Farrell

[devildavid]

That's all very nice, but it didn't respond to my post. As I said,

"You certainly are entitled to your opinion. I only wish that if statisticians are going to have that opinion they'd stop talking about being able to "step it up" like it actually exists.

 

I'm old. I confuse easily. Especially when people make statements that are in conflict with what they've said they believe."

 

You worry too much about figures of speech.

[devildavid]

Arrogant much?

 

No, I'm am confident of my position and would not be intimidated into changing it.

[Bellhorn04]

That's really interesting when you put it that way. It makes me think of military piloting school. Some fail out. And they are measuring that stuff probably to he highest degree possible. Some don't cut it.

 

Yes, I believe there is plenty of scientific evidence that pressure and fear of failure can have highly adverse effects on human beings and their performance of tasks.

[devildavid]

It isn't. It would be like saying calmness under pressure is a skill. It is an attribute as is clutch.

 

Clutch is not just an attribute, it is a performance measure. You have to demonstrate clutch in action. Calmness under pressure can help performance. Clutch is specific, repeated results. Any hitter can be clutch in the short term. The discussion is about if clutch is a permanent attribute that produces results often enough to call a hitter clutch. Or is it just that good hitters are good hitters and appear to have this attribute we call clutch.

[devildavid]

Huh?

 

"Late & Close"

Teddy 1.071

Papi .870

 

" High Leverage"

Teddy 1.090

Papi .943

 

Overall:

Teddy 1.116

Papi .931

 

 

 

 

Williams certainly appears to be clutch. Maybe being an excellent hitter is the most important thing, and not some fuzzy attribute we call clutch.

[a700hitter]

Clutch is not just an attribute, it is a performance measure. You have to demonstrate clutch in action. Calmness under pressure can help performance. Clutch is specific, repeated results. Any hitter can be clutch in the short term. The discussion is about if clutch is a permanent attribute that produces results often enough to call a hitter clutch. Or is it just that good hitters are good hitters and appear to have this attribute we call clutch.

No, it is not a performance measure. It is an attribute. The hitter can't control what happens after he hits the ball and the pitcher can't control what happens after he releases the ball. The clutch player is calm under pressure and can perform optimally. His abilities don't increase in a clutch situation. He is just able to perform up to his abilities without adverse effect. Often this will translate into statistical success, but frequently it does not, because there are intervening factors including opponents who may also be clutch. It can't be measured, because it is an attribute. How do you identify clutch. The other players and coaches can usually tell. It can be in another player's eyes, his bearing and other ways. Similarly the frightened choking player will also exhibit tells. Clutch is an attribute. Some have it. Some don't. Good players are not necessarily clutch players, and mediocre players can be clutch. A player can be clutch until he faces another player who is better and more clutch. A clutch player is not always clutch. He may have choked at some points in his career. As in golf, everyone chokes at some point. The guys who choke less than the others are the great ones. Ortiz was predominantly clutch. Denying that clutch exists, because it cannot be proved statistically is just foolishness -- a point about which to make a fatuous argument and act like a smarty pants.

[moonslav59]

Clutch is not just an attribute, it is a performance measure. You have to demonstrate clutch in action. Calmness under pressure can help performance. Clutch is specific, repeated results. Any hitter can be clutch in the short term. The discussion is about if clutch is a permanent attribute that produces results often enough to call a hitter clutch. Or is it just that good hitters are good hitters and appear to have this attribute we call clutch.

 

Exactly.

 

I don't believe it's a skill. It's not repeatable, either.

 

Players get hot and cold, and there's no reason to think that does not happen during tight situations that count.

 

Is it total randomness? Maybe not, but the numbers appear to mimic normal non clutch situation data.

 

To me, if a hitter hits worse "in clutch" situations than he does overall, it's hard to think of him as being "clutch". Nobody I have seen does it all the time or even nearly all the time.

 

Reggie Jackson & Big Papi have the appearance of being MLB's most or best "clutch hitters", but the numbers just don't back them up, both in terms of consistently being "clutch" and by hitting better than they normally do.

 

It's a myth.

