Farrell

[greenwell]

Simply comparing Ortiz's success rate in clutch situations to his success rate in non-clutch ones may not be meaningful because in clutch situations he may be facing better pitchers. You would also have to consider how other hitters compare in the two situations.

 

Also as I've said before I don't think a high leverage situation in April carries the same weight as one in a September pennant race.

 

There are a number of measurement issues.

 

It is tough to measure. They need a new leverage situation of 'wicked high leverage', unfortunately it would be a small sample size. Look at playoff stats compared to regular season. Ortiz ops is higher in playoffs, not by much, but most players go down due to better pitching. I looked at a few players who have a fair amount of post-season at bats, Ortiz and Jeter went up, Chipper Jones, Manny Ramirez, A-Rod, Mickey Mantle all went down. By people who believe in clutch, Ortiz and Jeter are usually prime examples. I don't personally feel this is about upping your game, but not feeling the pressure when everyone else does.

[Bellhorn04]

It is tough to measure. They need a new leverage situation of 'wicked high leverage', unfortunately it would be a small sample size. Look at playoff stats compared to regular season. Ortiz ops is higher in playoffs, not by much, but most players go down due to better pitching. I looked at a few players who have a fair amount of post-season at bats, Ortiz and Jeter went up, Chipper Jones, Manny Ramirez, A-Rod, Mickey Mantle all went down. By people who believe in clutch, Ortiz and Jeter are usually prime examples. I don't personally feel this is about upping your game, but not feeling the pressure when everyone else does.

 

Your take is identical to mine.

[greenwell]

Your take is identical to mine.

 

You are right, I should have led with, 'I agree'

[Spudboy]

Vazquez's batting average of .290 made him a very good hitter by old school measures.

 

His OPS+ of 92, however, made him below average by new school measures.

 

Compared to other catchers he was just about average.

 

So he was either very good, average or below average, depending on your preferred metrics.

 

He was not a black hole.

 

To me, that is the best measurement.

[Kimmi]

 

When you start insisting only players/athletes can understand clutch, you're devolving this whole argument back into a completely untrue but oft-repeated "the people on here who played the game believe in clutch but the people who didn't say it doesn't exist " counterargument. You don't need to havr played baseball to appreciate it. Just like you don't have to have appeared in s movie to appreciate it.

 

No one ever denied players do have clutch moments and come through in the clutch. The question on the table is about clutch hitters ' hitters who can ELEVATE their performance in key situations. Ortiz is the most obvious example, but did he ever perform BETTER in clutch situations than he did in non-clutch ones? He was a flat out great hitter in any circumstance, and found homself in many key situations over his career. While we all remember many big moments he came through, we also forget about (or dismiss or excuse) the ones he didn't. And his success rate in big "clutch" situations appears to have been the same as other ones. True or false?

 

I am pretty sure that I have as much major league baseball experience as anyone else here. I am also pretty sure that I have as much or nearly as much experience in high level competitive sports as anyone else here, in multiple sports, both team and individual. The argument that you have to have played sports to know what clutch is holds no water with me whatsoever. I've been there, done that.

 

You are spot on with your second paragraph. Calling Ortiz a 'clutch' hitter is almost doing him a disservice. He wasn't great only in clutch moments, he was great, period.

[Kimmi]

Of course there is no precise definition of a clutch hitter. There's no precise definition of a good hitter, or an ace pitcher, either.

 

There is no precise definition of a clutch hitter, but the topic has been studied in just about every way imaginable, with no statistical evidence that clutch is a skill. There is no predictive value in clutch. That includes studying postseason performances as a whole (to get a large enough sample size).

[Bellhorn04]

There is no precise definition of a clutch hitter, but the topic has been studied in just about every way imaginable, with no statistical evidence that clutch is a skill. There is no predictive value in clutch. That includes studying postseason performances as a whole (to get a large enough sample size).

 

If the studies are for postseason performances as a whole, how can they possibly apply to an individual player like Ortiz or Schilling?

