Clutch vs Choke

[dgalehouse]

There has been a lot of debate here about the reality of " clutch" . In my view , it is just too hard to define what is truly clutch. Every post season at bat or every late in close game at bat is not necessarily clutch. For most players , there are probably only a few truly clutch moments. Too small a sample size to form a definitive conclusion. On the other hand , choke can be pretty obvious. You can often see it in the eyes and body language of an athlete who just cannot deal with the high pressure situations. This is more often seen in sports which require precision of execution. In sports where adrenaline is more important , it is not always the case. So , maybe " clutch " is just the absence of " choke " . Especially when one is composed while the opponent is rattled by the situation and the consequences. While a certain amount of chance , luck or " randomness " will always occur ; it is pretty easy to spot a choker. Bottom line : Some guys get the apple , and some don't.

[moonslav59]

Then, there are big "chokes" like Bonds who suddenly become "clutch".

 

Then, there are big "clutch" players like Beckett who become "chokes".

 

I'm not buying it.

[a700hitter]

Ask Big Papi and get back to me.

[dgalehouse]

Sometimes guys can choke , but later find what it takes to deal with the pressure. Sometimes skills just diminish. And there are always exceptions to every rule. That does not change the reality that some people can handle pressure situations , and some cannot.

[Jack Flap]

I can well believe that some guys may be better able to handle pressure situations than others, but I also believe that fans are often too quick to slap a label on a player based on small and ultimately meaningless sample sizes. A handful of innings or plate appearances spread out over multiple seasons doesn't really tell me a whole lot.

 

If Pablo Sandoval qualifies as a "clutch" player because he had some great postseasons in San Francisco, then it's a pretty useless distinction.

[Bellhorn04]

An ever-popular topic!

 

http://www.talksox.com/forum/threads/18067-Clutch-vs-non-clutch

[Kimmi]

Sometimes guys can choke , but later find what it takes to deal with the pressure. Sometimes skills just diminish. And there are always exceptions to every rule. That does not change the reality that some people can handle pressure situations , and some cannot.

 

And there was recent talk about how Kershaw finally figured out how not to choke, and how his previous playoff experience and maturity helped him learn to handle the pressure better. Then, he comes out the next game and 'chokes' again. Why is that?

 

Some people can indeed handle the pressure better than others. Those who cannot handle the pressure do not survive in the big leagues for very long. The ability to raise one's game to an other worldly level in a clutch situation does not exist.

[Kimmi]

I can well believe that some guys may be better able to handle pressure situations than others, but I also believe that fans are often too quick to slap a label on a player based on small and ultimately meaningless sample sizes. A handful of innings or plate appearances spread out over multiple seasons doesn't really tell me a whole lot.

 

If Pablo Sandoval qualifies as a "clutch" player because he had some great postseasons in San Francisco, then it's a pretty useless distinction.

 

Bingo. The small sample size is troublesome enough. The fact that that small sample is spread out over several seasons makes if even worse.

[Bellhorn04]

Baseball is a very difficult sport in which to evaluate clutch or choke. For starters, the game revolves around a contest between hitter and pitcher in which the hitter is always at a sizable disadvantage. So even if you're David Ortiz, you're still going to make an out more often than not in a big situation.

[cp176]

Baseball is a very difficult sport in which to evaluate clutch or choke. For starters, the game revolves around a contest between hitter and pitcher in which the hitter is always at a sizable disadvantage. So even if you're David Ortiz, you're still going to make an out more often than not in a big situation.

 

I'm beginning to think that I liked this great game a lot more before all of the innovative thinking which includes the over use of replay in an effort to get things right! To me - all of these great aspects of the game exist and do not to need to be proven. If the subjective existence of these types of things ever are actually proven to not exist, think I will just stick with my golf game. Same goes for any introduction of robotics to help more clearly define the strike zone. I do not share the belief that this game is better today due to the intro of all of the supposed technological advancements. My type of baseball does not involve a sterile approach. I'm really not old, just old fashioned i guess.

[Slasher9]

Kershaw is 100% a chocker.

not even debatable.

his team scored 12 runs on a night he was the SP and the dodgers lost. CHOCKER.

[Bellhorn04]

Kershaw is 100% a chocker.

not even debatable.

his team scored 12 runs on a night he was the SP and the dodgers lost. CHOCKER.

 

Keuchel, Giles, Darvish and Jansen are also chockers based on this series.

[Slasher9]

Keuchel, Giles, Darvish and Jansen are also chockers based on this series.

 

i'm not just basing it on this series. kershaw has given up 203 HR's this postseason. plus his stats blow chunks for any other postseason you want to pull up for him. Chocker.

[Jack Flap]

Keuchel, Giles, Darvish and Jansen are also chockers based on this series.

 

I guess this WS is chock full of chockers.

[bosoxmal]

Kershaw is 100% a chocker.

not even debatable.

his team scored 12 runs on a night he was the SP and the dodgers lost. CHOCKER.

He's probably worn out! Same as their top reliver is (6 batters, about 10 runs!). Just as Sale was, same as Price was every year. When they stop twisting their f***ing arms out of their sockets with this damn sliders, maybe they'll las a full season. And stay in shape for 12 months, and fon't waste spring training trying to lose 1o lbs worth of flab.

[S5Dewey]

I continually find it interesting how some posters can try to make a case that Clutch doesn't exist and in the same breath say that the sample size is too small to be definitive.

 

They're trying to say that the sample size is too small to prove that clutch exists but large enough to prove that it doesn't.