 

[Bellhorn04]

Ortiz and Schilling were clutch performers, in my opinion. I think Schilling's postseason numbers are especially hard to refute. You can argue that the sample is still too small for proof. That's fine. But you certainly can't disprove he was clutch. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[devildavid]

No, it is not a performance measure. It is an attribute. The hitter can't control what happens after he hits the ball and the pitcher can't control what happens after he releases the ball. The clutch player is calm under pressure and can perform optimally. His abilities don't increase in a clutch situation. He is just able to perform up to his abilities without adverse effect. Often this will translate into statistical success, but frequently it does not, because there are intervening factors including opponents who may also be clutch. It can't be measured, because it is an attribute. How do you identify clutch. The other players and coaches can usually tell. It can be in another player's eyes, his bearing and other ways. Similarly the frightened choking player will also exhibit tells. Clutch is an attribute. Some have it. Some don't. Good players are not necessarily clutch players, and mediocre players can be clutch. A player can be clutch until he faces another player who is better and more clutch. A clutch player is not always clutch. He may have choked at some points in his career. As in golf, everyone chokes at some point. The guys who choke less than the others are the great ones. Ortiz was predominantly clutch. Denying that clutch exists, because it cannot be proved statistically is just foolishness -- a point about which to make a fatuous argument and act like a smarty pants.

 

There is no clutch without the results to demonstrate it. You have added so many exceptions that it renders your use of clutch meaningless. Being clutch in isolated instances is not the same as having clutch as an attribute.

[illinoisredsox]

No, it is not a performance measure. It is an attribute. The hitter can't control what happens after he hits the ball and the pitcher can't control what happens after he releases the ball. The clutch player is calm under pressure and can perform optimally. His abilities don't increase in a clutch situation. He is just able to perform up to his abilities without adverse effect. Often this will translate into statistical success, but frequently it does not, because there are intervening factors including opponents who may also be clutch. It can't be measured, because it is an attribute. How do you identify clutch. The other players and coaches can usually tell. It can be in another player's eyes, his bearing and other ways. Similarly the frightened choking player will also exhibit tells. Clutch is an attribute. Some have it. Some don't. Good players are not necessarily clutch players, and mediocre players can be clutch. A player can be clutch until he faces another player who is better and more clutch. A clutch player is not always clutch. He may have choked at some points in his career. As in golf, everyone chokes at some point. The guys who choke less than the others are the great ones. Ortiz was predominantly clutch. Denying that clutch exists, because it cannot be proved statistically is just foolishness -- a point about which to make a fatuous argument and act like a smarty pants.

 

Very well said. Two cases in point:

 

1) Game 5, 2004 ALCS. In the 14th, Ortiz gets a "clutch" hit by dumping a very soft single into CF, scoring Damon and winning the game. If he hits it a little harder, Williams probably catches it and they move on to the 15th. Instead, the Sox live another day and on to history.

 

2) Game 7, 1962 World Series. Bottom of the 9th, men on 2nd and 3rd, Willie McCovey rips a line drive right at Bobby Richardson and the Evil Empire wins again. If that ball is 3-4 feet to the right, left or higher, it's a two run single and the Giants are the champs. McCovey wasn't "clutch" in that situation.

 

The results were different, but did either of them really fail?

 

We like to remember the times an Ortiz came up with a "clutch" hit to win or tie a game. We forget all the times he failed in those situations.

Edited October 3, 2017 by illinoisredsox

[devildavid]

Very well said. Two cases in point:

 

1) Game 5, 2004 ALCS. In the 14th, Ortiz gets a "clutch" hit by dumping a very soft single into CF, scoring Damon and winning the game. If he hits it a little harder, Williams probably catches it and they move on to the 15th. Instead, the Sox live another day and on to history.

 

2) Game 7, 1962 World Series. Bottom of the 9th, men on 2nd and 3rd, Willie McCovey rips a line drive right at Bobby Richardson and the Evil Empire wins again. If that ball is 3-4 feet to the right, left or higher, it's a two run single and the Giants are the champs. McCovey wasn't "clutch" in that situation.

 

The results were different, but did either of them really fail?

 

We like to remember the times an Ortiz came up with a "clutch" hit to win or tie a game. We forget all the times he failed in those situations.

 

So if clutch isn't measured by results, what is the meaning of the word? Cool under pressure has a different meaning than clutch. Clutch means you come through more than you don't in a statistically significant way. Clutch is more narrowly defined as performance results in certain situations.

[a700hitter]

So if clutch isn't measured by results, what is the meaning of the word? Cool under pressure has a different meaning than clutch. Clutch means you come through more than you don't in a statistically significant way. Clutch is more narrowly defined as performance results in certain situations.