[cp176]

Clutch hitters are defined by clutch moments which are defined by us individually. I would argue that Yaz's base hit in the last game of the season in 67 was as big as any hit in Red Sox history - maybe even Lonborg's bunt. People might disagree for sure but to me it might have been. It is the beauty of something that literally cannot be statistically proven. Thank God for that. Maybe your clutch hit has to lead to victory or it isn't clutch. Maybe it leads to a franchise becoming better than anyone ever thought that it would or could. I'll define it might way - you define it yours. To understand these types of things yes - you have to have actually played the game or at least have been a decent athlete who actually had the opportunity to fail or succeed in high pressure moments.

 

Yes - I will stand behind these words for as long as I can stand. With that being said, I am now hearing people talk about their athletic experiences. If it cannot be proven mathematically it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. If you have never been a competitive athlete, I think that it is wonderful that you have an opinion of your own. I feel sorry for you though if you have never had to make a big play at an important time.

[Kimmi]

If the studies are for postseason performances as a whole, how can they possibly apply to an individual player like Ortiz or Schilling?

 

They don't necessarily, but when you combine those studies with every other study that has been done using individual players, the evidence is pretty convincing.

[notin]

Simply comparing Ortiz's success rate in clutch situations to his success rate in non-clutch ones may not be meaningful because in clutch situations he may be facing better pitchers. You would also have to consider how other hitters compare in the two situations.

 

Also as I've said before I don't think a high leverage situation in April carries the same weight as one in a September pennant race.

 

There are a number of measurement issues.

 

Of course September pennant races also involve facing minor league call ups, who do pitch in high leverage games, especially if the manager is Bruce Bochy.

 

And let's not discount high leverage April games, where pitchers are fresher and wins can negate tight September pennant races. You know the saying. And I'm willing to bet no onr here ever watched a three run walk off home run snd thought "Big deal. Its only April. "

 

But if you try to whittle clutch opportunities down to important September games, you find sample sizes get so small, one or two big hits might be all it takes to get the reputation. Is that what it takes?

[notin]

[/b]

 

Yes - I will stand behind these words for as long as I can stand. With that being said, I am now hearing people talk about their athletic experiences. If it cannot be proven mathematically it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. If you have never been a competitive athlete, I think that it is wonderful that you have an opinion of your own. I feel sorry for you though if you have never had to make a big play at an important time.

 

Regardless of how you feel about it, nothing you have said provides any evidence that "clutch" is a repeatable skill...

[cp176]

Regardless of how you feel about it, nothing you have said provides any evidence that "clutch" is a repeatable skill...

 

Very true! My idea of clutch very likely would not resemble yours. It doesn't have to. Clutch moments as well as clutch players - my opinion. I'm quite pleased to say that it cannot be supported by your factual concepts. Not everything of importance in my world can be proven mathematically. If you think that the concept of clutch cannot be real if it cannot be measured through repeatable skills, guess that is just the way you want to think of it.

[moonslav59]

Vazquez was generally a good hitter in 2017. He'll need a longer career to determine if it is true in the long run.

 

The defenders of clutch are making it complex and they are also trying to define it as a belief instead of something for which you need evidence.

 

zOut of the 33 catchers with over 300 PAs this year, Vaz and Leon placed:

 

OPS

20th Vaz .735

32nd Leon .644

 

wOBA

18th Vaz .317

30th Leon .279

 

wRC+

 

 

20th Vaz 93

32nd Leon 67

 

On a more positive note, if you gave Vaz 10% of his PAs to bring him near the leaders in catcher PAs and took 10% of his WAR, he'd be at about 2.5, which would tie him for 8th in catcher WAR with Castillo, Grandal and Avila.

[notin]

Very true! My idea of clutch very likely would not resemble yours. It doesn't have to. Clutch moments as well as clutch players - my opinion. I'm quite pleased to say that it cannot be supported by your factual concepts. Not everything of importance in my world can be proven mathematically. If you think that the concept of clutch cannot be real if it cannot be measured through repeatable skills, guess that is just the way you want to think of it.

