Farrell

[Bellhorn04]

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.

 

I agree, it is a Catch-22.

[Bellhorn04]

As mvp78 would say, of course David Ortiz is clutch, he has the trophy to prove it.

[S5Dewey]

I agree, it is a Catch-22.

 

And therefore "clutch" can neither be proven nor disproven.

[a700hitter]

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

Again, you are making yourself the arbiter of what defines the attribute. I disagree and think you are wrong.

[Slasher9]

finally. we all agree that clutch is real.

 

Youk...you can close this thread.

 

also - Ortiz was clutch in spite of JF.

end of line

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

[a700hitter]

finally. we all agree that clutch is real.

 

Youk...you can close this thread.

 

also - Ortiz was clutch in spite of JF.

end of line

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Excellent points and let's add that statistics that appear to be random are the product of efforts that are anything but random.

[Maxbialystock]

finally. we all agree that clutch is real.

 

Youk...you can close this thread.

 

also - Ortiz was clutch in spite of JF.

end of line

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

This thread is about Farrell, not clutch. FWIW, I too think clutch is real but hard to pin down. Best example for me is Ortiz, who was pretty darn good in the postseason, but he was also very good in the regular season. I therefore tend to be skeptical about guys who are reputedly great in the postseason but only in the postseason. I also think that smart teams can limit the effectiveness of great hitters in the postseason although what happened to Ted Williams in 1946 was more the result of an injury than anything the Cardinals did.

 

As for pitching, I definitely think good pitching in the postseason is clutch pitching simply because it is so difficult to do. It's not just 4 at bats in a game or 30 in a seven game series. It's a bunch of batters and usually 100 or more pitches in a game, any one of which can be bad and therefore clobbered. Thus last year both Price and Porcello in my opinion choked, pure and simple, and in 2013 Lester and Lackey and Uehara and some other were clutch in my opinion.

 

As for Farrell, I have defended him until the cows come home, but will be happy with whatever decision DD makes. I say this because there is a report DD will decide based on how the Sox do in the ALDS.

[devildavid]

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>

 

I agree that there are isolated occurrences of clutch. But others argue it is more than that and not even related to actual performance results. Clutch is not something you should only believe in, it is something that can be pointed out as occurring. Yes, clutch performances can be pointed out. But pointing out clutch hitters is much more difficult to demonstrate.

 

So believers in clutch have to decide what exactly it is that they are believing in

 

Here is the story of one of the most famous clutch hits of all time. The real story is a lot more nuanced than just thinking that Gibson turned it up a notch.

 

25-years-later-kirk-gibsons-homer-is-more-than-just-a

[devildavid]

Again, you are making yourself the arbiter of what defines the attribute. I disagree and think you are wrong.

 

If your definition is not tied to actual performance, your definition is wrong.

[devildavid]

David Ortiz was a physically skilled hitter who took it to another level due to his superior intelligence in the batters box.

 

Ted Williams was even better in both aspects. Yet some wrongly claim that Williams was not clutch.

[a700hitter]

If your definition is not tied to actual performance, your definition is wrong.

I find it amusing when people declare victory in an opinion based discussion. Okay, you win.

[devildavid]

I find it amusing when people declare victory in an opinion based discussion. Okay, you win.

 

I only did what you did when you said I was wrong. Everything in this discussion is not just opinion.

[S5Dewey]

 

So believers in clutch have to decide what exactly it is that they are believing in

I know exactly what it is that I'm believing in.

 

I'm believing that when Dustin Pedrioa comes up to bat with a runner on 1B and the most important thing at the moment is moving that runner to 2B Pedroia will probably move that runner to 2B by 'serving' a weak line drive to Right Field. Pedroia won't be successful every time because nothing in baseball is 100% repeatable but he will very frequently be able to 'gather himself', wait until he gets a pitch he can handle and push it that way. When he can't do that it's usually because he didn't get that pitch he could handle.

 

Some may call that simply good hitting - and I agree that it is good hitting - but not everyone can do it in a situation like that. Those who can are "clutch".

[devildavid]

I know exactly what it is that I'm believing in.

 

I'm believing that when Dustin Pedrioa comes up to bat with a runner on 1B and the most important thing at the moment is moving that runner to 2B Pedroia will probably move that runner to 2B by 'serving' a weak line drive to Right Field. Pedroia won't be successful every time because nothing in baseball is 100% repeatable but he will very frequently be able to 'gather himself', wait until he gets a pitch he can handle and push it that way. When he can't do that it's usually because he didn't get that pitch he could handle.