That is how you want to define it. That is your issue, but don't tell the rest of us that it doesn't exist. You can't measure an attribute -- probably can't even define it very precisely. The clutch guy is the one who the other teammates want u in a big situation -- and that is not always the best guy on the team.

[jacksonianmarch]

Herein lies the problem with the clutch argument. If someone appears to rise to the occasion, then the sample size is too small. If the numbers support that clutch doesn’t exist, then that’s fine in their eyes. I played baseball at a high level. Clutch exists, but maybe when you get to the super high levels, everyone is so talented that only a few people truly rise and only a few people truly fall. Also, the problem with the “clutch” argument is that you’re usually facing an elite pitcher in clutch time. Nobody considers a guy clutch when he cranks a 3 run homer in the second inning, even though it’s just as important as a 3 run bomb late. If someone’s OPS drops by .100 points after the 7th, it may not be the hitter, it could just be the fact that the pens are loaded with good arms late nowadays. Regardless, I think we can all agree, Ortiz was clutch. ARod was not

[devildavid]

That is how you want to define it. That is your issue, but don't tell the rest of us that it doesn't exist. You can't measure an attribute -- probably can't even define it very precisely. The clutch guy is the one who the other teammates want u in a big situation -- and that is not always the best guy on the team.

 

You can't say something exists without defining exactly what it is. If the clutch guy has failed more than succeeded he is not clutch no matter how you feel about him.

[devildavid]

Herein lies the problem with the clutch argument. If someone appears to rise to the occasion, then the sample size is too small. If the numbers support that clutch doesn’t exist, then that’s fine in their eyes. I played baseball at a high level. Clutch exists, but maybe when you get to the super high levels, everyone is so talented that only a few people truly rise and only a few people truly fall. Also, the problem with the “clutch” argument is that you’re usually facing an elite pitcher in clutch time. Nobody considers a guy clutch when he cranks a 3 run homer in the second inning, even though it’s just as important as a 3 run bomb late. If someone’s OPS drops by .100 points after the 7th, it may not be the hitter, it could just be the fact that the pens are loaded with good arms late nowadays. Regardless, I think we can all agree, Ortiz was clutch. ARod was not

 

I am not arguing that clutch doesn't exist in isolated circumstances. I'm just arguing that no player possesses a quality called clutch.

 

I would be interested to see if there are any examples of mediocre hitters who were considered clutch and the evidence that demonstrates it.

[a700hitter]

You can't say something exists without defining exactly what it is. If the clutch guy has failed more than succeeded he is not clutch no matter how you feel about him.

IMO, you are wrong. You don't get to set the parameters of how to prove whether someone possesses an attribute.

Edited October 3, 2017 by a700hitter

[devildavid]

IMO, you are wrong. You don't get to set the parameters of how to prove whether someone possesses an attribute.

 

You are the one defining clutch to fit what you want, not me. If results don't matter, how can you call someone clutch?

[jacksonianmarch]

Mark Lemke might be the best example. He was a .246/.317/.324 career hitter, but in the postseason, he elevated his game to .272/.335/.353 and this was in 257PA's.

[a700hitter]

You are the one defining clutch to fit what you want, not me. If results don't matter, how can you call someone clutch?

I am not defining it, nor am I saying that any particular player is clutch. I am just saying that it is an attribute. You can continue to try to prove or disprove it statistically and you can have fun eating soup with a fork.

[devildavid]

I am not defining it, nor am I saying that any particular player is clutch. I am just saying that it is an attribute. You can continue to try to prove or disprove it statistically and you can have fun eating soup with a fork.

 

It is not an inherent attribute without linking it to actual performance. Being cool under pressure is an emotional attribute. Clutch is tied to performance. You can't call someone clutch who has never actually come through in the clutch. Otherwise you could claim that about any player, regardless of actual performance.

[Bellhorn04]

Mark Lemke might be the best example. He was a .246/.317/.324 career hitter, but in the postseason, he elevated his game to .272/.335/.353 and this was in 257PA's.

 

The sample size for postseason numbers is obviously a large issue.

 

Lemke's 257 PA's is about 1/2 a season or a little less.

 

I use Schilling as an example. He had 133.1 postseason innings. That's about 2/3 of a season.

[a700hitter]

It is not an inherent attribute without linking it to actual performance. Being cool under pressure is an emotional attribute. Clutch is tied to performance. You can't call someone clutch who has never actually come through in the clutch. Otherwise you could claim that about any player, regardless of actual performance.