[Spudboy]

I can't believe this thread got 15 posts.

[devildavid]

I continually find it interesting how some posters can try to make a case that Clutch doesn't exist and in the same breath say that the sample size is too small to be definitive.

 

They're trying to say that the sample size is too small to prove that clutch exists but large enough to prove that it doesn't.

 

Clutch and choke do exist in small sample sizes. It is questionable if they are inherent qualities of athletes.

 

We can't label anything clutch or choke without actual game results. A player sitting on the bench in a high pressure moment does not possess a quality of clutch or choke. The evidence of clutch and choke is not what we think is in a players heart, but what actually happens on the field.

 

There is the argument about a player possessing clutch as a distinct skill. The numbers suggest that since it is not repeatable with any statistical significance, it is not a skill. Unlike say, hitting HR's, which can be repeated with statistical significance. So even though Jacoby Ellsbury hit 32 HR's in 2011, his career HR frequency of 1.9%, which is below the MLB avg. of 2.7%, would strongly suggest he is not a HR hitter as part of his skill set. David Ortiz, on the other hand, hit HR's 5.4% of the time, double the MLB avg. His skill set does include hitting HR's.

[mvp 78]

An ever-popular topic!

 

http://www.talksox.com/forum/threads/18067-Clutch-vs-non-clutch

 

We'll finally finish litigating this issue with this thread!

[Bellhorn04]

I know one thing, Chris Taylor is making a strong bid for this year's Mr. Clutch award.

[notin]

I continually find it interesting how some posters can try to make a case that Clutch doesn't exist and in the same breath say that the sample size is too small to be definitive.

 

They're trying to say that the sample size is too small to prove that clutch exists but large enough to prove that it doesn't.

 

That's a much better argument than you have ever made on the subject.

 

Of course all it does is leave the entire debate in limbo...

[notin]

i'm not just basing it on this series. kershaw has given up 203 HR's this postseason. plus his stats blow chunks for any other postseason you want to pull up for him. Chocker.

 

That still makes Jansen an awful choker. He's been crushed in save opportunities. Like that awful choke artist Aroldis Chapman last World Series.

 

Unless it's just that these Astros hitters are clutch.

[notin]

I can well believe that some guys may be better able to handle pressure situations than others, but I also believe that fans are often too quick to slap a label on a player based on small and ultimately meaningless sample sizes. A handful of innings or plate appearances spread out over multiple seasons doesn't really tell me a whole lot.

 

 

Perfectly stated....

[Northern Star]

When a team is deemed to have choked, I always wonder how much that's true and how much it's just the other team playing better. Like when they always say a player or team "allowed" x number of runs or hits. The other team is always part of the equation too.

[Bellhorn04]

When a team is deemed to have choked, I always wonder how much that's true and how much it's just the other team playing better. Like when they always say a player or team "allowed" x number of runs or hits. The other team is always part of the equation too.

 

That's true. You can even break it down to each pitcher-hitter confrontation. What actually caused the hitter to get a hit on that at-bat? Was it a bad pitch or a good guess? If it was a bad pitch, was it because the pitcher's nervous or just normal human variance? And so on.

[Slasher9]

Yu Darvish is a big time Chocker. bigly.

congrats to the Astros.

[sk7326]

I continually find it interesting how some posters can try to make a case that Clutch doesn't exist and in the same breath say that the sample size is too small to be definitive.

 

They're trying to say that the sample size is too small to prove that clutch exists but large enough to prove that it doesn't.

 

Clutch exists to me as a fan. I got nervous as hell during that amazing Game 5 - and I did not even care who won!

 

However - I do not know a view of clutch which is meaningfully separate from good. Ortiz has been an amazing clutch hitter for the Red Sox. The Red Sox have always largely been very good and given him a ton of chances to be clutch. Ortiz is also a very good hitter every second of every day.

 

The pecking order of quality vs the pecking order of quality in big spots ... is - for all intents and purposes - identical.

[sk7326]

That's true. You can even break it down to each pitcher-hitter confrontation. What actually caused the hitter to get a hit on that at-bat? Was it a bad pitch or a good guess? If it was a bad pitch, was it because the pitcher's nervous or just normal human variance? And so on.

 

Rivera blowing the 2001 World Series was a great example here. He threw a perfect pitch that Luiz Gonzalez fought off into a game winning dump.

[Bellhorn04]

Clutch exists to me as a fan. I got nervous as hell during that amazing Game 5 - and I did not even care who won!

 

However - I do not know a view of clutch which is meaningfully separate from good. Ortiz has been an amazing clutch hitter for the Red Sox. The Red Sox have always largely been very good and given him a ton of chances to be clutch. Ortiz is also a very good hitter every second of every day.

 

The pecking order of quality vs the pecking order of quality in big spots ... is - for all intents and purposes - identical.

 

But if you turn to the 'choke' side of it you have some of the best pitchers in the game, like Kershaw and Price, with very mediocre postseason numbers.

 

And that's where the 'small scattered sample size' argument is invoked.

[sk7326]

But if you turn to the 'choke' side of it you have some of the best pitchers in the game, like Kershaw and Price, with very mediocre postseason numbers.

 

And that's where the 'small scattered sample size' argument is invoked.

 

I think there is some scattered - it also has to be noted that the quality of competition skyrockets, which might be a bigger factor than anything. And - this is relevant with Kershaw and Price - a lot of the time the issues have been 3rd time through the order and whatnot ... which are things which managers are increasingly vigilant about attacking. (see last night)