 

Some may call that simply good hitting - and I agree that it is good hitting - but not everyone can do it in a situation like that. Those who can are "clutch".

 

I call it good bat control, if in fact it actually happens often enough. Are all good bunters clutch? Was Ichiro, a bat control specialist, clutch? You still need to see it repeated with a certain frequency and in certain situations to move into the realm of clutch. The definition of clutch seems to be a moving target and quite vague.

[oldtimer]

I know exactly what it is that I'm believing in.

 

I'm believing that when Dustin Pedrioa comes up to bat with a runner on 1B and the most important thing at the moment is moving that runner to 2B Pedroia will probably move that runner to 2B by 'serving' a weak line drive to Right Field. Pedroia won't be successful every time because nothing in baseball is 100% repeatable but he will very frequently be able to 'gather himself', wait until he gets a pitch he can handle and push it that way. When he can't do that it's usually because he didn't get that pitch he could handle.

 

Some may call that simply good hitting - and I agree that it is good hitting - but not everyone can do it in a situation like that. Those who can are "clutch".

 

Yes, pedroia is an old pro type who has a better chance of coming through that some on our team. His gimpiness though makes him quite slow to first so a double play candidate.

[d-money]

Farrell's team can't go out quietly in the playoffs.

[S5Dewey]

I call it good bat control, if in fact it actually happens often enough. Are all good bunters clutch? Was Ichiro, a bat control specialist, clutch? You still need to see it repeated with a certain frequency and in certain situations to move into the realm of clutch. The definition of clutch seems to be a moving target and quite vague.

 

I agree, it is vague because it's baseball and everything is relative. Is a .300 hitter a good hitter? Is a .299 hitter not a good hitter? Where is that line then? We're even unable to define with any certainty exactly how large a sample has to be in order to not be "small".

 

What I believe is that some players are better at getting hits in clutch situations than other players are and those are the players I refer to as being "clutch".

 

BTW, I also believe in the soul, the small of a woman's back, the cock, the pussy, the hanging curve ball, high fives, good scotch...

[moonslav59]

What I believe is that some players are better at getting hits in clutch situations than other players are and those are the players I refer to as being "clutch".

 

So, if a career .350 hitter bats .300 in the playoffs, he's "clutch", because he did well in the clutch, right?

 

If a career .200 hitter bats .275, he's not clutch, because .275 is not that good, right?

 

Just wondering.

[S5Dewey]

What I believe is that some players are better at getting hits in clutch situations than other players are and those are the players I refer to as being "clutch".

 

So, if a career .350 hitter bats .300 in the playoffs, he's "clutch", because he did well in the clutch, right?

 

If a career .200 hitter bats .275, he's not clutch, because .275 is not that good, right?

 

Just wondering.

 

Good lord. Do I need to rephrase that?? OK.

 

What I believe is that some players will hit better than their average (or OPS or whatever you choose to use for a stat) in clutch situations than other players will and those are the players I refer to as being "clutch".

 

Better??

[Slasher9]

What I believe is that some players are better at getting hits in clutch situations than other players are and those are the players I refer to as being "clutch".

 

So, if a career .350 hitter bats .300 in the playoffs, he's "clutch", because he did well in the clutch, right?

 

If a career .200 hitter bats .275, he's not clutch, because .275 is not that good, right?

 

Just wondering.

 

do you think David Ortiz is clutch?

[devildavid]

I agree, it is vague because it's baseball and everything is relative. Is a .300 hitter a good hitter? Is a .299 hitter not a good hitter? Where is that line then? We're even unable to define with any certainty exactly how large a sample has to be in order to not be "small".

 

What I believe is that some players are better at getting hits in clutch situations than other players are and those are the players I refer to as being "clutch".

 

BTW, I also believe in the soul, the small of a woman's back, the cock, the pussy, the hanging curve ball, high fives, good scotch...

 

No, it's vague because no one want s to narrow down the definition of clutch or clutch situations. They want it to include everything so they can use their gut feelings to decide who they think is clutch without having to demonstrate it with evidence. If a player either is better or not better than average in clutch situations there should be some form of evidence to suggest it. There is evidence in short term instances, but it is harder to make a case that a hitter is clutch in general over an entire career.

 

Why would slasher say that Ted Williams was not clutch? Is there any strong evidence to suggest this?