 

Clutch moments happen. Sometimes from the unlikeliest players, like (ugh) Bucky Dent or Aaron Boone or Francisco Cabrera.

 

And certainly Papi. But I just think of Papi as a great hitter who excelled in and out of the clutch.

 

To me, "clutch hitter" seems more like a reputation based on individual successes and ignoring the failures. Earlier, you mentioned Yaz in 1967. I wasn't born when that happened, but if you ask people my age about how clutch Yaz was, everyone remembers him popping out to Graig Nettles with the tying run on third. And for that, he is remembered as "unclutch."

 

For the record, that is a laughably bad view of Yaz. The guy was like 39 years old when that happened and had already had a great career of successes and failures in every situation imaginable. But he was remembered for that by my generation (outside of me) for a long time...

[a700hitter]

It is not just opinion. Clutch is unknown until a hitter performs. You can't see clutch in a hitter without evidence based on actual performance. Believing someone is clutch is meaningless without evidence to support it. I could believe Marv Throneberry is the greatest hitter who ever lived. It is just an opinion. But anyone can question what it is based on.

Until now, I haven't made a claim about a player being clutch. I have just said that clutch is an attribute -- one that would exhibit itself in different ways. What kind of measure would satisfy you? And how would you arrive at it? You are the one saying that it doesn't exist. Tell us what kind of measure or statistics would convince you.

[cp176]

Of course September pennant races also involve facing minor league call ups, who do pitch in high leverage games, especially if the manager is Bruce Bochy.

 

And let's not discount high leverage April games, where pitchers are fresher and wins can negate tight September pennant races. You know the saying. And I'm willing to bet no onr here ever watched a three run walk off home run snd thought "Big deal. Its only April. "

 

But if you try to whittle clutch opportunities down to important September games, you find sample sizes get so small, one or two big hits might be all it takes to get the reputation. Is that what it takes?

 

I like this post Notin. I couldn't really describe clutch in any sort of statistical way at all but then again I don't really want to. I know that it goes against the grain of many here but I know it when I see it. If my feet were really held to the fire, I would probably say that the players that I considered to be clutch at any level certainly were our better players in general. There just were some who just seemed to want to be in and often thrived in high pressure situations more than others. I'm not going to bore you with what I have done athletically in my lifetime other than to say that I studied not just played the games I coached because that was my job. During the decades of the 70's,80's,90's, and from 2000-to 2013 I could have shown you clutch players IN MY OPINION on a daily basis. They had certain attributes that could not be taught but it wasn't all just about the talent they brought to the table. They didn't always come though in high pressure situations but I think that they always felt that they would.

[Bellhorn04]

To me, "clutch hitter" seems more like a reputation based on individual successes and ignoring the failures. Earlier, you mentioned Yaz in 1967. I wasn't born when that happened, but if you ask people my age about how clutch Yaz was, everyone remembers him popping out to Graig Nettles with the tying run on third. And for that, he is remembered as "unclutch."

 

I remember Yaz popping out but I also remember him having a home run and an RBI single in that game. For me he was clutch in that game.

[Bellhorn04]

How about this - all 4 of the starting pitchers in this year's Wild Card games choked like dogs!

[Bellhorn04]

Steering back to the topic of managers for a moment, I was a bit shocked at the great Lovullo leaving Bradley in the game last night after 2 home runs and a double! If Farrell had done something like that one can imagine the choice words applied to it.

[devildavid]

Steering back to the topic of managers for a moment, I was a bit shocked at the great Lovullo leaving Bradley in the game last night after 2 home runs and a double! If Farrell had done something like that one can imagine the choice words applied to it.

 

Which only demonstrates that in game management is as much guess work as strategy and the manager has little control over the results of play on the field.

[devildavid]

I remember Yaz popping out but I also remember him having a home run and an RBI single in that game. For me he was clutch in that game.

