming from people who question some really pretty good opinions that they don't agree with. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong about something which actually is quite often. I respect your opinion but your evidence of overwhelming proof that such really unmeasurable topics such as "clutch" does not exist does not work for me. I don't mind a good healthy civil debate but if it takes a turn, yes I can be sarcastic or what you call snarky.

[notin]

Based on a demonstrated ability to repeat clutch performances.

 

And I would have had faith in him making the play as well. He has a strong history of success all around. But I also had faith he'd bring the Pats back against Denver the year before...

[notin]

You're aware that post made NO sense, right? .

 

Neither did bringing up high school free throws in argument about whether or not certain hittrrs get better in "clutch" situations. ..

[notin]

Notin, i'm not sure how this turned into TB12 and whether or not he is considered "clutch". i simply used the 4th quarter of the super bowl as an example of "momentum" after i had asked kimmi if she believed in momentum. this really is a separate discussion than "clutch". again, personally i can only grant a FG kicker "clutch" in football. every other position requires 10 other men.

as for Tom Brady...at least we can all agree that he is the greatest of all time. of that, there is no further discussion required.

 

I agree Brady is the greatest of all time.

 

Also, so is Belichek

[cp176]

Why is this argument still a thing? No one is going to change anyone's mind. Not that I mind the discussion by the way, as it is the purpose of both the board and this thread specifically. I'm just wondering where y'all think this is going to lead.

 

I agree - it is making me "snarky" and I seriously f***ing hate being this way. I'm on to bigger and better things!

[notin]

for the most part i agree with this 100%. i just happen to label those that have a lot of them as "clutch".

 

I label them as great players. But the rest of that post sounded really spot on...

[S5Dewey]

Neither did bringing up high school free throws in argument about whether or not certain hittrrs get better in "clutch" situations. ..

 

smirk

[S5Dewey]

I agree - it is making me "snarky" and I seriously f***ing hate being this way. I'm on to bigger and better things!

 

 

When someone tries to tell me that something I've witnessed and experienced doesn't exist I get a tad snarky too. I'm done.

[Slasher9]

Why is this argument still a thing? No one is going to change anyone's mind. Not that I mind the discussion by the way, as it is the purpose of both the board and this thread specifically. I'm just wondering where y'all think this is going to lead.

 

why are you posting this? it's not going to prevent anyone from posting their thoughts on the subject. it is the purpose of the board. im just wondering where you think this is going to lead.

[Slasher9]

I label them as great players. But the rest of that post sounded really spot on...

 

and that is a fair label. what do you label players that are great during regular season but their postseason or clutch numbers are below (or way below) "average"?

[notin]

and that is a fair label. what do you label players that are great during regular season but their postseason or clutch numbers are below (or way below) "average"?

 

I certainly don't label them chokers.

 

It's a long and grueling season. This thread posed constant reminders that players are "human beings" as a reason to justify mental weaknesses, but no one wants to acknowledge physical issues the same way.

 

Fatigue might be a huge factor. Players get sore and can have a variety of aches and pains from the mere act of playing 150 games over the previous 6 months. Some will get treatment, But some may not. And certainly bring less of a player in October is a potential huge factor.

 

Not to mention, anyone can have a bad four game stretch at any time. It's really a very small sample size. And taking multiple small sample sizes spanning several isn't the same as having one large sample size. In a game of failures like baseball, even across post season samples, very small changes are the difference between being labeled a success and being labeled a failure or a choker. ...

[Kimmi]

I certainly don't label them chokers.

 

It's a long and grueling season. This thread posed constant reminders that players are "human beings" as a reason to justify mental weaknesses, but no one wants to acknowledge physical issues the same way.

 

Fatigue might be a huge factor. Players get sore and can have a variety of aches and pains from the mere act of playing 150 games over the previous 6 months. Some will get treatment, But some may not. And certainly bring less of a player in October is a potential huge factor.

 

Not to mention, anyone can have a bad four game stretch at any time. It's really a very small sample size. And taking multiple small sample sizes spanning several isn't the same as having one large sample size. In a game of failures like baseball, even across post season samples, very small changes are the difference between being labeled a success and being labeled a failure or a choker. ...

 

Spot on post.

 

On a related note, one of the reporters asked David Price if he had talked to a sports psychologist regarding his postseason woes. Price's response was something to the effect of that he didn't need to talk to a sports psychologist about that because he is not mentally weak. In other words, Price does not feel like his lack of success in the post season has anything to do with mental side of his game.

[Kimmi]

and that is a fair label. what do you label players that are great during regular season but their postseason or clutch numbers are below (or way below) "average"?

 

They are great players who have fallen victim to randomness and small sample sizes.

[Slasher9]

Spot on post.

 

On a related note, one of the reporters asked David Price if he had talked to a sports psychologist regarding his postseason woes. Price's response was something to the effect of that he didn't need to talk to a sports psychologist about that because he is not mentally weak. In other words, Price does not feel like his lack of success in the post season has anything to do with mental side of his game.

another example of how our $31MM man's "pride" is getting in the way of helping our team. why not rule it out and chat with a psychologist? Hopefully this postseason JF will listen to me and have price pen only for the postseason.

did the reporters ask a followup question.....what side of his game does he attribute his lack of success in the postseason? would love to hear his answer for that.

[Slasher9]

They are great players who have fallen victim to randomness and small sample sizes.

 

sure Kimmi. we all knew how Game 2 of the 2016 ALDS was going to play out. i dont think anyone of us were surprised with 3.1 IP & 5ER for that bright lights/big moment/ must win game. wilters wilt. we all knew it was going to happen. is that random? is that luck?

the earth has to spin. the sun has to rise. death has to death and taxes have to be collected. and of course...chockers gotta chock.

[SoxnCycles]

another example of how our $31MM man's "pride" is getting in the way of helping our team. why not rule it out and chat with a psychologist? Hopefully this postseason JF will listen to me and have price pen only for the postseason.

did the reporters ask a followup question.....what side of his game does he attribute his lack of success in the postseason? would love to hear his answer for that.

 

It would be interesting if he gave a straight answer.

But, like most atheletes, you know that's not going to happen.

[User Name]

why are you posting this? it's not going to prevent anyone from posting their thoughts on the subject. it is the purpose of the board. im just wondering where you think this is going to lead.

 

Because I can, and because I'm curious.

[Kimmi]

another example of how our $31MM man's "pride" is getting in the way of helping our team. why not rule it out and chat with a psychologist? Hopefully this postseason JF will listen to me and have price pen only for the postseason.

did the reporters ask a followup question.....what side of his game does he attribute his lack of success in the postseason? would love to hear his answer for that.

 

Price does admittedly talk to a sports psychologist about something, just not the postseason struggles. He seemed rather adamant about his lack of postseason success being caused by any mental weakness.

 

I don't follow his Twitter comments, but apparently he is letting the Twitter folks get to him, and he has become somewhat defensive about the subject. If that's the case, then I can certainly see how this is in his head, and how it could affect his future postseason performance.

[Kimmi]

sure Kimmi. we all knew how Game 2 of the 2016 ALDS was going to play out. i dont think anyone of us were surprised with 3.1 IP & 5ER for that bright lights/big moment/ must win game. wilters wilt. we all knew it was going to happen. is that random? is that luck?

the earth has to spin. the sun has to rise. death has to death and taxes have to be collected. and of course...chockers gotta chock.

 

I give Price more credit than that. Of course I don't know him, but I get the impression that he can handle pressure pretty well. I was not expecting him to to pitch poorly in the postseason. I don't see him as a choker.