[illinoisredsox]

do you think David Ortiz is clutch?

 

Not moon, but I'll say this: Ortiz had his share of clutch hits. He also had his share of failures in those situations. We remember the former.

 

The biggest "clutch" hit in franchise history was not delivered by Ortiz or Yaz or Williams, but by Bill Mueller.

[S5Dewey]

No, it's vague because no one want s to narrow down the definition of clutch or clutch situations. They want it to include everything so they can use their gut feelings to decide who they think is clutch without having to demonstrate it with evidence. If a player either is better or not better than average in clutch situations there should be some form of evidence to suggest it. There is evidence in short term instances, but it is harder to make a case that a hitter is clutch in general over an entire career.

 

Why would slasher say that Ted Williams was not clutch? Is there any strong evidence to suggest this?

 

No. It's vague because we use the words 'small' and 'large' when referring to sample sizes and they're both words of comparison. Statisticians like to have solid, firm numbers they can rely on so 'small' and 'large' don't work for them.

 

I would guess that no player has ever been clutch throughout his entire career, unless that career was very short - in which case it probably wouldn't have been recognized. David Ortiz probably was not as 'clutch' at age 20 as he was at age 37. People's abilities change as they get older, usually for the better, then for the worse.

 

The whole clutch thing is nebulous to begin with. Until we can define a clutch situation we can't know with certainty who's clutch and who isn't and defining a clutch situation is close to impossible because 'clutch' is in the mind of the player or the fan. Until we can find out what's in the mind of the player this discussion will go on and on and on and on.

 

What I still don't understand about this entire discussion is why we can't accept the fact that we have different opinions on the topic and quit trying to convert the other. I frankly don't care if you or anyone else believes in 'clutch'. This whole thing restarted when I suggested that those people who have said they don't believe in clutch stop saying that the players 'turned it up'. Back some time ago I defined 'clutch' as being able to 'turn it up a bit' and I was promptly 'schooled' on the topic of clutch. Now I'm hearing from that same poster who 'educated' me that players 'turned it up' but it's somehow now not the same as clutch. Be consistent.

[Bellhorn04]

Not moon, but I'll say this: Ortiz had his share of clutch hits. He also had his share of failures in those situations. We remember the former.

 

The biggest "clutch" hit in franchise history was not delivered by Ortiz or Yaz or Williams, but by Bill Mueller.

 

I agree with you about Mueller's hit.

 

It goes without saying that even a clutch hitter is going to fail more often than not because the odds are so heavily stacked against him.

[moonslav59]

Good lord. Do I need to rephrase that?? OK.

 

What I believe is that some players will hit better than their average (or OPS or whatever you choose to use for a stat) in clutch situations than other players will and those are the players I refer to as being "clutch".

 

Better??

 

Okay, but Papi didn't, so I guess you can't call him "clutch".

[moonslav59]

do you think David Ortiz is clutch?

 

I do believe there are clutch situations. I do know Papi came up big in many "clutch situations".

 

No, I do not label him "clutch".

 

1) The sample size is too small and scattered. (I realize my idea of significant sample size is much larger than most.)

2) His OPS in late & close situations was below his normal OPS.

3) His OPS in high leverage situations was lower than his normal OPS.

4) He had many bad series, including the one against Detroit where he hit the grand slam.

 

I will say, if ever you can call a guy clutch, Papi is the first guy I think of, but nobody is a "clutch" hitter... even Papi and Reggie.

[moonslav59]

Not moon, but I'll say this: Ortiz had his share of clutch hits. He also had his share of failures in those situations. We remember the former.

 

The biggest "clutch" hit in franchise history was not delivered by Ortiz or Yaz or Williams, but by Bill Mueller.

 

Good point.

 

I remember Fisk's HR, but we lost game 7, so I guess we throw that out. (Another reason to shun "clutch".)

[Bellhorn04]

1) The sample size is too small and scattered. (I realize my idea of significant sample size is much larger than most.)

 

If the sample size is too small nothing can be proven or disproven. That's the Catch-22.

[moonslav59]

If the sample size is too small nothing can be proven or disproven. That's the Catch-22.

 

Well, that's just the way it has to be then.

 

You don't change what is significant just because you want someone to be labeled clutch.

[Bellhorn04]

Well, that's just the way it has to be then.

 

You don't change what is significant just because you want someone to be labeled clutch.

 

So by the same token you can't rule out the possibility that it's real.