 

You are getting way too subjective. Yaz failed in the biggest at bat of the game. He was not clutch at that moment and clutch is only about moments like that. Otherwise, we can choose to see clutch in any circumstances we want and can make it exist whenever we want.

[devildavid]

I like this post Notin. I couldn't really describe clutch in any sort of statistical way at all but then again I don't really want to. I know that it goes against the grain of many here but I know it when I see it. If my feet were really held to the fire, I would probably say that the players that I considered to be clutch at any level certainly were our better players in general. There just were some who just seemed to want to be in and often thrived in high pressure situations more than others. I'm not going to bore you with what I have done athletically in my lifetime other than to say that I studied not just played the games I coached because that was my job. During the decades of the 70's,80's,90's, and from 2000-to 2013 I could have shown you clutch players IN MY OPINION on a daily basis. They had certain attributes that could not be taught but it wasn't all just about the talent they brought to the table. They didn't always come though in high pressure situations but I think that they always felt that they would.

 

So it sounds like for you that clutch is based on the clutch player feeling they will succeed and is not dependent upon actual results in clutch situations.

[devildavid]

Of course September pennant races also involve facing minor league call ups, who do pitch in high leverage games, especially if the manager is Bruce Bochy.

 

And let's not discount high leverage April games, where pitchers are fresher and wins can negate tight September pennant races. You know the saying. And I'm willing to bet no onr here ever watched a three run walk off home run snd thought "Big deal. Its only April. "

 

But if you try to whittle clutch opportunities down to important September games, you find sample sizes get so small, one or two big hits might be all it takes to get the reputation. Is that what it takes?

 

You have hit the nail on the head. The emotional impact of dramatic game wining hits and other exciting feats emotionally resonates so strongly that if it is done about 2 or 3 times the player is automatically labeled clutch. Sometimes it just takes one amazing World Series feat like hitting three home runs in three consecutive pitches, in three consecutive at bats, off three different pitchers and you can be labeled Mr. October. Never mind in the next years World Series the big strikeout when facing the rookie pitcher Bob Welch.

[S5Dewey]

Having the last word in an argument doesn't make one right. It only proves that they're the stubborner one.

[devildavid]

Having the last word in an argument doesn't make one right. It only proves that they're the stubborner one.

 

We are debating, not arguing. Feel free to present more evidence supporting your view. Some debates are ongoing.

[Slasher9]

Deniers! We have Really Great Clutch Hitters! Covfefe!

 

PS: Boston Red Sox won the AL East in spite of JF. FACT!

[Bellhorn04]

You are getting way too subjective. Yaz failed in the biggest at bat of the game. He was not clutch at that moment and clutch is only about moments like that. Otherwise, we can choose to see clutch in any circumstances we want and can make it exist whenever we want.

 

Well no, I don't think I'm picking and choosing when I suggest that every at-bat in that 1978 playoff game was a clutch moment. It was a classic example of a high leverage game.

[Bellhorn04]

Deniers! We have Really Great Clutch Hitters! Covfefe!

 

PS: Boston Red Sox won the AL East in spite of JF. FACT!

 

Yep, and they've won 3 rings in spite of Coma and Neuron!

[S5Dewey]

We are debating, not arguing. Feel free to present more evidence supporting your view. Some debates are ongoing.

 

ad nauseum

 

Ahhh yes... the last bastion of a person who knows he's losing - picking apart the terminology,

 

Having the last word in a "debate" doesn't make one right. It only proves that they're the stubborner one.

[notin]

I remember Yaz popping out but I also remember him having a home run and an RBI single in that game. For me he was clutch in that game.

 

And in doing so , 39yo Carl Yastrzemski became only the second left-handed hitter to homer off Ron Guidry that year. The other I believ was an oft-injured Detroit first baseman named Justin Thompson.

 

Another fun fact. Guidry lost only 3 games that year. In all three, the opposing starting pitcher was named Mike. The Sox starter that day? Mike Torrez. Fourth time was not a charm...