That is your issue of insisting on tying it to performance statistics. All of the payers have a lot of talent, and yes it is the emotional attribute that does separate them in those high pressure situations. Contrary to the beliefs of some, these amazing athletes who have reached the height of their profession can and do get nervous. Some can handle it better than others. Whether someone is clutch will always be a topic for debate, but the players know who has a steel spine and who wilts.

[sk7326]

It is not an inherent attribute without linking it to actual performance. Being cool under pressure is an emotional attribute. Clutch is tied to performance. You can't call someone clutch who has never actually come through in the clutch. Otherwise you could claim that about any player, regardless of actual performance.

 

is it a separate attribute from being good? Not really.

 

David Ortiz had more big hits than anybody I can remember. But he was a great hitter to begin with. And he had some hideously bad postseason series too - did he choke then? Who knows. Skill is skill.

[Bellhorn04]

It is not an inherent attribute without linking it to actual performance. Being cool under pressure is an emotional attribute. Clutch is tied to performance. You can't call someone clutch who has never actually come through in the clutch. Otherwise you could claim that about any player, regardless of actual performance.

 

My definition for clutch is pretty simple. Someone who performs as well or better in high leverage situations as they do overall.

 

But I have a problem with 'high leverage' stats in regular season games because they don't really consider the relative importance of the game itself.

 

Definitions of clutch are problematic, but far from impossible.

[a700hitter]

The sample size for postseason numbers is obviously a large issue.

 

Lemke's 257 PA's is about 1/2 a season or a little less.

 

I use Schilling as an example. He had 133.1 postseason innings. That's about 2/3 of a season.

Sample size large or small does nothing to prove or disprove clutch. In fact, the larger the sample size, the more normal those pressure situations become. Players can acclimate and adjust to those situation the more often they encounter them. Jeter had so many post season ABs that I am sure the adrenaline rush wore off many years before he hung up his spikes. I think a player who might have been a choker can become a clutch player from experience those situation over and over. Also, some guys are clutch from the start and don't need the additional reps.

[devildavid]

That is your issue of insisting on tying it to performance statistics. All of the payers have a lot of talent, and yes it is the emotional attribute that does separate them in those high pressure situations. Contrary to the beliefs of some, these amazing athletes who have reached the height of their profession can and do get nervous. Some can handle it better than others. Whether someone is clutch will always be a topic for debate, but the players know who has a steel spine and who wilts.

 

Without tying it to performance, how can you call a hitter clutch?

[a700hitter]

Without tying it to performance, how can you call a hitter clutch?

It is all opinion. Obviously, good performance stats bolster a case.

[devildavid]

My definition for clutch is pretty simple. Someone who performs as well or better in high leverage situations as they do overall.

 

But I have a problem with 'high leverage' stats in regular season games because they don't really consider the relative importance of the game itself.

 

Definitions of clutch are problematic, but far from impossible.

 

But some seem to think it is an attribute not linked to actual performance. That is not a definition at all.

[devildavid]

It is all opinion. Obviously, good performance stats bolster a case.

 

There is no case for clutch without performance results. It is the very definition of the word.

[S5Dewey]

My definition for clutch is pretty simple. Someone who performs as well or better in high leverage situations as they do overall.

 

But I have a problem with 'high leverage' stats in regular season games because they don't really consider the relative importance of the game itself.

 

Definitions of clutch are problematic, but far from impossible.

 

IIMO defining clutch to a non-believer is darn near impossible because the response is always "Yeah, but that's a small sample size so it proves nothing." The fact is, clutch situations usually are a small sample size when compared to a player's entire career. Therefore it's a Catch-22.

 

This business of being clutch having to be repeatable is so much hogwash. Very few things in baseball are repeatable. Using the "repeatability" argument swinging a bat is a repeatable skill but hitting a baseball with that bat isn't. If it were the hitters could do it every time. Throwing a baseball is a repeatable skill but throwing it exactly where the pitcher wants to isn't. If it were pitchers would throw it where they want to every time.

 

It's the nature of baseball that players fail more than they succeed, yet the non-believers want to use the failures as 'proof' that those failures indicate that a player isn't clutch. The difference in BA for a player who's clutch and one who isn't is probably <.050 in ba because of the failure rate. then non-believers roll during clutch situations into for entire season and say not clutch. he just a good hitter humbug>